FINAL REPORT

STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT

EFFECTIVENESS IN PROTECTING

BEACHES, DUNES, BLUFFS, ROCKY SHORES:

A NATIONAL OVERVIEW

Prepared by Tina Bernd-Cohen and Melissa Gordon

As Part of the Sea Grant National CZM Effectiveness Study

for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

National Ocean Service, NOAA, DOC

March 1998

FINAL REPORT
STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT

EFFECTIVENESS IN PROTECTING

BEACHES, DUNES, BLUFFS, ROCKY SHORES:

A NATIONAL OVERVIEW

Principal Investigator:

Tina Bernd-Cohen

Coastal Consultant,

Helena, Montana

Research Associate:

Melissa Gordon, PhD

Prepared by Tina Bernd-Cohen and Melissa Gordon

As Part of the Sea Grant National CZM Effectiveness Study

for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

National Ocean Service, NOAA, DOC

March 1998
Mailing Address:

Tina Bernd-Cohen

Coastal Consultant

729 Power Street

Helena, MT 59601

Phone: 406-442-4002

FAX: 406-442-4114

Email: Tinacoast@aol.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals contributed to the completion of this report. We would like to thank the state coastal

program managers and their staff for the many hours of assistance they provided conveying information

and reviewing and commenting on the draft state CZM profiles. This thanks extends to CZM staff in the

network of agencies which make up each state's CZM program. There are too many of you to name

individually here, but you know who you are and how appreciative we are of you help on this project. We

would also like to thank Bill Millhouser, our OCRM liaison, for his humor and patience in working with us

through every step of this project. Thanks also to other OCRM staff members for compiling and sharing

information at the OCRM headquarters.

We also thank our state CZM advisory committee would provided suggestions on how to conduct this

study: Eldon Hout of Oregon; Sarah Cooksey of Delaware; Jim Tabor of Pennsylvania; and Wayne Beam

of South Carolina. To other expert reviewers, including David Owens, Tom Leschine, and Jen Sorenson,

we also express our thanks. We thank others who provided advice and information on their agency's roles

in shoreline management including Charlie Chesnut and his staff from the US Army Corps of Engineers

and Mark Crowell of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

A special thanks to each members of our study team: Marc Hershman, Bob Goodwin, Jim Good, Pam

Pogue and Virginia Lee, and their students. The unique perspectives and expertise of each member made

this project particularly exciting and challenging. Congratulations on a difficult job well done. This project

has made us more than colleagues, we are now a family.

This portion of the project was made possible by a grant from the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resources Management. Supplemental funding for Melissa Gordon was provided by NOAA Coastal

Service Center thanks to Margaret Davidson and Mark Evans. Louisiana State University's Department of

Oceanography and Coastal Sciences supported the doctoral dissertation of Melissa Gordon thanks to Dr.

Margaret Reams and Dr. Chuck Wilson.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 2

Beach and Dune, Bluff and Rocky Shore Resources 2

Human Interactions 4

Shared Coastal Management 7

Overview of State CZM Programs 11

3 METHODOLOGY 13

Research Question and What is Covered 13

Research Design 13

Determination of Effectiveness 13

Research Limitations 14

4 RESULTS 15

National Objective is Being Achieved 15

Tools Employed by Coastal States To Protect Resources 15

Upgrading CZM Processes 16

5 PROCESS INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS 20

Key Role of State CZM in Coastal Regulatory Programs 20

Coastal Setbacks 21

Coastal Construction Control Areas 24

Shoreline Stabilization Regulations 29

Access Restrictions, Habitat Protection & Other Controls 33

Permit Tracking and Enforcement 36

Key Role of State CZM in Planning 39

Rocky Shores Plan 41

Beach Management Plans 41

Bluff Plans 42

Local Coastal Plans 42

SAMP Plans 43

Key Role of State CZM in State Public Land Management and Acquisition 44

Active Management of State Coastal Lands 44

Beach Nourishment 45

Shoreline Armoring 45

State Coastal Land Acquisition 46

6 OUTCOME INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS 52

Outcome Indicator Data Availability 52

Regulatory Outcomes 55

Adopted Plan Outcomes 59

State Coastal Land Management and Acquisition Outcomes 61

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65

Conclusions 65

Recommendations 67

APPENDICES

A - NATIONAL AND STATE CONTEXT DATA

B - METHODOLOGY & SAMPLE STATE CZM PROFILE - MAINE

C - SUMMARY TABLES

D - CASE EXAMPLES

E - BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Page

Table 1: National Context Factors Affecting State Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs

and Rocky Shores 3

Table 2: Diversity of policies behind state coastal setback regulations 12

Table 3: Examples of significant changes to state CZM program tools which affect

protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores 17

Table 4: Summary of State CZM Tools Employed to Protect Beaches and Dunes 18

Table 5: Summary of State CZM Tools Employed to Protect Bluffs and Rocky Shores 19

Table 6: Process Indicators of Effectiveness 21

Table 7: State coastal setback distance provisions and exceptions and type of setback 22

Table 8: State coastal construction control area jurisdictions and provisions 26

Table 9: State coastal shoreline stabilization structure restriction provisions 29

Table 10: Coastal restrictions on pedestrian and vehicular access, habitat protection

and other activities 35

Table 11: State Coastal Permit Tracking Systems and Permit Compliance Tools 36

Table 12: Planning Tools- local permit delegation, local planning, other plans

affecting protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores 39

Table 13: State Coastal Land Holdings and Acquisitions 48

Table 14: Active State Coastal Land Management 50

Table 15: Outcome Indicators of Effectiveness 53

Table 16 Availability of Outcome Data 54

Table 17

A: State Permit Actions- Rhode Island 57

B: New Development & Shoreline Stabilization Permits by Barrier Beach Designations- RI 58

C: Pedestrian/ Vehicular Access Restriction On Private Lands Protecting Habitat Areas-RI 58

D: Regulated Areas- type of regulated area, acres, shoreline miles, resources protected-RI 58

Table 18

A: Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Regulations, and Other Special Area

 Management Plans- CT 60

B: Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans/Regulations, Other SAMP Plans- CA 60

C: State Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Other SAMP Plans- Guam 61

Table 19

A: State Coastline Ownership and Direct Land Management- MA 63

B: State Coastline Ownership and Direct Land Management of State Parks-MA 63

C: Beaches Restored/Nourished/Renourished- MA 63

D: Dunes Restored and Shoreline Armored- MA 63

E: Coastal Lands Acquired- MA 64
STATE COASTAL ZONE EFFECTIVENESS IN

PROTECTING BEACHES, DUNES, BLUFFS AND ROCKY

SHORES:

A NATIONAL OVERVIEW

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Importance of the Coastal Zone Management Act for

Protecting Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores

Prior to enactment of the federal CZMA, state efforts to address protection of natural shoreline features

such as beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores were highly variable. State coastal management programs

(CMPs) developed since passage of the CZMA were designed specifically to balance resource protection

and development. State coastal programs have resulted in more attention to issues such as erosion, sea level

rise, and cumulative adverse impacts resulting from development on receding beach and bluff shorelines

and sensitive natural habitat areas. State CMPs have been at the forefront in addressing shoreline use

conflicts such as the demand for shoreline armoring to protect existing upland structures to the detriment

and loss of natural beach systems. Beach nourishment has been promoted by some coastal states as an

alternative to continued loss of developed recreational beaches through shoreline hardening. Likewise,

some coastal states have funded research into sand loss from inlet dredging and have demanded that beach

quality sand from inlet dredging be placed on down-drift beaches. Whereas excavation of sand for coastal

development was a common practice in the past, state CMPs prohibit such practices today and wage

educational campaigns on the importance of protecting stabilized dune systems.

State CMPs serve as the institutional focus for addressing ongoing competing public and private demands

for the use of our limited and sometimes fragile coastline resources. Our understanding of natural shoreline

processes and the impacts of human development on these processes has grown. Today, we are no longer

building as close to the shoreline. The development that does occur is better built to withstand coastal storm

events. Efforts are made to guide access across fragile vegetated dunes. We are becoming better stewards

of our natural coastal heritage through state CMP efforts. Balancing private property rights with natural

resource protection goals remains a challenge.

Summary of Research Findings

The national objective of protecting coastal resources is being achieved through implementation of

federally-approved state coastal management programs (CMPs). State CMP efforts are effective overall in

addressing protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores, given that the CZMA requires states to

balance competing needs and demands such as protection of properties from hazard risks and promotion of

recreational use of the shoreline. Determination of CMP effectiveness has been based on process indicators

and case examples. Process indicators such as state regulatory setbacks to keep development away from the

immediate shoreline were used to determine program effectiveness. Throughout this report and in the

appendices are 31 case examples which illustrate and document ways state CMPs are effectively protecting

natural shoreline resources.

Coastal states are utilizing a wide variety of tools to achieve resource protection including regulatory

setbacks and controls over shoreline development in combination with planning, stewardship

of state lands, coastal land acquisition, and research and public education about shoreline processes and
human interaction. All but three coastal states identified protection of natural resources and/or

minimization of loss of life and property from coastal hazards as a high priority management issue.

Although all coastal states own coastal properties, only three use state ownership and land management as

the primary tool. Of the twenty-five tools identified with beach and dune protection, the fewest tools used

by a state is eleven and the most is twenty-three. Of the thirteen tools related to bluff and rocky shore

protection, the fewest tools used by any state is five and the most is eleven.

Regulatory controls are the most significant tools employed nationwide to protect shoreline

resources, since the majority of the oceanfront shoreline is in private ownership, migrating and subject to

development pressures. Protection is achieved through setbacks; regulation of shoreline development and

shoreline stabilizations; restrictions on pedestrian and vehicular access; habitat protection; and permit

compliance/permit tracking systems. Setbacks are particularly effective-- acting as natural buffer areas

and reducing hazard risks. Planning tools, when combined with regulatory, improve natural resource

protection by offering either long-range vision or site-specific goals for the protection and development of

selected coastal areas. Stewardship of coastal lands, through state land management and acquisition, is also

an important component of all state coastal programs. All coastal states own state parks along the

shoreline, and most have natural protection areas and guided accessways. Many states have also acquired

additional coastal land holdings.

States are upgrading their CZM programs. CZM is a growing and changing process meeting changing

needs. As state CMPs recognize problems or management gaps, they take corrective action. States have

made hundreds of significant changes to their programs. This study has documented over 60 significant

changes in the way coastal states protect their natural shoreline resources. Most of these program changes

involve alteration of the state CMP regulatory or planning tools. States are giving greater consideration to

natural shoreline processes, even when addressing other concerns such as the need to protect developed

eroding shoreline using structural measures.

More systematic resource protection is occurring through regulatory reviews. State CMPs are

providing more systematic, extensive and intensive planning and regulatory review of projects along the

shoreline. This regulatory review is minimizing adverse impacts of improper development and erosion on

natural systems and adjacent properties and structures. Greater attention is being given to cumulative

effects of individual permit decisions. More states are measuring erosion rates and establishing

construction setbacks. Concerns about the adverse long-term effects of shoreline armoring on natural

beach sand transport are being addressed and opportunities are being taken to employ nonstructural

solutions to coastal erosion. As a result, less inappropriate development is occurring in hazardous areas

such as migrating beaches and eroding bluffs.

There is insufficient nationally compatible outcome data to determine on-the-ground effectiveness. 

Due to the scarcity of outcome data, it is not possible to determine the on-the-ground effectiveness of state

CZM regulatory, planning, land management and acquisition programs. Regarding regulatory data, most

coastal states have computerized permit tracking systems. However, no state maintains a statewide

database on the miles affected, the area affected, or the resources affected by state or local coastal permits;

or the results of pedestrian access and vehicular access restrictions and protected habitat areas. States with

local plans tend to have information on the number of plans approved. However, the data stops there.

Only some states have inventories of their coastal land holdings-- such as number of shoreline miles in state

parks or percent of shoreline in public ownership. Even states that are active stewards of their public

coastal land holdings, do not routinely document accessways installed, dunes restored, beaches restored,

and other protection results. Coastal states which utilize acquisition have some data on the number of

parcels acquired or acres of coastal lands acquired. However, for most states, these data are not categorized

by type of resource area acquired, and very few states have data on amount of money spent or acquisition

priorities. Therefore, determining "effectiveness" of state coastal programs in protecting natural coastline

resources based on on-the-ground outcome indicators is elusive. Determining the "effectiveness" of state

coastal programs in protecting natural coastline resources based on process indicators and case examples is

more possible, but still difficult. Case examples can be effective in illustrating how a management tool has

been implemented in a certain geographic area and the results of such implementation.
Competing demands for the use of the shoreline and competing government policies continue to

require balance, so the dilemma remains. State CMPs continue to face decisions regarding competing

demands for recreation and tourist development, protection of existing threatened properties and the rights

of private property owners versus public health and safety. Shrinking federal and state dollars for state

CMP administration, coupled with increased demand and expectations for CMP services, are long-term

concerns for coastal programs. Several federal agencies, state CMPs, local coastal governments, and other

non-profit organizations play a role in managing our nation's coastline resources. Inconsistencies between

certain federal agency programs and state CMP objectives are ongoing concerns. For example, the FEMA

flood insurance program and the federally-funded shoreline protection projects of the USACE achieve

objectives which undermine some state CMP natural resource protection objectives. The unique role of

state coastal zone management programs has been and continues to be to focus attention and resources on

improving the state and local land use controls and other tools to minimize the adverse impacts on natural

resources.

Recommendations

Develop a computerized CZM database - NOAA should seek funding from Congress to establish a

computerized monitoring and tracking program for state and federal agency CZM activities, the results of

which should be published in a biennial state-of-the-coast report to Congress. This should include a

computerized coding system and an information tracking and recovery system for all information submitted

by coastal states. NOAA should prepare up-datable state CZM program summary files for each coastal

state with information about the state program, periodic changes to the program, program activities, CZM

projects undertaken, results and reports produced.

Share Information Through the Internet - NOAA should create a home page on the Internet and a CDROM of the National CZM Effectiveness Study and other CZM databases.

Incentives for Coastal States to Refine and Expand their Process and Outcome Data Collection and

Record Keeping - NOAA should seek funding from Congress to form a coastal states task force with the

objective to change the coastal states reporting requirements under 306, 309, and 312 to better address

results of state CZM activities and their effectiveness in meeting state and national CZM objectives. This

should include accepted methods for organizing, collecting, storing, and reporting accurate and precise data

on program activities and results which include trend data usable in future assessments of CZM

effectiveness.

 NOAA/OCRM should also encourage coastal states to: a) improve their daily record keeping and yearly

reporting to NOAA/OCRM on program implementation and results; b) develop and refine computerized

permit tracking systems regarding permitted activities and refine the individual permit entries to include

data on type of project, area and resources affected, length of shoreline affected, size of project, permit

restrictions/conditions and other data which, when analyzed yearly, could assess the individual and

cumulative impacts of projects permitted along the coast; c) monitor, collect and report on local

implementation and results for states that delegate implementation to local governments; d) explore the use

of in-depth case studies as a way to provide more meaningful explanations of how CZM works and the onthe-ground results, rather than relying on case examples and success stories; and e) explore the use of

aerial photo interpretation for measuring long-term changes in develop and resources along the coast.

Utilize 309 Assessment Process to address issues associated with shoreline change. OCRM and the

Coastal States should continue to utilize the section 309 Assessment process to address substantive issues

associated with protection of natural coastal systems. Significant changes to state coastal programs such

changes in activities exempt, shoreline armoring allowed and the landward extent of regulatory jurisdiction

should be carefully scrutinized for their long-term effects on natural coastal systems.

Federal agencies should monitor changes to the coastal environment and report on changes every 5

years. Congress should fund activities to monitor changes along our nation's coastlines including: 1)

federal level aerial surveillance and photo interpretations of shoreline development and changes in

development patterns; 2) USACE to conduct follow-up national shoreline studies at least every ten years

on erosion, shoreline armoring, beach nourishment, and public ownership of the coast; 3) USDOI to
compile data on coastal endangered species and habitat loss/protection changes and role of federal and state

agencies in this effort; 4) NOAA to compile data from U.S. Bureau of the Census on population changes in

coastal counties; 5) USDOI to compile data on private development occurring on designated CBRAs and

federal/state agency actions affecting CBRA designations and implementation success.

Indicators of effectiveness. To evaluate state CZM program effectiveness in protecting beaches, dunes,

bluffs and rocky shores, the following "indicators of effectiveness" and "survey methods" should be used:

Regulatory Program Outcomes:

1. No further or reduced rate of encroachment into coastal resource areas.

2. No further or reduced rate of hardening of undeveloped beachfronts through shoreline stabilizations.

3. Controlled shoreline accessways.

4. Healthy and maintained intact natural habitat areas along the coast

Adopted Plan Outcomes:

1. Achievement of Plan Objectives through implementation and monitoring

State Coastal Land Management and Acquisition Outcomes:

1. Extent of state land holdings in parks/preserves containing beach, dune, bluff or rocky shores.

2. Active public natural resources stewardship of coastal land holdings

3. Coastal lands acquired

Survey Methods- for collecting data and measuring outcomes starting with a baseline followed by time

series or periodic updates:

(a) aerial photography interpretation;

(b) computerized permit data collection and analysis -- showing trends in permitted shoreline structures or

shoreline stabilizations on the beach and dune system, eroding bluff, coastal hazard areas, coastal

floodplain, or immediate shoreline.

(c) periodic physical surveys of the condition of coastal resources protection areas;

(d) shoreline mapping of controlled accessways; delineating shoreline acres and miles

where pedestrian and/or vehicular access is restricted; delineating habitat protection areas.

(e) state and local permit data on activities permitted within approved plan areas, area and linear miles

affected, and consistency with plan objectives -- such as protection of designated "coastal resource areas"

or "natural habitat areas", dune restoration; inlet management to place dredged sand on downdrift beaches,

and designated coastal hazard areas where development is prohibited.

(f) documentation of direct state or local actions undertaken-- such as miles/acres of dunes revegetation;

cubic yards of sand transferred due to installation of inlet sand transfer plant; coastline acres and linear

shoreline miles in state ownership with resources present; number of accessways, marked trails,

boardwalks, dune crossovers and demonstrated public use; acres or shoreline miles in state coastal lands

designated as conservation, preservation or protection areas; miles and acres and type coastal shoreline

resource areas acquired by the state.

Study Approach

This research project involved three stages. Stage I included data collection and creation of 29 state

profiles. Five states were selected as pilot states to test our survey instrument, followed by surveys of all

remaining coastal states. The state profiles documented state tools and available outcome data on protection

of natural beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores. Case examples were compiled as part of the state

profiles. Data collection also included a search of evaluation literature, national context factors, and

national data sources on resource protection. Stage II involved evaluation of state CZM program

effectiveness in protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores, drawing from the state profiles and

national summary tables. Stage III involved creation of the national CZM effectiveness evaluation

synthesis report. The national overview report contains background and context information; a summary of

the regulatory, planning, state land management and acquisition tools used by coastal states to protect

natural beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores; the importance of resource protection to coastal states; and

the key role, process indicators and outcome indicators of state CZM program effectiveness in protecting

natural shoreline resources. The report also contains recommended improvements related to tracking and

document state CZM program effectiveness in meeting CZM objectives.
1 INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of the National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Effectiveness Study has been to assess

the overall effectiveness of the state CZM programs in addressing five core objectives of the Federal CZM

Act. This section of the report investigates the effectiveness of coastal resource protection at the state

level. In particular, this section looks at the coastal management tools state CZM programs employ to

protect natural beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores and the effectiveness of these management tools

in achieving national policy objectives. Both process and on-the-ground outcome measures are used to

assess CZM program effectiveness. This section also contains recommendations for improving federal

and state accounting of the results of coastal management programs in achieving national policy

objectives.

The Congressional declaration of national policy related to protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky

shores includes:

"(A) the protection of natural resources, including ...beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs,

and fish and wildlife and their habitat, within the coastal zone.

(B) the management of coastal development to minimize loss of life and property caused by

improper development in flood-prone areas and in areas likely to be affected by or vulnerable to

sea level rise, land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion, and by the destruction of natural

protective features such as beaches, dunes, wetlands and barrier islands."

(Section 303 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972)

All coastal states with federally-approved coastal programs have adopted policies which interpret and

implement the national policy objectives and call for the protection of natural resources and minimization

of loss of life and property along the coast.

State coastal programs were designed to balance resource protection and development. The economic

development pressures along the oceanfront and shoreline are tremendous. Shorefront property is

scarce and highly valued. As a result, policies to protect natural resources are tempered by policies which

meet other objectives. The most obvious conflicts involve balancing protection of the natural beachfront

and bluff-front shoreline resources and processes (erosion and accretion) against protection of (a) existing

development built too close to the water's edge and threatened by coastal erosion; (b) private property

owners' rights to develop on their coastal lands; and (c) public access and recreational use of beach and

dune areas.

This report covers the background and context for resource protection; the research methodology;

research findings and conclusions; and recommendations.
2

2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

State CZM programs which protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores are each influenced by a

variety of physical, social and economic context factors including: (a) the type and extent of the natural

resources in a given state; (b) coastline erosion processes and storm events; (c) coastline ownership and

development; (d) human interference with natural processes; (e) competing demands placed on natural

coastal resources and state priorities for balancing these demands; (f) shared coastal management

responsibilities between states, federal agencies and non-governmental organizations; and (g) the unique

role of the CZM program in the state. Historic and cultural factors are also important in some states. See

Table 1, for selected national context data by state. Also see Appendix A for data related to these

national and state context factors.

Beach and Dune, Bluff and Rocky Shore Resources

Beach resources are present along portions of all coastal state shorelines, though the length and

character of such beaches vary considerably. Sandy beaches can be categorized into three distinct

types: barrier beaches, mainland beaches, and pocket beaches. The Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast is

characterized by a system of barrier beaches and a relatively wide continental shelf, as is much of Alaska.

Barrier beaches are part of a complex integrated system of beaches, marshes, bays, tidal flats, and inlets.

These beaches are constantly migrating, eroding and building in response to natural processes and

human activities. Mainland beaches stretch unbroken for many miles, some low standing and prone to

flooding, others backed by steep headlands. They received sediment from nearby rivers and eroding

bluffs. Examples include Long Island, northern New Jersey and southern California. Pocket beaches form

in small bays surrounded by rocky cliffs or headlands. The headlands protect the sandy alcoves from

erosion by winter storms and strong currents. Pocket beaches are common in Maine and the Pacific

Northwest. Other coastline variations are based on plate tectonics or type of wave forces. Difference and

variations in beach and dune coastline systems within a state, between states and within regions are

factors affecting states enactment and implementation of certain beachfront management tools. 1

Headland/rocky shorelines and bluffs/cliffs are present along the West Coast, the North East Coast, the

Great Lakes Coast, and Territorial shores. These features are absent along the low elevation Southern

and South Atlantic coastlines. The underlying geology of active tectonics, faulting and earthquakes or

glaciers, ice gouging and rafting, or ice and strong wind determine shore stability and erosion factors

which effect state management responses. 2 Eroding bluffs and cliffs of the Great Lakes states, creating

beaches and dunes, are subject to highwater levels which, when driven by storm winds and waves cause

flooding and lakefront deterioration.3

Table 1 provides the length of the US coastline, using NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce data, that

includes two measures, one of direct oceanfront miles where they cross bays and sounds and the other

tidal shoreline miles which extend inland to the head of tidewaters or to a point where tidal waters narrow

to a width of 100 feet. The national shoreline, as measured by the US Army Corps of Engineers, to the

head of tidewaters, or to the point where tidal waters narrow to 100 feet is also shown. Percent of direct

ocean coastline in beaches, rocky shores and bluffs is also indicated from state CZM program estimates.

For 8 of the 29 coastal states, their entire ocean coastlines are sandy beaches with no rocky shores or

bluffs. All other 21 coastal states have beaches and rocky shores, backed by bluffs or sand dunes.

 

1Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and Anna k. Schwab. 1994. An Introduction to Coastal Zone

Management

2Ibid.

3National Committee on Property Insurance. 1998. America's Vanishing Coastlines: A New Concern for

the Voluntary and Residual Property Insurance Markets. p,23
ctors Affecting State Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs, and Rocky Shores

dal

horelin

iles

)

iles

National Shoreline Miles and% CriticallyEroding (3)Miles % CE

% State Land Area% StatePopulation in Coastal Zone (4)Area Pop.

CoastPop.Density1990(4)personper sq.mile

% CoastPop Chg1970-90(5)%

Presence of Natural Coastal Resources andBeach and Rocky Shore a Percent of theState's Open Ocean CoastlineBeach, Bluff and Rocky Shore as Percent ofNon-Open Ocean (CT & Great Lakes States)Shoreline (6) RockyBeaches Dunes Bluffs Shores

MajorBarrierIslandsNumber/Miles(7)Miles

USACEMajorShorelineProtect.Projects1950-93(8)

07 352 9 6 12 171 27% y-100% n n n -- -

3904 47300 >1 67 85 1 89% y-nd ? y y nd -

26 nd nd 100 100 607 72% y-nd n y y-nd nd -

427 1827 4 24 73 605 39% y-nd y y y-nd -- 13

18 270 9 47 62 887 8% y-31% Y-rare y-25% y-14% -- 8

81 226 12 100 100 338 22% y-100% y n n 1- 6 mi 4

426 6266 5 100 100 228 90% y-65% y n n 49-560m 33

10 nd 3 100 100 637 57% y-37% n y y-63% nd -

052 nd 2 100 100 174 44% y-25% y y-nd y-nd nd -

721 1943 2 37 49 171 16% y-50% y n n -- 4

478 2500 >1 39 72 72 29% y-10% y y y-90% -- -

190 1939 9 66 70 507 12% y-100% y n n 2- 31 mi 4

519 1200 11 45 75 1272 5% y-?? y y y-nd 2- 18 mi 7224 nd nd 55 50 154 -5% y-nd y y-nd y-nd -- -

59 247 15 4 12 192 30% y-41% n n n -- 3

31 40 5 12 32 331 67% y-70% y n y-30% -- 5

792 469 26 76 90 1219 6% y-100% y n n 10-100m 12850 638 47 37 84 858 -3% y-100%* y y y 4- 93 mi 13

625 3661 15 19 11 75 39% y-100% y n n 20-285m 10

06 nd nd 100 100 236 255% y-nd n y y-nd nd -

410 500 13 20 38 82 46% y-72% y y y-28% -- -

40 nd nd 4 25 1701 -9% y-19% n y-81% n -- 3

00 nd nd 12 100 856 30% y-50% y y y-nd nd -

84 340 7 100 100 950 6% y-68% y y y -- 1

876 3063 2 26 24 114 57% y-100% y n n 18- 96 m 2

75 nd nd 100 100 771 63% y-nd ? y y-nd nd -

315 993 26 22 62 423 40% y-100% y n n 9- 67 mi 2026 2337 >1 31 70 172 46% y-35% y y y-65% -- -

20 nd nd 19 39 177 0% y-10% y y-72% y-8% -- -

5770 31513*** nd nd 44 nd nd y-29 y21 n8 y18 n11 y17 n12 nd 124

 no data H- high M-medium L-low

s data differs from General Coastline miles data in US DOC, NOAA 1975. The Coastline of the United States

vered under this study. *** Does not include the Great Lakes States or the Island Territories and Commonwealths.

stline of the United States.

e Study.

e, The 1992 Coastal Status report: A Pilot Study of the US Coastal Zone and its Resources, Tables 2 and 3.

2: Coastal County Percent Population Per Decade and Percent Change Per Decade. (unpublished in-house data)

Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores

80. The Coastal Almanac, Table 8.

d Beach Erosion Control Study: Phase 1. 

3
Human Interactions

Coastline Ownership

State jurisdictional ownership of beaches usually begins at mean high water and extends seaward. This

leaves extensive dry sanding beach and dune systems in private ownership, except where governments

have acquired beachfronts for recreation or preservation. Seventy percent of our nation's shoreline is in

private ownership (excluding Alaska where 99% is publicly owned). As of 1970, three-fifths of the

shoreline was undeveloped (excluding Alaska).4 Development pressures vary depending on geography

and climate issues. Inaccessible and hard to develop shorelines, such as rocky shores, are less prone to

development than accessible sandy beach areas. A state's beach and dune management varies

depending on the extent of public ownership. For the 20 coastal states (not including the islands or the

Great Lake States), public owneship ranges from a high of 99% for Alaska to a low of 3% for Maine. For

11 of the 20 states, over 1/4 of the shoreline is in public ownership. (See Table 1)

Coastline Development and Economic Pressures on Shoreline Properties

As early as the late 1800s, recreational tourism began along our nation's beaches. With the advent of the

automobile, seasonal seaside resorts evolved. The summer homes and fishing villages of the 1940s and

1950s were transformed by the 1970s into "cities on the beach."5 Today, due to population and economic

pressures, over half of our nation's population lives within 50 miles of the coast and our nation's coastal

zone is over four times more densely populated than the national average. 6 In addition to the retirees who

migrated to the coast and other year round residents, tourists and conventioneers are demanding

beachfront coastal resorts. This is most pronounced along our coastal barriers at high risk due to coastal

flooding, hurricanes and erosion. Billions of dollars in private development and pubic recreation and

infrastructure is invested on these unstable coastal barriers. 7 The demand for coastal waterfront property

has lead to increased residential development pressures along our nation's coastal bluffs and rocky

shores.

The cost of purchasing oceanfront and waterfront properties along our nation's shorelines are

considerably higher than for non-waterfront properties. The seasonal beachfront cottages of yesterday

have given way to much larger and more expensive developments, often high-rise multi-family

condominiums. The result is intensive, extensive and expensive investments in known coastal high

hazard areas. Barrier islands have become a magnet for retirees and vacation homes.8 About half of all

residential and non-residential construction in the U.S. between 1970 and 1989 occurred in coastal areas.

The most dramatic growth has occurred in the Florida and California.9 Despite the environmental

degradation associated with population growth, these shoreline areas remain in strong demand for

commercial, residential, tourism and recreation.

The persistent development along our nation's coastline had lead to destruction of coastal dunes systems

and placement of structures in jeopardy from both short and long-term erosion. Shoreline development

prior to the 1970s were frequently armored with seawalls, revetments, bulkheads or other shoreline

stabilization structure to protect upland private and public investments from erosion. Such stabilization

structures accelerated the loss of sandy beaches. 10 Table 1 shows coastal county population change

 

4Ibid.

5Platt, Rutherford H. et al. 1987. Cities on the Beaches; Management Issues of Developed Coastal

Islands.

6U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1990. 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts:

1960-2010.

7Platt, Rutherford, et al. 1992. Coastal Erosion: Has Retreat Sounded?, p.12.

8U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NOS. 1992. Building Along America's Coasts: 20 Years of

Building Permits, 1970-1989. p.5

9Ibid

10Ibid., p.8
5

between 1970 and 1990. For 16 of the 29 CZM states, population growth was 30% or greater (major

impact); for 5 population growth was between 10% and 29% (moderate impact); and for 8 population

declined or growth was 0% to 9% (minimal impact).

Coastline Erosion

Coastal erosion, the landward displacement of the shoreline, is a normal process that has been going on

for many years along most of our nation's sandy beaches. Gradual long-term erosion from normal wave

action (of 1-3 feet per year) is accelerated by severe storm events during hurricanes and winter storms,

sea level rise, the greenhouse effect; and man-made shoreline stabilizations. 11

The only nationwide survey of shoreline erosion, published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1971,

estimates that at least 7% of our nation's coastline is critically eroding where properties are in imminent

danger of collapse and 25% is experiencing significant erosion. 12 In addition to long-term erosion, many

coastal states have experienced shoreline loss and property destruction through periodic storm events.

Bluff recession is a particular problem along the Great Lakes States and potions of the west coast.

The average rate of erosion is determined locally through historical shoreline records or shoreline

modeling. A few examples of documented shoreline retreat dramatize the management urgency of coastal

erosion. Cape Shoalwater, Washington has been eroding at the rate of more than 100 feet a year since

the turn of the century. it's sparsely settled sand dunes have retreated an outstanding 12,000 feet, or more

than 2 miles since 1910. 13 Most of the barrier islands along the east and gulf coasts are retreating

landward by 1 to 10 feet per year--rates of up to 20 feet are not uncommon for specific locations.14 

Every coastal state is affected by shoreline change and erosion.15 Table 1 shows, by state, the amount of

coastal shoreline threatened by critical erosion.

Sea level rise and land subsidence, as a contributer to shoreline erosion, are recognized problems along

portions of our nations' coastline. If accurate, the long-term costs to protect existing development,

shoreline stabilizations, and infrastructure would be staggering16

Coastal Storm Events

Coastal storms and hurricanes exacerbate long-term erosion, shifting the position of beaches and sand

dunes and splintering and collapsing erodable bluffs. Rapid shoreline erosion caused by high storm surge

and wave heights overtop dunes and damage beachfront buildings in harms way. Wave attack at the base

of steep slopes, undercut and collapse overhanging banks and topple properties perched on such bluffs.

Large tsunamis waves with speed and height have inflicted great damaged to California and Hawaii

coastal areas. Between 1980 and 1995, 11 separate billion-dollar weather disasters struck coastal areas

of the US: 9 hurricanes, 1 Nor'easter and 1 tropical storm resulted in over $46 billion in damages.17

Human-Interference with Natural Processes

Beach systems, and sandy beaches in particular, are dynamic. They advance and retreat, but over several

cycles maintain state of equilibrium. Beginning as early as the 1890s, a variety of human modifications to

the physical shoreline have been undertaken to achieve objectives that run counter to the protection and

dynamic equilibrium of natural beach/dune systems. This host of human interferences have adversely

affected the natural sand transport system, destroyed or caused dune instability, and increased erosion.

 

11Kaufmam, W., and O.H. Pilkey, Jr. 1983. The Beaches are Moving.

12U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. National Shoreline Study.

13National Committee on Property Insurance. 1988.

14Ibid

15U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971.

16S.D. Lyles, L.E. Hickman., and H.A. Debaugh.1988. Sea Level Variations for the United States. 1855-

1986: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atrmospheric Administration, Rockville,

Maryland.

17U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC. Home Page

http://ncdc.noaa.gov/publications/billionz.html
6

These include the damming of coastal rivers; dredged navigational channels with jetties for shipping and

dredged tidal inlets for commercial fishing and recreational boating; the placement of dredged spoil and

beach quality sand offshore beyond the littoral sand transfer system; shoreline armoring; sand-trapping

structures such as groins and breakwaters; sand mining for development; and sand scraping practices.

Efforts to recreate natural beach/dune systems include sand fencing and dune revegetation, beach

nourishment, and inlet sand transfer.18

The damming of coastal rivers, to protect urban areas downstream from flooding and provide hydroelectric power, has trapped sediment that would normally feed coastal beaches. Sediment starved

beaches occur most on the west coast, but some east coast beaches are also affected by river diversions.

Inlet dredging to maintain established boating and shipping access through coastal barrier passes that

open and close with storm events has, until recently involved disposal of dredge material offshore beyond

the littoral sand transfer system. The loss of this sand to the nearby beaches has increased erosion. For

major navigational channels, the installation of jetties to stabilize the such inlets results in trapping sand on

the updrift side of the inlet and staving the downdrift beaches. Offshore breakwaters used primarily to

stop wave action and create a quiet water area for safe boat moorings obstruct the free flow of sand

along the coast and starve downstream beaches.

Shoreline armoring through placement of seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, or riprap to protect private

oceanfront structures and public infrastructure from erosion has occurred at the expense of lost

recreational beaches. These wave-resistant walls may withstand wave action and protect upland

properties but rapidly remove sand from the beach and eventually fail or require more substantial

armoring.19 Groins, structures extending into the water to interrupt and accumulate sand on the updrift

shore, also starves downdrift adjacent beaches. Most of our nation's urban oceanfronts have been

armored, although the percent of our nation's beachfront/oceanfronts that has been armored is unknown.

Sand mining, the removal of sand from beaches, dunes, adjacent areas, or riverbeds near was common

practice in many states for road construction and development fill. This resulted in a loss of sand and

protective dune areas, making such areas vulnerable to coastal flooding from storm events and

accelerating erosion. Sand scraping, the practice of moving sand accumulated at one portion of the

beach to another to build back a dune or the practice of leveling sand in front of a beachfront

development to provide visual access to the water, has been allowed in many states. The negative effects

include unstable dunes and low-lying dune areas vulnerable to breaching in storms.

Three activities have been used to try to recreate the natural beach/dune system. Dune restoration

through Sand fences and dune revegetation has been used to stabilize and re-build dune areas. This

helps limit breaching and creation of new inlets during major storms. Beach renourishment and period

nourishment has become a popular alternative to armoring, in attempting to artificially create or recreate a

beach area through the importing of compatible sand and pumping/placing it on the eroded beach area.

The flattened beach profile and wider beach width mitigates erosion losses and storm-induced inundation.

In certain high erosion areas, however, sand is rapidly washed away. Finding suitable sand source borrow

areas also poses challenges. Sand transfer facilities which pump sand from updrift accumulation areas to

downdrift beaches has ameliorated this problem. In Florida, for example, over 80% of the beach erosion

on the state's Atlantic coast is estimated to be caused by 19 maintained inlets, most stabilized with jetties.

Balancing Competing Demands for Protection of Natural Resources with the Use of Hard

Structures to Protect Private Oceanfront Properties and Public Infrastructure

Sandy beaches backed by dunes or bluffs, rocky shores and wetlands constitute the three types of natural

shoreline features along our nation's coastline. The natural resource protection values of these features

are often in conflict with social and economic values as reflected in shoreline use and development. State

CZM programs were created, in part, to provide institutional mechanisms and management tools to

balance the competing demands paced on these shoreline features.

 

18 US Army Corps of Engineers. 1971 and Platt. 1992.

19U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. Shore Protection Guidelines. pp32-33
7

The natural resource protection values of beaches and dunes commonly identified by state coastal

programs include the first line of defense and protection of upland properties from storms and high tides;

and wildlife habitat for marine life such as sea turtle nesting areas, bird nesting and staging areas, and

endangered species habitat. Key use values of beaches and dunes are recreation, tourism and access to

coastal waters. On the flip side of the coin, social and economic demands have also made oceanfront

properties highly desired places for second-homes, resorts and year-round residences. Beachfront and

bluff-front development built too close to the edge and now in jeopardy has led to shoreline armoring

which has destroyed the natural beach/dune systems which attracted people to the coast in the first place.

In addition, cutting and maintaining of inlets for recreational and commercial navigation has permanently

disrupted the natural transport of sand along the beachfront, accelerating the loss of recreational beaches.

Coastal bluffs, sitting behind extensive or minimal beaches, have been thought of as excellent features for

providing coastline vistas. In a few states, select bluff areas have been acquired and managed as natural

resource protection areas or scenic vista areas. Most are managed as high erosion areas where

development and other activities are regulated to minimize erosion risks rather than protect valuable

natural resource features. The social and economic pressures for ocean vista developments have

resulted in the siting of development along bluff recession areas in harms way.

Rocky shores, located within the inter-tidal zone, are recognized as high energy environments and

valuable marine habitat. The inter-tidal areas are under state ownership an management. Although public

access and recreational enjoyment of these areas has not been restricted, states are beginning to limit

public access to avoid over-utilization and destruction of tide pool areas. Rocky shoreland areas have for

the most part been resistant to erosion and therefore not managed as high hazard areas. Likewise, they

have not been considered developable, though development often occurs immediately landward of these

features.

Balancing such competing demands has become a key role of state CZM programs (see below). As our

understanding of the impact (both individual and cumulative) of human activities on natural systems

grows, coastal managers are looking for alternative management approaches to allow activities but

minimize their negative impacts on resources of known public benefit. The U.S. is based on strong private

property rights laws. The private property takings issue in the regulation of coastal land and water uses is

of paramount importance in the development and implementation of coastal management tools. Over the

years, states priorities in balancing resource protection and development have varied and altered. Today,

coastal programs are required to justify their management decisions basing complex technical data sets.

Refinements to shoreline setbacks, based on historical erosion rates, demands sophisticated and

complex computer modeling programs.

Government has invested billions in public infrastructure along our nation's coastlines from highways and

bridges to water and sewer systems to support mainly private development and some public facilities

including military facilities, coast guard stations, hospitals schools and recreation facilities. Beginning in

the 1980s, in recognition of the hazardous nature of barrier islands, federal and state agencies have

begun to limit their public investments in such areas.

Shared Coastal Management

Several federal agencies have a long history of involvement with our nation's coastlines, all pre-dating the

Federal CZM Act of 1972. Key federal players involved in activities affecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and

rocky shores include the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the

U.S. Department of Interior/National Park Service/US Fish and Wildlife Service. Staring in 1972, the U.S.

Department of Commerce/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management became responsible for

administering the Federal CZM Act.

The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) administers the 1) federal shoreline protection program through

research, planning, design, construction management, federal cost-sharing; 2) authorized navigation

channel dredging; and 3) federal permits for dredge and fill involving any construction or other activity

which affects navigable waters including federal guidelines for beach nourishment and shoreline
8

stabilizations. The COE Published the National Shoreline Study in 1971, and is working on analysis of

Federal shore protection program for Congress.

 The COE shoreline protection program covers construction projects for hurricane and storm damage

reduction, beach erosion control, navigation, mitigation and recreation. Since 1930, Congress has

authorized 137 projects or studies involving 19 of the 29 CZMA states plus 4 coastal states not in the CZM

program. A total of 82 Federally-sponsored shore protection projects were constructed between 1950 and

1993 in areas of concentrated development experiencing severe erosion and/or property damage from

storms. The projects protect 226 miles or less than 0.3 % of the 84,240 mile of tidal shoreline of the U.S.

and only 8% of the 2,700 miles of COE identified "critical-erosion" coastline.20 Of the 82 projects, 56

were large projects costing $1,177.3 million in 1993 dollars. The cost-sharing was 60% federal and 40%

non-federal (state, locals, and private) sponsors.21 These projects involve one or more of the following:

1) initial beach restoration, sometimes with dune filling; 2) periodic beach nourishment; 3)shoreline

structures-groins, seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, bulkheads, or sand transfer plants; 4) emergency

measures to repairs storm damaged projects. The significant shift from reliance on fixed structures in the

1950s to beach restoration and periodic nourishment in the 1970s by the COE, is based on a realization

that fixed structures protect upland property but destroy recreational beaches. Artificial beaches as a

primary means of shore protection has become a major component of the COE program. the concept of

replicating the protective characteristics of natural beach and dune systems. However, beach

renourishment is not without its critics. In 1983, 1 million square yards of sand placed on the beaches of

Ocean City, New Jersey at a cost of $5.5 million. Within a few years, storms removed and redistributed

much of the sand. 22 In 1993, the COE initiated an investigation and analysis of the benefits,

environmental effects, and the existence of induced development resulting from Federal shore protection

program. 23The small percent of our nation's coastal erosion problem covered by the COE, leaves state

CZM program with major responsibilities to cope with and address appropriate erosion responses. See

Table 3 in Appendix A for shoreline protection projects by state between 1950-1993.

 The COE navigation channel dredging program began with the Harbors Act of 1890. Since then

Congress has authorized 830 navigation projects for channels for shipping, commerical fishing and

recreational boating involving every coastal state, territory and commonwealth.24

 The COE permit program for dredge and fill projects in navigable waters is subject to federal

consistency provisions. Only one coastal state, Alaska, relies on the minimum standards contained in the

COE regulations for placement of shoreline stabilizations. All other coastal states have their own state

regulatory programs covering shoreline stabilizations and other activities over coastal waters.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the Federal Flood Insurance

Program that produces rate insurance maps and insures properties within the 100-year flood zone for

local community participating in the program. Insured coastal structures, when damaged or destroyed,

receive insurance claim payments to repair or rebuild. Critics have argued that, despite local code

requirements, the NFIP promotes subsidized inappropriate development in coastal high hazard areas,

impeding state management efforts to restrict new development and redevelopment in these areas.

 In 1994, Congress required FEMA tro conduct an evaluation of the economic impact of mapping

coastal erosion areas and then denying flood insurance for existing and new stuctures in such areas,

establishing actuarial rates, and changes in the tax base of communities.25 As of 1992, there were over

66,000 NFIP policies in effect covering structures in the hazard zone (V-Zone) .

 Under the Upton/Jones Program 1988-1995, FEMA allowed for payment of flood insurance claims to

demolish or relocate buildings imminently threatened by erosion. A total of 434 claims have been

 

20 U.S. Amry Corps of Engineers. 1971.

21U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study: Phase I:

Cost Comparison of Shoreline Protection Projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

22Nordstrom, Pilkey et al. 1986. Living with the New Jersey Shore. Durham, N.C. Duke University Press.

23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Shore Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study: Economic

Effects of Induced Development in Corps-Protected Beachfront Communities.

24U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of Water Resources, Table D, Unpublished Report.

25 FEMA. Undated. "Section 577 of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994--"Evaluation of

Erosion Hazards": Overview of Study Plan." (provided by Mark Crowell, FEMA)
9

approved under this program. 73% for demolition. (See Table 4 in Appendix A for claims by state). FEMA

is currently conducting an evaluation of economic impact of mapping erosion hazard areas for Congress.

U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), National Parks Service (NPS) created and manages 10 National

Seashores covering 592,627 acres and 4 National Lakeshores covering 228,716 acres The DOI U.S.

Fish an Wildlife Service (USFWS) enforces federal wildlife and endangered species laws and maintains

system of national wildlife refuges. In cooperation with states and local communities, USFWS identifies

and protects beach and dune areas which provide nesting sites for endangered sea turtles and birds

through limitations on sand fencing and beach nourishment during nesting season. Rocky shores, habitat

for the Stella Sea Lion and other endangered mammals. There are several National Wildlife Refuges

along our nation's coastline. These national wildlife refuges are managed by USFWS to preserve the

natural beach/dune systems.

 DOI/USFWS also administers the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 and Coastal Barrier

Improvement Act of 1990. The purpose of the Act is to minimize loss of human life, wasteful Federal

expenditures, and damage to fish, wildlife and associated natural resources. The Act restricts federal

expenditures and financial assistance that have the effect of encouraging development on designated

coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf and Great Lakes shorelines. This includes prohibitions on National

Flood Insurance, HUD assistance, public infrastructure, and other financial assistance. The system

includes 582 units, comprising over 1.3 million acres and 1,276 miles of shoreline that are not publicly

owned or otherwise protected. An addition 173 units of otherwise protected areas are covered under the

1990 Act which includes public barrier holdings in federal, state and local ownership. These areas

include national wildlife refuges, national parks and seashores, state and local parks and conservation

lands. (See Table 5 in Appendix A)

The U.S. Department of Defense owns coastal properties within military bases, some significant tracts

along the eroding coastline. The closing of certain bases and disposal of coastal properties will pose

choices between sale for development or transfer for public preservation. 26

Nonprofit conservation organizations have played a significant role in preserving certain coastal barrier

lands. The Nature Conservancy, the National Audubon Society and the Trust for Publc Lands and

their partners have selectively acquired parcels for protection. Just over half of the shoreline of coastal

barriers on the Atlantic and gulf of Mexico are protected through public or quasi-pubic ownership.27

Unique Role of States CZM Programs

All coastal states are involved with the protection of their natural resources through a variety of state and

local management controls. 29 of the 35 coastal states, territories and commonwealths have federallyapproved CZM programs. The management tools these states utilize to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs

and rocky shore include regulatory, planning, direct land management, acquisition and other techniques.

These tools are discussed in detail in this study. In most states, local governments participate through

local land use controls. The unique role of state CZM programs has been the creation of unified state

programs which articulates the conflicts among competing uses, the policies of the state and the balance

or method used to resolve conflicts; and utilizes land use controls, both state and local, to manage

shoreline uses.

State CZM programs have become increasingly involved in identifying the problems of eroding

beach/dune systems and developing coordinated responses through statewide beach management and

erosion control plans. States concern about adverse affects on downdrift beaches from federal dredging

of navigation channels, offshore disposal of dredged materials, and loss of recreational beaches from

shoreline armoring, has lead states CZM programs to take a proactive role in shaping state and federal

policies and programs. In recognition of the adverse effects on recreational beaches from shoreline

armoring. For example, the South Carolina CZM Program pushed for Congressional recognition that COE

dredging of Charleston Harbor was causing severe beach erosion on the sand-starved downdrift beaches

 

26Platt. 1992.

27Ibid.
10

and led to the Folly Beach renourishment mitigation project.28 The State of Florida passed legislation

requiring that suitable beach quality sand from be inlet and navigational channel dredging be placed on the

down-drift beaches and used federal consistency and state-funds to negotiate with the COE to place 1.4

million cubic yards of sand from St. Mary's inlet dredging on the down-drift beaches rather than losing the

sand to the offshore system.29 Several states have passed legislation limiting the use of new shoreline

stabilizations, in an effort to protect beach and dune systems at the expense of private upland properties.

The inappropriate siting of structures on coastal barriers, in coastal flood zones and on erodable bluffs is

a problem which state CZM programs inherited. Thus when the state CZM programs began in the 1970s,

certain portions of our nation's coastline were already committed to intense development and other areas

already zoned and platted for development. Shoreline erosion was a recognized problem, but land use

controls were not well developed. State CZM programs would provide the testing grounds for land and

water management to balance competing demands along our shoreline and minimize adverse impacts on

valued natural coastal resources. State CZM programs would be at the forefront of the "quiet revolution in

land use controls" and "integrated coastal management."

State Profiles, developed as part of this study, capture some of the complexity and diversity of

geographic, geologic, and social context factors which are unique to each coastal state and its CZM

program. The authors found no significant correlation between these factors and management tools

employed by a group of states. These context factors have proven helpful, however, in understanding the

unique set of conditions in states that influence coastal management program actions. For example, the

Connecticut, New Jersey and portions of the New York coastlines were already intensely developed at

time of program approval, so population growth between 1970 and 1990 was not a major concern. In

Connecticut, management attention has therefore focused on coastal erosion-based permits for

improvements and additions to existing structures and development on the few remaining lots within the

coastal erosion zone. In New York and New Jersey, attention has been given urban waterfront

redevelopment and erosion response to protect existing structures. The islands of Guam, Northern

Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have each experienced significant population

growth (>50%) between 1970 and 1990. Tourism development on these islands has placed pressures on

the natural resources and infrastructure. Continued development along the narrow low-lying coastal plains

has exacerbated coastal hazard risks on these already storm-vulnerable islands. Agricultural use and

some new develop on steep slope areas is causing landslides and soil erosion. At least eight states are

experiencing critical erosion along more than 10% of their shoreline. All but a few states have areas where

existing coastline development is falling into the water or in imminent danger of collapse as a result of

being constructed too close to an eroding beach or receding coastal bluff. The management responses to

shoreline erosion, both on beaches and bluffs, vary by state --from setbacks to requiring moveable

structures, to prohibiting shoreline stabilization structures-- but each state with such erosion has sought

management solutions. Although all states have beach resources, the demand and utilization varies.

Alaska and Florida have extensive barrier beach resources. The warm sub-tropical climate places

Florida's beaches in high demand for recreation and development, while the bleak Arctic climate of Alaska

along with extensive public holdings makes beachfront development a non-issue. Oregon and Maine

have rocky shore resources of high scenic value. Easy linear access along the Oregon coast has made

protection of rocky intertidal areas from over-use a significant issue. In contrast, the irregular and

inaccessible nature of the Maine coastline reduces the need for protection measures. Several states have

coastal bluff resources, but bluff erosion and bluff development pressures vary. Where new development

along unstable bluffs is occurring-- such as PA, OR, CA, MI-- a variety of management responses are

being developed. American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and Northern Mariana Islands have historic and

traditional cultural values which affect coastal management. In American Samoa, most properties are

owned by the aigas (communal villages) with tribal chieftains making decisions about communal use of

the land consistent with traditional cultural values.

 

28U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water Resources Development in South Carolina. 1993. p.44

29State of Florida. Florida Castal Management Program. Best Projects Report. 1988. p.19
11

National Perspective

Context factors are helpful when evaluating the overall national effectiveness of state CZM Programs. For

example, the length of coastline and type and extent of natural coastline features highlight the relevant

areas needing coastal management attention; the extent and change in coastal erosion along our nation's

shoreline help define the magnitude of erosion as a national coastal management problem; the extent of

public versus private ownership of the coastline puts the relevancy of various management tools (direct

land management, regulatory controls and land acquisition) into perspective; and the population and

economic pressures along the coastline bring into focus the competition between resource protection and

development interests.

Issue Identification

All but three of the twenty-nine coastal states identified issues associated with protection of natural coastal

resources and/or minimization of loss of life and property from coastal hazards as a high priority

management issue for their program. Two states ranked the issue of moderate importance: Connecticut

has no open-ocean coastline and was already intensely developed at time of program approval;

Wisconsin considers wetlands protection a higher priority. Louisiana ranked the issue as low, since only a

small portion of the coastline is sandy beach and wetlands are the highest priority issue. (See Table 1)

Diversity of State Policy Objectives

The tools states employ reflect each state's policy priorities to address competing uses along our nation's

beachfront and shoreline areas. This study focuses on a cross-state analysis of the key tools, selected

provisions, and on-the-ground outcomes of tools employed. It should be noted that the policy intent

behind the tools employed vary, even among similar types of tools employed. Table 2 illustrates the

diversity of policies behind state setback regulations.

Overview of State CZM Programs

This study covers the twenty-nine coastal states, territories and commonwealths with federally-approved

coastal zone management programs as of 1995. For the purpose of simplicity, all twenty-nine programs

are hereinafter referred to as "coastal states," which term is intended to include states, territories and

commonwealths. The state coastal programs were approved between 1976 and 1988. (See Appendix C)

Each of the twenty-nine coastal states was required to develop and describe its program in a CZM Plan

and a draft and final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prior to program approval. These documents

contain some baseline data on resources. They also describe the key tools to be employed in the program

to address resource protection and other issues.

Under the CZMA (Section 306(d)(11); 15 CRF, Section 923.42-.44), states were required to develop

coastal programs with means for controlling coastal land and water uses in one or more of three ways:

Technique A- state establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation; Technique B- direct

state land and water use planning and regulation; or Technique C- state review on a case-by-case basis of

actions affecting land and water uses subject to the management program. Ten of the states developed

programs based on direct state land and water use planning and regulatory programs (Technique B).

Nineteen of the states used a combination of state controls and local controls based on state standards.

(See Appendix C)

Looking at primary authorities and tools employed by state CZM Programs to protect beaches, dunes,

bluffs and rocky shore resources, twelve states employ state-level regulatory programs; seventeen states

employ a combination of direct state and local planning and regulatory programs. Although all states own

coastal properties, for three states ownership and direct land management is a primary tool. (See

Appendix C)

Most coastal states are finding ways to provide for local participation in coastal management decisions.

Even states that do not rely on local controls as part of their approved programs are providing for voluntary

or mandatory local participation. For example, in 1995 New Hampshire began requiring local shoreland

ordinances and setbacks. In 1994, Florida added local comprehensive planning to its tool box. In 1990,
12

South Carolina began requiring local beach management plans tied to access and beach nourishment

funding.

Table 2: Diversity of policies behind state coastal setback regulations

Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Preserve visual open space.

Virgin Islands, Guam Retain public access. 

Puerto Rico Retain public access and prevent shadows on the beach.

Hawaii Protect shoreline resources vital to the economy and

 environment, protect natural shoreline processes, provide 

public access.

Maine Conserve wildlife habitats and other vital resources,

 protect natural functions of frontal dunes.

Michigan and Pennsylvania Keep development away from bluff-recession hazard

 areas. Both address reasonable use of parcels

 subdivided prior to setback laws. Michigan allows

 moveable structures. PA uses a variances process.

Oregon Protect public access, protect life and property from

 hazards including ocean flooding, to prohibit

 development on beaches, active foredunes,and other

 conditionally stable foredunes and intertidal dunes.

Rhode Island Multiple setbacks: to protect foredunes, coastal features -

 beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores; to reduce loss of

 life and property in designated coastal hazard areas; to

 reduce public expenditures for infrastructure and flood

 disaster relief on barrier islands.

South Carolina Preserve beaches and keep development off the active

 beach and dune. However, as a result of taking cases,

 the state allows certain development along the

 oceanfront if not located on primary dune. 

American Samoa, Florida, New Jersey Consider the type and/or size of development (single North

Carolina, other states family, commercial and/or square footage/number of

 units) in setting development back from the shoreline.

several states Erosion-rate based setbacks to respond to beach

 dynamics and to keep development out of coastal

 erosion areas.

most states Variance provisions to avoid "taking" issues associated

 with private property rights.

Source: State CZM Profiles.
13

3 METHODOLOGY

A detailed description of the methodology is provided in Appendix B-1. The following is a summary

containing the research question, research design, and approach to determining effectiveness.

Research Question and What is Covered

The basic research question utilized is "how effective overall have the individual and collective state CZM

program efforts been in addressing protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores?"

Research Design

The overall research framework is described in the introduction to the entire study. A specific survey

instrument was developed for collecting process and outcome data on protection of beaches, dunes,

bluffs and rocky shores. This survey instrument was sent to all twenty-nine CZM states. In addition, the

instrument was used in completing follow-up phone interviews with state contacts. The survey results

served as the basis for completion of individual state CZM profiles. (See Appendix B-2 for a copy of the

Survey Instrument)

In addition, the authors reviewed information from state CZM documents including Final Environmental

Impact Statements (FEIS); 309 Assessment and Strategy Reports and state laws and regulations

pertaining to resource protection. Where provided by OCRM or the coastal state, the authors reviewed

documents on beach and dune protection, state coastal parks, land acquisitions, and selected state CZM

progress reports, annual reports, and 312 evaluation reports.

Follow-up phone interviews and data requests were made to each coastal state, usually to multiple state

agency or bureau staff. It was typical to contact more than one staff in the state CZM program office, the

state land management agency, a state environmental regulatory agency, the state land acquisition

agency, and the state wildlife protection agencies.

Determination of Effectiveness

"Coastal Management Tools" are the processes, tools, and techniques a state coastal management

program employs or utilizes to address a coastal management issue and to implement its program.

"Process Indicators" are the specific management programs, tools or techniques that states have

developed to address coastal problems. Examples include key provisions of regulatory programs such as

coastal setbacks from primary dunes or control zones which protect natural functions of resources; plans

with enforceable policies that address beach renourishment, inlet management, dune restoration or

special area resource protection; state land management of coastal parks which guide access or protect

unique habitat areas; and acquisition programs to purchase beaches, dunes, bluffs or rocky shore areas.

"Outcome Indicators" are the specific on-the-ground measurable effects that result from implementation of

CZM programs, tools, and techniques. Examples include linear and/or area data on permits issued

reflected in miles of beachfront shoreline developed or armored through permitting; area restricted from

vehicular access through access plan and regulations; miles and/or acres of coastal shoreline in state

land management or protection status; miles and cubic yards of beaches restored or dunes revegetated;

miles and/or acres of coastal shoreline acquired for resource protection.

"CZM Program Effectiveness" means the special role of CZM in using process tools to affect outcomes

sought under the CZMA, namely the protection of natural beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores.

Effectiveness is measured by: 1) process indicators (tools) and outcome indicators (results) and their
14

linkage within each of the 29 state programs; 2) state CZM program implementation through case

examples where no statewide data is available; and 3) the unique role of CZM as only one of many

government and non-government agencies involved in coastal management.

Research Limitations

There are several limitations to this research project. The greatest limitation involves a lack of historical

information and databases on state CZM management tools and outcomes. The following is a list of some

of the problems and weaknesses which limit meaningful cross-state comparisons of CZM tools and

results, and the assessment of CZM effectiveness:

(1) diversity among state CZM programs with regard to natural resources, size, region, coastal population,

development, priorities for balancing resource protection and development, organizational and

management framework, and application of similar management tools;

(2) multiple state agencies involved in the coastal area with separate management mandates, and a lack

of coordination among agency programs to achieve common objectives;

(3) lack of database at OCRM on state CZM program tools, activities, outcomes including a lack of

standardized and consolidated reporting in performance evaluations, grants, annual reports which is

reflected in an inadequate reporting process between the coastal states and OCRM; inadequate

computerized permit tracking data regarding miles, acres, resources, areas affected, length of projects

permitted, and assessment of cumulative impacts of multiple permits; and lack of federal standards for

measuring state CZM performance coupled with a lack of measurable data provided by OCRM and the

coastal states;

(4) lack of documentation, bibliographies and dissemination of CZM technical reports and program results;

(5) reliance on case examples and success stories, in the absence of statewide data on CZM outcomes,

as indicated in biennial reports to Congress and state submissions to OCRM;

(6) significant changes to state CZM programs over the years which are not documented by OCRM;

(7) turn-over among state CZM staff and the lack of institutional memory about CZM activities and results;

(8) compounding factors which influence and shape state coastal policies and programs and affect CZM

results including economic development, environmental pressures, political and social factors.
15

4 RESULTS

NATIONAL OBJECTIVES BEING ACHIEVED

The national objective of protecting coastal resources is being achieved through implementation of

federally-approved state coastal management programs. State CZM programs efforts are effective overall

in addressing protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores, given that CZM requires states to

balance competing needs and demands such as protection of properties from hazard risks and promotion

of recreational use of the shoreline. Determination of CMP effectiveness has been based on process

indicators and case examples.

TOOLS EMPLOYED BY COASTAL STATES TO PROTECT RESOURCES

Coastal states are utilizing 26 widely varying processes to achieve resource protection including

regulatory setbacks and controls over shoreline development in combination with planning, stewardship of

state lands, coastal land acquisition, as well as research and public education about shoreline processes

and human interations. A summary list of the tools each of the twenty-nine coastal states employ to

protect beaches and dunes is shown in Table 4. Tools used to protect bluffs and rocky shores are shown

in Table 5. Coastal management tools are continually evolving. The summary represent management

tools in place as of the summer of 1995. All but three state coastal programs identified issues associated

with protection of natural resources and/or minimization of loss of life and property from coastal hazards

as a high priority management issue. Although all coastal states own coastal properties, only three use

state ownership and land management as the primary tool. Of the twenty-five tools identified with beach

and dune protection, the fewest tools used by a state is eleven and the most is twenty-three. Of the

thirteen tools related to bluff and rocky shore protection, the fewest tools used by any state is five and the

most is eleven.

Regulatory tools are the most significant tools employed nationwide to protect shoreline

resources. Protection is achieved through setbacks; regulation of shoreline development and shoreline

stabilizations; restrictions on pedestrian and vehicular access; habitat protection; and permit

compliance/permit tracking systems. Setbacks are particularly effective--acting as natural buffer areas

and reducing hazard risks. Regulatory controls are needed because the majority of the oceanfront

shoreline is in private ownership and is subject to significant shoreline change and development

pressures. The scope, policies, and provisions of state coastal regulatory programs afford greater natural

resource protection. In addition to construction setbacks, almost all coastal states regulate activities within

defined coastal construction control areas in ways that minimize adverse impacts on the natural shoreline

resources and protect critical habitat areas. Most coastal states regulate the use of shoreline stabilization

structures to minimize adverse impacts on beach systems. Many coastal states restrict pedestrian and

vehicular access along portions of the shoreline. Pedestrian access restrictions channel human

encroachment along boardwalks or dune crossovers, minimizing dune destabilization and limiting adverse

impacts on fragile shoreline resources. Vehicular access restrictions keep vehicles off sensitive coastal

habitat areas or limit vehicular use to government vehicles or off-road vehicles in areas planned for their

use. Almost all coastal state have permit compliance programs to enforce their regulations and permit

tracking systems. Only a few coastal states prohibit shoreline stabilization structures, thereby placing

protection of beach systems as a policy priority over protection of upland structures.

Planning tools, when combined with regulatory, improve natural resource protection. Most coastal

states with beach or bluff resources employ some type of planning tool. Locally-delegated permitting

combined with mandatory local planning in eight coastal states provides the key management tool in

protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shore resources. Planning programs are more effective when

combined with implementation through state regulation or local land use regulations, zoning and

subdivision ordinances and other actions. Adopted plans offer long-range vision or site-specific goals for

the protection and development of selected coastal areas and resources.
16

Stewardship of coastal lands, through direct land management and acquisition, is an important

component of all state coastal programs. All coastal states own state parks along the shoreline that

encompass one or more beach, dune, bluff or rocky shore. Most coastal states have natural protection

areas and guided accessways and many have acquired additional coastal land holdings. Almost half of the

coastal states use boardwalks or dune crossovers to protect dune vegetation and minimize adverse

impacts on natural resources and employ sand fencing and dune creation to restore the natural function of

damaged dune systems. Over half of the coastal states use beach nourishment to recreate recreational

beaches which are eroding away. Eleven coastal states have chosen to armor or repair existing shoreline

stabilization structures in high erosion areas, primarily to protect coastal highways or other public

infrastructure investments.

Nonregulatory and research tools support regulatory, planning, acquisition and direct land

management activities. All coastal states employ some types of nonregulatory and research tools. For

example, education and technical assistance to local governments function to improve local coastal

planning and regulation. Likewise, research and technical reports on shoreline erosion rates function to

improve state regulatory controls over development in erosion prone areas. Table 2 identifies the key

nonregulatory and research tools that states use in shoreline management. No attempt was made to

collect outcome data for these tools. Any further analysis of these tools was beyond the scope of this

study.

UPGRADING CZM PROCESSES

Coastal states use a wide variety of management tools to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky

shores.

CZM is a growing and changing process meeting changing needs. As state CZM programs recognize

problems or management gaps, they take corrective action. All but two coastal states have made

significant changes to their programs in the way they protect resources. (See Table 3 and

Appendix C)

When looking from the time of original federal program approval in 1972 to the present, a more than 20

year time span, coastal states have made hundreds of changes and refinements to their programs.

Some changes involved program amendments, others were just routine program improvements. This

study has documented over 60 significant changes made by state coastal programs solely to

protect natural shoreline resources. Most of these program changes involved alteration of the state

CZM regulatory and planning tools. Significant changes have commonly included expansion of the

geographic area or types of activities covered by shoreline setbacks or regulations and changes to

limitations on shoreline stabilizations. Most states are giving greater consideration to natural shoreline

processes, even when addressing other concerns such as the need to protect developed eroding

shoreline using structural measures. Examples of significant program changes to state CZM program

tools are provided in Table 3.

With few exceptions, most of these program changes have occurred in the 1980 and 1990, after several

years of program implementation. The fact that state coastal programs are changing complicates efforts

to assess program effectiveness based on measurable results of program implementation. Although not

the methodological approach taken in this study, a review of changes which strengthen or weaken

resource protection programs could be used as a way to assess CZM program effectiveness.
17

Table 3: Examples of significant changes to State CZM program tools which affect protection of

beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores:

* California adopted coastal hazard landform alteration policy guidance in 1993 to address geologic

stability of bluff top development.

* Connecticut amended its regulatory program in 1987 to include permits for seawalls which had

previously been exempt from review.

* Florida amended its beachfront regulatory program in 1985 to establish a 30-year erosion zone and

prohibit major development seaward of that zone line.

* Hawaii amended its setback provisions in 1989 to limit variances and improve enforcement of setbacks

and variances.

* Maine amended its sand dune rule in 1989 and 1993 to broaden and clarify permit requirements for

development on sand dunes. In 1995, Maine amended its natural resource protection act to allow existing

seawalls and other shoreline stabilizations to be fortified and built bigger/stronger to protect existing

threatened oceanfront development. This was contrary to the sand dune rule which promotes retreat from

erosion-prone areas.

* Massachusetts passed a state endangered species act in 1990 which expanded beach management

from flood control and storm damage protection to include protection of wildlife habitat and endangered

species.

* Michigan amended its shorelands protection and management act in 1992 to expand the definition of

bluff-line to cover non-bluff shoreline and extended the inland setback requirements to address severe

short-term erosion events.

* New Hampshire revised the definition of the high water mark in 1995 extending more landward state

permit jurisdiction.

* New Jersey amended its oceanfront permits program in 1988 and 1990 to expand its jurisdiction

landward and include single family, commercial development and shoreline stabilizations previously

excluded. Amendments also created erosion hazard areas and erosion-rate setbacks within these areas.

* North Carolina amended its program in 1985 to prohibit hard erosion control devices designed to harden

or stabilize beaches, and modified its law in 1989 to allow stabilizations to protect historic structures.

* Oregon adopted a Territorial Sea Plan in 1994 which includes a Rocky Shores Strategy. Areas are

inventoried, classified and designated under one of four classifications. Within these areas access/use is

restricted.

* South Carolina amended its beach management act in 1988 and 1990. Since 1988, the state prohibits

new shoreline stabilization structures; since 1990, reconstruction of shoreline stabilizations & rebuilding

of certain damaged structures is restricted.

* The Virgin Islands adopted 18 Areas of Particular Concern in 1994 which include sea turtle nesting

beaches for special protection.

Source: State CZM Profiles
tate CZM Tools Employed to Protect Beaches and Dunes

AL

AK

AS

CA

CT

DE

FL

GU

HI

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MS

NH

NJ

NY

NC

NM

OR

PA

PR

RI

SC

VI

VA

WA

WI

TotalYes

NNING TOOLS 29

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y 27

y n y

y n y

y

y

y n y

y n y * y

y

y

y

y

y * y

y

y

y

y

y

y 23

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y * y

y

y

y

y

y * y

y

y

y

y

y

y 27

ilizations

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y 28

Vehicular Access

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y n n

y

y n y

y

y 23

Restrictions n

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y 25

gram

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y 28

ulate

y

y n y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y nnn

y n y

y

y 22

ent Plans n

y n y nnn

y

y n y n y nnnnnn

y n n

y

y n y

y n y 12

n n

y

y n n

y n n

y n y

y

y n y n y

y

y

y

y n n

y n y n y 16

RESTORATION

OOLS

29

s Mana

gement

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y 29

d

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y 25

y n n

y

y

y

y n n

y

y

y

y n n

y n n

y nnnnn

y n y n n 13

 Renourished n n n

y

y

y

y n n

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y n y

y n n

y n y n n 17

Repairs n n n

y

y n y n y

y n y

y n n

y

y nnnn

y n n

y n n n n 11

d n n n

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y n y n y

y n y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y 21

TOOLS 29

rictions n n n

y

y

y

y nnn

y

y

y

y nnn

y

y nnn

y

y n y n n n 13

ntives n n n n n

y

y nnnn

y

y nnnnnnnnnnn

y nnnn 4

osure n n n n n n

y n n

y n y n n

y nnnnn

y nnn

y nnnn 6

chnical Assist.

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y 28

y

y

y n y n y

y

y

y

y n n

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y n n

y n y

y n 20

29

re Setbacks/Zones

y n n

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y n y n y n y nnn

y 19

y n n

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y n y n y 23

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y 27

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y 29

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y 29

erations n n

y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y n y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y 25

d – 2

5

ment Tool employed by state N- No, Management Tool not employed by state

e artificial and open to the public. There is no regulation above MHW.

 beach is in public ownership and under state land management. All bluffs are regulated by setbacks and control zones.

ut of 25: Al-15, AK-13, AS-12, CA-22, CT-21, DE-19, FL-24, GM-17, HI-19, LA-16, ME-21, MD-23, MA-20, MI-18, MS-15,

C-21, NM-14, OR-20, PA-11, PR-16, RI-16, SC-23, VI-13-, VA-20, WA-15, WI-18.

Profiles 
CZM Tools Employed to Protect Bluffs and Rocky Shores

AK AS CA CT GU HI ME MA MI NH NM OR PA PR RI VI WA WI Total

YES

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y 17 17y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n - y y y y y y - y y y y y y y ? y y 17 15n n y y y y y y n n y y y y y y y n - y ? ? y y y - n n y y y y y ? y y 13 11

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n n n - y n n y y y - y y y y y y y y n n 13 13

y y n n y y y ? y y y y y y ? y y ? - y ? ? y y y - y y y y ? y y y y y 13 13y y n n y y y ? y n y y y y ? y y ? - y ? ? y y n - y y y y ? y y y y y 11 12

n n n n y y ? ? n n y y y y ? ? y ? - y n n n y y - n n ? ? n n y y y y 7 7

n n n n y n y n n n n n n n ? ? y ? - n n n n n n - y y n n y y n n n n 5 2

n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n - n n n y y n - n n n n n n n n n n 1 1

y n y y n n y y n n y y n n y y y ? - y n n y y y - n n y y y y y n y y 12 9

y y y y n n y y n n y y n n n n y ? - y n n n y y - n n n n n n y y n n 7 7

ea y y y y n n y y y y y y y y y y y ? - y n n y y y - ? y n y y y y n y y 13 13

y y y y y y y y n n y y y y y y y ? - y n n y y y - y y y y ? ? y n y y 14 12

9 8 8 8 9 8 11 8 6 5 11 11 9 9 6 8 11 ? - 11 2 2 10 12 10 - 7 8 8 8 7 8 11 6 9 9

d by state

yed by state

ient data to determine answer

S, CA, CT, GU, HI, ME, MA, MI, PA, NM, OR, PR, RI, VI, WA, WI

S, CA, CT, GU, HI, ME, MA, MI, NH, NM, OR, PR, RI, VI, WA, WI

AL, DE, FL, LA, MD, MA, MS, NH, NJ, NY ocean coast only, NC, SC, VA

ores: AL, DE, FL, LA, MD, MS, NJ, NY ocean coast only, NC, PA, SC, VA

1/96
5 PROCESS INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS

Coastal states are utilizing twenty-six (26) widely varying processes to achieve resource protection

including regulatory, planning, state land management, acquisition, non-regulatory and research tools. A

summary list of the tools each of the 29 coastal states employ to protect beaches and dunes as of 1995 is

shown in Table 4. 30 From these twenty-six (26) tools, a subset of ten (10) were selected as process

indicators of effectiveness. These ten indicators are summarized in Table 6.

The ten process indicators are: six regulatory categories (representing each of the six regulatory tools),

one adopted plan category (representing the combination of the three original planning tools), and three

state land management categories (representing a combination of the five original state land management

and acquisition tools). Non-regulatory and research tools were deleted as process indicators. The

rationale for deleting these two categories is that nonregulatory and research tools support the four other

management categories (regulatory, planning, state land management and coastal acquisition) and that,

with limited resources, attention should be placed on the tools which might show on-the-ground results.

Key provisions of selected management tools are used as process indicators of effective state CZM

programs in protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores. States with the suite of regulatory,

planning, direct land management and acquisition provisions listed in Table 6 are presumed to have

effective programs.

Appendix C contains summary tables which describe the key provisions of regulatory and planning tools

each of the twenty-nine coastal states utilizes to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores,

including setback requirements, regulations within construction zones, restrictions on shoreline

stabilizations, access restrictions, and protection of critical habitat areas. Appendix C also contains

summary tables on direct land management and acquisition tools associated with state ownership and

management and land acquisitions, including coastline miles, miles of beachfront, state oceanfront park

(miles, acres, number, and beach parks as subset), number of boardwalks or dunes crossovers installed,

dunes revegetated, beaches renourished, shoreline armored, natural areas protected and lands acquired

in beach/dune, bluff or rocky shore. Findings regarding state CZM process indicators of effectiveness in

protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores are presented on the following pages.

KEY ROLE OF STATE CZM IN COASTAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS

The inappropriate siting of structures on coastal barriers, in coastal flood zones, and on erodable bluffs is

a problem which state CZM programs inherited. Thus when the state CZM programs began in the 1970s,

certain portions of our nation's coastline were already committed to intense development and other areas

were already zoned and platted for development. Shoreline erosion was a recognized problem, but land

use controls were not well developed. State CZM regulatory programs have provided institutional

mechanisms to balance competing demands along our shoreline and to minimize adverse impacts on

valued natural coastal resources. State CZM programs have created new or implemented and refined

existing coastline regulatory controls such as setbacks from beaches/bluffs, and controls over shoreline

development and stabilizations. CZM programs have played a leadership role in the policy shift towards

beach nourishment and shoreline retreat.

 

30 This study also covered protection of bluffs and rocky shores and data on management tools employed.

Indicators of effectiveness in protecting these resources are contained in the technical report only.
21

Table 6: Process Indicators of Effectiveness

Regulatory Programs:

(a) Coastal Setbacks for development and redevelopment from beach, dune, bluffs, or rocky shores: the

farther inland the setback, the more effective; the fewer exceptions allowed within the setback, the more

effective.

(b) Coastal Construction Controls Areas along the shoreline with regulations governing activities

affecting beach, dune, steep slope bluffs, erodable bluffs, and rocky shores and limits on size, type,

design or location of permitted construction to minimize adverse impacts on beach/dune/bluff systems;

controls over new significant activities with few exceptions, controls over additions/repairs/rebuilding; the

more restrictive, the more effective.

(c) Shoreline Stabilization Regulations which place limitations on the use of shoreline stabilization

structures in favor of nonstructural solutions.

(d) Access Restrictions with requirements for boardwalks or dune crossovers to minimize adverse

impacts on dunes; and areas designated where pedestrian and/or vehicular access is restricted to protect

resources.

(e) Habitat Protection and Other Controls over critical habitat areas where uses are restricted to protect

habitat protection values.

(f) Permit Tracking and Enforcement Provisions which are used to monitor permits and violations.

Planning:

(a) Adopted Plans for areas containing enforceable policies that address resource protection, beach

nourishment, inlet management, dunes restoration, or special area resource protection or conservation;

the larger the resource area covered, the more of the shoreline included, and the more restrictive the

enforceable policies, the more effective.

State Coastal Land Management and Acquisition:

(a) State Coastal Land Holdings including inventory of the number, acres and shoreline miles of state

lands in state oceanfront parks and preserves.

(b) State Coastal Land Management and Stewardship including park management plans; boardwalks,

dune cross-crossovers or other guided pedestrian access; dune restoration and beach nourishment where

appropriate; enforceable policies restricting the use of shoreline stabilization structures; and designated

natural resource habitat protection areas.

(c) State Coastal Land Acquisition Program with coastal land acquisition as a priority.

COASTAL SETBACKS

* All 29 coastal states with federally-approved CZM programs have controls over certain land and water

activities along portions of their coastlines. All coastal states with developable beach/dune systems or

bluffs have some form of state-mandated regulatory mechanism by which they prohibit or restrict certain

types of new development in designated portions of their shoreline. The strength of the individual state

setback or coastal construction control laws vary considerably depending on the setback distance,

activities permitted, exceptions allowed, reconstruction provisions, level of government regulating

development, and permit compliance and monitoring.

* 22 of the twenty-nine coastal states have adopted land use regulations in the form of setback

requirements for new structures that can be built on the shoreline. Another 2 states use locally-created

setbacks.

* Setback laws have a dual purpose: protecting the natural beach and dune or bluff systems as storm

buffers and reducing the loss of life and property from hurricanes and winter storm events.

Implementation of these laws has reduced the number and size of new structures that can be built on the
22

shoreline and, for those built, located these structures as far landward from the water's edge as possible

to prevent erosion from reaching the structures during their expected useful life. However, naturally

migrating beaches have over time resulted in houses sitting on open beaches and then collapsing into the

water. Setbacks have been of limited success in protecting natural beach and dune or bluff systems,

since development is often allowed on portions of the dune systems usually behind the crest of the

foredunes where restricting private property rights is more difficult.

* 10 of the 22 states measure their setback lines based on an arbitrary distance inland from the

shoreline; 4 use erosion rates; 4 use resource features; and 5 use a combination of feet, erosion rates,

and/or features. Determining which states have the most extensive landward setback boundaries is not

practical, since the ways setback lines are measured vary considerably, as do the state geography and

resources. For example, states vary in the shoreline location inland from which they measure their

setbacks (mean high water, mean low tide, normal high water, crest of dune, elevation, or contour line.)

The landward boundary also varies (feet, erosion rates, feet landward of coastal features.)

* 16 of the 22 state setback laws contain provisions for exceptions which tend to weaken the

effectiveness of the setback requirements. Examples include single-family dwellings within the setback if

the land was platted before the effective date of the statute, or small parcels where there is not enough

land to build behind the setback line. In some states, exception provisions have been added to state laws

to avoid private property taking claims. Other types of exceptions include in-filling in developed areas,

water-dependent uses, public interest activities, recreational activities, swimming pools, fences,

boardwalks.

* Coastal setback provisions for each state are shown in Table 7, including setback distance and

exceptions allowed seaward of the setback. Data was not collected on the methodology for setting the

baselines and other technical information. There was insufficient data to determine the number of

shoreline miles covered by state setback laws.

Table 7: State coastal setback distance provisions and exceptions and type of setback

States Setback distanced measured in feet or meters:

AL 40 feet landward of crestline (120-450 feet landward of MHWL). Exceptions- SF

AS 25 feet for residential; 50 ft for commercial from OHWL

DE 100 feet landward of seawardmost 7-ft elevation above NGVD. Exceptions-yes, if not sufficient

land.

GU Public access zone MHW and 25 feet inland from 2 foot contour line of Geodedic Survey. 35 feet

from MHW bounding beach. No higher than 25 feet. w/in 75 feet of MHW. Exceptions- shoreline

w/cliff/bluff higher than 25 feet, village lots >100 square meters in residential areas before WWI.

Variances- recreation, commercial.

HI 40 feet. along most shorelines to upper reaches of wash of waves, usually evidenced by edge of

vegetation growth, debris. Variances- 20 feet for small lots, shoreline stabilizations in public

interest or hardship.

MD 75 feet from Normal High Water (NHW). Exceptions- fences, boardwalks.

NH 100 feet from High Ordinary Tide Line (HOTL) bordering tidal waters. Exceptions- public good, 

rebuilding. 5 feet from Mean High Water (MHW) for primary structures; 75 feet for septic tanks.

NM In shoreline Area of Particular Concern (APC), 0-35 feet no construction from MHW; between 35-

75 feet, no construction that obstructs visual openness; Between 75-100 feet, only SF allowed.

PR 6 meter public right of way w/no structures. 50 meter setback from TM. 2.5 time height setback

w/in 400 meters of Territorial Maritime Zone (TMZ). Exceptions- urban zone lot, adjacent structures 

setback less, water-dependency.

WI 75 feet from Ordinary Mean High Water (OMHW). Exceptions- piers, boat hoists, boathouses.
23

Table 7: State coastal setback distance provisions and exceptions and type of setback (continued)

States Setback distance measured by erosion rate, landward extent of resource feature or

combination of measures

FL 30-year erosion line for major structures from SHWL. Exceptions- SF (Erosion Rate)

MI Sand dune setback 100 feet landward from crest of first landward ridge not a foredune. Bluff high 

risk area setback 30-year erosion projection plus 15 feet.Exceptions- substandard lots approved 

prior to law. (Erosion Rate)

PA Bluff setback of 50 times annual rate of recession from the bluff-face for residential; 75 times for

commercial, at least 50 feet. Exceptions- parcels subdivided prior to law if structure moveable.

(Erosion Rate)

VA 30-year erosion rate or 20 times local recession rate from MHW for barrier islands Exceptionpublic interest activities. (Erosion Rate)

NY No moveable structures or major additions within “environmental hazard areas.” (Features)

OR No building within "beach zone." No building on beaches, active foredunes, other conditionally

stable foredunes subject to ocean undercutting and wave overtopping, and intertidal plains 

subject to ocean flooding. Exceptions- in-filling where protection provided, on olderstabilized dunes. (Features)

SC From MHW to crest of primary oceanfront sand dune. Exceptions- swimming pools. (Features)

ME No structures on frontal dunes seaward of 100 year floodplain and sea level rise area. Shoreline

setback 75 feet for residential; 25 feet for general development/commercial; 250 feet from Normal

High Water Line (NHWL) in Resource Protection Areas. (feet & resource)

NJ V-zone setback for residential. Exceptions- beach related commercial. 30-year erosion for 1-4 

DU.; 60-year erosion setback for larger in erosion hazard areas. Baseline for setback varies by 

site (crest of coastal bluff, dune crest, first line of vegetation, landward edge of 8-foot. elevation). 

Exceptions- SF and duplex in-fill, shore protection. 25 feet setback from shore protection 

structures for all permanent structures. (erosion rate and feet)

NC Structures less than 5,000 sq. feet, setback landward of 30-yr erosion rate, crest of primary dune, 

toe of frontal dune, 60 feet from 1st line of stable vegetation. Exceptions- lots platted before law. 

Structures greater than 5,000 sq. feet, 60-yr. erosion rate or 120 feet from mean vegetation line. 

(erosion, feet, features)

RI 50 ft from coastal features or 25 feet from coastal buffer zone. Exception- water-dependent

activity; 30-year erosion rate up to 4 units, 60-yr erosion rate larger structures in critical erosion

areas. Dune construction setback on 3 barrier beaches seaward of utilities/wall of existing

development. No development on beach face, sand dune, undeveloped barrier beaches.

Exception-stabilizations, access, public utilities, public welfare.

VI 50 feet from MLT or inland boundary of natural barrier. (feet & resource)

Key: MHLW- mean high water line OHWL- ordinary high water line SF single family DU dwelling unit

Note: 22 states with state setbacks. 2 states with local setbacks- CA, WA.

 5 states with no setbacks: AK, CT, LA, MA, MS.

Source: State CZM profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.

The North Carolina's strong oceanfront setback law uses erosion rates to determine setbacks and

keep development out of ocean hazard areas. Within the "Ocean hazard Areas of Environmental

Concern"-- sand dunes, ocean beaches, and other areas exhibiting substantial possibility of excessive

erosion-- setback are based on average annual erosion rates, natural site features, and the nature of the

proposed development. The setback is measured from the first line of stable natural vegetation or aerial

photos/ground survey where no stable vegetation. New structures smaller than 5,000 square feet and

fewer than 5 residential units must be set back the farthest landward of the following: 1) a distance equal

to 30 times the long-term annual erosion rate; 2) the crest of the primary dune; 3) the landward toe of the

frontal dune, or; 4) 60 feet landward of the vegetation line. Larger structures must be set back 60 times the

average annual erosion rate or 120 feet landward of the vegetation line. Where erosion rates exceed 3.5

feet per year, the setback line for larger structures is set at 30 times the erosion rate plus 105 feet. The

law was passed in 1974, made part of the coastal program in 1978, and amended in 1981 to allow single-
24

family residences on pre-existing lots not deep enough to meet the erosion setback requirements, as long

as they are set back at least 60 feet. The coastal program has focus attention on studying erosion rates

used in determining setbacks.

The Pennsylvania Bluff Recession and Setback Act provides a long-term regulatory approach to

reducing property losses from bluff recession along Lake Erie. The act requires municipalities in

bluff recession hazard areas to administer bluff setback ordinances which restrict new development from

bluff areas and limit improvements to existing structures within the minimum bluff setback. Setback

distance is based on the rate of erosion (feet per year) multiplied by the life span of the structure. Life

span for residential development is 50 years; commercial is 75 years; and industrial is 100 years; or at

least 50 feet from the crest of the bluff. The major effect of this program has been to keep new

development a safe distance from bluff recession hazard areas. CZM provides technical assistance to

Lake Erie property owners affected by bluff recession, consisting of on-site inspections and

recommendations on surface and groundwater control, bluff stabilization and the role of vegetation to

stabilize loose soil conditions. In the first seven years of the service (1981-1988), approximately 3/4 of the

surveyed property owners followed CZM's recommendations, resulting in an estimated property damage

savings and property value enhancement of $5.2 million. Pennsylvania is the only Great Lakes state to

offer this service.

COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AREAS

* The coastal construction control areas are smaller geographic areas or subsets of the states' coastal

zones, focusing regulatory permit controls over activities along the immediate shoreline. In most cases, a

state's coastal zone extends more landward to cover watersheds and other inland features. Regulatory

controls along the immediate shoreline, such as setbacks and contruction regulations, may not apply to

more landward areas within the state's coastal zone.

* 27 coastal states have established land use regulations using a coastal construction control area or

zone within which they regulate the location, size, and other conditions of development. Provisions used to

protect natural beaches and dunes include siting and design guidelines to locate structure as landward as

possible, minimizing disruption of dune vegetation, dune revegetation and landscaping requirements to

recreate dunes and vegetation destroyed during construction, and limitations on development square

footage and density. 23 coastal states use both a setback and construction control area approach.

* The purpose of coastal control areas is to allow activities along the shoreline but to minimize their

negative impacts on natural shoreline resources and adjacent properties. Control area regulations

presume that some adverse effects will occur in balancing coastal development and resource protection.

Some coastal states have strengthened their regulatory program by eliminating exemptions, extending

regulatory jurisdiction, and placing limitations on additions, repairs and rebuilding. As a result, less

harmful and inappropriate development is occurring along out nation's shorelines, and the development

that is permitted is taking into account the resultant negative and cumulative impacts.

* 19 of the 27 coastal states with regulatory control areas exempt certain activities from the permit

program. Examples of exempted activities include single-family, water-dependent uses, public purpose

uses, recreation, agriculture, decks, walkways, in-filling, and small lots platted before law took effect. Such

exempted activities tend to weaken the effectiveness of the control zones in protecting resources.

In addition, only 10 of the 27 states with regulatory control areas contain limitations on additions to

structures built within the setback area or within the construction zone. Limitations include maximum

square footage, moveable structures, and location landward of setback.

* 12 of the 27 coastal states with regulatory control areas place restrictions on the repair or rebuilding

of a structure damaged during a coastal storm event. For example, structures that are damaged in

excess of a specified threshold (e.g., 50% of assessed value) may not be repaired or rebuilt. 16 states

participated in the relocation or demolition benefits under the Upton-Jones Act, prior to its termination in

1995. State requirements often differ from NFIP standards. (See Appendix A, Table 4)
25

* Each of the 27 states with coastal construction control area programs has unique regulatory features

which reflect their particular physical, social, economic or political priorities. Table 8 shows the diversity of

regulatory jurisdictions, activities exempted, and restrictions on additions and repairs.

The Maine Coastal Program illustrates the complexity of regulating diverse resources such as

beaches, bluffs and rocky shores. Maine uses three coastal construction regulatory program. Under the

Natural Resources Protection Act, coastal frontal sand dunes and back sand dunes are mapped and

protected. There is a de facto setback from frontal dunes. In back dunes, there is a size limit of 2,500

square feet, the structure must be moveable, and elevated above 3" sea level rise, with multifamily

elevated higher. Reconstruction of structures damaged >50% is prohibited unless all new building

standards are met, including minimal damage to dunes, lot restrictions, bird habitat protection, and

revegetation of disturbed areas. Additions may not expand floor area or volume by more than 30% of

existing structure. Exceptions include maintenance and repair of existing structures, temporary structures,

walkways, open decks smaller than 200 square feet, and underground storage tanks outside the V-zone.

State permits are also required for activities within "protected natural resource areas" which include the

100-year flood zone, moderate/high value wetlands, and steep slopes greater than 20%. Development in

"protected areas," with the exception of single family residential, must be set back 250 feet from normal

high water line. The Municipal Shoreland Zoning Act mandates local zoning with a 75-foot setback for

residential and 25 ft for general development/commercial.

The Rhode Island Coastal Program is an example of a strong regulatory program with defined

criteria addressing identified resources, activities, and management issue areas. Activities are

regulated within and 200 feet landward of defined coastal features---coastal beaches and dunes, barrier

beaches, bluffs, cliffs and banks, rocky shores, and manmade shoreline. Complex coastal zoning

designates what types of activities are permissible on shoreline features, tied to 6 state water

classifications. About 75% of the shoreline is adjacent to Type I Waters (Conservation) or Type 2 Waters

(Low Intensity Use Areas) where alteration or construction or shoreline features and undeveloped barrier

beaches is prohibited. In addition. activities are regulated by different setbacks from beaches and dunes,

critical erosion areas, and coastal buffer zones. There are also regulations for specific types of activities

(such as dredging, filling, new residential structures) as well as 17 designated coastal hazard areas and

18 identified erosion-prone areas. On barrier beaches, all residential and non-water dependent structures

on dunes destroyed >50% may not be reconstructed regardless of insurance carrier coverage. Additions

are allowed only to structures designated priority permissible uses.
Table 8: State coastal construction control area jurisdictions and provisions

Activities Restricts Restricts

State Regulatory Jurisdiction--Distance Inland Exempt Additions Repairs.........

AL 40 ft inland from crestline to 10-ft. elevation line SF no y--if

damaged<50%

AK District Control Zones- flood/hazard/erosion areas uk no no

AS 1) 200 feet from MHW PP, R, WD, SF no no

2) coastal hazard areas no no no

3) territory-wide grading,excav.,fill,steep slopes no no no

CA MHT to 1st public road or 300 ft. from beach/bluff SF yes-except SF yes-except SF

or MHT if no beach

CT MHW inland to 1000 feet or 100 feet from state SF, A, O yes- yesregulated areas except minor except minor

DE landward of 100 foot setback inland 100 yards no no y-damaged >75%

North of Wilmington to ~12 miles in SE. y-foundation >59%

FL SHW to landward extent of 100-year floodplain. no no no

GU 1) Seashore Reserve seaward to 10 fathom Maintenance yes-except SF y-if damaged >50%

contour, all islands, inland from MHW Dredging no-SF >$7500

to 10 meters or edge of public right of way.

2) flood hazard area no no no

HI 1) SMAs: 100 yds inland, cover resource areas SF, no no

or to inland coastal road. uses<$25,000

2) Island-wide land use boundary changes no na na

3) Nat.Resource Conserv. District use permit no no no

LA Inland to intracoastal waterway, highways, SF no no

natural ridges, parish boundaries.

ME 1)On mapped coastal dunes. Frontal dune O y- floor area>30% yes-

 inland 125-175 feet. new standards

2) protected natural resource areas, SF no no

 100-year floodplain

MD On coastal sand dunes 250 feet from NHW. SF outside dunes no no

MA Tide-flowed tidelands, filled tidal flats between no no no

waterway and 1st public way or 250 ft. from water

MI 1) designated critical dune areas w/in 250 ft.dune>3 acres,>4 units no yes-exceptions

2) high risk bluff erosion areas inland 1000 ft + 15 ft. no no yes-moveable 

3) 500 feet of stream for earth change permit no na na

NH 1) HOTL inland 100 feet bordering tidal waters. public good, in-fill no no

2) OHTL inland 250 feet A, O no no

NJ 1) MHW inland 500 feet no no no

2) erosion hazard areas SF, duplex in-fill no no

3) dunes, overwash areas, beaches, bluffs no alternative no no
27

Table 8: State coastal construction control area jurisdictions and provisions (continued)

Activities Restricts Restricts

State Regulatory Jurisdiction--Distance Inland Exempt Additions Repairs.........

NY Designated erosion hazard areas- a) beach no yes-except no

dune,shoal, bar, spit, barrier island, bluff, moveable structures

wetland, assoc.natural vegetation; b) 40-year erosion area.

NC AECs-Ocean Hazard Areas Lots platted before y-setbacks y-setbacks 

1) ocean erodable areas MLW inland to 145- 700 feet.; law, minor permits apply apply

2) high-hazard flood areas; <60,000 sq ft. get

3) inlet hazard areas local permits

4) unvegetated beach areas.

NM 4 APCs: a) shoreline APC MHW inland 150 feet. no no no

OR 1)extreme low tide and line of vegetation no na na

2) coastal town boundaries no no no

PA landward of crest of bluff 50 to 200 feet. yes-parcels yes yes if >50%

depending on erosion rate and type of subdivided before market value

development. law if moveable,

utilities, 3 miles non-erosion bluff area

PR 1) 1000 meters inland from shoreline yes-depends on Zone no no

2) flood areas no yes yes-must protec

3) maritime zone-territorial waters, submerged lands no no no

RI Inland 200 ft. from coastal feature- beach, dune, yes* yes-if not yes- on barrier bch

beach, coastal bluff, rocky shore, etc. priority use

SC 40-year erosion zone no feasible alt., >5000 sq ft. y-damaged

>662/3%

swimming pools, O

VI Mapped are based on roads, landmarks, property lines. minor activity no no

<$17,000

VA Coastal primary dunes and beach uk uk uk

WA 200 feet inland from shore uk no no

WI OHWM inland 100 feet. piers, O no no

Key: SF- single family, PP-public purpose, WD- water dependent, R- recreation, A-agriculture, O- other

such as temporary structures, decks, walkways. uk- unknown Activities Exempt- covers activities not

subject to regulations

* RI has complex regulations with exceptions tied to water type and priority uses.

NOTE: 28 States with control zones along beach, bluff, or rocky shoreline. 2 States with no control zone

along beach- MS, PA.

Source: State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.
The Michigan Coastal Program is a multi-faceted program which has specialized regulatory

controls for different types of areas. Under the Shorelands Protection and Management Act (SPMA),

three types of areas are regulated: 1) high risk areas--subject to bluffline recession; 2) environmental

areas--fish and wildlife habitat ; and 3) flood risk areas--flood-prone areas due to changes in Great Lakes

water level. The "high risks erosion areas" have been surveyed and designated. Included are all areas

with erosion > 1 foot per year over 15 or more years. This area can extend inland from MHW as far as

1,000 feet from the bluffline. Setbacks are required and based on 30-year bluffline erosion projections.

Within the setback area, new permanent structures are prohibited. and lakeward relocation of existing

structures is prohibited. Existing structures in front of the setback line cannot be moved lakeward and any

addition must be located landward of the setback line. Repairs to deteriorated or damaged structures

>60% of building's replacement value must meet new setback standards. If less than 60%, structures can

be restored to previous condition. Exceptions to the setback for small lots granted if waste handling

system is landward of the structure, the structure is moveable and located as far landward as possible,

and the building meets engineering standards. For structures in danger from erosion with access routes

too narrow or steep to relocate the structure, shoreline stabilization permits may be granted, but only after

all other options are exhausted and sewer and engineering standards are met.

 Major regulatory amendments in 1992 expand the definition of bluffline to include non-bluff areas

subject to erosion. All 'zone of imminent danger"-- area landward of bluffline where erosion anticipated in

the next 10 years-- must be designated. An additional 15 feet was added to the setback to address

severe short-term erosion or landslides or high water. Construction requirements were eased. Additions

are allowed if existing building and addition are moveable, the addition and the foot-print does not exceed

25% of the building's foundation, and located landward of zone of imminent danger. Reconstruction of

substantially damaged structures (60-100% of replacement value) is allowed if damage not caused by

erosion and if structure is not reconstructed in zone of imminent danger and is readily moveable. Small

structures (.3,500 square feet foundation and >5 units) must be moveable if built between setback and 2

times setback distance. For larger structures, the setback is doubled.

 The Sand Dunes Protection Act of 1976, strengthened in 1989, protects critical dune areas within 2

miles of the Great Lakes, much farther inland than the 1,000 feet SMPA high risk erosion are jurisdiction.

Regulations may extend inland 250 feet from a critical dune area. A 100-foot setback from the crest of the

dune is required unless dune stability standards are met. Development, silvaculture and recreation

affecting dunes and contour changes is regulated. Building is not allowed on slopes 25-33% without

registered plan or slopes >33% without a special exception. Special use projects are regulated including

industrial, commercial, multi-family >3 acres or>4 units per acre. Variances can be granted for rebuilding

of nonconforming structures within critical dune areas if built prior to act and destroyed by fire or nonerosion forces or made nonconforming due to erosion.

The Puerto Rico Coastal Program is characteristic of state CZM programs adopted by the island

states, territories and commonwealths where regulations are island-wide. Puerto Rico regulates

development through island-wide land use policies and zoning districts In addition to three shoreline

setback areas, permits are required for activities within 1000 meters of the shoreline or farther inland to

include important natural resources, as well as all offshore islands. There are 14 zoning districts within

which specific activities are allowed. For example, no subdivisions are allowed in the following three

Districts: Conservation of Resources District (CR); Conservation and Restoration of Resources District

(CRR); and Resource Preservation District(PR). Exceptions granted in CR District for tourist-related

recreation if the public interest and natural environment not adversely affected. In the Public Beaches

District (PP), subdivisions and development allowed for hotel/vacation facilities, tourist villas, restaurants,

recreation, wharves, docks and other water-dependent or water-related activities. Puerto Rico also

required Flood Areas permits for activities in Floodprone zones. In Zone 1 (floodways) development and

major renovations are prohibited. Exception-existing structures cannot be expanded unless protected.

Zone 1M(v-Zone) and Zone 2 (low areas) allows new development and modifications to existing subject to

design/building requirements. There is also a relocation program in coastal high hazard flood areas.

Effective beginning in 1992, there is a Maritime Control Zone and required state Authorizations and

Concessions for nonconforming uses in the maritime zone- mapped territorial waters, submerged lands,

inland to reaches of low lands beneath by ebb/flow of tides.
29

SHORELINE STABILIZATION REGULATIONS

* The primary purpose of shoreline stabilization structures is to protect upland structures affected by

coastal erosion, by stabilizing the shoreline. Most types of shoreline armoring impede natural sand

migration, thereby causing erosion and resulting in the loss of natural beach. States which prohibit the use

of shoreline stabilizations give priority to the protection of natural beach processes. As a result of

inappropriate development along migrating shorelines, the accepted practice prior to CZM was to allow

seawalls, bulkheads and groins in an effort to protect structures threatened by coastal erosion. Greater

awareness of the negative impacts of shoreline stabilization structures on adjacent properties and coastal

resources has caused CZM programs to more carefully scrutinize such activities and weigh the private

and public benefits.

* 28 coastal states regulate the use of shoreline stabilizations structures. All 28 require permits for

new shoreline stabilizations and place conditions on new activities to minimize adverse impacts on

adjacent land, natural resources, sand supply, erosion, and drainage. Protection of existing upland

structures is a common reason for granting permits.

* 22 coastal states generally allow new shoreline stabilizations if impacts are minimized. Most approval

must meet criteria such as water-dependency, public benefit, erosion present, nonstructural alternatives

not feasible, etc. A few states require structures to be designed to meet 30-50 storm/erosion events.

* 6 coastal states prohibit new shoreline stabilization structures along all or portions of their coastline.

Exceptions are granted by some states if structures or infrastructure are in imminent danger of collapse

from erosion. (AL, ME, NE, SC, VA, RI)

* 7 coastal states do not require permits for the repairs or reconstruction of shoreline stabilizations. 4

states set 50% damage thresholds and 2 require a rebuilding permit while 2 do not require a rebuilding

permit. South Carolina prohibits repair or rebuilding of stabilizations if structures are damaged over a

certain percent. Oregon prohibits erosion repairs on oceanfront lots platted before 1977 where no

infrastructure improvements exist.

* Most coastal states have regulatory language which promotes nonstructural solutions. Some states

require applicants to exhaust nonstructural alternatives before granting structural permits.

* Each of the 28 states regulating shoreline stabilization structures has adopted unique provisions which

reflect their level of shoreline development, erosion pressures, and political priorities. Table 9 summarizes

the restrictions associated with shoreline stabilizations.

Table 9: State coastal shoreline stabilization structure restriction provisions

State Restriction provisions

AL No SSS allowed on Gulf-front. Exceptions, case-by-case, if structure built prior to law and 

threatened by erosion. Allowed by permit on Bay, a permit required for repair/reconstruction.

AS Allowed by permits only in developed areas to protect property from erosion and if public 

safety/health risk; no feasible alternatives, habitat affected evaluated; adverse affects on nearby 

areas and habitat, drainage and shoreline alternations minimized.

CA Allowed by permit for coastal-dependent uses, to protect existing structures or public beaches in 

danger of erosion if designed to eliminate/mitigate adverse impacts on local shore sand supply. 

Can replace SSS damaged >50% without permit. Along cliffs, allowed to stabilize slope or check 

marine erosion where no less damaging alternative.
30

Table 9: State coastal shoreline stabilization structure restriction provisions (Continued)

State Restriction provisions

CT Allowed by permit to protect infrastructure, for water-dependent uses, existing inhabited 

structures, if bluff slope not greater than 3:1. Groins/jetties allowed where non-structural 

alternatives infeasible.

DE Allows by permit new and repair to existing SSS.

FL Allows by permit new and repairs to existing SSS.

GU Permit required, but none since 1970s issued. Relies on USACE standards.

HI Allows but requires variance to demonstrate public interest or hardship. No SSS which interferes 

with beach processes. State regulates from shoreline seaward. Counties regulate above 

shoreline.

LA Allows new but regulates to minimize downstream land loss. No restrictions or permit for 

repairs/rebuilding if damaged >50%.

ME Prohibits new rip-rap, seawalls, groins, other SSS on sand dune system, except existing seawalls 

may be maintained and repaired unless building behind SSS damaged more than 50%. Effective 

1995, existing seawalls can be fortified, build bigger and deeper if undermined. Within 32 

designated natural coastal barriers, no state funds for new SSS if incompatible with protection 

values.

MD Allows new and repair of existing. Nonstructural stabilization encouraged.

MA Allowed to stabilize shore, rehabilitate existing structures, if minimize encroachment in waterway. 

Seawalls, bulkheads, revetments must be located landward of MHW, except for proper tieback 

placement, obtain slope stability, or be compatible with abutting SSS below MHW. Encourages 

Nonstructural alternatives where feasible. No restrictions on reconstruction. If adverse impacts 

occur, state may require modifications/removal.

MI Allowed but must be designed to meet/exceed 20-year storm event for small structures; 50 year 

storm event for large structures. Must be 30 feet from erosion zone and landward of zone of 

imminent danger.

MS Allows new and repairs to existing SSS.

NH Allows new. No restrictions on reconstruction. SSS considered in public interest and generally 

allowed for protection of upland structures. Considered a major project if in dune, tidal wetland 

or within 100 feet of HOTL. Minor projects include beach nourishment <10 cu yd or removal of 

sand, rock, gravel <20 cu yd. Minimal impact projects- repair retaining wall.

NJ Allowed based on 7 conditions- to protect water-dependent uses, heavily used public recreation 

areas or existing structures and infrastructure in developed shorefront areas. Although 

nonstructural solutions preferred, SSS deemed essential given NJ's urbanized shoreline.

NY Allows new by permit. Repair/reconstruction allowed without permit. SSS must be designed to 

control erosion for 30 years, be unlikely to increase erosion, minimize adverse effects on natural 

protective features, other erosion structures and natural resources. Must include long-term 

maintenance program. Variances from regulations for hardship and not alternative site, 

mitigation measures, safe from flood/erosion damage, public benefit if public funds used.
31

Table 9: State coastal shoreline stabilization structure restriction provisions (Continued)

State Restriction provisions

NC Effective 1985, no new SSS. Temporary sand bags and beach nourishment allowed. Repairs to 

existing do not require permit, but replacements require permits. Exceptions to SSS 

prohibition- emergency DOT SSS to protect historic sites, groin at north end of Pea Island to 

protect bridge foundation across Oregon Inlet- only road access to barrier island. Policy 

preference for beach nourishment and relocation of structures.

NM Allows new and repairs. Must not interfere with coastal processes or inhibit access to shoreline.

OR Allows new, but must be built as far landward as possible above MSL to prevent encroachment. 

Allows repairs/replacement if within 3 years of damage. Prohibits erosion repair on lots where 

no physical improvements (i.e., building, road, water lines, sewer lines) on existing oceanfront 

lots platted before 1977. Promotes nonstructural solutions, SSS must be designed to minimize 

adverse impacts. Allows emergency new and repair SSS if property in imminent peril from 

erosion.

PA Allowed from MHW lakeward. Groins allowed 50 feet from water's edge. No regulation of SSS 

above MHW. No permit required for repair/reconstruction. Priority is bluff-erosion prevention.

PR Allowed for new and repairs. Relies on USACE standards.

RI Allowed but must exhaust nonstructural alternatives. Prohibits new SSS on barriers in type 1 

waters. Limits use of riprap to protect septic systems/ancillary structures. Permitted SSS must 

demonstrate that erosion exists, SSS will control erosion, nonstructural SSS does not work, no 

reasonable alternatives, will not increase erosion, long-term solution and maintenance program 

and financial commitment. Repair/reconstruction SSS damaged >50% requires a new permit.

SC Since 1988, no new SSS along beach except to protect public highways in existence in 1990. 

Since 1990, restricts reconstruction of SSS based on degree damaged in certain years. After 

2005, structures damaged >66 2/3% above grade cannot be repaired or rebuilt. Sand bags, sand 

scraping and beach nourishment allowed as exceptions.

VI Allows new by permit and environmental assessment. Repairs/reconstruction do not require 

permits. Prohibited within 50 feet of open shore setback and siting policies to minimize adverse 

impacts.

VA Effective 1990, new SSS prohibited under any circumstances. Prior to 1990, preference for 

nonstructural measures. Exception-SSS allowed on portions of Virginia Beach where private 

upland structures in imminent danger from erosion.

WA Allowed, except no new groins or jetties since 1985.

WI Allows new and repair.

Total 28 states regulate SSS through state permits; 1 state (AK) relies on USACE permit.

Key: SSS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures- refers to erosion control devices designed to harden the

beach or shoreline. Includes seawalls, rip-rap, revetments, groins and jetties.

Source: State CZM profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.
32

South Carolina Developments Erosion Retreat Policy. The 1988 Beachfront Management Act and the

1990 Amendments established an erosion retreat program which requires the SCCC to develop setback

lines derived from expected beach erosion over 40 years. Beachfront development prior to 1977, the

year that the State CZM statute was enacted, and from 1977 to 1988 resulted in a steadily increasing loss

of the State's public beach resources. No better example of this trend exists than the development of the

Garden City areas in Horry County. This unincorporated beachfront community in Horry County

developed from 1977 till 1985 from single family beach cottages to high rise hotels and condominiums at

the water's edge. In each case, the buildings and swimming pools occupy virtually the entire square

footage of the beachfront lots behind seawalls and revetments that leave little or no dry sand beach for

much of the day. This development has taken place since the State CZM program was enacted in 1977.

This law provided little consideration for the protection and conservation of the public beach or for the

dynamics of the changing beachface from erosion and storms. The proliferation of hard erosion control

structures in this area has significantly narrowed the beach and flattened the beach profile resulting in a

much less appealing tourist destination when compared to other areas with healthier beaches. The storm

hazard potential has also been greatly heightened. The policy of retreat established in the 1988 legislation

will require decades to correct this problem, while repeated, expensive attempts at beach renourishment

will be required in the short run to rebuild public beach. State-of-the art scientific and technical expertise

has been and continues to be used to refine the methodologies on which the state bases its shoreline

construction retreat policy. This includes methodologies to protect structures from shoreline erosion and

damage from storms. (Source: Chris Brooks, South Carolina Coastal Program)

California allows by permit new stabilization construction and repair to existing shoreline

stabilization structures. In 1992, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) undertook a pilot Regional

Cumulative Impact Project (ReCAP) to study development impacts along an 83 mile-long coastal stretch

covering the two central California coastal counties of Santa Cruz and Monterey. This study looks at

policies governing shoreline armoring activities; resource conditions measured by changes in amount of

armoring, and permitted activity related to shoreline armoring. A major finding of the study is that the

current coastal policies support the use of public shoreline and public resources to protect private

property, and if the current situation continues, more and more of the public shoreline will be lost as a

public resource. On-the-ground outcome data indicates that, between 1978 and 1993, the percent of the

shoreline armored in the ReCAP pilot area increased from 9.6 miles to 12.0 miles. Approximately 1/8th of

the shoreline is now armored. This estimate does not include lengths of beaches protected by

breakwaters, jetties, or groins, nor do the figures for length reflect maintenance and additions of rock to

existing walls. Much of the increase in armoring between 1978 and 1986 is thought to have been

constructed in response to storms in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Future demand for shoreline

protection will depend on trends in development along the shoreline, erosion potential and storm

frequency. Based on private property ownership, land use and physical characteristics, development

patterns, and continued implementation of existing policies, it is estimated that 1/3 of the ReCAP coastline,

or 27 miles, could be armored in the future.

 Armoring has led to cumulative impacts to beach areas and access opportunities, affecting sand

supply and landward retreat of the beach. Along the ReCAP shoreline, data indicate that protective

structures cover ~25 acres of beach. Permits granted since 1978 represent about 5 acres, or 20% of this

total. Although shoreline armoring data indicates that armoring and encroachment has slowed under CZM,

the impact from such encroachment may still be significant. Many of the armoring projects were approved

in the popular recreational areas of Santa Cruz County. Armoring is often put in place following

emergency storm events. However, permits are approved with little or no technical analysis, review of

alternatives, or review of mitigation for adverse impacts on resources, and no followup permit. Therefore,

such projects do not receive full regulatory review or monitoring, and are usually in areas of significant

long-term or storm related erosion. As a result, impacts from these projects have not been fully assessed

or mitigated.

 The policies governing shoreline development and building setbacks for much of the shoreline

development in urban portions of the ReCAP pilot are often inadequate. CC Act policies are inconsistent.

One requires that new development be stable without construction of protective devices to minimize

hazards. Another policy allows shoreline armoring to protect existing structures. There is no cutoff date for

when a structure can be considered existing. Storm damaged structures are exempt from permits if

reconstructed in same footprint, thereby, precluding more landward redevelopment, risk avoidance, and

reduction of dependence on protective devices. Setbacks are a common LCP management approach to
33

avoid armoring. However, most are based on long-term average erosion and do not incorporate episodic

events which may exceed setbacks. This leads to structures in harms' way and future need for armoring.

In the ReCAP region, LCPs generally develop setbacks based on 50-year economic lifetime for new

development. Those structures exceeding that lifetime will ultimately require armoring for long-term

protection. Development on infill lots is allowed to be as seaward as adjacent existing development,

exacerbating erosion risks and the need for armoring. Current policy does not restrict development in

areas of high hazard. Future development is likely to continue with adverse impacts on coastal resources

and public costs involved in protecting private development. Regional Plans are recommended to address

adverse impacts of shoreline armoring.

Source: ReCAP Pilot Project; Executive Summary and Findings and Recommendations.

ACCESS RESTRICTIONS, HABITAT PROTECTION AND OTHER CONTROLS

* The purpose for regulating beach access is to two-fold. One reason is protect the stability of the

vegetation within the beach, dune and bluff system and retaining their storm buffer benefits. The other is

to protect critical natural habitat areas from human encroachment. Coastal beaches, dunes, bluffs and

rocky shore areas provide critical habitat for certain animals and plant species that are endangered or

threatened with extinction such as bird nesting sites, sea turtle nesting sites or other state-designated

essential wildlife habitat set-aside and regulated as part of the state CZM programs. Coastal endangered

bird species include shorebirds and seabird such as the bald eagle, piping plover, northern harrier, osprey,

upland sand piper, and common tern.

* 22 coastal states restrict pedestrian access by requiring the use of boardwalks, trails, dune crosscrossovers, beachfront stairs, and other structural accessways. Prior to the 1970s, public access cutting

through and breaching dunes was a common practice. With CZM, guided access on both private and

public dunes has become accepted practice.

* 22 coastal states restrict vehicular access along portions of the beachfront or shoreline. Types of

restrictions include only allowing beach clean-up, emergency or law enforcement vehicles, prohibiting

driving on public beach areas or designated habitat areas, allowing only certain types of vehicles, and

creating physical barrier to the shoreline. Certain beachfronts historically were public transportation routes

or beaches used as race-ways. Today, driving and parking on hard sandy beaches with access through

vehicular access ramps is considered locally acceptable ways to provide public beach access.

* 28 coastal states protect coastal shoreline habitat through regulation. The most common areas

protected are bird staging and nesting areas along the coast. Other areas include turtle nesting sites,

endangered species habitat, natural areas, and natural heritage areas. Regulation of turtle and bird

nesting sites is seasonal and tend to cover only a small portion of the coastline.

* 25 coastal states regulate other activities which affect natural coastal resources. This primarily

includes sand mining, dune reshaping, sand scraping, and dune creation. Both on-shore and offshore

sand extraction can have long-term adverse impacts on beach and dune systems. Historically, dunes and

beach areas were used commercially as a source of sand for construction, resulting in the loss of many

beachfront dune areas. Commercial use of sand remains an issue in a few states, but most now restrict

or prohibit the taking of beachfront sand. Sand dune grading and dune reshaping are issues affecting

accreting coastlines where too great accumulations of sand obstruct views and access. Dune creation

and sand scraping are issues along storm-event and long-term erosion affected coastlines.

The Florida Coastal Program requires state permits for boardwalks and dune crossovers to the

beach. Thousands of permits are issued for these accessways. The South Carolina Coastal

Program allows construction of walkways over sand dunes as an exception if the accessways are

no greater than 6 feet wide and other criteria are met. Wider accessways and handicap access

requires state permit approval. In both states, the goal is to minimize the adverse effects of vertical

access through fragile dune areas to the sandy beaches. Whereas dune breaching was common practice

prior to state regulations, guided accessway over dunes to avoid damage to the natural and protective

functions of dunes is the accepted practice.
34

The Oregon Coastal Program restricts vehicular traffic by Parks Department administrative rule.

Along certain beach/dune areas, vehicular access is restricted to protect endangered snowy plover

habitat, recreation, and avoid use conflicts. Beach vehicular accessibility is shown on the Official State

Map of Oregon 1995-1996. Vehicles are prohibited year-round or from May to September along an

estimated 70% of the coast.

The Maine Coastal Program protects shore bird nesting or breeding areas. Bald eagles, roseate tern,

least tern, piping plover are coastal endangered species and their habitat are mapped and protected

under Maine Endangered Species Act as "essential wildlife habitat" by Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Designated areas include: seabird nesting islands; shorebird nesting, feeding and staging areas; atlantic

salmon spawning areas; and critical waterfowl and waterbird areas. The Department of Inland Fisheries

and Wildlife reviews state and local permits to ensure these habitat are protected. Prior to issuance of a

local or state permit, the applicant is required go through a consultation process with the Department staff.

Construction of new fences and reconstruction of closed fences are prohibited; open fences are allowed

only to protect dune vegetation or bird nesting areas.
35

Table 10: Coastal restrictions on pedestrian and vehicular access, habitat protection and other activities

State Pedestrian Access Vehicular Access Habitat Protected Other Activities

AL y-boardwalks y- only clean up, law y- turtle & tern nesting, no

n-dune crossovers vehicles allowed on bch beach mouse habitat

AK y-trails regulated y-transportation routes y-bald eagles y-sand mining

AS no no y-case-by case habitat no

CA y-boardwalks/walkways y y- env. sensitive areas y-sand mining

CT y-pedestrian corridors no y- bird nesting habitat y-dune reshape

DE y-dune cross-crossovers y-only 4 wheel drive veh. y-bird nesting sites y-sand mining

FL y-boardwalks & y- 5 counties allow y- sea turtle nesting sites no

dune cross-crossovers driving on the beach

GU y-boardwalks y-no vehicles public bch y-public conservation areas y-sand mining, corals

HI y-natural resource areas y-only gov't vehicles y-natural areas/sanctuaries y-sand mining, corals

LA no no y-bird nesting sites y-sand scraping, dune

reshape

ME y-boardwalks y-no new roads, drives y-shorebird nesting y-sand fencing, bn, ss,

removal

parking in V-zones wildlife habitat areas

MD y-boardwalks y-no vehicles on beach y- bird nesting sites y- sm, erosion control, bn

MA y-boardwalks y-local plan for ORVs y-natural heritage y-sand scraping, mining

allowed on beach endangered species habitat

MI y-bchfront stairs, y-restricted along 23% coast y-natural preserves, critical y- ss,ds, sand mining

bdwalks, trails coastal dunes, high erosion areas

MS y-boardwalks y-no vehicles on beach y-bird nesting sites y- ss, sm, bn

NH y-boardwalks no y-natural sites y-mining

NJ y-boardwalks y-local restrictions y-bird nesting sites y-ss, mining, dune creation

NY y-boardwalks y-no driving on vegetation y-bird nesting fish WL sites y- ss, sn, dune creation

NC y-structural accessways y-local restrictions y-100 mi. undisturbed area y-dune creation, ss, dr

NM no no y-beaches, pristine areas y-sand mining

OR y-boardwalks, walkways y-vehicles restricted near y-bird & endangered species y-sand grading, sand dune

sidewalks habitat areas habitat areas mgt.

PA no no y-public beach/bluff no

PR y-public access restricted in y-no cross-country vehicles y-natural area reserves, SPA y-sand, gravel, stone

extraction

some Districts, Rec.trails,etc. on bathing beaches, some Dist. endangered species habitat

RI y-dunewalk-crossover, decks y-vehicles prohibited on y-APRs, CMAs, habitat areas y-sand mining, dune alteration

 barrier beach, foredunes

SC y-boardwalks y-only emergency vehicles y-sea turtle nesting y-sm, ss, sr, dune creation

VI no no y-rec.beaches, turtle nesting y-dredging, sand mining

VA y-dune cross-crossovers, trials y-no vehicles in park areas y-sea turtle nesting sites y-dune

creation/veg, sm

WA no y-no driving on beaches no y-dune grading, sand mining

WI no y-no vehicles in navig. waters y- 300 areas statewide y-sand mining

Total yes no yes no yes no yes no

29 22 7 22 7 28 1 25 4

Key: y- yes n-no sm- sand mining, ss-sand scraping, dr- dune reshaping, bn-beach nourishment, ORV- offroad vehicles, WLwildlife, SPA- special planning areas., APR- areas of particular concern, CMAs- conservation and Management Areas

Source: State CZM Profiles
36

PERMIT TRACKING AND ENFORCEMENT

* 26 coastal states have permit tracking systems. Only 19 have computerized permit tracking systems for

habitable structure permits, 20 for shoreline stabilization permits. These permit tracking systems primarily

serve as a tool for tracking individual permit status through the permit system and do not contain detailed

information on the type or size of project, location and impact on natural resources, or other relevent data

for determining individual or cumulative impacts of permit decisions. However, a few states have begun to

explore ways to add such data to their permit tracking systems.

* 28 coastal states have permit compliance programs usually with field inspections, some with aerial

surveillance. 

* Table 11 identifies which states have computerized or paper permit tracking systems and summarizes

each CMP's coastal permit compliance mechanisms.

Table 11: State Coastal Permit Tracking Systems and Permit Compliance Tools

STATE Permit Tracking System

 Permit Compliance Tools

AL y-computer listing of permit number, subdivision lot, and party name

y-post-permit monitoring

AK y-agency review, inspection, monitoring

y- pre-issuance field inspections, post-issuance field inspections, agency project reviews

AS y- permit database for Land Use Permits since 1984. Covers all permits island-wide, not coded 

by geographic area (shoreline, steep slope) or resource area (beach, cliff). Sam with Building 

Permit data.

CA y-paper files. For CCC permits, developing statewide electronic logging system.

y-cease and desist order for activity without permit or inconsistent with permit conditions. 

Penalties. Reported violations inspected by district office field staff and public records.

CT y- DEP monitoring of municipal Site Plan Review decisions through quarterly reports

y-periodic aerial photo surveys at 5 year intervals, MSPR permits monitored through third party 

complaints, DER field enforcement staff investigations, clipping service, hearing notices at local 

level.

DE y- computer tracking system

y- small permit compliance staff make phone calls and inspections

FL y- computerized database, DEP sends area inspectors to monitor areas

y- violations reported, inspector informed, inspector surveys and files report with DEP Bureau of 

beaches and Coastal Systems, Bureau reviews reports and set penalties/fines.

GU y- no on-going computer tracking system. Database developed for actions from 1987-1993 only.

y- no Territory-wide permit data base dating back to 1979. All permit data is island-wide since 

Guam's upland jurisdiction is the entire island. This makes it impossible to identify and separate 

out shoreline development permits from inland development. A database was developed for 

TLUC actions 1987-1993.
37

Table 11: State Coastal Permit Tracking Systems and Permit Compliance Tools continued

STATE Permit Tracking System

 Permit Compliance Tools

HI y- 1994 CZM Program computer system and software training for county staff. Database for 

Kauai County Planning to track permits and violations. City and County of Honolulu utility 

program that downloads for CZM data analysis, permit tracking.

y- monitoring notices of state and county permit actions for compliance with HCZMP.

LA n- no computer tracking system

y- violations monitored through coordination between Enforcement Section and field

investigators

ME y- NRPA computerized permit file.

y- Under NRPA, DER staff, & DMR marine patrol officers jointly enforce and monitor for permit 

violations. Under MSZA, Code Enforcement Officers notify in writing violations and investigate 

complaints, submit Biennial reports to DEP on applications, permits approved, variances, 

violations, etc.

MD y- joint state and USACE permit tracking system used. Permit and compliance database 

maintained.

y- MDNR, Inspections and Compliance Program monitors authorized projects. Regional 

inspections. Significant violations corrected through restoration and/or fines after referral to the 

state AG office.

MA y- computerized tracking system

y- certificates of compliance required for all permitted projects and it must be registered with the 

deed. DEP takes enforcement actions against state-issued permits. Local conservation 

commissions are generally responsible for enforcement of locally-issued permits.

MI y- Coastal and Inland Waters Permit tracking System

y- inspection, enforcement, and handling of public complaints.

NH y-new GIS system in 1995. Prior to that old GIS system very limited, mostly paper files

y- 2 wetland Board inspectors serve 17 coastal communities, field inspections, public education. 

Periodic aerial surveillance to monitor waterfront properties, dunes restoration projects, harbor 

dredging.

NJ y- computer database, inspectors, monitoring

y- Coastal Enforcement Unit/monthly meetings on enforcement, violations, pending decisions, 

bulletins, press releases of enforcement actions, monthly reports of over flight inspections, 

responses to complaints of violations, field inspections, etc.

NY y- computerized data

y- specific application requirements

NC y- permit application tracking system and separate GPS/GIS base system

y- inspection, monitoring, tracking, mego database within permit and enforcement section.

NM y- paper files, computer database being developed

y- field staff inspections, monitoring permit compliance, cease and desist orders, civil fines.

OR y- no statewide database on local permits; separate computer permit tracking for OPI-PRD and 

R/F-DSL permits, but no information on length of shoreline stabilizations (in paper files)

.
38

Table 11: State Coastal Permit Tracking Systems and Permit Compliance Tools continued

STATE Permit Tracking System

 Permit Compliance Tools

PA y- permit tracking system for shoreline stabilizations but only since 1994. no surveillance system.

 permit data for bluff setback permits in written reports only.

y- Shoreline stabilizations -site inspections, violations taken to court, complaint response, 

penalties. bluff permits- Township Code enforcement officers monitor for violations.

PR n- no permit tracking system, but developing a GIS based computer system

y- each regulatory agency has authority to issue compliance, cease/desist orders, impose fines.

RI y-computerized permit database begun in 1987, upgraded and input permit data back to 1971.

y- violation fines/fees, newspapers publish CRMC list of violators, follow-up on every 

cease/desist orderand notice of violation, field staff, condition on CRMC Assent permits.

SC y- computer tracking system begun in 1980s on D-base. Permit name and #, category of activity, 

when issued, appeal date.

y- routine inspections, aerial surveillance, Creek and Bay Watch citizens reporting program with 

800-number, enforcement manual.

VI y- all paper files, no computerized data base.

y- Bureau of Enforcement monitors enforcement. CCA Commissioner may issue cease and 

desist orders and initiate judicial proceedings with AG office.

VA y- computerized tracking system.

y- certificates of compliance, must be registered with deed. DEP enforces state-issued permits. 

Local conservation commissioner responsible for local permits.

WA y- In process of refining and expanding permit tracking database system.

y- State DOE review authority over local shoreline substantial development permits; 

enforcement authority over local government actions.

WI y- computerized permit tracking system links DNR offices throughout the state. Noncomputerized tracking system for federal consistency.

y- monitoring is a goal of DNR, no specific permit compliance tools.

Total: 26 States with Permit Tracking Systems

28 States with Permit Compliance Tools

1 State with no Permit Tracking and Permit Compliance Tools: MS

Key: y- yes n-no

Source: State CZM profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores
39

KEY ROLE OF STATE CZM IN PLANNING

Since passage of the 1972 CZMA, several states have adopted legislation mandating state and local

comprehensive planning and/or growth management programs. Some mandatory local planning

programs have been incorporated into state CZM Programs, others have not. In addition, state coastal

programs have funded numerous planning studies which look at resource protection issues. These

eventually lead to adoption of enforceable policies and regulatory programs addressing a wide array of

state-wide and area-specific issues such as erosion hazard management and habitat protection.

Planning programs, when combined with implementation through local land use regulations, zoning and

subdivision ordinances and other actions, can provide protection of shoreline resources. The level of

protection provided varies depending on: the extent of the resource covered by the plan, the type of

protection policies, standards and provisions; and the specified exemptions and variances. There was

insufficient resources, as part of this project, to conduct an analysis of the key provisions of each local and

state CZM plan affecting resource protection. Attention was given instead to reviewing key provisions of

regulatory programs resulting from CMP planning and collecting on-the-ground outcome data for which

there proved to be very little.

* State CMPs employ various types of plans including general land use planning or comprehensive

planning as well as special area planning such as beach, inlet, bluff, rocky shore, natural reserves, habitat

conservation, erosion or hazard area management planning. All but one of the 29 coastal states employ

some type of planning affecting their beachfront; 21 rely on local permit delegation in combination with

local planning; 23 utilize special area management plans or a variety of other plans; 10 coastal states use

more than one planning tool. (See Table 12)

Table 12: Planning Tools- local permit delegation, local planning, other plans affecting protection of

beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores

 Local Permit 

State Delegation Local Planning Other Plans (SAMPS, etc)

AL no voluntary no

AK yes mandatory Areas of Special Merit

AS no no Territory-Wide Zoning serves as land use plan

CA yes mandatory Coastal resource/environmentally sensitive areas;

Local blufftop management plan

CT yes voluntary no

DE no no no

FL yes mandatory Beach Erosion Control Program; Inlet Management Plans

GU yes no Seashore Reserve Plan; Flood Hazard APC; Erosion Control 

Plan; Recreation & Water Use Management Plan

HI yes mandatory Natural Area Reserves; Marine Life Conservation Districts;

Wildlife Sanctuaries.

LA yes voluntary Mash Management Plan & Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Policy

ME yes mandatory Resource Protection Zones
40

Table 12: Planning Tools- local permit delegation, local planning, other plans affecting protection of

beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores continued

 Local Permit 

State Delegation Local Planning Other Plans (SAMPS, etc)

MD yes mandatory Beach Erosion Control District Plan

MA yes voluntary Areas of Critical Environ. Concern; Local Beach Mgt. Plans for ORV

MI yes no Sand Dune Protection Act & Shorelands Protection/Mgt. require

 designation of critical dunes & high erosion areas through local

zoning; Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Act

MS no voluntary no

NH yes voluntary Hampton Harbor Inlet Mgt.Plan; Seabrook Beach/Dune Plan

NJ yes voluntary no

NY yes no Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans; Local Coastal Erosion Plan

NC yes mandatory Sate Beach Mgt; Shore Erosion Response; Inlet Mgt.Plans

NM no no Siapan Lagoon Management Plan; Coastal Hazard APC

OR yes mandatory Territorial Sea Management Plan

PA y-bluff only bluff only(v) Presque Isle Peninsula State Park

PR yes no Natural Reserves; Special Planning Areas; Island of Culebra

RI no no Salt Pond Regions; Pawcatuck River Estuary & Little Narragansetts Bay

SC no no State Beachfront Management Plan

VI no no APC Management Plans

VA yes voluntary Northhampton County Sustanable Development Initiative;

Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

WA yes mandatory no

WI yes no Carol Beach Plan; 3-year Harbor Plans

Total 21- yes 9- mandatory 23- yes 6-no

 8- no 10- voluntary

11- no plans

Key: SAMP- Special Area Management Plan Source: State CZM profiles
41

ROCKY SHORES PLAN 

* Oregon is the only coastal state to have developed and implemented, through regulations, a rocky shore

plan for its entire coastline. This plan serves as a model for other states with rocky shore resources.

The Oregon Ocean Plan was adopted in 1992, followed in 1994 by the Territorial Sea Management

Plan which covers rocky shores, intertidal areas and ocean resources in an ecosystem management

process. The Plan provides an ocean policy framework with management standards to be used in

managing the marine resources in Oregon's territorial seas. The Plan includes a Rocky Shores Strategy

to protect Oregon's rocky marine habitats while providing people the opportunity to use them. Under the

strategy, four classifications of rocky shores are designated to guide agency programs on the ground:

They include: 10 "habitat refuges" along 4% of the rocky shore where access is limited; 7 "research

reserves" along 7% of the rocky shore where access is discouraged and harvest is limited; 8 "marine

gardens" along 10% of the rocky shore which encourage visitors to highly popular areas; and 29 "marine

shores" along 79% of the rocky shore which are small areas open to public but not heavily used. In

addition, 9 areas have been identified but not yet designated and 7 priority offshore rocks/reefs identified

for future study.

 A key aspect is "local site management plans" for rocky shore sites with mandatory policies to address

complex site conditions, biological resources, human uses, and agency management concerns. The

strategy provides clear policies for all agencies to follow and a process for intergovernmental coordination.

Education and public awareness through communications and interpretive programs are crucial parts of

the strategy to manage growing usage and impacts on rocky-shore areas.

 On-the-ground results of site management plans indicate that four Marine Gardens have been closed

to taking of marine invertebrates, clams (except razor clams at Cape Perpetua), and mussel (except single

mussels for bait). Pyramid Rock in Rogue Reef, a critical habitat site for Steller sea lions and under

increased fishery use, under the plan is closed within 1,000 feet to all fishing activity from May-August.

Permit or management conditions have been placed on all rocky shore sites to protect the natural

resource values of these areas.

BEACH MANAGEMENT PLANS

* State CZM programs have become increasingly involved in identifying the problems of eroding

beach/dune systems and developing coordinated responses through statewide beach management and

erosion control plans. States' concerns about adverse affects on downdrift beaches from federal dredging

of navigation channels, offshore disposal of dredged materials, and loss of recreational beaches from

shoreline armoring, have led state CMPs to take a proactive role in shaping state and federal policies and

programs.

* Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland and several other states have state-level beach

management or erosion control planning. The key purpose of these planning efforts is to address erosion

hazard issues. The plans usually identify areas of high erosion, properties affected, and erosion

responses that have historically been undertaken. For most, plan implementation is tied to the coastal

regulatory programs and state land management and beach restoration or armoring programs.

Coastal States Address Causes of Beach Erosion. The South Carolina CMP pushed for Congressional

recognition that USACE dredging of Charleston Harbor was causing severe beach erosion on the sandstarved downdrift beaches; this led to the Folly Beach renourishment mitigation project. The State of

Florida passed legislation requiring that suitable beach quality sand from inlet and navigational channel

dredging be placed on the down-drift beaches; the state then used federal consistency and state-funds to

negotiate with the USACE to place 1.4 million cubic yards of sand from St. Mary's inlet dredging on the

down-drift beaches rather than losing the sand to the offshore system. After planning and debating the

issue, certain states have passed legislation limiting the use of new shoreline stabilizations, in an effort to

protect beach and dune systems at the expense of private upland properties.
42

BLUFF PLANS

* California, Oregon and Washington states require local plans that address development along eroding

coastal bluffs. These programs are all implemented through state and local regulatory programs.

Pennsylvania requires local governments to implement state established bluff setbacks, but this is not

considered a planning program.

LOCAL COASTAL PLANS

* 19 coastal states employ local planning, 10 with mandatory local planning and 9 with voluntary local

planning; 10 states do not use local planning. Locally-delegated permitting responsibility combined with

mandatory local planning are key management tools employed by Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maine,

Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington in protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores.

Several of the regulatory setback and control zone provisions described earlier are administered by local

governments. In states that set the enforceable regulatory guidelines, local implementation is strictly

administration of the regulation rather than local planning.

The California Coastal Program requires Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) with CCC certification and

oversight. LCP Regulations require that each local coastal program identify specific coastal resources,

hazard areas, coastal access, use priorities and significant cumulative impacts on coastal resources and

access of development; and adopt a land use plan, zoning ordinances and zoning district maps to reflect

the level and pattern of development consistent with Policies in Chapter 3 of CC Act. Land use plans are

required to incorporate resource protection policies. Zoning ordinance are required to their implement

land use policy plan. CCC Certification of a LCP results in delegation of coastal development permit

authority.

There are a total of 73 LCP jurisdictions which have been divided into 126 LCP segments for planning

purposes, of which 88 have CCC-certified Programs (Plans and Implementation) and local permit

delegation responsibilities. Certified LCPs regarding oceanfront property and its development vary widely.

Some encourage purchase of remaining undeveloped properties and impose rigorous guidelines for any

new development. Others encourage shoreline development adjacent to coastal erosion areas. 24

coastal jurisdictions recognize coastal geologic hazards through designation of special zones, geologic

hazard ordinances, or comparable techniques. 18 jurisdictions use liability releases for projects proposed

in hazardous areas. Regarding bluff-top development, some local jurisdictions use predetermined, fixed

setbacks that vary from 10 to 320 feet. Others employ a cliff retreat rate, most commonly over a 50-year

period. Most communities compromise safe setback considerations in "infilling" areas. The lack of state

guidelines for safe beach-level development has led to continued development and reconstruction in

hazardous locations. San Mateo has a combined Open Space and Conservation Elements which is

implemented by a Resources Management District Ordinance that covers the Coastal Policy

requirements.

The CCC Interpretive Guidelines (adopted May 3, 1997) address "Geologic Stability of Blufftop

Development." These guidelines specify that alternation of cliffs and blufftops, faces, or bases by

excavation or other means should be minimized and that cliff retaining walls should be allowed only to

stabilize slopes, or seawalls at the toe of the seacliffs or to check marine erosion where no less

environmentally-damaging alternative exists and where necessary to: 1) to maintain public recreational

areas or public services such as highways, energy facilities, port areas; 2) protect principal structures in

existing developments that are in danger of erosion; or 3) in LA, Orange and San Diego Counties, infilling

small section of wall in subdivisions where wall already in place and infilling have no substantial adverse

effect. The guidelines call for a geologic investigation and report when a development is proposed in an

unstable "area of demonstration of stability". In areas of geologic hazard, the Commission may require that

a development permit not be issued without a waiver of all claims against the public for future liability or

damage resulting from permission to build. All such waivers should be recorded with the County recorder's

office.
43

SAMP PLANS

* The 23 states that use SAMPs and other specialized plans employ them to address a variety of issues.

Most are used for natural resource area protection. Other uses include flood hazard management, erosion

control, resolving recreation use conflicts, economic development, state land management, and multiissue management. These plans are used to supplement or supersede state coastal regulatory provisions

for selected planning areas.

The Guam Coastal Management Program developed and adopted the Recreational Water Use

Management Plan in 1990-1991. The plan covers a 6 miles stretch along the coast and in the water. It

addresses user conflicts along this stretch of beach and water. Bird nesting areas are identified and

protected, and Manahac fish-runs protected. The plan prohibits jet skis except in management plan areas.

The plan provides for "use zones" for certain water activities in planned areas, and requires buoyed areas

for jet-ski-type vehicles and mechanized vehicular closure during predictable Manahac runs. Minimum

operating age is 16 years for all mechanized water vehicles. Jet skis can only be operated in planned

areas-- two such areas have been adopted, and a third area being finalized. The first area planned,

Agana Bay to Piti, encompasses 6 linear miles of coast to a distance varying from two hundred yards to

half a mile. The second area, Cocos Lagoon, is a triangular shaped lagoon 3 miles long on the land side,

extending 2 miles seaward. The third area is Apra Harbor, which is Guam's commercial port, the Navy

port and Guam's Harbor of Refuge.

The Rhode Island Coastal Program adopted four SAMPS, as a supplement to the regulatory program

for specific areas: Two SAMPS cover oceanfront areas. The main focus of SAMP planning in Rhode

Island has been on cumulative and secondary impacts of development in, and adjacent to, poorly flushed

estuaries, nonpoint source pollution, groundwater contamination, and on-site sewage disposal systems.

The Salt Pond Regions SAMP: Ninigret to Point Judith Ponds covers 32 square miles. Just over 11% was

in public ownership and 50% undeveloped as of 1984. The shoreline miles and miles in beaches and

rocky shores are unknown, but the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program is developing

a GIS data base and will be able to provide this data in future. The SAMP expands the inland boundary to

include a watershed; establishes coordinated permit review procedure; amends policies for dredging in

Ninigret and Green Hill Ponds to allow dredging in Type 2 waters; and changes water use designations for

Port of Galilee to allow port expansion. It also specifies dredging of navigational channels and restoration

of overwash channels, and requires disposal of sand dredged materials to replenish the following adjacent

beaches: Sand Hill Cove, East Mantunuck; Charlestown Beach; Quonochontaug barrier beach. It

prohibits, for beach restoration, mechanical removal or redistribution of sand from the intertidal zone of the

beach to increase the profile of the beach scarp or to construct artificial dune since they destabilize

beaches, increase erosion along beaches and sedimentation in ponds. It specifies how beach sand shall

be placed on beach. It identifies priority areas for acquisition. The SAMP plan sets density limitations for

"self-sustaining lands" and "lands of critical concern." Subdivisions in these areas cannot exceed more

than 1 residential unit per two acres and sewers are prohibited. The goal is to keep residential

development low. The percent of area and shoreline miles covered under these two classifications is not

available, but RICRMP is developing a GIS system that should be able to provide this information in the

future. Also, the plan is under revision. (Source: RI Salt Pond Region SAMP. 1984, and 1993 Addendum

and phone interview with Jeff Willis, RI Coastal Program Manager)
44

KEY ROLE OF STATE CZM IN PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT AND ACQUISITION

Regarding public land management, most of the state beachfront and oceanfront parks had been

acquired and placed under state park management prior to enactment of state CZM program. The unique

role of the state coastal program has included funding or promotion of detailed resource inventories and

specialized management plans to balance resource protection and public use of these sensitive lands;

installation of boardwalks over dunes and other sensitive habitat; sand fencing to avoid dune destruction;

walking trails to limit damage to park resources; beach profiles, sand transport and erosion studies, and

beach management planning; beach and dune restoration; and policies limiting state infrastructure

investments on state beachfront park shorelines. Beach renourishment has been promoted by some

coastal states as an alternative to continued loss of developed recreational beach through shoreline

hardening. Likewise, some states have funded research into sand loss from inlet dredging and have

demanded that beach quality sand be placed on down-drift beaches. Whereas excavation of sand for

coastal development was a common practice in the past, state CZM programs prohibit such practices

today and wage educational campaigns on the importance of protecting stabilized dune systems.

Although many state land acquisition programs were in existence prior to enactment of state CZM

programs, some state CZM programs have played a major role in creating new land acquisition programs

and in helping their state set priorities for coastal land acquisitions. State CZM programs have funded

land inventories, land appraisals, negotiated purchases and land swaps. Land inventories have included

both high value natural resource properties and vacant coastal lands suitable for recreation. State CZM

programs have served as advocates for state acquisition of oceanfront and shoreline properties.

States that are effective stewards of their shoreline parks and preserve lands use park inventories and

management plans; install boardwalks, dune crossovers or other guided pedestrian access; use dune

restoration and beach nourishment where appropriate; enforce policies restricting the use of shoreline

stabilization structures; designate natural resource habitat protection areas; and acquire additional

holdings.

ACTIVE MANAGEMENT OF STATE COASTAL LANDS

* State ownership and management of state-held lands along the coast can afford a high level of natural

resource protection, subject to competing use demands placed on such lands. State lands developed for

recreational use, such as beachfront parks, can also protect natural resources if management plans are

adopted and implemented which restrict pedestrian and vehicular access, set aside fragile habitat from

human use, and employ other methods to maintain the natural landforms. Protection also varies

depending on priority uses given to such state holdings. Those lands with wildlife preserves or

conservation areas generally afford more restrictions on uses than state parks and recreation areas.

* The installation of boardwalks and dune crossovers serves to protect natural dunes through stabilization

of dune vegetation and avoidance of dune breaching. Dune creation and restoration through sand fencing

and dune revegetation serve to stabilize and rebuild dune areas, limit breaching during coastal storms,

and recreate natural dune systems.

* The identification, designation and protection of natural resource areas within beach/dune systems

function to sustain the natural habitat conditions and values present and provide long-term protection.

However, to the extent that such protection is only seasonal, such as temporary turtle or bird nesting site

fencing, pedestrian access over such areas at other times of year may destroy the habitat values longterm.

* All 29 coastal states own state parks along the shoreline that encompass one or more beach, dune, bluff

or rocky shore; 26 have natural resource protection areas and guided accessways, and 21 states have

acquired additional coastal lands.

* Only 17 states have inventory data on their state coastal land holdings such as number of shoreline

miles in state parks. The data gaps regarding state coastal parks and state beachfront parklands is
45

discussed under the outcome data section that follows. 5 states do not have information on the total

number of beach miles. 5 do not know the number of state coastal parks. 10 do not know the number of

beachfront coastal parks they own. 12 do not have information on the miles of state coastal parklands they

own. 11 do not know the number of miles in state coastal lands. See Table13.

* 14 states use boardwalks or dune crossovers within their state coastal parks to guide pedestrian traffic

over fragile beach and dune resources. Sand fences have been installed to keep pedestrians off the

beach. Prior to CZM, unguided access resulted in the trampling of many public beachfront dune areas.

* 13 coastal states employ dune creation on state beachfront parks to repair and enhance the natural

functions of their state-owned beach and dune systems.

BEACH NOURISHMENT 

* Beach renourishment has become popular as a tool to artificially create or recreate a beach area through

the importing of compatible sand. The position of NOAA is that “...while beach nourishment may indeed,

under certain circumstances, be a technically viable alternative, there are many other considerations that

must be deliberated prior to supporting this approach to erosion management... include(ing) the role of

beach nourishment in inducing development in high hazard areas, ....other erosion management

approaches, whether beach nourishment is economically justified, appropriate cost-sharing, and the

environmental issues...” ( MEMO March 19, 1996. NOAA Position on the National Academy of Sciences’

Report “Beach Nourishment and Protection.”) For this study, if a state employs beach nourishment in lieu

of armoring with sufficient documentation of benefits and tradeoffs, it is generally considered a positive

impact on protecting natural beach/dune systems. However, the author agrees that unconditioned use of

beach nourishment may indeed adversely affect natural systems and may not be the most suitable

management approach to protect natural beach/dune areas.

* 17 coastal states have used beach nourishment or renourishment as a management tool, 15 in

conjunction with the USACE. See Table 14. Historically, the lead agency in beach renourishment has

been the USACE with local governments participating as project sponsoring. With increased state

regulatory oversight and the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA, beginning in the 1970s, coastal

states have take a more active role in setting policies and priorities for beach nourishment.

* With the increased use and cost of beach nourishment, states in addition to local government have been

called upon to provide matching funds for projects. The state and local share is usually 20% of the total

cost of a project. There is insufficient data to determine the number of miles of beachfront or cubic yards

of sand placed in state-funded beach renourishment projects. Table 3 in Appendix A provides data on

USACE major shore protection projects in CZM states between 1950 and 1993. Most states appropriate

money from the legislature as needed to match USACE beach nourishment projects. Only a few states,

like Florida and South Carolina, have begun to take a proactive role in setting state priorities for beach

nourishment projects and seeking dedicated funding for beach nourishment.

* There were insufficient resources to conduct an in-depth study of state-sponsored beach nourishment

projects. Furthermore, state data was sparse on projects funded, success or failure of such projects, and

tradeoffs made in selecting beach nourishment as the appropriate management response.

SHORELINE ARMORING

* Most of our nation's urban waterfronts have been armored. Shoreline armoring is a practice which began

prior to CZM programs, in an effort to protect private oceanfront structures and public infrastructure from

erosion. Greater awareness of the negative impacts of shoreline stabilization structures on adjacent

properties and coastal resources has caused CMPs to more closely scrutinize such activities and weigh

the private and public benefits. This is particularly the case, along public recreational beaches, where

armoring to protect roads and public access to the shoreline results in the loss of natural beach. Armoring

and armoring repair through construction of shoreline stabilization structures acts to accelerate the loss of

sandy beaches. For this study, if a state employs armoring on state beaches, it is considered a negative

impact on natural beach/dune systems.
46

* 10 coastal states have funded armoring or repair existing armoring structures in high erosion areas

along their coastline. 15 states have had federal USACE shoreline protection projects built along their

coastlines. In all cases, these armoring project were built to protect existing upland infrastructure such as

roads, public accessways or public buildings inappropriately sited along the eroding coastline. The cost of

relocation such existing uses, particularly coastal highways, was weighed against the loss of natural

recreational beaches and armoring was selected as the management option of choice.

STATE COASTAL LAND ACQUISITION 

* Acquisition programs place private lands into public holdings. Along the coast, these acquisitions tend to

serve both recreational use demands and some resource protection goals. Acquisition of large resource

systems, or acquisition of lands adjacent to existing holdings can afford improved natural resource

protection opportunities.

* 21 coastal states are utilizing acquisition to purchase additional valuable coastal resources. Data is not

generally available on all state land acquisitions, so it was not possible to determine whether coastal land

acquisition was a priority over inland acquisitions. Although some states do not have formal land

acquisition programs, they have utilized CZM funds and other funds to acquire significant parcels.

A full range of state coastal land management activities occur along New Hampshire's 18 miles of

highly developed oceanfront where the immediate shoreline is mainly (78%) in public ownership.

State coastal park management plans have been completed for several of the 9 beachfront parks and 7

rocky shore parks in state ownership including studies of archeological, historical, recreational, and

natural resources. Twenty (20) natural resource inventories funded by CZM provide baseline data on

habitat areas and are used in permitting by Wetlands Board and in public education programs. The

Seabrook Back Dunes, the only major undeveloped back dunes remaining along the New Hampshire

coast, was acquired by the Town of Seabrook with partial funding ($100,000) from the CZM Program.

This 53 acre parcel is managed as a conservation and passive recreation area. CZM funded an

Education Brochure Trail Guide to the Seabrook Dunes Area (1985), Coastal Endangered Plant Inventory

on Seabrook Dunes (1983), Seabrook Dune Management Plan (1985), Dunes Valuation Analysis and

Acquisition Report 1984, and Final Appraisal (1986). The state also acquired other parcels to expand their

coastal land holdings for recreation and conservation. New Hampshire has completed a multi-year

Seabrook Foredunes Restoration Project on a 15 acre town-owned Seabrook Beach. The project involved

restoring badly eroded dunes, the planting of American beach grass to stabilize the dunes, and the

construction of walkways from the street to the beach to control access and minimize adverse impacts on

dunes. Signs along walkways inform the public about dunes restoration work and the importance of using

walkways. Route 1-A borders the ocean along most of the coastline. The state periodically repairs and

maintains protective seawalls running between the beach and the road, as well as seawalls protecting

state beachfront parking lots.. Two USACE-built harbor jetties are maintained and as is the state-built jetty

at Hampton Harbor Inlet. New Hampshire periodically dredges its harbor channels and beach-quality sand

has been placed on adjacent beaches. The USACE also periodically dredges the Hampton Harbor

entrance channel, but the sand is not always used for beach nourishment

Nearly half (47%) of California's 1100 mile long coastline is in public ownership and active public

management. The State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is one of the largest landowners

along the California coast, with over 375 miles or 34% of the ocean shoreline in the state parks system.

There are ~ 87 bluff-front state parks and ~32 rocky shore state parks. Management of these parks is a

major activity, some of which are located in coastal hazard areas. About 10% of state-owned park units

are administered by local governments. The state parks include reserves, beaches, historic parks, and

unclassified units. They cover beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores and some underwater state reserves.

The state has installed ~20 boardwalks to guide pedestrian traffic. The DPR acquisition program for

beaches and dunes, through special site-specific legislation and some bond-funds, has acquired 26,838

acres of state beaches, ~6,000 acres of unclassified beach areas, 27.3 miles of land in five state parks

and one state reserve, and 2.8 miles of dunes. California has also acquired bluff and rocky shore areas
47

through special legislation and surplus property bills, but the amount of shore acquired above mean high

tide is unknown.

 The Coastal Conservancy awards grants to local governments and non-profit organizations for coastal

restoration and coastal resources enhancement projects. Funds are also used for Resource Protection

Zones, buffer areas surrounding public beaches, parks, natural areas and fish and wildlife preserves in the

coastal zone. Between 1978-1995, 600 projects were initiated and 400 projects were completed involving

access, wetlands protection, trail, recreational pier restoration, conflict resolution and farm lands

protection. Between 1978-1992, $175 million general obligation bonds acquired 29,000 acres.

 The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) administers a statewide resource

management, stewardship, and donor program which includes dune creation/ restoration. Through this

program 9 dune areas were revegetated on state lands.

 The California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) administers a "shoreline erosion fund"

which provides funds to state agencies and local governments for construction of shoreline protective

devices and beach nourishment on public beaches and park lands with 75% state funding and 25% local

match funding. Nineteen (19) beach erosion control projects were funded between 1980-1996. Since

1980, there has been approximately 20 miles of beachfront replenished, restored, or renourished with 15

million yards with joint federal/state/local funding. Several properties have seawalls with a welldocumented history of repeated destruction and reconstruction. In 1984, the DPR adopted a coastal

erosion policy to discourage armoring in state beachfront parks and to avoid construction of new

permanent facilities in areas subject to coastal erosion and to promote use of expendable or movable

facilities in areas subject to erosion. However, the DPR rebuilt a timber seawall for seventh time with little

design modifications. This armoring to protect a parking lot and access is not typical.
48

Table 13: STATE COASTAL LAND HOLDINGS AND ACQUISITIONS

State Beach

Miles

State

Coastal

Parks

# Parks

# Beach

 Parks

State

Coastal

Parks

Mi Parks

Mi Bch P

State C.

Parks

Acres

 Park

Acres

 Beach

Coastal Lands Acquired (acres/miles)

AL 46 1

all beach

3

all beach

6,000

all beach

N

AK

nd

63

nd

Nd

Nd

990,335

nd

N

AS

nd

nd

nd

Nd

Nd

nd

nd

N

CA

nd

119

71

377

280

145,540

 26,838

B/D: 26,838 acre; BL: yes-nd; RS: yes-nd

CT

85

nd

6

Nd

6.75

nd

3003

B/D: 1,439 acre

DE 24.5 3

all beach

18 nd

nd

B/D: yes, but nd

FL 825

343 Public

42% Public

24 ~500 ~11,500 B/D: parcels: 980 acres: 294,968 miles: nd

GU 40 14 (only

beach)

5.1

13%

nd

nd

yes through trades –nd

HI 185 24

16

16% 14,814

322

62 acres-B, BL, RS combined

LA >4 mi does

not include

barrier island

shore

2 Nd

>1 mi.

Nd

345

N

ME 23 B/D

20%-S

205 RS

25

10

Nd

4.6

11090

2380

B/D & BL & RS properties: 8

acrs: 4828

miles: ~20

MD 32 3 17 nd

all beach

parels:2 acres: nd miles: 2

MA 222 18

nd

64

nd

nd

nd

State Acres:2250 miles: nd

Local Grants Projects: 17 Acres: 273

miles: nd

MI 270

50% state

29

nd

114

nd

nd

nd

136,000 statewide coastal: nd

MS 18 1 Nd nd N

NH 10 B/D

7.8 RS

16

9

12.5

10

~580

101

B/D & RS acres: 131 Miles: nd

NJ 125

9% state

2 12 3192 N

NY 125

30% state

10

all beach

46.5

all beach

11,600

all beach

CA: 2000 acres

NYGreat

Lks

No

Data

Collected

NC 320

3.4% state

3 11 nd 7,000 acres beachfront

27,439 beach access sites
49

Table 13: STATE COASTAL LAND HOLDINGS AND ACQUISITIONS Continued

State Beach

Miles

State

Coastal

Parks

# Parks

# Beach

 Parks

State

Coastal

Parks

Mi Parks

Mi.BchP

State C.

Parks

Acres

 Park

Acres

 Beach

Coastal Lands Acquired (acres/miles)

NM nd nd

nd

Nd

Nd

nd

nd

N

OR 262 B/D

56% Public

30% state

100 RS

65% public

53% state

64

nd

129.5

76.3-B/D

53.2-RS

27,107

nd

B/D & RS

acres: 94.3

miles: .75 B/D only

PA Lake Erie

10-B

99% state

53-BL

11% public

10% state

Lake Erie

2

1

Lake Erie

13.4

9.9 B

3.5 BL

Lake Erie

3110

10 B

3100 BL

B/D: Spoil Island mile: .25 acres: 10

BL: mile: 3.5 acres:3,100

PR 154 nd

15

Nd

Nd

nd

nd

N

RI 27.3

64% state

14

nd

Nd

Nd

1501

nd

y-nd

SC 181 4 68 nd y-nd

VI nd nd

nd

Nd

Nd

nd

nd

N

VA 200

10% state

1 6 4700 y-nd

WA 60 B

111 RS

120

nd

Nd

Nd

27,000

nd

75,000 acres

statewide coastal: >10,748 acres

WI 820

10%-B

72%-BL

8%-RS

30

nd

Nd

Nd

nd

nd

637 acres: 77 beach/560 dunes

Total y-29

nd-5

nd-5

nd-10

nd-12

nd-11

nd-15

nd-16

y-20

n-9

Key: 

B/D Beach/Dune

BL Bluff

RS Rocky Shore

CA Coastal Area

y yes

n no

nd no data provided or unknown

Source: State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.
50

Table 14: Active State Coastal Land Management

State BoardWalks- #

Dune

CrossOvers- #

Dunes

Revegetated

# projects

feet &

mile

Beaches

Renourished

# Projects

Federal *

State (# & Mi)

Armoring

Projects

Federal *

State

Natural Protection Areas

AL y-7 y-1

500ft

N

N

n

n

40 acres for Perdido beach mouse; ~3 mi. sea

turtles nesting season; 25 acres for terns.

AK n n N

N

n

n

49,000 acres protected for Bald Eagles

AS n n N

N

n

n

N

CA y-~20 y->19

nd

y-7

y-nd

y-5

y-12

Resource Mgt. Plans designate trails, roads,

parking, zone units for reserves, preserves,

habitat protection and public use. Endangered

species habitat protected bird nesting sites.

CT nd 9

nd

y-6

y-1 .25 mi

y-2

y-3

408 acres Natural Area Preserve; 806 acres

Coastal Reserve; Nature trail

DE y-2-bdwk

y-3-cross

y-nd

18 mi

y-2

y-nd 6 mi.

y-1

n

Endangered species habitat-such as piping

plover- case by-case and during nesting season.

FL y-many

nd

y-100 mi y-26

y-nd ~94 mi.

y-6

y-nd

Sea turtle nesting sites during season.

GU n n N

N

n

n

28,197 acres (20.73% Guam total land area)

15,600 acres submerged lands.

HI n n N

N

n

n

7 coastal Natural Area Reserves 48,102 acres,

83,200 miles of Wildlife Sanctuaries, 9 Marine

Life Conservation District 1346 acres

LA y-1 y-6

~20 mi

barrier Is.

y-2

y-nd ~20 mi.

y-1

y-20

N

ME y-1% y-5

4 mi.

N

y-6

USACE Habor

Proj. >1 mi

n

n

3 state beachfront parks, dunes protection,

pedestrian accessways; sea bird nesting sites

fenced off during nesting season. 1 Rocky Island

Sanctuary-access restricted

MD y-1 y-1

2 mi

y-2

y-2 10 mi.

y-1

y-nd

Seasonal restirctions for nesting birds along

entire beachfront.

MA nd y-nd y-5

y-nd 3 mi.

y-2

y-nd

5 coastal pk. mgt. plans for 4,673 acres

14 ACECs covering 75,000 acres.

MI nd n N

N

N

N

- 860 mi.total: ~250 mi. natural preserv; ~300 mi.

critical dunes areas; ~310 mi.high risk erosion areas.

MS y-1 n y-2

y-1 18 mi.

y-1

n

N

NH 1 y-2

nd

y-3

y-5 2 mi.

y-2

y-3

Pedestrain access restricted area; 5 acres. piping

plover nesting site.

NJ n n yes-8

y

27 mi

y-4

y

B/D acres: 2,500 miles: 11.57 Included

100 acre bird sanctuary; 1200 acres beach

research/wildlife sanctuary; 1,000 acre beach

nature area; 3 other nature areas 1201 acres.

NY 3 n y-8

y-1

y-4

n

7 protection areas covering 566 acres in state

parks. >50 miles beachfront bird nesting areas.

200 fish/wildlife habitat areas.

NC 2 y-nd y-6

y-12

5 mi

y-2

n

314 miles of beach, plus spoil islands.

100 miles undisturbed areas/Reserves; 50 acre

nesting colonial birds; 11 miles sea turtle nesting.
51

Table 14: Active State Coastal Land Management Continued

State BoardWalks-#

Dune

CrossOvers-#

Dunes

Reveg.

# projects

feet &

mile

Beach

Nourishment

# Projects

Federal *

State

# & Mi

Armoring

Projects

Federal *

State

Natural Protection Areas

NM n n N

Nd

n

n

Offshore islands as bird sanctuaries, beacehs as

turtle nesting sites

OR n n N

y-1 >1 mi.

n

n

Vehicles prohibited on 70% of coastline. State

park mgt. trails, restricted access.

PA n n y-2

y- 1 area

6 mi

y-1

y-1

Lake Erie only

n- beach

y- D. Roderick Wildlife Refuge

PR n n N

N

n

n

19 Nature Reserves and 8 Special Planning

Areas

RI y-1 n N

N

y-1

n

All undeveloped barrier beaches

SC 4 y-3

58 mi

y-1

y-4 45 mi.

y-1

y-nd

groins

repair

68 miles in parks/wildlife preserves.

VI n n N

N

n

n

Salt River Bay

VA n y y-1

y-5 nd

n

n

6 miles sea turtle nesting at False Cape.

WA nd n N

N

n

n

Many- 7 areas with >6336 acres harbor seals,

falcons, eagles and other bird nesting areas.

WI y-several

nd

n N

N

n

n

~300 natural areas statewide coastal: nd

Total y-14

n-11

nd-4

y-13

n-16

federal y-15

state y-17

federal y15

state y 10

y-26

n-3

Key:

y- yes

n- no

nd- no data provided or unknown, no data provided.

Source: State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.

*US Army Corps of Engineers, Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Cnbtrol Study: Phase 1: Cost

Comparison of Shoreline Protection Projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
52

6 OUTCOME INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS

Outcome indicators are used to measure the on-the-ground effects that result from implementation of

CZM tools. Outcome indicators of CZM effectiveness in implementing regulatory, planning, direct land

management and acquisition tools associated with the protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky

shores are shown in Table 15. The "coastal resource areas" referred to in Table 15 include the landward

extent of beach and dune systems, eroding bluffs, coastal hazard areas, coastal floodplains, and the

immediate shoreline. The "natural habitat areas" referred to in Table 15 include coastline areas with

unique or fragile natural flora or fauna. States' definition, identification, designation, and protection of such

areas vary.

The outcome indicators mirror the key tools states employ in resource management: 1) regulatory; 2)

planning; and 3) land use management and acquisition. Under regulatory programs, four desired results

are identified followed by one or more standard survey methods for measuring outcomes For adopted

plans, methods were identified for measuring results against plan objectives. Under state coastal land

management and acquisition, there are suggestions for documenting results of state ownership and

acquisition and active state natural resource stewardship.

An example of regulatory outcome indicator data was linear and/or area data on permits issued which

would reflect the desired outcome of either few or no permits for activities seaward of a setback line or

within identified natural resource areas, such as active beach and dune systems or eroding bluff areas.

Counter-indicators would be miles of beachfront shoreline developed or armored through permitting. With

this and other kinds of data, such as aerial photos, changes in develop patterns along our nation’s

coastline and in specific natural coast resource areas could be documented. If baseline and time series

data existed, an attempt to trace the rate of reduced impact or reduced rate of encroachment into fragile

coastal areas as a result of CZM regulatory controls could be achieved.

What our research documented was that coastal states and federal agencies are not routinely collecting

the types of outcome data we identified as valuable in measuring on-the-ground results of CZM programs

in achieving the national objectives such as coastal resource protection.

OUTCOME INDICATOR DATA AVAILABILITY

It is not possible to determine on-the-ground outcomes or effectiveness of implementing state CZM

regulatory programs, planning programs, state land management, and state acquisition programs to

protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores, based on data and information provided by OCRM and

the coastal states. For the most part, there was insufficient data to assess the on-the-ground

effectiveness of state CZM programs. Monitoring and reporting of on-the-ground outcomes of CZM

program activities have not been required, as part of OCRM's annual reporting on grants and activities

and the periodic 312 program evaluations. Although most states have developed permit tracking systems,

these are primarily administrative efforts to track individual permits through the regulatory process and not

designed to contain program evaluation data. State reporting on plan implementation, where available, is

descriptive rather than analytical. Data on shoreline ownership and inventories of shoreline resources

have not been updated since program approval and outcome data on results of active state coastal lands

stewardship is scarce.
53

Table 15: Outcome Indicators of Effectiveness

Regulatory Program Outcomes:

1. No further or reduced rate of encroachment into coastal resource areas indicated by no new or

fewer new shoreline structures or shoreline stabilizations on the beach and dune system, eroding bluff,

coastal hazard areas, coastal floodplain, or immediate shoreline.

2. No further or reduced rate of hardening of the undeveloped beachfront through shoreline

 stabilizations.

3. Controlled shoreline accessways.

4. Healthy and maintained intact natural habitat areas along the coast.

Survey methods for measuring outcomes starting with a baseline followed by time series:

(a) aerial photography interpretation;

(b) permit data for: 1) setbacks, control line areas, shoreline permit programs; 2) linear miles of shoreline

stabilizations permitted by type of stabilization; 3) area and linear miles of permitted activities by type of

activity (new residence, seawall, etc.) located in specific resource areas (beaches, dunes, etc.) within the

state's coastal control zones and restrictive conditions attached which show minimization of adverse

impacts (size, location, design other conditions); 4) demolitions or landward relocation of beachfront/blufffront structures; 5) shoreline boardwalks, dune crossover, and other structural accessways permitted with

specific resource areas (beach, dune, bluff, rocky shore); and/or 6) for habitat areas showing no activities

permitted in designated areas which would adversely affect the natural values being protected;

(c) periodic physical surveys of the condition of selected/designated coastal resources protection areas;

(d) shoreline maps of controlled accessways; maps delineating shoreline acres and miles

where pedestrian and/or vehicular access is restricted; maps delineating habitat protection areas.

Adopted Plan Outcomes:

1. Achievement of Plan Objectives through implementation and monitoring-- such as protection of

designated "coastal resource areas" or "natural habitat areas", dune restoration; inlet management to

place dredged sand on downdrift beaches; keeping development away from designated coastal hazard

areas; etc.

Survey methods for measuring outcomes starting with a baseline followed by time series:

(a) aerial photography interpretation;

(b) periodic physical surveys of areas protected or managed under enforceable plans;

(c) state and local permit data on activities permitted within approved plan areas, area and linear miles

affected, and consistency with plan objectives;

(d) direct state or local actions undertaken-- such as miles/acres of dunes revegetation, cubic yards of

sand transferred due to installation of inlet sand transfer plant, etc.

State Coastal Land Management and Acquisition Outcomes:

1. Extent of state coastal land holdings in parks and preserves containing beaches, dunes, bluffs or

rocky shores.

2. Active public natural resources stewardship of coastal land holdings

3. Coastal lands acquired

Survey methods for measuring outcomes starting with a baseline and periodic updates:

(a) coastline acres and linear shoreline miles in public/ state ownership with resources present;

(b) number of accessways, marked trails, boardwalks, dune crossovers and demonstrated public use;

(c) dune restoration projects, acres, miles of shoreline involved, state funds;

(d) acres or shoreline miles in state coastal lands designated as conservation, preservation or protection

areas;

(e) aerial photography interpretation or periodic physical surveys to verify condition of resources;

(f) miles and acres and type coastal shoreline resource areas acquired by the state, the state expenditures

for coastal versus inland of properties, and the CZM program funds used.

Source: State Coastal Management Effectiveness In Protecting Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky

Shores: A National Overview. Final March 1998
54

Table 16 identifies the availability of selected outcome data. It shows the number of states with some

outcome data for selected management tools employed. Although 20 of the 29 states have computerized

permit tracking systems, only 14 states have any data on habitable structures permitted. Fifteen (15)

states have data on shoreline stabilizations permitted. The numbers drop off when looking at data on

access and habitat permit restrictions. Although 15 of the 18 states with local plans track the number of

approved plans, only 2 states have any outcome data on local plan implementation. Data is likewise

sparse regarding SAMP and other plan outcomes. Looking at stewardship of state coastal lands, more

states keep data on physical activities such as beach and dune restoration projects undertaken. But in

almost all cases data is too scant to determine on-the-ground results of such actions.

Appendix C contains a summary of all the available outcome data associated with state regulation

through permits for shoreline construction and shoreline stabilizations, restricting access, and protecting

habitat. Appendix C also contains summary tables with outcome data associated with state ownership

and management and coastal land acquisitions. These tables cover the tools utilized by state CZM

programs and available outcome data on program implementation to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and

rocky shores. Findings regarding outcome indicators of effectiveness for state CZM tools employed to

protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores are presented on the following pages.

Table 16: Availability of Selected Outcome Data

 States States

Using Mgt. With Some

 Tool Outcome Data

Type of Outcome Data

State Coastal Permits:

 Computerized Permit Tracking System 20 See Below

 Habitable Structures Permits 29 14

 Shoreline Stabilizations Permits 29 15

 Pedestrian Access Permits 23 4

 Vehicular Access Permits 23 3

 Protected Areas Permits 27 9

 Local Coastal Permits 20 1

Local Plans:

 Approved 18 15

 Implementation Data 18 2

Other Plans:

Special Area Mgt. Plans 12 3

State Land Management Plans 14 3

Stewardship of State Coastal Lands:

 Inventory coastal lands 29 17

 Boardwalks/Crossovers 14 12

 Dune Creation 13 9

 Beach Nourishment 17 14

 Natural Areas Protection 26 26

 Acquisition of Coastal Lands 21 15

Source: State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.
55

REGULATORY OUTCOMES

*Although 20 of the 29 coastal states have computerized permit tracking systems (19 for habitable

structures and 20 for shoreline stabilizations), none of the states coastal programs keep statewide

databases on the linear miles, area, or resources affected by the permits approved for activities along the

shoreline. Such information, when available, is contained only in the individual paper permit files. Only 16

states provided any permit data on structures and shoreline stabilizations to these researchers.

* Coastal states restrict the size, location and design of structures and shoreline stabilizations to minimize

adverse impacts on natural resources beach and dune systems. Conditions attached to individual permits

are sometimes contained in paper files, but never in computer permit tracking systems. Of the 25 states

that employ restrictions over activities, such as sand mining and beach nourishment, none routinely collect

data on the results of these restrictions. Likewise, coastal states do not collect and analyse statewide data

on changes in shoreline development or changes to conditions of natural resources from aerial

photography or from permitted activities.

* Regulatory program jurisdictions vary but tend to extend from mean high water (MHW) inland a certain

number of feet, a distance based on erosion rates, or to the inland extent of a natural or manmade

feature. Within this permit jurisdiction, several or no significant natural resources may be affected by any

given permitted activity. No statewide data is available on specific resources affected by CZM-approved

permits. This data may not even be contained in individual paper permit files. Trend data on changes in

number of coastal permits issued and number of violations sited is also insufficient to use in assessing

regulatory program effectiveness. Although some states keep data on numbers of coastal permits issued

and violations corrected, the critical information missing is a break-down on type of activity permitted,

length of project and area of coast and resources affected. Although some states issue permits for

demolition or relocation landward of beachfront structures, multi-year data in not readily available. Only

Upton-Jones data was available from FEMA. (See Appendix A) For states that delegate coastal

permitting to local governments, no state maintains a multi-year database on local permit decisions.

* 23 states restrict pedestrian and/or vehicular access. Several coastal states issue permits for

boardwalks and dunes crossovers, but states with large number of boardwalks permits (such as Florida)

do not have permit data available. A few states set guidelines but do not require permits if such structures

comply with the guidelines, so there are no records on construction of these accessways. Only 4 state

provided data on access permits and 3 states on vehicular access permits. Michigan data shows 200-250

public access projects approved between 1989-1995 and vehicular access restrictions along 23% of the

coastline. New Jersey data shows 2 permits for boardwalks between 1994-1996 but no data on local level

restrictions of vehicular access. Oregon data shows 12 boardwalks permitted between 1967-1995 and

vehicular restriction along 70% of the coastline. South Carolina allows, without permit, small walkways

over dunes if guidelines are met. Larger projects require permits. Data shows 12 boardwalks permits and

13 emergency vehicular access permits were issued between 1988-1995.

* 27 states protect areas such as endangered species habitat by restricting activities and development in

these areas. Only 9 states provided data on protection areas and even this data was scant and lacked

information on the type of resources within protected acreage or condition of resource area. For several

states, protection occurs only on state-held lands. Examples of state data collected:

AL- 3 miles of sea turtle nesting; 40 acres of beach mouse habitat; 25 acres of tern nesting habitat.

AK- 49,000 acres of Bald Eagle nesting habitat.

MI- 300 miles of critical dunes; 250 miles of natural preserves; 310 miles of high risk erosion areas.

NJ- 15 miles of bird nesting habitat

NY- 50 miles of beachfront bird nesting sites; 200 designated fish/wildlife habitat areas.

NC- 100 miles of undisturbed areas.

SC- 181 miles beachfront restricted during sea turtle nesting season.

VI- 13 recreational beaches; 9 sea turtle nesting beaches; 13 CRBA areas.

VA- 6 miles of sea turtle nesting sites protected.
56

Example of outcome data collected:

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program (RICRMP) has had a computerized

coastal permit tracking program in place since 1987. This system was upgraded and paper permit files

dating back to 1971 are now in the computer system. Unfortunately this permit tracking system is of

minimal value in assessing program outcomes in the area of resource protection at this time. The CRMP

tracks permit data by activity type but not by location such as beaches, bluffs, rocky shores) So one

cannot identify extent of permitted activity by resource area. (See Table 17-A) Likewise, the permit

database does not reflect setback or pedestrian access or vehicular access restrictions. On a positive

note, CRMP policies prohibit new development on undeveloped and moderately developed barrier

beaches, and data show that at least 65% of the barrier beaches have had no new permitted development

since 1971. (See Table 17-B) Likewise no new shoreline stabilzaitions were permitted on undeveloped

and moderately developed barrier beaches since 1971. Permit data in Tables 15-A and 15-B do not

reflect setback requirements which act to place development away from shoreline, erosion areas, and

valuable habitat areas. Table 17-C indicates no outcome data on pedestrian or vehicular access

restrictions. Table 17-D shows several special regulation areas covering setbacks from resource features,

erosion setbacks, setbacks from dunes, and areas restricted from development based on adjacency to

state waters classified as type 1 and 2.
57

Table 17-A: State Permit Actions- RI

REGULATORY ACTION CRM Council CRM Council

 Permit Permit (Assents)

YEARS 1971-1977 1971-July 1996

Upland Jurisdiction

Permit Applications

Permits Approved

Subdivisions

Dwelling Units

Commercial/Indust Dev.

Maintenance R/C/I

Accessory Blds.

Recreation-Pools

Dredge/Fill

Roads

Marina Activities

Docks

Dock Maintenance

Discharge/Waste Fac.

Energy facilities

Demolitions

ISDS*

Landscaping

Federal Consistency

Other (d)

Shoreline Stabilizations

Nonstructural Shore Proj

Violations Cited

Habitable Structures

 destroyed by storms

 permitted to rebuild

 denied to rebuild

 relocated

CRMC Juris(b) CRMC Regulatory Jurisdction (b)

~600 (a) unknown

~ 97% (a) 14,762-- 95% in Tier 1

 312 (2%)

 3950 (27%)(c)

 539 (4%)

 762

 1073

 208

 359

 467

 778

 2504 (17%)

 389

 477

 200

 30

 559

 149

 119

 572

 1066 (7%) (e)

 238 (1.6%) (f)

 no data

 no data

 no data

 no data

 3 Claims Approved under Upton Jones for demolition or

 relocation

Key: *ISDS- Individual Sewage Disposal Systems

(a) 125 approved in FY1977 only (FEIS, p. iv). Approved after modifications suggested by council/staff to minimize adverse

environmental effects. (b) Tier 1 -200 ft. inland of coastal features including beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores and other

shoreline feature areas such as wetlands. Tier 2- the inland extent of 7 types of activities. (c) 1715 new, 1703 alterations to DU.

(d) Other includes buffer alterations (74), wetlands determinations (38), mosquito Ditches (18), ROW (10), and other (e)

Shoreline Stabilization Structures: groins, bulkheads, rip rap, seawalls, retaining walls, and repairs. (f) Cover beach

nourishment/conservation restoration activities (224) and non-structural shoreline protection/vegetation (14) Sources: Computer

printout, Application Statistics by CRMC Project types, provided by Jeff Willis, August 29, 1996. Also Mark Crowell, UptonJones Data Base.
Table 17-B New Development & Shoreline Stabilization Permits by Barrier Beach Designations- RI

Barrier Type % of Beach Shore New Development Permits 1971-1996

Undeveloped 65% Prohibited None(a)

Moderately Developed (part of 35%) Prohibited None(b)

Developed 35% Allowed Unknown

Barrier Type % of Beach Shore New SS Permits 1971-1996

Undeveloped 65% Prohibited None (c)

Moderately Developed (part of 35%) Prohibited None (c)

Developed 35% Allowed Unknown

Note: Total Beach Shore is 27.3 miles

Key: New Development- residential, commercial, industrial development

SS- structural shoreline stabilizations

(a) neither public nor private development since 1954.

(b) no new development allowed.

(c) no new structural shoreline stabilizations allowed

Sources: 309 Assessment, Jeff Willis

Table 17-C: Pedestrian and Vehicular Access Restriction On Private Lands Protecting Habitat Areas- RI

REGULATORY ACTION

Beachfront Boardwalk Permits 1971-1995: Unknown, no permit required if meet state guidelines.

Vehicular Traffic Restriction Areas as of 1995: Many, no data base.

A. Coastal Beaches and Dunes (210.1):

- vehicles prohibited on dunes except on tails marked expressly for vehicular use.

- vehicular use of beaches (where not otherwise prohibited by private/public management programs) required DEM

Use Permit through DEM Division of Enforcement. Vehicles shall not be operated across protected (lifeguard)

swimming beaches during protection period.

B. Barrier Beaches (210.2)- Prohibit:

- vehicle access across back barrier flat to access Salt Ponds

- vehicles in vegetated areas anywhere on barrier

C. Dunes (1995 Addendum- New Section 210.7- Dunes)-Prohibit:

1. vehicles on dunes within 75 ft. of dune crest except on marked trails.

2. alteration of foredune zone adjacent to Type 1 and 2 waters, except for protection/restoration, no hard structures.

Habitat Protection Areas as of 1995: Many, no data base.

Source: Jeff Willis, RICRMP Regulations.

Table 17-D Regulated Areas- type of regulated area, acres, shoreline miles, resources protected- RI

TYPE OF AREA Acres/Shoreline Miles/Resources Protected or Benefit

A. Coastal Setback acres-nd

Mile- 100% All 700 miles of tidal & 311 miles of coastline setback

at least 50 feet and up to 200 feet inland in some areas to protect

coastal features.

B. Critical Erosion Areas Acres-nd

Miles-nd No data on percent of total 311 mile of coastline designated

critical erosion areas. Areas designated and mapped based on 30 yr.

erosion rate setback for residential and 60 yr. erosion rate setback for

commercial/industrial. Table of required setback depths based on

erosion category A, B, C, D.

C. Dunes Construction Setback Acres-nd

Miles-nd No data on miles of beachfront covered. setback based on

edge of existing development as measured by utility lines and landlord

walls:

Misquamicut Beach- #miles-nd

Coast Guard Beach- # miles-nd

Sand Hill Cove- # miles-nd

D. State Waters Classification Type I (Conservation) and Type 2 (Low Intensity)

Acres- 3300

Miles- covers 70%-75% of the shoreline and development regulated

along this entire shoreline area.

Sources: FEIS, RICRMP Regulations
ADOPTED PLAN OUTCOMES

* Most states with approved local comprehensive, land use, or coastal area plans provided information on

the number of local plans the state has approved. Otherwise, no statewide data was available on the

results of local plan implementation such as natural resource protection areas, local setbacks, land use

designations, and changes to land use or zoning. Connecticut CZM illustates this outcome data

deficiency. (See Below)

* For the states with adopted SAMP or other specialized plans, none of the following outcome measures

are available: 1) aerial photo interpretation of on-the-ground changes since plan adoption; 2) periodic

physical surveys of areas protected or managed under enforceable plans; 3) state and local permit data

on activities permitted within approved plan areas, area and linear miles affected by approved permits and

consistency of permitted activities with plan objectives. For public-held lands, there is some limited data on

actions taken such as dune revegetation, but no data on results from such actions. (See under State

Coastal Land Management and Acquisition section below) Only 2 of the 13 states with adopted SAMPs

provided outcome data- Guam and California. (See page 43 for the Guam Recreational Water Use

Management Plan)

 The California Malibu/Santa Monica Mountain (SMM) Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) Program

is summarized below. In 1979, Coastal Conservancy and CCC developed TDC program requiring, as a

permit condition, that proposed subdividers or builders of multifamily housing units extinguish or retire the

development potential of comparable existing undeveloped parcels prior to the creation of new parcels or

additional units in density. The purpose was to eliminate small undeveloped and poorly sited parcels that,

if built, would increase erosion, runoff, and landslides. OUTCOME: By 1989, over 700 parcels of land were

placed under open space easements or offers to dedicate open space easements in the SMM area.

(Assessment, p.55)

* Only 3 of the 14 states with adopted plans affecting state lands provided outcome data. This include:

OR- Territorial Sea Management Plan with Rocky Shore Strategy; PA- 8 approved local plans under Bluff

Recession and Setback Act with setbacks covering 50 miles or 94% of bluff-front. FL- 500 miles of beach

under state erosion plan; 100 miles of beaches restored. Other states provide data on number of plans

and areas covered but no results. For example, NY data shows 2 erosion management plans approved

covering 25 miles or 20% of beaches.

Examples of outcome data collected:

As indicated in Table 18-A, most (35 out of 41) of coastal towns and boroughs in Connecticut have

adopted Municipal Coastal Program (MCPs) consistent with the CCMA policies and use guidelines. They

contain long-range land use plans for coastal development and conservation, as well as implementing

local zoning and subdivision regulations. Most have established setbacks from sensitive coastal

resources and the high tide line. Through Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review (CSPR), municipalities

regulate development between MHW and coastal boundary. There are no statewide data on local land

use plans or local zoning and subdivision regulations or results of local implementation in Connecticut
60

Table 18-A: Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Regulations, & Other Special Area Management Plans- CT

YEAR 1995 1995

COASTAL GOVERNMENT MUNICIPALITIES (Towns and Burroughs)

1. Number in CZ 41 (36/4)

2. Number with Approved Plans 35*

 (Municipal Coastal Programs)

3. Number with Setback Regulations ND (a)

 (Setbacks from beaches/dunes)

4. Number with Dune Management Plans ND (b)

 Acres Protected/Restricted Use

KEY:

NA- Not applicable

ND no statewide data.

* Local participation is voluntary. Of 6 not participating, three located along Long Island Sound: Madison,

Greenwich, and East Haven

(a) Most towns have setbacks from sensitive coastal resources (such as wetlands) and the high tide line required by

zoning and/or subdivision regulations. But few have setbacks from the beach.

(b) CZM has provided assistance the locals for development of dunes restoration plans

Sources: 309 Assessment p. 16, Mary-Beth Hart, CZM staff.

The State of California utilizes state goals, policies and guidelines with both state and local implementation. Local

implementation is through adoption of Local Coastal Land Use Plans which 83% of the localities have adopted. All require

either setbacks or case-by-case construction standards. However, no statewide database to determine effectiveness.

Table 18-B: Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans/Regulations, Other Special Area Management Plans- CA

YEAR 1995 1995

COASTAL GOVERNMENT CITIES/ COUNTIES/Total LCP Segments(a)

1. Number in CZ 58 15 73 126

2. Number with Certified Local Coastal Land Use Plans (LUPs) 105 (83%)

3. Number with Certified Implementation Plans 88 (70%)

4. LCPs Certified and Issuing Permits 82 (65%)

5. Geographic Area Covered by Certified LCPs 1,387,129 acres (86% of CZ)

6. LCP Amendments Reviewed 738

7. Areas of Deferred Certification 42

8. Number with Beachfront Regulations All with beaches*

9. Number with Bluff Regulations All with bluffs*

10.. Number with Dune Management Plans

 Acres Protected/Restricted Use unknown*

11.. Number of SAMPs

 Acres Protected/Shoreline Miles unknown*

12. Number of Environmentally Sensitive Areas

 Resource Protection Areas in beaches/dunes/bluffs/rocky shores

 Acres protected/Shoreline Miles unknown*

13. Malibu/Santa Monica Mountain Transfer of Development

Credit Program

 Results- +700 parcels placed on Open Space Easement (as of 1989) avoiding erosion, landslides on these small undeveloped

and poorly sited lots.

KEY:

unknown- no statewide database.

(a) The 73 coastal jurisdictions are divided into 126 segments for purposes of LCP planning.

* All cities/counties with certified plans have provisions which meet state goals, policies and guidelines regarding beaches, dunes

and bluffs and significant resource areas. However, some require setbacks, other have case-by-case siting/construction standards.

No statewide database.

Sources: Local Coastal Planning Program Annual report FY 1994-1995, p.16

Guam has a single layer of government. All plans are island-wide. There is insufficient data in Table 18-C to make a

determination of effectiveness of the State land Use Plan or State Seashore Protection Plan or the Territorial Parks System.
61

Guam has, however, adopted a Recreational and Water Use Management Plan for which data indicates that a 6 miles is protected

and competing use conflicts managed.

Table 18-C: State Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Other Special Area Management Plans- Guam

Planning Tool % of Coastline Covered % Guam Total Acreage/land Area

 (excluding federal lands) (Guam CZ)

1. State Land-Use Plan 100% 100%

(a) Conservation Districts nd nd

(b) Habitat Protection Areas nd 28,197 acres (21%land area)*

2. State Seashore Protection Plan 100% 10 fathom contour-10 meters inland

3. SAMPs

(a) Flood Hazard Zones nd nd

(b) Recreational and Water Use Mgt. Plan **

4. Territorial Parks System

(a) Natural Preserves nd nd

(b) Conservation Reserves nd nd

KEY:

nd- no statewide data.

* Island wide- includes upland areas, not just shoreline also includes both Guam Government and federal lands.

** A 6 miles stretch along coast and in water which addresses users conflicts along beach and in waters. Bird nesting areas

identified and protected, Manahac fish-runs protected. Cannot operate jet ski except in management plan areas. Plan adopted as

part of GCMP in 1990/91. Provides for "use zones" for certain water activities in planned areas, required buoyed areas for jet ski

type vehicles and mechanized vehicular closure during predictable Manahac runs. Minimum operating age of 16 years for all

mechanized water vehicles. Jet skis can only be operated in planned areas-- two such areas adopted, third area finalizing plan. In

first area planned, Agana Bay to Piti, encompasses 6 linear miles of coast to a distance varying from two hundred yards to half a

mile. The second area, Cocos Lagoon, is a triangular shaped lagoon 3 miles long on the land side, extending 2 miles seaward.

The third area is Apra Harbor, which is Guam's commercial port, the Navy port and Guam's Harbor of Refuge.

Sources: Michael L. Ham.

STATE COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND ACQUISITION OUTCOMES

* All 29 coastal states own state parks along the shoreline that encompass one or more beach, dune, bluff

or rocky shore. Only 17 states have inventory data on their state coastal land holdings such as number of

shoreline miles in state parks or percent of shoreline in public ownership. Five (5) states do not have

information on the total number of beach miles. Five (5) states do not known the number of state coastal

parks. Ten (10) states do not know the number of beachfront coastal parks they own. Twelve (12) states

do not have information on the miles of state coastal park lands they own. Eleven (11) states do not know

the number of miles in state coastal lands.

* Several states are active stewards of their public coastal land holdings. Stewardship outcome data is

scarce regarding: 1) number of accessways, marked trails, boardwalks, and dune crossovers; 2) dune

restoration projects measured in acres, miles of shoreline involved, state funds; 3) beaches restored or

renourished as measured in cubic yards, beachfront miles, state funds; 4) number of shoreline

stabilizations installed with acres and shoreline miles affected as a counter-indication to stewardship; and

5) acres, shoreline miles in state coastal lands designated as conservation, preservation or protection

areas and aerial photo interpretation, periodic physical surveys to verify condition of resources.

* Of the 14 states which use boardwalks or dunes crossovers within their state coastal parks to guide

pedestrian traffic over fragile beach and dune resources, 12 have provided limited data on the number

accessways installed (See Table 14). However, this data is of limited use without additional data which

correlates access provided within each state park against length of shoreline or unmet access needs.

* Of the 13 coastal states which employ dunes creation on state beachfront parks to repair and enhance

the natural functions of their state-owned beach and dune systems, 9 have provided limited data on the
62

number of projects and/or miles of beachfront covered. (See Table 14). This information is of limited use

in determining effectiveness, since there is no data which correlates need for dune restoration against

projects completed or project results.

* Of the 17 coastal states which have used beach nourishment or renourishment as a management tool,

14 state have very limited data on the number of projects and/or miles of beachfront renourished. There is

almost no state data on cubic yards of sand involved, costs, or long-term results of these projects.

However, 15 states involve beach nourishment projects sponsored by the USACE and there is some data

on federally-funded beach nourishment projects (See Appendix A, National Context Factors).

* Eleven (11) coastal states have chosen to armor or to repair existing armoring structures in high erosion

areas. 15 state have had federal USACE shoreline protection projects built along their coastlines. As with

beach nourishment projects, data is very scarce. (See Table 14) However, the fact that over 1/3 of the

coastal states employ armoring on state-held lands indicates the policy priority preference for protecting

upland structures and infrastructure in such areas.

* Of the 26 coastal states which have designated natural resource protection areas, all have some limited

data on the number of areas protected, the type of species protected, the type of resource area protected,

and/or the number of acres protected. (SeeTable 14). There is a need, however, for data on the value or

condition of the habitat protected and the results of the protection activities in order to assess program

effectiveness.

* Of the 21 coastal states which are utilizing acquisition to purchase additional valuable coastal resources,

15 states provided some data on the number of properties and acres acquired. Most are coastwide or

statewide acquisition data. (See Table 13) For states with multiple coastline resources, data are not

broken-down by beaches, bluffs or rocky shores. Very few states provided data on amount of money

spent. There is need for data which can be used correlate acquisition of coastal lands versus all state

lands acquired and to determine the relative priority of coastal land acquisition in the state's overall land

acquisition program.

Example of outcome data collected:

The Massachusetts CZM Program illustrates the limitations on outcome data available to assess

program effectiveness. About 25% of the Massachusettes coastline is in public ownership with only 5%

being in state-ownership (See Table19-A). There are 18 coastal parks covering 63 linear miles or 33,064

feet. Five coastal park management plans are in progress covering 5,000 acres. (See Table 19-B).

There are no outcome data on pedestrian access restrictions. There has been one federal/state

sponsored beach nourishment project covering 2-3 miles, and dunes have been restored. (See Tables

19-B and 19-C). The Rivers and Harbors Program funds dune restoration, beach restoration, and

armoring projects-- no data were available, however, on projects funded or project results (See Table 19-

D). The state has 14 designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern covering 75,000 acres, but no

data were provided on types of resources protected. Outcome indicator data show that 2,250 acres were

acquired by state agencies (See Table 19-E).
63

Table 19-A: State Coastline Ownership and Direct Land Management- MA

OWNERSHIP LINEAR SHORELINE MILES

Total coastal miles 1,500

 Public-Owned ~25%

 State-Owned ~5%

Total Beachfront miles 222 miles of barrier beaches

 Public-Owned ND

 State-Owned ND

Total Rocky-Shore ND

 Public-Owned ND

 State-Owned ND

Total Bluffs ND

Key: ND- no data Source: Deirdre Buckley

Table 19-B: State Coastline Ownership and Direct Land Management of State Parks- MA

MANAGEMENT COASTAL NATURAL RESOURCE AREA

Activity COASTAL FRONTAGE

# Parks 18

# MILES 63.46 miles

# FEET 335,064 feet

# Boardwalks ND

# Park Plans 5 coastal park mgt. plans completed = 4,673 acres

5 coastal park beach plans in progress = 5,000 acres

# Dunes Restored Yes- ND

# Beaches Renourished 2 - 3 MILES

# Protection Areas/Acres 14 ACECs = 75,000 acres

Key: ND- no data ACE'Cs- Areas of Critical Erosion Concern

Source: Deirdre Buckley

Table 19-C: Beaches Restored/Nourished/Renourished - MA

YEAR PROJECT MILES OF BEACH CUBIC YARDS

1970 - 1996 Revere Beach 2 - 3 miles ND

Note: USACE sponsored. There are several private projects and sand/material placement on beaches.- Jim O'Connell

Key: ND-no data

Source: Deirdre Buckley

Table 19-D: Dunes Restored and Shoreline Armored- MA

YEAR PROJECT MILES OF BEACH CUBIC YARDS

1970 - 1996

Dunes restored Yes under Rivers and Harbors Program- No data

Shoreline Armored Yes under Rivers and Harbors Program- No data

Source: Deirdre Buckley
64

Table 19-E: Coastal Lands Acquired- MA

Coastal Acquisitions: Open Space Bond Bill

Year: 1978 - 1996

DEM

Acquisitions:

Acres/Linear Miles 2,100 acres/ no data on miles

Resource Area coastal frontage

Acquisition Tool Bond issue

Expenditures 36 million/

awarded $70 million more through 

Open Space Bond Bill in 1987 and 1996

DFWELE

Acquisitions

Acres/Linear Miles 150 acres

Resource Area coastal frontage - habitat protection

Acquisition tool Bond Issue

Expenditures 3 million

MDC

plans to restore Boston Beaches ; 5 year revitalization project , $30 million

DCS

provides grants to municipalities to protect open space through Self-Help and Urban Self-Help Programs. Also DCS administers

federal Land and Water Conservation /fund grants to targeted municipalities. To date only 273 acres of coastal frontage has been

acquired through 17 acquisition project in over 20 years by local municipalities. Only 16 cities and towns have received grants -

mostly in the Cape Cod/Islands region.

Source: Deirdre Buckley
65

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to enactment of the federal CZMA, state efforts to address protection of natural shoreline features

such as beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores were highly variable. State coastal management

programs (CMPs) developed since passage of the CZMA were designed specifically to balance resource

protection and development. State coastal programs have resulted in more attention to issues such as

erosion, sea level rise, and cumulative adverse impacts resulting from development on receding beach

and bluff shorelines and sensitive natural habitat areas. State CMPs have been at the forefront in

addressing shoreline use conflicts such as the demand for shoreline armoring to protect existing upland

structures to the detriment and loss of natural beach systems. Beach nourishment has been promoted by

some coastal states as an alternative to continued loss of developed recreational beaches through

shoreline hardening. Likewise, some coastal states have funded research into sand loss from inlet

dredging and have demanded that beach quality sand from inlet dredging be placed on down-drift

beaches. Whereas excavation of sand for coastal development was a common practice in the past, state

CMPs prohibit such practices today and wage educational campaigns on the importance of protecting

stabilized dune systems.

State CMPs serve as the institutional focus for addressing ongoing competing public and private demands

for the use of our limited and sometimes fragile coastline resources. Our understanding of natural

shoreline processes and the impacts of human development on these processes has grown. Today, we

are no longer building as close to the shoreline. The development that does occur is better built to

withstand coastal storm events. Efforts are made to guide access across fragile vegetated dunes. We are

becoming better stewards of our natural coastal heritage through state CMP efforts. Balancing private

property rights with natural resource protection goals remains a challenge.

The national objective of protecting coastal resources is being achieved through implementation of

federally-approved state coastal management programs. State CMP efforts are effective overall in

addressing protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores, given that the CZMA requires states to

balance competing needs and demands such as protection of properties from hazard risks and promotion

of recreational use of the shoreline. Determination of CMP effectiveness has been based on process

indicators and case examples. Process indicators such as state regulatory setbacks to keep development

away from the immediate shoreline were used to determine program effectiveness. Throughout this report

and in the appendices are 31 case examples which illustrate and document ways state CMPs are

effectively protecting natural shoreline resources.

Coastal states are utilizing 26 widely varying tools to achieve resource protection including

regulatory setbacks and controls over shoreline development in combination with planning, stewardship

of state lands, coastal land acquisition, and research and public education about shoreline processes and

human interaction. All but three coastal states identified protection of natural resources and/or

minimization of loss of life and property from coastal hazards as a high priority management issue.

Although all coastal states own coastal properties, only three use state ownership and land management

as the primary tool. Of the twenty-five tools identified with beach and dune protection, the fewest tools

used by a state is

eleven and the most is twenty-three. Of the thirteen tools related to bluff and rocky shore protection,

the fewest tools used by any state is five and the most is eleven.

Regulatory controls are the most significant tools employed nationwide to protect shoreline

resources, since the majority of the oceanfront shoreline is in private ownership, migrating and subject to

development pressures. Protection is achieved through setbacks; regulation of shoreline development

and shoreline stabilizations; restrictions on pedestrian and vehicular access; habitat protection; and permit

compliance/permit tracking systems. Setbacks are particularly effective-- acting as natural buffer areas

and reducing hazard risks. Planning tools, when combined with regulatory, improve natural resource

protection by offering either long-range vision or site-specific goals for the protection and development of
66

selected coastal areas. Stewardship of coastal lands, through state land management and acquisition, is

also an important component of all state coastal programs. All coastal states own state parks along the

shoreline, and most have natural protection areas and guided accessways. Many states have also

acquired additional coastal land holdings.

States are upgrading their CZM programs. Coastal zone management is a growing and changing

process meeting changing needs. As state CMPs recognize problems or management gaps, they take

corrective action. States have made hundreds of significant changes to their programs. This study has

documented over 60 significant changes in the way coastal states protect their natural shoreline

resources. Most of these program changes involve alteration of the state CMP regulatory or planning

tools, such as more stringent shoreline development setbacks and limitations on the use of shoreline

stabilizations. States are giving greater consideration to natural shoreline processes, even when

addressing other concerns such as the need to protect developed eroding shoreline using structural

measures. Although changes complicate assessment of program effectiveness, a review of these

changes could serve as an alternative methodology for assessing CMP effectiveness.

More systematic resource protection is occurring through regulatory reviews. State coastal

management programs are providing more systematic, extensive and intensive planning and regulatory

review of projects along the shoreline. This regulatory review is minimizing adverse impacts of improper

development and erosion on natural systems and adjacent properties and structures. Greater attention is

being given to cumulative effects of individual permit decisions. More states are measuring erosion rates

and establishing construction setbacks. Concerns about the adverse long-term effects of shoreline

armoring on natural beach sand transport are being addressed and opportunities are being taken to

employ nonstructural solutions to coastal erosion. As a result, less inappropriate development is occurring

in hazardous areas such as migrating beaches and eroding bluffs.

There is insufficient nationally compatible outcome data to determine on-the-ground

effectiveness. Due to the scarcity of outcome data, it is not possible to determine the on-the-ground

effectiveness of state CMP regulatory, planning, land management and acquisition programs. Regarding

regulatory data, most coastal states have computerized permit tracking systems. However, no state

maintains a statewide database on the miles affected, the area affected, or the resources affected by state

or local coastal permits; or the results of pedestrian access and vehicular access restrictions and

protected habitat areas. States with local plans tend to have information on the number of plans

approved. However, the data stops there. Only some states have inventories of their coastal land

holdings-- such as number of shoreline miles in state parks or percent of shoreline in public ownership.

Even states that are active stewards of their public coastal land holdings, do not routinely document

accessways installed, dunes restored, beaches restored, and other protection results. Coastal states

which utilize acquisition have some data on the number of parcels acquired or acres of coastal lands

acquired. However, for most states, these data are not categorized by type of resource area acquired,

and very few states have data on amount of money spent or acquisition priorities. Therefore, determining

"effectiveness" of state coastal programs in protecting natural coastline resources based on on-the-ground

outcome indicators is elusive. Determining the "effectiveness" of state coastal programs in protecting

natural coastline resources based on process indicators and case examples is more possible, but still

difficult. Case examples can be effective in illustrating how a management tool has been implemented in a

certain geographic area and the results of such implementation.

Competing demands for the use of the shoreline and competing government policies continue to

require balance, so the dilemma remains. State CMPs continue to face decisions regarding competing

demands for recreation and tourist development, protection of existing threatened properties and the

rights of private property owners versus public health and safety. Shrinking federal and state dollars for

state CMP administration, coupled with increased demand and expectations for CMP services, are longterm concerns for coastal programs. Several federal agencies, state CMPs, local coastal governments,

and other non-profit organizations play a role in managing our nation's coastline resources.

Inconsistencies between certain federal agency programs and state CMP objectives are ongoing

concerns. For example, the FEMA flood insurance program and the federally-funded shoreline protection

projects of the USACE achieve objectives which undermine some state CMP natural resource protection
67

objectives. The unique role of state coastal zone management programs has been and continues to be to

focus attention and resources on improving the state and local land use controls and other tools to

minimize the adverse impacts on natural resources.

Recommendations

Develop a computerized CZM database - NOAA should seek funding from Congress to establish a

computerized monitoring and tracking program for state and federal agency CZM activities, the results of

which should be published in a biennial state-of-the-coast report to Congress. This should include a

computerized coding system and an information tracking and recovery system for all information

submitted by coastal states. NOAA should prepare up-datable state CZM program summary files for each

coastal state with information about the state program, periodic changes to the program, program

activities, CZM projects undertaken, results and reports produced.

Share Information Through the Internet - NOAA should create a home page on the Internet and a CDROM of the National CZM Effectiveness Study and other CZM databases.

Incentives for Coastal States to Refine and Expand their Process and Outcome Data Collection

and Record Keeping - NOAA should seek funding from Congress to form a coastal states task force with

the objective to change the coastal states reporting requirements under 306, 309, and 312 to better

address results of state CZM activities and their effectiveness in meeting state and national CZM

objectives. This should include accepted methods for organizing, collecting, storing, and reporting

accurate and precise data on program activities and results which include trend data usable in future

assessments of CZM effectiveness.

 NOAA/OCRM should also encourage coastal states to: a) improve their daily record keeping and

yearly reporting to NOAA/OCRM on program implementation and results; b) develop and refine

computerized permit tracking systems regarding permitted activities and refine the individual permit

entries to include data on type of project, area and resources affected, length of shoreline affected, size of

project, permit restrictions/conditions and other data which, when analyzed yearly, could assess the

individual and cumulative impacts of projects permitted along the coast; c) monitor, collect and report on

local implementation and results for states that delegate implementation to local governments; d) explore

the use of in-depth case studies as a way to provide more meaningful explanations of how CZM works

and the on-the-ground results, rather than relying on case examples and success stories; and e) explore

the use of aerial photo interpretation for measuring long-term changes in develop and resources along the

coast.

Utilize 309 Assessment Process to address issues associated with shoreline change. OCRM and

the Coastal States should continue to utilize the section 309 Assessment process to address substantive

issues associated with the protection of natural coastal systems. Significant changes to state coastal

programs such changes in activities exempt, shoreline armoring allowed and the landward extent of

regulatory jurisdiction should be carefully scrutinized for their long-term effects on natural coastal systems.

Federal agencies should monitor changes to the coastal environment and report on changes

every 5 years. Congress should fund activities to monitor changes along our nation's coastlines

including: 1) federal level aerial surveillance and photo interpretations of shoreline development and

changes in

development patterns; 2) USACE to conduct follow-up national shoreline studies at least every ten years

on erosion, shoreline armoring, beach nourishment, and public ownership of the coast; 3) USDOI to

compile data on coastal endangered species and habitat loss/protection changes and role of federal and

state agencies in this effort; 4) NOAA to compile data from U.S. Bureau of the Census on population

changes in coastal counties; 5) USDOI to compile data on private development occurring on designated

CBRAs and federal/state agency actions affecting CBRA designations and implementation success.

Indicators of effectiveness. To evaluate state CZM program effectiveness in protecting beaches,

dunes, bluffs and rocky shores, the following "indicators of effectiveness" and "survey methods" should be

used:
68

Regulatory Program Outcomes:

1. No further or reduced rate of encroachment into coastal resource areas.

2. No further or reduced rate of hardening of undeveloped beachfronts through shoreline stabilizations.

3. Controlled shoreline accessways.

4. Healthy and maintained intact natural habitat areas along the coast

Adopted Plan Outcomes:

1. Achievement of Plan Objectives through implementation and monitoring

State Coastal Land Management and Acquisition Outcomes:

1. Extent of state land holdings in parks/preserves containing beach, dune, bluff or rocky shores.

2. Active public natural resources stewardship of coastal land holdings

3. Coastal lands acquired

Survey Methods- for collecting data and measuring outcomes starting with a baseline followed by time

series or periodic updates:

(a) aerial photography interpretation;

(b) computerized permit data collection and analysis -- showing trends in permitted shoreline structures or

shoreline stabilizations on the beach and dune system, eroding bluff, coastal hazard areas, coastal

floodplain, or immediate shoreline.

(c) periodic physical surveys of the condition of coastal resources protection areas;

(d) shoreline mapping of controlled accessways; delineating shoreline acres and miles

where pedestrian and/or vehicular access is restricted; delineating habitat protection areas.

(e) state and local permit data on activities permitted within approved plan areas, area and linear miles

affected, and consistency with plan objectives -- such as protection of designated "coastal resource areas"

or "natural habitat areas", dune restoration; inlet management to place dredged sand on downdrift

beaches, and designated coastal hazard areas where development is prohibited.

(f) documentation of direct state or local actions undertaken-- such as miles/acres of dunes revegetation;

cubic yards of sand transferred due to installation of inlet sand transfer plant; coastline acres and linear

shoreline miles in state ownership with resources present; number of accessways, marked trails,

boardwalks, dune crossovers and demonstrated public use; acres or shoreline miles in state coastal lands

designated as conservation, preservation or protection areas; miles and acres and type coastal shoreline

resource areas acquired by the state.