Session No. 34

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Course Title: Coastal Hazards Management**

**Session Title: State Policy II**

**Author: Anna K. Schwab, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill**

**Time: 50 minutes**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Objectives:**

34.1 Discuss state coastal programs under the Coastal Zone Management
Act

34.2 Discuss state-level emergency management programs, including state
hazard mitigation planning.

**Scope:**

Session 34 continues the discussion of state coastal policy begun in
Session 33. Session 34 will cover state coastal management programs
under the Coastal Zone Management Act, as well as state emergency
management programs (including state hazard mitigation plans).

**Readings:**

*Student and Instructor Readings for Sessions 33 and 34:*

Beatley, Timothy, et al. 2002. *An Introduction to Coastal Zone
Management*. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 94-95; Chapter 6.

Burby, Raymond J., ed. 1998. *Cooperating With Nature: Confronting
Natural Hazards With Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities*.
Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, pp. 69-75.

Godschalk, David R., Timothy Beatley, Philip Berke, David J. Brower and
Edward J. Kaiser. 1999. *Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster
Policy and Planning*. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, Chapter 3:
"Florida After Hurricane Andrew."

Platt, Rutherford, et al. 1992. *Coastal Erosion: Has Retreat Sounded?*
Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado,
Chapter 3, "State Response to Erosion Hazard" and Chapter 4, "The States
Compared: Some Cross-Cutting Issues."

*Additional Student and Instructor Readings:*

United States General Accounting Office. 1992. *Coastal Barriers:
Development Occurring Despite Prohibitions Against Federal Assistance;
Report to the Committee on Environment and Public Works*, U.S. Senate.
Washington, D.C.: GAO.

**Requirements:**

The material for Session 34 is to be presented as lecture, supported by
PowerPoint slides. Class discussion is to be encouraged. Handout 34.1
"Case Study: Shell Island Resort" may be copied and distributed to the
students before class to serve as a discussion prompt during Objective
34.1. Handout 34.1 can be found in Appendix A to this Session.

PowerPoint Slides:

**PowerPoint 34.1** Coastal Zone Management Act

# PowerPoint 34.2 Sandbags Allowed Only On A Temporary Basis

**PowerPoint 34.3** Beach Bulldozing Allowed With Proper Permits

**PowerPoint 34.4** Setback Requirement for Oceanfront Construction

**PowerPoint 34.5** Tracing Shoreline Changes to Establish Erosion Rates

**PowerPoint 34.6** Setback Requirement for Large Oceanfront Structures

**PowerPoint 34.7** Structures Damaged More Than 50% Must Obtain Permit
to Rebuild

# PowerPoint 34.8 No Permit Is Granted to Rebuild if Setback Requirements Not Met

**PowerPoint 34.9** Wetlands Minimize Flood Impacts

**PowerPoint 34.10** Wetlands Minimize Flood Impacts

**PowerPoint 34.11** Wetland Restoration Site

**PowerPoint 34.12** Estuarine Areas of Environmental Concern

**PowerPoint 34.13** Ocean Hazard Areas of Environmental Concern

**PowerPoint 34.14** Mason Inlet

**PowerPoint 34.15** Mason Inlet Encroaching on Shell Island Resort

**PowerPoint 34.16** Shell Island Sandbag Wall

**PowerPoint 34.17** Mason Inlet Relocation

PowerPoint 34.18 Sand from Inlet Dredging Used to Nourish Figure Eight
Beaches

Handout:

**Handout 34.1** Case Study: Shell Island Resort

Objective 34.1 Discuss state coastal programs under the Coastal Zone
Management Act

**Requirements**:

The content should be presented as lecture, supported by PowerPoint
slides. Class discussion is to be encouraged.

The following PowerPoint slides are to be shown during this Objective:

**PowerPoint 34.1** Coastal Zone Management Act

# PowerPoint 34.2 Sandbags Allowed Only On A Temporary Basis

**PowerPoint 34.3** Beach Bulldozing Allowed With Proper Permits

**PowerPoint 34.4** Setback Requirement for Oceanfront Construction

**PowerPoint 34.5** Tracing Shoreline Changes to Establish Erosion Rates

**PowerPoint 34.6** Setback Requirement for Large Oceanfront Structures

**PowerPoint 34.7** Structures Damaged More Than 50% Must Obtain Permit
to Rebuild

# PowerPoint 34.8 No Permit Is Granted to Rebuild if Setback Requirements Not Met

**PowerPoint 34.9** Wetlands Minimize Flood Impacts

**PowerPoint 34.10** Wetlands Minimize Flood Impacts

**PowerPoint 34.11** Wetland Restoration Site

**PowerPoint 34.12** Estuarine Areas of Environmental Concern

**PowerPoint 34.13** Ocean Hazard Areas of Environmental Concern

**PowerPoint 34.14** Mason Inlet

**PowerPoint 34.15** Mason Inlet Encroaching on Shell Island Resort

**PowerPoint 34.16** Shell Island Sandbag Wall

**PowerPoint 34.17** Mason Inlet Relocation

PowerPoint 34.18 Sand From Inlet Dredging Used to Nourish Figure Eight
Beaches

**Remarks:**

-   As we learned in Session 29 on Federal Policy, the Coastal Zone
    Management Act (CZMA) establishes a national policy to:

> **\[PowerPoint 34.1 Coastal Zone Management Act\]**
>
> *"preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or*

enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and
succeeding generations."

> (16.USCA Sec. 1452 (1))

-   This policy was not implemented, however, by imposing a federal land
    and water management scheme on the coastal zone (Christie). When the
    CZMA was passed in 1972, the federal government initiated a
    **partnership** with states to promote planning and management of
    the nation's coastlines. (Beatley)

-   A major inducement for participation by the states in the Coastal
    Zone Management Program is the **consistency doctrine**, which
    provides that federal actions and policies must be consistent with
    approved state coastal management programs to the maximum extent
    practicable.

-   The CZMA provides federal funding for **states to develop and
    administer coastal programs** according to guidelines set out in the
    act.

    -   State participation is voluntary, and the states are given
        **great flexibility** in their approaches to coastal management,
        although state programs must **meet minimum criteria** and be
        approved by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
        (OCRM) in the Department of Commerce.

    -   Acceptable federal models range from direct state control of
        land and water use regulation to state review of locally or
        regionally implemented programs.

### State Coastal Zone Boundaries

-   The Coastal Zone Management Act only **generally defines the coastal
    zone** to include the territorial sea and adjacent lands

> "to the extent necessary to control shorelands, the uses of which have
> a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters." (Sec.
> 1453(1)).

-   This definition leaves considerable room for **variation,** and each
    state defines the geographic limits of its coastal zone in its
    management programs. (Christie). For example,

    -   **Florida** defines the entire state as its "coastal zone."

    -   **North Carolina** has designated the twenty counties contiguous
        to the Atlantic shoreline or abutting estuarine waters as the
        coastal zone.

    -   **Rhode Island** has designated 200 feet inland from certain
        coastal features as the coastal zone.

    -   **Connecticut**'s definition of coastal zone involves the
        100-year flood zone, the mean high-water mark, or mapped tidal
        wetlands, which ever is farthest inland.

    -   **California** defines its coastal zone as a 1,000 yard strip
        extending from its coastal waters.

### State Management Approaches

-   Because of the flexibility afforded to states under the CZMA, there
    is much **variation** among the state programs in terms of
    **organization and management approaches**.

-   Some states engage in **direct management** of the coastal zone,
    including hazardous areas, under their coastal management programs.

    -   These states basically have created programs **from the ground
        up**, where there was little or no coastal management before.

        -   For instance, **North Carolina** enacted the Coastal Area
            Management Act (CAMA) in 1972, and established a regulatory
            scheme for development in the coastal area, a mandate for
            local land use planning, a permitting system for activities
            in Areas of Environmental Concern, stringent rules regarding
            shore-hardening devices and coastal setbacks.

        -   **California** also passed comprehensive coastal management
            legislation to create its coastal management program.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Other states have **"networked"** existing legislation and
        regulations under the umbrella of an executive order or policy
        statement (Kalo).

        -   Networked states rely on **pre-existing laws and management
            programs**, often located in separate state agencies.
            Networked states include:

            -   Florida

            -   Wisconsin

            -   Massachusetts

            -   Maine

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Still other states **integrate** their coastal programs **into
    planning initiatives** that are broader in scope and applicable
    **state-wide**.

    -   **Oregon** engages in planning at the state level, and includes
        its hazard mitigation and coastal management goals in the state
        program.

### Status of State Coastal Management Programs

-   All affected states and territories have moved toward development
    and implementation of coastal zone plans, and **33 of the eligible
    35** coastal and Great Lakes and American territories **have
    approved programs**.

-   State coastal programs have been subjected to numerous **challenges
    in the courts**. Usually these claims are made against the
    application of a specific regulation or program to private property.

    -   (Recall, for example, the discussion in Session 27 of *Lucas v.
        South Carolina,* which involved a takings challenge against
        South Carolina's coastal setback requirements).

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   The **California** coastal program withstood a legal challenge
        brought against it in 1974. California voters by initiative
        adopted a commission possessing the power to require on an
        interim basis a development permit for land extending 1000 yards
        inward from the mean high tide line. The commission was charged
        with submitting a coastal zone plan to the legislature for its
        adoption and implementation.

    -   Claims against the California act included:

        -   A violation of substantive due process

        -   A violation of procedural due process

        -   An unconstitutional taking

        -   A violation of the right to travel

        -   An invalid delegation of legislative power

        -   Other similar charges.

    -   The validity of the California act was upheld by the Supreme
        Court against all the claims. See *CEEED v. California Coastal
        Zone Conservation Commission* (1974) (Wright and Gitelman).

### Combatting Coastal Erosion and Storm Impacts

-   As we have seen in other sessions regarding natural processes along
    the coast, many areas are **prone to severe erosion**. Much of this
    erosion occurs on a daily basis from wind and wave action along the
    shore. More dramatic erosion occurs during hurricanes and other
    coastal storms. Flooding, storm surge, sea level rise and wind
    damage threaten any built structure located directly along the ocean
    and estuarine shores.

-   Many coastal states have employed a **variety of measures** under
    their coastal management programs to combat these natural processes
    that threaten property and people near the shore. Shoreline, beach
    and dune protection is accomplished most commonly through
    regulations.

    -   **Regulatory measures** include

        -   setbacks

        -   standards for shoreline development

        -   restrictions on shore-hardening structures.

    -   For example, North Carolina, South Carolina and Maine **prohibit
        permanent stabilization** of the ocean shoreline, because
        structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, revetments and
        groins interrupt natural sand migration patterns and can
        increase erosion at nearby properties.

    -   In North Carolina, sandbags are allowed only on a temporary
        basis.

> **\[PowerPoint 34.2 Sandbags Allowed Only On A Temporary Basis\]**
>
> **\[PowerPoint 34.3 Beach Bulldozing Allowed With Proper Permits\]**

-   Many states have chosen to add sand to the beaches in aggressive
    renourishment programs in an effort to minimize the impacts of
    natural hazards.

# [Regulatory Setbacks]{.underline}

-   The vast **majority of coastal states** impose some sort of
    **regulatory setback** requirements. Although the specifics vary
    among the coastal states, setbacks **prohibit the erection of
    structures** within a specified distance from the ocean.

-   Erosion setbacks for oceanfront construction are designed **to
    reduce the risk to life and property from coastal hazards** and
    prolong the life of the building**.** The erosion setback is a
    certain distance landward from the ocean, measured from a line
    determined in various ways. Methods of determining the setback line
    include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the first line of stable, natural vegetation;

-   the mean high water line;

-   local erosion rates; or

-   various other marks

> **\[PowerPoint 34.4 Setback Requirement for Oceanfront
> Construction\]**

-   All construction must take place landward of this line.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In **North Carolina**, setbacks are based on average long-term
    erosion rates that reflect changes in the shoreline. The **long-term
    average erosion rates** for the State's 300-mile shoreline were
    first evaluated in 1979. Erosion rates are re-evaluated about every
    five years.

> **\[PowerPoint 34.5 Tracing Shoreline Changes to Establish Erosion
> Rates\]**

-   The update begins with obtaining **new aerial photographs** of the
    ocean shoreline. The photos show the shoreline, defined as the high
    water line, or the edge of the wet sand visible, on the photographs.
    The shoreline is marked, then its position (relative to a fixed
    shoreline baseline) is added to an existing database. A
    sophisticated computer program corrects for the distortion created
    by the aerial photographs.

-   Another computer program determines the average long-term erosion
    rate by comparing the current shoreline position to the earliest
    available position and dividing the distance between them by the
    number of years that have passed between the dates the photographs
    were taken. For practical purposes the data is grouped into
    continuous blocks along the oceanfront, with each block having
    approximately the same erosion rate.

-   Once the erosion rates are determined, the NC Coastal Resources
    Commission holds hearings to receive public comment on proposed
    changes to erosion rates. The Commission must adopt the rates before
    they can be used to determine official setback rules.

-   For most single-family homes, regardless of size, setbacks are
    determined by multiplying the average annual erosion rate by 30. The
    minimum setback is 60 feet. For buildings larger than 5,000 square
    feet, the setback is determined by multiplying the erosion rate by
    60, with a minimum setback being 120 feet. All buildings must be
    behind the frontal dune and landward of the crest of the primary
    dune, where those exist. (NC Division of Coastal Management)

> **\[PowerPoint 34.6 Setback Requirement for Large Oceanfront
> Structures\]**

-   Coastal states cannot impose setback requirements without regard to
    **private property rights**. As we learned in our earlier discussion
    of the takings issue (Session 27), South Carolina ran into trouble
    with the setback regulations contained in the South Carolina
    Beachfront Management Act. In that instance, the setback rules had
    created "unbuildable lots" on which no structure was allowed, thus
    preventing the landowner from making "economic use" of his property.
    However, even with the strong language of the Lucas case, setback
    regulations are still a viable and widely used measure to preclude
    development in especially vulnerable locations.

-   Many states can **avoid the trouble** that beset the South Carolina
    Beachfront Management Act by allowing some limited sorts of
    structures to be placed within the setback area. Whereas South
    Carolina allowed no structure other than a walkway or deck on the
    Lucas property, other states do allow uses that would not be
    especially vulnerable to coastal hazards.

    -   For example, North Carolina regulations allow landowners to set
        up campgrounds, parking lots, tennis courts, gazebos, swimming
        pools and the like.

    -   Some states avoid constitutional issues with their setbacks by
        providing for **exceptions and variances** in the regulatory
        process (Beatley).

        -   For example, **Florida** allows variances in certain
            situations. Single family homes may be constructed seaward
            of the setback line if the land was platted before the
            setback regulations came into effect (Beatley).

        -   **North Carolina** allows a variance if the landowner can
            show "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships"
            (Beatley).

# [Post-Storm Reconstruction]{.underline}

-   Most state coastal zone management programs have **regulations** in
    place to deal with **rebuilding and reconstruction after
    hurricanes** and other coastal storms. Usually a **permit** is
    required to rebuild structures that are "**substantially damaged".**

> **\[PowerPoint 34.7 Structures Damaged More Than 50% Must Obtain
> Permit to Rebuild\]**

-   In **North Carolina**, a permit is required to rebuild a structure
    if the cost of repairing the damage will be greater than **50%** of
    the physical value of the building itself.

> **\[PowerPoint 34.8 No Permit Is Granted to Rebuild if Setback
> Requirements Not Met\]**

-   Owners of storm-damaged properties are not automatically guaranteed
    to receive a permit. All **current regulations**, including setback
    requirements, **must be met** in order to receive a permit to
    rebuild. If the setback cannot be met, the structure may not be
    rebuilt.

-   The local building inspector is responsible for determining the
    extent of the damage. Usually, if a structure or septic system is
    damaged less than 50% of its value, an exemption is granted. (NC
    Division of Coastal Management)

-   Following past hurricanes, the NC Division of Coastal Management has
    refused permits to rebuild damaged properties along the coast. For
    example, erosion from Hurricane Fran in 1996 was so severe in a few
    areas that property owners lost entire lots. Some others lost such a
    large proportion of their lot that they could not meet setback
    requirements. (NC Division of Emergency Management)

### Coastal Wetlands Protection

-   Most state coastal management programs provide some degree of
    regulatory protection for wetlands.

**\[PowerPoint 34.9 Wetlands Minimize Flood Impacts\]**

**\[PowerPoint 34.10 Wetlands Minimize Flood Impacts\]**

-   Wetlands perform an important **mitigative function** in the coastal
    zone. Among their many beneficial functions, wetlands serve to
    minimize the danger of damaging floods by storing and preventing
    rapid runoff of water. Large pocosin wetlands can store enormous
    amounts of water and slow runoff of freshwater into brackish
    estuaries. Bottomland wetlands along streams provide holding basins
    for floodwater and slow the water to reduce flood damage. Wetlands
    store water after rains and release it gradually into groundwater or
    through surface outflow. This function of wetlands helps maintain
    more constant water levels in streams. (NC Division of Coastal
    Management).

-   Wetlands also **protect against shoreline erosion**. Wetland
    vegetation is often very dense, both above and below ground. This
    plant cover can absorb energy from floods and wave action. By
    dissipating the energy, binding soil and encouraging sediment
    deposition, wetlands stabilize shorelines along coastal streams,
    lakes and sounds. (NC Division of Coastal Management)

-   As we learned in Session 28, Section 404 of the **Clean Water Act**
    imposes restrictions on activities carried out in wetlands and
    requires permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers.

-   Most **coastal states** have also **imposed restrictions on
    development** in tidal or saltwater wetlands. Some states also apply
    restrictions to nontidal or freshwater wetlands (Beatley).

-   Regulation of wetlands usually involves a **permitting system** for
    activities that disturb the wetland's natural functions.

-   The wetlands programs of many coastal states **parallel the 404
    guidelines**, and require that any permitted activity be a
    water-dependent use, and refuse permits for any wetland activity
    where a practicable alternative is available. Often, state
    regulations cover more activities than does the 404 program. A few
    states administer the 404 program at the state level.

-   Some coastal states also require **wetland mitigation**, which
    involves the preservation off-site of another wetland located away
    from the development activity, or the creation of a new wetland to
    take the place of one that is impaired or destroyed.

> **\[PowerPoint 34.11 Wetland Restoration Site\]**

-   States sometimes impose fairly **rigorous mitigation ratios**,
    ranging from 2:1 to 7:1 (that is, the amount of created, restored or
    enhanced wetland acreage required for each acre of natural wetland
    destroyed or damaged) (Beatley)

### Areas of Particular Concern

-   Many state Coastal Management Programs designate certain areas
    within their coastal zones that are given added protection . **Areas
    of Particular Concern** are defined in various ways, including

    -   geographic boundaries,

    -   natural resources or habitats contained in the Area, or

    -   by the function performed by a particular coastal feature
        (Beatley).

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   In **North Carolina**, **Areas of Environmental Concern** (AEC)
        are the foundation of the Coastal Resources Commission's
        permitting program for coastal development.

    -   An AEC is an area of natural importance. It may be easily
        destroyed by erosion or flooding, or it may have environmental,
        social, economic, or aesthetic values that make it valuable to
        the state. (NC Division of Coastal Management)

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   The NC Coastal Resources Commission designates areas as AECs to
        **protect them from uncontrolled development,** which may cause
        irreversible damage to property, public health or the
        environment, thereby diminishing their value to the entire
        state.

    -   AECs cover almost all coastal waters and less than 3% of the
        land in the 20 coastal counties. The CRC has set up **four
        categories of AEC**:

        -   The Estuarine and Ocean System

        -   The Ocean Hazard System

        -   Public Water Supplies

        -   Natural and Cultural Resources

> **\[PowerPoint 34.12 Estuarine Areas of Environmental Concern\]**

-   The **Estuarine and Ocean System AEC** covers North Carolina's 2.2
    million acres of estuarine waters. Permits may be required for
    development in four components of this system:

    -   [Public Trust Areas]{.underline}: the coastal waters and
        submerged lands that every North Carolinian has the right to use
        for activities such as boating, swimming or fishing

    -   [Estuarine Waters]{.underline}: The State's oceans, sounds,
        tidal rivers and their tributaries

    -   [Coastal Shorelines]{.underline}: include all lands within 75
        feet of the normal high water level of estuarine waters

    -   [Coastal Wetlands]{.underline}: any marsh in the 20 coastal
        counties that regularly or occasionally floods by lunar or wind
        tides, and that includes one or more of 100 plant species.

> **\[PowerPoint 34.13 Ocean Hazard Areas of Environmental Concern\]**

-   The **Ocean Hazard System AEC** includes the band of narrow barrier
    islands that form the State's eastern border. The Ocean Hazard
    System is made up of oceanfront lands and the inlets that connect
    the ocean to the sounds. The CRC has designated three Ocean Hazard
    AECs:

    -   [Ocean Erodible AEC]{.underline}: covers North Carolina's
        beaches and any other oceanfront lands that are subject to
        long-term erosion and significant shoreline changes.

    -   [High Hazard Flood AEC]{.underline}: covers lands subject to
        flooding, high waves and heavy water currents during a major
        storm. These are the lands identified as coastal flood with
        velocity hazard, or "V" zones on flood insurance rate maps

    -   [Inlet Hazard AEC]{.underline}: covers the lands next to ocean
        inlets. Inlet shorelines are especially vulnerable to erosion
        and can shift suddenly and dramatically.

***For Class Discussion:***

Referring to Handout 34.1 as a starting point, divide the class into two
"camps": pro and con for state setback regulations and restrictions on
shore-hardening structures in ocean inlet hazard areas. The Instructor
may wish to begin the discussion session by showing **PowerPoint 34.14
through PowerPoint 34.18** that illustrate the case study.

**PowerPoint 34.14** Mason Inlet

**PowerPoint 34.15** Mason Inlet Encroaching on Shell Island Resort

**PowerPoint 34.16** Shell Island Sandbag Wall

**PowerPoint 34.17** Mason Inlet Relocation

PowerPoint 34.18 Sand From Inlet Dredging Used to Nourish Figure Eight
Beaches

**Objective 34.2 Discuss state-level emergency management programs,
including state hazard mitigation planning.**

**Requirements**:

The content should be presented as lecture. Class discussion is to be
encouraged.

Remarks:

### State Emergency Management Agencies

-   Each of the 50 states and six territories that constitute the US
    maintain a state government office of emergency management.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The **names of the office vary** from state to state. For example,

    -   in California it is called the Office of Emergency Services
        (OES)

    -   in Tennessee it is the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
        (TEMA)

    -   in North Carolina it is the Division of Emergency Management

    -   and in Florida it is the Florida Division of Emergency
        Management.

-   Also, **where the emergency management office resides in state
    government** varies from state to state.

    -   In California, OES is located in the Office of the Governor

    -   In Tennessee, TEMA reports to the Adjunct General

    -   in Florida the emergency management function is in the Office of
        Community Affairs

    -   In NC DEM is in the Department of Crime Control and Public
        Safety.

-   **National Guard** Adjutant Generals manage state emergency
    management offices in **more than half** of the 56 states and
    territories.

    -   The remaining state emergency management offices are lead by
        **civilian employees**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Funding for state emergency management offices comes principally
    from FEMA and state budgets. For years, **FEMA has provided up to
    \$175 million annu**ally to states to fund state and local
    government emergency management activities.

    -   This money is used by state emergency management agencies to
        hire staff, conduct training and exercises, and purchase
        equipment. A segment of this funding is targeted for local
        emergency management operations as designated by the state.

    -   State budgets also provide funding for emergency management
        operations, but this funding historically has been inconsistent,
        especially in those states with minimal annual disaster activity
        (Haddow).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In many states, the emergency management offices are responsible for
    **administrating FEMA's natural hazard grant programs**.

    -   For instance, in North Carolina, the state Division of Emergency
        Management is responsible for administering the

        -   Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

        -   Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program

        -   Public Assistance

        -   Flood Mitigation Assistance

        -   National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

        -   Community Rating System.

        -   Planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

# [Hazard Mitigation Planning at the State Level]{.underline}

-   Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 specifically
    addresses mitigation planning at the state and local levels.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It identifies requirements that allow HMGP funds to be used for
    planning activities, and increases the amount of HMGP funds
    available to states that have developed a comprehensive, enhanced
    mitigation plan prior to a disaster.

-   States and communities must have an approved mitigation plan in
    place to be eligible for post-disaster HMGP funds.

-   Local and tribal mitigation plans must demonstrate that their
    proposed mitigation measures are based on a sound planning process
    that accounts for the risk to and the capabilities of individual
    communities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   State governments have certain responsibilities for implementing
    Section 322, including:

    -   Preparing and submitting a standard or enhance state mitigation
        plan;

    -   Reviewing and updating the state mitigation plan every three
        years;

    -   Providing technical assistance and training to local governments
        to assist them in applying for HMGP grants and in developing
        local mitigation plans;

    -   Reviewing and approving local plans

DMA2000 Planning Requirements:

-   FEMA established rules to guide the required planning process that
    states must follow. The Plan must meet certain basic criteria to
    receive approval, including adoption of the plan by the State.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Planning Process:*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Planning Process prescribed in the rules includes:

    -   Documentation of the planning process

    -   Coordination Among Agencies: the State planning process should
        include coordination with other state agencies, federal agencies
        and interested groups

    -   Integration with Other Planning Efforts: the State Plan must be
        integrated to the extent possible with other ongoing state
        planning efforts as well as other FEMA mitigation programs and
        initiatives

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Risk Assessment:*

    -   The Risk Assessment portion of the State Plan requires that
        States undertake a risk assessment that provides the factual
        basis for developing a mitigation strategy. This provision
        encourages states to produce a meaningful analysis of the
        hazards and vulnerabilities that affect them, enabling states to
        prioritize jurisdictions or geographic areas to receive funding
        and technical assistance for conducting more detailed local risk
        and vulnerability assessments. The risk assessment involves the
        following steps:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Identifying Hazards

-   Profiling Hazard Events

-   Assessing vulnerability by Jurisdiction

-   Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities

-   Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction

-   Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Mitigation Strategy:*

    -   According to the rules, the state plan must include a mitigation
        strategy that provides the state's blueprint for reducing the
        losses identified in the risk assessment. Required elements of
        the mitigation strategy include:

        -   Hazard Mitigation Goals

        -   State Capability Assessment

        -   Local Capability Assessment

        -   Mitigation Measures

        -   Funding Sources

## Local Mitigation Planning Coordination

-   The rules require that State Mitigation Plans describe the process
    by which they provide funding and technical assistance for the
    development of local plans. The rules also require a description of
    the State's processes for incorporating local planning efforts into
    the statewide plan and prioritizing assistance to local
    jurisdictions. These elements include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Local Funding and Technical Assistance

-   Local Plan Integration

-   Prioritizing Local Assistance

## Plan Maintenance Procedures

-   The plan maintenance procedures section requires that states
    implement a mechanism to keep the plan updated to reflect current
    conditions. The rules require that the state have an established
    method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the
    plan. Standard State Plans must be updated and resubmitted to FEMA
    for approval every three years. Required elements include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan

-   Monitoring Progress of Mitigation Activities

APPENDIX A Handout 34.1 Case Study: Shell Island

###### Case Study: Shell Island Resort

+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Developers built the Shell Island Resort   |                         |
| in 1985 on the northern end of             |                         |
| Wrightsville Beach, triggering a sequence  |                         |
| of events that ultimately led to Mason     |                         |
| Inlet\'s relocation. To get state          |                         |
| permission to build, the developers signed |                         |
| an agreement that stated: \"In signing     |                         |
| this permit, the permittee acknowledges    |                         |
| the risks of erosion associated with       |                         |
| developing on this site and recognizes     |                         |
| that current state regulations do not      |                         |
| allow shoreline erosion control structures |                         |
| such as sea walls to be erected for        |                         |
| developments initiated after June 1,       |                         |
| 1979.\" The statement acknowledged that    |                         |
| the condominium was being built in a       |                         |
| designated \"inlet- hazard area.\" The     |                         |
| developers knew that no structures could   |                         |
| be built to protect the condos if they     |                         |
| were threatened by erosion.                |                         |
|                                            |                         |
| The northern end of Wrightsville Beach and |                         |
| Figure Eight Island, which flank Mason     |                         |
| Inlet, are naturally prone to erosion      |                         |
| because of wave action, tides, sea-level   |                         |
| rise and a migrating inlet. Barrier        |                         |
| islands and tidal inlets are constantly    |                         |
| fluctuating and are key components of the  |                         |
| coastal ecosystem, providing unique        |                         |
| habitats, nursery areas, and buffers for   |                         |
| the estuaries and mainland. They are also  |                         |
| important to the movement of water, sand   |                         |
| and larval fish and shellfish along the    |                         |
| coast and are owned by the public, which   |                         |
| has the right to enjoy and benefit from    |                         |
| them.                                      |                         |
|                                            |                         |
| The 1970\'s Coastal Area Management Act    |                         |
| was designed to protect these coastal      |                         |
| resources. In North Carolina, the Coastal  |                         |
| Resources Commission, which administers    |                         |
| the act, passed rules prohibiting seawalls |                         |
| or similar hardened structures on ocean    |                         |
| beaches in an effort to protect the beach  |                         |
| and ensure public access. When Mason Inlet |                         |
| began to get dangerously close to the      |                         |
| Shell Island Resort, owners made repeated  |                         |
| requests to construct a protective         |                         |
| barrier. The commission approved a large   |                         |
| sandbag seawall in January 1997 \-- the    |                         |
| first substantial exception to the state   |                         |
| policy.                                    |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Mason Inlet had begun accelerating its     | ![](m                   |
| march to the south after 1985, just as the | edia/image1.jpeg){width |
| Shell Island Resort was built. This        | ="2.0833333333333335in" |
| acceleration, ironically, has been         | height="                |
| attributed to Figure Eight\'s dredging and | 3.1777777777777776in"}\ |
| deepening of Banks Channel in 1985. From   | ***Shell Island Resort  |
| 1993 to 1995, the inlet moved 650 feet to  | sand bag\               |
| the south, which represents an average     | wall prior to inlet     |
| annual rate of 325 feet a year.            | project. Besides\       |
|                                            | granting a variance     |
| The property owners at Shell Island claim  | from the\               |
| that they were the victims of a mapping    | coatsal rules for this  |
| error. They say that the maps that the NC  | wall,\                  |
| Department of Environment and Natural      | DCM also allowed\       |
| Resources gave New Hanover County          | portions of the wall to |
| delineating the inlet hazard areas in the  | remain\                 |
| mid-1980s showed the site for the resort   | in place and to be      |
| to be safe from the inlet. It\'s debatable | buried\                 |
| whether more accurate maps would have      | under the new beach     |
| convinced the county to deny building      | fill.***                |
| permits for Shell Island Resort and the    |                         |
| high-end condos at Wrightsville Dunes and  |                         |
| Duneridge. However, it can\'t be stressed  |                         |
| enough that this resort was built in a     |                         |
| known inlet-hazard area, and the           |                         |
| developers and buyers should have known    |                         |
| the risks.                                 |                         |
|                                            |                         |
| Realizing that the sandbag wall was not a  |                         |
| permanent solution, the Shell Island       |                         |
| property owners sued the state to build a  |                         |
| permanent wall. The lawsuit was one of the |                         |
| first major challenges to the state\'s     |                         |
| seawall ban. NCCF joined the state as a    |                         |
| defendant in the lawsuit, which was        |                         |
| dismissed and then appealed. Later, the NC |                         |
| Court of Appeals upheld the state\'s ban   |                         |
| on sea walls and dismissed the lawsuit.    |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Faced with a deadline for removing the sandbags, the property owners  |
| requested that the sandbag barrier be allowed to remain until         |
| December 2001. The group then decided to join the Mason Inlet         |
| Preservation Group (residents of Figure Eight Island, Shell Island    |
| Resort and northern Wrightsville Beach) and throw its efforts behind  |
| the dredging and moving of Mason Inlet.                               |
|                                                                       |
| NCCF, Audubon North Carolina and the Southern Environmental Law       |
| Center urged the county to consult the Coastal Resources Commission   |
| to get an accurate picture of the inlet\'s behavior. A number of      |
| alternatives could have been considered that would have been less     |
| costly and less of an impact to the coastal environment.              |
|                                                                       |
| Despite repeated warnings and advice from environmental groups,       |
| members of the Mason Inlet Preservation Group convinced New Hanover   |
| County to proceed with the 30-year project, which could end up        |
| costing as much as \$40 million. The county agreed to carry the       |
| burden of shepherding the project through the regulatory permitting   |
| process and to be responsible for implementing all the conditions of  |
| the permit and mitigation plan for the project.\                      |
| \                                                                     |
| The commissioners also agreed to borrow money from a                  |
| beach-nourishment fund to pay for the unknown cost of the project,    |
| which would later be repaid through a special assessment to the Mason |
| Inlet Preservation Group. The group stated that the project would use |
| no public money and that they would pay for all the costs and         |
| expenses associated with the project and any required mitigation.     |
| Instead county staff has spent thousands of hours of staff time that  |
| will not be reimbursed, and now the county is balking at charging the |
| group for some of the mitigation costs and interest on the borrowed   |
| money.\                                                               |
| \                                                                     |
| The county went ahead with the relocation, which was completed in     |
| early April 2002. The first phase of the project cost about \$7       |
| million. The first assessment to the \"preservation\" group to recoup |
| these costs, minus a \$100,000 charge for interest, was sent out by   |
| the county in the spring of 2003. There has already been a legal      |
| challenge to the assessment filed by a property owner on Figure       |
| Eight.                                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Chronology:**

-   ***1938-1985:*** Mason Inlet migrates to the south an average of
    about 36 feet a year

-   ***1981:*** The rate of southward movement of the Shell Island side
    of the inlet increased to an average of about 250 feet a year
    between 1981 and 1993

-   ***1985-1986:*** Shell Island Resort, valued at \$22 million, is
    built on the northern end of Wrightsville Beach a half-mile from
    Mason Inlet.

-   ***1985-1996:*** Figure Eight Island dredges and deepens Banks
    Channel to 15 feet, and Mason Inlet\'s southward migration increases
    dramatically, to about 325 feet a year.

-   ***September 1996:*** The NC Division of Coastal Management approves
    the resort\'s request for a protective wall. Then the CRC denies the
    request, which is then modified to ask for a smaller sandbag
    barrier.

-   ***November 1996:*** Shell Island Resort begins making plans for a
    multi-million dollar dredging project as a way to protect the
    condominium without bypassing the state\'s beach protection rules

-   ***January 1997:*** The CRC reversed two earlier decisions and
    approved construction of a large sandbag seawall at the Shell Island
    Resort.

-   ***January 1998:*** The CRC declined to force the Shell Island
    Resort owners to tear down a sandbag sea wall, paid for in part with
    a \$1.5 million federal loan. A controversy had erupted over the
    project because the homeowners\' lawyers had told commission
    members, when the homeowners sought permission to build the wall,
    that no public money would be used.

-   ***February 1998:*** Owners of Shell Island Resort filed a lawsuit
    against state coastal regulators. The suit was one of the first
    major challenges to the state\'s coastal policies, and sought
    permission to build a hardened seawall. NCCF joined the state as a
    defendant in the lawsuit. The suit was dismissed and then appealed.

-   ***March1998:*** Figure Eight homeowners gained permission, again,
    to dredge Banks Channel behind the island and pump sand onto its
    beach. Shell Island Resort owners filed a protest to the permit, and
    the plan was stopped. Engineers for Shell Island feared the dredging
    could force Mason Inlet to accelerate toward the resort, threatening
    its sandbag wall.

-   ***July1999:*** The NC Court of Appeals upheld the state\'s ban on
    sea walls and dismissed Shell Island\'s lawsuit. The Shell Island
    Resort then asked the CRC that its sandbag wall be allowed to remain
    in place until December 2001. The commission approved that the
    extension continue until September 2000.

-   ***August 1999:*** Shell Island Property Owners Association decides
    to join the Mason Inlet Preservation Group and throw its efforts
    behind the Mason Inlet dredging and relocation project. In April,
    the New Hanover County commissioners had agreed to borrow money from
    a beach-preservation fund to pay the estimated initial \$7 million
    to move the inlet 3,000 feet north. The county also agreed to carry
    the burden of shepherding the project through the regulatory
    permitting process.

-   ***2000:*** The CRC grants the Shell Island Resort its final
    extension, until December 2001, on the variance allowing the resort
    to maintain its sandbag wall.

-   ***2001:*** The county receives and accepts the US Army Corps of
    Engineers 30-year permit and its conditions to relocate Mason Inlet.

-   ***2002:*** The initial construction phase of the relocation project
    is initiated and completed.

Source: North Carolina Coastal Federation. "Current Cape Fear Coast
Keeper Issues: Mason Inlet Relocation."
[http://www.nccoast.org.cf-issues.htm](http://www.nccoast.org.cf-issues.htm/)

**Course Developer References:**

Berke, Philip R., Dale Roenigk, Edward J. Kaiser, and Raymond J. Burby.
1996. Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state planning
mandates for natural hazard mitigation. *Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management* 17(2):178-199.

Burby, Raymond J. and Peter J. May, with Philip R. Berke, Linda C.
Dalton, Steven P. French and Edward J. Kaiser. 1997. *Making Governments
Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use.* Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press

Burby, Raymond J. and Linda C. Dalton. 1994. Plans can matter! The role
of land use plans and state planning mandates in limiting development of
hazardous areas. *Public Administration Review* 54(3):229-238.

Christie, Donna R, and Richard G. Hildreth.1999.*Coastal and Ocean
Management Law in a Nutshell.* St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Deyle, Robert E. 2002. "Investing in Public Capital Improvements" in
*Building Disaster Resilient Communities*. Raymond J. Burby, ed. FEMA
Emergency Management Institute.

Drabek, Thomas E., Alvin H. Mushkatel, and Thomas S. Kilijanek. 1983.
*Earthqauke Mitigation Policy: The Experience of Two States.* Boulder:
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

FEMA. September 2002. *Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation
Planning.* Washington, D.C.: FEMA 386-1.

Godschalk, David R., Timothy Beatley, Philip Berke, David J. Brower and
Edward J. Kaiser. 1999. *Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster
Policy and Planning*. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.
2002. *Human Links to Coastal Disasters*. Washington, D.C: The H. John
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.

Haddow, George. D. and Jane A. Bullock. 2003. *An Introduction to
Emergency Management*. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Kalo, Joseph J. 1990. *Coastal and Ocean Law*. Houston, TX: The John
Marshall Publishing Co.

May, Peter J., Raymond J. Burby, Neil J. Ericksen, John W. Handmer,
Jennifer Dixon, Sarah Michaels, and D. Ingle Smith. 1996. *Environmental
Management and Governance: Intergovernmental Approaches to Hazards and
Sustainability*. London and NY: Routledge Press.

Mileti, Dennis S. 1999. *Disasters By Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States*. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

North Carolina Coastal Federation. "Cape Fear Coastkeeper Issues: Mason
Inlet Relocation." <http://www.nccoast.org/cf-issues.htm>

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
[Http://dcm2enr.state.nc.us](http://dcm2enr.state.nc.us/)

North Carolina Division of Emergency Management. 2004. *State Hazard
Mitigation Plan: Capability Appendix*. Raleigh, NC: Division of
Emergency Management, Department of Crime Control and Public Safety.

Platt, Rutherford H., et al. 1992. *Coastal Erosion: Has Retreat
Sounded?* Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado.

Wright, Robert R. and Morton Gitelman. 2000. *Land Use in a Nutshell*,
4^th^ edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Deyle, Robert E. 2002. "Investing in Public Capital Improvements" in
*Building Disaster Resilient Communities*. Raymond J. Burby, ed. FEMA
Emergency Management Institute.

Drabek, Thomas E., Alvin H. Mushkatel, and Thomas S. Kilijanek. 1983.
*Earthquake Mitigation Policy: The Experience of Two States.* Boulder:
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

FEMA. September 2002. *Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation
Planning.* Washington, D.C.: FEMA 386-1.

Godschalk, David R., Timothy Beatley, Philip Berke, David J. Brower and
Edward J. Kaiser. 1999. *Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster
Policy and Planning*. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.
2002. *Human Links to Coastal Disasters*. Washington, D.C: The H. John
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.

Haddow, George. D. and Jane A. Bullock. 2003. *An Introduction to
Emergency Management*. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Kalo, Joseph J. 1990. *Coastal and Ocean Law*. Houston, TX: The John
Marshall Publishing Co.

May, Peter J., Raymond J. Burby, Neil J. Ericksen, John W. Handmer,
Jennifer Dixon, Sarah Michaels, and D. Ingle Smith. 1996. *Environmental
Management and Governance: Intergovernmental Approaches to Hazards and
Sustainability*. London and NY: Routledge Press.

Mileti, Dennis S. 1999. *Disasters By Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States*. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

North Carolina Division of Emergency Management. 2005. *State Hazard
Mitigation Plan: Capability Appendix*. Raleigh, NC: Division of
Emergency Management, Department of Crime Control and Public Safety.

Platt, Rutherford H., et al. 1992. *Coastal Erosion: Has Retreat
Sounded?* Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado.

Wright, Robert R. and Morton Gitelman. 2000. *Land Use in a Nutshell*,
4^th^ edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.