[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
1175 CA HD 211 .13 M43 1975 0 Coastal Zone information Center OCT 27 1976 THE MEANS OF MANAGING LAND AND WATER RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL AREA PREPARED BY TRE ILLINOIS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STAFF NOVEMBER 25, 1975 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS PART TITLE PACE I THE COMPONENTS OF A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 3 II THE ILLINOIS CONTEXT 9 III EXISTING MEANS OF MANAGING LAND AND WATER RESOURCES 10 IV ALTERNATIVE STATE-LOCAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR MANAGEMENT IN THE ILLIN0IS COASTAL AREA 14 V CONCLUSION 23 114TRODUCTION Management is the key concept embodied in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for this Federal Act declares that it is the national policy to "pre- serve, protect, develop and where possible restore or enhance the Nation's coastal zone." This legislation provides a series of three annual grants to coastal states for the development of a management pro-ram designed to a- chieve the wise use of the coastal land and waLer resources. Following approval of the management program by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the participating states are eligible for funding for five years of actual program implementation. When the Federal planning grants became available in 1974, the State of Illinois established its own program. The Illinois Coastal Zone Manage- ment Program was established in the Department of Transportation, Division of Water Resources, and is in the second year of the three year planning period. in this second year, the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program will complete a number of significant tasks required by the Federal Act. They include: � Definition of the boundary of the coastal zone, which will delineate the limits of jurisdiction of the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program; � Identification of geographic areas of particular concern eligible for special State assistance; � Identification of "shorelands,the uses of which have direct and significant impact on coastal waters" ; � Development of guidelines.for priorities of permissible land and water uses in the coastal zone. In addition to accomplishing these tasks, the Program must satisfy certain requirements prior to Federal approval. The Program must assure: � Participation by interested agencies at all levels ; � Adequate consideration of land and water uses of regional concern, and of national interest in the siting of facilities; � That the State has the authorities necessary to implement the Program, to administer land and water use regulations, and to acquire property interests?. 2 The purpose of this paper is to present both an overview of the existing means of managing land and water resources along the Illinois coast and to present alternatives for an effective management system. The paper has four major parts. The first part examines the general concept of a management ;ystem. The second portion discusses the development of the Illinois Coastal 'd:'.one Maiiagement Program in the Illinois context. The third section provides an analysis of the existing means of managing land and water uses in Illinois, and identifies crucial management pro- blems. The final part examines the ingredients of an effective coastal resource managemenL system and presents several alternative structures to establish and maintain a full state-local partnership as the foundation of an effective management system. PART ONE THE COMPONENTS OF A MANAMENT SYSTEM The most important element of a managam-ant system is its problem-solving orientation. Therefore, a management system concerned with coastal land and water resources must be designed to address and solve identified coastal problems. To analyze the effectiveness of existing means of management and to eval- uate management alternatives, it is Daportant to clarify the concept of a management system. For a management system to address coastal problems, the following components must be integrated: 1. The resource management functions exercised by units of government 2. Tools for implementation and management 3. Identifiable sources of governmental power or authority 4. An organizational structure of the involved units of government The diagram on page four illustrates the relationship of the components of a management system. Please note the explanation of each component on the pages following the diagram. 3 CO',12ONENTS OF A MANAGEI@',ENT SYSTF-14 FOR TUE ILLINOIS PROBLEMS Organizational' Structure P ower s, Resource Manaaement! Management Tools Functions SOLUTIONS FESOLT,-,CE RANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS POWERS OF GOVEkNMENT 1. Management of commercial navigation 1. Proprietary powers 2. Commerci6l port development and management 2. Eminent domain 3. Inland surface watef resource management 3. Taxation, revenue and spending 4. Water supply and diversion of.water from 4. Police power Lake Micnigan 5. Interstate commerce 5. Water qualit' and liquid waste management 6. Home rule y 6. Air pollution control 7. Public trust 7. Energy researcn and development 3. Preservation of historic and cultural sites 9. Comprehensive land use planning and areawide MANAGEMENT TOOLS development programs -0. Land use regulation 1. Planning -1. Land transportation facilitics development 2. Property acquisition and disposition -2. Construction activity in the waters and 3. Facilities development and maintenance shoresi including erosion conbrol. 4. Finance of the above functions -3., Fisheries and wildlife management 5. Administrative programs providing -4. Open space and facilities development and ongoing services management 6. Technical and monetary assistance -5. Recreational harbor development and to others for their programs management 7. Research and monitoring 8. Regulation and enforcement 1. RESOURCE MNAGEMENT FUNCTIONS The following have been tentatively identified by the Program staff as fifteen discernible "resource management functions," or areas-of public activity which can be directed toward the resolution of coastal resource problems. A. Commercial Ports and Harbors 1. Management of commercial navigation (e.g. management of the Great Lakes, rivers, and shorelands for navigation purposes) 2. Commercial port development and management (e.g. commercial harbor development, improve- ment, and maintenance; management of dredge disposal and land impacts) B. Water Su221X and QualitV 3. inland surface water resource management (e.g. water conservation and development, drainage projects, watershed management, flood plain management, and flood control) 4. Water supply and diversion of water from Lake Michigan 5.. Water quality and liquid waste management (e.g. pollution and discharge control, manage- ment of water quality) C. Air Resources 6. Air pollution control D. Energy Resources 7. Energy research and development (e.g. water power development, energy conservation, energy facilities siting andregulation) E. Land Use 8. Preservation of historic and cultural sites 9. Comprehensive land use planning and areawide development programs 10. Land use regulation (e.g. zoning, subdivision control, soil erosion control ordinances, and innovative techniques) 11. Land transportation facilities development (e.g. roads and pleasure drives) F. Land/Water Interface 12. Construction activity in the waters and shores, including erosion control (e.g. structural and non-structural erosion control efforts; management of river and shore constructions such as beach replenishment, dredge and fill, piers, levees, dams, dikes and causeways) G. Recreational Resources 13. Fisheries and wildlife management (e.g. development and preservation of wildlife breeding areas and habitat; introduction of species) 14. Open space and facilities development and management 15. Recreational harbor development and management 2. MANAGEMENT TOOLS The following eight concepts have been tentatively identified by the Program staff as "management tools.11 Units of government are authorized by statute to employ these tools in various combinations to fulfill their functions and exercise their powers in the coastal area. 1. Planning 2. Property acquisition and disposition 3. Facilities development and maintenance 4. Finance of the above functions 5. Administrative programs providing ongoing services 6. Technical and monetary assistance to others for their programs 7. Research and monitoring 8. Regulation and enforcement 6 3. POWERS OF GOVERNMENT These powers have developed and are refined through an evolutionary process. Their sources lie in the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, in statutes, and in the interpretive action of the courts. 1. proprietary Powers The power of governments to acquire and dispose of property rights in land resources. 2. Eminent Domain The power of many units of government to con- demn property rights in land resources for public purposes, with the constitutional mandate that just compensation be paid to the owner. 3. Taxation and Revenue The power of government to tax, charge fees, or use other means to obtain revenue. 4. Police Power The inherent power of sovereign governments to exercise a number of regulatory programs to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. 5. Interstate Commerce The power of the national government to regulate interstate commerce. 6. Home Rule In Illinois, certain general purpose units of local government may exercise all the powers and perform any functions pertaining to its local government and affairs. 7. Public Trust The State of Illinois holds, maintains and protects the waters and bed of Lake Michigan in trust for the people of the State. 4. ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE The fourth component of a management system is its organizational structure (i.e. relationship among governmental entities). This structure also includes the mechanisms for public input into the process. This component is discussed in detail in the next two parts to this paper: "Existing Means of Managing Land and Water Resources" and "Alternative State-Local Organizational Structures for Management in the Illinois Coastal Area." 7 Management Questions In fulfilling its responsibilities, the Illinois Coastal Zone-Management Program must attswer a number of questions relating to the development of the management'program. Those questions pertaining specifically to means of managing land and water resources follow: 1. What are the principal problems in the coastal area? 2. What are the existing governmental jurisdictions and responsibilities in the coastal area? 3. What are the public coastal resource management powers ard their constitutional legislative and judicial derivations? 4. What resource management functions,techniques and procedures is each unit of government utilizing? 5. What are the deficiencies in existing organizational structures, intergovernmental relationships and jurisdictions? 6. What are the deficiencies in existing procedures, resource management functions, and programs? 7. What are the positive aspects of the existing organizational structures, procedures, intergovern- mental relationships and jurisdictions for solving problems in the coastal area? B. What are the necessary ingredients of an effective management system and what are the criteria that can be used to evaluate management alternatives? 9. What is the proper balance of State, regional and local participation in the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program? 10. What alternatives for State and local participation are available to the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program to institute an effective management system? 11. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative? 12. What services and benefits should the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program provide? 8 13. Will additional authorization or administrative rules'and regulations be necessary for implementation of the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program? 14. How should the public be involved in formulating and implementing a management system? PART TWO THE ILLINOIS CONTEXT Through a combination of public participation and technical assessments, the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program has identified a number of problems on the Illinois shoreline. These problems include shoreline erosion, increas- ing demand for land and water based recreational facilities, environmental and aesthetic degradation, the decline in commercial navigation and the adequacy of land resources to meet industrial, commercial and residential needs. Illinois' diverse sixty mile coastline is governed by a complex set of govern- mental jurisdictions. At the local level this includes fourteen shoreline municipalities, two counties and various special units of government such as local sanitary districts, park and port districts responsible for no less than twelve distinct management functions. In addition, Illinois has region- wide special purpose government authorities and agencies exercising no less than fourteen management functions by statute. Fifteen State agencies and commissions administer twenty-seven distinct and separate functions that impact the Lake and its shore.* This extremely complex set of governmental authorities managing Illinois' coastal land and water resources has generated a number of coordination problems. It needs to be emphasized that the State of Illinois is already substantially involved in management activities along the Lake Michigan shore, and the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program intends to direct its efforts toward coordinating and evaluating the present institu- tional arrangements and streamlining and simplifying the present overlapping resource management functions. *NOTE: This information was compiled by the legal consultant for the Illinois Coastal. Zone Management Program in his report "Present Management and Planning activities, Lake Michigan and its Shore: A Working Compendium." The specific management functions referred to are identified in this paper. 9 PART TRREE EXISTING MEANS OF MANAGING LAND AND 14ATER RESOURCES The purpose of Part Three is to present a set of resource management functions (described on pages five and six) relating to coastal activity and, through a pair of matrices, analyze these functions: first in their relationship to certain Federal, State, multi-state, regional and local units of government; and second to selected existing management problems in the coastal area. Chart #1 is a summary of existing management activities in the coastal area. Each box represents the "resource management functions" exercised by each unit of government. For example, next to #1, Management of commercial navi- gation, the chart shows the number of governmental entities currently undertaking ac tiV4ties in this area: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, and others., The numbers in the boxes refer to specific management tools employed by these agencies. For example, for "Management of commercial navigation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers apply tools #4, 6, and 7: finance, technical and monetary assistance, and research; while the U.S. Department of Commerce has the authority for regulation and enforcement;#8. Please note that Chart #1 is a preliminary draft, developed by the staff of the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program with the aid of the Program's planning and legal consultants, and information from State agencies. During the coming months, public officials will be encouraged to assist the staff in refining and correcting this chart Oiere necessary. An index of statutory authority compiled by the legal consultant to the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program was used as a data base for the following chart. See Appendix B for a reproduction of that index. 10 M ta M M 8 X -3 0 -1 q;I w '. 0 0 tjW N n 0 n -0 V 0. th 15 (5 0 a n m q3 0,M 1 -1 go0 go n Is -1n re c n 0 M Sr -0 9 A n ft IL a a w a va 0 sn 9 ag 00 -0 0 0 -0 Z 0 1; 0 1:6 q (D M 13 Iq 7, Ib > M M :. 0 :3 c- 0- 0 9L < 0 ID I CL M C. M V , 0 a M 0 0 M Ob 00 c H 0 no . i 2 " D. a. to 0 n 13 %410 lb A, CL .0 MC W Army Corps ot Engineers 0 0- 00 w o- Dept. of Commercel 00 00 Environmental Protection Age 0 2 Housing & Urban Development 01 3 LI Dept. of Interior 4 00 Dept. of Traneportation > GO %A Dept. of Conservation Business & Economic Developm 10 C a71 0.p;3 00 C. a > Environmental Protection Age -4 11 A Dept. of Locnl Government Af 0 C, Q. Q.9 i Dept. of Registration & Edoe 09 a z0 0 M > C, W a' Co Om zu C. IDept. of Transportation6 0 a n 14 a, Great Lakes Ba3inComicsi IlGreat Lakes Commission 0, 0 tiortneastern IIL. Planning C > > > > r7 Lake and Cook Counties Shoreline Municipalities > C. w 3horeline Par@ Districts Districts (H9D, NS Sanitary fort Districts & AuthoritiGa > Study of Chart #1 reveals the multitude of managing authorities in the coastal area and a key to many of the problems in their present efforts. Six prob- lems in the existing management structure emerge from this analysis. 1. jurisdictional and functional redundancy among units of_government - As many as twenty govern- mental units may be planning and/or implementing programs for a given resource management function in one location, causing severe duplication of efforts. 2. Dispersal and fragmentation of authority - Planning, capital improvements, service and regulatory powers for a resource management functions are often vested in several governmental units resulting in conflict of interest and programs,-and-confusion in administration. 3. Lack of coordinating mechanisms Often, varied units of governments at the local, regional, State, multi- state and.Federal levels address si@ilar functions, yet remain uninformed of the activities and interests of the activities and interests of one another. 4. Confusin procedures, practices, and reM!lations As a result of much of the fragmentation and/or rel- dundancy of public authority, an excessive number of regulations and procedures are promulgated that can be extremely time-consuming, duplicative and confusing. 5. Lack of adequate funding 6 Lack of adequate research and technological caRabilLty This problem occurs at all levels of government and can force decisions without adequate data collection and research. This management problem is particularly acute with regard to pollution abatement programs. In Chart #2 on page 13, each horizontal row of the chart represents a "resource management function" described in Part Two of this paper and used in Chart #1. Each vertical column represents an existing management problem in the coastal area. Where a row and a column intersect, and that intersection is dark, administration of the respective "resource management function" is affected by the respective problem. For example, the princIpal problems with air pollution (#6) are confusing procedures and regulations, inadequate funding, and inade- quate technology. Chart # 2, like Chart #1 is a preliminary draft, developed by the staff of the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program, and subject to refinement and corrections. 12 W CIj > ra 0 > C/3 m CO 0 PC m U 0 0 0 @q cf) :t- M F-4 (A 0 Mm En w tv > X r-j %D 00 0% > Cb -v 0 ftl n0 Ib C-3n v 03 0Ib m :3 :3 0 0 =3 I- M a. 0. E! (b " :3 9 V) rt :3 CA (n m CL m m(b 0) 0) H. 23 0 0 9 m C, er V 00 00 0 m OR (M 1-3F q 23 Cb ft 0 PI PI rt C -1 M 1< 0 m 0. ,0 " :) rt ;j -0 P- C "I V) m :r 23 .4 to El n rt 9 2, CL CO m n 0) m Ib m 0) m C PIC m w w M 0 n (A :3 m' 0 rr M r- :3w 010 C (M 0 :1 :3 0 nP- to r? r? a rt lb Ca 0 0 , W t- M Ib 0 0 0 0) 0 rT 1< 03m 10 0 Ib :3 C1. m m n P 0 t .1 00 C.I. P... rr U) 7r0 r? " 0 m :3 m ra M rt 3 m P- Qq rt rt < ra 0 Cr m 03 w z 0 v n 0' 0 rT t- rt rt 0 Ch n m < (D W. 0rt a C rv, 0 H (D (A @j w 0 rT m W. M M (D PI 0 0 Z w < 0ca "a M V rt -0 0. :3w S W CO 0 0 n Ib m 0 :C 0 C 00 co :1 :3 @3 to 0 m m 00 M r1p 0 a r, m r? m 0 A) 0 Jurisdictional N redundancy amo Dispersal and authority X INI 1011\11, \01 \\00 R \\N@ Lack of coordi X \M\ 2 xON11, N Confusing proc and regulation Lack of adequa M QU E x. 'N Lack of resear capabilities \\, WMA In the words of the legal consultant to the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program, we have not treated Lake Michigan -- perhaps the most critical natural resource in our State -- as public property entitled, even required, to be maintained for the benefit of its owners, the State of Illinois and the public ... Instead, we have treated the Lake as being subject to the control of every conceivable governmental authority and, therefore, truly within the control of none. It is the function of the public trust doctrine to provide this vital protection of the Lake Michigan resource. Certainly with each subdivision of governmental authority over the public resource there is a diffusion of the trust and thereby debasement of it. With the incredible array of management authorities now in competition on this most valuable local, state and national resource ... @problemsl ... will exist until the management authority is coordinated, either by vol- untary agreement of the parties or by the actions of the Illinois General Assembly. The following section examines alternative management frameworks which the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program can adopt and implement in the coastal area, so as to solve coastal resource problems and to alleviate problems with the existing institutional and management framework. PART FOUR ALTERNATIVE STATE-LOCAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR MANAGEMENT IN TliE ILLINOIS COASTAL AREA The Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program represents a significant opportunity to alleviate many of the institutional and jurisdictional problems discussed in Part Three. Two of the Program's essential tasks will be to: + Coordinate and focus the existing coastal manage- ment activities + Establish and maintain an effective partnership of State and local governments to solve shared problems. 14 In order to establish a viable management system, the Program must take advantage of the strengths of each level of government and secure its resources and expertise. For example, while State .and Federal agencies have substantial technical and financial resources, and can initiate comprehensive management efforts which respond to broad problems and the needs of a large constituency, regional and local management entities provide flexibility, responsiveness, and efficiency because of their proximity to both the user and to many of the problems. To be effective, a management system which joins State and local governments in a mutually beneficial partnership must satisfy a number of criteria. The following is a preliminary list of criteria, developed by the Program staff, which an effective management system mu6t satisfy. CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE ILLINOIS COASTAL AREA 1. LEGAL CRITERIA A. Fairness and reasonableness B. Consistency of application within a variety of circumstances and locales C. Technical defensibility and substantiation D. Comprehensiveness vis-a-vis uses and resources E.- Allowance for special conditions -- flexibility F. Access to an appellate process G. Distinction between regulatory and compensatory actions H. Procedural. fairness 1. Clear relationship to public welfare J. Adequate public involvement II. ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA A. Speed of implementation B. Efficiency and effectiveness versus duplication and expense C. Comprehensiveness of management and problem-solving activities: both promotional and reactive 15 D. Use of existing capabilities, initiatives and prerogatives at all levels E. Appropriateness of decisions for magnitudd and level of problems F. Strong relationship to policy and spending priorities G. Ease of enforcement and surveillance H. Flexibility with changing conditions in time I. Consistency of standards, requirements, procedures III.@ POPULAR SUPPORT CRITERIA A. Responsiveness to public needs and concerns B. Accountability and access of public review C. Comprehensibility to the user ALTERNATIVES According to the language of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for the Program to receive implementation funding from the Federal government, it must provide for one of the following: 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- cluding exceptions and variances thereto, proposed by any State or local authority or private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an opportunity for hearings. The staff of the Program has refined and expanded upon the language of the Act and its regulations, and has formulated five alternative structures for State and local participation. These alternatives will be the basis for review, refinement, guidance and input from citizens and from units of government at-the local, regional, State, and Federal levels. In order to 16 be successful, the Program must satisfy the needs of these many participants in the development of the Program. The following are the alternatives prepared by the Program staff: 1. Direct local control of all resource management 2. Direct State management of all resources 3. Direct State management of specific coastal resources 4. State and local partnership a. local implementation based on State criteria b. State review and approval of all decisions, projects and permits 5. State prescribes and participates in the local level decisional processes. The chart on the following pages offers a full description of each alternative with several examples, and a brief discussion of the alternatives' strengths and weaknesses. 17 ALTERNATIVES FOR STATE OR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRLJCTURES FOR M&&GEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL A-LOI.A. Alternatives Description Existin _iKL11_1k1_'t_S Strengths of Alternatives Weaknesses of Alternatives of Alternatives 1. Direct Local Local agencies have primary Local zoning and sub- + Decision-making retained at local + Inadequate financial or technical control of all responsibility and ultimate division control level reso.,,rces at local level resource manage- authority for management ordinances ment decisions + Flexibility in administration + Local units subject to intense seli interest pressures (e.g. economic, + Minimizes State bureaucracy political) + Ease of enforcement due to local + Does not satisfy Federal CZM Act surveillance requirements and thus Federal impl( available mentation funding noL + Inconsistent with existing State responsibilities under Public Trust Doctrine and Federal Law + Local units unable to address problems of greater than local concern 2. Direct State State agency has primary No known example for + Management established rapidly + Increased State bureaucracy management of responsibility and ultimate all resources, however: all resources in authority for management + Consistent application + State unaware of specific local coastal zone decisions Maine: Wetlands problems Protection Act, + Comprehensive analysis Site Location of + Politically untenable Development Act + Utilizes State financial and together encom- technical resources + Lengthy appeal process pass most coastal resources + Flexibility + Lack of experience with total State control alternative + State duplication ot local. fUnction + Adequate surveillance and enforce- 18 ment difficult from State level. NGERE-.' The above alternatives are initially considered by the -Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program 'to be inconsistent with the Program goal of a fuil State-Local partnership in management of the coastal resources in Illinois. ALTERNATIVES FOR StATE OR LOCAL ORGANIZATION&L STRUCTURES FOR MANAGEMENT OF IAND AND WATER RESOURCES IN TRE COASTAL AREA Alternatives Description Existing Examples Strengt s of Alternatives Weaknesses of Alternatives of Alternatives 3. Direct State manage- State agency has primary ment ot specific responsibility and ultimate coastal resources authcrity for management related to: of specific resources a) The Public Trust + Illinois Division of + Consistency of application + Traditionally has not been applied resources of Water Resources + Well-established Illinois consti- to landward area Lake Micnigan @@Itructure and fill tutional basis permit regulation + Favorable court decisions + Encourages regional approach + U.S. Steel landfill case 1975 b) Resource manage- + Illinois EP-A water + Consistency of standards and + Additional financial burdens "L-or ment mandated by discharge and air application State Federal law emmission permit regulation + Supported by existing State + Adequate surveillance and and Federal. statutes enforcement difficult from State + State and Federal level parks'and fisheries + State may assume Federal role management programs to insure State objectives + Time consuming State permit procedures + Financial and technical re- sources available at State level 19 ALTERNATIVES FOR STATE OR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR MANAGEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES IN THER COASTAL AREA Alternatives, DescEiption Existing Examples Strengths ot Alternatives Weaknesses of Alternatives of Alternatives 4. Local implementation State agency develops (These strengths are common to both (These weaknesses are common to bott based on State cri- overall plans, policies a and b) a and b) teria and performance priorities, criteria and review to ensure guidelines for resource + Comprehensive resource management + Varying degrees of local technical compliance. management. Local units competence and interest are responsible for + Responsibilities consistent with implementation through level of concern and capability + Substantial time needed to planning and regulation. of each level of government develop program The State monitors local implementation perfor- + Decision making retained at local. + Potential. local misinterpretation mance in one of the level of State policies and criteria following two techniques: + Flexibility for special conditions a) State reviews local + Illinois Flood Plain + Establishes State-Local consistency + Substantial time needed for review plans, ordinances and Management early in planning and implementation and ap proval procedures prior to process impiementation; + Michigan Shorelands Management + Enheances consistency between juris- dictions + Wisconsin Shoreland and Flood Plain + Minimizes State bureaucracy Protection b) State reviews all + Florida Critical + Ensures state-interest + Administrative burden on State local decisions Areas Program and pertaining to Developments of + Delays in permit approval projects, programs regional impact and permits in + Lack of experience %4ith tills method coastal zone, and may override local decisions 20 AL TERMATIVES FOR STATE OR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR MANAGEMENT OF 1AND AND WATER RESOURCES IN THE ClUkSTAL AREA Alternatives Description Existing Examples Strengths or Alternatives Weaknesses or Alternatives of Alternatives 5. State prescribes State has standing in local Illinois Pollution Control + Encourages effectiveness and equi- + Little experience in this area and participates heariggs and review. State Board, standard and tability ot planning and imple- in local level interests are incorporated. variance review hearin s mentation + Largely reactive rather than 9 decisional process during the local and re- anticipatory involvement gional planning process. + Provides for State notification of pending local actions + Requires much Stare time and staffing for review of issues + Increases access to technical information at the local level + Ad hoc basis may prevent analysis of problems of larger than local + Promotes greater diversity of concern problem assessment + Difficult to obtain consistency + Provides State legal standing in local heariags A few comments about these five alternatives are necessary: 1. The staff of the program has initially determined that alternatives #1 and #2, "total local control" and "total State management" are not feasible alternatives, as they either fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act or are not responsive to the needs and prerogatives of the governments presently operating in the coastal zone. .2. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 each have two essential components. First, each one involves full cooperation and coordination among units of govern- ment at all levels. Second, every alternative includes, of necessity, the full power and authority of the State of Illinois over the waters and bed of Lake Michigan, in trust for the people of the State. 3. The ultimate form of Coastal Zone Management in Illinois will likely be a combination of many of these alternatives. No one alternative is all- inclusive, and the relationship of State and local governments will vary according to the nature of the resources, and the specific problem-solving require- ments. 22 PART FIVE CONCLUSION In summary, it is apparent that there is a substantial need for a Coastal Zone Management Program in 1114-nois. There are significant problems in the existing means of management at all levels for which a State-level program can perform a crucial function in developing viable solutions. Lake Michigan and its shorelands are critical State resources and the State has, and should have, a central role in their management. The State role in the exercise of the fifteen identified "resource management functions" is extensive and often clearly predominant. In the near future, however, the most vital role which the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program can play is to consolidate the many existing resource management functions into an effective management system, and to establish and maintain a full partnership among units of government of all levels. To do so, the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program must find methods to alleviate the following problems of the existing means of management. + Jurisdictional and functional redundancy among units of government + Dispersal and fragmentation of authority + Lack of coordinating,mechanisms + Confusing procedures, practices and regulations + Lack of adequate funding + -Lack of adequate research and technological capabilities The Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program has the responsibility of ad- dressing problems in the Illinois coastal area of Lake Michigan. The Program ..can solve some problems directly, and in other cases the Program can assist existing units of government and supplement existing programs. Whatever the ultimate form of the Program, the following essential functions will be evident: + It will direct its management and spending services toward solving coastal problems; + It will coordinate and streamline procedures to promote an efficient problem-solving process; + It will provide technical, engineering, and financial assistance to citizens and to local units of government; + It will coordinate activity of all levels of government to assure an effective management structure; 23 + It wilLwork to assure the consistency of fedeLal actions with the State's CZM program. + It will establish and maintain a full State/locai partner- ship as the foundation of an effective management system. By undertaking these efforts, the Coastal Zone Management Program will create an effective management system ano a workable governmental partnership for .the Illinois coastal area. 24 APPENDIX A NOTES TO CHART #1 1U.S. Dept. of Commerce includes National Marine Fisneries Service and National Oceanic and Atmospher-ic Administration 2U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development includes the Flood Insurance Administration 3U.S. Dept. of Interior includes the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the U.S. Geologic Survey, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. 4U.S. Dept. of Transportation includes the Coast,Guard and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. 5Illinois Dept. of Registration and Education includes the Illinois Geologic Survey, the Illinois National. History Survey, and the Illinois Water Survey. 6Illinois Dept. ot Transportation includes the Division of Water Resources 7Units of government not included in the chart: U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Federal Energy Administration U.S. Federal Power Commission U.S. General Service Administration U.S. Veterans Administration U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Illinois Attorney General's Office Illinois Bureau of the Budget Illinois General Assembly Illinois Dept. of Agriculture Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality Illinois Pollution Control Board Federal Regional Council Illinois-Indiana Bi-State Commission Lake Michigan Shoreline Advisory Committee Townships Drainage Districts Surface Water Protection Districts River Conservancy Districts Soil Conservation Districts and Advisory Boards 25 APPENDIX B The following two indices were prepared by the Illinois Coastal Zone Manage- ment Program's legal consultant. The first index is a general index to sources of authority in Illinois, the second is a special index relating these sources oi authority by management function. Both indices were used as a data base in the preparation of this technical paper. 26 I 3 6668 14109 5846