Gulf Coast Report Content

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) made it national policy to encourage and assist states to develop and implement coastal management programs. Most states had existing institutions for managing aspects of coastal activities, but the national effort was intended to advance these efforts into more cohesive, effective programs. The principal incentives to the states were grants for developing and implementing the programs and the federal consistency provision. These programs were expected to have a provision for "the protection of natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands . . . within the coastal zone". Among the requirements for a federally-approved program is "A planning process for assessing the effects of, and studying and evaluating ways to control, or lesson the impact of, shoreline erosion, and to restore areas adversely affected by such erosion".

The Water Resource Development Act of 1990 (WRDA) includes provisions (Section 309) that encourage coastal states to establish "beach front management programs" with specific provisions governing activities in eroding, protected, or renourished shorelines. The provisions covered 1) restriction of new development seaward of a 30-year erosion setback line, 2) restriction of new construction, or 50% reconstruction, of (hard) shoreline stabilization structures, 3) relocation of structures, and 4) public access to Federally funded beach projects. The main incentive is continued federal participation in beach stabilization and renourishment projects. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 provided for federally subsidized insurance for property in coastal and flood-prone areas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency adopts and enforces regulations that set conditions for eligibility, such as minimum elevations for structures construction standards to minimize flood and windstorm damage.

By 1998, all of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico - Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas - had coastal management plans in place. The purpose of this report is to characterize and intercompare the manner in which each Gulf of Mexico State treats problems arising from coastal erosion and regulates methods to mitigate such problems. Each state will be characterized through the integrated perception of the laws regulations, and written policies, and where applicable, specific agency and judicial decisions or actions. The characterization is intended to express a general philosophy for each state with respect to coastal erosion, and the anticipated long-range outcome of that philosophy in terms of management of its coastal zone. The principal focus will be on Gulf shorelines, though not to the exclusion of bayfront or estuarine coasts. None of the other myriad issues facing coastal zone management (CZM) will be addressed and no critical or judgmental elements will be presented or implied. The intent is to provide an informative and useful document for all parties interested in this subject.

While the federal coastal efforts have received considerable internal (OCZM, 79; OOCRM, 84-90) and external (Godschalk, 91; Lowry, 85) review and assessment, little work has been done to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of state coastal management programs (Knecht et al, 96), particularly in regards to shoreline erosion. The CZMA recognized that networking the existing agencies and their policies was a viable alternative to new legislation and/or a single, centralized agency. Fitch, 97 discussed some of the implications of these two organizational structures with respect to the Public Trust Doctrine, a legal concept of state sovereignty over communal resources that is central to the CZMA. While there is a tendency to dilute authority and allow information and stewardship gaps to develop under networked programs, Fitch draws no conclusions as to their efficacy over the "super agency" approach, and even points out advantages of more focused missions and improved public access when missions are fragmented. Born and Miller, 88 selected four states with programs representative of the networked approach for assessment. They concluded the networked approach could be effective, and may often be the more politically acceptable and pragmatic option.

Knecht et al, 97, presented a general assessment of the CZM Programs of all coastal states by comparing the perceived importance of, and the states’ performance with respect to, four "key coastal issues": protection of coastal resources, management of coastal development, reduction of losses due to coastal hazards, and improvement of public access. Academics and interest groups were asked to rank each goal in terms of its relative importance and assess their own state’s performance in attaining it. The Gulf was one of five national regions that were scored collectively. Unfortunately, Texas was not included. Several conclusions from that study are germane to shoreline erosion.

The four Gulf states collectively ranked hazard reduction as the most important issue, with management of development a close second; public access was ranked fourth, just behind resource protection. Public access received the highest performance score, development the lowest score. Only Louisiana was perceived to be doing "well or above" in protecting coastal resources, while Mississippi was seen as "below average" in that field. However, Mississippi received a "well" for public access. All four states were rated below average in managing coastal development.

Graber, 91, provides an overview of pertinent laws and regulations of all coastal states with respect to the specific restrictions of Section 309 of the WRDA of 1990. While noting a wide diversity of approaches, he avoids evaluating their effectiveness or administration. Most states were found to " . . . generally address most of the issues raised . . ." in Section 309, though only three, including Florida, had restrictions or provisions that met or exceeded those standards. Summarizing his results for the coastal states, with respect to the three provisions of Section 309 relevant to shoreline erosion:

TX - partially met, in some places exceeded; using the vegetation line as an absolute setback for all structures and development

TX - essentially met; prohibited within 200 ft of a public beach, no major repairs

TX - no explicit provision, but included by reference to other federal legislation

The preceding characterizations do not address the goal of this study in an obvious way. Management and regulation of the four key coastal issues is certainly made more problematic on an eroding shoreline, but there is no obvious correlation between "good" performance in one area and a specific response to the process of shoreline erosion. Meeting the restrictions called for under the WRDA may not be the optimal approach in all environments and for all of the policy objectives. A shoreline stabilization structure may be beneficial for hazard reduction (i.e., the Galveston seawall), but may encourage development. Restricting a hard structure to ensure public access to an eroding beach may sacrifice valuable resources (dunes and wetlands) to erosion.

A valuable source of data on historical beach nourishment in the US has been the world wide web site maintained by the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines (PSDS) at Duke University. It is the source for volumetric and fiscal calculations that follow.

In the broadest sense, there are really just three available responses to a continually eroding shoreline - retreat, accommodate, or defend. The first was man’s default choice for most of history because of limited technology, and is currently being reconsidered in the context of modern geological theories. Drawing a line in the sand has been accomplished in recent history, at least in the short term; the Netherlands being the classic example. The middle path, in one form or another is the more difficult compromise currently being attempted by all coastal states. It requires retreating in places, defending others for now, and keeping future options open. In that sense, this is a report of how the Gulf states are accommodating coastal erosion.

1) Whose yardstick? Should each state’s performance be compared to its own stated policy, or to a single, common measure?

2) What matters more - intentions or results? Process-related milestones (statutes enacted, regulations adopted) can be considered objectives, but their outcomes are the ultimate goals.

Knecht et al defined a common set of coastal objectives for all states, even though some of the objectives often conflict in practice. Graber compared all states to specific language in a federal statute. There is some justification for a similar approach here. Unlike some of the thornier coastal issues, there are no significant proponents for erosion per se and subsequent loss of property and habitat. Each state would like to at least halt, if not reverse it. But the benefits, impacts, costs, and risks of achieving that goal are a challenge to predict at any one site. Prioritizing those sites for funding, even within a state, is a difficult exercise, though the scheme suggested in Truitt, 98 offers at least a uniform basis for decision. Given the highly variable physical, social, and economic environments around the Gulf, a common desired outcome - comparable to the wetland community’s "no net loss" - is not likely to emerge.

Since historical erosion is the incentive to the policies under review, and future erosion dictates their outcome, erosion rates and trends could be a major report by itself. It is a paradigm of coastal engineering that data are scarce and expensive. This is beginning to yield to comprehensive geo-databases such as the Coastal Erosion Information System (Dolan et al, 85), so the third problem is becoming more tractable. However, coastal processes evolve cyclically and simultaneously at many different frequencies. Where data exist, their interpretation can vary, and often even reverse, depending upon the space and time frame selected for evaluation. (Dolan et al, 91). General erosion facts will be included in the physical characterization of each state, but a detailed erosion description and analysis is beyond the scope of this report.

The next problem is the attribution issue. For Knecht et al, this referred to the difficulty of separating the influence of networked agencies and programs with coastal jurisdiction, but the activities covered - protection, management, reduction and improvement - are all clearly attributable to man. In the context of coastal erosion, there is the added difficulty of identifying the anthropogenic influence in a complex physical process. Even if a definite erosion/accretion trend can be established from the data at one site, there is often debate among professionals in defining the physical causes; attributing the appropriate statutory influence is even more controversial. Since the focus of this study is characterization and not evaluation, the question of who or what is responsible is moot.

That leaves the determination of what to characterize. Effectiveness should be the only appropriate measure of a program, but that is difficult when the causes and effects are in question. Without quantifiable performance criteria, we must resort to perceptions of results, such as reported by Knecht et al. There’s also a fairness issue involved. In most cases, erosion processes are influenced, even dominated by global (sea level rise) and regional (basin-wide control of the Mississippi River) factors outside of a state’s regulatory control. A state may have a comprehensive, vigorously enforced, proactive program and still experience severe erosion. This leaves the intentions, as reflected in statutory policy, and efforts, as reflected by regulatory implementation as the primary metric in this report for objectively characterizing the treatment, philosophy, and anticipated outcome for each state.

Four sources of information were used in an integrated sense for this study: the applicable statutes, acts, and regulations (objective review), written and verbal responses from the lead implementation agency in each state (self-evaluation), interviews with selected academic/research sources in each state (subjective perceptions), and specific permitting decisions, judicial rulings, and other actions (evidence).

An overview is provided for each state, with a brief physical description of its Gulf coastline (bays and estuaries excluded), dominant erosional trends and effects, and the principal socioeconomic influences on coastal policy. The state coastal program will be described, including policies expressed in governing legislation, and implementation through regulations of lead agency. The structure of the program will be classified as either networked or centralized. A succinct statement of mission will be formulated in an attempt to capture the essence of its response philosophy. Whenever applicable, its overall approach will be categorized according to the three basic responses to coastal erosion - retreat, accommodate, or defend. Obviously, coastal management is too complex a peg to fit exactly these simple round or square holes; the labels will only refer to the predominance of one characterization over the others in each case.

The framework for the characterization of state policies and regulations will be based upon Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1983, who provide a set of criteria for assessing the implementation of a regulatory program. Three of their six criteria were judged to be applicable to the current study:

I - Mandates policy objectives that are clear and consistent; if multiple objectives potentially conflict, provides substantive criteria for resolution. (The CZMA has a potential built in conflict - it mandates coastal preservation and development. Since litigation is always an option, resolution refers to administrative procedures, such as declaring use priorities, or specific use restrictions, appeals processes, etc.)

II. Incorporates a sound theory identifying the principal factors and causal linkages affecting the policy objectives; defines the changes in target group behavior and other conditions required to meet those objectives.

III. Gives implementing agencies sufficient jurisdiction over the appropriate target groups, and other critical points of leverage, to potentially attain desired goals; structures the implementation process to maximize probability of success.

Three additional criteria suggested by Sabatier and Mazmanian were discarded because they required a judgmental assessment that would be highly subjective and/or political in nature. However, a fourth element that is particularly germane to coastal management, adequate observation, was added. An erosion response policy can’t be effectively implemented or evaluated without a monitoring program that allows identification of not only the response of the beach to human activities, but to the hydrodynamic forces that drives them (Marine Board, 95). Responses to erosion rely on projections of future trends (for example, extension of an annual rate to 30 years) or even more sophisticated erosion models. But erosion is an unsteady, episodic phenomenon. It is important to quantify both the cumulative and individual causes and effects when assessing the success of a particular tool.

IV. Monitors the physical forces that drive erosion, the human activities that impact and/or are impacted by erosion, and the shoreline’s response to their interaction at sufficient time and space scales to determine causes and effects and to evaluate the effectiveness of the management policy.

The policy assessments used available legislation, regulations, and when provided, written and verbal comments from state representatives. A generic version of the letter sent to each state and the addressees are found in Appendix A.

Table 1 - Summary of Gulf Sates Characterizations
Category	FL	AL	MS	LA	TX
Total Budget, $ (Oper/Grants)	48 M 4 M / 37 M	150 K 101 K / 49 K	NA	10 M	< 1M
Lead Agency	Dept. of Env’l. Protection	Dept. of Env’l. Management	Dept of Marine Resources	Dept. of Natural Resources	General Land Office
Approach	initially networked, becoming centralized	centralized	initially networked, becoming centralized	centralized	networked
IA - Clear Objectives	yes	no	no	yes	yes
IB - Resolution Criteria	hearings, petitions to adm. law court	permissible uses specified; variances, appeals allowed	hearings, prioritization provided	uses divided b/w state and local concern; hearings	local actions reviewed by state council for consistency
II-A Sound Theory	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
II-B Defines Desired Changes	yes	yes	no	yes	yes
III Jurisdiction Tools/Incentives	Considerable	Sufficient	Minimal	Considerable	Minimal
IV Monitoring Program	Response	Activities Response	Response	Activities Forces Response	Activ. (deleg) Forces Resp. (min’l)
Philosophy	Beaches don’t cost, they pay; hold the line	Protect beach development by protecting the beaches	Protect the wetlands with policy, maintain the beach with money	Restore the wetlands; regain control of the sediment	Ensure beach access; protect the dunes
Response	defend	accommodate, assist defense	accommodate	defend, then advance	allow defense, or force retreat

Florida’s Gulf beach extends for 600 miles of sandy barrier islands and mainland. (The lower 100 miles of mangrove swamps and grasslands , the Everglades, and the Florida Keys are not addressed in this study.) In 1981, about one quarter of Florida’s coastline was classified by the state as critically eroding (structures ultimately threatened); another 40 per cent was non-critically eroding. Ten years later, over one third of the state’s beaches were classified critically eroded or eroding. Tourism is the state’s leading industry, and tourist- related businesses and residential structures dominate both existing and new coastal development.

The Florida Coastal Management Act of 1978 networked many existing statutes and regulations. It resulted in the Florida Coastal Management Program, which was approved in 1981. The Beach and Shore Preservation Act (BSPA) of 1985 and the Coastal Zone Protection Act (CZPA) of 1985 address coastal activities and processes. Originally, the office of CZM was in the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), while the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administered the BSPA and CZPA . With the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1994, Florida combined DER and DNR under the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) which administers Parts I and II of the BSPA. The Department of Community Affairs administers Part III. Further consolidation with the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission into a Department of Conservation has been proposed (Fitch, 97).

IA - Objective(s): Take preventive measures on a continuing basis in order to reduce the harmful consequences of natural and manmade disasters or emergencies, and minimize the damage erosion causes to property and public welfare. Preserve and protect the state’s beaches from imprudent construction. Develop and administer a statewide, multi-year beach management plan, including restoration and renourishment of eroding beaches. Remove properties from the pool of developable acreage through acquisition.

IB - Resolution Criteria: Provisions are included for public hearings and judicial review. All affected persons have an opportunity to appear at public hearings and submit written comments prior to placement of the construction control line (CCL), which is based on predicted 100-year surge/flood elevations. Affected persons disagreeing with permit decisions can petition for a hearing before an administrative law judge. Rigid armoring structures can be permitted to protect major private structures vulnerable to storm damage. Local governments can approve placement of temporary, emergency armoring. Projects eligible for state funding are ranked according to prescribed criteria.

IIA - Causes and Factors: Imprudent coastal construction can be harmful to the beach-dune system and threatens their protective function, accelerate erosion, reduce protection to upland structures, endanger adjacent properties, or hinder with public access. Dredging inlets results in interruption of natural sand bypassing processes, causing erosion to downdrift shorelines.

IIB - Changes and Conditions: Preclude all major construction within 50 ft of the mean high water line or, where established, an erosion control line (ECL) based on projected 30-year shoreline, except piers, pipelines, and shore protection structures. (Single family dwellings are allowed if they are behind the primary dune and sited as far landward on the property as practical.) Regulate, through permits all construction, including shore protection structures, seaward of the CCL. Minor activities can be exempted. Set minimum state standards for local building codes in the coastal building zone. Develop local beach management plans, while encouraging regional approaches to reduce costs and maximize performance and efficiency. Mitigate adverse impacts from constructing jetties. Use beach-quality sand from maintenance dredging beach nourishment. Prohibit vehicles on dunes.

III - Jurisdictional Tools and Incentives: Establish jurisdiction for activities seaward of the ECL. Violations can result in fines up to $10,000 per day; indictment for first or second degree misdemeanor, and liability for damage to beaches and beach-dune systems, including animal, plant, or aquatic life. Withhold funds for bridges, causeways to barrier islands not already accessible. Require consistency with local plans fore sate expenditures on infrastructure. Provide ~ $30 M for beach preservation, restoration, and renourishment, and storm and hurricane protection. Shore protection structures are regulated but permissible. Coat sharing by local governments required - currently at 50 per cent, but can be reduced to as little as 25 per cent after demand for repairing damaged beaches and dunes is met.

Given the enormous investment in existing development (on the order of $150 B) and the skyrocketing value of Florida waterfront, it’s not surprising that its response tends toward defense. The beach is treated as the bulwark between the attacking water and the structures lined up behind the CCL. For most beach communities, one of the first non-emergency post hurricane activities is to scrape up the displaced sand and rebuild the dunes - for a very sound reason. Estimates of the direct state income produced by Florida’s beaches through sales and use taxes alone exceed ½ B $ in 1996, roughly 1 M $/mile/yr. In the last four decades, over 46 M yd of sand has been placed on Gulf beaches in Florida at an average cost (96 dollars) on the order of $10 K /mile/yr (PSDS). Beach nourishment is the method of choice, but hard structures are specifically allowed (after permitting) when ". . . private structures or public infrastructure is (sic) vulnerable to damage from frequent coastal storms." (FS Ch.161.085). In Florida, a beach is seen as infrastructure, no less so than a roads or sewer, whose maintenance costs are a public investment that is repaid through the revenue it generates, the protection it affords property, and the quality of life it provides citizens and visitors.

Alabama has the shortest coastline of the five Gulf state; 40 miles on three sandy barriers. Dauphin Island and Pleasure Island are separated by the entrance to Mobile Bay, one of the largest tidal inlets in the country. The western half of Perdido Key, from Perdido Pass to the Florida border is also in Alabama. The extensive bay and estuarine system account for an additional 450 miles of interior shoreline. This short stretch of coast has the dubious distinction of being either the landfall or on the dangerous, eastern side of landfall of some of the most destructive hurricanes in recent history: Camille, Frederic, Elena, Opal, and Georges. Perdido Key, Pleasure Island and the eastern half of Dauphin Island are moderately developed with a mix of single-family dwellings and condominiums. The western half of Dauphin island is nearly undeveloped. Ironically, most of the development came in the wake of Hurricane Frederic, spurred by low-interest rebuild loans and the national publicity that advertised the existence, beauty, and availability of Alabama’s "undiscovered" coastline.

Though the legislature classified 90 per cent of the Alabama Gulf shoreline as eroding in 1979, Pleasure Island, Perdido Key and the western half of Dauphin Island tend to recover fairly uniformly from the episodic erosional events, and have been relatively stable in recent years. The eastern portion of Dauphin Island experiences fluctuating cycles of erosion and accretion, controlled by the adjacent pass and its dynamic ebb tidal shoals, and to a lesser extent, maintenance dredging activities. The eastern tip is armored and protected by a groin field. (Douglass, 94). In 1986 660,000 cu yds of sand dredged from Perdido Pass was placed onto downdrift beaches. In 1989, The Corps of Engineers placed sand from maintenance dredging of Mobile Pass in an innovative "feeder berm" in shallow water offshore of Dauphin Island (McGehee et al, 94)

The Alabama Coastal Area Act of 1976 created the Alabama Coastal Area Board, who developed the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP). Alabama’s program received federal acceptance in 1979. The Alabama Environmental Management Act of 1982 created the Alabama Environmental Management Commission and established the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), which absorbed several commissions, agencies, programs and staffs that had been responsible for implementing environmental laws. The ADEM Mobile Field Office has the responsibility for implementing regulatory functions of the ACAMP.

IA - Objective(s): To protect, develop, and, where possible, restore the resources of the state’s coastal areas and to encourage the participation of state and local governments in the development of coastal area management programs.

IB - Resolution Criteria: Specific activities are permissible, including: some pile-supported structures; completion or maintenance of "grandfathered" structures, bulkheads, roads, and utilities; and agricultural uses. Variances can be granted when a requirement would be unduly restrictive or constitute a taking. Provisions are included for public notice, hearings, appeals.

IIA - Causes and Factors: The coastal area is vulnerable to increasing and competing demands due to population growth and development, transportation and navigation.

IIB - Changes and Conditions: Promote beneficial use and protection of the the coastal area. Encourage local (consistent) management plans. Regulate activities having a direct and significant impact in the coastal area, which extends from offshore to the continuous 10-ft elevation contour. Require applicants for new construction or substantial improvements to existing structures to consider alternative sites or designs to reduce or eliminate impacts, and mitigate for unavoidable impacts. Encourage the use of non-structural solutions to shore protection.

III - Jurisdictional Tools and Incentives: Establish ADEM jurisdiction to deny inappropriate uses in the coastal area. Require consistency from other federal, state and local agencies in this area. Require ADEM permit before issuing a certificate of occupancy for dwellings on properties intersected by the of a CCL, running variously from 5 to 40 ft landward of the primary dune line (or equivalent). Fines can range up to $25 K/day.

Forces - No specific program, but some contracted studies have included input forces.

Alabama’s short, moderately developed coastline logically warrants relatively less legislative attention and funding than that granted by its neighbor, Florida. Implementation is delegated to a field office in an agency with broader, statewide conservation mandates, but this need not be a hindrance to an effective program. In fact, being a specialized department somewhat removed from the capitol bureaucracy and politics can allow an efficient and focused team to flourish. With just 40 miles of coastline, personnel can easily monitor all activity and catch emerging erosional "hot spots." Aerial photos are run annually of the entire coast, and recently, the Field Office conducted site visits on every Gulf-front, multi-unit permit issued to verify, and where necessary, enforce compliance - a staggering task for a state like Florida.

In Alabama, private property extends to the mean high tide line; consequently, it is the property owner’s responsibility to accommodate erosion. The state’s role is to protect the sandy beach and primary dune as a storm buffer and recreational resource by enforcing a limited withdrawal to behind the CCL. When a multi-family project is proposed for a lot, numerical models are run to estimate the erosion potential of a 30 - 50 yr event, and habitable structures are positioned accordingly. Of course, the results of a model can change as new data/methods become available. For example, in eastern Dauphin Island, the CCL will likely be redrawn in response to Hurricane Georges; some undeveloped lots and some structures with major damage will become seaward of the new line, and will require a variance for any future construction. But the policy is far short of a full retreat, and local governments are urged to develop beach management plans and funding mechanisms. So far the state has not provided funds for beach nourishment, but ADEM is serving as a facilitator between the Corps of Engineers and the towns of Orange Beach and Gulf Shores to rebuild beaches eroded by Hurricane Georges with sand dredged from Perdido Pass. The state may not be in defense mode, but it’s willing to teach locals how to fight.

The 80 miles of shoreline that comprise the developed Mississippi Gulf Coast is unique among the Gulf states in that it fronts partially protected water: Mississippi Sound to the east, Chandeleur Sound to the west. The widely scattered barrier islands that form these sounds are far enough offshore that no bridges have been built, and they remain undeveloped. The mainland shoreline is still subject to erosion. US Highway 90 (the main coastal thoroughfare prior to the completion of Interstate 10) runs along the water for 26 miles in the center of the coastline. Since the early 1950's, over 10 M cu yd of sand have been placed on this section of beach, and the state gasoline tax includes a "Seawall Tax" used to fund this ongoing effort. Another 2 M cu yd have nourished beaches to the eastern and western sides of the state.

The key legislation is the Coastal Wetlands Protection Act of 1973. That regulates certain activities within or near coastal wetlands. The Mississippi Coastal Program (MCP) received federal approval in 1980. The provides for establishment of local special management areas, including beach access areas, with their own overriding provisions. The Mississippi program was originally highly networked among other state agencies and local governments, with a Bureau of Marine Resources within the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks taking the lead. Following the trend toward centralization, the Mississippi Legislature created the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) in 1994 as a separate governing agency to enhance, protect and conserve marine interests of the state. DMR’s management responsibilities include public trust wetlands, adjacent uplands and waterfront areas. They are charged with ". . .providing for the balanced commercial, recreational, educational and economic uses of these resources consistent with environmental concerns and social changes."

I - Objective(s): Preservation of the natural state of the coastal wetlands, except where a specific alteration would serve a higher public trust.

IB - Resolution Criteria: Permit decisions can be appealed in a public hearing before the Commission on Marine Resources (CMR). Any conflict between the CMR and the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality shall be resolved in favor of the latter.

IIA - Causes and Factors: Certain activities increase loss of wetlands and aquatic resources when conducted in coastal wetlands, including: dredging, excavating dumping, filling, killing vegetation, and erecting structures which materially effect the ebb and flow of the tide. Regulation of these activities will reduce or eliminate their impacts.

IIB - Changes and Conditions: File applications of permit for regulated activities, including environmental assessments.

III - Jurisdictional Tools and Incentives: DMR restricts development over coastal wetlands - submerged lands up to the mean high water. Shore protection is only permitted when there is a reasonable probability of effectiveness without increasing erosion at adjacent sites. Preference is given to non-structural shore protection. Violations are a misdemeanor; fines can range up to $1000/day. Numerous activities that could affect shoreline processes are exempted from regulation, but must still meet MCP permit guidelines: water-dependent industry, piers, maintenance of "grandfathered" bulkheads and roads. Specific areas are also exempted: industrial development on state-conveyed wetlands and wetlands within 5 ft of private property.

Activities - Bimonthly surveillance flights of the coast and ad-hoc inspections.

With its inaccessible barrier islands and limited private beachfront for development, it’s not surprising that Mississippi has a coastal program with only minor policy emphasis on erosion. It has the least restrictive permitting process of the Gulf states, and it exercises limited authority over the dry beach. Yet the total volume and expenditures on beach nourishment are second only to Florida’s. It has about 26 miles of nourished beachfront, and beaches periodically eroded by hurricanes are restored. Nearly 90 per cent of the funds are federal, but the state and local expenditures on beach nourishment per mile of coastline far exceed any of the other four states’ commitment. The choice may have been influenced by the location of the federal highway, but Mississippi’s response to erosion has clearly been defensive, regardless of a lack of an official policy to do so. With so much of its coast a well-maintained public beach, Mississippi’s one "well or above " rating for public access in the Knecht study is obviously justified.

Louisiana has two short stretches of recreational beach totaling less than 50 miles in length. Its total wetland coastline, in the sense of fractal geometry, is unmeasurably long, but has been estimated at 15,000 miles. The ecological significance of wetlands in providing habitat for living resources, natural water treatment, and recreation sites is universally accepted. The 9.5 million acres of marshes swamps, and bottomland designated the Louisiana Coastal Zone comprise 40 per cent of the continental US coastal/estuarine wetlands (Williams, et al, 97), making its fate of national interest. Its economic benefit to Louisiana as spawning and nursing grounds for the commercial and sport fishing industries alone exceeds $1 B/year.

Complicating the picture are two other economic heavyweights that need to share this coastal resource - the oil and gas industry, and the navigational interests of the Mississippi River. Balancing these competing demands within a finite space would be difficult enough; when that space is becoming more finite at a rate of 35 square mile per year, principally to erosion, the management decisions become urgent as well as critical.

The State and Local Coastal Resource Management Act (SLCRMA) of 1978 provided the framework to develop the Louisiana Coastal Resource Program, which was approved federally in 1980. The Louisiana Department of Natural resources (DNR) is the lead agency for regulating and permitting any activity affecting the Coastal Zone through a Coastal Use Permit procedure. Local governments with state-approved plans may be delegated the authority to process permits for some uses. In 1989, the legislature passed Act 6, which established the Office of Coastal Restoration and Management (OCRM) within DNR to administer the program through its Coastal Management Division (CMD) and Coastal Restoration Division (CRD). The main function of the CMD is the regulation of uses in the Louisiana coastal zone, especially those which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters, while the CRD manages coastal conservation and restoration projects.

A federal law that has played as large a role in Louisiana’s program as the CZMA

and WRDA is the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990. The "Breaux Act" act created a partnership between Louisiana and five federal agencies to fund a comprehensive, long-term wetlands restoration program. The combined state/federal funding commitment for projects currently initiated or in planning are estimated at $227 M over the next 20 years. This is in addition to the $54 M spent on beach nourishment (mostly at Grand Isle) in the last 40 years.

IA - Objective(s): Official policy of the SLCRMA is "To protect, develop, and where feasible restore and/or enhance the resources of the state’s coastal zone." The most recent policy objective can best be summed up in the motto on the OCRM web page: Save Louisiana Wetlands. The Breaux Act contains the more specific objectives of preventing the loss of coastal wetlands, and the restoration of wetlands already lost. It calls for development of a plan that achieves "no net loss of wetlands in the coastal areas of Louisiana as a result of development activities initiated subsequent to approval of the Conservation Plan." (OCRM 97)

IB - Resolution Criteria: Uses are divided between those of state concern and those of local concern, which can be regulated by local governments having an approved program. Exemptions from regulatory guidelines are allowed if the action would result in an involuntary taking, the use is water dependent, would result in significant public benefit or serve regional or state interests. Procedures for appeals and judicial review are outlined.

IIA - Causes and Factors: Activities ". . .within in the coastal zone which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters" that require permitting are enumerated in DNR regulations, including: levees, linear facilities (utility lines), dredge and fill, shoreline modification (shore protection, docks, jetties, breakwaters, etc.), surface alterations (industrial development, roads, etc.) and hydrologic/sediment transport modifications. Though not listed explicitly in policy, DNR publications (State of LA, 1997) identify the likely main culprits causing the erosion: local alteration of hydrology (subsidence, levees, access canals), the rest of the country (Mississippi River sediment lost because of navigation and flood control infrastructure), and the planet (global sea level rise).

IIB - Changes and Conditions: Guidelines are specified for each type of coastal use, and adverse impacts to be avoided when determining permitted uses are enumerated in DNR regulations. Preferences are expressed for non-structural shore protection, and surface alterations on barrier islands and beaches are discouraged. All uses are required to avoid to the maximum extent practicable sand loss, erosion, and subsidence.

III - Jurisdictional Tools and Incentives: The coastal zone subject to regulation is large, extending many miles inland and encompassing whole barrier islands. Ten categories of uses are excluded from permit requirements including activities within fast lands, on land above five ft MSL, maintenance of grandfathered structures, and agriculture, unless they are found to have an impact on coastal waters. Fines for violations range from $100 to $500, but DNR can also assess mitigation costs and administrative penalties based upon a specified formula.

Louisiana’s approach to regulation places fewer development restrictions on upland private property owners than some states. The bulk of the coastline is marsh and wetlands, and the focus of the program is on preservation of these low-lying areas for their habitats. There is relatively little beach-front development threatened by erosion, and the beach-as-damage-reduction model used in the other states is less applicable.

Wisely recognizing the limitations of regulations on affecting the principal causes of their erosion, Louisiana has embarked on a proactive effort, in partnership withe the federal government, to rebuild the lost wetlands. Approximately $44 M has been expended annually since 1990. Projects underway include diversion of sediment-laden water and dredged material into marshes, vegetating shorelines, and restoring barrier islands. The commitment for wetland restoration over the next 20 years exceeds the funds spent on beach restoration on the Florida Gulf coast in the previous 40 years.

The Texas Gulf coast stretches for 370 miles, mostly as sandy barrier islands. Nearly a quarter of the coast is national seashore or state park. While coastal tourism is not the economic powerhouse in Texas it is in Florida, it is credited with producing $6 B/yr in state revenue. The Texas coast has experienced significant growth and development in recent decades, with resultant damage to the dune complex. Roughly 60 per cent of the Gulf shoreline is eroding at rates varying from 1 to 50 ft per year (McKenna et al, 93). The $24 M of federal and state funding for beach nourishment in the last 20 years (PSDS 98) only exceed Alabama’s, and no state funds are planned for restoration projects.

The packing characteristics of the sand, and the wide, mildly sloping beaches have combined to create a condition unusual on other parts of the Gulf coast, though it can also be seen at Daytona Beach, FL: the beaches easily support automobile traffic. This seemingly minor and coincidental compatibility with tires has played as large a role in Texas coastal policy as any other single factor. Historically, Texans used their dry beaches as coastal roadways long before roads were paved further landward. The benefits of this public easement (perhaps combined with an "open range" attitude and an independent streak in the Texan character?) prompted passage of one of the earliest acts on coastal policy, the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) of 1959 (Nuckols, 98).

The TOBA guaranteed public access to the beach with an easement over the dry beach up to the vegetation line; the Dune Protection Act (DPA) of 1973 established state permitting authority up to these "dune protection lines." In 1991, Senate Bill 1053 expanded regulatory authority up to the greater of 1000 feet from the vegetation line or to the first public road running parallel to the beach for beach access purposes, and up to 1000 ft from mean high tide to protect critical dune areas; Senate Bill 1054 required similar protection for publicly-owned wetlands.

The Texas Coastal Management Program (TCMP) was one of the last state plan to be submitted to the federal government under the CZMA; Texas - as well as Georgia and Ohio - received federal approval in1998. The plan, based on the Coastal Coordination Act (CCA) of 1991, as amended in 1995, creates a networked program linking existing sate and local regulations. It identifies potentially adverse uses and activities and addresses them with uniform policies. The Texas General Land Office (TGLO) is the lead agency for implementing the program.

IA - Objective(s): To balance the benefits of compatible economic development and multiple use of, the benefits of protecting, preserving, restoring, and enhancing the diversity, quality, quantity, functions, and values contained in, the benefits from reduced loss of life and property provided by, and the benefits from public access to and enjoyment of, the coastal zone.

IB - Resolution Criteria: A TCMP goal is to coordinate local and state decisions by establishing clear objective policies that are, in effect, performance standards. Policy development and dispute resolution are the responsibility of the Coastal Coordination Council (CCC), composed of the heads of the state resource agencies and four gubernatorial appointees. If an action of a local government or state agency is referred to the CCC, and three or more CCC members accept it for review, a two-thirds vote by the CCC can find the agency inconsistent. In that case, the CCC issues findings and recommendations that, if defied, can be enforced through litigation.

IIA - Causes and Factors: The Texas coast faces the usual pressures from development and competition for resources. Ample state and federal regulatory exist for management of these resources, but they have been established to address single issues, and this fragmentation could hamper effectiveness and efficiency.

IIB - Changes and Conditions: Link the regulations, programs, and expertise of existing federal, state, and local entities to set uniform policies for addressing adverse effects. Twenty one enforceable policies are detailed. Those particularly related to coastal erosion include: development in critical areas; construction of waterfront facilities and other structures on submerged lands; dredging and dredged material disposal; construction in the beach dune system; and development of publicly-funded infrastructure on coastal barriers.

III - Jurisdictional Tools and Incentives: The TCMP defines a coastal zone extending from 10.3 miles offshore to a Coastal Facilities Designation Line - a boundary originally delineating the potential impact area of a coastal oil spill - some 20 to 40 miles inland. Within this coastal zone are the Coastal Natural Resource Areas, including (with respect to erosion processes) waters under tidal influence, submerged and wetlands, sea grass and tidal flat areas, oyster and hard substrate reefs, coastal barriers, the Gulf beaches, and critical dune areas, and critical erosion areas. Uses described above within or adjacent to these areas require permits.

Local governments implement the policies to manage impacts of coastal erosion, but the TOBA and DPA require their compliance with TGLO rules, which in turn must comply with the TCMP under the CCA. The CCC resolves any conflict between TGLO and a local government. The principal incentive for other state agencies to comply with TCMP policies are rule certification and referral threshold. If an agency (voluntarily) submits its rules to the CCC for review and they are found consistent with the TCMP, the CCC certificate of compliance comes with a carrot: self-established thresholds that limit additional review of their proposed actions. The corresponding stick is a "Notice of Program Deficiency"which would revoke a rule certification.

1. Erosion avoidance, remediation, and planning to preserve public access, use, and enjoyment.

6. Stricter Gulf shoreline building standards (no hard structures within 200 ft of the vegetation line) to reduce erosion-related access interference.

The Texas plan has some interesting dichotomies compared to the other states. It is very broad in scope. The geographic area of jurisdiction is huge, even extending out to the continental shelf in matters of federal consistency. The public Gulf beach starts where other state’s end - the mean high tide line - and stretches up to 1000 ft inland. The 21 categories of enforceable policies cover all significant activities that could impact the coastal zone. Hard erosion control structures are prohibited on the beach. An extensive network of instrumentation monitors physical process in real-time and disseminates the observations to the general public. A well coordinated information campaign engenders public support. On the other hand, there is no centralized state permitting process; local governments implement the policies. The rules do not explicitly prohibit a development anywhere on a Gulf beach or barrier island, prohibit unavoidable dune damage, or establish a coastal construction setback line. The TGLO can review applications and issue comments on consistency, but has no veto or even delaying authority. Even the oversight body, the CCC, requires a two-thirds vote to determine inconsistency, and when it does, its leverage for action appear limited - submit the local agency to more frequent review, or sue.

Coastal management in Texas has had a long, and sometimes tumultuous history. Its first six-year, $6M effort ended in 1981 when then-governor Clements declined to forward the final plan for federal approval. Interestingly, coastal erosion has been credited as the common foe that rallied environmentalists and developers behind the next generation of the plan (Curley, 90). Certainly, the additional time and debate devoted to the effort, coupled with the chance to observe and learn from other sates’ experiences, provided Texas an opportunity to develop the "state of the art" coastal management program. The final structure is loosely controlled, and allows room for both local and state political forces to maneuver for ultimate control of the direction of Texas policy. But its earliest act, TOBA, may turn out to be the most influential doctrine in coastal management since the concept of state ownership of submerged land (Titus, 98).

In most states, the public access issue centers on access across private property from public roads to the beach. When the focus rotates 90 degrees to a guaranteed access along the broad, flat Texas beaches, other coastal policies are inevitably affected. By guaranteeing that easement, any structure, bulkhead, revetment, or excavation is effectively prohibited on the beach, without recourse to a fixed construction control or projected erosion line. And since the boundary is a physical feature (the line of vegetation), the result is a "rolling easement" that follows an eroding, or for that matter an accreting shoreline. Fixed structures can be built prescribed distances landward of the easement (typically 200 ft, but this can vary by locality), but they are subject to forced removal if the vegetation line moves landward of the structure. An artificial beach is a viable, and passable, defense to erosion, but a hard structure blocking the beach is neither, even if it was permitted and built in advance of the erosion. Rather than prohibit construction in the dunes, the state exercises its right to unfettered access along the beach. The decision and the risk of development is put on the developer. If the shoreline is stable or accreting, the structure is physically and legally "safe." If the shoreline erodes, it is difficult for the owner to avoid the impacts of what amounts to trespass on the public easement. At North Padre Island, a development was permitted a "dry" sea wall with the stipulation that it maintain a 200 ft beach in front of it. Erosion eventually reduced the beach to below the permitted distance, and the community is now working to obtain renourishment sand from a nearby privately-funded inlet project.

For most of the Gulf Coast, erosion is as much a fact of life as corrosion, termites, or aging; so are the pressures of coastal population growth and development. Over the last few decades federal and state governments have struggled to develop appropriate responses, through policy and actions. This section is an attempt to extrapolate outcomes.

Defense is a strategy that is incorporated in every state to some degree. Protection or preservation is the stated policy for all of the states; restoration is added by Florida, Louisiana, and Alabama. The fiscal benefits of the coastal area as habitat, as protector, and as a revenue generator are typically stated within the legislation establishing defensive policies. With apologies to economists and the many authors of authoritative papers on the economics of beach nourishment, the following simple analysis is offered to demonstrate the appeal of this argument.

The data from PSDS have gaps that hamper calculation of temporal trends and averages: some dredging costs, volumes and/or lengths are missing, and it’s not obvious if placed volumes for projects with the same nominal beach locations were actually placed at the same location. Nevertheless, using data for sites that received repeated beach nourishment and are sufficiently documented, the long-term, annualized cost in1996 dollars of beach nourishment in the Gulf spans an order of magnitude, from less than $10 to near $100 per linear foot of beach per year. This range does not discriminate between important economic (federal or local fund source, navigation or storm and erosion control project, etc.) and physical factors (suitability of material, amount and location of placement, etc.). An equally crude estimate of the market value of the undeveloped Gulf coast real estate ranges from $1 K to over $10 K per linear foot. This does not include the structures or infrastructure behind the beach, or the revenue generated by the residents of or visitors to the properties. A one per cent per year maintenance cost is not trivial, but many typical purchases come with comparable expenses. The major variable, both interstate and for the future, is who will pay for this defense. Is the shore a habitat, a roadway, a barrier, or a back yard? The answer is yes, and the apportionment of its maintenance costs, where justified, will reflect a continuing balance between its roles in society.

One of the latest funding plans is contained in a bill submitted to the 105^th Congress, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1998. The rationale behind the bill is that mineral extraction on the continental shelf has unavoidable, and uncompensated impacts on the adjacent coastlines and that (federal) revenue derived from offshore leases should be shared with the states. Allocation is calculated by a formula based on each states relative coastline length, population, and proximity to lease tracts. Every Gulf state stands to win on at least one criterion: the total annual allocation under the latest version of the bill to the five states is over $632 M. Funds are intended for coastal, inland, and wildlife conservation; erosion response would only be a part, though likely a large part in Louisiana and Florida, of the budget.

Florida has initiated a well-funded program that utilizes state and local funds to maintain state beaches. The decision is justifiable on economic grounds, and there is no reason to anticipate a change in the short-term future. The state has drawn a control line in the sand, and though that is not the intent, at some communities it has become a defacto wall of buildings backing the beach. People pay a premium to look out of a building and see not just the sea, but up and down the beach. Setting a building even marginally landward of your neighbor’s impedes that view and lowers the value. As single-family homes evolve to multi-family buildings the wall begins to fill in, and the perception of a defensive line is enhanced.

The Alabama coast is not the international tourist destination that Florida’s is, but its enough of a national and regional attraction to encounter the same growth pressures as its neighbor. Even without a commitment of state funds for beach nourishment, the defense of a fixed control line will likely become the standard practice. The relative value of its coast to the state at large is much smaller than Florida’s, but the local and private motivations are strong and will probably be sufficient to provide funding and/or the political pressure to garner federal funds. Perdido Pass can be a regular supply of sand for Pleasure Island and Perdido Key if the necessary arrangements can be worked out with the federal government. A similar bypassing practice at Mobile Pass, as endorsed by Douglass, 94, would provide significant sediment nourishment to Dauphin Island.

There does not appear to be a motive for a large infusion of state funds to combat erosion. The central portion of Mississippi’s coast will continue to receive federal protection as needed for Highway 90. West Ship Island, part of a National Seashore and home of historic Fort Massachusetts, has been maintained more or less regularly for the last 25 years with state and federal funds. An interesting recent development is the advent of floating casinos along the coast. Certainly the tax revenue casinos generate indirectly augments the state and local funds available for restoration, and their tideland lease payments directly support protection and enhancement of marsh shorelines.

Louisiana has the most aggressive defense - an offense. Small and large scale strategies are laid out in the Coast 2050 Plan, which has three, eco-oriented goals: self maintenance through the natural, periodic flooding and draining that drives vertical marsh growth; a natural salinity gradient that promotes a resilient, diversified estuary; landforms and hydrology that permit the exchange of energy (organisms and nutrients) and materials (water and sediment). The strategies particularly related to combating erosion are using material from maintenance and dedicated dredging to build wetlands, bank and shoreline stabilization, repair of coastal ridges, and controlled discharge of pump outfalls.

Some large-scale projects are in planning or already started. The Big Island and Atchafalaya Sediment Delivery projects alone are expected to create more than 3,000 acres of wetland habitat over the next 20 years. Man-made deltas will emerge from flows diverted by siphons and locks. The Mississippi River mouth itself is being considered for relocation to a new outlet equipped with locks, to prevent the ejection of sediment into the deep Gulf. The Breaux Act assures significant resources, but not enough to accomplish all of the potential projects. It’s unlikely the existing funds can reverse, or even break even with a Gulf that has an appetite of two acres an hour. But other sources of funds are being sought, and Louisiana is taking the political lead in pushing the CRA.

The state that began coastal defense in this country nearly a century ago has the least defensive posture, both in policy and actions. The famous Galveston sea wall, if built today, could only be allowed through an exemption for government agencies, unless it was built behind the line of vegetation. The state policy on hard structures is prohibitive, and permissible, if unsupportive, of beach nourishment. The city of Galveston in fact rebuilt its beach in 1995 with a relatively modest 38 cu yd per ft of sand using state and local funding. All other beach nourishments in Texas have been federally funded. Fiscal realities in the 70's and 80's were consistent with this policy. A relatively small percentage of its coast was developed, and economic benefits of tourism are reduced when beach visitors are less likely to be from outside of Texas. Other states were dealing reactively with a cycle of development, erosion-related damage, and redevelopment at higher density. Texas claimed the beach as a highway, and made no guarantee where the curbs will be.

In the short term, the existing TCMP will tend to keep future development well back from the beach. The long-term prognosis for this policy is difficult to foretell; it depends in fact on the winner in a race between erosion and economic growth. If erosion moves quickly, the loss of low-density property or even a two-lane coastal road may be tolerated. Or, as at North Padre Island, market forces may be allowed to determine whether a beach is nourished or abandoned. If it proceeds so slowly that major infrastructure is established before it becomes threatened, and the potential revenue to the state from the development is many times the annual cost of shore protection, economics and politics will favor a state-sponsored nourishment plan. As illustration, the TGLO has submitted a Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan to the legislature (TGLO, 96). The plan identifies critical erosion areas, and makes recommendations for restoring them, including establishment of a state funding source for erosion response. One of the justifications is that erosion has overtaken some Gulf-front shore protection structures, leaving them on the beach as obstacles that inhibit access to beaches open to public use. With a new commissioner due for TGLO, the immediate future of the plan is uncertain, but the argument will remain.

This study was sponsored by the Coastal and Shoreline Erosion Subcommittee of the Gulf of Mexico Program. The assistance of the following state personnel is gratefully acknowledged: Ms. Anne Kiefert, Environmental Specialist, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Florida DEP; Mr. Brad Gane, Coastal Program Chief, ADEM; Mr Stephen Oivanki, Mississippi DMR; Ms. Diane Smith, Assistant Administrator and Mr. Steven Underwood, Geoscience Program Manager, Coastal Restoration Division, Louisiana DNR; and Mr. Tom Nuckols, Director, Coastal Division, TGLO. In addition, The following researchers have graciously provided input and comments to this study: Dr. Scott L. Douglass, Department of Civil Engineering, University of South Alabama; Dr. Robert Dolan, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; Dr. Robert Morton, Center for Coastal Geology, US Geological Survey.

Society’s relatively recent forays onto the coastline mimic man’s earliest experiences with the sea. It’s one thing to observe the ocean and recognize that it moves randomly up and down. It’s another to take a vessel into those waves, make it survive and still perform a useful function. Certainly the earliest flat-bottomed rafts that ventured out an inlet proved disastrous the first time the seas picked up. After centuries of refinement, we developed efficient, seaworthy craft that allowed us to navigate the ocean almost at will. Neither the early failures, nor the still-existing risk of sinking, or even our mounting threat to the ocean’s health, has convinced society to abandon the ocean. So too, we learned that the coastline moves. So too, our present technology and policies for coping will one day seem primitive. We will continue to learn when and where and how to interact with the shore, and when it’s best to stay in port.

Born, Stephen M and Miller, Allen H., "Assessing Networked Coastal Zone Management Programs," Coastal Management, 16:229-243, 1988.

Charlier, Roger H. and De Meyer, Christian P., "Coastal Erosion, Response and Management," Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany,1998.

Curly, Stephen, "Texas Coastal Plan: Analysis of a Failure," Coastal Management, 18: 1-14, 1990.

Dolan, Robert, Anders, F., and Kimball, S., "National Atlas of the United States of America: Coastal Erosion and Accretion, "USGS National Atlas, 1985.

Douglass, Scott L., "Beach Erosion and Deposition on Dauphin Island, Alabama, USA," Journal of Coastal Research, 10, 2: 306-328, Spring, 1994.

Dolan, Robert, Fenster, Michael, and Holme, Stuart, "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Erosion of the U.S. Shorelines," Proc. Fourth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Charleston, SC, Feb 27, 1991.

Fitch, Eric J., "Organizational Structure of State and Federal Coastal Zone Management: Impacts on Public Trust Doctrine," Proc. Tenth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology , St. Petersburg, FL, Jan 22, 1997.

Godschalk, David R., "Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program," The Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina, 1991.

Graber, Peter H. F., "Overview of Pertinent Laws and Regulations of All 30 Coastal States and Their Relationship to Section 309, Water Resource and Development Act of 1990," unpub. report subm. to Commander, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS November 11, 1991.

Knecht, Robert W., Cicin-Sain, Biliana, and Fisk, Gregory W., "Perceptions of the Performance of State Coastal Zone management Programs in the United States,"Coastal Management, 24: 141-164, 1996.

Knecht, Robert W., Cicin-Sain, Biliana, and Fisk, Gregory W., "Perceptions of the Performance of State Coastal Zone Management Programs in the United States. II. Regional and State Comparisons "Coastal Management, 25: 325-343, 1997.

Lowry, Kem, "Assessing the Implementation of Coastal Policy", Journal of the American Planning Association, 51: 3, 1985.

McGehee, D., Grogg, W., McKinney, J., and Hands, E.,1994, "Monitoring of Waves and Currents at the Dredged Disposal Mounds Offshore of Mobile, AL," Technical Report DRP-94-4, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Sept. 1994.

McKenna, Kimberly K., Davenport, Sally S., and Wadick, Ashley K., "Management of the Beach/Dune System in Texas," Proc. Sixth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology , St. Petersburg, FL, Feb. 10, 1993.

State of Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, "The 1997 Evaluation Report the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness of Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration Projects," Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA, 1997.

Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, "Beach Nourishment and Protection," National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1995.

Nuckols, Tom, "Texas Open Beaches Act and Federal Erosion Policy," pres. at American Shore and Beach Preservation Association 1998 Annual Conference, Galveston, TX, Oct. 4, 1998.

Office of Coastal Restoration and Management, "Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan," Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton rouge, LA, May, 1997.

Sabatier, Paul A. and Mazmanian, Daniel A., "Can Regulation Work? The Implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative," Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1983.

Titus, Jim, "Rising Seas, Coastal Erosion, and the Takings Clause: How to Save Wetlands and Beaches Without Hurting Property Owners," Maryland Law Review, 57, University of Virginia, 1998.

Truitt, Cliff, "Elements of a Conceptual Shoreline Erosion Classification Scheme," Coastal Technology Corp., Sarasota, Fl, 1998.

Williams, S. Jeffress, Stone, Gregory W., and Burruss, Ann E., "A Perspective on the Louisiana Wetlands Loss and Coastal Erosion Problem," Journal of Coastal Research, 13, 3: 593-594, Summer, 1997.

I am writing to request assistance in producing a report for the Coastal and Shoreline Erosion Subcommittee of the Gulf of Mexico Program. The title of the report and an abstract follows:

A report characterizing the manner in which each Gulf of Mexico State (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) treats problems arising from coastal erosion and regulates methods to mitigate such problems. The characterization considers the integrated meaning of pertinent laws, regulations, and written policies together with the application of such to specific permitting decisions, lawsuits, and other visible actions. It is intended to express a general philosophy for each state, which has : a) a basis in each State’s historical treatment and regulation of such problems, and b) an anticipated long-range outcome in terms of each State’s relation to the management of its coastal zone.

The framework for the characterization will be a set of criteria for implementation of a regulatory program, based upon Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1983, and examples of specific outcomes or actions that illustrate the important aspects of such a program. The criteria are attached, and contain some preliminary information (in italics) that I have already garnered. Responses are requested for the unanswered sections and as additions or corrections to my preliminary answers, as well as any other input or documents that you feel would be helpful in presenting a complete and accurate picture. I am scheduled to produce a draft report by 12 December, so a timely response would be appreciated greatly.

While some of the criteria are objective, and can be addressed directly through the appropriate legislation, statute, or published document, others are inherently subjective. My Scope of Work calls for me ". . . to meet at least once with pertinent management officials in each State . . ." , though a telephone interview may be sufficient, depending upon our mutual schedules and commitments. I will follow up this letter with a telephone call at on November, 1998 to see which option is more convenient. If you won’t be available at that time, I would appreciate your leaving an alternate time or point of contact with your secretary.

This effort and the resulting report will focus completely on characterization. No critical or judgmental elements will be present, nor will any be implied. My goal, as well as that of the Coastal and Shoreline Erosion Subcommittee, is simply to provide an informative and useful document for all parties interested in this subject. Thank you for your time and effort in helping me realize this objective.

Mr. Kirby Green, Secretary
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Blvd. M.S. 10
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

James W. Warr, Director
Department of Environmental Management
PO Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463

Mr. Sam Polles
Executive Director
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries And Parks
PO Box 451
Jackson, MS 39205

Jack C. Caldwell, Secretary
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 94396
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9396

Garry Mauro, Commissioner
Texas General Land Office
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701