Natural hazard management in coastal areas

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

VATOF Co.
'A IV+ Natural Hazard
Management in
e. Coastal Areas
-@-"ArE Of
Washington, D.C.
November, 1976

..... ... ..

GB460 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
L

.u6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U56 Office of Coastal Zone Management
1976
C. I

NATURAL HAZARD
MANAGEMENT IN
COASTAL AREAS

Washington, D.C.
November, 1976

Property of the Library

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Robert M. White, Administrator

Office of Coastal Zone Management
Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator

US Department of commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2623

Prepared under contract for
The U.S. Department of Commerce
.at The Institute of Behavioral Science,
Program ofResearch on Technology, Environment and Man,
The University of Colorado,

by: Gilbert F White,
Earl J. Baker,
Duane D. Baumann,
Willard T. Chow,
Thomas E. Downing,
William B., Lord,
Marion E. Marts,
James Kenneth Mitchell,
Rutherford H. Platt,
John H. Sorensen,
Susan K. Tubbesing,
Marvin Waterstone

Additional copies of this document may be obtained from:
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235
(202) 634-6791

'nz

PREFACE

This is one of a series of documents prepared for the Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) to provide guidance and information to
coastal planners and managers on major issues they face.

Growing development pressures in coastal areas are increasing
the risk to life and property from natural hazards. The fact that
these events, while rare, are usually catastrophic, necessitates
continued management attention. It is the long range planning and
management emphasis of the Coastal Zone Management Act that provides
a unique opportunity for reducing losses due to natural hazards in
the coastal areas.

In order to develop management program recommendations, we.asked
Gilbert F. White, Director of the Institute of Behavioral Science,
University of Colorado, to focus his extensive natural hazard expertise
on coastal areas. An intensive effort from June until November of
this year has resulted in this publication. We hope that the concepts
and techniques presented are useful to coastal managers in establishing
and administering effective programs, and also to others working or
with an interest in the subject.

The contents are presented in handbook form to provide fast access
to information by specific hazard, by coastal state, or by management
recommendations. The Executive Summary encapsulates the major findings
and recommendations. No attempt was made to provide in-depth scientific
analysis. Readers seeking more detail should refer to the Annotated
Bibliography (Section V) or seek help from the contacts listed in.the
Directory of Selected Federal, State and Voluntary Agencies (Section VI).

In carrying out this work the members of the staff of the Institute
of Behavioral Science drew heavily upon data and experience accomulated
.during its earlier Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards, which had
been supported by the National Science Foundation.

The description of present problems, authorities, and practices in
the coastal states was greatly facilitated by the cooperation of officers
of coastal zone management agencies and other state agencies who cordially
supplied information and who reviewed draft materials. Their help is
gratefully acknowledged.

An earlier draft of this report benefitted from review by the
following people who made corrections and suggestions but who are
not responsible for the final wording: Robert Beck, Wallace Bowman,
Dwight R. Crandell, Leonard Crook, Robert W. Fleming, Neil L. Frank,
Robert M. Hamilton, Richard Krimm, Joe C. Moseley @II, George R. Phippen,
Jack Schoop and Arthur J.-Zeizel.

special recognition should be given to Joe C. Moseley II, Sally
Davenport, Judith Penna, and Robert Ayre who assisted in final revision
of the draft, and especially to Michele Tetley who gave excellent advice
and counsel throughout the enterprise.

The typing of the report was done by Catherine Coit, Sheryl Kipriis,
Mary Lovrien and Jacqueline Myers. Illustrations were prepared by
Robert Czerniak and Richard Nervig.

Paul R. Stang
Head, Technical Assistance Group
Office of Coastal Zone Management

CONTENTS

Preface
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
I. Executive Summary

II. Major Coastal Hazards
A. A Framework for Hazard Analysis

B. Hurricane 11-4
Characteristics of Hurricanes 11-4
Adjustments to the Hazards 11-14
Experiences 11-18

C. Flood 11-18
Delineating the Hazard 11-18
Adjustments to the Hazard 11-20
Trends 11-23
National Forces 11-24
Federal Aid and Guidelines 11-24

D. Coastal Erosion 11-25
Delineation of the Hazard Area 11-25
Defining the Hazard 11-25
Adjustments to the Hazard 11-28
Public Policy 11-32

E. Landslide 11-34
Defining the Hazard 11-37
Delineating the Hazard 11-37
Adjustments to the Hazard 11-40
Federal Policy and Progr s 11-42
Experiences 11-43

F. Earthquake 11-44
Delineating the Hazard. 11-44
Adjustments to the Hazard 11-49
Federal Policies and Programs 11-52
Experiences 11-54

G. Tsunami 11-54
Delineating the Hazard 11-55
Adjustments to the Hazard 11-57
Experiences 11-61

H. Volcano 11-61
Defining the Hazard 11-61
Specific Hazards and their Effects 11-62
Delineating the Hazard 11-64
Hawaiian Volcanoes 11-64

Adjustments to the Hazard in Hawaii 11-64
Alaskan Volcanoes 11-66
Adjustments to the Hazard in Alaska 11-616
Cascade Volcanoes 11-67

I. Avalanche 11-67
Defining the Hazard 11-67
Delineating the Hazard 11-68
Adjustments to the Hazard 11-69
Experiences 11-70

J. Land Subsidence 11-70
Defining the Hazard 11-70
Delineating the Hazard 11-71
Problems Caused by Subsidence 11-72
Adjustments to the Hazard 11-72
Federal Policy and Programs 11-73
Experiences 11-73

References 11-75

III. Problems and Recommendations
A. Delineating Hazard Areas 111-3
Scale and Detail of Mapping 111-3
Inadequate and Conflicting Data Sources 111-4
Defining Hazardous Conditions 111-5
Making Probabilities Understandable 111-6

B. Defining and Evaluating the Options 111-7
Range of Adjustments 111-8
Private Property Rights 111-9
Interactions Among Adjustments III-10
Assisting in the Choice III-11

C. Improving Citizen Participation 111-16
Awareness and Efficacy 111-19
Modes of Disseminating Hazard 'Information 111-19
Methods of Presenting the Options and Choice 111-21.

D. Organization and Coordination 111-23
Encourage Organization of Appropriate State or
Local Agencies 111-23
Coordination with Emergency Planning for Disasters 111-23
Coordination with Related Federal Programs 111-26

References 111-30

IV. Hazard Management in the Coastal States IV-1
Alabama IV-3
Alaska IV-5
California IV-9
Connecticut IV-17
Delaware IV-19
Florida IV-22

Georgia IV-25
Hawaii IV-28
Illinois IV-32
Indiana IV-34
Louisiana IV-36
Maine IV-38
Maryland IV-40
Massachusetts IV@44
Michigan IV-48
Minnesota IV-50
Mississippi IV-52
New Hampshire IV-54
New Jersey IV-56
New York IV-59
North Carolina IV-64
Ohio IV-67
Oregon IV-69
Pennsylvania IV-73
Rhode Island IV-77
South Carolina IV-79
Texas IV-81
Virginia IV-85
Washington IV-89
Wisconsin IV-93

References IV-95

V. Annotated Bibliography V-1

VI. Directory of Selected Federal, State and Voluntary Agencies
Concerned with Natural Hazards in the Coastal Zone VI-1
Federal Departments VI-1
State Agencies VI-8
Voluntary Agencies VI-12

Appendices
A. "The Hurricane Problem" - A Statement of Concern by the
American Meteorological Society as adopted by the
Executive Committee on July 2, 1976.

B. "Legal Aspects of Natural Hazards Regulation in the
Coastal Zone," Rutherford H. Platt.

C. "Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931" (Abridged)
from Harry 0. Wood and Frank Neumann, in Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 21, No. 4,
December, 1931.

D. "Scenario of Hurricane Disaster in Miami, Florida," from
Gilbert F. White and J. Eugene Haas, Assessment of
Research on Natural Hazards, 1975.

vii

E. "Barrier Islands - Hurricane Adjustments" and "Mainland
Coasts - Earthquake Adjustments," Sample outlines of
possible adjustments to regional natural hazard problems.

F. "A Check-List of Possibly Relevant State Programs."

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

II1 Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale Ranges II-6

II-2 Estimated Population-at-Risk/Storm Surge II-13

II-3 Estimated Population-at-Risk/Hurricane Wind II-13

II-4 National Assessment of Shore Erosion II-27

II-5 Adjustments to Coastal Erosion II-29

II-6 Tsunami Speed of Onset, Physical Cues, Evacuation
Time, and Preventive Measures II-59

IV-1 Natural Hazard Management in the 30 State Coastal
IV-30 Zones Section IV

B-1 State Laws Relating to Hazard Mitigation B-7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

II-1 Interaction of Social and Natural Systems 11-2

11-2 Types of Potential Damage From Tropical Cyclones 11-7

11-3 Hurricane Probability Map 11-8

11-4 Composite Estimates of Expected Surge Height 11-9

11-5 Percent Change in Population: 1960-1970 11-11

11-6 Deaths and Damages From Hurricanes in the United States 11-12

11-7 Losses in United-States Floods@1905-1972 11-19

11-8 Severity of Shoreline Erosion 11-26

11-9 Preliminary Landslide Overview Map of the Washington-
Oregon-California Coast Region 11-35

I.1-10 Preliminary Landslide Overview Map of the Great Lakes
Region 11-36

II-11 Four Common Types of Landslide 11-38

11-12 Relation of Landslide Map Scales and Potential Uses 11-39

11-13 Seismic Risk Map of the Coterminous United States 11-45

11-14 Preliminary Map of Horizontal Acceleration 11-46

11-15 Potential for Liquefaction in San Francisco 11-48

11-16 Computed Earthshock Severity Pattern of 1857
Ft. Tejon Earthquake in Southern California 11-50

11-17 Volcanoes of Alaska and Hawaii 11-65

III-1 Interaction Among Flood Adjustments 111-12

111-2 Impact of Disaster: A Continuum of Effects 111-17

111-3 Impact of Disaster from Wind, Tornado and Anticipated
Earthquake 111-18

111-4 Population Growth in a New Jersey Coastal County, and
Hurricane Occurrence, 1900-1970 111-22

D-1 Miami and Vicinity D-2

SECTION I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Coastal areas in the United States are afflicted with a distinctive array
of natural hazards. Beach erosion is unique in the problems it presents,
but at one place or another along the coast problems of hurricane, tornado,
flood, landslide, earthquake, tsunami, volcano, snow avalanche, and land
subsidence are severe and may appear in different combinations. State-manage-
ment of coastal areas may be strengthened by giving explicit attention to
.these hazards and to the ways in which people can cope with them. In turn,
the information, planning, and management activity under coastal zone manage-
ment may contribute to wiser adjustments to these growing hazards.

Coastal.Mannement in the National Picture

For the United States as a whole the annual toll taken by extreme
events in nature is growing. Until recently the loss of life from floods,
hurricanes and similar events seemed to be declining but appears to be on the
rise again. The probability of major social dislocations from rare
catastrophic events is increasing. Coastal zone management can-pla
particularly significant role in this situation for two reasons.

1. The disproportionately rapid growth of population in coastal
areas makes coastal areas more vulnerable to disaster than many
inland areas.

2. The opportunities to reverse the trends by encouraging
coordinated land and water management are more promising than
in other parts of the nation.

How these opportunities ara grasped will influence whether future events
will include a series of national catastrophes in such places as Juneau, San
Francisco, Galveston, Miami, and Staten Island, or conversely, a gradual
reduction in national vulnerability to disaster.

Natural Hazard as an Essential Part of Coastal Management

'A coastal zone management program must address the problems created by
extreme natural events if it is to be comprehensive. The coastal managers
should have some knowledge of what kind, what magnitude, and what frequency
of hazard can occur throughout the coastal areas as they structure a program.
Having recognized the problem, they are then in a position to propose
effective means for adapting to such hazards, including information programs
forthe general public about hazard characteristics.

Some state coastal zone programs reflect substantial awareness of and
concern with natural hazards, either independent of or in concert with one
or more Federal agencies. These efforts should be carefully examined by the
coastal manager for their adequacy and for their relationship with the
overall coastal zone management program. In other states, weak or inadequate
efforts may demand significant upgrading or restructuring to reflect current
technical knowledge, to enhance popular awareness, and to incorporate a hazard
management component.

The principal points at which states must deal with natural hazards in
developing and carrying out a coastal zone management program are these
(parenthetic references are to the Coastal Zone Management Act Regulations
15 CFR 923):

Section 923.4 states that elements to be considered in the
comprehensive program are to include floods, erosion, land
stability, and climatology and meteorology.

Section 923.13 points out designation of areas of particular
concern are to include, among others, hazard areas due to storms,
slides, floods, and erosion.

Sections 923.12 and 923.14 indicate that the hazard potential
as it affects reasonable and safe use of resources would be
examined in delineating and establishing priorities for permissible
land and water uses.

Cognizant state agencies dealing with hazards are to be
included in the organizational structure (923.22), may serve to
administer land and water uses (923.24), and should participate in
adoption of the management program (923.31).

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 the coastal
area planning is expected to develop processes for:

Protection of and access to public beaches and other public
areas.

Energy facilities likely to be located in or to impact upon
coastal areas.

Assessing shoreline erosion and evaluating ways to control
erosion.

Achieving these goals requires accurate and imaginative analysis of the
hazard of extreme natural events.

Five Basic Concepts in Hazard Analysis

Hazard analysis involves five major concepts that enter into the effective
design and execution of public action in coastal areas.

1) -Areas potentially affected by extreme natural events must be
delineated.

2) Estimates of vulnerability must recognize that human occupation
of a vulnerable area always involves the beneficial use of a
resource and the risk of possible loss.

3) The range of possible adjustments which can be made to a
hazard must be identified. It is rare that only one course of
action is worthy of consideration. The full theoretical range
of possible adjustments includes:

1-2

New or improved warning systems, including preparedness
plans;

Control and protection works;

Design and construction of buildings to resist wind, water
or earthquakes-,

Management of land to minimize loss of property or life,
including land acquisition, zoning, subdivision regulations,
building ordinances, and easements;

Insurance against losses;

Relief and rehabilitation assistance.

4) An assessment of present and future adjustment impacts must be
made. What is chosen as an adjustment in one place and time may
affect hazard elsewhere or at a later time. Adopting an
adjustment such as beach protection or zoning regulations,
unless properly planned, can make matters worse rather than
better.

5) Reduction of exposure to more frequent events may build a potential
for catastrophic losses from the very rare events. Protective
works, for example, may reduce losses from more frequent events
while increasing the chances of social dislocation from the very
rare event.

The Princi2al Coastal Hazards

The situation with respect to each of the major types of extreme events
may be characterized by a few observations drawn from Section II as follows:

Hurricane: More than 6 million people are currently exposed to
hurricane storm surge in areas where the population is growing at a rate 3 to
4 times as fast as the national average. Although warning systems are
improving, the expanding occupation of vulnerable areas and the lack of
hurricane experience by young persons and relative newcomers results in an
enlarging naive population and volume of property subject to damage. High
winds and tornadoes may extend the impacts to much larger populations.

Flood: Valleys subject to fresh water flooding punctuate the coast in
many sectors and in some places have been protected by engineering works.
The requirements of the Flood Insurance Act for local land use planning in
vulnerable areas have spurred the delineation of flood hazard lands and the
enactment of local land use regulations to curb the increasing trend toward
expansion of property in lands subject to floods with annual recurrence
probabilities of one per cent.

1-3

Coastal Erosion: In about one quarter of the national shore front
coastal erosion is significant and in as many as 2,700 miles it is a critical
problem. In addition to protective works, dune stabilization, and beach
nourishment, a wide range of land use controls is available to cope with
continued erosion. Currently there is a shift in emphasis toward land use
management as an alternative strategy to erosion control.

Landslide: Although landslide hazard occurs widely, there is no explicit
national policy for dealing with it. Only recently and in a few states has
there been extensive effort to combine land management with abatement of
landslide hazard.

Earthquake: Accurate and consistent earthquake prediction has not yet
been demonstrated. Other measures which promise major reduction in
vulnerability to earthquake damage include the requirement of earthquake
resistant construction, land use management, and preparedness planning. For
most of the vulnerable areas of the country, and particularly those away
from the Pacific Coast, little progress has been made in incorporating these
measures into earthquake loss reduction planning.

Tsunami: Except for an improved warning system and for pioneering
efforts in Hawaii there has been relatively little positive action in reducing
vulnerability to tsunami waves. The amount of property and number of lives
susceptible to this rare but catastrophic damage are mounting.

Volcano: The lava flows of Hawaii are relatively well defined and
susceptible to prediction. Pyrpclastic flows and ash flows resulting from
violent eruptions are more or less predictable, are less frequent, and
constitute a large but rare threat along the Pacific Coast and Alaska.

Avalanche: In a few parts of Alaska snow avalanches are a significant
hazard, and only recently has there been serious consideration of a variety
of measures, including land management, to deal with them.

Land Subsidence: In parts of both the California and Gulf coasts there
is threat of -enlarged vulnerability to natural hazards as a result of land
subsidence resulting from pumping of water, oil and gas, and also
generated by earthquakes.

Promising Lines of Action

State agencies have an opportunity to take action in four major
directions whic'h will have a significant effect upon adjustments to hazards.
and which will, in.turn, reinforce efforts at coastal area management. The
directions are: 1) Delineation of hazard areas, 2) defining and evaluating the
options, 3) improving citizen participation, and 4) organization and coordina-
tion. The justification for action is given in Section III. The chief
recommendations are the following:

1-4

1. Delineation of Hazard Areas

Some kind of designation of hazard areas should be attempted along each
sector of the coast, using whatever scale and detail of map is appropriate.

Designation of hazard areas should be accompanied by explicit statements
that a) reasonable use has been-made of available scientific information,
and b) there will be opportunity for public examination and review of the
designations.

Wherever special questions about the bases for designating the degree
of a hazard arise it is desirable to commission a special report by a
Federal or state agency or a consulting firm.

Even though it is not practicable to show with accuracy the detailed
recurrence interval of an extreme event it may be useful to estimate
probabilities. Wherever practicable these probabilities should be designated
as a percentage of occurrence rather than a number of years.

It is particularly important to present the results of probability
analyses so that they help citizens recognize that larger and less frequent
events than those of the designated probability may conceivably occur.

Z. Defining and Evaluating the Options

One responsibility of coastal management officers is to make certain that
all parties concerned are aware of the full range of possible adjustments to
a hazard and of the costs and benefits related to each alternative adjustment.

It always should be practicable to include in the form of a list, table,
or diagram the types of adjustments which are possible in a given area and
those which, in fact, are adopted at the time of the study.

Wherever there is discussion of desirability of public regulation of
private land use as a means of coping with the hazard of extreme events a
specific statement, possibly in the form of a scenario, should be made to
show the probable public effects of permitting continued development of the
hazard area.

Each statement of the plans for management of a coastal hazard area
should include an estimate of the extent to which its continued occupation
is likely to be affected by changes in a) population, b) technology, and
c) risk tolerance.

In describing the range of possible adjustments to a natural hazard it
is important to state the extent to which the adjustment may be expected to
trigger changes in other adjustments, as where insurance may stimulate
interest in a warning system.

Each statement of the choices which are available should include an
estimate of the extent and type of loss aversion, in terms of human health and
safety, property damages, and social surprise and disruption.

1-5

An explicit statement should also be made about the possibility that the
means of coping with the hazard may protect or lead to the degradation of
environmental features.

It is useful to prepare scenarios of the estimated impacts of the future
occurrence of an extreme event under specified assumptions About the type of
land use and the character of public activities prevailing at the time the
event occurs.

An adequate set of impact estimates will a) describe the potential
consequences of each adjustment alternative (including taking no action),
b) describe impacts in terms of those outcomes which are most important, and
c) reveal the probabilistic nature of the potential outcomes.

Any such discussion of natural hazards options should outline the major
trade-offs which the community will experience in choosing one option over
another, and should estimate the way in which the costs and benefits will be
distributed among different age, ethnic and income groups in the community.

In presenting these choices it is useful to point out those options
which would avoid or preclude irreversible changes.

3. Improving Citizen Participation

Wherever practicable a description of a vulnerable area should be linked
with information about the availability of warning systems and with statements
of the kinds of responses which people could make to the hazard when they
recognize its full dimension and receive a warning.

Effort should be made to find out which channels of information about
hazards have higher credibility in the view of the people for whom the
information is designed, and those channels should be used for disseminating
information about the hazard.

In prepa'ring plans for dissemination of information it is important to
find'out what sectors of the population have experienced the extreme event
in question, and to design the presentations so that the information will be
intelligible to the newcomers.

4. Organization and Coordination

Descriptions of the proposed change in adjustments to hazards also
should discuss the existence or creation of the necessary powers to promote
the new work within state or local agencies.

Specific consideration should be given to ways in which planning for
natural hazards in coastal areas can be linked with emergency planning for
disasters under Section 201 of the Disaster Preparedness Act of 1974.

For each area vulnerable to extreme natural events in which economic
development is in prospect a description of the hazard should be presented to
the regional office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

1-6

Wherever there is prospect of Federal investment in a flood plain the
attention of the responsible Federal agency should be called to the
provisions of Executive Order 11926 or its replacement.

Wherever there is the possibility of energy facility development within
a coastal area an assessment of potential impact of extreme natural events
should-be made.

State Authorities and Opportunities

As presented in Section IV, the states have a wide variety of statutes
and administrative procedures upon which to draw in dealing with natural
hazards.

Section V provides references to much of the pertinent literature, and
Section VI lists interested agencies.

The Appendices offer more details pertaining to legal implications and
types of analysis.

The central opportunity for the state coastal zone management agencies
is to find effective ways of applying to state programs for coastal areas the
concepts, information, and analytical methods previously developed in natural
hazard studies. To do so will reduce the vulnerability of the nation to
catastrophe and will enhance the resilience of land and water uses along the
coast.

1-7

--I
7

SECTION II

MAJOR COASTAL HAZARDS

II. MAJOR-COASTAL HAZARDS

Coastal areas are afflicted with a distinctive array of natural
hazards. Beach erosion is unique in its problems, but in large
sections of the coastline the use of coastal resources contends with
risks from hurricane, tornado, flood, landslide, earthqua. ke, tsunami,
volcano, snow avalanche, or land subsidence.

A. A Framework for Hazard Analysis

In order to deal effectively with natural hazards, a coastal zone
management plan should,include the following five components: delineation
of hazard areas, determination of present and future uses and possible
losses, consideration of adjustments-, choice of adjustment, and develop-
ment of a catastrophe contingency plan.

Each of these steps may include certain implicit problems, for
example:

1. The delineation of aregs Potentially affected by extreme
natural events..always is subject to differences resulting from the
quality of scientific data and the methods used to analyze them.
There can never be a completely accurate, precise description of
what area is subject to what degree of risk. It is extremely difficult
to estimate either the magnitude or the probability of the very rare
event such as the great hurricane. This is because:

Data usually are lacking on the precise extent and
magnitude of past events;
The historical record rarely exceeds 50-100 years;
The methods for analysis and application of the
statistics continually undergo refinement;

The conditions in which the event occurs are affected
by human factors such as urbanization, farm practices, and
construction works.

However, any delineation may be revised in the light of new information or
improved methods, and public designations of hazard areas should provide
for such revision.

2. The human occupation of a vulnerable area always involves a use
of a resource and a risk of possible loss. As outlined in Figure II-1,
the interaction of social systems and natural systems leads to the
creation of a resource and of a hazard. With rare exceptions, the
resource yields benefits - the amenities of recreation, the economies
of ocean shipping facilities, and the like - and at the same time, generates
the inevitable cost of the damages - hurricane damage, loss of a beach,
and the like - which will occur when an extreme event hits.

II-1

Natural events

systems-

air Beneficial effects

water Resource Use

earth

Adjustments.

Social systems Harmful effects

Hazards

FIGURE II-1

THE INTERACTION OF SOCIAL AND NATURAL SYSTEMS

11-2

It is generally misleading to suggest that there are
no social gains from occupying the coast. The problem
is to find what tradeoff of resource use and hazard will
be most beneficial to the community, state, and nation.

3. There is almost always a wide range of adjustments which can be
made to a hazard: It is rare that only one course of action is worthy
of consideration. The tendency is for people confronted with the hazard
of an extreme storm, water height or earth movement to think of only a
single kind of adjustment. They assess the practicability of building'
a protection work or of evacuating the area. However, usually there
are a number of possible actions which deserve examination. These include:

A new or improved warning system, including preparedness
plans to respond to a forecast when it is issued.
Control and protection works, such as groins, beach
nourishment, and dams. Weather modification sometimes is
suggested as a potential adjustment.
Design and construction of buildings so that they will
resist wind, water or earthquake.
Management of land to minimize loss of property or
life when the extreme event occurs. This includes land
acquisition, zoning, subdivision regulations, building
ordinances, and easements as tools for carrying out land
use plans.
Insurance against the losses.

Relief and rehabilitation assistance for those
suffering losses.

The most suitable adjustment should consider all possibilities, and may
turn out to be a mix of several types rather than reliance on a single
one.

4. What is chosen as an adjustment at one place and time m@IZ
affect the hazard elsewhere or at a later time. Adopting an adjustment,
such as a-warning system or beach stabilization, does not necessarily
minimize a hazard for all time. A beach protection program may
worsen erosion down current; an improved warning system may encourage.
people to remain in an area where they will become subject to even
greater losses as population grows and evacuation routes prove inade-
quate; zoning regulations may permit building to cluster along a "100-
year" flood line where the greater, but less frequent flood may play
havoc.

5. Reduction in exposure to more frequent events may build
the potential for catastrophic losses from the very rare events.
Where the hazard of loss from high probability events is reduced, as
by building control works or strengthening buildings or purchasing
insurance, the property may become especially vulnerable to the
large event of probabilities of .005 or less. A catastrophe, involving
profound dislocations from which the social system takes a long time
to recover, may then result.

11-3

B. Hurricane

Characteristics of Hurricanes

Hurricanes develop from a variety of tropical weather disturbances
.and pass through several increasingly intense phases, classified as
tropical depressions (with winds less than 40 mph), tropical storms (with
winds between 40 and 73 mph), and finally, hurricanes (with winds over
73 mph).

The@typical hurricane system has a diameter of about 300 miles,
although winds of hurricane force are concentrated in a much smaller
area. The air system in a hurricane in the northern hemisphere spirals
counterclockwise toward the storm's low pressure center. The air absorbs
heat and moisture from the warm ocean surface and gathers speed as it
moves from higher to lower pressure. This heat and moisture constitute
the hurricane's energy source, which is released again near the center
where the converging air flows upward in a wall of clouds (the ring
of strongest wind and rain). Inside the wall, in the hurricane eye,
winds are much weaker, the heavy rains cea.se, and the sky may even be
clear.

The forward movement of the hurricane system is relatively slow,
usually around 15 mph in the lower latitudes. In general, although it is
difficult to predict, the system moves withthe speed and in the direction
of the steering current, usually with some drift to the north. A north-
ward drift will eventually carry most storms to higher latitudes where
they tend to recurve and enter the midlatitude westerlies. Movement of
a hurricane over land or into regions of cooler sea surface temperatures
reduces the primary source of energy, and the intensity of the storm
decreases.

Components - Wind is the element most commonly associated with
hurricanes by the public. Highest wind speeds occur in a narrow ring
usually extending 20-30 miles from the center of the hurricane. The
highest measured wind speed was 197 mph in Inez (Colon, 1966), but gusts
of 220 mph have been estimated from damages and barometric pressure
records. In a major hurricane, gusts between 73 and 120 mph may extend
40-100 miles from the center.

Minor damages begin with winds of approximately 50 mph. Moderate
damages, such as broken windows and displaced shingles begin with winds
of around 80 mph, and major structural destruction begins when wind
speeds reach 100 mph (Friedman, 1971).

About 90% of the deaths near the coast which result from hurricanes
are caused not by wind, but by storm surge, the rise of water above mean
sea level. The height of storm surge along the open coast depends on a
number of factors which include wind speed, depth of water, storm tra-
jectory, and speed of the storm. Coastal configuration can result in a
funneling effect, and coincidence with normal astronomical tide will

11-4

also affect surge height. Although the maximum surge usually affects only
a short length of coastline, combined storm surge and wave action may
have damaging effects over 100 miles away in either direction.

Heavy rainfall often accompanies hurricanes and can result in severe
inland flooding. Tht'amount of rainfall depends on many factors, however,
including forward speed of the storm and topography..
Wind-driven waves on top of the storm surge po.se a number of problems.
First of all, the wave run-up can flood areas not reached by the surge
itself. Second, the battering action of waves can transmit tremendous
force. Third, the erosive power of waves is considerable.

The hurricane system usually generates a number of tornadoes in the
right front quadrant of the storm as it approaches landfall and moves
inland. The average length and width of hurricane-induced tornado paths is
only half that of non-hurricane tornadoes, although they are still powerful
storms.

A note on the tornado hazard is appropriate at this point. Although
tornadoes are generally not a majo 'r problem in coastal areas except when
associated with hurricanes, they are not totally inconsequential. In the
past, there have -been very damaging events in the Gr 'eat Lakes area and in-
creasing development and population is resulting in greater susceptibility.

The destructive power of tornadoes lies primarily in their high wind
velocities and sudden changes of pressure. However, since they are usually
associated with storm systems, they are often accompanied by hail, torrential
rain and severe lightning (Brinkmann, 1975). Nationally, the loss of
lives from tornadoes is high relative to other hazards such as floods or
hurricanes. Like other natural disasters the social consequences are also
disruptive.

Saffir and Simpson have devised a five category scale of hurricane in-
tensity which is being used increasingly to describe hurricanes. It gives
a general indication of both wind speed and storm surge height (see Table
II-1). Figure 11-2 represents the complete hurricane hazard damage system,
w
ith the components discussed above depicted on the left side of the flow
l
chart.

Areas At Risk - No segment of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the U.S.
is without vulnerability to hurricanes, but some areas have a history of
more frequent hurricane occurrence than others. Parts of Texas, Louisiana,
Florida, and (to a lesser extent) North Carolina have been especially suscep-
tible. (Figure 11-3 depicts annual probabilities of two magnitudes of
hurricanes for the entire Gulf and Atlantic coasts.)

Precise estimates of storm surge heights with various probabilities
are currently being calculated for all coastal communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program. Figure 11-4 displays some
generalized estimates from Texas through North Carolina.

Temporal Variations Hurricanes usually oc cur during the months of
August, September, and October, with the season beginning in June and
ending in November. There is also some evidence for longer term temporal

11-5

TABLE II-1

SAFFIR/SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE RANGES

Scale Central Pressure Winds Surge Damage
Number (Mph) (Ft.)
(Category) Millibars Inches

1 9 8 0 -z 28.94 74 - 95 4 - 5 Minimal

2 965 979 28.50 28.91 96 - 110 6 - 8 Moderate

01 3 945 964. 27.91 28.47 - 130 9 - 12 Extensive

4 920 944 27.17 27.88 131 - 155 13 - 18 Extreme

5 920 < 27.17 > 155 -7 18 Catastrophic

(Herbert and Taylor, 1975)

LOSS OF
MARINE RE-
SOURCES

EFFECT OF OF LOW-
FPLEOODING
LOCAL TIDES LYING COASTAL AREA LOSS OF SOIL
FERTILITY FROM
EROSION OF BEACHES SALINk INTRUSION

EFFECTS OF
LOCAL COASTAL 5AMAGES TO ONSHORE &
CONFIGURATION OFFSHORE INSTALLATION
S

DAMAGES TO SHIPPING & LAND
0
I CIL S
LOW ATMOS- STORM SURGE NG FA ITIE SUBSIDENCE
PHERIC PRES- RISE IN LEVEL
SURE IN OF THE SEA
C ENT ER CONTAMINATION
OF DOMESTIC
WATER SUPPLY

STORM
FIRE
VIND@ LOSS OF DAMAGE TO DESTRUCTION
CENTER HUMAN LIFE; STRUCT OF VEGETATION,
INJURIES .&.CONTENTS CROPS, LIVESTOCK
LOSS OF_
COMMUNI
CATIONS
FFLoQD,,iG

FIGURE 11-2

TYPES OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE FROM TROPICAL CYCLONES. (FROM WHITE, 1974)
CONTAMINAT-
STji
OF @DME
0
WATER SUPPI

URES

5
5 5 7
5 55
54
55 53 10
52
3 N
52,1
0 50 v
149 '0
0,48
47
4 b@
745
r
44
4
A449043 00
42 43 :z:
441 4) Clq
40*
039 NO
373037 38 4e)
40
36

335

3313
13's 17 19 3032 C4
7 0 11 2 14 16 1 04 20 31*.31 in
5 0 1 14 15 16 VA 18 212330 oo Ln
9 10 11 29
3 8 b 9 13 9 6 13 147 6 7 19 0 23 229
20 428
2 0 b -2 A 1 6 8 21 ,_WN
0 2202
1 6 24 25
5 4
4 ALL HURRICANES 1 9 13
23 -@-@GREAT HURRICANES .212 A
dP
(b
9cr 8!5@

FIGURE 11-3
HURRICANE PROBABILITY MAP

PROBABILITY (PERCENTAGE) TRAT A HURRICANE (WINDS EXCEEDING
73 mph) OR GREAT HURRICANE (WINDS IN EXCESS OF 125 mph) WILL
OCCUR IN ANY ONE YEAR IN A 50-MILE SEGMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES COASTLINE (after Simpson and Lawrence, 1971)

11-8

18-
Not Greater heights are possible in bays and estuaries.
Furthermore, about 3 feet should be added to account
16- for wave runup; also, the effect of the astronomical
Aide must be taken into consideration.

14-
Probability of Occurence
in a Given Year

12-

1 out Of
00
Max'i mum 10-
Storm -
2 100
ut of
Surge
8-
(Feet) - 4 t of '100
6-
10 out Of 100

0
4- 0 M
c() C z > C-
-n cD su 0
0 AM ro 0 C-) C3 = - Z C7
Ln 77 (A
:E CU 23 W
2- = Ln CL SU (A
0 > SU a
in 0 @3 ac S 2C
0j M Co
(A CD
0 CD Cr
- L4 C) 0 (D 0
;F p.
D -< W I-C W
I I I I I I I --.I- I I I I
Texas Louisiana Florida Ga I SC NC

FIGURE 11-4

COMPOSITE ESTIMATES OF EXPECTED SURGE HEIGHT
Solid lines based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and University of Florida probability estimates
of annual occurrence of a storm surge on an open beach area (Friedman, 1971); dotted lines based
on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (197D, 1972a, 1973, 1973a), probability
of occurence is 1 out of 100.

variation in where hurricanes occur. In recent years the occurrence of
major hurricanes has been concentrated in the Gulf region from northwest
Florida to Texas. But in the 1950's there seemed to be a concentration
along the Atlantic coast north of Florida, and during the 1940's the
Florida peninsula experienced more hurricanes than it has in a comparable
period since that time.

In 1976 forecasters at the National Hurricane Center in Miami,
noted a tendency for hurricanes to develop in the Pacific Ocean and to hit
the West and western Gulf coasts. The jetstream, a current of fast-
moving air that flows around the world at high altitudes, has meandered
south-of its usual course, creating a "high-altitude vacuum" (Clark, 1976).
This vacuum, in turn, is responsible for causing unusual storm conditions.
Ocean storms tend to move toward the north and east to fill the vacuum.
These conditions resulted in three hurricanes during 1976 along the
California and Mexico coasts causing thousands of deaths and extensive
property damage. In a similar manner, the jet stream has forced Atlantic
hurricanes to move north and east away from the eastern U.S. mainland
where, historically, they have most frequently occurred (see figure 11-3).

Population at Risk - According to Friedman (1972) over 6,000,000
people are currently exposed to hurricane storm surge, with a substantial
portion concentrated in the Gulf region. Table 11-2 lists the population-
at-risk in six graduated storm surge exposure zones for the entire Gulf and
Atlantic Coasts. Table 11-3 gives the population-at-risk in four wind exposure
zones.

Coastal population is growing three or four times as fast as the
national average. Figure 11-5 illustrates that higher rates of population
growth are found closer to the coastline. A correlated concern is that
many of these new coastal residents have never had experience with major
hurricanes. As much as 77.5% of the residents in coastal counties have not
experienced a major hurricane, and in the coastal counties of some states,
virtually no one has had such experience (Herbert and Taylor, 1975).
Adding to the problem is the likelihood that many inexperienced residents
incorrectly believe they are experienced.

Effects of Hurricanes - The two dramatic effects of hurricanes are
fatalities and property damage. Figure 11-6 illustrates a general trend
toward fewer deaths from hurricanes since the turn of the century. Since
1940, however, the average annual hurricane fatality figure has more or
less stabilized. As recently as 1957 over 400 deaths resulted from a single
hurricane in the sparsely populated but low-lying area of Cameron Parish,
Louisiana.

The main reason for the reduction and stabilization in death rate
has been improvements in adjustment to the hazard, especially a much
better warning system. The potential still exists for catastrophes such
as the thousand-plus disasters of*the Past. As population continues to, grow
in coastal areasand as more reliance is placed on structural and
technological protection, the possibility of catastrophic losses. grows
steadily.

II-10

FIGURE 11-5

PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION: -1960-1970

40-

30
4

CL
3
20-

10-

0
Areas

KEY

1 United States
Atlantic and Gulf coasts:
2 Coastal States
3 Coastal Counties
4 Coastal County subdivisions
5 Coastal County subdivisions excluding
any which extend more than
one mile inland.

(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1961; 1971)

DAMAGE BY FIVE YEAR PERIODS IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (VALUES ADJUSTED TO BA

1915-19
1920-24
0 CA 1925-29
1930-34
1935-39
n u 1940-44
0
M:3 1945-49
n 1950-54
1955-59
%@A 1960-64
2.4 B
1965-69

1900-04
..........
1905-09
-7 @7@ :@7'*,I@@ 7.7.1.7.:-7.:.7.7-7-7-7.7.@-7-7-:-7-7-7-7-:-7-7-1,1
1910 -14

...........
..................
1915-19
1920-24
1925-29
W'm 1930-34
1935-39
rt H 1940-44
0 1945-49..
1950-54

t2i 1960-64
1965-69

0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
DEATHS CAUSED IN THE UNITED STATES BY HURRICANES

TABLE 11-2

ESTIMATED POPULATION-AT-RISK/STORM SURGE
(Friedman,.1972)

Storm Surge Hazard Zone Return Period Population"at-Risk

A less than 5 years 30,000
B 5710 years 130,000
C 10-25 years 2,550,000
D 25-50 years 1,78010000
E 50-100 years 1,500,000
F more than 100 years 610,000

TOTAL: Zones A through F 6,600,000,

TABLE 11-3

ESTIMATED POPULATION-AT-RISK/HURRICANE WIND
(Friedman, 1972)

Hurricane Wind At least o 'ne occurrence in Population-at-Risk
Hazard Zone past 80 years in county-sized
area of peak gust

A 125 mph or more 14,550,000
B 100 to 124 mph 37,230,000
C 75 to 99 mph 23,770,000
D 50 to 74 mph 20,490,000

TOTAL: Zones A through D 96,490,000

11-13

While loss of life has decreased dramatically since 1900, property
damages have *increased exponentiallyduiifig'the same period. Figure
11-6 also depicts that trend. Property damages stem mainly from storm
surge flooding, but also from -erosion,. benedth@' structurds'.built too closely
to the waterand from wind, which can a,fflect a,very large area. Average
loss per hurricane is approximately half A@_biilion dollars, but could range
from $4 million to $4 billion (Sugg, 1967).

There are also other effects such as social and economic disruption,
injury, psychological trauma, water supply contamination (with accompany-
ing health haiard),.soil infertility, and shoreline changes. These and
others have been integrated into Figure 11-2.

Adjustments to the Hazard

Hurricane Modification - Cloud seeding of hurricanes with frozen nuclei,
such as silver,-iodide, was conducted as'early a's 1947 under Project Cirrus.
The theory, according to Simpson, is that seeding the clouds of the eye wall
would start a chain of events, with a reduction,in maximum winds as the
net result. Other approaches suggest seeding outward from the eye wall,
thus short-circuiting the inflow to the eye wall and diverting energy
from the core.

Relatively few hurricanes have actually been seeded, and the results
of those experiments are subject to various interpretations. Certain
fluctuations in wind speed occur naturally during the life of a hurricane,
and it is difficult to ascertain whether reductions after seeding are
natural or artificial. There is some evidence that reduction of maximum
winds is on the order of 10 to 15% (Rosenthal, 1971). Advocates of seeding
point out that such a reduction could prevent millions of dollars in
property damage. Other observers point out that very little is actually
known about the effects of seeding and that the process may have such undesir-
able consequences as an increase in the area of damaging storm surge, or a
decrease,in rainfall, or the diversion of the storm from its normal path.
More research and investigation is needed to resolve these differing opinions.

Structural Protection - Artificial means such as seawalls, bulkheads3,
and revetments are.designed to prevent the passage of waves and storm
surge. Since 1955 the Corps of Engineers has conducted well over a hundred
hurricane and@,shor"eline protection studies. In over half of those,
structural,protection was advised by the Corps as being economically justi-
fied, and most of those projects were authorized. Costs range from $100
to $400 per foot of shoreline protected (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1971), and up to seventy per cent (70%) of the costs for protection ofl
non-federal public land are met by the Federal government. About sixty-
eight per cent (68%) of the coast is privately owned and ineligible for
Federally subsidized protection.

Some opponents to protective structures object on the grounds that the
works are inhibiting natural processes and thereby can cause ecological

11-14

destruction and may even increase some types of damage. For example,
seawalls can-modify wave action so that the ocean bottom profile steepens
and reduces beach width (Pilkey, Pilkey, and Turner, 1975).

A further,objection is that such structures encourage
increased occupation of the hazard zone, and that when the
structure fails or is overtopped, as will happen eventually,
losses may be greater than if the structure had not been
built.

Assistance to Natural Protection Sand dunes and beaches serve as
buffers against coastal storms. In some places dunes and beaches have
been built artifically. In others, the natural protection has been
supplemented with additional sand, and in still other cases, steps have
been taken simply to stabilize and protect the natural features.

The protection from major storms afforded by such features
is dubious, however. Grassy dunes ten to twenty feet high have
been completely obliterated by hurricanes (Carney and Hardy,
1967). In actively eroding areas of beach, the artificial or
renourished features must be continually maintained.

Warning Systems - The hurricane warning system consists of three main
stages: evaluation (detection, measurement, collation, forecast);
dissemination (decision to warn, message content, distribution of message);
and response (interpretation of message and resultant behavior) (Mileti,
1975). Hurricane forecasting for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts is primarily
the responsibility of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida.
There are essentially four elements to the forecast: 1) landfall location,
2) time of landfall, 3) storm surge height, and 4) wind speed.
Currently'the "24-hour landfall error" is approximately 100 miles. That
is, twenty-four hours before landfall, the NHC can predict landfall location
within 100 miles. However, it is well known that hurricanes can.execute
intricate shaped trajectories which make landfall prediction quite difficult.
There is debate about how much improvement in forecasting is likely to
occur during the next decade.

The forecasts (in the form of Bulletins and Advisories) are disseminated
to the broadcast news media by regional Hurricane Warning Officers through
the NOAA National Weather Wire, a special circuit, which connects NWS
officers, private users and the news media. The message usually reaches
the local level through the NWS office (which may also issue Local Action
Statements), Civil Defense (NAWAS communicat.ions net), Federal Aviation
Administration, or armed forces communications system. It is then
dispersed principally by radio and television to the public.

Response to warnings is extremely variable both within
and between communities. It appears that communities with
recent disasters are more likely to evacuate than other places.
However, due to scarcity of research it is difficult to predict
who will leave and who will not (Wilkinson and Ross, 1970; Baker,
Brigham, Paredes, and Smith, 1976).

11-15

It is clear that complete evacuation would-be unlikely or impossible
from some areas with high concentrations of people and limited access
routes.. Miami and New Orleans have devised "vertical" evacuation plans
in which multi-story buildings would be used as temporary shelters.
However, this should not be used as a basis for encouraging a policy of
high rise construction. A wiser strategy would be one which avoids the
need.to evacuate more people than would be possible. Sanibel, Florida,
an island community with only one causeway to the densely populated main-
land,- has adopted a population density ceiling.

The evacuation difficulty increases the likelihood
of catastrophe in some coastal areas which are permitting
unbridled development.

Land Use Management - The notion of land use management is to utilize
hazardous areas in ways ;which will minimize uneconomic risk of losses to'
property and life.

Were all individual property owners to be fully informed of
the risk of hurricane damage, they might well make some
accommodations in their choice of building location and
design. They commonly calculate their risk for their expected
tenure of the property and lack direct incentives to avoid
investment which will induce damage to others or will incur
public expenditures for protection, relief and rehabilitation.

Land use management of the type mentioned above is usually accomplished
through governmental regulation.

Zoning specifies a zone or zones in which certain uses are prescribed
and others prohibited. This is the technique by which most communities
have complied with National Flood Insurance Administration regulations (by
requiring new structures to be elevated or floodproofed to the level of the
one per cent (1%) probability storm surge). Some localities have gone
further. Warrick, Rhode Island has two zones. In the one per cent (1%)
probability zone, the restrictions described above apply, but in a smaller,
more hazardous zone, only non-commercial boat docks, beach cabanas, and
open space uses are allowed.

Building codes, also usually enacted at the local level, can require
that structures built in a hazard-prone area be constructed to withst@nd
minimum intensities of storm surge, wave action and wind. Some communities
have met FIA requirements through this medium '. Model building codes
specifically designed for hurricanes were developed and adopted by places
in South Florida and Mississippi. Some places, like Portsmouth, Va.,
prohibit the subdivision of land if it would be unsuitable for intended
use due to flooding or other hazards, unless said hazards are overcome
(e.g. by filling or construction).

11-16

Texas recently drafted a model building code which employs the
concept of graduated hazard element zones. The most severe of the four
zones would be subject to storm surge, wave battering, wave scour, and
wind. The least severe would be subject only to wind. When a developer
subdivides land into lots for residential, commercial, or industrial uses
and sale., he must usually satisfy requirements imposed by the state br
the community.

A zone at the shoreline can be delineated based on a number of varia-
bles, (e.g. one per cent (1%) probability storm surge, specific contour
levels) etc.). Construction within a zone can be controlled or prohibited
by establishing set-back lines. A unique aspect of this strategy is that
it often combines ecological, as well as natural hazard considerations.
Set-back lines have been enacted at both the local and state levels.

In recognition of the protective value of beaches and dunes, some
states and local governments have enacted laws to preserve these features,
but stop short of set-back lines. In practice, many of these laws are
difficult to enforce because the public fears the loss of open beach rights.
However, Palm Beach, Florida restricts construction and activities in the
area of sand dunes.

Mobile homes are easily overturned and "relocated" by strong winds.
To prevent this, some laws require that the homes be anchored to withstand
certain wind loads. North Carolina has accomplished this through the state
building code, while Florida has a special vehicle safety law.

Section 280.305 of the Mobile Home Construction & Safety Standards
Act of 1974 (Title VI of Pl. 93-383, U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) establishes
structural design requirements which must be met in order for mobile
homes to obtain designation as "Hurricane Resistive". Mobile homes must
be designed to withstand horizontal wind loads not less than 25 psf and a net
uplift not less than 15 psf. For exposures in coastal areas, H1JD may
establish more stringent requirements. (Federal Register, vol. 40, No. 244,
Dec. 18, 1975.)

Federal Aid - Insurance coverage against wind damage has long been
available through home owner's policies. Since 1968 communities have had
the opportunity to,'make coverage against storm surge and wave action
available to residents by enacting land use controls in the one per cent (1%)
probability stdim surge zone. The National Flood Insurance Act made flood
- /ilable in communities which agreed to require structures to be
insurance ava
elevated oi floodproofed to the level of the one per cent (1%) probability
storm surge (or other flood source). The Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 prohibits the use of federal funds for construction in, or acquisition
of flood-prone land, and prohibits loans from federally insured banks and
loan institutions for construction in such areas unless the community is
participating in the National Flood Insurance program. The Disaster Relief
Act of 1974 provides for sanctions against communities not insuring public
structures.

11-17

Relief (emergency services immediately following a
disaster) and rehabilitation (longer-term activities to
restore a stricken community to well-being) involve a
plethora of.Federal, state, and local agencies and
private organizations.

For a detailed discussion see Mileti (1975). The law under which the
nation now operates is the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (PL 93-288).

Experiences

Several states, including Georgia, Maryland, Maine, Massashusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia, have recognized the value
of coastal wetlands, marshlands, tidelands, and estuaries, and have attempted
to protect such areas by regulating their development through a variety of
laws. Most of the legislation is oriented toward ecological preservation
and protection, and thereby incidentally, excludes intensive, loss-prone
activities. Others, such as Massachusetts, deal explicitly with the hazard
problem by reviewing any proposal which alters land subject to tidal action,
coastal storm flowage, or flooding.

C. Flood

Delineatin the Hazard

Every coastal state experiences flood losses@. Measured by absolute area,
the large majority of lands in flood plains,are in the south Atlantic and
Gulf states. Smaller reaches of streams draining into the Great Lakes, New
England and Pacific coasts are subject to overflow from peak discharge. Areas.
subject to flooding are increasing because of several land use changes. En-
larging the area of land covered with impermeable highways,'roofs and parking
lots has accelerated the runoff from urban areas. Increasing erosion of , I
farm and grazing lands has raised the level of channels and the cross-section
area flooded..

For the country as a whole, the major populations affected by floods
are in the Northeast, Ohio basin, Great Lakes and California water resources
regions. Within the coastal zone, the more vulnerable urban places are along
the North Atlantic and Gulf coasts, although along the Gulf\, flooding does
not present a major problem except when associated with huriicanes or
offshore storms.

The National Weather Service, one Federal agency with records on nation-
wide flood losses, has documented a persistent upward trend in total property
losses, although per capita loss has remained fairly constant (Figure 11-7).
By 1970, the accepted average annual loss figure was $1 billion. Because of
difficulty in collection and differences in methods and numbers of years for
which data was collected from various government agencies, this estimate

11-18

FIGURE 11-7
LOSSES IN UNITED STATES FLOODS 1905-1912,

5.64
(White, et al., 1958; Per Capita
NOAA, 1971; NOAA, 1972) Property Damage,
Average Annual

3.40 M Lives Lost, Per 10 million
Average Annual

3.00 -

2.50 -

2.00
Dollar
to Damage,
Per Capita
1.50
... 15.00
X.

1.00 -
10.00
Deaths,
per 10
million
5.00
0.50 -

0.'00
1905-10- 15- 20- 1925- 1930- 1935- 1940- 1945- 1950- 1955- 1960- 1965- 1970-
09 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 54 54 59 64 69 72

Years, Average Annual
IM
:M

Damage figures in standard U.S.
adjusted to base 1957-59 -100

may be considered low. The Office of Emergency Preparedness in 1972 placed
c
the loss figure at $2 billion annually. However, only a small proportion
is in coastal reaches such as the Mississippi delta.

There appears to be no clear relationship between property damage
and number of fatalities. Flood related deaths are at a slow increase
or stationary, between 2.5 and 5.8 per 10 million population, with the
exception of three five-year periods, according to NWS data.

Flood control and protections works have lowered the level of damage
from the more frequent floods; however, they have increased the potential
for great catastrophes. 'Dams and levees have historically encouraged the
.increased occupation of the "protected" area and consequently have increased
the possibility of heavy property and human losses and broad social dis-
ruption when a flood larger than the design flood occurs. For example,
much substantive damage in and near northern coastal states duringTropical
Storm Agnes was behind levees and flood walls.

On the individual level, the loss of personal possessions and economic
security, as well as the death or injury of.friends, may result in
psychological depression and anxiety. The flood event disrupts families by
altering economic security. On the other hand, floods may provide an
impetus for commercial development and construction of housing units out-
side the flood plain. Flooding may cause temporary or permanent disintegra-
tion or.reduction in the effectiveness of organizations. These conditions
may provide opportunities for internal change and improvements within a
community. The most serious effects of flooding may be felt at,the
community level. Public buildings, schools and services are often damaged.
Destruction of private property diminishes the local tax base. This may be
compensated partially by increased city sales during the reconstruction.

Adjustments To The Hazard

Control and Protection Works - Numerous governmental and quasi-
g9vernmental agencies are involved in the construction of dams and
reservoirs, levees, channel improvements, floodways, and in the utiliza-
tion of other structural works and land treatment measures to inhibit
water runoff. Mean annual construction expenditures for single-purpose
flood control structures, i.e. omitting the much larger multipurpose pro-
jects, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have been approximately $100
million for the last decade. Flood damages averted by flood control works
are estimated at $1 billion annually.

These control works, however, are effective only up to the project
design levels. According to some estimates, (e.g. Holmes, 1961),
damages occurring from overtopping, failure of works, or an incomplete
structure may account for 33-40% of total flood losses, and occur in one-
third of the total years.

11-20

Major constraints'to building these types of control works
are*the large capital expenditures by federal and state
agencies, and local opposition to new engineering works because
of their environmental impacts.

Warning Systems The preparation of official river stage forecasts
and the issuance of public warning for floods is the responsibility of
the National Weather Service (MWS) of NOAA. Tw 'elve River Forecast
Centers and the second level River bistrict Offices serve approximately
ninety-seven per cent (97t) of the country, including Alaska.

In the communication of warnings, floods are divided into two types:
"floods" which develop and crest over a period of six hours or more, and
"flash floods" which develop and crest more quickly. The latter rarely
occur in the coastal zone section of streams. Forecasts and warnings
are transmitted over NOAA National Weather,Wire Service, and the NOAA VHF/
FM Radio Transmission Service to organizations in the thirty"six
states with receiving equipment. Other areas and states are notified
by telephone or telegraph.

As with other hazards, the response to flood warnings
varies greatly and is not well understood. If warnings are
to serve their purpose, it is essential to anticipate the
kinds of individual and organizational action.which can and
will be taken.

Flood Proofing - Alterations in design and construction of structures
can greatly decrease susceptibility to flood damage. A recent.Corps of
Engineers handbook (1972) lists seven flood-proofing measures: 1) instal@,
lation of watertight windows and door closures; 2) provision for moving
damageable contents to higher levels; 3) provision for emergency
operation of electricity, water, and sanitary services; 4) sealing of
walls and foundations against seepage; 5) strengthening of walls to
resist hydrostatic pressure loads; -6) installation of drain sumps and
.pumps; and 7) elevation of structures on open columns.

Conditions which inhibit the adoption of flood,proofing techniques
are: the high monetary costs of floodproofing large old structures as
well as small residential structures; the lack of technical knowledge
by architects; the lack of public encouragement through tax deductions,
information or other means; and finally the reluctance of property
owners to acknowledge the infrequent hazard and make visible changes in
their structures.

Care should be taken so, that the adoption of flood-proofing
techniques do not induce a false sense of security and thereby
encourage owners to expose themselves unwittingly to catas-
trophic events exceeding the limits of the structure.

11-21

Land Use Management Land management techniques can help lessen the
impact of flood by 1) reducing the population and economic investment
at risk; 2) reducing the-public cost of subsequent evacuation, relief
and rehabilitation, and 3) decreasing dependence upon costly protection
works requiring public investment. Although flood plain land use manage-
ment techniques may be the adjustments most likely to reduce national
.flood losses, adoption has been slow.

One difficulty has been in calculating the full social costs and
benefits, especially estimating the value of foregone economic develop-
ment. This is coupled with a strong sentiment in some communities
against governmental interference in the use of land.

In those communities that have passed land use regulations,
factors that assisted the early adoption include: availability
of flood plain information, recent flood experience, vigorous
state support for a strong local planning authority, strong
local leadership, and an environmentally conscious citizenry.

Federal initiatives have helped to provide direction and to en-
courage wise use of flood plains. Executive Order #11296 of 1966 (see
Section III) discourages the location of federally supported building on
flood plains, but it has been slow in implementation and lax on
supervision. Incentives to land use management accompanied the Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, by requiring the adoption of community flood
plain regulation for eligibility in all phases of the insurance program.

Flood Insurance - Through the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,
subsidized insurance is available to residents of participating
communites that have adopted and are enforcing flood plain land use
management measures that modify the flood loss susceptibility. FIA
supports delineation of flood hazard areas and estimates the actuarial
and subsidized premiums.

The rate of individual purchase'of flood insurance has been
-increasing.

Common explanations for failure to purchase insurance
revolve around ideas that individuals are unaware of its availa-
bility and costs, that they have little incentive to purchase
insurance if relief and loans are readily available after floods,
the homeowners' perception of risk, and psychological barriers.

Relief and Rehabilitation - Relief and rehabilitation are available
under three categories of flood impact:. national disasters declared by
the President; national disasters declared by either the Small Business
Administration or the Farmer's Home Administration; and floods in which
no declaration of disasters are made.

At the request of the governor of an affected state, the President
may declare a national disaster if necessary relief exceeds the resources

11-22

of the state. Loans, temporary housing and restora .tion of public facil-
ities can then be made available. In a ten year period, approximately
twenty-two per cent (22%) of all major disaster declarations were for-
floods, amounting to seven per cent (7%) of all allocations from the
President's disaster.fund. Some other types of disasters, especially
severe storms along coastal states, may be closely associated with-
flooding and can be included in this category.

*When a Presidential declaration is not made, department
heads of various federal agencies, such as the Small Business
Administration (SBA) or the Farmer's Home Administration (FRA),
may issue loans to individuals and small businesses or provide
other aid to agriculture areas.

When a flood event is not declared a disaster and these
types of the federal aid are not provided, individuals must
bear the loss. Volunteer relief organizations, in addition
to the Red Cross, assist whether or not a disaster, is declared.

The Federal government has helped to relieve some of the financial
burdens of these volunteer groups. The Red Cross provides aid through
the cleaning, building and repairing of homes and household furnishings.
The Federal government augments this by its continuing urban renewal
programs and by paying for household accessories for those going into
publically-provided housing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued
$9 million worth of food stamps to Tropical Storm Agnes victims, a
savings of that amount to the Red Cross. All of these measures ultima-
tely lead to an increased burden which must be borne by individual
taxpayers.

Trends

In most communities, more than one adjustment to flood is employed.
Although difficult to document, there seem to be four main combina-
tions of.adjustments within urban flood plain areas. Heavily relied on
is loss-bearing by individuals, supplemented with public relief and
rehabilitation and the availability of insurance. In a second combina-
tion, public entitiesin order to qualify for continued flood insurance
adopt a program of land management. Third, flood proofing and community
preparedness plans are built on adequate warning systems. A fourth
common set of adjustments is the combination of control and protection
works with relief and rehabilitation assistance when the works provide
inadequate protection.

Another trend is the increasing encroachment upon flood-prone lands.
Although no direct correlation has been found between the degree of
protection and the rate of flood zone growth, it is likely that flood
protection works, along with highway construction, provide a stimulus
for further flood plain invasion. The nation has attained a position
in which it suffers large annual losses from occupying its flood plain,
while reaping benefits from the use of those lands. Any change in land
use would either increase or decrease net benefits.

11-23

National Forces

At least three trends underway at the national level may change the
current types and mixes of adjustments to floods:

Population Shifts - Reduction in the number of farms and the increase
in farm size s educed rural population in flood plains. At.the same time,
the enlarged urban employment is accompanied by the invasion of suburban and
exurban families into former agricultural areas. This growth has resulted in
extensive residential,'commercial and industrial development in unfamiliar
low-lying areas.

Consumers.and Workers - One trend that may highlight awareness of risk
potential, and thus reduce damage potential, is the movement to protect
workers and consumers. Through its activities to protect workers from
undue risks, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) may
help to restrict manufacturing and commercial employers from locating in
flood vulnerable areas. Many Federal and state agencies seek to prevent
purchasers from being victimized or exposed to unforeseen risks. Along
these lines, control of house design.and location, especially mobile home
property and new subdivision development may be advantageous.

Citizen Participation - Increased citizen participation in decision-
making has had a dramatic effect on blocking the construction of flood,
control works. Emphasis on the preservation of wildlife and aquatic hab itat
and the maintenance of open space in urban areas has curbed the construction
of new structures and helped to promote nonstructural measures of reducing
or controlling flood losses.

Federal Aid and Guidelines
Federal emphasis on certain adjustments has changed markedly over the
past 20 years. Greater attention has been given to relief and rehabilitation
and to insurance-and less to control and protection works. Expenditures
moved dramatically from local and private to national budgets. Interest 'in
warnings, flood-proofing, and land use regulations has grown. A study funded
by FDAA to develop guidelines for implementation of Section 406 Ckinimu'm
Standards for Public and Private Structure�") of the "Disaster Relief Act
of 1974" (PL 93-288) is nearing completion. The draft report, Flood Hazard
Mitigatio Through Safe Land @Lse.4jnd.Construction Practices, is a statement
concerning what is actually being done, as opposed to what can legally be
done. A final report including recommendations will be presented upon.
conclusion of the field studies.

The Corps of Engineers has long been active in determining the magnitude
of the flood hazard and designing control and protection works. It now is
giving somewhat more emphasis to nonstructural alternatives. The Department
of Housing and Urban Development assists communities in delineating flood
boundaries, and calculates rates for the flood insurance program. The U.S.
Geological Survey maps flood-prone areas and documents major floods. In the
past, the National Weather Service, along with the evaluation and
dissemination of warnings, has been involved in compiling flood damages on
a.national level. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided technical
aid in rural areas by conducting flood studies and studies of soil processes.
Federal funds for research on flood problems have come from the Office of
Water Research and Technology. The National Science Foundation has funded
studies of the social and economic aspects of flood hazard.

11-24

D. Coastal Erosion

Delineation of the Hazard Area

About one quarter of the national shorefront (20,500 miles) is
subject to significant coastal erosion (see Figure 11-8 and Table 11-4).
It is a critical problem along 2,700 of those miles. Not all coasts are
equally th'reatened. Social and economic costs of erosion are greatest
in the Atlantic and Great Lakes states (Michigan Coastal-Zone Labora-
tory, 1976), whereas the Pacific Northwest, Alaska and Hawaii are least
affected.

With fifty per cent (50%) of U.S. residents living in coastal counties,
population within one mile of the coast growing three to four times
faster than the national average, and coastal land commanding premium
prices, both the numbers of people and the amount of investment exposed
to erosion are steadily increasing .(Sorensen & Mitchell, 1975). However,
most large cities are located on sheltered sites some distance removed
from the open shore.. Erosion-prone communities are typically small
.cities (less than 10,000 population), villages and unincorporated areas
dependent upon vacation tourism and recreation income.

Defining the Hazard

Coastal erosion is the set of processes by which more shore zone
material (i.e. sand., rock, other sediments) is removed than deposited
(Bruun, 1968). This may be accomplished by water, wind, gravity or
biological (including human) action. Waves and tides are the most
frequent agents of erosion but ice may contribute to structural damages
in the Great Lakes, and drought has increased California.'s erosion losses
by reducing the'sediment delivery capacity of coastal streams. Overused
and poorly vegetated dunes are subject to migration and wind erosion,
steep cliffs may collapse after being partially undercut by waves, and
many shores protected by limestone or coral reefs suffer slow biological
depletion.

In the long,run changing sea levels are the ultimate cause of
oceanfront erosion (Bruun, 1955; Emery, 1967; Hicks, 1968) but coastal
storms coinciding with high tides produce the most immediate and troubling
effects (Wood, 1976). On Great Lakes shores 'spring and fall storms
during periods of high water cause the worst problems. In both cases,
vulnerable backshore margins, which are not normally exposed to wave
action, come under attack.

Characteristics of Eroding Coasts - Natural erosion is most pro-
nounced on exposed coasts composed of unconsolidated materials, with meager
sediment supplies, many inlets, deep water close inshore, strong currents,
and stormy climates (Inman & Brush, 1973). Human.activities exacerbate
these pro*blems in a variety of ways.- Probably the most important are the
development of structures which impede beach sand supplies. These include
dams on rivers, shorefront.groins and jetties, revetments on headlands
which formerly supplied sediment, and occasionally upland soil conserva-
tion schemes. Clearance of dune-stabilizing vegetation and truncation
of the dunes themselves remove both a source of sediment and a protective
barrier against high water and storm waves. Mining of beach sands
produces a similar result. Sandy barrier islands may be dessicated by

11-25

GREAT LAKES REGION

NORTH PACIFIC REGI ON
NORTH ATLANTIC
REGION
.13

13
ALASKA REGION
0
91
GULF 74
CALIFORNIA REGION SOUTH ATLANT
REGION
0

so
ON
HAWA@@REG I
PUERTO RICO AND
as LEGEND AND TFE VIRGIN
IS. INCLUDED IN
13 -PERCENT CRITICAL EROSION LOWER MISSISSIPPI S. ATLANTIC-C4JLF
PERCENT STABLE-131D TEXAS GULF REGION REGION REGION
74 PERCENT NON CRITICAL .4-10
EROSION
(n so
96

SEVERITY OF SHORELINE EROSION
@o
I
ON

(CORPS OF a4"NgERS, 1971)
FIGURE 11-8

TABLE 11-4

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORE EROSION

Region Total Critical Non-Critical Non-Eroding
Shoreline Erosion Erosion (miles)
(miles) (miles) (miles)

North
Atlantic 8P620 1)090 6,370 19160

South
Atlantic-
Gulf 14,620 980 19840 11,800

Lower
Mississippi 1,940 30 1,550 360

Texas Gulf 2,500 100 260 2pl4O

Great Lakes 3p680 220 1,040 2,420

California 1,810 80 1,470 260

North
Pacific 2,840 70 190 2,580

Alaska 47,300 100 5,000 42,200

Hawaii 930 30 80 820

Total For
Nation 84,2_40 2,700. 17,800 63,740

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971)

11-27

lowering water tables due to overpumping wells or diverting domestic waste
water and storm runoff into sewer systems rather than septic tanks and
dune fields. Elsewhere, land subsidence associated with the depletion of
ground water and coastal oil and gas resources may increase wave
effectiveness, while.channel dredging may undermine adjacent bulkheads
and steepen offshore submarine profiles.

Assessment of Losses - Average coastline recession rates of twenty-
five feet per year are not uncommon on some barrier islands. Severe
storms can remove even wider beaches and twenty foot high dunes in a
single n 'ight. Such losses are normal aspects of a dynamic natural
system. Societal problems arise only when populated areas are affected.
On the heavily developed shores in urban areas recessions of one foot
per year may be catastrophic.

Average annual losses due to erosion have been conservatively-
estimated at $300 million ( Sorensen & Mitchell, 1975). Most of this
stems from damage to private homes, beaches and shore protection
structures. Deaths are extremely rare. As coasts continue to attract
industries seeking tidewater sites, support facilities for offshore
continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas development, nuclear power plants
anda stream of second home owners and retirees, the toll of losses is
certain to increase.

Adjustments to the Hazard

Most owners of private waterfront land tend to install control and
protection devices or to simply bear erosion losses. Privately
sponsored protection structures are frequently destroyed or rendered
ineffective because of inadequate design and poor construction (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1973). A much wider range of options is
utilized by public agencies, although structural protection is also
generally preferred. Even the best engineered structures are often
subject to heavy damage (see Table 11-5). This stems from the diffi-
-culty of'designing models and protection structures to withstand
the extreme physical stresses of marine environments, and also from a
lack of.coordinated, systematically gathered data on major littoral
processes and site conditions.

Control and Protection Works - A majority of erosion control
structures are designed either to 1) reduce wave energy (e.g. seawalls,
breakwaters, sills composed of sand filled nylon bags), or 2) impede
littoral sediment supplies and build up protective beaches (jetties,
groins, "sandgrabbers," beach nourishment schemes). Where erosion is caused
by starvation in the lee of obstacles to littoral currents, fixed or
mobile sand bypassing systems are sometimes established. In 1973, costs
of bulkheads, seawalls and other structures were estimated to vary
between $25 -300 per linear foot but rising to $5000 per foot for massive.
bulkheads (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Under provisions of the

11-28

TABLE 11-5

ADJUSTMENTS TO COASTAL EROSION

Adjustments Modifica tions of Modifications of Adjustments-Affec-
to Loss Loss Potential Erosion Hazard ting Hazard Cause

Major Major Major Major

Loss bearing Coastal zoning Dune stabiliza- Prohibition of
tion beach excavation
Insurance Building Codes and harbor
Groins dredging
Minor Public purchase
of eroding land Bulkheads, sea- Sand bypassing
Emergency walls and revet-
public Land fill ments Minor
assistance
Minor Beach nourishment Removal of river
and "Perched" dams
Moving endan- beaches
gered struc- Biological control
tures Breakwaters of marine fauna

Installing deep Minor Reduction in soil
pilings conservation
Regulations activities
Storm warning against destruc-
and forecasting tion of dune Storm track
systems Vegetation modification

Phr eatophyte
removal

Artificial sea-
weed, bubble
breakwaters

Emergency filling
and grading

Grading slopes

(After Mitchell, 1972)

11-29

Shoreline Erosion, Demonstration Act (1974), Great Lakes and Chesapeake
Bay states-are experimenting with low-cost protection structures
averaging between $50-100 per linear foot (3rater, et al., 1975).

Beach nourishment is an increasingly preferred adjust-
ment because it involves minimal interference with beach.
dynamics, can be accomplished with little ecological
disruption, and quickly produces a useable recreational
and protective beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973a).

The high initial cost ($50-300 per linear foot) and subsequent annual
replenishment costs ($5-15 per foot per year) frequently exceed the
volume of erosion damages. Some states have empowered localities to
establish Beach Protection Districts with taxation powers to fund such
long term maintenance programs (e.g. Virginia Beach's "sand tax ri).
Inventories of submarine sand-supplies and improvements in dredging
technology have increased the prospect of continuou s beach nourishment
from offshore sources. For example, Hawaii's Submarine Sand Recovery
System (SSRS) with costs of $3.01-$5.49 per cubic yard compare favorably
with $15 and up for delivery from inland sources (Moberly, et al., 1975).

Beachfront homes are often plac' ed on tall wood or"steel pilings
for protection against both flooding and erosion. Elevation above
one per cent (1%) probability flood levels is.now a general land
use requirement in communities seeking to avail themselves of Federal
flood insurance. Pilings may preserve exposed buildings from destruc-
tion while surrounding beaches, dunes, roads, utility lines and other
infrastructure are heavily damaged.

Thus piling can indirectly encourage continued post-
disaster redevelopment of erosion hazard areas. However,,
under the National Flood Insurance Program, the elevation
requirement for structures in areas subject to wave wash
states that the pilings be driven below the erodable sand.

Dune stabilization - by means of vegetative plantings and sand
fences is often practiced by individuals, municipalities and public
agencies, in conjunction with other adjustments (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1957; 1969; 1970; Dolan, et al., 1973).

To achieve success, this strategy requires strict
land use control to minimize occupance of, or passage
through, the vulnerable outer dune lines.

Other structural adjustments to coastal erosion such as weather
modification to reduce storms, self-dredging harbors, floating
breakwaters, and artificial seaweed, are either at experimental
stages or have limited utility.

Most coasts which have received structural protection against
erosion are already heavily developed or held as public open spaces.

11-30

There is little evidence that such.works encourage further invasion of
hazard prone areas except where they are.part of cooperative erosion
control and hurricane protection schemes.

Under existing law, Federal shore protection funds cannot be used
to protect private land unless there is a significant public benefit.
ExCept in Connecticut and Maryland, where state assistance is available
to private landowners, major public assistance is denied to the privately
owned 2/3 (67.67%) of America's critically eroding coasts (Coastal Zone
Research Corporation, 1975).

Land Use.Management The widespread enactment of land use controls
to mitigate erosion hazards is a post World War II phenomenon.stemming
from disenchantment with traditional structural protection practices
and also from a growing need to resolve intense commercial, industrial,
residential and recreational conflicts for coastal locations. Further,
about thirty per cent (30%) of critically eroding shores are publicly
owned (parks, nature reserves, recreation areas, historic sites). They
have been subject to use regulations such as restrictions on access or
permitted activities '(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976).

Erosion risk maps are a prerequisite for effective land
use controls.

These generally depict average rates of historical shoreline change,
as determined from maps, charts, surveys, aerial photographs and similar
sources. Such maps have been, or are being, prepared for the Great
Lakes and Chesapeake Bay shorelines which suffer from severe coastal
bluff recessions (Joint Federal Regional Council, 1974). The Federal
Insurance Administration is currently working with the Great Lakes Basin
Commission to study the erosion hazard, and will soon be mapping the
hazard areas and developing specific regulatory requirements for these
areas. Exposed oceanic shores are subject to great variations in
erosion rates and there risk mapping.is a more complex task. Neverthe-
less, Virginia's Shoreline Situation Reports and Maryland's Shore Erosion
Mapping program are prototypes which may be useful elsewhere.

Public dissemination of information about erosion hazard
is a necessary corollary to risk mapping.

This need is partly met in specific locations by Corps of Engineers
doastal Flood Plain Information reports. In some states, erosion
hazard data is incorporated into handbooks for'coastal developers and
property owners (Carroll, 1975; Bird, 1975). Elsewhere,it is written
into plat books and mortgage agreements.

In addition to public acquisition, land use controls may involve
clearance or relocation of structures ($5000-7000 to move a threatened
house is typical). In many places, either strategy (i.e. acquisition or
relocation), can be a preferred alternative to structural protection

11-31

(Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1976). The high cost of shorefront
property and its substantial income producing potential frequently deter
public acquisition, although methods such as purchase of development
rights or easements, purchase-leaseback agreements, and delayed pay-
ment schedules,- can ease the problem. Major legal complexities also
hinder public.-land acquisition. Along heavily developed shorefronts,
many different interest groups, municipal govermnent agencies and
various citizen groups, may be opposed. Public ownership is often vigor-
ously resisted because it raises the possibility of open and unrestricted
use of beaches by non-residents.

A wide range of other land use controls also exists. These include
moratoria on building construction,, zoning, building codes, setback
lines, subdivision regulations, dune conservation and sand removal
ordinances, special tax districts, transfer of development rights,
Planned Unit Development regulations, drainage and sanitary codes9
seawall standards, scenic easements and permits for special uses.

All coastal states possess some regulations designed to reduce
vulnerability to coastal erosion. Most northeastern states now have
a comprehensive range of statutes pertaining to: construction of shore
protection works, issuance of permits for structures in coastal waters,
removal of sand and gravel from beaches, alteration of dunes, preserva-
tion of wetlands, and regulation of subdivisions in coastal hazard zones.
Many Great Lakes states have also adopted, or are in the process of
adopting, statewide subdivision controls, erosion risk zones or setback
ordinances. A 1972 survey showed that no more than eleven per cent (11%)
of shorefront communities had adopted any one of the three most popular
land management tools to control erosion (i.e. setback lines, controls
on structures, dune conservation statutes) (U.S. Water Resources Council,
1972). Passage of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234)
significantly increased this number.'

Relief and Rehabilitation - Erosion losses generally are borne by
affected individuals and groups. Voluntary assistance from the Red Cross
-or the Salvation Army is generally not available because most coastal
property is used for r'ecreation rather than permanent residence. Nor
can erosion losses be deducted as a business expense from income tax
returns (American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, 1970).

Presidential declarations can make disaster aid available
to erosion-victims and Public Law 53-288 also provides
emergency aid if erosion is associated with storms (avulsion).

Public Policy

Trends in Adjustment In the nineteenth century coastal protection
was largely the responsibility of shorefront property owners and
municipalities. Subsequently, states established agencies to oversee

11-32

erosion control (New Jersey Board of Commerce and Navigation, 1922).
The U.S. government has been active in thi-s field since 1930. Protective
works such as seawalls and bulkheads were favored during the 1930's and
40's. Beach nourishment and dune stabilization were added during the
1050's, and sand bypas7sing systems for inlets were adopted during the
1960's,.' Since that time there has been a shift towards 1).land use
management as a promising alternative strategy (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1971); and 2) the design of moderate cost engineering
devices suitable for small scale structural protection - especially in
sheltered waters. These objectives reflect both the findings of the
National Shoreline@Study (1971) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971a),
and new Federal legislation.

The Coastal Zone Management Act may help to integrate structural
protection works within a larger management framework. Identification
of erosion risk zones, designation and regulation of hazard-related
Geographic Areas of Particular Concern, or adoption of similar manage-
ment statutes, are widespread features of evolving plans in.affected
areas.

In 1974'Congress appropriated $8 million for the Shoreline Erosion
Demonstration Act and established a five-year program of low cost projects
on sheltered waters to demonstrate engineering and vegetation adjustments.

Federal Protection Programs - The Corps of Engineers carries out most
Federal coastal protection work. Up to seventy per cent (70%) of the
costs of structures, beach nourishment schemes, dune stabilization and
other works on non-federal public land are paid for by the Federal govern-
ment. Such money is periodically appropriated by Congress in omnibus Civil
Works acts. Where protection of private land results in substantial
public benefit, local and state governments usually contribute at least
fifty per cent (50%) of the total costs and the Federal government provides
the balance. If no public benefits are foreseen, the Corps of.Engineers
can only offer advice on appropriate technology and related subjects
(U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, 1973). The sole exception is for emergency
projects costing less than $1 million, and these may be undertaken without
Congressional approval. Some states also provide public assistance to
private landowners and many more have state-funded protection programs
for public shores.

Insurance - Since the 1973 expansion of the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968, adoption of insurance against erosion has experienced a
dramatic increase. Previous attempts to market erosion insurance failed
to attract sufficient subscribers, but exten@sion of the federally -
subsidized flood insurance program to encompass storm-caused erosion
losses has proved attractive to property owners. Single family residences
can now be insured up to $70,000 and multi-family homes for up to $200,000
at low premium rates.

11-33

There are no clear, guidelines by the Federal Insurance Administra-
tion to determine whether erosion losses -are caused by storms (avulsion)
or by long term processes (erosion).- Only the former qualifies for
reimbursement. Considerable delays occur between a community's
acceptance into the "emergency" phase of the program (minimum land-use
regulations required), and its passage to the "regular" phase (strong
land use controls required).

Interaction of Adjustments - Adoption of a specific response to
erosion can: increase, decrease, or have no effect on the likelihood of'
other adjustments-being adopted. For example, if erosion control and
protection structures are adopted it is likely that they will be comple-
,mented by warning systems.and relief and rehabilitation programs,
whereas it is less likely that non-structural controlsand land use manage-
ment tools will be employed.

In most communities a mixed set of adjustments is preferred to
single component programs. The Federal flood insurance and land use
zoning package is one such widely adopted scheme. Other sets include:
1) structural protection, warning and relief programs; 2) beach
nourishment, dune stabilization and piling schemes; and 3) long range
forecasting and permanent evacuation of high risk areas. Although
potentially of equal effectiveness, each set of responses employs
different means to reduce damages, produces different costs and will
have different effects. The most advantageous combination of adjust-
ments will vary in response to local conditions.

Erosion adjustments may also mitigate other hazards, and land use
controls usually serve multiple purposes often unrelated to hazard miti-
gation.

Costs - To the cost of capital construction and annual beach nourish-
ment must be added considerably greater indirect and intangible costs of
social, environmental and aesthetic disruption which accompany such
schemes. -Some observers suggest that present programs cost more than the
land is worth, but sensitive benefit-cost analyses are presently lacking.
It does appear, however, that erosion damages are increasing steadily and
that protection strat'egies which depend solely on structural devices have
had limited success in curbing erosion losses.

E. Landslide

Most coastal landslide activity is found along the Pacific, including
the states of California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. Although
landslides occur in other coastal states, they do not generally occur in
their coastal zones (see figures 11-9 & 10).

g! .1 highly localized hazard, While much of the Paci,f ic
coast is affected by l4ndslid4@@, the hazard is limited in its extent to

II@34

FIGURE 11-9
--M@-V*P OF TW
PRELT#VWY" LMK@W.
1 WASHDGTW@@CALIFG*TA COST MOON

PIA
tnt III S ka
G

lp AREA OF HIGH LANDSLIDE 114CIDENCE (MOF;E
THAN 15 PERCENT OF AREA UXERLYING ROCK
OR EARTH MATERIAL ESTIMATED TO BE IN-
L 14 R VOLVED IN LANDSLIDING)

Po d

AREA OF MODERATE LANDSLICE INCIDENCE
M14 m (LESS THAN 15 PERCENT BUT MORE THAN
.13 1.5 PERCENT GF AREEA OF UNDERLYING
X 0 ROCK OR EARTH MATERIAL ESTIMATED TO
..O,o M BE INVCX.VEO IN LANDSLIVING)
Euge
o
io AREA OF LOW LANDSLIDE MIDENCE (LESS
R E THAN 1.5 PERCENT W AREA OF WDERLYING
TERIAL ESTIMATED TO BE
ROCK OR EARTH MA
INVOLVED IN LAVDSLIDING)
W AREA OF HIGH LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY (LANDSLIDE
m SUSCEPTIBILITY OF UNDERLYING ROCK OR FARI.,-ATERIAL
ESTIMATED TO BE HIGHt NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL CUTTING
OR LOADING OF SLOPES OR ANOMALOUSLY HIGH PRECIPI
..... . ..... ..... TATION MAY CAUSE LANDSLIDING INVOLVrNG MOW THAN
15 PERCENT OF THE ROCK OR SOIL)

R
AREAOF MODERATE LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY (LANDSLIDE
SUSCEPTIBILITY OF UAXjqLYING ROCK OR EARTH MATERIAL
ESTIMATED TO BE MOOERATE1 NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL CUrTING
OR LOADING OF SLOPES OR ANOMALOUSLY HIGH PRFCIPITA-
CAUSE LANDSLIDING OF BETWEEN 15 AND 1.5
TION MAY
FOMENT OF THE UNDERLYING R= OR SOIL)

L N E
100 0 100 200

111LES
'A
San M
Francis NOTE I :W1.5 SCALE SHOW
L
USED FOR F 1 Gol, 0
N I A

!a sti oe*
L -7

Bakersfield

(RADeRLcH-HALL, AND OTHERS, 1976)

II@35

4t
6 1
8c.

Is 0 S
ONTAR10
M 1"Alc
M

-M
M i w..kee
M 0
m R
L
0 or Chicago
M
(RA0WRL0&+-HALL 6)

AREA OF HIGH LANDSLIDE INCIDENCE (MORE THAN 15 AREA OF HIGH LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY (LANDSLIDE
PERCENT (IF AREA OF UNDERLYING ROCK OR EARTH SUSCEPTIBILITY OF UNDERLYING ROCK OR EARTH MATERIAL
MATERIAL ESTIMATED TO BE INVOLVED IN LANDSLIDING) ESTIMATED TO BE HIGH NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL CUTTING
OR LOADING OF SLOPES OR ANOMALOUSLY HIGH PRECIP-
TATION MAY CAUSE LANDSLIDING INVOLVING MORE THAN
AREA OF MODERATE LANDSLIDE INCIDENCE (LESS THAN 15 PERCENT 15 PERCENT OF THE ROCK OR SOIL)
BUT MORE THAN 1.5 PERCENT OF AREA OF UNDERLYING ROCK OR
EARTH MATERIAL ESTIMATED TO BE INVOLVED IN LANDSLIDING) AREA OF MODERATE LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY (LANDSLIDE
SUSCEPTIBILITY OF UNDERLYING ROCK OR EARTH MATERIAL
AREA OF LOW LANDSLIDE INCIDENCE (LESS THAN I.5 ESTIMATED TO BE MODERATE NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL CUTTING
PERCENT OF AREA OF UNDERLYING ROCK OR EARTH OR LANDING OF SLOPES OR ANOMALOUSLY HIGH PRECIPITA-
MATERIAL. ESTIMATED TO BE INVOLVED IN LANDSLIDING TION MAY CAUSE LANDSLIDING OF BETWEEN 15 AND 1.5
PERCENT OF THE UNDERLYING ROCK OR SOIL)

PRELIMINARY LANDSLIDE OVERVIEW MAP
OF THE GREAT LAKES REGION
FIGURE,II-10

small well-defined, although not always identifiable, locations. what
may be a problem for one person, may not be so for his neighbor.

Landslides become hazardous when they coincide with the activities
of man. In coastal environments some of the areas most aesthetically
desirable are also areas of high landslide activity. In fact, land-
sliding is one of the processes which creates visually pleasing coasts.
When people occupy such areas, they are exposed to risks of landslide
damages. As recent years have witnessed a rapid population growth in
the coastal environment, the problem has become more severe. Losses
from landslides will continue to increase with the growth of population
unless specific measures are taken to reduce loss.

II-36

Defining the Hazard

A landslide is the perceptible downslope movement of rock, debris,
soil, or some combination of these materials. This excludes from consider-
ation very slow typies of erosion and soil movements which are found in
coastal environments. Regional perceptions of landslides differ; what is
called a landslide in California may be considered erosion along the
Great Lakes.

In general, landslides are classified into three types of movement -
falls,, slides, and flows (see figure II-11). Also important in describing
landslides -is the nature of the material in motion which varies in particle
size from large rocks to very fine soils. Falls are simply the free
falling of any size material. There are two types of slides:.._planar slides
refers to the non-rotational or straight movement of a large block (or
blocks) of materials, and slumps are rotational movements of A single or
multiple slide mass. Flows are characterized by the fluid-like movement of
slide material.

Falls of all size material, slumps of rock and smaller debris, and
flows.of soil (mudflows) are all common to the coastal zone.

Delineating the Hazard

Many areas of landslide activity are easily seen in the light of
historical evidence. Other potential hazard zones are difficult to re-
cognize, even to the expert eye. Currently a wide variety of methods exist
for identifying landslides. Such methods involve the use of both histor-
ical evidence of landsliding and a variety of other types of geological
data related to this,hazard. The final product of the identification process'
is most typically in map form. However, not all maps have the same meaning.
They vary in their scale,.content, and means of preparation.

The scale of a landslide identification map may determine its use (see
Figure 11-12), Small scale maps are, in general, of limited use for planning.
While they provide a picture of the extent of the hazard, specific
decisions cannot be made from the broad information they contain. Large
scale maps at scales from I" = 2,000' up to 1" = 500' are of greater use in
formulating methods to reduce losses from landslides. As would be expected,
the larger the map scale, the more expensive it is to prepare.

There are a wide variety of landslide maps. They differ in scale,
information presented, and intended use. For example, a simple type of
landslide map shows the location and areal extent of landslide deposits.
Maps of this type are commonly prepared from interpretation of aerial photo-
graphs with little or no f@eld checking for accuracy. Where these n&ps
have been field checked, however, they were determined to be reliable
indicators of the locations of past landslide activity. A more refinnri
map might make use of information on the kinds of geological materials
present, correlate these with existing landslide deposit maps and generate
maps of the distribution of landslide susceptible materials. These maps

11-37

A Rockfall: rock masses that move primarily by failing B Debris slide: incoherent or broken masses of rock
through the air. ai@-Mer debris that move downslone by slid-
Ing on a surface that underlies the deposit.

C Sl coherent or intact masses that move downslope D Egrthflow soil and other colluvial materials that
UN, rot tional slip an surfaces that underlie as move downslope In a manner similar to a viscous
iL well a: penetrate the landslide deposit. fluid.

FOUR CCWON TYPES OF LANDSLIDE (NILSEN AND BRABB, 1972)..
FIGURE II-11

11-38

MAP SCALE MAP USES
C SMALL
1:5,000,000 DELINEATING GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT OF
LANDSLIDES

1:500,000 DRAWING ATTENTION TO HAZARD POTENTIAL

REGIONAL PLANNING

B SUBDIVISION PLANNING AND LOCATION

1:50,000 PRELIMINARY SITING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES

A GENERAL ZONING

1:5,000 DETERMINATION OF ACTURIAL RATES

MICRO ZONING

1:500 DESIGNING CONTROL/PROTECTION WORKS

LARGE

SELECTED MAP SCALES

1:19 375 1:62500 1:7,500,000
A(BLANC AND B(BRABB, PAMPEYAN C(RADBRUCH-HALL
CLEVELAND 1968) AND BONILLA,1972) AND OTHERS,1976)

RELATION OF LANDSLIDE MAP SCALES
AND POTENTIAL USES
FIGURE II-12

II-39

obviously require substantial fieldwork. The maps can be further
refined'by combining information on landslide deposits and geological
materials with other parameters su6has steepness of slope, slope
aspect, vegetation or unfavorable dip of underlying strata. Other maps
(see for.example Nolan and others, 1976) provide information on-the
current rates of intensity of landslide processes by mapping deposits on
-aerial photographs of the same area taken at different times. Users
of landslide maps should be familiar with the methods of preparation,
.intended use, and limitations. Among the wide variety of maps the
greatest distinction is between those which show the potential for
future landsliding (susceptibility) and those which depict historical
incidence.

Adjustments to the Hazard

Traditionally, the chief means of preventing damages from land-
slides involved the application of engineeri'ng technology to stop the
slide from moving or to stop it after it had been released. Often, such
efforts were not effective, and could be done only at high cost
(Sorensen, et al., 1975). Currently a much broader range of
alternative adjustments is available. The major types of adjustments
include:

1. Prediction
2. Protection
3. Land Use Management
4. Disaster Preparedness
5. Relief and Rehabilitation
6. Insurance

Because of the variable nature of the hazard, no single pattern of
adjustments is universally effective or unique to the coastal zone.

Prediction - is the process ckf identifying the location, time,
and magnitude of landslide activity. At present, techniques exist
which can reliably define where landslides occur.

As of yet, however, it is impossible to determine precisely
the magnitude of the landslide as measured by the volume of material
that moves. Thus, the data on which to make a prediction in
probabilistic terms is lacking. What we can predict are locations
susceptible to landsliding. This is an important prerequisite to
using some of the other adjustments that will be described.

Protection - is the application of geological engineering knowledge
and practice to prevent or correct landsliding. Two approaches are used:
improve the stability of a slope, or control the impact of the slide.
Stability can be improved by increasing the resistance to activation.
Some techniques include building restraining structures, smoothing

11-40

surfaces or installing subdrainage systems. Improved stability can also
be achieved by removing the forces which cause activation. This is
accomplished by excavation of earth materials or drainage. The chief
means of controlling impact focuses on the use of engineering works to
alter the landslide after it is released by diverting or stopping the
flow of materials.

The effectiveness of protective methods varies according to
the type of landslides, causal factors, maintenance of the
structures, the geology of the slide area, and changes in the land
use in the protected area. The cansiderable economic costs of
protective measures are also open to question. Many control
structures are aesthetically undesirable. Finally, it should
be noted that any use of protective measures is based on an
adequate identification of the landslide hazard.

As with protection, land use management, at both long-range
regional and immediate detailed levels, is closely allied with, and
usually dependent on hazard mapping. As an adjustment to landslides,
land use management guides the types and amount of building and other
development in hazardous areas in a manner which minimizes damage
potential. Specific measures include:

1) the regulation of development through zoning, setback,
subdivision and grading regulations, and building, sanitary
and well codes; and

2) development policies as reflected in land acquisition, urban
renewal, relocation and location of public service buildings
and other structures, such as roads, sewers and pipelines.

If costs from landsliding are increasing due to human en-
croachment of hazardous locations, and it is possible to identify
locations of potential damage, losses can be reduced by planning
f6r land use that is compatible with the landslide hazard.

Disaster Preparedness - involves developing the ability to respond
to the needs of a community in a smooth or stable manner once it is
known a hazard event is imminent or has occurred. Since most landslides
are small individual events, the existing emergency functions are
generally capable of responding to the situation.

Disaster preparedness is particularly important when large
scale landsliding occurs. Often in these situations the landslide
has been caused by another hazard - intensive rainfall or earth-
quakes, and disaster preparedness responses to the causal hazard
can be applied to the landslide problem.

Relief and Rehabilitation - provides aid to victims of a landslide
disaster. Currently Federal Disaster Relief Assistance is available

11-41

under PublicJaw 93-288 to victims of major "landslides" and '@Mudflows".
However, under this law Federal aid is not available to the victims of
the more frequent small, individual landslide events.

Currently insurance to cover the vast majority of landslide losses
is not available. The National Flood Insurance Program (Public Law
90-448) offers coverage for mudslides triggered by flooding. To date, no
landslide losses have been covered by the NFIP. In the-future, a
separate Federal insurance program covering a range of landslide types
may be developed.

The link between hazard identification and loss reduction
is crucial. Landslide mapping is required before protection,
land use planning, preparedness planning or insurance can be
employed to effectively reduce loss. Once the landslide area
has been delineated, the planner has a variety of tools at.his
disposal to reduce future losses in accord with local situations.

Federal Policy and Programs

Due to the localized nature of the hazard, no explicit national
policy exists for landslides. Most Federal policy concerning landslide
originates from policy dealing with other natural hazards. The United
States Geological Survey has the greatest Federal involvement with
landslides, but this involvement rarely extends to policy issues.

The following Federal agencies deal with the landslide hazard in
some manner.

United States Geological Survey - Department of the Interior.

The USGS established a National Landslide Hazard Reduction Program in
the Denver, Colorado Federal Center in the Fall of 1976. The bulk of
this program is devoted to physical research, and is applicable or
devoted-to delimitation of landslide risk. Much of this work has been in
mapping landslides and potential landslides in the San Francisco Bay
Region, although efforts are being expanded in many other parts of the
country. Considerable information on landslides, particularly on the
physical dimension of the hazard, can be obtained from the Landslide
Information Center located in the Engineering Geology Branch of the
USGS in Denver.

Soil Conservation Services - U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

The National Cooperative Soil Survey program includes in their
published survey the names and locations and past evidence of soils
susceptible to landslides. Technical assistance is also available
from the USDA Soils Conservation Service to individuals and government
agencies concerning development of sites where susceptibility to the

11-42

hazard may exist.
Federal Insurance Administration Housing & Urban Development (HUD),

Currently the FIA is investigating the possibilities for a federally
subsidized landslide insurance program.

Federal Highway Administration - Department,of Transportation.

The FHA applies engineering technology to prevent damages and
maintain safety on Federal highways.

Current Federal involvement is slight, and nothing resembling a
national policy, is identifiable. Most landslide policy is formulated
on a local basis with respect to individual problems and results in
piecemeal strategies.

Experiences

Two experiences with landslide adjustments illustrate some of the
benefits and disadvantages in changing local policies.

It has been asserted that land use management has great potential
for reducing landslide losses. This is demonstrated by the Los Angeles
history of adopting regulations to deal with landslides over the period
of 1952 to 1969. Slosson (1969) sought to determine if practical and
efficient use of engineering geology and control procedures via codes
and supervisions could produce safe and economical property developments.
His findings indicated that land use management techniques could
drastically reduce losses. Before 1952, when Los Angeles had no codes
or regulations, 10.4% of the approximately 10,000 sites constructed were
damaged by landslides. Of the 27,000 sites constructed in 1952-62,
when lenient codes were in effect, 1.3% were subject to damages.
Finally, between 1963 and 1969, of the 11,000 sites developed only .15%
were affected by landslides. This-reduction in loss is mainly attributed
to modein grading codes and soil and geological engineering practices
required during design and construction of buildings. To date, there'are
no State or Federal guidelines for developing local programs as there
ard for flood hazard.

This problem is illustrated by the Portola Valley, a small, affluent
community near San Francisco (Mader & Crowder, 1969). Approximately
sixty per cent (60%) of Portola Valley has precipitous slopes subject
to sliding. While the problem was recognized soon after the town was
incorporated in 1964, it took two dramatic landslides to evoke any
town action. This example reflects a lack of perception of risk by
the lay users, as well as influence exerted on management due to vested
interests of many, including homeowners, land developers, realtors, and
financial institutions. Moreover, a depleted tax base is the concern
of community politicians. Consequently, when land use management is

11-43

attempted, political pressures are exerted to gain exemptions, resulting
in increased loss potentials. In addition, there is commonly a lack
of coordination between the various regulating elements that are
basic to a successful land use management program.

F. Earthquake

While no single region of the United States is completely safe from
an earthquake, a significantly large part of the coastal zone is in
relatively high'risk (see figure 11-13). The majority of seismic
activity takes place where massive plates of the earth's crust are
slowly moving in opposition. Pressure which builds along the boundaries
or plates is partially released by earthquakes. One of these boundaries
extends along the Pacific coast from Alaska on through southern California.
Stretches of the coast are subject to considerable seismic activity,
although damaging events occur infrequently.

The.second region of major risks lies along the eastern seaboard,
although the geologic explanation for this is not clear. The nature of
the risk here is quite different. Major earthquakes can occur in loca-
tions where evidence of seismic activity predates recorded history. While
the Pacific Coast experiences many earthquakes, the eastern U.S.
experiences few. Evidence suggests, however, that in certain areas of
New England, New York and the Carolinas the possibility of large and
potentially damaging earthquakes exists. The nation's experience
in the past 100 years would suggest California and Alaska have the
highest frequencies of 'serious earthquakes. In the short run the
damages may prove less crippling in California and Alaska than in some
other areas because these states are better prepared to deal with the
hazard.

The national record of earthquake loss is one of good fortune when
viewed in the context of potential losses. No genuinely catastrophic
event has occurred since the Alaska-quake of 1964. A major earthquake
could ea-sily strike in a coastal area within the next three decades.
Potential losses range to billions in damage and tens of thousands of
fatalities. Such damage potentials can be reduced with a comprehensive
earthquake hazard reduction program.

Delineating the Hazard

How does the planner delimit the risk of earthquake damages? At
present four means of delineating the earthquake hazard exist, and none
is ideal from a planning viewpoint.

one method makes use of generalized risk maps, which show potential
for damages based on the frequency of recorded seismic events. These
are prepared at small scale, which limits their use. Generalized risk
maps do not provide any measure of the probability of future earthquakes.
These@_M@P_Ssensitize people to the existence of problems in a non-
technical manner.

11-44

FIGURE 11-13
SEISMIC RISK MAP OF THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

II11- Inir for If&- low If- w or low

a$- 3

3
2
L I)v.

35* 2 Y..

Ln 3

r
0
SEISMIC RISK MAP OF TH.E UNITED STAT S%
ZONE 0-fitaida-alte
ZONE I - Minor dimigs. distant earthquakes may cause dam a 12
to structures dn fundamental periods greater than
1.0 lifto,,cls. corresponds to itilensiho,Vand V, 0
of the M M ' Scale

ZONE 2 - MoJesslor damage. corresponds to intentily Vol of the 1,41A." Scale.

ZONE 3 - Mjl.t damage. corresponds to intensity V111 and higher of the M.M." Scale.
This map is tkised on the linown distribution of damaging earthquakes and the
M AA 0 vtt@wws associated with these tailhQuakes; evidence of strain (*lease:
:nd pnsdvalon or milor geologic structures and provinces believed to tw
Isioluiled with earthquake activityr. The probable trect-1-Y of occurrence of
darlialling ea Itiquakeol 0 each gone at not ..,,ad in assigning ratings to ceema, no inn ;A@
the .&,.o. 5I=.

Modified Mefc
I I, Infognody Scale W 1931.
I
too" W or W
(Office of Emergency Preparedne.ss. 1972, Volume 1)

A second means is to predict the distribution of strong ground
motion (shaking) during an earthquake. This can be estimated in
probabilistic terms by analysis.of current seismicity for an area and
the way seismic waves7-travel throu .gh the ground. Ideally this'type of
map can be used with other information, in the estimating of damage
probabilities because it measures the probability of factors causing
earthquake damage. Figure 11-14 provides an example of this type
of map (Algermissen and'Perkins, 1976). This has limited applicability.
The. 'technique is new,, and its proper use often requires professional
assistance. As they become available at large scale and are better
understood, such maps will be useful in technical land use planning.

A third means uses surface faulting as an indicator of earthquake
risk * Fir.st, while most earthquakes occur on active faults, the presence
of faults does not mean an earthquake will occur, or is even likely.
Second, while damages dooccur directly over a fault when the.fault moves,
they are not necessarily limited to the immediate fault vicinity. Fault
maps have limited utility in planning adjustment to earthquake hazard.

The fourth method of delineating the hazard is by identifying ground
conditions which lead to damages when shaking takes place. This involves
identifying unstable slopes that are susceptible to landsliding (see
section on landslide hazard) and soils subject to liquefaction (see figure
11-15). The identification of these associative hazards triggered by
earthquakes may be the most useable information the coastal planner has on
areas of potential earthquake damages. They form the basis for most,
current land use planning with respect to earthquake hazard, are especially
useful when the suitability of a proposed investment such as a power
plant or a bulk loading facility is under review, and will continue to.be
valuable for this purpose.

Besides the spatial identification, it is important to estimate the
size of earthquake events. The size is measured by both magnitude and
intensity, and often the two are confused. Magnitude scales, the most
common being the Richter scale, measure the energy released by an earth-
quake. The Richter scale is logarithmic, that is, a magnitude of 5.0
means 10 times the amplitude of ground-shaking and 31.6 times the release
of.a magnitude 4.0, 100 times in amplitude and 1000 times in energy more
than a,magrfitude 3.0, and so forth. In general, the greater the magnitude
the more severe the damages, although many factors interact to determine
damage severity,

Intensity scales are specifically designed to measure the effect
of an earthquake on people, structures, and the earth's surface. The
most common scale, the modified Mercalli, is calibrated to twelve degrees
of severity. Roman numeral I denotes effects which are barely
perceptible, while at the other end XII signifies total destruction.
Each discrete seismic event has one magnitude related to the energy
released. That same event will have different intensities at different

11-46

16
21

5
2
17
Jr
14
L

Preliminary Map of
Horizontal Acceleration (Expressed As Percent Of
Gravity) In Rock With 90 Percent Probability
Of Not Being Exceeded In 50 Years

100 0) 100 200 300
MILES
u.S. G-,@qi..' S-@y Op.-Fil. Rep.0 76-416. 1976

PRELIMINARY MAP OF HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FIGURE 11-14

............
..... . ..........
... .......
......................
...........
............ ..
............... ................
..............................
...................
...............
........... ........................ ..... .... ...........................
.... ... ...... 1- .................
...........................................
........... ................... ........... I.........
...........................
............... .............. ........
................

... ...........
................... .........
.......................
........... ......
...................
.............................. ---
..................................... .... ...... .. ........
............... ........ . ...............
................. ............ ... .. ................ . ...............
.......... .............
..................................
.........................
.............
............. ............
.............
........................
.............................
................
.. ....... . . . . .
.......................

.............
......................
...........

.............

.................
...................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.................
r
..............
..............

......................

...........
..............
..........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...........
...............
. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .........

..........

.......... ......
...........
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
..... ......

............

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... .
................
.............
..............
........ ...................

..........
..............
Conditions for Liquefaction Present ................
............
.............
Conditions for Liquefaction Probably Present
.......... .......
...................

POTENTIAL FOR L,IQUEFACTION IN SAN FRANCISCO
(San Francisco Department of City Planning, 1974)

FIGURE 11-15

11-48

locations. Intensity usually decreases with distance from the epicenter.
The maximum intensity, usually near the earthquake source, is often used
to characterize the-'size of the shock. (See Appendix C).

It is practicable to simulate the damages from a quake of assumed
magnitude, taking into account differences in ground conditions, land use
and buildings (see figure 11-16, Friedman, 1976). In addition, these
types of damage assessments are being integrated into models that
evaluate the total economic impact of the assumed earthquake on an
urban area (Cochrane, 1975).

Adjustments to the Hazard

No significant differences exist between the nature ofearthquake
adjustments in the coastal -zone and those for the country as a whole.
Overall, eight types of adjustments are recognized.

1. Earthquake reduction
2. Earthquake resistant construction
3. Land use management
4. Earthquake insurance
5. Preparedness
6. Relief and rehabilitation
7. Prediction and warning
8. Reduction of associated hazards (Ayre, 1975).

The goal of earthquake reduction is to control the physical mechanism
of earthquakes. Some people have suggested that triggering of small
earthquakes by water injection will dissipate stress, thus possibly
eliminating large, catastrophic earthquakes.

It appears that the scientific and technological feasibility of
accomplishing this is very remote and perhaps impossible.
Responsibility for the damages caused by the "small" earthquakes
also poses a formidable consideration. It is unlikely that earthquake
reduction will be a viable option in the near future.

Earthquake resistant construction ts applied in California and
Massachusetts and is under consideration in Washington but has received
scant attention in other coastal states. Its purpose is to protect human
)life and minimize damage from failures of buildings and other structures.

An effective application of this adjustment requires: 1) develop-
ment of technical design knowledge concerning performance of
structures under varying seismic stress conditions; 2) develop-
ment of acceptable regulations and codes that require application
of earthquake resistant construction techniques in an equitable
manner; and 3) insuring that codes are enforced and professional
standards are upheld during construction.

11-49

..... ................................................................ 00
. ........... ...........

................

.......... ...........................

L .................
................
. ................
........................ ... ................
...............
....................
]fill IsilillilleZ711 ......
11111 "**::. .................. ...............
3#1111111z"??d at .... .....................
fill 1131111111 i1ele2zze?2? if
.............................................
............................ t... ::: ........
11 @22 eZz.,WdIIei@ 3 3 3 3 J3 3111 . ............................... ........
2,7,?,(?e?e?'e2,?,e,eJ333J33J?2
;Zz,,@,,,e,e?11121,?33,33333'ZIZIIIIJII lir ......
PZ 1111113-. ..........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................ ..........
,e
?1;5o ...............
2 111111133...
33333343333333SbS"'-)"'-131,3JI I
J,j?
,$I
Z,1111 31133
3!
--------- 333J3b133btbb ......................
b 1.2
'1> : 1jP 33 5
......................................
6b .3jAZ$p Zip 20
rstAucssco 33 5`11"beo "6 00
4 "" * ". 5 b 11: 01 "b 66 6 0 0.6- - 3 2 ? "? 2 p
346461,6-4

37.&
ssbb.bbb: ... V16'66,.b6t.6 b33333333@13J 333ISS ......
bbbbt- ... 6"V@b@bftbb"@1633.133333 j3j&6 3@3 ...............
6 3
33
S 3333J3..1-6-3333 ss,
:636-6@1
S-'*-Sb ............
:b$5771 ... Nb"67777717777777 -6 6-S@ i' .........
Sy;;S
.... 333336&b3b3
b55.1 7 =!'t '*;;;:*::::CA
36.2 777177: ...... 333b&3333:. 3
1,5*,61,11,161,61,1,;I,.?I?T?77171-.:::::::-:.St..3331-6-&Jt63"5%

Z Ng?"
A990 91 6:*O:S
7767766681poo 00..
671777661150697710-P 9 . se:
V,10"V 77S t;6 0 5 pis
9,
bt'ftb
bbbb*66667777177 M", vobftbpv1x7T7s?6
bsomb 7
ob
,3@'456611:6663.64:1;:
34.2 ......... i ... " 3
66by?
%P@6 ;M1817877"W"?
r'tL6tbS 177 7 7 &"1 7.51 7 33,1 Ill^ 1:1,1."ill
LOS &77 ?1 7:::: T:?t
;33IS35:36
1 33 V3
1
b
7b b 'AS.

33.11 ----- ---
114331'133 hISS2 I
63,1133 3.
11"t Pll :6633333 6 '5S ss:
&6-!3133333-bft-6b46h;;

32.& ------
124.6 122.6 120.6 130.6 237.6 116.6 315.6 314.6
L

FIGURE 11-16

COMPUTED EARTHSHOCK SEVERITY PATTERN OF 1857 FORT TEJON
EARTHQUAKE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
(Friedman, 1976)

11-50

Building n*ew@structures which incor porate earthquake resistant design
and construction features may cost approximately three to six per cent (3-6%)
more than if resistant construction methods are not used. Modifying
existing structures is more costly and less effective. The National
Bureau of Standards '(1973) and Whitman (1973) provide good discussions of
.the technical issues of earthquake resistant construction'techniques.

Land use management 'works toward shaping the nature of development
in hazardous areas through a variety.of techniques such as subdivision
regulationj zoning, and land acquisition (see section III on the range
of adjustments).-

The use of this adjustment for earthquake mitigation is
'hampered by the difficulty of delimiting the hazard. Tech-
niques are only now being developed to delineate earthquake
risk on a micro-level to make land use control a practical
tool.

However, the application of land use management to areas of potential
ground failure in the coastal zone, as in-the San Francisco Bay area,
seems both feasible and desirable.

Earthquake insurance is available from private companies for
residential and commercial structures throughout the entire coastal zone.
This insurance is never included in a standard homeowners policy; it must
be purchased separately. Even with its widespread availability, few
policies have been sold, and most sales have been in California. In the west,
a typical policy for a single-family frame house runs from $.15 to $.25
per $100.00 of annual coverage depending in which of the three risk zones
the structure is located. All policies carry a five per cent (5%)
deductible clause. These rates increase for more vulnerable types of
construction. Insurance rates for large buildings are higher, and vary
according to the specifics of building construction and location. In the
east, a homeowner's policy would run.between $.05 and $.10 and deduction
clauses are optional.

Insurance alone only redistributes losses; when tied to
another adjustment such as earthquake resistant construction,
an insurance program can reduce losses.

Most urban areas in the coastal zone have 'preparedness plans to be
used in disaster situations. These plans usually have specific provisions
for earthquakes or are applicable to all disasters.

Unfortunately, preparedness plans seem to be quickly for-
gotten after preparation and may become outdated unless frequent
and explicit measures are taken to call them to the attention of
people concerned.

Relief and rehabilitation are widely accepted adjustments to earth-
quakes employed in the aftermath of a disaster. While a variety of post-
disaster services are included under this heading, the most prominent is

11-51

provision of relief funds to individuals, businesses and local governments.

It does not appear that such efforts are effective in reducing.
losses. They may even increase loss potentials in the long run
through diminishing the incentive to seek other means of.damage
reduction.

Earthquake prediction is a young science. So far the'ability of
seismologists to predict earthquakes accurately and consistently has not
been demonstrated.

If and when prediction becomes an accepted technology, it
will be necessary to develop plans that make beneficial use of
predictions and minimize adverse consequences.

Within the coastal zone one of the more attractive means of miti-
gating earthquake losses is reduction of associated hazards. For
natural hazards triggered by seismic activity, including landslide, avalanche,
and tsunami, mitigation measures described elsewhere in this report should
be considered. Applicationof land use control regulating development
seems to be the best means of reducing damages caused by soil liquefaction.
Finally, a variety of actions aimed at reducing post-earthquake fire
hazards can be very effective.

.Federal Policies and Programs

The past role of the Federal government in earthquake matters has
focused on preparedness planning, relief programs, and engineering,.-and
seismic and geologic research.

During the 2nd session of the 94th Congress, legislature was
introduced (Senate bill 1174) which would have provided for the establish-
ment of a comprehensive earthquake mitigation and research program.
Administrative responsibility was to.be shared by the USGS and the
National-Science Foundation. The legislature was not enacted and the
United States remains without a specific policy to deal with earthquake
hazards.

The following Federal agencies are the principal ones currently
linked with earthquake policy.

United States Geologidal.Survey

The Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program of the USGS carries the
major Federal responsibilities for earthquake related research in the
field of earth sciences. This research is chiefly aimed at hazard
reduction efforts. The major elements of the program are: hazard
mapping and risk evaluation; earthquake prediction; earthquake modi-
fication and control; information and data sources;and earthquake
engineering as a service to the National Science Foundation RANN

11-52

program in earthquake engineering. (See Wallace, 1974 for a description
of the program).

U.S. Geological Surv'ey has recently established an earthquake
prediction council to be responsible for reviewing data that could
warn of an earthqu ke and recommending the issuance of a prediction.
Council will consist of five USGS scientists and is the first Federal
group of its kind to be established, marking a major step toward
developing a system for the orderly and effective issuance of earthquake
predictions.

Federal Disaster Assistance Administration

The FDAA does major work preparing and assisting in the development
of preparedness plans. Money'is made available to states under section
201 of the 1974 Disaster Relief Act Amendments (Public law 93-288)
through this agency. The FDAA also assists in and coordinates post-
disaster relief efforts.

Based on recent USGS analyses of potential impacts of serious
earthquakes in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, FDAA is currently
developing preparedness plans with other Federal agencies, as well as
state and local officials in San Francisco and,Seattle.

Federal Housing Administration and Small Business Administration

The FHA and SBA administer loans to homeowners and businesses
damaged by an earthquake following a Presidential Declaration of a
disaster. In the past up to $5,000 of these loans were forgiven, al-
though current law (P.L. 93-288) eliminates the forgiveness clause and
sets the interest rate at five per cent (5%).

National Science Foundation

NSF provides funding for a significant portion of the physical and
social research relevant to earthquake mitigation.

National Bureau of Standards

The NBS is serving as the contract monitor for a project funded by
NSF for the Applied Technology Council (ATC) to prepare a set of seismic
design recommendations. ATC will conduct seismic risk studies and prepare
a Design Regionalization Map. A final report is expected in June, 1977.

This agency also conducts the bulk of research on fire resistant
construction and building codes.

At present, programs specific to the earthquake hazard are confined
to the USGS and NSF. With new legislation, these agencies would
continue their role in earthquake mitigation, and, hopefully bring

11-53

coordination.to Federal earthquake policy.

Experiences

Designing a building code ordinance in an objective and fair
manner is one of the-more difficult problems in earthquake mitigation.
In most existing codes, earthquake provisions apply equally to all
structures, not accounting for variations in function or exposure.
Risk concepts are also seldom applied to the determination of code
parameters. An exception to this is the Long Beach, California earth-
quake ordinance which acknowledges these problems (See Wiggins, 1971).

The principle behind the Long Beach code is to relate earthquake
risk, based on the seismicity of the area, to other risks accepted in
everyday life. As part of this process legislators c ,hoose-the level
of risk on which code parameters will be based. This,"balanced risk"
concept is one factor used in determining structural resistance
requirements. The stringency of the code for particular structures
is modified by the Importance of the structure and its life expectancy.
Thus, a more stringent earthquake resistant design is required for a
highrise office building with a life expectancy of sixty years than
for a warehouse with life expectancy of ten years.

This integrates economic consideration into the code. The methodo-
logy employed is of great importance because it reflects earthquake
risk based on the seismicity of the area. Using this method, new codes
can be designed for areas that are characterized by relatively low
levels of risk,, such as the eastern seaboard. In addition, this
methodology is enhanced by current efforts to develop probabilistic
risk maps. Refinement of this type of building code can and should be
made for areas with outdated codes and those entirely lacking earthquake
provisions.

The willingness of a community to consider the earthquake hazard is
reflected in part by interest in bui 'lding codes containing earthquake
.provision. An indicator of an individual's hazard appraisal is in the
purchase of earthquake insurance. A recent study examining the
decision to purchase insurance shows that the major factors in the
choice 'are not economic considerations but relate to awareness of the
earthquake problem, knowledge that insurance is available, experience
with the hazard, and communication with persons already having earthquake
insurance (Kunreuther, et al., 1976). Such findings indicate that the
present.earthquake insurance mechanism is inadequate.

G. Tsunami

Large gravity waves in the sea, associated with some very strong
earthquakes and other impulsive disturbances, are referred to in
international usage by the-Japanese word, 11tsunami." The term t'seismic
sea wave" is also used in some instances, and the inaccurate designation

11-54

"tidal wave" still finds wide use. Cox (1963) defined tsunami as Ila train
of progressive long waves generated in the ocean or a small connected
body of water by an impulsive disturbance'." This definition does not
include storm surges, astronomic tidal waves or seiches. Van Dorn (1966)
has defined tsunami as "the gravity wave system,formed in the sea
following any large-6cale, short.duration disturbance of the free
.surface." Though tsunamis occur comparatively infrequently, they can
cause almost complete devastation when they strike.

While the major risk from damaging tsunamis is along the Pacific
coast of the continental states and Hawaii, destructive events can
occur in,the Atlantic where the hazard receives1ittle attention.

Delineating the Hazard

It is convenient to distinguish between two types of tsunamist
major and local. Major tsunamis consist of a train of long period waves
which spread out from the epicenter area, accelerate as they.sweep through.
deeper ocean water, and are capable of causing damage to distant coasts
(Berg et al., 1972). Tsunamis composed of trains of shorter period waves
cause damage along relatively confined bodies of water and are generated
locally by faulting or by rapid sliding or slumping of unconsolidated
sediments at or below the water line (Cox, 1972a). Tsunami waves are much
longer than ordinary waves from crest to crest, and have apparent periods
varying from perhaps a quarter of an hour to a few hours. Local tsunami
waves have a shorter period, from two to ten minutes (Van Heune and Cox,
1972). A major tsunami may cause damage to distant coasts several
hours after it is generated. Local tsunamis strike suddenly. It should be
stressed that a tsunami is comprised of a series of waves; the first is
seldom the largest wave to arrive.

In mid-ocean tsunamis may have wave lengths of several hundred miles
and heights of a foot or less. Hardly discernible in the open ocean,
wave heights increase as coastal waters become more shallow and cause
the waves to slow down. When a tsunami impinges on a distant coast, the
water may rise and fall gradually or the waves may convert to bores
with steep, turbulent fronts. The water may run to heights in excess of
50 feet.on distant coasts. Local tsunamis may have even greater heights.
One occurring in Alaska in 1958 at Lituya Bay had a run-up height of 1200
feet (Iida et al., 1967). Run-up height refers to the elevation above the
tide level (at the time'of the tsunami).reached by the waves as they
inundate the land (Ayre, 1975).

Tsunami waves can travel hundred of miles per hour, speed being
dependent upon the depth of the ocean. Given the location and time
of the displacement and ocean depths between the epicenter and each
coast, the arrival times for a major tsunami can thus be estimated.

Of direct importance for hazard management are the intensities of
tsunamis in the management areas. Run-up heights are generally recorded
as indicators of such intensities, and Bretschneider and Wybro (1975)

11-55

have proposed an intensity scale, defined in terms of local run-up
heights, which has potential value for planning,

At present, however, numerous unresolved questions prevent
accurate prediction-of tsunami run-up heights. This is due in part to
the fact that-run-up height is affected by-numerous, complicated
factors, which arefor the most par 1@@ non-coherent, ener.gy-scattering
offshore processes not amenable to calculation. The configuration of
the coastline, shape of the ocean floor , and the character of advancing
waves all play a role in determining run-up heights (Ayre, 1975). Wave
height alone depends on a number of factors, such as earthquake magnitude,
water depth at the epicenter, and earthquake focal depth (Bretschneider
and Wybro, 1975). Additionally, Cox has found that tide stage may be a
critical variable (1972b). Until these numerous factors and their
interrelationships are better understood, predictions of run-up height
will be weak at best.

The Potential Threat The impact of a large tsunami can be devastating,
depending on when and where it strikes. Within a few hours of the great
Alaska earthquake in 1964, for example',.catastrophic waves caused 103
deaths and $80 million in damages in Alaska, not including losses
suffered at Port Alberni, British Columbia, and at Crescent City,
California (Cox, 1972a).

The destructiveness of a tsunami may be attributable to the powerful
surge of its wave front and to its rising and then falling sea level
(Office of Emergency Preparedness, 1972). Much also depends on the nature
of the waves as they approach the shoreline. If a tsunami wave breaks
before it hits, the wave will behave like a bore and its momentum will
be unleashed against anything in its path. If a bore has not formed,
then the major impact will be the rapid increase and then decrease in
hydrostatic pressure (Bretschneider and Wybro, 1975). Damage due to
floating structures, debris, oil, and fires can also be anticipated.

Estimates of the number of Americans potentially endangered by
-Pacific tsunamis have been made based on the work of Eskite (1970).
It appears from these estimates that over a million people are endangered.
Classified as endangered by tsunamis of distant origin are those residing
within one mile of the coast whose elevations are within fifty feet of
sea level. Classified as endangered by tsunamis of local origin are
those residing within one mile of the coast whose elevations are within
100 feet of sea level. Such a standard is admittedly much too broad
and could result in overwarning. Moreover, it is not clear whether
the definition refers to base of mean sea level or some other tide
level.

Improvements in methods of vulnerability analysis are needed to
speed up the task of mapping tsunami hazard areas. Identifying these
areas must be accomplished before warning, evacuation, structural
regulations, and land use controls can become effective.

11-56

These techniques may be appropriate for tough aggregate analysis, but
they cannot be used for local risk analysis; for example, the number of
people in any area varies by the time of day, day of the week and
season of the year. Land use controls, which could be used t; channel
new development and population growth into safer areas, must be based
on finer measures of existing and potential risk. While some degrJee
of,risk from any hazard is acceptable, few communities have been able
to make that level explicit for planning purposes.

Recent efforts by the Corps of Engineers to prepare flood and
tsunami maps for the National Flood Insurance Program, administered by
HUD, could soon provide the kind of information which is needed for this
decision. Although not yet completed, the rate maps could be used for
formulating local management boundaries, areas of particularconcern, and
use regulations.

Adjustments to the Hazard

Responsibility for hazard mitigation in the United States is divided
among many Federal, state, and local agenc 'ies. Lack of organizational
accountability and overlapping activities prevail, even within specific
functional areas. Warning and evacuation, structural and design controls,
land use controls, and relief and rehabilitation measures all have
different objectives, needs and limitations. Community preparedness
requires a wide range of measures, reactive and preventive, whose
suitability will vary with local -needs, values, capabilities, and previous
experience with tsunamis and with the physical characteristics and location
of the community. The tragedy is not that tsunamis occur, but rather
that communities refuse to adjust, even when aware of the threat and then
expect to be compensated for resulting losses.

The primary purpose of warning and evacuation is to save lives and
some mobile property. Tsunami watches and warnings are issued to Civil
Defense officials by the Honolulu Observatory, which is now part of the
National,Oceanic-& Atmospheric Administration under the Department of
Commerce. Warnings were first issued in the early 1920's by the Hawaii
Volcano Observatory on the basis of seismographic information (Cox, 1968).
In 1948*the Seismic Sea Wave Warning System was established. Warning
coverage was extended to the National Warning System and to Civil defense
agencies in California, Oregon and Washington by 1953, and to other
Pacific countries in the 1050's, and to Alaska in 1962. Renamed the
Tsunami Warning System in 1967, it became part of the International
Tsunami Warning Center in Honolulu. The policy of selective cancella-
tion of warnings based on mariegraphic confirmation was established
in 1966, after problems with seemingly false warnings.

The Alaska Regional Warning.System was founded in 1967, following
the 1964 earthquake, to handle local tsunami problems (Cox and Stewart,
1972). In the early 1960's seismic trigger alarms were installed and are

11-57

presently operated by the Weather Service. In addition, a similar state
system is being installed by the Hawaiian Civil Defense. How@&Ver,
travel times may be so short for local tsunamis that formal warning systems may
not be effective. Evacuation in the event of a local tsunami rests largely
.on individual recognition and initiative. (See Table 11-6)

Responsibility for warning dissemination and public evacuation lies with
state and county civil defense officials. While Federal support through
the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency for civil defense personnel and
equipment has been provided in the past on a matching basis, recent
events suggest that federal funds for natural disaster-preparedness and
planning'cannot be assured.

If warning and evacuation operations are to be effective in
emergency, then risk areas must be defined, officials must be
trained, plans must be updated, the warning must be disseminated,
and the public must be motivated to resvond.

Problems with tsunami prediction in the past have tended to reduce
people's confidence@_insuc@ systems. Ove.rwarning, based on inadequate
knowledge of the phenomenon, has led to false alarms and lack of compliance
with warning attempts (Anderson, 1967; Cox and Stewart, 1972). Such lack
of confidence and compliance undermines the effectiveness of the warning
system (Lachman et al., 1961; Anderson, 1970). Haas (1971) has demonstrated
-that intensive short-term public education programs do not rectify the
situation.

Perceptions depend on length of residence, previous residence,
and experience as well as personalities (Lachman et al., 1961).

'Citizen awareness of natural cues stems from familiarity with local
surroundings. In our mobile, transient society, local familiarity may be
an unrealistic expectation.

In Hawaii, tsunami education programs are conducted in the public
schools, fhaps of evacuation areas are printed in local telephone
directories along with warning instructions, and.special tsunami exercises
and training sessions are held for local public officials.. Unfortunately,
such efforts may not besufficient. Many will remain unaware of the
danger or unwilling to follow directions.

Elsewhere in the United States successful evacuation will be much
more difficult in the absence of such well developed education programs.

It should be noted that a major constraint to successful
management of this hazard is the rarity of large tsunamis, even
in tsunami prone areas.

Of the 181 tsunamis recorded in the Pacific between 1900 and 1970,
thirty-four were locally destructive, nine were destructive to both
local and distant coasts, and 138 inflicted no damage or only minor

11-58

Table 11-6

TSUNAMI SPEED OF ONSET, PHYSICAL CUES,

EVACUATION TIME AND PREVENTIVE MEASURES

Speed of Physical Approximate Time Preventive
Onset Types Cues For 'EvacuAtion Action

yes Less than minute Be very quick or dead

yei 5-10 minutes The ektent of death
injury in the community
is A function of fast &
appropriate response by
individuals & leaders
of small groups.

III yes 15-30 minutes Most persons will not
be evacuated. Alert
citizens & local officials
may go to saf e areas on
their own initiative.

IV no 45 min.-12 hrs. Most persons can be
evacuated and up to
75% of all "moveable."
property

(Adapted from Haas & Trainer, 1973)

11-59

damage (OEP, 1972). Structural land use management measures may be
necessary where large numbers of people-reside, work, or visit.

In the past, Federal emphasis had been'foc:u,�6d on relief and.
rehabilitation. Such an approach does,not reduce-casualties or
property damages.- Presently, FDAA assistance is complicated by
bureaucratic stipulations and requires post-disaster damage assessment.
txtension of the National Flood Insurance Act to cover tsunamis in
1973 was designed to redistribute losses and subsidize those who have
adopted structural design@controls.,.

A very real problem is that insurance may encourage
development in hazardous areas and thus magnify the cost
of relief (Kunreuther, 1976). Without adequate knowledge
of differential risk, rates will be inequitable and activ-
ities may be encouraged in what are really hazardous areas.

Responsibility for reducing property losses, and indirectly, casual-
ties, through structural and land use controls remains with local
government,,where land use planning in the United States has traditionally
been centered.. Federal assistance to local planning agencies in the
form of HUD grants and to states in the form of Coastal Zone Management
Program grants has become increasingly important..

However, much can still be done by federal agencies
which hold land or regulate development along hazardous
portions of the Pacific Coast where new growth is expected.

Naval and military installations,national recreation and conserva-
tion areas, federally subsidized sewage facilities, highways, harbors,
and airports, urban renewal and redevelopment projects, federally
regulated utilities, including nuclear power plants, and federally
subsidized housing projects all help to determine the pace and direction
of urban development.

Introducing tsunami considerations Into these locational
and site decisions would have cumulative implications for
development, which.would hopefully result in major savings
in the event of a large tsunami.

The effectiveness of possible mitigation measures has yet to be
determined. Studies on the use of building codes, protective grove
plantings, sea walls, and breakwaters in tsunami mitigation were largely
restricted to Japan until 1960 (Cox, 1964). In addition to those
measures previously mentioned, structural and design measures could include
land filling, flood proofing, vertical zoning, emergency cutoffs in
pipelines and criteria for designing shoreline facilities which could
withstand or divert tsunami waves (Ayre, 1975). Such concepts could be
incorporated into performance standards, building codes, subdivision
regulations, and density bonus incentive systems. Storage tanks, air
and highway terminals, and large public facilities, for example, could

11-60

be restricted from designated hazard areas through conventional zoning
regulations, transfer of development rights, land banking, environ-
mental impact review, or preservation districts.

But without better definitions of differential risk and
the effectiveness of such controls, these measures will
either be over or under designed. Coastal area management
can insure that such risks will be thoroughly evaluated and
implemented in A coordinated multi-agency program which
extends beyond the usual incremental approach to planning.

Experiences

The General Plan of Hawaii County may be regarded as a pioneering
effort in tsunami mitigation. Highly susceptible tsunami zones have
been established. In such areas, development is excluded for all but
those.uses which cannot be located@elsewhere on the island. It also
require's criteria for development in less vuinerable areas of the Big
Island. After lengthy debates about the efficacy of structural solu-
tions proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,, authorized under
the River and Harbor Acts of July 1960 and October 1962, and challenged
by leading tsunami authorities, the City of Hilo, Hawaii has opted for
redevelopment based on land use- controls. The Hilo plan will retain
310 acres of bayfront in open space and concentrate its development
on forty acres which have been elevated above the 1960 level of
inundation. No protective works have been constructed in the United
States exclusively for the purpose of tsunami protection, nor are any
currently under consideration as offering feasible protection against
tsunamis (PUSPP, 1976).

H. Volcano

Defining the Hazard

"A volcano is both the place and the opening from which molten
rock or gas, and generally both, issues from the earth's interior onto
the surface, and the hill or mountain built up around the opening by
accumulation of rock material" (Macdonald, 1972). The ultimate origin
of volcanoes is the rise of molten material through cracks or fissures
in the earth's crust. The fundamental driving force behind volcanic
eruptions appears to be the relative specific gravities of the liquid
magma and the adjacent solid rock columns between 'the surface and the
level of origin of the magma. An important additional driving force
at relatively shallow depths is the expansion of gas, derived either
from the magma itself or, less commonly, from steam produced by
heated ground water. (Warrick, 1975).

Volcanoes differ widely in the nature of their eruptions, but
can be generally classified into lava flow eruptions and pyr9clastic
eruptions. In situations where the magma is characteristically of low

11-61

viscosity (usually basaltic), and there is a frequent release of pressure
from expanding gases, the eruptions tend to b6gentle-and lava is the
principal-product erupted. On the other hand, if the magma is highly
viscous (usually containing a higher percentage of silica), gases
accumulate and are released at infrequent intervals, resulting in violent
explosions in which'the main product erupted is pyroclastic mater-lal
consisting of fragments of magma or pre-existing rock material.

In addition, volcanoes differ in the frequency of their activity,
and tend to be labeled "active". "dormant", or It extinct", depending
largely on the evidence of past activity. The distinctions between
these three relative categories are difficult to make, and the terms
have often been used inconsistently in the volcano literature. Usually,
the term "active" refers to volcanoes with certain or very probable
records of eruption during historic times., The distinction between
"dormant" and "extinct" is not easily made; especially during the later
stages of their life cycles, the behavior of volcanoes is apt to be
very erratic, with supposedly extinct volcanoes suddenly exploding into
activity. Two of the most violent eruptions in the 20th century were
from volcanoes thought to be extinct: Mt. Katmai, Alaska; and
Bezmyannaya Sopka, Kamchatka (Tazieff, 19-67).

Specific Hazards and their Effects

Their are a number of products or processes of volcanic activity
that are hazardous to man and his environment. Some of these are directly
related to volcanic eruptions: lava flows, pyroclastic flows, ash falls,
volcanic mudflows', and toxic fumes. Still others--some mudflows, floods,
forest fires, debris avalanches, and tsunamis--can be thought of as*
being indirectly attributable to volcanoes, and are often quite disastrous.
in their effects on man.

Even though a particular phenomenon might occur independently
of other events, it is most common to have various combinations
of specific hazards during any one eruption, thereby compounding
the hazardous effects on man.

Lava flows are streams of molten material on the surface of the
earth, emitted from a vent of fissure. The form and speed of lava flows
vary widely, depending upon the temperature and chemical composition of
the magma, the rate of supply of magma to the flow, and external controls
such as slope and nature of the terrain.

Lava flows are highly destructive, and can obliterate everything
in their path. Since man habitually settles in valleys and low-lying
areas, lava flows can pose a threat to buildings, agriculture, and
other of man's activities. However, because of the relatively slow
movement of lava flows, the threat to human life is extremely low
(Warrick, 1975).

A pyroclAstic flow is a turbulent mixture of inflated glass
(derived directly from molten magma) and rock fragments suspended in

11-62

gas that moves rapidly (over'60 mph) over the ground surface. The pheno-
menon is characteristically the product of violent volcanic explosions,
especially associated with highly viscous magmas which have pushed up
into the volcano and solidified to block the conduit (plug domes).
A dense cloud of rock fragments and gas is ejected from the volcano
(either laterally, from the side of.the volcano, or vertically through
the central vent) and behaves much like a heavy liquid.

Pyroclastic flows can be incredibly destructive.- One of the best
known catastrophes of this century was the result of such a flow.
Mount Pelee on the island of Martinique erupted in 1902, destroying the
town of.St. Pierre in a matter of minutes and killing all but a few
of its 30,000 inhabitants.

Like lava flows, pyroclastic flows tend to travel down valleys and
drainage ways. Populations located in such valleys, especially close
to the volcano itself, are particularly susceptible to the flow. Unlike
lava flows, however, there is little chance for evacuation once the
pyroclastic flow is generated (Warrick, 1975).

Ash Falls - Violent volcanic eruptions are apt to throw thousands
of tons of rock fragments of varying size's into the atmosphere. The
distance traveled depends upon the magnitude of the eruption, the speed
and direction of the wind, the size of the particles, and the degree of
vesiculation. These smaller fragments are termed "ash".

The fallout of volcanic ash has a great diversity of hazardous
..effects. Health, buildings,.transportation and communication, agriculture,
vegetation, and climate can all be affected, to varying degrees, by ash
falls. Besides the potentially harmful effects of the ash particle
itself, there is the added effect of the gases released by the ash
particles as they cool. Ash falls may contaminate water supplies,
damage buildings and reduce visibility and thereforetransportation and
mobility (Warrick, 1975).

A volcanic mudflow "represents'a form of mass movement of sediment
.that is intermediate between a flood and an essentially dry landslide"
(Waldron, 1967). It is a mixture of fine material and water; the rela-
tive proportions of water and sediment may vary greatly. Mudflows
commonly contain volcanic ash, and may pick up coarse debris as they
travel downslope. There are numerous causes of volcanic mudflows in-
cluding the release of water in a crater lake, rapid melting of snow or
ice, entrance of flows into streams, heavy rain, etc.

The speed And distance a volcanic mudflow travels may vary greatly,
mainly dependent upon the magnitude of the event and the nature of the
terrain over which it travels. Speeds of twenty to thirty miles per
hour are common, and speeds in excess of sixty miles per hour have been
recorded. A mudflow will frequently travel five to ten miles, although
distances of greater than '100 miles have been attained (Macdonald, 1972).'
The huge Osceola mudflow that occurred about 5,000 years ago from
Mt. Ranier, Washington, "traveled 40 miles down valley to the mountain

11-63

front, then spread out in a lobate mass that covered 6@ square miles
in the Puget Sound lowland" (Crandell and Mullineaux, 1974).

Macdonald (1972) has stated that volcanic mudflows-have probably
destroyed more property, including arable land, than any other type.of
volcanic action within the last few centuries. The nature and areal
ex,tent of the destruction is similar to that of floods, except that a
mudflow can bury everything in its path'under tens or hundreds of feet
of sediment. (Warrick, 1975).

Delineating The Hazard

Volcanoes are a definite and recurring coastal hazard in Alaska and
Hawaii, and those in the Cascade Range pose at least a theoretical
hazard to the coastal zone of Washington. There.are some seventy-six
volcanoes in Alaska, at least six in Hawaii of which five are on the
island of Hawaii, and at least thirteen in the Cascade Range, two in
California, six in Oregon, and five in Washington.

The Cascade and Alaskan volcanoes are.andesitic.and explosive.
They have built up steep cones, and support glaciers and perennial
snowfields, and are part of the circum-Pacific vol 'canic belt. The
Hawaiian volcanoes are basaltic, with gently sloping.cones,
and are less violent and less dangerous to lives, than
andesitic volcanoes (see figure 11-17).

In Hawaii, Mauna Loa and Kilauea have been active in recent years
and both Haleakala' (on Maui) and Haulalai (on Hawaii) have each erupted
once in historic times--around 1790 and 1800-1801, respectively.
(Warrick, 1975). In Alaska there have been hundreds of eruptions of
thirty-nine separate volcanoes during the short, 200 years, of recorded
history.

There has been no eruptive activity in the Cascades since the
Mt. Lasse"n Peak eruptions 1.914-17, but unusual steaming activity has been
observed on Mt. Baker, in northern Washington, since March 1975.

Hawaiian Volcanoes

The Hawaiian volcanoes, with their relatively calm outpouring of lava,,
pose little threat to life, but may damage or destroy crops and other
vegetation, roads, buildings, and potentially, entire villages. Lava flows
have reached the sea in numerous,places during historic time, and an
eruption on the northeast flank of Mauna Loa has threatened the island's
main city, Hilo, on several occasions.

Adjustments-to the Hazard in Hawaii
These frequent lava-type eruptions have permitted the development
Of relatively accurate methods of prediction and warning.' The level of
preparedness is generally high, and provisions for relief and rehabilitation

11-64

detailed. The Hawaiian populace is aware of the lava flow hazard and, for
the most-part, knows what steps can be-taken in the face of advancing
lava flows (Murton & Shimabukuro, 1972). Bombing, to disrupt channels
and tubes carrying flowing lava, and to redirect the lava flows,
has been tried twice'. 1935 and 1942, with inconclusive results.
Diversion barriers involving a series of walls averaging.about
thirty feet in height, have been considered to protect Hilo, but
not constructed. (During the eruption on the island of Heimaey
in Iceland in 1973, temporary barriers made with bull-dozers and

HAWAII

HALEAKALA

MAUNA LOA

KILAUEA
MT
REDOUBT

MT. SHISHALDIN Do*

Ir
%U . MT. KATMAI
MT. PAVLOF

LEGEND
ACTIVE VOLCANOES1 QUATERNARY VOLCANOES

1 CERTAIN OR PROBABLE RECORDS
OF ERUPTION SINCE AROUND 1800

NOTE& SLIGHTLY MODIFIED BY AUTHORS
(U.S..GE.OLDGICAL SURVEY, L966)

VOLCANES OF ALASKA AND HAWAII
FIGURE 11-17

drenching of an advancing lava flow by seawater were credited with
saving much of the town.)

Although authority exists both in local and state land use
planning legislation, land use management with specific reference
to the volcano hazard in Hawaii, has not been implemented.

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory en gages in research and monitoring,
and issues primary warnings of eruptions. Further warning and evacua-
tion, if necessary, are carried out by disaster agencies: police, fire
departments, National Guard and Civil Defense. While agencies and
O@IN@
MT.

11-65

populace are experienced with lava flows, they have no experience with
violent eruptions.

Alaskan Volcanoes

The Alaskan volcanoes represent a substantial coastal hazard through-
-out much of the 1600-mile volcano belt stretching from near Anchorage to
the tip of the Aleutians. Most are close to tidewater. During the 200
years of recorded Alaska history there have been some-250 separate eruptions
at.thirty-nine volcanoes. (Wilcox, 1959). The 1912 eruption of Katmai
and Novarupta was the most violent experienced in Alaska during historic
time, and-one of the world's major eruptions....

The potential hazards run the.gamut of volcanic risks, a s follows:

1. Krakatoan type of eruptions
2. Directed blasts, nuees ardente (fiery cloud)
3. Pyroclastic flows
4. Lava flows
5. Volcanic mudflows
6. Turbulent hot ash clouds associated with pyroclastic flows
7. Explosive blasts and associated rock falls
8. Ash falls
9. Corrosive rains - volcanic gas
10. Flash floods
11. Break-out of ice dammed lakes
12. Lightning discharges
13. Seawaves
14. Volcanic earthquakes. (modified from U.S. Army Corps of Eng., 1972).

Most of the Alaskan volcanoes are too remote from populated places
to be significant threats except from ashfall and seawaves, but at least
four Aleutian communities, Akutan, Atka, Cape Sarichef, and False Pass,
are close enough to face the entire range of volcanic effects. The Cook
Inlet volcanoes, notably Augustine, Redoubt, Iliamna, and Spurr,,endanger
shoreline.installations with mudflows, floods, andashfall, and many
communities over a wide area are threatened by ashfall, seawaves, and
corrosive precipitation. Very large seawaves are probably the greatest
single and most widespread hazard to lives and property. Augustine created
a seawave in 1883 reported to be twenty or more feet in height at English
Bay on the Kenai Peninsula; fortunately, the tide was low and no lives were
lost.

Adjustments to the Hazard in Alaska

While progress on the prediction of volcanic activity is promising, the
specificity needed for successful prediction of volcano-generated seawaves is
not available. At present, Augustine is the only volcano in the region which is
under continuous seismic surveillance, but even this is subject to interruption

11-66

by volcanic ac.tivity when most needed.

More research is needed on the relationship between volcanic,
seismic, and seawave activity. Also, more consideration should
be given to optimal siting of shore facilities and settlements,
and the development of protective technology for shoreside-
installations.

Apromising adjustment, developed following the 1964 earthquake and
tsunami, is the physical separation of facilities to reduce the chance
that an entire community will be destroyed or disabled.

In general, the adoption of surveillance and monitoring techniques
.and the development of predictive methods have been slow, due in part to
the physical nature of the volcanic activity in Alaska. Disaster prepared-
ness with specific reference to the threat has been negligible.
Unfortunately, the threat of a disaster which has a low probability of
occurrence, is little understood and for which there is meager historical
experience, is most typically met with complacency (Warrick, 1975).

Cascade Volcanoes

Although relatively remote from coastal areas, the Cascade volcanoes
are explosive and have the potential for creating mudflows, lava flows,
pyroclastic flows and volcanic ash. Theoreticlaly, Mt. Rainier.could
pose a threat to the populous shoreline zone from mudflows and floods flowing
into the valleys of the White, Nisqually and Puyallup rivers and their
tributaries. The situation in the White and Nisqually river valleys is
complicated by the presence of reservoirs, which could either help or
exacerbate the problem. Evidence of geologically recent mudflows has been
found, the most recent about 500 years ago which reached within about
twelve miles of tidewater near Tacoma (Coombs, et al., 1974). Ashfall
might also affect the Puget Sound lowland, but the prevailing winds
generally carry ash to the eastward.
The mudflow/flood threat is a low probability event, but one with
potential for great disaster should it occur. This hazard admits of little
in the way of adjustment to protect lives and property. The level land
afforded by floodplains is at a premium in the Puget Sound lowland for
agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses, and under any application
of the concept of balanced risk, will continue to be used with increasing
intensity.
In short, the Cascade volcanoes represent a potential threat in their
immediate vicinity, but the probability of their'impacting the shoreline
zone is so low that it militates against considering them significant coastal
hazards.

I.. Avalanche

Defining Lhe Hazard
An avalanche is a moving mass of snow or ice located in an arctic,.

11-67

alpine or sub-alpine region, usually accelerating as it flows down,a-
steep mountainside until a gentle gradient is reached. Natural configur-
ations of a-slope hinder or increase its length and velocity, while
atmospheric and physical processes within the snow cover determine its
type. The technical categories for classifying avalanches are generic
and morphological. The destructive potential of avalanches is determined
by the presence of people, structures, and accompanying developmenf in
the.paths (Staff Members, 1975).

Snow avalanches are a common hazard throughout the mountainous terrain
of the temperate and arctic regions and may occur wherever snow is deposi-
ted on slopes steeper than about 200. They occur most often in the western
United States and Alaska, but are a coastal hazard in Alaska alone,
where mountains and sea meet in many places. In Alaska an abnormally
'high proportion of the population is at risk because the heaviest popula-
tion concentrations are located along the coast where avalanches are common.

Avalanches in Alaska tend to be powerful due to the larg e scale of
the topography which provides.large catchment areas and long, glacially
over-steepened slopes, extremely heavy winter snowfall, and violent winds.,
The violent nature of the Alaskan weather complicates data collection and
monitoring activities which are necessary for accurate avalanche prediction.

Delimiting the Hazard

Mapping of avalanche hazard areas is technically feasible; however.,
costs involved are very high, especially in unsurveyed areas. An average
United States Geological Survey 73@ minute quadrangle map (1:24,000
scale)requires an initial average investment of approximately $200,000
(Staff Members, 1975). In addition, Mears (1975) has pointed out that such
a map is not adequate for providing detailed site specific information,
but provides only a general indication of the avalanche hazard zone
boundaries.

Experimental survey techniques are now being tested throughout the
country. Efforts testing the potential for delimiting avalanche zones
u8ing high altitude multi-spectrum imagery are currently under study with
the support of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In the
more remote areas, the most feasible approach for hazard zone identifi-
cation seems to lie in reconnaissance level surveys.
Most avalanche hazard zones can be recognized from vegetation patterns
and other visible effects of past scouring, except where manipulation of
vegetation may have erased the obvious traces. Moreover, as with floods,
there is always the chance that a larger event than any indicated by
existing.evidence will occur. There is also the remote possibility that
unusual circumstances, such as the combination of heavy snow accumula-
tion with a large triggering earthquake, can cause avalanches on virgin
slopes. The science of avalanche dynamics and terrain analysis is at
best inexact. Estimates of runout zone boundaries, frequencies, and
impact pressures are qualitative, and therefore, subject to an undefinable

11-68

degree of uncertainty (Mears, 1976).

Along the extremely hazardous south and southeastern Alaska region,
meteorological data of many years' accumulation were lacking, as was
the determination of avalanche tracks, until the earthquake of March
1964 struck and triggered thousands of snowslides. This single event
provided information on avalanche activity which would have taken
appIroximately fifty years o@ observation to duplicate. Such informa-
tion will be valuable to planners and engineers in the development of
Alaskan highway, railroad and power transmission systems. (LaChapelle,
1968).

Adjustments to the Hazard

Adjustments to avalanche hazard fall into several categories:
structural controls, reforestation and afforestation, prediction and
warning, artificial release, land use management and highway protection.
These approaches vary in usefulness, cost and effectiveness; effectiveness
not always related to cost. None of these adjustments should be con-
sidered as providing complete security.

Alaskan avalanches, by their large and powerful nature, are less
amenable to management by defensive measures, such as controlled
release, catchment zone treatment to inhibit formation, or structures
to protect lives and property in the slide zone. Land use management
techniques are also less effective for mitigating avalanche hazards in
Alaska. This results from'the intense competition for the extremely
limited amount of suitable land along the coast.

Coastal avalanches may generate additionalhazards, such as
destructive sea waves. And, conversely, avalanches may themselves be the
side effect of other natural hazards, i.e., earthquake, a frequent
hazard along the southern Alaskan coast.

Despite the threat to life and property that avalanches pose in some
Alaskan coastal locations, most occur harmlessly in remote places. The
casualty rate is low: eleven fatalities during the period 1950 to 1975.
(Staff Members, 1975)..

As a result, the avalanche problem is accorded low priority,
and there appears to be little willingness to incur the social
costs involved in providing a margin of safety by condemnation
and compensation proceedings in those areas that face a
potential avalanche hazard to life (see section on Alaska).

The management problem is further hindered by diffused authority
and inability to predict extreme events. The Forest Service has avail-
able expertise, but no authority outside the national forest boundaries.
Highway maintenance personnel often have extensive experience, but
generally do not exercise authority to close highways in advance of

11-6.9

slides. Local jurisdictions, which have the authority for exercising
land use controls., are reluctant to seek information and impose
controls, especially retroactively. In short,,the potential for disaster
mounts.

Ex2eriences

Juneau, located on the southeast coast of Alaska, nestled between
steep mountains on the east and the ocean channel to the west, is
presently experiencing growth and expansion into the avalanche hazard
zone. Attempts to assess the hazard in detail and to identify possible
alternative adjustments, including land use management zoning, have
recently begun. An intensive study, in 1972, of the total geophysical
hazard situation urged zoning_ordinances for the identified hazard zones.
As yet, much debate and consideration have been given the proposal, but
adoption of hazard zoning has not resulted (Staff Members, 1975).

J. Land Subsidence

Unlike most natural hazards which are'instantaneous events,
land subsidence is usually a gradual process which can occur over
periods of several decades. However, in some circumstances,
subsidence can precipitate instantaneous events such as dam or
levee failure along with their dramatic consequences. In most
cases, the direct hazard presented by subsidence is economic loss
rather than a threat to human life.

Although most states experience subsidence problems, only Alabama,
California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington have encountered this hazard
in their coastal areas.

Defining the Hazard

-Land or ground surface subsidence is the relative sinking of the
earth's crust in,limited areas. There are several major causes of
subsidence, including withdrawal of fluids (oil, gas or water), under-
ground solution or erosion of rocks, lateral flow of earth materials
(e.g. clay) under loading, drainage of peat lands, extraction of solids
in traditional or solution mining operations, hydrocompaction, tectonic
movements and volcanic activity.

Of these processes, the most significant in the coastal zone of
the western states, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, seem to be fluid
withdrawals, hydrocompaction, and drainage of peat lands. However, in
the northeastern and Great Lakes states the problems of subsidence seem
more closely related to extraction of solids.

Subsidence due to fluid withdrawal can generally be broken down into
two main classes: 1) withdrawal of oil or gas, and 2) withdrawal of

11-70

ground-water.. In both of these cases, the effect is the same. Reducing
underground pressure in the aquifers increases the effective stress on the
aquifer structure.

Drainage of areas of organic deposits (e.g. peat) represents ano.ther
major cause of subsidence of coastal lands, Drainage, usually for-agri-
cultural purposes, results in oxidation of the deposits (mainly by
aerobic bacteria), compaction by tillage machinery, burning, shrinkage.
due to drying, and finally wind erosion; all lead to surface subsidence.
In general, the subsidence rates are correlated with groundwater depths;
the lower the water table,the greater the subsidence (Cooke & Doornkamp,
1974).

7 Hydrocompaction, subsidence resulting from the wetting and compaction
of certain types of surface sediments, usually occurs in areas having
moisture-deficient, open-textured sediments. When these deposits are
wetted for the first time, as with irrigation, or when the overburden load
is significantly increased, the intergranular strength of the deposits is
weakened, rapid compaction occurs, and ground-surface subsidence follows
(Lofgren, 1969).

Of particular importance in the Great Lakes states is the removal of
solids through traditional mining (e.g. coal), or solution mining
operations (e.g. sulphur or salt). The precise extent of the subsidence
zone and the nature of the subsidence is variable and dependent upon such
factors as the form of the mining, the thickness of the seam, and the
thickness and composition of the overlying strata.

Several of the other processes mentioned above contribute to rela-
tively minor and somewhat more localized subsidence problems in
coastal areas, e.g. limestone sinkholes and tectonic induced subsidence.
The city of Kodiak, Alas", for example, has suffered damage resulting
from earthquake-induced land subsidence. The unpredictable nature of
these events makes planning for their occurrence difficult or impossible.

Delineating the Hazard

Because subsidence is often a slow process in which ground levels may
fall at very slow rates, and over extended periods of time, exacting
methods of measurement must be employed to monitor the changes. The most
widely used method is that of repeatedly surveying by leveling a series of
precisely located benchmarks or other points of known relative altitude.
A second means is the direct measurement of compaction through the use of
,a compaction recorder.

The delineation of areas of potential long term or instantaneous
subsidence where removal of solids at depth has taken place can be
accomplished through sonic techniques. Although this method is quite
practicable,,little effort has been made in this direction to date.

11-71

The'@bencbmark method can be employed over large areas, but the costs
can be high-. It has been.estimated that first-order leveling costs
approximately $200 per mile and second-order leveling about $100 per mile
(Poland, 1969). The recordermethod, on the other hand, i@s only of use
at a single site.

Problems Caused by Subsidence,

The most obvious and extensive consequence in coastal zones is the
loss of low-lying lands through submergence. Of equal potential import
is the increased amount of land exposed to flooding from hurricane storm
surge or stream runoff. If storm tides of the same magnitude as those
.generated by Hurricane Carla (196l)-had struck upper Galveston Bay in 1974
,an additional seventy square miles of subsided land would have been.inundated.
(Brown, et al., 1974).

Differential changes in elevation in subsiding areas also create
problems in construction and maintenance of canals, irrigation ditches,
sewage systems, and stream-channel grade..

In the extreme, instantaneous subsidence events, such as those occurring
over mined areas, can cause injuries or death. Although, the threat to
human safety is not nearly as great as the likelihood of economic loss, the
high density development of potentially subsiding lands increases this
possibility steadily.

Adjustments to the Hazard

In areas where extensive fluid withdrawal has occurred, the most
effective corrective measure has been repressuring the area through
injection of a substitute fluid (usually sea water). Although this
method has proved efficacious, it is quite costly. Salt water has
been injected into the ground underlying the Wilmington oil field in
Long Beach, California at the rate of 1,000,000 barrels per day since
1.965 (Detx;Tyler, 1971).

Some of the other causes of subsidence generate coping methods which
are specifically oriented to that type,of subsidence. Thus, the wetting
of sediments prior to development of lands subject to hydrocompaction
subsidence allows compaction to take place without risk of property
damage.

The measures employed to cope with areas.where solids have been
removed are similar to those used in reducing subsidence from fluid removal,
i.e. the underground spaces are refilled either with solids (e.g. tailings)
or with solutions.

Other responses to subsidence in coastal areas include the construc-
tion of woIrks to protect against the inundation of the subsided lands,
continuous repair of facilities in the affected areas, and land use

11-72

regulations.

Federal Policy and Programs

At present, no national policy deals with land subsidence.
Howev'er, because of the widespread nature of this hazard, such
a policy seems needed.

Justification for a subsidence warning program lies in the Disaster Relief
Act of 1974 which declares the need for disaster warnings with respect
to earthquakes, landslides, and "other geologic catastrophes." (Sec. 202,
88 Stat. 143, 42 U.S.C. 5121.)

Few subsidence studies have been undertaken at the Federal level.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has studied problems of fluid withdrawal
subsidence, and both the USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation have looked
into questions of bydrocompaction subsidence.

Ex2eriences

Long Beach, California - One of the more dramatic examples of subsidence
problems occurred in the Long Beach area of California where subsidence
as a result of fluid withdrawal in the Wilmington oil field has probably
been greater than such subsidence anywhere else in the world. From 1928-1971
the maximum vertical subsidence was nearly thirty feet, and covered an
area of more than twenty five square miles. The rate of subsidence has
varied greatly over the years but equaled thirty-nine per cent (39%) of
the total volume of fluid removed (Poland and Davis, 1969).

Because the area originally was only five to ten feet above sea level,
extensive remedial measures were taken to prevent the heavily industrial-
ized facilities from being inundated by sea water. Repair, maintenance
and mitigation efforts were extremely costly, exceeding $100 million by
1962 (Poland, 1969).

The repressuring of the area has proved to be quite effective in
arresting subsidence over a large part of the area, and a small amount of
surface rebound has occurred in the areas of heaviest injection. (Mayuga
& Allen, 1966). Costs had reached $30 million by 1969 (Poland and Davis,
1969).

The City of Long Beach maintains a constant surveillance of the area
through a series of benchmark's. Reservoir pressures are monitored and
tidal gauges are read on the drilling islands off Long Beach to aid in
subsidence detection.

Houston-Galveston Area, Texas - During and following the Second
World War, this area experienced very rapid industrial development, and
consequent demands upon water were met mainly through the exploitation of

11-73

aquifers. Heavy withdrawals of water resulted in the decline of artesian
pressure head, and the rate of water level decline increased from 1.21
meters per annum from 1954-9 to about 2.13 meters per annum from 1959-
.64 (Gabrysch, 1969).

Subsidence began prior to World War II, but has been precisely
monitored by a network of leveling stations only since 1943. Subsidence
rates from that time to the present have a high correlation with ground-
water pumping rates and the lowering of the water pressure in the
aquifers. It has been pointed out that the area affected by subsidence
of at least one foot doubled approximately each decade since 1943 (Brown,
et al, 1974). In all, more than 3,000 square.miles of Texas coastal
land have subsided at least one foot. Because of the clay composition
of the aquifers, even if groundwater pumping were stopped immediately,
the compaction and subsidence process would probably continue long
enough to cause 'an estimated fifteen to twenty percent additional ground
lowering (Texas General Land Office, 1976).

Mitigation of the impact already experienced and reduction of future
subsidence effects can only be accomplished by vacating the affected area-s
or by constructing protective structures. The Corps of Engineers has
investigated the possibility of constructing an extensive hurricane barrier
syst@m across the southern end of Galveston Bay (Brown, et al., 1974).
Engineering works cannot assure long-term protection uni-ess-further'
subsidence is prevented.

11-74

REFERENCES

American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Newsletter,
March 31, 1970.

Algermissen, S.T. and D.M. Perkins, A Probabilistic Estimate of Maximum
Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States. U.S. Geological
Survey, Open-file Report 76-416.

Anderson, William A., "Tsunami Warning in Crescent City, California.,.
and Hilo, Hawaii." The Great Alaska Earthquake of*1964: Human Ecology.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1970, pp-.=-

Ayre, Robert S., Earthquake and Tsunami Hazards in the United States:
A Research Assessment. Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Science,
University of Colorado, 1975.

Baker, E.J., J.C. Brigham, J.A. Paredes,'and D.D. Smith, Social Impact
of Hurricane Eloise on Panama City, Florida. Tec:hnical P'@per No. 1.
Tallahassee: Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center, 1976.

Blanc, Robert P. and George B. Cleveland, "Geological and Slope Stability
Maps of the San Clemente Area, Orange and San Diego Counties, California."
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology,
Special Report 98, plate 1, 1968.

Brabb, E.E., E.H. Pampeyan and M.G. Bonilla, "Landslide Susceptibility
in San Mateo County, California." San Francisco Day Rgiion Environment
and Resources Planning Study, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field
@@_tudies, Map NF---36-0,1972.-

Berg, Eduard, et al., "Source of the Major Tsunami." The Great Alaska
.Earthquake of 1964: Oceanography and Coastal Engineering. Washington,
D.C.: Nati@_nJ_Academy of Sciences, 1972, pp. 122-138.

Bird, Neale, Handbook for Coastal Property Owners. South Carolina Sea
Grant Marine Advisory Bulletin No. 10, 1975.

Brater, Ernest F., John M. Armstrong and Michael McGill, Michigan's
Demonstration Erosion Control Program, Update Evaluation Report.
Lansing: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1975.

Bretschneider, Charles L. and Pieter G. Wybro, Inundations and Forces
Caused by Tsunamis for the State of Hawaii. Technical Supplement
No. 5, Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program. Pacific Urban Studies
and Planning Program, University of Hawaii, 1975.

11-75

Brinkmann, Waltraud A.R., Severe Local Storm'Hatard in the United
States: A'Research Assegsm@ent. Univer6ity of Colorado, Boulder,
1975.

Brown, L.F., Jr., et'al., Natural Hazards of the Texas Coastal
.Zone. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at ,
Austin in cooperation with the Texas Coastal and Marine Council,
1974.

Bruun, Per, "Beach Erosion and Coastal Protection." In Rhodes W.
Fairbridge, ed. Encyclopedia of'Gdomdtph6logy. New York: Van Nos-
trand Reinhold, 1968.

"Coastal Development and Coastal Protection,"
Engineering Progress at the UniVersit of Florida. Vol. 9, Bulletin Series
#76. Gainesville: University of Florida, 1955.

Carney, Charles and Albert Hardy, North Carolina Hurricanes. Environ-
mental Science Services Administration. Washington: U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1967.

Carroll, Allen, Developer's Handbook. State of Connecticut, Department
of Environmental Protection,, Coastal Area Management Program, 1975.

Clark, Gilbert, National Hurricane Center, Associated Press Release,
October 10, 1975.

Coastal Zone Resources Corporation, A Study to Assess Goals for Uses
and Management of Shoreline and Impfil-catidris 'for Corps of Engineers
Programs. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Institute for
Water ResourcesP Fort Belvoir, Virginia, IWR Contract Report 75-4,
1975.

Cochrane, H.C., "Predicting the Economic Impact of Earthquakes."'
Natural Hazard Working Paper #25. Boulder: Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado, 1975.

Colon, J.A., "Some Aspects of Hurricane Carla, 1961." Hurricane
Symposium. American Society for Oceanography Publication #1, pp. 1-33.

Cooke, R.V. and J.C. Doornkamp, Geomorphology in Environmental
Management. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.

Coombs, Howard A., et al., Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Geologic
Hazards to the Washington State Legislature (1975 Session) by a committee
appointed by the Senate Committee on Commerce, December, 1974.

11-76

Cox, Doak C-,"Status of Tsunami Knowledge" Proceedings of the Tenth
Pacific Sciente.Congres , Honolulu, Hawaii, Aa&ust-Septembe , 1961.
.Doak C. Cox, Editor. IUGG Monograph 24,.Paris, 1964, pp. 1-6.

Tsunami Research Japan and the United States.
Studies in Oceanography, pp. 403-412 (Hawaii Institute of Geophysi-cs
,Contribution No. 64), 1964.

Performance of the Seismic'Sea Wave Warning System,
1948-1967. Prepared for the State of Hawaii, Report HIG-68-2, Hawaii
Institute of Geophysics, 1968.

"Introduction to Part II: Tsunamis." The Great Alaska
Earthquake of 1964: Oceanography and Coastal Engineeri ng. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy of Sciences) 1972, pp. 31-37.

"Review of the Tsunamis." 'Thd@Groat'Alaska Earthquake
of 1964: Oceanography and Coastal Engineering. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy of Sciences, 1972a, I@P- 354-360.

Cox, Doak C. and Harris B. Steward, Jr., "Technical Evaluation of the
Seismic Sea Wave Warning System." The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964:
Oceanography and Coastal Engineeting. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy of Sciences, 1972b, pp. 229-245.

Crandell, Dw ight R. and Donal R. Mullineaux,. "Appraising Volcanic Hazards
of the Cascade Range of the Northwestern United States." Earthquake
Information Bulletin 6 (No. 5, September - October). Reston, Virginia:
U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, pp. 3-10.

Detwyler, Thomas R.,, Man's Impact*on Environment. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1971.

Dolan, Robert, Paul J. Godfrey and William E. Odum, "Man's Impact on the
Barrier Islands of North Carolina," American Scientist, Vol. 61
(March-April, 1973), pp. 152-166.

Emery, K.O., Progress in Oceanography: The Quaternary History of the
Ocean Basins, Vol. 4. New York: Pergamon Press,, 1967.

Eskite, Wilbur H., Jr., Analysis of ESSA Activities Related to Tsunami
Warnings. A report prepared for NOAA Office of Plans and Programs, 1970.

Friedman, D.G., The Storm Surge Along the Gulf and South Atlantic Coast-
lines. Hartford, Cf--.The Travelers Insurance Company, 1971.

, Letter to Robert W. Kates. Hartford, CT: The Travelers
Insurance Company, May 22, 1972.

1 Computer Simulation in Natural Hazard Assessment. Boulder:
Program of Research on Technology, Environment and Man, Institute of
Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 1976.

11-77

Gabrysch, R.K. "Land Surface Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region,
Texas." Tokyo, Japan: International Symposium on Land Subsidence,
Proceedings, pp. 43-54, 1969.

Great Lakes Basin Commission, Relocation and Public Acquisition
Alternatives for the'Reduction of Shoreland Damages A Benefit-Cost
.Study, Monroe County, Michigan Report for the FRC/CLBC Joint Task
Force on Shoreland Damage Reduction, 1976.

Haas, J. Eugene & Patricia Trainer, "Effectiveness of the Tsunami Warning
System in Selected Coastal Towns in Alaska." Paper presented at the Fifth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 1973.

Hebert, P. j. and G. Taylor, Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal
County Populations. Texas to Maine. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, NWS, U.S. Dept. of Commetce, 1975.

Hicks, Steacy D',, "Long Period Variations in Secular Sea Level Trends,"
Shore and Beach, Vol. 36 (1968), pp. 32-35.

Iida, Kumizi, Doak C. Cox and George Pararas-Carayannis, Preliminary
Catalogue of Tsunamis Occurring in the Pacific Ocean. Prepared for
the State _jT Hawaii and the Office of Naval Research. Data Report No. 5,
Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, 1967.

Inman, D.L. and B. Brush, "The Coastal Challenge," Science, Vol. 181
(July 6, 1973), pp. 20-33.

Joint Federal Regional Council - Great Lakes Basin Commission Task
Force, A Strategy for Great Lakes Shoreland Dama8e Reduction, Chicago, 1974..

Kunreuther, H., et al., Limited Knowled&e and Insurance Protection:
Implications for Natural Hazard Policy. Unpublished draft, 1976.

LaChappelle, Edward R., "The Character of Snow Avalanching Induced by the
Alaska Earthquake". Pages 355-361 in The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964:
ilydrology, Part A. Washington; Natioi@a__l demy of Sciences, National
Research Counci17, 1968.

Lachman, Roy, Maurice Tatsuoka, and William J. Bonk, "Human Behavior
During the Tsunami of May 1960," Science, Vol. 133, No. 3462, pp. 1405-
1409, 1961.

Lofgren, B.E., "Land Subsidence Due to the Application of Water,"
Reviews of Engineering Geology, Vol. 2, 1969, pp. 271-303.

Macdonald, Gordon A., Volcanoes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,_
1972

11-78

Mader, G.G.. and D.F. Crowder,, "An Experiment Using Geology for City
Planning - The Experience of the Small Community of Porto .la, California."
Pages 177-189 in D.N. Nichol's and C.C. Campbell, eds...' Environmental
'Planning and Geology. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1969.

Mayuga, M.N. and D.R. Allen, "Long Beach Subsidence." in Ronald W. Tank,
ed. 3' Focus on*Environmerital,G,@@ol6gy, pp. 347-352. London: Oxford
University Press, 1973.

Mears,, Arthur I., Snow Avalanches of the Vail Area, Eagle County,
Colorado. Open File Report, Colorado Geologfc--alSu-rvey. Department of
Natural Resources, State of Colorado, 1975.

"Guidelines and Methods for Detailed Snow Avalanche
Hazard Investigations in Colorado." Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin
38, 1976.
Michigan Coastal Zone Laboratory,, "Great Lakes Basin Commission Reces-
sion Rate Workshop Proceedings." Ann Arbor': University of Michigan, 1976.
Suggests that coastal erosion figures for Great Lakes as reported in Table
11-4 are greatly underestimated.

Mileti, Dennis S.,- Natural*Hazard Warning Systems in the United States:
A Research Assessment. Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Science,
University of Colorado, 1975.

Disaster Relief and Rehabilitation in the United
States: A Research ssessment. Program on Technology, Environment
and Man, Monograph #NSF-RA-E-75-009. Boulder: Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado, 1975a.

Miller, H. Crane, "Coastal Flood Plain Management and the National Flood
Insurance Program: A Case Study of Three Rhode Island Communitiesq"
Environmental Comment, November 1975, pp. 2-14.

Moberly, Ralph, J. Frisbee Campbell and William T. Coulbourn, Offshore
and Other Sand Resources for Oahu, Hawaii. UNIHI - SEAGRANT - TR-75-03$
University of Hawaii, 1975.

Murf6h, Brian J. and Shinzo Shimabukuro, Human Adjustment to Volcanic
Hazard in Puna District, Hawaii. IGUC Committee on man & Environment
paper, University of Hawaii, 1972.

National Bureau of Standards Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation.
NBS Building Series #46, U.L Depirtment of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

11-79

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Flood Insurance
Studies: (1) Brevard County, Florida; (2)-Volusia County, Florida.
Reports p epar-ed for the Federal Insurance Administration of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Rockville, Maryland:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1971.

Project Stormfury 1972. Washington, D.C.:
Department of Commerce, 1972.

Flood Insurance Studies: (1) St. Johns County,
Florida; (2) Palm Beach County, Florida; (3) Broward County, Florida.
Reports prepared for the Federal Insurance Administration of the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1972a.

Flood Insurance Studies: (1) City offernandina
Beach, Nassau County, Florida; (2) Martin County, Florida; (3) Duval
County, Florida; (4) Indian River County, Florida. Reports prepared
for the Te-deral I-nsurance Administration of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1973.

Flood Insurance Studies: (1) Charleston County;
South Carolina; (2) Land Subsidence--Houston-Galveston, Texas Area;
(3) Puerto Rico. Reports prepared for the Federal Insurance @dministra-
-@ifon--of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Rockville,
Maryland: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973a.

New Jersey Board of Commerce and Navigation, Report on the Erosion and
Protection of New Jersey Beaches. Trenton, 1922.

Nilson, T. H. and E. E. Brabb, "Preliminary Photointerpretation and
Damage Maps of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits in Northeastern
San Jose, Santa Clara County of California." U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF-36 1, 1972.

Nolan, K. M., D. R. Harden, and S. M. Colman, "Erosional Landform Map
of the Redwood Creek Drainage Basin, Humboldt County, Californ'ia--1947-
1974." U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations 76-42, Open
File Report, 1976.

Office of Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Preparedness, Vols. 1, 2 and
3, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1972.

Pacific Urban Studies and Planning Program, "Tsunami and Storm Wave
Hazards and Freshwater Flooding.Hazards." Recommendation memo. Hawaii
Coastal Zone Management Program, 1976.

11-80

Pilkey, 0. H., Jr., 0. H. Pilkey, Sr. and R. Turner, How to Live with
an Island. North Carolina Department of Natural and 7Fconomic Resources,
Raleigh, North Carolina, 1975.

Platt, Rutherford H., "The National Flood Insurance Program: Some
Midstream Perspectives. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
(July 1976), pp. 303-314.

Poland, J. F., :Lan d Subsidence in Western United States," in R. A.
Olson and M. W. Wallace, Eds. Geologic Hazards and Public Problems,
pp. 77-96. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

Poland, J. F., and G. H. Davis, "Land Subsidence Due to.Withdrawal of
Fluids." Reviews of Engineering Geology, Vol. 2, 1969, pp. 187-269.

Radbruch-Hall, D. H., et al., "Preliminary Landslide Overview Map of
the Conterminous United States." U.S. Geological Survey, MF-771,
1976.

Rosenthal, S. L. and M. S. Moss, Numerical Experiments.of Relevance to
Project Stormfury. NOAA Technical Memorandum #ERLNHRL095. Washington:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1971.

San Francisco Department of City Planning, Community Safety Plan for.
the Comprehensive Plan of San Francisco. San Francisco, 1974.

Simpson, R. H. and M. B. Lawrence, Atlantic Hurricane Frequencies Along
the U.S. Coastline. NOAA Technical Memorandum #NWS SR-58. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1971.

Slosson, J., "The Role of Engineering Geology in Urban Planning." The
Governor's Conference on Environmental Geology, April 30-May 2, 1969.
Sacramento: State of California, pp. 8-14.

Sorensen, John, et al., Landslide Hazard in the United States: A
Re$earch As-sessment. Program of Research on Technology, Environment
and Man. Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado, 1975.

Sorensen, John H., with J. Kenneth Mitchell, Coastal Erosion Hazard
in the United States: A Research Assessment. Program of Research on
Technology, Environment and Man. Boulder: Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado, 1975.

Staff, Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards, Snow Avalanch Hazard
in the United States: A Research Assessment. Bou@-lder: Institute of
'Eeh@avioral Science, University of Colorado, 1975.

11-81

Sugg, Arnold L., "Economic Aspects of Hurricanes, "Monthly Weather
Review 95, 1967, pp. 143-146.

Tazieff, Haroun, ."The Menance of'Extinct Volcanoes," Impact 17,
No. 2. 1967 pp. 135-48.

Texas General Land Office, Texas Coastal Management Program. (Hearing'
Draft) June, 1976.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dune Formation and Stabilization
Vegetation Plantings. Technical Memorandum #101. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957.

Creation and Stabilization of Coastal Barrier Dunes.
Report #3-69., Washington, D.C.: Coastal Engineering Research Center.,
1969.

Experimental Dunes of the'Texas Coast. Miscellaneous
Paper #1-70. Washington, D.C.: Coastal Engineering Research Center,
1969.

Report on the National Shoreline Study. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

Shore Management Guidelines: National Shoreline Study.
Washington, D.C.: IT-.S. Government Printing Office, 1971a.

Shore Protection Guidelites. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government PrintiT@i -Office, 1971b.

, The Cook Inlet Environment. Anchorage: Alaska District,
August 1972.

. Flood-Proofing Regulatidns. U.S. Department of the Army.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972a.

. Great Lakes Shoreline Damage: Causes and Protective
Measures. Chicag77-No'rth Central Division, 1972b.

Ecological Effects of Offshore Dredging and Beach
Nourishment: A Review. Miscellaneous Paper #1-73, Washington, D.C.:
Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1973.

Help Yourself: A Discussion of the Critidal'Erosion
Problems on the G-reat Lakes and'Alternative Methods of Shore Protection.
Chicago: North Central Division, 1973a.

11-82

U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960, Number of
Inhabitants, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1961.

U.S. Census of Population: 1970. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.-

U.S. Department of@Commerce, A Plan for Improving the National River
and Flood Forecasting and Warning Service. Cited in Office of Emergency
Preparedness, 1972. Disaster Prep-aredness, Vol..l, p. 25. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Statement for
Management and Environmental Assessment - Gateway National Recreation
Area, New York/New Jersey, April 1976.

U.S. Water Resources Council, Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to
Reduce Flood Losses. Volume 2, Parts v-vi, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972.

Von Heune, Roland and Doak C. Cox, "Locally'Generated Tsunamis and
Other Local Waves." The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Oceanography
and Coastal Engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences,
1972, pp. 211-221.

Waldron, Howard H., Debris Flow and Erosion Control Problems Caused by
Ash Eruptions of Irazu Volcano, Costa Rica, U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin #1241 Washingto@-,-D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967.

Wallace, Robert E., Goals, Strategy, and Tasks of the Earthquake Hazard
Reduction Program, de-ological Survey Circ@u-lar @01, USGS, Dept. of the
Interior, Washington, D.C., 1974.

Warrick, Richard A., Volcano Hazard in the United States: A Research
Assessment; Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado, 1975.

White, A. U., "Global Summary of Human Response to Natural Hazards:
Tropical Cyclones," in G. F. White, ed., Natural Hazards: Local,
National, Global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.

White, Gilbert F. and J. Eugene Haas, Assessment of Research on Natural
Hazards. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1975.

Whitman, R. V., Seismic Design Decision Analysis: Summary of Methodology
and Pilot Applications. Structures Publication #381. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT School of Engineering, 1973.

11-83

Wiggins, J.H. and D. Moran, Earthquake.Safety in the City 2f 12n& Beach,
Based on 'the Concept of "Balanced Risk." Report prepared for the City
of Long Beach, Redondo Beach, California: J.H. Wiggins Co., 1971.

Wilcox, R.E., Some Effects of Recent Volcanic Ash Falls, with Especial
Reference to Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1028-N.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959. Cited in
Coastal Process's, Terrain,, and Hazards, Alaska Department of Enviroh-
mental Conservation, Environmental Analysis Section, Juneau, 1976.

Wilkinson, K.P.-and P.J. Ross, Citizens's Responses to Warnings of
Hurricane Camille. Social Science Research Center Repo@-t -#35. 91-ate
College: Mississippi State University, 1970.

Wood, Fergus J., The Strategic Role of Perigean Spring Tides in Nautical
History and North American Flooding 1635-1975. Washington, D.C.:
NOAA, 1976.

11-84

SECTION III

PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

III. PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A compre hensive coastal zone management program should address the
problems created by extreme natural events because these hazards
potentially threaten life, property, and the natural environment. The
coastal managers should have some knowledge of what kind, what magnitude,
and what frequency.of hazard can occur throughout the coastal areas as
they structure a program. Having recognized the problem,,coastal managers
are then in a position to propose effective means for adapting to such
hazards, including information programs for the general public about
hazard characteristics.

In.some states, substantial efforts have already been exerted to
deal with the problems associated with natural hazards, either independent
of or in concert with one or more Federal agencies. Theseefforts should
be carefully examined by the coastal manager for their adequacy and for
their relationship with the overall CZM program. In other states, weak or
inadequate efforts demand significant upgrading or restructuring to reflect
current technical knowledge, to enhance popular awareness, and to incorporate
a hazard management component.

The importance of planning to manage potential coastal hazards is
specifically recognized in the regulations which the Office of@Coastal
Zone Management has promulgated to assist states in developing and gaining
Federal approval for their CZM programs (15 CFR 920 and 923). When speaking
of those elements which a comprehensive program should consider, the
regulations specifically mention "floods and flood damage prevention,
erosion (including the effect of tides and currents upon beaches and other
shoreline areas), land stability, climatology and meteorology" (923.4).

The regulations most directly address the delineation of hazard areas
in the section concerning areas of particular concern (923.13).
According to the regulations, "such designation shall be based upon a
review of natural and man-made coastal zone resources and uses, and upon
consideration of State-established criteria which include... (among others)
...areas of significant hazard if developed, due to storms, slides, floods,
erosion, settlement, etc." They go -on to say "particular attention in
reviewing the management program will be directed toward development by the
state of implementing policies or actions to manage the designated areas
of particular concern."

By implication, the hazard potential in coastal areas should also be
examined by coastal states when delineating permissible land and water
uses (923.12), where states are required, among other things, to develop a
procedure which includes "an analysis or establishment of a method of
analysis of the capability and suitability for each type of resource and
application to existing, projected or potential uses." States are required
to develop guidelines on the "relative priorities which will be accorded
in particular areas to at least those permissible land and water uses
identified" above, including specifically those uses of lowest priority
(923.14).

iii-I

To the extent that hazard management and control is a part of a
comprehensive coastal program, state CZM agencies are also required to
include the cognizant state agency within their organizational structure
(923.22), may elect to take advantage of that agency's authorities to
administer land and water uses and control development (923.24), should
provide for full participation of affected agencies and persons in the
adoption of the management program (923.31), and demonstrate that the
program has been coordinated with other r6levant planning.(923.32).

The requirements cited above are, of course, ones with which coastal
managers are presumed to have dealt in the course of their program
development to date. Of equal pertinence at the present time are those
new requ irementsto which coastal managers must respond as a result of the
passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976. Principal
among these are the three new planning requirements which have been added
to the program development phase (Section 305). These requirements, for
which regulations have not as yet been promulgated (November 1976), call
upon states to develop planning processes for: 1) protection of and
access to public beaches and other public areas; 2) energy facilities
likely to be located in or impact upon the coastal z'one; and 3) assessing
the effects of shoreline erosion and evaluating ways to control that
erosion.

In meeting these new planning requirements, state CZM agencies may
need to re-examine technical work done to date and reassess current state
policies. The erosion planning requirement is obviously the one that is
most directly related to the issue of natural hazards. However, states
will undoubtedly want to examine the hazard potential of sections of the
coast, and perhaps specific sites as well, when they deal with the impacts
of energy facility siting. Finally, states may well incorporate hazard
management into their planning for the protection of public beaches and
other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical,
esthetic, ecological, or cultural value.

Hazard potential will be of particular interest to those states and
communities which participate in the Coastal Energy Impact Program
established by the 1976 Amendments. 'This program is intended to assist
those sta:tes and communities which incur major onshore impacts from the
development of outer continental shelf oil and gas. Impacted areas are
eligible for loans and guarantees to finance public facilities and
services required because of this development. The location of these
facilities and the kinds of services provided will certainly be affected
by the full range of natural hazards. Four major types of problems are
common to the majority of state agencies dealing with natural hazards in
their coastal areas. Each of these presents several specific issues which
are reviewed along with recommended lines of response in the following pages.

Wherever practicable, the discussion of problems is related to the
procedures which the state CZM agency may follow in meeting the requirements
for program approval and for designating areas of particular concern,
defining permissible uses, establishing priority uses, and estimating

111-2

the effects of public facilities and services for energy production. 14one
of these tasks can be accomplished satisfactorily without some assessment,,
however informal, of likely consequences. The way in which this will be
done will be shaped by prevailing state policy and procedures. Although
the details of state organization and authority vary greatly (as indicated
in the detailed tabulations in Section IV), the institutional problems
.are similar throughout the states.

The four types of problems relating to natural hazards in management
of'coastal land and water are: (a) delineating hazard areas; (b) defining
the options in coping with the hazard, (c) improving citizen awareness
and participation, and (d) organizing and coordinating the government
agencies involved. Each of these presents specific issues on which
recommendations (italics) are made.

A. Delineating Hazard Areas

In the management of any area vulnerable to natural hazards, an
essential first'step is delineation of the localities most likely to be
affected. Without this step, the possibility of any,effective management.
action is severely reduced. In many instances, a precise delineation is
not possible, but it is important that some designation be made, no matter
how imprecise. These rough estimates can,then be revised as new or more
complete information becomes available.

Many state CZM programs have approached the problem of mitigating
hazards by identifying hazard areas as Geographical Areas of Particular
Concern (GAPCs). This designation also includes land required to meet
environmental conservation and economic development needs. Where different
types of GAPCs are geographically distinct and mutually exclusive there
is a danger that measures to mitigate spatially widespread hazards will
be frustrated. It is desirable that hazard zones which are designated as
GAPCs should be as broad and inclusive as possible.

Major problems involved in delineation of hazardous zones are: the
scale and detail of hazard area mapping; the use of conflicting information
from various sources; definition of hazardous conditions'with special
reference to seismic risk; and making understandable the recurrence
probability of the extreme events.

1) Scale and detail of mapping

A preliminary step in delineating hazard areas is to make some
designation of the area at whatever scale and detail are permitted by
the available evidence. It is sometimes argued that unless a very accurate
map of a hazard zone can be provided, it is better to offer no designation
.at all. To take this position would mean that many hazardous parts of
the coast would remain unidentified for a long time. It is always possible
to make a rough designation of a hazard area and to state explicitly that
this is subject to revision as more information becomes available.

Thus, the vulnerability of a sector of the coast,to hurricane hazard
may be stated in the very rough terms shown in Figure 11-3, indicating

111-3

the approximate recurrence intervals of storms of hurricane strength. At
the other extreme are the maps prepared by the Federal Insurance
Administration which show the estimated location of lands subject to floods
of probabilities of one per cent (1%) or more. Between these extremes of
accuracy are a large number of possible combinations of scale and detail
that result from the character of the scientific information available.

It is desirabZe to attempt some-kind of designation of
hazard areas aZong each sector of the coast, using whatever
scaZe and detaiZ of map is appropriate and coincides with the
avaiZabZe information. This can aZwa,ys be done, provided there
is expZicit recognition that the precision of the map shaZZ be
revised as more information becomes avaiZable.

2) InadecLuate and conflictiag_data sources

Public officials dealing with coastal management seldom encounter
generally accepted information on natural hazards. More often they are
confronted with estimates of hazard vulnerability which are in apparent
conflict. For example, estimates of storm surge from a hurricane of
given magnitude may differ.from the U.S. Geological Survey, the Corps of
Engineers and a consultant employed by the Federal Insurance Administration.
These differences result from differing sources of data and modes of
analysis. It is impossible to reconcile data or methods by conference or
exchange of memoranda, unless the state has access to a scientific agency
which will synthesize and assess the several estimates, as was the case
in the preparation of a map of shoreline vulnerability prepared for the
Texas coast (Brown, et al., 1974). It is usually necessary to find out
precisely what differences have occurred in data base or in method and
then to determine what is the most suitable combination of data and method
for a particular locality. The American Arbitration Association has an
experimental project on data validation for the New Jersey coast which
may be more generally applicable. Where there remain unreconciled
differences, it is important to present the whole array of estimates so
that the public may be aware of them.

This problem occurs in determining areas subject to flooding
by overbank flow along coastal streams. Most of the conflicts in
judgments are among professional workers in organizations using differing
specified procedures and standards. Such conflict in estimates need not
seriously impede the publication of a delineation of a vulnerable zone.

Local interests sometimes argue that unless the delineation of a
hazard area is precise and of unquestioned scientific validity, it cannot
be used for purposes of establishing areas of particular concern or to
designate permissible land uses, subdivision regulations, special building
codes, and the like. This, in practice, has not been a crippling
consideration. However, this view can trigger severe political obstacles
which may hamper the adoption of land management measures in hazardous areas.

The general position of the courts has been that a hazard area may
be delineated with full knowledge that data are rough; so long as the

111-4

evidence is stated, and competent scientific judgment is brought to bear
on analysis of the data (e.g. Just v. Marinette County 201 N.W2d 761,
1972; Sibson v. State 336 A.2d 239, 1975). The resulting determination can
be accepted with the understanding that it shall be revised as new
information is obtained or as more sophisticated methods of analysis are
developed. Likewise, a delineation may be changed repeatedly as a result
of public hearings or protest by individual property owners in accordance
with explicit provision for revision and variance.

It is recommended that any designation of a hazard area.
be accompanied by explicit statements that: a) reasonable
use has been made of available scientific information,
indicating the sources of such information_, and b) there will
be opportunity for public examination and review of the
designations with subsequent revision of them insofar as new
information'or scientific interpretation warrants revision of the
boundaries.

A nagging question which accompanies any estimate of vulnerability
to water movement along the coast is that of the prospect that the
ocean level in the future will rise or fall at an,accelerated rate.
It is possible that such changes are underway but not yet identified.
When local groups assert that the delin'eation of hazard zones will be
altered by changes in ocean level resulting from shifts in global
atmospheric patterns, a reasonable response is that it is not impossible
but that the evidence does not yet warrant any change in delineations.
It may be helpful to conduct sensitivity analyses of alternative
adjustment plans in order to determine which options will stand up best
to future climatic or other changes, should they occur.

3) Defining hazardous conditions

Determining whether hazardous conditions exist is subject to many
scientific difficulties, often requiring the analysis of conflicting
information. An illustrative example is the attempt to define an area
subject to seismic risks. Here it is possible to state the probabilities
of occurrence of an earthquake of a given magnitude in an area where there
is an earthquake disturbance record of 100 years or more. However, this
does not help in dealing with areas where a major event has few recorded
precursors and relatively few events thereafter, e.g. the great Charleston
earthquake of 1886 or the Boston earthquake of 1755. Nor does it assist
in differentiating the relative vulnerability to damage of pieces of
land within a very small area according to their susceptibility to ground
motion from an earthquake. As indicated in the mapping of vulnerability
to liquefaction in the San Francisco Bay area (Figure 11-15), it is
possible for an area to be highly subject to liquefaction and consequently
severe motion, whereas a neighboring area only a short distance away may
be relatively secure.

In these circumstances it is important to obtain the best available
judgment of seismologists and earthquake engineers of the relative
vulnerability of an individual building or property. It is also important

111-5

to recognize that there are grounds for honest differences of,judgment of
the degree of risk and of the appropriate design of earthquake resistant
structures.

In California,.coastal zone planning for adjustment to seismic
hazards is based almost entirely on liquefaction potential, as determined
by soil analyses, while the state-wide seismic hazards adjustment program
is based largely upon proximity to active-fault zones. The two may
require reconciliation.

Wherever special questions exist about the basis for
designating the degree of hazard in an area, such as one of
seismic risk or of the extent of tsunami run-up, it is
desirable to commsss-ion a spec-&at report by a state or Federal
agency or by a consulting firm. Requests for suchreports
should include a specification of the type of extreme event
which is to be examined, the types of Land use for which
the area is to be considered., and the degree of risk which
it is believed the community is willing to accept.

4) Making probabilities understandable

.Many estimates of the vulnerability of an area to an extreme event,
such as flooding, hurricane surge or seismic movement, include an estimate
of probability of recurrence. Without some judgment of probability,
however rough, it is only possible to say that an area may be subject
to the extreme event without indicating the degree of likelihood that
such an event will occur. Such designation may be of little value in
land and water management unless accompanied by an indication of frequency.
The most common method of estimating probability is to analyze the data
from past events or from the occurrence of those events in similar areas,
such as neighboring drainage basins or earthquake zones. This always
involves statistics that are at best subject to inaccuracies in the original
measurements and which seldom are available for a period of more than 50
to 100 years.

It is desirable, nevertheless, when considering power plant siting or
the wisdom of dense residential development, to estimate the likelihood of
recurrence of rare events. A device used in the Federal Insurance
Administration reports for describing the recurrence interval is delineation
of a "100-year flood." This wording suggests to some people that a flood
is expected to occur once in 100 years and in that case is misleading.
It would-be more accurate to state that a flood of defined magnitude had
a one per cent (1%) chance of occurrence. In each year there is a one
per-cent chance that it will occur. There@could be two or more occurrences
of an event of that magnitude in a given year. It is important to explain
that the probability is the same every year regardless of the time of the
previous occurrence of an event of that magnitude.

On the other hand, the concept of annual probabilities may fail to
convey the true nature of a threat over time. In.deciding for which
magnitude of event to plan, the probability of certa:in events occurring

111-6

at least once during some time span longer than a year should be taken'
into account. Thus, many business transactions are for 10-year periods,
few mortgages exceed 25 years, and the length of one person's wage earning
rarely exceeds 50 years. Probabilities for these periods are as follows:

Event Probability of Occurring at Least Once in
(Annual Probability)
10 yrs 25 yrs 50 yrs
10-year (.10) .65 .93 .99
25-year (.04) .34 .64 .87
50-year (.02) .18 .40 .64
100-year (.01) .10 .22 .39

A.probability of 1.00 certainty that an event will occur in a
stated period.

Even though it is not practicable to show with accuracy the
detaiZed recurrence interval of an extreme event such as a flood
or hurricane in a small river valley or a sector of the coast,
.it may be practicable to indicate the approximate recurrence
intervals of this type of event drawn from examination of regional
data. Examples are the estimates of hurricane recurrence shown
in Figure I-T-3 and of flood occurrence for regions in the
Tennessee Valley prepared by the Tennessee VaZZey Authority.
These can be shown both as annual probabilities, and as probability
of occurrence over a stated time period.

Wherever possible, a recurrence interval should be designated
as a percentage of occurrence rather than a number of years.
This avoids confusion about the timing of an event and recognizes
that the extreme events tend to occur on a random rather than a
periodic or cyclic basis.

When presenting the results of any analysis of probabilities
of extreme.events, it is important to state that Larger and Less
frequent events than those of a designated probability may
conceivably occur. In areas subject to flood or hurricane storm
surge designated as being within the 11100-year" (one per cent., 1%)
zone, public agencies and citizens should be informed that Larger
and Less frequent events may occur and that these may bring far
greater social dislocation and Loss than the more frequent events
for which pZans are made.

B. Defining and Evaluating the Options

The principal problems associated with defining and evaluating
hazard adjustments in coastal areas are: describing the range of possible
adjustments; the issue of private property rights; predicting the
interactions among various alternative adjustments; and assisting the
local and state groups in understanding the choices open to them.

111-7

1) Range_of adjustments

One of the primary difficulties encountered in appraising natural
hazards in-coastal areas is identifying the full range of possible
adjustments to an extreme event. Conventional approaches associated
with agency missions tend to dominate public and technical consulting
thought. Moreover,.it is hard for individuals or groups.to canvass more
than a couple of alternatives at one timez In practice, individuals and
communities tend to settle on a combination of adjustments when given
an opportunity. In contrast, when a public body is faced with making a
choice it tends to adopt one adjustment to the exclusion of others.

The roZe of coastaZ managers is to make certain that aZZ
parties concerned are aware of the fuZZ range of choices and
of the costs and benefits attaching to each.

Reports,from engineering consultants on beach erosion control-works
increasingly emphasize the alternative of beach management as a means of
reducing erosion, but may not be strong on methods of general land use
management or of dune stabilization by vegetation practices. Similarly,
the opportunity to provide information to citizen or business groups to
influence decisions to locate in hazardous areas often is neglected when
reliance is placed on formal measures such'as building codes or subdivision
regulations.

Agencies dealing with extreme events tend to be wedded to one type
of action. There is a disposition to find some means of controlling the
event by engineering or other physical measures. The classic cases are
breakwaters to retard coastal erosion, and dams and restraining works to
contain or hold back flood flows. Similarly, in the field of land use
management there is a teiidency to-concentrate on more traditional zoning
regulations without considering a variety of other devices that are
conceivably available. This would include in the case of hurricane
hazard the opportunities for reducing risk by changes in the location and
design of buildings, by improvements in evacuation plans, and by education
of the population at risk to the options that are open to them. In some
inland flood situations it has proved more effective for a community to
purchase the land at risk than to engage in protection measures, as
illustrated in the Littleton, Colorado flood plain. .

A major task for the agency concerned with management of coastal
land and water is to prepare an array of all the"oretically possible
measures, whether or not they are customarily employed by established agencies.

It shouZd aZways be practicabZe to incZude in the form of
a Zist., tabZe., or diagram the types of adjustments which are
possibZe in a given area and those which, in fact, are adopted
at the time of the study. This wiU often heZp to dispeZ pubZic
beZiefs that there is onZy one course of action which can be '
considered in deaZing with a hazard or that the types of actions
which have been taken in the past are the onZy ones which can be
taken in the future.

111-8

One way of presenting these is in the form of a table as shown in
Appendix E.

2) Private propertly right.s

A common question raised about land use management plans for
vulnerable areas is whether or not the zoning, subdivision, or building
regulations deprive*property owners of use of their property for
-profitable purposes. Although it may be a profound concern among,
property groups in the community, this need not be a major legal issuej so
so long as whatever regulations are enacted and enforced leave one or more
productive use options open to the property owners. These uses may'
include such purposes as golf courses, public parks, parking lots, and
other open space or low density activities for which "property may be sold
and which may yield a return. Those uses may-be far less remunerative
than high density residential or commercial uses, but at this point it
becomes important to recognize the cost to the community of permitting the@-_
higher yield uses. These costs include:

The cost of emergency warning services;
Emergency evacuation relief to disaster victims;
Rehabilitation to damaged properties and families;
Repair of public utilities injured by-the extreme event;
Contributions to the construction of protective works required,by
the citizenry once a vulnerable' area has been occupid&a nd damaged.

All of these.raise the long-term public cost of the occupied area and
need to be estimated in order to comparethem to the gains whiah would accrue
to private property owners if they were allowed to exploit the vulnerable
area for higher uses. A California Superior Court decision (Sheffert vs.
Los Angeles County, Case No. 32487) held the county responsible for private
property damage resulting from development in a hazardous area for which
the county had issued a permit. If the courts generally adopt this opinion,
the public agencies will be forced to regulate development even more
carefully.

One effective means by which communities can guide the occupation
qf vulernable areas is in their regulation of public utilities construction
in such areas. Communities faced with sudden major potential growth
(e.g. in.response to OCS development) may find this approach particularly
useful. By designating which lands will or will not be served by public
water supply, sewer services and paved streets, they may influence the use
of the land without zoning ordinances and building permits. In the lake
plain of the Chicago metropolitan area, for example, the rule of the
Metropolitan Sanitary District in determining what areas would be serviced
by trunk sewers was effective in bringing about the land use planning
and regulation in flood vulnerable areas of the member communities.

It may be desirable to show how regulation of the use of a sand dune
area would reduce the subsequent expenditures for dune stabilization and
for beach protection in the event that a degradation in the dune vegetation
were to be permitted.

111-9

A recent study in two northwest Florida communities indicated that
there may be more public support for hazard zone regulations than had
previously been believed. Between 70-85% of the residents favored coastal
setback legislation, flood plain zoning, hurricane wind building codes,
and mobile home tie down requirements. Wind-related building codes' were
least popular. Infringement on property rights was seldom mentioned as a
reason for opposing the laws. The original survey was taken shortly after
a hurricane in thearea, but a year later-there had been no diminution of
support (Baker, 1976a).

Wherever there is discussion of the desirability of public
regulation of private land use as a means of coping with the
hazard of extreme events, a specific statement, possibly in..the
form of a scenario, shouZdbe made of the probable pubLic
effects of permitting continued development of that area. This
should include a listing of the costs that would accrue to public
agencies in providing for emergency warning, evacuation, disaster
relief, rehabilitation services, the repair of public utilities,
and ZikeZy.ZocaZ participation in the cost of eventual protective
works for the developed property. It also should include an
estimate of the degree to which the life of the community may be
dislocated by the occurrence of the extreme event-, and the likely
costs to private citizens.

3) Interactions among adjustments

Whatever the number of adjustments that seem to merit consideration
in a particular coastal location, it is important to remember that the
array of possibilities is dynamic rather than static. The suitable mix
of adjustments for a given shoreline can change as a result of two sets
of factors that are at work.

First, circumstances on the national scene may influence the costs
of and benefits from the.adjustment. These circumstances include:

Changes.in composition and density of coastal populations
(e.g., crowding toward beach locations, seasonal increases
in-numbers of residents);
Changes in technology (e.g., capacity to exploit offshore oil
resources);
Changes in public tolerance of risk (e.g., unwillingness to
accept the hazard of loss of life from occupying a house on
a site permitted by a municipal agency).

For example, OCS energy production facilities are generally designed to
operate during a wide range of extreme physical conditions, thus making
oil and gas available to onshore support and processing plants even
during periods of severe onshore hazard. This tends to encourage the
"hardening" of processing industries to withstand extreme conditions and
prolongs their operation during hazard events. For these and other reasons
the judgment of what is an appropriate choice may change. A careful
appraisal of the alternatives will help identify some of the changes that

III-10

are in progress. This would include, for example, an estimate of the
degree to which the vulnerability of an area to damage would be affected by
the continued trend in use of mobile homes as either year-round or
seasonal residences.

Each statement of the plans for management of a coastal
hazard area should include an estimate of the extent to which
the occupation of the area is likeZy-to be affected by change.@
lin population, technology, or risk tolerance.

Second, the adoption of one adjustment may encourage or hinder the
adoption of others. For example, where subsidized insurance is provided
to occupants of homes within the reach of storm surge there may be less
interest in flood proofing the structure. However, the regular insurance
program, in contrast to the emergency program, requires enactment of
land use regulations governing further invasion of the one per cent (1%)
probability zone. It has been suggested that the availability of flood
insuran'ce has encouraged banks in Rhode Island to offer mortgages for
second homes on oceanfront sites. In turn, this facilitates further
increases in the amount of investment exposed to risk from inundation,
coastal erosion and wind damage.

The Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance Association, established
in 1971 by the Texas legislature, requires insurance companies to pool
their resources and provide coverage of high wind risk areas. The insurance
premiums will hopefully be integrated with building codes, encouraging
adoption of minimum hurricane building standards. The inter-
relationships of adjustments for floods illustrated in Figure III-1 reveals
that some of the linkages are known and others are still speculative.
It should be recognized that in some cases the provision of insurance
against hazard damage may deter property owner interest in the adoption of
more rigid standards for the design of hazard resistant structures.
Organization of improved flood warnings may stimulate interest in flood
p
'fing. A similar rough matrix can be constructed for any coastal
roo
location where there are choices among adjustments.

-Tn describing the range of-possibZe adjustments to a
natu@,al hazard it is important to state the extent to which
one adjustment may be expected to affect adoption of other
adjustments.

4) Assisting in the choice

When choosing a mix of hazard adjustments, the results can be no
better than the information upon which the choice is based. One of the
types of information required is an impact estimate. Essentially this is
the projection of what consequences will follow if a certain mix of
adjustments is chosen and a certain combination of extreme events occurs.

Subject to certain additional constraints, the objective of any
natural hazard adjustment program is essentially to minimize three broad
areas of adverse effects resulting from hazard occurrence. This objective

Other Adjustment Affected

Initial Adjust ment
4
P
4?

Control and
Notection 0, 0 0 01 0
Flood- ?
Proofing 0 0 0 0

Land Use
Plann ing 0 ? 0

Warnings 0 0

Insurance 0, ? 0

Relief and
Rehabilitation 0- 0 0 0 0

Affected by the initial adjustment:

High affect

Little or no affect

Doubtful

FIGURE III-1

INTERACTIONS AMONG FLOOD ADJUSTMENTS

111-12

might be termed loss aversion. The first of these categories is the
threat to human health and safety. It is important to know the effects
@qf potential hazards in terms of loss of life, extent of injuries, and
possibly, occurrence of disease. It should be possible to estimate.the
degree to which-each of these effects will.be changed by the adoption of
each particular adjustment alternative or by mixes of adjustments.

Second, natural events cause property damages, to non-commercial aud
'private property, to commercial private property, to commercial and
industrial property, and to public property. It is important to be able
to estimate such damages, and the extent to which they might be'reduced
by the adoption of each particular adjustment alternative.

Third, natural events cause social s ur2rise and disru2tion
Estimating such effects is difficult. Indirect economic costs, such as
those due to disruption of communication and transportation networks,
are clear in principle but somewhat difficult to estimate in practice.
Some of the non-economic aspects of surprise and disruption (e.g., changes
in attitudes and, beliefs, and changes in the functioning of social
institutions) are neither clear in principle nor easy to estimate.

A statement of the choices which are available should
include an estimate of the extent and-type of loss aversion,
in terms of human health and safety, property damages, and
social surprise and disruption.

Loss aversion, although the primary objective of hazard adjustment
programs, is not the only factor which should be considered. The cost
(not necessarily monetary) of the alterna tive under consideration is'also
important, as are other impacts, or side effects, which may be positive
or negative. Chief among these in coastal zone planning is impact on
environmental quality. Hazard adjustments may improve or degrade the
natural environment. In the hurricane zone, for example, intensive use
of the area can aggravate coastal erosion, destroy dunes and beaches, and
degrade ecologically sensitive areas such as mangroves. McHarg (1969)
argues that natural processes often work to man's advantage, and that the
less those processes are disrupted the greater will be their benefits to
society. -Bulldozing of dunes interferes with the protection against storm
surge afforded by these natural features.

Other kinds of impacts can also be important. These can occur when
natural hazard adjustments also involve potential effects on scenic,
historic, cultural, and recreational areas, and upon economic development.
Such effects should be considered and appraised.

A statement of available choices should also include some
indication of whether a given choice may protect or may lead
to degradation of other environmental features. Even though
monetary estimates cannot be made of the environmental
consequences-, some,indication can be given of their likely
magnitude. Similar estimates of impacts on other coastal
resources and activities should be prepared where relevant.

111-13

Identifying and projecting the magnitude of impacts of alternative
hazard adjustments is subject to the same problems of inadequate and
conflicting information discussed previously. It is further complicated
by the human tendency to assume that the future will follow the pattern
of the past. When dealing with natural hazards, in particular, this
reliance on extrapolation can'lead to poor decisions.

Natural hazards differ from other aspects of coastal zone planning
inlone important respect; the more disastrous the event the less likely
it is to occur. This is fortunate, of course, but it complicates planning
because most people find it difficult to act on the basis of potential
events which are outside of their experience. The tendency is @7ell
illustrated by the almost total lack of consideration of earthquake
hazards in the eastern United States and a similar discounting of the
tsunami and hurricane hazards in the West. Such events are rare in these
regions, but they will occur and when they do the potential for destruction
is great.

Impact assessment should recognize and deal with the improbable but
catastrophic event. Most planning reports express impact estimates as if
only one outcome were possible. In other words, the tendency is to limit
attention to the most likely outcome and ignore other possibilities which
may carry very different consequences. This practice can lead to poor
choices in general, and to almost complete neglect of natural hazard
adjustments in particular. To avoid this mistake, planners should seek
ways of presenting and analyzing a range of possible outcomes, and of
estimating the probability of occurrence of each. One or more illustrative
possibilities may be described, and their probabilities of occurrence may
be estimated (see p. 111-7). Scenarios which portray consequences of
extreffie events are one way of doing this, although they should not then be
used arbitrarily as the basis for planning, as is the 100 year flood for
example.

There is a growing literature of scenarios which present graphically
the likely effects of an extreme event. These help in choosing one form
of,adjustment over another. Estimates of the consequences of an earthquake
in San Francisco have been presented,by several study groups (White and
Haas, 1975; Rinehart, Algermissen and Gibbons, 1976). It may be possible
to encourage local universities or government agencies to make this kind
of an estimate to demonstrate the magnitude and extent of a hazard. The
methodology is outlined in the report by Erickson (1975). An example of
this is given in the scenario for hurricanes in Miami, Florida, in
Appendix D.

One useful way of projecting the likely consequences of
choosing one adjustment over another is to prepare scenarios of
the estimated effects of the occurrence of an extreme event under
stated assumptions of the type of land use and the character of
public activities prevailing at the time the event occurs.

An adequate set of impact estimates will: 1) describe the
potential consequences of each adjustment alternative (including
taking no action), 2) describe impacts in terms of those
outcomes which are most important, and 3) reveal the probabilistic

111-14

nature of potential outcomes. The next step is to evaZuate the
various adjustment alternatives, and compare their.-estimated
immacts.

Comparing alternatives and choosing between them is a process infused
with value judgments. It is a political, as well as a technical task.
Technical imput is necessary, in a form which will facilitate an
enlightened political choice. In this res 'pect, there are several methods
for presenting impact estimates which may make them more meaningful and
useful to those who must choose. Such methods as benefit-cost, cost-
effectiveness, and balanced impact analyses are well known. (See Howe,
1971 for a description of the methodology.) All are designed to facilitate
comparison between alternatives.

Benefit-cost analysis originated in part in the evaluation of such
Federal natural hazard adjustments as flood control, coastal erosion control
and hurricane protection. It solves the problem of incomparability of
impact estim4tes (non-commensurability, in technical terms) by assigning
market@determined monetary valuation to dissimilar impacts. For the many
impacts which are not market-valued, some technique must be used to construct
monetary values or other bases for comparison. Benefit-cost analysis
substitutes market valuation for political valuation, and for this reason
may be inappropriate. Finally, benefit-cost analysis works best for
capital investrent projects, and tends to be less useful where investment
is not a major aspect, as in land use regulation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis'is, easier to perform, but is more limited
in its value premises, and more limited in application as well. It consists
of a comparison of the monetary costs of accomplishing a given objective
by alternative means. Non-monetary costs are not considered and neither are
the many impacts (side effects) produced in addition to attainment of the
single objective Tike benefit-cost analysis, it is difficult to Use in
comparing such adjustments as land use controls, whose direct costs are
minor considerations.

Balanced iMDact analysis attempts to make an event which is outside
of normal exDerience easier to visualize and appreciate by constructing
an analogy with a ipore cormon event with similar consequences. For example,
the risks from a hurricane landfall may be compared with those of driving
an automobile. One major problem with such an alysis is that it
requires a consistent-data base, which generally is not available.

Each of these analytical devices, however limited and imperfect, should
be used, where appropriate, in coastal zone planning to encourage and
facilitate the comparison of alternatives. Their purpose is to make impact
estimates more useful in that context. What is important is not the
particular form of analysis employed, but the existence of a critical and
comparative Perspective on the part of both technical planners and decision
makers.

An@y discussion of natural hazards adjustment options should
include an outline of the major trade-offs which the community
will experience in choosing one option over another.

111-15
I

Much of the traditional benefit-cost analysis deals with aggregates
for the nation, a region, or a locality. It does not separate out the
effects as they fall upon specified groups in the nation or community.
The continuum of effects may extend from death to increased taxation
(see Figure 111-2). In recent years distributional effects have commanded
greater public attention, and efforts have been made-to show who gains from,
and who pays for a given investment or regulatory program (Cochrane, 1975).
The differences in effect of three types of extreme events are shown'in
Figure 111-3. This does not reflect the distribution of total costs,
including cost of.public improvements. Depending upon public fiscal policy,
there is no direct correlation between the benefits received and the costs
paid.

A statement of the choices which are available should include
an estimate of the likely distribution of the major costs and
benefits among different sectors of the community and among the
FederaZ, state and local beneficiaries.

Planning for natural hazard adjustment in the coastal zone is undertaken
within a climate of uncertainty, as discussed in previous sections. To
date,.a common but unfortunate way of dealing with this uncertainty has been
to ignore it. Although recognition of uncertainty is necessary, it is not
sufficient. Something must be done about it as well.

One basic decision-making strategy is to preserve as much flexibility
as possible, so that if better information becomes available, or conditions
change in the future, desirable courses of action have not been foreclosed.
The adoption of such a strategy would place greater emphasis upon
identifying and avoiding irreversible choices when evaluating alternative
adjustments. For example, some adjustments might produce ecological
changes which could not be reversed. Others may produce social changes
which would be practically irreversible.

A policy to consider in presenting the choices open to
communities along the coast is to identify the options which
maintain maximum flexibility so as to avoid taking action
which would lead to irreversible changes with adverse social
or environmental consequences.

C. improving Citizen_Participation

Public participation is expected throughout the process of delineating,
determining permissible use of and planning suitable management for
vulnerable areas. The extent and nature of the participation is affected
by the format in which information about hazards and the recurrence of
extreme events is made available, the networks of citizen groups through
which the information is disseminated, and the role which is assigned to
citizen organizations in reviewing the scientific information and the
administrative options. A troublesome aspect of these efforts is the ability
to distinguish arousing awareness of a natural hazard from providing a
sense of efficacy to deal with the extreme event before or when it occurs.

111-16

FIGURE III@2

IMPACT OF DISASTER: A CONTINUUM OF EFFECTS

106- Direct Effects of the Event

................ ...
......... ...............................
.......... ...............................

.................
:09API'
.. ................................
............... ...........................
... .............................
......... ...........................
5
10
.....................

......................
.................
:::::::::x::::::.INJU E
................
.............. ................ .
%........................
... ................
............ . .. ........
. . .................. ..............
....... ...................... ..............
....... V..
..........
........ ...
4
* %
10 ...... DISLOCATED:
1A Transferral of Effects Through
..............................
tA Social and Economic Linkages
tA

............... ...
DAMA ED*..
E ...........
.............. 0.......
.......................................
....... ................
3
10 ...........
Indirect Response
.......... w ......................

............
.. ...........................
L) .......DISTURBEQ*.:..
z 2
CL 10
....................................
...........
......... .......
x..... :::DONORS:'*
....................
:: ..*.....6.... .............
...................
......... . .......
...........
..................... ........
.... .........
TAX M.%...
10 ... ....... ...................
........... .........
........ ....

103 104 105 106 107 101

Population Affected
(Number of Persons)
(adapted -from. Bowden atid;'K'ate@:', 1974)

111-17

BOULDER LUBBOCK SAN FRANCISCO
106 WIND (12D MPH) TORNADO EARTHQUAKE(8.3)
dead dead (F5) dead
105 - injured
0 dislocated
13 104 dislocated
-J dislocated damaged
ad Injured
damaged
0 103
L) disturbed
disturbed
CL
102 Injured d isturbed donors
damaged
101 - donors
donors taxed

100 -

taxe
10a 101 102 W 104 105 106 107 '10S

Population Affected

FIGURE 111-3

IMPACT OF DISASTER FROM WIYD, TORNADO AND
ANTICIPATED EARTHQUAKE (Cochrane, 1975)

111-18

1) Awareness and efficacy

Making citizen groups aware of the hazard of a natural bvent does
not necessarily lead to any positive action in coping with the hazard.
It is always equally important for both thecitizens and the responsible
public agencies to be aware of the efficacy of some action which they can
take in coping with the situation. Where people feel there is little
that they can do to cope with a threat they may resort to denying its'
existence or to claiming that it is of relatively little importance.
Their response to.threats to life may be different from threats to
property.

With any statement of the existence of a hazard, it is desirable to
find ways of associating an outline of the kinds of practical action that
may be taken in responding to it. For example, people who receive a
warning of a flash flood or of an impending hurricane or storm surge will
be more likely to take action if the warning includes specific suggestions
of how they may be effective in the emergency or indication of what happens
when they take action.

The California Division of Emergency Services has a series of radio
and TV broadcasts which indicate the kinds of effective actions that
can be taken upon feeling the first tremors of an earthquake. These are
emergency actions, but they can be linked, with benefit, to discussions
of land use in the hazard areas,and steps which can be taken in building
design or other channels to reduce vulnerability to losses.

A erever practicable a description of a vuZnerabZe area
should be linked with information about the avaitabiZity of
warning systems. This helps to remind the citizens
concerned of the reality of the threat.

It is desirable to associate a statement about vuZner-
ability to a natural hazard with outlines of the kinds of
responses which people can make to the hazard when they recognize
its full dimension. This would include information about the
avaiZabiZity of flood or earthquake insurance, or of steps which
could be taken upon experiencing an earthquake.

2) Modes of disseminating,hazard information

There is a large and rapidly growing body of information and
avenues available for disseminating information about hazards and ways
of coping with them. It has been common to disseminate this information
primarily through maps and brochures published by responsible agencies.
Major producers of these are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, and
the Federal Insurance Administration. Each is prepared to pass on the
information upon request (see Section VI for names and addresses). A
state agency can get the technical information from the agencies by.
special inquiry or arrangement.

111-19

There are, however, other networks which may be used to good
advantage. One example is the Texas Coastal and Marine Resources Council
which disseminates its own set of maps and brochures for distribution to
interested,citizens and citizen groups. The targets of such information
should include individuals or non-government-agencies concerned with
decisions about land use management. Quite aside from property owners
-or tenants of properties, examples of groups which should be involved are:

Local and state associations of land appraisers;
Mortgage officers;
Savings and loan officials;
Officers of consumer safety agencies;
Officers of consumer protection groups:
Public school curriculum supervisors;
Radio and TV stations;
Newspapers;
Defense Civil Preparedness Agency and local Civil Defense officials;
Environmental quality organizations;
Architects.and building design engineers;
Legal advisors to land use planning;
Associations of city and county building officials,;
Local chapter of property insurance insurors;
Public utility companies;
Labor organizations;
Industriallplants maintaining in-plant information services.

Placing information.about the hazard in the hands of citizens does
nIot necessarily guarantee constructive public action. It is important to:

1) Select networks of citizens who are in a position to make
decisions about permissible uses and sites, and

2) Suggest the range of potentially effective actions available
to them.

In planning for the dissemination of information about hazards it is
desirable to analyze the principal groups which have some role.Jn making
decisions-about future use of the hazard area, and messages .'should.be,
designed to be used specifically by those groups.

Inquiries should be made to ascertain which channels of
information about a hazard have higher credibility in the view
of people for whom the information is designed. Thus, in areas
,where citizen organizations or volunteer groups are more credible
than representatives of Federal and state agencies, it may be
desirable to enlist their participation and service in
contributing and disseminating information and providing for a
critical review of statements prepared for the public.

A large proportion of populations in some hazard areas are new
arrivals and lack experience with extreme events of infrequent occurrence.
One of the classic cases is that of the population of areas subject to

111-20

infrequent hurricane winds and storm surges along the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts. The accompanying Figure 111-4 illustrates, for a sample county
in New Jersey, the proportion of population which has moved into the
area since.the most recent destructive hurricane. The increases are
accounted for by normal growth and by in-migration from areas free of
hurricanes.

In preparsng plans for dissemination of information about
hazards it is important to design the presentation of the
evidence so that it will be intelligible to both the experienced
population and to the newcomers without that experience.

3) Methods of presenting the o tions and choice
_p

The more common and formal methods of involving citizens in Federal
planning, construction, and management in coastal areas, as encouraged
by the Act, are hearings on proposed projects for construction or
acquisition. These include projects for Federal contributions for beach
erosion control, protection works against hurricane storm surge, and
acquisition of property for national parks and seashore.

The Corps of Engineers has experimented with method3 of holding such
hearings more than most other agencies. Some of their methods and
experience deserve consideration, particularly where a vigorous effort
has been made to involve local groups (Institute of Water Resources, 1975).
In addition to the conventional type of formal hearing in which a draft
report or statement of project investigation is circulated and in which
public officials and citizens are invited to make public statements,
there is opportunity to a) organize special discussion groups, b)
circulate background material for consideration by informal groups in
the community, and c) conduct polls of preferences, and the like. The
relative effectiveness of these various measures is not well established.
There is some reason to believe that a properly organized hearing may
yield as representative a view of local interests as the other devices.
A less conventional mode of community review does not necessarily lead
to different expression of views or to a different decision on the part of
the community than would have come from a standard type of hearing
(Heberlei-n, 1975).

Studies of citizen response to plans for beach erosion management
along the eastern seaboard indicate that a relatively small number of
citizens in the affected communities took part, but of those who did,
the most clearly concerned were the local commercial merchant community
and the year-round residents as noted in Section II.

it is important to identify and evaluate the various media
and channels that can be used to present options and choice-to
public groups. Whether or not the hearings mechanism, in contrast
to discussion groups, conferences, or individual communications,
is more effective depends upon local circumstances. It should
not be assumed that a public hearing is the most effective means,
but neither should it be dismissed without a careful examination
of the other alternatives and their relative cost.dnd efficiency.

111-21

Figure 111-4

POPULATION GROWTH IN A NEW JERSEY COASTAL COUNTY,
AND HURRICANE OCCURRENCE, 190.0-1970

OCEAN COUNTY., NJ

800

700

Cd 500

49
4-J
%-@ 400

300

P4 200

100

0
A A
0 0 .1 0 0 1 C) C 0 C)
C4 I CY) V) Ca 110 r- 00
oll M 1 01% M ON
1-4 r-q

NOTE:

Direct Hit by a Category 1 Hurricane
(1) winds from 74-95 mph, storm surge 4-5' above normal

Indirect Hit by a Category 2 Hurricane
(2) = winds from 96-110 mph, storm surge 6-8' above normal
CNJ
Indirect Hit by a Category 3 Hurricane
(3) = winds from 111-130 mph, storm surge 9-12' above normal

111-22

D. Organization and Coordination

After a hazard zone has been delineated in some fashion and the likely
social impacts of a possible set of adjustments have been es-timated, the
task is to select suitable management tools. This involves economic,
administrative, and@ legal questions. The legal questions arising in
@coastal areas are reviewed in Appendix B. Among the key issues are those
relating to public acquisition of land and water rights, land regulation
for health, safety, and welfare, and wetlands protection. The principal
problems involved at this stage of coastal zone management are encouraging
the organization of appropriate state and local agencies, coordinating
land and water.:management with emergency planning for disasters, and
coordinating the work with other Federal programs.

1) Encoura@e organization of appropriate state or local agencies

In a number of coastal situations it is unlikely that any adjustments
to hazard, such as cooperative activity in stabilization of dune areas,
will take place unless there is appropriate local organization of agencies
with authority to assess taxes and to make expenditures for those purposes.
They may carry the danger of splintering and'duplicating existing agency
programs. For these reasons, a basic step in outlining the options which
are open to a community may be to describe'the legislative or judicial
measures which would be necessary to organize a local district, and the
grounds on which they could be justified in going through the appropriate
state and county procedures. Regional Councils of Governments may be one
instrument for making this type of review.

Descriptions of proposed changes in the mix of adjustments
to hazard should assess the need for organization of state or
local agencies with the necessary powers to promote the new work.

2) Coordination with emergency planning for disasters

Every state in the coastal zone has a state organization which is
responsible for preparing disaster preparedness plans. (See list in
Section VI.) These plans include not only the marshalling of emergency
services,'but also the organization of measures to mitigate the prospective
disaster and to guide the activities of rehabilitation and reconstruction
to promote later mitigation and preparedness.

Under Section 201 of the Disaster Preparedness Act of 1974 specific
authorization is given to the Administrator of the Federal Disaster
Assistance Administration (FDAA) to support studies in each of the states
applying for such help, to the extent,of $250,000, for the preparation of
disaster preparedness plans, including steps for the mitigation of potential
disasters. The wording of the Act is as follows:

SEC. 201. (a) The President is authorized to
establish a program of disaster preparedness that
utilizes services of all appropriate agencies
(including the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency)
and includes-

111-23

(1) preparation of disaster preparedness plans
for mitigation, warning, emergency operations,
rehabilitation, and recovery;
(2) training and exercises;
(3) postdisaster critiques and evaluations;
(4) annual review of programs;
(5) coordination of Federal, State, and local
preparecines's programs.
(6) application of science and technology;
(7) research
(b) The President shall provide technical
assistance to the States in developing comprehensive
plans and practicable programs for preparation
against'disasters, including hazard reduction,
,avoidance, and mitigation; for assistance to
individuals, businesses, and State and local
governments following such disasters; and for
recovery of damaged or destroyed public and private
facilities.
(c) Upon application by a State, the President
is authorized to make grants, not to exceed in the
aggregate to such State $250,000, for the'development
of plans, programs, and capabilities for disaster
preparedness and prevention. Such grants shall be
applied for within one year from the date of enactment
of this Act. Any State desiring financial assistance
under this section shall designate or create an
agency to plan and administer such a disaster
preparedness program, and shall, through such
agency, submit a State plan to the President, which
shall--
(1) set forth a comprehensive and detailed State
program for preparation against and assistance following
emergencies and major disasters, including.provisions
for assistance to individuals, businesses, and local
governments; and
(2) include provisions for appointment and
training of appropriate staffs, formulation of
necessary regulations and procedures, and conduct
of required exercises.
(d) The President is authorized to make grants
not to exceed 50 per centum of the cost of improving,
maintaining and updating State disaster assistance
plans, except that no such grant shall exceed $25,000
per annum to any State.

As of September, 1976, all but one state had applied for and received
funds for these studies and were in various degrees of execution.

Although the current Section 201 of planning is focused primarily
on preparedness for response to disaster in accordance with policy
instructions from the FDAA, the mechanism which has been established
is intended to deal with mitigation, and must in the long term take
account of possible measures to prevent rather than act in the trail

111-24

of natural disaster. For this reason, the State emergency services
agencies have the possibility of supporting and collaborating with
efforts of management of hazards in coastal areas. Their state
emergency plans may call the attention of state agencies and local
communities to areas of,.special vulnerability. Their technical services
may sharpen the work of'local agencies in preparing to deal with a likely
disaster. One way of focusing the the interest of local citizen groups
and officials on the existence of a natural hazard and.possible ways of
coping with it is to identify a specific area as a potential disaster area
and to suggest the emergency measures that will be necessary when the
disaster occurs. This may promote public awareness and indicate the lines
along which mitigation measures might ultimately move.

Most states have legislation, based upon the Council of State
Government's model State Disaster Act, which specifies emergency powers
and may go further in disaster mitigation. Thus, the Texas Disaster Act
of 1975, modeled after the Council's, shifted the state policy toward
minimizing and preventing damages. However, due to a desire to not infringe
on local governments,.many actions are only suggested; local politics
may hinder the Act's effectiveness.

The Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (DCPA) of the Department of
Defense is primarily responsible for civilian response to a nuclear
attack, but it is also concerned secondarily with the effects of natural
disaster. It could be useful in disseminating information about the
threat from and preparedness for such events.

Wherever the hazard of extreme natural events carries.the
likelihood of severe damage to life or property, arrangements
should be made with the state emergency services agency for
designation of the area likely to be involved, and for the
preparation of plans for emergency action if and when the event
occurs. _Tn some areas it may be necessary to call the
vulnerable zone to the attention of the state emergency services
agency while in other areas it may be sufficient to recognize
that the emer ency plans already have been drawn.
9

In dealing with areas of high vulnerability to extreme natural events
it should be recognized that the organization of a warning service and
the training of people to participate in evacuation or other activities
in response to warnings is one practical method of alerting the population
to the risk which they are running and to the severity of possible
disruption when an event occurs. A coastal zone management office may
be strengthened when the state emergency agency designs and repeats
disaster warnings and evacuation operations, and trains personnel in
agencies and citizen groups to respond to them.

Unless there is a preliminary plan for land use development at the
time that an extreme event occurs, long-term rehabilitation is not likely
to follow a pattern radically different from that which prevailed before
the disaster. The typical experience (as exemplified by the City of
Anchorage, Alaska following the 1964 earthquake) is that the town
rebuilds in the same location. However, in the case of Rapid City,

111-25

South Dakota, following the flood of 1972, large scale methods of
rehabilitation were achieved in considerable measure because the city
had alr6ady undertaken a plan for redevelopment of the flood plain area
which Nid long been known to carry the seeds of disaster.

The success of Hilo, Hawaii in adopting open space uses after the
.1960 tsunami may be attributed to a high level of awareness of the hazard,
relatively frequent tsunami occurrence in-the.area, strong state and
Pederalileadership, development of a comprehensive reconstruction plan,
availability-of undeveloped public lands for the relocations and
availability of Federal funds (especially urban renewal) (see Marx, 19-74).

3) Coordination with r.elated Federal 2rograms

InIcoastal areas with a relatively high risk from extreme natural
..events, it may be helpful in advancing a program of land and water use
management to call to the attention of interested Federal agencies the
,Ways in@which this vulnerability relates to their long-term missions.
Some of-the direct linkages which may be taken into account in preparing
.land and water management plans arpthose which relate to the occupational.
safety And health activities of the Federal government, the executive
policy 'With respect to occupation of flood hazard areas, and the appraisal
of hazards related to energy power installations.

Under the terms of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the
Federal administration has responsibility for overseeing the location,
design and operation of industrial enterprises insofar as they carry the
possibility of exposing workers to occupational hazards. As of 1976 the
OSHA administration had paid relatively little attention to the implications
of loca@ion of new industrial sites in areas of natural hazard, but this
may be regarded as a responsibility which will be examined with more care
After O@HA copes with the more direct questionsof accident prevention
within industrial plants.

One aspect of the problem with which OSHA already has begun to deal
is that,of the appropriate design of mobile homes which are highly subject
to damage from high winds, storm surge, and floods. Where.mobile homes
are a significant part of the residential use of a hazardous area it may
be desirable to request that OSHA give consideration to the regulations
Affecting the design, anchorage and installation of new units.

For each area vulnerable to extreme natural events in
which economic development is in prospect a description of
the hazard should be presented to the regionaZ Office of OSHA.

Executive Order 11296 requires all Federal agencies responsible for
construction or administration of grant, loan, or mortgage insurance
programs,to give-attention to the possibility of damage from fresh
water flooding in the construction, installation and modification of
Federal facilities in flood plains. 'The order reads as follows:

111-26

Executive Order 11296

EVALUATION OF FLOOD-HAZARD IN LOCATING FEDERALLY OWNED
OR FINANCED BUILDINGS, ROADS, AND OTHER FACILITIES, AND
IN DISPOSING OF FEDERAL LANDS AND PROPERTIES

WHEREAS uneconomic uses of the Nation's flood plains are
occurring and potential flood losses are increasing despite
substantial efforts to control floods; and
WHEREAS national and regional studies of areas and property
subject to flooding indicate a further increase in flood
damage potential and flood losses, .even with continuing
investment in flood protection structures; and
WHEREAS the Federal Government has extensive and continuing
programs for the construction of buildings, roads, and other
facilities and annually disposes of thousands of acres of
Federal lands in flood hazard areas, all of which activities
significantly influence patterns of commercial, residential,
and industrial development; and
WHEREAS the availability of Federal loans and mortgage
insurance and land use planning programs are determining
factors in the utilization of lands:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me
as President of the United States it is hereby ordered as
follows:

Section 1. The heads of the executive agencies shall provide
leadership in encouraging a broad and unified effort to
prevent uneconomic uses and development of the Nations's flood
plains and, in particular, to lessen the risk of flood losses
in connection with Federal lands and installations and
federally financed or supported improvements. Specifically:
(1) All executive agencies directly responsible for the
construction of Federal buildings, structures, roads, or
other facilities shall evaluate flood hazards when planning
the location of new facilities and, as far as practicable,
shall preclude the uneconomic, hazardous, or unnecessary
use of flood plains in connection with such facilities.
With respect to existing Federally owned properties which
have suffered flood damage or which may be subject thereto,
the responsible agency head shall require conspicuous
delineation of past and probable flood heights so as to
assist in creating public awareness of and knowledge about
flood hazards. Whenever practical and economically feasible,
flood proofing measures shall be applied to existing facilities
in order to reduce flood damage potential.
(2) All executive agencies responsible for the administration
of Federal grant, loan, or mortgage insurance programs
involving the construction of buildings, structures, roads, or
other facilities shall evaluate flood hazards in connection
with such facilities and, in@order td minimize the exposure

111-27

of facilities to potential flood damage and the need for
'future Federal expenditures for flood protection and flood
disaster relief, shall, as far as practicable, preclude
'the uneconomic, hazardous,.or-unnecessary use of flood
@lains in such connection.
1 (3) All executive agencies responsible for the disposal
of Federal lands or properties shall evaluate flood hazards
in connection with lands or properties proposed for disposal
to non-Federal public instrumentalities or private interests
4nd, as may be desirable in order to minimize future Federal
pxpenditures for flood protection afid flood disaster relief
'and as far as practicable, shall attach appropriate
restrictions with respect to uses of the lands or properties
by the purchaser and his successors and may withhold such
lands or properties from disposal. In carrying out this
Paragraph, each executive agency may make appropriate allowance
for any estimated loss in sales price resulting from the
incorporation of use restrictions in the disposal documents.
(4) All executive agencies responsible for programs which
entail land use planning shall take flood hazards into
account when evaluating plans and shall encourage land use
appropriate to the degree of hazard involved.
'Sec. 2. As may be permitted by law, the head of each
executive agency shall issue appropriate rules and
regulations to govern the carrying out of the provisions
of Section 1 of this order by his agency.
Sec. 3. Requests for flood hazard information may be
addressed to the Secretary of the Army or, in the case of
lands lying in the basin of the Tennessee River, to the
Tennessee Valley Authority. The Secretary or the Tennessee
Valley Authority shall provide such information as may be
available, including requested guidance on flood proofing.
The Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior,
Department of Commerce, Department of Housing and Urban
,Development, and Office of Emergency Planning, and any
other executive agency which may have information and data
r6lating to floods shall cooperate with the Secretary of the
Ai-my in providing such information and in developing
procedures to process information requests.. I
-Sec. 4. Any requests for appropriations for Federal
construction of new buildings, structures, roads, or other
f4cilities transmitted to the Bureau of the Budget by an
executive agency shall be accompanied by a statement by
the head of the agency on the findings of his agency's
evaluation and consideration of flood hazards in the
development of such requests.
Sec. 5., As used in this order, the term "executive
agency@.' includes any department, establishment, corporation,
or other organizational entity-of the executive branch of
th e Government.

111-28

Sec. 6. The executive agencies shall proceed immediately
to develop such procedures, regulations, and information as
are provided for in, or may be necessary to carry out, the
provisions of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this'order. In other
respects this order shall take effect on January 1, 1967.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

THE WHITE HOUSE
August 10, 1966
(F.R. Doc. 66-8838; Filed, Aug. 10, 1966; 12:14 p.m.)

A proposed revision of the order was under consideration in November, 1976.

A report from the General Accounting Office regarding national
attempts to reduce flood losses,(GAO, 1975) indicated that Federal
agencies have been less than diligent in some cases in complying with
the order.

Wherever there is prospect of FederaZ investment in a
fZood hazard area, the attention of the responsibZe Federaz
agency shouLd be calZed to the provisions of Executive Order.
ZZ296 and a request shouZd be made that it make an expZicit
statement of the way in which it has compZied with the order.

Decisions involving the cpnstruciton, expansion, or operation of
coastal energy facilities whether for exploration, development, production,
conversion, storage or transportation, require that the potential risk
to such facilities from natural hazards be evaluated. A detailed
statistical analysis of the potential risk to nuclear power plants from
technological accidents, nuclear accidents, and'natural hazards, was
published in 1975 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Safety
Study (NRC, 1975).

Whenever there is the possibiZity of energy faoiZity
deveZopment within the coastaZ area an assessment of potentiaZ
impact from naturaZ hazards shouLd be made.

Other linkages with the programs of Federal agencies may be
developed. These three examples are not intended to be a complete
listing-of the opportunities.

The net effect of the recommendations presented in this Section is
to focus attention upon the role of natural hazards in arriving at
decisions about the use of coastal areas. State management efforts may
contribute to wiser adjustments to the risk of extreme events. In
turn, realistic appraisal of hazards and ways of dealing with them may
strengthen the programs to manage the nationIs coasts.

111-29

REFERENCES

Baker', E.J., 'A Longitudinal Assessment of Attitudes toward Hazard
Zonelegulations. Technical Paper No. 2, Tallahassee: Florida
Resources & Environmental Analysis Center, Florida State University,
1976. C,

Bakeri E.J., "Some Problems in Evaluating-Land Use Policy Alternatives,"
Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers, 7, 32-36, 1975.

Baker, E.J., Toward an Evaluation of E21icy Alternatives Governing
Hazara-ZoneLand Uses. Natural Hazard Research Working Paper 28,
Boulder: University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, 1976.

Barlowe, Raleigh, Land. Resource Economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Bowdeji, M.J. and R.W. Kates, "The Coming San Francisco Earthquake:
After the Disaster" in Cochrane, et-al., Social Science.Perspectives
on thi@ Coming San Francisco Earthquake. Natural Hazard Working Paper
25, B6ulder: University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, 1974.

Brown, et 41., Natural Hazards of the Texas Coastal Zone. Bureau of
Econothic Geology, Austin: University of Texas, 1974.

CochrAne, H., Natural Hazards and Their Distributive Effects. Bouldier:
University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, 1975.

Ericksen, Neil, Scenario Methodology in Natural Hazards Research.
Boulder: University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, 1975.

Heberlein, Thomas, Principles of Public Involvement. Prepared for the
National Park Service, U.S. Department 6f Interior, 1975.

Hebert, Paul J. and Glenn TaylorP Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal
County Populations-Texas to Maine. U.S.'Department of Commerce, HOAA,
NWS, July, 1975.

Hill, M., "A Goals-Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans,"
Journal.of the American Institute of Planners, 34, 19-29, 1968.

Howe, C., Benefit-Cost Analysi for Water System Planning. A.G.U.
Water;Resources Monograph #2, American Geophysical Union, Washington, 1971.

Marx, Wesley, "Graceful Retreat from the Battering Ram of Hilo's Tsunamis,".
Landscape Architecture 64, 153-158, April, 1974.

Mathewson, C.C. and D. P. Piper, "Mapping the Physical Environment in'
Econmic Terms," Geology, November, 627-629, 1975.

McHar$, I., Design with Nature. Garden City, NY,.- Doubleday/Natural
History Press, 1969.

Nu,[email protected],ssion, Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of
Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. Main Report,
U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS, PB 248 201, October, 1975.

111-30

Rinehart, W., S.T..Algermissen and Mary Gibbons, Estimation.of Earthquake
Losses.to Single Family Dwellings. U.S. Department of Inter
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 76-156.

U.S. General Accounting Office, National AtteE2ts to Reduce Losses From
Floods by PlanningFor and Controlling the Uses of Flood-Prone Lands.
Comptroller General of the U.S. Washington, March 7, 1975.
U.S. Institute of Water Resources, Struct@rihk Comunications Programs
for Public Participatio n in Water Resources Planning. U.S. Army
Engineer Institute for.Water Resources,Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, 1975.

White, Gilbert F. and J. Eugene Haas, Assessment of Research on Natural
Hazards. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1975.

111-31

SECTION IV

HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE

COASTAL STATES

IV. HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE COASTAL STATES

No state has thus.far explored and tested the whole range of
legislative and admiLstrative measures available for managing hazards
along its coast. Some.states are far ahead in experimenting with con-
trol through land-use tools. Others are beginning to appraise the 6ptions
open to them.

A summary review of the current management in each of the states
serves two major purposes:

1. Agencies and interested groups in each state can check
to see whether or not their appraisal of the occurrence, extent
and threat of each type of hazard is similar to that of national
and scientific observers.

.2. They can learn whether or not other states are carrying
on activities which might be.applied with benefit along their
own coast.

This will help put the individual state's conditions in national
perspective. And it will point out lessons which may be learned from
others.

The current hazard management activities in the 30 coastal states
are summa rized in tabular and text form in this section. The section
does not pretend to be a complete and comprehensive report on all
activities now underway. Nor does it describe in detail the status of
hazard adjustment in each of the states. It does offer a succinct and
brief review of what is known about the existence of hazard from extreme
events along the coast, and an outline of the ways in which Federal,
state and local agencies cope with these hazards. The text reviews the
situation state by state and is supported by a table which gives more
details and reference to publications of special significance to that
state.

The reader wishing to obtain an overview of the natural
hazards situation in the coastal zone of any one of the states
is encouraged 1) to read the text; 2) to examine the tabular material;
3) to go to the more detailed sets of information in the references.

Some of the references are included in the annotated bibliography,
principally those with broader applicability to national conditions.

It is possible to extract from the text and accompanying tables
an overview of:

Location of Vulnerable Areas - Which sections or types of coast
are estimated in national surveys to be prone to each type of
extreme event.

Character and Frequency of Extreme Events - Readily available
information pertaining to times and magnitude of occurrence
of each type of extreme event.

IV-1

Effects !@iimmary of available data on social and environmental
consequences of past events.

Future uscevti@ility - Estimates of prospects for f .uture damages,
including trends in amount and type of social effects.

kesponsibld Agencies - Brief reference to major agencie's at the
national, state, and local levels exercising responsibility for
some aspect of hazard-management in the coastal zone.

Legis,lative,Authorities - Institutional Arrangements - The chief
authorities under which these agencies act, and the insti-
tutional arrangements they maintain.
Administrative Regul@tions and Policies - Comments on the regulations
and policies which are followed by these agencies as they apply
to coastal hazards problems.

Wherever appropriate a reference is made to sources of information and
estimates.

IV-2

ALABAMA

There are 607 miles of tidal shoreline in the Alabama coastal zone
(U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971)* The Gulf of Mexico coastline includes
46 miles of sandy beach; bays and estuaries comprise the remaining.
561,miles.

The Alabama coastal zone is subject to hurricanes, coastal erosion
and coastal flooding.

Although a major hurricane has not hit the area directly since 1976,
the annual probability for a hurricane along parts of the Alabama coast
has been estimated to be quite high, at thirteen per cent (13%) (Simpson
and LawrenceY 1971). Hurricanes generally cause serious storm surge
and high wind conditions which in turn may cause coastal flooding and
erosion. In those coastal areas which are currently experiencing popu-
lation growth and increased development, erosion, accretion and,sedimen-
tation may pose a menace.

Flooding is another natural hazard of concern in the Alabama coastal,
zone. Such flooding may be the result of storm surge conditions during
precipitation associated with storm or hurricane systems.

Table IV-1 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Alabama
coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards,
and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those
coping measures.

The heart of natural hazard management in the Alabama coastal zone
lies within the Coastal Zone Development Act of 1976 which assigns the
Coastal Area Board to develop a comprehensive plan for management of
the coastal zone.

Although the Coastal Zone Development Act charges the Coastal
Area Board with developing a permitting program for Areas of PArticular
Concern, the law does not specify criteria for designation, and the
Board has not yet developed the standards.

Excessive erosion areas will probably be included in the Areas
of Particular Concern, but presently the main adjustment is structural.

Shoreline figures include: shoreline of outer coast, offshore islands,
sounds, bays, rivers and creeks to head of tidewater or to a point when
tidal waters narrow to a width of 100 feet. These figures conform to
NOAA's definition of "Tidal Shoreline" (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 19A).

IV-3

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN rNK ALAAAMA COASTAL ZONE

LOCATION or CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULARRABLE OF zx@ sym s SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSITTUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
ARRA

?5ntize coast 6-132 probability of Accelerated erosion, 63.82 population U@S. Army Corp. of Construttlon of at.- -g. U., C.S. See. 70, a-l' n' (1960),
ffwzz@fcana vulnerable, hurricane offset@ in my flooding, mind, increase since Engineer. protection structures. as amended, (Sapp, 1975).
year . O-lZ probability of a storm surge, tormeAnas last major
grant hurricane landfall. Potential for hurricane. See National Weather Collects & disseminate. metear-
Sea Ref. 41 substantial Loss of Ref. 13 Service (NOAA) ologicAl information. Issues
life 6 property, Inexperience, of hurricane earnings.
especially 1. Mobile Population -Y
12 probability of a 13 ft. A Dauphin Island areas hinder evaduatina. National Hurricane Issues warig., disseminates
at.- surge 1. Mobile. Increasing Center (NOW hurricane information.
Sea R.I. 41 development of
hazard are. add. Alabams, Dept. of Draft & maintain a rate disaster
190 1974 - 7 b.rri- to -Instability. Civil Defense preparedness plan; coordinate local
3 = great hurricane.. disaster plans.
Sea Ref. 13

Major -.at.: 1906, 1916,
1917, 1926.

92 critically Chronic but accelerated by Damages beaches, Could be major U.S. Army Corp. of [email protected] c ... -I problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 .-1, n, a (1960),
C a.t.1 r.ding, 32Z to-. protective -ks, problem, Eaglet- & to_ crael erosion control .9 amended, (Supp. 1975).
E-I- -titit.1 buildings, roads, especially - st@ucturas.
erosion, 59% etc. Dauphin Island.
stable. See Sedimentation & island Coastal Area Board Board given responsibility to 'C ... t.1 Zone Development Act (1976).
Ra 1. 55 migration may cause develop, con,di,ate A maintain
Eap't Lally navigation hazards. coastal area program.
vulnerable:
Dauphin Island U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
& parts of I ... r-.e federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
Mobile Bay. Administration from accelerated erosion,

Poorly d aistd Flooding caused by Generally slight Slowly ia.r ... Lag U.S. Army Corp. of Study coastal fl '.S. - "'1 (1960)'
r c.1 are -ad P 'b' U-%. d, ( PP. 1975).
Coastal coastal are- hurricane & 1 me. damage. with development Engineer. & construct flood control strupturs.. a ada"' So
planing High rainfall causes I. flood plain.
He cral flooding an the U.S. Federal Administer NFLA & Flood Disaster Sea Rf. ?I
-rag, once every 10 years. 1-ranc. Protection Program.
Localized flooding occurs Administration.
several time. . year. Sea
R.I. 56 Alabama Development 'Principal planning agency of the Distzibutes HUD planning funds,
Not a major problem, a Offi.. star'. Office of Coastal Zone Management
- pt foods, offers technical assistance
in poorly drained areas. to local governments In zoning,
Tombigbee River - 9 major flood insurance program.
floods 1900-1952. Be.
Ref. 15 County Commissions Adopt comprehensive management 6
use programs for flood-prose areas
in unincorporated territory.

U.S. Geological Prepare flood-pron, area maps.
Survey

County Flood Insurance For unincorporazed flond-proza area.;
Pz.gz. Coordinato@ adopt land use A control measures.
subdivision regulation, building
codes, & zoning measures to
fload insurance available
procided by the NFIA of 1968.

Alabama Dept. of Assi.t local goascomert. I.
Civil Defense emergency and disaster situations.

Coastal Area Board Board given responsibility to Coastal Zone Development Act (1976).
develop' coordinate, & maintain
coastal area prog-

ALASKA

With 33,904 miles of coastline (more than 4,000 of open beach) (U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, 1971), Alaska faces a set of coastal hazards unmatched
both in intensity and number elsewhere in the United States.,

The Alaskan coastline is rimmed by some of the stormiest seas in the
world. Mountains rise directly from tidewater throughout much of southern
Alaska, so that hazards of the Alpine environment merge with hazards of
the coastal zone. The southcentral coastal region and the Aleutian Chain
are in one of the highest seismic risk zones in the world and include
.,seventy-six volcanoes, several of which have had major eruptions during
this century. Given the dependence of Alaskans on the sea for much of
their livelihood and transportation, the proportion of population-at-risk
from coastal hazards will probably always be much higher in Alaska than in
other states.

Severe,winter storms) often accompanied by icing conditions, are a
regular winter occurrence along Alaska's coasts, causing a hazard both to
navigation and to people and facilities ashore. Such storms contribute to
coastal erosion and coastal flooding problems. Coastal erosion is a
problem along the Alaska coastline, particularly along the western and
Arctic coasts-where much of the coastline is composed of unconsolidated
sediments of weakly lithified rock. Forty-six coastal communities report
severe to moderate erosion problems, either from wave or fluvial action
(U.S. Army Corps of@Eng., 1973).

The flood hazard is also widespread along the Alaskan coast. Storm
surge, river overflow, and ice ponding, separately or in combination,
create flood hazards in numerous locations. Southern Alaska records
the heaviest precipitation on the North American continent. Riverine
flooding is.inevitable under such conditions.

The southern Alaskan coast is one'of the most earthquake prone areas
in-the United States, recording 714 quakes, an average of eighty-nine per
year, between 1965 and 1972. The largest recorded Alaskan earthquake was
March 27,-1964, with a magnitude of 8.4 to 8.6 on the Richter scale. It
took 130 lives and caused $300 million in property damage. There were
587 aftershocks.

Among the secondary hazards which were associated with the 1964 earth-
quake were rockslides, avalanches, subaqueous slides, local sea waves,
and a disastrous tsunami, seismic sea wave, which hit the coast approxi-
mately one hour after the initial earthquake and was responsible for ninety
per cent (90%) of the deaths. Although the 1964 tsunami received great
attention, many others have been recorded in recent time. The most
vulnerable regions are the Aleutians and the south central coast (Alaska
Dept. of Environmental Conservation, 1976). Landslides are commonly
triggered by earthquakes or heavy precipitation, both common in the

IV-5

Alaskan coastal.zone.

@Similarly avalanches may be triggered by seismic disturbances, and
the 1964 quake is said to have caused 2000 avalanches. Avalanches,
though typically a hazard in mountainous regions, also become a coastal
hazard in Alaska because of the intimate association of mountains and
sea. They are a function of slope and snow accumulation, and are often
trig gered by sharp changes in temperature, by wind and by earthquake.
Avalanches tend to run on established paths which can be identified by
the absence of large trees and by other evidence of scouring. Avalanches
are especially large and powerful in southern Alaska because of the large
scale of the topography and heavy snowfall. While the potential for a
major avalanche disaster existsP only eleven avalanche fatalities have
occurred in Alaska between 1950 and 1975.

There are seventy-six known volcanoes in a 1600-mile arcuate zone
stretching from Mt. Spurr on the west side of Cook Inlet near Anchorage
to Attu Island at the western end of the Aleutian Chain, plus several
located outside this zone. During 200 years of recorded Alaskan history,
250 separate eruptions have occurred at thirty-nine volcanoes, the most
violent being the 1912 eruptions of Katmai and Novarupta which damaged
buildings, crops, and other vegetation at Kodiak, with traces of ash
falling in Juneau, 750 miles away (Alaska Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, 1976). The greatest threat from-volcanoes in the coastal
zone is that of mudflows and sea waves which may be generated by the
volcanic activity.

Table IV-2 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Alaska
coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards, and
the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those coping
measures. Local governments possess adequate authority to control land
use,,but are not compelled to do so. At present, no legislative authority
exists for shoreline management at the state level. Hazard management is,
at best preliminary, concentrated primarily at the inventory level.

IV-6

TABLE IV-2
NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE ALASKA COASTAL ZONE

HUARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF E)CrREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS

46 communities Continual process Threatens a number of Some reduction in U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-I, n, a (1960),
Coastal report severe accelerated by storm waves, road. & buildings; susceptibility Engineers & construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion to moderate high water, ice action & has cussed the possible with better structures.
erosion problems. permafrost failure. Maximum relocation of several land use controls.
See Ref. I activity is in winter. com,munities. U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as for
Insurance federal Insurance against,damage coastal flooding.
Of 33,904 miles Varying rates of recession Administration from accelerated erosion.
of shoreline: 10 ft./year at Pt. Barrows,
10% noncriticall) 50 ft./year at Icy Bay. Organized Boroughs May identify & plan for hazard No state law currently exists
eroding, 90% See Ref. 48 & Municipalities zones, establish zoning ordinances, requiring adoption of these
stable. See building codes & land use measures.
Ref. 54 management programs.

L-lying areas Flooding caused by snow Heavy property Increasing development U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flooding problems, U.S.C.S. Sec: 701 -1, n, (1960).
Coastal on open coast, melt, storm surges, ice damage, but little of los-lyi.g; area. Engineers P, 4, construct flood control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Flooding estuaries & ponding & high rainfall loss of life. May adds to flood structures.
many localized (32.18 in. rain near Kodiak cause disruption of vulnerability.
areas on inland in Nov. 1959). Possible trade A U.S. Federal Administer NFIA 6 Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
waters & stream dam failures & scarcity of transportation, Insurance Protection Act.
mouths. building sites add to isolation of same Administration
problem. areas.
Local Governments Issue zoning regulations, building
Major floods in state: codes A land use management
1946, 1951, 1953, 1967, 1968 rago lations.
1969, 1971. See Ref. 56
Alaska Disaster Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Office preparedness Plan; coordinate Pl, 93-288.
local di ... tar plane.

Organized Boroughs May identify & plan for hazard No state law currently sz1sts
A Municipalities zones, establish zoning ordinances, requiring adoption of these
building codes & land use -..are..
management programs.

Expected damage: 1960-1970, about 30 Seismic activity may Increasing development U.S. Geological Conducts geological studies in
Earthquake south coast - modified Mercalli intensity trigger avalanches, increases vulner- Survey order to monitor A Pa. 6ibly predict
major; -at- V (or greater) earthquakes landslides, tsunamis, ability, but some seismic activity.
central coast - in coastal areas. See local waves & fires. reduction is possible
mad state; north Ref. 59 through better Alaska Disaster Draft A maintain a state disaster Responsible 'under Sec. 201 of
'as' t - minor. 1964 earthquake, 8.4- building and land use Office preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
See R.f. 2 8.6 on Richter scale, control., disaster plans.
130 dead (mo at ly fr..
tsunami) , as Iim,ated Organized Boroughs May identify A plan for hazard No state Law currently exists
$400-500 million & Municipalities zones, establish zoning ordinances, requiring adoption of these
damage. See Ref. 59 building codes & land use measures.
management programs.

All open coasts Impulsive disturbance in Origin of tsunami, Benefits of better National Weather issues advisories A warnings.
Tsunami & -.y inland ocean generates a series of magnitude, config- land use planning Service (NOW
area. long waves. May be uration of coast A A education may be at
vulnerable. triggered by earthquakes, extent of coastal offset by increased Alaska Disaster Draft & maintain a state disa e Responsible under See. 201 of
volcanoes, landslides, or development development on coast. Office preparedness Plan; coordinat@ local PL 93-288.
avalanches. 30 ft. save contribute to damage disaster plans.
heights have been reported. potential. High
catastrophe patentiat U.S. Federal Hazard area delineation, assist See Ref..31
Major events: 1878, 1929, 1964 earthquake Insurance local governments with eligibility
1938, 1946, 1957, 1964. See triggered tsunami, Administration for flood insurance.
Ref. caused 103 deaths.
$80 million damage in Organized Boroughs May identify A plan for hazard No state law currently exists
Aleutians & south-central Alaska. See Ref. 2 & Municipalities zones, establish zoning ordinances, requiring adoption of chase
coast most vulnerable to building codes & land use measures.
local waves. management program.

TABLE IV-2 (con't)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE ALASKA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINASTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS
Landslide Mountainous & May be triggered by earth- Direct effects or may Development of U.S. Geological Research in landslide prediction
cause seiches & hazardous slopes Survey through the Landslide Hazard
steeply sloped quake, rain, man's flooding. Damage contributes to Reduction Program.
coastal areas. activities. concentrated in small drainage potential. Organized Boroughs May identify & plan for hazard No state law currently exists
area unless regional & Municipalities zones, establish zoning ordinances, requiring adoption of these
artery is destroyed measures.
(road, utility line). building codes & land use management programs.

widespread in Wet snow, avalanches most Some hazard to life Increasing where U.S. Forest Service Basic avalanche research.
Avalanche coastal common. Frequently depends & property; damage development occurs in
mountains & are on weather & triggering localized unless avalanche tracks or Alaska Disaster Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
most common mechanisims.1964 earth- utilities, transport- hazardous areas. Office preparedness plan; coordinate PL 93-288.
along the quake triggered may ation routes, etc. Possible large local disaster plane.
southern coast. avalanches, contributing to destroyed. Seiches magnitudes make
Juneau is the a good planning base. caused by slides into structural protective Organized Boroughs May identify & plan for hazard No state law currently exists
most avalanche- See Ref. 45 narrow harbors. May adjustments & Municipalities zones, establish zoning ordinances, requiring adoption of these
prone city in flood extensive areas. inadequate. building codes & land use measures.
the coastal Can temporarily dam management program .
zone. streams, causing
floods later.

76 known Explosive eruptions most Tsunamis and ash falls Increasing as U.S. Geological Monitoring & surveillance of
Volcano volcanoes in common; estimated 1 major are most hazardous development expands, Survey individual volcanoes.
are from Mt. eruption per 100 years. volcano-related especially along
Spurr near See Ref. 1 effects. Little Cook Inlet. Alaska Disaster Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Anchorage to development close Office preparedness plan; coordinate PL 93-288.
western end of 250 eruptions in 200 years enough to Volcanoes to local disaster plan..
Aleutian islands from 29 volcanoes. Major be affected by lava.
Several others event - 1912 eruption of Mud flows could Organized Boroughs May identify & plan for hazard No state law currently exists
Mt. Katmai. See Ref. 2 endanger a number of Municipalities zones, establish zoning ordinances, requiring adoption of these
are outside this building codes & land use measures.
zone. See Ref. semi-permanent
1 establishments. management program.
Seiches may extend
range of impact.

CALIFORNIA

California's coastal zone consists of 3,427 miles of shoreline,
and includes parts.of fifteen counties (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971).
Physically it includes rock beaches, tall cliffs, sand dunes, fore-sts,
y
lagoons, swamps, marshlands, and tidal coves.

California's coastal zone, while geographically blessed with
abundant diversity, also is afflicted by an abundance of natural hazards:
earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides,.coastal erosion and coastal flooding.

Earthquakes are a threat all along the fault-ridden coast of
California, numerous minor and several major disturbances having been
recorded during the past century. The secondary effects associated
with earthquakes: fires, destruction of dams and resultant flash flood-
ing, present serious hazards of their own to the heavily populated
coastal regions.

Earthquakes generated deep beneath the Pacific Ocean or along the
coast itself may result in tsunamis, sea waves, which can cause
considerable property damage and loss of life. The area south of Santa
Barbara is prone to tsunamis generated by seismic disturbances on land.
Further north, Crescent City has suffered considerable damage seven
times within the last decade as a result of tsunamis generated by
distant submarine disturbances.

Coastal erosion, a problem along approximately 1/5 of California's
shoreline, is deemed critical for approximately 4-1/2% of the coast-
line or 154 miles. Coastal flooding is also a serious hazard along
the coastal zone of California. Numerous mountain streams drain the
coastal zone to the ocean. During severe winter storms, heavy rain and
strong winds may combine to cause serious flooding of these streams
and damage to coastal property. Historically, many lives have been
lost during such periods of severe coastal flooding (U.S. Army Corps
of Eng., _1973b).

Landslides occur throughout much of the California coastal zone
due to the instability of the prevailing geologic structures, the steep-
canyon topography of the coastal ranges, earthquake ground shaking, and
man-caused changes, such as cuts and fills on steep slopes. Fast mud-
flows" a natural phenomenon associated with steep topography, sparse
vegetative cover, and torrential precipitation, are aggravated by fire-
caused losses of stabilizing ground cover.

Table IV-3 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the California
coasta'I zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards,
and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those
coping measures.

IV-9

The-central coordinating mechanism for hazards management intthe
QLlifornia coastal zone has been the California Coastal Zone Conserva-
tiou Act 9f 1972. This legislation established-a temporary state
cominission to prepare a state coastal zone plan, as well as six regional
coastal commissions to recommend 'elements of the state plan and to
adafinister an interim permit program., for which the state commission
would serve as a board of appeals. This permit program required that
a pormit be obtained for virtually any kind of land use, building,--
pollution.discharge, or dredging and filling within 1000 yards of the
shoreline,:'and was a stop-gap measure to hold the line until the state
coastal zone plan could become operative. A large proportion of the
permit apilications submitted were approved, with or without conditions,
but the program has exerted a substantial shaping force upon coastal
.zone development during its four year life span.

Successor legislation was enacted by the California legislatureAn
August, 1976. The California Coastal Act of 1976, in general, adopts many
of the provisions of the state coastal zone plan, creates a permanent
state coastal zone commission, extends temporarily the life and permit
authority of the regional commissions, and requires all units of govern-
ment possessing authority for land use planning and control to bring
their programs into conformity with the state coastal goals and guide-
lines of the Act. When this latter objective has been accomplished, or
by June 30, 1979, the regional commissions and the interim state permit
program will go out of existence. Thereafter, permits for developments
In the coastal zone would be issued by local governments, under approved
programs, or by the State Commission.

Many of the basic provisions of the California Coastal Act were
inspired by the successful conservation and planning efforts of the
BaylConservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The BCDC was
established in San Francisco in 1965 for preservation and planning,of
the;Bay Shore area and eventually extended such efforts to the area's
ocean coast, as well (Scott, 1975). BCDC has a very sophisticat,ed
hazards analysis procedure including a staff registered Engineering
G6ologist and an interdisciplinary panel of some of the most distin-
guished earth science people in the U.S. (Schoop, 1976).

IV-10

TABLE TV-3

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION 01 CHARACTER AND FREQU]MC7 EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS

See Ref. 61 Almost every section of 1906-San Francisco Potential for U.S. Geological Conducts geological studies in order
Earthqua@e California coast section, has earthquake, intensity coastal zone Survey to monitor & possibly predict
Coastal zone is at one rim experienced XI, destructive damage is street. seismic activity.
part of earth- earthquakes, Their intensity extended Building code
quake pro- occurrence is still fairly 400 mil... At least reduces future '-'rate Division of Prepares maps of hazard zones for No structures permitted within
belt extending unpredictable. 700 dead, way susceptibility 1@ines & Geology local government. Provides criteria 50 feet of active fault. Geologic
around the rim millions of dollars somewhat, but many for land use in hazard zones. report required for development
of the Pacific Earthquakes of serious , damage. Ref. 59 older buildings within 660 feet of fault.
Ocean. Coastal intensity have occurred in are 'or adequately
zone includes both San Francisco area Very @erious property protected. State Office of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
numerous, (1906) & in San Fernando damage & widespread Emergency Services preparedness plan; coordinate local rL 93-288.
complex fault Valley (1971). psychological,trauma disaster plans A encourage local
zones. accompanied both land use & construction techniques
Maximum modified Mercalli serious earthquakes to reduce hazard potential.
intensity expected is X-XII which were compounded
depending on location. by fire & flooding. State Coastal See attached note.
See Ref. 44 Cownission/Regional
Coa.t@l Commissions
7 earthquake., modifed
M.rcalli iutessity VIII Local ro,@era,Genta Enaxt & enforce building codes Uniform Building Code pi@widea
or larger free 1950-1970. which my incorporate earthquake- standards for grading &
Ref. 59 resistant construction standards. earthquake-resistant, design.
See attached note.

Port Governing Bodies See attached note.

Mont of coast- Large scale seismic sea Crescent City has Increasing
Tsunami line is wave. are generated by experienced 7 development of U.S. Army Corps of Prepares MPG of taurami @-UP Hazard me defined by 100 year
vulnerable; submarine disturbances tau nam is since 1964. coastal area & Engineers zones. recurrence interval.
primary area resulting in large sea See Ref. 56 inexperience with
of vulnerability waves which are hazard in many National Weather Collects 6 disseminates meteor-
to tsunamis destructive to areas Destruction to areas contributes Service (NOAA) ological information. Issues
g netated in immediately adjacent to coastal areas of to d ame ge potential. tsunami warnings.
Pacific Ocean coastline. See Ref. 2 Santa Monica &-
is coast north Santa Barbara from U.S. Pedaral Administers National Flood Insurance
of Point locally generated Insurance Program.
Conception. tsunami. Administration
Santa Barbara &
Santa Monica State Coastal Prepares state coastal zone plan. Planning zme includes coastal
'
e susceptible Coomission May,consider appeals of permit watersheds or 5 miles inland
0 from -an high tide line.
to locally act ons of regional commissions
& stated See attached note.
tsunamis.
See Ref. 7 Regional Coastal See attached note.
commission.

Local Governments See attached note.

Port Governing Bodies See attached note.

State Division of Defines areas vulnerable to
Mines & Geology tsunami hazard.

State office of Responsible for disaster planning
Emergency Services on-site assistance.

two WM

XWMAL SWAV mmoagooqm In M 901MA COAST" XCHW

NAMIN AWD 3 AVTHOMTSS
ar 0"M MMS 2=0715rLM ITS VIS"TUTTOWL ARRAMM"n
salutowtw-, 4e'ao$Aft ta, During Lost so lacrowtsing U. A. Army Corps of Study consal armaton problo. plan, U-S.C.9
-soma jkrlm- I vooomowd by oovw bluffs In comema ow"lopme., of, A aroston catitrol 5141M
MWAO& Lmmaqw a alboft. MM cow coastal own bow count contribuses &tZ-tmad6
am voinomw 4wft afto" aft*M"* lost about 00 is" to damp "SuRtial,
canky., Damon MWAM A saqw cosdulcom, Of shoreliqm, to State coastal Sea attacqw pate. Cs!lifor
ftmb 46 tart - erosion. Ban Saf. 56 Commousion
REEK*=. San ghtfrin.1 grepton dtft 4rometwo ou JA3 of thm 733 - IWAsmarm Regional Coastal See attached note.
patit" & 21 unm in da, mawlows metramadcoodad Cam"Assions
Granods In San commal region from Unto beach at Radnade Beach
Veto&, Alaxaft flobburn to Vatican barder. King Harter & Local Governments Ewer & enforce zoning ordiqm as
& building codes, which my,
South. Shows, destroyed buIldings. include setback line. &/or'
See rraneimo Of mutiza StiFe, 52 of shows
structur I ruquiremenits.
Bay Same Ctue, to critictly eroding, SIZ Periodic storm have a
Capitols Beach. ousseritical erosion, 141 accelerated erosion See attached note.
point Mug., stable. Sun Ref. 34 process A resulted I.
Royal Palm heavy property 6 Port Governing Bodies Sqc attached note.
State Beach, beach losses.
Newport Beach.
Capisitrano &
San Clemoate
beaches h most
of South const.
oteanside
Carlsbad,
Summat Cliffs a
Bird Rock;
.Imperial Beach.
See Ref. 49

Flooding of Winter storms where Intense, Bel River Basin 1964- Increasing U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flood probleas plan U.S..S
Coastal coastal rivers rain & winds have caused 65 - disastrous dramatically with gineere & construct flood control as amen
looding & basins. Sea extensive flooding in flooding; 24 live- rapid population structures.
Re. 56 coastal cities; where the lost, railroad track growth & Increased
rivers join the ocess. destroyed, =tire property values, U.S. Geological Prepare flod-prone area Pa.
North coastal Devastating floods have cattle bards lost. particularly with Survey
basin - mouth occurred in 1867, 1907, 1909, Lumber industry - shift from
of Eel River at 1955, 1964, 1966-67, 19. great losses; 223,0DO agricultural to U.S. Federal Administer NFLA Flood Disaster See Ref
Eur;ka in acres inundated, urban use. Insurance Protection Act.
sub get to 1964-65 one of the worst $184 ml I I I in Administration
recurrent floods on record. Sam damages.
flooding. Ref. 56 National Weather Collects disseminates meteor-
Ron I River Basin Service (KOAA) ological Information; issues
San Francisco flon in 1964-65 flood warnings.
Bay area resulted In 4 deaths,
between Russian See Ref. 56 State office of Responsible for disaster planning Reppons
River A San mergency Services A on-1teasslBtu PL 93-2
Lorenzo River. 1969 floods most
damaging on record Local Garnments Must provide land$. easemm te, & thor
South coastal in south, coastal rghts-of-vay for Federally- of titl
'flood cmtTo to aqs
basin. basin - owwr 100 financed joca . - 1
lives lost. projects. may adopt flood plain
regUjLtua wii do in io qualify
for state contribtiu t cots of
local flood control projects.
See attchad n

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINTSTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUT1019AL ARRANCE20-27rS POLICIES
AREAS

Steep canyon Landslides my be Landslides. rockfalls Increasing U.S. Geological Study landslide problem & provide
Landslide topography h initiated by: earthquakes, & rock slumps have developmut of Survey Landslide irfor-tion about physical
instability of unstable rock formt1ons, resulted in loss of coast contributes Hazard Reduction characteristics & hazard prone areas.
rock units all torrential rainfall & property life. to danage potential. Progrm
along the over-development on steep
coastline result slopes, See Ref. 7 State Division of Prepares slope-stability =Pa.
in frequent Mims & Geology
landslides.
Local Governsents Enact & enforce zoning ordinances
& building codes, which my
include setback lines &/or
structural requireatents.
See attached note.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT OF 106 (AUTHORITIES)

STATE COASTAL COMKISSION

Prepares state coastal zone plan Planning zone includes coastal watersheds or 5 miles
inland from mean high tide@ line. Completed in 197 5
.-besignates sensitive coastal resource areas Hazard zones not included
Defines'locations inappropriate for energy facili:ties Oil and gag development not permitt,ed except. where they
and reports on suitability of proposed sites for will not cause- or contribii-te to subsidence
prospective energy facilities to Energy Resources Adequate me-6:sures are undertaken to -prevent dam-age
Cons. and Dev.. Comm.. from subsidence-.

Identifies and recommends special treatment areas to
State Board of Forestry
Recommends appropriate actions to state-agencies with Agencies must.Adopt Commission's recommendations o .r
responsibilities in the coastal zone report t6 Governor and Legislature on reasons for
non@adoption
Certifies need for regional coastal commissions

Review&and approves regulations adopted by
regional coastal.commissions
-Assumes powers and responsibilities of regional
coastal commissions upon their termination
Considersappeals by local governments of disapprovals
by@regional commissions of local coastal programs
May consider-appeals of permit actions of regional NOn-conformance with'shoreline erosion, or geologic
coastal commissions, local governments, and setback requirements is grounds for appeal
port governing. bodies
Specifies.common-:methodology for preparation of
local coastal programs
Assists-local governments in exercising, planning
and regulatory powers and responsibilities
Reviews implementation of local-coastal programs and
may recommend corrective action to-local
governments and state legislature
Prepares local coastal program on request of local
government
Reviews..and certifies port master plans-

AUTHORITIES CONT'D.
REGIONAL COASTAL COMMISSION

Prepares recommendations for state coastal zone plan Completed in,1975
Reviews plans for public works or state university
or college land use within coastal zone.
Acts upon permit applications for coastal zone Coastal development defined broadly to include all
development where a certified local coastal construction, waste disposal, change in land use
program does not exist intensity, and harvest of timber or kelp.
Excludes agriculture
Reviews-and may appeal coastal development permits
issued by local governments prior to certification
of the local coastal program
Reviews and certifies local coastal programs and
amendments thereto

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Prepares local coastal program Must follow common methodology established by State
Coastal Commission
Must consider uses of more than local importance
Must provide adequate protection for sensitive coastal
resource areas
Acts upon permit applications for coastal zone Permitted developments must minimize risks to life and
development pursuant certified local property in geologic flood and fire hazard areas,
coastal program assure stability and structural integrity, and neither
create nor contribute to eroSI-On. geologic instability,
nor site destruction, nor require construction of
protective devices which would alter natural landforms
along bluffs and cliffs
Permit requirements may be temporarily waived forcertain
types of development associated with response to
natural disasters
Permit zone extends from sea to first public road, or
300 feet from beach or mean high tide line, whichever
-Is gieater

AUITHPRTTW@ QQNT-"I

PORT@ GQVERNI!gG:, BODI@S-

Prepare, master plans; consistent-,, with@ c@oastal. aqt,
Ac.t@ 'po P.P icat@,tQns.- for- coast4l.,
u , n, peiplit a 1.1' zo-ne:
development pursuant, to- cert@ifi
-er, -a
mast pI -m

QN,

CONNECTICUT

The Connecticut'tidal shorelizie is approximately 618 miles in length
including peninsulas and islands (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971).

Physically, the Connecticut shoreline has many rocky headlands, coves,
and islands created by the southerly movement of glacial ice. These are
interspersed with low-lying beaches, coastal wetlands, and low-lying coastal
floodplains. These areas are highly susceptible to erosion and storm
damage. Hurricanes moving in from the south and northeasters have caused
considerab le flooding and erosion damage. Coastal flooding from inland
storms causing tidal surges in major rivers flowing into Long Island Sound
is also a serious problem in Connecticut. The flood of record was on
August 19, 1955 when 12.12 inches of precipitation were recorded in
Hartford, Connecticut. That flood caused estimated damages of $362 million,
of which $15 million occurred along the Connecticut coast (North Atlantic
Water Resources Study Coordinating Committee, 1972).

Often overlooked as a potential coastal hazard in Connecticut is
earthquake. A major (VIII modified Mercalli intensity) earthquake did
occur in 1792 in East Haddam (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973).
Earthquakes continue to occur and the possibility of significant damage
from a major earthquake should not be discounted for the Connecticut-
coastal Area.

Table IV-4 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Connecticut
coastal zone, the measures for coping with thosehazards, and the locus of
authority and responsibility for employing those coping measures.

The Connecticut Coastal Zone Management office is located within the
Department of Environmental Protection as an independent unit.

Connecticut has a number of legal tools with importance for the
Coastal Zone Management program. Most'important of these is the Tidal
We@tland6 Program which requires a state permit for disturbance of "areas
which border on or lie beneath tidal waters, such as, but not limited to
banks, bogs, salt marsh, swamps, meadows, flats, or other low lands
subject-to tidal action." This broadly inclusive program is potentially
supplemented by state encroachment line authority although this has not
yet been applied to coastal areas. Both of these laws specify flood
hazards as a consideration in the review of permit applications. Nearly
all coastal wetlands have now been mapped and recorded for regulatory
purposes. These statutes virtually constitute a coastal zone management
program for the state's coastal wetlands. Local towns may not adopt
coastal wetlands regulations different from those of the state
(Lauricella v. Planning and Zoning Board, 1974).

IV-17

TABLE IV-4

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE CONNECTICUT COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE- RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS
9% of shore is Continual process Undermines structures, Increasing devel- U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, s (1960),
Coastal critically accelerated by storms depletes important opment increases Engineers & construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion eroding, 89% beaches, damages vulnerability. structures.
noncritical protective works. U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
erosion, 2% Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
stable. See Administration from accelerated erosion.
Ref. 53

COnnecticut Dept. of Responsible for sedimentation &
Environmental erosion control.
Protection

Entire coast is 7% probability of Rain, flooding, storm 41.1% population U.S. Army Corps of Construct stom surge protection U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, s (1960),
Hurricane vulnerable. hurricane effects, surge; wind. increase since Engineer. structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
1% probability of a great accelerated erosion. last major
hurricane. See Ref. 41 1938 hurricane - hurricane. See National Weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
record tidal flooding, Ref. 13 Service (NOAA) ological information. Issues
Past events: 1815, 1938, 9-11 ft. above normal hurricane warnings.
1944, 1954 (Carol & Edna), sea level. See Ref. 13 Increasing devel- National-Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
1955 (Diane), 1960 (Donna). opment of coast &
1900-1974 - 6 direct 600 killed in N.Y., inexperience with Center (NOAA) hurricane information.
landfalls of hurricanes, Connecticut. Rhode a major hurricane
including 3 great hurricanes. Island, Massachusetts. increases U.S. Geological Prepares flood-prone area maps.
See Ref. 13 Also disastrous losses susceptibility. Survey
from tidal flooding
in 1954 (hurricanes. Connecticut Military Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Carol & Edna). Dept./Office of Civil preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Preparedness disaster plans.

River mouth, Flooding caused by snow melt, Damage to buildings in Development of U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, s (1960),
Coastal wetlands & rain, hurricanes, local flood plain, wetlands Engineers & construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Flooding low-lying coastal storms. accelerated erosion. increases structures.
areas. Flooding from vulnerability to
hurricane Diane. tidal & riverine U.S. Federal Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
Aug. 1955 - $326 flooding. Insurance Protection Act.
million damage ($15 Administration
million along coast),
12.12 in. rain in U.S. Geological Prepare flood-prom area maps.
Hartford, 47 dead. Survey
See. Ref. 34
Oct. 1955 flood Connecticut Dept. of Responsible for flood plain Together with USGS has conducted a
disrupted Environmental regulations. watershed listing. Also
rehabilitation efforts. Protection responsible for determing
encroachment lines.

Connecticut Military Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Dept./office of Civil preparedness plan, coordinate local FL 93-288.
Preparedness disaster plans.

Entire: coastal Minor damage expected. See Possibility of a large Lack of experience U.S. Geological Conducts geological studies in order
Earthquake area. Ref. 2 earthquake causing with earthquakes Survey to monitor & possibly predict
69.1 modified Mercaalli significant social & may increase seismic activity.
intensity V earthquakes economic disruption vulnerability.
expected per 100 years. depending on location. Connecticut Geologic Technical studies of geology &
Maximum expected intensity. & Natural History mile.
VIII. See Ref. 61 Survey
Major event: 1972 East
Haddam intensity V111. Connecticut Military Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
See Ref. 59 Dept./office of Civil preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Preparedness disaster plans.

DELAWARE

Delaware is a ftall state with a disproportionately long coastline.
Approximately 548,000 people (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972) live in an
area of 1,983 square miles with a 381 mile tidal shoreline (U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, 1971). No part of the state is more than eigh t miles from tide-
wate.r. Along the south coast, sandy barrier island beaches and spits
protect 120 miles of tidal wetlands. Furt her north lie 120 miles of
tidal wetland, meadow and mudflat shore giving way to thirty-six miles
of rock and gravel shore fringed by tidal marsh.

Coastal erosion is the pre-eminent natural hazard. Together with
-wetlands preservation,they constitute the state's first priority
coastal zone management problead. Erosion is caused primarily by winter
storms and occasional hurricanes, although navigation and shore protection
Structures are contributory factors. While twenty-six storms and hurri-
canes struck Delaware between 1952 and 1973, they did not occur on a
regular basis (e.g. 13 between 1970.and 1973) (U.S. Army Corps of Eng.,
1971c).

With the exception of a one mile reach south of Indian River Inlet,
erosion is critical along the entire ocean and bay coasts. Shoreline
recessions vary from three to ten feet per year on the ocean and three to
twenty feet per year on the bay. Flooding associated with coastal storms
and hurricanes is an infrequent but sometimes@serious problem throughout
the coastal zone. For example, in March 1962 a winter storm was accom-
panied by a record tide of 7.9' (3.8' above normal), and waves in excess
of twenty feet. Seven deaths occurred and between $16 - 22 million (1962
dollars) worth of damages were susta'ined by residential, commercial and
public facilities, dunes and farm land. More than 10,000 acres of crop
land were flooded for five days. Wetlands were damaged and wildlife
destroyed by salt water intrusion, debris and sediment. In December,
1974, a northeaster with ten to twelve foot waves and tides four to six
feet above mean sea level, caused damages in excess of $3 million along
the coast.- This storm also compelled-evacuation of 800 people (Del.
State Planning Office, 1975). Hurricane Belle (1976) resulted in similar
evacuation but no heavy damages.

Table IV-5 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Delaware
coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards, and
the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those coping
measures.

At the heart of hazards management in Delaware are the: (1) Coastal
Zone Act (1971); (2) Wetlands Act (1973); and (3) Beach Presery tion
Act (1972).

The Coastal Zone Act and the Wetlands Act utilize permit systems to
regulate growth in the coastal zone and tidal wetlands. The State
Planning Office is responsible for'administering the Coastal Zone Management

IV-19

Program in Delaware. The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control (DNREC) issues permits regulating development of wetlands. Actual
implementation of land use regulation has been delegated to the county
and municipal governments.

The state allows, but does not direct, local governments to adopt
and administer zoning ordinances, subdivision control regulations,
building codes and official maps. At present only one county has
established a comprehensive planning department with zoning and subdivision
regulations and requires permits for construction. Two others have passed
enabling legislation for planning and zoning.

IV-20

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE DELAWARE COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES AM
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES
AREAS INSTITUTIONAL ARRANEGEMENTS
12% of shore Over the past century, the Damages buildings, Increasing with U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C,S
Coastal critically shore has continuously protection works, increasing Engineers & construct erosion control amead
Erosion eroding. 14Z eroded FROM I-25 ft. per beaches, etc. development. structures.
noncritical year. See Ref. 10
erosion, 742 Mar. 1962 storm U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage
stable or caused severe erosion, Insurance federal insurance against damages Coastal
protected. beaches blown inland, Administration from accelerated erosion.
See Ref. 53 buildings destroyed,
roads made impassible. State Planning Office MministersDelawars Coastal Zone ermqiqtti
Delaware Bay See Ref. 56 Act (1971). tb. Cosa
shore, severe 1962 emergency
erosion problem. reconstruction work
cost over $2 million Delaware Dept. of Administers Delware's Sam, i rermitti
to Federal government. Natural Resources Protection Act of 1972. alms the
See Ref. 56 Environmental Control A+-I,tsti
Division of Soil & fund cqrq.
Water Conservation

Local Governments Establish soning ordinances,
building codes. & Land use
emmat programs.

Southern coast 2% probability of Rain, wind, storm Possibility of U.S. Army Corps of Constructim. of storm Qcw U.S.C.S.
Hurricane most vulnerable. hurricane effects, surge, & accelerated a major hurricane Engineers Protective strattaxfia. sla
smaller chance of a great erosion. striking coast.
hurricane. See Ref. 41 Inexperience of National Hurricane Collects & disamminates mmt
1900-1974 no hurricanes population may Center (NOAA) olagical information. issusa,
with direct landfalls. hinder evacuation. horricams, warnings.
Major hurricanes affecting
onset: 1944, 1960 . National Hurricane Issues warnings, diamaninates
Center (NOAA) hurricane information.
State Planning Office Admini9sters Delaware Coastal Zoam, Parmlti
Act (1 71). tk. Caaj
local ow
Local Governments Establish oning ordinances,
building codes, & land use
ngement programs.

Delaware Dept. of Draft & naintain a state disaster R-pausib
Public Safety/ Prarcredness Plan; coordinate local EIL )3-23
Division of Emergency disaster plans
Planning & Operations

Wetland, stream Flooding caused by Damages to structures Increasing with U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flood problems, pl & U.S.C.S
Coastal moutns & low- hurricanes & severe storms. in the flood plain, increasing Engineers construct erosion control structures. as mus,
Flooding lying coastal damages to wetlands development. U.S. Federal Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster See Ref
areas. & wildlife. Insurance Protection Program.
Southern shore Mar. 1962 storm - Administration
most susceptible much of Bethany Beach U.S. Geological Survey Prepare flood-prone area maps.
to storm caused & southern Delaware State Planning office Administers Delaware Coastal Zone Permitt
flooding due to coast flooded by Act (1971). the Coa
large fetch. record tide of 7.9 ft l.al.g
(3.8 ft. above normal)
& waves in excess of Delaware Dept. of Administers Reach Protection Act S Permitt
20 ft. See Ref. 9 Natural Resources & Wetlands Act (1973). devel
Environmental Control
Delaware River Basin Administers the Delauare River Basin Clasid.f
Commission Compact (1961). standar
Delaware Dept. of Draft & maintain a state disaster Re.pons
Public Safety/ preparedness plancoordinate local PL 93-2
Division of Emergency disaster plans.
Planning & Operations
Local Governments Establish oning ordinances.
building cod"; & I go.
t programs.

rLORIDA

Florida has a tidal coastline of 8,426 miles with many divergent
physical cha racteristic$ (U.S. Dept..of Commerce,'1971). Generally,
however, the.,ppastal areas are flat plains less than 100 feet above mean
a" level. Almost all of'the more populated urban areas are on the coast
and are, therefore, vulnerable to damage by the coastal zonets natural
-hazards, This vulnerability has been increased by the proliferation of
"dredge and fill" development in estuarine areas.

The major hazard concern in Florida is hurricanes, and the probabil-
ity of landfall effects varies greatly around the state. The western
part of the panhandle, and some southeastern parts of the peninsula,
have a sixteen per cent (16%) annual probability of a hurricane landfall.
However, the northeastern part of the state faces only a one per cent
probability.ofan event (Simpson and Lawrence,1971).

There are extremely dense population concentrations along some areas
of the coast, with inadequate evacuation routes. The average population
growth between 1960 and 1970 for the coastal area of the state was seventy-
nine per cent (79%), but some areas more than tripled in number of residents.
More than three out of four coastal residents have never experienced a major
hurricane (Herbert and Taylor, 1975).

A second, though less serious,.hazard in Florida is coastal erosion,
with five per cent (5%) of the coastline' experiencing critical problems
(U.S. Army Corps of E'ng., 1973a). This i@ a contin ual Process which
is aggravated by hurricane storm surges and winds.

Non-hurricane flooding, although it does exist in the Florida coastal
zone, is not considered a major problem.

Table IV-6 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Florida
coastal zone, the measures for coping with those hazards, and the locus
of authority and responsibility for employing those coping measures.

The state has only two regulatory measures dealing with land use
and hurricanes. One is a coastal setback line, and the other is a
requirement that mobile homes be anchored (which in practice is not
strictly enforced). An executive order has been issued directing the
State Division of Disaster Preparedness to review and recommend state
hazard-zone land use control legislation. The Florida Land and Water
Enviroranental Management Act, which has designated certain keys and
swamps along the coastline as areas of Critical State Concern, does not
provide for consideration of susceptibility to natural hazards as a
criterion for designation. The Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning and
Managemout does technical mapping and planning studies for various
coastal areas and serves asa liaison to the regional planning councils.

!V-22

Municipalities (cities, villages and incorporated towns) and counties
have broad zoning and subdivision authorities. The State "Critical Areas
Act" authorizes the state to designate areas of critical environmental
concern (including flood areas) and to establish standards for local
regulations in such areas. Local units must adopt regulations meeting
state standards or the state will directly regulate these areas.

Miami authorities, in recognition of the potential catastrophe that
failure to evacuate population from low-lying areas would cause,have
developed a "vertical evacuation" plan. The concept uses multi-story
buildings (which meet certain structural standards) as temporary shelters
for evacuees. A law was passed by the state authorizing the governor to
commandeer property for such use in an emergency. In addition, south
Florida governments have adopted a more stringent building code than the
Southern Standard Code. Sanibel, a fast growing island city on the west
coast of the peninsula (with one causeway to the mainland) has,acted
to avert evacuation crises. The Sanibel comprehensive plan takes
evacuation capability into account and calls for a cap on population'.

The principal piece of state,legislation dealing with coastal erosion
is.the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, administered by the Bureau of
Beaches and Shores. The Bureau is charged with establishing coastal
construction setback lines in each county. Several variables are taken
into account, hurricane storm surge, maximum wave uprush, bathymetry,
and erosion tre'nds. Any construction or excavation project seaward of
theline must obtain a variance from the Department of Natural Resources
(the Bureau's parent agency). Some local governments have their own
ordinances for dune protection, but the main adjustment practice; (other
than the setback law) is structural protection. The Corps of.Engineers
has a number of beach restoration projects underway orunder study,'.

IV-23

TABLE IV-6

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGENENT IN THE FLORIDA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES A13MINISTRATIVE RELA IONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS

Southern 1-16% probability of Accelerated erosion, 78.8% population U.S. Army Corps of Construct store surge protection U.S.C.S. See. 701.a-l@ n, 8 (1960).
Hurricane western .... t. hurricane effects, stdrm surge, wind, increase since' Engineers structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
=at vulnerable, , n probability of a rain, t.-d.e.. Is. t major
Entire c ... t - 1928 hurricane hurricane. See National weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
-p..ed. St. t hurricane in any associated flooding; Ref. 13 Service (NOAA) ological information. Issues
given year. Miami - 1% over 2000 drowned, Inexperience of hurricane warnings.
probability of 13 ft.
.to- surge in any given $4 million damage in population,'
year See Ref. 41 Florida, Georgia. inadequate National Hurricane Issues warnings, diseemi tea
South Carolina, North community Center (NOAA) hurricane info rma tion.
49 hurricanes, 20 great Carolina. See Ref. 15 preparedness plans
hu-ricanes from 1900- 194i - $5.9 million 6 increasing U.S. Geological Prepares flood-prone area =Pa.
1974. Kajor events: damage in southern development in
1916, 1921, 1926, 1935, Survey
1947, 1960 (Do.-), 1965 Florida ft= coastal areas,
(Betsy). See Ref. 13 hurricane flooding. especially mobile Florida Division of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
See Ref. 15 homes & retired Disaster Preparedness preparedness plan; coordinate local Pl. 93-288.
1965 (Betsy) - 80 people, increases disaster plans.
death., $1.4 million vulnerability.
damage. Florida Dept. of Planning studies, technical
Natural Resources/ assistance to local governments,
Bureau of Coastal Zone policy recommendations.
Planning & Management

Florida Dept. of Determine placement of coastal Beach Shore Preservation Act.
Natural Resources/ setback lines; done protection.
Bureau of Beaches
Shore.

Florida Division of Enforce mobile home tie-down
Vehicle Safety regulations.

5% critically Chronic, accelerated Damages beaches, Overreliance on U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal erosion problems plan U.S.C.S. See. 701 a-1, n,. a (1960),,
Coastal er.di.g, 11% during torms. protective works, protective works. Engineers 'a construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion noncritical buildings, roads, etc. May encourage structures.
erosion, 842 N ome rous structures development that
stable. See destroyed by may later be U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same an
Ref .5 5 accelerated erosion endangered. Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
Problem areas during Hurricane Administration from accelerated erosion.
receiving Eloise (1975). Many
attention: projects constructed Florida Dept. of Planning studies, technical
Panama City to reduce damages Natural Resources/ assistance to local governments,
Beach, Treasure from flooding Bureau of Coastal Zone policy recommendations.
Island, Jackson erosion. Planning & Management
Jacksonville,
Miami. Florida Dept. of Determine placement of coastal
Natural Resources/ setback lines; done protection.
Bureau of Beaches
& Shores

Not a dramatic Flooding caused by Several projects Slowly increasing U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flood problems, plan U.S.CS. Sec. 701 a-1, n, 9 (1960),
Coastal threat in hurricanes, severe stores - constructed to as vulnerable Engineers 6 construct flood control structures. aIs -.ded,.(Supp. 1975).
Flooding coastal plain. reduce damages ft= .- a-
Localized flooding. Generally developed. U.S. Federal Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
problem areas: small threat to life. Insurance Protection Act.
Pinellas County, Some property damage. Administration
Apalachicola
River, the U.S. Geological Prepares flood-proias area =Pa.
Florid. Key.; Survey
Some poorly
drained areas Florida Division of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
subject to Disaster Preparedness preparedness plan: coordinate local PL 93-288.
frequent disaster plans,
inundation.
Florida Dept. of Planning studieso.technical
Natural Resources/ assistance to local governments,
Bureau of Coastal Zons, policy recommendation.
plannin Management

GEORGIA

The 2,344 mile tidal coastline of Georgia consists of both ma rshland
and sand beaches, the 'latter found exclusively on barrier islands (U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, 1971). For planning purposes, eight counties comprise
the.landward study area.

The principal hazard in the coastal zone is hurricane with accompany--
ing high wind, storm surge and tornadoes. Although Georgia has escape&
substantial damage from hurricanes in recent years, some areas have a
seven per cent (7%) annual chance of a landfall (.Simpson and Lawrence
1971). Georgians are unaware that Savannah was almost destroyed by an.
extremely large hurricane in 1893. Between 1960 and 1970 the coastal
population of Chatham County (which includes Savannah) quadrupled.

Coastal erosion, the second major natuial hazard in Georgi&'s coastal.
zone, is a continual process which is exacerbated by hurricane storm.
surge and winds., Of the approximately twenty-one per cent (21%) of the.
coast undergoing ero-sion, three per cent (3%) is termed critical (U.S. Army,,
Corps of Eng., 1973a). Major erosion problems occur on several of the
barrier islands, including Tybee Island and Jekyll Island.

Further hazards exist in the Georgia coastal zone and should be taken-
into account in planning. River and tidal flooding can be major problems:@
when associated with hurricanes, and occasionally occur in the marshlands.
and low-lying coastalareas. Another, although infrequent, hazard is
earthquake. An earthquake of moderate (VII on the modified Mercal1i'scale)-,
intensity did occur.at Milledgeville in 1872 and the possibility of--an
event of greater magnitude should not be discounted.

Table IV-7 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Georgia.
coastal zone, the measures for coping with those hazards, and the
locus of authority and responsibility for employing those coping measures-..

There'is little legislation at the'state level designed to restrict
the use of areas prone to hurricane damage. The principle long term
adjustments are local compliance with FIA land use regulations, Corps of.
Engineers protective structures, and, to some extent, local enactment of
erosion and sediment control regulations as required by the Erosion and
Sedimentation Act of 1975. This Act requires local governments to pass
legislation designed to abate erosion and sedimentation caused by land-
disturbing activity. Glynn County and the municipality of Savannah Beach,
have gone further, enacting a beach and dune protection ordinance.
Essentially the law utilizes a setback procedure, with permits required
for construction seaward of the line.

IV-25

TABLE IV-7

NATURAL HAZARD MANACEMENT IN THE GEORGIA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE mspoNsim LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY.
AREAS AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES

North coast 1-7% probability of Accelerated erosion, No maj or U.S. Army Corps of Construct atom surge protection U.s.c.s.-Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Hurricane =at vulnerable. hurricane effects, rdin, wind, storv hurricanes since Engineers structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Entire coast 1Z probability of a gxc@@t surge, tornadoes. 1900.
exposed. hurricane in any year. Savannah devastated in Inexperience of National Weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
See Ref. 4f 1893. population my Service (NOAA) ological information. Issues
Savannah - 1% probability of 1929 flooding hinder hurricane warnings.
a 12 ft. atom surge. lower, associated with a evacuation.
height@ expected elsewhere. hurricane. $9 million Continued devel- National Hurricane, Issues warnings & disseminates
See Ref. 41 damage in Georgia, - opment of hazard Center (NOAA) hurricane info rza tion
North Carolina, South area, especially
1900@1974 - 4 hurricanes; Carolina, Virginia, Chatham County, U.S. Geological Prepares flood-prom area =Pa.
no major hurricanes. See adds to Survey
Ref. 13 vulnerability.
Georgia Dept. of Draft & maintain a state dis-ter Responsible under See. 201 of
Defense/Division of preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Civil Preparedness disaster plans.
Georgia Dept. of Mapping of flood-prone areas Mapping does at I in. I mile.
Natural Resources Federal Insurance Administration
coordination.

Georgia office of General planning coordination with
Planning & Budget/ local governments; technical studies.
Division of Planning

Coastal Area Planning Planning,-advisory & technical
& Development assistance to local coastal counties.
Commission

3% of here Continual process Undermines buildings, Increasing devel- U.S. Army Corp. of Study coastal erosion pr .oblems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960).
Coastal critically accelerated during sto rms - transportation routes, opment of coastal Engineers 1. construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Ero.ion eroding, 18% utility lines, x emove . .r.a. add. to structures.
noncritical or damages recreational susceptibility.
erosion, 79% beaches & hurricane U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
stable. See protective works. Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
Ref. 55 Breaching of barrier Administration ft= accelerated erosion.
Problem areas: island. exposes
Tybee Island, mainland to atom Georgia Dept. of Technical studies, draft legislation Georgia Erosion & Sedimentation Act
Jekyll Island, wve.. Natural Resources for locals If they fail to do so of 1975.
Saint Simon's themselves.
Island, Sea
Island. Committee of 5: Reviews all requests for marshland Coastal Marshland Protection Act
Commissioner of alteration. may issue permit. of 1970.
Natural Resources,
Director of Environ-
mental Protection in
Dept. of Natural
Resources & appointee
of Dept. of Natural
Resources Board

Georgia Soil & Water Works with Georgia Dept. of Natural
Conservation Resources on, Erosion & Sedimentation
Committee Act. Drafted model legislation for
local governments.

Georgia Office of Planning studies 6 recommendations
Planning & Budget/ to other agencies involved In
Division of Planning permitting.

Coastal Area Planning Planning assistance to local
& Development governments.
Commission

Local Governmenta Must adopt regulations in compliance Glynn, Copnty & Savannah Beach
with Erosion Sedimentation Act. haw smacted theme protection
setback lines.

TABLE IV-7 (cont'd)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE GEORGIA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGENENTS POLICIES
AREAS
Marshes & low- Flooding caused by Daipge to developments Probably not a U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flood problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 ..1, (1960),
Coastal lying coastal hurricanes & severe storms. in flood plain. major problem Engineers & construct flood control structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Flooding area.. Not a major hazard below Generally minor with existing
fall line. damage. land use & U.S. Federal Administer MFIA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
environmental Insurance Protection Act.
control.. Administration

U.S. Geological Prepares flood-prom area =Pa.
Survey

Georgia Dept. of Draft 6 maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Defense/Division of preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Civil Preparedness disaster plans.

Georgia Dept. of Technical studies; mapping.
Natural Resources

Office of Planning Planning studies; assistance to
& Budget/Division of local governments.
Planning

Moderate damage 19.9 modified Mercalli 1872 Milledgeville Inexperience with U.S. Geological Conducts geological studies in
Earthquake expected in maximum intensity V earthquake, intensity earthquakes may Survey order to monitor & possibly predict
north coastal earthquakes expected per VIT. Possibility of lead to a lack of seismic activity.
area met 100 years. Maximum major earthquake concern as to
South Carolina. intensity expected, X. causing significant their potential Georgia Dept. of Technical studies of geology &
No hazard See Ref. 61 social & economic for damage, Natural Resources/ oil..
along south disruption, depending increasing Earth 6 Water Division
coast. on location. vulnerability. Georgia Dept. of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible und r Sec. 201 of
Defense/Division of preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Civil Preparedness disaster plans.

HAWAII

Hawaii's has 1;052 miles of tidal shoreline (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
1971). Most of the population and neatly half the land are within five
miles of the ocean.*

The state is faced with the threat of numerous natural hazards:
coastal flooding, erosion, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis..

Coastal flooding may occur as a result of wind driven waves or of
fresh water floods. There are five types of wind-driven waves which
cause coastal flooding in the i�lands; winter swell and Kona are the most
hazardous. The winter swell generates waves from fifteen to.thirty feet
high and is common from October to May. Kona storms occur about once a
year and usually result in waves from ten to fifteen feet high. During
the past decade,.nearly $2 million in damage has been cau'sed by storm
waves (U.S. Army Corps of Eng., 1975).

Coastal flooding as a result of inland river flooding is also a
hazard within the coastal zone. The severity of fresh water flooding
has heightened as development in the upper portions of Hawaii's flood-
plains has caused increased rates of erosion. Floods caused*twenty-two
deaths and $13 million in property damages between 1950 and 1975. Small
water sheds and highly permeable volcanic rock make the islands extremely
susceptible to flash flooding. Since there is so little surface run-off,
stream channels are short, poorly defined, and thus subject to overflow
during heavy rains (U.S. Army Corps of Eng., 1975).

Erosion is a continual problem along the Hawaiian coastline. Its
effects are, of course, heightened by tsunami and storm surge. Approxi-
mately three per cent (3%) of the coastline is said to be critically
eroding (U.S. Army Corps of Eng., 1973c).

Earthquakes and volcanic action -are frequently tied together
within the Hawaiian coastal zone. Most Hawaiian earthquakes are
triggered by the movement of magma, although the large ones are gener-
.ated by tectonic or crustal movements. Thousands of earthquakes usually
precede 4nd accompany volcanic eruptions, but few are large enough to
be felt. Ten earthquakes exceeding 5.3 (Richter scale) in magnitude
have occurred since 1925, six on the Big Island of Hawaii and four from
faults on the ocean floor. The Hilo earthouake of 1973 (magnitude 6.2
Richter scale) caused damages of $6 million (Ayre, 1975).

Volcanic eruptions in Hawaii are usually of the shield building
type.and result in highly fluid lava flows containing little gas. Later
stage eruptions contain more gas and are thus more explosive than those
of the shield building stage. Lava generally travels between ten and
1000 feet per hour, but flows can exceed five miles per hour and be
extremely destructive to coastal areas. Mauna Loa has been active 6.2 per
cent of the time, erupting once every 3.7 years on the average over

IV-28

historic time. Kilauea has been active sixty-two per cent (62%) of the
time, but most of its activity is confined to the caldera. Lava flows
are a threat to Kalu, South Kona, the City of Hilo, and Puna, where much
land is zoned for residential development. The 1960 Kapoho flow Caused
nearly $5 million 'in property damages, destroying the village and
covering beach lots with lava. Coastal subsidence associated with
volcanic activity has also been a problem on Hawaii, particularly-at
Kalapana (Warrick, 1975).

Another natural hazard associated with seismic activity is tsunami,
large sea waves, associated with strong earthquakes and generated by impul-
sive disturbances. Of the thirty-one tsunamis which have struck the islands
during historic time, eight have caused moderate to heavy damage. His-
torical evidence suggests the northern shores have been most severely af-
fected. The Hawaiian Islands are vulnerable to tsunamis generated in North
and South America and also to less frequent, locally generated tsunamis.

Table IV-8 shows the nature of the natural hazards.in the Hawaiian
coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards,
and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those
coping measures.

Management of the Hawaii coastal zone is shared by several
authorities which maintain overlapping jurisdiction within the coastal
zone. The counties have authority (special interim controls) under the
1975 Shoreline Protection Act to create special management areas around
entire islands, extending inland from the shoreline at least 100 yards,
and share control over agricultural areas with the Land Use Commission.
The State Department of Land and Natural Resources retains control over
conservation land. The State has jurisdiction over the offshore waters,
from the shoreline (upward reach of wave action) seaward to the three
mile limit, which have been designated for transportation as well as
conservation. County authority is also tempered by the 1974 Hawaii
Environmental Policy Act, which requires that an environmental impact
statement be submitted to the Office of Environmental Quality Control
for any proposed development extending from the inland edge of the county
setback zone to the offshore waters (300 feet). County setback restric-
tions extend from a minimum of twenty feet to a maximum of forty feet
inland from the shoreline under the 1970 Shoreline Setback Law. Agencies
are given standing to intervene or appeal under the State Administrative
Procedures Act.

State assistance in the mitigation of natural disasters has
encountered much less resistance from county agencies. Historically
focused on communications, warning, relief, and education, state efforts
also fulfill civil defense objectives (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapters
127, 128, 171, 209, 234 & 385). Responsibility for structural measures
and land use controls were delegated to the counties under zoning
provisions (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 46). Recent federal re-
quirements for coordination under the Coastal Zone Management and
National Flood Insurance programs have widened the potential for both
cooperation and conflict in the realm of mitigating natural hazards.

IV-29

TABLE IV-8

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE IIAWAII COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQ URN CY EFFECTS RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY @AGERCIES INSTITI)TIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLIdIES
AREAS

Northwest St.- W.V. flooding: winter Damage to property in Increasing with U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flood problem , plan 'U.S.C.S. See. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal north coast. swell 15-30 ft. waves. 10*-lying areas. increasing devel- Engineers & construct flood control structures. as amended, (Sup -p. 1975).
Flooding vulnerable to Oct. May. Kona storms Stom waves caused opment in flood
winter wells. average 1 per year. 10-15 ft, $2 million damage in plains. U.S. Federal Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
Southwest 6 waves. Southern swell, last decade. Insurance Protection Program.
south coasts northeast trades produce Development in Administration
exposed to Kona smaller waves; hurricanes Significant threat to flood plains &
at . South- extremely rare. Flash lives & property. upper basins has U.S. Geological Prepare flood-prone area maps.
west Kauai, flooding hazard high. 1950-1975 22 deaths, increased erosion Survey
northwest Oahu, $13.million damiage & severity of
east Hawaii are ft= floods. floods. National Weather Responsible for warning &
most vulnerable Service (NOAQ evacuation.
areas. Hawaii Civil Defense
County Governments Establish zoning regulations,
Islands of building codes, setback lines
Kauai, Maui, land use management programs.
windward Oahu
have had severe Hawaii Dept. of Land I .... a permits for uses within the
fresh -ter 6ffatural Resources State's Conservation Districts.
floods in
recent years.

32 of coast is Continual process Damages structures, Increasing with U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. See. 701 a-1, n. a (1960).
Coastal critically accelerated by stom waves. roads, protective increasing Engineers & construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion eroding, 9% works, beaches, etc. development. truutures.
noncritical 1969 t- - 7,000
erosion, 882 cubic yds. of sand U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
stable. Oahu lost ft= Haleiva Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
particularly beach. 9 beach Administration ft= accelerated erosion.
vulnerable. erosion projects
See Ref. 54 completed or studied. Local Governments Establish zoning ordinances, building
codes, & land use managemnt programs

Hawaii Dept. of Land Approves construction of any
& Natural Resources, structure in neer-shore waters.
& Hawaii Dept. of
Transportation

Major damage Largely connected with May trigger local Increasing devel- U.S. Geological Conducts geologic studies in order
Earthquake expe.ted - Big volcanic activity. 1925- tsunami. Hilo earth- opment increases survey to monitor & possibly predict
Island. 1976, 10 earthquakes quake, 1973, 6.2 vulnerability. seismic activity.
Moderate damage exceeded 5.3 Richter. 6 on Richter, caused $6
expected - Big Island, 4 an ocean fl@r. million damage. County Governments Responsible for warning &
Molok.1, Lanai, See Ref. 44 Hawaii Civil Defense evacuation.
Maui. Minor
damag expected- Hawaii Civil Defense Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Oahu. See Ref. preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
2 disaster plans.

Most active: Fluid lava flows =at Volcanic activity may Rapid develop-
Volcano Me- Loa, common. Geologic record trigger earthquakes, ment Increases Hawaii Volcano issues volcano warnings & conducts
Kilauea. shown very infrequent tsunamis, fires. vulnerability. Observatory (USGS) basic volcano research.
explosive eruptions. Large Kilauea - 1960 Kapohn Puna district has
Cities of Hilo, number of small eruptions flow: $5 million numerous undev- Hawaii Dept. of Land issues permits for uses within the
Puns, Ka'u & on Mauna Loa (averages 1 property damage. eloped land & Natural Reajorce. State's Conservation District..
South Kona eruption every 3.7 years). Destroyed village of scheduled for sub-
vulnerable. See Ref. 2 Kapoho. See Ref. 2 divial... 1. Hawaii Civil Defense Draft & maintain a star. disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
hazardous areas. preparedness plan-, coordinate local PL 93-288.
disaster plane.

TABLE IV-S (cont'd)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE HAWAII COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AErrHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVERTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS
Northern shore Impulsive disturbance in 'Origin magnitude, Increasing with U.S. Army Corps of In identifying area. of Maps will,indicate at... vulnerable
T61-a-1 most vulnerable. ocean generates a series of con@iguzation of coast, increasing Engineers innundatim. to the 100 year tsunami event.
Archipelagos in long -s which build in & extent of coastal development. Coastal Zone Management regulations
South Pacific height as they approach the development contribute will be-based on these =Pa.
di,ftlGh Wave shore. to d ams. ge potential.
energy reaching Aleutian tsunami of Honolulu Observatory I...e. tsunami warnings.
south coast. 31 tsunamis in historic 11946 - -is- wave International Tsu-i
times. See Ref. 2 height of 55 ft, 173 Information Center
dead, $25 million
8 caused serious damage. damage. . Chile- County Governments, Responsible for warning &
t ... ami of 1960 - Hawaii Civil Defense evacuation.
35 ft.,-s at Hilo,
61 dead, $25 million Hawaii Civil Defense Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
daWge. See Ref. 2 preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
disaster plans.

County Covernme nts Establish zoning regulations,
building codes, setback lines,
lend use management programs.

U.S. Federal Administers NFIA A Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
Insurance Protection Act.
Administration

ILLINOIS

Illinois has a'sboreline of only fifty-nine miles on Lake Michigan.
Most of the Illinois shoreline in Chicago And Evanston is artificial
landfill protected by such measures as revetments, breakwaters and
rip=rap. From Wilmette to Winnetka the shoreline is characterized by
low bluffs, while from Glencoe to Waukegan there are high bluffs averag-
ing up to eighty feet in height and cut by ravines tributary to the
Lake. These bluffs, particularly those in the Village of Lake Bluff,
have experienced extreme erosion due to unusually high water levels in
Lake Michigan, heavy winter storms, inadequate shore protection, and
the weakening of bluff faces from subsurface drainage. Further north,
in the Illinois State Beach Park, the bluff is inland and recent dune
formations are being rapidly eroded.

Erosion is clearly the major natif-ral hazard within the Illinois
coastal zone. Coastal flooding and wave attack presents a second hazard
concern.,

Table Iv_9 shows.the nature of the natural hazards in the Illinois
coastal zone, the measures for coping with those hazards, and the locus
of authority and responsibility for employing those coping measures.

The Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program is part of the
Division of Water Resources within the Illinois Department of Transpor-
tation. The Division has jurisdiction over all Illinois waters,
has authority to issue permits for structures and fill, to regulate
encroachment upon those bodies of water and control the location and
design of structures in the flood hazard areas. The Division has
developed proposed regulations for the exercise of this authority in
the flood-induced erosion hazard area. This authority will be confirmed
in comprehensive State coastal legislation to be introduced by the.
Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program in February, 1977.

Principal jurisdiction landward of the water's edge lies in the
thirteen municipalities which share the coastal zone; the state presently
has no powers to review municipal decisions on land and water use. The
new legislation will create a joint state-local administrative system
for the Illinois coastal zone and enable municipalities to effectively
control erosion and flooding hazards in accordance with guidelines and
criteria contained in the State legislation (Wise, 1976).

IV-32

TABLE V-9

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE ILLINOIS COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
AREAS

U S Amy Corps of Study coastal erosion
Chicago area - Acceleratedby storms, high Danag to beaches, Extensive use of E.. problems, plan U.S.C.
Coastal Lake Michigan water levels. See Ref. 51 bluffs, buildings, protective ngineers & construct erosion control as me
!:real= coast. 59 mile.. roads, etc. on shore. structures limits structures.
16% critical Estimated rates: 1 ft. per Damages during 1951- critically eroding U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Cover
erosion, 84% year at Illinois State Park, 1952 high water, area. Continued Insurance federal insurance against damages for
stable or 10 ft. par year at Illinois- $17.7 million (1970 high water will Adinistration from accelerated erosion.
protected. Wisconsin border. See Ref. values). See Ref. 51 endanger more
56 17 homes presently home.. International Joint Control of water level in Great' See Re
Lake Forest & endangered by erosion Commission/Great Lakes Lakes.
Zion coasts most Up to 89 feet lost in 11 from current high lake Levels Board
vulnerable. years at Lake Bluff. See levels.
Ref. 70 Great Lakes Basin Limited coordination of state
Damages for 3 year Commission activities relating to shore
period 1972-1975 damage via Coastal Zone Standing
exceed $27 million. Comittee..
See R.f. 70
Illinois State Conducts erosion & sedimentation
Geological Survey studies; provides policy
recommendations.

Luc .1 Governments Establish zoning ordinances, setback
lines, building codes, & land use
angemmt programs.

111inota Dept. of Coordinating agency for U.S. Coastal
Transportation/ Zone Management Act (102).
Division of Water
Resources
urtheastern Illinois Comprehensive regional planning.
Planning Commission i

Minor hazard in Development of flood plain Damage to vulnerable Urban flooding U.S. Army Corp. of Study coastal flood problems , plan C
Coastal localized has intensified runoff, property. study underway. ingi.sers & construct flood control
Flooding sections of resulting in urban flooding. Urban drainage 8,tructures.
coast. Small See Ref. 56 improvements
streams, urban could lessen: U.S. Federal Administer 71A &.Flood Disaster See Re
drainage areas. vulnerability., jud-nie - I Protection Act.
Administration
Extensive
flooding in the US. Geological Piepare flood rone at a map,
Illinois Beach survey q7P e
State Park & in
Lake Calumet liternational Joint Control of water levels in Great Und.rt
vicinity, Cmiion/Graat Lake. lake.. Study
Level Board i Pra
ffoud
Gr1eat Lakes Basin LiImited coordination of ate
Cloniamiat activities relaqig,io shore
dmaj via Coastal: Zone Standing

Illinois Dept. of C@xdinatng agency for,U.S. Coastal Mqy is
Transportation/ Zone ManagemAt Act (1972). Define ednstr
Division of water floodplalis Wlin the state.,
Resrcies
Local GoverTts Establish zoning ordinances, setback
lines, building ccee, & iand use
Msasqi4qopt programs.
Illinois Emergency Draft & maintain astate disaster Reapon
Se6ii@a 6 Dikter prepaiedueeB.plam; coordinate local FL 93
Agener distir plan

Northeastern Illinois Comprehensive regional planning.
P14nni 0oission

INDIANA

The State of Indiana has a relatively small shoreline in compar-
ison with most other coastal states, approximately 45 miles in length.

The Coastal Zone Planning Region is located in ' the-northwest
corner of Indiana and reaches from Illinois on the west to Michigan
on the east. Lake,Porter, and LaPorte counties have jurisdiction
within this zone.

Coastal erosion is clearly the dominant natural hazard in the
Indiana coastal zone, and floods pose a rather minor, secondary
threat. Of the approximately fifty per cent (50%) of the Indiana
shoreline that is eroding, the Corps of Engineers estimates that
28.9% of this erosion is critical, and 21.3% is of a non-critical
nature (1971a). Almost all of this erosion is taking place along
the eastern half of Indiana's Lake Michigan coast. The western half
is heavily protected by man-made structures.

Flooding, although a minor problem along the coast, still
presents a matter of some concern, particularly as the flood plains
of small streams come under increasing development.

Table IV-10 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the
Indiana coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those
hazards, and the locus of authority and responsibility i7or employing
those coping measures.

The Indiana State Planning Services Agency (SPSA) wa,s designated
as the state agency to receive grants under Sec. 305 of PL, 92-583,
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and to administer the state's
Coastal Zone Management Program. Its function in this role is mainly
one of coordination. The agency was created to assemble anti make
available information relative to the resources of the state, and to
.cooperate in the preparation of resource development plans.

The other major agency with responsibility in the coastal zone
is the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which has
responsibility to colleci and-analyze physical data relative to the
coastal zone.

Cities, counties and incorporated towns all have general zoning
and subdivision enabling authority. A master plan must be adopted
by these governmental units before subdivision regulations are
enforced. The state has minimum rules for development in flood ways
and broader flood hazard areas, but local governments may enact
stricter regulations if they choose.

IV-34

TABLE IV-10

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE INDIANA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF' CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
AREAS . AGENCIES POLICIES

Eastern half of Continual process D ama Be to buildings, Development of
Coastal Lake Michigan accelerated by are=., high roads, utilities, unprotected areas International Joint Control of water levels in Great See Ref. 56
Erosion shoreline water levels. beaches, etc. will necessitate Commission/Creat Laken Lakes.
subject to further Levels Board
erosion. Western 1951-1952 high water expenditures to
half I. level. c-d $IQ control coastal U.S. Kriny Corps I Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 .-1, n, a (1960),
protected by million of erosion erosion. Engineers & construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975)@
man@made damage. See Ref. 51 structures.
at uCtureS.
28.92 of coast First cost of U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
critically protecting critically Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
eroding, 21.3% eroding coast is $10.4 Administration from accelerated erosion.
noncritical million. See Ref. 54
:rosion, 49.8% Great Lakes Basin Limited coordination of state
table or Commission activities relating to shore
protected. See damage via Coastal Zone Standing
Ref. 51 Committee.
Local Governments Study, plan. construct erosion cmntro@ Indiana Local Plan Legislation.
structures; est. special ordinances.

Not subject to Development of flood plain Some damage to Chicago urban area International Joint Control of water levels in Great undertaken GreAt Lakes Water Levels
Coastal lake flooding. has intensified r .. ff, vulnerable property. flooding study Commis.ion/Great Lakes Lakes. Study which Incorporates sesealment
Flooding Small streams causing severe flooding. underway. Levels Board of practicable means of improving
urban drainage Adequate drainage flood control. throughout Great Lakes.
fatilities provisions could
may flood. reduce urban U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flooding problems , plan U.S.C.S. See. 701 a-1, n. a (1960).
flood damage. Engineers construct flood control structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).

U.S. Federal Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster Be. Ref. 31
Insurance Protection Act.
Administration

U.S. Geological Prepare flood-prone area maps.
Survey

Great Lakes Basin Limited coordination of state
Commission activities relating to shore damage
via Coastal Zone Standing
committee.

Indiana Dept. of Civil Draft 6 maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 qf
Defense & Office.of preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Emergency PrepaTedne@a disaster plans.

Indiana Dept. of Establish minimum standards for
Natural Resources flood plain mamageneot.
(Natural Resources
Commission)

Local Qwernsents Must adopt flood plain management Indiana Local Plan Legialnutim-
ordinances, mating state
standards, for all are" subject to
flooding at 100 year recurrence
interval. Dept. of Natural
Resources approve all local
ordinances.

LOUISIANA

The 7,721 mile Louisiana tidal coastline is characterized mainly
by marshlands, although sand beaches do occur on some of the barrier
islands (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971).

Hurricanes with accompanying high winds, storm surge, and tornadoes,
pose the greatest threat to the coastal area. The annual probability
of occurrence along the Louisiana coast varies from six to thirteen
percent.(6-13%) .(Simpson and Lawrence, 1971). The extremely flat relief
and low elevation of much of the coast exposes large areas to hurricane
flooding. This condition contributed to the 400 deaths and $200 million
damage in Cameron Parish in 1957 (U.S. Army Corps of Rng., 1975).

Coastal erosion presents another hazard in the Louisiana coastal
zone. Although eighty per cent (80%) of the shore is eroding, only
two per cent (2%) is eroding at a critical rate (U.S. Army Corps of
Eng., 1973a). The barrier island and delta 'areas are particularly
vulnerable.

Table IV-11 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the
Louisiana coastal zone, the measures for coping with those hazards, and
the locus of authority and responsibility for employing.those coping
measures.

Aside from local compliance with Federal flood insurance regula-
tiohs, there is little legislation to control the development of
hazardous areas. The principal adjustment is an intricate and
extensive system of levees, which is still not complete. Some cities
are literally encircled by levees; some are designed to keep bayous or
rivers in their banks, and others to keep tidal and hurricane flood
waters out. This situation creates a drainage problem, however, and
pumps have to be used to expel water from within the levee system.
In recognition of tremendous risk faced by New Orleans, the New Orleans
@District of the Board of Levee Commissioners devised a vertical
evacuation plan similar to that of Miami. New Orleans has not been
flooded by the Mississippi since 1840. As with any structural adjust-
ment, however, the catastrophe potential is high. In 1973,when the
river rose exceptionally high, the levees had to be reinforced with
sandbags.

Erosion is combatted almost exclusively by structural measures,
with local, state and Federal agencies involved in construction and
operation.

IV-36

TABLE IV-11

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LECISLANIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS
New Orleans 6-13% probability of R4in, wind, stom 17.3% population U.S. Army Corps of Construction of storm surge U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-I, n. a (1960),
Hurricane Southern Delta hurricane effects in surge. tornadoes, increase since Engineers protection structure.. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
war vulnerable; any year, 1-4% accelerated erosion. last great
whole coast is probability of a great Major events: 1965 hurricane. See National Weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
exposed. hurricane. See Ref. 41 (Betsy) - 89 deaths. Ref. 13 Service (NOAA) ological information. Issues
12 probability of 15 ft. $1-2 billion damage 30% of population hurricane earnings.
st-rm surge near Lake in southern states. has never
Charles. 1% probability of See Ref. 56 experienced a National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
14 ft. storm surge near 1957 (Audrey) - 400 major hurricane. Center (NOAA) hurricane info me tion.
New Orleans. See Ref. 41 dead, $200 million increasing devel-
damage in Cameron opment of hazard Louisiana Dept. of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
1900-1974 - 19 hurricanes, Parish. Millions of area adds to Civil Defense & preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
10 great hurricanes. See dollars spent on vulnerability Emergency Preparedness disaster plans. -
Ref. 13 structural adjustments potential fo
to flooding, hurricane, extreme losses Louisiana State Administers Coastal
Major events; 1957 (Audrey), erosion. See Ref. 56 in New Orleans. Planning Office Resources Program
1964 (Hilda), 1965 (Betsy),
1969 (Camille), 1974
(Camen).

Rivers, bayous, Floods caused by hurricanes Extensive levee Continued devel- U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flooding problems , plan U.S.C.S. See. 70 1 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal & low-lying & severe storms. Overbank system keeps average opment of low- Engineers & construct flood control structures. as mended, Oupp. 1975).
Flooding coastal areas. flows rare due to extensive losses low. lying land
levee system. New Orleans increases U.S. Federal Administer NFLA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
last flooded by Mississippi 1927 flood on susceptibility, Insurance Protection Act.
River in 1840. Mississippi River, although Administration
18 million acres structural
High water in backwater flooded in 6 states. adjustments have Municipal Governments Adopt flood plain zoning, building
areas causes considerable See Ref. 56 reduced average & Parishes codes, 6 land use regulations.
damage. Levees on losses.
Mississippi haven't Catastrophe U.S. Geological Prepare & disseminate flood-prone
overtopped since 1927. potential S.-Y area maps.
Levees compound drainage increasing. New
problems . Orleans levees Louisiana Dept. of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
had to be sand Civil Defense & preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
bagged in 1973. Emergency Preparedness disaster plans.

2% critically Chronic, accelerated by Damages beaches, Rapid increase U.S. Amy Corp. of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal eroding, 802 sto@. protective works, in vulnerability, Engineers & construct erosion control as mended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion noncritical buildings, roads, etc. mainly on Lake structures.
erosion, 18Z Contributes to Ponchatrain.
stable. See sedimentation problems. U.S. Soil Conservation Participates in erosion control
Ref. 54 Service projects.

Beaches & delta Louisiana Dept. of Construction of protective structures.
are particularly Public Works
susceptible.
See Ref. 59 U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
Administration from accelerated erosion.

MAINE

Maine's deeply indented and island-studded coastline is estimated to
be 3,498 miles in length (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971). Much of this
shoreline is metamorphic rock and is largel@ invulnerable to.erosion'. The
threat of erosion is seribushoweveralong the heavily developed beach
and marsh shorelines between Portland and the New Hampshire line. Like-
wise, ocean front communities such as Popham Beach are vulnerable-to,
flooding during occasional hurricanes. Flooding may also occur along
the upper reaches of numerous narrow inlets due to tidal surges. Bangor
experienced severe and unexpected flooding in the winter of 1976 from this
source.

A final hazard to be considered in the Maine coastal area is that of
earthquake. Although the probability of occurrence is low, a major
(VII modified Merc"alli intensity) quake was reported in southeast Maine in
1904. The possibility of recurrence should not be overlooked.

Table IV-12 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Maine
coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards, and
the locus of authority and responsibility foremploying those'coping
measures.

Maine ha:s several laws and programs upon which it intends to base its
coastal zone management effort. TheSite Location Act requires a state
permit for construction of public or private facilities on sites of
more than twenty acres or having a floor area of more than 60,000 square
feet. The Shorelands Zoning Act further protects all lands within 250
feet of any coastal or inland shoreline through mandatory or state
imposed zoning. (Some coastal communities have no zoning except for
their shorelands.) A third layer of review is provided under the Coastal
Wetlands Act for all activities which would "remove, fill, dredge, or
alter any such area".

IV-38

TABLE IV-12

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE MAINE COASTAL ZONE

South coastal Continual process Undercuts structures, L@ catastrophe U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal area high accelerated by storms. removes beaches, potential. Engineers & construct erosion control as amended. (Supp. 1975).
Erosion susceptibility contributes to D - gas increasing structures.
to arosion- sedimentation in with development
triggered land- harbors. $27.5 of coastal areas. Maine Land Use Inventory critical erosion areas, Described as any area within 250 ft.
slides. See million estimated cost Regulatory Commission/ designate hazard zones. supervise of the normal high water mark of
Ref. 62 1% to protect 20 miles Dept. of Environmental local. zoning ordinances. any pond, river, or salt water body.
critical, 99% of coast. See Ref. 56 Protection
noncritical, 0%
stable. Ref. 53 Maine Office of State Responsible for Coastal Zone
Developed Planning Management Program administration.
beaches &
@h.zalin.. Local Governments Establish zoning ordinances for Must meet standards of Land Use
between Portland critical areas. Regulatory Commission.
& New Hampshire
border U.S. Federal 1973 Fi.od Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
particularly Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
vulnerable. Administration from accelerated erosion.

Entire coast is 4-6% probability of hurricane Accelerated erosion, Development of National Weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
Hurricane vulnerable to effects. See Ref. 41 winds, rain, atom coast increas;s ological information. Issues
Service (NOW
some extent. surge. susceptibili , hurricane warnings.
Mid latidude 1900-1974 - 4 direct land- no experience with I
I National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
cyclones falls of minor hurricanes. Nov. 1945 - Portland a large magnitude Center (NOW hurricane information.
northeasters are See Ref. 13 coastal flood caused hurricane.
related hazards. by a northeaster. 2 U.S. Amy Corps of Construction of atom surge U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, (1960).
Major storms : 1815, 1938, ft. above annual spring Engineer. protection structure.. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
1944, 1953, 1954 (Edna), tide, 8.7 ft. above
1959, 1960 (Donna), 1969, . mean sea level. Most Maine Bureau of Civil Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
1976 (Belle). damage in south Emergency Preparedness pr'paredness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
co::tal area. Rest of disaster lans.
co t moderate, Maine Office of State Responsible for Coastal Zone
scattered d ama gas. Planning Management Program administration.

Coastal rivers, Caused by rapid snow wIt, Adds tocoastal Increasing with U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flood probl seat , plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal low-lying areas, Ice j ans . hurricanes, erosion, damages increasing Engineers & construct flood control structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Flooding upper reaches of northeaster. & severe structures in flood development.
narrow inlets. torma. plains. U.S. Geological Prepare flood-prone area =Pa.
Survey
Ocean front 13 floods in 75 years. See Androscoggin flood of Maine Land Use Inventory critical flood area
-
u Ref. 15 Regulatory Commi. -asion/ designate hazard zones, an alse
nities record: 1936 - 4 dead, perv
vulnerable. 1.500 families Dept. of Environmental local zoning efforts.
Tidal flooding - average of homeless, heavy Protection
5 floods, 1.5 ft. or greater damages. See Ref. 56
than annual spring tide, Maine Office of State Responsible for Coastal Zone
per 40 years. Bangor - severe floods, Planning Management Program administration.
winter of 1976 ft= Local Governments Establish zoning ordinances, for Must comply with Land Use
tidal surges. hazard areas, land use controls & Regulatory Commission standards.
construction codes.
U.S. Federal Administers NFLA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
Insurance Frotection Act.
Adminis tration
Maine Bureau of Civil Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
Emergency Preparedness preparedness plan, coordinate local PL 93-288.
disaster plans.

North coast Expected 33.5 modified Low probability event Increasing with Maine Dept. of Geologic Inventory & mapping.
Earthquake vulnerable to Mercalli intensity V earth- could cause severe increasing devel- Conservation Bureau
minor damage. quakes per 100 years. damage depending on opment of coastal of Geology
South coast - Maximum expected intensity, location. Little areas.
an harard. See VIII. See Ref. 61 experience with major Maine Office of State Responsible for Coastal Zone
Ref. 2 earthquakes. Planning Management Program administration.
Major events: 1904, south-
a Mai-, intensity VII. Maine Bureau of Civil Draft 6 maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
B::tRef. 59 Emergency Preparedness preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
disaster plans.

MARYLAND

The Maryland coastal zone possesses two components: (1) a 31 mile
strip of sandy barrier beaches and islands backed by 203 miles of lagoon
and wetland shore, fringing the Atlantic ocean; and (2) approximately
3,190 miles of banks and bluffs ranging up to 100 feet high along
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971).
Much of the lower eastern bay shore is predominantly marshy.

Coastal erosion and tidal flooding are serious natural hazards in
Maryland. Erosion is often accompanied by small scale landslides and
occasional mudflows. The state's oceanic shore also suffers infrequent
hurricane damage. In any given year there is a two per cent (2%) chance
that hurricanes will directly impact the coast (Simpson and Lawrence,
1971). Associated storm surges and riverine flooding may affect bayshore
communities (U.S.G.S. & NOAA, 1975). Parts of Maryland's western bay-
shore may experience moderate levels of seismic activity (up to modified
Mercalli scale VII) but detailed information on seismic risk is lacking.

Over 25,000 acres of land were lost through erosion between 1845-1942
(Singewald and Slaughter, 1949). Critical erosion affects the entire ocean-
front.* The problem is worst in the northernmost five miles of Assateague
Island where losses of thirty-five feet per year occurred during the*1934-42
period. Most erosion is due to winter storms although occasional hurricanes
can inflict serious damages.

The main causes of bayshore erosion include storm wave run up,
erodible cliffs and a general long term widening and shallowing of Chesa-
peake Bay. Heaviest erosion losses have been sustained along the lower
eastern Chesapeake shore. Here thirty-eight per cent (38%) of the shore-
line is affected by high rates of erosion (Maryland Dept. of Natural
Resources, Series A). Twelve per cent (12%) of the northeastern shore
suffers similar problems, whereas only eight per cent (8%) of the western
bayshore is thus affected. Dorchester County accounts for about one quarter
(24.9%) of all mainland erosion losses and approximately thirty-two per
cent (32%) of all island losses (Maryland DNR, Series A).

Tidal flooding of wetlands and agricultural land is a major problem
on the southeastern Bay shore (Somerset and Dorchester counties). Islands
surrounding Tangier Sound are particularly affected although most occupants
have congtructed buildings in comparatively secure areas. Riverine flood-
ing of urban areas is more serious on the western shore (e.g. Baltimore).
Elsewhere recreational homes and agricultural lands are the principal
victims (Md. Dept. of State Planning, 1974 & 1975).

More than $1 million (1962 dollars) worth of public and private
property damage was inflicted on the Atlantic o 'cean front by the Easter
1962 storm and required costly reconstruction in the Ocean City beach area.
Tropical storm Agnes (1972) killed seventeen people and caused more than

IV-40

$110 million worth of damage on land plus $134 million damage to fishing
and related industries on Chesapeake Bay. Damages from the 1962 storm
were partly attributable to flooding and partly to erosion, whereas
Agnes primarily generated riverine flood related losses (Maryland,
State of, 1975).

Table IV-13 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Maryland
coastal zone, the measures available for coping.with those' hazards, and
the locus'of authority and responsibility for employing thosecoping
measures.

Maryland possesses a battery of legislation for coping with natural
hazards in the coastal zone. Primary emphasis is placed upon the Wetlands
,Law (1972); State Land Use Act (1974); Sediment Control Act (1970);
Beach Erosion Control District Act (1975); and a groupof supporting laws
regulating construction within the 100 year floodplain (e.g. HB 708(1976),
and Art. NR #8-803 Maryland Code).

Through the State Wetlands Acts of 1970, the state can.directly control
developments on the tidal wetlands and exerts indirect controlover non-
tidal wetlands through its"waterway construction obstruction permit system
and comments on the expanded Section 404 Corps of Engineers Permits System
(Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, 1976).

In Maryland, counties, rather than municipal governments, possess
the most effective land use management powers.. All seventeen coastal
counties have adopted, or are in the process of adopting comprehensive
master plans and zoning codes, and all but one possess subdivision regu-
lations and building codes. Eight of seventeen coastal counties have
flood hazard controls, six have incorporated these into zoning ordinances.,
five into subdivision regulations, three into grading and sediment
ordinances,and two into other plans (Md. Dept. of State Planning, 1974).

IV-41

TABLE IV-13

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE MARYLAND COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGIRIATTVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS
Entire ocea- Continual Prot... Damages buildings, Coastal develop- U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal front subject accelerated by storms. roads, protective ment increases Engineers 6 construct erosion control, as mended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion to serious High rates of erosion works, beaches, bluffs. susceptibi3 i ty. Structures.
cro Sim. sedimentationt Protection works are
Heaviest 1845-1942 estimated 25,000 costly & not U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same
b.y.h.re acres of land eroded away. guaranteed to work. Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
erosion along See Ref. 42 Sedimentation Administration from accelerated erosion.
low r eastern necessitates continual
c harbor clearance. Maryland Dept. of Administers Critical Areas Act establishes a procedure whereby
I'll *
9Z of coast State Planning Designation Act (1974). local governments & regional
critically agencies may recommend areas'
eroding, 77% within their jurisdiction as areas
noncritical of critical concern.
erosion, 14%
stable. See Maryland Dept. of Administers Maryland's Shore Erosion Development of structural projects;
Re f 53 Natural Resources Control Act. administers the State Shore Erosion
Control Construction Loan Fund.

Administers Maryland's Coastal Zone
Management Program.

Local Governments Establish zoning regulations,
building codes, & land use
management prcqtama@.

Low-lying Flooding caused by Flood damage to Increasing devel- U.S. Army Corp. of Study coastal flood problems, plan See R-f. 54@
Coastal coastal -., hurricanes, .- at.-.. structures in flood opment will Engineers construct flood control structures.
Flooding wetlands & Flooding common in Feb. & plain. increase
estuaries. Apr. (snow melt), summer 1936 flood - $12.6 vulnerability. U.S. Federal Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 2
& fall (hurricanes). Major million damage (1936 Insurance Protection Act.
floods 8 times in 50 years. values). See Ref. 56 Administration
See Ref. 56
U.S. Geological Survey Prepares flood-prone area maps.

Maryland Dept. of kdministers Critical Areas Act establishes a procedure whereby
State Planning Designation Act (1974). local governments & regional
agencies my recommend areas within
their jurisdiction as areas of
critical concern.

Water Resources Administers Tidal Wetlands
Administration Act (1970). Controls
all development in tidal
wetlands.

Maryland Dept. of Administers Maryland's Coastal Zone
Natural Resources Management Program.

Maryland Civil Defense Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
& Emergency Pl ann ing preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Agency disaster plans.

Local Governments Establish zoning regulations,
building codes, & land use
management programs.

TABLE IV-13 (cont'd)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE mARyLAND COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EMCTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LECISLATrVEAUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXT1UM EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS

Southern part 2Z probability of Rain, sto= surge, Inexperience of U.S. Army Corps of Construct atom surge protection See Ref. 54
Hurricane of Chesapeake hurricane effects. tornadoes, winds & population, may Engineers structures.
Bay; Atlantic See Ref. 41 accelerated erosion. hinder
.... t -at 1900-1974 no major hurricane evacuation. National Weather Collects & disseminates met..r-
vulnerable landfalls. See Ref. 13 Increasing Service (NOAA) ological information. Issues
Major hurricanes affecting development of hurricane -ings.
coast: 1944, 1960 (Dome). coast increases
1972 - Tropical atom Agnes: vulnerability. National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
17 killed & more than $244 Center (NOAA) hurricane information.
million damage. See Ref. 21 Evacuation problems
particularly serious Maryland Civil Defense Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
in Ocean City & Emergency Flaming preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
vacation area-- Agency disaster plans.
potential disaster
area. Maryland Dept. of Administers Critical Areas Act establishes a procedure whereby
State Planning Designation Act (1974). local governments & regional
agencies my recommend areas within
their jurisdiction as areas of
critical concern.

Maryland Dept. of Administers Maryland's Coastal Zone
Natural Resources Management Program.

Moderate risk Maximum expected event VII Little experience with Law probability U.S. Geological Conducts geologic studies in order
Earthquake in parts of modified Mercalli. earthquakes. event could cause Survey to mouitor & possibly predict
Maryland's See Ref. 14 moderate damage. seismic activity.
western Detailed
bayshore. information on Maryland Geological Technical studies of geology
seismic risk is Survey soils.
Lacking.
Maryland Civil Defense Draft & maintain a state disaster Responzible under See. 201 of
& Emergency Planning preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Agency disaster plans.

MASSACHUSETTS

The.Massachusetts tidal shoreline is approximately 1519 miles in
length, including islands (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971). The shoreline
is characterized by extensive beaches on Cape Cod and the islands of
Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. The shoreline between Cape Cod and
Boston is composed of low level coastal estuaries and beaches subject to
considerable erosion hazard, particularly in the vicinity of Scituate,
Marshfield and Duxbury. North of Boston the shore is rocky withmany
islands and scenic headlands extending,to the eastern-most point, Cape
Ann. Between Cape Ann and the New Hampshire line there are additional
beaches and estuaries along the Ipswich-Newburyport and Salisbury
shorelines which are also subject to severe coastal erosion.

Coastal storm surge flooding presents another hazard to the
Massachusetts shoreline. Serious.flood damage was incurred in the hurri-
canes of 1938, 1944, twice in 1954,' in 1955 and 1960 (U.S. Army Corps of
Eng., 1971c).

The possibility of a damaging earthquake occurring in the Massachusetts
coastal area is another hazard which must be taken into account. Major
(VIII modified Mercalli intensity) quakes occurred at Newbury in 1727 and
at Cape Ann in 1755 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce' 1973). The possible recurrence
of theseevents should not be overlooked.

,Table IV-14.shows,the,nature of the natural hazards in the Massachusetts
coastal zone, the measures for coping with those hazards, and the locus of
authority and responsibility for employing those"coping measures.

The Coastal Zone Management program in Massachusetts is administered
by a newly established division of the'-Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs. It is only a planning and.advisory body, quite distinct from the
line regulatory agencies. However, several regulatory tools do exist for
management cf coastal hazards. Theseltools fall primarily under the
administrative responsibility of the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (formerly Department of Natural Resources). The Massachusetts
Zoning Enabling Act, as revised in 1975, (Mass. Gen. Law, Ch. 40A) forms
the cornerstone of hazards management in the Massachusetts coastal zone
by including safety from flood as a purpose of zoning.

Under the "Hatch Act" (Mass. G.L., Ch. 131, sec. 40) local conserva-
tion commissions are authorized to regulate (but not prohibit) encroach-
ments upon inland and coastal wetlands, broadly defined to include
beaches, dunes, and a zone bounded by a line 100 feet inland from the 100
year flood boundary. Local determinations are reviewable by the Mass.
Department of Environmental Quality'Engineering. A parallel tool lies
in the power of the state to impose "restrictive orders" upon inland and
coastal wetlands directly (Mass. G.L., Ch. 131, sec. 40A and Ch. 1302
sec. 105). This program lies within the .Department of Environmental

IV-44

Management. (Recent reorganization of the Massachusetts environmental
bureaucracy has thus delegated the key programs-relating to coastal
wetlands management to two agencies.)

IV-45

TABLE IV-14

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE MASSACHUSETT COASTAL ZONE

11% critical Continual process Erodes recreational Increasing with U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal erosion problems plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, 8 (1960),
Coastal erosion, 86% accelerated by stores. beaches, damages increasing coastal Engineer. & construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion noncritical ero- buildings, roads, development structures.
sion, 3% stable. protection works, etc.
See Ref. 53 Estimated cost of $210 Massachusetts Dept. Responsible for improvement Reviews notices of intent submitted
million to protect 136 of Environmental safety of waterways, & protection of by individuals planning any
Out- beaches miles of shoreline. Quality Engineering tidal waters, shores & foreshores. activity that might alter the
of Cape Cod & See Ref. 56 coastline. Waterways Program.
island.
particularly
vulnerable. Massachusetts Dept, of Responsible for regulating, Coastal Wetlands Restriction
Environmental restricting, or prohibiting Program.
Management alteration or pollution of coastal
wetlands.

Massachusetts Dept, Authorized to prohibit any removal
of Transportation of any arms, gravel, etc. from
beaches, shores, bluffs, headlands,
islands or bars.

U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the samet as
Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
Administration ft= accelerated erosion.

Merrimack River- Floods caused by local Damage to development Increasing devel- Massachusetts Dept. Responsible far improvement Review notices .1 intent submitted
Coastal major river with storms , hurricanes, in flood plain. opment in flood of Environmental safety of waterways, & protection of by individuals planning say
Flooding mouth on coast. northeasters 6 snow melt. Numerous protection plains causes a Quality Engineering tidal waters, shores & foreshores. activity that might alter the
Many shorter Major flooding in 1936, 1955, projects have been significant coastline. Waterways Program.
stream. in & 1968. constructed to control increase in
coastal area. flooding. vulnerability. Massachusetts Dept. Responsible for regulating, C ... t.1 Wetlands Restriction
of Environmental restricting, or prohibiting Program.
Management alteration or pollution of
coastal wetlands.

U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flooding problems , plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960).
Engineers & construct flood control structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).

U.S. Federal Administer NFI.A & Flood Disaster See R.I. 31
Insurance Protection Act.
Administration

New England River Assists & coordinates New England
Basins Commission states In dealing with Coastal Zone
Management problems of interstate
or regional concern.

Massachusetts Civil Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Defense Agency & preparedness plan; c-dinste local PL 93-288.
Office of Emergency disaster plans.
Preparedness

North coast On south coast: 6% Rain, wind, 67.7Z population U.S. Army Corps of Construct atom surge protection U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 .-1, ., a (1960),
Hurricane =at vulnerable probability of accelerated erosion, increase since Engineers structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
to northeaster. hurricane effects, 1Z atom surge. Buzzards last =jet
South coast probability of a great Bay, Sept. 1938 - hurricane. See National Weather Collects & disseminates
more vulnerable hurricane. See Ref. 41 heavy rainfall, high Ref. 13 Service (NOAA) meteorological information. Issues
to hurricanes. tides & hurricane Belle (1976) hurricane warnings.
1900-1974 - 5 hurricanes, winds combined to weakened before
including 2 great hurricanes produce flooding over landfall. National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
with direct landfalls in 14 ft. above mean Inexperience with Center (NOAA) hurricane information.
Massachusetts. See Ref. 13 sea level; 187 dead. a major hurricane
out- is,land.-. south 7 'hinder U.S. Geological Prepare flood-prone area =Pa.
Major events: 1938, 1944, Cape Cod, Sept. 1944 evacuation. Survey
1954 (Carol & Ed..), 1955 flood levels 11 ft. Vulnerability
(Diane), 1960 (Dorna), 1976 above mean sea level. increasing with Massachusetts Civil Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
(Belle). See Ref. 56 development of IDf.... Agency & preparedness plan; coordinate local Pl. 93-288.
coastal areas. Office of Emergency disaster plans.
Preparedness

TABLE IV-14 (cant'd)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE

Major damage North coast - expected 117.6 Little experience with Increasing with U.S. Geological Conducts geological studies in order
Earthquake expected along modified Mercalli int ... ity earthquakes, Increased Survey to monitor & possibly predict
north coast. V earthquakes per 100 years. possibility of a development in seismic activity.
Moderate damage Maximum intensity expected, great earthquake in Boston area.
at Cap. Cd' 1K. Boston area. Massachusetts Dept. of Technical studies of geology & soils.
Buzzards Bay. Seismic risk Transportation/State
See Ref. 2 South coast - expected 69.1 Side effects: fire, areas unknown. Geologist
modified Mertalli intensity large-scale social &
V earthquakes per 100 years. economic disruption. Massachusetts Civil Draft & maintain a star. disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Maximum expected intensity, Defense Agency & preparedness plan; coordinate local Pl. 93-288.
VIII. See Ref. 61 Office of Emergency disaster plans.
Preparedness
Major events-. 1727 Newbury,
intensity VIII; 1755 Cape. Cities A Towns Compulsory building code, includes Massachusetts Building Code 23B!
Ann, intensity VIII. See seismic considerations. 16 et. seq. (effective 'January 1.
Ref. 59 1975).

MICHIGAN

Michigan's coastal zone is approximately 3,282 miles in length
including islands (Ervin, 1976). Physical, characteristics of the
shoreline are diverse, ranging from the marshes of Saginaw Bay and
Lake Erie,to the rock coasts of Lake Superior, to the sand dunes and
beaches along Lake Michigan's eastern shore (Mich. Dept. of Na,tural
Resources, 1973). Uses of the shoreline are similarly diverse and
vary from heavy recreational use of beaches near metropolitan areas,
to urban, commercial and industrial developments, to the sparsely
developed, remote Upper Peninsula.

Coastal flooding and coastal erosion represent continuing problems
in Michigan's coastal zone. Coastal flooding is deemed a serious
problem, having paused millions of dollars in property losses and
land damages. At present, coastal flooding associated with high lake
levels affects over 45,000 acres of land area, encompassing over 300
miles of Michigan shoreline and involving approximately thirty-three
coastal counties (Mich. Dept. of Natural Resources, 1973a).

Four times during the past decade coastal flooding has resulted
from a seiche, an oscillation of the lake's surface set in motion
by a passing.storm system. Although coastal erosion is a continual
process, several periods of accelerated erosion have caused extensive
damage to shoreline property. The most severe coastal erosion has
occurred during.periods of,high lake levels. Levels of the Michigan
and Huron have been sufficiently high in thirty-four of the years since
1900 to cause accelerated erosion (Mich. DNR, 1973). Periods during the
late 1920's, mid 40's, early 50's and early 70's have been particularly
,damaging. The combined flood and erosion damages for Michigan's shore-
lands during the 1951-52 period, the most recent period for which we
have damage surveys, represented twenty-nine per cent (29%) of the total
flood and erosion damages for the total Great Lakes shoreline and
amounted to $17.4 million.

Table IV-15 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Michigan
coastal zone, the measures for coping with those hazards, and the locus
of authorityand responsibility for employing those coping measures.
The 1970 Shorelands Protection and Management-Act, as subsequently
amended, is the cornerstone of natural hazards management under the
Michigan Shoreland Management Program. This act assigns principal
responsibility to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, but
also relies upon local government exercise of zoning restrictions
and other land use controls. Michigan has moved vigorously to inven-
tory hazard areas and to otherwise implement the Shorelands Act, but
the period of experience with the management phase is still too short
to permit evaluation.

IV-48

TABLE TV-15

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT 119 THE MICHIGAN COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS
365 miles along Damages related to coastal Little loss of life Increasing with Intern
Commls:tional Joint Control of water levels in the See Ref. @6 (Minnesota)
Coastal L. Superior are erosion are greatly but extensive damages increased i.n/Great Great Lakes.
Erosion erodible. 80 increased during periods of to recreational development of Lakes Levels Board
miles considered high lake levels as beaches & private shoreline area &
high risk. occurred during the late property due to increasing Great Lakes Basin Limited coordination of star.
1920'., id-1940's, early coastal erosion. property values. Commission activities relating to shore
2/3 of upper 1950'., & early 1970'.. damage via Coastal Zone Standing
Penn. shore of In 1951, 1952, coastal Committee.
L. Huron is Erosion may also became erosion alone wag;
erodible; 109 accelerated as a result of responsible for nearly U.S. Army Corps of Study Coastal erosion problems, Plan U.S.C.S. S.C. 701 .-1, n, (1960),
mile. is high winter storms & seiche $12 million in Engineers and construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
ri.k. occurrances during such high property damage. See structures.
547 miles or 662 water periods. Refs. 23 & 25
of I. Michigan Michigan Dept. of Inventory critical erosion areas, High risk erosion areas am those
shoreline is Nov. 14, 1972 winter Natural Resources designate high risk emaim areas, subject to recession rate of I foot
erodible - 336 storm in Saginaw Bay approve local zoning ordinances, or more per year. Local zoning ord
miles is high resulted in serious administer permit program where ordinance for high risk erosion
risk. See coastal erosion. See approved local zoning ordinan a areas most require (a) 30 year
Ref. 27 Ref. 25 lacking. Applies only to setback or (b) noveable structures
undeveloped, unplatted property. or (C) st-Ctural. protection.
Of ..tire although local ordinance my be
Michigan coast, more comprehensive.
5% critically Michigan Dept. of Prepare Emergency Preparedness Plan, See Ref. 26
eroding, 33% State Police coordinate disaster response.
noncritical
erosion, 622 Regional Planning Assemble plans for coastal zone
stable. See Agencies management under contract to the
Ref. 51 Dept. of Natural Resources. Most met DIM standards described a
Local Governments Enact & enforce shor.1-d or other above.
zoning ordinances. Subject to standards established
Establish land use controls, in State Hinergency Preparedness Plan.
construction codes. etc.
Coastal flooding Periods of extreme high 1951-1952 floods Increasing in degree Intern:tional Joint Control of water levels in the See Ref. 56 (Minnesota)
Coastal is considered a water are a chronic problem caused $.5 million in with each new major Commis lon/Creat Great Lakes.
Flooding severe hazard and have occurred during public losses & flood due to Lakes Levels Board
in many parts the late 1920's, mid-1940's. almost'$5 million in increased shoreline
of the state; early 1950's, and early private property development & Great Lakes Basin Limited coordination of state
representing 1970's. Periods of high losses. June 30, 1968 increasing property Commission activities relating to shore
about 200 miles water have been accompanied seich. .-.ad wave. Value.. damage via Coastal Zone Standing
of mainland by winter storms, and on 4 5-6 ft. above normal Committee.
shoreline & 100 occasions during the 1960's & resulted in damage
miles of island by seiche, at which time to 2 coastal U.S. Army Corpa'of Study flood problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec: 701 a-1, n, (1960),
shoreline. See severe flooding has communities. See Ref. Engineers construct flood control structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
map p. 11, Ref. occurred. 68
24 U.S. Federal Insurance Delineate flood hazard areas, See Ref. 31
Nov 14, 1972 Administration administer flood insurance program.
Low-lying Lake Begin- Bay winter
Erie shoreline torm resulted in Michigan Dept. of Inventory flood hazard areas, Flood risk areas are those subject
is subject to waves 8-12 ft. above Natural Resources designate high risk flood areas, to flooding by 100 year flood. Local
severe flooding. normal, causing $7 approve local zoning ordinances, zoning ordi nan ces for flood risk
Sea Ref. 23 million damage, the administer ?ermit program where areas =at (a) prohibit construction
evacuation of 15,000 approved local zoning ordinances or (b) require elevation or (a)
All of people; roads, break- lacking. Applies only to require flocia-proofing. See Ref.. 14
Michigan's waters & retaining undeveloped, unplatted property,
portion of Lake walls washed out. although local ordinance my be
St. Clair is See Ref. 25 more comprehensive.
subject to Michigan Dept. of Prepare Emergency Preparedness Plan. See Ref., 2.6
severe flooding. State Police coordinate disaster response.
Regional Pla-1.9 Assemble plans for coastal zone
Agencies management under contract to the
Dept. of Natural Resources.
Local Governments Identify flood plains; establish Must met DNR minimum standards
standards for new construction an described above.
flood plain leads, enact & enforce
shoreland or other zoning ordinances
containing other provisions.
Establish land use controls, Subject to standards established in
construction codes, evacuation State Emergency Preparedness Plan.
shelter procedures, etc.

MINNESOTA

Minnesota's co@stal zone consists of 206 miles of Lake Superior
shoreline north and east of the City of Duluth. Most of it is steep,
rocky and sparsely populated. Coastal flooding occurs, but poses 6nly
minor problems,except in the Duluth area, where more gentle topography
and more extensive development create a greater potential for damage.
Coastal erosion (mostly loss of beach areas) occurs along the entire
coast, but is, in terms of short range effect, considered a critical
problem on only two per cent (2%) of the shoreline located in the
Duluth area. Both coastal flooding and erosion are associated with
periods of high wa*ter levels and storm action in Lake Superior. During
the high water level period of 1951-52, very rough estimates of flood
damages and erosion damages sustained (primarily in Duluth) represent
ten per cent (10%) and two per cent (2%), respectively, of total flood
damages and erosion damages along the entire U.S. Great takes shoreline
during that period (U.S. Army Corps of Eng., 1971a).

Table IV-16 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the
Minnesota coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those
hazards, and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing
those coping measures. The 1969 Flood Plain Management Act and the 1973
Shoreland Development Act are the cornerstones of natural hazard manage-
ment under existing Minnesota law, but additional legislation will be
proposed as a part of the Coastal Zone Management program now being
developed. Due to the recency,of the shoreland management legislation
and the fact that no floodplains have yet been designated in the coastal
zone, there is little experience to show how these coping measures will
work. The Department of Natural Resources and Arrowhead Regional
Development Commission have recently completed a Shoreland Damage Survey
to determine recession rates in order to prepare regulations for land
use in the coastal region.

IV-50

TABLE rV-16 NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE MINNESOTA COASTAL ZONE

Duluth area Caused by stortna occurring Little hazard to life; Increasing slowly; International Joint Control of water level in Lake See Ref. 56
coastal during periods of high ro@gh estimate aggravated by Commission/Great lakes Superior.
Flooding water levels in Lake reported property maintenance of Levels Board
Superior (2 ft. above damage of $1,119,000 higher lake stages
normal water level), experienced in 1951- superimposed on U.S. Amy Corps of Study flood problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
especially during late fall, 1952 high -ter . high wave run-up. Engineers construct flood control structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
early winter & early spring. period. See Ref. 56
See Ref. 56 U.S. Federal Delineate flood hazard areas, See Ref. 31
Insurance administer flood insurance program.
Administration

Minnesota Dept. of Establish minimim standards for Awaits PIA 100 year flood plain
Natural Resources flood plain management. designation.

Minnesota Office of Draft 6 maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Emergency Services preparedness plan. PL 93-288,

Regional Development Comprehensive regional land use
Commissions planning; performs shoreline
damage surveys.

Local Governments Must adopt flood plain management
ordinances, including land use
controls, meeting state minimum
standards. for all land. subject to
flooding by 100 year recurrence
interval floods.

DMR will establish minim-,
regulations which each body must
meet. If ordinance is inadequate
or not developed, DNR will
intervene until regulations are
met.

Portiow of Short-term, effects caused Littlehazard to life; Increasing slowly-, International Joint Control of water level in Lake See.Ref. 56
Coastal Lake County & by winter storms occurring loss of recreational aggravated by C onmi ission/Great Lakes Superior.
Erosion Duluth area; during years of high water & residential beach maintenance of Level. Board
2% critical levels in Lake Superior areas estimated at higher lake stages (1960),
erosion, 7% (2 ft. above normal -ter $828,000 in 1951-1952 superimposed on U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a
significant level), especially during high water period. high wave run-up. Engineers & construct erosion control a. a-nd.d,.(S.pp. 1975).
erosion, 91% late fall, early winter & See Ref. 56 structures.
stable. See early spring. See Ref. 56
Ref. 56 Minnesota Dept. of Establish minimum standards (type Hazard areas have been designated
Long-term effects due to Natural Resources of land use, setbacks, etc.) for but establishment of regulations
wave & ice action, 6 shoreland development. awaits planning reports.
mechanical break-up of
rocky beaches presently Regional Development Comprehensive regional land use
unknown Commi..i... planning: performai shoreline
damage surveys.

Local Governments Must adopt shoreland development
ordinances meeting state minimum
standards for all lands within
1000 ft. of shoreline, or within
300 ft.-of landward side of flood
plain, which eve r is greater.

MISSISSIPPI

Mississippi has only-three counties, Hancock, Harrison and Jackson,
with coastline. Much-of the 359 miles of tidal shoreline is marshland
and artificial beach (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971). Uses of this -
coastal zone are varied and include residential, recreational, shipping,
commercial fishing and heavy industry. Growth has been rapid, popula-
tion near the shore increased forty-two per cent (42%) between 1960 and
1970 (U.S. Department of Commerco, Bureau of the Census, 1970).

Natural hazards of concern in Mississippi are coastal erosions,
hurricanes and flooding. During any given year, it has been estimated that
Mississippi has a six per cent (6%) chance of experiencing a direct
hurricane landfall (Simpson and Lawrence, 1971). Hurricane Camille, of
August 1969, caused nearly a billion and a half dollars . damage to the
Mississippi Gulf Coast (Mississippi, State of, 1970).

Coastal erosion is a continuous problem along parts of the shore-
line; barrier islands and artificial beach areas are particularly
vulnerable. The'U..S. Army Corps of Engineers, in its South Atlantic
regional report to the National Shoreline Study (1973a),, reports twenty-
eight per cent (28%) of the shoreline is undergoing noncritical erosion
and an additional fifteen per cent (15%) is suffering critical erosion
damage.

Coastal flooding caused by storm surge and associated riverine flood-
ing is another hazard of concern in Mississippi. Flooding of marshes and
low-lying wetlands along the shoreline is a common problem and may cause
damage to property during periods of heavy precipitation and storm surge
associated with hurricanes and storm systems.

Table IV-17 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the
Mississippi coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those
hazards, and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing
those coping measures.

At the heart of natural hazards management in Mississippi is the
Coastal Wetlands Protection Act of 1973, which invests the Marine
Resources Council with the authority to issue permits regulating con-
struction and other modifications in wetlands areas. Cities, incorpora-
ted towns and counties all have broad zoning and subdivision authorities.

IV-52

TABLE IV-17

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE MISSISSIPPI COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS
Entire coast 6% probabilitv of Tornadoes, rain. wind, 30.2% population U.S. Amy Corps of Construction of atom surge U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, 6 (1960),
Hurricane vulnerable. hurricane effects atom surge, increase since Engineers protection structures. as ampndeC (Supp. 1975).
in my given year, 1% accelerated erosion. last maj-
probability of a great 1969 (Camille) - hurricane. See National Weather Collects and disseminates meteor-
hurricane . See Ref. 41 260 dead, $1.4 billion Ref. 13 Service (NOAA) ological. information. Issues
1% probability of a 12 ft. damage. $55 million increasing hurricane warnings.
atom surge near Gulfport. spent by Corps of development of
See Ref. 41 Engineers for coastal areas National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
1900-1974 - 5 hurricanes, reconstruction along adds to Center (NOAA) hurricane information.
3 of which were great Mississippi Gulf vulnerability.
hurric ane a. See Ref. 13 coast area. See Inexperienced Mississippi Civil Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Major "cuts: 1915, 1965 Ref. 56 population may Defense Council preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
(Betsy), 1969 (Camille). not respond disaster plans .
adequately to
-cuation
warnings.

15% critically Chronic, accelerated by Damages beaches, Population U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems , plan U.S.C.S. See. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal eroding, 28% atoms. protective works. increase on main- Engineers & construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion noncritical, 57Z buildings, roads, etc. land increases structures.
stable. See Some threat to future
Ref. 55 property; shoreline vulnerability, U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same a.
changes my pose Barrier islands Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
Barrier islands navigation threat. generally Administration ft= accelerated erosion.
& artificial undeveloped.
beaches Mississippi Mari" Permitting of dredge & fill Coastal Wetlands Protection
especially Resources Council applications. Act of 1973.
vulnerable. Gulf Coast Research Tecbntcal studies of coastal
Laboratory strat1graphy.

Mar.he. I- Flooding caused by Damage to structures Existing controls U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flood problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal lying coastal hurricanes & local storms. in flood plain. probably adequate Engineers & construct flood control structures. as amended. (Supp. 1975).,
Flooding areas. Flooding of wetlands is Property damage low, to keep property-
conm0n. except when atom at-risk low. U.S. Federal Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster see Ref. 31
Conditions present. Insurance Protection Progras.
Not a major problem, except Administration
when tidea are higher
than normal. Mississippi Marine Permitting of dredge & fill Coastal Wetlands Protection
Resources Council applications, effect on ebb & flow Act of 1973.
of tide included as a criterion
for permitting.

Mississippi Civil Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible Under Sec. 201 of
Defense Council preparedness Plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
disaster plans.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The New Hampshi@e coastal area is a roughly triangular shaped
drainage basin in the extreme southeastern corner-of the state. It
is bounded by the Piscataqua River Basin on the north and west, by the
Merrimack River Basin on the southwest, and by a narrow strip of the
Massachusetts north coastal area on the south for a total of 131 miles
of shoreline.

The topography consists of a gently rolling plain with typical
elevation of 20 to 80 feet, with several druml 'ins reaching elevations
above 200 feet. There are seventeen tidewater cities and towns in
the area, of which only four front directly on the Atlantic Ocean.
The other thirteen front on tidal rivers, Great Bay, or saltwater marshes.
There are also numerous fresh-water marshes in this area.. Most of the
surficial deposits are marine clays and sand which were uplifted
following glacial retreat.

The entire coastal area is vulnerable to erosion with the most
critical problems occurring at Hampton Beach, North Beach, Seabrook
Beach, Hampton, Foss Beach and Rye. Flooding problems have also occurred,
mainly in conjunction with hurricanes and northeasters, which occasionally
have direct impact on the coast. Generally overlooked as a hazard in
New Hampshire., is the possibility of a damaging earthquake. Although
considered of low probability, a catastrophic event could take place.

Table IV-18 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the New
Hampshire coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those
hazards, and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing
those coping measures.

The New Hampshire Coastal'Zone Management Office is located within
the Office of Comprehensive Planning's 'Division of Regional Planning.
The Coastal Zone Management Office has designated Geographical Areas of
Particular Concern and has instituted a number of data gathering studies
for the coastal zone.

Cities and towns have broad powers to zone, but villages must be
specifically authorized to zone by the legislature. All regulations must
be in compliance with a comprehensive plan for that municipality.

The state passed a Tidal Wetlands Law (1973) which defines wetland
areas and permissible uses for these areas. The law was tested in the
New Hampshire Supreme Court and upheld (Sibson v. New Hampshire, 1975).

The state is in the process of formulati 'ng its coastal management
policies, and state-level guidelines for local implementation are
expected.

IV-54

TABLE TV-18

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL ZONE

Entire coast Continual process Undermines bank (6 Low catastrophe U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal erosim problem, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (196B),
Coastal susceptible to accelerated by storms. buildings), removes potential; Engineers 6 construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion erosion- beaches, contributes increasing structures.
triggered to sedimentation development adds
landeliding. problems . to damage U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the &me as
See Ref. 10 $5.2 million potential. Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
5% of coast estimated cost to Administration ft= accelerated erosion.
critically protect 2 miles of
eroding, 90% agast. See Ref. 54 Hew Hampshire Office Designate Geographical Arees of
noncritical of Coastal Zone Particular Concern (GAPC).
:real=, 3% Feb 1972 - atom Management located
table. See desiloyed beaches; within the Office
Ref. 53 area declared National of Comprehensive
Disaster. Beach Planning
restored by Federal Water Resources Administers Tidal Wetlands law
government. Board (1973)

No major rivers Caused by mow melt, Accelerated erosion, Development of U.S. Geological Prepare flood-prone area =Pa.
Coastal empty on coast. hurricanes, northeasters, damage to buildings. coastal zona, survey
Flooding 5-6 towns in local stoms. Once every Spring tide of 1959 - especially marshes, U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flooding problems, plan U.S.C.S. See'. 701 .-1, n' a (1960)
coastal area 2 years tides can be 8.6 ft above -an may increase
identified by expected to exceed man sea level along much vulnerability to Engineers & construct flood control structures. as amended. (Supp. 1975).
PIA a. having high water by 3 ft. or coast. See Ref. 6 fresh & salt water U.S. Federal Administer NFIA 6 Flood Disaster
flood hazard, more. flooding. Insurance Protection Act. Sea Ref. 31
including Administration
Port-uth. New Hampshire Office Designate Geographical Arms of
of Coastal Zone Particular Centers (GAPC).
Managemmit located
within the Office of
Comprehensive
Planning Responsible under See. 201 of
Office of Draft & maintain a state disaster n 93-288.
Comprehensive preparedness plan; coordinate local
Planning disaster plans.
Water Resources Administers Tidal Wetlands I"
Board (1973).

Entire coast Slight probability of Indirect effects: Inexperience with U.S. Army Corps of Construction of storm surge U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1%0),
Hurricane exposed. hurricane effects. See rain, flooding, high direct landfalls Engineers Protection structures. as amended. (Supp. 1975).
Ref. 41 tides, & accelerated my hinder
erosion. evacuation. National Weather Collects 6 disseminates meteor-
1900-1974 - I minor Susceptibility Service (NOAA) ological information. Issude
hurricane direct landfall. increases with hurricane warnings.
See Ref. 13 coastal
development. National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
Past events: 1915, 1960 Center (NOAA) hurricane information.
(Donna). Office of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
Comprehensive Flaming preparedness plan-, coordinate local PL 93-268.
disaster plane.

U.S. Geological Prepare flood-preee area =Pa.
Survey

Moderate 117.6 modified Merc.lli Low probability event Increasing with U.S. Geological Conducts geological studies in order
Earthquake damage expected maximum intensity V could cause development of survey to monitor & possibly predict
along coast. earthquakes per 100 years catastrophe, coastal zone. seismic activity.
See Ref. 2 expected. Maximum, depending on
intensity expected, IX. location. Little Me. Hampshire State Technical studies of geology 4.
See Ref. 61 experience with Geologist's Office soils.
earthquakes. Office of Draft 6 maintain a state disaster Responsible -der See. 201 of
Comprehensive preparedness plan; coordinate local n 93-288;
Planning disaster plans.

NEW JERSEY

There are 1792 miles of tidal shoreline in the New Jersey coastal
zone (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1971); steep basalt cliffs in the
north, along with glacial outwash sands and tidal wetlands. The *
Atlantic oceanfront stretches along 126 miles of narrow, sandy barrier.
islands and beaches. The eight-five mile Delaware Bay shoreline
consists of uninhabited tidal wetlands with a few fishing communities, a
nuclear power plant and industrial warehouses on the shore of the Dela-
ware River.

Coastal erosion and flooding are the most significant natural
hazards in the New Jersey coastal zone, although hurricanes do inflict
infrequent damage. Northern sectors of this shore have a one per cent
(1%) chance of experiencing a hurricane impact each year (Simpson and
Lawrence, 1971). Erosion is worst along the Atlantic oceanfront where
losses of up to sixteen feet per year are common. Approximately eighty
per cent (70%) of this shoreli 'ne is classed as critically eroding. Else-
where, erosion is critical along five per cent (5%) of the Delaware Bay
shore and most of Raritan Bay (U.S. Army Corps of Eng., 1971c). While
housing is often in jeopardy, loss of protective and recreational beaches
is more frequent. Erosion is triggered by winter storms but is also
exacerbated by the great number of groins, bulkheads, jetties and other
shore protection devices which.intercept littoral sediment supplies and
otherwise affect beach processes.

Tidal and riverine flooding are serious problems throughout the
entire shorefront. On occasion, however, floods have had a beneficial
effect on the physical environment, as when recovery of the moribund
Hackensack Meadows tidal wetlands followed on the heels of a 1950's
hurricane which destroyed abandoned dikes constructed in an abortive
19th century reclamation project.

Areas along the south shore of Raritan Bay were extensively
inundated'in March 1962 and the oceanfront barrier islands were breached
and flooded in several places. This storm killed fourteen persons on
the Jersey shore and injured more than 1,300, destroying nearly 2,000
buildings and damaging 14,000 more. Overall public and private losses
were estimated at $80 million (1962 figures) (New Jersey Almanac,
1966-67).

Delaware Bay flooding is less severe because few people live near
the shore. In contrast, much of the Delaware River shore suffered
heavy riverine flood damages due to hurricane-generated rainfall in 1955.
One hundred lives were lost and property.damage of $100 million was
sustained. The U.S. Corps of Engineers estimates that a repetition of
the design flood could produce $2 billion damages from tidal flooding
in northern New Jersey. On the oceanfront, damages from a similar flood
could reach $260 million with half of that total being sustained by

IV-56

communities on Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays (U.S. Army Corps of Eng.,
1971c).

Table IV-19 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the New
Jersey coastal zone,. the measures available for coping with those hazards,
and the locus of authority and.responsibility for employing-those coping
measures.

The cornerstone of hazards management in the New Jersey coastal zone
lies in the Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1973 and the Wetlands
Act of 19701 administered by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). Both utilize a strict permit system to regulate develop-
ment in the coastal zone, thus reducing potential loss from natural
hazards. New Jersey has established special districts in two coastal
areas. The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Comission possesses com-
prehensive regional zoning and planning powers but the Pinelands
Environmental Council has only weak ability to review and delay develop-
ment for a ninety day period. Responsibility for comprehensive planning
and zoning remains with the local governments.

IV-57

TABLE IV-19

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW JERSEY COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS F= RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE 07 EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS

26Z of shoreline Continual process Danage. buildings, Increasing with U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problms, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 -1, n, (1960),
Coastal is critically accelerated by storms. roads, protection increased Engineers & construct erosion control as mended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion eroding, 23% works, beaches, bluffs. development. structures.
noncritical 1962 high waters
erosion, 51% breached a dike; 40-50 N.J. Dept. of Responsible for coastal protection
stable. See residences flooded. Environmental under its duties of administering
R.f. 53 Mar. 1962 to- - Protection the Coastal Area Facility Review
beaches moved hundreds Act (CAFRA, passed June 20,_ 1973).
Atlantic shore of feet inland,
is more buildings destroyed, U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
vulnerable than roads made impassible. Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
Delaware River See Ref. 56 Administration from accelerated erosion.
coast.
Municipal Governments Adopt zoning ordinances,
building codes, setback lines,
lead use regulati ons .

Low-lying Caused by hurricanes, Mar. 1962 - 14 dead, Increasing with N.J. Dept. of Designates flood plains. Adopts
Coastal coastal areas. severe sto= . much flooding from increasing Environmental rules & regulations concerning
Flooding successive high tides. development. Protection land use & development in
See Ref. 32 designated flood plains.
May 1968 - 100
communities flooded, Delaware River Basin Authorized to study & determine the
$29 million damage. Commission nature & extent of the flood plain
1971 - 200 communities of the Delaware River, to classify
flooded by Doria's land & establish standards for
rain.. flood plain use.
1973 - raina flooded
Raritan River Basin, Municipal Governments Adopt zoning ordinances, building Must adopt regulations meting rate
$23 million damage. codes, setback limits & land use standards or state will intervene.
Sea Ref. 56 regulations.

U.S. Federal Administer NFLA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
Insurance Protection Act.
Administration

U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flooding problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-I, n, a (1960),
Engineers & construct flood control structures. as mended. (Supp. 1973).

N.J. Dept. of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible.under Sec. 201 of
Defense/Division of preparedness plan. coordinate local PL 93-288.
Civil Defense & disaster plans.
Disaster Control

Entire coast 1% probability of Raid, wind, at.- Inexperience of U.S. Army Corps of Constmetion of stom surge U.S.C.S. See. 701 a-1, n,-s (1960),
Hurricane exposed. hurricane effects. Urge. tornadoes, population with Engineers protection structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Southern coast See Ref. 41 accelerated erosion. major hurricane
most vulnerable. 1900-1974 - 1 hurricane Most damage is from may hinder National Weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
landfall. See Ref. 13 flooding (see above). evacuation. Service (NOAA) ological information. Issues
Long Reach Major events: 1944, 1960 Increasing hurricane warnings.
resort area (Donna), 1968, 1971 (Ginger), development of
poses serious 1973 (Doria). coast contributes National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
problems for to vulnerability. Center (NOAA) hurricane information.
successful
evacuation N.J. Dept. of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
efforts. Defense/Division of preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Civil Defense & disaster plans.
Disaster Control

NEW YORK

New York has thr Iee coastal zones: oceanic, lakeshore and riverine.

Oceanic Coast: New York City, Westchester County and Long Island
are fringed by 1850 miles of tidal shoreline (U.S. Dept. of Commerce$ 1971).
Approximately 330 miles of this is classified as beach and the remainder
as high oliffs arid. rocky bluffs.

Natural hazards affecting the oceaniccoast are primarily coastal
flooding, erosion and the slumping of.coastal bluffs or landsliding.

Most of the oceanfront coast is classed as critically eroding (128
miles) due to coastal flooding caused by tidal action and storm surge.
Additionally,*hurricanes have a six per cent (6%) chance of affecting
this coastline every year. In addition, damaging winter storms exacerbate
the erosion and landslide problems. In 1938, nineteen lives and numerous
homes were lost in Westhampton Beach during a severe hurricane. In 1962,
twenty-nine homes were destroyed and several million dollars property damage
incurred, again due to the devastating effects of a hurricane (Mitchell, 1974).

Lakeshore Coast: Eleven New York counties occupy 360 miles of Lake
.Erie and Lake Ontario shoreline. This shoreline is characterized by bluffs
of glacial outwash material and range in height from ten to twenty feet at
the western end of Wayne County on Lake Ontario to over 100 feet in
Chautaugua County on Lake Erie. Marshes, barrier beaches and sand dunes
exist along various stretches of the Great Lakes shoreline.

Coastal erosion and flooding are the chief natural hazards on the
Great Lakes shores. High water levels during the periods from 1951-52
and 1972-74 inflicted heavy damage along most of the shore. Bluffs receded
under direct wave attack aided by frost, seepage and surface erosion. Low-
lying districts to the west of Rochester were particularly hard hit. On
Lake Ontario the highest water levels are reached at the eastern end, where
damages have been severe in the past. Summer homes and permanent residences
were flooded for several months and the shore was heavily eroded. In 1951-
52 $12.7 million (1970 dollars) in property damage was inflicted. Even
greater losses occurred during the more recent period (Palm, 1975). On
Lake Erie the highest water levels generally occur in Buffalo Harbor - the
point of maximum fetch - but here damages are minor. At present, fifty-
four per cent (54%) of the Great Lakes coastline is eroding, but only 4.5%
can be considered critical. Coastal flooding critically threatens about
twenty miles, at present (U.S. Army Corps. of Eng., 1971c).

In New York there is an indeterminate risk of major earthquake damage.
Little information as to causes or characteristics of New York earthquakes
exists. No quakes of serious intensity have occurred in New York in
recent times.

IV-59

Hudson Valley Shoreline - The Hudson River is tidal for approximately
170 miles above New York City. There,is little detailed information on
natural hazards for this sector of the state's coastal zone. Riverine
flooding, shore eros16n and landslides are problems along small sections
of the waterfront. In addition, the Ramapo fault, which extends into
.the lower Hudson Valley from New Jersey,-hasbeen active in recent years.

The 1973 Tidal.Wetlands Act and the 1973 Stream Protection Act
provide tools for flood hazard management in New York by authorizing the
State Department of Environmental Conservation to regulate development of
these areas through the issuance of permits. In addition, Article 36 of
the New York Enviror'miental Conservation Law (1974) "requires local parti-
cipation in the National Flood Insurance Program with provisions for state
adoption of flood control measures in communities which fail to qualify
for NFIP". The former New York Office of Planning Services has prepared
model zoning ordinances for flood hazard areas (N.Y. State Dept. of Env.
Conservation & N.Y. Planning Services, 1974). (See N.Y. State General
City Law, Chapter 21 of Consolidated Laws, Art. 2-A; N.Y. State Village
Law, Ch. 64 of Consolidated Laws, Art. VI-A; and N.Y. State Town Law,
Ch. 62 of Consolidated Laws, Art. 16.)

The Department of State has responsibility for administration of the
state's coastal zone management program.

Table IV-20 shows the nature*of the natural hazards in the New York
coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards, and
the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those coping
measures.

IV-60

TABLE IV-20 NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW YORK COASTAL ZONE

TER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARAC INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES
AREAS I I
Hudson River, Flooding caused by Damage to structures Deregulation of U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flood problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal Long island hurricanes, severe storms, in flood plain, barrier Islands Engineers 6 construct flood control structures. as amended, (Supp. L975).
Flooding Sound & low- temporary high lake levels. accelerated erosion, increases damage
lying coastal recurrence of tidal potential. U.S. Federal Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 33
areas. March 1973 severe winter flood of record could Insurance Protection Act.
.t.m. cause $320 million Susceptibili ty Administration
19.1 miles of (1970) damage on Long slowly increasing.
Great Lakes Early spring high lake Island & adjacent N.J. U.S. Geological Prepare flood-prons area =Pa.
shoreline levels. 1972-74 caused shores. Additional Survey
subject to serious flooding. $2.5 billion (1958)
flooding. See potential losses in International Joint
Ref. 51 April 1973 Lake Ontario New York City harbor. Commission:
reached record high. See See Ref. 34 a. International a. Supervises operation of remedial Sea Ref. 56
Lake Ontario Ref . 36 Niagara Board of works an Niagara River & controls
shoreline. Lake Ontario flooding Control river water levels.
resulted in millions
of dollars in property b. International b. Regulates Lake Ontario levels & See Ref. 56
damages in Oswego St. Lawrence River outflows through St. Lawrence River.
County, N.Y. See Board of Control
Ref. 37
c. Great Lakes c. Control of water levels in Undertaken Great Lakes Water Levels
Levels Board Great Lakes. Study which incorporates assessment
of practicable ways of improving
flood control throughout Great Lakes.

N.Y. Dept. of Required to assist communities In Permitting agency for con struction
Environmental preparation of flood plain control in the 100 year flood plain.
Conservation measures.

Former N.Y. Office of Proposed Model Zoning Ordinances for
Planning Services flood hazard areas.

Local Governments/ Must adopt flood plain regulations Dept. of Environmental Conost'lltion
Regiomi & county in compliance with standards set by can Impose regulation on localities
Planning Boards N.Y. Dept. of Environmental if they fail to emact their own
Conservation. (not proven to he necessary).
N.Y. Division of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 10 ftscutive
Military & Navy preparedness plan; coordinate local Law, so amended by Ch. 931, Laws of
Affairs disaster plans. 1973.

TABLE IV-20 (@ont'd)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW YORK COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREKE EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS

Atlantic coast; High water levels & storms D gee building., I Control of St. U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 7P1 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal 32% critical, accelerate erosion; roads, protection Lawrence seaway Engineers & construct e-i.- control a. mended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion 52% noncritical, Continual process. Maximum works, beaches, bluffs, alleviates to structures.
16% stable. erosion of 5 ft. per year etc. Annual damages some -tent
See Ref. 53 at Wilson Harbor (1875-1939). on southern Long damages ft- high let ern ational Joint Central of water levels in Great Sea Ref. 56
See Ref. 51 Island shore; $75,000 lake levels. Commission/Creat Lakes Lakes.
Ocean frant more per mile. Sea Ref. 54 Susceptibility is Levels Board
vulnerable than April 1973 Lake Ontario slowly increasing.
bay shores. reached record high 1951-1952 high lake
Great Lakes lev,el. See Ref. 36 levels caused about Great Lakes Basin Limited coordination of state
coast: 4.5Z $12.7 million damage. Commission activities relating to shore
critically See Ref. 51 damage via Coastal Zone Standing
eroding, 49.8% Committee.
noncritical 1972-74 high lake
:rosion, 45.7% levels caused St. Law-reoee-Eastern Comprehensive land use planning
table. See serious erosion Ontario Regional incorporating high water d anue ge
Ref. 51 1....... See Comaisai..
Ref. 36
Lake Ontario N.Y. Dept. of Administers a Marine & Coastal
coast most Environmental Resources program which includes
affected. Conservation beach erosion control.

Local Governments/ Establish zoning ordinances, land Individual comenuoities have
Regional & County use controls & construction codes. invested money in beach nouristment
Planning Board. & structural protection.

U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
Insurance federal insurance against damages for coastal flooding.
Administration from accelerated erosion.

Entire ocean 62 probability of Wind, rain, atom 94.1% population U.S. Amy Corps of Construct stom surge protection U.S.C.S. See. 701 a-1, n, a (1960).
Hurricane coast exposed. hurricane effects, surge. accelerated increase since Engineers structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
1% probability of a great erosion, tornadoes. last major
hurricane . See Ref. 41 1938 hurricane - 19 hurricane (not National Weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
dead, 50 cottages including Belle). Service (NOAA) ological information. Issues
1900-1974, 6 hurricane destroyed in See Ref. 13 hurricane warnings.
direct landfalls, including Westhampton Beach.
4 great hurricanes. See See Ref. 29 Increasing devel- National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
Ref. 13 opment, especially Center (NOAA) hurricane information.
Dennis. 1960 - 36 dead. on Long Island,
Major events: 1938, 1944, increases suscepti- N.Y. Dept. of Administers a Marine & Coasta .I
1954 (Carol), 1960 (Donna), Belle, 1976 - lower bility to a great Environmental Resources program which includes
1972 (Agnes). intensities than hurricane. Lack Conservation hurricane protection.
expected, about 10,000 of experience with
evacuated. a great hurricane Local Governsnents/ Identify hazard zones, establish
may hinder Regional & County zoning regulations & building code..
evacuation. Planning Boards
Deregulation of
barrier islands N.Y. Division of Draft & maintain a state di ... tar Responsible under Sec. 10 Executive
adds to damage Military & Navy preparedness plan; coordinate local Law, as mended by Ch. 931, Laws of
potential. Affairs disaster plane. 1973.

TABLE IV-20 (cont'd)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW YORK COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES AUHINISTRATM RELATIONS AND
AREAS AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES

Minor damage Atlantic coast - 69.1 Possibility for a Seismic details U.S. Geological Conducts geological studies in order
Earthquake expected along modified Mercalli intensity major damaging event, poorly known. survey to monitor & possibly predict
Atlantic coast. V earthquakes expected per depending on Its seismic activity.
100 years. Maximum expected location. Moderate future
Major damage intensity. VIII. susceptibility. N.Y. State Geological Technical studies of geology & soils.
expected along No recent earthquakes Survey
Great Lakes Lake Erie & vestern Lake over Intensity VII.
coast. See Ontario 22.1 modified Numerous small shocks N.Y. Division of Draft 6 maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 10 Executive
Ref. 2 Mercalli intensity V earth- have caused minor Military & Navy preparedness plan; coordinate local Law, an =ended by Ch. 931, Lava of
quakes expected per 100 damage. Affairs disaster plans. 1973.
years. Faximum expected
intensity, VIII. See Ref.
61

Major wants: 1737, 1889 $2 million in damages
earthquakes near New York resulted. See Ref. 47
City, both intensity VII.
1929 Attica earthquake
Intensity VIII. See Ref. 54
1944 earthquake at Massens
registered VIII modified
Mercalli & 6.5 an the
Richter scale.

NORTH CAROLINA

The coastline of North Carolina is 301 miles in length, and ranges
from undeveloped beaches and marshes to densely developed barrier
islands, or 3,375 mile's of tidal shoreline.when all island coasts are
included (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971). There are also 'vast estuarine
areas (over 2,200,000 acres) within the coastal zone, which are particularly
vulnerable to damage by natural hazards.

The principal natural hazards in the North Carolina coastal zone are
hurricanes, coastal erosion and coastal flooding, Clearly, hurricanes
are the most serious and have,caused great destruction in the past. As
,hazard-prone areas are further developed, the potential for destruction
increases.

Coastal erosion is also a problem, with fifteen per cent (.15%)
of the coast subject to critical erosion (U.S. Army Corps of Eng.,
1973a). The Outer Banks are particularly vulnerable, and the problem
is exacerbated by hurricane storm surge.

A final problem in the Nortb Caro lina coastal zone is flooding,
with estuaries, river mouths and lowland areas the most susceptible.
Hurricanes are the major cause of coastal flooding but some riverine
flooding does occur and contributes-to the flood hazard in the coastal
zone.

Table IV-21 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the North
Carolina coastal zone, the measures for coping with those hazards, and
the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those coping
measures.

The principal legislation dealing with hazards is the Coastal Area
Management Act of 1914. The Act calls for designation of Areas of
Environmental Concern (AEC), and some criteria deal with natural hazards.
Specifically, the following types of Natural Hazard Areas will likely be
included: General; Sand Dunes along the Outer Banks; Ocean Beaches and
Shorelines on the Outer Banks; Excessive Erosion Area--General, Coastal
Inlet Lands, Ocean Erodible Areas, and Estuarine and River Erodible Areas.
,The Act states general policy objectives for the coastal area, but directs
the Coastal Resources Commission to establish within those guidelines
appropriate land and water uses for each AEC it designates.. A coopera-
tive state-local permitting process will regulate all development within
Areas of Environmental Concern. The Act further requires that local
governments prepare their plans in accordance with state guidelines and
subject to state review (Bell, 1�76).

Local governments (cities, villages, town and counties) have broad
zoning and subdivision powers, and special enabling legislation exists
which authorizes municipal and county regulations for floodway areas

IV-64

(this is separate from zoning). City and county zoning' regulations
must comply'with.comprehensive plans.

Several agencies, most.of them within the Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, are involved in technical and planning studies.
The state also has a building code (which requires mobile home tie-down)
and.wetlands protection legislation. Nearly all local governments in
the coastal zone have enacted sand dune protection ordinances.

IV-65

TABLE IV-21 NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT N THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADM
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
AREAS

Entire coast, 5-11% probability of Rain, flooding, at orm 14.12 population U.S. Army Corps of Construction of Store surge U.S.C.S
Hurricane hurricane effects, ssrge, tornadoes, increase since Engineers Protection structures. as amen
depending on section of wind, accelerated last major
co St. 2-42 probability erosion. hurricane. See North Carolina Coastal Promulgates rules & regulations for Hazard
of a great hurricane. See Ref, 13 Resources Commission land use in high hazard areas. areas 0
Ref. 41 1929 hurricane Rapid development island.
Wilmington -,I% probability related flooding of coastal areas or grea
of 12 ft torm surge. caused $9 million increases flooded
Lower heights expected damage in Georgia, susceptibility.
elsewhere. See Ref. 41 South Carolina , North National Weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
Caiolina, Virginia. Service (HOAA) ological information. Issues
1900-1974 - 19 hurricane See Ref. 15 hurricane warnings.
landfalls, including 7 Potential for
great hurricanes. See massive loss of life National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
Ref. 13 property. Center (NQAA) hurricane information.
Major eventst 1933, 1944,
1954 (Carol & Hazel), 1955 North Carolina Draft & maintain a state disaster Respons
(Ione & Connie), 1960 Division of Ciil preparedness plan; coordinate Pl, 93-2
(Donne), 1971 (Ginger). Preparedness local disaster plans.

15% of coast Continual process D ama gas buildings, Increasing with North Carolina Dept. Administer Coastal Area Critics
Coastal critically accelerated during storms . roads, protection increasing of Natural & Economic Management Act. as thus
Erosion eroding, 20Z 1940-1965 average recession works. beaches. coastal Resources more th
noncritical rate of 3-5 ft. per year Sedimentation development.
erosion, 65Z at Nags Head. See Ref. 6 obstructs shipping County Gorame.t. Establish land One plans to provide
Stable. See roures. protection of coastal donee & areas
Ref. 55 subject to erosion by water or high
Outer bank. winds.
especially
vulnerable. U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides C-rag
insurance federal insurance against damages f.r cas
Administration ft= accelerated erosion.

U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.S
Engineers & construct erosion control as asen
Structures.

Estuaries Caused by hurricanes, severe D ama Re to building-, Increasing U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flooding problems , plan U.S.C.S.
Coastal wetlands, river struss. Flooding of structures in flood vulnerability to Engineer. construt flood control structurea. as amend
Flooding months, I- wetlands is fairly cosman. plain; accelerated ,It -ter
lying coastal erosion. flooding. Slight U.S. Federal Administer NFIA 6 Flood Disaster sea Ref.
areas. susceptibility to Insurance Protection Act.
Mar. 1962 St.= - riverine flooding. Administration
tide fo 7-9 ft.
above m- sea level North Carolina Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsi
at Nags Read, over Division of Civil preparedness plan; coardinate local PL 93-28
$1.5 million damage Preparedness disaster plane.
ft= Storm. See Ref.
6 Iocal Governments Delineate floodways, issue permits If I-al
Little damage from for uses in the floadvay. delineat
freshwater flooding. Air Res
floodway

OHIO

The Great Lakes mainland shoreline in Ohio is 265 miles in length,
and includes such major urban areas as Cleveland, Sandusky and Toledo.
The landscape of this shoreline varies greatly from west to east.
Beginning at the western end of Lake Erie with low-lying marshes and
barrier islands the elevation gradually rises, marshes slowly give way
to.bluffs ten to thirty feet in height. From the Cedar Point area and
continuing east, a few marshes remain but bluffs are the predominant
landscape feature and sometimes reach elevations of sixty feet.

The bluffs are mainly glacial till and shale and are highly suscep-
tible to erosion, the major natural hazard in the Ohio coastal zone. The
entire coastline is vulnerable with 9.2% critically eroding (U.S. Army
Corps of Eng., 1971a). Protectionin the form of'short seawalls and
groins, has been provided for part of the frontage, but has not been
particularly effective because of a lack of sufficient beach material.

A second natural hazard affecting the,Ohio shoreline is flooding,
which occurs mainly as a result of severe easterly storms. Artificial
dikes extend into the lake at several points, but these have been
breached a number of times in the past.

A final hazard which is often overlooked in Ohio is earthquake.
A number of small shocks have caused minor damage in the past, and the
possibility exists that a larger event could cause a great deal of
damage.

Table IV-22 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Ohio
coastalzone, the measures for coping with those hazards, and the locus
of authority and responsibility for employing those coping measures.

The Ohio Lake Erie Shore Planning Region includes nine counties
with 159 cities and villages and 210 townships. In addition, there
are thirty-seven district,regional, county and municipal planning
agencies in the Shore Zone Planning Region.

The major focus of authority in the Ohio coastal zone lies within
the local governments which have the power to establish building codes,
zoning ordinances and other land use regulation measures.

At present, Ohio has not implemented a mechanism which will permit
state-level comprehensive planning in the coastal zone. Plans do exist,
however, to introduce a bill to the legislature-creating a Shoreland
Regional Commission, which will be responsible for implementing the
program through existing state and local government authorities
(McPherson, 1976).

IV-67

TABLE IV-22

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN TEE 9M COASTAL ZONE

Entire Lake Erie Accelerated by at.-, high Damages buildings, Continued erosion International Joint Control of water level is Great See Ref. 56
Coastal shoreline is lake levels. 1939-1949 - roads, beaches, bluffs. will cause C amm ission/Great Lakes Lakes.
Erosion subject to 4-5 ft. per year between $14.8 million daniage buildings to be Levels Board
erosion, except Cedar Point & Hot=. See between May 1951 & endangered, even
in isolated Ref. 51 Apr. 1952. 1969 less with setback lines. U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal erosion problem , plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, (1960),
areas. serious, but still Engineers & construct erosion control as -ended, (Supp. 1975).
9.2% critically severe danage. See structures.
eroding, 36.6% Ref. 51
-critically U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the some as for
eroding, 54.2% Insurance federal insurance against domges coastal flooding.
-table or Administration ft= accelerated erosion.
protected.
Great Lakes Basin Limited coordination of state
Commission activities relating to shore
dainage via Coastal Zone Standing
Committee.

Local Governments Establish zoning ordinances,
building codes, & land use
mnagesent program.

Ohio Geological Preparing reports which include
Survey recession trends, inventory of
control structures & county
erosion problem -ie-
Low-lying areas, Coast seat of Toledo flooded Damage to buildings Increasing with International -Joint Control of water level in the G ... t Undertaken Great Lakes Water Levels
Coastal smll flood in 1952 1969 by high lake in flood plain, d-el.p-nt of Comaission/Great Lakes Lakes. Study which incorporates assessuent
Flooding plains near levels. Floods also due accelerated erosion. flood plain. Levels Board of practicable mans of improving
lake hot... to rain, compounded by ice Protective dikes flood control throughout Great Lakes,
20 mile section jam@ in cases. breached in 1943 & 195Z
east of Toledo. U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flood probi e- , plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 s-I, n, (1960),
Mar. 1933 - general Engineers & construct flood control structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
flooding ft= rainfall.
U.S. Federal Administer MFIA & Flood Disaster !as Ref. 31
Ins rance Protection Program.
Administration

U.S. Geological Survey Prepare flood-prons area mps.

Great Lakes Basin Limited coordination of state
Commission activities relating to shore
dariage via Coastal Zone Standing
Committee.

Ohio Disaster Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
Services Agency preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-208.
disaster plans.

Local Governments Establish zoning ordinances,
building codes & land use
_.gemant program.

Ohio Dept. of Natural Permitting agency for construction
Resources/Division of activities within flood plains.
Water

Entire coast. 22 modified Mercalli A number of asall Slowly increasing U.S. Geological Conducts geologic studies in order
Earthquake naximl intensity V shocks have caused with increasing Survey to monitor & Possibly predict
earthquakes expected per minor dantage. development. seismic activity.
100 years. Maximum Possibility of a
intensity expected, VIII. larger earthquake Ohio Division of Technical studies of geology & oil..
See Ref. 61 causing considerable Geological Survey
damage.
Ohio Disaster Draft & mintain a state disaster Responsible @xnder Sec. 201 of
Services Agency preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
disaster plans.

OREGON

The Oregon tidal shoreline is 1,410 miles, including about thirty
miles of the lower Co'lumbia River estuary.(U.S. Department of Commerce,
-1971).

The Oregon coastal zone faces varied and severe natural hazards,:
flooding, tsunamis, coastal erosion, landslides and earthquakes.

Flooding is a major problem. Large, damaging floods are estimated
to occur on an average of every five or six years. The State Water
Resources Board reports average annual damages of about $3,500,000 in
seven of the major coastal drainages. Major floods occurred at
Christmas time in the winter of 1964-65, and the entire state was
declared a disaster area. Damage in Tillamook County alone was estima-
ted as in excess of $8,300,000. Creeks too small to be named became
torrents.

Tsunamis are a recurring threat, but most of the warnings do not
necessarily result in significant events. The tide recorder at Newport
has recorded three tsunamis, all minor, since installation in January 1967.
The only destructive tsunami in recent years occurred in March 1964 with the
Alaskan earthquake and resulted in four deaths and an estimated $700,000 in
property damage. The recurrence interval for major tsunamis is estimated
to be one in 100 years (Beaulieu, et al., 1974).

The erosion of sand beaches and dunes, and the landsliding of cliffs
and bluff faces are particularly serious hazards during the winter months
due to heavy precipitation and strong wind and wave action.

The earthquake hazard is considered moderate to severe along'portions
of the northern and southern coasts-of Oregon..

A major problem is that various hazards combine synergistically
to produce unusually severe events. For example, flooding from heavy
and prolonged winter precipitation frequently is compounded by high
winter tides and strong onshore winds. Winds can push a normal six
or seven foot tide to a height of twelve feet or more. The same precip-
itation has on occasion caused landslides in the steep-sided coastal
mountain valleys, creating temporary lakes that can burst suddenly to,
further compound the flood problem. Much of the Oregon coastline is
made up of marine terraces composed of relatively soft rocks. Periodic
failures of the cliff faces occur at the seaward edge of the terraces
under the combined impact of strong wave attack and heavy precipitation.
A coincident earthquake could cause a massive disaster.
I

Table IV-23 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Oregon
coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards, and

IV-69

the locus of authority and. responSibility for employing those coping
measures. Locally Foordinated comprehensive plans will provide the
major vehicle for implementing Oregon's Coastal Management Program.
These plans are subject to review and approval bythe Oregon Land
Conservation,and Development Commission (LCDC), created in'1973 by
the Oregon Land Use Act. All levels of government must conform with
goals and guidelines adopted by LCDC. Should a local government fail
to comply, the 1973 act provides that LCDC shall prescribe and
administer a comprehensive plan for that locality, and be reimbursed
for the cost of this effort from that locality's share of the state's
cigarette and liquor revenues. Currently (1976), the LCDC is circula-
ting draft coastal zone goals and guidelines for review. These goals
and guidelines require that all coastal development be planned to
minimize the threat to life and property from natural hazards.

IV-70

TABLE IV-23

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE OREGON COASTAL ZONE

Estuaries 6 Floods due to anow melt &/ Heavy property damage. Upstream flood U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flood problems , plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, u, (1960),
Coastal river mouths of or rain. Winter & spring *Effects may be control projects Engineers & construct flood control structures, as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Flooding the Oregoa flood. -at .-n. compounded by high protect lower
coast basin, Major floods every 5-6 tides & failure of Columbia basin. U.S. Federal Insurance Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
beaches, dunes year.. So. Ref. 3 temporary dams . Development in flood Administration Protection Act.
& duae 1964 winter floods - plain. of other
deflation entire state declared streams increases U.S. Geological Survey Prepare flood-prone area maps.
plains. disaster area. susceptibility. Most
Tillamook County $8.3 floods don't occur Oregon Water Resources Planning
million damage. See in summer tourist Dept.
Ref. 35 season.
Oregon Land Flood plain criteria for land use
Coastal flooding is a Conservation & planning
serious problem in Development Commission
inter-dune systems .
Local Governments Establish zoning ordinances,
building codes, & land use
management program.

Entire coastal Impulsive disturbance in High catastrophe Slight reduction National Weather Collects & disseminates met-7
Tsunami area is ocean generates a series of potential. Origin of ith improved Service (NOAA) ological info rma tion; issues
vulnerable, long waves which build in tsunami, magnitude, warning system. tsunami warnings.
including height as they approach configuration of Inexperience with-
estuaries in shore. See Ref. 2 coast & extent of tsunamis may State h Local Police Warnings; evacuations & relief.
extreme events. development contribute to
Estimated average of I contribute to damage damage potential. Oregon State Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Low-lying areas tsunami per 100 years; run- potential. Susceptibility Executive Dept./ preparedness plan; coordinate PL 937288.
.ill have ups of 20 ft. above high increasing ith Emergency Services local disaster plans.
largest run-up. tide possible. Warning more recreational Division
See Ref. 2 time: 6-10 brs. for activity & coastal
distant-origin tsunamis; development.
less than I hr. for local-
origin tsunami.

Of the ocean C..ti.-I proces. Slight hazard to Increasing with U.S. Army C.@P- Of Study coastal erosion problems, U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal exposure: 17% accelerated by storms , life. Estimated increasing Engineers plan & construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion critical especially in winter. cost of $43.85 develooment. structure..
erosion, 26% million to protect limits are the same for
noncritical shore using beach U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act'provides Coverage
:rosion, 57%- nourishment, rover- Insurance ' federal insurance against damage. coastal flooding.
table or non- ments & groins. See Administration from accelerated erosion.
eroding. Bay Ref. 34
, estuary State Dept. Of Planning & research.
coasts much Damages roads, Geology
less . 1.e- buildings & other
able. Clat.op, structures as well State & Local Location, design & construction of
Tillamook, as beaches, bluffs, Highway Dept. roads.
Lincoln, Curry, etc. Render assistance to local
& Lane Counties Oregon Land Statewide planaing.
have critical Conservation & governments with inveatorieS.
erosion Developmen; evaluations & criteria for land
problems. See commission use planning.
Ref. 50 Oregon Dept.'of Regulation of beaches.
Transportation

Local Governments Planning, zoning, building,
subdivision control.

TABLE IV-23 (cont'd)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE ORMON COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQDENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADHINISTRATIVE RELATIONS M
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS
Major severity Hay b:,triggered by earth- Effects concentrated Increasing with U.S. Geological Research in landslide prediction
Landslide along coast, quake coastal erosion, in small area unless expanding development, Survey through the Landslide Hazard
particularly rain, man's activities; transportation, especially residantia@ Reduction Program.
northern & materials involved are rock, utility, or other Transportation routes
southern coasts. debris or soil moving in a regional network also vulnerable. Oregon State Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
See Ref. 69 fall, slide, or flow disrupted. See Ref. Emergency Dept./ preparedness plan; coordinate Pl, 93-283.
See Ref. 43 43 Emergency Services local disaster plans.
Division

Moderate damage Northern coast - Expected Damage to a t r tore., Development ill U.S. Geological Conducts geological studies in order
Earthquake expected in 80.1 modified Mercalli loss of life. may increase vulnerability Survey to monitor & possibly predict
north & south maximum intensity V earth- cause fire , tsunami I but no large earth- seismic activity.
coastal area. quakes per 100 years. ' landslide, avalanche. quakes expected.
Minor damage Maximum expected intensity Oregon State Draft & maintain a state disaster Reaponsible under Sec. 201 of
expected along VI. See Ref. 61 No earthquakes over Executive Dept./ preparedness plan; coordinate local Pl. 93-288.
central coast. VII recorded, 1850- Emergency Services disaster plans.
See Ref. 2 10 earthquakes modified 1970. See Ref. 59 Division
Mercalli VI or VII, 1841-
1970. Some California
earthquakes felt along
southern coast. See Ref.
59

PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania possesses one of the smaller coastal.zones in:the U.S.
This, is further subdivided into two contrasting and.approximately equal
sections on the lower Delaware River and Lake Erie..

Delaware River: Sixt '(60) miles of Pennsylvania.are fringed by the
y
estuarine shores''of the lower Delaware. This area;..en.compasses parts of
the city of Philadelphia, and Bucks and Delaware counties. Much of the
shore is lined with piers, docks,,,shipbuilding-and repair-facilities,
and warehouses,.together with their associatedl.industrial land uses-such
as oil.refineries and petrochemicals plants. Except.in Bucks County,
little public open space fronts on the river. Small.flood,plai s,, along
numerous streams in Delaware County and Bucks County, the shores of the
Schuylkill River in Philadelphia,, and Tinicum marsh, (which contains
80% of the state's.wetlands), are,.the most sigpMcant,Jightly developed
areas in this c@oastal sector.-

Coastal and riverine flooding are the primary natural hazards
Althoughnot severe,_.the last,major flood occur.red tn.1955.. It is esti-
.mated that,,a recurrence of the tidal flood of rec.ord,would cause damages
pf approximately.$6.0 million (1976. dollaTs)-along the loWeX.Delaware
River.,(U.S.-Army Corps of.Eng.,, 1,971a). Most of-,these would be,sustained
by areas'in the vicinity of.Philadelpyia@@_

Lake Erie: Fifty to 180' high erodible bluffs composed of silt and clay
overlying shale bedrock occur along most of Pennsylvania's sixty mile
Lake Erie frontage (Erie county). Very narrow sand and gravel beaches
extend along the toe of the bluffs. Presque Isle, a sqven mile long sand
split, encloses Erie Harbor. This is a complex and unique geological and
biological site.

Shore erosion is the major natural hazard. This is caused by winter
storms during periodic high lake levels, and by seiches. Spring sapping,
frost action and oversaturation also promote bluff line recession. Six
miles of Presque Isle shoreline are classed as critically eroding. Another
thirty-six miles of bluff coast suffers non-critical erosions (U.S. Army
Corps of Eng., 1971a).

Presque Isle tends to migrate eastward becoming detached from the
mainland or breached during severe storms. Continuing efforts to stabilize
this feature have resulted in the construction of groins and bulkheads at
the neck of the peninsula and a program of sand nourishment along the
entire peninsula lakeshore. The 1951-52 high water levels inflicted
$1,029,800 worth of erosion damages (1970 dollars) on the Pennsylvania
lakeshore (U.S. Army Corps of Eng., 1971a).

IV-73.

Average annual bluff line recession rates of 14.89" along the western
half of the.shore and 9.34" along the eastern half have occurred during
the last thirty-eight years (NARWRS, 1972). A recent report indicates
that approximately f6rty per cent (40%) of 109 bluff top locations sur-
veyed experience critical erosion (Great Lakes Res. Inst., 1975). Private
homes and open space s are most at risk. Proposed construction of a steel
mill and a power station.in the western section of the shore' could add to
the erosion hazard potential and may also exacerbate beach migration and
starvation problems at Presque Isle.

Earthquakes may also present a hazard to portions of the Pennsylvania
coastal zone along'the Lake Erie shoreline. U.S. Geological Survey
estimates place the seismic risk in the moderate range, at VII or less,
on the modified Mercalli scale (Ayre, 1975).

Table IV-24 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Pennsy-
lvania coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards,
and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those coping
measures.

It is anticipated that Pennsylvania will develop a centralized
permitting procedure for future coastal zone development. Implementation
for zoning and coastal zone planning has been delegated to local govern-
ments and regional agencies (e.g. Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission; Erie Metropolitan Planning Department).

IV-74

TABLE IV-24

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEPOWT IN THE PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND PREQUINCY EFFECTS PMWRE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES
VULNERABLE OF EXTREKE EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES rsmunoxa ARRANamErrs
AREAS

No major rivers All lakefront & riverfront Recurrence of record Damage potential U.S. Army Corps of study coastal flood problems, plan U.S.C.
Coastal empty into Lake communities are tidal flood could could increase Engineers 1. construct flood control structures. &a ace
Flooding Brie from participating in Federal cause $60 million with development
Pennsylvania. Flood Insurance Program. damage along lower of coast, U.S. Federal Insurance Administer NFIA & Flood Disaster a" Re
Delaware River. especially for Administration Protection Program.
Low-lying areas Last serious flood in 1955. Phllxd lphia area I&M-based support
& small flood Not a major hazard. most vulnerable. activities of international Joint Control Of water level in Great Undert
plains near See Ref. 51 See Ref. 56 off-shate gas C4mamission/rreat Lakes Lakes. Study
Presque Isle oil development. levels Board of pro
subject to flood
flooding.
Great IAMB Basin Limited coordination of state
Lower Delaware n-l.sion activities relating to shors
River coast damasp via Coastal Zone Standing
small flood Committee.
plains,
estuarine chores Pennsylvania Dept. of' Coordinating agency for U.S. Coastal Is pro
ftVilrOCWA4t&l Zone Management Act (1972).
prove
Resources Valley
Geogra
Concer

Brie Natrapalitan Comprehensive Land use planning. Design
Planning Dept./ Resour
Delaware Valley PrIAT
Awonal Planning
COMBLSSLM

Local Governments must adopt flood Plain Management
ordinances, matins state minjim
standards, for all land$ subject
to flooding by 100 year zscurrance
interval floods. Dept. of
Environmental Resources my
establish regulations if-looslitis
fall to &nut them.

Pennsylvania state Draft 4 Maintain a itste A4- tar Room
Council of Civil MPAradness Vim; coordinate local n 93-
Defense disastar plans.

TABLE rV-24 (cont'd)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE.EgglYLVANA COASTAL ZONE

LEGIVIATIVE AUTHORITIES
HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE An(INISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF ErrREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY i AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES

Lake Brie hors: Continual process $1.03 million (1970) Plans for a steel U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.S.C.i. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
coastal 12% critically accelerated by storms, high damage during 1951-1952 mill & power plant on Engineers & construct erosion control structure as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion eroding, 75% waters. Lake Erie - average high water levels of - western shore would structures.
noncritical annual bluff recession is Lake Erie, mostly in Increase damage
erosion, 13Z 14.9 in. toward wet shore; Presque Isle Peninsula. potential and possibly U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provide. Coverage limits are the same as for
protected or 9.3 in. for east shore (for See Ref. 51 contribute to erosion Insurance federal insurance against d ama gas coastal flooding.
stable. See heat 38 years). See Ref. 42 problems (due to beach Administration from accelerated erosion.
Ref. 51 starvation) east of
Wwar Delaware River , little plants. International Joint Control of water level in Great Lake- See Ref. 56
Lower Delaware erosion, moatly from waves C ona ission/Great Lakes
River shore. generated by hips, Little change expected Levels Board
along Delaware River.
Great Lakes Basin Limited coordination of state
Commission activities relating to shore
damage via Coastal Zone Standing
Committee.
Pennsylvania Dept. of C@dinating agency for U.S. Coastal In process of designating
Environmental Resources Zone Management Act (1972). Geographical Areas of Particular
Concern (GAPC)

Erie Metropolitan Comprehensive land use planning.
Planning Dept.

Local Governments Individual communities have
established nourishment and
structural protection schemes,
generally on coot sharing basis with
state & federal agencies (for public
lands).

Lake Erie Expected 22 modified Mercalli 1934 earthquake in Slowly increasing U.S. Geological Conducts geological studies is order
Earthquake shoreline. intensity V earthquakes per Erie, slight d ama ge. with development Survey to monitor & possibly predict
100 years. Maximum expected See Ref. 59 of coastal areas.. seismic activity.
intensity, VIII. See Ref. 61
Possibility of a Pennsylvania Dept. of Technical studies of geology soil..
Lower Delaware Maximui@ expected intensity, moderate earthquake Environmental
River. VII. See Ref. 61 causing substantial Resources/Bureau of
damage. Topography 6 Geological
Survey
1940 earthquake in
Philadelphia caused Pennsylvania State Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
a swell on Delaware Council of Civil preparedness plan; coordinate local Pl. 93-288.
River. Possibility Defense disaster plans.
of minor damage. See
Ref. 59

RHODE ISLAND

Rhode Island possesses about 384 miles of shoreline including penin-
sulas, islands in 4,4tragansett Bay, and Block Island (U.S. Dept. of Coml,
1971). Shorelines facing the open ocean are predominantly beach and
sand dune with salt marshes and ponds behind the dunes. Along the more
.protected shore.,of Narragansett Bay and the leeward sides of islands,
coastal features include steep bluffs of glacial till, narrow sand and
cobble beaches, and artificial shorelines.

Rhode.Island lies squarely in the path of northward moving tropical
storms and hurricanes. Its flood of record was causedby the Great
Hurricane of 1938. 'Major destruction also occurred in the storms of
1954V 1955, and .1960.

Erosion ia a.ma-jor problem in Rhode Island. *East,Beach in Charles-
town'.for-examp"le, receded approximately seventy-five feet between
1962 and 1975. Beach profiles and erosion records for all coastal towns
have been prepared by the University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Center.

Table IV"25 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the'Rhode
Island coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those
hazards, and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing
those coping measures.

The Coastal Zone Management program in Rhode Island is based on
the Rhode Island State Coastal Management Act.of 1971.-,This Act created
a council with permit authority over all shorelines seaward of mean high
tide and ov-er "intertidal salt marshes", "shoreline . . . physiographic
features"s and certain types of major shore-related facilities wherever
located. The seventeen member Coastal Resources Management ,Council is
seeking to-orotect remaining wetlandsland '.undeveloped beaches" but
finds its-efforts somewhat undermined by new development pressures,
exacerbated,in part,by the availability of federal flood insurance.

IV-77

TABLE IV-25

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE RHODE ISLAND COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMTNISTRATrVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS

Entire coast 7% probability of Winds, storm surge, 13.5% population U.S. Army Corps of Construct stoxm surge protection U.S.C.S.-Sec. 791 @,I, n, a (1960),
Hurricane vulnerable. hurricane effects, 1% rain, flooding, increase since Engineers structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
probability of a great accelerated erosion, last major
hurricane. See Ref. 41 Sept. 1938 - record hurricane. See National Weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
Major events: 1938, 1944, tidal flooding of Ref. 13 Service (NOAA) ological information. Issues
1954 (Edna & Carol), 1955 Narragansett Bay & Fairly experienced hurricane warnings.
(Diane), & 1976 (Balle). south coast. Large population.
losses in tidal Future suscepti- National Hurricane Issues warnings & disseminates
1960-1974 - 4 hurricanes, floading ft- bility depend. Center (NOAA) hurricane information.
including 3 great hurric ane a. hurricanes Carol (1954), in part an -tent
See Ref. 13 Ed@. (1954). 1938 of development Rhode Island Defense Drafts & maintains a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
tidal flooding, 15 ft. In vulnerable Civil Preparedness preparedness plan; coordinates local PL 93-288.
above man sea level. areas. Agency disaster plans.
See Ref. 56

tal L -lyin. caused by snow melt, Damage to structures Flood control U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flooding problems, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, (1960),
cl: I.. Flooding ocal storms & in floo P ial Engineers & construct flood control structures. as am 5
F, :d x.a.. lhrri@mes, 1 d lain, soc projects reduce ended, (Supp. 197
lUrbanized areas. northeasters, tidal surge & economic disruption. average losses,
ft= hurricanes. 1955 flood of record - my increase Rhode Island Co"tal Issues permits for virtually all uses
rain from hurricane vulnerability to Resources Management in the coastal zon,e.
Dim:, about $38 catastrophic loss. Council
million damage in
Rhode Island, U.S. Federal Insurance Administers KFIA 6 Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
Particularly Woonsocket Administration Protection Act.
See Ref. 56
U.S. Geological Survey Prepares flood-prone arm =Pa.
Lose of life depends
on warning. Rhode Island Defense Drafts & maintains state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Civil Preparedness preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Agency disaster plans.

7% of shore Continual process Undermines structures, Development U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion probleme;, plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-I, n, s (1960),
Coastal critically accelerated by storms . depletes important coastal areaof Engineers A construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion eroding, 91% East Beach, Charlest ourt beaches, damages increases future structures.
noncritical receded about 75 ft. between protective works. vulnerability.
erosion, 2% 1962 1975. Rhode Island Dept. of Processes permit requests for use
stable See Natural Resources/ of coastal zone.
He I Division of Coastal
Resources

Rhode Island Coastal Issues permits for virtually all uses
Resources Management In the coastal zone.
Council

L.ocal Governments Establish zoning ordinances,
construction codes, & land use
controls.

U.S. Federal Insurance 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the game m for
Administration federal Insurance against damagea coastal flooding.
from accelerated erosion.
IMinor damage Expected 69.1 modified Possibility of large Slowly increasing U.S. Geological So rve y Conducts geological studies in
Earthquake expected along Mercalli maximum intensity earthquake. Problem with coastal order to monitor & possibly predict
coast. See V earthquakes per 100 years. compounded by lack of development. seismic activity.
Ref. 2 Maximum intensity expected; experience with
VIII. See Ref. 61 earthquakes. Rhode Island Defense Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
Civil Prepared.e.. preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Major ewents: 1965, 1967. Agency disaster plans.
Both intensity V. See Ref.
59

SOUTH CAROLINA

The tidal shoreline of South Carolina consists of 2,876 miles, much
of which is formed by.numerous barrier islands. The Atlantic coastal
shore of South Carolina consists of straight reaches of sandy shore
interrupted by many inlets (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971).

South Carolina's coastal zone is sub ject to the impacts of several
natural hazards: hurricanes,, floods, coastal erosion, and earthquakes.

Between 1900 and 1974, South Carolina suffered the effects of ten
hurricanes, three of which produced major loss of life and property.
Often associated with the hurricane hazard is damage by heavy wind,, rain
and flooding. The flood hazard is particularly serious in the city of
Charleston,, South Carolina,,where nearly all of the city lies below the
100 year storm surge.level.

Coastal erosion, a continuous process, is.accelerated during storm's
and hurricanes. Approximately seventy-five per cent .(75%) of the South
Carolina shoreline is subject to erosion and about thirty per cent (30%)
or fifty-seven miles is undergoing critical erosion (U.S. Army Corps
of Eng., 1975).

Although no clearly defi 'ned fault lines have been identified,
South Carolina experienced a major earthquake (X on the modified Mercalli
scale) in 1886 and the prospect of future earthquake damage should be
taken into account in coastal planning.

Table IV-26 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the South
Carolina coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those
hazards,, and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing
those coping measures.

At present, South Carolina has no' 1egislation which would allow the
state to set construction guidelines in hazard-prone areas. It should
be noted, however, that critical area legislation has been passed on
two occasions by the state legislature only to be vetoed by the Governor.

IV-79

TABLE IV-26

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH CAROLI COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION Up CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICTES
AREAS
Entire coast 5-8% probability of Rain, wind, atom 19.8% population U.S. Army Corps of Construction of atom surge U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Hurricane vulnerable, hurricane effects, adrge, accelerated Increase since Engineers protection structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
including 1-22 probability of a great erosion, tornadoes. last major
Charleston. hurricane in any given 1929 hurricane- hurricane . See National Weather Collects & disseminates meteor-
year. See Ref. 41 associated Ref. 13 Service (NQAA) ological information. Issues
flooding. $9 million Past experience of hurricane warnings.
1900-1974 - 10 hurricanes, damage in Georgia, population may
including 3 great South Carolina, North facilitate National Hurricane Issues warnings, disseminates
hurricanes. See Ref. 13 Carolina, & Virginia. evacuation. Center (NOAA) hurri can e info rma tion.
Major events: 1906, 1954 2000 people killed in Continued devel-
(Hazel), 1959 (Gracie), pre-1900 atom. See opment of hazard South Carolina Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
1976 (Belle). R.f. 41 area adds to Disaster Preparedness preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
vulnerability. Agency _ disaster plans.

South Carolina Water Planning studies.
Resources Commission

South Carolina Dept. Planning studies; policy
of Wildlife & Marine recommendations.
Resources

30% critically Chronic but accelerated Undermines banks, Rapidly increasing U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal erosion problems, plani U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, s (1960),
Coastal eroding, 452 by atoms . buildings, erodes development adds Engineers construct erosion control .tructures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion noncritical, beaches, erosion, to damage
25% stable. hurricane & flooding potential. U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the same as
See Ref. 55 protective structures, Insurance federal insfirance against damages for coastal flooding.
Especially contributes to Administration from accelerated erosion.
severe in sedimentation
coastal inlets, problems. Threat to South Carolina Dept. Structural protection works.
Folley Beach, property. of Highways.
Hilton Head
leland, Garden South Carolina Dept. Planning studies; policy
City Beach, of Wildlife & Marine recommendations.
Isle of Palm. Resources

Rivers & low- Flooding caused by Marshes frequently Current controls U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flood problems , plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal lying coastal hurricanes & local stormai . flooded. probably adequate Engineers & construct flood control structures. as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Flooding areas. Damages not usually major to keep risk
in coastal areas. small. U.S. Federal Administer NFIA_& Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
Major events (before 1950): Insurance Protection Act.
Santee River 1645, 1908; Administration
Cape Fear 1908, 1928, 1929,
1945, 1947. See Ref. 15 U.S. Geological Prepare flood-prone area =Pa.
Survey

South Carolina Land Planning studies; disseminates
Resources Conservation information; land use control
Commission guidelines & recommendations.

South Carolina Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under See. 201 of
Disaster Preparedness preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Agency disaster plans.

Moderate Expected 19.9 modified 1886 Charleston Relative U.S. Geological Conducts geologic studies in order
Earthquake damage expected Mercalli maximuin intensity intensity IX-X inexperience with Survey to monitor 6 possibly predict
on north coast. V earthquakes per 100 years. earthquake. See earthquakes my seismic activity.
Major damage Maximum expected intensity, Ref. 59 contribute to
on south coast, X. See Ref. fil 60 killed, $23 million disruption should South Carolina Technical studiEis of geology &
including damage. a major earthquake Geological Survey soils.
Charleston. Possibility of major occur. Increasing
See Ref. 2 event causing great development adds South Carolina Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
social & economic to vulnerability. Disaster Preparedness preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
disruption. ftency disaster plans.

TEXAS

The Texas coastal zone includes 3,359 miles of tidal shoreline along
the Gulf of Mexico-(U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1971). This shore is used
@intensively for recreation and industrial purposes., Nearly forty per cent
(40%) of the nation's petrochemical industry and twgnty-five (25%) of the
nationts refining capabilities are situated along this shoreline (Texas
General Land Office, .1976). The population and economy of the Texas Gulf
Coast have grown rapidly over the past decade. Today nearly fifty per cent
.(50%) of-Texas residents live within 100 miles of the coastline. Between
1960 and 1970 the coastal population grew even faster (24'.8%) than that
of the state as awhole (16.9%) (Moseley, 1976).

The predominant natural hazard in the Texas coastal zone is
hurricane, with accompanying tornadoes, storm surge, high winds, and heavy..
rainfall flooding. Since 1900, total damage has exceeded $1.3 billion
and 114 lives have been lost (Texas General Land Office,.1976). Al-
though the entire coastline is vulnerable, barrier islands and coastal
lowlands are the most susceptible to hurricane damage.

,A second major problem on the Texas coast is erosion, the delta
areas of the Brazos, Colorado, and Rio Grande rivers being the mo-st.
vulnerable. Erosion is a continual process which is exacerbated by,storm
surges and high winds. The lack of a sufficient sand supply to maintain
equilibrium is the main cause of continuous erosion of the Texas beaches.,

Another hazard in the Texas coastal zone is flooding, both as a
result of@hurricanes, and less frequently, river*runoff which may
inundate coastal lowlands. Since 1961, approxiinately 3,164 square.
miles have been inundated (Brown,et al., 1974).

Subsidence of land is a.hazard in the Texas coastal zone which has
recently gained considerable'attention. Land-surface subsidence,
primarily-a c6nsequence of gxound-water pumping and withdrawal that began
in the Texas coastal zone early in the century, affects a substantial
part of 'the lower Texas coastal plain. Consequences of land subsidence
in coastal areas include: loss of land in low-lying tidal areas, sub-
mergence of structures, and subjection of more land to flooding, hurricane
surge or stream runoff (Brown, et al., 1974).

Table IV-27 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Texas
coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards,
and the locus of authority and responsibility for employing these
coping measures.

Most governmental decisions affecting th e Texas coastal zone are
made at the local level. Most of these decisions regarding water use

IV-81

are subject to guidelines and regulations.issued by the state. Counties
have no authority and cities have home-rule powers.'

Management of Texas' coastal resources is fragmented among more than
a dozen independent agencies. The principal entity for the coordination
of these agencies is the Interagency Council on Natural Resources and the
Environment (ICNRE) established in i967. The key disaster agency is the
Division of Disaster Emergency Services in the Office of the Governor.

Several legislative tools exist in Texas which can be utilized to
provide protection.from coastal hazards. The Texas Open Beach Act of
.1959 *as amended) prevents deveiopment of the beaches back to 200' or
the vegetation line and thus reduces possibly hazardous situations
(Moseley, 1976).

The Dune Protection Bill of 1973 authorizes counties to establish a
regulatory procedure for dune protection, although implementation is
spotty and generally weak. Only two counties have such regulations and
they readily give variances (Moseley, 1976)'.

Present authority to deal..with subsidence is shared by special purpose
districts. Although underground water conservation districts may be
formed to regulate water wells:in order to control.subsidence, none have
been created, as yet, in the coastal counties. However., the Harris-Galveston
Coastal Subsidence District was established by the 64thlegislature to
control subsidence in those two coastal counties (Texas Laws 1975, Ch. 284,
at 672-684). (Texas, General Land Office, 1976).

The chief mechanism through which the state proposes to implement
its coastal management.program is the permitting process. Through this
process, the state is able to regulate many public and private actions
on the coast. At present the permit procedure is exceedingly complex
and unwieldy, although the Texas Coastal Management Program (TCMP) has
recently proposed measures to achieve better coordination among state
agencies. Windstorm Catastrophe Pool _(CATPOOL), operated by the Texas
Catastrophe Property Insurance Association (TCPIA), an association of
insurance companies, must provide windstorm insurance to all coastal
property owners. They pool resources to do so. All companies must
participate. Operation is supervised by the State Insurance Board.,,

IV-82

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE TEXAS COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND PREqUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE ALrrHoRITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
AREAS

Entire coast 7@14Z probability of Rain, wind, tornadoes, 52.9Z population U.S. Army Corps of. Construction of atom surge U-S.C.S..Sec. 701 .-1, n, a (1960),
Hurricane exposed. hurricane effects in any tom surge. increase since last Engineers protection structures. as Mended, (SuOp. 1975).
Eastern coast given year. 2-52 - accelerated erosion. sajor hurricane.
wre likely to probability of a great 1961 (Carla) @ gusts See Ref. 13 National Weather Collects & disseminates mteor-
experience a hurricane. See Ref.: 41 to 175:mphf highest Service (HOW ological information. Issues
hurricane. 1% probability of a 15 ft. atom surge. 16.6 ft. Inexperience of hurricane warnings.
at.= surge. near 'Fort above mAn see level population my hinder
Arthur; 11 ft. ati.r. surge at Fort Lavaca. see evacuation. Rapidly Texas Office of the Assists in relief to local areas.. Responsible under Sec. 201 of
expected near Brownsville. Ref. 60. 1 1 increasing Governor/Division of Drafts & mintains a state disaster PL 93-288.
See Ref. 41 $408 million d - Be, development of Disaster Emergency, preparedness plan; coordinates
32-dead. See Ref. 5 coastal areas adds Services-Texaa Dept. local disaster plane .
1900-1974 - 31 hurricanes, to damage potential. of Public Safety
including 13 great Land subsidence
hurricanes. See Ref. 13 increases acreage National Hurricane Issues earnings. disseminates
exposed to flooding. Center (NOAA) hurricane info ma tion.
Major events: 1900. 1915,
1919, 1932, 1961 (Carla), Texas Coastal Authorized by legislature to S.R. 268
1967 (Beulah), 1970 (Celia). Marine Council establish =del minimum building
ta.d.rd..
Uissminates hazard info-ation,
assists in marine related affairs
at state, national & international
levels. Designing =del minim,
building standards for coastal
development.

Texas Catastrophe Provides wind atom insurance for Catastrophe Property Insurance
Property Insurance 14 coastal counties under a pool of Act of 1971 - Texas Legislature.
Association private insurance agencies (rATPOOL).

4% of coast is Continual process D-age. buildings, Development of U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal erosion problents, U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal critically accelerated by to rus , roads, beaches,*dunes, coastal areas Engineers plan & construct erosion control as Mended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion eroding, 10% cli-te, sea levels, & protection works. increases damage structures.
noncritical sediment supply. potential.
erosion, 86% U.S. Federal 1973h..d Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the name as
.table See Insurance Federal insurance against for coastal flooding.
ef. Administration d=ages ft= accelerated erosion.

Municipal Establish zoning ordinances.
Goverment building codes & land use
managment program.
q
County Governments 1:..et:and, -rl, hell & gravel
p mi App lies to lands outside
cities towns within 1500 ft. of
-inland public beach.

TABLE rv-27 (cont'd)

HATURA,L HAZARD MANAGEKENT IN THE,TEXAS COASTAL ZONE

RESPONS BLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND
HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS POLICIES
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY
AREAS

Estuaries, Flooding .-.ad by Damage to buildings in Numerous protection U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flooding problems , U.S.C.S. See. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal wetlanda, low- hurricanes, severe stoma. flood plain, works may encourage Engineers plan & construct flood control as amended. (Supp. 1975).
Flooding lying coastal accelerated erosion. development of structures.
areas. areas vulnerable to
1967 (Beulah) - fresh catastrophic losses. U.S. Federal Administers NFIA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
water flooding of Susceptibility Insurance Protection Program.
2,197 squat. mile., increasing with Administration
causing $98 million development of
damage. See Ref. 5 coast. Texas Water Acts as state agency responsible
Development Board for coordinating/supervi.sing;
Federal Flood Insurance Program.

State Soil & Water Administers the state's Channels money to local districts.
Conservation Board responsibility under the Federal
Watershed Protection 6 Flood
Prevention Act.

County Governments Responsible for flood plain Through taxation & special "zoning"
management & dune protection. authority for flood plains only
to comply with FIA.

Texas Office of the Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible uhder See. 201 of
Governor/Division of preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Disaster Emergency disaster plans..
Services-Texas Dept.
of Public Safety

Texas Coastal Disseminates hazard Information;
Marine Council assists In marine related affairs
at state, national & international
levels.

Subsidence Primarily near Due to withdrawal of water Hazard to property Increasing steadily Texas Water Conducts ground water studies 1973 Amendments to the Texas Water
Houston area; from subsurface clays, estimated $30 million with growth of Development Board oversees creation of underground Code - See. 52.021 of HE 935.
Freeport & , which then compact & annually near Houston. population. water conservation districts to
Corpus Christi lower surface elevation. control subsidence, particularly
in the coastal areas.

Harri.-Galveston Created by the 64th Legislature. ControIs withdrawal of ground water
Coastal Subsidence within the boundaries of this 2-
District county dis@rict.

Texas Water Rights Oversees the Harris-Galveston 15 member board utilizes a permit
Ccmmsi.@ion Subsidence District. system to regulate withdrawals of
ground water by conty.1ling -11
spacing & production.

VIRGINIA

Virginials coastal zone including offshore islands, Chesapeake Bay
.@,and Atlantic Ocean shoreline is 3,315 miles in length (U.S. Department
hundred and ninety-four (294) miles of this is
classified As beach. Seventy-seven per cent (77%) of the coast is
privately owned, and limited public access to the shore is a serious
All but 106 miles of coast are either undeveloped
or@in non7recreational low density uses (U.S. Army Corps of.Eng., 1971c).

..The.-Chesapeake Bay shore consists of"erodible bluffs interspersed
With tidal wetlands and scattered sandy beaches. Uninhabited barrier
islanda@and wetlarids,occupy most of the Atlantic shores of Northampton
-.and.Acco.mack'counties. Much of this land is owned by the Nature
,Conservancy:'- an.international, private, non-profit organization. Apart
from thecity of,Virginia Beach and the small community of Sandridge, the
,coast-between Cape Henry and the North Carolina boundary is occupied by
military reservations, state park land and nature reserves.

Virginia!s,Tidewater counties - which.are used for preliminary
coastal zone plannin&purposes - encompass twenty-nine per cent of the
state's area and include sixty-two per cent (62%) of the total population
(i.,e..3,028,150). Population growth in this area is one and one half
t'i'mes-faster-than the,-state average. Although woodland (59.1%) and'agri-
(22.4%) are the dominant land uses, residentiAl development (3.1%)
and tourism are ingreasingly important components (U.S. Army Corps of
Eng., 1971c). Here, tourism - most of it shore based - provides sixteen
per cent,(16%) of all private employment in Virginia (Schmid, 1976).

looding.and erosion are rated as high priority concerns by planners
in,..coastal counties (Coastal Zone Management Regional Advisory Committee,
1976). Increasing urbanization along the southern shores of Chesapeake
Bay,,combined with the pending development of onshore Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) oil and gas support facilities, will exacerbate present flood
and erosion problems. Storm surge flooding associated with hurricanes
and slow moving hortheasters, is a major problem in Chesapeake Bay.
Although there is a two per cent (2%) chance that hurricanes will affect
the Virginia shore (Simpson and Lawrence, 1971) there are no public pro-
visions - apart from post-disaster civil defense activities - for coping
with or mitigating hurricane problems in the coastal zone. FIA's de-
limitation of additional flood hazard areas awaits completion of a storm
surge research study.

Erosion is a critical problem along eighteen per cent (18%) of the
shorefront (U.S. Army Corps of Eng., 1971a). The Virginia Institute
of Marine, Science has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of erosion
and.flood hazard in each coastal county. Several Shoreline Situation
Reports are published each year and these will form one basis for state

IV-85

evaluation of shoreline development applications, requests for permits
and future construction activities.

Table Iv-28 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Virginia
coastal zone, the measures for coping with those hazards, and the locus
of authority and responsibility for employing those coping measures.

Virginia's 1973 Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires compre-
hensive erosion control plans to be developed by coastal localities.
The state's Wetlands Act (1972) provides coastal localities and the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission with authority to issue permits
for construction in flood-prone tidal wetlands and adjacent territory.
Together with the flood hazard clauses of the statewide building code,
these are the primary management tools for coping with flood and eros-
ion hazards throughout the state. All coastal counties have now been
required by the state to draw up comprehensive plans, together with
supporting planning commissions, and building and sub-division regul-
ations.

Since 1774, 137 earthquakes are known to have occurred in Virginia
(Hopper & Bollinger, 1971-72). Approximately twenty-five per cent (25%)
of these were located in coastal counties. The majority rated less than
V on the modified Mercalli scale (1931) (i.e. disturbances of trees,
poles and other tall objects; no substantial damage). There are no
public plans for coping with earthquake or seismic hazard in the coastal
zone.

It is too soon to evaluate the ability of state initiatives to
mitigate natural hazards in the coastal zone. Preliminary observations
suggest that the wetland permit program appears to have slowed develop-
ment in some flood-prone areas. Likewise, the Virginia Beach Erosion
Commission has been generally successful in retaining useable recreational
beaches - although at considerable local cost. Private protection
activities are generally unsuccessful in the long run.

IV-86

TABLE IV-28

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE VIRGINIA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGD04TS
AREAS

Wetlands Flooding caused by Inundation of flood Wetland permit Office of the Draft & maintain a state disaster Respo
Coastal adjacent low- hurricanes, local storas, plain, damage to program my have Governor/Office of preparedness plan,; coordinate PL 93
Flooding lying shores north-easters. 4 major structures. M- 1962 slowed development Emergency Services local disaster plans.
of Chesapeake floods 1900-1950. See storm inundated in flood plain.
Bay & Atlantic. Ref. 15 Chincoteague; Increasing U.S. Army Corps of Study coastal flood problems, plan U.S.C
estimated $7.1 million development will Engineers & construct flood protection as an
damage. See Ref. 6 increase structures.
7.8 ft. storm surge vulnerability.
in Hampton. See Ref. U.S. Federal Administers NFIA & Flood Disaster See R
13 Insurance Protection Act.
Administration
Aug. 1933 hurricane:
7.0 ft. storm surge Virginia State Water State coordination agency for NFIP. Virg
in Baltimore. Control Board Contracts with Corps of Engineers Port
& USCS for flood Insurance studies,
review agency for flood protection
projects in Virginia.

Virginia Marine Administers permit progras under Affec
Resources Virginia Wetlands Act (1972). range
Commission modif
apeci
Ppli
the V
Scien

Sections 62.1-2 through 62.1-30 of
the Virginia Code ftpower the
Marine Resources Cosmi.nion to
regulate the beds of bays, rivers,
streams, & creeks is state ownership.

Virginia Office of, Currently designating Geographical See R,
Commerce & Resources Areas of Particular Concern (GAPC)
(Incorporates former fm Federal Coastal Zose
State Planning Management program.
Office)

Virginia Planning Comprehensive land use Planning. Mai.1"
Districts

Local Governments Must adopt flood plain -ges'eat Nuo t
ordinances including land use all
controls. basam
the 1
most
Water
late

TABLE IV-28 (cont'd)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGMENT IN THE VIRGINIA COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ADMIT
AREAS
Of shore 26% Accelerated by atoms,high Damage structures, Damage potential U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal erosion problem , plan US,C,
Coastal critically water, subsidence. protective works, increasing as Engineers & construct erosion control S
Erosion eroding, 30% beaches, etc. Erosion Virginia attracts structures. a. amod
noncritical,44% 1852-1962 Wreck Island & sedimentation more invesment,
stable. averaged 34 ft. per year threatens ecosystems & especially summer U.S. Federal 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverag
See Ref. 53 loss. See Ref. 65 navigation. Estimated homes & off-shore Insurance federal insurance against d anua gas for can
cost of beach oil & gas Administration ft= accelerated erosion.
Most affected: 17 square miles lost from restoration & activities.
barrier islands, barrier islands. See Ref. maintenance for Virginia Soil & Water 1973 Brosion & Sedimnt Cont-II.- Must me
bluffs on west 66 Virginia coast: $1,135 Conservation gave Coomission responsibility for which .
shore of million. See Ref. 56 Coission coordinating all shore erosion enforce
Chesapeake,
Virginia Beach, activity in Virginia. Provides for
lower Potomac a comprehensive statewide control
River shores. -Program.
Virginia Office of Currently designating Geographical Sea Ref
C omm erce & Resources Are.. of Particular Concern (GAPC)
for Federal Coastal zona,
Manag-at program,

Virginia Marine Administers permit program under
Resources Commission Virginia Wetlands Act.(1972).

Virginia Planning Comprehensive land use pi son, ing. Mainly
Districts

Virginia Beach State institution .,pointed by the Beach n
Erosion C emm ission governor to preserve waterfront in st-t.
the Virginia Beach area. Funded by beach a
municipal "sand tax.'.

Local Govern-nts Beach nourishment programs, No gene
structural protection devices. shore a
lines.
Barrier islands 2% probability of Rain, storm surge, wind 98.5% population U.S. Army Corps of construction of stor,m' 4
rRe U.S.C.S
Hurricane most vulnerable; hurricane effects, 1% tornadoes, accelerated increase since Engi ... re Protection structures a. ame.
entire coast probability of a great erosion. last major
exposed. hurricane. See Ref. 41 hurricane. See National Weather Collects & disseminate. maeer- Maps pr
1929 hurricane-related Ref. 13 Service (NOAA) ological informt,ion; isnues borderi
4 hurricanes, including 1 flooding - $9 million hurricane warnings.
great hurricane, 1950-1975. damage in Georgia, Inexperience of
See Ref. 13 South Carolina, North population may U.S. Geological Prepares flood-prone area =Pa.
Carolina, Virginia. hinder evacuation: Survey
Major events - 1944, 1960 See Ref. 15 Continued develop-
(Donna). ment of coast adds
National Hurricane -I ..... warnings, disseminates
to vulnerability. Center (NOAA) hurricane informurtion.
Construction of
off- shore . il
gas facilities
will increase
industrial risk.

Minor damage Approximately 35 earthquakes Trees, poles A tall Iittle increase in U.S. Geological Conducta geologic studies in order
Earthquake expected along of intensity V or less objects disturbed; no vulnerability. Survey to monitor & possibly predict
coast. (modified Mercalli) have major damage. seismic activity.
occurred in coastal
counties since 1774. See
Ref. 14 Virginia Division of Technical tudies.of geology & soils.
Mineral Resources

Office of the Draft intan a state disaster Respoa,
Govarnor/Office of preparedness plan coordinate local PL 93-2
Emergency Services disaster plans..

WASHINGTON

The State of Wa@hihgton's coastal zone contains 2,337 miles of
marine shoreline and includes parts of fifteen of the state's thirty-
nine counties, containing two-thirds of the:state's population. The
marine shoreline is distributed as follows: 157 miles along the Pacific
Ocean, 218 miles in the Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay estuaries on the
coast, 144 miles along the Strait of Juan de Fuca, thirty-four miles on
the Columbia River, and 1,784 miles bordering Puget Sound and the Strait
of Beorgia to the north, including the San-Juan Island archipelago (State
of Washington, 1976).

The coastal zone of Washington is vulnerable to a variety of
natural hazards: earthquakes, landslides, coastal erosion, coastal
flooding and tsunamis.

In lJ49 an earthquake, registering 7 on theRichter scale, caused
$25 million in damage, and in 1965 Seattle was jolted by a moderate
quake (6.5 R) which resulted in $12.5 million in damages.

Landslides and accelerated coastal erosion are frequently triggered
by such seismic disturbances. Eighty to ninety per cent (80-90%) of
Washington's coastal zone is subject to landsliding and erosion. The
high bluffs, which comprise much of Washington's shoreline, are often
unstable due to their composition of,loosely consolidated and hetero-
geneous glacial material. Seismic disturbances, increased human impact',
devegetation, over-building, and heavy precipitation all contribute to
the landslide hazard. The erosion of beaches and dunes, a continuous
process, is exacerbated during periods of wind, high tides, and storms.

Another hazard along the Washington coast is flooding; the combina-
tion of heavy precipitation and stream flow with high tides and strong
on-shore winds poses recurrent flood problems for the low-lying coastal
areas of Washington. Upstream diking And channelization have increased
the problem by deliving runoff more rapidly to the coastal zone. In
December 1975, severe coastal flooding cuased the failure of a dike,and
resulted in serious damage to coastal estuaries and heavy losses to
property and livestock.

Tsunamis are infrequent hazards along the entire Washington shoreline,
including Puget'Sound, but have the potential to cause serious coastal
flooding. In 1964, tsunami waves generated by the Alaskan earthquake
destroyed two bridges and stranded numerous residents and recreators along
the southern Washington coast.

There are five dormant, but not extent, volcanoes in Washington
State. Three of these volcanoes, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Baker, and Glacier
Peak, could have an effect on the coastal environment given certain
eruptive characteristics, glacier melt-off conditions, and wind directions.
Rapid glacier melt-off due to volcanic heating could cause flooding and/or
mud flows along rivers draining volcanic areas. Flooding, mud flows, or

water borne ash could seriously affect coastal areas. It is also
possible for wind carried ash from volcanic eruptions to affect part
of the Puget Sound coastline.

Table IV-29 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the
Washington coastal zone, the measures for coping with those.hazards,
and..the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those
coping measures.

The planning program and permit system developed by local juris-
diction6 in response to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, is the
cornerstone of hazards management in Washington. The Washington Coastal
Zone Management Program of 1976, the first to gain Federal approval, is
based largely upon the 1971 Act. Under this plan, each local.government
is to prepare a comprehensive shoreline inventory and a master program
for the regulation of shoreline uses. The entire planning effort is
conducted in conformance with guidelines prepared and adoptetl by the
Department of Ecology, the agency responsible for administration of both
the Shoreland Management Act and the new Coastal Zone Management Program.
.The resulting local programs are subject to state review and approval, and
adoption. The regulatory permit system is overseen by a state adminis-
trative appellate body.

IV-90

TABLE IV-29

NATURAL HAZARD HANAGEKENT IN THE WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE

HAZARD LOCATION OF CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADM=TRATIVE RELATIONS AND
VULNERABLE OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEME14TS POLICIZS
AREAS

Earthquake Koderate damage 80.1 modified Mercalli Prthquake may trigger Increasing
-petted far marisess, intensity V earth- landslides, ava- development U.S. Geological Survey Conducts geological studies in order
at of state. quakes expected per 100 leaches, tsunami, fire increases to monitor & possibly predict
See Ref. 61 years. Maximum Intensity & submarine slides. susceptibility seismic activity.
expected is VI (VILL to a major earth-
Built-up land: expected in Seattle area). 1949 Olympia earth- quake. Washington Dept. of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible andar See. 201 of
Harbor Island, 41 earthquakes modified quake - 8 dead, $25 Energency Services preparedness plan; coordinate local PL 93-288.
Dumwamish in Mercalli VI or grea,tei@, million damage, disaster plane .
Seattle & 1841-1970. See Ref. 59 Richter - 7.0.
Port of Tacome
could suffer 145 Seattle earth-
liquefaction quake - 7 killed,
& subsidence. $12.5 million damage,
Richter - 6.5.
Followed same damage
patterns as 1949
earthquake.

Kajor severity Katerials involved include Concentrated effects Increasing with U.S. Geological Survey Research In 1-dslide prediction
Landslide along coast. rock, debris, & soil moving unless regional trans- expanding develop- through the landslide Hazard
See Ref. 43 in a fall, slide, or flow. portation or utility ment, especially Reduction Program.
Ray be triggered by coastal route is disrupted. residential.
North coast erosion, earthquakes, man's Transportation Washington Dept. of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible ander Sec. 201 of
inland shores activities, rain. arteries are Emergency Services preparedness plan; coordinate FL 93-288.
most susceptible also vulnerable. local disaster plane .
Sea R.E. 62

Of ocean Continual process Damages building., Increasing slowly U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal erosion problems ; plan u.S.C.S. Sec. 701 a-1, n, a (1960),
Coastal exPosure: 1% accelerated by storns, roads, beaches, bluffs, with increased Engineers & construct erosion control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Erosion critically especially in winter. dunes, etc. Cape development in structures.
eroding, LIZ Shoalwater, Pacific both urban and
noncritical County, cost to no-rhan areas. U.S. Federal Insurance 1973 Flood Protection Act provides Coverage limits are the sane " for
erosion, 88% stabilize 3 miles: Administration federal insurance against damages coastal flooding.
stable. Bay $30-100 million. (No from accelerated erosion.
estuary share. guarantee of success.)
"a less Cost of buying State & L .. I Design & location of roads. Need increased recognition of
vulnerable. endangered land & Highway Dept.. geologic problems.
most critical moving buildings in
erosion in area: $3 million. Railroads Control of right-of-waY. Kaintain bluff stability along
Clallam, Pacific See Ref. 50 rights-of-way.
Grays Harbor, &
Pierce Counties. Toke Point, Pacific Local Governments Planning, zoning, building, The Sbarelina Managemept plans
See Ref. 50 County: average loss subdivision control. permit systems apply only to
of 12 feet/year past developments; so retroactive
50 years. 17 city authority.
blocks lost.
'Population of 700 - Washington Dept. of Implement Shoreline Management plans
area declining due to Ecology/County & policies; & related legislative
erosion. See Ref. 50 Officials -od-tea.

iAL@ iv-zv (conL'a)

NATURAL HAZARD MANAGMENT IN THE WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE

All estuaries 6 Winter & spring flooding Heavy property damage. Increasing at a U.S. Amy Corps of Study coastal flood problems; plan U.S.C.S. Sec. 701 .-1, n, (1960),
Coastal Strean valleys caused by sa- melt &/or Effects may be d-e-ing rate Engineers & construct flood control as amended, (Supp. 1975).
Flooding along entire rain. Damaging events compounded by high under Shoreline structures.
shoreline. estimated at I in 5 years, tides & bursting pf Management
or I in 20 years on streams temporary dams. implementation. U.S. Federal Insurance Administer NFTA & Flood Disaster See Ref. 31
Low-lying areas with flood control projects. Administration Protection Act.
vulnerable to Dec. 1933 - extensive Protective works
storm waves. flooding caused $18 on Columbia U.S. Geological Survey Prepare flood-prone area maps.
million damage. reduce average
Jan. 1935 - 4 dead, losses. Local Governments Flood hazard guidelines under Shoreline Management guidelines
$1.5 million damage, Shoreline Management program; must assign low density classifications
Wynoochee & Quests adopt flood plain management to the 1/100 year flood recuirence.
Rivers at record ordinances, including land use
flood scate. Previous controls meeting state mini mum
@24 hr. & 5 day ;t-ndards for all lands subject to
precipitation records looding: by 100 year recurrence
broken. Dec. 1975 - interval flood..
serious flooding of
Nooksack, Skagit,
Snohomish, Nisq.11y,
& Grays Harbor
estuaries. Sudden
failure of dike
,resulted in heavy
losses of livestock.
See Ref. 13

Entire coastal Impulsive disturbance in 1964 Alaska earth- Inadequate National Weather Collects disseminates meteor-
Tsunami area exposed ocean generates a series of quake triggered preparedness Service (NOAA) logical information;
except for lung waves which build I. ta-i. 13.17 lack of tsunami warnings.
sheltered bays. height as approach shore. tsunami to hit experience with
Estimated frequency, 1 in Washington in last 25 tsunamis contrib- U S Federal Insurance Hazard area designation; assist local
Lo.-I,iu. at-. 100 years. Partial years. No loss of ute to damage Z@iniatration communities with eligibility for
most vulnerable. evacuations in 1952, 1963, life, partly due to potential. insurance.
1964, 1965. successful warnings. Increasing with
Slight possibli- 2 bridges destroyed. more recreational Washington Dept. of Draft & maintain a state disaster Responsible under Sec. 201 of
ity in Strait of Origin of tsu-i. activity 6 Emergency Services preparedness plan; coordinate Pl. 93-288.
Juan de Fuca. configuration of coastal disaster management.
coast, magnitude, & development.
extent of development Local G-nuents Issue warnings, engage In
contribute to damage evacuation planning & traffic
potential. High control.
catastrophe Potential.

K . Baker, Dormant, but cut @tinct. Rapid glacier melt- Mt. Baker currently U.S. Geological Monitors volcanic actf'ity & stream
Vulcan. Mt. Rainier off due to volcanic I undergoing activity. Survey pH in areas draining the Cratgr
Glacier Peak. beating. Could cause
flooding &/or mud U.S. Forest Service Regulates visitor use of volcanic
flows affecting the areas.
coastal area &
Puget Sound coastline. Washington Dept. of Coordinates disaster management & Responsible under Sec. 201 of
Emergency Services relief efforts of all star agencies, PL 93-288.
serves as intermediary 1ween,
Federal disaster relief agencies
local governments.
Local Governments Issue warnings 6 direct evacuation.

WISCONSIN

Wisconsin's coa@tal zone includes approximately 620 miles of
shoreline, touchIng on.fifteen counties whichhave a population of two
million people. Of the 620 miles of shoreline, Just less than half, or
299miles, have a beach zone.

Coastal erosion and flooding are chronic problems in the Wisconsin
coastal zone. Almost one quarter of the coastline, about 150 miles,
is subject to critical erosion, 250 miles are subject to non-critical
erosion, and eighty-six miles are subject to flooding. The remainder,
approximately 134 miles, are considered non-eroding, stable or protected
(Miller, 19.76).

Both flooding and critical erosion are exacerbated during periods of
high water. During the high water period, 1951-52, combined losses from
flooding and erosion amounted to about $6 million along the Wisconsin
shoreline (U.S. Army Corps of Eng.,. 1971a). Damage figures from the
more recent 1971-72 high-water period are not available.

Table IV-30 shows the nature of the natural hazards in the Wisconsin
coastal zone, the measures available for coping with those hazards, and
the locus of authority and responsibility for employing those coping
measures.

The 1965 Water Resources Act, as subsequently amended, is the corner-
stone of natural hazard management under the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Development Program. The flood plain zoning provisions of that Act lodge
responsibility in municipalities and counties for protection of riverine
areas, subject to state guidelines. To date, 186 counties, cities,.and
villages-are covered by state-approved regulations, considerably less than
the 1968 goal of full coverage Istipulated by the 1965 Act. The State has
elected to educate, persuade, and assist local governments to comply, a
slow process at best.

The shoreland zoning provisions of the Water Resources Act apply
only to land outside of incorporated areas and lodge responsibility in
the counties. All counties have enacted regulations. Erosion control
is not a named justification or purpose for shoreland zoning under the
Act, although legal opinion within the Department of Natural Resources
holds it to be an implied purpose. Consequently, erosion control is
not yet a major feature of existing county shoreland regulations.

IV-93

TABLE V-30
NATURAL HAZARD MAACENT IN THE WISCONSI COASTAL ZONE

LOCATION OF RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES ADMI
HAZARD VULNERABLE CHARACTER AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS FUTURE AGENCIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
AREAS OF EXTREME EVENTS SUSCEPTIBILITY
Coastal Critical shore- Coastal erosion is a E.tsn.iv. .-si.n Increasing where International Joint Control of water level. in the gee Ref
Erosion line emsion continuous problem which is along the L. Michigan development continues CommisBion/Great Lakes Crest Lakes
problems exist ac.el.cated during period. shoreline between the along shoreline & as Levels Board
a ever.l of high lake level.. I Sheboygon-Ozaukee property values climb. II.S.
Iocations: a Such periods occurred County line occurred Army Corp. of Study coastal erosion problems, plan U.SC.s
large pact of during the late 1920'a, during 1951-52 and Engineers & construct erosion control a. amen
the Wisc. L. ld-1940'., early 1950's resulted In nearly $3 structures.
Superior red and early 1970'a. million in dasag..
clay bluffs are Erosion may also become 6 1 .... a to public Wisconsin Dept. of Conduct. & formulates plans,'studies, Shorelan
subject to accelerated as a result of beaches and private Natural Resources & policies for shoreland management. 1000 ft.
critical erosion. winter stoma and seiche property. See Ref. 51 Prepares & provides to municipalities or withi
6% of shore is conditions during high standards & criteri. (1) for studies stream,
critically water periods. & planning, and (2) for protection flood pi
eroding, 402 regu ations; and their administration. Setback
noncritical Adapts shoreland management where or
erosion , 54% regulations where counties do not exists.
stable. See do
Ref. 51 Local Government Counties must adopt suitable shore-
line ordinances. Municipalities may
do so. Counties not complying must,-
Pay costs of DNR in preparing
regulations.

coastal S omlands Periods of extreme high April 13, 1952 Zoning and setback International Joint Control of we er levels in the Great See Ref
Flooding between Marinette water am a chronic problem Combination of high ordinance. of the Commission Lakes
Harbor and east & have occurr9d during this water & etc= winds Wisconsin Shoreland U.S. Army Corps of Study flood problems, plan and U.S.C.S
city limits of, century In the late 1920's, raised water level Protection Ordinance Engineers construct flood control (1960).
Green Bay are mid 1940's. early 195D's 2 ft. above normal. of 1965 will help to
..:ceptible to and =at recently in the Water overflowed the prevent future lo.... U.S. Federal Delineate flood hazard areas, Be. Ref
fl ding. early 1970's. low-lying shore of to new structures Insurance Adz administer flood insurance prgrem
the Fox River & within the coastal
Periods of high water flooded 1800 acres of ...e but will have Wisconsin Department Assist local gove rum eats in preparing Flood p
accompanied by winter stoma the City of Green Bay limited effect on Of Natural Resources flood plain regulations, establish subject
high winds have caused causing W2 million reducing damage to pre- flood plain regulations when local of 100
serious coastal flooding. in damages. existing at ructures governments do not do so, charge
& natural features. local governments for the costs of
April 1973 event had See R.f. 51 It ablishing such regulations.
significant damage, S Ref. 64
$4,188,300.
See Ref. 51
Local governments Must delineate flood plains, & adopt
enforce effective flood plain
regulations. May employ zoning
subdivision controls, building codes,
etc., as regulatory measums. most
enforce any regulations adopted
by the State.

REFERENCES

1. Alaska Department.of Environmental Conservation, Coastal Processes,
Terrain, and Hazards. ADEC, Division of Water Programs., Environ-
..mental Analysis Section, 1976.

2. Ayre, Robert S., Earthquake and Tsunami Hazards in the U.S.:. A
Research Assessment. Institute of Behavioral Science, Univers7i7ty
of Colorado, Boulder, 1975.

3. Beaulieu, John D., et al., Geologic Hazards Inventory of the
Oregon Coastal Zone. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries, Miscellaneous Paper 17, 1974.

4. B,ell, Eloise, Environmental Planning Consultant, North Carolina
Coastal Resources Commission, Personal Communication with Gilbert
F. White. Oct. 22, 1976.

5. Brown, L. F., Jr., R. A. Morton, J. H.'McGowen, C. W. Kreitler,
and W. Fisher, "Natural Hazards of the Texas Coastal Zone."
University of Texas, Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 1974.

6. Burton, Ian, Robert Kates & Rodman Snead, The Human Ecology of
the Coastal Flood Hazard in Megalopolis. University of Chicago,
Department of Geography Research Paper No. 115, 1969.

7. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, California
Coastal Plan. San Francisco, December 1975.

8. Coastal Zone Management Regional Advisory Committees in Virginia
Planning Districts, "Coastal Resources Planning and Management
Problems and Issues in Virginia." Unpublished report compiled
from CZM Regional Assessment Reports, Richmond, Virginia, 1976.

9. Delaware State Planning Office, News. Vol.,l, No. 2, Sept/Oct 1975.

10. Delaware State Planning Office, Delaware's.Changing Shoreline: Kent
County and Northeast Sussex County, Dover, April 1976.

11. Ervin, Timothy P., Assistant Planner, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Personal communication with Gilbert F. White,
Oct. 15, 1976.

12. Great Lakes Research Institute, Identification and Analysis of Lake
Erie Coastal Hazards Areas. Report to Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Erie, Pennsylvania, 1975.

IV-95

13. Hebert, Paul J. and Glenn Taylor, Hurricane Experience Levels of
Coastal County Populations. Texas 'to Maine. U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA, National ather Servifc-e, July 1975.

14. Hopper,'Margaret G. and G. A. Bollinger, The Earthquake History of
Virginia (2 parts). Blacksburg: Department of Geological Sciences,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1.971-72.

15. Hoyt, William G and Walter B. Langbein, Floods. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1955.

16. Lauricella vs. Planning and Zoning Board of Town of Greenwich, 342
A.2d 374, 1974.

17. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Summary Table in Historical
Shoreline Maps Series A, Annapolis, Maryland.

18. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Energy and Coastal Zone
Administration, Coastal Zone Unit, Maryland Coastal Zone Management
Authorities.and Administrative Structure. August, 1976.

19. Maryland Department of State Planning,, Regulating Flood-Prone Land in.
Maryland. May 1975.

20. Maryland Department of State Planning, Summary of Flood-Related
Studies in Maryland. Publication 210, 1974.
2-1. Maryland, State of, Disaster Assistance Plan, Maryland Civil Defense
and.Disaster Preparedness Agency, Annapolis, September 1975.

22. McPherson, Bruce E., Supervisor Shoreland Management Unit, Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Personal communication with Gilbert
F.-White, Oct. 20, 1976.

23. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, A Plan for Michigan's
Shorelands, August, 1973.

24. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Flooding Problems
Associated with Current High Levels of the Great Lakes. Water
Development Services Division, December, 1973a.

25. Michigan Department of State Police, Hazard Analysis Michigan.
2nd edition. Emergency Services Division, May 1974.

26. Michigan Department of State Police, Michigan Disaster Preparedness
Program Work Plan, revised April 12, 1976.

27. Miller, Allen H., Program Administrator, Wisconsin Coastal
Management Development Program. Personal communication with William
B. Lord, September 2, 1976.

28. Mississippi, State of, The Goverhor'.s Emergency Council, The
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comprehensive Development Af ter Camille. 1970.

IV-96

29. Mitchell, James K., Community Response to Coastal Erosion.
Department of Geography Research Paper No. 156. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1974.

30. Moseley, Joseph. Coastal Marine Council. Personal communication
to Gilbert F. White, Oct. 15, 1976.

31. National Flood Insurance Association, The National Flood Insurance
Program Flood Insurance Manual. Arlington, Virginia: .1975.

32. New Jersey Almanac, 1966-1967 (p. 97).

33. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New
York State Office of Planning Services, Model Zoning Ordinances
for Flood Hazard Areas, 1974.

34. North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study Coordinating
Committee, NARWRS, May' 1972.

35. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Environmental
Geology of the Coastal Region of Tillamook and Clatsop Counties,
Oregon. Bulletin @_4,1972.

.36. Palm, Daniel J. Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River: Analysis
of and Recommenda@t__ions Concerning High Water Levels. St. Lawrence
- Eastern Ontario Commission, Watertown, New York, March 1975.

37. Saint Lawrence - Eastern Ontario Commission,. Engineering Studies
for a Contract for Field Investigations of High Water Damage in
Oswego County, New York, Daniel J. Palm, Project Leader, Watertown,
New York, 1976.

38. Schmied, Ronald Lee, Coastal Zone Advisory Specialist, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia, Personal
communication with J. Kenneth Mitchell, Sept. 22, 1976.

39. Schoop, E. Jack, Chief Planner, California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission, Personal communication with William B. Lord, Nov. 8, 1976.

40. Scott, Stanley, Governing California's Coast. Institute of Govern-
mental Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.

41. Simpson, R. H. and M. B. Lawrence, Atlantic Hurricane Frequencies
Along the U.S. Coastline. NOAA Technical Memorandum #NWS SR 58,
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1971.

42. Singewald, J. T., and T. H. Slaughter, Shore Erosion in Tidewater.
Maryland. Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources, State
of Maryland, Bulletin No. 6, 1949.

43. Sorensen, John H., N. J. Ericksen and D. S. Mileti, Landslide Hazard
in the U.S.: A Research Assessment. University of Colorado,
Boulder, 1975.

IV-97

44. Sorensen, John_H., with J.K. Mitchell, Coastal Erosion Hazard in the
U.S.: A Research Assessment. University of Colorado, Boulders 1975.

45. Staff Members, Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards' Sriow Ava-
lanche in the United States: A Research Assessment. In;titute of
i-ebavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1975.

46. Texas General Land Office.'Texao Coastal Manasement Program. (Hearing
Draft) June 1976.

47. Tyson, W.E., St. Lawrence - Eastern Ontario Commission. Personal
communication with Gilbert F. White, Oct. 25, 1976.

48. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Regional Inventory Report,
National Shoreline Study. Washington, D.C., August 1973.

49. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,, California Regional Inventory Report,
National Shoreline Study. Washington, D.C., 1973b

50. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia-North Pacific Region Inventory
Report, National Shoreline Study. Washington, D.C., August 1971b.

51. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Regional Inventory'Report,
National Shoreline Study. Washington, Dd., August 1971a.

52. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hawaii Regional Inventory Report,
National Shoreline Study. Washington, D.-C., 1973c.

53. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Regional Inventor Report,
National Shoreline Study. New York, 1971c.

54. U.S. Army Corps of EngineersI Repor on the National Shoreline Study.
Washington, D.C., August 1971.

55. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Regional Inventory Report,
National Shoreline Study. Was gton, D.C., 1973a.

56. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State Water Resources Development
Repor 1975. (Individual reports for each state.)

57. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of the
United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

58. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin-
istration, The Coastline of the Unite States. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971 (from 4th edition, April 1, 1961).

IV-98

59. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Environmental Data Service, Earthquake History of
the United States. Publication 41-1, Revised Edition (through
1970), Washington, D.C., 1973.

60. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, The Climate of Texas
and the Adjacent Coastal Waters, by Robert D. Orton. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1964.

61. U.S. Geological Survey A Probabilistic Estimate of Maximum Accelera-
tion in Rock in the Contiguous United States by Algermissen, S.T., and
David'M. Perkins. Open File Report 76-416, 1976.

62. U.S. Geological Survey' @Pr6limindry Landslide Overview Map 2f the
Conterminous United@States by Radbruch-Hall, D.H., et al., 1976.

63. USGS and NOAA, Joint Report, U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore,
Tropical Storm Agnes --w June 1972,prepared by Gannet, Fleming, Corddry
and Carpenter. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, November 1974. James F.
Bailey, J.F. Patterson, J.L.H. Paulhus.. Hurricane,Agnes Rainfall and
Floods, June July L972.

64. U.S. Water Resources Council, Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office@, 1971.

65. Urban Pathfinders, Inc., Brown and Root Industrial Site North-
hampton Background Study, 1975.

66. Virginia, Governor's Council on the Environment, Report of the Task
Force on Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Prepared by the
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Task Force, 1971.

67. Virginia Office of Commerce and Resources, Selection Criteria for
Geographical Areas of Particular Concern, Draft Document, 1976.

69. Warrick, Richard A., Volcano Hazard in the U.S.: A Research
Assessment.-University of Colorado, Boulder, 1975.

69. Washington, State of, Washington Stat e Coastal Zone Management
Program. Department of Ecology, June 1976.

70. Wise, Peter L., Coordinator Lake Michigan Management Section,
Illinois Dept. of Transportation, Personal communication to
Gilbert F. White, October 20, 1976.

IV-99

SECTION V

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPH

V. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water
Programs, Environmental Analysis Section, Coastal Processes, Terrain,
and Hazards. Juneau, Alaska: 1976, 31 pp. plus maps.
Preliminary, but contains useful community-specific hazard inventory
information presented cartographically in convenient form, scale 1:63,360,
approximately 150.detailed maps, 5 pages of bibliographic references,
and several general maps.,

Anderson, William A., "Tsunami Warning in Crescent City, California and
Hilo, Hawaii." In: The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Human Ecolo
National Academy of nces, National Research C:@`uncil, Committee on the
Alaska Earthquake, Washington, D.C.: 1970, 116-124.
Compares a total of four tsunami warnings, the first resulting in a
disaster and the second in slight wave damage, for both communities.
Focuses upon the decision-making role of the local official and the
warning system he has to work with.

Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, Alaska Regional
Profiles. In cooperation with Alaska Coastal Management Program,
Anchorage, Alaska: 1974.
Compilation of regional geographic and geologic information, with
many maps, tables, and illustrations plus extensive text.

Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, Kadyak, A Background
for Living, by Eugene H. Buck, et al. Anchorage, Alaska: 1975.
Similar to Alaska Regional Profiles in content and scope. Geo-
graphic and geologic information both on the Kodiak Island group
specifically, and on Alaskan geologic problems in general. Text,
photos, tables, and maps.

Arya, A. S., "Earthquake Resistant Construction in Low Cost Buildings."
In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Low Cost Housing
Problems Related to Urban Renewal and Development, October 8-9, 1970,
edited by Oktay Ural, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Missouri, Rolla, Missouri, 7 pp.
A review of the behavior of various kinds of construction in earth-
quakes, including damage charts for reinforced and unreinforced brick
masonry, wooden frame with and without fill, and adobe construction.
Discusses the effects of providing small amounts of reinforcement to
"feebly suitable" buildings, the effect of foundation soil on structural
behavior, and details of construction which effect earthquake resistance.

Ayre, Robert S., Earthquake and Tsunami Hazards in the United States: A
Resear'h Assessment. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado, Boulder, Co.: 1975, 150 pp.
From NSF/RANN funded assessment of research on natural hazards.
A summary of the earthquake and tsunami hazards, mostly from a non-
technical point of view. Includes discussion of dimensions of the
hazards, simulations and scenario approaches, adjustments,and research
recommendations. 176 references.

V-1

Baker, Earl J., Toward an Evaluation of Policy Alternatives Governing
Hazard-Zone Land Uses. Natural Hazard Research Working Paper 28,
Institute of Behavioral Science, January, 1976, 73 pp.
Paper attempts to answer the question@ "What are effective ways
for local planners to treat advantages and disadvantages of policy
alternatives which would regulate the incidence of highly loss prone
activities in the hazard zone?" Includes: a review of *the types of
benefits, costs and considerations to be dealt with in hazard zone
management; summaries and evaluations of the land use management models
of Whipple, TRW Systems Groups, Day, and James; an alternative model;
and an illustrative example applied to a hurricane storm surge hazard
zone.

Baker, E. J. and J. G. McPhee, Land Use Management and Regulation in
Hazardous Areas: A Research Assessment. Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado, Boulder: 1975, 124 pp.
Discusses numerous issues involving regulation of hazardous areas:
delimitation and mapping, political considerations, environmental
considerations, economic factors, legal considerations, techniques for
regulation, social forces and interaction of adjustments. 100 references.

Baram, Michael S., Environmental Law and the Siting of Facilities: Issues
in Land Use and Coastal Zone lia-n-a-g-ement. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976, 255 pp.
Discusses laws and regulations governing coastal zone siting of
facilities. Also included, but not as extensively are methods of
assessing the "national interest" and coastal zone planning in Maine.
The discussion does not cover the social issues in coastal development
to any significant level.

Barton, Allen H. Communities in Disaster. New York: Doubleday, 1969,
344 pp.
An expansion of a previous (1963) publication by Barton, this is a
review and synthesis of disaster research, excluding warning systems and
pre-disaster behavior. It contains similar material and organization
.as the publication on which it is based, but unlike the first, this
study also includes some psychological topics such as the victims'
willingness to communicate, sympathetic identification with the victim,
and blaming the victim.

Barton, Allen H., "The Emergency Social System." In: Man and Society
in Disaster, edited by George W. Baker and Dwight W. Chapman. New York:
Basic Books, 1962, 222-267.
A description and analysis of the emergency social system at the
mass and organizational level based on disaster research. Covers:
1) factors influencing the adequacy of mass and organizational response.-
2) factors influencing the quantity of the mass assault relative to need,
3) factors influencing organizational mobilization, 4) coordination
within and between organizations, 5) the relationships between organi-
zational and mass behavior, and i 6) methods for increasing the output
of the emergency system.

V-2

Bates, F. L., C. W. Fogleman, V. J. Parenton, R. H. Pittman and G. S.
Tracy, The Social and Psychological Consequences of a Natural Disaster:
A.Longitudinal Study of Hurricane AudreX. Disaster Study No. 18,
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington,
@D.C.: 1963, 190 pp.
A field study conducted over a period of 4-1/2 years from the date
of the hurricane, with emphasis on long-term social change. Topics
dovered include: 1) warning, impact, and rescue, 2) rehabilitation and
recovery, 3) role stresses associated with rehabilitation, 4) mental
health effects of Hurricane Audrey, 5) social change in response to
Hurricane Audrey, 6) civil defense in Hurricanes Audrey and Carla,and
7) conclusions and recommendations for further research.

Beuchert, Edward W., A Legal View of the Floodplain. Harvard Law School,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1961, 81 pp. Reproduced by the TVA.
Briefly traces the history of channel encroachment and flood plain
zoning laws. Drafts and comments on model legislation for each.

' Tv State Regulation of Channel Encroachments." Natural
Resources Journal 4, (January, 1965), 486-521.
Presents an analysis of the 1965 state of the law on channel
encroachment. A model floodway encroachment act is proposed.

Bish, Robert L.', Robert Warren, Louis F. Weschler, James A. Crutchfield,
and Peter Harrison, Coastal Resource Use: Decisions on Puget Sound.
Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1975, 206 pp.
Essentially a regional study of coastal zone decision making.
Includes: detailed background information on the region's natural,
social and institutional characteristics; description of the economic,
administrative and legal resource allocation processes; four case
histories; an overview of Washington's Shoreline Management Act (1971);
and an assessment of future management options. The lack of generaliza-
tions to coastal decision making in other regions is the volume's major
flaw.

Blum, Richard H. and Bertrand Klass, A:Study of Public Respons to
Disaster Warnings. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California:
1956, 174 pp.
Compares responses to evacuation warnings in thr ee cities. Inter-
views, the analysis of weather records and reports, content analysis of
media releases and subjective written accounts were used. The factors
of the different community situations, source of warnings received,
belief in the warnings, verification behavior, perception and subse-
quent evaluation of the situation, and other influences on the decision
to evacuate are investigated. Appendices include: the questionnaires,
a summary of press releases, tabulation and cross tabulation of
responses, written accounts of personal reactions, and tabulation of
responses to the,second flood threat.

Bowden, Gerald, "Legal Battles on the California Coast: A Review of
the Rules." -Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 2,' No. 3 (1975), 273 ff.
Reviews the law of California in an effort to clarify the legal issues
involved in the controversy over public management of coastal resources and
private property rights.

V-3

Brinkman, Waltraud A. R., Hurricane Hazard in the United States: A
Research Assessment. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado,'Boulder, Co.: 1975, 100 pp.
From the NSF/RANN funded assessment of,research on natural hazards.
'Topics discussed are the physical aspects of hurricanes, population and
property at risk, effects of and adjustments to the hurricane hazard,
and research opportunities. A scenario of a hurricane landfall near
Miami is included. 111 references.

Brouillete, John R., "The Department of Public Works: Adaptation to
Disaster Demands." American Behavioral Scientist 13, (January-February,
1970), 369-379..
A discussion of the organization, function, and resources of the
typical public works department, its role in emergency, its ability to
cope with varying degrees of emergency, and what characteristics make
it an effective organization for emergency response.

Brown, L. F., Jr., R. A. Morton, J. H. McGowen, C. W. Kreitler and
W. L. Fisher, Natural Hazards of the Texas Coastal Zone. Bureau of
Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin in cooperation with
the Texas Coastal and Marine Council: 1974, 13 pp., 7 maps.
The characteristics, major events, adjustmentsand vulnerability to
hurricanes, floods, coastal erosion, subsidence, and faulting are
described in this atlas. Seven maps of the,Texas Coastal Zone show 'the
areas vulnerable to each of the hazards.

Bullard, Fred M., Volcanoes in History, in Theory, in Eruption. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1962, 441 pp.
Divided into three sections: Facts and Fiction about Volcanoes,
Types of Volcanic Eruptions, and Theory, Cycles and Utilization of
Volcanoes.

Burton, Ian, Types of Agricultural Occupance of Flood Plains in the
United States. University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research
Paper No. 75, Chicago: 1962, 167 pp.
Hypptheses were-developed for relationships between: 1) width of
flood plain and land use, 2) width of flood plain and farm buildings,
3) slope of adjoining land and flood plain land use, 4) slope of adjoin-
ing land and farm buildings, 5) flood frequency and land use, 6) flood
frequency and farm buildings, and 7) seasonality of flooding and flood
plain land use. Groupings of these variables form descriptions of flood
plain occupance. Five occupance types were found in twelve study areas
chosen for he 'terogeneity of farming types and the variables considered,
and some hypotheses were verified. Implications for public policy are
discussed. Appendix: Theoretical Occupance Type,s.

Burton, Ian and Robert W. Kates, "The Flood Plain and the Seashore: A
Comparative Analysis of Hazard-zone Occupance." Geographical Review 54,
(1964) , 366-385.
A comparison of coastal and riverine flood hazard in terms of
hydrological features, geomorphic features, role of engineering works in
hazard zone occupance, and advantages of the hazard areas for human

V-4

Burton, Ian and Robert W. Kates, "The Perception of Natural Hazards in
Resource Management." Natural Resources Journal 3, (January, 1964),
412-441.
Discusses differ6nces'in perceptions of hazards within and between
two groups: professionals who must deal with natural hazards on a
scientific or technical basis, and resource managers. The variation in
perception of hazards among professionals is discussed in terms of
inadequate scientific knowledge and the indeterminate character of
natural hazards. Differences between professional and manager perception
is attributed to the acknowledgement of uncertainty by the professional,
whereas four strategies for denying uncertainty are used by managers.
Perceptions of.managers are discussed in terms of: 1) scientific
uncertainty, 2) relation of hazard to dominant resource use, 3) fre-
quency of hazard, 4) attitudes toward nature, 5) reaction to uncertainty,
6) nature of the personal hazard, and 7) lack of concrete standard
which can be applied to hazard-related decisions.

Button, Ian, Robert Kates and Rodman Snead, The Human Ecology of Coastal
Flood Hazard in Megalopolis. University of Chicago, Department of
Geography, Research Paper No. 115, Chicago: 1969, 196 pp.
An analysis of coastal storm hazards in particular storm surge on
the Atlantic coast. An overview of the coastal zone is followed by 15
case studies. The range and choice of human adjustments to coastal
flooding, human use of the shore and implications of public policy are
discussed.

Burton, Ian, Robert W. Kates and Gilbert F. White, The Human Ecology
of.Extreme Geophysical Events. Natural Hazards Research Working Paper
No. 1, University of Toronto: 1968, 33 pp.
An overview of basic problems in natural hazards research relevant
to the formulation and implementation of public policy. Topics discussed
include hazard zone occupance, the range of human adjustment to natural
hazards, hazard perception, the adoption of adjustments, optimal adjust-
ment, the limits of adjustment, generalizability of response to hazards,
and a note on the roles of uncertainty, crisis, and technology in the
human response to natural hazards. 46 references.

Chow, Ven Te, Handbook of Applied Hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1964, approximately 1460-pp.
A comprehensive handbook dealing with sciences related to hydrology,
hydrologic phenomena, practice and application of hydrology, and socio-
economic aspects of hydrology. Numerous references follow each of 29
sections. Under the category of socio-economic aspects are sections on
water resources planning and development, water law, water policy, and
applications of electronic computers in hydrology.

Cochrane, Harold C., Natural Hazards and their Distributive Effects.
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Co.:
1975, 135 pp.
From the NSF/RANN funded assessment of research on natural hazards.
Topics discussed are how natural events are characterized (scenarios and
past events), effects of a disaster, burden of reconstruction, costs of
reducing losses, and research opportunities. 169 references.

V-5

Connecticut, State of, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal
Areas of Particular Concern: Part IL Eleven StateAuroaches, -fart II,
An Approach for Connecticut. Hartford, Conn.- 19@5, Multi. pp.
Provides a summary of eleven state administrative approaches to
@designating and managing Geographic Areas of Particular Concern as
provided for in the-CZM Act of 1972.

Council of State Governments, Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness
Planning in State Government, by Hirst Sutton. Iron Works Pike,
Lexington, Kentucky 40511: August 1976, 47 pp.
Discusses the integration of general state and state preparedness
planning. Concerned with prevention, mitigation, long range recovery
as well as immediate emergency'response planning.

Cox, Poak C., "Introduction to Part II. Tsunamis." In: The Great
Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Oceanography and Coastal Engineering.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.: 1972, 31-37.
Introduction to reports on tsunamis associated with the Alaska
Earthquake of 1964. Reviews the various studies of tsunamis related
to the earthquake.

"Review of the Tsunami." In: The Great Alaska Earthqua
of 1964: OceanographX and Coastal Engineering. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.: 1972, 354-360.
Summary of the major tsunami in the ocean and the large waves in
the Prince William Sound and Gulf of Alaska associated with the Alaska
earthquake of 1964.

Crandall, Tom, "Shoreline Development Controls and Public Access to the
Ocean's Edge." Coastal Zone Management.Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1974),
451-466.
Describes the San Diego Coast Regional Commission's.guidelines for
bluff-top development. The guidelines include environmental and aesthetic
parameters. Some of the factors leading to their formulation and
adoption are discussed.

Crandell, Dwight R. and Howard H. Waldron, "Volcanic Hazards in'the
Cascade Range." In: Geologic Hazards and Public Problems: Conference
Proceedings, edited by Robert A. Olson and Mildred M. Wallace. Office
of Emergency j?reparedness, Region Seven, Santa Rosa, California: 1969,
5-18.
Discusses lava flows, volcanic ash eruption, avalanches of ash and
rock debris, floods, and mudflows and their potential danger from
several dormant volcanoes in the Cascade Range. Concludes with suggestions
for reducing volcanic hazard, some of which can be generalized to other
regions.

Crumlish, Joseph D., "Some Economic Considerations in Evaluating
Engineering Seismology Efforts." In: ESSA Sym@osium on Earthquake
Prediction. U.S. Department of Commerce@,-En@ironmental7qcience Services
Administration, Washington, D.C.: 1966, 119-122.
Compares earthquake damage in school buildings built before and after
legislation requiring earthquake resistant construction for four
California areas and for Seattle and Anchorage Schools.

V-6

Cypra, Kenneth and George L..Peterson, Technical Services for the Urban
Floodplain ProRerty Manager: Organization of the Design of the Problem.
Natural Hazards Research Working Paper No. 12, University of Toronto:
1969. 1
Discusses technical advice services for flood plain managers based
on the assumption.that 11services are simultaneously limited from above
by the flood plain management effort and its supporting state of the art
and below by the recipient's attitude towards such service."

Dacy, Douglas C. and Howard Kunreuther, The Economics of Natural Disasters:
Implications for Federal Policy. New York. The Free Press, 1969, 270 pp.
The main objective of this book is-to "formulate a clear-cut case
for the development of a comprehensive system of disaster insurance as an.
alternative to the current paternalistic Federal Policy." Conclusions
and recommendations are supported with statistics and case studies.
Chapter: 1, The Cost of Natural Disaster in the United States; 2, Relief
in Natural Disasters; 3, Economic Theory and Natural Disaster Behavior;
4, Problems of Information and Communication; 5, Short-Run Supply and
Demand Problems; 6, Planning for Recovery: The Special Problem of Damage
Assessment; 7, Population Migration: The Supply of Labor;.8, Reconstruc-
tion and Economic Developments Following.a Disaster; 9, The Small Business
Administration Disaster Relief Program; 10, Equity in Disaster Relief;
11, The Cost of Federal Relief; 12, The Need for Comprehensive Disaster
Insurance.,

Day, J. H., H. P. Ho and V. T. Houghton, "Evaluation of Benefits of a
Flood'Warning System." Water Resources Research 5, (1969), 937-946.
Benefits from a flood warning system are estimated using individual
structure damage curves for several warning periods. Data for residences,
a grocery supermarket, and a railroad switchyard are used. The applica-
tion of this technique to a 1959 flood indicates the ex 'tent of reducible
damage. Evacuation and temporary flood proofing may also be evaluated
by this method.

Day, John C., "A Recursive Programming Model for Nonstructural Flood
Damage Control." Water Resources Research 6, (October, 1970), 1262-1272.
See also An Activi7ty Analysis of Nonstructural Floodplain Management
AlteLnati-ves-, University ;f 1 nsin Water Resources Center, Hydraulic
and Sanitary Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin 53706: 1969, 121 pp.
Presents a computational technique for evaluating land use alterna-
tives based on the economic valuea community gains from its land. A
linear programming model is developed that identifies economically
efficient combinations of: 1) spatial and temporal planning of urban
land use, 2) site elevation through landfill, and 3) flood proofing of
buildings.

Disaster Research Group, Field Studies of Disaster Behavior: An Inventory.
Disaster Study No. 14, Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council, 1961, 71 pp.
A catalogue of 114 field studies of 103 disaster situations which
includes event, data, location, damage, number of interviews, research
agency and principal research personnel, and reports and references.

v-7

Drabeck, Thomas E., "Social Processes in Disaster: Family Evacuation."
Social Problems 16, (Winter 1969), 336-349.
Describes four types of evacuation patterns found in an interview
study of responses, to an evacuation warning prior to a major flood. The
types of evacuation patterns were interrelated with source of warning
and types of confirmation behavior.

Dulsik, Dennis W., Shoreline For the Public: A Handbook of Social,-
Economic, and Legal Considerations Regarding Public Use of the Nation's
Coastal Shoreline. MIT Press, ridge, Massachusetts: 1974, 57 pp.
Emphasizes the legal aspects of the rights of public access to
the nation's beaches. Includes less extensive treatment of social and
economic considerations and a,review of techniques for insuring public
access.

Dynes, Russell R., "Organizational Involvement and Changes in Community
Structure in Disaster." 'American Behavioral Scientist 13, (January-
February, 1970), 430-439.
An analysis of the mobilization process in a disaster, centered
around the idea that it is necessary for traditional organizational
patterns to break down before mobilization can occur.

Organized Behavior in Disaster. Lexington, Massachusetts:
D. C. Heath, 1970.
A review and synthesis of@previously published literature and
supplemental material under the headings: Disaster-activated Organiza-
tions, The Disaster Event and Community Stress, Disasters and Community
Organization, Disaster Activities and Organizational Functioning, Ways
of Conceptualizing Organized Behavior, Problems of Organized Activity
in Disaster, Interorganizational Relationships, and Changes in Community
Structure in Disaster.

Erickson, Neil J., Scenario Methodology in Natural Hazards Research.
Institute of Behavioral Science, UniversTt@ of Colorado, Boulder, Co.:
1975, 170 pp.
From the NSF/RANM funded assessment of research on natural hazards.
Part I describes natural hazards as dynamic systems and evaluates the
scenario model and method. The bulk of the monograph (Part II) is
devoted to a scenario of the one per cent flood in Boulder, Colorado.

Federal Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research,
A Federal Plan for Natural Disaster Warning and Pre2aredne.@@_S, Washington,
D.C.: 1973. 1
A detailed description of systems for monitoring, warning and
preparedness planning for all types of natural disasters.

Friedsam, H. J., "Older Persons in Disaster." In: Man and Society in
Disaster, edited by George W. Baker and Dwight W. Chapman. New York:
Basic Books, 1962, 151-182. -
Discusses eleven hypotheses concerning the aged in disaster situa-
tions, with supporting research evidence. The hypotheses concern warning,
evacuation, material loss., casualties, family ties, emotional response,
and rehabilitation. The interview files of the Disaster Research Group
were the primary source of data.

v-8

Fritz, Charles E., "Disasters Compared in Six American Communities."
Human Organization 16, (Summer, 1957), 6-9.
Reports findings fro m a National Opinion Research Center disaster
study centered ardund extensive interviews with those involved in six.
major disasters. Covers the social-psychological effects of disaster,
common perceptions in disaster, initial behavior in.disaster, leadership
in disaster, and scapegoating in disasters.

Frutiger, Hans, "Behaviour of Avalanches. in Areas Controlled by Support-
ing Structures." In: International Symposium on Scientific Aspects of
Snow and Ice Avalanches.- Reports and Discussions. Sponsored by the
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics and-the International
Association of Scientific Hydrology. L'Association Internationale
d'Hydrologie Scientifique, Braamstraat 61, Gentbrugge, Belgium: 1966,
342-250.
Using summaries of several unpublished case studies of the failure
of supporting structures, discusses the inadequacies of supporting
structures in avalanche control.

Ga.@kin, Paul and J. Robert Stottlemyer, "Ecological and Economic
Principles in Park Planning: The Assateague National Seashore Model."
Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1974), 395 ff.
Proposes the incorporation of long term ecological and economic
criteria into the decision-making process to avoid the adverse environ-
mental impacts and high maintenance costs of inappropriate management
schemes.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Handbook: Building in the
Coastal Environment. Atlanta: 1975.
Discussion of legal, economic, and engineering aspects of developing
property in the coastal zone. Explains functions of physical features
and processes.

Goddard, James E., "Flood Plain Management Improves Man's Environment."
Proceedings of the American Society.of Civil Engineers, Waterways and
.Harbours-Division 89, (WW4, November, 1963), 67-84.
Uses TVA floc@d_control programs to illustrate how a comprehensive
flood control program utilizing a variety of adjustments is desirable.

Haas, J. Eugene, "Lessons for Coping with Disaster." In: The Great
Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Human Ecology. National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council, Committee on the Alaska Earthquake,
Washington, D.C.: 1970, 39-51.
Provides suggestions for community disaster planning gained from a
field study of the Alaska earthquake, many of which apply to various
kinds of disasters. Covers topics such 6@s the warning system, supple-
mental and alternative communication, injury and damage assessment
information, planning for search-and-rescue teams, providing for an
Emergency Operations Center, and planning for the availability of
resources, specialized information, and specialized equipment and skills.

V-9

Haas, J. Eugene and Patricia Trainer, "Effectiveness: of Tsunami Warning
System in Selected Coastal Towns in Alaska." Paper 'presented at the
Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy: i973.
Develops a typology of tsunami events based on physical cues,
available evacuation times and maximum credible preventive action. The
effectiveness of the Alaska Regional Tsunami Warning System is evaluated,
A short-term tsunami hazard education program produced no significant
changes in knowledge of tsunamis, the warning system or'in intended
response. The personal contact and mass media approaches (but not
direct mailings) did increase awareness of the threat.

Heck, Nicholas Hunter, Earthquakes. New York: Hafner, 1955, 222 pp.
An early, general work on the causes and study of earthquakes,
including chapters on Descriptions of Great Earthquakes and Safe
Construction in Earthquake Regions.

Hewitt, Kenneth and Ian Burton, The Hazardousness of a Place: A Regional
Ecology of Damaging Events. University of Toronto Department @_f Geography
Research Publication No. 6, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971,
147 pp.
A categorization and statistical survey of past and potential hazards
at London, Ontario. Topics such as frequency and intensity of various
hazards and the range of damage and adjustments are included. Presents
an interesting approach_to a regional inventory of hazards.

Highway Research Board, Committee on Landslide Investigations, Landslides
and Engineering Practice, edited by Edwin B. Eckel. HRB Special Report
29, NAS-NRC Publication No. 544, National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.: 1958, 232 pp.
Contains ten chapters, including the following: Economic and Legal
Aspects, by Rockwell Smith; Prevention of Landslides, by Arthur W. Root;
and Control and Correction, by Robert F. Baker and Harry E. Marshall.

Hill, Reuben and Donald A. Hansen, "Families in Disaster." in: Man and
Society in Disaster, edited by George W. Baker and Dwight W. Chapman.
New York: Basic Books, 1962, 185-2@1.
Authors combine research findings on individuals and organizations
in disaster and findings on families under stress to form five proposi-
tions about family interaction with the community in a disaster and six
propositions concerning interaction within the family under disaster
situations. An evaluation of the applicability of three conceptual
frameworks for family-disaster research is presented.

Hodgson, John H., Earthquakes and Earth Structure. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1964, 166 pp.
Contains chapters on: What are Earthquakes Like, How do Seismolog-
ists Study Earthquakes, Earthquakes Where and Why, and What Can We Do
About Earthquakes.

V-10

Hollis, Edward P., Bibliography\_of Earthquake EngineeriLn&. Oakland,
California: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1971, (336 40th
Street, Oakland, California 94609), 247 pp.
An annotated bibliography divided into the following sections:
Miscellaneous Sources of Data; Seismic Geology, Seismology, and Seismo-
metry; Dynamics of Soils, Rocks, and Structures; Design and Construction
in Seismic Regions; and Earthquake Damage'. Contains numerous subsec-
tions. Author index. Cross-indexed.

Homan, A. Gerlof and Bruce Waybur, A Study of Procedure in Estimating
Flood Damage to Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties in
California. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo,Park, California: 1960,
53 pp.
Discusses the results of a study of the effectiveness of water
depth, value of content,and value of structure in estimating flood
damage for residential, commercial, and industrial properties.

Hoyt, William G. and Walter B. Langbein, Floods. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1955, 469 pp.
. A classic on adjustments to floods... Chapters include: Why We Have
Flood Problems; Life History of a Flood; Damage from Floods; Man's
Adaptation to Floods; Protection through the Control of Water; Floods
and the Constitution; Our Present Flood-Control Policy; Basin Problems,
Projects, and Plans; and Flood History. Includes a catalogue of floods
up to 1952.

Illinois, State of, Department of Transport ation,,Division of Water
Resources, Geographical Areas of Particular Concern for the Illinois
Coastal Zone Management Progr (Draft)., Chicago, Illinois: 1976, 13 pp.
Describes the efforts of the Illinois coastal zone management program
in designating GAPC's. Includes a definition, process description and a
list of GAPC nominations. Developed areas subject to storms, landslide,
floods and coastal erosion are specifically mentioned as potential GAPC's.

The Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program, First Year Work
Product. Chicago, Illinois: 1975.
Volume I examines legal aspects, Volume II presents geological infor-
mation (including: coastal erosion and lake level analyses; a physical
characteristics inventory; hydrographic maps; and a sediment transport
study) and Volume III discusses land use data and analysis.

James L. D., "Economic Analysis of Alternative Flood-Control Measures."
.Water Resources Research 3, (1967), 333-343. See also, James, L. D., A
Time-Dependent,Planning Process for Combining Structural Measures, Lar@d_
Use, and Flood Proofing to Minimize the Economic Cost of Floods. Report
EEP-12, Institute of Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University:
1964.
A computer program was developed for determining the optimum com-
bination of structural and non-structural measures for flood control
according to the criterion of economic efficiency. The program relates
optimum combinations of channel improvement, flood proofing and land use
control for each portion of the flood plain during planning stages of
specified duration to specific flood plain properties. Total cost of the

V-11

optimum program and a sensitivity analysis was related to variation in
cost of channel improvement, cost of land use control, cost of flood
proofing,'right-of-way value, relationship between flood damage and flood
severity, value of open space, extent of aversion to irregular timing of
flood damage, discount rate, population projections, and the exclusion
of alternative combinations.

"Nonstructural Measures for Flood Control."'.Water Resources
Research 1, (1965), 9-24. See also, James L. D., A Time-Dependent Plan-
ning Process for Combining Structural Measures, Land Use, and Flood
Proofing to Minimize the Economic Cost of Floods. Report EEP-12, Insti-
tute of.Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University: 1964.
A procedure is presented for establishing a combination of structural
measures, flood proofing, locational adjustment and damage absorbing to be
applied in various proportions over time which satisfies the economic
efficiency criterion. The technique was used to analyze a small water-
shed. Advantages of nonstructural measures and advantages of stage
construction are discussed.

Janis, Irving L., "Psychological Effects.of Warnings." In: Man and
Society in Disaster, edited by George W..Baker and Dwight W. dh-apman.
New Yor Basic Books, 1962, 55-92.
Hypotheses are presented concerning the following questions:
1) What warnings of potential danger result in effective preparation
rather than denial or em6tional overreaction and 2) under what condition *s
do prior warning, communications, or emotional adaptation produce sensi-
tization to the disaster threat, and under what conditions do they pro-
duce underreactions? The hypotheses are supported with findings from
disaster research. Conflicting, incomplete, or ambiguous evidence is
noted.

Joint Committee on the San Fernando Earthquake Study, Earthquake Risk:
Conference Proceedings. Sponsored by the Joint Committee on Seismic
Safety of the California Legislature, 1971, 151 pp.
Includes articles on social benefits versus risk; decision-analysis
on uncertain conditions; earthquake insurance; geologic hazards; risk
and the decision-making process; costs and benefits of earthquake
adjustments; liability resulting from earth movement; and others.

Kates, R. W., Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management.
University of Fhicago Department of Geograp@h_y Research Paper No. 78,
Chicago: 1962, 157 pp.
Discusses the paradox that greater flood control leads to greater
flood damages; also discusses resource problems and decision-making.
Extensive interviewing of commercial managers and residents in LaFollette,
Tennessee and reconnaissance studies of five other communities of dif-
fering geographical and socio-economic circumstances revealed several
types of perception of flood hazard which differed from the scientific
model. Greater variation of both perception and adjustments were found
in areas of less perceived certainty of-flood occurrence. The role of
information in perception and adjustment is discussed. Appendix:
Commercial Questionnaire.

V-12

Kates, Robert W., "Human Adjustment to Earthquake Hazard." In: The
Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Human Ecology. National Academy of
Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on the Alaska Earthquake,
Washington, D.C.: 1970, 7031.
An analysis of the range of earthquake adjustments possible, actual
adjustments practiced in Alaska before and after the earthquake and
their adequacy, damage from the earthquake, the effect of the earthquake
on earthquake adjustments, and implications for a national policy of
reducing earthquake losses.
___________, "Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective: Hypotheses
and Models." Economic Geography 47. (July, 1971), 438-451. Also pub-
lished as Natural Hazards Research Working Paper No. 14, Clark University,
Worcester, Massachusetts, 1970.
Presents a series of linked hypotheses for natural hazard research
concerning man-nature interaction, techno-social stages, nature of the
hazard, decision-maker classes, and aspects of individual decision-making.
Develops a model of human adjustment to natural hazards and a submodel
of adjustment process control, then shows how the model can be applied
to East African agricultural drought.

Kates, Robert W. and Gilbert F. White, "Flood Hazard Evaluation," In:
Papers on Flood Problems, edited by Gilbert F. White, University of
Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper No. 70, Chicago: 1961,
135-148.
Contains an analysis of the present state of the art of flood hazard
evaluation and a guide for setting zoning regulation lines that are
relatively easy to determine and understand. An example of the zoning
guide applied to La Porte St., Plymouth, Indiana is included.

Kennedy, Will C., "Police Departments: Organization and Tasks in
Disaster." American Behavioral Scientist 13, (January-February, 1970),
354-361.
A general discussion of the major functions of the police in a
disaster and the problems associated with performing these tasks.

Kollmorgen, Waler M., "Settlement Control Beats Flood Control."
Economic Geography 29, (1953), 208-215.
Reviews some Army Corps of Engineers flood control works in which
the damages prevented were less than the cost of the program for a number
of reasons. Discusses aspects of cost-benefit analysis of flood control
which render the analysis inaccurate, such as failure to consider flood-
caused soil improvement, disturbed hydrological conditions accompanying
flood control works, mythical navigation benefits, etc. Suggests alter-
native adjustments to dams.

Kunreuther, H. K., et al., Limited Knowledge and Insurance Protection:
Implications for Natural Hazard Policy. Unpublished draft: 1976.
The NSF/RANN funded project examined public response to flood and
earthquake insurance offerings. Three principal conclusions are:
1) many people have little awareness of the hazard, 2) most of the
uninsured could not estimate the cost of insurance, and 3) the public
tends to view insurance as an investment, and expects and return, rather

V-13

than as a means of sharing the cost of a natural.disaster. See.also,
Kunreuther, "Limited Knowledge and Insurance Protection." Public
Policy, Vols. 24 and 26 (Spring 1976).

Kunreuther, Howard and Elissandra S * Fiore, The Alaskan Earthquake: A
Case.Study in the Economics of Disaster.. Instit.utefo.r Defense Analysis,
Economic and Political Studies Division: February, 1966,.162 pp.
A study of the immediate post-disaster recuperation', the long-term
economic recovery, and the role of the federal-government in the Alaskan
Earthquake reconstruction. Some topics discussed are post-disaster
organization, supply, and demand problems, external aids, labor migra-
tion patterns, public and private reconstruction,.economic improvements,
the Small Business Administration in Alaska, and the need for disaster
insurance.

La Chapelle, Edward R., "The.C haracter of Snow Avalanching Induced by
The Alaska Earthquake." In: The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964:
Hydrology Part A. National Academy of Sciences., National Research
Council, Committee on the Alaska Earthquake, Washington, D.C.: 1968,
355-361.
Documents the extensive avalanching triggered by the Alaska Earth-
quake of 1964. Stable and unstable snow avalanched, mostly in normal
paths although a few new ones were formed.

Lachman, Roy and William J. Bonk, "Behavior and Beliefs During the Recent
Volcanic Eruption at Kapocho, Hawaii." Science 131, (1960@, 1095-1096.
After a volcanic eruption in which attempts to divert lava flows by
earthen dikes had failed, there were widespread offerings to the
Hawaiian Volcano Goddess, a practice not limited to one religious creed,
ethnic group, age level, or degree of educational achievement. This is
attributed to the magnificence of the hazard and the failure of technology'.

Lachman, Roy, Maurice Tatsuoka and William J. Bonk, "Human Behavior
During the Tsunami of May 1960." Science 133, (May.5, 1961), 1405-1409.
After a tsunami for which warning was given, but not heeded by large
numbers of people, interviews of both evacuees and non-evacuees were
conducted. The principal finding was that the warning siren was incor-
rectly interpreted by the majority of non-evacuees. Socio-economic data
on the two groups and prior disaster experience were also investigated
as possible determinants of response.

Lantis, Margaret, "Impact of.the Earthquake on Health and Mortality."
In: The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Human Ecology. National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on the Alaska
Earthquake, Washington, D.C.: 1970, 77-89.
Discusses the types, causes and distribution of death, injury, and
illness following the earthquake, the factors which kept@the casualty
rate unusually low, special medical problems in the disaster, medical
record-keeping, and.conclusions concerning,medical planning for disasters.

V-141

Leighton, F. Beach, "Landslides." In: Geologic Hazards and Public
Problems: Conference Proceedings, edited by Robert A '. Olson and Mildred
M. Wallace. Office of Emergency Preparedness, Region Seven, Santa Rosa,
California: 19691 97-132.
'Describes the types and causes of mass land movement and describes
adjustments that can be taken to.prevent.them or to avoid unstable sites.

Lomnitz, Cinna, "Casualties and Behavior of Populations'During Earth-
quakes." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of ,America.60, (August,
1970), 1309-1313.
Studies of the relationship between time of. day ahd casualties and
the relationship between shocks and casualties in.Chile lead to the
inferences that it is safer, on the average, to be out-of-doors than
indoors and that rapid evacuations.of dwellings will reduce casualties..

Loughlin, James C., "A Flood Insurance Model for Sharing the Costs of
Flood Protection." Water Resources Research 7, (1971), 236-244.
A cost sharing model complimentary to the 1968 flood insurance act
for structural flood protection programs is proposed, related to savings
in flood insurance premiums.

Macdonald, Gordon A., Volcanoes. Englewo od Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1972, 510 pp.
A basic text on volcanoes including extensive discussion of volcanic
structures, rocks, flows, eruptions, geothermal phenomena, distribution,.
internal mechanisms and the relationships between volcanoes and man (as
benefactors and destroyers, predicting eruptions, and protective adjust-
ments). An appendix catalogues the active volcanoes of the world.

Massachusetts, State of, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
Erosion and Flooding Study: Critical Hazardous Areas. Boston,
Massachusetts: 1976, 6 pp.
Describes a study analyzing natural hazards in the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone.

Mather, *John R., Richard T. Field and Gary Yoshioka, "Storm Damage
Hazard Along the Eastern Coast of the United States." Journal of
Applied Meteorology 6, (1967), 20-30.
Analyzes the frequency of damaging storms from 1935-1964, and
discusses the causes of the increase in damaging storms. Includes a
.map of relative coastal storm damage hazard for three time periods.

Mathewson, C. C. and D. P. Piper, "Mapping the Physical Environment in
Economic Terms." Geology, November, 1975, 627-629.
Presents a categorical quantitative procedure for classifying land
with respect to development costs and risks.

Mears, Arthur I., "Guidelines and Methods for Detailed Snow Avalanche
Hazard Investment in Colorado." Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 38,
1976.
This summary of the avalanche hazard includes the character of
avalanches, the effect of terrain, methods of determining the avalanche

V-15

path, avalanche impact, frequency prediction, and avalanche defenses..
May be useful in dealing with the hazard in other regions.

Michigan, State of, Water Development Services Division, Department of
Natural Resources, Areas of Particular Concern in Michigan's Coastal
Zone (Draft). Lansing, bffchigan: 1975, 173 pp-
Identifies fifteen categories of ardas of particularconcern to the
State of Michigan. Includes an overview, summary of criteria for selec-
tion, and problems and recommendationsfor each category.

Michigan, State of, Department of State Police,Emergeney Services
Division, Hazard,Analysis, 2nd edition.. Lansing, Michigan: May, 1974,
48 pp.
Reports and study of the types of natural disasters that have
affected parts of the state as well as potential hazards related to
future land uses.

Mileti, Dennis S., Natural Hazard Warning Systems in the U.S.: @A Research
Assessment. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Color@_dlo,
Boulder, Colorado: 1975, 97 pp.
From the NSF/RANN funded assessment of research on natural hazards.
Covers hazard characteristics relevant to warnings, types of warnings,
a proposal for integration of the warning system, the prediction and
forecasting of 15 natural hazards, community preparedness, societal
factors and research opportunities.

Mississippi, State of, Marine Resources Council, Areas of Particular
Concern and Priority of Uses. Long Beach, Mississippi: 1976, 24 pp.
plus tables.
Considers potential and recommended areas of particular concern and
presents an evaluation of priorities for use in a matrix form. Flooding,
hurricanes and coastal erosion are specifically mentioned.

Mitchell, James K., Community Response to Coastal Erosion: Individual
and Collective Adjustments to -ia-zard. or; the Atlantic Shore. University
of Chicago, Depa'rtment of Geography, Research Paper No. 156,,Chicago:
1974, 269 pp. I
A review of coastal erosion is followed by an examination of
individual and collective adjustments to the hazard. Collective decision
making processes were analyzed for five communities. No paradigm was
found to explain the presence of conflict and the structure of the
decision making. The citizen groups were generally composed of and led
by people with endangered property.

Mukerjee, Tapan, Economic Analysis of Natural Hazards: A Preliminary
Study of Adjustment to Earthquakes and Their Costs. Natural Hazards
Research Working Paper No. 17, University of Toronto: 1971, 55 pp.
Contains a discussion of various adjustments to earthquakes; their
costs and benefits; a benefit-cost analysis of warning systems; and
structural modifications for the city of San Francisco. Includes:
Bibliography on Earthquakes with Emphasis on Socio-economic Aspects.

V-16

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Earthquake Engineering
Research, Earthquake Engineering Research.. Washingt6n, D.C.: 1969,
313 pp.
For each of the following topics, describes the present state of
knowledge, need for future research and recommendations: Socioeconomic
Aspects of Earthquakes; Earthquake Ground Motion; Soil Mechanics and
Earth Structure; Structural Dynamics Analysis; Structural Synthesis and
Design; Coastal and Inland Waters; Utilities and Public'Service Facili-
ties; Post-Earthquake Inspection and Study; Foreign Cooperation;
Education-Requirements for the Future. Bibliography

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on
the Alaska Earthquake, The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. 8 volumes,
Washington: 1968-1973.
A collection of studies of the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 authorized
by President Johnson and undertaken by the National Research Council.
Volumes on hydrology, human ecology, biology, geology, seismology and
geodesy, oceanography and coastal engineering, engineering, and summary
and recommendations investigate the various physical and social phenomena
related to the earthquake. See following two entries and individual
articles referenced in this bibliography.

The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Human Ecology.
Washington, D.C.: 1970, 510 pp.
Contains 14 articles under the general headings: Implications of
the Earthquake Experience, Selected Studies of Impacts and Behavior,
Public Administration Aspects, and the Human Response in Selected
Communities. Appendices include: Chronologies of Events in Anchorage
Following the Earthquake; Statistical Studies of the Post-disaster
Period; Basic Population and Employment Statistics, South Central Alaska,
1960-1967;.Federal Disaster Act; Alaska Omnibus Act; and Amendments to
Alaska Omnibus Act. Annotated Bibliography.

, Toward Reduction of Losses from Earthquakes: Conclusions
from the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. Washington, D.C.: 1969, 34 pp.
Presents and briefly discusses the Committee on the Alaska Earth-
quake's twelve recommendations on earthquake loss reduction measures,
based on a review of the events before and after the Alaska Earthqauke
of 1964. Also includes recommendations from the Committee's panels on
geology, seismology, hydrology, biology, oceanography, engineering, and
geography.

North Carolina, State of, Coastal Resources Commission, State Guidelines
for Local Planning in the Coastal Area Under the Coastal Area Management
Act of 1974. Raleigh, North Carolina: 1975, 71 pp.
Describes the North Carolina State guidelines to be used to assist
local governments in each of the twenty coastal counties with preparation
of their own land use plans. Includes a section on natural hazards.

V-17

Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the Budget, 1976
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402: 1976, 806 pp. plus appendices.
Comprehensive listing and description of 1,026 Federal programs
administered by 54 different agencies which provide assistance or
benefits to the American public. Includes disaster relief programs.

Olson, Robert A. and Mildred M. Wallace, eds., Geologic'Hazards and
Public Problems: Conference Proceedings. Office of Emergency Prepared-
ness, Region Seven, Santa Rosa, California: 1969, 335 pp.
Contains 20 articles on various aspects of several geologic hazards,
concentrating on earthquake hazard and the Pacific Coast region, but
also including landslide tsunami and volcanic hazards.

Oregon, State of, Land Conservation and Development Commission, Draft-
Oregon Coastal Management Program. Portland, Oregon: February, 1976,
235 pp. plus maps.
Complete presentation of Oregon's Coastal Management Program.
Guidelines include planning for geologic and flood hazards.

Perdikis, Harry S., "Hurricane-Flood Protection in the United States."
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Waterways and
Harbours Division 93, (WWI, February, 1967), 1-24.
Reviews the studies undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers and
the Weather Bureau on the engineering aspects and economics of structural
measures for hurricanes along the Atlantic Seaboards. Includes tables
of proposed protective works by area with maximum record flood and esti-
mated damages, design stage, cost of construction, annual benefits, and
benefit-cost ratio.

Pilkey, 0. H., Jr., 0. H. Pilkey, Sr. and R. Turner. 'How to Live with
an Island. North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources,
Raleigh, North Carolina: 1975.
Written spec ifically as "A Handbook.to Bogue Banks, N.C.," the
book attempts to communicate technical knowledge of shoreline dynamics
to the public. Discusses geological processes, ecological processes,
conservation, site selection, construction guidelines, applicable laws,
relevant publications.

Platt, Rutherford H., "The National Flood Insurance Program: Some
Midstream Perspectives." Journal of the American Institute of Planners.
(July, 1976), 303-314.
Evaluates flood plain management in the U.S., concluding that the
National Flood Insurance Program is the most effective means yet pro-
posed. Land use issues inhibiting full implementation of the program
include questions of constitutionality of some measures, adequacy of
flood plain information, allowing subsidized insurance for new construc-
tion in the emergency phase, and allowing "marginal encroachment" in the
floodway fringe which may substantially alter the character of flooding
and flood damages.

v-18

Pupura, J. A. and W. M. Sensabaugh, Coastal Construction Setback Line.
SUSF-SG-74-002, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory
Program, Gainesville: 1974.
Describes Florida's setback law and procedures for its administra-
tion. Also describes factors employed in delineating the setback line.

Renshaw, Edward F., "The Relationship Beiween Flood Losses and Flood-
Control Benefits." In: Papers on Flood Problems, edited by Gilbert F.
White. University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper No.
70., Chicago: 1961, 21-45.
Adjustment to the flood hazard is discussed withih the context of
optimal economic, development, developmeift entailing social cost of
secondary flooding, and factors contributing to general overinvestment
in the flood plain. A discussion of why benefits of flood control are
often over or under-estimated is followed by a "six point program for
improving loss estimates."

Russell, C. S., Losses from Natural Hazards. Natural Hazards Research
Working Paper No@. 1-0, @niversity of Toronto: 1969, 25 pp.
A general discussion of the role of various kinds of human adjust-
ments and their interaction in the attempt to decrease losses from
natural hazards.

Schaerer, P. A., "Planning Avalanche Defense for the Trans-Canada Highway
at Rogers Pass, B.C." Engineering Journal 45, (March, 1962), 31-38.
See also more detailed version, Schaerer, P. A., "Planning Avalanche
Defense for the Trans-Canada Highway at Rogers Pass, B.C.," published by
the Canadian National Research Council, Division of Building Research,
Ottawa, November, 1962.
Describes the Avalanche survey taken to identify avalanche sites
and assess the degree of hazard at each site; presents an avalanche
classification; and discusses the possible adjustments to avalanches.
The feasibility of using each kind of adjustment at Rogers Pass is
discussed. The cost of various adjustments is compared, and an avalanche
defense plan for the area is presented.

Se1kregg, Lidia, Edwin B. Crittenden and Norman Williams, Jr., "Urban
Planning in the Reconstruction." In: The Great Alaska Earthquake of
1964: Human Ecology. National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Councif, -ComiJttee on the Alaska Earthquake, Washington, D.C.: 1970,
186-239.
An analysis by community of the planning that took place after the
earthquake, to what extent planning was implemented, and reasons for
lack of or change in implementation. Concludes with suggestions for
urban planning with regard to disasters and the proper role of federal
and state government in that effort.

Sheehan, Leslie and Kenneth Hewitt, A Pilot Survey of Global Natural
Disasters of the Past Twenty Years. Natural Hazards Research Working
Paper No. 11, University of Toronto: 1969, 18 pp.
Includes world maps of a number of disastrous impacts, total loss
of life from disasters excluding drought, and average number of deaths
per disaster by 10' squares for 1947-1967. Tables: List of Unit

V-19

Disasters covering more than One 10* Square, Loss of Life and Number of
Disaster Impacts by Nation-State, Loss of Life by Disaster Type and by
Continents, Average Loss.of Life Per Disaster Impact by Continents,
and Percentage of Total Loss of Life for Each Disaster Type.

Sims, John H. and *Duane D. Baumann, "The Tornado Threat: Coping Styles
of the North and South." Science 176, (June 30, 1972), 1386-1392.
.. After briefly exploring and rejecting alternate explanations of
the disproportionately high tornado death rate in the South, the authors
present the results of a sentence completion test which indicate that
southerners are more fatalistic, have less faith in the efficacy of
their own actions and have less trust in society's warning system. It
is concluded that psychological factors resulting in failure to take
effective action cause higher tornado death rates in the South.
Findings might be generalized to other hazards.

Sjorberg, Gideon, "Disa@sters and Social Change." In: Man and Society
in Disaster ' edited by.George W. Baker and Dwight W. [email protected] York:
Basic Books, 1962, 356-384.
@ A general discussion of social change caused by disasters-war and
epidemics as well as natural disasters-with regard to local versus
widespread disasters, industrial versus pre-industrial societies, short-
run versus long-run effects, and disasters in which there is hope of
adjustment versus disasters in which hope is lacking.

Sorensen, John H. with J. Kenneth Mitchell, Coastal Erosion Hazard in
the United States: A Research Assessment. Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado: 1975, 63 pp.
From the NSFIRANN funded assessment of research on natural hazards.
The dimension of the coastal erosion hazard in the U.S., the range of
adjustments, social consequences, exogenous forces, current research,
and research opportunities are discussed. 89 references.

Sorensen, J. H., W. J. Ericksen and D. S. Mileti, Landslide Hazard in
the United States: A Research Assessment. Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado: 1975, 73 pp.
From the NSF/RANN funded assessment of research on natural hazards.
The dimension of the landslide hazard in the U.S. is discussed, as well
as human adjustments to the hazard, its costs, exogenous forces,and
research opportunities. 48 references.

Sugg, Arnold, "Economic Aspects,of Hurricanes." Monthlv Weather.Review
95, (March, 1967), 143-146.
Total costs of protective measures against hurricanes in some areas
are estimated and compared with damage reports from a few recent hurri-
canes. Costs, savings and damage figures vary with storm intensities
and forecast accuracies.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Flood Damage Prevention: An Indexed Biblio-
graphy,_Z.th Edition. Knoxville, Tennessee: 1973.
Almost 500 references dealing with damage prevention, floodplain
regulation and flood control. Listed chronologically and indexed by
subject.

V-20

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Annual
Summary of Information on Natural Disasters. No. l,'1966; No. 2, 1967.
Belgium: 'UNESCO, 1970, 66 and 81 pp.
Contains geological and meteorological information on earthquakes,
tsunamis, storm surges, and volcanic eruptions, worldwide..

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Report on the National Shoreline
Study. Washington, D.C. 30214: August, 1971, 62 pp.
The River and Harbor Act of 1968 (PL 90-483) authorized the Corps
of Engineers to assess the extent and severity of coastal erosion in the
United States, and to determine suitable methods for pto.tecting the coast.
This report is the project summary including data for the nine regions.
The Regional Inventory Reports contain more detailed descriptions and
data for each state. The two reports, Shore Mana&ement Guidelines and
Shore Protection Guidelines, describe @_h_eva@ious management and
engineering techniques available as adjustments to coastal erosion.
(See the following reference.)

Shore Protection Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: 1971, 59
pp.
A general work, intended for the ind 'ividual property owner con-
sidering various types of sand erosion or hurricane protection. A des-
cription of wave action and sand transport, man-madeeffects on the shore
and the pro'tective action bf dunes, bulkheads, seawalls, revetments,
breakwaters, groins, and jetties are discussed. Blueprints of struc-
-tural measures and cost estimates of various adjustments are included.

. The Tsunami of the Alaskan Earthquake of 1964: Engineering
Evaluation, by Basil W. Wilson and Alf Torum. Coastal Engineering
Research Center,, Technical Memorandum No. 25, 1968, 401 pp.
After an evaluation of the mechanism of tsunami generation based
on field investigation and previous literature, detailed studies of the
main tsunami and local seismic waves are given for damaged areas in
Alaska, Canada, Washington, Oregon, and California, including engineering
evaluations for severely damaged areas. Conclusions are presented for
earthquake and tsunami generation characteristics, tsunami propagation
characteristics, features of tsunami damage, and general design criteria
for tsunami protection.

Water Resources Development State Reports, 1975.
The Corps periodically produces a set of state reports on their
civil engineering projects in each state. The introduction to these
reports includes brief discussions of the purpose of the Corps, its
legal foundation and the range of problems addressed by their activities.
Brief summaries of flooding are included in several of the state reports.

United States Department of Agriculture, First Aid for Flooded Homes and
Farms. Agricultural Handbook No. 38, Washington, D.C.: 1970, revised,
31 pp.
A fairly detailed report on*how to clean up and repair flood
damage to homes, household belongings, and farm equipment.

V-21

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Snow Avalanches:
A Handbook of Forecasting and Control Measures.- Agricultural Handbook
No. 194, Washington, D.C.: revised, 1968, 84 pp.
Contains chapters on: Physics of the Snow Cover; Avalanche Charac-
terigtics; Terrain; Avalanche Hazard Forecasting; Standard Snow Obser-
vations and Terminology; Snow Stabilization; Safety; Avalanche Defenses;
Avalanche Rescue; and Area Safety Planning.

United States Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services
Administration, Earthquake@i. Washington, D.C.: 1969, 15 pp. -
A pamphlet containing a simple explanation of thelcause and measure-
ment of-earthquakes, a world earthquake belt map, a seismic risk map of
the United States, and a list of earthquake safety rules.

Hurridane. Washington, D.C.: 1969, 39 pp.
Contains an explanation of the cause, behavior, and death of hurri-
canes, the damage which can be caused by hurricanes, the ESSA hurricane
warning service, what communities and individuals can do to protect
against hurricanes, ESSA programs of research in hurricane control, and
a short hurricane bibliography.

A Plan for ImprovinR the National River and Flood Forecast
and Warning Service. Silver Springs, Maryland: December, 1969, 64 pp.
Outlines the present (1969) program and planned improvements which
include, among other things, improved preparation and dissemination of
flood forecasts and warnings, extending flash flood warnings to new loca-
tions, increased data acquisition, and providing advanced training for
personnel. Includes charts on Loss of Life and Property in the United
States from Floods, and Reduction of Flood Losses by Actions Based on
River Forecasting.

Some Devastating Hurricanes of the 20th Century. Washing-
ton, D.C.: 1970, 9 pp.
Contains maps and data on approximately fifty severe United States
hurricanes from 1900-1969 including.date, area, wind speed, deaths, and
damage..

Tsunami Watch and Warning. Washington, D.C.: 1968, 2 pp.
Explains the difference between a tsunami watch and warning, and
lists tsunami safety rules.

United States Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, The Climate of
Texas and the Adjacent Coastal Waters, by Robert D. Orton. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.
A review of the climate of Texas. Includes many tables of data,
as well as brief summaries and explanations.

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, The Romeport Storv: An Imaginary City Gets Ready for
a Hurricane. Washington, D.C.: r971-920 pp.
Presents a sample community hurricane preparedness plan.

V-22

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration,,Ooerations of the National Weather Service. Silver
Springs, Maryland: October,' 1971, 231 pp. ,
Describes the organization and services of the National Weather
Service, and its communication network. Particularly relevant are the
descriptions of the-warning services for various natural hazards.
Includes maps of the service networks for each program.

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Environmental Data Service, Earthquake History of the
United States. Publication 41-1, revised edition (thr'6ugh 19765-1
Washington, D.C..: 1973, 208 pp.
Catalogue of earthquakes in the U.S. including dates, times,
locations and intensities. More detailed descriptions of major earth-
quakes encompass their geographic distribution, effects and damages.

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Weather Service, Hurricane Experience Levels
of Coastal County PoRulations-Texas to Maine, by Paul L. Hebert and
Glenn.Taylor. July, 1975.
This volume attempts to document the. levels of experience of
coastal populations. The introduction includes a description of the
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane rating scale currently used by the NWS. Data
on coastal county populations 1900-70 is correlated with the number of
and frequency of hurricanes striking the country.

United States Geological Survey, The Alaska Earthquake of March 27, 1964,
Lessons and Conclusions by Edwin B. Eckel. USGS Professional Paper 546,
Washington, D.C.: 1970, 57 pp.
A summary of the effects of the earthquake, what was learned from
the extensive post-earthquake research program, and what scientific
investigations are needed to prepare for future earthquakes. Biblio-
graphy. Related reports dealing with various aspects of the damage are:
Effects on the Alaska Railroad (545-D), Effects on the Alaska Highway
System (545-C), Effects on Air and Water Transport, Communications and
Utilitie.s (545-B), and Effects on Various Communities (542-G).

United States Geological Survey, Earth-Science Information in Land-Use
Planning: Guidelines for Earth Scientists and Planners, by Spangle and
Associates, et al. Geological Survey Circular 721, Arlington, Virginia:
Branch of Distribution, 1976.
A nationwide sample of applications of earth-science information to
urban land-use planning, prepared for the San Francisco Bay Region
Environment and Resources Planning Study. A general but helpful study
which covers sources, types and interpretation of information; planning
for natural resources; planning for natural hazards; and integration of
information in the planning process.

I'Preliminary Landslide Overview Map of the Coterminus
United States," by Radbruch-Hall, D. H., R. B. Colton, W. R. Davis,
B. A. Skipp., I. Lucchitta and D. J. Varnes. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1976, 1 p.
Areas subject to landsliding are delineated on the basis.,of past

V-23

incidence or susceptibility (as determined by the geological structure).
A brief introduction describes the major areas of landsliding. Two other
maps are Included depicting the southern limit of Pleistocene glacial
deposits and the physical subdivisions of the U.S. The landslide map
contains references to more detailed articles of local landslide hazards.

A Probabilistic Estimate ok Maximum Acceleration in Rock
in the Con@Aguous United States, by S. T. Algermissen and David M.
Perkins. JJSGS, Open File Report 76-416, 1976.
Two maps are included in this report. Seismic source areas are
delineated using estimates of the number of intensity V earthquakes
per 100,years and the maximum intensity-expected. The second map is
more important. It depicts maximum amount of ground movement expected
as a per cent of gravitational acceleration with a 10% probability of
being exceeded in 50 years. This type of mapping delineates earthquake
hazard areas and has potential for developing areas of special land use
and building requirements.

United States Office of Emergency Preparedness, Report to the Congress
Vol. 1: Disaster Preparedness. Washington, D.C.: 1972, 195 pp.
Contains chapters on disaster preparedness with-regard to vulner-
ability, prediction and warning capability, preventive measures, and
government response for general hazard, river floods, tornadoes and
windstorms,. hurricanes and storm surges, forest and grass fires, earth-
quakes, landslides, tsunamis, volcanoes, frosts and freezes, and droughts.
Discusses land use and construction, disaster insurance, weather modi-
fication, and the application of science and technology. Presents
historical data on legislation and statistical data.

Report to the Congress Vol. 2: Disaster Preparedness.
Washington, D. .: USGPO, 1972,-25 pp.
An Example State Disaster Act of 1972 and commentary.

Report to the Congress Vol. 3: Disaster Preparedness.
Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1972, 143 pp.
Consists of ten chapters covering causes and effects, threat and
vulnerability, and technological countermeasures of the hazards river
floods, tornadoes and grass fires, earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis,
volcanoes, frosts and freezes, and droughts.

United States Office of Science and Technology, Report of the Task Force
on Earthquake Hazard Reduction: Progra Priorities. Washington, D.C.:
1970, 54 pp.
. Presents and explains 28 major recommendations for earthquake
hazard reduction, divided into three categories: benefits in less than
five years, benefits between 5 and 10 years, and long-term benefits.

United States Water Resources Council, Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas
to Reduce Flood Losses. Washington, D.C.: 1971, 578 pp.
Part 1, Conclusions, is based on the studies contained in Parts 2-6.
A bibliography is included. Part 2 contains three draft statutes, with
commentary, to enable a state agency to: a) regulate flood hazard areas
in conjunction with local units, b) regulate flood hazard areas

V-24

independent of local units, and c) to aid local units in regulating
flood hazard areas. Part 3 discusses general and specific' leg'al con-
siderations. Part 4 discusses local riverine flood zoning ordinances
and sets out altegnative ordinances with commentary. Part 5 discusses
and sets out a draft of subdivision regulations. Part 6 discusses
management for coastal flood loss'control and 'Includes draft coastal
zoning regulations.

University of Rhode Island, "Dangerous High Tides Can Now Be Predicted.'
NEMRIP Information 75, August, 1975, 2 pp.
Briefly reviews the work of NOAA scientist Fergus-J. Wood regarding
the.prediction of coastal flooding caused when predictable high tides
combine with strong onshore winds. For more details see: Wood, Fergus
J., The Strategic Role of Perigean Spring Tides in Nautical History.@!nd
North.American Co@stal 71@ooding. NOAA, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.:' 1976.

Warheit, George, "Fire Departments: Operations During Major Community
Emergencies." American Behavioral Scientist 13, (January-February,
1970), 362-368.
A general discussion of the functions and organization of fire
departments, and the organizational problems that arise during disasters.

Warrick, Richard A., Volcano Hazard in the United States: A Research
Assessment. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado: 1975, 144 pp.
From the NSF/RANN funded assessment of research on natural hazards.
A summary of the nature of volcanoes,,their location in the U.S., adjust-
ments to the.hazard, volcano risk assessment and research opportunities.
118 references.

Washington, State of, Department of Ecology, Shoreline Management Program
Impact-Measurement and Polic Projection: Project Status Report.
Olympia, Washington:@ 1975, 97 pp.
Part I presents information on the development of a model to pre-
dict future patterns of shoreline uses as applied to Snohomish County,
Washington. Part II presents a user's guide to the Snohomish County
Shoreline Inventory System. At present coastal erosion is the only
natural hazard included in the computer-based Inventory System.

The Water's Edge: The National Forum on the Future of the Floodplain,
with Emphasis on Open Space and Outdoor Recreation,. Supplemental Report.
Sponsored by I . Departmen the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recrea-
tion; the League of Women Voters of the United States; and National
Association of Counties. Minneapolis: The National Forum, October,
1975, 52 pp.
Recommendations from five workshops-covering public and private
policies, open space and outdoor recreation in urba.n/suburban communi-
ties,,conservation.of undeveloped flood plains, economic policies, and
developing and implementing legislation-are designed to help Federal,
state and local governments design morerational economic programs for
flood plain use.

V-25

White, Gilbert F., Changes in Urban Occupance of Flood Plains in the
United States. University of Chicago Department of Geography,Research
Paper No.-57, Chicago: 1958, 235pp.
A study of changes in urban occupance of flood plains between
1936 (when the Flo@d Control Act was enacted) and 1957, based on
.intensive studies ofseventeen flood plain areas. In each case the'flood
plain and its present uses were mapped, changes in number and type of
structure were estimated, and representative citizens and public officials
were interviewed@ The data revealed persistent human invasion of flood
plains. The causes for the invasion are assessed, and implications for
public policy are discussed.

Choice of Adiustment to Floods. University of Chicago
Department o eography Research Paper No. 93. Chicago: 1964, 149pp.
An examination of.conditions in which managers of flood plain
property choose among eight possible adjustments, based upon intensive
study of La Follette, Tennessee and reconnaissance study'of five other
towns differing widely in physical characteristics of flooding. Factors
affecting the path which adjustment takes from the first use of flood
plain land include perception of.the possible adjustments, technical
feasibility of particular adjustments, the economic efficiency of these
choices, and the timing and incidence of decisions by the private and
public managers. Implications for public policy are discussed. Includes
two appendices: The Economic Effect of Local Flood Protection Measures
by John Eric Edinger, and Form for Estimating Flood Losses and Adjust-
ment Costs.

Flood Hazard in the United States: A Research Assessment.
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado: 1975, 141pp.
From the NSF/RANN funded assessment of research on natural hazards.
The distribution, effects and adjustments to floods are discussed, as
well as losses from floods, relevant national forces, scenarios (Rapid
City and Boulder) and research recommendations. The appendix outlines
a simulation model of flood losses for urban areas. 86 references.

"Optimal Flood Damage Management: Retrospect and Prospect."
In: Water Research,,edited by Allen V. Kneese and Stephen C. Smith.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1966, 251-269.
A review of what has been learned about flood damage management,
what still needs to be learned, and what conclusions can be drawn from
our present-knowledge about warranted public action.

ed., Papers on Flood Problems. University of Chicago
Department of Geography Research Paper No. 70. Chicago: 1961, 221pp.
Includes thirteen original papers on or related to flood problems
under the categories: Flood Losses and Flood Plain Occupance, Flood
Characteristics, and Regulating Land Use.

"Recent Developments in Flood Plain Research." Geographical
Review 60, (1970), 440-443.
An overview of the most important recent developments in flood plain
research.

V-26

White, G. F. and J. E. Haas, Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1975, 487pp.
This-is the'summary volume of the NSF/RANN funded assessment of
research on natural hazards. Hazards discussed are hurricane, flood,
severe storms, wi@d, frost and freezing, urban snow, earthquake and
tsunami, landslide,.snow avalanche, coastal erosion, drought and
volcano. The distribution of the hazards; scenarios; levels of risk-,
range of adjustments-,and research needs,strategies,and applications
are covered in this volume. Other monographs in this series deal in
more detail with specific topics.

White, G. F. et a.l. (Staff members of Assessment Project). Snow
Avalanche Hazard in the United States: A Research Assessment.
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado: 1975, 86pp.
.From the NSF/RANN funded assessment of research on natural hazards.
Describes the general character of avalanches, adjustments to the
hazard, social consequences, 6xogenous influences and research oppor-
tunities. Also included is a brief scenario of a hypothetical Juneau',
Alaska avalanche. 55 references.

Wiegel, Robert L., "Seismic Sea Waves." -In: Geologic Hazards and Public
Problems: Conference Proceedings, edited by ert A. Olson and Mildred
M. Wallace., Office of Emergency Preparedness, Region Seven, Santa Rosa,
California:' 1969, 53-75.
Describes types of damage that occur from tsunamis and discusses
the relationship between earthquakes and tsunamis. Charts some relation-
ships between earthquake characteristics and tsunamis, the average
probability of a maximum wave height exceeding a given value in a given
duration at Crescent City, California. Briefly discusses the wave
dynamics of tsunamis and the phenomenon of locally generated tsunamis.

Wiggins, John H. Jr. and Donald F. Moran, Earthquake Safety in the City
of Long Beach Based on the Concept of Balanced Risk. Palos V_e@_des
Estates, California: J. H. Wiggins, Company, 1971, 43pp. See also
shortened version in Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making,
-National'Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C.: 1972.
Develops a system for designing building codes for a specified level
of earthquake risk. The system includes input on type of use and length
of building life, as well as geological factors. In addition, a
structural hazard grading scheme and structure repair scheme for existing
buildings is presented. Earthquake codes developed by fourteen countries,
an explanation of the balanced risk aspect of the code, inspection procedures,
remedial repair and a plan for post-earthquake operations are also discussed.
Appendices include: Factors Influencing Earthquake Intensity, Structural
Factors which Modify Intensity, Earthquake Risk, Analysis Procedure, Factors
Effecting Life Hazard, Summary of Fourteen Building Codes which Treat
Earthquake, and A Model Ordinance for an Earthquake Building Code.

Wisconsin, State of, Department of Local Affairs and Development, Division
of Emergency Government, Hazard Analysis, A Base for Disaster Readiness
Activities, n.d.
Covers a wide range of hazards including natural hazards, land use
hazards and environmental hazards. Numerous maps.

V-27

Wisconsin, State of, Department of Natural Resources, State Planning
Office, Shore Erosion Study, Coastal Zone Management.,Development
Program. December, 1975, l2pp.
Reviews the Wisconsin Shore Erosion Study, an effort to develop
alternative methods of preventing and abating coastal erosion damage.
Describes technical studies and current related studies.

V-28

SECTION VI

DIRECTORY QE SELECTED FEDERALSTATE AND VOLUNTARY AGENCIES
CONCERNED WITH NATURAL HAZARDS IN THE COASTAL ZONE

VI. DIRECTORY OF SELECTED FEDERAL, STATE AND VOLUNTARY AGENCIES
CONCERNED WITH NATURAL HAZARDS IN THE.COASTAL ZONE

FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS

Department of Agriculture
Forest Service - Regional Offices
Soil Conservation Service - State Offices
Department of Commerce
Secretarial Representatives
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Officials
National Bureau of Standards
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers - Division & District Offices
Defense Civil Preparedness Agency - Field Offices & Regional Directors
Department of Health, Education & Welfare - Regional Offices
Headquarters Disaster Assistance Coordinators
Department of Housing & Urban Development - Regional Offices
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration - Regional Directors &
Preparedness Officers
Federal Insurance Administration -
Regional Flood Insurance Specialists
State Coordinating Agencies for Flood Insurance
Servi(_,ing Company Offices
Department of Interior
Field Committees
Bureau of Land Management - State Offices
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation - Regional Offices
Bureau of Reclamation - Regional Offices
Geological Survey - Water Resources Division, Regional & District Offices
National Park Service - Regional-Offices
Office of Water Research & Technology
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety & Health Administration - Regional Offices

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

Environmental Protection Agency - Regional Administrators
Federal Regional Councils
General Services Administration - Regional Administrators
Office of Emergency Preparedness
Water Resources Council River Basin Commissions, Designated State Agencies

STATE AGENCIES

Coastal Zone Program Managers
Disaster Operations Responsible State Officials
Department of Natutal Resources
State'Geologists
State Planning Offices
@State Water Resources Research Institutes

VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS LOUISIANA VIRGINIA
3737 Government St. 400 North 8th St., P.O. Box 10026
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE P.O. Box 1630 Federal Bldg., R.. 9201
Alexandria, IA 71301 Richmond, VA 23240
FORKST SERVICE 318-448-3421 804-782-2457

Chief MAINE WASHINGTON
14th Street & Independence Ave., SW USDA Bldg. 360 U.S. Courthouse,
Washington, D.C. 20250 University of Maine W. 920 Riverside Ave
202-655-4000 Orono, ME 04473 Spokane, WA 99201
207-866-2132 509-436-3711
Regional Offices
Region 5: CA, HI MARYLAND WISCONSIN
630 Sansome St. Rm. 522, Hartwick Bldg. 4601 Hammersley Rd. P.O. Box 4248
San Francisco, CA 94111 4321 Hartwick Rd. Madison, WI 53711
415-556-4310 College Park, MD 20740 608-252-5351
301-344-4180
Region 6: OR, WA
3 19 S.W., Pine St. MASSACHUSETTS US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
P.O. Box 3623 27-29 Cottage St.
Portland, OR 97208 Amherst, MA 01002 Secretary
503-221-3625 413-549-0650 14th Street between Constitution Ave.,
E Street, NW
Region 8: AL, PL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TX,VA MICHIGAN Washington, D.C. 20230
1720 Peachtree Rd., N.W., Suite 901. 1405 South Harrison Rd. 202-377-2000
Atlanta, CA 30309 East Lansing, MI 48823
404-526-5177 517-372-1910, Ext. 242 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Field Programs
Staff Secretarial Representatives
Region 9: CT, DE, IL, IN, ME, NO, MA, MI, MINNESOTA
MN, NH, NJ, NY, ON, PA, RI, WI 200 Federal Bldg.. and U.S. Courtbouse Region 1: CT, ME. MA, NH, RI
Greyhound Bldg. 316 North Robert St. Daniel Gronin
633 West Wisconsin Ave. St. Paul, MN 55101 John P. Kennedy Federal Building
Milwaukee, WI 53203 612-725-7625 Government Center, Re. E429
414-224-3600 Boston, MA 02203
MISSISSIPPI 617-223-0695
Region 10: AR Milner Bldg., Sm. 590 Region 2: NJ, NY
Federal Office Bldg., Box 1628 P.O. Box 610
Juneau, AK 99802 Jackson, MS 39205 Michael A. McM Rom 3738B (temporarily)
907-586-7263 601-969-4330 Federal Building.
26 Feder1 Flaza
NEW HAMPSHIRE New York, NY 10007
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Federal Building 212-264-5647
Durham. NH 03824
Administrator 603-868-7581 Region 3: DE, D.C., MD. PA, VA
14tb Street & Independence Ave.. SW Charles Day
Washington, D.C. 20250 NEW JERSEY Wm J. Green Federal Building
202-655-4000 1370 Hamilton St. 600 Arch Street, Be- 10424
P.O. Box 219 Philadelphia, Ph 19106
Sthte Offices Somerset, NJ 08873 215-597-7527
ALABAMA 201-246-1205
138 S. Gay St., Wright Building Region 4: AL, FL, CA, MS. NC, SC
P.O. Box 311 NEW YORK Richard L. Heffner
Auburn, AL 36830 Midtown Pla.a, R.. 400 1365 Peachtree Street, Suite 300
205-821-8070 700 East Water St. Atlanta, CA 30309
Syracuse, NY 13210 404-526-3165
ALASKA 315-473-3530
204 East Fifth Ave., Rm. 217 Region 5: ON, IL, IN, MI, MK, WI
Anchorage. AK 99501 NORTH CAROLINA Jams Sterling
907-274-7626 310 New Bern A--R.. 544 55 E. Jackson Blv-
Federal Office Bldg., P.O. Box 27307 14th floor, CNA Building
CALIFORNIA Raleigh, N.C. 27611 Chicago, IL 60685
2828 Chile. Rd., P.O. go. 1019 919-755-4165 312-353-7930
Davis, CA 95616
916-758-2200 OHIO Region 6: LA. TX
311 Old Federal Bldg. Edward I. Coker
CONNECTICUT 3d and State Sts. Federal Building. Rm NC37
Newfield Professional Park, Route 44A Columbus, ON 43215 1100 Commerce St.
Storrs, CT 06268 614-469-6785 Dallas, TX 75242
203-429-9361 214-749-2891
OREGON
DELAWARE Washington Bldg. Region 9: CA, HI
Treadway Towers, Suite 2-4, 9 East Loockerman St. 1220 S.W. Robert J. Hitt
Dover, DE. 19901 3rd Ave. Federal Building, Box 36135
302-678-0750 Portland, OR 97204 450 Golden Cate Avenue
503-221-2751 San Francisco, CA 94102
FLORIDA 415-556-5145
Federal Bldg., P.O. Box.1208 PENNSYLVANIA
Gainesville, FL 32601 Federal Bldg. and Court House, Box 985 Region 10: AK OR, WA
904-377-8732 Federal Square Station Fred C. She.-, Jr.
Harrisburg, PA 17108 Federal Building, go= 958
GEORGIA 717-782-4403 915 Second Avenue
Federal Bldg., 355 E. Hancock Ave. RHODE ISLAND Seattle, WA 98174
P.O. Box 832 222 Quaker Lane 206-399-5780
Athens, CA 30601 West Warwick, RI 02893
404-546-2273 401-828-1300 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN.

HAWAII SOUTH CAROLINA Administrator
440 Alexander Young Bldg. 1 Graystone West 6001 Executive Boulevard
Honolulu. HI 96813 240 Stoneridge Dr. Rockville, mD 20852
808-546-3165 Columbia, SqQ-29210 301-967-2965
803-765-5681
ILLINOIS Dr. Edward S. Epstein, Associate Admin.
Federal Bldg.. 200 West Church St. TEXAS Environmental Monitoring & Prediction
P.O. Box 678 16-20 South Main St. National oceanic and Atmspberic Admin.
Champaign, n 61820 P.O. Box 648 6001 Executive Boulevard
217-356-3785 Tmple,_TX, 76501 Rockville MD 20842
817-77 17 , Ext. 331 301-496-843
INDIANA
Atkinson Sq. West, Suite 2200 Mr. Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Admin.
5610 Crawfordsville Rd. Office of coastal Zone Managerent
Indianapolis, IN 46224 National oceanic & Atmapberic Admin.
317-269-6515 3300 WhiLehavan Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20235
202-634-4245
VI-1

Dr. Wilmot N. Hess, Director Eastern,Regiori: CT, DE, D.C., ME, MD, 14A U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia
Fmvi"amental Research Laboratories NH, NJ, NY, NC, PA, RI, U.S. Custom House
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. SC, VA
Boulder, CO 80302 Dr. William D. Bonner, Director 2d and Chestnut Streets
303-499-1000, Ext. 6357 National Weather Service Eastern Region Philadelphia, PA 19106
585 Stewart Avenue
Dr. Noel E. LaSeur, Director Garden city, NY 11530 North central Division
National Hurricane & Experimental 516-248-2101 536 South Clark Street
Meterorology Laboratory Chicago, 11 60605
P.O. Box 248265, 1365 Memorial Drive Southern Region: AL, FL, CA, LA, ME, 7x
University of Mimi Computing Center Dr. Harry P. Foltz, Director U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo
Coral Cables, FL 33124 National Weather Service Southern Region 1776 Niagara Street
819 Taylor Street, Room IOE09 Buffalo, NY 14207
Dr. H. St awe rt, Jr., Director Fort Worth, TX 76102
Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological 817-334-2668 U.S. AMY Engineer District, Chicago
Laboratories 219 S. Dearborn Street
15 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Key Central Region: IL, IN, MI, MN, W1 Chi-go, IL 60604
Miami, FL 33149 Mr. Charles G. Knudsen, Director U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit
National Weather Service Central Region P.O. Box 1027
Dr. Eugene J. Aubert, Director 601 East 12tb Street, Room 1836 Detroit, MI 48231
Great Lakes Environmental Research Kansas City, NO 64106
Laboratory 816-374-5464
2300 Washtenaw Avenue U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Western Region: LA, OR, WA ClockjTower, Build ing
Mr. Hazen H. Bedke, Director Rock land IL 61201
Dr. Robert E. Burns, Director National Weather Service Western Region U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Paul
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Box 1118$. Federal Bldg. 1210 U.S. Post Office and Customhouse
3711 15th Avenue, N.E. 125 South State Street
Seattle, WA 98105 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 St. Paul, MN 55101
801-524-5122
Dr. H. K. Weickmann, Director North Pacific Division
Atmospheric Physics & Chemistry Laboratory Pacific Region: HI 210 Cus tom House
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. Mr. Charles M. Waffinden, Director Portland, OR 97209
Boulder, CO 80302 National Weather Service Pacific Region U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland
303-499-1000, Ext. 6382 Bethel-Pauahi Bldg., Room 516 P.O. Be. 2946
1149 Bethel Street
Dr. Lester Machta, Director Honolulu, HI 96811 Portland, OR 97208
Air Resources Laboratories 808-546-5680
8060 13th Street U.S. Army Engineer District, Seattle
Silver Spring, ND 20910 Alaska Region: AK 4735 E. Marginal Way, South
Mr. Stuart G. Bigler, Director Seattle, Washington 98134
Dr. J. Smagorinsky, Director Nat inal Weather Service Alaska Region U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory 632 6th Avenue Building 602
Princeton University, Forrestal Campus Anchorage, AK 99501 City-county Airport
P 0*Box 308 907-265-4701 Walla Walla, Wk 99362
PX .. to., NJ 08540
Dr. Edwin Kessler, Director NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS Pacific Ocean Division
National Severe Storms Laboratory Director Building 230
1313 Halley Circle Mailing Address: Fort Shft at
Norman, OK 73069 Department of Commerce Honolulu, NJ 96813
Washington, D.C. 20234 South Atlantic Division
Dr. E. E. Ferguson, Director Headqu rters:
Aeronomy Laboratory . 510 Title Building
Gaithersburg, MD 30 Pryor street, S.W.
Environmental Research Laboratories (Route 1-70S and Quince Orchard Atlanta, GA 30303
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. Rd)
Boulder, CO 80302 301-921-1000 U.S. Amy Engineer District, Charleston
303-499-1000, Ext 3218 or 3529 P.O. Box 919
Dr. C. G. Little, Director U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Charleston, SC 29402
Wave Propagation Laboratory
Environmental Research Laboratories ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. P.O..Box,491a
Boulder, CO 80302 Office, Chief of Engineers Jack .- lie, FL 32201
303-499-1000, Ext. 6261 Department of the Army
Washi 8ton,.D.C. 20314 U A Engineer District, Mobile
Dr. Thomas S. Austin, Director 212-54n5-67 P:O': BoxY2288
Environmental Data Service Mobile, AL 36628
Nati onal Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. Division and District Office.
Washington, D.C. 20235 U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah
Mr. David S. Johnson, Director Lower Mississippi Valley Division P.O. Be. 889
National Environmental Satellite Service P.O. Box 80 Savannah, CA 31402
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. Vicksburg, MS 39180
Washington, D.C. 20233 U.S. Amy Engineer District, Wilmington
U.S. Amy Engineer District, New P.O. Box'1890
Rudolf Englemann Orleans Wilmington, NC 28401
Outer Continental Shelf Environmental P.O. Box 60267
Assessment Progrm New Orleans, LA 70160 South Pacific Division
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. 630 Sansome Street
Boulder, CO 80302 U.S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg Room 1216
303-499-1000, Ext. 6W P.O. Box 60 San PV=ciseo, CA 94111
Vicksburg, MS 39180 U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, DIRECTORS Nev England Division P.O. 2711
424 Trapelo Road Los Angeles, CA 90053
Dr. George P. Cressman, Director Waltham, NA 02154
National Weather Service U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento
8060 13th Street North Atlantic Division 650 capital mail
Silver Spring, MD 30910 90 Church Street Sacramento, CA 95814
PIS 427-7689 New York, NY 10007 U.S. Army Engineer District. San Francisco
Dr. Neil L. Frank, Director U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore 100 McAllister Street
National Hurricane Center P.O. Box 1715 San Francisco, CA 94102
National Weather Service, NOAA Baltimore, MD 21203 '
P'0*Box 8286 Southwestern Division
Core, Gables, FL 33124 U.S. Army Engineer District, New York 1114 Commerce Street
305-666-4612 26 Federal Plaza Dallas, TX 75202
New York, NY 10007
Dr. Allen D. Pearson, Director
National Severe Storms Forecast Center U.S. Amy Engineer District, Norfolk DEFENSE CIVIL PREPAREDNESS AGENCY
National Weather Service, NOAA 803 Front Street
601 East 12th Street, go- 1826 Norfolk, VA 23510 Director
Kansas City, MO, 64106 The Pentagon
FIE 758-3428 Washington, D.C. 20301
VI-2 202-697-4484

Field Offices HEW HEADQUARTERS DISASTER ASSISTANCE Region 10: AK, OR, WA
COORDINATORS Seattle Regional Office
Region 1: NJ, NY Arcade Plaza Bldg., 1321 Second Ave.
Casper Kasparian Office of Federally Assisted construction Seattle, WA 98101
Field Office Director Room 3419 - North Bldg.
26 Federal Plaza, Sm. 2354 330 Independence Ave., S.W.
New York, NY 10007 Washington, D.C. 20201 FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
201-264-9856 Regional Directors (RD) and Preparedness
Federal Property Assistance Program Officers (PO)
Regional Directors Room 523 - Reporters Bldg.
300 7th Street, S.W. Region 1: CT, HE, MA, NH, RI
Region 1: CT, ME, MA, MR, NJ, NY, RI Washington. D.C. 20201 RD-. E. ?=I Hartzell
Allan R. Zenowitz PO: Warren Pugh, Jr.
DCPA,Federal Regional Center Public Health Service FDAA
Maynard, MA 01754 Room 4-81 - ParklaWn Bldg. 150 Causeway Street, Rz 710
617-897-9381 5600 Fishers Lane Boston, HA 02114
Rockville, MD 20852 FTS 8-223-4271
Region 2: DE. D.C., MD, PA, VA
John E. Bex Center for Disease Control Region 2: NY, NJ
DCPA 1600 Clifton Road, N.E. RD: Thoinas R. Casey
Olney, MD 20832 Atlanta, CA 30333 PO: Philip McIntire
301-926-5110 FDAA
National Institutes of Health 26 Federal Plaza
Region 3: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC Roo. 136, BLDG. I New York, MY 10007
Claude B. Thompson 9000 Rockville Pike PIS 8-264-8980
Thowaville, CA 31792 Bethesda, MD 20014 1
912-226-1761 Region 3: DE, DC, MD, PA, VA
Div. of School Assistance in Federally RD: Arthur T. Doyle
Regi on 4: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI Affected Areas PO: Peter Cote
Bruce Bishop Federal Office Building FDAA
DCPA,Federal Center go= 2107 Curtis Bldg. - 7th Floor
Battle Creek, MI 49016 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. 6th & Walnut St.
616-968-8142 Washington, D.C. 20202 Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 8-597-9416
Region 5: LA, TX Social Security Administration
Kyle 0. Thompson R.. 201 - Alt-yer Bldg. Region 4: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC
DCPA,Federal Regional Center 6401 Security Blvd. RD: Thomas P. Credle
Denton, TX 76201 Baltimore, MD 21235 PO: Jim Hardee
817-387-5811 FnAA
Assistance Payments Administration Suite 750
Region 7: HI Social and Rehabilitation Service 1375 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Frances K. Dias Rom 5150 Atlanta, CA 30309
DCPA 330 C Street, S.W. FTS 8-285-3641
Box 7287 Washington, D.C. 20201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Region 5: IL, IN, MI, MN, ON, WI
707-544-1330 Disaster Assistance Coordinator
Room 3030 RD: Robert E. Connor
Region 8: AL, OR, WA 330 C Street, SW PO: James P. Butler
William E. Hanzen Washington, D.C. 20201 FDAA
300 South Wacker Drive, Rm. 520
DCPA,Federal Regional Center Chicago, IL 60606
Bothell, WA 98011 US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND FTS 8-353-1500
206-486-0721 URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Res its 6: LA'TX
Secretary RD: Joe D .Winkle
US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION 451 Seventh Street, SW PO: Jon Overmyer
AND WELFARE Washington, D.C. 20410 FDXA
202-755-6417 Federal Bldg., R.. 13C28
Secretary 1100 Commerce Street
330 Independence Ave., SW Regional Offices Dallas, TX 75202
Washington, D.C. 20201 FTS 8-749-1411
202-245-6296 Region 1: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI
Boston Regional Office Region 9: CA, HI'
Regional Offices 800 John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg. RD: Robert C. Stevens
Boston, MA 02203 PO: Terrence Meade
Region 1: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI 617-223-4066 FDAA
John F. Kennedy Federal Building 120 Montgmery Street
Gover-wnt Center Region 2: NY, NJ San Francisco, CA 94104
Roston, MA 02203 New York Regional Office FTS 8-556-8794
617-223-6831 26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007 Region 10: AX, OR. WA
Region 2: NJ, NY 212-264-8068 RD: William H. Mayer
26 Federal Plaza PO; Richard A. Buck
New York; NY 10007 Region 3: DE, DC, MD, PA, VA FDAA
212-264-4600 Philadelphia Regional Office Arcade Bldg., Re. M-16
625 Walnut St., Curtis Bldg. 1319 Second Avenue
Region 3: DE, DC, MD, PA, VA Philadelphia, PA 19106 Seattle, WA 98101
P.O. Box 13716, 3535 Market St. 215-597-2560 FrS 8-399-1310
Philadelphia, PA 19101
215-597-6492 Region 4: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC
Atlanta Regional Office (Georgia) FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
Region 4: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC Rm. 211, Pershing Point Plaza
50 Seventh St., N.E. 1371 Peachtree St., N.E. Administrator
Atlanta, GA 30323 Atlanta, CA 30309 451 Seventh Street, SW
404-285-5817 404-526-5585 Washington, D.C. 20410
202-755-6770
Region 5: IL, IN, MN, MI, ON, WI Region 5: IL, IN, HI, NN, ON, WI
300 South Wacker Dr. Chicago Regional Office Assistant Administrator for Flood
Chicago, IL 60606 300 South Wacker Dr. Insurance
312-353-5160 Chicago, IL 60606 451 Seventh Street, SW
312-353-5680 Washington, D.C. 20410
Region 6: LA, TX 202-755-5581
Main T.wer Bldg. Region 6: LA, TX
Dallas, TX 75202 Fort Worth Regional Office Regional Flood Insurance Specialists
214-729-3301 Sm. 14C2, Earle Cabell Federal Bldg.
Region 9: CA, HI U.S. Courthouse, 1100 Commerce St. Region 1: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI
Federal Office Bldg. Dallas, TX 75202 John F. Kennedy Federal Building
50 Fulton St. 214-749-7401 Rom 405A
San Francisco, CA 94102 Boston, MA 02203
415-556-6746 Region 9: CA, HI 617-223-2616 or 2709
San Francisco Regional Office
Region 10: AK, OR, WA 450 Golden Gate Ave., P.O. Box 36003 Region 2: NY, NJ
Arcade Plaza San Francisco, CA 94102 26 Federal Plaza
1321 Second Ave. 415-556-4752 New York, NY 10007
Seattle, WA 98101 212-264-4756 or 8021
206-399-0420

vi-3

Region 3: DE, DC, MD, PA, VA MINE WISCONSIN
Curtis Building Office of Civil Emergency Prepazaidness
Sixth'and Walnut Streets Depar n of Natural Resources
State House P.O. zmx 4150
Philadelphia, PA 19106 Augusta, ME 04330 Madison, WI 53701
215-597-9581
Region 4: AL, FL, GA, Mg, KC, SC MARYLAND Servicing Company Offices
1371 Peachtree Stree, N.E. Department of Natural Resources
Water Resources Division
Atlanta, CA 30309 State Office Building ALABAMA
The Hartford Insurance Group
404-526-2391 Annapolis, MD 21401 Hartford Building
Region 5: IL, IN, MI, MN, ON, WI 100 Edgewood Avenue
MASSACHUSETTS I
3DO South Wacker Drive Division of Water Resources At sets, CA 30301
Chicago, IL 60606 Water Resources Commission 404-521-2059
312-353-0757 State Office Building ALASKA
100 Cambridge Street Industrial Indemnity Co. of Alaska
Region 6: LA, TX Boston, MA 02202 P.O. Box 307
New Federal Building Anchorage, AK 99510
1100 Commerce Street MICHIGAN
Dallas, TX 75202 Water Resources Commission 907-279-9441
214-749-7412 Bureau of Water Management CALIFORNIA-NORTHERN SECTION
Region 9: CA, HI Stevens I. Has= Building Firman's Fund American Insurance Companies
Lansing, MI 48926 P.O. Box 3136
450 Golden@Gate Avenue San Francisco. CA 94119
P.O. Box 36003 MINNESOTA 415-421-1676
San Francisco, CA 94102 Division of Waters, Soils sod Minerals
Department of Natural Resources CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN SECTION
Region 10: AK, OR, WA. Centennial Office Building Fireman's Fund American Insurance Companies
Room 3068 Arcade Plaza Building St. Paul, MN 55101 P.O. Box 2323
1321 Second Avenue Angela CA 90051
206-442 21'_ 1'1
Seattle, WA 98101 MISSISSIPPI Lo3 381-3 4
-1026 Mississippi Research and Development
Center CONNECTICUT
State Coordinating Agencies for Flood P.O. Drawer 2470 Aetna Insurance Company
Insurance Jackson, KS 39205 P.O. Box 1779
Hartford, CT 06101
ALABAMA NEW HAMPSHIRE 203-523-4861
Alabama Development Office Office of Comprehensive Planning
Office of State Planning Division of Community Planning DELAWARE
State Office Building State House Annex General Accident F & L Assurance Corp. Ltd.
501 Dexter Avenue Concord, NH 03301 414 Walnut Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Philadelphia. PA 19106
NEW JERSEY 215-238-5000
ALASKA Bureau of Water Control
Department of Community and Department of Environmental FLORIDA
Regional Affairs Protection The Travelers Indemnity Company
Division of Community Planning P.O. Box 1390 1516 East Colonial Drive
Pouch B Trenton, NJ 08625 Orlando, FL 32803
Juneau, AK 99811 NEW YORK 305-896-2001
CALIFORNIA Department of Environmental GEORGIA
Department of Water Resources Conservation
Post Office Box 388 The Hartford Insurance Group
Bureau of Water Management Hartford Building
Sacramento, CA 95802 Albany, NY 12201 100 Edgewood Avenue
Atlanta, CA 3D301
CONNECTICUT NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Protection Division of Commanity Assistance 404-521-2059
Division of Water and Related Resources Department of Natural & Economic HAWAII
Rom 207, State Office Building Resources First Insurance Co. of Hawaii, Ltd.
Hartford, CT 06115 P.O. Box 27687 P.O. Box 2866
I Raleigh, NC 27611 Honolulu, HI 96803
DELAWARE 808-548-511
Division of Soil and Water Conservation OHIO
Department of Natural Resources and OhioDept. of Natural Resources ILLINOIS
Environmental Control Flood Insurance Coor. Building State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Tatnall Building, Capitol Fountain Square Illinois Regional Office
Dover, DE 19901 Columbus, OR 43224 2309 E. Oakland Avenue
FLORDIA OREGON Bloomington, IL 61701
Department of Community Affairs Executive Department 309-557-7211
2571 Executive Center Circle East State of Oregon INDIANA
Howard Building Sal-, OR 97310 United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.
Tallahassee, Fl, 32301 130 East Washington Street
PENNSYLVANIA Indianapolis, IN 462D4
GEORGIA Department of Community Affairs 317-263-720D
Department of Natural Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Office of Planning and Risearch Harrisburg, PA 17120 L43UISLANA
270 Washington Street, S.W., Rm. 707 Aetna Technical Services, Inc.
Atlanta, CA 30334 RHODE ISLAND P.O. Box 61003
R.I. Statewide Planning Program New Orleans, IA 70160
HAWAII 265 Melrose Street 504-821-1511
Division of Water and Land Development Providence, RI 02907
Department of Land and Natural Resources MAINE
P.O. Box 373 SOUTH CAROLINA Commercial Union Insurance Company
Honolulu, HI 96809 South Carolina Water Resources c/o Campbell, Payson & Noyes
Commission 27 Pearl St., Box 527 Pearl St. Station
ILLINOIS P.O. Box 4515 Portland, ME 04116
Governor's Task Force on Flood Control Columbia, SC 29240 207-774-1431
300 North State St.
P.O. Do. 475, R.. 1010 TEXAS
Chicago, IL 60610 MARYLAND
Texas Water Development Board U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company
P.O. Box 13087 P.O. Box 1138
INDIANA Capitol station Baltimore, NO 21203
Division of Water Austin, TX 70711 301-539-0380
Department of Natural Resources
608 State Office Building VIRGINLA MASSACHUSETTS-EASTERN
Indianapolis, IN 46204 Bureau of Water Control Management Commerical Union Insurance Company
State Water Control Board I Beacon Street
LOUISIANA P.O. Box 11 43 Boston, KA 02109
State Department of Public Works Richmond, VA 23230 617-725-6128
P.O. Box 44155
Capitol Station WASHINGTON MICHIGAN
Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Department of Ecology Insurance Company of North America
Olympia, WA 98501 Room 300-Bubl Building
Griswold A Congress Streets
VI-4 11).cr.it, MI 48226
313-963-4114

MINNESOTA-E&STERN SECTION Field Committees, Chaired by the Regional South Central: LA,TX
The St. PAUL Fire & Marine Insurance Special Assistant to the Secretary 5301 Central Ave., N.E.
Company Albuquerque, NM 87108
P.O. Box 3470 Northeast Region: CT, DE, MR, MA, ME, 505-843-3502
St. Paul, MN 55165 NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA
612-222-7751 John F. Kennedy Federal Building BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Boston, MA 02203
MISSISSIPPI Commissioner
The Travelers Indemnity Company Southeast Region: At, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC C Street Between 18th & 19th Streets, NW
5360 Interstate 55 North 148 Cain Street, HE Washington, D.C. 20240
P.O. Box 2361 Atlanta, GA 30303 202-343-1100
Jackson, MS 39205
601-956-5600 North Central Region: IL, IN, MI, tkN, OR, Regional Offices
W1
NEW HAMPSHIRE 230 S. Dearborn St. MIDPACIFIC
Commerical Union Insurance Company Chicago, IL 60604 Fade ral Office Building
1 Beacon Street 2800 Cottage Way
Boston, MA 02108 Southwest Region: LA, TX Sacramento, CA 95825
617-725-6128 517 Gold Ave., S.W. 916-484-4571
Albuquerque, NM 87101
NEW JERSEY PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Great American Insurance Company Pacific Northwest Region: OR, WA P.O. box 043, 550 West Fort St.
5 Dakota Drive Bonneville Building Boise, TO 83724
Lake Success, MY 11040 P.O. Box 3621 208-342-2101
201-224-4200 Portland, OR 97208
SOUTHWEST
NEW YORK Pacific Son thweat Region: CA, HI Herring Plaza, Box H-4377
Great American Insurance Company 450 Golden Gate Avenue Amarillo, TX 79101
5 Dakota Drive P.O. Box 36098 806-376-2401
Lake Success, NY 11040 San Francisco, CA 94102
516-775-6900
Alaska Region: AK CEOLOGICAL SURVEY
NORTH CAROLINA P.0. Box 120
Kemper Insurance Anchorage, AK 99501 Director
1229 Greenwood Cliff National Center, USGS
Charlotte, NC 28204 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
704-372-7150 Reston, VA 22092
Director 703-860-7411
OHIO-NORTHERN SECTION C Street Between 18th & 19th Streets, NW
Commercial Union Insurance Company Wa.hington,,D.C. 20240 Water Resources Division,
1300 East 9th St. 202-343-1100 Regional Offices
Cleveland, ON 44114
216-522-1060 State Offices Western Region: AS, CA, HI, OR, WA
345 Middlefield Road
OREGON ALASKA Menlo Park, CA 94024
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company 555 Cordova St. 415-323-8111
4600 25th Avenue, N.E. Anchorage, AX 99501
Salem, OR 97303 907-277-1561 Central Region: LA, TX
503-393-0101 Denver Federal Center
CALIFORNIA Dewar, CO 80225
PENNSYLVANIA Fedaral Offic Bldg., Rm. E-2841, 303-234-3661
General Accident F & L Assurance 280D Cottage Ly
Corp., Ltd. Sacramento, CA 95825 Northeastern Region: CT, IL, IN, ME, NO,
414 Walnut Street 91 6-4 B4 -4676 MA. MI, MN. MR, NJ.
Philadelphia, PA 19106 NY, ON, PA, VA, WI
215-238-5512 Eastern States- AL, FL, LA. MI. MR, Rom 317 Washington Building
MS, WI Arlington Towers
RHODE ISLAND 7981 Eastern Ave. Arlington, VA 22209
American Universal Insurance Co. Silver Spring, NO 20910 202-343-8441
144 Wayland Avenue 301-427-7500
Providence, RI 02904 Southeastem Region: AL, FL, GA. MS, NC,
401-351-4600 OREGON SC
729 N.E. Oregon St. 1459 Peachtree St., N.E.
SOUTH CAROLINA P.O. Box 2965 Suite 200
Maryland Casualty Company Portland, OR 97208 Atlanta, CA 30309
P.O. Box 11615 503-234-3361 404-526-5395
Charlotte. NC 28209
704-525-8330 BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION District Offices
TEXAS Director ALABAMA
The Home Insurance Company C Street Between 18th & 19th Streets, NW P.O. Box V
2100 Travis Street Washington, D.C. 20240 University, At 35486
Houston, T* 77002 202-343-1100
713-225-0931 ALASKA
Regional Offices 218 "E" Street
VIRGINIA Skyline Building
Insurance Company of North America Pacific Southwest: CA, HI Anchorage, AK 99501
5225 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Box 36062
Washington, D.C. 20015 450 Golden Gate Ave. CALIFORNIA
202-244-2000 San Francisco, CA 94102 855 Oak Grove Avenue
WASHINGTON Southeast: AL, FL. CA, MS, NC, SC Menlo Park, CA 94025
Fireman's Fund American Insurance 148 Cain Street CONNECTICUT
Companies Atlanta, CA 30303 P.O. Box 715
1000 Plaza 600 Building 404-526-4405 go= 235 PostOffice Building
6th and Stewart 135 High Street
Seattle, WA 98101 Lake Central: IL, IN, MI, MR, OR, WI Hartford, CT 06101
206-587-3200 3853 Research Park Drive
Am Arbor, MI 48104 DELAWARE
WISCONSIN 313-769-7481 8809 Satyr Hill Road'
Aetna Insurance Company Parkville, NO 21234
5735 East River Road Northeast: Cr, DE, D.C., ME, MD, MA,
Chicago, IL 60631 MR, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
312-693-2500 Federal Building 8809 Satyr Hill Road
600 Arch Street Parkville, MD 21234
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-597-7989 FLORIDA
Secretary Suite F-240
C Street between 18th & 19th Streets, NW Northwest: AL, OR, WA 325 John Knox Road
Washington, D.C. 20240 Federal Building, Ra. 990 Tallahassee, FL 32303
202-343-1100 915 2nd Ave.
.Seattle, WA 98174 GEORGIA
206-583-4706 648i Peachtree Industrial Boulevard
Suite B
VI-5 Doraville, GA 30340

HAWAII NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
5th Floor, 1833 Kalakaua Avenue Regional Offices
Honolulu, HI 96815 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MIDATLANTIC REGION
ILLINOIS 143 South Third Street Administrator
P.0. Box 1026 Philadelphia, PA 19106 401 H Street, SW
605 N. Neil Street 215-597-7013 Washington, D.C. 20460
Champaign, IL 61820 202-755-2673
MIDWEST REGION
INDIANA 1709 Jackson St. Regional Administrators
1819 N. Meridian Street Omaha, NE 68102
Indianapolis, IN 46202 402-221-1431 Region 1: CT, MA, MN, NH, RI
John A. S. McGlennon
LOUISIANA NORTH ATLANTIC REGION John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., Rm 2203
6554 Florida Boulevard 150 Causeway St. Goverment Center
P.O. Box 66492 Boston, MA 02114 Boston, MA 02203
Baton Rouge, LA. 70806 617-223-3768 617-223-7210

MAINE PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION Region 2: NY, NJ
State Howe Annex - Subdistrict 523 Fourth And Pike Building Gerald Hensler
Capitol Shopping Center Seattle, WA 98101 26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 1009
Augusta, ME 04330 206-442-5565 New York, NY 10007
212-264-2525
MARYLAND SOUTHEAST REGION
8809 Satyr Hill Road 1895 Pheonix Blvd. Region 3: DE. DC, MD, PA, VA
Parkville, MD 21234 Atlanta, CA 30349 Daniel J. Snyder
494-289-9242 Curtis Building
MASSACHUSETTS 6th and Walnut Sts,
150 Causeway Street, Suite 1001 SOUTHWEST REGION Philadelphia, PA 19106
Boston, MA 02114 P.O. Box 728 215-597-9814
Santa Fe, NM 87501
MICHIGAN 505-988-6388 Region 4: AL, FL, GA, MR, NC, SC
2400 Science Parkway WESTERN REGION Jack E. Haven
Red Cedar Research Park 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 1421 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 300
Okencs, MI 48864 Box 36036 Atlanta, GA 30309
San Francisco, CA 94102 404-52-5727
MINNESOTA 415-556-4196 5: IL. IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
Room 1033 Post Office Building Region
St. Paul, MN 55101 Francis T. Mayo
OFFICE OF WATER RESEARCH AND 230 S. Dearborne, 12th Fl.
MISSISSIPPI TECHNOLOGY Chicago, IL 60604
430 Bounds Street 312-353-5250
Jackson, MS 39206 Director
C Street Between 18th & 19th Streets, NW Region 6: LA, TX
NEW HAMPSHIRE Washington, D.C. 20240 George J. Putnicki
150 Causeway Street, Suite 1001 202-343-2191 1600 Patterson St.
Boston, HA 02114 Dallas, TX 75201
214-749-1962
NEW JERSEY US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
P.O. Box 1238 Region 9: CA, HI
Rom 420, Federal Building OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH Paul DeFalco, Jr.
402 East State Street ADMINISTRATION 100 California St.
Trenton, NJ 08607 San Francisco, CA 94111
Assistant Secretary 415-556-2320
NEW YORK 3rd Street & Constitution Ave., N.W.
P.O. Box 1350 Washington, D.C. 20210 Region 10: AK, OR, WA
343 U.S. Post Office & Court House 202-393-2420 Clifford V. Smith, Jr.
Albany, NY 12201 1200 6th Avenue
Regional Offices Seattle, WA 98101
NORTH CAROLINA 206-442-1200
P.O. Box 2857 Region 1: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI
Room 440, Century Station, P.O. Building Vernon A. Strahn FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCILS
Raleigh, NC 27602 Assistant Regional Director
18 Oliver St. Region 1: CT, ME, MA, PH, RI
OHIO Boston, MA 02110 Federal Regional Council of New England
975 w Third Avenue E-431 John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Columbus , Oh 43212 Region 2: NY, NJ Boston, MA 02203
Alfred Barden 617-223-5421
OREGON Assistant Regional Director
P.O. Box 3202 1515 Broadway, Region 2: NJ, NY
830 N.E. Holladay Street New York, NY 10036 Region 2 Federal Regional Council
Portland, OR 97208 Federal Plaza, Rm. 3543-A
Region 3; DE, DC. MD, PA, VA New York, NY 10007
PENNSYLVANIA David H. Rhone 212-264-0723
.P.O. Box 1107 3535 Market Street
4th Floor Federal Building Philadelphia, PA 19104 Region 3: DE, DC, MD, PA, VA
288 Walnut Street Mid-Atlantic Federal Regional Council
Harrisburg, PA 17108 Region 4: AL, FL, GA, ME, NC, SC 4450 Federal Building, 600 Arch St.
Donald E. MacKenzie Philadelphia, PA 19108
RHODE ISLAND Assistant Regional Director 215-597-3653
150 Causeway Street, Suite 1001 1375 Peachtree St, NE
Boston, MA 02114 Atlanta, GA 30309 Region 4: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC
Southeastern Federal Regional Council
SOUTH CAROLINA Region 5: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI Peachtree St., NE, Rm. 515
2001 Assembly Street, Suite 200 Edward E. Estkowski Atlanta, GA 30309
Columbia, SC 29201 Assistant Regional Director 404-526-2287
230 S. Dearborn St.
TEXAS Chicago, IL 60606 Region 5: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
630 Federal Building Region 5 Federal Regional Council
300 E. 8th Street Region 6; LA, TX 300 South Wacker Drive-18th Flr.
Austin, TX 78701 Robert Tice Chicago, IL 60606
Assistant Regional Director 312-353-8184
VIRGINIA 1512 Commerce St. Region 6: LA, TX
200 W. Grace Street, Room 304 Dallas, TX 75201 Southwest Federal Regional Council
Richmond. VA 23220 1100 Commerce St., Rm. 9C-28
Region 9: CA, HI Dallas, TX 75202
WASHINGTON Gabriel J. Gillotti 214-749-1431
Room 300, 1305 Tacoma Avenue South Assistant Regional Director
Tacoma, WA 98402 Federal Building, P.O. Box 36017 Region 9: CA, HI
San Francisco, CA 94102 Western Federal Regional Council
WISCONSIN 450 Golden Gate Ave., P.O. Box 36098
Room 228 Region 10: AK. OR, WA San Francisco, CA 94102
1815 University Avenue Jams W. Lake 415-556-1970
Madison, WI 53706 Assistant Regional Director
506 2nd Ave. Region 10: AK, OR, WA
Seattle, WA 98104 Northwest Federal Regional Council
VI-6 1321 Second Ave., M.S. 130
Seatte, WA 98101

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Robert J. Dielo, Executive Director
Susquehanna River Basin Commission MARYLAND
Administrator Interior Building Thomas C. Andrews, Admin. Officer
General Services Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Md. Department of Natural Resources
18th and F Streets, NW 202-343-4091 State Offi- Building
Washington, D.C. 20405 Annapolis, 10 21401
202-343-1100 Designated State Agencies 301-267-5545

Direct" , Office of Preparedness ALABAMA MASSACHUSETTS
General Services Building R. C. Bamberg, Director Charles F. Kennedy, Director
18th and F Streets, NW Alabama Development Office Water Resources Commission
Washington, D,C. 20405 State Office Building Leverett Saltonstall Bldg., Govt. Center
2D2-343- 1100 Montgomery, AL 36104 100 Cambridge St.
205-269-7171 Boston, MA 02202
Regional Adminia.trators 617-727-3267
ALASKA
Region 1: CT, ME, MA, MR, RI Charles P. Herbert, Com. MICHIGAN
Albert A. Gamnal, Jr. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Ralph W. Purdy, Exec. Secretary
John W. McCormack Post Office and Pouch M Water Resources Coamission
Courthouse Juneau, AK 99801 Stevens T. Kea= Building
Boston, MA 02109 206-442-0150, ask for 586-6352 Lansing, MI 48926
617-223-2601 517-373-3560
CALIFORNIA
Region 2: NJ, NY Willi- R. Gianelli MINNESOTA
Gerald J. Turetsky Director Gerald W. Christenson, Director
26 Federal Plaza Department of Water Resources Minnesota State Planning Office
Ms. York, NY 10007 P.O. Box 388 St. Paul, MN 55101
212-264-2600 Sacramento, CA 95802 612-221-6662
916-445-5656
Region 3: DE, DC, MD, PA, VA MISSISSIPPI
John F. Galuardi CONNECTICUT Jack W. Pepper, Water Engineer
Seventh and 0 Sts., S.W. Dan W. Lufkin, Commissioner Miss. Board of Water Commissioners
Washington, D.C. 20407 Departnient of Environmental 416 North State Street
202-472-1100 Protection Jackson, MS 39201
Room 539, State Office Building 601-354-7236
Region 4: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC 165 Capital Avenue
Lewis D. Strom Hartford, CT 06115 NEW HAMPSHIRE
1776 Peachtree St., H.W. 203-566-4255 Mary Louies He ... k, Planning Di..
Atlanta, GA 30309 Office of State Planning
404-285-5600 DELAWARE State House Ann"
Austin N. Heller, Secretary Concord, NH 03301
Region 5; IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH, WI Dept. of Nat. Res. & Environmental 603-271-2155
Frank Resnik Control
219 S. Dearborn St. Natural Resources Building NEW JERSEY
Chicago, IL 60604 Dover, OR 19901 Richard J. Sullivan, Commissioner
312-353-5395 302-678-4000 Dept. of Environmental Protection
P.O. ox, 1390
Region 7: LA, TX DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA Tr et:. , NJ 08625
Jay H. Bolton Jams Alexander, Director 609-292-2886
819'Taylor Street Water Resources Management Admin.
Fort Worth, TX 76102 Dept. of Environmental Services NEW YORK
817-334-2321 415-12th Street, NW Henry L. Diamond, Commissioner
Washington D.C. 20004 New York State Department of
Region 9: CA, HI 202-629-34i5 Environmental Conservation
Thomas E. Hannon 50 Wolf Road
49 4th St. FLORIDA Albany, NY 12201
San Francisco, CA 94105 Randolph Hodges, Exec. Dir. 518-457-3446
415-556-3221 Department of Natural Resources
I reon Building* NORTH CAROLINA
Region 10: AK, OR, WA T:Ilahassee, FL 32304 George E. Pickett, Director
David L. Head 904-224-7141 N.C. Dept. of Water & Air Resources
Regional Headquarters Bldg. P.O. Box 27048
GSA Center GEORGIA Raleigh, NC 27611
A-b-rn, WA 98002 Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner 919-829-3003
206-396-5201 Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., SW OHIO
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Atlanta, CA 30334 William B. Nye, Director
Director 404-656-3500 Department of Natural Resources
Executive Office of the President HAWAII Ohio Departments Building
Washington, D.C. 20504 Sunao Kido, Chairman Columbus, ON 43215
Dept. of Land and Natural Resources 614-469-3770
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL Box 621
Honolulu, HI 96809 OREGON
Director 808-548-7533 Fred D. Gustafson, Director
2120 L Street, NW Oregon Water Resources Board
Washington , D.C. 20037 ILLINOIS 1158 Chemaketa NE
202-254-6303 Ray C. Dickerson, Director Sal-, OR 97310
Illinois Department of Business 503-378-3671
and Economic Development
River Basin Commissions 222 South College St. PENNSYLVANIA
Springfield, IL 62706 Maurice K. Goddard, Secretary
James F. Wright, Executive Director 217-525-6135 Dept. of Environmental Resources
Delaware River Basin Commission P.O. Box 1467
25 State Police Drive INDIANA Harrisburg, PA 17120
Box 360 John R. Lloyd, Director 717-787-2814
Trenton, NJ 08603 Indiana Dept. of Natural Resmrces
609-883-9500 608 State Office Building RHODE ISLAND
Indianapolis, IN 46204 Robert B. Russ
Frederick 0. Rouse, Chairman 317-633-6344 Chief Engineer and General Manager
Great Lakes Basin Commission Water Resources Board
P.O. Box 999 LOUISIANA 265 Melrose Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Roy Aguillard, Director Providence, RI 02907
313-374-5431 La. State Dept. of Public Works 401-277-2217
Capitol Station - P.O. Box 44155
R. Frank Gregg, Cbairman Baton Rouge, LA 70804 SOUTH CAROLINA
New England River Basins Commission 504-389-6287 Clair P. Guees, Jr., Exec. Dir.
Room 205 South Carolina Water Resources Com.
55 Court Street MAINE 2414 Bull Street
Boston, MA 02108 Philip M. Savage, Director Columbia, SC 29201
617-223-6244 State Planning Office 803-758-2514
189 State Street
Donel 3. Lane, Chairman Augusta, ME 04330 TEXAS
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission 207-289-3261 Harry P. Burleigh, Exec. Dir.
P.O. Box 906 Texas Water Development Board
1 Columbia River P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Vancouver, WA 98660 Aus tin, TX 78711
206-694-2581 VI-7 512-475-3187

VIRGINIA INDIANA PENNSYLVANIA
Julian Alexander, Dir. Russell Miller George E. Fogg, Chief
Bureau of Water Resources State Planning Agency Division of Outdoor Retreat ion
State Water Control Board 143 West market St. Third & Reily Sts., P.O. Box 1467
11 South 10th Street Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-633-4346 Harrisburg, PA 17120
Richmond, VA 23219 717-787-6674
703-770-2111
LOUISIANA RHODE ISLAND
WASHINGTON Paul Templet Daniel Varin
John A. Biggs, Dir. State Planning Office Statewide Planning Program
Department of Ecology 4528 Bennington Avenue Dept. of Administration
335 G -metal Administration 'Bldg. Baton Rouge, LA 70808 265 Melrose Street
Olympia, WA 98504 504-389-7041 Providence, RI 029Q7
206-753-i24.0 MAINE . 401-277-2656
WISCONSIN Alex Giffen SOUTH CAROLINA
Lester P. Voigt, S@cretary State Planning Office Rem
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources 189 State St. Wayne
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
Box 450 Augusta, HE 04333 1116 Bankers Trust Tower
Madison, WI 53701 207-289-3155 Columbia, SC 29201
608-266-2121 MARYLAND 803-758-8442
Ken Parking. TEXAS
STATE AGENCIES Dept. of Natural Resources Ron Jones, Director
Imes State Office Bldg. Texas Coastal Management Program
COASTAL ZONE PROGRAM M@NAGERS Annapolis 21401 1705 Guadelupe 1700 N. Congress Ave.
301-267-1@B,4 Austin, TX 78701
ALABAMA 512-475-6902
Willi. Hyde MASSACHUSETTS
Alabama Development Office Matt Connolly, Jr.
State Capitol Exec. Office of Environmental Affairs VIRGINIA
Montgomery, AL 36130 100 Cambridge Street Don W. Budlong
Office of Commerce & Resources
205-832-6810 Boston, MA 02202 5th Floor, Ninth St. Office Bldg.
ALASKA 6177727-2808 Richmond, VA 23219
Glenn Akins MICHIGAN 804-786-7652
Policy Development and Planning Merle Haber WASHINGTON
Division Coastal Zone Management Program Rod Mack
Office of the Governor Dept. of Natural Resources Department of Ecology
Pouch AD Division of Land Use Programs State of Washington
Juneau, AK 99801 Stephen I. Mason Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504
907-465-3512 Lansing, KI 48926 206-753-6879
517-373-1950
BCDC WISCONSIN
Mike Wilmer MINNESOTA Al Miller
Bay Conservation & Development Roger Williams State Planning Office
Commission State Planning Agency B-130 One West Wilson Street
30 Van Ness Avenue, Rm. 2011 550 Cedar St., R.. 100 Madison, WI 53702
San Francisco, CA, 94102 St. Paul, NN 55155 608-266-3687
415-557-3686 612-296-2884

CALIFORNIA MISSISSIPPI DISASTER OPERATIONS
Joe Bd-it. Jay Th oma a
California Coastal Zone Mississippi Marine Resources Council Responsible State Officials
Conservation Commission P.O. Drawer 959 ALABAMA
1540 Market St. Long Beach, MS 39560 Mr. C. J. Sullivan
San Francisco, CA 94102 601-8644602 Director, Civil Defense Dept.
415-557-1001 State Administrative Bldg.
NEW HAMPSHIRE 634 North Union Street
CONNECTICUT Jerrold A. Moore, Director Montgomery, AL 36130
Charles McKinney, Director Division of Regional Planning 205-269-7787
Coastal Arm Management Program Office of Comprehensive Planning
Department of Environmental State Annex ALASKA
Protection Concord, NH 033.01 Colonel Edward Newbury, Director
71 Capitol Avenue 603-271-2155 Alaska Disaster Office
Hartford, CT 06115 1306 East Fourth Ave.
203-566-7404 NEW JERSEY Anchorage, AK 99501
David Kinsey, Chief 907-272-0594
DELAWARE Department of Environmental
David Keifer Protection CALIFORNIA
State Planning Office P.O. Box 1889 Mr. Charles S. Manfred
Thomas Collins Building Trenton, NJ 08625 Direct, Office of Emergency Services
530 South Dupont Highway 609-292-8262 P.O. Box 9577
Dover, DE 19901 Sacramento, CA 95823
302-678-4241 NEW YORK 916-421-4990 or 445-6231
Henry William, Jr., Director
FLORIDA Division of State Planning CONNECTICUT
Bruce Johnson Department of State Mr. Frank Mancuso
Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning 162 Washington St.' Director, Office of Civil Preparedness.
Pennington Bldg. Albany, NY 12231 Military Dept.
115 Bloxham St. 518-474@7210 State Armory. 360 Broad St.
Tallahassee, FL 32304 Hartford, Cr 06115
904-488-8614 NORTH CAROLINA 203-566-3180 or 4338
Dave Adanis, Assistant Secretary
GEORGIA Department of Natural and Economic DELAWARE
Jams Dodd Resources Lt. Colonel Jams W. McCloskey
Planning Division Box 27687 Director, Division of Emergency Planning
Office.of Planning & Budget Raleigh, NC 27611 and Operations
270 Washington St., S.W., Rm. 613 919-829-4984 Department of Public Safety
Atlanta, GA 30334 Delaware City, DE 19706
404-656-3861 OHIO 302-834-4531
Bruce McPherson
HAWAII Dept. of Natural Resources, Division DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dick Poirier of Water
Dept. of Planning and Economic Development 1930 Belcher Drive - Fountain Square George R Rod ricks
P.O. Box 2359 Building E Director: Office of Emergency Preparedness
Honolulu, HI 96804 Columbus, OR 43224 go= 5009, Municipal Center
808-548-4609 614-466-4768 300 Indiana Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
ILLINOIS OREGON 202-629-5151
Peter Wise Jim Ross
300 North State Street Land Conservation and Development FLORIDA
Herbert W. Johnson
Room 1010 Commission Director
Chi cago, IL 60610 1175 Court St., N.E. Division of Disaster Preparedness
312-793-3126 S.lerm, OR 97310
503-378-4926 Capitol Office Pla..
1720 South Gadsden Street
Tallahassee, Fl, 32301
9014@488-1320

GEORGIA NEW YORK ALASKA
Major General Billy Maddox Jones Arnold W. Grusbky, Deputy Guy R. Martin, Commissioner
The Adjutant General and State Director, Civil Defense Dept. of Natural Resources
Civil Defense Director Division of Military & Naval Affairs Pouch M
Department of Defense Public Security Building Juneau, AK 99801
P.O. Box 18055 State Campus 907-465-2400
Atlanta, CA 30316 Albany, NY 12226
404-656-1700 518-457-2222 CALIFORNIA
(Vacancy), Director
HAWAII NORTH CAROLINA Dept. of Conservation
Major General valentine A. Siefermann David L. Britt 1416 Ninth St.
The Adjutant General and Director state Coordinator, North Carolina Secramento, CA 94814
of Civil Defense Division of Civil Preparedness 916-445-3976
Fort Ruger, Bldg. 24 Administration Building
Honolulu, HI 96816 116 West Jones Street CONNECTICUT
808-734-2195 or 734-2161 Raleigh, NC 27603 Joseph N. Gill, Commissioner
919-829-3867 Dept. of Environmental Protection
ILLINOIS State Capitol
E. Erie Jones OHIO Hartford, CT 06115
Director, Emergency Services Major General James C. Clem 203-566-2110
and Disaster Agency The Adjutant General and Director
111 Fast Monroe Street of Disaster Services DELAWARE
Springfield, IL 62706 P.O. Box 660 John Bryson, Secretary
217-782-2700 Worthington, OH 43085 Dept. of Nat. Res. & Environmental Control
614-466-5444 Tatnall Bldg.
INDIANA Dover, DE 19901
Milton M. Mitnick OREGON 302-678-4403
Director, Department of Civil Harvey L. Latham, Administrator
Defense and office of Emergency Emergency Services Division FLORIDA
planning Executive Department Harmon W. Shields, Exec. Dir.
B-90 State office Building 8 State Capitol Dept. of Natural Resources
100 North Senate Avenue Salem, OR 97310 Crown Bldg.
Indianapolis IN 46204 503-378-4124 Tallahassee, FL 32304
904-488-1555
317-633-6954
LOUISIANA PENNSYLVANIA
Colonel Farmnham L. Morrison Colonel Oran K. Henderson (Ret.) GEORGIA
Director of Civil Defense and Director of Civil Defense Joe D. Lanner, Commissioner
Emergency Planning State Council of Civil Defense Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 44007, Capital Station Rom B 151, Transportation and 270 Washington St., SW
Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Safety Building Atlanta, GA 30334
504-383-6861 Harrisburg, PA 17120 404-656-3500
717-783-8150
MAINE RHODE ISLAND HAWAII
Mr. Nicholas L. Caraganis Christopher Cobb, Chairman
Major General Leonard Holland Dept. of Land & Natural Resources
Director, Bureau of Civil Emergency Director, State Office Bldg.
Preparedness The Adjutant General and
State House Office Building Defense Civil Preparedness Agency Honolulu, HI 96809
Augusta, ME 04333 State House 808-548-6550
207-622-6201 Providence, RI 02903
401-421-7333 ILLINOIS
Anthony T. Dean, Director
MARYLAND SOUTH CAROLINA Dept. of Conservation
Major General Rinaldo Van Brunt
Director, Divil Defense and Brig. General Fred C. Craft 602 State office Bldg.
Emergency Planning Agency Director, Preparedness Agency Springfield, IL 62706
Reisterstown Road & Sudbrook Lane Rutledge Building, Room B-12 217-782-6302
Pikesville, MD 21208 1429 Senate Street
301-486-4422 Columbia, SC 29201 INDIANA
803-758-2826 Joseph D. Cloud, Director
MASSACHUSETTS Dept. of Natural Resources
Mr. Charles V. Barry TEXAS State Office Bldg.
Executive Secretary of Public Safety
M. P. Bowden Indianapolis, IN 46204
Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and State Coordinator, Defense and 317-633-6344
office of Emergency Preparedness Disaster Relief
905 Commonwealth Avenue Texas Department of Public Safety LOUISIANA
Boston, MA 02115 Box 4087, North Austin Station R. I. Sutton, Commissioner
617-727-7775 Austin, TX 78773 Dept. of Conservation
512-452-0331, Ext. 295 Land & Natural Resources Bldg.
MICHIGAN Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Colonel George L. Halverson VIRGINIA 504-389-5161
State Civil Defense Director George L. Jones
Department of State Police state coordinator of Emergency MAINE
714 South Harrison Road Services Donaldson Koons, Commissioner
East Leasing, MI 48824 Office of the Governor Dept. of Conservation
517-332-2521 7700 Midlothian Turnpike State Office Bldg.
Richmond, VA 23235 Augusta, ME 04330
MINNESOTA 804-272-1441 207-289-2791
Mr. Wes Lane WASHINGTON MARYLAND
Director, Division of Emergency
Services Thomas S. Pryor, Director James B. Coulter, Secretary
Department of Public Safety Department of Emergency Dept. of Natural Resources
B5- State Capitol Services Tawas State Office Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55155 State of Washington Annapolis, MD 21401
612-296-2233 4220 E. Martin Way 301-267-1230
Olympia, WA 98504
MISSISSIPPI 206-753-5255 MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Harold A. Crain Joseph H. Brown, Jr., Commissioner
Director, Mississippi Civil Defense WISCONSIN Dept. of Natural Resources
Council Ronald S. San Felippo State office Bldg.
P.O. Box 4501, Fondren Station Administrator, Division of Emergency Boston, MA 02202
Jackson, MS 39216 Government 617-727-3163
601-354-7200 Ext. 110 Hill Farms State office Building
NEW HAMPSHIRE 4802 Sheboygan Avenue MICHIGAN
Mr. George E. McAvoy Madison, WI 53702 Howard A. Tanner, Director
Director, office of Comprehensive 608-266-3232 Dept. of Natural Resources
Planning Stevens T. Mason Bldg.
State House Lansing , MI 48926
Concord, NH 03301 DEPARTMENTS OF NATURAL RESOURCES 517-373-2329
603-271-3581 ALABAMA MINNESOTA
NEW JERSEY Claude D. Kelley, Commissioner Robert Herbst, Commissioner
Mr. J. Morgan Van Hise Dept. of Conserv & Natural Resources Dept. of Natural Resources
Acting Director, Civil Defense Administration Bldg. Centennial Bldg.
Montgomery, AL 36104 St. Paul, MN 55155
and Disaster Control 205-832-6361 612-296-2549
Department of Defense
Eggerts Crossing Road, P.O. Box 979
Trenton, NJ 08625 VI-9
609-792-3824

NEW HAMPSHIRE CALIFORNIA MISSISSIPPI
George Gilman, Commissioner Thomas Gay William H. Moore
Dept. of Resources & Econ. Dev. Div. of Mines and Geology Mississippi Geol., Economic, fi
State House Annex Calif. Dept. of Conservation Topographical Survey
Concord, HE 03301 1416 9th Street, Room 1341 P.O. Box 4915
603-271-2411 Sacramento, CA 95814 Jackson , ME 39216
916-445-1825 601-354-6228
NEW JERSEY
David J. Bardin, Commissioner CONNECTICUT NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dept. of Environmental Protection Hugo Thomas Glenn W. Stewart
John Pitch Plaza CT. Geol. & Natural History Survey Office of State Geologis
Trenton, NJ 08625 State Office Bldg., Rm. 561 James Hall
609-292-2835 165 Capitol Avenue University of New Hampshire
Hartford, CT 06115 Durham. NH '03824
NEW YORK 203-566-3540 603-862-1216
Ogden, Raid, Commissioner
Dept, of Environmntal Conservation DELAWARE NEW JERSEY
50 Wolf Road Robert R. Jordan Ramble Widmer
Albany, NY 12205 Delaware Geological Survey New Jersey Bur. of Geology Topology
518-457-3446 University of Delaware P.O. Box 2809
Newark, DE 19711 Trenton, NJ 08625
NORTH CAROLINA 302-738-2833 609-292-2121
James E. Harrington, Jr., Secretary NEW YORK
Dept. of Natural & Econ. Resources FLORDIA James I. Davis
Administration Bldg. Charles W. Hendry, Jr. New York State Geol. Survey
Raleigh, NC 27611 Bureau of Geology New York State Education BIAS.
919-829-4984 903 West Tennessee St. Albany, NY 12224
Tallahassee, FL 32304 518-474-5816
OHIO 904-488-4191
Robert W. Teeter, Director NORTH CAROLINA
Dept. of Nat. Res. GEORGIA Stephan G. Conrad
Fountain Square Sam M. Pickering, Jr. Dept-of Natural & Economic Resources
Columbus, OR 43224 Earth and Water Division P.O. Box 27687
614-460-3770 Dept. of Natural Resources Raleigh, NC 27611
19 Hunter Street, SW 919-829-3833
OREGON Atlanta, CA 30334
Janet McLennan, Asst. to the Gov. 404-656-3214 OHIO
Natural Resources Horace R. Collins
207 State Capitol HAWAII Ohio Div. of Geol. Survey
Salem, OR 97310 Robert T. Chuck Fountain Square, Bldg. 6
503-378-3109 Div. of Water & Land Develop. Columbus, OH 43224
Dept of Land & Natural Resources 614-469-5344
PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 373
Maurice K. Goddard, Secretary Honolulu, HI 96809 OREGON
Dept. of Environmental Resources 808-548-7533 R. E. Corcoran
202 Evangelical Press Bldg. ILLINOIS State Dept. of Geology & Mineral
Harrisburg, PA 17105 Jack A. Simon Industries
717-787-2914 Illinois State Geol. Survey 1069 State Office Bldg.
121 Natural Resources Bldg. 1400 SW Fifth Avenue
RHODE ISLAND Urbana, IL 61801 Portland, OR 97201
Dennis J. Murphy, Director 217-344-1481 503-229-5580
Dept. of Natural Resources
83 Park St. INDIANA PENNSYLVANIA
Providence, RI 02903 John B. Patton Arthur A. Socolow
401-277-2771 Dept. of Natural Resources But. of Topog. & Geol. Survey
Indiana Geological Survey Dept. of Environmental Resources
SOUTH CAROLINA 611 North Walnut Grove 660 Boas Street
W. Milton Folds, Direct Bloomington, IN 47401 Harrisburg, PA 17120
Development Board 812-337-2862 717-787-2169
1301 Gervais St.
Columbia, SC 29201 LOUISIANA SOUTH CAROLINA
803-758-3145 Leo W. Hough Norman K. Olson
Louisiana Geological Survey Div. of Geology
VIRGINIA Box G, University Station S. C. State Development Board
Marvin M. Sutherland, Director Baton Rouge, LA 70803 P.O. Box 927
Dept. of Conserv. & Economic Dev. 504-389-5812 Columbia, SC 29202
1100 State Office Bldg. 803-758-3257
Richmond, VA 23219 MAINE
804-770-2121 Robert G. Doyle TEXAS
Maine Geological Survey C. S. Groat
WASHINGTON State Office Bldg., Rm. 211 Bur. of Economic Geology
Bert I. Gole, Commissioner Augusta, ME 04330 University Station, Box X
Dept. of Natural Resources 207-289-2801 Austin, TX 78712
Public Lands Bldg. 512-471-1534
Olympia, WA 98504 MARYLAND
206-753-5317 Kenneth N. Weaver VIRGINIA
Maryland Geological Survey James I. Calver
WISCONSIN 214 Latrobe Hall Vir. Div. of Mineral Resources
Lester P. Voigt, Secretary Johns Hopkins University P.O. Box 3667
Dept. of Natural Resources Baltimore, MD 21218 Charlottesville, VA 22903
4610 University Ave. 301-235-0771 804-293-5121
Madison, WI 53701
608-266-2121 MASSACHUSETTS WASHINGTON
Joseph Sinnott Vaughn E. Livingston, Jr.
Dept, of Public Works Dept. of Natural Resources
STATE GEOLOGISTS 93 Worcester Street Geology and Earth Resources Div.
Wellesley Hills, MA 02181 Olympia, WA 98504
ALABAMA 206-753-6184
Philip E. LaMoreaux MICHIGAN
Geological Survey of Alabama Arthur E. Slaughter
P.O. Drawer 0 Michigan Dept. of Conservation WISCONSIN
University, AL 35486 Geological Survey Division Meredith E. Ostrom
205-759-5721 Stevens T. Mason Bldg. Wisconsin Geol. & Natural History
Lansing, MI 48926 Survey
ALASKA 517-373-1256 1815 University Avenue
Ross G. Schaff Madison, WI 53706
Div. of Gaul. and Geophysical MINNESOTA 608-262-1705
Surveys Hatt Walton
3001 Porcupine Drive Minnesota Geological Survey STATE PLANNING OFFICES
Anchorage, Ak 99501 1633 Eustis Street
907-279-1433 St. Paul, MN 55108 ALABAMA
612-373-3372 Bill Starnes, Director
Planning Div.
Development Office
State Capital
Montgomery, AL 36104
205-269-1831

ALA.SKA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN
Rober t Wee4en, Director Peter 1. Vanderpoel, Director Stephen M. Born, Director
Policy Development S Planning State Planning Agency State Planning Office
Office of the Gov 101 Capitol Square Building Dept. of Administration
Pouch A D 550 Cedar St. 158 Wilson St.
Juneau, AK 99801
-3512 612-296-4933 608-266-7958
907-465 St. Paul, MN 55101 Madison, WI 53702
CALIFORNIA HISSISSIM
Preble Stolz, Director Willian M. Headrick, Coordinator STATE WATER RESOURCES
Office of Planning & Research Federal State Programs RESEARCH INSTITUTES
1490 - 10th St. Office of the Gov.
Sacramento, CA 95814 510 La-r Life Bid&. ALABAMA
916-445-4831 Jackson, MS 39205 Water Resources Research Institute
601-354-7570 Auburn University
CONNECTICUT Auburn, &L 36830
Horace H. Brown, Actg. Dir. NEW HAMPSHIRE 205-826-5075
Planning & Budgeting Div. George McAvoy, Director
Dept. of Finance & Control Office of Comprehensive Planning ALASKA
340 Capitol Ave State House Institute of Water Resources
Hartford, CT 06115 Concord, NH 03301 University of Alaska
203-566-4872 603-1271-3581 College, AK 99701
907-479- 7775
DELAWARE NEW JERSEY
David R. Keifer, Director Richard A. Ginman, Director CALIFORNIA
Planning Office Div. Of state & Regional Planning Water Resources Center
Executive Dept. Dept. of Community Affairs University of California
Thomas Collins Bldg. 329 W. State St. RM. 475, AOB-3
Dover, BE 19901 Trent-, NJ 08608 Davis, CA 95616
302-678-4271 609-292-2953 916-752-1544

FLORIDA NEW YORK CONNEC71CIlT
(Vacancy), Director Henry G. Williams, Director Institute of Water Resources
Div. of State Planning Div. of State Planning The University of Connecticut
Dept. of Administration Dept. of State Storrs, CT 06268
Carlton Bldg. 162 Washington Ave. 203-486-4523
Tallahassee, FL 32304 Albany, NY 12231
904-488-2402 518-474-7210 DELAWARE
Water Resources Center
GEORGIA NORTH CAROLINA University of Delaware
laws T. McIntyre, Jr., Direccor Lynn Muchmore, Plane. Offr. Newark, DE 19711
Office of Planning 6 Budgeting Office of State Planning 302-738-2191
270 Washington St.. SW Dept. of Administration
Atlanta, GA 30334 Administration Bldg. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
404-656-3820 Raleigh, NC 27611 Water Resources Research Center
919-829-4131 Washington Technical Inst.
HAWAII 4100 Conn. Ave., NW
Hideto Kom, Director OHIO Washington, D.C. 20008
Dept. of Planning & Economic Dev. Paul F. Baldridge, Dep. Dir. 202-629-7504
250 S. King St. Community Services
Honolulu, HI 96813 Dept. of Economic 6 Community Dev . FLORIDA
808-548-0914 30 E. Broad St. Water Resources Research Center
Columbus, ON 43216 University of Florida
ILLINOIS 614-466-5863 220 Environmental Engineering Bldg.
Leonard Schaeffer, Director Gainesville, FL 32601
Bureau of the Budget OREGON 904-392-0840
108 State House William H. Young, Administrator
Springfield, IL 62706 Intergovernmental Relations Div. GEORGIA
217-782-4520 Executive Dept. Environmental Resources Center
240 Cottage St., SE Georgia Institute of Technology
INDIANA Salem, OR 97310 205 Old Civil Engineering Building
Theodore Paritazis, Director 503-378-3732 Atlanta, GA 30332
Div. of Planning & Research 404-894-2375
Dept. of Commerce PENNSYLVANIA
Harrison Office Bldg. A. Edward Simon, Director HAWAII
Indianapolis, IN 46204 State Planning & Development Water Resources Research Center
317-633-4346 Office of the Gov . University of Hawaii
503 Finance Bldg. 2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 283
LOUISIANA Harrisburg, PA 17120 Honolulu, HI 96822
Patrick W. By=, Exec. Dir. 717-717-2086 809-94"111
Office of State Planning
Office of @he Gov. RHODE ISLAND ILLINOIS
State Capitol Daniel W. Varin, Chief Water Resources Center
Baton Rouge, Lk 70904 Statewide P1 ... ing; Program University of Illinois
504-399-2494 Dept. of Administration 2535 Hydrosystems Laboratory
265 Melrose St. Urbana, IL 61801
14AINE Providence, RL 02907 217-333-0536
Allen Pease, Director 401-277-2656
State Planning Office INDIANA
Executive Dept. BOOM CAROLINA Water Resources Research Center
189 State St. Jerry W. Branham, Director Purdue University
Augusta, ME 04330 Div. of Administration Lilly Hall
207-289-3261 Edgar A. Brown Office Bldg. Lafayette, IN 47907
Columbia,.SC 29201 317-494-8815
MARYLAND 803-758-2946
Vladimir A. Wahbe, Secretary LOUISIANA
Dept. of State Planning TEXAS Water Resources Research Institute
301 W. Preston St. Jamie M. Rose, Director Louisiana State University
Baltimore, MD 21201 Div. of Planning Coordination Rom 140 Engr. Drawing and Res. Bldg.
301-383-2451 Office of the Gov. Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Box 12428 504-388-6003
MASSACHUSETTS Austin, TX 78711
Frank T. Keefe, Director 512-475-2427 MAINE
Office of State Planning Land and Water Resources Center
Exec. Office for Admin. & Finance VIRGINIA University of Maine at Orom
State Office Bldg. Charles A. Christopherson, Dir. 11 Coburn Hall
Boston, MA 02202 Div. of Planning & Community Affairs Orono, ME 04473
617-727-5066 1010 Madison Bldg. 207-581-7092
Richmond, VA 23219
MICHIGAN 804-770-3704 MARYLAND
Gerald M. Miller, Director Water Resources Research Center
Dept, of Managment & Budget WASHINGTON University of Maryland
Lewis Cass Bldg. Richard W. Himsted, Director Shriver Laboratory
Lansing, MI 48913@ Office of C-nity Development College Park, MD 20742
517-173-1004 107 Insurance Bldg. 301-454-5435
Olympia, WA 90504
206-753-2200

VI-11

MASSACHUSETTS WISCONSIN
Water Resources Research Center Water Resources Center -SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION-HOME MISSION BOARD
Univ. of Massachusetts The University of Wisconsin Dr. Paul R. Adkins
FLK. A-211, Grad. Res. Center 1975 Willows Drive - 2nd Floor Director
Amherst, MA 01002 Madison, WI 53706 Department of Christian Social Ministries
413-545-2842 608-262-3577 .1350 Spring Street, Nw
Atlanta, GA 30309
MICHIGAN 404-873-4041
Ihatitute of Water Re ... rch VOLUNTARY AGENCIES SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF THE U.S. SOCIETY OF ST.
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48823 AMERICAN NATIONAL.RED CROSS VINCLNI BE PAUL
517-353-3742 Bryce J. Torrence Du dley Baker
National Director Executive Secretary
MINNESOTA Disaster Services '4140 Lindell Blvd.
Water Resources Research Center Washington, D.C, 20006 St. Louis, K9 63108
University of Minnesota 202-857-3722 314-371-4980
Hubbard Building UNITEDMETHODIST CHU .RCH COMMISSION ON
2675 University Avenue AMURT PUBLIC RELATIONS, ANANDA MRGA RELIEF (UMCOR)
St. Paul, HN 55114 Mrs; Kay Nelson James J. Thomas
612-646-6309 1354 Montague Street, NW
Washington, D.C, 20011 Executive Secretary
MISSISSIPPI 202-291-7542 Board of Global Ministries
Water Resources Research Institute United Methodist Church
Mississippi State University B'NAI B'RITH NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 475 Riverside Drive
State College, MS 39762 Seymour C. Cohen New York, MY 10027
601-325-2215 Disaster Relief Commission 212-87D-2066, 2067
1640 Rhode Island Avenue, NW VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA
NEW HAMPSHIRE Washington, D.C. 20036
Water Resources Research Center 202-393-5284 General John F. McMahon
108 Pettee Hall Commanda`-in- Chief
a 85 S r
University of New Hampshire CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN SERVICE 340 We I th t.eer
Durham, NH 03824 CENTER a. r', NY '0 24
603-862-2144 H. McKinley Coffman 212-TR3-2600
Box 188
NEW JERSEY New Windsor, MD 21776
Water Resources Research Institute 301-635-6464
Rutgers-The-State University
New Brunswick, NJ 08903 CHRISTIAN REFORMED WORLD RELIEF
201-932-9817 or 9818 COMMITTEE
C. Neil Molenaar
NEW YORY Director, Domestic Program
Water Resources and Marine Sciences Ctr. 2850 Kalavatzoo Avenue, SE
Cornell Uni4ersity, Grand Rapids, MI 49508
468 Hollister Hall 616-241-1691
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-256-7535 CHURCH WORLD SERVICE
John Sth..er
NORTH CAROLINA Director of Material Resources
Water Resources Research Institute of Program
The University of North Carolina 475 Riverside Drive
North Carolina State University New York, NY 10027
124 Riddick Building 212-870-2066, 2067
Raleigh, NC 27607
919-737-2815 or 2816 GENERAL CONFERENCE OF
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, WORLD
OHIO SERVICE
Water Resources Center Howard D. Burbank
The Ohio State University World Service
1791 Neil Avenue 6840 Eastern Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210 Washington, D.C. 20012
614-422-2334 202-723-0800

OREGON GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA
Water Resources Research Institute Dean Phillips
Oregon State University President
Corvallis, OR 97331 9200 Wisconsin Avenue
503-754-1022 Washington, D.C. 20014
301-530-6500
PENNSYLVANIA
Institute for Research on Land and LUTHERAN DOMESTIC DISASTER@ RESPONSE
Water Resources Dr. Ross Wilbur
The Pennsylvania State University Lutheran Council in the U.S.A.
103 Land & Water Research Building 315 Park Avenue South
University Park, PA 16802 New-York, NY 10010
814-863-0291 212 677- 39 50

RHODE ISLAND MENNONITE DISASTER SERVICE
Rhode Island Water Resources Center C. Nelson Hostetter
University of Rhode Island 21 South 12th Street
Kingston, RI 02881 Akron, PA' 17501
401-792-2267 717-859-1151 or 2392
SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL CATHOLIC DISASTER RELIEF
Water Resources Research Institute COMMITTEE
McAdams Hall Rev., Naar. Leo J. Coady
Clemson University Chair-.
Clemson, SC 29631 Holy Redeemer Rectory
803-656-3250 9705 Summit Avenue
Kensington, MD 20795
'TMS 301-942-2333
Water Resources Institute
Texas A & M University NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC
College Station, TX 77843 CHARITIES
713-845-1851 Brother Josepfi Berg
Suite 307
VIRGINIA 1340 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Water Resources Research Center Washington, D.C. 20036
Virginia Polytechnic institute 202-785-2757
and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061 THE SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL
703-951-5624 HEADQUARTERS
Colonel George Halting
WASHINGTON National Chief Secretary
State of Washington Water Research 120 West 14th Street
Center - New York, NY 10011
Washington State University 212-243-8700
Pullman, WA 99163
509-335-5531 VI-12

APPENDICES

A. "The Hurricane Problem" A Statement of Concern,by the American
Meteorological Society as adopted by the Executive Committee
on July 2, 1976.

B. '!Legal Aspects of Natural Hazards Regulation in the Coastal
Zone," Rutherford H. Platt.

C. "Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931" (Abridged) from Harry
0. Wood and Frank Neumann, in Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 21, No. 4, December, 1931.

D. "Scenario of Hurricane Disaster in Miami, Florida," from Gilbert
F. White and J. Eugene Haas, Assessment of Research on Natural
Hazards, 1975.

E. "Barrier Islands - Hurricane Adjustments" and "Mainland Coasts
Earthquake Adjustments," Sample outlines of possible
adjustments to regional natural hazard problems.

F. "A Check-List of Possibly Relevant State Programs."

A. "The Hurricane Problem" -A Statement of Concern by the
American Meieorological Society as ad'opted by the
Executive Committee on July 2, 1976.

Is the United States building toward a hurricane catastrophe?

Many members of the American Meteorological Society havevoiced
such a concern. Recent reports by the Institute of Behavioral Science
of the University of Colorado, supported by the National Science
Foundation, have highlighted the problem.

People seeking new life styles have moved to the hurricane-
vulnerable areas.. The population in the states bordering the Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico has increased out of proportion to the rest of the
United States. Since 1960, beach front subdivisions have shown a 45%
rise compared to 13% for the nation as a whole. There are now about
37 million people living in coastal counties from Texas to Maine..

The hurricane's storm surge is the biggest killer. Ninety
percent of those who lose their lives in a hurricane are killed by the
storm surge. Wind and inland fresh-water flooding claim the remainder.
Thousands are injured. More than 6 million people are currently exposed
to the storm surge hazard.

Summer tourists add another dimension. For example, Cap May
County, N.J., has a permanent population of 60,000, but during a summer
weekend a million visitors may invade this community. On the Outer
Banks of North Carolina, 10 times as many visitors as residents flock
there during the summer. On a given weekend, the number of people on
the Banks can go as high as 150,000.

The'Atlantic coastal states are particularly vulnerable. The
greatest increases in population are taking place in areas that have
been been free from significant hurricane activity for many years.
During the last 15 years, the major* hurricanes have occurred in the
states along the Gulf of Mexico. It has been 15 years since residents
of the eastern seaboard have witnessed a major hurricane. This pattern
could-be reversed at anytime.and all coastal areas are potentially
vulnerable.

The situation in Florida is even more critical. Except for
Eloise in 1975, only,two major hurricanes struck Florida during the

A major hurricane is defined as a category-3, 4, or 5 storm on
a scale of 1-5. Storm surges range from 9 to greater than 18 feet. Winds
would range from 111 to more than 155 miles per hour in a type 5 storm.
Hurricane Camille in 1969 and the Labor Day storm in the Keys in 1035
were the only "5" hurricanes this century in the United States.

A-1

past 25 years--Betsy, 1965, and Donna, 1960--and the damage from both
of these'was confined mainly to the Keys. In 1950, the population of
coastal counties,in Florida was 2 million. Today, 5.5 million people
live on the coast. Extremely serious questions are therefore raised.

What is the level of experience along our coast?. Are coastal
.c ounties and communities prepared to cope with the myriad problems posed
by a major hurricane's landfall?

Will individuals and families respond properly to hurricane
warnings and advice? How does hurricane experience affect. their
warning response?

In 19573, Hurricane Audrey claimed almost 400 lives when it
struck Cameron Parish, La. Many residents chose not to heed the
warnings and evacuate. Four years later, 97% of Cameron Parish
residents fled from Hurricane Carla.

Many people who go through the fringes of a major hurricane
or through a weak hurricane are lulled into a false sense of security.
That's what happened in Cameron Parish in 1957.

Eighty percent of the coastal resi dents of Florida, one of
the most hurricane-prone states in the nation, are * inexperienced.
There are a million people in the Tampa Bay area, and over 50,000 live
on offshore islands where the average elevation is from 4 to 6 feet
above sea level. The last major hurricane over Tampa Bay occurred in
1921 when the population was about 100,000. Ninety percent of the
Tampa Bay residents are inexperienced.

The Georgia coast has not been struck by a major hurricane this
century. Many Georgians feel immune from hurricanes. A survey by a
Savannah newspaper showed that most of the people on Savannah Beach
do not plan to evacuate if threatened by a major hurricane. The same
is true at beautiful Hilton Head Island, S.C. Yet in 1893, a storm
surge of 15-20 feet inundated many of the islands along the Georgia
and South Carolina coasts and killed over 2,000 people.

Even in the Gulf of Mexico, where the frequency of hurricanes
should have taught builders and planners to consider hurricane safety
measures, one finds emphasis on the hurricane problem lacking. Along
the Texas coast, for example, the population on the south end of Padre
Island is ready to explode. A community of 50,000 is planned on the
north end of Padre Island across the Bay from Corpus Cristi. Key
Allegro is a large dredge-and-fill operation at Rockport less than 80
miles south of Port Lavaca, where Carla in 1961 pushed water levels
to 20 feet above normal. The western end of Galveston Island is being
developed beyond the sea wall.

Of the 37 million people now living in coastal counties, 78% have
never experienced the destructive core of a major hurricane.

A-2

Our nation's warning system has shown steady-improvement in its
ability-to forecast and warn of a hurricane's approach to land. As a
result, the average annual loes of life has decreased significantly.
However, the improved technology and skills are not keeping pace with
the problems created by the continually increasing coastal population.
For example, how many people can be evabuated ahead of a fast-moving
storm like Hazel in 1954. Or the 1938 storm that killed 600 as it went
through New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts at
a forward speed of 56 miles an hour?

Expertslare worri6d that the existing trend of decreasing
fatalities may riot continue. They fear a future hurricane disaster
that will equal or surpass the Galveston tragedy of 1900 when 6,000
people died.

A recent research assessment* gives four prominent interrelated
reasons that support this fear:

1) increased urbanization with its concomitant heightened risk
of catastrophe;
2) inadequacy of evacuation routes;
3) insufficient refuge;
4) unenforcement of building safety codes.

This statement is not an indictment of coastal living. The beac h
offers a beautiful way of life. The statement is a plea for realistic
hurricane preparedness plans at state, county, and local levels. Efforts
to promote proper hurricane awareness and response to the hurricane
threat must be accelerated.

Community leaders must plan for ways of evacuating people. It is
no longer practical to depend entirely on evacuation by automobile to
get people to higher ground. Contingency plans should consider
evacuation into well-constructed Iligh-rise buildings when horizontal
evacuation becomes impossible. Many areas with limited access roads
must adopt plans to get people out when the hurricane threat is first
realized. If we do not initiate ways of informing our coastal
Communities of the hurricane problem, Mother Nature will impose her
own education program, which is swift and severe.

*"Hurricane Hazard in the United States" by Waltraud A. R.
Brinkmann, University of Wisconsin.

A-3

B. "Legal Aspects of Natural Hazards Regulatio In in the
Coastal Zone," Rutherford H. Platt..

The objectives ofprivate owners,of coastal property and public
coastal zone.man.agers are usually incompatible. As noted by.Herman
Melville at,the beginning of Moby Dick:

What do you see? Posted like silent sentinels all around the
town, stand thousands upon thousands of mortal men fixed in ocean
reveries But look! here come more crowds, pacing straight
for the water and seemingly bound for a dive. Strange.. Nothing
will content them,but the extremist limit of land , . . . they must
get just as nigh the water as they possibly can without falling in.

A corollary to Melville's observation is that this attraction may prove
fatal if the beholder approaches the water's edge too closely and for
too long.

The Americari legal system affords three basic tools for the
public management of land use in coastal zones-and elsewhere. The
first is the power to acquire land and water rights either through
voluntary sale or gift or through exercise of the public power of
eminent domain.. Secondly, private land may be regulated by public
authority in the interest of protecting.the "public health, safety
and welfare" without payment of co4ensation. Thirdly, the public
may seek to influence responsible private land and water management by
providing tax incentives or other inducements. Public planning and
management of coastal zones under PL 92-583 and its state counterparts
must-of necessity be based upon some combination of these three
fundamental legal strategies. The foremost dilemma of coastal zone
planning is which tool to use where and by which level of government,.

Public acquisition is of course the most reliable and judicially
safe means by which to exert public control over any land area. Where
a genuine public use or purpose such as recreation, economic development,
or flood damage protection is contemplated, coastal areas may be
readily acquired through eminent domain upon payment of "just
compensation" to the private owner. In the case of recreational sites,
the Federal goverment may provide fifty percent (50%) of the
acquisition,cost to state iand local governments under the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (PL 88-578).

Outright acqui.sition even with,Federal assistance however is
enormously expensive in -the coastal zone. Undeveloped coastal land
accessible to metropoli.tan.areas-may easily cost as much as $100,000

B-1

per acre. Furthermore, additional costs are incurred in preparing and
managing-the site for public use. Understandably,. the power to acquire
land is used very selectively in the coastal zone, as elsewhere.

This leaves.the regulatory and incentive approaches for the
management of the remainder of the nation's shorelines., Unfortunately,
.the use of incentives to encourage wise use of shorelines is not
widespread at this time. The granting of a zoning bonus, as is used
to procure downtown plazas and parks, has not been utilized in the
coastal context. Similatly, the concept of "transfer of development
rights" which has been proposed for the preservation of historic
landmarks and farmlands, has had little experience anywhere, let alone
in the-coastal zone.

Gifts,of,land to public or charitable entities a
re eligible for
a federal'income tax deduction. A gift of the right to develop land
easement") qualifies for a tax deduction as well as
a.reduction of property taxe 's on the retained interests. But such
tax incentives are effective only where a property owner is sufficiently
wealthy and public spirited to be receptive.

Public Regulation of the Shoreline: The Factor of Hazard

Where public life, health and property is at stake, every legal-
system:on-earth recognizes a duty for public authorities to intervene.
According-to the foremost legal encyclopedia of American law:

Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government
to promote order, safety, health, morals, and the general welfare
of.society within.constitutionaLlimits . . . . on it depends
thesecurity of social order, the life and health of the citizen,
the comfort of an existence in a thickly populated community, the
enjoyment of private and social life and the beneficial use of
property. . . . the constitution presupposes the existence of the
police power and is to be construed with reference to that fact.
(Corpus Juris Secundum, "Constitutional Law," sec. 174)

The use,6f mandatory public authority to promote public safety
from floods is found in English history at least as early as the
thirteenth century. -According to Bosselman et al. (1973, p. 69):

The marshy condition of many parts of England gave rise to yet
another series of land use controls relating to the creation of
drainage systems and the prevention of floods. As various tenants
constructed seawalls and drainage works on their own property, it
soon became readily apparent that negligence on the part of a single
tenant could result in the inundation of an entire region. Thus
as early as 1250 the land owners of Romney Marsh chose twenty-four
'jurats' to watch over the seawall and water courses, compelling

B-2

each owner to maintain in 'rep-4irwalls of a certain length and
Iwater gangs.' Recalcitrant land owners were fined and their
goods subject to seizure by the jurats' bailiff.

In the colonial history of the U nited States, fire was a more
leared threat than flood (particularly since most colonial settlements
were wisely sited on elevated ground). According to Bridenbaugh
(1964, p. 93):

By 1690 inhabitants of every colonial village had had to face
certain problems of urban living which required solution not by
individual but by community effort. In the country a man might
construct his home, build his fire, dig his well, erect his privy,
and dispose of his rubbish without thought for the wellbeing of
his neighbors, but in town these things became objects of
community concern and gradually of civic ordinanc %e.,

During the nineteenth century, little progress in public
environmental regulation occurred. R egulations dealt mainly with the
abatement of public nuisance in the form of encroachment on public ways,
use of public open space, and preservation of light and air. The
latter concern gave rise to the development of building regulations
in the latter nineteenth century as a result of the hideous conditions
found to exist in the urban industrial slums of England and America.

. A major turning point in public land use regulation occurred
in the adoption of the first comprehensive land use zoning law by
New York City in 1916 and its rapid proliferation elsewhere. Zoning
was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1926 decision in Village of
Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company (272 U.S. 365) The court held that
the intermixture*of different land uses is inherently'deleterious
and therefore may be prevented through public land use regulation.
The ruling even extended to the separation of residential structures
of different types such as apartments and single family homes.

Thus the scope of the regulatory power to control land use
was broadened far beyond narrow health and safety concerns. Property
values, aesthetics, social values, and municipal physical considerations
all have dominated the American law of land use control. It is
scarcely surprising therefore that zon ing has been widely criticized
recently for beiAg the cause rather than the remedy of many
metropolitan land use problems (Babcock,'1966).

Paradoxically, as.public land use regulation has served
questionable goals, it has failed to serve its original and most
important purpose, namely the protection of lives and property.
While zoning is commonly used to regulate the height, spacing, appearance,
and occupany of structures, it seldom serves to prevent them from
being located in the path of destruction.

B-3

One reason for the delay in protecting hazardous areas ha6
been the'belie'f that-regulations which significantly lower the
property value of land by limiting development of it are unconstitu-
tional as a "taking of I privatIe property without just compensation."
This "diminution.of value" theory is attributed by Fred Bosselman to
a 1922 U.S. Supreme Court decision by Oiiver Wendell Holmes in
the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (260 U.S. 393). This
decision held a Pennsylvania law unconstitutional which sought to
prevent surface subsidence by prohibiting withdrawal of all
available coal from underground mines. While Holmes considered
this to be a taking of the mining company's property without just
compensation, he distinguished a case.in which a similar regulation
was upheld in order to protect the employees of the mine.itself:
"but that'was a requirement for the safety of employees invited into
the.mine. Similarly, it may be argued that Holmes would
approve measures to prevent the unwary from being "invited" to invest
6eir funds'and to take up residence in hazardous areas. Justice
Brandeis in dissenting to Holmes' opinion states the now,well-accepted
proposition that "restriction upon use does not become inappropriate as
a means, merely because it deprives the 'owner of the only use to which
the property can then profitably be put."

Forty years later, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to review
a local ordinance which terminated the excavation of gravel from a
long-established quarry in the interests of protecting children and
other residents of surrounding residential areas (Town of Hempstea
v. 0oldblatt 369 U.1S.:590, 1962). Although conceding that the
quarry had been there first and that the ordinance banned the most
beneficial use of the property, the court placed the burden of proof
that'the ordinance was unreasonable upon,the property owner. In the
absence of proof that the ordinance was unreasonable, the court
allowed it to stand. Prom Euclid to the present time, this
u1presumption of legislative validity" has been applied by courts to
save countless-zoning measures in the absence of strong evidence
that they are unreasonable.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed floodprone area
regulations directly and before 1970, few state courts had done so
either. In 1953, the California Supreme Court upheld a "beach
recreation district" despite the challenge that it is unconstitutional
to procure public recreation space through zoning. The court based
its approval upon evidence that "plaintiff's property is from time
to time subject to erosion and replacement by reason of storms and
wave action of the Pacific Ocean; that any residences which could be
constructed upon the property would not necessarily be erected on
pilings, and reasonable minds might differ as to safety of such
residence property so,constructed; (McCarthy v. City of
Manhattan Beach, 264 P2d 932).

Unfortunately, this positive and explicit treatment of a flood
hazard problem has been geldom emulated in other decisions or
jurisdictions. In 1959 the Connecticut Supreme Court gave comparable
recognition to physical reality in reviewing the validity of a
state encroachment (set-back) line:

B-4

The loss of human life and the destruction-of property wrought
by the floods in August, 1955, justified the legislature in con-
ferring upon the commission broad powers to adopt preventive
,measures against their repetition. The trial court found that
the encroachment lines . . . accord with sound engineering
principles and statutory requirements, and were designed to
reduce hazard to life and property in the event of-recurring
floods. (Vartelas v. Water Resources Commission, 153 A.2d
822),

Another decision by the same court in 1964 disapproved
the application of a floodplain restriction (Doolev v. Town of Fairfield.,,
197 A.2d 770). The plaintiff in this case howeve@r had paid a sewer
assessment of $11,000 based on the anticipated development value of
the land. It was therefore held to be unfair to deny this development
value subsequently.

By 1972, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was
satisfied that "the general necessity o f floodplain zoning to reduce
the damage to life and property caused by flooding is unquestionable"'
(Turnpike Realty Co. v. Town of Dedham, 284 N.E.2d 891). Thus
fifty years after zoning itself was approved, individual states are
finally coming to the conclusion that its application to protect-life
and property in flood prone areas is indeed valid.

But acceptance of the general validity of floodplain
restrictions does not mean they will in all cases be acceP@able from
a technical standpoint nor does it mean that they can be employed to
serve other purposes such as protection of aesthetics, wildlife, or
prevention of erdsion. While each of these is in itself a valid
public objective, land use measures must be carefully tailored1to
a particular purpose and must be no more restrictive than necessary
to accomplish that end.

Coastal Hazard Mitigation

Mitigation of the effects of coastal natural hazards is
one of several objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(P.L. 92-583)@ Among the-elements required to be addressed in a
proposed coastal plan is the issue of "floods and flood damage
prevention, erosion (including the effect of tides and currents upon
beaches and other' shoreline areas), land stability, climatology and
meteorology" (Federal Register, January 9, 1975, p. 1685, section 923.4).

As to this and other coastal planning objectives, Congress
requires each coastal state to submit a propose'd management program in
order to qualify for administrative grant assistance under
Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Proposed programs must

B-5

involve any one or a combination of the following general techniques
for control of land and water uses within the coastal zone:

A. State establishment of criteria and standards for local
implementation, subject @to administrative review and
enforcement of compliance;

.B. Direct state.land and water use planning and regulation; or

C. State administrative review for consistency with the
'management program of all development plans, projects, or
land and water use regulations,

In the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 (PL 94 -370
Sec. 4) Congress required state "306 plans" to provide:

(a) A planning process for (A) assessing the effects of shoreline
erosion (however caused), and (B) studying and evaluating ways
to contro 1 or lessen the impact of,,such erosion, and to restore
areas adversely affected by such erosion.

A survey of state coastal management offices conducted in August,
1976, under the auspices of the Institute of Beh avioral Sdience,
University of Colorado, disclosed that many states are proposing to
use existing legislation of many kinds in the preparation of their
306 plans. The following summary and table of state approaches,
while not exhaustive, indicates the diversity and imagination with
which states are proposing to meet the Section 306 mandate.

1. Comprehensive State Coastal Zone Regulation

California, Washington, and'Rhode Island have conspicuously
pioneered the concept of state coastal zone management. Each of these
states adopted coastal legislation prior to the federal Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 and it is their collective experience-
upon which the implementation of the latter is substantially
based. While there are major differences between the three states,
several common features may be identified. First the relevant
planning areas consist of entire shorelines, not simply discrete
landforms or problem areas. Second, administration is largely a
state function with specific responsibilities delegated to certain
local and regional entities in the cases of California and Washington.
Third, state coastal authority extends inland in each case as far as
necessary to embrace activities and physical features associated with
the coastline.. The Rhode Island coastal zone is bounded by the mean
high water level but extends inland to include certain categories of
major development, intertidal marshes, and shoreline protective works.

B-6

TABLE B-1

STATE LAWS RELATING TO COASTAL HAZARD MITIGATION

Comprehensive State Setback or Beach and
Coastal Shoreland Flood- Criti:cal Coastal Encroachment Shore
or Land Use Zoning plaining Areas Wetlands Lines Preservation

Alabama a
Alaska
California b x
Connecticut x x x
Delaware c x x
Florida d x x x
Georgia x
Hawaii e x x x
Illinois
Indiana
Louisiana x
Maine x x x x
Maryland f x x x x
Mass. x
Michigan x x
Minnesota x x x x
Miss, x
N.H. x
New Jersey 9 x x
New York x x
N.C. h x x x
Ohio
Oregon x
Pa.
R.I. x
S.C.
Texas x
Virginia x x
Washington k x
Wisconsin x x

Sources: 1) CZM State Reports (Handbook, Part IV)
2) Sixth Annual Report of the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, 1975.

aAla. Coastal Zone Development Act of 1973.
bCalif. Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Final Plan adopted Augusg, 1976).San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Act of 1969.
cDel. Coastal Zone Act of 1971.
dFlorida Land and Water Management Act of 1974.
eHawaii Stat e Land Use Zoning Act.
fMd. State Land Use Act of 1974
gN.J. Coastal Area Facilities Review Act of 1973.
bN.C. Coastal Area Management Act of 1974.
iOre. Land Conservation and Development Act of 1973.
jR.I. Coastal' Management Act of 1971.
kWash. Shoreline Management Act of 1971.

B-7

California's interim coastal permit authority applies"to a zone 1,000
yards landward from the mean high tide line; coastal planning authority
extends even further, to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal
mountain range except in certain urban counties.

These state coastal permit progr ams may be readily adapted to
.incorporate new perceptions of natural hazards. The Rhode Island
Coastal Management Council,for instanceidenies permits for development
on "undeveloped" beach areas and seeks to limit new construction on
dunes or beaches anywhere in the state. Furthermore, the towns of
Westerly and South Kingstown, Rhode Island, augment the state
requirements with their own minimum setbacks from mean high water for
new construction (Miller, 1976).

2. Shoreland Zoning

A variation on the foregoing approach is "shoreland zoning"
as practiced in the Great Lakes States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan, and the Atlantic coast state of Maine.' Shoreland zoning
involves a mandate by the state legislature that local governments
shall adopt satisfactory land use regulations for.their river and
lake shoreline areas or such regulations will be adopted on their
behalf by the state. In either case, administration of regulations
once adopted remains with the local government. The state performs
a "watchdog" function to make sure that the regulations are faithfully
applied,

It is not yet clear to what extent shoreland zoning in practice
reflects natural hazard considerations. Experidnce to date has largely
been devoted to achieving a minimum level of regulation in affected
communities. In Maine, it is reported that certain coastal towns
have adopted shoreland zoning although they have no other zoning what-
soever in their jurisdiction. Pre 'sumably, flood and erosion factors
may be.incorporated into the criteria by which states review or
establish local regulations.

3. Mandatory Floodplain Zoning

The "Hobson's Choice" of shoreland zoning has been applied with
apparent success in New York'State to all communities with recognized

B-8

flood hazard areas. To date, the state has imposed regulations on
about twenty-four communities. Otherwise incorporated cities, towns,
and villages have cooperated in adopting their own regulations
subject to st'ate'guidelines. (Source: William Daley, New York
Department of Environmental Conservation). As shown in Table B-1,
several other states have adopted some form of state-lev.el floo,dplain
management legislation.

4. Critical Areas Programs

The Model' -and Development Code proposed by the American Law
Institute in 197f proposes that states assume particular responsibility
for so-called "critical areas." Such areas may be defined in various
ways, based on physical, cultural, economic or aesthetic criteria.
As applied to coastal zone management, the critical areas approach
is more restrictive geographically than the techniques described above.
It dovetails with the concept of "geographical areas of planning
concern" which the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management urges
should be identified by states as part of their coastal plans.

Critical areas programs have been adopted to date by Maine,
Minnesota, Maryland, Florida, North Carolina, and Oregon. Most
programs provide for a broadly based process for nominating "critical
areas." This procedure yields areas of ecological, wildlife,
geologic, or other unusual interest, but it may well overlook areas
of particular hazard concern. It is recommended that state agencies
responsible for selection of critical areas give, consideration to
sites incurring flood, erosion, seismic, volcanic or other hazardous
activity. OCZM,in factrecommends designation of "areas of significant
hazard, as geographic areas of planning concern" (Federal Register,
1973, 1975).

5. Coastal Wetland Programs

Several states intend to rely heavily on their coastal wetlands
permit program for CZM purposes. With the recent attention given to
the importance of coastal wetlands in the ecological food chain, and
the extent of their loss due to development along the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts, many states have implemented coastal wetland programs.
(See Table B-1.)

The states differ as to the designation of wetlands, inclusion of
related non-wetl--- areas, permitted uses, and administrative
procedures. In general, state courts appear to be upholding state
limitations upon development in coastal wetlands where..-reasonably
and fairly applied, (e.g., Just v. Marinette Count , 201 N.*W.2d
761, Wis., 1972; Sibson v. State, 336 A.2d 239, N.H., 1975; Candlestick

B-9

Properties v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
89 Cal. Rptr., 897, 1962).

While most state programs regulating wetlands are based on their
ecological value, it is clear that such areas serve to mitigate the
effects of coastal flooding and erosion'. Wetlands absorb the energy
.af coastal storms and dampen tidal surges in estuaries Filling and
development of such areas not only destroys this effect but exposes
the resulting new structures to direct assault by wind and waves.

6. Mandatory Setbaks

A mandatory setba&k or "encroachment line'.' may be legally'imposed
to restrain all further development or fill within a specified distance
of a body of water. In Connecticut, encroachment lines have been
established'to protect,the 100 year floodplain of portions of the
Connecticut River and certain other streams (cf. Vartelas v. Water
Resources Comm. 153 A.2d 822, 1959). Its legal authority to
establish such limits extends to tidal waters but so far this tool
has not been applied to the Connecticut'coastal zone.

Great Lakes states are turning to mandatory setbacks as a
response to severe erosion occurring due to high lake levels.
Recession rates may be estimated (albeit crudely) by extrapolating
from erosion rates in the recent past. Michigan is proposing a
statewide setback for lakeside development equivalent to thirty years
of erosion (the average term of a mortgage). Illinois is considering
a 100 year erosion setback, a distance of possibly 200 feet along its
"North Shore" bluffs.

Mandatory setbacks are perhaps less useful along ocean
shorelines where beach and dune configurations are likely to shift
drastically. However, if used in conjunction with other tools
dedcribed above, the mandatory setback is a sensible response to obvious
coastal storm hazard. Thus,certain Rhode Island towns have adopted
their own setback regulations as a supplement to the state coastal
zone permit program. Glynn Countyin Georgia,has done the same. Some
states have combined minimum setbacks with other measures to protect
dunes, beaches, and shoreline features.

7. Development Moratoria in Coastal Areas

I
Most of the measures described above require extensive research
and.planning studies as a prerequisite to final implementation.
Accordingly, some states have adopted an interim period of control
through state legislation to be superseded by a final@plan. This
has been the case in Washington, California, New York (as to its
tidal wetlands) and Flordia. Considerable delay and expense to private
owners may ensue from moratorium controls which attempt to preserve the
status quo . Nevertheless courts are proving to be sympathetic with

B-10

well-expressed public objectives in such cases. The New Jersey
court in-Cappture Realty Corp. v. Borough of Elmwood Park,
313 A.2d 624, 1973, involving a moratorium pending construction of
a flood control @roject, stated:

The enactment of interim ordinances has been upheld'as a
recognized and logical addition to comprehensive municipal
planning during periods required to create or revise compre-
hensive zoning in plans . . .

Indeed it lb precisely because of the exigencies surrounding
the requirements for planning and adequate action by
municipalities that interim ordinances have been upheld.

In general, states are pursuing many avenues to cope better
with the challenge of coastal zone management. Courts seem generally
to uphold their efforts. It is vital that natural hazards-be
regarded as an integral factor and concern in the implementation
of these programs. Otherwise, coastal zone management may well be
in vain.

B-11

REFERENCES

.Babcock,, R. M., The Zoning Game. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1966.

Bosselman, Fred P., David Callies and John Banta, The Taking.Issue
A Study of the Constitutional Limits of Governmental Authority
to Regulate the Use of Privately Owned Land Without Paying
Compensation to the Owners. Washington: 'U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973.

Bridenbaugh, Carl, Cities in the Wilderness. New York: Capricorn
Books, 1964.

Federal Register. Jan. 9, 1975, p. 1687, Sec. 923.13 (7); Nov. 29,
1973, p. 33046, Sec. 920.13 (7).

Miller, H. Crane, The Ocean's Roach. New England River Basins
Commission, February, 1976.

B-12

C. "Modified Mercalli Intensity scale of 1931" (Abridged) from Harry
0. Wood and Prank-Neumann, in Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 21, No. 4. December,.1931.

The most commonly used earthquake intensity scale is the
modified Mercalli. This scale was developed to measure the effect of
an earthquake on people, structures, and the earth's surface, and is
calibrated to twelve degrees of severity; (I) denoting barely
perceptible effects, and (XII) signifying total destruction.

I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable
circumstances.

II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of
buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing.

III. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of
buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake.
Standing motorcars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing
truck. Duration estimated.

IV. During the day felt indoors by man, outdoors by few. At night
some awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors disturbed; walls make
creaking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building.
Standing motorcars rocked noticeably.

V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows,
etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster@ unstable objects
overturned. Disturbance of trees, poles, and other tall objects
sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.

VI. Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture
moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys.
Damage slight.

VII. Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good
design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary
structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures.,
Some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motorcars.

VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in
ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in
poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame
structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments,
walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small
amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motorcars
disturbed.

C-1

IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed
frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial
buildings , wtth partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.
Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken.

X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and
frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked.
Rails bent.* Landslides considerable from river banks and steep
slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over
banks.

XI. Few, if any (masonry), structures remain standing. Bridges
destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelinescompletely
out of service. Eatth slumps and land slips in soft ground.
Rails bent greatly.

XII. Damage total. Waves seen on ground surfaces. Lines of sight and
level distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air.

C-2

D. "Scenario of Hurricane Disaster in Miami, Florida," from Gilbert
F. White an@ J. Eugene Haas, Assessment of Research.on Natural
Hazards, 1975.

The threat posed by hurricanes at many points along the South
Atlantic and Gulf coasts is dramatized by an account of vulnerable
population and.property in dynamic interaction in Miami, Florida.
The following is a current judgment of the probable results of a
hurricane of a given strength striking a sector of,the Florida shore
where the parameters of occupance and adjustment are known. It
concentrates on threats to life and does not estimate total property
losses.

The meteorological catalyst is a large, slow-movi,ng, wet
hurricane making landfall south of Miami. Specifically, it is a
hurricane with a central pressure of 925 mbs and radius of maximum
winds of 15 miles. This is equivalent to Donna (1960), Carla (1961),
and Betsy (1965), and much less severe than the Keys storm of 1935,
which drowned 730 people in that relatively low density population
area. It passes just south of Key Biscayne and moves onshore at
15 mph at the new residential community of Saga Bay (see Figure D-1).

Under these conditions, the National Hurricane Center in
Coral Gables issues a warning for residents of Key Biscayne, Virginia
Key, and south Miami to evacuate. Such a warning is normally made
with at least 12 hours of daylight remaining before the predicted
landfall of the hurricane.

Key Biscayne and Virginia Key are about five miles off the
coast of-south Miami. Virginia Key is occupied by a sea aquarium,
the oceanographic laboratories of the University of Miami, and
research facilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Key Biscayne, a large residential community of
mostly wealthy residents, is attractive'for residential location
due to the close proximity of the water and its distance from
the more congested mainland. The elevations of these above mean
sea level range from two or three feet to about ten feet, with
an average of approximately five feet. Rickenbacker Causeway, a
two-mile bridge across Biscayne Bay bisected by a drawbridge,
connects Key Biscayne and Virginia Key with the mainland. At
best, it requires at least nine to ten hours to evacuate the
approximately 10,000 inhabitants.

A number of possible events could preclude successful
evacuation of the entire population. First, not all of the
12 hours of@warning are available for evacuation. As much as

D-1

Dade Exp
ressway@
.............
0
... ... (Extension of Florida Turnpike)

..... ..........

........... z

Palmetto Expressway

t3d

"4C4
194),

CI) X

M
-< .........
013
EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

z
M M

six hours prior to a slow-moving hurricane's landfall, storm
surge may cause tides to begin rising, thereby flooding some
low points on roadways used for evacuation, and bringing automobile
traffic to a halt. Even before the storm surge hits its peak at the
coast, traffic is snarled by a combination of congestion, weather,
flat tires, and automobile accidents. Residents of Key-Biscayne and
.Virginia Key must act swiftly to evacuate once the warning is
received in order to avert a major disaster; those not promptly
heeding the warning are trapped by the time the magnitude of the hur-
ricane becomes visibly apparent. Since a large proportion of
Florida's population has never witnessed a sever'e hurricane, a
warning response rate of less than 50% can be expected.

The drawbridge represents another weak link in th e escape
route. With the onset of a major storm, marine traffic through
the drawbridge increases as vessels seek the shelter of the Miami
River and other*havens northward. Commercial marine traffic is
normally heavy, and several times in past years, barges (which
are now pushed rather than pulled by tugboats) have jack-knifed
while passing through the raised bridge and jammed its mechanisms.
Rising winds and heavy seas contribute to the probability of such
an event. Even without such an accident, drawbridges periodically
fail and lock in the up position.

Severing of the causeway for any reason means large
fatalities from storm surge in the trapped population. Alternative
escape routes are severely limited by time and geography. No large
boat landings exist on either Key Biscayne or Virginia Key, so only
small craft can be utilized for an evacuation by sea., Only a
handful of people can be transported at a time, and organizing and
carrying out such an operation consumes such precious time. Moreover,
the danger to those in boats increases rapidly as the hurricane
approaches.

Evacuation by air is precluded by the lack of an airport
and the danger of utilizing helicopters in high winds. Vertical
evacuation into high-rise condominiums is an increasing possibility
with new construction, but is limited by space and the willingness
of owners to allow public access to their private property. (The
problem is analogous to that for private atomic bomb shelters during
the 1950s.) The five-@to ten-foot land elevations afford minimal
shelter from the wind-driven storm surge waves of 10-15 feet along
the right side of the hurricane.

Mainlanders also experience severe difficulties in their
attempts to evacuate. A storm surge six hours in advance of
the hurricane's center catches.many residents still preparing
to leave. Heavy rainfall and high winds also hamper evacuation
attempts.

Saga Bay is an excellent example of how the hurricane
disaster potential is exacerbated by coastal development. The
area is located south of Miami in the area.below Old Cutler Road

D-3

and above Black Point; it is anticipated to house a population of
approximately 100,000 to 150,000 initially. Feasibility of the
development was qnhanced by construction of the'West Dade
Expressway, which is connected to Saga Bay by the Old Cutler Road.
Elevation of the Saga Bay area varies from sea level to five feet
above mean sea level.

In order to meet Federal housing regulations, houses are
elevated five feet above mean sea level on fill dug from nearby
man-made lakes. The Saga Bay developers, however, also tore out
the mangroves along the coast, which are unsightly and ill-smelling.
These mangroves formerly provided one of the few effective barriers,
to storm surge, and the smooth, cleared beaches that are being built
invite the unrestrained sweep of storm surge across theentire area.
Storm surge accompanying a hurricane of magnitude postulated cannot
be deterred by the slight elevation of the houses

The evacuation route for Saga Bay residents is along Old
Cutler Road to the expressway and then north. While Old Cutler Road
generally has an elevation of five to ten feet above sea level, and
might not initially be affected by storm' surge, heavy rainfall swells
Black Creek beyond its banks and cuts the shortest route to the
expressway.

Travel north on Old Cutler Road carries evacuees to the
already overburdened and inadequate-Dixie Highway, and into the
congestion of evacuees from Key Biscayne, Virginia Key, and
Coral Gables at the intersection of the Rickenbacker Causeway, Dixie
Highway, and Interstate Highway 95. Regardless of the direction of
travel on Old Cutler Road, evacuees from Saga Bay encounter serious
congestion and slow-moving traffic as the capacity of the road is
exceeded and the weather deteriorates. Time runs out for many as they
find themselves trapped in their automobiles when the hurricane
hits.

'Reaching the West Dade Expressway does not mean safety, however,
and further obstacles must be overcome. The expressway connects with
the Florida-Turnpike, which is located west of most residential
development in the Miami area. It too becomes severely overburdened
as Miami residents evacuate. The Palmetto and the North-South (1-95)
Expressways have major tie-ups, as do all northbound streets, and
travel is induced westward to the turnpike extension.

The severity of traffic jams in Miami is made worse by the
interaction with two evacuation operations, those for boats, and
those for people by automobile. Slip lea.se agreements between boat owners
and the marinas normally stipulate that owners will evacuate their
boats when a hurricane:iwarning is received. At the time of evacuation,
these boats,are instructed to proceed to the mouth of the Miami River
to be.escorted up the river in flotillas. Other than the expressways,

D-4

all of the major north-south arteries in Miami cross the Miami River
and, therefore., have drawbridges. The use of flotillas is designed
to minimize the rais ing of bridges, but major automobile tie-ups
occur; once the flow 'of traffic is interrupted it takes considerable
time to return to normal.

In addition, the evacuation of boats poses a seri6us threat of
a catastrophe at sea. There are roughly 10,000 small craft registered
in Biscayne Bay, but only 1,000 of them can be accommodated up the
Miami River. When the river is full, boats are turned away to seek
another refuge. No other shelter is close at hand, however, and many
boats are caught in open water by the hurricane.

Flooding hampers evacuation operations, as well as severely
damaging property. Much flooding is caused by the South Florida Water
Control Conservation Project, which is a large network of canals con-
structed by the-Corps of.Engineers to prevent flooding of agricultural
land in south central Florida. These canals flow to the sea through
most residential communities in Dade and Broward Counties and, in fact,
,provide high-priced, waterfront sites. With the onset of storm surge,
however, their flow to the sea will be blocked and with heavy rainfall
they can be expected to flood both streets and property.

In sum, the total loss of life is high. A storm surge well in
advance of the hurricane's center catches many still preparing to
evacuate. Flooding of escape routes due to heavy rain exacerbates the
severe traffic tid-ups which are normally expected with a large number
of automobiles. (Rush hour traffic probably represents less than 25%
of the traffic which could be expected with a warning to evacuate, and
even this amount cannot be accommodated without major delays.) Warning
and evacuation as they now are planned and proceed are inadequate
responses to the posited threat.

D-5

E. "Barrier Islands Hurricane Adjustments!' and "Mainland Coasts
.Earthquake A@djustments," Sample outlines of possible adjustments
to regional n4tural hazard problems.

BARRIER ISLANDS HURRICANE ADJUSTMENTS

POSSIBLE
ADJUSTMENTS EFFECTIVENESS ACCEPTANCE POS.SIBLE ACTION

Harmful or Beneficial
Ineffective GOOD-7 Any future c onstruction of
protective structures should
1. Causes erosion 1. Prevents but some realization be part of a comprehensive
of beaches property by local officials and disaster mitigation program
PROTECTIVE damage and residents of environ- which should be formulated
STRUCTURES can save mental damage caused after consideration of a
lives by structures. wide range of alternatives' *
Due to their significant
2. Creates false also, local officials impact on beach aesthetics
sense of realize $ cost is and recreational
security prohibitive to local opportunities as well as
governments. their great cost ($1000/sq.
3. Encourages ft. or $5 mil./mile),
development in protective structures
hazard areas should be very carefully
studied before inclusion
4. Destroy@ in a hurricane protective
aesthetics and. program.
recreational
opportunities
of beach

1. Can create 1. Saves FAIR-- Minimum Building Standards
false sense structural for hurricane prone areas
of security damage, should be adopted by a
$ and' mostly new'efforts done State insurance agency.
FLOODPROOPING lives in connection with The cooperation of local
Flood Insurance Program. architects and builders
will be required for
2. Some poorly 2. Encourages previous efforts scattered implementation of the
done flood- wise land and token. Residents standards.
proofing use either ignorant of proper
attempts can practices methods or apathetic.
cause more in hazard
damage areas

3. Enforcement Governor should suspend unsafe
of new construction practices in
building codes hazard areas and by regu-
a problem-- lation place new standards-
many into effect-
vatiances
granted The enforcement of FIA
building requirements for
4. Not widely flood hazard areas should be
used in old carefully monitored to
residences ensure compliance.

1. May encourage 1. Those who FAIR TO GOOD- Assess the effects (social,
developemnt take most economic, as well as
of vulnerable risk will Complaints over restric- disaster prevention) of
areas bear more tions by developers and the Federal Flood Insurance
of cost some residents Program, on coastal
FLOOD burden- communities.
INSURANCE saves tax-
payers $ Investigate the possibility
of establishing a flood
2. Will increase 2. Requires Large support by elected insurance pool thus privately
N) cost@ slightly flood- officials, especially financing costs rather than
to meet proofing Gounty Judges and State accepting Federal subsidy..
standards of Senators
struc-
tures

1. Local emer- 1. Local NWS FAIR-- Require a comprehensive
gency plans very active State disaster plan to.in-
vague in in hur- most residents definitely clude separate section on
critical ricane aware of threat of hur- prevention and minimiza-
area of warning ricane,hazard, tion of injury and damage
evacuation prepared- due to hurricanes and
EMERGENCY ness however, many long-term other natural hazards.
PREPAREDNESS 2.. Plan more resident's have philosophy
reactive- of defying the storms, Require each local disaster
oriented than refusing to evacuate, agency (county or municipal)
preventive "taking it," etc. to incorporate preventive
measures into local plan
as-a condition for funds.

2. Local Give Governor power to
emergency order evacuation from
plans disaster-threatenad area.
usually
contain Funds should be provided
special for a full-time disaster
section on coordinator for all urban
hurricanes coastal communities and for
3. Local disas- each rural county.
ter coordi- Local officials should
nator unable clearly state evacuation
to devote policy and roles in
enough atten- Emergency Plan.
tion to
preparedness

1. No city or 1. Good im- GOOD- Gbvernors should control in-
state policy mediate gress and egress from a dis-
on reentry response Immediate period following aster area and should assume
into disaster and prior hurricane is one of co- this authority to reduce con-
area prepara- operation on part of fusion in the immediate post-
tion by citizens and officials. disaster period.
W RELIEF AND local Red
REHABILITATION Cross, Strong desire to move Amphibious vehicles should
Hospitals, quickly on making be required as part of every
C_- etc. repairs, cleaning up, etc. coastal disaster plan.
2. Lack of State Division of Emergency
Services or. similar agency
amphibious should help local govern-
equipment ments in acquisition of
such vehicles.
3. No long-term
recovery or To ensure beneficial long-
rehabilitation term recovery a model 90-
c_- program day post-disaster recovery
provided for in plan should be included-in'
Emergency Plan the Comprehensive State
Disaster Plan. An inter-
disciplinary team approach
(utilizing architects,

planners, economists,
sociologists, etc.) could
be used and local re-
construction agencies
could be formed using Title
VIII funds from the Federal
Disaster Relief Act of
1974.

1. Not used 1. Some @00R- State should identify areas
extensively attempt to particularly susceptible
in past. regulate Land use management is to subsidence, flood or
LAND USE traffic on politically sensitive other catastrophes and keep
MANAGEMENT beaches. subject land-use and construction of
structures under study.
2. Failure to 2. Control Some local officials The Governor shou-1d suspend
control of realize the need for unsafe land use controls
development. develop- wise management of and place new controls in
ment. land, but local effect.
economic pressures
often interfere. Enact and enforce dune
protection bills.

3. Zoning plans 3. Some at- Pass a workable disclosure..
rarely have tempt to act for natural hazards.
connection locate
withhur- parks,
ricane golf
damage courses,
prevention. etc. in
critical
environ-
mental
areas.

4. Purchasers of
land are
often not
aware of
the hazards
involved.

MAINLAND COAST EARTHQUAKE ADJUSTMENTS

POSSIBLE
ADJUSTMENTS EFFECTIVENESS ACCEPTANCE POSSIBLE ACTION

Harmful or BeneficiaZ
ineffective POOR- More research could be done
on both the techniques of
1. Scientifically 1. Would Issue is too technical reduction and on
unfeasible at probably and speculative. responsibility for "side-
present eliminate effects."
EARTHQUAKE large
REDUCTION events.

2. No defined
responsibility
for effects of
"small" trig-
gered quakes.

Ln 1. Can,be costly 1. Saves FAIR TO GOOD- Future construction should
when modify- lives incorporate minimum safety
ing existing and Opposition centers on in- standards which consider
structures. property creased building costs. possible earthquakes as a
damages. More widely accepted for criterion. These
EARTHQUAKE buildings which are oc- standards will require the
RESISTANT 2. Encourages cupied by public (e.g., cooperation of architects
CONSTRUCTION development schools or hospitals). and builders for
in hazardous implementation.
areas. Where building codes are
adopted the enforcement
3. May create may be weak.
false sense
of security.

4. Some difficulty
enforcing new
as well as old
codes.

1. At present, 1. Reduces POOR-- Need techniques for more
risk cannot lives lost clearly defining areas at
be suf- and Economic interests in land risk. Should provide
ficiently properties development leads to op- hazard disclosure to
ide@tified damaged by position except in areas prospective land purchasers,
LAND USE at a micro- allowing which have accepted land which may require passage
MANAGEMENT level to make only planning for other of a special bill.
this a certain purposes.
practicable types of,
adjustment. develop-
ment in
hazard
areas.

1. May en- 1. More POOR-- Investigate the reasons why
courage equitably adoption of this adjust-
development dis- Most homeowners have not ment has been slow. Possibly
of hazardous tributes purchased. generate a campaign to
areas. hazard insure public awareness
costs, Expensive for commercial of its availability.,
EARTHQUAKE i.e., and industrial buildings.
INSURANCE those who Investigate the effects
take most on other adjustments of
risk pay adopting insurance.
most.

2. To reduce
losses, in-
surance must
be combined
with other
adjustments
such as re-
sistant
construction.

I Become out- 1. May reduce GOOD- Require state and local plans
dated very number of to include specific sections
quickly and lives Many individuals have made on preparedness for earth-
require lost. some emergency provisions. quake disasters, and provide
constant for frequent revisions and
EKERGENCY revision. Most communities accept updating.
PREPAREDNESS help in emergency planning
2. Plans are 2. Many emer- activities. Provide funds for full-time
reactive gency disaster coordinator.
rather than plans con-
preventive tain
in nature. specific
sections
on earth-
quakes.

3. Requires
full-time
disaster
coordinator

1. May'increase 1. Provide GOOD- Should prepare well in
potential good advance, a recovery plan
losses over im- Most people receptive to to be used when disaster
time by re- mediate Government. relief activity. occurs. This could O-mploy
ducing in- response,. an i@ter-disciplinary
centive to approach and might utilize
RELIEF AND seek al- funds from Title VIII of
REHABILITATION ternative the Federal Disaster
adjustments. Relief Act of 1974.

2. Reactive vs.
preventive
although some
prior planning
required.

1. Not feasible 1. Could re- FAIR-- Further research needed
at present. duce both on prediction
number of Mixed feelings on techniques and on societal
EARTHQUAKE lives feasibility. response to predictions.
PREDICTION lost as
well as Some feel it will have
property a few negative
damaged. consequences.

2. Response
uncertain.

F. A Check-List of Possibly Relevant State Programs

A wide range of state regulations and incentives touch upon the management
of hazards in coastal areas. The following check list suggests the number and
diversity of those progr@ms. It is not intended to be coa@prehensive but it
does-indicate the variety.of measures that may affect an area's vulnerability
to extreme events.

1) State disaster civil defense programs. What is on the books,
how is it being used, what is the state doing in response to
PL93-288?

2) Land sales disclosure legislation. If-the state has such an
Act, does it include a provision for natural hazards? If not,
would it be helpful,to advocate one of narrow scope for coastal
hazards?

3) Local authorities. Do the local governments (especially
counties) have any substantial general authority over building
standards or land use? If so, O.K. If not, do they have any
special, narrowly focused powers of this sort that can be used
to cope with disasters? For example: '(a) flood plain regulatory
authority to the extent required to meet FIA requirements, or
(b) can general authority to "...protect health and safety...
of the population be used in the natural hazard situation?

4) Special insurance provisions. Does the state have any special
insurance pools or associations to cover high hazard situations
and if so, can these be used as a force in influencing coastal
development decisions?

5) Public works funding. What, if any, special public works
financing programs does the state have that might be useful in
coastal situations? For example, if beaches have a proven
history of public use, might state road or recreation funds be
used to counteract erosion?

6) Public awareness efforts. Are there accepted, in-place informa-
tion dissemination programs that could be utilized such as
agricultural extension service? Using them may be beneficial
in several ways: (a) they are apt to have an in-place,
operational network, (b) their credibility is often accepted,
and (c) often they are seekingnew areas of involvement.

7) Public utilities regulation. Does the state's Public: Utilities
Commission require (or permit as a tax deductible item)
electric and phone companies to disseminate select public
interest materials? These companies reach virtually every
household with billings, and can be quite helpful.

8) Highway programs. Does the Highway Department take account of
hazard vulnerability in laying out or improving roads in
hazardous areas?

F-1

Sewer and water-supply improvements. Is there a state agency
which approves plans for extensions of sewers and water supplies?
If so, does it consider what effect those extensions would have
on development in vulnerable areas?

GPO 913-152

F-2

@% i
III
7