options, such as bulkheads and similar vertical structures. Thus, these structures may be constructed completely outside of the federally regulated area (i.e., above the MHW line and, therefore, not in navigable waters, as well as outside “waters of the United States”) and still may meet a property owner’s desired outcome of protecting upland properties. Constructing a bulkhead above the MHW line may be quicker and easier than obtaining a permit for a vegetative solution developed in the nearshore waters because it potentially avoids the multiple layers of federal review. In this way, the regulatory framework affects choices and outcomes.

The permitting process is generally reactive—rather than proactive. While the USACE has a long-established partnership with the states with respect to oceanfront responses to erosion, this partnership is much less developed for sheltered coasts. For example, the USACE’s National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program (Section 227 Program) is a research effort to construct, administer, and evaluate innovative and nontraditional coastal shoreline protection structures. The USACE and the states cooperate in site selection, administration, and evaluation. Most of the twelve Section 227 Program sites are located on the open-ocean coastline, rather than sheltered coasts (see further discussion of the Section 227 Program in Chapter 3). Comparisons exist between public policy and perceptions regarding erosion responses on the oceanfront versus on sheltered shorelines. During the 1980s, many communities and states focused on the appropriate response to oceanfront erosion. Significant long-term commitment to beach nourishment, as opposed to structures that hardened the shoreline, such as bulkheads, seawalls and revetments, was the norm. In some states, such as South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, the permitting of these hard structures has now been prohibited on the oceanfront. Conversely, attention to the erosion issue on sheltered shorelines in the same states has yet to occur in any significant way, and hard structures are routinely permitted.

The comparative costs of the erosion mitigation alternatives are an important factor in the decision-making process. However, these considerations include more than simply comparative construction costs. Some innovative alternatives may have high associated transaction costs that include additional time for approval, as well as additional studies and permit requirements.

The impacts of the technology may be beneficial or adverse on adjacent upland properties and nearshore lands, waters, and associated living resources. Although a challenging exercise, internalization of these potential benefits and adverse impacts into the decision-making process can help create a more realistic and coherent evaluation of costs and benefits.