Federal transportation policy and the coastal zone management program

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

DOT-RSPA-DPB-50/80/15

FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION
POLICY AND THE COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER

APRIL 1980
FINAL REPORT

UNDER CONTRACT: DQT-OS-70063

CZIC COLLECTION

Document is available to the U.S. public through
The National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HE Research & Special Programs Administration
206.2 Office of University Research
.R52 Washington, D.C. 20590
1980

NOTICE

This document is.disseminated under the
sponsorship of the Department of Trans-
portation in the interest of information
exchange. The United States Government
assumes no liability for its contents or
use thereof.

Technical Report Documentation page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No,
DOT/RSPA/DPB-50/80/15

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND THE Apri 1 1980
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author's) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Roger Richman
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Old Dominion University Research Foundation 11. Contract or Grant No.
P.O. Box 6369
Norfolk, VA 23508 DOT-OS-70063
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Report
Office of University Research 7/25/77 9/25/78
Research and Special Programs Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, DC 20590 DPB-50
is. Supplementary Holes

Monitor: Norman Cooper, P-23

16. Abstract-

The report identifies U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) agency
programs significantly affecting the landward coastal zone and coastal
waters. Operating Administration program planning and environmental
review procedures are described. An analysis of 21 state CZM program
documents is presented identifying common CZM management subjects and
coordination-implementation mechanisms. Two case studies of DOT agency
interactions with developing CZM programs are described emphasizing
transportation program roles in CZM and procedural processes employed
in field office-state interactions. Areas for policy innovation
between specific Operating Administration programs and CZM subjects
are identified, and a review of emerging concepts of Federal-state
relations under the Federal consistency requirement of the CZMA is
offered. Property Of CSC Library
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
property of CSC Library COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
17. Key Words CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413
Coastal Zone Management 18. Distribution statement
Multimodal Transportation Policy Document is available to the U.S. Public
Federal Consistency through the National Technical Information
Intergovernmental Relations Service, Sprinfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 205 + xix
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

APPlegmte COB"Fsi*u t6 MOUk Mass@," Aproximmits Com"Isioms ties MOUk 106494111441
Z
IvEbw Whom You 11sew Ualliply 61 To Fidd
Who voll KNW 016141Y 61 Ire hod synhol
LENGTH

LENGTH
Is
Peters 3.3 toot it
124 contiamoters cm
so" 30 "Winswe Got owlers 1.1 voids Vill
OA oil" of
vd wads 0.9 ROOM$
mi 1A kilametwo Z.
AREA
AREA
042 some contwomers 0.16 square Inch" im"
it? square inch" 6.5 agmire contim"Wo cff@
ma square moters 1.2 square Val" vo
10 square fast OAS Square malms 02 kw milmore hikinalord 0.4 Square mime 1012
vd, squats Verde 0.6 owwo Witter* 02 2 2.6 acm
Its beam" 11oamo

act" OA bec"res be
MASS (weight)
MASS 1weight)
0.036
0 erwm
as 8 as rams 9 4 be kilimprome 2.2 pouws lb
lb pillows 0.46 hilowerms he
dmt Was 0.8 suNW6 lamass 11000 kv) 1.1 filumn was
aM lb) a-
VOLUME VOLUME

UP laospoms ter ail ad milliliters 0.03 11.mid ammimit III all
Tbap blespooma 1: 1 liters 2.1 Pat&
if as fluid amm 30 milliliters ad I liters 1.06 guano
cum 0.24 il*Fs I I liters 0.26 gotten& goo
e I
0 pints 0.47 Store 1 03 cubic Roger$ 36 cubic lood
42 0.96 liters I ------ 03 CU66C Wawa 1.3 cubic war" 03
P1 gallons 3.6 liters I
cubic fast 0.03 Cubic wititers M3
Val cubic Verde 0.74 cubic sisters 03 TEMPERATURE (exact)
TEMPERATURE (exact) C
Celsius 9/6 Ithes Falwor"is
add 321 teirwatwo
fabrenbeit 6/9 letter Celsius.
Ift"Wou" oubu&" leawaturs
alt
32 Vas
2001
-40 0 120 140
ft ... ... j @0 4@0 . I a a . a . .
.,A 2.541temsCilyt, Far QVW iiiam:m caftvooio@ and itiuitiamiteded tablM aiii 06146b". P,01. 20. e T T 16
4 so so OC
st; Woom and Measures. lif" 62.4. 6D Cavalas ft& 03.10:211S.- 0 -to
sc

FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

COASTAL ZONE Roger Richman
INFORMATION CENTER Executive Summary

Background

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 set in motion a Federal
program providing financial assistance to states for developme-nt.,-of,,,,
their own coastal management programs. Now, 7 years after the,,,
initiation of that program by the Federal Office of Coastal
Management, most of the 34 eligible states and territories',have
established independent coastal management agencies and coa stal
zone management programs and are participating in the Federal
program.

State coastal zone management (CZM) programs raise certain
Jssues for the Department of Transportation (DOT) and may,g-lv-e---
direction to various emerging transportation policy orientations
(e.g., coastal waters management, coastal hazard egress pol3'-C-Y-,_____----
ports and the integration of surface transportation programs in
nonurban areas). State coastal zone management programs also
introduce some procedural requirements (permits and project
reviews) extending beyond existing environmental planning require-
ments.for Federal transportation projects. Most often these pro-
ceduralinnovations wil.1 not impose heavily on current practices
0 of DOT agencies, but they will offer challenges in some states.

Intergovernmental relations under CZM are likely to face new
demands in instances where Federal activities are controversial.
The Federal Consistency Regulations derived from Section 307 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act introduce a new, untested set of
rules into intergovernmental relations and into the decision,
processes of DOT agency field offices and headquarters offices.

State coastal programs have raised such issues as shorefront
Jc access, dune protection, surface runoff from coastal highways
traversing sensitive ecosystems,,port development needs, coastal,
hazards, and coastal waters management. Some of these issues may
influence the creation or modification of DOT policies and programs.

Purpose and Contents of the Study

This study is a policy exploration of potential interactions
between Federal and state CZM programs and DOT agency activities
which significantly affect the coastal zone. Chapter One reviews
DOT agency activities, cate'gorited by location in the landward
coastal zone or in coastal waters. Discussion of the former,
reviews the major grant-in-aid programs of the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal
1) Railroad Administration, and Urban Mass Transit Administration.
CZI-C COLLECMIMION

Transportation planning programs and environmental programs of
these agencies are reviewed at the state and metropolitan
planning levels. Examination of DOT activities in coastal waters
includes the major environmentally related programs of the U.S.
Coast Guard and., briefly, DOT responsibilities under the Deepwater
Ports Act. (Operations of the St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation are
not covered in this report.)

Chapter Two presents the findings of the content analyses of
21 state coastal *zone management' program documents, identifying
the major @Coastal management subjects relevant to DOT agencies.
In Chapter Three the Maryland and New Jersey CZM programs are
reviewed (1) to specify coastal program relevance for DOT agencies
and,,(,2--)-_to describe the record of interactions between Operating
Adi@inistra@ti6n field offices,,the SecReps offices, and the state
the program development process. These investi-
'a-tions have been designed to discover possible areas for sub-
:-g-
,i,:-�tantive int.-eractions between programs and policies of Operating
:,Administratio-ns and the Federal and various state coastal manage-
''._.ment programs.-' Findings on possible policy innovations are
-iiesc-r-ibed in:Chapter Four, as is a review of the procedural
"implications of the Federal Consistency Regulations derived
f-r6m__Spc.t-i_0n 307 of the CZMA.

Wdor, Find-:Cngs

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program and those state
coastal programs pursued under its sponsorship have not introduced
significant challenges to DOT agency program policies. Though
the Federal Consistency Regulations may ultimately define a
slightly modified formal network for the conduct of Federal-state
relations in the coastal zones, available evidence indicates that,
apart from extraordinary situations, state CZM agencies have little
interest in "taking on" Federal and state transportation agencies
by challenging their projects or procedures. Procedures initiated
in 1975 by the environmental-office in the Office of the Secretary,
directing DOT agencies to consider coastal zone management as part
of their normal environmental review and document preparation duties,
have been adequate to the demands made by state coastal management
agencies. The same procedures will probably be sufficient in the
future except for controversial projects when state CZM agencies
may attempt to utilize the Federal consistency element in the CZMA
to add a new dimension to the.project development negotiating game.
The possibility is not regarded as 'a serious problem and cannot be
anticipated before a real situation develops.

State coastal agencies and the'Federal Office of Coastal Zone
Management:are not actively pushing for new DOT policies and pro-
grams supporting their activities in the coastal zone. The find-
ings of this study do indicate, however, that the coastal manage-
ment programs raised the visibility of a number of issues which
appear fully in accord with DOT's overall national transporation
policy objectives and with emerging policy.orientations of the
Operating Administrations. These include policies which may
further the national transportation interests in increasing
access to coastal areas, in improving the public safety,

in environmental management, and in improving intergovernmental
cooperation in the delivery of Federal activities in substate
regional management contexts.

The following discussion divides DOT agency interactions with
CZM pro,grams into transportation activities in the landward coastal
zone and in coastal waters. This differentiation is valid in that
DOT currently doesmot have an internal organization structure
facilitating the coordination of its activities with regard t'o
coastal waters management. The consideration of such a reorgani-
zation is one'recommendation of this report.

Coastal Access in the Landward Coastal Zone,

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) all conduct major
grant-in-aid programs and direct activities which significantly
affect the coastal zone. The: emerging Surface Transportation
Administration (FHWA and UMTA) would.operate existing programs
which are especially relevant for the CZM programs. The following
CZM subjects may provide areas for policy innovation by FHWA,
UMTA, and the FRA.

Access to Public Beaches. The FHWA might consider adopting
a policy prioritizing the use,of Federal-Aid Highway Program funds
for purchasing public access to public beaches in'accord with OCZM's
program specified in Section 315(2) of the Coastal Zone Management
Act.

Shorefront Access. The FHWA might consider supporting develop-
ment of joint planning programs between state CZM'agencies and.
state transportation agencies on shorefront access. A specialized
substate regional access planning program might help state trans-
portation agencies to prioritize coastal access concerns. Coordina-
tion with the Federal Office of Coastal-Zone Management Regulat 'ions
implementing Section 305(b)(7) of the CZMA might be pursued using a
number of FHWA and UMTA grant-in-aid pxograms to provide increased
coastal access opportunities. The major current problem seems to
be the lack of prioritization for such projects given the existing
lineup of Federally assisted projects waiting funding. Headquarters,
policy directives to field offices to provide a basis for state
transportation agencies to prioritize coastal access projects
would seem necessary and warranted.

Coastal Hazards. FHWA might consider establishing a planning
process'for a s tate highway department'to inventory and prioritize
road system capacity restraints in populated coastal areas with
limited rapid egress routes, particularly barrier islands connected
by causeways, and populated lowlands with inadequate highway access.
UMTA might consider establishing a planning process for contingency
planning for the utilization of mass transportation vehicles under,
coastal hazard'conditions. An UMTA demonstration project involving
such contingency planning and training, and a simulation might be
warranted.

POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SELECTED DOT
OPERATING ELEMENTS AND SELECTED COASTAL MANAGEMENT-SUBJECTS

Landward
Transportation Agencies Coastal Waters Management
St. Lawr. Office of
CZM Seaway Deepwater
o
Subject FHWA UMTA FRA FAA USCG Commission Ports MTB

Shoreline/
Beach Access

Ports +

Urban Waterfronts

Coastal Hazards

Coastal Waters
Management

Geographic Are 'as
of Particular
Concern

Transportation
Vacility
Siting in CZ

Coastal Energy
Impact Program

DOT Agency Programs and State CZM Programs.address common subjects.

Potential areas for.specific policy innovations/Demonstration Projects bridging
program interfaces between U.S. DOT Agency activities and State CZM Programs.

Urban Waterfronts. FHWA might consider modifying existing
policies governing the implementation of Sections 137 and 217 of
the Federal-Aid Highway Program, Fringe and Corridor Parking
Facilities, and Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways,
to enable more effective.utilization of these programs in providing
access to urban waterfronts. UMTA might consider changes in its
:%.tatutes to allow mass transportation funds to be directly used
for providing access to urban and exurban waterfront recreation
sites. UMTA demonstration projects could address urban water-
front-access. Theuse,of ferries for access to currently
inaccessible sites might also be considered.

Ports. The FRA and FHWA sporadically fund projects improving
landward access to ports. The FRA has sponsored studies and
a project to improve intermodal transfer in terminals. FHWA?s
interest in port access is established in 23 U.S.C. 105(g), but the
application of tha:t authority to ports is relatively invisible.
The need is to establish a prioritization path for such projects.
It.may be desirable for FHWA, the FRA, and OST to consider the
development of a transportation planning and assistance program
for port authorities and municipalities. Such a program might
include integrated multimodal planning of highway, rail, and water
transportation;.facilities, and the modernization of intermodal
transfer facilities.

Coastal Waters Management

No single DOT entity deals with the national transportation
interests in coastal waters. The U.S. Coast Guard most nearly
fulfills the,role of the Federal transportation presence in coastal
waters management; however, its mandate is both too broad, given
its other responsibilities, and too narrow, in that.its mission
does not include the development of Federal assistance programs
to states to plan and develop water transportation systems and
terminals (e.g., ferries, ports, recreational boating access).
Neither.DOT nor any other Federal agency has defined a*mission
in coastal waters management that even approaches the continuing@,
coordinated, and comprehensive ground transportation programs.
operating in the landward coastal zone.

The CZM Program has served to focus.state interests in coastal
waters management, but state authority over coastal waters iis
severely limited. The existing alignment of responsibilities
between Federal and state agencies to manage activities in
coastal waters creates a situation where conflicts are bound to
surface. States have a growing interest in establishing liaisons
with Federal agencies creating or controlling environmental impacts
in coastal waters. Potential impacts which may be long lasting
and detrimental to local economies and lifestyles legitimate state
interests in-meaningful participation in the development of
Federal agency activities affecting their coastal waters.

The Coast Guard's responses to these initiatives might.assist
states in their review of selected Coast Guard activities which
may affect the coastal waters' environment or which may affect the
landward siting of major terminal facilities.

Conclusions

Coastal access topics addressed by state CZM agencies appear
to fit well within the defined mission of the Department of Trans-
portation and the statutory objectives of most of the major
Operating Administration grant-in-aid programs. The key issue
in the integration of DOT programs and coastal zone management
programs is the development of means for raising the visibility
of existing coastal access projects to state transportation
agencies expending Federal program funds. Operating Administra-
tions could assist state coastal management agencies in their
programs if headquarters! offices.would develop ways to prioritize
those coastal access projects which significantly represent the
national interest in the placement of transportation facilities.
Such projects concern public access to public beaches, shorefront
access, coastal hazard egress, port access (landward access), and
urban waterfront access. These projects warrant DOT prioritization
because they support the intent of the Coastal Zone Management Act
and, more particularly, because these subjects represent emerging
policy interests of the Operating Administrations. Prioritization
is necessary to emphasize coastal access concerns to state DOT's.

Coastal waters management issues raise challenges for DOT
because no singl*e operating element in the department has responsi-
bility for Federal transportation interests in coastal waters. This
study has found that states are increasingly concerned with coastal
waters management issues. The CZM Program may have stimulated
sufficient national interest for DOT to explore development of an
operating element combining Federal transportation interests in
coastal waters. Specificallyi DOT may ti*e together landward access,
marine transportation systems, intermodal transfers in public ports,
and perhaps the marine environmental programs now administered by
the Coast Guard, in a single operating administration.

Recommendations

1. The Federal Highway Administration and the Urban Mass Transpor-
tatfon' Administration should explore with the Federal Office of
Coastal Zone Management possibilities for bringing together specific
grant-in-aid program categories with specialized coastal zone manage-
ment subjects: coastal hazards, public access to public beaches,
urban waterfront access, and shorelands access as discussed in
Section 4.1.3 of this report.

2. The Office of the Secretary should explore options in
establishing an operating element charged with-Federal transporta-
tion interests in coastal waters.

9. The Coast Guard should consider enhancing the intergover'n-
mental functions of designated CZM staff in the field. Options
include training in state environmental regulatory processes and
Coast Guard listing of agency activities which are subject to
state reviews for Federal consistency under the CZMA. A uniform
policy on consistency would provide a basis for more positive
interactions between Coast Guard district offices and state CZM
agencies.

-Vi-

4. The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management should
consider urging state coastal agencies to decentralize selected
coastal management efforts to the urban regional level. This
decentralization would allow the Metropolitan Planning Organization
to integrate CZM activities with the grant-in-aid programs of the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.

5. DOT and OCZM should consider jointly sponsoring a
national conference on Federal transportation policy and the
Coastal Zone Management Program to explore areas for policy
innovation and a research and demonstration project agenda.

-Vii-

Credits and Acknowledgements

This research was sponsored by the Research and Special Programs
Administration, Office of University Research under contract
DOT-OS-70063 with Old Dominion University.

The preparation of this report involved the participation of the
following individuals: Ira Kuperstein and Wolfgang Pindur, faculty
colleagues; and Joan Sulek, Elizabeth Harper, Pamela Anderson, and
Kristin Klow, research assistants.

Dr. Kuperstein prepared the New Jersey Case Study and contributed
to the analysis of DOT agency activities in the coastal zone in Chapter
One. Dr. Pindur performed a compilation of coastal program statements on
DOT activities in the states' coastal zones.

The research assistants each made substantial contributions to the
study. Joan Sulek worked on organizing the research program in its first
year. Ms. Sulek developed the Research User's Directory and the initial
telephone network of state coastal zone agency personnel. She con-
tributed to the Maryland case study and developed materials on the federal
consistency regulations. Elizabeth Harper researched the Coast Guard's
activities in coastal waters, and developed materials on energy facility
siting in the coastal zone, and coastal access issues. Pam Anderson
provided an excellent survey of DOT programs and developed materials on
the programmatic activities of the FAA, FRA, and UMTA in the coastal
zone. Kristin Klow studied the role of ports and waterfronts in coastal
zone program documents and provided materials on these subjects. The
report owes much to the individual contributions of these excellent
researchers.

Judy Silver and the Old Dominion University Research Foundation
typed successive drafts of the manuscript. I thank them both for their
positive reactions to a harrowing experience.

Finally, my thanks to Leonard Ruchelman, Chairperson of the Institute
for Urban Studies and Public Administration at Old Dominion University
for his-support in providing released time for the completion of this
report.

-ix-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

CHAPTER ONE: FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS AFFECTING THE
COASTAL ZONE . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 The Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 DOT Programs in the Landward Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 Grant-in-aid Programs: The Federal Highway Administration 6
1.2.2 Grant-in-aid Programs: Urban Mass Transportation
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.3 Grant-in-aid Programs: Federal Railroad Administration .12
1.2.4 Grant-in-aid Programs: Federal Aviation Administration 14
1.2.5 State and Substate (Nonurban) Planning Requirements of the
Grant-in-aid Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.2.6 Urban Transportation Planning Programs . . . . . . . . . .. . 1.8
1.2.7 Environmental Review Procedures in the Grant-in-aid Programs .21
1.2.8 Direct Activities in the Landward Coastal Zone . . . .

1.3. DOT Programs Affecting the Management of Coastal Waters 30
1.3.1 U.S. Coast Guard Responsibilities in Coastal Waters 31,
1.3.2 Oil Spill Prevention and Response . . . . . . . . . . P . . . . . 32
1.3.3 Navigation and Safety in Coastal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.3.4 Coast Guard Licenses and Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.3.5 Deepwater Ports Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.3.6 Other Acts Affecting Coastal Waters' Management 41

CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONTENTS . . . . . . . . 43

2.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.1 An Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program . . . . . . 43
2.1.1 The Coastal Zone Management Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.1.2 Program bevelopment and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.1.3 Responsibilities of the Major Participants . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.2 Program Management Techniques . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.2.1 Controlling Development in the Coastal Zone: Regulatory
Management Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . so
2.2.2 Managing Development: Nonregulatory Management Subjects 54

2.3 Implementation Mechanisms in the Coastal Zone Management
Program Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.3.1 The Implementation Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.3.2 The Coordination Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.3.3 Direct Coordination-Implementation Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . 63
2.3.4 Indirect Coordination-Implementation Mechanisms . . . . . . . . 67

(continued)

-xi-

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED,

Page

2.4 Special CZM Management Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.4.1 Boundary Delineations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.4.2 Shoreline/Beach Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.4.3 Urban Waterfronts . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.4.4 Uses ofRegional Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.4.5 Port Development .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.4.6 Energy Facility Siting and the Coastal Energy Impact Program 81
2.4.7 Transportation Elements in State Coastal Zone Management
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 87

2.5 Summary Findings Concerning the Content of CZM Programs 99

CHAPTER THREE: TWO CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

3.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

3.1 Summaries of the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 103
3.1.1 Findings of the Maryland Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.1.2 Findings of the New Jersey Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

3.2 'The Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program Document . . . . . 112
3.2.1 Program Goals, Objectives, and Enforceable Policies . . . . . . 113
3.2.2 Coastal Land and Water Use Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.2.3 Organization and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.2.4 Intergovernmental Relationships and the Federal Consistency
Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.2.5 Transportation Provisions of the Program Document . . . . . . . 120

3_3 U.S. DOT Agency Involvement in the Maryland CZM Program . . . . 124
3.3.1 Federally Assist ed Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3.3.2 Direct Federal Activities . . ... . . - . . . . 133
3.3.3 Policy Issue: Consistency of Direct F;d;ra*l*Activitie; . . . . 143

3.4 The New Jersey Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
3.4.1 Chronological Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.4.2 Management Program Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.4.3 Interaction Between Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

CHAPTER FOUR: POLICY DIRECTIONS - INTERFACES BETWEEN DOT PROGRAMS AND
CZM PROGRAM CONTENTS . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 159

4.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

4.1 Program Interfaces Between DOT Agency Activities and CZM
Subjects . . . * ' ' * * ' * * * * ' * ' * * * * ' * * * 160
4.1.1 DOT Agencies and CZM Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.1.2 Coastal Access Concerns in State CZM Programs . . . . . . . . . 165
4.1.3 Policy Directions: Ground Transportation Pro-rams and CZM
Program Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 170

(continued)

-Xii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCLUDED

Page

4.1.4 Policy Directions: Coastal, Waters Management . . . . . . . . . . 179

4.2 Intergovernmental Relations under the Coastal Zone Management
Program . . . . . . . . . 182
4.2.1 A General Description of the Con;is'tency*R;vi:ew' Proc;s; 183
4.2.2., Structure of Intergovernmental Relations.under Assistance
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.2.3 Intergovernmental Relations Beyond the Federal Consistency
Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

-Xiii-

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I Components of the Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . 2

2 Summary of Coastal Management Subjects in Program Documents 49

3 Regulatory Management Subjects in CZM Program Documents . . .

4 Nonregulatory Management Subjects in Coastal Zone Management
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SS

5 Mechanisms Identified as Coordination-Implementation Devices
in Coastal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

6 Identification of Areas to be Controlled by State or
Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

7 U.S. DOT Agency Activities Categorized as Direct and
Assistance Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

.8 U.S. DOT Permits Identified for Federal Consistency Review
in'the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program 138

9 Potential Interactions Between Selected DOT Operating Elements
and Selected Coastal Management Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 163

10 Coastal Access Subjects Which May Be Pursued Through Existing
Surface Transportation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

11 Federal Consistency Matrix Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1 Key Intergovernmental Linkages for Federal Assistance
Activities and the Consistency Regulations . . . . . . . . . 190

-Xv-

CHAPTER ONE: FEDEPAL TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAMS AFFECTING THE COASTAL ZONE

The Department of Transportation

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is a confederation
of powerful agencies established to present a coordinated
federal role in transportation. The Department became oper-
ational in 1967 by combining existing federal transportation
agencies and adding several new ones. Today it includes
the ten agencies and offices identified in Table 1. Several
of these agencies, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the United
States Coast Guard (USCG), have independent histories and
well established state and national constituencies. They,
along with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the
Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), are
termed Operating Administrations ane are viewed as semi-
autonomous functional entitled jupported independently by
their own controlling statutes . Several Operating Adminis
trations (FHV,'A, FAA, UMTA) have decentralized field structures
with extensive ties to State transportation agencies; these
ties are important in shaping program interfaces with state
coastal management agencies. The Coast Guard also has decen-
tralized structure, but by the nature of its mission and history
is almost exclusively concerned with the conduct of'its own
direct activities with relatively little interaction with
state governments.

The activities of the Operating Administrations are
coordinated by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation
(OST), the Department's administrative and policy development
focal point. The Office of the Secretary of Transportation
defines common policy positions which are implemented by
the Operating Administrations through their individual Head-
quarters offices and their field structures. OST also
plays an important role in external relations, developing
and representing the Department's perspective on selected
policy issues to other federal agencies, to Congress, the
public, and through a field structure of its own (the Sec-
retarial Representatives' Offices) to each of the ten federal
regions around the country. The Secretarial Representatives'
(SecReps) positions are an attempt by OST to establish a
Departmental presence in the field in addition to the more
familiar individual modal agencies well known to State and

1
FHVVA and UMTA are moving toward a merger as the Surface
Transportation Administration. The Surface Administration
Assistance Act of 1978, presenting FHWA and UMTA programs
under a single fold, is evidence of this announced direction.

local administrators. Table 1 breaks clown the DOT into com
po,nent agencies and their major activities.

Table 1: COMPONENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Funding
Ties to
Administrative Primary Field State
Unit Designation Activities Structure Agencies.
Office of The Office DOTwide Secretarial
Secretary(OST) policy Representa- No
tives (FCG's)
CIPG's)
Agencies Operating in the LandwarJ Coastal Zone
Federal Highway Operating Grant-in-aid.
Administration Administra- programs Yes Yes
(FHWA) tion
Federal Avia- operating Grant-in-aid
tion Adminis- Administra- programs;; Yes Yes
tration (FAA) tion Direct.acti-
vities
Federal Operating Grant-in-aid
Railroad Administra- programs; Limited Yes
Administration tion Direct acti-
vities
(FRA)
Urban Mass Operating Grant-in-aid
Transportation Administra- programs; Limi.te-d Yes
Administration tion Demonstration
(UMTA) programs
National High- Operating Regulatory
way Traffic Administra- and direct No Limited
Safety tion activities
Administration
(NHTSA)
Materials Office Regulatory and
Transport a&iinistrative No No
Bureau (MTB)
Agencies AFfecting Management of Coastal Waters
U.S. Coast Operating Direct activi-
Guard (CG) Administra- ties; regula- Yes Limited
tion tory programs
St. Lawrence Operating Direct activi- No No
Seaway Administra- ties
Corporation tion
Office of Office Regulatory No No
Deepwater activities
Ports

The component agencies and offices of the.Department of
Transportation are categorized in Table 1 according to'their
major activities (e.'g. direct activities, assistance activities,
or regulatory activities) and the extent of funding ties to
State transportation agencies. In instances where federal
agencies do operate through decentralized field offices and
do fund State 'agencies, relationships with State coastal manage-
ment programs will be procedurally and substantially different
than in cases where federal programs are centrally administered.

The DOT agencies involved in the placement and operation
of transportation facilities in the landward coastal zone
include the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration,
the Federal Railroad Administration-, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, and the,Materials,Transport
Bureau. The first four agencies operate extensive grant-in-aid
programs to states and to local public agencies funding the
planning, development, and operation of major transportation
facilities. These agencies administer programs spending more
than $13 billion per year throughout the country. It is difficult
to accurately estimate federal transportation funds expended
within defined coastal zone boundaries, but Woodward's estimate
that 50% of the nation's population lives within fifty miles of
the sea,coast.2 suggests that a considerable portion of the total
expenditure probably finds its way into coastal zone areas.
DOT programs probably are the largest source of development
shaping federal investment affecting coastal areas.

Many of the major grant in-aid programs of the Operating
Administration have funded the establishment and operations of
State transportation agencies in the different modes (air,
highway, rail, mass transit) and increasingly the development
of State Departments of Transportation. Modeled on the federal
example, these State Departments integrate transportation
planning at the State level. These State counterpart agencies,
as well as localities and local regional transportation
entities, are enabled through the federal programs to act as
policy development centers' for their own transportation pro-
grams. Federal transportation funding is paced and oriented
to the projects initiated and prioritized by local and
State agencies so long as those agencies stay within the
mandates established by the DOT agency administering the
enabling statute. Thus, under grant-in-aid program practices
there is an existing extensive network of intergovernmental
relations predicated on federal funJing, subject to

2
J. M. Woodward, "Population Shifts Toward the Sea,"
quoted in Desig ing Coastal Management Agencies;_Problems
in Allocating Coastal Resources...by Warren, Moss, Bish, & Craine,
Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1972.

certain priorities and constraints and to local and State
initiatives suggested by the coastal zone management (CZM)
program. With respect to federal agencies which administer
grant-in-aid programs, the challenge to the CZM program is
to devise mechanisms for incorporating special [email protected]
within an existing intergovernmental-process.

The same Operating Administrations overseeing the major
federal assistance programs (FHWA, FAA, FRA, UMTA) also con-
duct direct activities, that is, operations in which they
spend federal funds to achieve specific program outputs with-
out passing implementation activities to another governmental
or private agency. In general, the indicated (Table 2) agencies'
direct activities are not conducted on a scale commensurate
with their assistance program activities. Yet their direct
activities may have significant effects upon a coastal zone
area. The Federal Highway Administration for example constructs
access and circulation roads to federal lands. Because such
road projects would not be constructed by a State Highway
Department the coastal agency would have to interact directly
with FHWA in its review process. Different procedures need
to be invoked when a coastal agency reviews the direct
activities of DOT agencies than when it reviews projects
funded through the grant-in-aid programs. The Federal Aviation
Administration, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration,
and the Federal Railroad Administration all have,such direct
programs requiring direct interactions with State coastal
management agencies.

The National Highway Safety Administration, though it
administers some grant-in-aid funds, operate,s primarily through
direct programs and through regulatory programs. The Materials
Transport Bureau predominantly sets and monitors federal regu-
lations relating to safety in pipeline operations and other
forms of materials transportation.

DOT agencies with programs affecting the management of
coastal waters include the U.S. Coast Guard, the St. Lawrence
Seaway Corporation, the Office of Deepwater Ports and to a
limited extent, the Materials Transport Bureau. Of these
agencies, the Coast Guard holds.by far the most extensive
mandate and carries the greatest potential for interaction
with State CZM programs. The Coast Guard has a relatively
minor grant-in-aid program transferring information on boating
safety, but this program aside, DOT agency activities in
coastal waters are essentially direct and. regulatory activities
implementing statutory mandates established by Congress.

Coastal management agencies have in their Program

Documents indicated considerable.interest in the Coast Guard's
activities in environmental management and in providing aids
to navigation in coastal waters. The Coast Guard has, since
the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), become
,increasingly involved in intergovernmental relations, prin-
cipally by establishing liaison relationshps to State CZM
programs and to other state environmental agencies. Particular
Coast Guard responsibilities of interest to State CZM agencies
include oil spill prevention and clearn-up procedures, hazardous
cargo inspection, discharges from recreational boating operations,
Coast-Guard:permits for the construction of bridges over
navigable waters, and agency responsibilities for controlling
navigation in enclosed waters.

The Office of Deepwater Ports is restricted in its oper-
ations to consider only offshore deepwater port proposals,
inshore ports are excluded from its purview. Only a very few
deepwater ports have been seriously proposed (Texas, Louisiana,
and much more speculatively, off Delaware Bay on the East
Coast and off southern California on the West Coast) and only
one is currently being developed. in Texas. The-activities of the
Office of Deepwater Ports and of the St. Lawrence Seaway
.Corporation (becuase it is an operating and existing facility
with quasi-public status complicated by international consi-
derations) are not reviewed in detail in this report.

1.2 DOT Programs in the Landward Coastal Zone

Federal transportation agencies exert enormous influence
on land and water development patterns and uses in the coastal
zone. This section describes the programmatic bases of
these impacts: the grant-in-aid programs funding the place-
ment of transportation facilities, the direct activities of DOT
agencies in the coastal zone, and the planning and environmental
review functions of DOT agencies. The discussion is segmented
in terms of the landward coastal zone and coastal waters
management, a functional demarcation not currently in DOT's
organization structure but one which becomes an increasingly
reasonable policy recommendation as evidenced by the analyses
in this report.

The following discussion reviews the major statutes and
regulations governing the activities of the federal trans-
portation agencies in the landward coastal zone. In particular,
programs of the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration.,
and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, which are
seen to affect the landward coastal zone significantly, are
reviewed. The major grant-in-aid programs of the Operating
Administrations are considered first; the discussion is then
divided into a review of the substantive programs themselves

and a review of their mandated planning elements (Sections
1.2.Sil 1.2.6) and,mandated environmental review-processes
(Section 1.2.7). These planning,anO environmental requirements
provide the working context for the interaction of State coastal
management programs with federally assisted transportation
projects,and so are crucial elements to an unders.tanding of
interactions between DOT and CZM.

1.2.1 Grant-in-aid Programs: The Federal Highway Administration

The Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) is a -series of inter-
related categorical programs that provide funding to State and
local governmental agencies for highways and highway related
transportation projects. The federal share of the cost of a
project varies by individual programs; most programs are funded
by 70 to 80 percent federal monies,

Operationally, the FAHP functions.as a reimbursement pro-
gram. State or local.funds are used to initiate a project, and
reimbursement is made upon the submission of progress vouchers
for costs incurred in accordance with the applicable laws and
regulations. Individual projects are iOentified yearly in a
State Federal Aid Program (FAP). In urbanized areas these pro-
jects also appear as first-year elements in five-year Transpor-
t4tion Improvement Programs (TIP) prepared by the regional
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The annual State FAP..
is prepared in accordance with the Federal-aid Highway Program
Manual., and individual projects are developed in accordance with
the State's Action Plan process, incluJing the preparation of
Environmental Assessment and/or Impact Statements.

The Federal-aid Highway Program contains procedures for
project development which can be used to ad.dress.coastal
concerns. Existing Federal-aid programs can be applied. to
traditional highway development activities in coastal areas
and new programs can be developed under a well established
congressional procedure to address situations unique to a
coastal setting.

There are over thirty individual program areas that
together comprise the Federal-aid Highway Program. Each of
these program-areas are separately authorized by legislation and
have stated purposes, eligible activities, special provisions,
and limitations. These programs address a broad range of
functional, geographic, and.operational areas. The discussion
below offers some brief comments on the identification of the
varous Federal-aid Systems.

The annual State Federal-aid Programs are the vehicles for
the expenditure of billions of dollars in Federal highway funds.
These programs are grouped within several -major categories or
types of projects, including:,.Interstate, Consolidated
Primary, Urban System, Rural Primary,' Rural Secondary, Safety
Programs, and Miscellaneous Programs.. These divisions are
used both for administrative and programmatic reasons. Some
of these same terms, Interstate, Primary, Secondary, and Urban,
are those which are used todescribe specific,systems of highways.
Following programmatic requirements, the States in conjunction
with MPO's and local agencies identify specific segments of
roadway that together form the 'aforementioned systems. Thus, in
each state there is, for example, a defined Urban System
consisting of particular, integrated, road segments (and a
Primary System, etc.). These systems have been the prime
recipients'of Federal-aid Highway funds. The newer FAHP1s'
have allowed for funds to be-spent on highways, and at locations,
that are not a direct part of a State defined Federal-aid system.
In general, however, a project is not eligible for funds unless
it is on one of the Federal-aid highway systems. The routes
selected by the@states and local government units are subject
to approval by the'federal government.

Within the Federal-aid Highway legislation and funded
through the above described programs are speci-fic elements
that can be used to assist CZM programs. The following'are
the principal sections of Title 23 United States Code under
"Highways" that have.the potential to assist in Coastal Zone
Management programs under existing authorizations.
Chapter 1, Federal-aid Highways--8ection 135, entitled,
"Traffic Operations Improvement Programs discusses projects
which can be approved for improvements on- any public road which
will directly facilitate and control traffic on any of the
federal-aid systems. Federal-aid highways in the coastal zone
can utilize this provision.

Section 137, "Fringe and Corridor Parking Facilities"
establishes provisions for the construction and operation of
parking facilities and their associated access and operational
elements. The parking facilities are to be located and designed
in conjunction with public transportation facilities; they should.
be located in urban areas and be realted to the Federal-aid
Urban System.

The.provisions of Section 137 apply to urban areas. Urban
coastal areas that can be served by park7and-ride operations
may utilize this section'. (Similar provision for roads

not on the Fede'ral-aid Urban Syatem are made in Section 142.)
Section 142 "Public Transportation," lists projects that
serve bus and other public transportation.passengers on all
Federal-aid systems which can be approved. These projects
can include parking facilities, bus passenger loading areas
and facilities (including shelters), traffic control devices,
and exclusive or preferential bus lanes.,

Provisions of this section are potentially applicable
to heavily populated, or visited, coastal areas--particularly
those located near urban centers. Recent coastal access
projects (demonstration, and those of the National Park
Service) have identified the potential for park-and-ride
.type services, especially for beach access.

Chapter 21, Other Highways--This chapter makes provisions
for projects and improvements on several categories of special
purpose highways, roads and transportation facilities. The
sections describing direct FHWA activities such as roads
constructed by FHWA, as identified in Section 1.2.8 below.

Section 217i "Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian
Walkways" describes eligible projects on all Federal-aid systems,
providing bidycle lanes or paths, pedestrian walkways and
their associated facilities (e.g., parking, shelter, traffic
control) in highway rights-of-way.

Given the recreational purposes of much of the travel to,
and within the coastal zone, this section is particularly rele-
vant to coastal access planning and CZM. Much of the potential
of Section 217 lies with the working definitions of the terms
Von or in conjunction with highway rights-of-wayl and 'located
and designed pursuant to an overall plan. I Within the coastal
zone, particularly near water edges, a system of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and that support and are integrated with,
rather than parallel or duplicate, automobile routes is needed.
Non-automotive access is indicated to points or areas of the CZ,
and these access facilities might be considered as part of the
Federal-aid system.

Section 219, "Safer Off-System Roads," provides for the
improvement of toll-free public roads that,are not on any
Federal-aid system. The improvements, including construction
and reconstruction, must be primarily justified on the basis
of safety. Roads in coastal areas that meet the functional
requirements of this section may tal@e advantage of this section.

Chapter 3, General Provisions--Section 319, "Landscaping

and Scenic Enhancement," establishes as part of the construction
of Federal-aid highways the costsof landscaping and roadside
development. A broad range of specific facilities and improve-
ments are permitted including rest and recreation areas and
improvements necessary to enhance, restore, or preserve the
scenic beauty of highways and areas adjacent to them.

Many highway projects in the coastal zone can utilize this
provision; in fact, in many locations the cost of these facilities
and scenic improvements can become a major portion of the
project if they can be shown to be 'reasonably necessary to
accommodate the traveling public.' The term 'reasonably.
necessary' can conceivably be defined as a function of the
nature, purpose, and location of the highway as a coastal zone..

.Additional Federal-aid highway programs that appear good
candidates for inclusion in a coastal zone oriented highway
implementation and operation plan are:

1. Carpool/Vanpool CPL 93-239, Section 3, Paragraph a,
Title 23, CFR Section 656). While these funds are not avail-
able for operating subsidies, they can be used to encourage
ride-sharing and the development of a ride-sharing system for
activities that may be uniquely applicable to the coastal
zones Ce.g., recreational trips).

2. Special Bridge Replacement,(PL 91-605, Section 204,
Title 23, U.S.C., Section 144, Title 23, CFR Part 650D)@-
Reimbursements are Drovided for the replacement of bridges
located on one of the Fdderal-aid highway systems.

3. Outdooe Advertising Control (PL 89-285, Section 101,
Title 23, U.S.C. Section 1313.7itle 42'.. U.S.C. Section.4651',
Title 23, CFR Sections 750.101 - 750.308). These programs
provide funds to assist in improving the visual environment
of highways in the Federal-aid'systems.

4. Emergency Relief (Title 23, U.S.C. Section 125 and
120(fll. This program may be accessed to restore or reconstruct
roads and bridges located in the Federal-aid systems when
extraordinary natural disasters cause major damage.

Whil-e it is quite likely that the existing major Federal-
aid Highway Programs-Interstate, Primary, and Secondary
Systems3_-will be utilized within coastal areas, a State may
conceivably initiate the process to.establish a new Fed6ral-aid

3
interstate CTitle 23, U.S,C,, Sections 101(b), 103(e),
l04('b)C5)_, and 120'Ccl.; Rural, Primary, Priority, Frimary,
Urban Extension CTitle 23, U,S,C' IG3(b), 135 and 147);

program specifically.designed to service coastal access issues.
That is, should local and State coastal and highway agencies
agree, federal approval may be granted for a comprehensive set
of highway projects and improvements prepared as part of a
coordinated coastal area highway plan.

I.Z.2@Grant-in-aid Programs: Urban Mass Transportation
Adminisf-r-a-t"i"'on

The Urban. Mass Transportation Administration CUMTA)
administers the extensive federal commitment to mass transpor-
tation. Federal assistance, to 80% of net project,cost is
available under grant-in-aid programs to qualifying public
agencies.s.erving urban areas and.private mass transit operators
receive funding through-contractual arrangements with the
designated public agency. Grants are available for planning,
design, engineering studies ' foir land acquisition and con-
struttion, and for system operations.

UMTA program objectives prioritize projects serving intra-
urban commuter services and services which increasethe
'Mobility of the relatively immobile. While@the primary objec-
tive is to provide efficient commuter service, projects may
have secondary objectives, e.g., providing recreational access
for large population groups. For example, buses purchased
under a commuter service program could be used to provide
accessto recrepLtional.facilities in off-peak hours; federal
assistance operating funds might be employed for such off-
peak service. A locality seeking to establish such a program
would first demonstrate the need for a commuter service which
would be the-real justification for the allocation of federal
funds. (Under current policy exclusive use of buses for coastal
access programs would probably not be supported by UMTA.)

UMTA grant-in-aid programs include Technical Study Grants
to local public agencies for ilanning mass transportation
systems Csee "Urban Transportation Planning," Section 1.2.6);
Discretionary Capital Improvement Grants to State and local
agencies for land.acquisition and for construction and modern-
of transit facilities; Formula Assistance Grants to
improve and continue mass transportation services; dnd'Capital

Urban CTitle 23, U.S.C., Sections 103(d)(1), 104(b)(6), 105(d))
T7TFa), 135, -13.7,.and 142. Title 23 CFR Parts 450i 470Bp -
473A, and 6SSA)- Secondary Road CTitle 23, U.S.C. Section 117
lf)** Public Land Highways CTifle 23, U.S.C. Section 209,'
s
ik. ew.ays aInd
Title 23,' CFRS Rart 66OCT; B Pedestrian Walkways
(PL.-93-87, Section .124b, Ti Z3P U.S.C., Section 217,
Title 23 CPR, Part 652) Economic Growth Center High a
CTitl.e 23t U.S.C., Section 143, Twit =.e3, CFR, Section 490A);
Off@ st'e'm Ro'a:ds (Title 23, U.S.LC., Sections 219, and 101(e)..

and Operating Assistance Grants to nonurban areas. Additional
funding for mass transit, apart from the above programs, is
available through the Federal Aid Highway Act of. 1973, As
amended, establishing the Federal-aid Urban System (FAUS)
and Interstate Highway Transfers programs. These highway
programs are briefly described in the previous section.

Basic UMTA grant-in-aid. programs include the Capital
Improvement.Grant and Loan Program, as amended in the Surface
Transportation Act of 1978, Section 30-2;.and the Capital and
Operating Assistance Formula Grant program. The first program
assists State and local governments and their agencies in
funancing.mass transit system equipment,,construction,or reno-
vation, and land acquisition. Funding is provided 'for the
construction of new fixed guideway systems and for the intro-
duction into public transportation of new technology and
which will improve interfaces with other modes such as walkways,
open space, facilities and equipment for intermodal transfer,
and transit malls (see 90 U.S.C. 1602 as amended).

Capita-1 and Operating Assistance Formula Grants provide
additional assistance to public.transit operators. Funds for
financing capital outlays (e.g *, buses, ferries) and operating
expenses are allocated on a formula basis which takes into
consideration population and density factors. The grants can
provide up to 50% of operating expenses 'incurred in providing
transit services, and up to 80% of the cost of capital projects
(49 U.S.C. 1604).

Another grant-in-aid program provides funding to States for
mass transportation projects in nonurban areas, that is, areas
with populations below 50,000 (49 U.S.t. 1603) (c)). The Surface
.Transportation Assistance Act (1978) authorizes funds to non-
urban areas for operating assistance These grants are allo-
cated on a formula basis.to States wLch are then responsible.
for allottit 11 cities. The funds
I _g funds to rural areas 'or sma
are allotted to the States since small urban areas;do not have
the resources to reform the necessary technical sutdies.
These grants are used primarily for purchasing buses, shelters
and special equipment needs; the program might,mell be'suitable
for certain mass transit projects in non-urban coastal zone areas.

Proposed capital projects are measured against UMTA objectives
and are given a priority rating. UMTA's immediate objectives
(i.e., the alleviation oftraffic congestion through increased
mass'transportation ridership, the improvement of services to pro-
vide greater mobility to those dependent upon'mass transit, and the
use of transportation as a positive force in achieving des.ired,.
development patterns and environmental conditions in urban Areas).

Priorities for determination of capital grants vary according
to the size of the urban area. For small cities the major
emphasis is on the provision and maintenance of transportation
service to insure the mobility of those dependent upon mass
transit. Larger urban areas are to concentrate on all of the.
above criteria so that the quality of urban life can be improved
by the proposed transportation project.
There are certain statutory requirements which must be met
before a grant is approved. Two of these requirements, the
development of a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive
transportation process and the analysis of the environmental
impact of the project, will be addressed in section 1.2.6 below.

1.2.3 Grant-in-aid Programs:. Federal Railroad Administration

The major Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant-in-
aid program to States is described in Section 5 of the
Department of Transportation Act as amended. The
program provides financial assistance to States
for planning rail services, for continuing opeyating sub-
sidies, and for other financial services to rail lines. States
May directly purchase and operate lines which are at or near
abandonment. or may, under the gui,lance of a State Rail
Plan, pass through funding to railroads to enable the rail-
roads themselves to operate and make improvements.

The federal assistance funds are, except for planning
funds, limited to assisting rail freight
lines (not passenger service lines) and to those lines through-,
out the state which are not among the few high density lines.4
The program is Jesigned to provide assistance to the rail lines
in need of direct financial support to maintain freight service
functions and to continue to service areas where they are
essential to the local economy. Under an interesting subsection,
program assistance funds may be used to cover the cost of
reducing the costs of lost rail service if it is determined that
such services can be provided in a manner less expensive than
continuing rail service

The program has four major purposes. These include
federal assistance to cover: (a) the cost of rail service
continuation, (b) the cost of purchasing a line of a railroad or

4
Assistance to railroads with high density lines is
entitled under-Title 5 of the 4R Act and is not a grant-in-aid
program. It is a loan quarantee and preference share program from
the FRA to railroads, and is.discussed under the*section "Direct
Federal Activities" in this chapter.
S
DOT Act (49 USC 1654f-p) Section 5(f)(4).

other rail properties to maintain existing service or to p-rovide
for future rail servi6e;@ (.c) thh._e' 'cost pf- rehabilitating rail
properties to permit adequate and efficient rail freight
service- and (d) the cost of operating the rail service
48tance program, including costs of developing a state
assi
rail plan-

These program purposes, as specified in the 4R statutes
and in the applicable regulations may be relevant to CZM
programs, where, within the coastal zone boundaries, rail
freight. services are or may be phased out, or.where they nee-d
operating subsidies to maintain existing services. For
example, Section 805 of the 4R Act (amending SectioA 402.of the
3R Act, "Rail Service Continuation Assistance") states.that
grant-in-aid funds may be used to pay for,
the. ". . . acquisition of modernization of rail properties,
including the preservation of rights-of-way for future rail
service.., the construction or improvement of facilities neces-
sary to accommodate the transportation of freight previously
moved by rail service. . . ." (4R Act, Section 805). Under
these authorities the FRA has, for example, funded the rehabil-
itation and the construction of rail barges sn'd tugboats
designed to move rail cars in coastal transshipments, It is
possible for grant-in-aid funds under this Title @to be used
for purposes like the redevelopment of intermodal, freight
facilities in port areas, and as mentioned, for operating
assistance to lines which are marginally successful but which
are essential to an area's economic well being.

Section 809 of the 4R Act sets up a mechanism for the
conversion.of abandoned railroad rights-of-way to recreational
and conservation uses. The Secretary of the Interior is
directed in this section of the Act to provide financial and
technical assistance to local, State, and federal agencies
for programs involving the conversion of rights-of-way.
Assistance in the form of grants to such agencies to
acquire and develop.such rights of way are authorized. The
federal share of the costs of right-of-way conversions is up to
90% of the costs of'planning, acquisition, and development of
the right-of-way for recreational and conservation uses.

For the main-body of the FRA grant-in-aid program of
assistance to States for their own rail activities or as
passthroughs.to needy railroads under an approved State Rail
plan, the federal share is limited to 80% of allowable costs
for the first year of the amended program (1979), and 70% for.
each of the next two,years. The State share may consist of
noncashcontributions.

1.2.4 Grant--in'@-aid.Programs: The Federal Aviation.Administration
6
Under a series of statutes, the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tratIon (FAA) administers a large grant-in-aid program f6r'the
development of public,airports. Federal involvement in-airport
development stems from findings of'the national interest.in the
development of a national airport system. The FAA under-the
1970 Airport and Airways Development Act7 was directed to pre-
pare and update as needed a National,Airport System Plan
identifying the type and estamated cost of airport development
required to mi@et civil, defense, and postal service needs.8

The Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) funds up to
80% of the costs of eligible projects. Two grant-in-aid,pro-
grams to States (or,local public agencies) were established:
a program for planning grants (Section 1.2.5) and a program
-providing federal assistance for the developm'ent of public air-
ports. Development projects are initiated by State or local
sponsors (a sponsor must be a public agency), and the airport.
at which the development is proposed must be reflected in the
national airport system plan as to demonstrated need. The
current program of airport development is enabled until 1980;
Congress may of course continue the program past that year.

Federal grants can be made for construction, improving.or
repairing a public airport or portion thereof consisting of:
(1) land acquisition, (2) site preparation, (3) construction,
alteration and repair of runways, taxiways, aprons, and roads
within airport boundaries, (4) construction and installation
of lighting utilities, navigational.aids and certain offsite
work, -,(5) safety equipment required for certification of the
airport facility, (6) security equipment required of the sponsor
by the Secretary of Transportation by rule or regulation for
the safety and security of persons and property on the airport,
(7) snow removal equipment, (8) noise suppressing equipment,
construction of physical barriers, land and l.and acquisition
for noise compatibility, and (9) terminal development. Grants
may not be made for the construction of hangers', parking areas
for automobiles, or for buildings not related to the safety
of persons on the airport. Since its inauguration in 1970
the ADAP program has stimulated,the construction of approximately
100 new airports and has enabled significant improvements to be
made to more than 1GOO other airports. These improvements most
often involve expanding airport@capacity by providing new
runways and taxiways.

6Federal AirportsAct of 1946; FAA Act of 1958; Airport
and Airways Development Act of 1970, as amended.
749 U.S.C. 1710.
849 U.S.C. 1713.

1.2.5 State, and Substate (Nonurban) Planning Requirements of.
the7rant-in-aid Programs

Each. of the major-grant-in-aid programs contains2 formal
regula.t@ions providing guidance-for implementation and.project
planning '-activities. by State transportation agencies.. Besides
planning, ADAP requires environmental reviews and document
preparation, extensive intergovernmental coordination and
signoffs, and public participation procedures. From the per-
spective of 'the federal transportation-agencies.(not necessarily
shared by.,state CZM agencies),these.'existinc, plann*
01 -ing, environ-
mental., and coordination procedures are quite sufficient to
inclu-e,coastal zone management initiatives within their fold.
In the,.Fe'dera.1 Highway Administration, the Federal,Railroad
Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration programs
in particular, the planning processes-are designed to incorporate
inputs from substate regional planning agencies. F.HWA and FAA
planning regulations are quite detailed and contain,significant
referen-ces on combining views'of localities, regional agencies,
and other interest groups in the planning-process. Essentially
these requirements are attempts at routiniz.ing conflict reso.-
lution procedures using planning procedures as a staged vehicle
0
for project evolution. They work well where conflict is insig-
nificant; they cover all the bases and structure levels of project
detail so that project development may proceed in an orderly
fashion.

In many instances state coastal management agency inter-
actions with DOT grant-in-aid programs will fall under the
program planning procedures.described in this and the following
two sections. Statew'ide and nonurban iegional planning elements
are presented below for FHWA, FRA, and the F.Lk. The next section
(1.2.6) reviews the urban transportation planning process. The
following section (1.2.7)'briefly examines the environmental
regulatJ-ons mandated by the grant-in-aid programs. Officially,
Coastal Zone Management is seen as an "environmental" program
by Operating Administration field offices and is procedurally
treated under the provisions of the NEPA process.
(a) Statewide Planning: Federal Highway Administration.
The Federal Higriway Admi istration'requires each State to'submit
annually a Federal-aid Program (FAP) listing,all projects proposed
for fe%d_-ral funding. The annual State FAP is prepared in accord-
Jth th Federal-aid Highway Program Manual, and the indivi-
ance.wL e
dual Drojects, are developed in accordance with the State's Action
Plan process, including the preparation of Environmental Assess-
ment and/or Impact Statements. In urbanized areas these.proj.ects
also appear as first year elements in five-year Transportation
Improvement Programs prepared by the regional Metropolitan
Planning, Organization.

As a condition of receipt oF Federal Capital or Operating
Assistance, urbanized.areas:must have a continuing, cooperative,
and comprehensive transportation planning process that results

in plans and programs consistent with the comprehensively
@planned development of the area (23 U.S.C. 134 and 48*U.S.C.
1607).

Each State Highway Agency must prepare an Action'Plan to'
assure that adequate consideration is given to the potential
social, economic, and environmental effects of proposed highway
projects,.and that decisions made on such projects reflect the
best overall public interest. The Action Plan also presents
the basic pro.ject development procedure used-for Federal-aid
Highways. As,such it is a primary access point for information
on the procedures of a specific.State and an identification
source for the specific offices, bureaus,departments, and
agencies responsible for particular work tasks and decisions.

Inputs,can be made to, and formal access had to a highway
project development process at several points. Public hearings
are scheduled at various stages in the development of each par-
ticular project, and both formal and informal meetings are.
scheduled withpublic officials or interested organizations or
groups. The'A-95 review procedure, designed to promote the @
maximum coordination of federal and federally assisted programs
and projects with each other and with State, areawide, and
local plans and programs,'is also employed, Operationally,
A-95 works through State and areawide clearinghouses that-
administer the process. Affected and interested agencies can
participate in the A-95 proces's.9 The magnitude and complexity
of a particular project determines whether or not all, or only
some, of the. AP process steps are applicable. All projects,
in order to receive fede'ral assistance, must eventually appear
as a line item on the State's annual PAP.

Review and evaluat-ion,tasks are prescribed in both the
Action Plan (AP) and in the-Highway.Program Materials (HPM).
Typically more projects exist than funds are available for and
a prioritization and selectionmechanism must be employed to
develop the annual PAP. Specific review anJ approval points
are designated by both the AP and the HPM.10

Environmental Assessments, Negative Declarations, Draft
and Final Impact Statements are alla formal part of the A,P
and HTIP. The AP identifies the specific stages or steps where
these documents.are developed, presented and reviewed., The

9CZ interests and concerns may be expTesse 'd both through
the A-95 process as projects and State programs develop, and
as primary inputs to the continuing planning processes adminis-
tered by the State Transportation Agency and MPO.
10 CZ agencies and interests may address the review cri-
teria and their relative weights when analyzing the-Federal-aid
Highway Programs from their particular viewpoint.'

particular offices responsible for the different tasks in the
development of the documents are cited or identified. Specific
data needs, and categorical contents of the documents stated,
and interagency contacts are speficied.* The FAHPM states that
the documents should be prepared by the highway agency receiving
federal assistance, in consultation with the FHWA, and that
review, and receive comments on the document.

(b)-Statewide Planning:. Federal Rail Administration.

To be eligible for rail service assistance under section-5:
of the DOT Act, a State must establish a State Rail Plan
(49 CFR 266-15(a))@'h"The State Rai
be based on a comp e ensive, coordilnaptleanaAd'c6nl-hine'ullng planning
process for all transportation services in the State. The Plan
shall be developed with opportunity for participation by those
publicand private agencies interested-in rail activity in the
State and adjacent States where appropriate. Procedures shall
be established to provide an opportunity for a public hearing
on the contents of the Plan prior to final adoption of the
Plan. . . . Also as part ofthe planning process, the designating
State agency shall es-tablish procedures whereby local and regional
governmental bodies may review and comment on appropriate elements
of the State Rail Plan. Provisions shall also be made for updating,
revising, and amending the State Rail Plan" (49 CPR 266.15(a)).

The State Rail Plan shall contain an identification of the
.following types of rail service: rail lines which are eligible
for assistance under section 5(k) of the DOT Act, projects for
which-the State plans to apply for rail service continuation
assistance, and lines of railroads which may be subject to.
abandonment (49 CPR 266.15(c)C.3)). In addition, "The relative
economic, social, environmental, and energy costs and benefits
involved in the use of alternate rail services@or alternate
modes, including costs resulting from lost jobs, energy
shortages,.and the aegradation' of the. environment"' with regard
to the previously stated lines or projects should be contained
on the State Rail Plan C49 CPR 266.l5('c)C4)(*vi).).
In accordance with A-95 Clearinghouse Procedures,--at the
time the State Rail Plan is submitted..'a certification'shall be
submitted that the Governor or the appropriate agency for
planning coordinationhas been given.4S days to'comment on the
State Rail Plan. The submittal shall incl-ade the comments
received or a statement that no,comments were received (49. CPR
266.15(e)). The State Rail Plan sho"uld,be updated at least
annually (49 CPR 266.15-(g)).

All applications for rail service assistance should be con-
sistent with the State Rail Plan and the program of projects,
Applications for assistance should be submitted only. "for those

projects related to eligible services, lines of railroad, or
improvements specificallyidentified in the current. State Rail
Plan. (49 CFR 266.19@(b)),.

(c) Federal Aviation Administration.--The Federal Aviation
Administration's.major grant-in-aid.programs for airport'
development include federal grants "to be awarded forpromotion
of effective location and development of airports and the
development of.,an adequate national.airport.system plan "49 U.S.C.
1713(a))., The U.S. will finance 2/3.of the cost incurred "in
the accomplishment of an eligible planning project (14 CFR
152.139(a)). Eligible planning projects,are of two types:
Airport Master Planning Projects and revisions (for planning
agencies) and Airport Systems Planning Projects (for public
agencies). Airport master planning is by statutory definition,
"the development for@planning purposes of information and
guidance to determine the extent, type and nature of development
needed at a specific airport. It may include.. the potential
use and development of land surrounding an actual or potential
airport site. . ." (49 U.S.C. 1711(5)). Airport system planning
by statutory definition.is Pthe development for planning purposes
of information and guidance to determine the extent,.type,
nature, location, and timing of airport*development needed in a
specific area to establish a viable and.balanced syatem of
public airports" (49 CFR 1711(6)).

Eligible projects must, in the application process, provide
evidence of coordination with other,agencies and the appro@riate
state and areawide clearinghouses as@ required by OMB Circular
A-95 (14 CFR 152.123(b)), A sponsor (public agencies applying
for grants) must be a designated planning agency authorized
by the laws of the State to "engage in areawide planning for
the area in which the assistance under this subpart is to be
used" (14 CFR 1S2).

Eligible Airport Master Planning Projects must be in a
location that is included in the current National Airport System
Plan'and.can only involve items listed in 14 CFR 152.129Cc)(1)
through (18)). Among those items*are included environmental
impact studies and site selection.

Eligible Airport System Planning Projects can only include
items listed in,14 CFR 152.131. That list includes
analysis of land use and ground transportation planning, and
environmental considerations" C-14 CFR I.S2.131(b)(.2))_,

1.2.1.5 Urban Transportation Planning Programs

The urban transportation planni ,ng process is based on the
established metropolitan planning and decision structure, the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Urban-regional in
scope, MPO's arefunctional entities cutting across local
government jurisdictions. They were first established in FHWA

statutes and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
statutes and function as federally mandated entities. They
are not very popular in many areas because they are seen as
nonlocalcreations forcing not always voluntary interactions
among localities. In any event MPOI's are a firmly established
concept and must perform certain duties.before federal grant-in-
aid funds may flow to.urban.areas,

MPO's address multimodal (highway, transit, other modes)
transportation concerns and are meant to integrate DOT programs
with HUD sponsored planning and community development programs,
and with the requirements of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendment
relating to transportation facility development and urban air
quality.

Because MPOI-s are composed of.local elected,officials
and maintain.planning staffs working o ,nmIetropolitan scale
projects,it seems very reasonable to propose that CZM concerns
within metropolitan areas could be decentralized from state
coastal agencies to the MPO level. Certainly this action would
allow the-better integration of urban transportation and com-
munity development programs with CZM concerns.,
In the urban transportation planning process, the MPO
working in cooperation with.the State and operators of pub-
licly owned mass transportation services.is responsible for
developing the required transportation plans (-23,CFR 450,1112).

One of the programs,required in the planning process is
the Unified Work Program (VWP). Th.e.UWP describes tran .spor-
tation related planning activities which. are .expected to be
undertaken in a one-to-two year period. Work to be undertaken
with planning assistance provided by the*UMT Act (40 U.S.C.
1607) and the Federal-aid Highway Act ('23 U.S.C. 104(-f)l is
documented (23 CFR 450.114). The MPO, through the UWP, sub-7
mits requests for funding under the FHWA and UMTA Program areas
of Federal Highway Planning, Research and Development, Federal
Aid Metropolitan Planning, and UMTA Planning Assistance Grants.
Endorsements for the projects are contained in the UWP, where
the MPO is the areawide clearinghouse. If the MPO is not the
areawide clearinghouse, the UWP must be submitted to the
appropriate clearinghouse-for review and,comment. In either
case, the UWP must be submitted to the'State clearinghouse
for.review (23 CFR 420.306Cc)-Cl)).

Five-year Transportation Improvem .en t Programs (TIP) ar'e
developed in accordance with Subparts A and C of Part 450 of
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Subparts A
and B of Part 613 of Title 4:9... Theyinclude a staged, multi-
y.ar program including an Annual.'.Element (AE) consistent with.
the region's policy objectives, the long rangeplans that haive@
been adopted and the Transp Iortation Systems Management (TSMY

Element. Proposed.capital grant projects submitted for fund-
ing under the Federal-aid Highway Program-are also placed on
the annual State FAP. The TIP is developed and updated
annually by the MPO in cooperation with State and local
officials, authorized recipients of capital grants, regional
and local ransit operators and affected transportation and
planning agencies (23 CFR 450.306). The TIP/AE is submitted
io the Governor and the Urban Mass Transportation Administrator
and through the State to the-Federal. highway Administrator
(23 CFR 4SO.316).

In urbanized areas where the MPO serves as the areawide'
clearinghouse, endorsement of the TLIP/AE meets the A-9S
clearinghouse review requirements for the projects contained
in the AE. If the MPO is not the areawide clearinghouse, then
the AE is 'submitted to the appropriate clearinghouse for
review and comment. In either case,, the AE is furnished to
the State clearinghouse for review and comment. In nonurban
areas, the State highway agency provides the appropriate
areawide and State clearinghouses tl@,.e opportunity to review
and comment on the Statewide 10S Program of Projects.
Applicants for UMTA Assistance are also furnished to State
and areawide clearinghouse for review (23 CFR 420.306(b)).

The Transportation System 'Management-element is a pro-
gram which meets the more immediate needs of the urbanized
.area through efficient use of the existing transportation
facilities and by providing for the efficient movement of
peopple. In addition, improvements which can be made to the
existing transportation system, which do not require new trans-
portation facilities or major changes to existing ones, are iden-
tified (23 CFR 450.116). Urban Mass Transportation Administration
programs also move through the MPO's planning .process, the UIVP,
TSM element, and the TIP with an annual element presented.

Program approval of capital projects is granted only when
the UMT Administrator determines that the TIP/AE conforms to
the requirements established under 23 CFR 450 Subpart C. and
that the area is under planning certification.

Additional criteria-are established under 49 CFR 613 which
states that program approval is granted only when the urban
areals transportation plan has a Transportation System Manage-
ment element and the Transportation Improvement Program contains
projects drawn from the TSM element. There also must be evidence
that implementation of previously funded projects has made
reasonable progress (49 CFR 613.202).

The needs of the elderly ana handicapped must be considered
in the urban planning proces3-.and the annual element of the
TIP should contain provisions- which benefit this. group (49 CFR
613.204).

The UMT Administrator considers" any comments submitted
by the governor within 30 days, then makes his decision con-
cerning the proposed project C23 CFR 450.320).

1. 2.7 Environmentz:l Rev'LeW Procedures, in the ..Grant-in-Aid
Programs

Current ('1978) DOT policy is to regard CZM as an environ-
mental program which may-require the' gathering of a permit
or a signoff Cin all States; i.;e., the federal consistency
determination) in the development of.a project's env ironmental.'
documents. In this sens'e, in the view of Operating Adminis-
tration field officepers-onnel., CZM is one among many environ-
mental program areas to be considered in the project develop-
ment proces*s. Procedurally this approach is workable, at
least where there is no conflict between CZM agencies and
State transportation agency projects.

There is currently no DOT Order Cinternal directive) on
the Coastal Zone Management program. The existing basis for
DOT policy and procedures toward-all environmental issues is
found in DOT 5610.lB,*Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts. This is the controlling DOT order on Environmental
Impact Assessme 'nt and preparation of.EIS documents. Attach-
@12 to order 561G.lB, Considerations Relating to W
.ment 2- etlands
or Coastal Zones, provides the only 11-rect statement pointeT
S_T_-
at the coa al zone management issue currently embodied
in a DOT order. Section Cd) states in full: "Where appli-
cable,, a discussion of how the proposed project relates to the
State coastal zone management program for the particular
state in which the project is to take place should be included
in the EIS.11 Order 5610.1B in its entirety is particularly
relevant Tor emerging DOT Policy relative to coastal zone
management. The EIS procedure has been given an important role
in Operating Administration participation in the consistency
determination process in the management phase of,CZM. The
decision to file a draft HIS or alternatively, to file a
negative declaration with documentation, shall be made subject
to the criteria identified in 5610.1B, as well as in NEPA.
This point is established in a DOT Memorandum from TES (now
PD) to the*SecReps. 21 October 175, which.states:.

The vehicle for making coastal zone con-
sistency-determinations on DOT actions is the
environmental impact statement C5610.1B).
Likewise where coastal 'zone lands subject to
Section 4CQ of the DOT.Act are involved the
HIS is the vehicle for Section 4Cf) deter-
minations. For any DOT actions where prepar-
ation of an HIS is not required please consult
with TES.

The point is reaffirmed in a letter, 28 July 176, of DOT

comments to the draft Consistency Regulations. The EIS pro-
cedure, then, is the designated means of formal consistency
notification. DOT Order 5610.1B and its implementing counter-
parts in the Operating Administrations thus stand out as the
designated policy vehicles for consistency determinations.

State coastal a gencies agree that the NEPA process pro-
vides a convenient framework for the review of federal grant-
in-aid program projects for compatibility with coastal manage-
ment policies. They (coastal agency personnel) emphasize
however that their agencies have the lead role in consistency
determinations for such projects and therefore they reserve
the right to engage in project reviews apart from NEPA process
documents. Most directly, the coastal management staffs do
not intend to give up what they see as a potentially signifi-
cant area of project review by agreeing to be bound to a
federal agency's internal process. 11 The basic elements of
those environmental review processes are presented below for
the federal transportation agencies operating in the landward
coastal zone.12

(a) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Federal aid-
Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 2,
establishes procedures and guidelines for the preparation of
environmental impact and related statements. Major FHWA
actions, those of "superior, large and considerable importance,
involving substantial planning, time, resources or expenditures,"
require either an EIS or negative declaration, while nonmajor
actions require neither. Among those actions which are
generally considered major are: highways which improve access

11 The Section 307 "Rules and Regulations concerning the
Federal Consistency Requirement of the CZMA," CFR, state that
coastal agencies shall make consistency determinations for
federal assistance activities in the Coastal zone, and that
federal agencies shall make consistency determinations, with
state review, for direct federal activities for federal
licenses and permits significantly affecting the coastal zone.
DOT has strongly disagreed with the former ruling since it
was issued, claiming that federal. agencies should make the con-
sistency determination for all federal activities,including
assistance activities. For -more on this still unresolved
point, see my Work Task 4, Guidance Document on the Federal
Consistency Regulations, Office of University Research, DOT,
DOT-05-70063, July, 1979.
12 For more detail see: (l) FHWA Order 772,771--Federal
Aid Highway Poggram Manual: Environmental Impact and Related
Statements, 2 Jan. '76; (2) FHWA Order N 6640.10 USCHjFHWA:
Memo of Understanding on Implementing NEPA, 28 March '77;
(3) FAA order 1050.1B: Policies and Procedures for Considering
Environmenta1 Impact, 16 June '77.

to an area and are likely to cause significant changes in land
use and development, and highways which provide new access to
.to areas that,,,contain exploitable natural resources.

The State Highway Agency in consultation With the FHWA
Division Engineer recommends whether the proposed action will
require an EIS or negative decl'aration, depending on its
impact on the human environment. A draft negative declaration
is prepared by the State Agency in consultation with the FHIVA
for major actions which will not have a significant environ-
mental impact. Although:-the draft statement fieednot be cir-
culated for comment, it is made available to the.public on
request. 'The final negative declaration includes a summary, of
comments''made during the public hearing on the "social, econo-
mic, environmental,, and other effects of the proposed action,
including alternatives.raised at the public hearing" (12(e)).

The draft EIS is prepared,by the State Highway Agency
in consultation with the, FHWA for major actions. '11his draft
EIS is circulated for@comment. Individuals, private groups,
and government agencies are given a minimum of 45 days to
comment. The draft EIS is circulated to "Federal, State,
and local agencies with jurisdiction'by law and special exper-
tise with respect to any e .nvironmental impact involved; the
State and areawide clearinghouse; and the affected city or
county" (13(h)),. The draft,EIS is also distributed to "public
and private organizations and individuals with special exper-
tise with respect to the environmental impact involved, those
who are known to have an interest in the highway section,
and those who request an opportunity to comment" (13(i)).
Copies of the draft.EIS are provided to federal land management
entities and other States which may be significantly impacted.,

The final EIS is prepared by the State Highway Agency
in consultation with the FHWA. The EIS is distributed to.
the Council on Environmental Quality, the EPA Regional
Administrator, State and areawide clearinghouse.s, agencies,
and organizations and individuals who commented on the draft
EIS and requested a copy of the final E.IS.

The EIS'contains a number of elements including the
probable impact of the proposed project on the environment,
the impact -of properties and sites of historical and cultural
significance and a summary of comments and coordination. One
of the-subjects to be co"nsidered..,'Under 'probable impact-on the
environment is wetland.and c6astal'zon'e impacts: "This section
will summarize the anticipated significant impacts on wetlands
and coastal zones, including analyses, consultations and
efforts to reduce the impact. Where applicable, the discussion
should set forth any inconsistencies with wetlands or coastal
zone management program" (19(i)(2)(g)).

U rNtin Mas s'' Tr an,s p o r t a t i,o nAdmi'nis'tration@@(UMTA).. UMTA

Order 5610.-l- establishes,procedures for preparing Environmental
Statements.on.UMTA-actions which may significantly affect the
.environment. Applicants for assistance with-projects wh 'i-ch may
significantly impact on the environmen 't are required to submit
an Environmental Analysis as part of their applications. Pub-
lic hearings are held prior to the applicant's submission of the
environmental analysis to UMTA to provide the opportunity for
"parties with a significant economic@, social or environmental
interest in the project an opportunity to express their view(s)."

The preliminary,applicatinn, which includes the environ-
mental analysis, is furnished to*appropriate A-95 agencies for
review and comment. The clearinghouse solicits comments from
State and local agencies which develop and enforce environmental
standards. Any comments provided are forwarded to UMTA.

The responsible official determines if the action will
require a negative declaration or EIS. If it is determined
that the project will have a significant impact on the environ-
ment, the responsible official prepares an UMTA Draft Environ-.
mental Statement.

UMTA Draft Environmental Statements are circulated to a
number ofTederal departments-,,and agencies including H7JD,'
Department of Interior.'Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Council. on Environmental
Quality, and other federal agencies, as appropriate. The draft
statement-is also available to the public on request. At least
30 days are allowed for comment. -Comments received from State
and local agencies, from federal agencies outside of DOT, and
from thepublic are evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.

(c) Federal Aviation Administratio'n-(FA-k). An environmental
impact assessment report prepared accorUing to DOT Order
5610.1B and Appendix 6 of FAA "Policies and Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts" (FAA Order 1050.1B) must
accompany the preapplication form for airport development
projects (14 CFR 152.23(6)). According to@Appendix 6, sponsors
are responsible for preparing an environmental impact assessment
report containing a discussion and analysis of the environmental
implications and impacts associated with the proposed action"
(Chapter 2, No. 11). This report should be prepared in coor
dination with appropriate State, local, and Federal agencies
and in consultation with the FAA (Chapter 2, No. 11). In *
addition, the community and individuals affected by the airport
development proposals should be given the opportunity to parti-
cipate in and to comment at all appropriate stages in the
decision-making process; in particular, they should be given
the opportunity to review and comment on environmental statements
(Chapter 2, No. 15) .

The environmental impact assessment report submitted by
the sponsor functi'ons as the basis for the FAA's draft

environmental impact statement or Negative Declaration. The
FAA is responsible.for "analyzing the environmental impacts
and consequences of any proposed Federal action involving an
airport.-development-.p-roject, foT. preparing and circulating,
draft,and final environmental impact statements, and ultimately
for making the :Federal-Finding.on the proposed-action"
(Chapter .2, No. 12).'

For the. development project to be eligible for aid, the
Governor of the State.must certify to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (ERA) that "the project will
.be loca-t.e.d, designed,,-constructed and operated so as to comply
with. applicable air and water quality standards" (14 CFR
152.45Ca)(7)). Without such@certification the Secretary cannot
approve the project C49 U.S .C. 1716 Ce).Cl).

.7he following categ Iories of airport development,action
require an environmental assessment, and resultant finding: new
airport site selection anddevelopment; new.runway; major
runway extension; runway strengthening which would permit use
by larger..and noisier aircraft; major construction or
expansion,of.passenger handling,or parking facilities.; land
acquisition involving the preceding or which causes relocation
of residential or business,activities-or land covered under
Section 4Cf) of DOT Act; estab-lishment Or relocation of
instrument landing systems, approach landing syst.em,s or runway
end identification light;, actions that affect.property of
historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural si.gni-
ficance; wetlands or coastal zones; andendangered species
(Chapter 3, No. 19).

The following do not require environment impact assess7.
ment reports (as stated in 'Chapter'3, No.- 25):
(1)"Policy and planning documents not intended for direct
implimentation."
(2)"Grants of funds for airport system planning and airport
master planning."
(3)"Airport.planning, design, and development program
ad isory circulars issued by FAA as administrative and technical
guidance to the public."'
(4)"ADAP actions which are tentative and conditional and
are clearly taken as- a pieliminaTy'action to establish a
sponsor's eligibilitr under ADAP.I'I
(5)"Airport-related emergen .cy@actions."
(@)"The issuance of certificates and related actions under
Airport Certification Program."'

Environmental impact statements are -required for the
following Federal actions Cas stated in Chapter 3, No. 20):

action that has -an effOdt that is not minimal on

properties protected under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act or
Section 106 of the Historic Preservation kct;"
"kny,action that is likely to be highly controversial
on environmental grounds."
"Any action that is likely to have a significant impact
on natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources of
national., state, or local significance including endangered
species and wetlands."
"Any,action that is likely to be highly controversial
with respect td the availabi 'lity'of adequate relocation housing."
"Any action.that: (a) causes substantial division'or
disruption of an established commu'nity,.or disrupts ordei@ly,
planned development, or is determined to be not reasonably
consistentwith the,.plans or goals that have been adopted.by
the community in which the project is located; or (b) causes
a significant increa Ise in surface traffic congestion."
Any action that impacts on noise levels in noise sensitive
areas, air quality,:water quality, or is determined to be
inconsistent with any local, State, or federal law relating
to the environment.
. "Other action that direct.ly or indirectly affects human
beings by creating a significant impact on the environment."

The Environmental Assessment.Reports and Impact Statements
are to include "probably impacts of1the proposed action on
the human and natural environment." Where wetlands or coastal
.zones are involved several consiaerations must be made, one of
these being that "where the proposed action is within or may
affect the land or water us'es in the area covered by a state
coastal zone management program, the document shall include
evidence of consultation with the state coastal zone management
agency" (Chapter 4, No. 44(j)).

The k-9S Clearinghouse Process.--"Evidence of coordination
with other agencies and the appropriate state and areawide
clearinghouses, as -required by OMB.Circular No. k-95,
must be
for airport plann' ects
attached to the application' ing-proj
under the Airport kid Program C14 CPR 152.123(b)). Applicants
for airport development projects under-the Airport Development
Aid Program must submit a preapplication form along with several
other items including "any comments made by or through clear-
inghouses as a result of coordination required by Office of
Management and Budget.Circular No. A-95, accompanied by (i) the
sponsor's statement that those comments have been considered by
it before submitting the request for aid (VAA Form 5100-30); or
(ii) the sponsor's statement that the procedures outlined in
Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-9S have been
followed and no comments have been received" (14 CFR 152.23(5)).

In addition, a prerequisite for approval is that "the
Administrator is satisfied th.at the project has been coordinated

in accordance with the requirements of Office of'Mahagement
and Budget Circular No. A-95 and that Section'16(c)('l)(A)'6f
the Airport and Airway Development Act of 19,70, as ' applicable,'
and that',the project is reasonably''consistent,with existing
plans,-or plans in the process o If d-evelopment, or public
agencies for the development of the area in which the'project
is located', and that .the' project will contribute to the,
accomplishment of the purpose,of,the Airport Development Aid
Program" (14 CFR 152.45).
(d) Federal Railroad Administration "(FRA). 'The proposed
FRA "Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts published
in the Federal Register,on July 9,1979, the DOT Order 561o.ic
(issued Sept. 18, 1979), and the Council on Environmental
Quality regulations (issued-November 29, 1978) serve as the
gu-ide for insuring full consideration of the environmental
impacts of actions taken by the FRA, unti'l the FRA procedures
are issued in final form.

The environmental assessment or statement should indicate
where wetlands or coastal zones are 'involved and how the
proposed action relates to the State coastal zone management
program for the State in which the project is located (?IFRA
Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts", Section 10(b)
(6) and (9) and 10(e);: and Section 14(a)(6) and (9)).

As a general rule, an environmental assessment must,be
prepared prior to all major FRA actions. There are no
actions which FRA has determined always require an EIS;
however, an EIS will be prepared for all major FRA actions
significantly affecting the.quality of the environment. This
normally includes any construction of new railroad lines or
major facilities or any change which will result in a signi-
ficant increase in traffic.

1.2.8 Direct Activities in the Landward Coastal Zone

While the grant-in-aid programs (Sections 1.2.1 to 1.2.4,
above) are the basis for most federally funded transportation
projects, the Operating Administrations also conduct direct
activities which occasionally create significant impacts in
coastal areas. This section briefly reviews some of the major
direct activities of the Operating Administrations occurring
in the 1andward coastal zone.

(a)Federal Highway Administration. FHWA is authorized
under Chapter 2, Other Highways, of the Federal Aid Highway
Program (23 U.S.C. 201-216) to construct roads to provide direct
access to public lands, forests, parks, Indian reservations,
and timber areas, and for defense access purposes. These pro-
jects (a typical one might be the construction of an access
and circulation road to a National Park Service beach develop-
ment project) would not be administered by a State Highway
department in the manner described in Sections 1.2 and1.5 of
this report, and therefore the Action Plan planning and environ-
mental review processes cannot be utilized by Coastal Manage-
ment Agencies to participate in the planning-decision making
process. Direct contact between FHWA Region 8, responsible
for direct FHWA projects, and the State coastal agency where
such a project will affect the coastal zone, is required under
the Federal Consistency element of the Coastal Zone Management
Act.

(b) Urban Mass Transportation Administration. UMTA's
direct activities center on its Demonstration Projects Program.
Approximately 75 projects are presently funded under Section 6
(49 U.S.C. 1605) of the UMT Act. A number of these projects
are located in coastal areas. Demonstration projects include
water access operations for commuter service. For example,
section 320 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978
authorized the establishment of a high speed water transport
service demonstration project in New York City. The primary
purpose of this project is to provide commuter service, with the
possibility of using the hydrofoil for recreational purposes
when not being used for commuter operations.

(c) Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA conducts many
direct activities relating to aviation safety and to its
mission of airspace management and air traffic control. Most
of these activities are not relevant to coastal management
concerns because in no way could they be construed as signifi-
cantly affecting the coastal zone. Two categories of FAA direct
activities which might meet that test are the placement of air
navigation facilities and only possibly, the certification of
airports.

Air navigation control facilities (49 U.S.c. 1348(b)
1353).are federally owned installations, e.g.,, radars, whi ch
may or may not be located on airport sites and Which may be
relatively sizable. They may present visual obstacles in
the coastal zone, and as direct activities of the agency may
be subject to site review coordination with coastal agencies
through the Federal Consistency element.of the Coastal
Zone Management Act.

The,FAA certifies airports by issuing an Airport
Operating Certificate (45 U.S.C. 1432). Numerous State coastal
zone management Program'Documents cite this certificate as
an 'license or Ipermit' subject to review for federal con-
sistency. The FAA in response has noted that the certificate
is not a license in the traditional sense but is issued to
airports based on a finding'that the airport meets safety
standards prescribed by the FAA. The certificate is only
related to such safety standards and other (environmental
review) criteria cannot be tacked onto it.

(d) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The FRA conducts
four programs which may be classified as direct activities
(no pass through of funds to State through assistance programs),
and which conceivably-could have significant impacts in ,
coastal zone areas: funding rehabilitation, improvement and
restructuring of railroads through purchase of preference
shares or through loan guarantees; the Northeast Corridor
Project; the operation of the Alaska Railroad; and the demon-
strations programs of the Freight Service Section'of the Office
of Research and Demonstrations.

Under Title 5., Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement
Financing of the 4R Act., the FRA provides financial assistance.
for eligible projects on railroads which cannot generate
sufficient funds internally and are unable to secure outside
funding. In most instances the funds expended under these
programs have gone for the rehabilitation of track, cars
and locomotives. The loan guarantee program is not directly
related to coastal management efforts but funds can be used
11 . . . to acquire or to rehabilitate and improve facilities or
equipment, or to develop or.establish new railroad facilities"
or might include under certain circumstances projects of
interest to coastal management agencies. Consideration of
loan guarantees encompasses many factors including investment
criteria and may conceivably be employed to modernize rail
related facilities in port areas" including intermodal port
terminals. It should be noted that of the authorized $1,000,000,000
available limit for the loan guarantee program, only $130,000,000
has been committed through 1979 and that most of these funds have.
gone for the rehabilitation and repair of track, cars and
locomotives. However, some funding is being considered for the
development of new rail lines to service the coal fields in
Wyoming, and under this precedent, it is not unrealistic
to propose that the loan guarantee fund could be

utilized for the -rehabilitation and new construction of major
rail facilities in port systems. In many ports such facilities
are antiquated and cost increasing factors in goods movement.
This FRA program may be. bne@ strate.gem, -for funding -port trans-
portation c once rns 'thiough. 'DOT programs

In this light the activities of FRA's Office of Research
and Development in investigating intermodal transfers are quite
relevant. Th-e Office of FTeigh-t,Services in.R&D in 1978-79
is investi ating inteTmodal operations in a variety of settings,
including Kila elphia.. In Philadelphia, the Research Office
prepared case studies of-the intermodal hardware.employed in
the terminal setting and the.economic advantages in improved
intermoda1transfer facilities and other rail,related
impr,ovements

Th.e Northeast Corridor project and the Alaska Railroad
are both directly administered by the FRA. The Northeast
Corridor Project includes some 460 miles of mainline track
between Washington and Boston,. and involves a general upgrading
of the line, right-of-way, bridge structures, and support
facilities and terminals to handle high speed rail transporta-
tion. The existing right-of@way,'which.is being retained
throughout the proj-ect, crosses some SOO discrete wetlands
and watercourses, and generally closely follows the coastline
north of New York City. The project has not, however, run
afoul of coastal or regional or local T)lanning agencies because
it is rdainly confined to the.. upgrading of an existing,
used, right-of-way; it does not involve, on the whole, the
construction of Tights-of-way,

The Alaska Railroad is operated by the FRA to service
the State-of Alaska. As a major link in the state's trans-
portation network., the coastal management agency in that
state has expressed interest in the direct and indirect
effects of,the operations,of the- Alaska Railroad.

1.3 DOT Programs Affecting the Management of Coastal Waters

Three DOT agencies, the U.S. Co ast Guard, the Office of
Deepwater Ports, and the St, Lawrence Seaway Corporation
regularly conduct activities in coastal waters. Of these
three, the'@Coast Guard alone falls- within the framework*of
this analysis.' The Coast Guard's activities are@conducted in
the coastal waters of all the coastal states and they' address
a variety of environmental and safety concerns relevant to
coastal management programs. Th.e:6ther agencies have very
s-pecialise,d--mandates. -1-n-ofie--case.COffice of Deepwater Ports.),
the mandate is so narrowly conceived by,legislative
limitations that for pyactical.p-u-rpos'es it is probably

irrelevant to All but two or three coastal states (the Deep-
water Ports Act is discussed in Section 1-3'.5); and the
other case CSt. Lawrence Seaway. Commission) involves a
quasi-pub,lic operating concern with,international status and
which again is outside the mainstream of our analysis..

'K,Thile an analysis:of the operations of the Office of
Deepwater Ports and the.St. Lawrence Seaway Commission are
not included in the body,of this report, the missio'n-they rep-
resent, of DOT's involvement in the manaaement of coastal
waters, should not,be ignored. One of the major recommendations
of this study is that IDOT might seek to.reorganize its,efforts
in coastal waterst m 'aihagement, perhaps establishing new
programs for state involvement in port development planning"
and coastal.waters' management. @Under any such program the
Junctions of two. other DOT agencies involved in operations
in coastal waters would necessarily be carefully reviewed and
integrated into.the hypothesized new management focus.

1.3.1.U.S. Coast Guard Responsibilities in Coastal Waters
The'U.S. Coast 'Guard's stat Iutory responsibilities are
outlined.in Title 14 of the United States Code, and specific
regulations,pertaining to them are found in the Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 33, sections 1-185.

In 14 U.S.C. general goal's for the U.S.. Coast.Guard (CG)
are listed in four categories: Cl) to enforce all applicable
federal laws subject to-the jurisdiction of the United States.,.
(2) to administer laws and regulations-to promote safety of
life and property, (3). to.coveT all matters relating to promotion
of safety of life, and property not specifically delegated to
some other executive department and C4) to act with due regard
to requirements of National Defense, aids to.maritime navigation,
icebreaking facilities', and rescue facilities for promotion of
safety on, over, and under the high seas. Specific duties,
authority, responsibilities and specifications designed to
accomplish.these goals are described in detail in the Code
of Federal Regulations.

The Coast Guard is assigned.responsibility for compre-
hensive law enforcement in,coastal waters. The CG.is "deemed
to be.acting as agents.of the particular executive department
or independent@establishment charged with the administration
of a particular law" and "'to be subject,to, all rules and
regulations promulgated,by.such department or independent
establishment with rmect Ito the enforcement of that law" (14
U,.S,C. 89 CA) and Cb 11. and C2)). The CG thus exercises a
police.power.over activities in coastal waters,

Not only must the CG enforce@all laws o.f'other agencies,
but it is also required, when so requested by proper-authority,
to utilize its.-personnel and facilities to assist any federal'
agency, State, Territory, possession, or'political subdivision
to perform any activity for which suc1i personnel and facilities
are especially qualified (14 U.S.C. 141(a)). Furthermore, with
consent of the'head of the agency., the CC, may utilize officers,
employeesl,advice,,information and. facilities of any Federal
Agency,-State, Territory or possession or political subdivision
thereof for accomplishment of CG purposes (14 U.S.C. 141(b)).'
These provisions impose upon the CG considerable responsibility
for the protection of coastal waters and for interacting with
other governmental agencies .in the conduct of that mandate.-

The Code of Federal Regulations gives a partial list of
parts of the Federal Codes in which-the Coast Guard isiassumed@@
'to have specific enforcement power (33 CFR 1.07 Appendix).
Of special interest to States' intere'sts in coastal waters'
management is the CG's responsibility for prevention and clean-
up of pil pollution. Specific authority.is granted to the CG
in the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 and the Federal Water,Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA). Responsibilities of the CG as assigned
by those Acts are outlined in Title 33,-Subchapter 0 of the
Code of.Federal Regulations. In addition, the Oil Pollution
Act of 1961 prohibits the discharge of oil from specified
vessels (33 U.S.C.'1002) and the Fed-eral Water Pollution
Control Act prohibits the disch 'arge of oil from activities
resulting from.the Deepwater Ports Act or the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(1)), and provides-for cleanup
responses under a National Contingency Plan.

Another major area of CG involvement in coastal manage-
ment-issues falls under the-Agency's -responsibilities under
the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PL 92-340). The basic
features of this Act are addressed in Section 1.3.3, below:

Navigation and SafetX in Coastal Waters
Other relevant CG respons,ibilitie@_ in@coastAl waters'
management include, but are not limited to:, responsibilities
for issuing permits for bridges, over navigable waters; for
setting regulating boating safety@programs; for designating.
waterfront areas for handling -dangerous or hazardous cargoes.;
for regulating ocean dumping; and for other environmental and
safety programs.

1.3.2 Oil Spill Prevention and Response

One of the Coast Guard's key responsibilities in.coastal.

waters' management is the prevention and cleanup of oil spills..
Source authorities are the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 (PL
87-167) iand the Federal Water-Pollution Control Act of 19723,
as amended (PL 92-560). The 1961 Act prohibits the discharge
of oil from tankers or ships, sets penalties for,violators.,'
and gives the CG powers to revoke the operator's license where
a ship is found in violation.

The 1972 omnibus water pollution 'act significantly
extended the CGIs role in oil spill prevention, introduced a
major role for the agency in oil spill cleanu?), and extended
CG environmental responsibilities to "hazardou's substances"
as well as oil spills. A'ke'y element of the relevant section
of the Act mandated the development of a National Oil Spill
and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan and Strike Force
(33 U.S.C. 1321 (c)(2)). Responsibility for development of
the Plan was delegated by the President to the Council.of
Environmental Quality (Executive Order 11735) while re�pon-
sibility for actual-removal of the oil or hazardous substance
remained with the federal agencies ". . . having re'sponsibili-
ties under the National Contingency Plan--CG, DOT, and EPA."

Thepurpose of the Contingency Plan is to coordinate
responses by Federal agencies to protect the environment from
damaging effects of oil spills. Section.102.1 of the original
plan included language encouraging and promoting federal,
state, and local resp .onse Systems to coordinate with each
other, and encouraging the development of local government and
private response capabilities. Due in some measure to pressures
from State coastal zone and environmental agencies, the 1977
FWPCA Amendments strengthened this language', declaring it
to be national policy that "Federal Agencies shall cooperate
with State and local agencies to develop comprehensive solutions
to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution in concert with
programs for managing water resources" (Section 101(g)). The,
new purpose was given substance later in the Amended'Act:
1. Section 311 (c)(2)(1)) requires a system of surveillance
and notice designed to insure earliest possible notification of
discharges.of oil and hazardous substances is required. Under
the original legislation, the system was to give notice to
the appropriate Federal Agency. The 1977 Amendment states that
the system is to notify.the appropriate State and Federal
agencies.

2. Section 311 (f) deals with liability of various
parties for spills. Parts C.4) and '(5) of that'section make
responsible parties liable to State and Federal Governments
for costs incurred in restoration or replacement of natural
resources damaged or destroyed as a result of the discharge.

The Contingency Plan specifies

Cl) assignment of duties and responsibilities
(2) establishment and identification of strike
forces and emergency task forces..
(3) system of notification, surveillance, and
reporting I
C4) esiablishment of a National center-to
co,ordinate and direct operations of this plan.
(5) a schedule of dispersants and other chemicals
'to treat oil spills
(6) enforcement and investigative procedures
(7) directions on public information releases
C8) instructions,covering on scene coordination

DOT responsibilities are clearly identified.in 202.7 of
the plan. The primary Tesponsibility.involves providing
expe@rti,se regarding all modes of moyeimeft.of oil'and
hazardous Substances. Me C03 is assigned fo-ur sep .arate
functions as follows:

(1) to serve as vice-chairman of National
Response Team CNRT) and to supply support
and expertise in domestic/ international
fields of port safety and security', marine
law enforcement, navigation, construction,
manning operation and safety of vessels,
and marine facilities. This is not incon-
sistent with other responsibilities of the
CG as indicated.by other acts.
(2) to maintain continuously manned,facilities
that are capable of command, control, and
surveillance.
C3) to chair Regional Response Teams CRRT).
(4) to implement, develop, and revise as necessary
the regional plans for those areas where.it is
assigned the responsibility to furnish or
provide for on-Sight Coordinator (OSQ.
The EPA and DOT are to be consulted in this
function.

The RRT's are organi.zed in congruence with the other
Federal Regions and are to be -responsive to oil spill occur-,
rences within their -region. The OSC's, are designated by each
region yet in 306.2-2 the CG is ordered to furnish and provide
for OSC's, It is thought that the CG will be the appointed
OSC in most regions involving coastal waters (as opposed to
inland waters). In any case, the federal official present,
usually the CG, will preside until the OSC arrives. In
each oil spill occurrence the CG and EPA can determine the
time at wh-icfL the RRT should be deactivated (305.1-1). Other
duties of the OSC are .assessment of the situation (306.1"2)

and initiation and direction of the operations (.306.1-3).

The National Contingency Plan also orders the CG to
organize a National Strike Force(s).. Currently there is
only one, located on the East Coast but there pare plans
to create,strike forces at various locations around the country.
The Forces will be trained es.pecially for oil spill cleanup
and must be-requested for assistance and function under the -
order of the regional OSC 9505.1). RRT's are required under
505.2 to provide designation of lo'cal strike forces capable
of supplementing National Strike Forces.

1.3.3 Navigation and Safety in Coastal Waters

The,Coast Guard's role in proviJing safety in coastal
waters is addressed in'several Acts, but most specifically in
the Ports and'Waterwa@s'Safety Act (Public Law 92-340). The
Act's purpose is to "prevent damage to, or the destruction of,
or loss of any vessel, bridge or other structure on or in
the navigable waters of the United States, or any land structure
on shore immediately Adjacent to those waters; and to protect
the navigable waters and the,resources therein from environ-
mental harm resulting from vessel or structure damage,,
destruction, or loss" (33 U.S.C. 1221). The@S 'ecretary of the
DO is specifically charged with the task of implementing
these goals and is given considerable power over coastal water
activities for these purposes. Under the Act, the Secretary
of Transportation (and indirectly the Coast Guard) has the
following responsibilities:'

(1) "establish, operate, and maintain vessel
traffic services and systems for ports, harbors,
and other waters subject to congested vessel
traffic;
(2) ??require vessels which operate in an area of
a vessel traffic service or system to utilize
or comply with that service or system, including
the carrying or installation of electronic
or other devices necessary for the use of
the service or system;
(3) "contTOl.vessel traffic in areas which he
determines to be especially hazardous, or under
conditions of reduced visibility, adverse
weather, vessel congestion, or other hazardous
circumstances by--
(i) specifying times of entry, movement or
departure to, from, within, or through
ports, harbors, or other waters; -
(ii) establishing-vessel traffic routing
schemes;
Ciii) establishing vessel size and speed
,limitations and vessel operating conditions;
and

(iv) restricting vessel operation, in a
hazardous area or under hazardous con-
ditions, to vessels which have particular
operating characteristics and capabilities
which he considers necessary for safe
operation under the circum'stan 'ces;
(4) "direct the anchoring, mooring, or@movement
of a vessel.when necessary to prevent damage
to or by that vessel or her cargo, stores,
supplies, or fuel;
(5) tirequire pilots on self-propelled vessels
engaged in the foreign trades in areas and
.under circumstances where a pilot is n'ot other-
wise required by State law to be on board
until the State having jurisdiction of an area
involved establishes a requirement for a pilot
An that area or under the circumstances
involves;
(6) "establish procedures, measures,. and standards
for the handling, loading, discharge, storage,
stowage, and movement, including the emergency
removal, control and disposition, of explosives
or other dangerous articles and substances
(including the substances described in section
391a (2) (A). (B) and. (C) of Title 4'6) on
structures subject to this chapter; ,
(.7) "prescribe minimum safety equipment requirements
for structures subject to this chapter to
assure adequate protection from fire, explosion,
natural disasters, and-other serious accidents
or casualties;
(8) " establish water or waterfront safety zones
@or other measures for limite(I., controllea, or
conditional access and activity when necessary
for the protection of any vessel, structure,
waters, or shore area; and
(9) "establish procedures for examination to assure
compliance with. the minimum 5afety equipment
requirements for structures.1111

In preparing and enforcing these regulations, the Act
specifies seven areas to be considered by the Secretary of
DOT:

Cl) "the scope and degree of the hazards;
(2) vessel traffic characteristics including minimum
interferences with the flow of.commercial traffic,
traffic volume, the sites and types of'vessels,
the usual nature of local cargoes, and similar
factors;

33 U.S.C. 1221.

(3) "port and waterway configurat ions and the
differences in geographic, climatic, and
other conditions and circumstances;
(4) "environmental factors;
(5) Ifeconomic impact and effects;
(6). ?1existing vessel traffic control systems,
services and schemes; and
(7) "local practices and customs, including
arrangements and-agreements within
community.,,12

Also under this Act the Secretary of DOT can investigate
any incident.for possible violations of the regulations he/she
has set.forth, and he/she may issue-a subpoena,for witnesses
and evidence in conjunction with his/her investigation (33
U.S.C. 1223). The only other requirement of the Secretary
of DOT is that he/she consult State and-local governments,
representatives-,@ofthe maritime: industry, port and harbor
,authorities, environmental.-groups,-and other interested
parties in preparing rules, regulations@, and s-tandards.13

1.3.4 Coast Guard Licenses and Permits

(a) Aids to Navigation. Under aids to navigation, the
Coast Gua-r-T--TC-G) does not issue,,any.permits 'or licenses, but
does give private citizens I?permission" upon request, to
establish additional aids to navigation (33 CFR 66.01-1).
Section 66.05 of the same.title prescribes conditions under
which States.can regulate aids to.navigation. The Commandant
can designate,.upon request, specific bodies of water as'
State waters for regulation of aids to navigation (33 CFR
66.05-10) and may require the State to give him notice of a 14
change of aids tondvigation 30 days in advance of the change.
(b) Bridges over Navi&able Waters. A permit is required
for the clonstruction.of a "bridge, dam, dike or causeway over
any port, roadstead, haven, harbor,,canal, navigable river
or,other navigable water",(33 U.S.C. 401). DOT must issue the
permit and in so doing consider-7the proposed location as may
be required for full undersianling of the subject".and
approve ". . . the location of such bridge or accessory.
works" (33 U.S.C. 491). DOT gives its authority for the
perniitting.process to the CG with regard.to "construction of
bridges-, causeways, etc., to the extent that it relates
generally to the.locatio.n and clearances of bridges and
causeways in the navigable waters of the United States%."15

1233 U.S.C. 1222 (e).
1333 U.S.C. 1224).
1433 QFR 66.05- 25).
1533 CFR 114.01(c(4) and (5)).

(c) Waterfront Facilities@ Under the Code.of Federal
Regulations there are three parts of interest* identifi-
cation cards, dangerous and hazardous.cargo, @nd security
zones/regulated navigational areas.
Identification cards are issued to selecte .d agency per-
sonnel who may have cause to be in the port or facility, the
Merchant Marine, dock-workers, FBI, SBI, or Na for exam le
p
(33 CFR 125.15). The Captain of the Port (COPIT can restrict
accessto ports to personnel with special categories of
identification cards fDr purposes of national securityj dan-
gerous cargo handling@or military defense.

.Under the Dangerous Cargo regulations the Coast Guard
has two licensing and permitting -responsibilities: . desig@-
nation of a waterfront facility for the handling of dangerous
cargo, and permitting the owners.and operators of the
facilitie.s.for each transaction involving dangerous cargo..

Conditions for designation of waterfront.facilities are
outlined in 33 CPR 126.15 and'include a wide.range of
.specifics: regulating guards, smoking, welding and hot work,
motor vehicles, automotive equipment, rubbist'. and waste
materials, maintenance@stores and supplies, electric wiring,
heating equipment and open fires, fire ext@nguishingequip-
ment, lighting, arrangement of warehousing'. liquid,cargo
transfer systems, and warning.alarms, If the port meets the
specific regulations outlined under this section,.it@;will
automatically be designed for dangerous cargo handling..

Permits for cargo handling are.covered in a blanket permit
in 33 CPR 125.27. Conditions for the permit are that the .I
port be designated under 126.15 (_ab@ovej. and that the conditions
meet any-local and state requirements, restricting quantity -
of the dangerous cargo in question. owners and operators of a
designated-port are then automatically.permitted for handling
each transaction until violations occur ('33 CFR 126.31)4

Security Zones and RegulatedNavigational Areas are
designated by the CG, delineated specifically and published
in the Federal Register and CFR, Individuals may request,)the
COPT to designate such a zone or.-ared. @SeCuTity Z,ones are
[email protected] access by unauthorized pip-rsonnel is rigidly
restricted C33 CFR 127);.an 'd Regulated Navigational Areas,
are areas where navigation is more carefully regulated,by
the CG (33 CFR 128).

1.3.5 Deepwater Ports Act
Administration of the Deepwater Ports Act is almost
entirely under DOT's authority. The purposes of the Act are to:

(l) "authorize and regulate the location, owner-
ship, construction, and operation of, deepwater
ports in waters beyond the territorial limits of
the United States;
(2) "provide for the protection of the marine and
coastal environment to prevent or minimize any
adverse impact which might occur as a consequence
Of the development of such ports;
(3) "protect the interests of the United States and
those of adjacent coastal States in the location,
construction, and operation of deepwater ports;
and communities to regulate growth, determine land
use, and otherwise protect the environment in
accordance with law."16

The Secretary of DOT takes full responsibility for those
purposes in 33 U.S.C. 1503(b). "The Secretary is authorized,
upon application and in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter, to issue, transfer, amend, or renew a license for
the ownership, construction, and operation of a deepwater
port" (33 U.S.C. 1503(b)), Within this responsibility DOT must
establish procedures for application and issuance of licenses
in 1504, establish environmental review criteria in 1505,
solicit and incorporate concerns of all interested parties in
all stages of the decision making process, determine adjacent
state status in 1508, and be responsible for certain safety
and pollution requirements via the CG's responsibilities for
artificial islands' safety and pollution control requirements.
The determination of adjacent state status is a critical
decision for coastal waters management since an adjacent State
can stop a deepwater port proJect by indicating that it is not
consistent with its coastal zone management program. States
with which the port will be connected by pipeline will auto-
matically be classified as adjacent. Other States must show
to the satisfaction of the Secretary of DOT that they are
within 15 miles of the port or that their State suffers a risk
of damage to its coastal environment equal to or greater than
the risk posed to the State with the pipeline connection (33
FR 148.217).

The Act directs the Secretary of DOT to consult with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration in drawing up the environmental review criteria which
should include:

(1) "effect on the marine environment;
(2) "effect on oceanograpic currents and wave patterns;

16 33 U.S.C. 1501,

(3) "effect on alternate uses of the oceans and,
navigable waters, such as scientific study,
fishing, and exploitation of other living and
nonliving resources;
(4) potential dangers to a deepwater port from waves,
winds, weather, and geological conditions, and the
steps which can be taken to protect against Or mini-
mize such dangers;
(5) "effects of land-based developments related to
deepwater port development;
(6) Iteffect on human health and welfare; and
(7) "such other considerations as the Secretary deems
necessary or appropriate.,117

Of interest to coastal waters' management in the Deep-
water Ports Act is the requirement that a license may not be
issued to a project intended for pipeline connection to a
State that is not making reasonable progress toward developing
an approved coastal program pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1508). This section makes
the point that a State shall be considered to be making
reasonable progress if it is receiving a planning grant pur-
suant to section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The Secretary of DOT has further powers to terminate a
port project if he/she determines that a suspension is neces-
sary to protect public health. or safety or to eliminate imminent
and substantial danger to the environment (33 U.S.C. 151.1)'.

.Specific requirements for Marine environmental protection
and navigational safety are codified in 1509 of Title 33.
These requirements.are the authorization for CG regulations
found in the Code of Federal Regulations Subchapter NN dealing
with Deepwater Ports. Within this section the Secretary of
DOT (and the CG indirectly) is responsible for regulation and
enforcement to prevent pollution of the marine environment,
to clean up any pollutants and otherwise to prevent or mini-
mize any adverse impact from the construction and operation of
the port. He/she is also required to issue and enforce safety
equipment, to attend to other matters relating to the promotion
of safety of life and property in any deepwater port and to
mark for protection of navigation any component of a deepwater
port whenever the licenses fail to mark s.uch a component in
accordance with applicable regulations. The Secretary must
designate a safety zone around the port in which no installa-
tions, structures, or uses will be permitted that are, in the
eyes of the Secretary, incompatible with the operation of the
deepwater port.

17'35 U.S.-C. 1505.

1.3.6 Other Acts Affecting Coastal Waters' Management

Other Acts which deleuate powers to DOT with regard to
C.p -
.coastal waters' management are the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (OCSLA), and the Federal Boat Safety Act (FBSA).

(a) The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act makes two
demands on the Department of [email protected], there is
a requirement that the DOT (and indirectly the CG) should
"promulgate and enforce such reasonable regulations with
respect to lights and other warning devices, safety equipment,
and other matters relating to the.pr'omotion of safety of life
and property on theislands and structures (43 U.S.C. 1333 (e)
(i)). This requirement is consistent with. and complementary
to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act in that it compels the
DOT to "prescribe minimum safety equipment requirements for
structures subject to this chapter to assure adequate pro-
tection from fire, explosion, natural disasters, and other
serious accidents or casualties" (33 U.S.C. 1221 (7)).

The second requirement of DOT by,OCSLA is still (1978) in
the form of an amendment which has passed both the House and
Senate but which requires final consolidation and drafting
for final approval. This amendment would establish an Oil
Pollution Compensation Fund to be administered by DOT. The.
fund would be gene-rated by a tax on oil and reserved for
dama.es for economic loss caused by.pollution to any interest
involved in an oil spill.
(b) The Federal Boat SafetX Act of 1971 defined "boating"
to refer to vessels manufactured for noncommpercial use or
ngaged in carrying six or fewer passengers. The purpose of
the Act was to improve boating safety. It specifically
designates the Secretart of.DOT ('indirectly the CG) to administer,
regulate, and enforce the provisions of the Act (46 U.S.C.
1451 through 1489). The Secretary of DOT may establish safety
standards for procedures and for equipment on boats (46 U.S.C.
1454(a)). Permits may be required by the Secretary for -
evidence of compliance with the regulations .(46 U.S.C. 1456).

Section 145S of the Act lists subjects that must be
considered by the Secretary in formulating regulations and
standards:

(1) "consider the need for and the extent to which the
regulations or standards will contribute to boating
safety;
(2) "consider relevant available boat safety standards,
statistics and data, including public and private
research, development, testing, and evaluation;

"consider whether any proposed regulation or
standard is reasonable and appropriate for
the particular type of boat or associated
equipment for which it is prescribed;
(4) "consult with the Boating Safety Advisory
Council established pursuant to section 1482
of this title regarding all'of the foregoing
considerations."

The Federal government preempts the state or political
subdivisions of states in Section 1459 of the Act. This
section notes that "Unless permitted by the Secretary under
section 1458 of this title, no State or political subdivision
thereof may establish, continue in effect, or enforce any
provision of law or regulation which establishes any boat
or associated equipment performance or other safety standard,
or which imposes any requirement.for associated equipment,
except, unless disapproved by the Secretary,*the carrying or
using of marine safety articles to meet uniquely hazardous
conditions or circumstances within the State, which is not
identical to a Federal regulation issued under section 1454
of this title (946 U.S.C. 1459). However., the Secretary may
accept Snate boating safety programs directed at implementing
and supplementing the Act (.46 U.S.C. 1474 through 1480).

The Coast Guard is
given specific authority in Section
1462 to board to inspect a boat and upon the discovery of
nonconformity, revoke the boat's permit until the situation is
corrected.

Under Section 1481 the Secretary is encouraged to consult
with State and local governments, public and-pTivate agencies,
organizations and committees, private industry,.and other
persons with an interest in boating and boating safety. He
is also encouraged to advise, assist and cooperate with the,
States and other interested public and private agencies, in
the planning, development and execution of boating safety
programs.

CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL.ZONE MANAGEMEIAITT PROGRAM CONTENTS

2.0 Introduction.

This chapter synthesizes the contents of twenty-one
State Coastal Zone Management Program Documents, each prepared
by a state coastal management agen cy The Program Documents
(Programs) vary widely in their subjects, means,and degree
of contro4implementation mechanisms, and even in their
definitions of the bounaaries of the coastal zone. While the
Programs were designed to be sensitive to state interests
and traditions in land use,control an(l. resource management,
the all address a common series of issues mandated@by the
y
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, as
requirements for participation@in the federal CZM Program.
All the surveyed coastal programs were designed to meet these
requirements and all but a few Programs were initiated as a
direct result of the Federal Act which provides most of the
funding for program development, substantial funding for its
implementation, and offers States'at;least the potential use
ofan.innovativ& tool in'intergovernmental relations: the
federal consistency element of the CZMA.

The chapter's first section briefly reviews the CZMA and
the roles under that Act for the Federal Office of Coastal
Zone Management COCZM) and for State Coastal Agencies in
designing and implementing their coastal programs. The second
section describes the regulatory program elements, nonregulatory
elements, and implementation mechanisms commonly,found in State
coastal programs. The third section briefly describes special
CZ?1 subjects particularly relevant to U.S. DOT agencies) and
includes a survey of the transportation elements in State CZM
programs.

2.1 An Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

2.1.1 The Coastal Zone*Management Act

The Coastal Zone Management Act CCZMA) of 1972 established
a voluntary, incentive-based program for the development and
implementation of state coastal area management.programs and
is based on Congressional findings of?

'the Programs surveyed are from Washington, Oregon, Cali-.
fornia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maine, Louisiana,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland,
Virginia, North.Carolina., Florida, Texas, Virgin Islands,
Hawaii, and the territory of Puero Rico.

".....'a national'interest in the effe Ictive
management, beneficial use, prot.ection, -and
development of thecoa.,stal zone;
(2) (that) the key to more' effective.protection and
use of the land and water resources of the
coastal zone is to encourage the States to
exercise their full-authority over'the
-lands and. waters in the'"coastal zone by,assi'sting
the States, in cooperation with federal and ' local
governments and other vitally 'affected interests
in developing land [email protected] use programs for
the coastal zone,.lncluding*unif 'ied policies,
c,riteria,.standards, methods, and processes for
dealing with land and,water use decisions of
more than local 'significance.,"2

Under the Act encouraaement of more effective management o.f
coastal area Tand-and water uses through state action is to
be accomplished by providing funds for the development and
administration of state coastal zone programs and through a
legislative mandate.for federal agency cooperation and
coordination in' the management of coastal tones under approved
state programs. Elligible states wishingto participate in
the federal program.o.f assistance are required to initiate,.
sustain, and conclude a process of management pr 'ogr'am deve.lop,-
ment-within a fr 'amework of federal-requirements and'gu'idelines.
The com leted program is then subject to federal review and
p
approval based on a determination,of compliance with the.
''of the Act. Approval of a state.
policies andrequirements
management program enables a state to obtain administrative
grants and triggers federal agency compliance with state
management policies--"to the maximum extent practicable."
Although the program outlined by the CZMA rests upon the
development and implementation of state management programs,,
the nature of the incentives provided and the specific
requirements of the Act necessitate complex interactions among
anumber.of major participants--coastal S 'tates,'federal
agencies., and federal agency offices as well as the Office-
of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) in the Department of
Commerce. OCZM was assigned responsibility for the imple-
mentation of the policy and program set forth in the Act.

2.1..2 Program Development and,Approval
The primary 'focus of the Coastal Zone'Management Act is

2
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16
U.S.C. 1451 et seq. Section 302.

the development and implementation of Management programs
to achieve wise use of the landand water resources of the
coastal zone. These programs are intended to be a State's
"comprehensive statement .1. . setting forth objectives,
policies, and standards to guide publi, c and private uses of
lands and waters in the coastal zone.", Although the Act
does not call for the imposition of a'standard management
structure or,@-set of plolicies-, i.t does require the inclusion
of provisions Addressing nine substantive elements:

(1) "identificati on of coastal zone boundaries;
(2) definition of whatshall constitute permissible
land and water uses in Ithe coastal zone;
,(,3) inventory and designation of areas of particular
concern;
(4) identification of the means 'of control over land
and water uses;
(.5) guidance on priorities of uses in particular
areas;
(6) description of an organizational structure for
implementation;
(7) provision for protection 'and access to:public
beach and other areas of public coastal use;
C8) provision of an energy facilities siting/planning
process-
(9) provision for dealing with 'problems relating to
shoreline erosioh.,,3

In addition to these basic substantive elements, the Act
also contains a number of procedural requirements for pro-
gran approval. Of particular @ignificance for federal
entities are mandates for: 'provision by.states of.the
opportunity for full participation by relevant federal
agencies; program coordination with 1-ocak, ateawide, and
interstate plans; provision for adequate consideration of the
11national interest involved'in planning for, and in the
siting of, facilities which are necessary to meet require-
ments which are other than local in nature." There is also
a provision which bars approval of a State management program.
by OCZM unless the view of federal agencies principally
affected have been adequately considered.
Individual State'management,program development takes,
place within this basic.fr4mework of.requiremonts as amplified
and interpreted by OCZM1's administrative guidelines. The
result of this.complex process of program development is a
management Program Document which serves as the vehicle for
federal -review and approval of a state management program.
This Program Document must address certain established
substantive and.procedural requirements, Combined with an

3
Ibid.

4
Ibid.

environmental impact statement prepared by OCZM, the com-
pleted Program Document is circulated for review and comment
by relevant parties and agencies.. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric.Administration (NOAA) approval is to be based on
findings of compliance with both the substantive and pro7
cedural requirements. Federal agencies and their field .
offices can, during this review and comment period, assess
the Program's effect on their interest and activities, object
to Program provisions, and suggest modifications and alter-
natives.

2.1.3 Responsibilities of Major Partici pants

Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management.--Implementation
of the federal Coastal Zone Management Program is the respon-
sibility of the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration which has established an
Of.fice.of Coastal Zone Management. In additi.on to participation
in the continuing development of national coastal zone
policy and programming, OCZM directs the izplementation'of the
specific program provisions of the CZMA. It.establishes the
program's guidelines, administers the various coastal manage-
ment assistance grants, provides Program devlopment infor-
mation and support, and monitors the progress of State Program
development. After Program submission by a State,.OCZM
manages the process of Program approval through the Energy
Impact Statement (EIS) process. As the primary focal point
for the federal coastal management program, OCZM also serves
as a link among the various participants--State coastal
zone management agencies, federal agency headquarters, and
field offices. This coordinative role is important to the
process of Program development and- approval but has also been
significant in terms of the continuing evolution of the
federal program's body of administrative rules and regulations
which govern not only the development and approval of State
Programs but the application of the key federal consistency
provision during Program implementation.

Coastal States.--As indicated previously, coastal States
parti -in tNe federal program are responsible for
cipating
developing and implementing management Programs for their
coastal zones. These Programs must deal with three broad
classes of policies--resource, coastal development, and
government process policies. In establishing these policies,
States are required to seek broad public participation and to
carry out extensive intergovernmental consultation and coor
dination. Relevant federal lands, agency activities, and
interests must be identified and taken into account during
Program development. Opportunities for federal agency parti-
cipation in the development 'of the program must be provided,
an federal agency views must be adequately considered.

The Act and its implementing regulations place the
primary responsibility for soliciting and accommodating
federal agency participation and comment on the participating
State. The completed Program submission must document
required opportunity for federal agency participation and
consultation.
States must also indicate in the management program how
they intend to implement'the federal consistency provision of
the CZMA. They must indicate, within the framework of the
legislation and implementing regulations,'the specific federal
activities to be reviewed for consistency (enforceable poli-
cies) and the procedures to be followed for the consistency
review, determination, and certification process. Like the
other elements to be included in a management program, the
element dealing with the federal consistency provision must be
developed in cooperation with relevant federal agencies.,

Federal Agencies.--Federal agencies at the Headquarters
level essentia-IT-y-TFa-ve two kinds of involvement with coastal
zone management policy and activities. In terms of the overall
federal coastal zone management Program, they are responsible
for participating in the continuing development of coastal
zone policy as it relates to their interests and in the
development of the administrative guidelines for Program
development, approval, and implementation as they affect
agency activities and mandates. The latter participation has
been particularly significant in the efforts to define "exclu-
ded federal lands" and to draft regulations implementing the
federal consistency provisions.
The second kind of involvement for federal agencies at
the Headquarters level is their responsibility for providing
policy direction for the field offices, establishing a frame-
work of administrative guidelines for field office partici-
pation,.and ensuring field.office compliance with the pro-
visions of the legislation. Headquarters of federal agencies
can provide their field officesguidance as to the effects
and implications of coastal management programs and policies
for a particular agencyts activities so that the field offices
can effectively comply with the CZMA's mandate for federal
agency cooperation in management program implementation.
Field offices should be prepared by Headquarters.for dealing
with state coas*tal management agency concerns and making the
necessary internal administrative adjustments.for program
implementation.
Because the federal...coastal zone Program focuses primarily
on State activity, the most intense federal involvement in
coastal zone management activities is at the field office
level. Field office personnel are responsible for representing
federal agencies' views and interests in consultation with
State coastal management agencies for Program development
purposes and on a continuing,basis for-Program implementation.
Once a State management Program is a proved, field offices
p

are responsible for ensuring the consistency of their acti-
vities with a given management Program's policies--"to the
maximum extent possible." :Depending on a field agency's
structure, this responsibility might involve considering
'iew of a number of individual
activities from the point of v
State Programs which would make the application of a standard
uniform position difficult. Field Office coastal management
procedures and policy will have to take individual varying
State m a
anagement Programs into ccount as well as the general
policy and procedural direction provided by the headquarters
level. Field offices will also be responsible for helping
to establish procedures.implementing the federal consistency
provisions for State Programs and,for complying with both
the substantive and procedural requirements of the federal
provisions and the State management Programs.

2.2 Program Management

Coastal Zone Management Programs -all propose to pull
together existing State and federal Authorities and agency
management practices to achieve their-identified resource
management goals. This section identifies the major subjects
of Management Programs and discusses the various implementation
'mechanisms by which States propose to bring existing Authori-
ties to bear on the subjects of interest. The discussion is
based on the finding thatmost States identify many relevant
statutory Authorities, around which they discuss their Pro-
grams, but that their actual management practice will be
limited to a selected few Authorities and a restricted action
range. 1his analysis attempts to present an overview of the
contents,-subjects, and implementation practices of State
coastal Programs, recognizing that the variability in subjects
and implementation tech ong the thirty odd participating
niques am
States is quite extensive. To repeat, the following is not
a definitive view of any State's Program, but a synthsis of
components comprising the prototypical Program.

Table 2 identifies the management subjects which are the
substantive meat of coastal zone management Programs. The
major categories of analysis includes Controlling Uses/Activities--
Regulatory Functions, Managing Uses/Activities Nonregulatory
Functions, and Coordination-Implementation Mechanisms address
the professed operational controls and outcome ob ectives
of the Programs. Some coastal Programs are organized by
hic areas and some disclaim U e/Activities control
geograp S
functions, yet all substatively address at least some of the
subjects in the table-. The categorization of UsejActivity
functions into regulatory and nonregulatory segments is based
on the finding (by OCZM and within@states) that the regulatory
:Programs of agencies, those sp@ecially identified enforcable
policies in statutory Authorities. are the hard core of a

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SUBJECTS I NPROGRAM DOCUFE-NTS

innovations under CZM*

1. Use/Activity/Area -Controls
via Regulatory Programs
General development permitting
..in the coastal zone N
Use permitting for specific areas,
,(e.g. shoreline permitting) x
Controls for specific activities
Environmental management controls

2. Use/Activity Area Management via
Nonregulatory Programs,
Government.development activities
Managing areas ofparticular Iconcern x
Coastal waters' management x
Special CZM.management.subjects x

3. Implementation'- Achieving Coordination
Coastal policies as interagency
coordinative devices x
Coastal management legislation x
Planning requirements,
Impact review mechanisms
.Memoranda of understanding CNOU)
'Federal consistency x
4. Special CZM Subjects
Shoreline/Beach Acc ess@ x
Coastal Energy Impact PTog-ram and
Energy Facility Siting x
UAan Waterfronts X.
Ports x
Uses of Regional Benefit x

*This is a sugges`tive'rather-than an analytically useful
identification of CZM innovations. The'variation in program
content and 6xisting Authorities acros's States makes it
impossible to create any-accurate-description of innovation
T_q
areas in a single -listi.hg. In so 'e of the identified areas
some States had pre-existing*Autho-rities.,.And the concepts
underlying C'21 innovations-typicall@'have-been--floatin around
9
for years (e.g., Areas,of Particular. Concern under CZM is,
'derived from Critical Areas Management concepts). However, the
indicated subjects have introduced land and water management
innovations in a significant group of participating States.

Management Program. With respect to federal agencies' parti-
cipation in Programs under,the' federal consistency regulations,
only those enforcable policies of State Programs are required
subjects for consistency determinations. The nonregulatory
policies of State or federal agencies may be considered
enforcable.Program policies if backed by statutory requirements
and.established administrative procedures. Generally the
nonregulatory policies of Programs describe additional
resource management concernsfor existing agency planning and
administrative processes.

Coastal zone management has introduced a number of inno-
vative concepts in coastal resource management and the attempt
of State Programs is often to establish these concepts as
State policy and introduce them to existing Program operations
of concerned federal and State and local agencies. The Pro-
gram subjects listed in Tables 3 and 4 iflentify the range of
concerns of C 'oastal Management Programs. The typical State
Program includes most of these subjects but most States omit
the innovations giving broad new police powers to a.coastal
agency. Coastal Zone Management Programs clearly are very
complex and ambitious attempts at leveraging wide-ranging
Authorities in a coordinated manner. It is a very difficult
task to operationalize a management scheme which in the main
relies on agen Icies external to the official coastal zone unit
for implementation Table S, p. 65, identifies the implementa-
tion methods coastL Pro-grams propose to accomplish their
management objectives.

2.2.1 Controlling Development in the Coastal Zone:, Regulatory
Ranagement Subjects

The first category of Program subjects in Table 3,,R ula-
f
toy Programs Cited in CZM'Pro rams, includes three types 0
controls over uses in the coasta zone: general development
permitting throughout the coastal zone, use permitting for
specific areas, and use controls (permitting and State environ-
mental siting reviews for specific activities.

Coastal zone use ermitting is not required by the Coastal
p
Zone Management Act, and relatively few States have developed
the Authorities to engage in that activity. The island
Programs C@Hawaii,,Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico) had pre-existing
compreh.ens'3've use permitting, e.g., zoning for their entire
areas, administered by their central governments, and have
easily been able to include new coastal zone review criteria
in their permitting processes:. On the mainland, California
and New Jersey alone have developed permits for all,proposed
uses over a minimal siz&'located in the coastal zone. -These
Progr=s may be regarded as the highest profile Programs; they
include new State Authorities giving the coastal management

TABLE 3: REGULATORY MANAGEMENT
SUBJECTS IN 'CZM 'PROGRAM, DOCU-R-E--NTTS

Permitting' and Us'e Controls @61 St.6t-6- '.and Lo'tal' Ag*encles

Implementing Agency Location

Management Subject Local State Federal

1. General Development Permitting
.Throughout the Coastal Zone x x

2. Use Permitting for Specific Areas
Shoreland areas x x
Wetlands X x
Hazard areas x
other "critical are'ast? x

3. Use Controls for Specific
Activities
Key facilities siting X,
Onshore energy facilities siting x
Major development siting x x
fixil indicates that the designated Coastal Management Agency
usually administers the indicated control.

agency or its parent agency a solid base for commanding the
attention of other governmental agencies; in essense the
requirement for obtaining a coastal zone permit prior to a
development action by a governmental or private actor gives
an unmatched power of enforcable coordination over the actions
of those actors in the coastal zone. Most States have
rejected the alternative of developing new State level general
permitting authorities as an unwarranted intrusion on tradi-
tional local land use management controls. Proposals for
general coastal zone development permitting have been rejectea
by legislatures as unnecessary duplication.of local zoning,
and as a decidedly unpopular redistribution of control of
land use from localities to State level. It is interesting
that of the two States which in the early 1970's did introduce
such controls, California in 1977 restructured the administer-
ing coastal commissions to give greater powers to local
officials, and. New Jersey has been quite circumspect in using
its state level permitting processes where localities have
indicated that a proposed development is one which they
support. Only in a very few but significant instances has the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Cadministering
the coastal zone use permitting Program) denied a development
permit where its approval had been-advocated by the concerned

lo.cality.

Most coastal states. @deslghate state agencies to admi-nister use
controls in ecologically sensitive areas. Most commonly,
wetl__ ands development has been controlled through special
permitting processes over fill operations. Ina number of
stalLes wetlands permitting preceded the state's involvement in
coastal zone management. In other -states, and this is one
of the real benefits of the CZM Program, the very presence of
the Program, focusing attention on coastal issues and funding
program development, has provided the base for the development
of wetlands and other critical area management programs.

Dredging and fill operations in wetlands and shoreline-
areas,-of course, also require various permits from the Corps
of Engineers. one of the key potential uses of the federal
consistency provisions of the CZMA in many 'tate programs
will be to address the Coordination of the issuance of Corps
permits with those of 9tate agencies administering their own
regulatory programs in wetlands and environmentally sensitive
areas.

A few states CWashington, Oregon) had established State
level use permitting for specifically identified shoreline
areas prior to the 1972 Federal CZMA. Other states (e.g.,
Rhode.Island, North Carolina, Michigan) have adopted similar
Authorities since 1972. Such legislation usually addresses
itself to the narrowly defined strip of shoreline directly
affecting coastal waters; the purpose is to provide state
level use controls over the location and activities settling
on the shorelines. In W'ashington,-che Shorelands Management
Act requires that urban areas develop a permitting process
for their urban waterfronts, taking into account the provision
of shoreline physical and visual access to the waterfront as
a prime review criterion. In administration this shoreline
permitting is folded into the existing local use controls--
the cit ordinance and building code. In most States
SK zoning
where oreland permitting Authorities have been passed the
Coastal Management Agency is the designated administrator
of the process.

A third area where Coastal Management Programs frequently
reference use or activity controls is where the State has
existing authorities controlling specific activities: e.g.,
ke
y facilities siting, energy facilities siting, major develop
ment siting. Where a State has pre-existing regulatory Pro-
grams over use locations and development which might affect
the coastal zone, the Coastal Program will inevitably cite
these Programs in an attempt to gain leverage for its coastal
resource protection policies. The net impact of such refer-
encing of existing Programs is unclear. Most often these
Programs were enacted with environmental and resource protection
objectives in mind and thus contain administrative procedures

designed to consider the iinpacts of siting decisions. Yet
the coastal Program may identify relevant resource protection
issues operating on a regional or coastal s'cale
which are not considered in existing review processes. In
most instances, however,-it may be*assumed that the effects
of the inclusion of existing use/activity controls of external
State agencies over specific uses and activities.locating in
the coastal zone will not be substantively affected by the
management practices of the coastal unit..

One possible exception which-may be of interest to DOT
agencies falls under a scenario where a key facilities siting
permit is req.uired under State law prior to the approval of,
for example, a highway or airport project, Under certain
circumstances, perhaps unusual ones, it is conceivable that a
coastal zone agency operating an approved program and.a State
agency issuing a key facilities' siting permit, might.differ on
the merits of a project. The coastal agency, though the
,federal consistency provisions of the CZMA might be in a
position to eliminate federal support for the project, or
force serious consideration of its own recommendations. Under
the consistency regulations of course, a federal agency may
not fund an assis .tance project@which is found inconsistent
with an approved State Coastal Management Program. Under a
slightly differing scen Iario, through the emerging concept of
positive or affirmative consistency, a federal transportation
agency might project characteristics prior to funding to meet
criteria established by the coastal zone unit. These scenarios
are highly speculative, but they go to the heart of the
federal-state relations under Coastal Management Programs.
They will surface again when coordination of transportation
systems plans with Coastal Management Programs is discussed
again in more.detail in Chapter 4 of this-report.

State Coastal Programs also reference environmental
management controls and legislatively based impactreview
processes as enforceable policies of coastal Programs.. All
the Coastal Management Program Documents cite the basic
federa,lly mandated environmental programs leading to the.
issuance of permits for air and water discharges. Most State
Programs also cite the toxic and hazardous substances control
programs, the Corps of Engineers dredging and dredge/spoil
disposal permits, and several programs (Maryland, Rhode
Island, for example) iaentify the Coast Guard's programs of
oil spill control and regulation of ocean dumping as areas
for State overview and federal consistency.

In all States the federally mandated wastewater discharge
and air discharge permits are administered by State agencies
which have adopted under State law their own environmental
permit and inspection and enforcemen t programs. State water

resources.@'agencies or health agencies also'administer ground-
water'pollution controls',' and other State"agencies'regulate
dredging and fill operations, so-lid waste management, toxic
and hazardous substances management, oil spill prevent 'ions,
and selected other environmental regulatory subjects.

The inclusion 'of these environmental programs of federal and
State agencies in Coastal Management 'Programs has'a threefold
purpose. First, State Programs attempt to inte'grate their
unique coastal resource protection policies into the adminis-
trative procedures of cited State and federal regulatory
agencies in those agencies' decision processes leading to the
.issuance of a permit. Second, the permitting processes of the
individual agencies often are not integrated into a common
impact analysis (Michigan and Texas specifically do this under
State'law and have chosen to ma e this technique the basis of
their Coastal Managem .ent Programs), and coastal zone management
agencies see their role as a coordinating function in a use/
activity control impact review for significant coastal relevant
projects.. Finally, for permits and other regulatory functions
of federal agencies, coastal management units intend to utilize
c , io
the federal onsistency provis ns of the CZMA to insure that
federal agency decisions are coordinated with the policies of
the'Coastal Zone Program.

2.2.2 Managing Development in the Coastal Zone: Nonregulatory
Management Subjects

While the regulatory programs cited as means of control in
coastal documents are the most visible management subjects,
coastal Programs do address issues and policies directed at
th-e operations of government agencies which are not directly
tied to specific regulatory programs. Table 4 identifies
four areas where coastal Programs describe management concerns
over uses and areas where government agencies',nonregulatory
activities significantly'affect the coastal zone. The
listings in the table are not an incl -usive identification
of all nonregulatory management subjects listed by all State
coastal programs, but it is representative of subject's included
in most State programs.

Beyond their regulatory functions, government agencies are
of course engaged in many activities which directly or indirect-
ly affect the resource base of the coastal zone. Coastal
Management Programs seek to introduce, as best they can, their
particular resource management concepts into'.the decision
making and administrative (planning,' prioritizing,, budgeting)
processes of other governmental agencies. This is an extremely
difficult task which in program implementation must be tested..
out at the. point of conflict between* a coastal agency's policies
and the "objectionable". project of a government agency. The
ambitious statements in coastal Program Documents merely define

the coastal unit's perspective of the relevant issues, generated
by the management activities of other governmental agencies.
The Program Document lays the groundwork for future efforts
at coordination of management practices.

TABLE 4: NONREGULATORY MANAGEMENT SUBJECTS,
IN C0ASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Implementing Agency Location

Management Subject Local State Federal

1. Government Land Development
Government lands management x x x
Parks & recreation management x X x
Industrial location programs x
Urban development programs x
Localities planning programs x
Transportation planning programs x x x
Pollution control programs x X x

2. Management of Sensitive Lands
Beaches, dunes management x x
Erosion control x x x
Coastal hazards x
Shorelands management x x

3. Managing Areas of Particular
Concern x
Resource protectionareas x x x
Development areas x x
High intensity use areas x x
Areas for preservation and
recreation x x x

4., Coastal Waters Management
OCS plan review x
Oil spill management x
Fin & shellfish management X
Recreational boating management x X x
Navigation & safety programs x

(l) Managing Government Lands Development Programs.--
Coastal Management Programs generally seek to move beyond
regulatory controls over land-uses (permitting) to influence

"X" indicates Coastal Management Agency is of the
"lead" state agency.

government agency land management and development practices.
Not all State programs identify the program areas cited in.
this category, and a number of states identify other state,
federal, or local nonregulatory management subjects affecting
land development. This listing, however, is fairly representa-
tive of the major subjects under this category which state
coastal Programs identify as priority activities for coordination
with coastal resource management policies.
(1) Government lands management--in most instances
is directed toward state lands. The effort in most
Programs is to make development activities and normal manage-
ment practices of State lands consistent with the Coastal Zone
Management Program policies. Federal lands, owned or occupied,
are,by a currently unchallenged Attorney, General's opinion
excluded from the coastal zone and therefore from the consis-
tency provisions, of the Federal Act. However, offsite impacts
of activities on such excluded federal lands may be subject to
the enforceable policies of a state's Program under the con-
sistency regulations.

Because the coastal zone normally is a highly attractive,
recreation area and contains many state, local, and federal
park and recreation facilities, state control programs fre-
quently cite the management practices of Parks and Recreation
agencies as subjects for coordination with coastal management
policies. Key areas of interest are the facility development
process, and the operation of facilities in ecologically
sensitive areas.

Another area of government agency involvement in Land
development (nonregulatory) is typified by industrial location
programs of State Offices of Economic Development. Coastal
Programs in some instances propose to coordinate their resource
management policies with the operating decisions of government
agencies influencing settlements of major private sector-
developments. Other nonregulatory government development
programs which substantively influence development in the
coastal zone including state and local hous9ing agency programs,
localities' urban redevelopment programs, and state port
authority development programs, are also frequently cited in
CZM Programs as subject areas for coordination activitiensivees.

A number of coastal Programs, perhaps most, reference local
comprehensive comprehensive plans as a significant nonregulatory
management device over general land use development in the
coastal zone. Some states (e.g., Oregon, North Carolina,
Florida, for example) require that localities plans include
a specific coastal resources element. The technique of refer-
encing local comprehensive plans in a State management pro-
gram, with State level development of criteria for local
implementation of coastal management concerns, is one of the three

acceptable methods under federal coastal zone regulations for
achieving controls over land and water uses in the coastal
zone.

The placement of public works, public infrastructure
investments, is of course a major means of shaping develop-
ment. State coastal programs frequently refer to the need to
coordinate the development of transportation system planning

programs with the policies of the coastal management effort.
This particular subject is a major portion of this report and
is addressed in Chapters 1 and 4. It should be noted that all
the State Programs cite the major U.S. DOT operating administra-
tion planning and facilities development assistance programs as
subjects for application of the federal consistency regulations.

(2) Management of Sensitive Lands. --As resource protection
is a major theme in CZM programs these subjects are often
addressed in considerable detail in state management programs.
To a certain extent existing regulatory programs can be used
to regulate development impacts on sensitive lands. But beyond
permitting requirements for beaches, dunes or wetlands are
public management techniques including acquisition, protective
development and carrying capacity management. Coastal management
programs have raised the visibility of resource protection
issues in such lands, and in many states have identified gaps
in existing authorities and managemeny programs. TYpically,
coastal management programs attempt to target existing authorities
and administrative practices in such areas through coordinated
permit reviews by bringing together various state and federal
permitting processes (Washington, Oregon, Virginia, Rhode
Island, North Carolina). Coastal Programs also have provided
funding to operating agencies and localities to develop and
administer resource protection programs for identified sensitive
lands (Wisconsi).

(3) Managing Areas of Particular Concern.--The Coastal Zone
Management Act (Section 305 (b) (3) requires participating
states to inventory and designate specific geographic areas
which are of particular concern (GAPC's) to the coastal
management effort. The idea is an innovayion in providing
a defined geographic base for intensified resource and
development management efforts. A few states have taken
the concept as an important element in their Programs
(North Carolina in particular used the concept--Areas of
Environmental Concern--to define their entire first tier
subject to intensified management controls; California has also

designated virtually its entire coastline as comprises of
Areas of particular concern). In mlost states' coastal
programs, while the GAPC element has been carefully delineated
to describe significant management issues, not many specialized
management techniques for such areas have been proposed. In
their Program Documents, most states have contended themselves
with designating the areas and describing the available

management techniques inherent in existing coastal and
environmental authorities. It is quite possible, however,
that the potential of the GAPC concept has yet to be tapped.
The Office of Coastal Zone Management's Special Management
Area concept now (December, 1978) in evolution, may be applied
to specific GAPC sites. This specailized management technique
will supposedly allow for the integration of federal, State,
and local decision making within designated areas. The
evolving concept should be closely watched.

GAPC's have been designated in various States as including
three area types:. resource protection areas. development
areas, and areas for preservation and restoration activities.
The fist type, resource protection areas, identifies areas
where the conservation of aquatic or land resources, of eco-
logically sensitive lands, or of aesthetic protection areas
is given highest priority. Typically., wetlands are designated
as GAPC's (e.g.. New Jersey, Maryland. Massachusetts, Florida,
for example). Often erosion-prone areas, bluffs, beaches, beaches,
dunes. shellfish and finfish breeding or migration areas are
designated as resource protection GAPC's.

Development areas are identified in several state CZM
Programs (rhode Island, Michigan) as GAPC's or potential
GAPC's. As Rhode Island identified the application of the
concept, an existing or proposed use (developemtn) may be determined
to be inconsistent with the resource character of the site.
Undercontrolled development in the identified area could,
according to CZM Program precepts, result in damage to coastal
resources' and " . . . inappropriate, wasteful, or preempting
uses of coastal 'resources'," Rhode -Island's mean's for desig-
nating GAPC's indentifies the balance between use impacts and
resource capabilities of the site as a prime designation
criterion. Other States indentify areas including urban
waterfronts and energy facility sites or port districts as
GAPC's.

Areas for restoration and preservation activities constitute
the last category of GAPC's, one required for consideration by
the federal OCZM. Under this heading, Florida, for example,
identifies beach nourishment, and water areas where the restor-
ation of water quality is an important concern. Other States
identify historic districts in urban waterfront areas as
suitable subjects for restoration and preservation activities.

The designation of GAPC's in coastal Programs may be either
on a site specific basis or as defined generic criteria to be
applied when conditions indicate. As indicated, most States
propose GAPC management to be implemented by existing authorities
at State and local levels. Frequently. Program Documents
defer the management of GAPC's to localities under their com-
preehnsive planning and zoning ordinance, but where they do
so, Stateilevel criteria for management must be clearly

established, and localities' actions are reviewable in terms
of those criteria. State coastal programs inevitably reference
State critical areas Authorities, where they exist, as the
prime management tool for controlling GAPC's. State acquisition
of selected areas of particular concern is occasionally men-
tioned in program documents as the most viable potential
management instrument.
(4) Coastal Waters Management.--The treatment of coastal
waters as a substantive management area is not required by the
Federal CZM Act but seems to be an emerging concept in coastal
zone management programs. As an example of State interests
in the subject, the New Jersey Program clearly describes uses
and activities subject to management in discrete types of
coastal water--rivers, bays, the ocean. New Jersey's program
identifies a variety of uses (docks and piers, boat ramps,
aquaculture, retaining structures, dredging, dredge spoils,
fill, bridge construction, etc.) as uses which may be found
to be conditionally acceptable or may be discouraged in site
specific locations based on characteristics of the particular
water area.

Maryland also strongly addresses coastal water management
issues in its coastal Program, describing the following
activities subject to management: recreational boating, com-
mercial shipping (oil spill containment and prevention),
dredging and disposal of dredge spoils, activities associated
with living aquatic resources, and ocean dumping. For each of
these topics, the Maryland program identifies relevant issues,
CZM policies, and the authorities of federal, state, or local
agencies to regulate the activities. For example, under a section
entitled "OCS OIl and Gas Exploration, Production and Transportation,
the Maryland Program identnetifies policies on oil handling permits, oil
disaster containment, cleanup, and contingency procedures, and,
the need to establish an oil transport policy to provide
improved levels of safety in transporting oil cargoes. The
Program suggests that new efforts be made to improve piloting
systems, install vessel traffic control systems, and where
necessary widen or deepen channels, and control nativation to
beyond existing systems.

Other State Programs generally stress the environmental
management aspects of coastal waters management. Frequently
there is less emphasis on controlling uses/activities directly,
than in controlling their impacts through existing regulatory
processes. Often however, such programs are placed in the
context of the unique resource characteristics of coastal
waters perhaps setting the stage for innovative activity
orientented control in the future. Thus Puerto Rico's Program
emphasizes that coastal waters management plays an important
role in supporting the economic base for recreation, and in
promoting water's edge quality conditions (dunes, beaches.
reefs, etc.). Similarly, Rhode Island identifies the very

important economic r'ole.of fishing resources to the state's
economy; concern that water pollution.in@ Narrangansett Bay may
close valuable fishery resource areas exists.

The management issues addressed in these and other programs
usually center around water quality mantenance (from point
and nonpoint source discharges) oil spill prevention, con-
trollingerosion and siltation, and dredging and dredge spoil
disposal.

2.3 Implementation.Mechanisms in Program Documents
The preceding discus,sion,identifi,ed ihe regulatory and non-
regulatory programs! and agency activities throughout the three
levels of the government'which, typically, State coastal agencies
attempt to weave together in an integrated'management scheme.
This section discusses the mechanisms identified in Program Docu--
ments to implement coastal Programs to achieve the goal of more
effective management of coastal resources.

2.3.1 The Implementation Task

Tables 3 and 4 (pp. 53 and 57) identify government pro-
grams and activ 'ity areas which are the subject of coastal zone
management. In.some state coastal Programs the emphasis is
clearly that the Program shall serve to focus existing Author'-
ities and,government agencies on coastal issues but shall not
introduce new regulatory or procedural requirements for the
priv ate sector., In eather case, in the view taken here, the
essen'se of the Coastal Management Program is to bring to bear
governmental activities on identified issue@ of resource
management or development management. Technically the Coastal
'Zone Management problem is twofold: first, to identify, in
issue analyses and through development of a set of management
policies, the articular management "objectiVes" for a State
Program (balancing resource protection needs of the physical
environment of the coastal zone.and the working of the State's
traditions in environmental regulation and management
activity); and second to provide a set of implementation
mechanisms to achieve those management "objectives."S The
implementation mechanisms selected must cover the three levels
of government and,must deal.with regulatory and nonregulatory

SThe term 'lobjectives" is not present in all coastal '
Programs. It is used herein its generic meaning, and not in
the sense of applied objectives.

subjects in many agencies,acress the levels of government.
The implementation task is formiddble-because, as all States
recognize, the many existing.environmental, resource manage-
ment, and development agencies pre-existing Coastal Manage Iment
Programs play major roles in managing coastal areas -and thus,
form the viewpoint of coastal agencies, those Programs and
policies are t,he subject of coastal management.. In many
programs, therefore,.coastal agencies attempt to deal with
impacts on the coastal zone through the'activities of.governing
agencies..! Coastal management in those instances is the
management of other governmental agencies to achieve the
coastal zone Program "objectives." The Program works by
-managing the management agencies, This is all very tricky
business. In bureaucratic terms, at 'the simplest level, the
issue may be power; the power based on Au -thoTities to compel
other agencies with much larger budgets, staffs, and their
own well established authorities and domains, to integrate
coastal management objectiVes.into their program practices
as these affect the coastal zone. Less brutally phrased, the
,management task is to devis-e a set of mechanisms which will
facilitate the coordination of coastal program "'objectives"
.and management practices with thos'e of other.governmental
agencies. In their own sphere those agency Authorities are
controlling and their internal practices'and.external regula-
tory p'rograms are supreme. Coastal management agencies'.
schemes for program implementation must rely on the developmeni
of effective coordination mechanisms to other governmental
agencies by getting the most mileage out of whatever authorities
they do control.

2.3.2 The Coordination Function

From.this perspective underlying all management'programs,
especially in the States with strong,CZ@l authorities, is-the
notion that coastal zone management it essentially a,ptocess'
of coordination of agency Programs and practices.- Coordination,
in this view, is the heart of coastal management efforts. The
pragmatic perception of all Statemanagement agencies is that
there is little legislative support for coastal zone super-
agencies to override existing governmental agencies, and even
less support for overriding traditional lanO use control powers
of localities (exc6pt in a number of States with clearly
defined mandates considering activities of greater than local
significance, or areas of particular concern.

Coastal zone agencies, instead, in thier direct-manage-
ment efforts, rely on a variety of institutional CCouncils,
Commissions), regulatory Cpermitting), and,nonregulato.ry

Ccoordinative@policies, impact-revi.ew procedures, MOU's etc.)
devices to achieve their 'operational goal of more effective
management of coastal resburce's'.

-Certain states may beregarded as having higd profile
coastal programs (California, Washington, New Jersey, Rhode
Island, and others) where existing or new state Authorities
,have,tlearly identified a strong mandate to grapple with.-
development activities and state .agency actions affecting.
coastal lands and waters. In'these States it is likely that
coastal zone Programs shall be more visible and more effective
than in the more typical instance.-While judgments,as to
program effectiveness may be risky, it-is evident that certain
states have more clearly defined powers of the designated .
coastal zone agency to set policy, to coordinate _%tate agency'
activities, to develop applicable criteria to,manage GAPC's
and to engage in an adversary@process with other governmental
units over their practices which.then'may be resolved at a I
higher level in a conflict resolutionproces .s. These alre.quite
obviously complex areas of management responsibility. The
point isrthat the effectiveness.of a given' State's program
cannot be simply.tied to the strength of its enabling-Authori-
ties, thus classifying states as having strong or weak coastal
Programs solely on theappearance of a legislative mandate.
The management dimension is crucial, that is the ability of a
coastal zone agency to network other,state and local authorities
and management activities to'ach.ieve-the objectives of the
coastal Program. Again the .test of effectiveness is likely to
be in the ability of a coastal agency to coordinate the actions
of other agencies and levels of government with the policies and
activities of*the coastal z6ne'lead agency.

Table 5 identifies the main.coordination.-.implementation
devices found in Program Documents. It is very important
to note that each State creates its own management.scheme,
and that except for certain basic parameters established by
the CZM Act and defined by the federal Office, of Coastal
Zone management, state coastal. agencies select their own
implementation mechanisms.. The mechanisms listed in Table 5'.
are derived from inspection of Program Documents and represent
a synthesis of manageme.-at techniques just as earlier tables (_3,
and 4) represented a synthesis of managemen .t subjects@ No one
State'coastal agency proposes toutilize all listed coordination-
implementation mechanisms; it may be, however, an indication
of a Program's purpose to note the number of different mech-
anisms it employs to leverage its program policies-with those
of other governmental units. No@one mechanism is sufficient:@
or controlling though., of course, some (.'e.g., establishing
an independent Coastal Commission with executive powers) are
inherently more effective than others..

Table 5 identifies: those coordination-implementation
devices employed by coastal-agencies' to liaisonwith other

State agency activities, then with additional mechanisms
employed to liaison with localities and areaside agencies.
Finally the key relationship, the federal Consistency Regu-
lations, between coastal agencies and federal agencies is
identified. The Consistency Regulations are briefly reviewed
in Section 4.2.1 of this report.
Table 5 identifies five direct implementation mechanisms
by which Coastal Zone Agencies may influence the activities
of other governmental units and may gather the authorities of
other agencies under their program requirements. The right-
hand column in the t able identifies those states where the
coordination implementation device described is especially
visible. Eight indirect coordination implementation devices
are also presented in the table. Some of these may be quite
as effective as the direct implementation mechanisms described
in a particular state's administrative setting..

2.3.3 Direct Coordination-Implementation Mechanisms

Direct implementation mechanisms, are established or refer-
enced by coastal legislation and provide the coastal agency
with an authoritative base for accessing the programs and
authorities of other agencies. In this sense direct mechanisms
are substantive devices for coordinating the coastal agency's
policies and activities with those of other agencies and
levels of government. They are substantive mechanisms because
they provide specific enabled means and conditions for the
designated coastal agency to liaison and even impose its
policies on other governmental entities and directly on the
private sector. This is the distinguishing characteristic of
the direct implementation mechanisms; they are controlled
by the coastal agency and they may be used, within the
strictures of other agencies' Authorities, to affect the
activities of those other agencies. By this definition, for
example, a state critical area's management program may only
be considered a direct coordination-implementation program for
implementing a state's coastal Program if that critical area's
program is administered by the coastal management agency.
Then the coordinative function of the land management program
may be controlled directly through the coastal Program policies.
A referenced liaison to that Program might assist in procedural
coordination of State Programs, but could not be considered a
direct and controllable implementation device.

Not all state's' coastal programs employ direct implementa-
tion mechanisms as identified above. Where at least one of the
listed devices is not available, the coastal program must rely
on the indirect implementation mechanisms which are more pro-
cedural in character. It may be suggested then that the
absence of all of the indicated direct implementation mechanisms
in a coastal program leaves that program at a distinct disad-
vantage in its ability to actually implement its policies.

TABLE 5: MECHANISMS IDENTIFIED AS COORDINATION-IMPLEMENTATION DEVICES IN COASTAL PROGRAMS

Government C6ordination-Impelemntatio.n,Mechanism Selected.States
Level (Coastal Zone Agency liaison to other governmental agencies) 'ftlpying the Devices.
State Direct Implementation Mechanisms
1) CoastalDevelopment Permits required by State agencies California, New Jersey
(Coastal 2) Coastal Commission with Executive Powers California, Rhode.Island,
Zone North Carolina
Agency 3) State Environment Impact Review Process required for Michigan, Texas,..Massa-
liaisons coastal projects chusetts
to other 4) Networking of Authorities in enforceable policies Many states'
state 5) Memoranda of Understanding,with selected-State agencies California, Maryland
agencies) Indirect Imp.lementation :Mechanisms
A) Program identifies specific issues, action areas Michigan, Maryland, Florida
2) Coastal program policies,as c.oordinative devices Most states
3) Coastal "council" est-ablishes interagency participation Rhode'lsland,@ Michigan,
North Carolina
4) Conflict Resolution Techniques Identified Most states
S) A-95 Process/State log of agency activities reviewed Most states
6).Technical Assistance to State'Agencies - funding CZ.M Most states
related work
7) Program specifies project planning review processes Texas, Maryland

Localities Direct Implementation Mechanisms (inaddition to the above)
Areawide 1) Coastal Development Permitting under localities' California, New Jersey
Agencies jurisdiction
2) Local Plans must contain CZM element North%Carolina, California,
Oregon'
3) GAPC definition and management @All states
indirect Implementation Mechanisms (in addition to-the above)
3) Local plans, ordinances reviewable by coastal agency' California, North'Carolina,
Florida, Oregon
2) Coastal."council" establishes intergovernmental. Rhode Island, Michigan,
coordination North Carolina, California
3) Technical Assistance to localities funding CZM Most states
related work

Federal Federal Consistency Regulations are Controlling
1), Consistency Determinations'made by the Lead Agency
.2) Consistency Determinations.made by the Affected Agency
and Review'ed,by Lead Agency
3) A-95 and NEPA process cited as coordinative devices All states

Most of the coastal Programs contain only a few of the indicated
direct implementation mechanisms.

The first direct mechanism listed in Table 5 is the general
development permit. New Jersey and California are the only two
States where, specialized coastal zonewide permits have been
established for all but minor development projects. A number of
other States, however (e.g., Washington, Michigan, North
Carolina, etc.), have either established shoreland (first tier)
permits under their coastal Program, or have taken existing
shoreland permitting programs and placed them under the
operating authority of the coastal management agency. The
island territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin,Islands), and Hawaii,
have island-wide deVelopment permittingand the coastal agency
input into that management process. The key element in deter-
mining whether a State's land use permitting process may be
considered a direct coastal zone management implementation,
vehicle is the location of control of that process--if it
falls under the authority and activities of the Coastal Agency,
the permitting program may be considered a coordinative-imple-
mentation mechanism for the coastal Program.
Where the coastal agency does control the general develop-
ment permit process in all or part of the coastal zone, and
where other State (or local or federal) agencies must obtain a

permit for their development activites, the permit is a priori
a highly effective coordination device; it has clout as a
mechism for imputing the coastal agency's policies into the
decision making practices of the applicant agency.
Another direct coordination implementation mechanism
appearing in selected state programs is the establishment by the
legislature of an independent Coastal commission with executive
powers. Again only a few states have set up such a structure.
The Coastal Commission always has some direct area of manage-
ment authority--e.g., the aforementioned permitting process,
or area management under the GAPC process, or conflict Reso-
lution and Appeals processes. In the states where such a COM-
mission exists (California, Rhode Island,North Carolina) State
agencies pursuing activities which fall under the concerns of
the Commission are, within the boundaries of their own Author-
ities required to implement these activities under the guiding
policies of the Commission. The commission with executive
powers is then, where it exists, a very effective mechanism
for coordination and implementation of coastal program policies.
The organizational form however is rare, only three states have
inaugurated the Commission form.

The third direct implementation mechanism cited in coastal
programs is process oriented. In several programs, and pre-
sumably in their coastal Authorities, States have referenced
existing State Environmental Protection Acts (sepa) and their

requirements for environmental impact reviews of.state agency
activities which may have a significanteffeci on the coastal
,zone. The effect is to add to the 'existing SEPA process anew
specialized concern with 'coastal development management. The
device can only be regarded as a direct means of coordinating
and implementing the coastal program if the -revised SEPA pro-
ce'ss is administered from th.e*same agency as.the coastal'pro-
gram.'In that insiancethe linkage between SEPA and the pro-
gram will be direct and controllable, under@any other org4ni-
zational configuration the*eirivironmental review requirement
must be considered a procedural means of coordination and not
a substantive one. Of all the'State Programs, those from
Michigan and texas rest"most heavily on the use of the environ-
mental impact review proces Is to assure agency coordination and
implementation of the policies of the coastal Program by State
agencies.

Another direct implementati6n.Imechanism, applying to
localities, is the requirement in'sev .erIal State programs that
local comprehensive plans and ordinances specifically include
a coastal zone managemeint-element which is then.reviewable and
must be found acceptable by the state coastal agency. The
mandated inclusion of such.coastal zone'elements and the devel-
opment of acceptab4lity criteria by the state coastal agency
make such elements a direct coordinative device. @Such
required action by localities should be differentiated from
the more passive review of local plans and ordinance by state
coastal agencies wh1chother state .programs describe.

The last direct coordination-implementation device
described in Table 5 is.the designation of Geographic Areas of
Pa'rticula'r,Concern by and the management activitie-s proposed
for those areas by the Coastal Agen*cy. All states are
required by the federal Office of Coastal Zone Managemefit'to
include GAPC-designat!6n and management criteria in their.
coastal program, but not all States reserve the 'designation
and management functions to the Coastal Zone Agency. Again
GAPC activities can be considered a coastal zone program imple-
mentat'i.on-device only if those activities are in fact'conducted
by the Coastal Agency.

GAPC's are one'of the prime.areas of managem .ent innovation
in the coastal Program. In several state's they.propose an
integration of activities of state environmental management
,functions, development activities and local government land
use powers. As such they' arean important tool f'or.program
coordination and implementation of,coastal policies.

2.3.4 Indirect Coordination-Implementation. Mechanisms
Table 5 identifies nine Mechanisms described in coastal
program documents for program coordination-implementation which
are not based on new legislatively enable -administrative sub-
jects. Generally these mechanisms, whether or not they are
referenced in state coastal legislation,are designed to
facilitate coordination of the coastal program with the acti-
vities of other agencies. These devices are less "hard"
implementation tool,which may be used to force compliance,
than they are adaptable devices which aid the, process of pro-
gram coordination and implementation.

The first two mechanisms are different ways of reaching,
out with coastal program policies. In the more definitive
technique, coastal policies are separated into two categories--
enforceable policies backed by specific Authorities which in
turn are implemented by a variety of state agencies, and all
other policies. This approach gained popularity after the
March, 1978 promulgation of the final consistency regulations
by NOAA.6 Those regulations specify that federal agencies
must conduct their activities in a manner consistent with the
enforceable policies of a coastal program, not with all
its policies.- Enforceable policies are defined pragmatically,
as policies which rest on State statutory Authorities imple-
mentable by State agencies. The accepted technique
in recent Program Documents is to identify those Program poli-
cies which are meant to be taken as enforceable policies by
citing the source Authority and the agency programs which
support that policy. The technique may be formally regarded
as a networking of authorities into the policy framework of
the coastal management program. The cited agency authorities
and programs are, In effect, incorporated into the program and,
it is assumed, may be subject to coordination with a vengeance
after the program is adopted bY the executive branch in te
state.
The third coordination-implementation mechanism described
in Table 5, Memoranda of Understanding, foms an essential part
of the Maryland program, and is present in several other State
Programs. The MOU concept specifies distinct relationships
between the Coastal Zone Agency and the other (usually state
agency) signatory. Generally the MOU states that the policies
of the coastal zone Program shall be considered to contain the
working policies,of the other agency, except where that
agency's Authorities may be compromised. In addition, MOU's
may define certain impact analysis or project planning review
processes by which the Coastal agencycan review and comment
on major development activities of the other participating

6Federal Register, March l, 1978.

agency.

The next coordination device identified is the employ-
ment of a Coastal Council to input external agency and local
and federal government,perspectives into the coastal zone
management process. The Coastal Council concept differs
-from the Coastal Commission discussed above in that it has
advisory powers only. It is a vehicle for interagency and
intergovernmentalinput to.the coastal agency, where the
Commission structure, as defined above, has executive powers.

Another coordination technique used by coastal management
agencies is to specify a project planning review process for
major development activities of other governmental units.
Frequentl,@r these review processes may exist in prior state
authorities for key facilities.siting, or for State environ-_
mental impact review studies. Or they may be agreed upon in
a Memorandum of Understanding between the cioastal zone unit
and a given agency. The'project planning review is designed
to allow the coastal agency staff to inspect and comment
upon thedevelopment of plans and projects which will signifi-
cantly affect the 'Coastal 'zone. In particular, in a number
of state Programs, energy facility siting in the coastal
zone is reviewable by such project planning review processes.

The legal status of these reviews may be que.stionable;
negative findings by a Coastal Zone Agency on another agency's
project may nor be enforceable. In many programs where they
are proposed, however, major differences about a project
would be referred to a specified conflict resolution process.
Such conflict resolution mechanisms are yet another coordination
mechanism in coastal programs. Most Programs contain explicit
resolution sections including details of recourse to higher
executive levels to resolve interagency differences.

Another coordination-implementation device employed in
Programs.is the provision of technical,assistance from the
Coastal Agency to State or areawide agencies and to localities
to assist them in implementing the coastal Program. Technical
assistance takes the form of funding for personnel or actually
providing the technical expertise, where the agency or
locality does not have it.

The last indirect coordination-implementation.mechanism
identified in Table 5 is the -use of the A-95 Clearinghouse
process in addition to whatever State activity logs exist,
to keep the Coastal Agency abreast of all development and
management activities of governmental units which may sig-
nificantly affect the coastal zone. All State programs
employ the A-9S process as a coordination.device.

2.4 Special CZM Management Scbjects

2.4.1 Boundary Delineations

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that a
State's coastal zone management Program identify "the boundaries
.of the coastal zone subject to the management program,7 and
requires that the area within the boundaries include those
lands "necessary to Control the shorelands, the uses of which
have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters" as
defined in-Section 304(b) of the Act.8

.State CZM Program boundaries.frequently are derived from
an inventory of natural ecosystems. Most of the State Programs
include a strong biophysical orientation as a basis for the
development of management controls over land and water uses.

Several state Programs have adopted -regulations which have
geophysical bases including entire towns and cities. Boundaries
are chosen to be readily comprehensible to property owners,
government and state agencies, and the public in general for
ease in administration of CZM by the local government. Geo-
.political boundaries are often delineated along administrative
features in accordance with approximate biophysical criteria.

In general, state boundaries include areas which have a
clear and demonstrable interaction with coastal waters in
relation to biophysical impacts. The extent of States'
coastal zone boundaries are often designated in terms of
one or more of three general categories: "coastal counties;"
areas of 1000 feet Cor some other distance) inland from
tidal waters; and, the more "natural"' boundaries which note the
interface of the shoreland and upland systems as the extent of
.the coastal zone management boundary..

Several States (see Table 6) stratify their boundaries
in categories. Tiers may be.defined to allow varying degrees'
of coastal agency control: more intense for the management
of sensitive coastal'areas and less intensive for other areas.
The states that specify tier systems for regulation purposec
generally have, 4s their primary tier, areas most contingent
to the shorelines. Under this model,activitkes, occurring
in or adjacent to the waters of the State's coastal zone are
subject to closer regulation than activities occurring further
inland.

7
CZMA, as amended, Section 305Cb)(1).
8
CZMA, as amended, Section 304Ca).

69-

TABLE 6: IDENTIFICATION OF AREAS
-TE-RRITO
TO BE CONTROLLED-BY STATE OR RY

State or Identification of
Territory Extent of-Coastal Zone Tiers Within Zone

Virginia Inland to western boundaries Areas subject to.
of "Tidewater Virginia" periodic flooding
(tidal flooding)

Virgin Entire Virgin Islands Offshore Islands
Islands & coastal strip
inal'nd to approxi-
mately biophysical
criteria

Puerto Rico Offshore islands & 1000 None
meters inland

Texas, "interface of s,horeland "Shoreland"
& upland systems"

New Jersey "Cafra Area" & upper wet- ,None
lands boundaries ('1000 to
24 miles inland)

Delaware Entire state Coastal Counties

Louisiana "best fit line" (.line of None
Pleistocene Recent Contact)

Hawaii 100 yards to seven miles SMA (Special
inland from coastal waters Management Area)
(Counties will
determine)

Florida Coastal Counties Coastal counties
previously.defined
p
'lanning boundari'es

Maine "Coastal Areas" 250 feet of normal
high water of ponds,
rivers & salt water
body

New Coastal Counties 1000 feet inland
Hampshire or 20 feet elevation
contour which is non-
cylindrical

State or Identification of
Territory- Extent o'f Coastal Zone Tiers Within Zone

Illinois (Inland of) first platted None
prop ' erty line or major right-.
of way inland of the 100-year
Lake,Michigan Open Coast Flood
Plain & 100 year Lake Michigan
Sheltered Flood Plain

Washington Coastal Counties 200 feet from high
water mark

Oregon Crest of coastal mountain- none
range C8-45 miles)

California, 1000 yards from mean high none
tide

Wisconsin Coastal Countie,s none

Michigan i000 feet from high water none
mark

Massachusetts 100 feet inland. of.visible' none
rights-of-way"

Rhode Island One mile from tidal waters none

Maryland Coastal Counties, 100 year floodplain.,

North Coastal-Counties "Areas of Environ-,
Carolina mental Concern"

Source: State Program Documents

*indicates modification of stated measure when necessary
area,to be controlled includes Cape Cod, Nantucket, and
MarthAls Vine ard

Seaward Boundaries

Virgin.Islnds, Puerto.Rico & Hawaii: seaward to outer limits of
U.S.,territorial sea C3.nautical miles,from approximate baselines).

Texas and Gulf coast of Florida: 3 leagues by colonial charter.

All oth.er states: 3,nautical miles.

The States designating.tier delineations have varied
tier-boundary extents primarily because of ecolo@gicdl impacts
on the coastal zone, but als-o for geopolitical reasons. For
example, Maryland's primary tier, includes the 1-00-year
floodplain for biophysical purposes; but Vne-'extent of
the floodplain varies according to differences in physio-
gfaphy and development pressures among the'counties. In
Marylanals Program the significance of tier designations
lies in their relationship to@,,the Coastal Agency's project
evaluation process. Thu's tier (boundary)..,des.ignations take
on a functiofial role in the operation of the-Coastal Zone.
Program. Table 6 identifies the defined. coastal zon boundaries
of most of the active CZM1 programs,.

2.4.2 Shoreline/Beach Access

The 1976 Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act
require participating States to, include in their CZM,programs
a definition of the term 'beach' and a planning process
for the protection of, and access to public beaches'and
other public coastal areas of emvironment.al, recreational,
historical,,aesthetic, ecological,' or cultural value."9 The
corresponding Regulations require the Program Document
to include:

procedure for assessing p:ublic areas requiring
access or prot-ection.
(2) definition of 'beach' and. identification of
be-aches.
(3) articulation of enforceable State policies per-
taining to shorefront access and protection.
(4) method for designating.shorefront areas for
preservation or restoration if. appropriate.@
(S) identification of legal authorities, funding
Frams and'other t chniques to meet management.-@'
prog e
needs.1110

Also, in the 1976 CZMA Amendments there is a fun-ling
clause for the purchase of land for the purpose 'of providing
coastal access. The Federal Office of Coastal. Zone Management
will mal-.e grants for up to 50% of the cost for thepurpose
of '@acuiring lands toprovide access to public beaches and
@other public,coastal areas of environmental, recreational
historical, aesthetic, ecological,, or cultural valu&, and for
the preservation of islands The -act does not r'equire the
beach/shoreline access elem@nt to be included until October of
1976. Nevertheless, all State Program Documents except those

9
1-6 U.S.C. 14611 CZMA, as amended., 30S(b)(7), 31S(2).
10
Ibid.

from Ohiop Oregon, Louisiana, ane Wisconsin address beach/
shoreline access even though it was.not required of them.
Federal funds have not
,yet (1978) been appropriated for these
purposes.,

Maine., New Hampshire, and Delaware among our sample
Programs, discuss beach access in limited context, New
Hampshire's legislation states that there is special interest
in development of facilities that are dependent on access
to coastal waters. Maine's policy for access is to "give
first priority to police refinement of issues related to
port development, tourism, heavy industry, fishing, public
access, recreation. . . . Delaware's needs assessment
survey showed a need for parking, launching and mooring
facilities so their Program Document mentions the acquisition
of capital development funds for boat ramps and access points
along the bay.

The State documents that go into more detail approach
access in varied contexts., Some programs, for example,
consider access as an integral part of recreation concerns.
The major recreational use in the coast is, of course,
related.to beach access and rec.reationa1boating. Thus
the provision of more recreational facilities (boat ramps,
marinas, etc@)_requiring new.and,improved access is -frequently,,
addressed*in State programs. 'New York's recreation/access
goal, for example, isto provide opportunities for public
access to,-and public recreation in'.. the coastal zone through
the.establishment.of recreational areas@. Hawaii's document
discusses access under the heading of recreation,,while
coastal access concerns in,Delaware's pro'gram are exclusively
concerned with recreational access. Michigan is not only
concerned with encouraging tourism and recreational,opportunity
but also with improving accessibility to the "widest range
@of socio-economic-classes." California and Texas are con-
cerned with providing physical access from the roads to
the shoreline.while New.Hampshire is interested in industrial
access.

State Coastal Agencies identify two basic areas of inter-
action between transportation concerns,and beach/shoreline
access. -First is the need for adequate physical transportation
links from populated urban areas and.interstate highways
from non-coastal areas to the shore vicinity. Maryland, for
instance, is concerned Drimarily with the transportation network
between the Baltimore-Washington,area and the Atlantic Coast
Beach. Massachusetts' coastal Program emphasizes the develop-
ment of highway systems'supporting coastal access--including
adequate capacity on inland systems serving the coast.

The other way of looking at transportation concerns and
shoreline/beach access is in terms of issues raised by crossing
private pro erty and sensitivedunes to get to the shore.
p
California most clearly (and most solely) notes the transpor-
tation planning role by indicating a need to control private
development in order to secure access anrl.. to plan road capacity
in order to control rivate development in order to secure
p
access and to plan road capacity in order to'control private
development. An increase in road capacity,to an area, the
California program notes, will increase private development
and thus. decrease open access where public access has been
assumed to exist. Cal *ifornia's policy is to prioritize
development that allows public access and to require new
developments to provide for public access. Notice that
neith!@r of these policies deals directly with transportation
planning or land use planning..

Few of the state documents in fact deal specifically with
transportation planning. Massachusetts's CZM agency has an
agreement with the Massachuestts Office of Transportation
Implementation Plan and propose needed changes--including changes
for access and recreation elements.

Hawaii approaches access as a recreational problem and
they list supporting policies with corresponding statutory
Authority. It is especially interesting that in that list
the Hawaii DOT is given responsibility-to regulate and manage
shores, shore waters, navigable streams, harbor and waterfront
improvements belonging to 'or controlled by the State, and to
provide permits for private use of shores and shore waters.
And, in addition, the Hawaii CZM is to provide funds to DOT for
that planning.,

Land-use planning is mentioned in several of the documents
in terms of requirements, covenents' restrictions, and zoning
that can be applied in order to assume public access. Le
gal
issues surrounding the right of public access to public beaches,
across private property--through easements, etc.--arela noted
area of concern. The California Document mentioned above has
a policy of requiring new subdivisions to dedicate accessways as
-use
a condition for approval. California also uses land
planning in assuring equal access by requiring a percentage of
low a
nd moderate income housing to be built as a condition of
approving condiminium plans. The Virginia Island Program sug-
gests that development plans should be required to include
pedestrian access to the urbanized waterfront. Puerto Rico's
policy,is to discourage construction of building subdivisions and
other activities that would impede public access. As is men-
tioned in most of the documents, in proposing land-use approaches
to the providing of access, one must carefullyconsider other
natural resources and private property rights.11

See the Florida and Maryland Program Documents.

An interesting point brought out by both California and
Michigan is the need to provide and assure-equal access to all
socio-economic levels. California goes into this aspect in
more detail, proposing land-use plans and regulations for
development that would require provision of equal access.

All of the documents consider planning of shoreline and
beach access from the perspective of increasing access and/or
assuring access to the entire shore. Texas,, however,, mentions
the need to consider limiting access to beaches or shores where
preservation of speci'al-ar-e-as is desired*,

A few states consider visual access to the coast in
addition to physical access. The implementation plan for
Massachusetts advocates a mixture of uses along the waterfront
in order to provide better visual and physical accessibility.
Florida's policy is to maintain visual access where possible.

When the documents are taken altogether one emergent theme
is an attempt to-use the coastal program as a vehicle to justify
providing access to the beach/shore from the nearest road by way
of acquiring land or rights-of-way. -The techniques utilized
basically come down to land-use tools such as subdivision
restrictions, permits, and dedication Tequirements.(e.g.,
California, Hawaii, Virginia, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and.Virgin
Islands), prioritizing land uses which emphasize access (e.g.,'
Illinois and California), purchasing and maintaining accessways
(e.g., Maryland, Texas, Hawaii, California, and Maryland),
and providing tax breaks to property owners who grant rights-,
of-way and dedicate property (e.g., Virginia and Maryland).
Those considering access to the beach to be' a recreational con-
cern advocate tools that utilize more shorefront land for
recreational purposes thus incregsing the accessible shorefront
recreation. These tools include urchasing of recreational
p
land (Maryland),,and favoring projects that provide multiple.
uses (e.g., military bases on the shore that allow people to
use their shore for recreation (see Maryland, Massachusetts,
California, and Puerto Rico)). Florida's policy is to require
publicly.funded projects to provide beach access. Some programs
suggest that government surplus land be transferred to public
recreation purposes as a first priority (see California and
Hawaii).

2.4.3 Urban Waterfronts

In several states coastalzone.management programs provide
a more coordinated and more clearly focused framework for
governmental,decision-making regarding coastal'waterfronts.

New coastal policies in those states are laid over existing
local land use authorities. In Hawaii, or example, the
Land Use Law has been extended by the CZM,program to include
new Shorelands Management boundaries and shorelands use per-
mitting. In urban areas such shorelands permits allow
another level of consideration of potential uses, apart from
mandates in the prime land use control authority.

Most often coastal management reviews of urban water-
front development encompass only a few "critical" issues.
No state has adopted the view that coastal programs provide
planners a license to impose "positive zoning" in urban areas..
Coastal program document emphases on urban area management
gene-rally give priority to industrial and commercial activities
which are water-deDendent and to the promotion of visual and
physical access to the waterfront. Major barriers to water-
front access (e.g., highways and low density non-dependent
uses--wareh6uses). are strongly discouraged.

The Maryland coastal program offers an, example of how
local government land use authorities can be shaped by state
level (coastal agency) development guidelines. In the
Maryland coastal program certain locations, types of areas,
are designed as suitable for various types of ma.jor.facilities--
e.g... ports, power plants. In addition, more general forms
of industrial development along the coast are to be encouraged
to locate in selected settlement areas. Thus the program
proposes new initiatives in state level industrial development
activities; initiatives involving shaping major coastal
development patterns.

The Maryland program, in the Baltimore Metropolitan Coastal
Area Study, provides a good demonstration of an urban area
coastal management planning process. The study was designed
as a guide to coordinate actions, build consensus, and
resolve conflicts in the preservation ane use of urban coastal
lands and waters. Committees were established to make
assessments on how to manage coastal-resourdes and control
coastal land uses. Specific issues which surfaced included
marina development policy; coastal land transportation system
congestion; and more general urban-rural growth policy issues.

The California coastal program, in another example of
urban waterfront concern, references legislation passed to
provide techniques for the management of areas needing protection
or public access. The State Urban Coastal Park Bond Act of
1976 is one such effort to implement the Statels.access and
resource protection policies. One of the ActJs priorities
is to acquire coastal recreational resources with land and
water areas chosen whichare best suited to serve the recre
ational needs of the urban population.. This Act is invoked
when incompatible uses threaten to destroy or substantially

diminish the resource value of an urban coastal area.

The majority of State CZM Programs stress growth directed
towards minimizing urban aprawl and maximizing public access
and recreational facilities in urban areas. Use priorities
are directed toward Water-dependent industries and commercial
activities with provisions for the preservation of historical
and archeological sites. Various studies have been initiated
by the CZM Programs to assess the impacts of land uses within
urban areas with financial assistance and technical expertise
giVen to local governments to evaluate density conflicts in
order to ientify and explore ways to correct problems.
Specific concerns include visual barriers on the shorefront,
water quality problems, the determination of capabilities and
suitabies of coastal lands and waters to accommodation of
various urban uses, renovation and restoration, increased
recreational activities and historic preservation.

2.4.4 Uses of Regional Benefit

The CZMA requires as a condition of the State CZM Program
approval that a program providie a "method for assuring that
local land use and water use regulations within the coastal zone
do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses
of regional benefit.12 The N0AA Regulations for this section
require that the states: "develop a method for determining
uses of regional benefit," and develop a method "assuring that
local land and water use controls in the coastal zone do not
13
unreasonably or arbitrarily restrict or exclude those uses."
The Regulations state that uses of regional benefit should
include the national interest required in Section 306 of the
Act. Typical examples of the national interest include:
energy production and transportation, recreation of interstate
nature, production and transportation, recreation of interstate
nature, production of food and fiber, preservation of life and
property,national defense and aerospace history, cultural,
aesthetic and conservation values, and mineral resources.

Most coastal Program Documents have followed the regula-
tion's format closely by devoting several pates to defining
uses of regional benefit (usually to mean uses that effect
a multicounty area), by listing the uses of regional benefit,
and listing reasons why their Programs prevent unreasonable
exclusion of those areas.14 Unreasonable exclusion is defined

12
CZMA Section 306(e)(2).

13
CFR 923.17(a).

14 California, Hawaii, Maine, Illinois, Wisconsin, Rhode
Island, North Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Jersey and Maryland.

in the..CZMI)ocuments to mean arbitrary and capricous decisions
to exclude a use when few or no alternative sites exist-for
the proposed use. The controls suggested to prevent such
exclusion vary, but basically they consist of three authorities:'
1) the State's right to pre-empt local decisions, 2) 'the Statels,
right to participate in local land-use planning functions,
judicial remedies (States or pri izens can
and 3) vate cit' appeal
local decisions).

Three.States, Texas Rhode Islandand Massachusetts,
combined the requirement concerning -regiona'l.benefits with the,
CZMA requirement to consider national interests;. (The federal
re.gulations all.but suggest such a merger'.) Most States have
indicated a broad concept of regional benefits.considering
uses such as national defense and food production. Michigan,
however, also employs a narrowly defined concept of region
by considering such uses as churches, schools, and mobile
home parks to have regional benefits, New Jersey is the only
State to consider low income housing as,a use of regional
benefit.

The island entitles (Hawaii,-Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands),
found this requirement duplicative of their existing authorities.
Puerto Rico.merely.states that there are no local. regulations
that have power autonomous of:the Planning Board. The Virgin
Islands plan considers, the requirement not-applicable.

Louisiana, Ohio and Florida fail to even informally.
discuss uses of.regional benefit.-

Most- of the States specifically list transportation as a
use with regional benefits in their Program,Documents.15!
Massachusetts,.Texas,@and Rhocle tsland discuss the methods of
xclusion for each specific use of
preventing unreasonable e
regional benefit. Texas 'describes twoniajor methods: use.
of eminent,domain to acquire land for highWays,,ptc, and a
procedure for transferring State land to the federal government
for civil works (to,be used for'POTtS).

'The.Massachusetts Program points out that development of
new ports is restricted except when development is shown to be
needed for regional benefit and national interest. The State
takes a collaborative approach to future transportation

New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, North
Carolina, and.Michigan.

development, requiring State, local and federal involvement in
the planning process. The programs note, however, that MASS-
PORT is exempt from local zoning and that the tidelands laws
prevent exclusion of maritime navigation in designated 'orts
p
and protect navigation rights..
The Rhode Island Priogram also requires consultation of
all levels.of government on developments of-greater than
local'impact. Rhode Island, like Massachusetts, also gives@
port development a high priority as a use of regional benefit.

This-review indicates that most of the states in our
sample have followed the NOAA Regulations regarding "uses of
regional benefit" and that their Program Documents contain
adequate statements about the occasional need to override
local priorities to 'service the national and regional interests
adequately.

2.4.5 Port Development

State Coastal Management Program Documents frequently
address the following port development issues: the need to
support the port's economic contribution to the State; main-
taining environmental quality in sensitive areas (e.g.,
restricting port development in such areas); encouraging
recreational aspects of urban port development (e.g.,use of
dredge spoil disposal sites as future park areas); and applying'
environmentally oriented project evaluation and review pro-
cesses to port development activities.

In instances where Coastal Program Documents do not
address ports in a separate-section, the subject is often
addressed under the topic "Geographic Areas of Particular
Concern." Under this label coastal program interests in
steering port development 'away from wetlands$ fin and shellfish
breeding waters, public trust areas. and estuarine shorelands,
areannounced. Often the Coastal Program proposes to engage
in major facilit siting review processes for port development
y
activities.

Most Coastal Programs define a set of issues in port
development in which the coastal agency may play a coordina-
tive role. Generally.Corps of Engineers dredging operations
and permit requirements for private dredging and for dredge
apoil disposal are of intense interest to Port Authorities.
Major issues involve the dredging and maintenance of naviga-
tional channels to the port to allow deep draft vessels to
dock, and it is possible that some States' coastal agencies
might attempt to utilize the federal consistency segment
of their Programs to induce the Corps to engage in deeper

or more consistent dredging activities.

Coastal agencies are also interested in their contingency
review of Corps permits for construction in navigable water-
ways--as.all port development projects in coastal waters
require such permits. Finally, coastal- management programs
often include inj-unctions for Port Development Agencies to
pursue inland siting of facilities which are not shoreline
dependent, and the location of necessary shoreline dependent
industries in areas which have been developed and where
adverse social, economic, andenvironmental impact can be
minimized.

Coastal.Program, Documents commonly note that the decision
making process associated with port development historically
has been incremental,'with major project decisions essentially
reactive and carriedout as part of the permit review process
rather than as a,deliberate and coordinated planning process.
State Coastal Zone Management Programs often call for the
implementation of a coordinated review process for environmental
analysis of major projects affecting coastal waters.

The California Coastal Act is unique in that it devotes
a section to the,management of port development with the
specific provision for Port Master Plans. Each port governing
,body (Rort Authority) is required to prepare and adopt a
Port Master Plan which includes proposed land and water areas;
navigational routes, etc.; an estimate of development effect
on marine environment; proposed projects of the categories
that will be appealable to the California Coastal Commission;
and provisions forpublic hearing and participation. The
public is encouraged to participate through public hearings
and the availability of the draft publication for the purpose
of reviewing the master plan. In addition, until the Port
Master Plan has been certified, coastal development permits
will be required from,the Coastal Commission. A further
regulation is made regarding appeals to the Coastal Commission:
specified issues arenoted, such as certain wastewater treat-
ment facilities and oil refineries, with the port governing
body required to inform and keep the Coastal Commission and
other interested parties advised of the planning and design of
any appealable development. The specification of issues and
regulatory mechanisms that Cali.fornia notes show a more organ-
ized system of port policies than the majority of state
Programs.

Both the Rhode Island and Maryland Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Programs substantively address port issues with regula-
tory procedures noted that consider the balance of environmental

impacts against the economically advantageous possibilities
involved with port development. The majority of State Pro-
grams note few issues and those noted are identified only in
general terms; i.e., several States noted that the preferred
location of shoreline-dependent activities are in areas
where adverse impacts can be minimized. The Maryland Program
further defines this issue by encouraging the location of new
coastal facilities in already developed areas or in areas
determined by scientific study to be-environmentally and
economically suitable for development. Consideration is given
to the siting of new port development with discussions
involving the public services needed in extended port facili-
ties; the social, economic, and environmental impacts; and,
identifying and encouraging the use of environmentally suitable
methods of dredging and disposal with each of the issues noted
having a particular coastal policy presented to define,the
Coastal Agencies' position. An example of this policy formation
is the Maryland Program's discussion of dredging activities
with specific evaluation techniques noted to account for
effective'use of monitoring provisions to minimize detrimental
environmental impacts@.. Rhode Island's Program has an extensive
discussion of individual ports', each with their accompanying
unique issues an d applicable regulatory tools.

In general, the port-related provisions within the CZM
Programs note issues concerning dredging anddredged material
management, and selecting project locations with the least
adverse environmental impacts. The states which go beyond
these points provide more extensive discussions 'on siting
criteria relating to landfill, waterfront land allocation,
future use of obsolete waterfront facilities, air and water
quality, recreation facilities , siting hazardous facilities;
and, espousing a more,defined environmental permitting pro-
cedure. Few states' coastal management policies relating
to port development are stated in specific and comprehensive
terms or require a port planning process taking into account
the economic., social and cultural factors involved in develop-
ment. Calfornia's port planning requirement may be an
exception.

2.4.6,Energy Facility Siting and the Coastal Energy Impact Program

Most of the state coastal management Program Documents
directly address the problems associated with siting large
energy facilities in the coastal zone. Inevitably these
facilities create significant local environmental impacts
which may be controlled to a greater or lesser degree and
which may occasionally create significant economic and social
impacts in their host communities. Certain States (e.g.,
California, Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) have passed special

legi slation providing.a process for energy facility siting.
Coastal Zone Management Programs utilize such Authorities
where they exist and usually add CZM-policies for site selec-
tion which seek.to balance the State's omnipresent needs for
industrial development with Coastal Agencies concerned about
the various forms of environmental stress engendered by the
siting of energy facilities, and. ind-uced development, in
fragile coastal ecosystems.
The Coastal Zone Manage Tgnt Act, as amended includes
a Coastal Energy Impact Fund (CEIP) with over a billion
dollars authorized and a much.smaller amount so far appropri-.
ated. The CEIP fund provides compensatory funding for
coastal localities and other governmental units impacted
by the development within their borders of major energy
facilities serving national needs. Impact funds may be used
to provide local shares of the costs of providing public
facilities or public services "'required as a result",or as
a "direct result" nf new or expanded Outer Continental Shelf
COCS),Activities.17 It is also possible for CEIP funds to be
utilized for compensation for other energy facilities siting
impacts than only OCS related activities.

One area where CEIP fun(Is might be expended is in pro-
viding local expenses in transportation facility development
and services Coperations) where such facilities or services
are insufficient because "substantial shortages of such
public facilities or public services"18 are caused by energy
facility development in the coastal zone. On asmall scale,
the energy facility's labor forces mig7@t stress capacity.of
existing street systems Cthose adjpininty the site) anJ might
require street design improvements, On a largerscale, the
development of expanded coal pier@ in an urban port might
require major expenditures on air pollution ("coal dust)
retention systems. Both examples could be partially funded.
from existing U.S. DOT grant-in-aid programs, and both would
include a local share which might be provided throughthe
CEIP program.

There are several transportation issues raised by the
prospect of energy facility siting in the coastal area. The
foremost issue is the possible need for a planning process
which includes, beyond the facility design and operating

16 Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, Section 308.
17 CEIP Regulations 43 CFR 7S6S.66.
is 43 CFR 7556.

conditions analysis an analysis of the transportation
system needs of the facility and of the environmental impacts
of that transportation system.I Often the transportation needs
of coastal energy facilities are provided after project
development, in a relatively ad hoc manner. Because facility
transport needs occur in coastal waters (with attendant spill
probabilities) and onland, it may be reasonable to propose
a comprehensive facility support planning process which would
not only define the optimal (economic) transportation choices
but for bulk movements would consider the health and environ-
mental hazards created by transportation needs of energy
industries, especially vessel and rail transfer of oil and
gas cargoes. Finally, as with the construction of any major
facility, there are effects on the growth and development of
the surrounding community generated by the secondary develop-
ment of the transportation facility servicing the energy
facility.

Environmental disruption and health hazards are among the
many impacts addr6ssed by CEIP. However transportation of
energy products, materials, and by-products are not addressed
directly. Nor is the possibility of utilizing transportation
corridors to minimize the effect of materials trasfer (pipe-
lines). CEIP does not approach energy impacts from a siting.
perspective. It deals primarily with local impacts of
energy facilities after the siting decision has been made.

Section 308 of the CZMA allows thre-e different avenues
for the States to acquire federal fun(ling for transportation
activities. First, federal funds coming from Section 308
must be in addition to and not in lieu of other federal
funds available for the specific activities contemplated (43
FR 7565). A State applying for Section 308 funds may request
joint funding by the CEIP and other federal programs in
accordance with OM'B Circular A-111, 41 FR 32040 (43 FR 7566).
Section 308(c) grants candbe pursued for the "study of
and planning for economic, social, or environmental consequences
of the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a new
or expanded energy.facility such as 11 . . . changes in demand
for public facilities, public services, and housing." And if
the funds available to the State under Section 308CO arenot
sufficient for that purpose Section 308(b) funds can be used.
Section 308(b) funds can also be used for "Architectural and
engineering services for the design and construction of public
facilities required as a direct result of new or expan(W
OCS energy activity" (43 FR 7555). Notice that 308(c) funds
do not necessarily have to be used for direct results of
energy activity while 308(b) funds must-5-eused for direct
results of new or expanded OCS energy activity.

Another source of funds that could be applied to trans-
portation activities are the 308(d)(1) and (2) loans which
are designed to "help meet State and local needs to finance
most of the new or.improved public facilities and public
services that are required as a result of coastal energy',
activity" (43 FR 7556). And if the 308(d)(1) and (2) funds
are not sufficinet the State and local governments may apply
for assistance under 308(b) grants.

In all these regulations a "public facility" is defined
to include, among other things, transportation facilities
(including streets and street lighting, roads, bridges,
road maintenance equipment, parking associated with public
facilities, docks, air and water navigation aids, cannals
and navigation facilities, air terminals in remote areas,
.mass transit including bus and ferry systems" (43 FR 755.6).
The term "public service" is defined to mean "any service
authorized by law to be provided by a State or unit of
general purpose local government to the extent that (1) it
is financed by the State or unit of general purpose local
government; (2) it meets the requirements of Subpart I of
this part (Subpart I deals wit@ General Provisions); and (3)
it does not primarily serve industrial facilities" (43 FR
75S6).

The issues of facilities siting-are addressed in some of
the State's Program Documents but CEIP is seldom if ever
directly addressed. It should be noted that the States were
not required to include planning ocess policies for energy
T'acilities u 1 October 1, 1978 36 Almost all of the documents
do include policies for energy resource and/or facilit:ies;
however, not in the context of CEIP or siting-policies or
transportation as related to either. For the most part the@
State Program Documents do not adeauately address the trans,-
portation 'concerns in energy facility impacts and siting.
Five specific Programs, however, do show creative insight
into the problem: New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
California, 'and Florida.

Rhode Island is primarily concerned with the possibility
of hazards resulting from the transportation of raw materials
and products from energy facilities. This is evidenced by
a large section of theprogram document which is devoted to
the transfer of petroleum products, Compliance with Coast
Guard regulations is written into the document as well as
regulations for transportation of petroleum products across
coastal lands. Rhode Island's program specifically requires
a permit for energy facilities that (1) evidence some sort of
conflict over the location of the site., (2) wil,l damange the
environment in some significant way, and (3) appear to make'

the area in which it is to be located unsuitable for the
use for which local Programs intended' One of the require-
ments-d @the permit is that the facility have adequate pro-
cedures f transportation of materials.

New Je sey on the other hand is more concerned with the
effects on ransportation of secondary development and trans-
portation oi products from energy facilities. In attempting
to influenle the location of onshore facilities for OCS
activitie , New Jersey's program requires consideration of
existin corridors as rights-of-way for new pipelines result-
ing fr storage and refining of petroleum products. These
consi erations of transportation concerns are looked.upon as
elements of the plans for determining location of facilities,
not as results of the siting which must be dealt with. The
document requires that siting proposals be reviewed by,
the New Jersey Department of. Energy (but not by the DOT)..
However, transportation considerations are a part of the deter-
minatioft--based on location.

The Massachusetts coastal progra*Tq describes a planning
orientation for energy facility impacts and siting. The
,state has been anticipating OCS development.in 1978. An
'Energy Facility Siting Council has been established which.
has statut.ory responsiblity to assess factors in relation
to proposed energy facilities. One of the three criteria
of--7e"valuation"'is whether the proposed facilities can optimize
use of existing@'\delivery, distribution and transmission
networks While\the document does not specifically reference
\Section iO8 it is\evident that policies'anticipate energy
.impacts and incorporate energy impacts and siting concerns
and transportation issues (along with other issues) into the
alternative generation step.

California a so requires.certification for siting energy
facitities in wiy@ch the Energy Commission along with other
state iift-1-o-ca-1 agencies consider the location of required
pipelines, transfer of terminals and rights-of-way
for transportation in assessing the site. Furthermore the
transportation policy of the CZM document requires the state
transportation commission to coordinate with other L-U agencies.

Florida is the only state that proposed a specific policy
for facility siting. The Document states that it will be policy
not to locate energy facilities in "vital areas," to try not
to locate in "conservation.-areas,"' and to encourage location
in developed areas. The appropriate state agency is to
develop a long range energy facility siting master plan for
f @@h,
r

-'Uen,
Iti e
co
i /n
r st
era tj

@St

the coast that should,address location of transmission lines,

pipelines, and other distribution lines (preferabl@ locating
them'along other utility corridors). It is evident that
Florida is setting a base for CEIP and allowing space for
consideration oftransportation issues.
Other states like Maryland, Texas, Virginia, and Washing-
ton consider transportation in the energy.facility siting
process to a lesser degree. 'While recognizing the need for
integration of other agencies in the planning process, the
transportation considerations are treated only briefly.
Both Maryland and Texas for example consider transportation
from a timing or scheduling point of view; that,is, they
ensure settlement of transportation issues in time for the
completion of energy.facility. Maryland lumps energy
facilities in with other major facilities which' must be
certified. Certification requires that other necessary public
facilities be completed in time and that "Other major facilities
be adequate to serve the energy facility. Texas' Program
does suggest that the State should appoint a State agency
to provide,technical assistance to localities and to developing
a guide book for siting to.be used by localities.

Washington's Progra .m mentions that the Department of
Highw,ays was recently (.1976) added to the Energy Facility
Site Evaluation Council but trans-Dortation issues were only
addressed in the context of I evaluating applications for all
kinds of facilities' adequacy. Virginia's Program does
suggest the@identification of corridors where pipelines would
be least detrimental but also,, under its policies, encourages,
development of OCS. The assumption .is that they are more
concerned with development than' with transportati,on planning.

The other States either do not address energy facility
siting in the context of transportation issues.or lump the
energy facility siting and,transportation issues together with
other faciltty, s.iting and otHer agency consideration's.

2.4.7 Transportation Elements in State Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Programs
The'discussion of transportation con cerns in,the various
State C@M Program Documents varies greatly depending on the
State coastal p'rogram under review. Some statep,rograms have'
a clearly identifiable transportation component '(e.g.,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Rhode Island, North,C.arolina'), while.
other States discuss transportation as a general'concern about
access (e.g., Maine and California). The general concerns
expressed in the various CZMP's.relate to:

(1) activities occurring in' coastal waters;
(2) major facilities in the coastal zone;
(3) problems of waterfront access and aesthetics;
(4) the provision of mass transit service and .
the relationship of mass transit to private'
automobile Use;
(5) the'impact of 'transportation on the economic
and demographic characteristics of coastal
areas;
(6) land-use planning and implementation issu'es
relating to coastal zone development;
(7) concerns about environmental degradation.

This section presents brief descriptions of the trans-
portation concern's in a representative sample of.coastal
Program Documents. In most cases relevant statements are.
taken directly from the Program Documents. The-materials are
presented to provide a lookat how coastal agencies perceive
the transportation issues affecting their coastal zones, not,
as an analytical analysis of their Programs' content.

North Carolina.--Th,e major problem "addressed, by North
Carolina's coastal managpm''ent program is how to provide high-
ways that are adequate for the.economic growth desired in
the coastal area while in'suring that such facilities do not
unnecessarily degrade waters'and promote growth in the areas
that cannot accommodate it.,,20

"The development of ports is a major,concern because it
has a broad range of impacts on the local and regional environ-
ment. The direct impacts on coastal waters are caused by the
dredging and filling activities that are necesary to maintain

20
This reference is to the North Carolina Program Document,
p. 64. Page numbers for succeeding references to all State
Program Documents will be included in the text proper,, immedi-
ately following the referenced statement.

navigability and to build wharves and other facilities. Run-
off during construction projects and from developed areas,
residues from vessels, fuel spills, etc.1 can affect water
quality in the vicinity" (p..75).

In summary, the North Carolina coastal management pro-
gram focuses*on providing the facilities and services neces-
sary to accommodate the growing port activity in the State.
At the same time concern is expressed about accommodating
growth in a manner that is least damaging to coa .stal waters
and,adjacent shoreldnds. The North Carolina plan includes
two major general provisions of significance to the coastal
zone.

(1) "That no construction or placement of
major state-supported transportation
facilities will be permitted in ocean hazard
areas, nor will they be allowed in the
estuarine shoreline area,if the cost of
keeping them in safe, usable 'Condition is
likely to be high'! (p. 108).
(2) "That roads, bridges and other major highway
transportation facilities shall beconstructed
according to a sedimentation control plan.
that has been approved by the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission" (p. 108).
The plan.als6 specifies the need to improve harbors, seaports
and inland ports and to increase the movement of waterborne
commerce, foreign'and domestic, to, through, and from,those
harbors and ports. Finally the North Carolina plan requires
that any port development activities in coastal wetlands,
estuarine waters, public trust areas, and estuarine shore-
lines must be consistent with AEC standards for development in
those areas.

Massachusetts.--Special concern is expressed about the
significant role of ports and harbors in the economy of the
State. Concern is expressed about the transportation impacts
of the development of recreation sites away from population
centers. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
has the general policy objective of encouraging, "through
technical and financial assistance, expansion of water
dependent uses'in designated ports and development harbors,
redevelopment of urban waterfronts and expansion of visual
access" Cp. '81).

"CZM will support access improvements,
both demonstration and permanent solutions, to
existing recreation areas where increased use
can be sustained without degradation of signi-
ficant resource when:

(1),Existing transportation is inadequate,
especially where there are traffic
problems or related environmental
impacts; or
(2) the area is state or federally owned,
since potential impacts from increased
use can be more easily managed on
public land; or
(3) the area is underutilized based on a
ratio of parking to.'amounts of sandy
beach and adequate public facilities,
rest rUo-m-s. etc., can be provided to
support the increased use; or,
(4) benefits from public transportation to
recreation might spill over into
increased town commerce, tourism; or
(5) public transportation investments can
service,many recreation areas near
each-other" (p. 83).

The Massachusetts Program assigns the highest,priority to
projects which meet the needs of existing urban and community
development centers.

"CZM will review through the systems planning process all
major transportation projects ' for consistency with the above,
policy",(p. 92). "Major transportation projects. are defined
for purposes of this policy as those system projects having
a total estimated construction cost of at least five million
dollars and-involving the comstruction-of new'capital facili-
ties which:

1. Provide new.access to an area by means of an
entirely new right of way.
2., Increase the design capacity of a major transpor-
tation system more than 50% beyond its previously
existing design capacity; or
3. Introduce a new transportation mode adding the
capacity of an area's total transportation
system by more than SOV Cp. 92).

'The consistency of major projects will be judged on
the basis of anticipated changes in land development which may
result from changes in transportation accessibil 'ity, particu-
larly,where development would be stimulated in rural, unser-
vicedo or open space lands, or lands with environmental
constraints" (p. -9Z).

Port development and maritime shipping and industry are
accorded high priority and given preference in existing port
areas. New port development outside of existing port areas

is restricted, unless the need to be met is of national or
regional importance and cannot.be met in existing port areas.

Wisconsin.--The Wisconsin State DOT.has "charge of all
matters pertaining to expenditure of State and federal highway
funds,. The DOT prepares the State highway plan. The Depart-
ment of.Natural Resources CDNR) receives notice of the lay-
out, alteration, and discontinuance of county and town high@-
ways by county boards",(p. :180). The State provides that
"town or county discontinuance of access by road to a naviga-
ble lake or-stream is not effective unless approved by the
DNR and the access required to be dedicated for shoreline
plats may not be vacated without circuit-court approval.
These activities are included in the management program
because of their potential impact,on access to public resources
(such as navigable waters, beaches@, or@State-owned parks) and
their impact on community development patterns" (p, 180).
"Disturbing highway bridges is included in the management
program because of the potential-impact-on navigable coastal
waters, including obstruction to navigation, effects on
flood control,,and community development patterns" -Cp. 180).

Abandoning any rail 1 'ine or rail service is included in
the State CZM Program "because of potential significant
impacts of rail abandonment on economic development in the
coastal management area, with particular reference to,the-
economic well-being of the state's ports and the cross-lake
ferries. The potential recreational use of abandoned rail
lines is also an.important consideration".(p. 180)i.

The construction or establishing of an airport "is
included because of significant impacts on economic develop-
ment in the coastal management area and potential impacts on
coastal natural resources, (such as vulnerable habitats) and
on community development patterns" p. 181).

Puerto Rico..--The Puerto Rico CZM.Program does not dis-
cuss the-impact of transportation on Coastal Zone Management
in detail. The Program states that transportation concerns
will be managed by the Departmentof Transportation and Public
Works (DTPW) and by the Port Authority which is linked to
DTPW. The Puerto Rico Program includes a statement that
water based transportation, wh-ich is already significant,
will b-ecome more significant in the future.

The Puerto Rico Program stresses comprehensive planning
for transportation development. and improvements. The Program
recognizes the.importance of the effects of the transportation
network on the location of urban and industrial development,
and notes the preferability of encouraging bicycle utilization.
The Program proposes a 24-kilometer bikeway dlong the coast
in the San Juan Metropolitan Area. Airports are especially

important to the tourist industry in Puerto Rico and thus to
their entire economy.

.Implementation of policy in the transportation realm
comes from several agencies working in a coordinated effort.
"[T]he pl.anning board guides overall transportation planning
as part of its comprehensive, Island-wide'planning process"
(p. 133)., The Highway Authority and Port Authority and the
Metropolitan Bus Authority have development,authority for
their,respective functional areas. ..[Cloo-rdination
among the agencies is accomplished through-a Policy Committee
for Planning Organizations which reviews transportation pro-
grams and major projects" (p. 133). @A comprehensive trans-
portation plan has been.developed for 1970-1990 which@
includes goals and. objectives for ports, and'airports, high-
ways, and mass transit.

The Puerto:.Rico Program is one of the few that addresses
transportation safety in their program; however, little is
really said about safety since it is not particularly
relevant to Coastal Zone Management.

Rhode 'Island.--The coastal Program "recognizes'the
importance and necessity of improved transportation'facilities
to service,the Rhode Island coastal region. Upgrading such
facilities, especially those which contribute to improvement
of mass transit systems, shall be a high priority use of
the coastal region" (p. 214)., The Program points out that
the "upgrading of transportation facilities, particularly
expansion of existing major highways, must be carefully planned
if social benefits are to be maximized at minimal social and
environ-mental cost" (p. 214).

The .State agency reviews transportation plans in order
"to ensure consistency of the proposed action with applicable
provisions of the Coastal Resources Management Plan" (p. 214).
In undertaking such review the,following types'of issues are
addressed:

(1) "Impacts.on public access to and recreational
enjoyment of public parks and beaches;
(2) Impacts.on the natural environment and
habitat quality of conservation and wildlife
management areas;
(3) Impacts on scenic, sensitive, productive'
and/or-unique,,coastal natural features and
areas such as wet1ands., beaches, cliffs,
and bluffs.
(4) Impacts on areas.) buildings or sites of
historical, cultural and/or archeological
significance';

(5) Impacts on braod development patterns;
particularly as this relates to stimulating
development of rural, unserviced and/or
open space lands or lands with development
constraints" (p. 214 and 215).

In general the State requires that applicants with proposals
for transportation facilities within areas directly under
Council jurisdiction shall demonstrate "reliable and probative
evidence that coastal resources are capable@of supporting
the proposed activity" (p. 21S).

Hawaii.--"Hawaii's coastal recreational resources--its
parks, near-shore waters, coastal ecosystems, surf sites, and
beaches--are limited in number and are under increasing demand.
This demand is rising because of population growth and
increased tourism, leisure time, and income. At the same time,
coastal development has reduced public access to recreational
resources and has increased public land acquisition costs"
(p. 23). One major concern in the Hawaii Program is that the
Counties "adopt guidelines for the review of developments
proposed in the Special Management Area (SMA) to ensure
adequate access to publicly owned or used beaches, recreation
areas, and natural preserves; to provide adequate areas and
wildlife preserves; to minimize the adverse effects of waste
treatment; and to minimize the alteration of land forms and
vegetation that may cause coastal hazard and degradation"
p. 26).,

The State Program also states the need to provide
adequate, accessible, and diverse recreational opportunities
in the coastal zone by:

(1) "Protecting coastal resources uniquely
suited for recreational activities that
cannot be provided in other areas" (p. 24);
(2) "requiring replacement of coastal resources
having significant recreational value,
including but not limited to surfing sites
and sandy beaches, when such resources will
be unavoidably damaged by development, or
requiring reasonable monetary compensation
to the State for recreation when replacement
is not feasible or desirable" (p. 24);
(3) I'providing and managing adequate public
access, consistent with conservation of
natural resources, to and along shorelines
with recreational value" (p. 24);
(4) "providing an adequate supply of shoreline
parks and other recreational facilities
suitable for public recreation" (p. 24);

(5) tTEnc,ouraging expanded.public recre.ational
use of County, State, and Federally-owned
or,controlled shoreline lands and waters
,having recreational value" (p. 24);
(6) Adopting water quality standards and regu-
lating point and non-point sources of
pollution in order to protect and where
feasible, restore the recreational value
of coastal waters" (p. 24);
(7) "Developing new shoreline recreational oppor-
tUnities where appropriate, such as artifi- .
cial reefs for surfing and fishing" (p. 24);and
(8) "Encouraging reasonable dedication of
shoreline areas with recreational value for
public use as part of discretionary approvals
or permits by the State Land Use Commission,
Board of.Land and Natural Resources, County
councils, and County planning commissions,and
credi ting such dedication against the require-
ments of Section 46-6 HRS" (p. 24).

"State policy for shorefront access and/or protection in
all areas of the State is set forth,in various State laws
and in the Hawaii CZM objectives and policies dealing with
recr eational resources; scenic and open space resources;
historic resources; coastal ecosystems; and economic uses"
(p. 114).

"In addition, the statutory guidelines of the. SMA permit
process require consideration of both physical and,visual
accessincluding the imposition of reasonable terms,and con-
ditions for their provision and preservation. State law
has also established the State policy of protection for the
shoreline by means of the shoreline setback requirements"
(p.

Florida.--Florida' 's coastal Program emphasizes growth
within the bounds of resource management and protection. The
Program addresses both ports and land transportation separately.

Under ports, the policy gives funding priority to plans
for long-term develop 'ment. Long-term port plans must meet
certain criteria: (a) identify State and -regional port needs,
(b) identify long-term port land requi,r.ements and potential
development patterns, Cc) consider support services necessary
for port expansion, (d) show,consistency with the Florida
Coastal Management Program, and (e) identify planned channel
depths and dredging needs and spoil disposal plans.

The land transportation elements do not discourage
transportation development; they encourage careful planning

and inland development where possible. Development plans
must minimize aesthetic and environmental damage and use of
the shorefront and be designed to avoid or minimize adverse
secondary impacts. The most interesting transportation ele-
ment of the Florida plan is the requirement that "Land
i transportation facilities shall be located in such a manner
to allow for efficient population exodus in cases of natural
disasters and public safety hazards" (p. 56).

California.--California's transportation component of
the CZM plan deals primarily with problems of access and the
location of new development. The State requires that maximum
access "shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational oppor-
tunities shall be piovided for all the people consistent with
public safety needs and the need to protect public rights,
rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas
from overuse" (p. 74). In addition "Public access from the
nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast
must be provided in new development projects except where
(1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security
needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources; (2)
adequate access exists nearby; or (3) agriculture would be
adversely affected. Dedicated acc.essway shall not be required
to be opened to public use until a public agency or private
association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and
liability of the accessway" Cp. 74). Public facilities must
"be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against
the impacts, social and otherwise, of over-crowding or overuse
by the public of any single area" (p. 74).

"In addition to these policies,that address public access
directly, two of the Coastal Act's policies on development
amplify the need to protect both physical and visual access to
the coast. These policies state: 'The scenic and visual
qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected
as a resource of public importance. Permitted development
shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the
ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of
natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the charac-
ter of surrounding areas,.and where feasible, to restore and
enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New devel-
opment in highly scenic areas,,1 must be subordinate to the
character of its setting" (302S1 California Coastal Act, p. 74).
The plan also requires that: "Th-e location and amount of new
development should maintain and enhance public access to the
coast by Cl) facilitating the provision or extension of transit
service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or
adjoining residential development or in other areas that will
minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing non-
automobile circulation within the development, (4) providing
adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of

serving the development with public,transportation, (5)
assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity
uses such as high-rise office buildings, and.by CQ assuring
that the recreational needs-of new residents will not overload
nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount.
of development with local partk acquisition and development
plans withthe provision of onsite recreational facilities
to serve the new development" (3025.2 California Coastal Act).

Illinois.--"Coastal-dependent uses are of high.priority
for the Coastal Zone. These are land or@water -uses which must
locate in, one, or adjacent to coastal waters; or uses which
provide access to coastal waters for other coastal-dependent
uses, or for water-depdendent uses which.do not need to locate
in the Coastal Zone.

Uses of low priority. a-re.those uses which are not coastal-.
dependent, though such.uses may be consistent with the goals
of the Program, in the National interest, or enhanced.by a
coastal location.

Thepriorities of use apply to coastal'-waters and to
parcels.of property directly,adjacent to those waFers.

Examples of uses of high, and low. priority are listed
below.. In each case, the land or water use includes its.
necessary on-site services and support facilities; The uses
and,facilities listed.in.each category are not prioritized
within the category. The uses of,high priority are,

(1) Boating harbors, launching ramps, and
service facilities;
C2) Beaches and bathing facilities;
(3) Fisheries, stocking facilities, recreational
fishing piers, and commercial fishing operations
and facilities;
(4) Coastal flood erosion and storm protection
facilities, including beach nourishment;
(5) Harbors, channels,.navigation aids, and
improvements and dredging operations;
(6) Port terminals, lands, service facilities
and operations;
(7) Industries and utilities which must load
and offload cargo from deep draft vess-e'ls;
C8) Water supply corridors for uses which
require coastal waters, but which do not
require a coastal site;
C9) Road, rail, and other transportation
providing,access to.the above uses.

The uses of low priority are:

(1) Other forms of recreation C_e,g., tennis
courts, swimming pools);
C2) Agriculture; ,
(3) Transportation improvements which do not
specifically provide access to coastal-
dependent uses;
(4) Facilities for mineral exploration and
extraction;
(5) Facilities for national defense which
are not coastal-dependent;
(6) Housing;
(7) Non-coastal-dependent industries and
utilities, including electrical energy
production and transmission;
(8) Public and semi-public service facilities
(e.g., hospitals, schools, churches);
C9) Facilities for wholesale and retail trade
Cpp. 68-70).

"Coastal depdendent economic activities--industries,
utilities, port terminals, navigation--will be promoted and
encouraged for appropriate locations along the shoreline.
Delivery of public services and the many regulatory require-
ments will be coordinated and simplified. Engineering studies
and capital improvement planning will be undertaken for port
development, waterways planning, and navigation facilities.
On-land transportation and utility services will be provided
for expansion of essential coastal industries" (p. 156).

The Illinois CZM Program is concerned with the priority
of land use in the coastal zone, the location and development
of shoreline dependent economic activity and with the direct
impact of development on coastal waters. Any use of shorelands
with demonstrated potential for direct and significant impact
is subject to the State CZM Program.

Maryland.--Maryland has a stated major policy for trans-
portation that relates to both ports and land transportation.
"Maryland will plan, develop, maintain, operate, and regulate,
in cooperation with local jurisdictions and as a supplement to
the facilities and services provided by private enterprises,
a transportation system which adequately meets the need for
movement of people and goods while: supporting local,
regional, State, and national goals; providing for and facili-
tating a pattern of physical development which can be
efficiently served by transpotation; preserving the unique
qualities of Maryland's historical and natural resources;
maintaining fiscal integrity, and strengthening the economy
of Maryland" (p. 250). This all-encompasing policy sets the
general tone of the whole set of policies. None of the
policies are very specific or original. Maryland does

however address OCS and Deepwater Ports. The Program requires
location of "private port facilitie*s necessary to service
OCS exploration, development, and production will be evaluated
pursuant to the Coastal Facilities Review Act" (p. 251). It
also requires the Governor to represent state interests in
federal decisions regarding deep-water Ports.

The policies involving land transportation are a little
more interesting. The State requires an impact study of
projects which include evaluation of existing alternatives.,
and requires meeting transportation needs through improvement
of existing facilities where possible. The Program encourages
transportation projects which utilize alternatives to the
automobile and enetgy-efficient measures such as carpooling,
public transport.ation, bikeways, and traffic operations
improvements.

The State is also concerned about enhancing economic
development potential and encouraging a safe, efficient
Primary Highway System between major population and industrial
centers., recreation sites, and transportation terminals.

The final and most interesting policy concerning trans-
portation is: "The State supports private enterprise in
maintaining and strengthening the system of moving goods in
Maryland" (p. 289).

New Jersey.--The New Jersey CZM Program is concerned
with development issues related to facilities for crude oil
storage, tanker terminals., deepwater ports. The Program
recognizes the potential impacts of these'facilities and
expresses concern about their impact on the State's coastal
resources (p. 187). In addition the transportation element
of the CZM Program states that mass transit will be promoted
under the Coastal Zone Management Program and that major
new development in the coastal zone can provide a stimulus
to the development of mass transit (P. 117).

(1) New and improved public transportation facilities,
and related parking facilities, including bus,
rail, air and,boat travel, shall be encouraged
(p. 138).
(2) New or expanded road or highway projects shall
.be encouraged only if they will serve the demon-
strated needs of existing settled areas, and
the roads or highways do not limit physical or
visual access to the waterfront (p. 137)
(3) Construction of bicycle and foot paths, and fishing
catwalks and platforms on new bridges, shall
be encouraged Cp. 138).

Michigan.--Th.e Michigan CZM Program deals very sp.ecifi-
cally with the need to regulate transportation development
in the coastal zone. It is State policy "to use available
authorities and incentive mechanisms to control th 'e potential
negative impacts of water transportation activities and to.
provide for the establishment of local port districts."
Three specific concerns are.expressed in the Michigan plan:
(1) "To avoid environmental and economic loss through careful
planning"; (2) to establish a comprehensive planning mechan--
ism"; and (3) to "consider all impacts of vessel movement
within the coastal area" (p. 75).

Five Bureaus of the Michigan Department of State High-
ways and Transportation are involved with coastal management
in Michigan. The Bureau,of Aeronautics is concerned with
airports and navigation aids located within the coastal
area,and with ancillary commercial and industrial land uses@.
associated with airport facilities. The Bureau of Highways.
deals with bridges, automobile ferries, roadside parks and
rest areas and erosion facilities within the coastal area.
The Bureau of Transportation Planning Port Development Program
deals with commercial harbors, port planning, and navigation.
The Transportation Bureau's Public Transportation Program,
which is responsible for the development of a comprehensive
statewide public transportation system, is concerned with the
impacts of land use changes, highway,or rail line changes, and
facilities on the coastal zone. The Urban and Public Trans-
portation Bureau operates a. variety of programs,dealing with
both solvent and bankrupt rail carriers. This program
impacts on the coastal area because many miles of railroad
right-of-way are located within the coastal area and because
it regulates car ferry operations which require the maintaining
of port facilities.

Delaware.--Transportation systems, whether as highways,.
airports, marine ports, railroads, or navigation facilities,.
are essential to the movement of people, goods and services:
(l)-to facilitate intrastate, interstate and international
commerce; (2) to allow the general development and use of
the nation's natural resources; C3) to maintain public safetyj
welfare, and defense; C4) to provide access to recreation, con
servation and special use resource areas; and CS) to maintain
personal and societal communication and integrity" (p. 55).

Delaware's Program does not, however,, introduce any,
innovative policies. The Program has two general policies:
Cl) to keep development of facilities consistent with CZMP
resource protection measures and (2) to allow construction,
maintenance, and improvement of transportation systems that
are in the national interest to have priority over other
transportation systems.

The Highway policy is to meet demand for transportation
facilities by improving existing corridors. Like most other
States, Delaware is concerned that port development occur
in already developed areas and that new development of ports
not take place unless there is no other alternative. The
port policies call for strict enforcement of oil spill
liability.

2.5 Summary Findings Concerning
the Content of CZM Programs

The Management Dimension.--Under:@the guidance of the
Coastal Zone Management-Xc-t, the Federal Office of Coastal
Management has developed requirements for program content
for participating coastal agencies. These reauirements have
promoted cgmmonali.ty atang, State tZM programs. Several of
these management subject areas are likely to be of interest
to U.S. DOT Operating Administrations. They include shore-
line/beach access,.geographic areas of particular concern,
uses of regional benefit, and the Coastal Energy Impact
Program. The variation in CZM Program content among the
State Programs is, however, vastly greater than the degree
of uniformity required by the federal Office of Coastal Zone
Management. Variati.ons. are. TADst s*gnificant in the
identified means of program implementation. State Programs
vary widely in their choice of management subjects, in their
professed implementation techniques and most significantly
in their depth of authority delegat;d to the coastal zone
agency to pursue coastal management activities.

The accepted management "task" of coastal Programs is to
focus existing authorities and government agency activities
on coastal management policies, generally policies for resource
management and development management. In most States legis7
latures have been loathe to introduce new regulatory or
procedural requirements in their CZM Programs, but new State-
level controls over coastal land and water uses have been
established in a few States. In either case'state coastal
management efforts are designed to bring to bear governmental
activities to identified issues of resource management or
development management in defined coastal regions. With
this perspective underlying all management programs, especially
in the States with strong CZM authorities, the notion
that coastal zone management is essentially a process of
coordination of governmental agency programs and practices
prevails. Coordination, in this view, is the heart of coastal
management efforts. State management agencies perceive little
legislative support for coastal zone superagencies to over-
ride existing governmental agencies and even less support
for overriding traditional land use control powers of locali-
ties (except in a number of States with clearly defined man-
dates considering activities of greater than local signifi-
cance or areas of particular concern).

Coastal zone agencies, instead, in their direct manage-
ment efforts, rely on a variety of institutional (Councils,
Commissions), regulatory (permitting), and nonregulatory
(coordinative policies, impact review procedures, Memoranda
of Understanding, etc.) devices to achieve their operational
goal of more effective management of coastal resources.

Certain States have designed high profile coastal programs
(California, Washington, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and others)
where existing or new State Authorities have clearly iden-
tified a strong mandate to grapple with development activi-
ties and State agency.actions affecting coastal lands and
waters. In these States coastal zone programs will probably
be more visible and more effective than in the usual instance.
While judgments about program effectiveness may be risky,
some States obviously havemore clearly defined the powers
of the designated coastal zone agency to set policy, to
coordinate the State agency activities, to develop applicable
criteria, to manage GAPC's, and to engage in an adversary
process with other governmental units (these conflicts
may then be resolved at a higher level in a conflict reso-
lution process). These are quite obviously complex areas of
management responsibility. The point is that the effective-
ness of a given Statels. Program cannot be simply tied to the
strength of its enabling Authorities, thus classifying
coastal Programs as strong or weak solely on the appearance
of a legislative mandate. The management dimension or the
ability of a coastal zone agency to network other State and
local authorities and -management activities to,achieve the
objectives of the coastal Program is crucial. Again, the
test of effectivensss is likely to be the ability of a
coastal agency to coordinate the actions of other agencies
and levels of government with a set of policies and activities
of the coastal zone lead agency.

State Coastal Zone Management Program Documents identify
a number of subject areas which may provide a basis for the
modification of existing DOT agency.policies or the develop-
ment of new policies in accord with DOT's mission. In
several instances CZM Programs have raised the visibility of
subjects that already have been considered by Operating
Administrations as new program areas. The range of CZM
innovations which may be relevant to the Operating Administra-
tions includes: shorefront/beach access, geographic areas
of particular concern, coastal hazards, urban waterfronts,
ports, transportation facility sitingin the coastal zone,
coastal energy impact program, and coastal waters management.

Shorefront/beach Access.--This subject area has two
components. First, the Coastal Zone Management Act requires
States to define a planning process and (in later amendments)

100

authorities matching funding specifically for the acquisition
of public access to public beaches. Then, because CZM Pro-
grams address more general issues of shorefront access.,
thousands of miles of publicly owned lands have nonexistent
or severely,restricted public access, the development of
joint DOT and CZM Programs to plan for and to provide such
access may be desirable.

Geographic Areas of Particular Concern.--The Coastal
Zone Management Act requires all participat'ing States to
identify such areas, or to identify the generic criteria
which may be applied in designating areas as GAPC's.
Coastal Programs have used the concept mainly for designating
resource protection areas, to which access may be limited,
but then occasionally designate development areas, particu-
larly recreation areas, where activity patterns are to be
monitored and related to the carrying capacity of the local
ecosystem.

Coastal Hazards.--State CZM Programs generally discuss
coastal hazard areas in terms of development restrictions
in low lying, flood-prone areas.' Egress from coastal hazard
areas, especially barrier islands connected by causeways and
low lying'areas served by rural highways subject to blockage,
may be a relevant subject for emerging DOT policy.

.Urban Waterfronts.--Coastal Zone Management Programs
have evinced a growing concern with the provision of public
access to urban waterfronts, and in the prioritizing of uses
in waterfronts to locate non-water-dependent or recreation
activities away from the shore.

Ports.--CZM Programs discuss port development as sup-
porting port growth within the context of environmental
safeguards. They further hope to ensure that devel'opment
activities are located in environmentally suitable areas and
are conducted in a mannter minimizing environmental impacts.
At least one Coastal Program (California) requires the
development of a land and water use Master Plan for each
public port.

Transportation Facility Siting in the Coastal Zone.--State
CZM Programs generally have established coordina@F@ionmechnisms
between the coastal management agency and the state Department
of Transportation. In many instances the coastal agency will
participate in the review of transportation projects signifi-
cantly affecting the coastal zone as the governmental party
with some authoritative base for approval, e.g., a coastal
development permit or a project review agreement based on a
Memorandum of Understanding or as,a party to a State environ-
mental protection process (a State environmental document
signoff).

101

Coastal Energy Impact Program.--This program was estab-
lished to compensate coastal localities for the impacts asso-.
ciated with.OCS and other major energy facility sitings of
national benefit. The program provides matching impact funds
for stressed public facilities, which might include local
highways and other federally funded transportation systems.

Coastal Waters Management.--State CZM Programs have
evinced growiHg 'interests in this subject. They recognize
that federal agencies-.pursuing their statutory responsibill
ties in coastal waters are supreme, but they contend that
where these activities engender or regulate environmental
impacts in coastal waters or shorelands, they (the States)
have legitimate interests requiring that federal agencies
consider the.desirability of State participation in the pro-
cess of progra.mming federal activities. With respect to
the activities of the Coast Guard, State CZM Programs have,
indicated their interests in the following: oil spill pre-
vention and cleanup, vessel traffic management systems, desig-
nation of navigation and mooring areas, movements of hazardous
cargos in coastal waters, and boating and ship discharge
regulations. Additional CZM Programs are interested in the
control of recreational boating locations and activity
patterns, in port development, and in the potential for
increased federal assistance for ferry systems.

102

CHAPTER THREE: TWO CASE STUDIES

3.0 Introduction

The history to date of interactions between U.S. DOT
Agencies- and State Coastal Management Programs has been
more limited than might,be expected from a review of the
areasfor potential interaction in the Programs described in
Chapte.rs One and Two. In this chapter, case studies of two,
fairly typical coastal-management Program,-,Documents are
presented to identify which of their program policies may
affect U.S. DOT Agency interests. The case studies.also
include analyses of the interactions between U.S. DOT-Agency
representatives and the State coastal agencies to.the summer
of 1978'.

As the summaries of the case studies indicatep the two
cases (Maryland and New Jersey Coastal Zone Management
Program Documents) pose few direct challenges [email protected]. DOT,
Operating Administration policies and procedures.. The coastal
Programs do, however, provide some interesting alternatives
to existing intergovernmental procedures for the Operating
Administration grant-in-aid programs@, and for the Coast
Guard's direct activities in coastal waters. Generally, the
case studies are restricted to analyses of the transportation-
relevant contents of CZM Program Documents, and to the
history of interactions between the States and the Secre-
tarial Representatives' Offices, or the designated CZM con-
tacts in Operating Administration field offices. Given these
primary subject areas the cases do not lay oilt or speculate
on potential areas of interaction between federal transportation
programs and State CZM Programs, Though the Program Documents
are suggestive as to the potential for innovative roles that
major transportation programs might play in the coastal zone,
they are not specific and do not dwell on such innovations.
Potential program innovations between U.S. DOT Agency
activities and special coastal management subjects are
considered in Chapter Four.

3.1 Summaries of the Case' Studies

The two case studies are briefly reviewed here. Findings
are organized under the headings Federal Assistance Programs
(the interaction of U.S. DOT Agency grant-in-aid programs with
the State CZM agencies; and Direct Federal Activities in the
coastal zone). The summaries of the cases are only abbreviated

Section 3.1 of this chapter.

103

guides to the materials presented in the following sections.

3.1.1 Findings of the Maryland Case Study

Federal Assistance Prograns

1. Required Involvement of Operating Administrations in the
Maryland CZM Program

The Maryland coastal management program does not propose
significant policy or procedural innovations for Operat-
ing AdministrationsIfederal assistance programs. A case
study of CZM planning issues in the Baltimore Metro
Region indicated that existing programs of.'FMITA, UMTA,
and FRA might be brought to bear on specifically defined
CZM issues, but that this would be done through existing
procedures of the Maryland Department of Trans ortation.
p
No new U.S. DOT programs or policies are suggested in
the Maryland CZM effort. The procedural innovations of
CZM, essentially the federal consistency provisions,
shall most likely be of minor consequence to the Operating
Administrations because of Maryland DOT's key role as an
intermediary agent between field offices of the Operating
Ad.ministrations and the state Coastal Zone 'Unit. Mary-
land's DOT will make initial consistency reviews for
the CZU, and its planning processes will be accepted by
the CZU.

a. Structural Relationships: The Role of Maryland DOT--
Current federal consistency regulations do not
address the role of State agencies which are counter-
parts of federal assistance agencies and which
solicit, prioritize, and manage federal assistance
funds within the State. In Maryland, and in all
coastal States, the State DOT becomes a significant
actor in identifying -potential impacts of the CZM
-assistance programs. State
program on U.S. DOT agency
DOT's are large, established, and powerful State
agencies, while in most States coastal management
agencies are relatively fragile. CZM agencies are
very interested in working with and through'the
existing and environmental processes of the state
transportation agencies, which, in many instances,
closely follow U.S. DOT procedural requirements. These
consideratio'ns lead to'a three,cornered model of the
interaction between U.S. DOT field offices, State
DOT's, and CZM programs. This structure has important
implications for the procedural innovations of CZM,
as discussed in (b) and Cc) below.

b. Role of the Action -Plan--The Maryland Department of

104

Transportation has developed a multimodal Action
Plan, a statewide systems plan (Maryland Transporta-
tion Plan), anda five-year annually prioritized
multimodal capital improvements program (Cons@olidated
Transportation Program). These documents are accepted
by the Coastal Zone Unit in a Memorandum of Under-
standing with Maryland DOT as the land transportation
planning process for coastal management. In particu-
lar, the Action Plan identifies the environmental
reviews, interdisciplinary considerations,and public
participation.requirements of the transportation
'Planning process, Coastal Zone Unit program evalua-
tions of specific projects are to be coordinated with
.the.Maryland DOT-project planning process as specified
in the.Memo.randum of Understanding. As the Action Plan
follows FHWA policies and procedures and as the
coastal management program accepts the Action Plan,
there is an underlying process consistency between
U.S. DOT-policies and. the transportation element of
the coastal management program.

C. Conflict Resolution and Federal Consistency--The
recognition of the crucial role of the-sf-ate DOT in
the implementation of federal transportation assistance
programs and of the potentially sensitive interactions
between two State agencies (Maryland DOT and the CZU)
leads to the conclusion that where'the two agencies
differ on a given project (e.g., the alignment of a
coastal highway), the matter will most likely be
resolved in an intrastate agency bargaining process.
.In'Maryland, more explicitly than in other State CZM
programs,, there are.formal agreements between the
Maryland DOT and the CZU, and a conflict resolution
process is provided for State agency disagreements.
Federal Consistency for federal assistance activities
is unlikely to be employed as an external (outside
State government) means of resolving a transportation
issue in which Maryland DOT is,playing a role. (The
scenario of a State Coastal Zone Management agency
employing,the consistency provision to halt progress
on a project by findingit inconsistent with the
approved CZM program goals and policies may be more
realistic in states whose CZM agencies have their own
statutory authority-e.g., California--but, even in
that instance, it is more likely that the issue'would
be resolved in an intrastate negotiating process.)'

2. Issues in Consistency for Federally Assisted Activities

a. Multiple@'Cons'istehcy Re'views-The federal Consistency
regulations indicate that consistency reviews on a
single project are required when new, previously

105

unconsidered project elements or funding rounds are
initiated. A single federally assisted transportation
project may go through a number of.stages--listing,
planning, design, construction--and may go through
A95 reviews more than five times. In spite of the
iInjunction in the consistency'regulations, it would
appear to be practical to keep the number of consis-
tency reviews for a given project to a minimum, and
to determine the review point(s) with the active
participation of Maryland DOT and the -relevant U.S.
DOT Operating Administrations. Maryland's precedent
of (i) referencing the Action Plan as the guidance
document for environmental and public reviews and
(2) suggesting that cons@istency reviews should take
place at two points in a project's history,-at the
systems level when the project is prioritized for
action and.again at the Environmental Document stage
in project planning--is a logical way of handling the
issue.

b. Use of the Environmental Document as the-,Location for
Consistency Reviews--Bbth the Maryland Coa9tal Zone
Unit and Maryl@ DOT agree with current,U.S. DOT
procedures that the Environmental Document preparation
point is the logical place for a consistency review
at the project level. FHWA personnel interviewed
asked 'specifically for consideration of the potential
red tape impacts of any review process outside of the
Environmental Document process.

C. Major-Minor Thresholds for Consistency ReViews--The
Maryland CZM-Program Documeni, and those of mb-st
oth"er States, identify b.road Titles of U.S. DOT
Assistance programs subject to the consistency
regulations. Yet a majority of the federally assisted
projects in the coastal zone under those Titles are
not really of interest to coastal management agencies
because they do.not affect system or link capacities,
do not have primary or secondary growth effects, and
do not create significant environmental impacts
during construction or operation. Maryland DOT
and the CZU recognize that for practical purposes
there should be a differentiation between projects
which significantly affect the coastal,zone, and
those which do not.,
Federally assisted programs
such as highway safety or high-way beautification
programs are, for example, likely to be only of
marginal interest to coastal management agencies.
Also, many of the federally funded traffic engineering
improvement projects are of minor significance to
coastal zone management. Procedures to differentiate
which projects should be reviewable for consistency
need to be developed.
0

106

d. Limited Consistency Reviews--The Coastal Zone Unit
describes.consistency reviews and determinations
as.part of an ongoing- involvement with a federally
assisted project. Federal field office personnel
tend to perceive consistency as yet another permit
to be gathered in the environmental proces's for a
project. A knowledgeable staff person at Maryland
DOT has suggested that consistency determinations
be based on explicit attributes of a project (e.g.,
capacity effects induced growth effects, etc.), but
that consistency be cl a ed from the
e rly divorc
traditional State.environmental permits which must
be gathered in the project design hase,.(e.
p
wetlands, discharge,etc.). The concept has merit
in that State and federal permits have their own
statutory requirements, and because the consistency
review process was not intended to be a generalized
of projects. Yet it is
probable that State CZML agencies would'resist the
idea of delimited consistency reviews as a further
erosion of that concept.

Direct Federal Activities in the Coastal Zone

7he Program Document's Description of Direct Federal
Activities.

The U.S. Coast Guard is the only DOT Agency cited in
the Mary-land CZM Program Document in terms of its direct
activities which may significantly affect the coastal zone.
The Pro.gram Document does include, however, as a
nonsp.ecific catchall mandate, a statement that,federal
agencies should review their activities to see if they
do,- that those,activities be made sub ect to state
consistency reviews based on their conformance to the
goals and policies of the CZM program "to the, maximum
extent practicable."

C
The identified Coast luard activities of interest to the
Coastal Zone Unit are monitoring of discharges of recrea-
tional boats., ve'ssel traffic management and mooring
areas- oil spill containmentand'response, dangerous
p
cargo regulation, ocean dumping, and OCS transportation
surveillance and enforcement.

2. Direct Activities of U.S. DOT Agencies Other than the U.S.
Coast Guard

A review of U.S. DOT agency programs suggests that the

107

following list of direct activities be regarded as
subject to the relevant consistency regulations: FHWA
Region 15 activities; FAA - Placement of Aids to Naviga-
tion; FRA - Direct Activities; The Office of Deepwater
Ports and the Materials Transport Bureau activities.

Of these agencies only.FHWA Region 15 is currently con-
ducting direct activities which significantly affect
Maryland's coastal zone. (Construction of approaches,
terminals, and an internal circulation system for the
Park Service's project on Assateague Island.)

In telephone interviews with administrators and environ-
mental staff of theabove agencies it was ascertained
that their current involvement with coastal zone manage-
ment is almost nonexistent; and that, while they may
have received communications from the SecReps CZM
coordinator, they are not at present geared up to make
consistency determinations for their direct activities
in coastal areas. In most cases contacted individuals
had not read the Federal Consistency Regulations and so
were not aware of their responsibilities under those
regulations.l.However, in all instances the interviewees
indicated that they would adequately respond when required
to after program approval, or on an issue basis.

3. U.S. Coast Guard and the Maryland CZM Program

a. Staffing--The Coast Guard has in District 5, as in
its other Districts., identified a staff officer as
Coastal Zone Management Officer. Even in advance
of program approval, the Coast Guard is prepared to
address two elements of the federal consistency
regulations: identification of development activities
in the coastal zone and review of identified permits
for conformance with the goals and policies of the
CZM program.

b. Consistency Reviews--The District 5 Coastal Zone
Management Officer has prepared five-year forecasts
of Coast Guard development activities in the
Maryland (and Virginia and North Carolina) coastal
zones. Each development activity is describeJ in
terms of the actions to be taken, the scale of the
activity, and general environmental impacts. A
finding of consistency with a specific section of
the relevant Coastal Zone Management Program is made.

C. Consistency for Activites other than Development
Activities--A major substantive issue between federal
agencies conducting direct activities in approved
coastal zone management areas and the CZM agencies

As of August 1977.

108

administering those areas involves the range of
activities which may be considered for consistency
determinations. Coast Guard District Offices,
faced with the mandate to 11 . . . review their pro-
posed federal activities which significantly affect
the coastal zone in order to develop consistency
determinations. . ." (Federal Register. March 13,
19 7 8. 9 30 - 37) . are at this point reluctant to subject
all of their exteAs-ive'activities affecting the'coasta].
zone to external agency review. There-may well be a
role.for Headquarters policy deveiopment in defining
which Coast Guard activities do significantly affect
the coastal zone of all states and which activities
should not be subject to consistency determinations
and state reviews.

Maryland's coastal Zone Unit and Water Resources
Administration have discussed with'the Coast Guard
the oil spill containment and response procedures
of the State and federal agencies. It is not
inconceivable that once Maryland's CZM program is,
approved, the Coastal Zone Unit may attempt to use
the federal consistency review and mediation mechanisms
to elicit closer coordination between the oil spill
response goals of the State and the activities of the
Coast Guard.

3.1.2 Findings of the New Jersey CaseStudy

The case study of the New Jersey Coastal Management Pro-
gram is designed to complement and supplement the Maryland,
case study. The same orientation was maintained in both case,
studies; however, emphasis here is focused on the contents and
analysis of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program Document
and the nature of the interaction between transpor 'tation and
coastal agencies. Since the substantive findings, both with
re,gard to policies, basic procedures, and issues, are virtually
identical to those of the Maryland study, they are not devel-
oped fully. This section therefore can be approached as an
appendix to the Maryland case study.

It should be noted though that a qualitative difference in
emphasis on federal consistency was found between the two
States. While federal activities and consistency were
addressed by New Jersey, this State emphasized its'own permit
review mechanisms rather than mandates and legislative admo-
nitions. Consistency was seen and treated as a perhaps
redundant and as yet untested management tool.

While the basic findings and conclusions in both States
are the same, a listing of the major points of concurrence

109

is presented below for emphasis. The listing f6llows the
same sequence of topics discussed in the Summary section of
the Maryland case study.

Federal Assistance Program

1. Required Involvement of Operating Administrations in the
New Jersey Coastal Management Program

The New Jersey Program dbes not propose significant
policy or procedural modifications for federal Operating
Administratons. Existing procedures would be uised, and
no new U.S. DOT programs or policies are suggested. Con-
sistency reviews will be integrated with the existing
planning processes of the New Jersey DOT.

New Jersey DOT, as Maryland DOT, will play a significant
role in coastal matters for assistance programs. The
New Jersey DOT was viewed by most federal Operating
Administrations as th ffected by the Coastal
e!agency a
Management Program.

While the New Jersey DOT Action Plan addresses only high-
ways explicitly, the same basic process is utilized for
other modes of transportation. The existing New Jersey
permitt.ing process is integrated with the Action Plan,
and the CMP (which relies upon existing permits) does not
necessitate any modifications.

From the nature of the interactions between New Jersey
OCZM and New Jersey DOT in.the past, it also seems likely
that conflict resolution will take place at the State
agency level rather than through the use of federal con-
sistency mechanisms. While no Memoranda of Understanding
(MOU) are being prepared by New Jersey OCZM, this form
of agreement has been used by New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection CNJDEP) and New Jersey DOT on
environmental issues in, the past., and is cited as a
possibility in the NJ CMP document. (CZM is viewed as
an environmental program by New Jersey DOT.)

2. Issues in Consistency for Federally Assisted Activities

In New Jersey, aside from the existing permit review pro-
cesses, it is not clear whether or not additional reviews
specifically addressed at federal consistency are to be
required. It spems likely that only the current.Acti,on
4"14n Teview,4,,..are to-..be. employ.ed.

An important area where clarification and specificity are
required is in the determination of what projects will
actually be subjected to permitting (and thereby consistency

110

review). Recently prepared rules and regulations of the
NJDEP have begun to address this issue, as have the
administration and staff personnel within affected
departments. Levels of action or major-minor thresholds
for review need to be further.developed and defined.

Direct Federal Activities in the Coastal Zone

1. Summary

New Jersey does not single, out 'the V.S.'
Coast Guard or any other U.S. DOT ddministration in its
discussion of federal activities. While a list of
federal transportation activities is included in the
New Jersey CMP document, only highway construction is
identified as a direct activity. In general, only
generic identifications of federal activities are
provided, and New Jersey OCZM "Preserves the right to
review and comment on the consistency of other
projects. The New Jersey CMP also states that the "Fed-
eral consistency procedures described in 15 CFR 930
(Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 49, March 13, 1978,
pp. 10510-10533-) will be followed, and the A-95
review process will be used to monitor proposed federal
projects. This still general approach to consistency
at this late stage of CMP development further highlights
New Jersey's reliance on its existing review-permitting
procedures. It also allows the State to call upon con-
sistency should negotiating points be required in disagree-
ments with federal agencies.

2. Interaction Between Federal and State Agencies

New Jersey OCZM has not requested, nor have U.S. DOT
6dministations offered, lists or the identification of
specific projects and activities that may require con-
sistency determinations. In general, the level of
interaction, if any, has only been on specific project
issues, and in these cases it has been through intra-
state agency discussions.

The observations concerning levels of awareness and knowledge,
and the attitudes towards coastal zone management, consistency
determinations and procedural and policy requirements of
U.S. DOT personnel described inthe Maryland case study.are
all applicable to the-situation in New Jersey. It seems that
positions and policies will only be crystallised when a
specific issue with respect to a program or project must be
faced.

3.2 The
Maryland Coastal Zone
Management Program Document

Maryland defines its coastal zone in terms of two tiers--
Y112 area, consisting of counties border-
a "Management Boundar
ing on the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, and the Potomac
River;, and "Areas of Focus" within each of the jurisdictions,
generally comprising the 100 year floodplai'n. To ensure the
concerted exercise of management authorities within this
coastal area, the Program identifies four implementation
tools: (1) committing all Program participants to a common
set of goals, objectives, and policies; (2) enhancing inter-
governmental coordination in carrying out the Program;
(3) providing for comprehensive review of all major activities
in the coastal zone; and (4) assuring consideration of cumula-
tive impacts in coastal management decisions.

-ion
The Maryland Program emphasizes two themes: coordinat
of government actions and technical evaluations and reviews of
r private actions by the coastal zone staff on
public and majo
the basis of the defined program goals and objectives. The
identified strategy is to monitor proposed major changes in
coastal uses and activities and to influence the decision-
making process in favor of the program's broad resource con-
servation and development goals. The approach is consistent
with the philosophy of coastal zone management as a guiding
force influencing the actions of other agencies through project
and policy reviews. This coordinating and review approach may
be contrasted with a high visibility model of coastal manage-
ment as a new State level initiative in regional planning,
permitting, and land-use control. The latter model is typified
most clearly by the California CZM program and, to a lesser
extent, by the New Jersey Management Program.

The authority for the crucial coordination activities
rests heavily on an Executive Order of the Governor directing
all State agencies to conform to the defined goals, objectives,
and policies of the coastal zone Program, and on a series of
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between the lead agency for
coastal zone management and other State governmental units.
Coordination with external groups is pursued by the establish-
ment of a broadly based Coastal Resources Advisory Council
providing representation for "organizations with responsibili-
ties relating to coastal area management."

The Program does not envision the passage of new coastal
zone legislation to achieve its objectives. The legal bases

2
All quotations in this chapter, unless otherwise indi-,
cated, are from the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program
of December, 1977.

112

(enforceable policies of the Program) are found in the existing
legislation and regulations of the affected state agencies,
local land use controls, and relevant federal statutes and
regulations to be coordinated under the federal consistency
provisions. This reliance on existing statutes, officially
coordinated by the Executive Order and MOU structure, has been
criticized as lacking a solid legislative base by those con-
tending that the program must have its own authorities (Natural
Resources Defense Council). Under.present circumstances no
such legislation is contemplated.

The Maryland Program is the most explicit of all the CZM
Programs to date in,establishing formal agreements with other
State agencies through the MOU structure. These MOU's specify
the incorporation of the coastal zone program's goals and
objectives into the mission of the participating State agency,
require the development of working relationships for project
development between the coastal zone staff and the planning
and projects staffs in the participating agency, and identify
the project evaluation role of the coastal zone staff. The
coastal zone technical staff is located in the Coastal Zone
Unit CCZU)'of the Energy and Coastal Zone Administration within
the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the designated
agency for federal CZMA administration.

3.2.1 Program Goals, Objectives,_and Enforceable Policies

The Federal Consistency Regulations distinguish between
it
. . . enforceable, mandatory policies of [a] management pro
gram . . . and recommended policies" (F.R. Vol. 43, No. 49,
March 13, 1978, Section 930.39 (c)). In essence, federal
activities which are subject to federal consistency provisions
need to be consistent only with the former--the enforceable
policies of the management program. The recommended policies
need only to be given consideration; according to the regu-
lations, they are not a sufficient basis for consistency.

In this context it is important to distinguish between
the general goals and objectives of the Maryland Program and
its identification of applicable enforceable policies. (Often
earlier State Coastal Management Programs did not. In a number
of instances those Programs were approved by NOAA prior to
the issuance of the latest draft of the consistency regulations
whichincorporate the language on enforceable policies.)

. The goals and objectives of the coastal Program, while
not enforceable policies, do provide the basis for project
evaluation by State agencies and.the private sector in accord
with the Executive Order of the Governor. The five coastal
management goals are:

113

(1) Preserve,and protect coastal.resources-)
(2)-Protect the public interest, safety,, and
@welfare in natural hazard areas;
(3).Locate necessary major faci 'lities only in
appropriate coastal.areas@solthat.@environment
quality is-maintained;
(4),Promote appropriate methods of use of coastal
areasin order to prevent deterioration of
coastal resources; and
(5) Promote intergovernmental coordination and
public participation in Coastal Zone
Management Program development and implementation.

Each of these goals is supported-by a,series of objectives
specifying particular concerns and general policies within
each goa.l,area. Together, the 5 goals and 43 objectives pro-
vide a reference frame to guide.Program implementation and to
maintain the consistency of all nonfederal projects permitted,
funded, or undertaken in the State.

For each activity or use discussed as requiring coastal
zone management consideration, the Program Document identifies
the policies it seeks to marshall to achieve its management
ends. These policies are abstracted from the statutes and
enforceable regulations of State agencies and are presented,
with citations, as enforceable policies of the Coastal Zone
Program. As such, from the viewpoint of federal agencies at
least, they form the core of the Coastal Zone Program . Under
the Program section Major Facilities - Land TransZortation
Facilities, for example, the listed policies are deriv-67-from
the State Transportation Article, the Maryland Transportation
Action Plan, the Maryland Preliminary Transportation Plan
. the
Maryland DOT Executive Plan, and the Natural Resources Article.
The Coastal Zone Program transportation-element then essentially
adopts the existing Maryland.DOT policies and procedures,as its
own, and these policies in, many cases directly reference FHWA
and multimodal U.S. DOT policies and procedural'documents.

3.2.2 Coastal Land and Water Use Management

The Coastal Zone Program is categorically not a-land-use
plan and cannot be evaluated in that context. The Program
Document does not undertake site-specific analy ses of the
coastal zone and does not provide guidance to federal agencies
or other interested parties on land-use priorities., Rather.,@
the program structures its proposals for land and water use
management around selected Activities and Uses,described in
S categories: Activities/Uses Occurring in Coastal Waters;
Activities Occurring in Intertidal Areas; Activities Occurring
in Shoreline Areas; Major Facilities in the Coastal:Zone,' and
Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Within each activities/

114

uses of concern category, specific activities, uses or facili-
.tieslare identified. The document addresses each of them by
(1) describing its current situation; (2) identifying the
issues ass-ociated with it; (3) specifying policies for its
management; (4) indicating the responsible management agencies;
(5) outlining specific management procedures; (6) discussing
the Coastal Zone Unit's management role; and (7) listing rele-
vant authorities, specific management techniques,-and respon-
sible agencies.

In general, the management policies and procedures dis-
cusses are.based on existing State, federal, and local regu-
latory and planning authorities and activities. The specific
provisions for management of land and water uses and activities
under a coastal management Program are contained in the dis-@'
cussions of the CZU's role through the project evaluation and
Prog.ram review rro,cesses described below.

1. Summary of Maryland Land. And Water Use Regulations Cited as
Means of Control

-Water Appropriation and Planning.Discharge Permitting
-Floodplain and Watershed Planning, Regulation, and
Permitting.
-Hazardous Substance Disposal Permitting
-Sedimentation Regulation
-Beach Erosion Control Structure Regulation
-Wetlands Permitting (Public/Private)
-Surface Mining Permitting
!-Power Plant Siting Planning and Regulation
-Coastal Facilities Permitting (oil and gas facilities)
-Archeological Site Activity Permitting
-Wildlife/Fisheries Management
-Boating Activity Regulation
-Water Supply and Sewage Planning and Regulation
-Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Permitting
-Noise Regulation
-Pesticide Regulation
-Oil Spill Regulation
-Scenic and Wild River Planning and Regulation
-Critical Areas Designation
-Local Comprehensive Planning
-Baltimore Harbor Construction Permitting
-State Intervention in Local Land Use Decisions
-Local Zoning Regulation

2. Federal Authorities Cited as Means of Control

-Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments,
208, 311.
-River and Harbors Act, Section 10
-Dangerous Cargo Transport

115

.-Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, Title
1-102, 103, 104
-Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Land Act
-Coastal Zone Management Act
@ deral Flood Insurance Program
-Fe
-EPA Police Memorandum
-Federal Highway Act, Section 109H

3. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern

The Maryland approach to GAPC's-is based on the
State's Critical Areas Program administered by the Depart-
ment of State Planning (DSP). Under this program, local
jurisdictions recommend areas for designation by DSP based
on three critical area categories: suitable.for preser-
vation, suitable for conservation, and suitable for
utilization. Included in the recommendations are proposed
management techniques "to ensure that the future use or
development of the area will be consistent with its attri-
butes." Management techniques -may be carried out by
local, State, or federal governments or by private parties
"using their appropriate authorities." State critical
areas located in the First Tier of Focus will become
GAPC's under the Maryland CZMP. Critical areas outside
the First Tier but withinthe management boundary will be
considered for GAPC designation on a case-by-case basis.
For coast-al management purposes there are three categories
of GAPC1s: Resource Protection Areas, Hazard-prone Areas,
and Developmental Critical Areas. The Coastal Zone Unit
(CZU) will assist local governments and DSP in the identi-
fication of coastal areas of critical State concern by
providing technical information analysis and evaluation
of potential sites. Once a critical area becomes a GAPC,
the consistency requirements of the federal CZMA would
apply.

4. Beach Access

The primary beach access issuesidentified in the
Program are: (1) the preemption of beach areas for
present or future recreational use by other proposed
uses and (2) increased priority to the acquisition of-
beach areas in State and local outdoor recreation
programs. The Program notes that it is State policy
"to acquire additional beach area and to provide addi-
tional beach access on Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries
as part of the State's Outdoor Recreation Program."
The entire Atlantic coastline has already been preserved
for public access and use. The Program also indicates
that the Coastal Zone.Unit will cooperate with efforts to
give higher priority to the acquisition of shoreline-,
access.

116

3.2.3 Organization*and Implementation

The Maryland Program identifies three primary organizations
for Program management: the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), the Coastal.Zone Unit CCZU) within the Energy and,
Coastal Zone Administration, and a Coastal Resources Advisory
Council. The DNR administers many of the regulatory authorities
cited for land and water use management and is the designated
single agency required by the CZMA. The Coastal Zone Unit
"provides the staff to support the program," carries out the
"federally prescribed duties of a lead agency," and is located
within the Energy and Coastal Zone Administration which adminis-
ters the State's the State's Power Plant Siting Program and
the Coastal Facilities Review Act.

The CZU plays a key role in the project evaluation and
Program review processes and the federal consistency process
as well as providing the general and technical information
base for the program. The Coastal Resources Advisory
Committee CCRAC) membership represents organizations with
responsibilities relating to coastal area management and
includes participants from.coastal cities and counties,
regional citizen advisory groups, various interest groups,
State executive departments, federal agencies, and academic
institutions. The CRAC provides a regular communication chan-
nel and framework for public involvement and coordination in
addition to its "intensive advisory role in program implemen-
tation."

Two principal processes, project.evaluation and program
review, are outlined for program implementation. The Program
Document offers a detailed description of the project evalua-
tion process which is managed and technically supported by the
CZU. This elaborate process is essentially an impact assess-
ment process. The CZU is notified of projects with,potential
effects on the coastal zone by counties and Department of
State Planning (DSP) regional staffs. The CZU reviews the
project and decides if it is of coastal management concern and
if it conflicts with management Program goals and objectives.
If a full project evaluation is found to be necessary, a series
of review.,,information gathering, and.project analysis acti-
vities are undertaken. The CZU manages this process, inter-
acting with the concerned agencies, governmental units, and
proje-ct proposers. The Coastal Resources Advisory Council
also participates in the.process primarily in a review and
commentcapacity. After the CZU prepares a comprehensive
report, the CRAC reviews, comments and makes recommendations
to be submitted to the'Secretary of Natural Resources and the
relevant regulatory agencies for'their.action. The primary
purpose of this pr'ocess is to-ensure that comprehensive review
of projects likely to have a significant impact on coastal
resources is performed, that all relevant factors are fully

117

considered, and that the activities of planning, regulatory,
and enforcement agencies are coordinated before decisions
are made.

The other principal administrative process is the review
of existing programs and procedures dealing with coastal .
resources and activities for their consistency with the Program.
Such activities*include: proposed legislation, issuance of new
or amended regulations, development of future resource manage-
ment plans, development of local comprehensive plans, and pat-
terns of decisionmakirig which have cumulative adverse impacts.
Two levels of program review are identified: (1) cooperative
efforts among the CZU, other State agencies and/or local
governments, and (2) situations involving major policy con-
flicts or need for significant legislative.or administrative
remedy. The first level,of review involves an essentially
informal work and review process; the second level of review
is more formal, involving detailed studies by CZU and sub-
mission of a findings report to CRAC and the Secretary of
Natural Resources and other governmental bodies.

3.2.4 Inter-Governmental Relationships and the-Federal Con-
siste,ncy Provisions
The primary mechanism for State intragovernmental coordi-
nation outlined by the Program Document is the Memorandum
of Understanding. Such memoranda between the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) and each participating agency form@lly
establish (1) the participant department's role in implementing
the goals, objectives, and policies of the Program; (2) its
role in project and Program evaluation; and (3) the interac-
tions of specific programs of the department with coastal
management. The participant departments whose relationships
will be guided by these memoranda are the Departments of
State Planning; Health and Mental Hygiene; Transportation;
and Economic and Community Development. State agencies are
also represented on the CRAC in a nonvoting capacity. The
Program indicates that the CZU will work extensively with
State agencies for management program coordinati'on in addition
to the coordinative role it plays in the project and Program
evaluation processes.

A similar mechanism, the work agreement,,is used to
formalize and coordinate State Program and county relation-
ships. These agreements describe the tasks local jurisdictions
propose to accomplish in support of the goals and objectives,
including activities which assure compatible local and State
plans, programs, management policies, and other joint'actions.
Local governments are als-o represented on the Coastal
Resources Advisory Council. Technical assistants funded by
the CZMP work for counties on coastal zone matters.

118

The principal mechanisms for federal/State coordination
are federal representation (nonvoting) on the CRAC, federal
agency participation in the project evaluation and Program
review process, and federal consistency determination proce-
dures. Inclusion on the CRAC will provide a forum for federal
participation and information sharing; participation in project
evaluation and program review is expected to provide federal
agencies with opportunities to express their views on the
national interest in any aspect of a particular project or
program. The consistency procedures should "provide a vehicle
for active federal participation in the program."

In general, Maryland's consistency procedures involve the
normal channels of state notification and review under the A-95
process with the Coastal Zone Unit having final responsibility
for determination or responding to federal determination of
consistency with the state management program. When a federal
action involves substantial effects or is controversial, a
project evaluation will be carried out with federal agency
participation. The Program Document suggests that more precise
arrangements will be made with individual federal agencies
through Memoranda of Agreement after Program approval and
implementation. A summary of federal consistency procedures
follows:

1. Federal Activities Notification* Review`*

a., On Excluded State A95 Clearing-
Federal Lands: house State Agencies
CZU CZU
State Agencies/
copy to CZU
*Item a. procedures apply to all of Section 1.

(1) Activity or plans causing discharge, air pollution,
or involving hazardous substances.
{2} Activity or plans leading to a significant
nonpoint source of pollution of coastal waters.
(3) Construction of any major facility.
(4) Plans causing change in population patterns or
requirements for new major facilities
(5) Activity causing significant change to drainage
patterns or fresh water flows from federal
property.

b. Seaward of Coastal Zone:

1) Outer continental shelf leases.
(2) Designation of marine sanctuaries.
(3) Fisheries management plans.

C. In Coastal Zone:

(1) Development projects.

119

(2) Major research projects; management studies or
inventories to be used for management decisions.
(3) Activities significantly altering use patterns
,and Chesapeake Bay or ocean tidal waters.
(4) Acquisition/disposition of land..
(5) Conducting inventories of making designation of
landmarks for National Historic Register.

d . Landward of Zone:

(1) Significant change in pattern of freshwater flow
into coastal zone.
(2) Major facility in close proximity to coastal zone.

2. Federal Licenses/Permits Notification Review

a.i,Listed: Applicant to rele- State Agencies
vant State agency CZU
and/or@CZU

b. Unlisted: From CZU to appli- State Agencies
cant and federal CZU
agency

(1) Monitored through From CZU to appli- State Agencies
NEPA statements, cant and federal CzU
state clearing- agency
houses, etc.

3. Outer Continental Shelf Applicant to CZU CZU
Activities

4. Federal Assistance

a. Listed Applicant through Local/State
State/local agencies. If
clearinghouses major incon-
sistencies,
CZU review.

3.2.5 TranSDortation Provisions of the Program@Document

Transportation concerns are discussed in two of the Mary-
land CZMP's major Activities/Uses of Concern categories:
Activities Occurring in'Coastal Waters and Major Facilities in
the Coastal Zone. The transportation-related activities in
coastal waters primarily involve the U.S. Coast Guard (CG)
and include: recreational boating, commercial shipping; ocean
dumping; and oil and gas exploration, production, and trans-
portation. Although recreational boating regulation is a
responsibility of the Maryland DNR, the Coast Guard is cited as
a participating implementation agency for the regulation of

120

boat discharges along with EPA. The Coast Guard is also cited
san implementing agency in connection with its responsibilities
for surveillance of ocean dumping and enforcement of.dumping
regulations under the Marine'Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act.

A major issue addresse'd.in the commercial shipping portion
of the Program is oil pollution control. Although the discussion
focuses on State activities' and responsibilities, the Coast
Guard is identified in connection with its responsibilities for
navigational safety and traffic systems and for oil spill con-
tainment and cleanup. The program notes that the Coast Guard's
timely response to oil spills in Maryland is limited by the
location of the Coast Guard base in Elizabeth City, North
Carolina,,and indicates that the State has been developing
@its own capac'ity to deal with spills. This concern for oil.
and other toxic materials discharged into coastal waters is
also expressed in terms of a need for improved vessel traffic
systems in Chesapeake Bay. The CZU proposes to work with the
U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
Commonwealth of Virginia to establish improved traffic systems
in order to reduce the probability of oil spills or discharges
of toxic materials from vessels. The Coast Guard's responsi-
bility for the regulation of the transport of dangerous materials
is also noted.

Another transportation-related activity of concern in
coastal waters is outer continental shelf (OCS) exploration,
production, and transportation. The Coast Guard involvement
in this sensitive issue area derives from its responsibilities
for endorsing that baiges over 100 tons comply with appropriate
regulations. Brief mention is also made of "DOT stipulations
and regulations on pipelines@ll The primary vehicle for CZU,
Coast Guard, and other,possible DOT interactions in this area
will be the federal consistbncy-procedures for OCS activities.

Transportation concerns ate treated more extensively in
the "Major Facilities'in the Coastal Zone" portion of the
Program Document with specific sections devoted to Ports and
Land Transportation. The Ports section discusses the various
ports in'Maryland, their,importance to the Stdte'sleconomy.,
plans for their continuing development, and the environmental
consequences of port activity and development. The existing
policies outlined in the Ports section focus on the maintenance
and development of port facilities within the context of the
State's overall transportation system planning process and with
attention to environmental considerations. Particula r concern
is expressed about port facilities associated with OCS
exploration, development,,and production.

The primary State.agency involved in port activities is
the Maryland Port Administration, part of the Maryland

121

Department of Transportation. The major federal agencies
involved in@port,activities are th 'e U.S.' Army,CoTps of Engi-
neers., the@Maritime Administration, and the.U.S....Coast
Guard, but the program points out that 11present federal.author-
ity is fragmented,among,more than fifty-federal org.anizations.to,
Although the federal section of the Program Document indicates
that the Coast Guard,ls-,deepwater port. permits.would be a
federal permit to be reviewed for consistency with the State
Program, the Coast Guard is not cited as a lead implementing
agency nor is its activity cited as an authority related to
ports. The Coastal Zone Unit-proposes to participate in the
existing public port,de.vetlopment -review process, to subject
private port projects,to the coastal management evaluation
process, and t'o establish working arrangements, among various
relevant parties for the on-going development-of port siting,
construction,, and operation planning procedures.-

.Land transportation.facklities are also discussed in terms
of Maryland's comprehensive transportation system planning pro-
cess. The existing policies contained.in th,e.State Transporta-
tion Plan form the basis of the Program's transportation pro-
visions, and Maryland DOT-is the 'lead implementing agency.,.,
Activities in the coastal zone cited as being of particular
'concern include the Patuxent.Freeway in Anne Arundel C 'ounty,
Rt. #50 improvem ,ents, the construction of a metropolitan
Baltimore rapid transit system,,and the impacts.of,construction
or expansion of a major and several smaller airports located in
the coastal zone. The focus of concern expressed in the land
transportation section-is theenvironmental compatibility of
transportation facility development and the growth impacts of
such development. The primary management.procedure outlined is
the existing tr,ansportation,,facil,ity planning process involving
comprehensive multi-agency review. The CZU.proposes to assist
in system planning and project planning activities at all
levels for the following types.of projects: interstate,high-
ways, two-,land and -four-lane improvements, railroad lines,
airports, public ports, and any roadway which serves.a penin-
sula area of,crosses tidal waters. The purpose of the.CZU
involvement is to ensure that [email protected], off-site,,and,
secondary effects of transportation projects on coastal resour-
ces are adequately considered." - The Maryland DOT will also
participate in the review of projects in the coastal zone with
potential impacts on existing transportation facilities. The
CZU will review annually the Consolidated Transportation Pro-gram
for consist-ency with the-Maryland DZMP. U. 'S.' DOT-activity
is only directly indicated in the land transportation section
through reference t,o,federal.,standards for highway construction.
U'.S. DOT as,sistance activities, however, are cited in,,that
section of the program which discu.ss,es,federal.consisten-cy.

Although the only U.S. DOT agency specifically identified
as an implementing agency in the Activities/Uses of Concern
portions of the Program Document is the U.S. Coast Guard, the

122

State/Federal 'Interaction-portion of the Program Document
cites activities of other federal transportation agencies as
being subject to review for ' consist 'ency. U.S. DOT agencies
and activities specified in the Program Document are:

1. Listed Licenses and Permits Subject to Review

a. U.S. Coast Guard

(1) Permits for construction or modification of
bridges or causeways in navigable waters;
(2) Permits for handling of dangerous cargo by
vessels in U.S. ports;
(3) Permits for handling of flammable or combustible.
liquids by bulk.in U.Si ports;
(4) Permits for barges over 100 tons as they apply
to floating nuclear power plants and OCS related
activities;
(5) Deepwater port permits.

b. Federal Aviation Administration

(1) Approval of airport development project applications.

2. Listed Transportation Assistance Programs Subject to
Consistency

a. Boating Safety--financial assistance;
b. 'Airport development aid program;
.c. Airport planning grant program;
d. Highway research, planning and construction;
e. Highway-beautification--control of outdoor advertising,
contro1iof junk,yards, landscaping and scenic
enhancement;
f., Rail property acquisition and modernization grant
assis-tance; I I
Urban mass transportation and technical studies grants;
h. Urban mass transportation demonstration grants;
i. State and community highway safety;
j. 'Gas pipeline;safety.

The outlined consistency procedures, the project evaluation pro-
cess and U.S. DOT representation of the Coastal Resources
Advisory Committee Calong with the Maryland DOT and Port
Administration) are'the principal mechanisms indicated in the
Program Document for U.S. DOT And State management program
interaction. The document, however, does indicate .that
additional arrangements-or provisions through Memoranda of
Understanding may be made after Program approval and imple-
-mentation.

123

3.3 U.S. DOT Agencz Involvement
W-
in. the T-Jaryland CZM Program

U.S. DOT agencies have two major paths of involvement
with coastal management programs: assistance programs and
direct agency activities. The description and analysis of
federal agency involvement in the Maryland Coastal Mangement
Program is, therefore, organized around these two major paths
or categories of activities (federal licenses and permits are
included here under the category of direct federal activities).

TABLE `7

U.S. DOT Agency Activities Categorized
As Direct and Assistance Activities

Federally Assisted Activities: FHWA: All assistance programs
FAA: All assistance programs
FRA: All assistance programs
UMTA: All assistance programs

Direct Federal Activities: Coast Guard: All activities
FHWA: Construction of Roads on
federal lands
FAA: Construction of aids to
navigation
Office of Deepwater Ports
Materials Transportation Bureau
FRA: Direct activities

It is apparent that, with the notable exception of the Coast
Guard, the major interactions of U.S.' DOT programs with CZM
agencies involve federally assisted'activities--the predominant
programs of the Operating Administrations. The categorization
of U.S. DOT programs as direct federal activities and as
federally assisted activities is relevant not only because of
the somewhat different treatment they receive in the Consistency
Regulations, but also because the Maryland Coastal Management
Program (and most other CZM programs) describe very different,
processes for considering their respective inputs to the
coastal management programs. To explore these coordination
processes, the analysis first discusses U.S. DOT programs
conducted as federally assisted activities, and then discusses
U.S. DOT programs conducted as direct federal activities in the
Maryland coastal zone. The former analysis emphasizes the
assistance activities of FHWA, and the latter emphasizes
the direct activities of the Coast Guard, though in each
instance the other Operating Administrations and Offices are
referenced where appropriate.

124

3.3.1 Federally Assisted Activities

Role of the Maryland Department of Transportation.--In
Maryland, as in many States, there exists a Departme Int of
Transportation (MDOT) which acts as a state-level counterpart
.to U.S. DOT and which., through its operating modes, is the
official recipient of U.S. DOT Operating Administration
assistance programs. In the huge'area of federally assisted
activities.(notably transportation'loan and.grant programs)
U.S. DOT agencies will be interacting with the Maryland
Coastal Zone Unit through the intermediary MDOT. It is a
three-cornered relationship. Although this kind of relation-
ship is not directly addres,sed in the Coastal Zone Management
Act and its implementing regulations, 'it is clear that a
state intermediary agency,like MDOT will play a key role in
the process of federal-state interaction concerning federal
assistance programs and coastal zone management.

The key position of this kind of agency results because
CZM is essentially a state-level initiative and the effort of
CZM staffs in all coastal management-programs has been to
consolidate their position within state government. In the
sometimes elaborate jockeying for substance and mission, State
CZM agencies are very directly concerned with establishing
linkages to existing large state agencies and less directly
concerned with attempting to influence federal agency field
offices. This point andits significance for federal agencies
has tended to be obscured in the program.development process
where the development of the issues of excluded lands and
national interest articulation have warranted close attention;
it should become more apparent as coastal management programs,
move into the implemen.tation,phase.

Thus, from the viewpoint of the coastal management agency
in Maryland as well as in other states, the fe'deral,role in
federally assisted projects'is subsidiary to the role of the
state agency which actively solicits and expends assistance
funds. In this context, MDOT is the significant actor for the
Coastal Zone Unit-to interact with in terms'of'coordinating
those major programs-in W.'hich.U.'S. DOT Operating Administra-
tions participate through federal assistance programs--:highways,
mass transit, railroad assistance, and airport development.

The significance of the intermediary role of MDOT cannot
be overestimated. Most of MDOT's policies and procedures have
been ae'veloped to coordinate with U.S.'DOT Operating Adminis-
tration programs, are actually funded by them, and thus are,
of necessity, consistent with the,spirit and details of those
programs. These same MDOT,activitieg have been referenced,
as acceptable to the coastal zone program. There is'then an
underlying consistency between at least the systems level and

125

project planning processes of MDOT and U.S. DOT administrations
and the coastal zone program. Differences on individual pro-
jects may emerge, but there is ample provision in the project
planning processes established by U.S. DOT and implemented by
MDOT to resolve most differences.

Even the area of federal consistency would, in practice,
appear to be strongly influenced by the intermediary role of
MDOT. While technically an Operating Administration.could not
fund a project deemed inconsistent with the approve.d Maryland
CZM program, it is unlikely that two State agencies with dif-
ferent positions on a substantive issue would turn to a federal
fundingagency for action Cor inaction, if the project were to
be deemed inconsisterit with the CZM program). If, for instance,
MDOT were to plan a major highway facility in the coastal zone,
and the Coastal Zone Unit were to find that project inconsistent
with its management program, it is highly unlikely that the
controversy would be decided by reference to the federal con-.,
sistency regulations. It seems much more likely that a disa-
greement between two state agencies would be resolved in an
intrastate process though, of course, the real oi threatened
use of consistency by the CZU would be possible.

MDOT and CZU Coordination: Memorandum of Understanding.---
A key characteristic of the Maryland approach to coastal
management is its externalization of a prime function of
coastal management agencies--coordination of State agency
functions and activities under a defined development and
resource management model. The Maryland Program does this by
established written Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between
the Coastal Zone Unit and major State agencies with activities
in the coastal zone. The MOU between the CZU and MDOT is at
this date (6/l/78) still under negotiation, but the main
points are settled.

The two agencies agree that MDOT's system planning and
project planning procedures are delineated in a multimodal
Action Plan Cfederally assisted, following FHWA procedures)
are in accord with the goals and objectives of the Coastal
Zone Management Program; that the Maryland Transportation
Plan (MTP), a long-range systems plan for the State and
federally assisted, is in concert with the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program CCZMP); and that the CAU shall annually review
the Consolidated transportation Program (CTP), a five-year
capital improvements program which prioritizes projects in
the planning-design-execution stages, for consistency with
the CZMP.

3This analysis is extended in the Federal Consistency
section of the final report. 'In particular, the potential
impact of consistency requirement instigated third party suits
on the actions of State agencies needs to be explored.

126

The MOU will also include statements on the coordination
of the planning staffs of the two agencies for systems
planning and major facilities project planning. MD0T will
have the lead in project planning, and the CZU will integrate
its project evaluations into the larger comprehensive project planning process described by the Action Plan {incorporating
environmental reviews, interdisciplinary considerations, and
public partication requirements).

The MOU, in addition to incorporating the MTP, CTP, and
Action Plan into the CZM framework, will also recognize and
reference the project evaluation and program review elements
of the Costal Zone Management Program and contain a section
on federal consistency and the participation of MDOT in the
process of making consistency determinations for federally
assisted transportation projects in the coastal zone. (This
section is still under draft and is not yet available for
analysis.) Another element of coordination delineated in the
MOU is support of CZM goals, objectives, and policies in the
transportation planning and construction processes through a
continued liaison between the CZU and the MDOT comprehensive
planning Unit.

By recognizing the viability of the statewide transporta-
tion plan (MTP), the CTP (with an annual review), and the
Action Plan through specific CZM Program document references
and development of the MDOT/CZU Memorandum of understanding,
the statewide transportation planning process and guidance
documents are linked to the Coastal Management Program. It is
recognized in MDOT that when revisions are made to the Action
Plan, coastal zone management reviews should probably be
specifically addressed in that document, but at this stage
MDOT is not being called upon to alter its existing Action
Plan processes.

At this point, the procedural implications of CZM in
Maryland for MDOT are not dramatic or even very apparent.
From present indications, MDOT project,systems planning,
and project planning and design procedures will not be sig-
nificantly affected by the provisions of the MOU. There is no
adversary relationship between the Maryland CZM program and
MDOT; and, at this stage in their developing positions, the
CZM staff is not attempting to raise controversial issues
with MDOT.

CZM Program Implications for Transportation Assistance
Activities.--The following observations were synthesized from
interviews with regional and field office personnel of U.S.
DOT Operating Administrations conducting assistance activities
in Maryland, from MDOT staff, and from the Maryland Coastal
Zone Unit.

127

FHWA and FAA procedures in particular, but also procedures
of the other Operating Administrations, include extensive
environmental analysis requirements and specific injunctions
for assessing impacts of projects on air and water quality,
wetlands,.historic preservation, noise levels, etc. In the
context of these federal requirements, often replicated by
Maryland's own environmental permits, federal and State trans-
portation administrators suggest that the CZM Program Document
.seems to contain little of substance, considerable rhetoric,
and the potential for unnecessary red tape. In spite of these
views, however-, the same transportation administrators are quite
positive in their attitudes toward the concept of CZM as they
individually perceive it and would like'to work with coastal
zone agencies if they feel their.own missions are not compro-
mised or impeded.

Coastal zone management staff, on the other hand, recog-
nize that the transportation planning process is often the most
sophisticated State-level planning and development activity;
that where the process works as designed, the environmental
analyses and extensive public processes required in project
development will. far exceed the resources of the Coastal Zone
Unit; and that, consequently, apart from the specifics of
individual projects, the CZU's input to the transportation
planning process need not be extensive. The CZM personnel
recognize that State and federal transportation agencies have
ongoing well-stAffed organizations with elaborate environ-
mental and public review procedures and that state transpor-
tation agencies have well established political ties to locali-
ties and to the legislature. Coastal zone administrators,
in general, have little interest in "taking on" the State
DOT or its modal agencies--State Highways, State Aviation,
State Rails, etc.--in their traditional federally assisted
planning and operations activities. The literally hundreds
of individual projects in the coastal zone at various levels
of implementation Cplanning-design-construction-operation)
preclude the active involvement of the Coastal Zone Unit from
participating in meaningful reviews of all but the few most
visible projects.

Detailed project reviews on all federally assisted pro-
jects are considered to be both beyond. the means of the CZU
and unnecessary. The great majority of such projects are
not signif "c ant changes in local transportation system capa-
cities which would be of interest to the CZU. Many projects
which do affect system capacities have a history of reviews--
analyses which would render detailed CZU reviews redundant
or of marginal benefit.

Thus, some feel that the Coastal Zone Unit will probably
be selective in identifying individual projects for deta-iled
evaluations. In the main, the traditional planning and

128

development activities of federally assisted transportation
projects will be unaffected by coastal zone management primarily
because there is no functional reason for them to be affected.
There are details of the relationship of MDOT and the CZU
under the state level administration of the federal consistency
provisions which must be worked out, but there are more pro-
cedural details than significant police issues. (See the
discussion on p.

Regional and division FHWA administrators reviewing the
Maryland Program have stressed the potential generation of
unnecessary red tape as a major concern of their interactions
with CZM programs. These administrators do not see the need
for FHWA headquarters to develop specific orders on the
implementation of the federal consistency regulations and
coastal zone management in general. In their view "federal
consistency" is no more than another permit to be collected
in the EIS process. This perspective on consistency is, of
course, contrary to the view of the Coastal Zone Unit which
sees consistency as a part of the coastal management process.

Finally, the FHWA administrators complained that the CZM
program goals and policies are too general to,be of real
benefit. They felt that a land-use specific management pro-
gram would be useful, but that the present effort fails short
of a useful regional growth management program in many
respects.

Consistency for Federally Assisted Activities.--Following
guidance provided by the Federal Consistency,Regulations,4 the
Maryland Program Document states that "Federal assistance to
state and local governments for projects affecting the coastal
zone may only be granted when such actTties are consistent
with the state's approved CZM Program." The determination is
to be made by the Coastal Zone Unit.6 The Program Document
defines assistance as "grants,- contractual arrangements,
loans, subsidies, guarantee*s, insurance, or other forms of
financial aid." The Program Document indicates that federal
assistance programs subject to state review for consistency
will normally only be reviewed if the activity occurs within

4
Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 49, Monday, March 13, 1978.
Smaryland Coastal Zone Management Program Document
Draft E.I.S.p p. 334.
.6
This is contrary to the current position of U.S. DOT.
While this controversy is under discussion this analysis is
predicated on current Final Consistency Regulations cited
above.

129

the defined coastal zone boundary, "although the-State will
monitor assistance for projects outside the coastal :zone
and will inform the federal agency and applicant on a case
by case basis if a Federally assisted project outside the
coastal zone will be subject to. consistency" (p. 3@4).,.

Procedures.--According to Part III of the Office of
Management and Budget A-95 process, a governor of.a State.may
decide whether or not a federal assistance activity must be
reviewed by an areawide clearinghouse.

Maryland describes a consistency review,process which
e
loys the State A-9S Clearinghouse as the central review
mp
mechanism. The review periods, 30 to 60 days with a partially
overlapping resolution peri ,od of up to 30 days, are specified
in the Federal Consistency Regulations and in the A-95 Circular
Regulations. In the consistency process delineated in the
Program Document (closely following the suggested process
outlined in the Federal Consistency Regulations') a State or
local agency seeking federal funds for a project in or sig-
nificantly affecting the coastal zone would notify the
Clearinghouse in the usual manner, and the Clearinghouse
would attach a notice that .-reviews for federal consistency
are being solicited. Such reviews may be made by any,inter-,
ested party. The Coastal Zone.Unit shall make the,consist-
ency decision after considering the comments of the reviews
In cases of conflict, the conflict resolution mechanisms of
the program document and, perhaps, the mediation'mechanisms
described in the Federal Consistency Regulations shall be
invoked.

The Coastal Zone Unit does not appear to have the staff
resources to undertake detailed consistency reviews in all
instances where consistency determinations might be required,
nor is it necessary that it do so for the bulk of routine
occurrences. Accordingly the Program Document suggests that
"In routine cases, the Coastal Zone Agency will simply make a
decision after being advised by the State and/or local agency
which is presently responsible for reviewing the type.of
action involved" ('. 316). The Maryland Department of
p
Transportation is the agency which presently is processing
U.S.,DOT assistance rograms in the state, and routine con-
p
sistency reviews and recommendations for determinations of
consistency will be made by the environmental section within
that agency. The Coastal Zone Unit shall, in most instances,
simply concur in those determinations after checking for
potential issues of substance.

On projects with significant coastal zone effects, the
CZU will probably initiate the project evaluation process and
attempt to work with the MDOT planning staff throughout the
project development process. The program document states
that wh.ere a project evaluation is performed by the CZU, the

130

funding federal agency will be informed and invited to par-
ticipate in the process.

Consistency Issues for Federal Assistance Programs.--There
are several interesting implications in the delegation of
primary consistency reviews from the lead CZM agency to the
State agency directly concerned with obtaining the federal
assistance funds. Most obviously, routine consistency reviews
become pro forma attachments to.ongoing project A-95 and NEPA
statements. It is highly unlikely that MDOT would find one of
its own projects inconsistent with the CZM program. Substan-
tively one might question the need for routine consistency
reviews at all.

It would appear that this proposed procedural review will
remove virtually all routine consistency issues from active
consideration by Operating Administration field offices.
It is unanimously agreed among U.S. DOT Operating Administra-
tion staff concerned, MDOT staff, and CZU staff, that for
proposed projects the draft, or perhaps the final Environmental
Document is the proper place for consistency reviews.7 It
may be that for significant projects the actual consistency
determination might be withheld pending information on the
design details of projects (which are not available during
the Environmental Document development process). This would
not violate MDOT procedures so long as basic agreement could
be reached during that process, and would not violate FHWA
practices on the approval of EIS's prior to obtaining all
required permits.

A point of view expressed by a knowledgeable MDOT staff
person was that the consistency review and determination
might be limited to agreed upon specific attributes of a
project, i.e., the system effects, link capacity effects, and
growth inducing effects, but that consistency reviews and
determinations be specifically divorced from the specific
environmental permits (wetlands, discharge, etc.) to be
otained in the design and construction phase of a project.
The concept would be to limit consistency to clearly defined
areas and to separate out the consistency determination from
the specific environmental permits required by other state
agencies. Administratively, this would simplify consistency
for MDOT and, presumably, for concerned Operating Administra-
tions. However, in interviews, FHWA field officers felt that
if consistency were to be of any use at all (from their
perspective) it would be to tie together the myriad permits,

7From interviews with FHWA Regional and Division per-
sonnel, MDOT, and CZU personnel (conducted separately).

131

often each with its own review periods, required for a single
major project.- These individuals did not suggest how con-
sistency procedures might be employed to accomplish this
feat; and, given the statutory lineage of most State and
federal environmental permits with clearly defined agency
roles, it is unlikely that the goal could easily be achieved.
The CZU staff indicated that, while they disagreed with the
concept of a delimited consistency review, they also dis-
agreed with the idea of the synoptic consistency determination
which would in effect make the consistency review process a
central environmental clearinghouse. These concepts, they
feel, do not embody the intent of the Federal Consistency
Regulations.

Another issue arising from the CZM consistency provisions
is the possibility of multiple consistency reviews on a given
project. The regulations indicate that reviews are called
for every major funding phase of the federal assistance
activity which entails the consideration of new information
not previously reviewed.118 This requirement could be cumber-
some for many U.S. DOT assistance projects which may go through
A-95 five to eight times in different funding phases.

In spite of the injunction in the Consistency Regulations,
it would appear to be more practical to keep the number of
consistency reviews for a given project to a minimum and to
determine the review point(s) with the active participation
of MDOT and the relevant U.S. DOT Operating Administrations.
Certainly the precedent set in Maryland of (1) referencing
a multimodal Action Plan as the guidance document for
environmental and public reviews and (2) suggesting (though
not, at this time, formalizing) that consistency reviews
should take place at two points on a project--at the systems
level when the project is given a priority in the Transportation
Capital Improvements Plan and again at the FEIS in project
planning--is a logical way of handling the issue. There are,
however, unanswered questions, most significantly involving
the vulnerability of an "incomplete" consistency review
process to third party suits. Clear procedures need to be
developed on this point.

Another area of concern to transportation administrators
lies in the potential volume of consistency determinations to
be conducted if all projects under the very large programs
listed as subject to federal consistency are to be examined
for consistency. There are literally hundreds of projects
funded by U.S. DOT through MDOT and located in the coastal
each year. Many of these involve safety improvements or
zone

8
Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 49, Monday, March 8,
1978 (930.95(b)).

132

engineering improvements which do not affect the network
capacity or increase accessibility to shoreline areas and thus
would probably have negligible coastal zone effects. The
Coastal Zone Unit staff and MDOT agree that there should be
some formal differentiation between minor projects, which do
not affect system capacities and which have .no significant con-
struction and uses impacts, and major projects, which defi-
nitely should be reviewed from a CZM perspective. As indi-
cated, the procedures adopted under Maryland's CZM program
for project,evaluations of major transportation facilities
implicitly differentiate major from minor project reviews,
but these procedures describe intrastate agency.consistency
with the coastal program and cannot be assumed to include the
administration of the federal consistency provisions.

A,substantive question for the federal office of Coastal
Zone Management to resolve is whether a State.coastal zone
management agency, having indicated that it will review a given
federal assistance rogram for consistency, must actually
p
render c.onsistency determinations for all such assistance pro-
gram projects, or whether@the agency may select for detailed
review only those projects it wishes.. It might also be useful
for U.S. DOT regional and field offices to suggest and agree
upon procedures delineating two paths.to consistency deter-
minations for federal assistance activities--differentiating
federal assistance program activities unlikely to warrant more
than a cursory or even an annual blanket consistency review
from assistance programs likely to include projects which
warrant detailed consistency reviews. Examples of the latter
might include projects.which would affect link and netowrk
capacities, and have primary and secondary land use effects.

3.3.2 Direct Federal Activities

A number of U.S. DOT agencies conduct or have'the poten-
tial to conduct direct federal activities in the Maryland
coastal zone. These agencies and their activities were
identified in Table 7 (p.12S) as the U.S. Coast Guard, the
direct construction of highways by FHWA, the placement of
Aids to Navigation by the FAA, direct activities of FRA,
activities of Office of Deepwater Ports, and the Materials
Transport Bureau. Of these agencies, only the Coast Guard
is regarded by the Maryland Coastal Zone Unit as havinga sig-
nificant role in the Maryland Program. Accordingly, the case
materials below emphasize the role of the Coast Guard in the
Maryland Program. The analysis of federal consistency policy
issues (P.144), however, should be of interest to all of the
DOT agencies conducting direct activities in the coastal zone.

Federal Consistency and the National Interest.--The main
arena for interactions between direct activities of federal
agencies and State coastal zone management Programs is found

133

in the re v ederal [email protected]
,gulations go erning-f 1
approved CZM Programs. Although Maryland's ProgramAs not
yet formally approved, this,discuss,ion assumes that it will
be in its current form. The Federal Consistency Regulations
state that direct federal activities', including development
projects significantly affecting the coastal zone, shall be
undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent,
practicable. with approved CZM programs. The federal agency
is to make the determination that,(l) the activity,does.sig-
nificantly affect the coastal zone and (2) it is@consistent
with the Program to the maximum extent practicable. The
state CZM agency may review.the consistency determination..
Should the agency disagree with the consistency finding@it
may then invoke the mediation procedures described in the
regulations.

The intent,of the.Federal Consistency Regulations for
direct federal activities-is to provide, through State,'
coastal management Programs,,a means.by which federal agencies
may evaluate their.activities in the context of state concerns
on the uses and activities in coastal areas. From this point
of view, federal consistency is a useful mechanism for federal
agency coordination with an authoritative state agency on the
impacts of federal,proposedactivities and,development projects.

Unfortunately, both State CZM offices and federal agencies
have tended, perhaps for positioning purposes, to interpret
the evolving consistency policy and process in a negativecon-
text as a threat to their programs. State C2M offices have
decried the erosion of the concept of consistency by the widen-
ing definition of excluded federal lands, by the clear limita-
tion of the determination to the "enforceable policies" of the
program, and by the charges from federal agencie's that the
national interest inherent in their programs has been in 'ade-
quately represented in the State CZM Program. Federal agencies,
on the other hand, have,reacted.negatively to what they see
as the lack of clarity in CZM Programs and have not devoted
significant staff resources to the development of,their agency's
position on working consistency regulations. Federal agencies
also, on occasion, have taken -the position that their enabling
statutes adequately define their mission, rendering changes
in their current Programs unhece 'ssary. This position is
based on their feeling that the national interest as expressed
in the statutes from which their pr-ograms are derived is so
dominant that a State agency cannot affect their -operations
through the CZMA consistency processes.

Th. ereaction of U.S. DOT agencies to the Maryland
Coastal Program (and other state programs) illustrates this
interpretation of the consistency provisions. While the Coast
Guard has defined a new staff position, Coastal Zone Management

134

Officer, in each of-its districts to coordinate CZM Programs,
inquiries to' the FAA MTB' and FHWA Region 115 offices found
an almost total lack of familiarity with the Federal Con-
sistency Regulations and the requirements for administrators
in those agencies'to make consistency determinations and.
transmit' them-to the Maryland Coastal Zone Unit.9 Clearly',
at this stage of program development, federal consistency is
a low priority issue for these agencies. Also, up to*this
point, the Maryland CZU has noi-demonstrated an interest in
the direct activities of these agencies-nor has it made an
effort to'develop consistency procedures with them.
Case Materials on Direct Federal Activitiesin the Mauland
Coastal Zone: The Program Document's Description of the Coast
Mid and the Maryland Coastal Progra

The Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program describes
several relatively specific areas-of interest where Coast
Guard activitles.should be consistent with the coastal manage-
ment'effort. These include: recreational boating, Oil Spill'
and Hazardous Materials control activities, ocean dumping,,
and the CoasfGuard's -role in OCS development. The Program'
Document also defines the specific licenses and permits it
intends'to monitor under the Federal Consistency Regulations,
and describes-the general-conditions for reviewing direct
federal agency development activities (and other activities)
for consistency with the management system.

Identified Coast Guard Activities of Interest.to the CZU

1. Recreational Boating: In this management area, the Program
Document cites the rQle of the Coast Guard in implementing
EPA regulations under the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 Section 404--Regulation of Boat Dis-
charges. The CZU @roposes to undertake a Program Review
to assist the Maryland Water Resources Administration and
the Environmental Health Administration to develop
programs relating to waste discharges from recreational
boats" (p. 107). The expectation of the CZU is, evidently,
that Coast Guard activities in this area will be coordi-
nated with the State level activities through the CZU,
and that the Fedefal Consistency Regulations provide' the
foundation for this coordination "to the maximum extent
practicable.."

2. Commercial Shipping: Under the section "Commercial Ship-
ping," the Program Document describes the coordination of
State. and, federal policy in the location of moorings, place-
ment of aids to navigation, oil'spill.containment, and

9
See the:discussion in Se'ction 1.4.4 below, p.

135

regulation of dangerous cargos and hazardous materials.
In each of these areas there is an existing mission for
the Coast Guard. The stated policies -of Maryland's Water
Resources agency and Coastal Zone Unit reveal their per-
ception of a significant State role in these areas as
well. The most current and controversial area of interest
under this topic in the Program Document is oil spill
containmen and prevention which will be discussed in a
following Policy Issues section. The discussion here is
restricted to the contents of the Program Document.

The Coastal Zone Unit intends, through its program
evaluation and program review processes, to monitor the
construction or expansion of all facilities involved with
offloading, transfer, or intermediate processing of oil
and natural gas products. It will also 111. Work with WRA
to refine oil spill contingency measures, including use
of oil-spill trajectory models, and to determine likely
dispersion patterns of oil spills .,[and] 3. Work
with the U.S. Coast Guard . . . to establish vessel traffic
systems in the Chesapeake Bay as a measure to reduce the
probability of oil spills or discharges of toxic materials
from vessels" (p. 107'of the Program Document).

The Program Document emphasizes the role of the state
Water Resources Administration (WRA) to oil spill contain-
ment and cleanups and suggests that the WRA can 'respond to
open water spills more rapidly than the Coast Guard.
The intent of the management program seems to be to have
WRA as the lead agency for oil spill responses, to assume
the key role in that area, and to have the CZU coordinate
through federal consistency the role of the Coast Guard.
This point is discussed further under the Policy Issues
section.

3. Ocean Dumping and OCS Concerns: The Program Document.cites
the enforcement and surveillance responsibilities of the
Coast Guard to monitor ocean dumping as subject to the
Federal Consistency Regulations. Maryland's policy is to
participate in federal proceedings on ocean dumping in
order to obtain early phase outlof ocean dumping activi-
ties." As an enforceable policy of the CZM program, this
section cites the state Natural-Resourcet Article. Of
particular interest is Police 3.f: "Both research and
monitoring must be conducted at each ocean disposal site,
and must be coordinated with all other scientific programs
in the Mid-Atlantic Bight . . . ('P. 122). It is not unima-
ginable that the Coastal Zone Unit may intend to use the
federal consistency provisions to shape Coast Guard
surveillance and enforcement practices to the State's own
view of what those activities should be. The Coast Guard
is cited as one federal agency EPA (the Corps of Engineers

136

is also.cited) with-responsibility in this area. It is
not singled out for special consideration, and no details
are provided in the discussion of ocean dumping to
indicate the manner in which 'the CZU might attempt to
interact with the Coast Guard in this area. One can
only conjecture,.reasoning from the stated policies,
that@an effort might be made to have.the Coast Guard
increase its surveillance and enforcement operations in
ocean dumping, but there is nothing in the current Maryland
CZM Program which explicitly calls on the Coast Guard to
do so. Such "coordination" would have serious effects,
of course, on the allocation of personnel within-the local
district.

In the area of OCS exploration, production, and trans-
portation, the Coast Guard is again cited (along with DOT)
as a federal agency which should coordinate its activities
with the CZU.

4. Federal Licenses and Permits: One section of the Federal
Consistency Regulations describes procedures for determin-
ing consistency of federal licenses and permits with
approved CZM programs. The Maryland Program Document
identifies seven such licenses and permits to be reviewed
by the CZU for consistency. All but one of these are. Coast
Guard permits.z Table 8 below, is reproduced fromthe
Maryland.Program Document, including the footnote to the
table-marked with an asterisk.

Coast,Guard policy is that only site specific permits
.are subject to consistency review, and'therefore activities
identified as permits 3, 4, and 5 in Table .1-4 are not
subject to consistency. The qualifying footnote'applies
only to permit 5 but should apply to 3 and 4 as well since
the Coast Guard perceives these "permits" as authorizations
conducted under a regulatory process and therefore not
subject to this section of the Federal Consistency
Regulations.

The Federal Aviation Administration does not accept
the view that Airport Development.Project Applications
.are "permits or licenses" subject to consistency. Many
emerging coastal management programs so list these FAA
activities, and the point should be clarified in the
future.

5. Development Projects and General Activities: TheAraft
Program Document identifies the conditions for finding
federal activities consistent'with the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment:Program.

137

TABLE 8

U.S. DOT Permits Identified For Federal Consistency
Review In The Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program

State Agency
to Assist CZU
Agency Permit Citation

U.S. Coast Private Aids to 14 U.S.C. 83 WRA/MP
Guard Navigation

(2) Bridges & Cause- 33 U.S.C., - WRA
ways in Navigable 401, 491, 525
Waters

(3) Authorization for 46 U.S.C. 1716 WRA
handling dangerous
cargo

(4) Authorization for 46 U.S.C. WRA
handling flammable 391(a)
or combustible
liquids by bulk in
U.S. ports

(5) Authorization for" 46 U.S.C. PPSP/MGS
barges over 100 tons 395
as it spplies to
floating nuclear
power plants and
OCS related activi-
ties*

.(6) Deepwater Ports Deepwater MDOT
Permits Ports Act
33 U.S.C.
1501

49 U.S.C.
Federal (7) Approval of Air- MDOT
Aviation port Develop - 1716
Administra- ment Project Appli-
tion cations

*The U.S. DOT has indicated that theie Authorizations are'.not,
granted on-a case-by-case or site specific basis and thus not
appropriate forindividual notification and consistency
determination. The.State will consider some alternate means,
of reviewing these federal alterations and resolVe'the
issue together with U.S. DOT prior to Program approval.

138

Maryland will consider an activity consistent
to the maximum extent practicable if:

.(l) the activity does not inherently conflict
with the goals, objectives and policies
of the program., (i.e., potential conflicts
can be avoided through proper planning
.and design); and
(2) of the practicable alternatives available
to carry out the activity, the alternative
chosen is the most supportive of the goals,
objectives and policies of the program;
and
(3) the project will not cause any violation
of standards set by Maryland law or
regulations cited in the program; or
(4) the project is clearly necessary,in the
interest of national security andt.is carried
out in a manner which minimizes. conflict
with program goals, objectives,'and
policies (p. 319).

The Program Document identifies the"following actions in the
coastal zone as subject to the consistency reviews:

All development projects, such as construction
of buildings, reclamation projects, channel
dredging.
Major research projects, management*studies,
or inventories conducted by the federal
agency, that will be used in management
decisions concerning Maryland's.coastal
resources.
Actions which may significantly alter use
patterns and the Chesapeake Bay or.ocean
tidal waters, (e.g., designations of special
anchorage a 'reas by the Coast Guard),
Acquisition or disposition of land, and
Conducting inventories and making designations
of lands for the National Landmark Frogram to
the National.Historic Register (p. 321).

All development projects are clearly subj,edt to consistency
reviews, and the Coast Guard in District 5 has defined a
process for making such reviews.. Apart from development pro-
jects, however, the Program Document is not specific as to-
which of the direct federa'l.acti.Vities are reviewable for
consistency., The general action ares identified above provide
limited guidance for the Coast Guard,.and if all of its
activities are not to be,deemed reviewable by the state (neither@.'
the Coast Guard nor the,state w 0
ould.benefit fr m unlimited'.
consistency reviews), then the Coast Guard should probably
develop a listing of the activities it feels significantly

139

affect the coastal zone and thus subject to consistency reviews.

The District S Coast Guard Response to the CZMA and the
Maryland CoastaT Management Pro ram.--The District 5 Coast
1978) to the draft pro-
Guard OfFice has responded (F- ruary,
gram document (306 submission prior to the DEIS) with a set
of detailed comments explicating the current U.S. DOT position
on consistency determinations for licenses and permits and
direct federal activities.10 The response also identifies
several specific issues the Coast Buard sees in the Program
Document. These comments were not referenced in the section
of the DEIS in which federal comments were included, nor does
the document itself reflect most of the changes requested by
the Coast Guard. The Coastal Zone Unit has met with repre-
sentatives of the Coast Guard on several occasions, but from
the federal perspective the results of the dialogue between
the Coast Guard and the CZU have, to date, not been completely
satisfactory. There are evidently significant issues currently
being negotiated between District 5 and the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources.

Staffing: Through a headquarters initiative,
Th-e-ro-ast Guard has in each of its districts
created a new staff position--Coastal Zone
Officer. In District S, which includes
Maryland, the Planning Officer is currently the
designated Coastal Zone Officer. (A new
position is being created for a full time
Coastal Zone Officer within the planning
office.) The Coastal Zone Officer shall pro-
cess all consistency determinations and reviews
including applications for permits, and shall
maintain working relationships with the state
CZM agencies.

Excluded Lands: In addition to providing comments
on the drart program document, the Coastal
Zone Officer in District 5 has notified the
Maryland CZU (as well as Virginia's and North
Carolina's CZM staffs) of the number and
exact location of all federal installations and
their ownership status, although this is not
required under the latest provisions of the
relevant federal regulations.11

10
U.S. Coast Guard Communication (16004/0984A Serial No.
155@ 24 Feb 78).
liFederal Re@ister, "State Coastal Mangement Program,"
Vol. 13-,No. 41, Wednesday, March 1, 1978.

140

Development Projects--The District S Coastal Zone/Planning
Officer has also developed for the three states a listing of
1978-82 development projects contemplated by the district,
and has passed these listings;in as much detail as is cur-
rently reasonable to the coastal management agencies of the
states. Such a.description of proposed projects is required
by Section 930.34(a) and (b) of the Final Consistency Regula-
tions. "Federal agencies shall provide state agencies with
consistency determinations for all federal activities signi-
ficantly affecting the coastal zone. .,,12 Such consis'-
tency'determinations are made for six development projects
proposed for Maryland's coastal zone over the next five
years. In each instance the relevant section of the Maryland
Coastal Management Program Document is cited. These consis-
tency determinations are in advance of Program approval and
are not yet required. In demonstrating an acceptable process
for making consistency determinations for development activi-
ties, however, the Coast Guard in District 5 has led the way
in establishing a reasonable level of conformance with the
Federal Consistency Regulations. It is possible that
planning staffs in other operating administrations might bene-
fit from the Coast Guard's experience in this area.

In transmitting to the CZM staffs.of Maryland, Virginia,
and North Carolina, these project lists and consistency @
reviews, the Coast Guard Planning'Officer has found that they
are . . . an extremely useful public relations tool." In
Virginia, for example, the listing of proposed development
activities was transmitted by the CZM staff to the appropriate
Regional Planning District where it was* discussed in a public
setting with invited Coast Guard participation. The planning
officer cited this instance as an example where coastal zone
management has generated new and positive intergovernmental
linkages in the facilities planning and development process.

Direct Activities of Other U.S. DOT Agencies in the
Maryland Coastal Zone.--Operating Administration offices and
the Office of the Materials Transport Bureau were contacted
to determine: (1) the extent of the direct federal activities
of those agencies in the Maryland Program, and (2) the current
awareness in regional offices of requirements of the Federal
Consistency Regulations. It should be remembered that the
Maryland Program, as East Coast Programs in general (with the
exception of Rhode Island), ahs not yet been approved by NOAA,
and that therefore there is to date no current obligation on
the part of U.S. DOT agencies to make consistency determinations.
Also, it should be remembered that Maryland has not identified
the following agencies as playing a significant part in its
Program nor seriously reached out to them in the program
development process.

121bid., Vol. 43, No. 49, Monday, March 13, 1978.

141

With these caveats, it must be noted that the current
state of knowledge about CZM and federal agency responsibili-
ties under the Federal Consistency Regulations by the FAA,
FHWA Region 15, FRA, and MTB is disappointing. In general,
the designated and responsible administrators and staff had
heard of- coastal zone management and, in some cases, had
received communications on it from the SecReps office, but
uniformly the interviewed individuals had little or no
knowledge of the Federal Consistency Regulations and their
responsibilities under those regulations. The often expressed
view was that with so many environmental bits and pieces to
deal with they hadn't gotten around to coastal zone manage-
ment, and wouldn't until it was necessary. The implication
is that when States within their regions started getting to
Program approval, and when and if issues were raised, they
would then respond to coastal zone management requirements.
This, of course, is not simply tunnel vision but a real response
to multiple new and innovative environmental program require-
ments imposed upon limited staff resources. It should not be
dismissed as selective inattention to CZM, but rather as a
prioritizing (nonprioritizing) of that Program among the entire
range of their environmental procedures. At fir Ist glance,
coastal zone management evidently appears to offer little but
trouble to federal field offices. Should headquarters decide
that the Program should be supported, it will have to make
that clear to field offices.

The examination of direct federal activities in the
Maryland coastal zone uncovered only one major activity which
will probably be of interest to the Maryland Coastal Zone
Unit. On Assateague Island, FHWA Region 15 is completing
major approaches to the National Park Service project--several
miles of road and two significant.bridges--and is about to
commence the internal circulation system and terminals for
the park. This new phase of the project will involve signifi-
cant construction activities on the island and may well involve
Region 15 as lead agency in obtaining permits for wetlands,
fill, discharge, etc. (It is also possible that the Park
Service will be disignated lead agency for the construction
as it is lead agency for the entire project.) It.is quite pos-
sible that the Maryland CZU, the Maryland Department of
Transportation, Water Resources Administration, etc., may want
to undertake a federal consistency review of the direct acti-
vities of Region 15 in the planning-and project phases of
building the park circulation system. Region 15 is not at
present prepared to deal with.federal-consistency determination.
A planning officer suggested that it would have that capability
when required to.

The other Operating Administrations and agencies do not
currently appear to have underway in Maryland projects which
could be construed as significantly affecting the coastal zone.

142

3.3.3 Policy Issue: Consistency of Direct Federal Activities

The major,substantive,issue between federal-agencies conducting
direct activities,in approved coastal zone management areas
and the CZM agencies administering those areas involves the
range of activities which may.,be considered for consistency
determinations. The Federal Consistency Regulations suggest
that all,federal activities,defined as 11 . . . any function
performed by or on behalf of a federal agency in the exercise
of its s.tatutory,responsibil,ities shall be conducted in a
manner consistent.t6 the maximum extent.practicable with
,13
approved.manageme.nt, programs. A comment in. the regulations
suggests that "consistent to th maximum extent practicable"
means to the fullest extent of existing law,14 so that Section
307(e)15 of the.CZM Act is incorporated into the administrative
process.

The regulations add, however, theinjunction that

The duty the Act imposes upo n federal agencies
is not set aside by.virtue of Section 307(e).
The Act was intended to cause substantive
changes in fed-er al. ag.eInc.y decisionmaking
within tFie ontext of the discretionary powers
residing within such agencies. Accordingly,
.when read together, Section 307(c) (1) and
(2), and 307(e) require federal agencies,
whenever legally pe . r.missible, to consider state
management,programs as suZplemental requirements
to be adhered to in'addition to existing agency'.,
mandates-.16 (EmpHasis a ded.)

The s.tatements,that the CZMA was intended to cause substantive
changes in federal agency decision making and the indicated
scope of application of fe 'deral consistency make it a real
challenge to existing procedures in virtually all Coast Guard
programs and to the specific direct activities of the other
operating administrations.

The goal of the sections ofthe regulation quoted--sub-
stantive changes in decision making--is not at all selective
enough to generate,reas-onable responses from federal agencies
like the Coast Guard which maintains many different programs
administered in a decentralized manner in -a number of locations

13
Federal Register,-Section 930.31(a).
14
Ibid., Section 930.32(a).
1@SIbid. -Section 930. 3.2 (a) Comment..
l61bid., Section 930.32.

143

in the field. The goal is also insensitive to the real
needs of state CZM agencies to selectively interact with only
those federal programs which create significant impacts within
their coastal zones. State CZM agencies have staff limita-
tions and resource constraints and, when compared to the
full range of activities of an agency like the Coast
Guard,, limited areas of interest. The practical effects of
the section of the Consistency Regulations dealing with direct
federal activities may be to transfer the.selection of action
areas for consistency review from the federal agency to the
state agency on a demand basis ' notwithstanding Section 930.33
(a). (This point is illustrated by the rise of the Oil Spill
Response issue in Maryland, discussed below.) While the
regulations indicate that the federal agency is to make the
determination that the activity significantly affects the
coastal zone and is consistent with the approved State Program,
the field experience of the Coast Guard is that, apart from
identifying its development projects in the coastal zone, the
activities of that agency are too extensive to be coordinated
in advance with coastal management agencies. As a practical
expedient Coast Guard field offices shall be forced to ignore
Section 930.37(a) of the Consistency Regulations: "Federal
agencies shall.review their proposed federal activities which
significantly affect the coastal zone in order to develop con-
sistency determinations. ,17 In the absence of a Head-
quarters policy on which Coast Guard activities, aside from
development projects, significantly affect the coastal zone,
field offices are most reluctant to open a can of worms by
declaring their activities reviewable by state CZM agencies.18

In Maryland, as noted in section 1.4.2 of this case study,
the CZM program document defines several specific areas for the
Coast Guard to coordinate its activities (apart from permits
and development projects) with the Coastal Zone Unit. These
are monitoring discharges from recreational boating, selection
of mooring and vessel traffic management systems for commercial
vessels, oil spill responses, ocean dumping, and OCS development
surveillance and enforcment.

The Maryland program is not very specific about its inten-
tions for the coordination of the Coast Guard's activities with

17Federal Register, Section 930.37.
18
U.S.C.G..staff review of a draft of this report made the
following comment concerning the observations above: It should
be clarified that the Coast Guard is not ignoring Section 930.37
(a) of the consistency regulations as stated in the report. All
of the Coast Guard's activities which significantly affect the
coastal zone shall be consistent to the maximum extent practicable
with the approved state program. Also, the Coast Guard will make
the consistency determination. We do not object to the state
reviewing that determination as stated on this page.-

144

the state's own interest (those of the Water Resources Adminis-
tration) in these areas, and its description of the Coast
Guard's role is not written from that agency's own perspective
of its duties. Yet, given program approval, it is quite possi-
ble that the Maryland CZU, perhaps as a catspaw for the Water
Resources Administration, shall attempt to influence the level
of Coast Guard involvement in one or more of these areas,
e.g., the level of staff committed to ocean dumping surveil-
lance and enforcement, or the manner in which the Coast Guard
spends funds on oil spill containment. The latter issue has
been discussed in Maryland as a possible area for the imple-
mentation of federal consistency. The Water Resources Adminis-
tration evidently believes it has the right and the ability
to be the lead agency in oil spill responses in state waters
with the Coast Guard taking a secondary role. The Coast
Guard, on the other hand, feels it has a clear mandate for
oil spill response under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, Section 311. It has set up Regional
ResponseTeams incorporating other federal agencies and has
devoted significant financial and staff resources in building
this response capability.'

The issue is under negotiation now (May, 1978) by high
level administrators in the Coast Guar6l and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. Consistency, or more properly,
the threat of the use of the consistency process by the state,
is one element in the negotiating game. Other elements may,
of course, be more immediately relevant. The point, however,
is that the unfolding scenario appears to have elements which
may reappear in other issue areas and with other federal
agencies: The federal agency conducting its activities feels
it has a clear mandate to do so in an unimpeded manner given its
enabling statutes.. It feels that the statutory origin of its
activities is clear evidence of the national interest in con-
ducting those activities. More pragmatically, it may be felt
that it is impossible for a federal agency to implement activi-
ties in the field under a uniform headquarters policy if dif-
ferent levels of commitment may be required by various States
in their CZM programs..

The State CZM agency, on the other hand, on its own initia-
tive or at the behest of another State agency seeking-to influ-
ence federal activities within the State, may attempt to use the
consistency provisions as a bargaining tool to establish
external agreements with federal agencies. Program documents
do not contain extensive analyses of particular activities
of federal and state agencies and so cannot be relied on as a
basis for details of consistency.determinations.

3.4 The New Jersey Case Study

The case study of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program,

145

CMP, begins below with an overview of the chronological
development of the State program followed by an analysis of
the Program Document. The analysis focuses on the implemen-
tation authority underlying the Coastal Program, the management

system proposed, program policies, and the explicit provisions
of the Program that addresses transportation. The third com-
ponent of the case study is a summary of the frequency and con-

tent of the interactions between transportation and coastal
zone agencies about the New Jersey Program, from, 1975-1978.

3.4.1 Chronological Development

The May 1978 Coastal Management Document issued by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management {OCZM) of the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), State of New Jersey, is the
result of evolving and developing Coastal management efforts
in the State. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(P.L. 92-583, as amended in 1976 by P.L. 94-370), which was
designed to encourage the coastal States to develop and imple-
ment comprehensive coastal management programs, was in New
Jersey preceded by, or contemporary with, several laws and
statutes. In 1970 the New Jersey State Legislature passed the
Wetlands Act and, in 1973, the Coastal Area Facility Review.
Act (CAFRA). The State also has a set of riparian and shore-
protection statutes which have developed over the past decades.

New Jersey received its first grant from NOAA-OCZM under
the national coastal management program, in June 1974. Several
documents have been prepared by the New Jersey Office of Coastal
Zone Management (NJOCZM) that have presented the status of
the coastal management program, the primary ones being:

"Interim Land Use and Density Guidelines for the
Coastal Area of New Jersey," May 1976;
"Coastal Management Stragegy for New Jersey, CAFRA
Area," September 1976;
"Coastal Mangement Program, Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment" (Draft Environmental Impact Statement),
May 1978.

Other related documents have also been prepared (e.g., CAFRA
Rules and Regulations," April 1, 1977).

The State has decided to prepare and submit its Coastal
Management Program in two phases, the first phase (segment)
for the CAFRA area (Delaware Bay, Raritan Bay and Atlantic
Ocean Front), and the second for the remaining, and generally
more urbanized areas {Delaware Waterfront, Northern Waterfront,
and Hackensack Meadowlands). The May 1978 Draft EIS submitted
to NOAA-OCZM is for the first phase area only.

It seems reasonable to expect that the same basic approach
(policies and procedures) employed in the first phase will be

146

continued.into the second. However, modifications in approach
may be necessitated by several factors, including the more
developed and urbanized nature of the remaining area; the
existence ofrecently constituted regulatory and planning
entities (e.g., Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission);
and the need for additional regulatory authority in these
areas CCAPRA does not apply in the remainder of the Coastal
Zone defined by the State).
3.4.2 Manasement Program Overview
New Jersey Proposes to implement its coastal program
"through existing laws and agencies" with directState control.
The program is being developed as a land-use guidance program
and is being submitted in two distinct phases. The first
phas-e, Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, applies to lands along
New Jersey's Atlantic Ocean shoreline, along the,bays behind
the barrier islands, and along Delaware and Raritan Bays. (The
inland boundary is defined as that which is described in New
Jersey's Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), or the Upper
Wetlands 3oundary of coastal wetlands located landward of the
CAPRA boundary along tidal water courses that flow through the.
CAPRA area, whichever is more landward, including.State-owned
tide lands. This segment includes 1.382 square miles of land
area And the related coastal waters,) The second phase will
include the coastal area in the northeast portion of the
state. -The lands and related-coastal waters along the Hudson
River, Kill Van Kull and the Meadowlands will be included.in
the second phase.

The Program identifies a three-stage screening process
to guide public decisions. Each of the stages has an associ-
ated set of policies, and consists of: (1) Location Polic 'ies,
which evaluate specific types:of coastal locations such as
wetlands and prime farmland; (2) Use.Policies, which are
directed at different possible uses of the.coastal zone, such
as housing and energy facility development; and (3.) Resource
Policies, which focus on controlling the effects of,develop-
ment, such as water runoff and siol erosion. New Jersey
intends to adopt the pplicies presented as administrative
ruled ". . . to increase the predictability of the,Department's
(-D.E.P.).coastal decision making by-limiting administrative
discretion, as well as to ensure the enforceability . . . 11
of the policies embodied within the Program. The policies are
intended to: (1) ..,serve as.the standards for ' regulatory
decisions . . . " made under the existing permit programs,
(2) serve as.the basis for determining the consistency
of prop@s ed actions, by Federal,, state and local agencies
11 with the program, C3) con.tribute.to ". . . shape(ing)
key state funding decisions . . . "' and (4) 11. . . guide
-further planning and advo'cacy actions . . . by the State coastal
.management agency-

147

The management program will be implemented through the
Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) of the Division of
Marine Services (DMS), which is located in the Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP), the designated lead agency
for Federal CZMA program administration. Decisions
concerned with energy siting will be made jointly by the
DEP.and the State's Department of Energy.

New Jersey's Coastal Program will be implemented through
the use of existing laws and agenc'ies and the coordinated
use of the applicable permit programs. The Coastal Area
Facility Review Act (CAFRA) (NJSA 13:19-1 and following) is
New Jersey's major coastal law. This act gives the DEP the
responsibility to regulate the location, design, and construc-
tion of specified housing developments and most major industrial,
sewer, and energy facilities in the legislatively defined
"Coastal Area." A permit program has been developed by DEP to
administer this responsibility. Under the Wetlands Act of
1970 (NJSA 13:9A-1 and following) development in a mapped tidal
wetlands must receive a Wetlands'Permit before construction
can begin. In addition, certain activities are specifically
prohobited in the wetlands.

A third major coastal control in New Jersey is a set of
riparian statutes. Under these statutes, DEP and the Natural
Resource Council (an autonomous but closely related citizen
body, with members appointed by the Governor with consent of
the State Senate) can sell or'lease certain lands and manage
most activities on these lands through the administration
of the Waterfront Development permit program. A range of
construction and alteration activities requires such permits.

New Jersey also has a shore-protection program of state aid
to muni.cipalities to finance structural and nonstructural
solutions to shoreline erosion. It is intended to coordiiiate
this aid program with the Coastal Management Program (CMP) of
the OCAM. The CMP also relies upon the consistency of Federal
actions to conform to the basic and specific coastal policies.
Finally, the CMP is seen as a guide for municipal, county,
and regional agencies with coastal decision-making responsibili-
ties.

Program Policies.--The management program presents four
Basic Coastal Policies:

1. Protection of the coastal ecosystem;
2. Concentration on, rather than dispersion of, the
pattern of coastal residential, commercial, indus-
trial, and resort7oriented development, and
encouragement of the preservation of open space;
3. Employment of a method for decision making which
allows each coastal location to be evaluated in
terms of both the advantages and disadvantages

148

it offers for development; and
4. Protection of the health, safety, and welfare
of people who reside, work, and visit the
coastal zone.

These policies are supported @y more specific location,
use, and resource policies. The Location Policies incorporate
a multistep process for determining the acceptability for
development of a particular location for a particular use.
The process is sometimes referred to as the Coastal Location
Acceptability Method (CLAM).- Specific use policies are iden-
tified for eight categories of uses, and these policies serve
as the second stage of the screening process. Proposed
developments and actions are also reviewed in terms of their,
effects on various res@ources of the built and natural environ-
ment. A series of Resource Policies is-presented to serve as
standards to which proposed development must adhere. The
program document presents each of the specific policies in
detail and discusses their rationale.

The New Jersey Program Document presents a set of the
substantive policies of the DEP regarding the use and
development of coastal resources. These policies are to be
used by the OCZM in reviewing permit applications apd as a
basis for recommendations to the Natural Resource Council
on applications for grants, leases, or licenses. The policies
presented are also viewed as the "standards" that proposed
developments must meet. The coastal program has as its stated
aim the adoption of these policies as administrative rules,
according to the New Jersey Administrative Procedures.Act, to
increase the predictability of coastal decision making by ,
limiting administrative discretion. The policies are directly
incorporated into a three-stage coastal management decision
making, or screening, process that is to be applied to proposed
developments. At each stage (Location, Use, Resource) the
proposed development is reviewed with respect to.the documented
policies for that stages. Proposals found to be acceptable
are subject to the I I nex.t -stage.review. Provisions have been
made for the finding of "conditionally acceptable," and the
standards Cpolicies) presented identifying activities that
are either encouraged, discouraged, or prohibited. Informal
discussions with the DEP at the "pre-Application Stage" are
strongly encouraged.

The presentation of the location policies is lengthy and
detailed because of the extent, complexity, and variation of
the coastal area. Each Location Policy Section contains a
definition of the identified location types, a statement.of
.policies associated with tlielocation type,.a brief rationale
for the policy, the informa:tion'requirements at each-stage,
and an illustrative example.

149

The application of the policies follows a simpler eight-
step procedure (CLAM). The procedure requires the identifi-
cation of defined water, water"s-edge, or land types, and .
the preparation of maps indicating the distribution of the var-
ious location types present on a proposed site. The final steps
in-the process identify the distribution of specific policies
for the proposed'site. As such the process is highly graphical
in nature and culminates in a Location Acceptability Map and an
analysis of that document with respect to the stated policies.

Proposals that are found acceptable by the CLAM process
are subsequently reviewed with regard to-the documented Use and
Resource Policies. The Use Policies are grouped into seven
functional areas, and a proposed development must meet the
standards incorporated into the policies. These policies often
reinforce or highlight specifics of the Location Policies.
Definition, specific policyCies), and rationale are presented
in each use area. The policies or standards that a proposed
development must meet are the third screening stage. The
effects of the proposed development on a setbf resources of the
built and natural environment are considered, both at the
proposed site as well as in its surrounding region. For example,
the shorefront is considered in this'stage. The policy sets a
standard that developments 11 . . . shall provide maximum practi-
.cable public access to the shorefront. . .-." Both beach and
built-up areas are included, as are both physical and visual
access.

The New Jersey program identifies two generic Geographic
Areas of Particular Concern (GAPQ and one specific GAPC. The
generic areas are all Coastal Wetlands and Wetsand Beaches. The
priority use of the Wetlands is no development or disturbance,
and that for the Beaches is recreation. These designations
also serve to provide a clear and comprehensive view of New
Jersey's view of these land and water areas. The specific GAPC
identified is Higbee Beach-Pond Creek Meadow Area in Cape May
County. The New Jersey CMP also identifies the several approved
programs through which areas can be designated for preservation
or restoration. The programs are currently administered through
the DEP. The Federal CZMA requirements relating to Energy
Facility Siting, Shorefront Access Planning, Iand Shoreline.
Erosion Planning are.to be met in the document being prepared
for the second stage Cand remaining geographic area) of-the-
State's program. The planned submission date for these items
meets CZMA stipulations.
The specific policies presented are a more'detailed articu-
lation of the four Basic Coastal Policies. The polices attempt
to present a level of detail that is specific and precise
enough to cover foreseeable proposed developments in a manner
that will leave little or no ambiguity and limit administrative
discretion. Also, the policies ar6 structured from the general
to the more specific to allow their application to a broader

150

range of the application of the process (permit application
decisions.) will serve.as'an additional guide and perhaps,as a:
judi.cial.benchmark.

Management System.-@-The essence of the managemen t system,
or the-implementation rpocess,.for.,the New Jersey.Coastal
Program.'is embodied in the previous presentations concerning
Implementation Authority,and Program,Polic'ies. The management
system utilizes the permitting rpocess and procedures and
coordination among agencies, and identifies.a potential need
for s@lective Memoranda of Understandingrwith.some agencies.
Coastal.Policies will be implemented through the Department
of Environmental Protection as the designated planning agency
under Section 305 of the CZMA, and as lead agency to administer
the Federally approved program under Section:306 of-the Act.
The Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) in the Division
of Marine Sciences ('DMS) of the DEP is the lead agency for
coastal planning. DEP-OCtM also administers the CAFRA Permit
Program, and all three permit programs in New Jersey's coastal
program are signed by the Director of the DMS. The.program
document states how the work of the various divisions of DEP
will be coordinated to support*and implement the CMP. -A draft
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been prepared between'..
DEP and the newly created.Department of Energy.

The CMP calls for coordination between.the five other
state departments that have responsibilities which relate to
the CMP. The program document identifies the areas.of joint
responsibility and contorl, but does'not expand upon the coor.di-
nation mechanisms and procedures being, Qr to be, followed. The,
program document states-that,"Municipal and county land.use,
authority will continue without change under the New Jersey
Coastal Program." Local authorities will be given an
opportunity to comment both on the CMP and permit
applications in their areas of jurisdiction. The DEP also has
contracts with 12 coastal counties that are tt . . . designed
to foster increased.State-county coastal coordinati.on.", In,
some,cases it is thought that each county can influence
other levels of,government with coastal responsibilities, even
though it may have no direct statutory power over its decisions."
The CMP indicates that the "DEP-OCZM will continue to'solicit
and welcome ..commen,ts and advice" of the,12 interstate
and regional agencies that have jurisdictions which-include
part of the coastal zone. There are also several other agencies-
identified that have administrative and regulatory responsibili-
ties in the coastal zone. The CMP recognizes that MOU's may
be.1'., a ..desirable or necessary . . . ll,with'selected,agencies.
Lastly, the public notification process incorporated into the
three coastal permit processes-will be used to involve
the many individuals and public groups concerned.about the
coast.. The conflict resolution and ap, eals process is
i P
again that inc rporated in the permit programs, both administra-
? P
tively and judicially. No new forms of intragovernmental or

151

intergovernmental communication are theref'ore proposed.
Existing procedures and channels are to be utilized, and it
can be expected that a selected sei of MOU will.be developed.

New Fersey st,ates that it,intends to use the
Federal consistency procedures described'in,15 CFR 930" (Federal
Register, Vol. 43, No. 49, March 13, 1978, pp. 10510-1053
The',CMP presents a definition for the term "consistent,,to,
the maximum extent practicable," and requires Federal agencies
involved in development projects to notify the DEP in writing.
Broad functional and geographical ranges of direct Federal
activit'ies, Federally licensed and permitted activities, and
Federal assistance programs are listed. Consistency deter-
minations on Federally licensed and permitted activities will
be demonstrated through the receipt of the applicable state
program permits. The A-95 review process will be used to
monitor proposed Federal assistance projects in the coastal
zone, although,the state reserves the right to comment on
Federal projects brought to-its attention through other avenues.
The DEP will also make its intention to make a consistency
determination known to the involved Federal agency and applicants.
The Federal consistency provisions, while comprehensively
addressed in the CMP, are not detailed to the extent that indi-
vidual Federal@agencies can fully anticipate the extent and
impact of their application.

Transportation Provisions.--The transportation provisions
of the New Jersey CMP are centered primarily in the section
containin-the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. The
section (5*n'Use Policies is where the primary transportation
factors are addressed. Additionally, a few aspects of tr'anspor-
tation are included in the Resource and Location Policies sec-
tions. The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) is
included as one of the five other (in addition to DEP) state
departments that have responsibilities which relate to the
Coastal Program. Federal transportation agencies and their
actions are included in theprogram section addressed towards
National Interests and Consistency of Federal Actions.

The basic provisions of the New Jersey CMP addressed to
transportation are included in the Public Facility Use Policies.
The four major policies are presented below:

Proposals to build and expanJ existing new.roads
must demonstrate a need and indicate why alternate
solutions, including, as appropriate, upgrading
existing roads and/or using public transit, are
not feasible.

New and improved,public transportation facilities,
including bus, rail, air, and boat travel.and
related parking facilities, are encouraged.

1S2

Transportation facilities are prohibited if
they bl.ock physical or visual access to the
waterfront.

Port-related development and marine commerce
shall be acceptable only in established port
areas. New port facilities will only be per-
mitted when there is a clear demonstration of
the inadequacy of an existing port. In such
cases, expansion may only occur adjacent to
an existing built-up port.

These policies are an application of, primarily, the first
two of the four Basic Coastal Policies--protection of the
coastal ecosystem and concentration of development. Another
Use Policy requires the construction of bike paths and foot-
paths on several types of projects'. Traffic is explicitly
considered as a Resource Policy, and the policy statement
reads as follows:

Developments that induce marine and/or land
traffic [are] acceptable provided that,[they
cause] minimal practical congestion and safety
problems.

When the Development Potential Factors are defined and
articulated in the Location Policies, the nature and extent of
transportation facilities are included as classification cri-
teria to determine the level of development potential. A
location policy is presented for Linear Development, including
roads. In general, these facilities must comply with the
specific location policies to the maximum extent practicable,
although alternative alignments may be acceptable if stated
conditions are met. Lastly, a series of,location policies is
also presented for Pipeline's and Associated Facilities. In
essence-these policies attempt to: minimize the number of pipe-
lines, guide them to,the rights'-of-way of existing linear
facilities, assure a safe,facility, and either prohibit or
discourage them in the Central Pine Barrens Area and other
undeveloped parts of the Pine Barrens.

The NJDOT is identified principally as a permit applicant
for the construction of roads, highways, or airports. The
program document points out that the maintenance of existing
transportation facilities is unaffected by the CMP. The program
also states that all but minor transportation projects would
require one or more of the basic permits granted through the
program management system. While the CMP identifies some of the
basic items included.in the mission and activities of the
NJDOT, it does not explicitly identify or address the procedures
followed. No mention is made of the NJDOT Action Plan for
Highways, a process document for the planning, design, and

153

construction of highways, or of the similar procedures embodied
for public transit facilities. The"points of interface and
coordination between NJDET,and NJDOT are not developed,
although it is is stated that " . . . coordination between the
departments provides greater consistency of state policy.
Several regional transportation agencies are identified, and
the potential need for Memoranda of Understanding is
acknowledged.

New Jersey.

will consider a Federal (transportation)
ac tivity consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, if:

(l).The activity does not interently conflict
with the Coastal Resource and@Deve ' lopment
Policies, and is the available alternative
most supportive of the New Jersey Coastal
Program, or,

(2) The activity is clearly necessary in the
interest of national security,.and is
carried out in a manner which minimizes
'conflict with.the Coastal Resource and,
Development Policies.

A list of Federal transportation actions is provided in the
CMP and.includes the following:.

1. Federal Activities and Development Projects

a. Fede ral,Highway Administration

(1) Highway Construction

2. Federal Permits and Licenses@

a. U.S. Coast Guard

Cl) Permits for construction and operation of deepwa.ter
ports under the Deepwater Port Act of 1972 (PL 93-
627)
Permits for construction of bridges under U.S.C.,I
.401,,491-507 and 525-534

b. Federal,Aviation Administration

(1).Permits and licenses for construction or alteration
of airports

154

3. Federal Assistance to State and Local Governments

a. Federal Aviation Administration

.(I) Airport Development Aid Program

b. Federal Highway Administration

(1) Federal Aid Highway Program

C. Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Urban Mass Transportation Grants

The actions listed include in several instances only gen-
eric identification; however, the DEP ". . . reserves the right
to review and comment on the consistency of other Federal
permit and license applications . 4 . (and) . . . on other
Federal assistance projects . . . . 11 Therefore no substantive
boundaries are placed by the DEP on its ability to comment or
make a consistency determination on virtually any Federal
action. The Program Document also charts Federal agency
participation in the development of the New Jersey CMP. Only
the U.S. Coast Guard has consistently been involved in the
various activities presen Ited since February 21, 1975. Also,
on the seven U.S. DOT administrations listed as having
received the Draft Strategy leading to the development of
the current document, only one provided comments, another
attended a meeting for Federal agencies in November 1977, and
@none met individually with NJDEP-OCZM Staff during the program
development from 1978 to 1 *978. This lack of individual U.S.
DOT administration involvement has been reflected in the general
nature of th,e list of actions subject to consistency deter
minatioll.

3.4.3 Interaction Between Agencies

The NJ CMP Document includes a matrix which presents inter-
actions between the N 'JOCZM and Federal agencies during the
period from February 1975 to 1978, and shows that (1) seven
Operating Administrations, or separate offices within U.S. DOT,
received the "Draft Strategy" dated September 1977, which
preceded the current management program document; (2) only one
Operating Administration commended on the program directly to
NJOCZM; C3) another was in attendance at the November 1977
meeting in Trenton that was held for Federal agencies to discuss
and comment on the CMP as presented in the "Draft Strategy,"
and$ C4) no meetings have.been recorded as being held between
U.S. DOT representatives'and NJOCZM during the program develop-
ment from 1975 to 1978.

During interviews conducted the course of this study,

155

only the USCG indicated that continuing contact (telephone
and written) has been maintained directly with the NJOCZM. On
a somewhat similar note, the NJOCZM indicated that where
generic or general policies were concerned there was a lack
of involvement or interaction with transportation agencies.
Specific projects or programs when entered into the procedural
mechanisms developed were associated with a significantly
greater degree of involvement and interaction. The concept of,
or need to develop and improve, "working relationships" was
presented several different times.

The interviews conducted elicited a range of attitudes,
opinions, and comments on the NJ CMP. Some of these have been
reflected in the formal U.S. DOT response and commentary on
the NJ CMP, and a brief summary of the major point and comments
recorded during this study are as follows. The USCG was the
only administration that indicated a significant interest in the.
NJ CMP. The FHWA representatives viewed the program as one
primarily of concern at the division level,, and there primarily
to the DOT of the State. Both the FAA and UMTA viewed the
CMP as being only of minor or peripheral interest and
importance." For these latter two administrations, the
policies presented either reinforced U.S. DOT positions and
programs, or they were not seen as being relevant to the
mission of the agency. Similarly for all DOT administrations,
procedural requirements of the CMP were viewed as being another,
and not substantively different, facet of the existing environ-
mental study, review, and analysis requirements. Generally,
no documentation or work effort changes were seen as being
required (.coTpared to those already needed to meet NEPA or
documentation for existing state permits; in fact, these two
requirements were seen as different aspects of the same workl@
efforts).

When beginning this case study, it was anticipated that
actual specific and represen.tative projects or programs in the
coastal area would be identified and then selected for additional
analysis. While, in general, a cooperative attitude was
presented by both federal and State offices, the nature of
the current procedures and program requirements in New Jersey
did'not fully lend themselves to this approach. The primary
reason for this situation is that specific criteria with which
to apply the CMP policies are presently emerging on a case-by-
case basis. The experiences to date seem too limited to be
able to develop a meaningful overview, other than to note

19Beyond the study findings being commented on as,they
relate to the U.S. DOT administrations mentioned (CG, FHWA,
FAA, UMTA), no comments were obtained from, or involvements
with the CMP identified for, other U.S. DOT offices or
agencies.

156

that increased specificity on a policy level is being developed.
It should be noted that while the NJ CMP document presents
illustrative general case-study analyses, they are only of
general value to U.S..DOT offices and.agencies receiving
federal assistance or permits and licenses.

Interviews and discussions have yielded an example of the,
nature of the interaction between NJOCAM,and transportation
agencies and the.emerging specificity of responses. As part
of the Environmental Impact Statement requirements in the
final Rules and Regulations to imple.ment'CAFRA, NJSA 13:19-1
adopted on April 1, 1977, preparation is required of a
Sun Shadow Locus Diagram (-SSLD) for 11 . . . any structure,
except single family detached dwelling units, (that) exceeds ,20
thirty-six C36) feet above the proposed finish elevation. . . .
This requirement had to be addressed as part of the current
project to- extend the electrification of the New York-Long
Branch Railroad line from the current terminus at Perth Amboy
to a point further south. -This project is being jointly funded
by NJDOT and UMTA. Service poles exceeding the minimum height
regulation were part of the proposed 'design. Discussions were
held between the NJDOT and NJOCZM to clarify whether or not
the SSLD's would be required. The initial OCZM position
and response was that SSLD's were required; however, at the
Preapplication Conference a review of the drawings and schematics
prepared at the stage yielded a OCZM decision that the SSLD's
were not required. Additional meetings and discussions were
held between DOT and OCZM which subsequently determined that a
CAFRA permit was in fact now required after all. Nevertheless,
.the interaction between departments on this matter has begun to
establish the working relationships necessary to implement the.
CMP in an effective manner. The discussions, conceptual appro-
val, and preliminary preparations to hold a simultaneous public
hearing (to meet both NEPA and NJOCAM requirements) that were
made by both agencies during interactions on the electrification
project attest to this factor.

The evolution of the NJOCZM ruling on the Electrification
Project is also illustrative of the development of the criteria,
or "levels-of-action" type determinations, that will be used to
guide permit applications and reviewers in their interpretations
of the policies and rules and regulations that have been formally
adopted.

Another area, not related to the substantive aspects of

20Also, the NJ CMP presents.as one of the four Basic Public
Facility Use Policies the following: "Transportation Facilities
are prohibited if they'block physical or visual access to the
waterfront."

157

CMP development was commented upon several times during the
course of the interviews conducted. CM Program reviewers often
felt that insufficient time was made available to review the
reports and documents received. It was indicated that the
process of mailing documents to a central U.S. DOT source
(SecRep), followed by their distribution 'to the different
administrations and'the-internal routing therein, often con-
sumed a maj or portion of the allocated review time. Direct
mailing by the State'OCZM to federal, reviewers, with proper
confirmational controls, was seen as a more effective operational
procedure. This approach would require a more extensive and
detailed level of interaction between the State OC2M and federal
DOT offices than seems to have developed in New Jersey to date.

iss

.,.CHAPTER-FOUR:_POLICY DIRECTIONS--INTERFACES
BETWEEN'DOVPROG
RAMS AND CZM PROGRAM CONTENTS

4.0 introduction

This
chapter pulls together and
juxtaposes. findings on
U. S. Department 6, fTrans "' t' 't f
por a. ion (DOT) agency Programs af ect.-.
ing c.o.asTa'l areas (chapter One) and the review of.the contents
of State' 'qCoasta 1 Maria'gement CCZM), Programs (Chap-.t e r Two) in
order 'to' identif potential..int'eract'iong between DOT activiti,es
y 1
and gt'at.e'.CZM-Age.n.cy'toncerns.1,Tho,sEi areas, pf,interaction are
-then.discussed as " ect.1; wh@i 'h
potential' policy 'innovation subj c
may I'coi.ncide with,, DOT Vs perce'r .ti.on@ oIf: e
P I th' nati,on'al -Intere'st
in transportation facility development..' and which, at,the same
time, may be seen by State CZM Agencies as useful mechanisms
for achieving the objectives of their CZM Programs.

It is appropriate to consider ways in which coastal
Programs might stimulate new DOT policies or programs,because
coastal zone management is a major i .nnovation in substate
regional management and carries with it themomentum of
integrated management efforts directed toward goals of resource
conservation, development management, and environmental manage-
ment. To be sure the Coastal Zone Management Act has lost
some of its following since 1972 when it was introduced as
the first step in.a new sort. of land-use management, but the
voluntary participation of most eligible states and territories
six years after the program's enactment is some proof of its
potential (still largely untested).

State Coastal Zone Management Programs raise some new
issues for DOT (e.g., coastal waters management) and may give,
direction to various emerging transportation policy orientations
(e.g., ports, coastal hazard egress policy, and.integration
of surface transportation programs in nonurban areas). The
emerging Surface Transportation Agency may, at,the least ' use
State CZM Programs as laboratories for integrating highway
and mass transportation planning activities with respect to
coastal access destinations.

State Coastal Zone Management Programs also introduce
procedural requirements (permits and project reviews) extending
beyond environmental planning requirements for federal trans-
portation projects. Most often these procedural innovations
will not impose themselves heavily on the current practices
of DOT agencies, but they do offer some challenges in some
@States. Generally, intergovernmental relations under CZM are
likely to face new challenges in instances where federal
activities become controversial. The Federal Consistency
Regulations derived from the mandate in Section 307 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act introduce a new and yetuntested

set of rules into intergovernmental relations and into the
decision processes of DOT agency field offices and Headquarters
offices.

Finally, CZM Programs should be of interest to DOT
Operating Administrations because the State CZM Programs have
emphasized transportation sensitive issues like shorefront
access, dune protection, subsistance runoff from coastal high-
ways, tranversing sensitive ecosystems, port development needs,
coastal hazards, and coastal waters management. Some of these
issues may ihfluence the creation or modification of DOT policies
and programs.

U.S. Department of Transportation programs should, in like
manner, be of immediate interest to State Coastal Zone Manage-
ment agencies and to the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment. DOT assistance programs are,major influences on coastal
zone use and activity patterns, anO DOT agency permits and direct
activities (especially those of the Coast Guard) create signifi-
cant impacts.in coastal areas. Furthermore, POT assistance
programs have the potential for movi,ng State CZM Programs from
relatively static administrative positions to more active
involvement in shaping coastal uses. Less prosaically, certain
existing DOT program practices might well be emulated by
State CZM programs. To take advantage of DOT and. HUD metro-
poli,@an planning grant programs, State CZM agencies might well
consider decentralizing their urban coastal zone programs to
the Metropolitan'Planning Organization (MPO) level where
urban coastal management concerns could be prioritized with
Federal Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transportation
Administration programs through the established urban trans-
portation planning process).1

This chapter is organized in two major sections to dis-
cuss these issues. First, programmatic (substantive) inter-
faces are identified (Section 4.1, immediately below); and
second, intergovernmental relations (process relationships)
between DOT Headquarters, field offices, State DOT's and State
CZM Program agencies are explored as proposed under the guidance
of the Federal Consistency Regulations, and under the more
extensive relationships established by existing rules of the
major federal grant-in-aid programs (Section 4.2).

4.1 Program Interfaces Between DOT Agency
ActivMles and Coastal'Zone Mlangement Subjects

This section presents findings describing areas for
specific policy and program innovations based on common
objectives of DOT Operating Administration programs and the

I
See Section 1.2,6 in Chapter One and Section 4.2 of this
chapter,

160

contents of State Coastal Zone Management Programs. The first
subsection (4.1.1) offers a brief look at potential inter-
actions betwen individual DOT agencies and a selection of
coastal management subjects. From the discussion and accom-
panying Table (p. 164) patterns of DOT agency involvement
with the CZM program are identified that is, the Table and
discussion indicate where DOT agencies may have interests in'
CZM programs, and where they- probably do not.

The second subsection (4.1.2) offers a Jiscussion of
.selected management subjects in State CZM Programs. -The
subject areas which are discussed involve coastal access con-
cerns and coastal waters management; they are considered the
mo t relevant parts of the CZ?4 program to DOT agency concerns.
Some of these subjects raise issues for DOT agencies which
may stimulate the consideration of specific new transportation
assistance programs or direct agency activities. Together
they raise the possibility of establishing a new transportation
planning program oriented to improving coastal access in a
number of specific directions.

The third subsection (4 1.3) discusses potential ways in
which specific Operating Administration programs could
interface with specific CZM management subjects. Table 9
relates individual agency assistance programs or direct acti-
vities to selected CZM management subjects. Recommendations
are made for using existing programs; establishing working
agreements with the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management
and State CZM Programs; or establishing DemonstrationTrograms.
This section includes themajor policy'findings of the report
regarding program interfaces between DOT and CZM programs.

4.1.1 DOT Agencies and CZM Subsections
2
With roughly thirty states and territories participating
in the CZM program, and with ten DOT Operating Elements, each
administering a.number of programs, there is an extensive
range of potential interactions between federal transportation
agencies and CZM programs. To focus on the most relevant
areas for*program.interaction, a set*of coastal zone management
subject areas which are common to most States have been
identified (drawn from the analyses in Chapter Two, and from
considerations of the Federal CZM Program emphases) and these
CZM subjects are arrayed in a matrix with DOT Operating
Elements in Table 9. DOT agencies are organized in the Table
into two categories, agencies involved in placing transportation

2
Thirty-four States and territories were originally
eligible to participate in the Federal.CZM program. While
most are currently still in the -program, a very few States
have withdrawn, and a few more may withdraw or may be dropped
for lack of progress.

161

facilities in the landward coastal zone, and those agencies
involved in coastal waters management.

The listed coastal zone management subjects are discussed
in the following sections. Our purpose in Table 9 is to
identify the DOT agencies which may have interfaces with
selected coastal management subject areas. In thi.s.sense the
Table offers a pruning of the gamut of potential DOT-CZM
interactions down to the more-likely ones. The symbol (+)
is used in the Table to indicate that the identified DOT
agency and the CZM subject as addressed in most State.Coastal
Programs b9th deal with common program subjects.' Locations..-
in the T&b le Vierv. (+) is found thus indicate that there exists
some basis for policy development linking DOT agency activities
with CZM management subjects.

Evidence of more significant relationships between DOT
programs and CZM subject areas are indicated in the Table by@
the symbol In the author's opinion the policy overlap
between federal transportation program orientations and coastal
management concerns is so clear where the double plus symbol
is used, that these points of interaction may be suitable for,
specific policy innovations by DOT agencies, and/or the
development of Demonstration Projects by the Operating Adminis-
trat.ions to test the feasibility of establishing new programs
and policies furthering the objectives of State Coastal Zone
Management Programs.

The Federal Highway Administration isseen in the Table
to have potentially the most extensive program interactions
-aid High-
with State CZM programs. FHWA, through its Federal
way Program, is involved in all sorts of coastal access acti-
vities. In particularexisting FHWA programs might be used
or new programs developed to address CZM concerns with Shore-
front/Beach Access,Coastal Hazard Egress, and Urban Water-
fronts, all indicated in the Table with the symbol (++) as
potential.areas for specific policy innovations or Demonstration
Projects. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA),
now moving toward a merger with FHWA as the Surface Transpor-
tation Administration, shares the same list of potential
areas for significant programmatic innovation (++): Shore-
front/Beach Access, Coastal Hazard Egress, and Urban Water-
fronts.

The Federal Railroad Administration has sponsored a systems
engineering research demonstration program in intermodal transfers
in two cities,3and might consider prioritizing grant-in-aid funds
to upgrade facilities and operations at port railheads. This point

3
Philadelphia and Detroit.

162

TABLE 9: POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SELECTED DOT
OPERATING ELEMENTS AND SELECTED COASTAL MANAGEMENT SUBJECTS

Landward
Transportation Agencies Coastal Waters Management
St. Lawr. Office of
CZM Seaway Deepwater-
Subject FHWA UIMTA FRA FAA USCG Commission Ports MTB

Shoreline/
Beach Access ++ ++

Ports +

Urban Waterfronts 4+ ++

Coastal Hazards ++ ++

U4 Coast al Waters
Management

Geographic Areas
of'Particular
Concern

Transport-4- t ion
Facility
Siting in CZ

Coastal Energy
Impact Program

DOT Agency Programs and State CZM Programs address common subjects-,.

Potential areas for specific policy innovations/Demonstration Projects bridging
program interfaces between U.S. DOT Agency activities and State CZM Programs.

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

suggests a potentially significant role for the FRA (++) in
the landward aspect of.port development ceded to date to EDA
in the Commerce Department. The coastal Energy Impact Program,
a part of the operations of the Office of CoastalZone
Management, may be used by FRA grantees carrying energy
related cargo to upgrade their facilities. There may be a
rationale for new FRA policies tying together port needs,
FRA assistance programs, and the CEIP program under CZM
program administration (++).

Federal Aviation Administration programs do not appear
to require extensive contacts between the federal agency and
State CZM Programs,except-in the development of an Airport
Master Plan$ !-@Ystems Plan, and in the environmental
requirements in the NEPA process. FAA procedures for inter-
governmental reviews and environmental -reviews probably are
adequate to deal with CZM initiatives. HoweveT as Jiscussed
in Section 4.2 of this chapter, and applica-ble "to q-TI @TiOT
assistance programs, new procedures for field offices may
be required to deal with the Federal Consistency Regulations,
and other intergovernmental innovations under CZM.

The four DOT agencies involved in coastal waters manage-
ment are: the U.S. Coast Guard, the St. Lawrence Seaway
Corporation, the Office of Deepwater Ports, and the Materials
Transport Bureau. Some relationships between the activities
of these agencies and the identified coastal management
subject areas are evident. Direct relationships are obvious
between the extensive activities of the Coast Guard--oil
spill management, boating safety and pollution control,
navigation aids, administration of the Ports & Waterways
Safety Act, etc., and the CZM subject area of coastal waters
management.

Other direct relationships are apparent between the
activities of the Office of Deepwater Ports and the CZM Program
discussions of ports. The Office of Deepwater Ports is, however,
currently prohibited by its enabling statutes from engaging
in support activities aiding the development of inshore or
onshore ports, a major area of concern in CZM programs. Deep-
water ports per se are addressed only in a few coastal
programs and have actually been proposed only in Texas and
Louisiana to date. It is relevant to note that prior to the
development of a Deepwater Port, the Act indicates that
adjacent coastal states have the option of rejecting the pro-
posed port if they see it as, inimical' to their own interests.
One possible linkage to CZM activities for the Office of
Deepwater Ports is the Coastal Energy Impact Program. The
two programs contain common subjects which should be pursued
as the CEIP comes on line.

An overview of DOT program interactions with CZM programs

164

as indicated in the matrix in Table 9 must observe that
significant programmatic interactions between DOT and CZM
programs will be thinly scattered among agencies, excepting
FHWA; Federal Highway Administration programs appear to have
the-potential to interact significantly with many of the
innovative CZM subjects. The Table suggests, however, that
the Operating Administrations and concerned agencies might
well focus-only on a few imp'ortant CZM subjects (e.g. for
UMTA, Urban Waterfronts or Coastal Hazards), should they
decide to develop new policy options related to CZM concerns
in the states.

The prevalence of at least four DOTIagencies in acti-
vities affecting coastal waters management suggests to
this writer that new IDOT 111,eadquarters policies on the national
interest in coastal waters management are overdue.

4.1.2 Coastal Access Concerns in State-CZM Programs

State Coastal.Programs identify various management sub-
jects for which they propose initiatives in State level manage-
me.nt andwhich are clearly related to DOT agency activities.
Here Iwe concentrate on those subject areas which describe-
State agency program elements occurring in the landward
coastal zone and which appear relevant to.major goals of
the Operating Administration grant-in-aid programs. The
term "Coastal Access" represents the key issue addressed in
the discussion of each subject area. The management subject
areas we consider especially relevant and which are reviewed
below include: beach/shorefront access; major transportation.
facility siting within the coastal zone; geographic areas
of particular concern (GAPC's); and coastal hazards.

1. Beach/Shorefront Access

The Coastal Zone ManagementAct includes requirements
for state coastal programs to establish a planning process
,for access to public beaches and other public coastal areas
(Section 305 (b)(7), and in,the 1976 Amendments to the Act
authorizes (but did not appropriatel fiinding for the purchase
of providing access-grants to SO percent of th,e cos.t of providing
access to public beaches (Section 31S (2)). While address-
ing coastal access. issues in the terms of the CZMA's emphasis
on public -access to public coastal areas,State Programs
frequently go beyond this narrow definition and discuss general
shorefront access concerns. A few states are concerned with the

165

basic.relatio.nship between trahsportation system development
and land usedevelopmen't along shorelines and call for
special provisions prioritizing these development projects-
providing public access to the shorefront (California). Some
State Programs include requirements for close project
reviews of transportation facility developments affecting
shorelines directly or indirectly through induced land use
development. Other Programs emphasize.shorefront access
needs of heavy industry (Maine), port development (Maryland),
tourism (North Carolina), and access to public waters (Dela-
ware, Michigan).

Under the narrower terms of the CZMA's mandate to con-
sider'public access to public shorefront lands, coastal
programs stress two main concerns:' physical access to the
shorefront, and improving accessibility in the supporting
transportation infrastructure servicing the shorefront. The
former [email protected] access,-is often viewed as access to
for recreation uses. The CZMA's focus on beaches is clear.,
and States, reflecting this, have ori'en-ted the'ir*shore-
front access sections to beach access for recreation
purposes. Four issues are predominant in state program dis-
cussion of beach access:

(1) Public access to public beaches-..Property abutting
--Res in many instances is privatly owned and the
public beac
provision of public access includes significant legal and
financial Plements. The issue is how to feasibly provide
public rights-of-way to public beaches where such accessways
do not now exist. Section 315 (2) of the CZMA. addedin 1976,
provides 50 percent matching. funding to acquire sucIn access to
bx@hes. Prior to acquisition states shall'be' required to
C61
d op a project selection process based on a needs analysis,
enVWonmental impact analysis, costs, and other evaluative
factors.

u 1 c w 't
C2) Access to bl* a er areas While the Section
31S.(2) pF-ogram would provide matcH'ing funds for beach access
only, several states note that access to state waters for
recreational boating, fishing, etc. also is an important
recreat-ion objective. Some coastal states have few beaches
(the-Great take States) yet should in equity have access to
Section 315 (2) funds. Coastal waters access issues might
involve funding the construction of facilities Iike boat
ramps, piers, and perhaps public marinas.4

(3) Access from existing roads The California and Texas
programs address need..to provide access (including
parking terminals) from existing road systems to -pub1ic beaches.

4
David Brower Acce'ss to* the Nation's Beaches: Legal and
-7
Planning Per'specti've@@, UNC Sea Grant, UNC-SG- 7-18, 1978.

166

California's Route 101 may be taken as a prototypical example
of a shoreline route serving through traffic and beach access
functions. In some instances it may be appropriate to
control road capacity to limit accessibility, given beach use
carrying capacity, or it may be necessary to extend spur links
from coastal routes to beach sites or to construct parking
terminals. It is interesting that no coastal program speaks
of beach access in terms of mass transit (bus) system oper-
ations from existing road networks. The New Jersey coastal
program ran an experimental program of this type to beach
areas, with OCZM funding, but at this point mass transit
operations have not been seen as fundable categories under
Section 315 initiatives.

(4) Visual access A few coastal management programs
(Massachusetts, Florida) address this point but not in
significant detail.

2. Major Transportation Facilities Siting within the
Coastal Zone

A number of states with coastal zone management programs
have key facilities siting legislation (California, Michigan,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.) on the books and have referenced
those authorities as use and activity shaping tools in the
coastal program. In other States coastal programs identify
a specific role for the coastal agency in the review and
approval of transportation facilities siting (Maryland,
Michigan) using either project review process in state
environmental protection Act process in specific coastal

zone impact analyses. Other states (New Jersey, Hawaii ,
California) have coastal zone wide permitting requirements
for all but minor projects, requirements which put state
transportation agencies in the position of applicants for
development permits, thus guaranteeing detailed reviews of
proposed development projects.

The purpose of these procedures is to allow the coastal
zone agency to assume At least to. a limited degree the
role of watchdog on the generalized development shaping
activities of public agencies as these affect the coastal

zone. A more widely accepted perspective is that the coastal
agencies' reviews of transportation projects should be
centered around specific project impacts {generally environ-

mental impacts} during the route siting and construction
process. The wider conception of the coastal agencies' role is
derived from the mandate in the CZMA for coastal programs to
evaluate "uses of regional benefit."5

5 A few State Programs indicate State level roles in shap-
ing regional land-use patterns. This concept is of course well
established in Hawaii and the island territories, and is

167

Transportation facilities siting,concerns in coastal
management programs appear in most of the coastal pro-'
grams, and vary across diffeTFnt programs both@in their scope
(objectives) and in the enforceable policies in the programs
to implement those.objectives. The action forcing capa-
bility of coastal programs on "developments of regional
significance"is not high. That is to say,the.primary
authorities for significantly affecting the routing, timing,
de!9ign, @Lnd-developrhent of fe'derdlly*assisted'tr'ans-
portation projects in coastal areas generally rests on State
Authorities apart from coastal enabling legislation. Yet
where States do have new coastal permitting authorities
and coastal agency administered impact analysis requirements,
these should be carefully studied by Operating Administrations
funding activities in their coastal areas..

3. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern

The Coastal Zone Management Act requires State.Coastal
Programs to identify "Geographic Areas of Particular Concern"
(GAPC's). All coastal programs identify GAPC's either as
site specific areas or as generic identifications which may
be applied to particular activities in sensitive ecosystems.
Most often GAPC's are selected as resource protection areas
which coastal agencies state should not be exposed to devel-
opment and its associated impacts. Transportation policy
relative to resource protection GAPCIS is to take due regard
for limiting access to such areas in regional. system devel-
opment, and to minimize environmental impacts of projects
which border or transverse or otherwise affect such areas.

Besides resource protection areas, a number of coastal
programs (Michigan, Maryland Rhode Island, Virginia,
Florida, etc.) identify development areas or shoreline
recreation areas as GAPC's. The theory underlying such
designations is a recognition of the need to match the impacts
of development with ecosystem carrying capacities of sensitive
environments. This is an innovative regional land management
concept for discrete areas (often state or federal lands),
which.is quite closely related to traditional planning
objectives.in surface transportation planning programs. As
an example, the Rhode Island Coastal Program identifies
certain shorefront recreation sites as GAPC's and requires
special coastal zone agency input into the planning for the
development of those sites. Transportation planning will

credible in those states with active permitting processes
throughout the coastal zone, or in more confined settings
in shorelands management authorities (e.g., Michigan,
Washington).

168

of course have-major impacts on the use density provided at
the sites. The status of the sites as-GAPC's requires
.special.consideration by the Rhode Island Transportation
agencies in their planning processes.

"Development" GAPC's may in certain circumstances
provide an unusual and innovative areawide controlled-planning-
implementation tool. It is possible that federal assistance
funds, including transportation funds, may be ','coordinated"
through coastal management agencies quite apart from State
Transportation Department priorities. This suggests the
concept of "affirmative" consistency--the lining up of
federal assistance,programs to achieve positive goals of the
CZM program. "Affirmative" consistency may be an emerging
concept in coastal zone management.@ The GAPC designation
is the logical areawide olAcy base in the CZM program to
p
implement the concept. Some movement in this direction
seems likely in the Gray's Harbor estuary in Washington
State, where federal agencies are participating in the program
through the Federal'Regional Council.

4. Coastal Hazards

Coastal hazards are addressed in several State Programs
(Maryland, Florida, Texas, etc.) usually in terms of restrict-
ing access and development to specific areas. Often the 100
year floodplain, exposed beathes, dunes, t@,r-and bluffs are
cited as hazard-prone areas,and coastal pro ram policies are
9
designed to control development in such sites. To this
writer's knowledge no coastal program has gone farther than
describing policies to restrict development. and to limit
access to identified hazard areas. However a few studies
exist indicating the seriousness of the problem of inadequate
local transportation system capacity where existing settle-
ments or trip attractions draw more people than can be
evacuated in the instance of a rapidly appearing significant
natural hazard (e.g., hurricane, tusami, coastal earthquake,
etc.). The issue might be particularly relevant for federally
assisted transportation projects providing limited capacity
to barrier islands, and to isolated,recreation sites and
coastal communities. Where federal funding has supported the
development of access facilities to such areas it might be
desirable,and ethical- to provide. tasle. sys.tem. capacities for
rapid egress- by -masses" of''reskdents- in- the- face.@ of coastal hazards.

SS
Potential problems of egre from hazard conditions are
described in acase study of Sanibel Island, located off the
coast of Florida.6 The island has an estimated peak population

6jo
hn Clark, The Sanibel Regort (Washington, D.C.:
The Conservation Fou-nTa-ti5on.. 1975), pp. 102-109.

169

and 20,000 pe over time becoming more
between 15,000 rsons,
year-round residents and less seasonal recreation traffic.
The island is located in a major hurricane corridor; it is
linked to the mainland with,a single two-lane low.lying
highway. on island -refuge from hurricanes is limited, and
unsatisfactory in the instance of major hurricanes. The
linking highway after joining the mainland is the only
egress route from low lying coastaldreas serving an addi-
tional 100,000 people. The design capacity of the@highway is
2000 veh/hour for each lane. Given its location and sus 'cep-
tability to.flooding or blockage from three uprootings, the
study authors conclude that it is possible the ro.ad would be
completely closed for an indefinite period during a hurricane,
or more likely, it would be intermittently,blocked and under
hurricaneapproach conditions the design lane capacity could
not be reached. They estimate that in the period 6-18 hours
prior to a hurricane only 700 to 800 vehicles per hour could
be expected to emigrate from the island. Given the advance
warning period available today, they estimate between 4900
and 62SO cars and trucks could egress from the island
11 . . . depending on the severity of the storm if there are no
major calamities which disrupt the evacrtion route for more
than an hour of the evacuation period." This number of
vehicles has the capacity to completely evacuate the island,
again assuming no significant land blockages. The practical
system capacity does not greatly exceed demand,parameters,
however, and will exceed them only under the "favorable"
condition of limited blockages. Clearly in this instance
of Sanibel Island, and presumably in the insance of other bar-
rier islands and coastal lowlands, existin conditions for
I S 9
coastal egress under immediate hazards may not be,acceptable.
New DOT policies to provide federal.assistance for planning
and constructing improved coastal-egress systems are recommended
in the following section of this chapter,

Policy Di .r.ec ortation Programs and
4.1.3 tions: Ground Transp
CZM Program Interfaces

This section reviews areas of existing or potential
interaction between DOT ground transportation pr d
ograms an
the selected coastal access.subjects identified in the
preceding section. Tab 'le 10 presents a cross tabulation. of
selected DOT ground transportation programs and the major
coastal access subjects. The ensuing discussiqn briefly
reviews program contents (described in Chapter 1).
then focuses on the potential interactions between a particular
CZM program subject and the DOT program under discussion.

The three Operating Administrations offering ground
transportation programs (THWA, FRA, UMTA) are represented

71bid.

170

TABLE 10: COASTAL ACCESS SUBJECTS WHICH MAY BE
PURSUED THROUGH EXISTING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

Shore- Urban Transport.
front Coastal Water- Facility
DOT Agency & Program Citations Access Hazards fronts Ports Siting
FHWA 23 U.S.C.
T-HaTfic Operations
Improvement Programs Sect. 135 +
Fringe & Corridor
Parking Faci ,11ties 137 +X +X
Public Transportation 142 X X X
Direct FHWA Activities + +
Bicycle Transportation
& Pedes. Walkways 217 +X +X
Landscaping & Scenic
Improvement 219 + +
Safer off-system roads 219 + +
UMTA 49 U.S.C.
Capital Improvement
Grant & Loans 1602 +
Capital & Operating
Assistance Formula Grants 1604 +
Grants to nonurban areas 1603 +
Demonstration Projects 1605 X X X
F RA @3R & 4R Acts
Ka-11 Rehabilitation
Improvement
Finance 4k Title +X
Conversion of
Abandoned Rail
Rights of Way 4R Act Sect. 809 +X +X

Major Planning Programs
Statewide Planning
FHWA Federal Highway 23 U.S.C.
Program Manual 307(c) +X +X
FRA State Rail Plan +X
Urban Transportation
Planning +X +X
CFHWA & UMTA 23 U.S.C. 104Cf)
134
49 U.S.C. 1607

Legend

+ Current O.A. programs which can be applied to CZM
+X Existing program applications but working agreements proposed.
+X policy innovation areas - Demonstration Projects proposed
++. Joint coastal access planning programs with CZM agencies should
be considered.

171

in Table 10 by a selection of their programs,,and are cross
tabulated with the identi-fied CZM subject areas: shorefront/
beachaccess, coastal hazards, urban waterfronts, ports, and
transportation facility siting processes within coastal zones.8
Each of these CZM subject areas could generate new policies
for DOT agencies; each raises interesting possible action
areas for Demonstration Projects; each. provides a b,ase for
cooperation between State transportation agencies and CZM
agencies on specific projects.

Four categories of interaction are indicated in Table 10.
First, Operating Administration programs which may be directly
applied to certain CZM subjects without modification are
indicated by the symbol (4). Second, program interfaces
which may be addressed under current DOT policy but which
probably will require the establishment of working agreements
between Operating Administrations and CZM ageTICies are iden-
tified by the symbol (+x). Such working agreements might take
the form of a Memorandum of Understanding between an Operating
Administration Headquarters and the Federal Office of Coastal
Zone Management, covering a joint program to be implemented
by DOT field offices and State (',ZM agencies, or t.hey might
appear as specific project-oriented agreements by field
offices, State CZM agencies, and State transportation agencies.

The third and most significant set of postulated inter
actions between CZM program's and DOT agency programs are
indicated by the symbol (X). This symbol marks those points
on the matrix where the potential for integrating the CZM
subject with new or modified DOT programs seems so compelling
that DOT should consider policies to establish linkages to
the CZM subject areas or should fund Demonstration Projects to
test the feasibility of such policy.innovations. In fact,
those CZM subjects and DOT Programs joined by (X) seem so
clearly identified with DOT's mission statement that it is
recommended that they be pursued whether or not there is an
active Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The identi-
fied issue areas stake out coastal access concerns which
surely affect the national interest in transportation facility
development.

The final set of potential interactions (++ 'Jidentify
areas where a joint planning process between Operating
Administrations and State CZM agencies might be particularly
appropriate. Where the symbol is used in conjunction with
other symbols, a specialized planning process directed around

8
The last category refers to the establishment of a
substate regional planning process designed around CZM
Program initiatives.

172

the joint interests of the identified DOT and CZM subjects
is indicated. Where the symbolC++) stands alone, under the
heading "Transportation Facility Siting," inclusion of the
,indicated subject in a larger coastal access transportation
planning is recommended. As the previous section described,
"Transportation Facility Siting" includes such CZM concepts
as "uses of regional benefit" and "geographic areas of par-
ticular concern." A generalized coastal access transportation
planning process for bothurban and nonurban systems would
incorporate the other coastal access subjects (shorefront
access, coastal hazards, urban,waterf-ronts, and ports) in
a more comprehensive plannin@ framework which would at the
same time focus more specifically on coastal issues than
the existing transportation planning process.

Federal Highway Admi. ni stration. FHWA programs have the
most ious linkages to coastaF -access subjects.' Elements
of the Federal-aid Highways Program including the Interstate,
Primary, Secondary, and Urban systems are designated by
State Highway Departments for federal funding and may, of
course, include a selection of projects designed to achieve
coastal access objectives.. One iMPOTtant issue is the
Xisibility of coastal access issues to State transportation
officials and to local governmental officials in the absence
of a clear FHWA policy "selling" coastal access concerns.
Highway projects of all types compete for limited funds within
the State system planning process,-and traditional projects
already overburden available funds. Even where a FHWA
Statute particularly calls attention to a given type of non-
traditional project, the prioritizing of a single project
under that nontraditional category might require initial
federal field office suggestion to the State DOT. As an
example Section 105 ( State
_g) of 23 U.S.C. states that
highway departments shall give consideration to projects
providing direct and convenient public access to public air-
ports and public po .rt s..fo.r -wa t.er. t. r.ansportation . . . (emphasis
added). Setting aside highway Tun21s for airport access has
become an accepted acttvitr, bbt designating funds for access
to orts has been much less visible and, it is.presumed,
p
would be more difficult for State Highway Departments to do
without some additional support from FHWA field offices. Not
incidentally, one of the major recommendations of this study
is that DOT establish a higher level of involvement than it
currently maintains in port development activities. To this
end, should this recommendation be accepted, FHWA, using the
cited statutory authority, could through the Federal-aid
HighwaK Program Manual.sugges t to State DOT's prioritization
of hig way projects which support port development activities.

At present there is no equivalent statutory base urging
States to prioritize FHKA projects which facilitate egress
from hazard areas with inadequate highway capacity for rapid

173

evacuation. While existing federal-aid system funds may be
used to support such projects (4), demonstration projects (X)
are recommended for exploration of the feasibility of coastal
hazard projects. These demonstration projects may then lead
to requests for new-policy areas in forthcoming legislation.
Existing program -funds are ift -Mos:t States problably, -too
-thinly stretched to includ@e new'Drojects in the' innovative
ai@eas of the feder4j role, in po"Tt de4elopteiiv,and eda'&tal
hazard 'egfreess.
Under conditions where a federal-aid system highway,.or,
under 23 U.S.C. 2062 207f 209 Cpark roads, parkways, public
land highways), a federally constructed highway borders a
shoreline, it is possible that existing program funds may be
used to match the 50 percent. allocations for the .'sh-.ore line /beach
access program established by Sections 305(b)(7) and 315(2)
of the Coastal Zone Management Act.. Should FHWA's Council
find that acquisition-to provide beach access under CZMA
315(,2) is an acceptable use of FHWA federal-aid system funds,
it would seem reasonable that a working agreement between
FHWA and OCZM be established to set the conditions for a
joint program. To indicate the possibility of establishing
such a working agreement, the symbol ('+) is employed at the
juncture of the federal-aid system and Shorefront Access in
the table.

FHWA funds might also provide facilities for more
generalized coastal access concerns, apart from the CZMA's
beach access matching grant program. Shorefront access oppor-
tunities might berealized by using FHWA funds to construct
spur links from federal-aid system roads parallelling shore-
lines to the actual shorefront, and might provide fundia&
for the construction of parking'tQrminals or mass transit
terminals'(,23 U.S.C. 142)9 to promote shorefront access for
recreational uses. As distinguished from regular Primary or
Secondary system funds two special categories of FHWA programs
are of particular interest: Fringe & Corridor Parking
Facilities C23 U.S.C. 137) and Public Transportation (23 U.S.C.
142) . 10 While obviously the statutory mandate is tg utili@ze
tb.:ese programs. to provtde lintages to-mass transit
operations in the journey to-work corridor, they would be of
undeniable interest to a coastal agency considering ways to
facilitate coast 'al access. Under current policy it would be
extraordinary for existing FHWA or UMTA programs, apart from
Demonstration Programs, to be employed for coastal'access
purposes. We conclude that either new Headquarters policies

9
See Section 1.2.1 in Chapter One, p. 7.
101bid.

174

or Statutory mandates are required to 'legitimize the indicated
coastal access-program interfaces, or that selected Demon-
stration Programs arewarranted to test the, feasibility of
such policies.
Yetlanother area'where an existing FHWA program might
successful-ly interface with 'coasta 21@ zone management initiatives
is indicAted in Table 10-at the junction of ,'Urban Waterfronts"
and FHWA's Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways
(23 U.S.C. .217). This program is.designed to provide the
indicated. facilities within highway corridors. There are, of
course, many instances of urban expressways and other urban
system,roads bordering urban Waterfront areas. Also,the'pro-
vision of waterfront access by,bicycle, or.pedes trian.modes
would cl'early fall under the,guidelines of the FHWA program.
The program would undoubtably be highly desirable to.CZM
agencies.. The is.sue.s'.eems to revolve around the priority
attached to Section 21.7 activities through.the urban trans-
portation.planning process. Again the issue appears to be
how to get-coasta.l.agen.cies to,enter that planning process
successfully and so link up coastal a'cc 'ess--urban waterfront
programs a-nd FFWA activities-.-,under the TSM process. 'While
not attempting to "'steer" Metropolitan Planning Organizations
from their own priorities in devising their Unified Work
Programs and Transportation Improvement Programs, it would not
be inappropriate for.FHWA to develop a joint program with the
Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management, and.at*the
Division Office level-with State.Coastal agencies to present
a joint arrangement providing.planning and development funding
tying together CZM urban,wat,erfron't@and shorefront access
programs with FHWA programs in Fringe &.Corridor P 'arking
Facilities'.and Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways,
in instances whereTederal-aid system highway corridors are
located along the waterfront.

@UMTA and Coastal Access.--The most apparent interfaces
between the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's programs
and Coastal Zone Mangement Programs
transit for metropolitan shorefrontrecr 'eation access. A
basic consider-ation is that UMTA policy,:based on its statutes,
is to prioritize'projects reducing congest.ion..
in the journey-to-work and increaiving mablAity for the
immobile. General recreation.access r.utes which ao not
primarily service.commuter.m.ovements are unlikely,to be funded
under current agency policy.

Another area for potential interactions between UMTA and
CZM Programs is coastal hazard eg-fess planning. Under the
assumption that DOT finds a national interest in providing
transportation alternatives in coastal hazard areas, there would
appear to be a role for UMTA in funding the development of

175

contingency plans for evacuation from hazard aress using fixed
rail, 1'bvs-ps,@:.,-T,@ublic or private operators. UMTA might
also fund training programs in evacuation strategies and
tactics and in simulations of the use of mass transit vehicles
and school buses for evacuations. In some urban coastal areas
existing.fixed rail systems (subways, tramways, and even old
interurban lines) run very near shorefronts. Therefore,
relatively little or no@capital investment in terminals would
be required., In the more common situation, bus lines might
service beach and shorefront recreation sites during off
peak hours. New Jersey's Coastal Zone Management Program
ran such a demonstration project using federal coastal manage-
ment funds during the summer of 1977.

As with FHWA's programs in urban areas, the immediate
problem, should the possible integration of DOT activities
with coastal access subjects become a policy option, would
be to demonstrate the interrelatedness of coastal access
projects to the existing structure of the urban transportation
planning process. In this discussion it is assumed that
MPO's, without federal incentives, will not significantly
wei h
9 prioritize) coastal access projects against their
existing lineup of projects because there is currently no
mechanism for the integration of coastal management planning
and urban transportation planning. This report recommends
that DOT headquarters personnel meet with the Federal Office
of Coastal Zone Management to outline ways in which CZM
agencies in States can develop UMTA and FHWA projects further-
ing joint agency interests in coastal access concerns.

Also as Table 10 indicates, UMTA Demonstration Projects
might usefully test new policies under which mass transit
facilities could be used exclusively for coastal access
purposes. Examples might include the use of mass transit
systems for linear access along public beaches'and dunes
where highways and parking lots, would disrupt a fragile eco-
system or the use of re ular or high-speed (hydrofoil, hover-
9
craft) ferry systems to reach presently inaccessible coastal
sites or barrier islands for recreation purposes. Most
generally, UMTA might consider engaging in further studies
of how its programs might service coastal access needs
delineated in CZM Programs.

FRA and Coastal Access. Table 10 indicates two possible
roles for innovative FlU programs with regard to coastal
access issues. First, should DOT decide to further its role
in port planning and development, Title 5 funds (Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing of the 4R Act) can
be used to modernize rail facilities and intermodal transfer
facilities in ports. Many ports depend heavily upon older
railheads and may be able to improve efficiency and lower
costs through an FRA program in rail-port development. The

176

FRA has funded two research demonstration projects
(Detroit and Philadelphia) on intertaodal transfers in
terminal settings.,

The FRA has determined that Title 5 funds can be used to
fund railhead operations involving the op6ning of western
strip-mined coal deposits. Similar logic might be applied
to rail facilities in port settings should DOT develop
policies to enhance port development options.. Under the
CZM administered Coastal Energy Impact Program ' energy
related rail facility developments in ports (e.g., coal
piers) might indeed qualify for ptching funds for rehabili-
tation-or new development should'the FRA design a policy
supporting rail-port investment under a grant-in-aid program
to Port Authorities.

The second possible role for FRA programs in coastal
access refers to Section 809 of the 4R Act (Conversion of
Abandoned Rail Rights-of-Way). This program has evidently
not b'Pen -used since its inception but, for selected rights-
of-way along shorelines, State level action through the
Coastal Zone Management Program probably would be assured
if the State rail agency established liaisons to the State
coastal agency, or if the FRA established a contact with
the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management.
DOT Planning Program .s.. a.nd''CZM Tranuortation Facilitz
Siting Concerns.--Existing Operating Administration planning
programs are ideally separate in nonurban areas and integrated
(FHWA and UMTA) in urban areas. The following discussion.
outlines a hypothetical integrated transportation-coastal
zone planning program for nonurban areas. Potential program
areas introduced in the previous discussion--coastal access,
coastal hazards, ports--become the subjects of the proposed
multimodal surface transportation coastal planning process.
ProRosed linkages between State CZM agencies and the existing
urban transportation planning process are addressed in a
following discussion.

The issue areas raised by CZM Programs for-DOT surface
transportation agencies may most generally be described as
emphasizing selected access subjects within a framework of
substate regional analysis around a land-water resource base.
Certainly, existing Operating Administration programs can
include without amendment most of the CZM initiatives in
coastal access planning. Yet, and this point has been made
here consistently, to the extent that DOT intends to pursue
the several innovative options suggested by CZM Programs
(beach access, port development planning, and coastal hazard
egress planning), existing program planning guidelines should
be modified to include these concerns.

177

The.first area to consider whether in new nlanning pro-
grams-or, as is more likely, in mod 'ificatio*ns o@ existing
programs, is a coastal zone management subject (shorefront
accessY.'@ This sub'ject in t'urn may.be subdivided into tom-
ponents including: (-a) beach access planning under Section.,
305 of the CZMA; (b) planning requirements for shorefront.lt
access project selection and-pri6ritization; and,(c) studies
using existing FHWA and UMTA programs for coastal-access
projects. Point (b) above includes the development of tech-
niques for evaluating shorefront'sites'for relative environ-
mental@impact sensitivity; for aesthetic factors; for
development potential;:and the development of methods for
weighting relative demand parameters, and cost/benefit
functions.

Another area for innovative transportation planning
studies is the inauguration of a multimodal (FHWA,@FRA)@'
grant-in-aid program so that Port-Authorities can engage in
planning improvements to the ground transportation system
providing landward- access to-port systems. Such a multimodal
planning program designed to answer the transportation-needs
of ports coul&.emphasize water transportation planning-and
intermodal transfers.,

A third area for new planning studies involves FMIA'and
M-ITA concerns:in coa.stal hazard egress plans. A program
established under State DOT's in conjunction with State CZM
agencies could identify populated.coastal hazard areas and,
througha capacity analysis of road systems, could define
criteria for construction improvements to remove critical
bottlenecks and to each,capacity flows. UMTA p-rograms,,might
include contingency planning for,evacuation-of selected@areas
using private, public., and school bus vehicles@. Demonstration
planning projects for,each/any of these three subject areas
(access, ports, hazards) might test their feasibility.

The urban trans ortation planning..process (FHWA and UMTA),
is quite advanced M couldl.ea'sily internalize CZM initiatives
in coastal access. The sumbling block appears,to be that .,
Coastal Zone Management Programs are initiated and run at the
State level. Only a few coastal@States (California,.Washington,
Oregon) have decentralized C.Noperations, and none.at this
point correspond to the.MPO.jurisdictions adopted,for urban
transportation planning. Clearly the potential of the-MPO as
the prioritizing element for transportation planning and
programming should not be ig'nored,lby.,the Federal bffice@of
Coastal Zone Management. That office should be urged to
create incentives for State CZM agencies to decentralize and
create urban.coastal zone offices:which correspond to the
MPO structure.established.by DOT and supporteO, by HUD and,
other agencies. Once urban CZM offices or C7M funding have
hd6nc*,obtained for,?4PO staff DOT
transportation agencies
might be able to develop prioritized programs for

178

urban' waterfront access using existing UMTA and FHWA program
areas.

4.1.4 Policy Directions: Coastal Waters Management

No single DOT entity deals.with the national transpor-
tation interests in coastal waters. The Coast Guard, of
course, has the primary role of the federal tran,spartation.
presence in coastal waters management, but the Coast Guard
has d mandate both' too.bfoad, given its other res, onsibili-
ties, and too narrow in that its mission does not
include the development of federal assistance programs to
States to plan and develop terminals and water transportation
systems (e.g., ports, recreational boating sites and boat
ramps, ferry systems, etc.). Neither DOT nor any other
federal agency has defined a mission in coastal waters manage-
ment that even approaches the continuing, coordinated, and
comprehensive ground transportation programs operatingAn
the landward coastal zone.

A premise 'of the following discussion is that the coastal
zone management program has raised the visibility of the
issues involved in coastal waters management to the point
where a more organized federal presence in the subje ct would
be desirable. Given.its overall missipnin developing
national transportation olicy, this discussion presumes
that DOT logically shoM pursue-the-development of such pro-
gramming. Conceivably,,uind'er such a new federal policy
coastal waters management programs of other federal agenciesil
might be transferred to,DOT.
One problem in developing a heightene d federal role in
coastal waters management rests in Ve complex relations
between federal and state authorities relating to coastal
waters and to the need to build a major role for states in
an expanded federal mission in coastal waters management,
probably through grant-in-aid programs. Conflicts between
States' perceptions of their rights in managing coastal
waters, and bottom lands, and the statutory authority of
federal agencies (e.g., the Coast Guard) to conduct their
operations, have been around since the beginnings of the
nation. The growing uses of and environmental impacts on*
coastal waters has givenI impetus to state demands for more
reviews of federal agency activities affecting what are
essentially state coastal waters, In particular the Coast
Guard's responsibilities for regulating vessel traffic manage-
ment, oil spill contingency planning, hazardous cargoes, and
ocean dumping have been challenged by State agencies concerned

ilin particular the port development programs of the
Maritime Administration and the Economic Development
Administration.

179

with the environmental impacts associated with the above
activities.

The Coastal Zone Management Program has served as a
vehicle to focus State interests in coastal waters management.
In the federal Act, the actual definition of the coastal zone
DTIMarily, incl-udes co.as@tal wate.rs, ""Coastal zone' means the
coastal waters and the adjacent shorelands . . . strongly
influenced by each other . . . . The zone extends inland from
the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control shore-
lands, the uses of which have'a direct and significant impact
on coastal waters.,,12 The CZMA's purpose is defined as,
getting States to exercise more fully their authorities over
coastal lands and waters. "The key to more effective use of
the land and water resources of the coastal zone-is to encourage
the coastal States to exerc:Lse their full authority over the
land waters of the coastal zone. .,'13 The States' full
authority over coastal waters, though, is severely limited by
the doctrine of federal supremacy, whic'! is that federal acti-
vities in coastal waters.are based in constitutionally enabled
powers that are more compelling than States' rights in coastal
waters. The CZMA explicitly recognizes the existing balance
of Authorities where it states 11 . . . Nothing in this title
shall be construed (1) to diminish either federal or state
jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of
planning development, or control of water resources, submerged
lands,, or navigable waters . . .

The existing alignment of responsibi.lities between federal
and State agencies to manage activities in coastal waters
creates a situation in which conflicts between State-s and federal
agencies are bound to surface. States have.indicated their
interests in liaison with. fede-ral agencies whose activities
create environmental impacts,,or who license or permit other
private or public sector org .anizations to conduct activities
creating impacts. As more@ activities creating significant
impacts occur in coastal waters (impacts which may be long-
lasting and detrimental to local!j@economies and lifestyles),
States would appear to have legitimate interests in meaning-
ful-particlipation in-tRe, development of decisions guiding
federal agency activities affecting coastal waters.

In response to the..innovations of the CZMA and to State
Coastal Program development, the Coast Guard has initiated a
staff position, Coastal Zone Management Officer, in each of
its District Offices. This Officer is responsible for coor-
dinating Coast Guard activities with State CZM agencies. The

12Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 304(a).
131bid. , Section 302 (h)
14Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 307(_el.

180

recognition Pf theneed to provide a formal hasis for inter-
action with State activities in coastal waters management is
un,ique among federal agencies and is a necessary but perhaps
insufficient step toward increasing the role of States in
federal decisions that affect Skate waters and lands. It would
be advisable to explore new initiatives in intergovernmental
relations with respect to operating policies of the Coast
Guard. Federal-State task forces on environmental management
in coastal waters might usefully design common strategies
for the conduct of Coast Guard activities in coastal waters.
The point should be reinforced that the reasonable premise
of State participation.and review of federal agency activities
is that those activities may influence environmental quality
within the State. Such innovations would not be a hunting
license for State agencies to usurp federal prerogatives and
responsibilities, but, if constrained by the described
orientation, they could satisfy State demands and improve
the coordination of intergovernmental relations in coastal
waters management.

States have suggested the following areas of concern in
.coastal waters management in their CZM programs:

(1) The impacts on coastal waters of facilities develop-
ments (e.g., transportation facilities) in shorelands;
(2) the control of recreational boating locations-and
activity patterns including marina and boat ramp
and mooring area siting;
(3) boating and ship discharges;
(4) movements of hazardous cargoes. in confined waters
and in ports;
(5) oil spill prevention and cleanup programs;
vessel traffic management systems;
(7) ocean dumping concerns;
C8) the landward siting and consequent assignme .nt of
vessel movement and pipeline corridors in OCS
development practice.)
(9) port development;
(110).the potential for increased federal assistance for
ferry systems, especially in the urban coastal zone.

Topics 3-8 clearly are areas where the Coast Guard retains
the primary authority. These are just the areas of Coast
Guard responsibility that the States are seeking to influence,
to affect the Coast Guard's program policies in areas where
these policies affect environmental quality of State waters.

Of the other topic areas, number 9, port development, may
have the most potential as a new policy area for DOT. Federal
port assistance programs currently are scattered (DOT, Corps
of Engineers, Maritime Administration, EDA) and are not

181

coor(I-inate,l. DOT's interest in ports would appear ripe for
expansion. The limitations of the Deepwater.Ports Act are
obvious'@,15 and new statutory authority would need to be
created, but the idea of port systems as intermodal transfer
points and of the role of DOT agencies (especially FHWA, FRA
and the Coast Guard) in creating safe and efficient and
competitive ports would appear to provide a basis for an
expanded role for DOT in port'planning and in port transpor-
tation facility devel'opment programming. It is possible to
conceive of a grant-in-aid program for Port Authorities or
municipalities'for,planning and facilities development of
intermodal transfer systems and accessways in ports. Coastal
management agencies would undoubtably support such a program
because it would necessarily include the environmental assess-
ment processes required of all DOT grant-in-aid programs which are
now virtually ignored in many port development projects.

4.2 Intergover.nmental Relations under
the Coastal' *Zo*ri6 Mangement Program
Federal-State relations under the Coastal Zone M"anagement
Program are addressed in the CZMA's specification of processes
determining that federal activities affecting coastal areas
are "consistent" with the contents of approved CZM Programs
.and in the Actils requirement that the States consider the
"national interest" represented by federal agency activities
in the development of State .coastal programs. The two pro-
visions appear to have been designed to balance each other;
together they advance significant innovations in federal.-
State relations.

The "national interest" clauses of the Act have, in
interpretive regulations and in practice, been most relevant
in the Program development phase of a State's coastal manage-
ment effort. We shall not linger on the controversies and
evolution of the national interest elements of Programs here.
The section of the .Act describing the'required findings
of consistency of federal activities of coastal Programs has,
on the other hand , generated extensive controversy which is
quite undiminished and, in fact, may be just beginning in a
set of court actions. The consistency clause of the Act has
been interpreted by NOAA in successive drafts of Federal
Consistency Regulations.16 Ostensil@ly,,, ttese constitute the
ttrulebook" on federal-State interactions under the CZM
Program. They offer detailed regulations describing procedures
for finding direct federal activities, federal licenses and
permits, and federal assistance activities consistent with.

See Section l..3.5, p. 40.
16
The final regulations are: "Federal Consistency with
Approved Coastal Management Programs," Federal Register 44
No. 123, Jxvie.25., 1979

182

@State CZM Programs. The following sections demonstrate
that the Consistency Regulations must b.e seen as part of an
evolutionary sequence of greater co.ntrol'over intergovernmental
.relations, and that in that context they should be viewed as
part of a larger fr-nework within which intergovernmental
relations are condu,ted.' _They.,Cthe Consistency Regulations)---
are not the controlling,"rulebook" on intergovernmental relations
in the c'oastal zone, but in just this'sense they create prob-
lems for federal a 'gencies given@the opt,ion'of making'consistency
determinations.themselves.or allowing States,'to make those
determinations. The .problems arise because highly.formalized
consistency processes specified in the regulations are intro-
duced into the existing set.,of intergovernmental procedures.

The following subsection (4.2.1) looks at intergovernmental
relations under the CZM Program by examining the m6st suscep-
tible and potentially. themost, impoTtant elements, of the consis-
tency process- consistency for federal assistance activities.
DOT agency assistance activities include the major grant-in-aid
programs.funding transportation.facility development operations.
.Accordin'Ig to the point of view underlying the following dis-,
cussion, the consistency regulations.in this area must be con-
sidered incomplete because they ignore the weight of pre-
existing federal'regulations defining'intergovernmental planning@
and environmental assessment procesure.s., Such.pre-existing
regulations establish:a [email protected] process.
Furthermore, the e
y ignore.w 11-established existing relationships
between State agencies (transportation agencies in'.the
examples given here.) and federal field offices.i The State
agencies Areoften set up to implement federal regulations under
the.grant-in-aid programs and most often originate and priori-
tize the projects ultimately.reviewed by federal.agpncies. Con-
sistency reviews of federal agency assistance program activities
of neces*sity must be closely tied to activities-of State
agency programs which.are counterparts of,the federal
assistance Iprograms. The extended network of relationships
is explored in subsection 4.3.2 of,this chapter.

4.2.1 A General Des:cr'ipt'ioii'o'f the Consistency Review Process

The Federal Consistenc y Regulations define certain require-
ments for federal agencies conducting or supporting activities
which affect the coastal zones of States with
approved coastal managem Ient Programs. The intent.of the Con:-
sistency Regulations is to ensure that federal agencies.do
not conduct or support activities which do not accord with
a State's own perception of its.coastal interests as expressed
in an approved management Program. A key innovation of the
consistency requirement, which in implementation shall@vary
from State to State, is the provision for State level review
,of federal activities which directly affect the coastal

183

zone. The Consistency Regulations define procedures for
formal review by State CZM agencies of federal activities
within or affecting the coastal zones. In an operational
context these review mechanisms will require (beyond existing
field office practices under A-95 and NEPA procedures).that
federal field offices contact coastal zone management
agencies and solicit their input on which federal activities
are of concern and how potentially controversial issues shall
be processed.

The Consistency Regulations developed by the Federal
Office of Coastal Zone, Management COUK) are quite detailed
and somewhat controversial. Resolution of a number of issues
in the practice'of consistency has not yet occurred and may
await court tests. However, DOT operating elements may
assume that the federal consistency provisions of the Coastal
Zone Management Act docontain mandates for environmental
and intergovernmental interactions which, in part, go beyond
existing NEPA requirements and A-95 coordination requirements
and which, therefore, must be closely examined as independent
statutory obligations on their activities. Existing-inter-
governmentalprocedures and environmental analysis procedures
as applied in each Operating Administration are employed
wherever possible in implementing the consistency requirements
of the CZMA.' In most cases existing procedures will adequately
service the consis'teiicy requirements.

The Consistency Regulations define four areas of inter-.
action between federal agencies and State CZM agencies
managing approved Programs. The Matrix Diagram (Table 11),
which was prepared by the Office of Coastal Zone,Management,
,identifies these areas as:

Cl) Direct federal activities including development
projects;
C2) federally licensed and permitted activities;
(3) federally licensed and permitted activities
described in detail in OCS plans;
(4) federal assistance to State and local governments
Ci.e., all DOT loan and grant programs of the
Operating Administrations). '

Whilesharing a common basic process, all four areas of involve-
ment have unique'features and should be studied separately
whre relevant to the activities of a given DOT operating
element. The Matrix Diagram at the end of this section
provides a convenient summary of the consistency requirements.

Finding of a Direct Coastal Zone Impact.--DOT fie ld
offices and other operating elements need only become involved
in the consistency review/determination process for activities

184

TABLE 11: FEDERAL CONSISTENCY MATRIX DIAGRAM

CD1A Section 307(c)C1)&(2) 307(p)(3)(A) 307(c)(3)(B) 307(d)
(Subpart Q CSubpart D) (Subpart E) (Subpart F)

Federal Direct federal' Federally licensed Federally licensed Federal assistance
Action activities and permitted and permitted ac- to state and local
including activities tivities described governments
development in detail in OCS
projects plans
Coastal Zone Directly Directly Directly e r-t I
D cfM-gythe
Impact affecting the affecting the affecting the a&re
coastal zone coastal zone coastal zone coastal zone

Responsibil-: Federal agency Applicant for Person submitting A9S Clearinghouse
ity to proposing the federal license OCS plan receiving state
notify state action or permit or local govern-
agency ment application
for federal
assistance

:otification Alternatives Consistency Consistency OMB Circular A95
procedure chosen by fed- certification certification notification
e.ral agency procedure
(subject to
NOAA regulations)

Consistency Consistent to Consistent,with Consistent with Consistent with
requirement the maximum the C"M Program the C2M Program the CZM Program
extent practi-
cable with CZ1
Programs

k
Consistency Made by federal Made by state Hade by state Made by federal
review agency (reviewed agency agency agency
state agency)
Feeeral Federal. agency Federal agency may- Federal agency may Federal agency must
agency not required to not approve not approve fed- consider state re-
responsibi- disapprove license'or per- eral licenses or view comments and
lity follow- action follow- mit following permits described cannot refuse
ing a ing state state agency in detail in the to grant assist-
disagreement agency disagree- objection OCS plan following ance funds in the
ment (unless state agency face of a state
judicially objection objection, unless
impelled to do criteria ofsubpart
so) 14 Itave been met

Admin'istra-. Mediation by Appeal to the Appeal to the Appeal to the
tive conflict the Secretary Secretary by Secretary by Secretary by
resolution applicant or person or@indepen- applicant agency
independent dent Secretarial or independent
Secretarial review Secretarial
review review

(Subpart G) (Subpart H) (Subpart H) (Subpart H)

185

which ,,directly affect the coastal zone 'of States with
approved management programs.. In practice,.federal, field
offices and operating elements will'd6fine (in conjunction with
State CZM a'gen6ies) those activities which are reviewable
for consistency--that is, which do directly affect the
coastal zone. This decision cannot be made by field offices
unilaterally, though in practice their existing processes,for
NEPA documents;will-probably suffice for federal assistance
activities and for federal licenses and permits.,

(a) Notification Procedures. Once the responsible agency
determines that a field office/0-Perating element activity
directly affects the coastal zone, the State CZM agency must
be formally notified that a consistency'review p r.ocess,is
being initiated., The Matrix Diagram lines 3 & 4, indicates.
the;.responsibl.e party and'the notification.procedure to.be
of fede al activ'ties.
employed for each of thefour categories r 1

(1) Direct Federal Activities--Direct activities of DOT
field offices and other operating elements which
directly affect coastal zone areas shall -bemade
known'to State CZM agencie's-through the A-95..Circular
proces's and'through;existing procedures-of the.N.EPA
process.

The concerned DOT field office/operating element,shall
make a consistency determination on the pro,,.
posed activity with the approved State
management program-and. shall transmit this determination
to the State CZM agency at least 90 days prior to..@
commencement of the proposed activity.
(2) Federal Licenses and Permits',(inclu'ding Permittei
Activities as described in OCS plans)'-,For'federal
licenses and permits granted by DOT operating elements,
the responsibility for notification of the State CZM
agency:falls'on' the applicant for the license or
permit, or in the case of OC'S plans, on the person
submitting the OCS plan.

'The consistency Regulations identify a formal state-
ment of "Consistency Certification": 'It is the .
responsibility of the concerned DOT operating element
to require the applicant to incorporate a properly
executed Consistency Certification in his forrfial,
permit or license.applicatio,n

U). Federally Assisted Activities--For all DOT Operating
.Administration loan and.grantiprograms the
notification procedure'for CZM consistency shall'
be based on the OMP Circular A-95 procedure.

186

A-9S Clearinghouses shall ensure that state coastal
agencies are afforded an opportunity to,review...,
proposed activities.affecting the coastal zone
.to determine whether the activity is consistent
,with the coastal program.
-(b) Consistency Determinations and Conflict Resolution.
The consi"g-tency requirement states that federal assistance
activities and federal licenses and permits', including OCS
related permits, must be consistent 'with the enforceable
policies of approved CZM management Programs.- Enforceable
policies of Programs are policies whichlare clearly derived
from existing State,or federal. statutes, and which norma "lly
would be binding on federal agency actions in that State.
Other policies of approved CZM Programs, other than enforceable
policies, should be treated as recommendations, and while DOT
-agencies should attempt to comply.with these policies, they
should not be. considered as obligatory criteria for making
consistency reviews and determinations.
Direct activities (including development projects).of DOT
field offices and other operating elements must be consistent
with the enforceable policies of approved CZM Programs "to the
maximum extent practicable." This terminology is interpreted-
Fy _NTOAA to mean that sucF-direct activities should be fully
consistent with approved CZM,Program.s "unless compliance is
prohibited based upon the requirements of existing law applicable
to the,federal agency's operations."

For direct federal activities the consistency determination is
made by the DOT field office or other operating element. Normally
the determination shall be found in the NEPA statement attendant
upon the particular activity being considered.

Field offices normally conducting direct activities including
development projects in a'given State's coastal zone (e.g., the
Coast Guard), should communicate a proposed list of.development
projects for which. consistency determinations shall be made over
a reasonable time period. State agencies may review consistency
determinations of DOT field offices and, if they object to any
finding, may request meetings and mediation'.

For federally assisted activiti es (all-grant-in-aid pro-
gramsJ, federal agencies,are to make consistency determinations
for federally assisted activities in coastal zones. NOAA policy,
as found in the Consistency regulations, is that the State
CZM agency shall make consistency determinations for federally
assisted activities.

For federally assisted activities (all grant-in-aid programs)

187

a consistency review is performed independently by the concerned
federal agency and by the state coastal management agency.
The A-95 Clearinghouse serves as the formal notifications
mechanism for consistency reviews.
If'@t@te state coastal agency does not object to the proposed
assistance activity the federal agency may grant the assistance
for the proposed. activity. If, however, the state agency in
its consistency review, objects to the proposed activity on
specified grounds of inconsistency with the coastal program, the
federal agency may not approve assistance for the activity
except as in instances.where a determination is made that the
larger National Interest provides a reasonable context to set
aside the state coastal program policies.

For licenses and permits the consis@tency determination is
to be made by the State CZM agency, as authorized in the CZMA.
The Consistency Certification is to be provided by the applicant
for the DOT operating element license or permit, to the relevant
field office, and to the State-CZM agency. Should the State
agency object to the approval of a license or permit by a DOT
C,
operating element on the grounds that the activity to be con-
sidered under the terms of that license or permit would be
inconsistent with the enforceable policies of the CZM Program,
the DOT field offices or other operating element may not approve
the license or permit. The consistency regulations describe an
appeal process whereby an applicant may seek an independent
secretarial review of the findings of the State CZM agency.
4.2.2 Structure of Intergovernmental Relations Under Assistance
Programs

I
Intergovernmental relations unJer federal assistance pro-
grams and CZM programs involve four types@of agencies: Federal
Headquarters agencies, federal field offices, State agencies
set up in part to implement federal gi7ant-in-aid programs, and
the State coastal zone management agency. Intergovernmental
relations technically occur across federal-State demarcations but
that boundary may be misle-ading. Eacb of the four identified
agency types play specific roles-in intergovernmental exchanges.
In this sense theinterpretations of the federal consistency
regulations do not address the full range of important actors
and their roles and exchanges under coastal zone management.

Headquarters Offices. The federal assistance programs
which may be subject t e application of consistency
regulationsl7 are established by Federal Statutes and are
implemented under the guidance of Program Rules and Regulations
written by the headquarters of the various 'POT Operating
17 Federal projects which are located within or which
otherwise significantly affect the coastal zone.

188

Administrations. Headquarters offices may.become-involved in
CZM issues in two ways:- first, the Offices.may (if they so
choose) modify existing Agency policies in favor of coastal
access concerns.. A number of such potential policy innovation
areas are suggested in.Section 4.1 of this@chapter.

. Alternatively, DOT Headquarters Offices may become
involved in coastal zone management (CZ?.Ir).-issues through the
normal functioning of major grant-in-aid project review
processes. U.S. DOT's practice os to treat CZM as a category
under the NBPA process and, under' DOT policy, major project
EIS.'s are reviewed by Operating Administration Headquarter's
.Offices and by the Office of Environment and Safety of the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Under normal pro-
cedures then Headquarters Offices might well be asked to
review projects proposed in coastal areas. Furthermore,
the Federal Consistency requirement of the CZMA as implemented
by NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management imposes additional
requirements on Headquarters Offices should. a State coastal
management agency disagree with a project beyond the formal
elements in the NEPA document. Di5agreements betwe,en a State
coastal agency,and a federal transportation agency which are
conducted under the provisions of the Consistency Regulations
are assured of being handled at the Headquarters level.

Finally, DOT Headquarters Offices are involved in CZM
issues@because Headquarters Offices write the Program Regu-
lations specifying requirements to be followed by federal
field offices and by State transportation agencies in order
to qualify for federal assistance for-project development.
Three important procedural requirements for virtually all
grant-in-aid programs are: requirements for conducting plan-
ning studies (including local and areawide planning agency
participation) before undertaking major program projects;
requirements for conducting environmental studies 'and for
making findings as to environmental impacts; and,..requirements
for public hearings and local and State notification.and
approvals. Each of these topics is addressed in program regu-
lations of the various Operating Administrations, and each
establishes a process involving consultation and often sign-
offs by appropriate State or regional executive and/or
planning agencies.

Federal Field Offices. The second group of actors in
the intergovernmental process for federal assistance programs
is the field offices of the federal agencies. As Figure 1
indicates, these offices play a central role in the operation
of the federal grant-in-aid programs. Their major linkages
are to a.gency Headquarters, from which they receive their
operating Rules and Regulations., and to State transportation
agencies to which they apply those regulations, review the
resulting technical documents, and funnel the actual-grant-in-
aid funds. Field offices play an essential role as an inter-
mediary between Headquarters' national policies and specific
details of regional and State projects and conditions.

189

The linkages between federal fie ld offices and state
transportation offices are extensive. In the most .prominent
example, the Federal Highway Administration, there are two
levels of field offices--division offices in each State and
Regional offices in each of the ten federal regions. the
Division.offices work closely with individual State Highway
Departments in the review of planning@environmental and
procedural (Action Plan') documents. It is accurate to note
that there are strong@professional, historic, and process ties
between the.federal'offices.and the State transportation modal

Figure 1
Key Intergovernmental Linkages for Federal Assistance
Activities and the Consistency Regulations

Federal
Headquarters
Agencies

0 93
P4 4j bb
-b.$ *1 -.4
Cd > 0

bo 0
-9

bo N
93 be

0
14
04

Field
Office

CV e V,
% V11
4V 0
0@ 0
ve
dV

t%
0
Cr

VA.

.State CZX Program Coordination-Implempntatiob state dzm
Transportation
Agencies Mechanisms Agency

190

agencies. Field offices look to State transportation agencies
as their clients, and may be expected to support those
agencies, initiatives where they fall within the program
requirements established by headquarters.

Most grant-in-aid programs are initiated by local requests
and are filtered, categorized, prioritized ,and developed as
projects by the State transportation agency. The federal
field office plays a passive role in project initiation but an
active role in reviewing technical documentation, project
priorities, and of course in the preparation/review of the
requisite NEPA documents.

Under CZM Program requirements, States are required to
inject into their coastal programs considerations of the
"national interest" of the activities of federal agencies. In
DOT, field office personnel in each Operating Administration
have been identified as coastal zone contacts for State Program
managers in each of the ten federal regions. In the Program
Development phase of the CZM process, in draft EIS documents,
and in other media, field office personnel have commented on
their agency's view of emerging coastal Programs. Formerly
(1975), U.S. DOT Headquarter identified the Secretarial
Representatives (SecReps) in each of the federal regions as
the coordinating point for DOT agency comments to coastal
Programs. By internal notice,field office personnel adminis-
tering transportation programs in States with emerging coastal
zone Programs are asked by the regional SecRep's Office to
comment about relevant issues in the program. This process
has successfully involved field office personnel only according
to the effectiveness of solicitation's and interactions initiated
by the personnel of the State coastal programs. In federal
assistance programs, to date, such interactions have not
been extensive. Coastal zone Programs have not in their
formative years sought to tap the activity and use shaping
power of the transportation grant-in-aid programs. As coastal
Programs consolidate their role in State government, however,
there is good reason to suppose that they will attempt to
employ the federal consistency regulations in "affirmative"
manner; that is' to shape, use, and activate)patterns in
accord with the policies of the coastal Programs.

Federal field offices and headquarters have virtually no
experience with the federal consistency regulations, and at
this time (1978)therefore are not prepared to deal with
initiatives from State coastal agencies with regard to the
prioritization of federal assistance programs affecting the
coastal zone--the concept of "affirmative consistency."

State Agency Roles.--The interactions between State
Coastan Zone,agencies and State transportation,agencies
(implementing federal grant-in-aid programs) are addressed in

191

coastal zone Programs as Program coordination and implementation
subjects. Chapter Two of this report identifies the varieties
of direct and indirect coordination implementation mechanisms
offered in coastal Programs. No coastal Program discusses
relationships between the coastal agency and other State
agencies in.specific details of the role of those agencies
in implementing federal assistance programs and the potential
role of the employment by the coastal agency of the consis-
tency regulations. Yet from the perspective of federal
agencies, these relationships must be closely intertwined.

Most coastal Programs specify one or more coordination
mechanisms for project review between State development
agencies (e.g., a StateItransportation agency) and the agency
implementing the coastal management program. Typical coordi-
nation mechanisms include: project reviews spe ified in a
Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies (Maryland,
Michigan); use of a state Environmental Protection Act
process--a state EIS for major projects (Michigan, Texas);
obtaining a permit from the coastal agency prior to project
development (California, New Jersey), or any of a number of
other 'Coordination techniques.18

These techniques are usually based either in coastal
legislation or in other authorities cited in such legislation,
and thus are binding on state transportation agencies within
the strictures of those agencies' own enabling legislation.
The three-cornered relationship of intergovernmental relations
for federal grant-in-aid programs under the federal consistency
mandates is thus completcly U sk&tchlly, identifted. Federal
field offices potentially are in the middle of hypothesized
conflicts between State transportation agencies and State
CZM agencies. On the one hand, field offices have established
rules of interaction with State transportation agencies, which
lead them to accept projects presented by those agencies as
the valid representation of-the State's transportation
priorities.

Field office environmental, planning, and intergovern-
mental checkoffs and public hearing requirements are procedural
devices to ensure that the State transportation agency has
indeed properly prioritized and evaluated projects and has
achieved an acceptable level of consensus. However, these
considerations are essentially procedural devices to
assure project desirability. They are not external authorities
directing projects in any particular direction.

The Consistency Regulations, on the other hand, have
-ential of being in effect such external authorities
the pot
affecting decision processes of federal field offices. Where
the procedural mandates of headquarters' environmental and
planning requirements may be considered internal requirements

18 See Section 2.3, p. 61 for a discussion of these
techniques. 192

(though of course the processes involve external parties and
may in fact be resolved in the courts), the consistency
regulations may. possibly be considered a binding
external process and even a decision requirement on field
offices. The potential, at least, exists for field offices
to be forced to take sides with a coastal zone agency (under
the consistency requirement) against a project developed
under its own regulations by a state transportation,agency.
It is a matter of course that DOT agency regulations and
procedures would allow objections of other State agencies
(e.g., the coastal agency) to a project to emerge
and be recorded in the NEPA process, A-95 process, etc.
Under the consistency regulations, however, objections by the
coastal agency could in no way be folded into a review process
and ignored. They would have to be specifically confronted
and satisfied for the project to proceed.

4.2.3 Intergovernmental Relations Beyond the Federal Consistency
Regulations

The Federal Consistency Regulations are a vehicle for
structuring review processes, decision making , and conflict
resolution mechanisms between federal agencies ' activities
in coastal areas and enforceable policies of State coastal
management Programs. As described in Section 4.2.1, the
Consistency Regulations are an attempt to provide a framework
for intergovernmental relations, relative to CZM concerns. The
merit of the subject--better coordination of Federal-State
decision making--is undeniable, The approach of the Consis-
tency Regulations as a first step in action- forcing behavior
in federal-State relations is a strong one which has generated
controversy in the States and in federal agencies. The contro-
versy is wholly expectable with innovative procedure, especially
those, from the viewpoint of federal agencies, which are
externally based and consequently which ,until they gain
stature, may be regarded as less siqnificant than internal
rules and regulations.

It is unknown at this point (1978) whether the CZM Con-
sistency Regulations will gain stature and actually become an
action-forcing element in State-federal relations. The
Regulations may, however, be regarded as an extension of
other consistency requirements in other federal legislation
of the past five years and as part of a larger movement
concerned with controlling intergovernmental impacts. The
Clean Air Act of 1972 and 1978 Amendments define, for example,
a determination of consistency between federally funded pre-
paration of State highway plans and (annual) projects and the
State Implementation Plan for Air Quality, funded by EPA.
The 1978 Clean Air Act Amendments take this consistency
determination to the level of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) in urban areas where the integration of

193

surface transportation planning and air quality planning
is specifically addressed.,,Fundiftg is set aside for the'
process, and the appropriate decision making group, the
MPO, is required to makelannual determination of consistency
between its air quality maintenance program and the'trans-
portation projects it is undertaking.

The purpose of a formal consistency determination is%
obviously to.ensure. among governmental 1-evels and across agen"
cies concerned with different subjects that agency activities
are not working at cross purposes, and further, that there
exists a dominant set of policies to which all agencies must
adhere. In the formalization of the consistency determination
between air quality and transportati,on agencies, air-quality
maintenance is the dominant goal. The interesting innovations
in the 1978 Clean Air Act Amendments are'the recognition that
the consistency finding in itself is not meaningful, and,that an
actual process for joint activities must be established which
is both funded and required.-.,

The CZM Consistency Regulations take-a different,tack.
They are meant to apply to-all federal agencies and their
activities (except those on federal lands), and so they
are constrained to a proceduraldesign. The@Regulations pro-
vide a significant level of detdil on the- conditions for con-
sistency determinations, the location of the deferminations
(federal or State level).. and the review and conflict-
resolution processes available. The Regulations',may be con-
sidered an exercise in administrative complexity4 the subj.e.ct
matter is abstruse, and. the! regulations are very c'omprehensible.
Their design appears, however, to generate a procedural
response rather than increased interactions 'in federal-State
relations. The Regulations contain no mechanism for funding,
and requiring, joint deliberation on consistency subjects.
Instead they offer a'd,etailed prote IdurdIlly based (i.e., step-
by-step conditioned) consistency determination-'process for
the three major categories of federal activiti 'es. The detail
of the process generates a federal view that Consistency is
little more than a procedural req Iuirement, another local
signoff to be obtained in the process of conducting,fe'detal
activities.

In everyday project processing, this perception is
correct. It is evident, though, that in the extraordinary
case--in projects generating strong conflicts-.-the consistency
process may well become significant and perhaps 'controlling.
Federal agencies (DOT agencies) have no experience with
consistency under such conditions.

Two perspectives on consistency are therefore apparent.
In the view presented above the consistency process is
essentially passive, procedurally oriented and designed to

194,

allow the.minimal level of disturbance to existing federal
.agency operations, except in the instance of state initiated
controversy. Then specific processes for conflict resolution
are provided.

The Consistency Regulations in this view do not further
the goal of bringing together federal and State activities to
pursue coordinated decision making. The joint activity under
federal consistency would occur only in the conflict situation,
.short of the original goal.

Given their,traditions in locally based, state-initiated
federal activities, DOT agencies conducting grant7in-aid
programs are in a position to substantially further the
goal of the CZM Consistency Regulations should they desire
to do so. That is to say, that given their existing pro-
cesses, most Operating Administrations could move the CZM
consistency requirements from a formatted.procedural
requirement to an active, process engendering increased
intergovernmental communications and coordination of acti-
vities. They could do this relatively easily given their
existing traditions and guiding regulations in planning,
intergovernmental and environmental considerations. Those
regulations include processes for identifying various
local issues'external to, yet affecting decisions on par-
ticular projects. The rationale for innovation by DOT
agencies under the CZM consistency banner is that it may well
improve on existing program procedures--the mainline program
implementation mechanisms of Operating Administration grant-
in-aid programs. For example, the planning requirements of
the state rail planning process and airport system planning
process, or more dynamically, the MPO role in the urban
transportation planning process19 might be subjects for
experimentation toward improved federal-State relations
under coastal zone management program coordination.

CZM's mandate for improving coastal access might also
serve DOT Headquarters as an experimental area in applied
multimodal transportation project planning in non-urban
areas. In urban areas innovations are needed in upgrading
coastal access as'a multimodal subject including FRA--port
transfers, UMITA and FHWA programs and new programs involving
coastal waters.

Increased federal-State coordination under CZM could

19See Section 1.2.6 for a discussion of the urban
transportation planning process.

195

therefore be issue-based, rather than procedure-based, as
under the Federal Consistency Regulations. Issues would
vary from State to State, involving different DOT agencies
and different concerns. There would need to be established
relatively similar parameters (preconditions, requirements)
prior to ongoing interactions, but the subject matter would
be particular to a given location.

The introductory discussion of the Federal Consistency
Regulations in Section 4.2.1 described the formal requirements
of those regulations for federal assistance activities.
Section 4.2.2 exa.mimed the wider set of formal relations
existing between federal agencies and State transportation
and coastal management agencies. These purely formal coor-
dination mechanisms-establish a tri-part system for federally
assisted transportation activities in coastal areas. The con-
sistency regulations, it was noted, are silent on the dynamic
role of State transportation agencies in the federal grant-
in-aid programs. Other p@rts of coastal programs address
these State agencies but intrastate agency coordination
mechanisms are not synthesized with the federal consistency
elements.

The regulatory process cannot be subdivided of course,
nor can the actual process of project planning, reviews and
approvals. While the federal consistency elements establish
precedents, it should probably be recognized that they are
inadequate substitutes for direct intergovernmental exchanges
on issues, plans, and projects. In this context there should
be'real benefits to all parties, were DOT agencies conducting
major grant-in-aid programs, to require field offices to
attempt to integrate the activities of State transportation
areas in coastal zones, and coastal management agencies, with
the field offices. This could not occur usefully under a
narrowly proscribed set of regulations emanating from head-
quarters--precisely the means to be avoided. Rather, it is
the process of issue coordination which would be crucial,
the process of issue identification, clarification of views,
negotiations, and compromise in realtime settings apart from
the forms of the intergovernmental regulatory process.

196

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Transportation Impacts and Coastal Zone,Management

Bake-rr Earl J. and Joe Gordon McPhee. Land Use Management and Reaulations
in Hazardous Areas; Research Assessment. ' Boulder, Colo.: Institute
of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Program on Tpchnology,
Environment and Man. Monograph. No. NSF-RA-E-75-008.

Barrier Island Workshop. Impact of Federal Acencies on Barrier Islands.
Preliminary Draft. Suite 300, 1717 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.,
Washington, D.C., September 1977.

Bell, J. P. A. "The Convergence of Technology, Energy and Environmental
Considerations: NOAA's Coastal Energy Inpact Procjrai-;." Marine
Technology Society Journal, Vol. 10, No. 8, October/November 1976.

Bosselman, Fred P.# Duane Feurer and Tobin M. Richter. Federal Land Use
Regulation Practing Law Institute, New York City, N.Y., 1977.

Rrockel, Barry C. and Eric Schenker. Port Planning and Develooment as
Related to Problems of U.S. Ports and the U.S. Coastal Environment.
Cambridge, Md.: Cornell Maritime Press, 1974.

Brower, David. Access to the Nation's Beaches: Legal and Planning Perspec
tives. UNC-SG-77-18. Raleigh, N.C.: University of North Carolina Sea
Grant, February 1978.

Clark, John. The Sanibel Report. The Conservation Foundation. Washington,
D.C., 1976.

Coastal Effects of offshore Energy Syst U.S. Congress, office of
Technology-Assessment. November 1976.

Curtis C. Harris Associates, Inc. Evaluation of Regional Economic and
Environmental Effects of Alternative Hig Systems, Washington,
D.C., 1974.

Desimond, Vincent R. and Agnes Zierenberg. "Transportation Strategies for
Parks and Recreation," Journal of the Urban Planning and DeveloDment
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, May 1978.

*This Bibliography is available in different form as Transportation Policy
phy, p 1&4 Vance Biblio-
and Coastal Zone-Management: A Selected Bibliogra _ 9
graphies, P.O. Box 2-29, Monticellov Illinois, January, 1979-
**Bibliography compiled October, 1978. The listing of State Coastal Manage-
ocuments submitted to NOAA prior to
ment Program Documents includes only D
ram Documents may be obtained
that da.te. An inclusive list of current CZM Prot@
om the office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Washington, D. C.

197

Dickert, Thomas J. "Transportation Analysis in the Coastal Zone; Subregional
Considerations for Local Coastal Plans," (CUIMR-Z-094) in University of
California Sea Grant College Program Annual Report 1975-1976. No. UC-IMR-
77-04. La Jolla, Calif.: University of California, institute of Marine
Resources.

Erail,.,Richard K. and James Hughes. Transoortation/Marine Ecosystem Analysis
Program. New York Sea Grant institute. KYSSGP-AM-77-005.

HA er, Philip et al. Transportatio -n and Land DevelRoment Policy TRB/TRR-
565. NT:rS No. PB 253 180. National. Research. Council, Transportation
Research Board. Washington, D.C., 1976.

Hershman' Marc- J:, Robert F. Goodwin, Andrew A. RuOtsala, Maureen McCrea
and Yehuda Haywith. Ports and Coastal Man@crement Coastal
Resource
Programp Institute Of Marine Studies, University of Washington. OCZM,
NOAA, USDOC, January 1978.

Langlois, E. "Port Authorities View State Coastal Management Programs,"
Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1975.

Lima, Peter M., Theodore H. Poister and Baradley T. Hargroves. "Transpor-
tation and Substate Regionalism,," Traffic 2Earterly Vol. 32, No. 1,
January 1978.

MacCutheon, Edward M. "Traffic and Transport.Needs at the Land-Sea Inter-
face.", In Coastal Zone Mahacement: Multiple Use With Conversation, J. R.
Peel Brahtz, ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1972.

Marcus, Henry, James, E. Short, John C. Kuypers, and Paulo 0. Roberts.
Federal Port Policy in the U.S. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1976.

Maryland, Department of Transportation. Baltimore Recrion Coastal Zone
Management Study: Transportation Element. By Joel B. Hirsh,
October 1977.

Moore, S. F. and S. P Schrader. Ecolocical Analysis of Hypothetical oil
Spills Occurring in the Near Shore Water of Long Island., New 'York.
-Institute of Environmental Sciences: 21st Annual Technical Meeting.
Vol. 1. Energy and the Environment. Institute of Environmental Sciences,
Mt. Prospect, Ill., 1975.

Moss, Mitchell L. "The Urban Port: a Hidden Resource for the City and the
Coastal Zone,* Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 2, No. .3, 1976.

New York, Urban Development Corporation. Wateredge Development Stu4y:
Hudson River Edoe Develooment Prooosal. May 1971.

Platt, Rutherford H. "Coastal Hazards and National Policy: a Jury-Rig
Approach.* American Institute of Planners.Journ Vol. 44, No. 2,
April 1978.
198

Port Development in the United States. Panel on Future Port Requirements of
the U.S. Maritime Transportation Research Board, Commission On Socio-
technical Systems. National Academy of sciences. National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1976.

Stone, James H. "An Evaluation of Louisiana Superport Studies and Implica-
tions for Coastal Zone Management," Coastal Zone Management Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 1, 1976.

Symonds, R.J. Equity and Efficiency in State Coastal Resource Management:
an Application to Urban Recreational Policy. Los Angeles: Center for
Public Affairs, University of Southern California, 1975.

U. S. Citizens Advisory Council on Environmental Quality. From Rails to
Trails. Government Printing office No. 040-000-00330-4. Washington
D.C., February 1975.

U. S. Comptroller General. Potential For Deepwater Port Development in the
U.S. CMD-78-9. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, April 5,
1978.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office Of Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Facility Guidelines.
Washington, D.C. August 1976.

U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Recreation: a Handbook for
Planners and Managers. By Robert B. Ditton and Mark Stephens, Washington,
D.C. January 1976.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Bicycles and Pedestrian Facilities in
Federal Aid Highway Programs. Washington, D.C., 1974.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Environmental Assessment Notebook Series.
DOT P5600.4. Washington, D.C., 1975.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Special Areas Analysis. Washington,D.C.,
April,1973.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National
Highway Institute. Ecolocical Impacts of Proposed Highway Improvements.
Washington, D.C., August 1975.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Deepwater Ports, Alantic Coast
Deepwater Ports Study, Washington,D.C., July 1978.

U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Policy. Hiqhway
Environment Reference Book. Washington, D.C., 1970.

199

Coastal Resources Management
Armstrong# John and Peter Ryner. Coastal Waters: a Management Analysis.
Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1978.

Coastal Zone Management: the Process of Program
Armstrong, John et al.
Develoument. Sandwich, Mass.: Coastal Zone Management Institute, 1974.

Baram, Michael S. Environmental Law and the Sitin of Facilities:
Issues in Land: Land Use and Coastal Zone Management. Cambridge,
Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976.

Beltrami, E. and T. 0. Carroll. A Land Use Planning Model For CZM.
Nassau/Suffolk Regional Board, Stony Brook, N.Y., August 1976

Braht-z, J. R. Peel, ed. Coastal Zone Kanagement: Multiple Use With
Conservation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1972.

Brower, David, Francis Parker and Dirk Frankenberg. Ecological Determinants
6f Coastal Area Management University of North Carolina Sea:Grant
Publication UNC-76--@05, 1976.

Clark, John. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Manacement
of the Coastal Zone. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.,
1974.

Cole, B. J. Plan.ninq for Shoreline amd water Uses. Kingston, R. I.:
University of Rhode Island Marine Advisory Service, 1974.

Ditton, Robert, John Seymour and Gerald C. Swanson. Coastal Resources.
Manaaement: Bevond Bureaucracv and the Market. Lexington, Mass.: L.C.
Beath and Co., 1977.

Ducsik, Dennis W. Shoreline for the Public. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1974.

Heikoff, Joseph M. Coastal Resources Management: Institutions and ProgrAnn.
Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1977.

Hite, James C. and James M. Stepp. Coastal Zone Resources Manacement.
Washington, D.C.: Praeger Publishersp 1971.

Johnson, Ralph W. and Richard J. Goldsmith. Coastal Zone Law and Policy
Seattle: University of Washing7ton Law School, 1977.

Hogulof, Melvin B. Saving the Coast-California's Ex=eriment in Intercovez.
mental Land Use Control. The Urban Institute. Lexington, Mass.:
Lexington Books, 1975.

200

Pedrick, John L.,, Jr. "Land Use Control in the Coastal Zone: The Delaware
Example," Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1,976.

Roberts, James S. and Cheryl Baxter. "Managing Coastal Conflicts: a
Paradigm of.State Land Use Planning,* Environmental c ent, October
1977.

Sabatier, Paul A. "Regulating Development Along the California Coast,"
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 31 (4), July 1976.

Schoop, E. Jack. "Coastal Zone Plan Implementation,". Journal of Urban
Planning and Development Division, American Society of Civil Enaineers.
May 1978.

Scott, Stanley. Governing California's Coast. Berkley: institute of
Governmental Studies., University of California, 1975.

Swanson, Gerald C. "Coastal Zone Managem nt From an Administrative
Perspective: a Case Study of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission." Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 2,
1975.

U-S.,;.Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationi
Office of Coastal Zone Management. 'Methods of Control of Land and Water
Uses in the Coastal Zone. NTIS PB 249799, by Anne Berger.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Who's Minding the Shore? a Citizen's
Guide to Coastal Zone Management. Prepared by Natural Resources Defense
Councilp Inc., Washington, D.C., August 1976.

Warren, Robert, Kitchell L. Moss, Robert L. Bish and Lyle E. Craine.
Designin!j Coastal Management Agencies: Problems in Allocatina Coastal
Resources. Los Angeles: University of Southern, California, 1972.

Federal CZM ProgEam and Intergovernmental Relations

Bosselman, Fred, Duane R. Feirrer and Charles L. Sieman. The Permit F-x-,)Ic>-
sion: Coordination of the Proliferation. Washington# D.C.: The Urban
Land Institute, 1976.

Brewer, William C., Jr. "The Concept of State and Local Relations Under the
CZMA." William and Mary Law Review,' Vol. 16, Summer 1975.

Brewer, William C., Jr. "Federal Consistency and State Expectations."
Coastal Zone Manacement Journal, Vol. 2, 1976.

Dolgin, Erica L. and Thomas G. P. Guilbert, eds. Federal Environmental Law.
Environmental Law Institute. St. Paul, Kinn.: West Publishing Co., 1974.

201

"Federal Power As a Limit Upon State Control of Marine Resources. 'Maine
Law Affecting Marine Resources, Vol. 4. Orono, Me.: University'of
Maine School of Law, 1969.

Gendler, Mickey. "Towards Better Use of Coastal Resources: Coordinated State
and Federal Planning Under the CZMA." The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 65,
April 19774

Hershman, Marc J. "Achieving Federal-State Coordination In Coastal Resources
Management." William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 16, S-6mmer'1975.

n
Hershman, Marc J. and James C. Folkenroth. Coastal Zone Management and
Intergovernmental Coordination." orea6n Law Review; Vol. 54 No. 1,.
1975.

Hershman, Marc J. and Dowell R. Fotenot. Local Regulation.of Pipeline
Sittings and the Doctrines of Federal Preemption and Supremacy."
Izuisiana Law Review? Vol. 36, Simmer 1976.

Knecht, R. W. Coastal Zone Management--A Federal Perspective." :Coastal
Zone Manaaement Journal,.Vol. 1, Fall 1973.

Mandelker, Daniel R. and Thea. A. Sherry. "The National CZM,Act of .1972."
Urban Law Annual. St. touls: Washington University School of 'Law, 1974.

Oregon, Executive Department, Intergovernmental Relations Division. Inter-
qovernmental Coordination: Perils and Potentials for,Coastal @States.
By Leslie Lehman and Clark Worth, 1977.

Schoenbaum, Thomas J. and Ronald H. Rosenbery. "Legal Implementation 'o f
C224: The North Carolina Model--Part II-C. Duke Law Journal. 'March 1976.

U.S. Advisory Council On Intergovernmental Relations. The Interoovernmental
Grant System as Seen by Local State. and Federal Officials. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office,, March 1977.

U:S. Advisory Council On Intergovernmental Relations. Substate Regionalism
and the Federal System, Vols. 1-6. Washington, D.C.:--- Government 'Printing
Office, 1973-1974.

U.S. Department of Co=erce, National oceanic and Atmospheric Admi-nistrationo
"Federal Consistency With Approved' Coastal Management Prog-ramn."
3,' No. 49,
Federal Register, Vol.'4 13 march 1978.

U.S. De
partment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"Federal Consistency With Approved Coastal Management Program
@Federal Register,

U.S. Department of Housing and orban Development, Office of Policy Develonment
and Research. 'State Planning: Intergovernmental Policy Coordination.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Augrust 1476.

202

U.S. General Accounting office. The Coastal Zone Management Proaram: an
Uncertain Future. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
December 1976.

Washington, Department of Ecology. Operational Guidelines for Federal
.July 1976.
ConsistencX.

Zile, Zigurds L. "Some Legal Issues in the Coastal Zone Management Act:
Grant-In-Aid Aspects--Parts I and II.R Coastal Zone Manaaement Journal,
Vol. 3, Nos. I and 2, 1976.

State CZK Programs and Pro-gram Docaments

Griffin, William L. "Legal Bases for State Coastal Zone Management."
,Marine, Technology Society Journal, Vol. 6, March-ADril 1972.
Ponders Hal. Survey of State Coastal Management Laws. CRC Publication No. 4,
Baltimore: Chespeake Research Consortium, 1974.
Mitchell, James K. "Onshore Impacts of Scottish Offshore Oil: Planning
Implications for the.Middle Atlantic States." American Institute of
Planners Journal, Vol. 42, No'. 4. October 1976

Sabatier, Paul A. "State Review of Local Land-Use Decisions: The
California Coastal Commissions,' coastal Zone Manacement Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 3, 1977.

Siuta, R. A. , "Comorehensive Land Use Planning--Its Development and,
Potential Impact on Coastal Zone Management,* Maritime Affairs Journall
December 1973.

State Laws and-Regulations: A Guide to Environmental Legislation in the
Fift States and the District of Columbia. Environmental Information
Center, New York, N.Y., 1976.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"State Coastal Management Pr6grrams-Development and Approval."
Federal Reqister, Vol. 43, No. 41, 1 March 1978.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Threshold Papers Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Housing and urban Development. Federal Insurance Adminis-
tration. Statutory Land Use Control Enabling Authority in the Fifty.
States. HUD-PTA-179.. Washington, D.C., -1976.

Warren, Robert and P. Jensen. Assessing Local Governmental Cavacities,
Related to Onshore Impacts From Mid-Atlantic OCS DeveloDment. .. Discussion
Paper, Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs Annual Meeting.
March 1977.

203

State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Washincrton State Coastal Zone
Manacement Proaram. Olympia, Washington.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office -of Coastal Zone Management. California Coastal Management Program
and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washing-ton, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Hawaii Coastal Management Proaram
and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Washing-ton, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Nationel Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Maine's Coastal Manaaement Proaram
and 'Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Maryland Coastal Manacement Proaram
and Draft EnvIronmental Imnact Statement. Washington, D.C.

U.S. DeDartment of Commerce, National Oceanic and At- spheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Mas@;achusetts Coastal Zone Manaqement.
Prouram and Final Environmental ImDact Statement. Washing-ton, D.C..

U.S. Depar ent of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Office of Coastal Zone Manage nt. Michigan Coastal Management Program
and Final Environmental ImDact Statement. Washing-ton, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, NationaLl Oceanic and AtmosDheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. New Jersey Coastal Manaaement Procrram
and Draft Environmental Imnact Statement-Bay and Ocean Shore Seament.
i@ton, N.J.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. North Carolina Coastal Manacement
Proaram and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Washinc
yton . D. C.

U.S. DeDartment of CoTmnerce,, National Oceanic and Atmos-Dheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Orecon Coastal Manacement Proaram and
Final Enviroranental Imnact Statement. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Denax-tment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmosphe-ric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Puext-o Rico Coastal Manaqement
Proaram. and Final Environmental Imact Statement. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and A spheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Rhode Island Coastal Management
Proaram. and Final Environmental ImDact Sr-atement. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmosp
heric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Manacement. California Resources Agency, Bay
Conservation and Develo=ent Commission. San Prancisco B@X 21M.
Sacramento, Calif.

204

Bibliogr T)hies

Berenson, Laura and Julia Rogoff. Annotated Bibliography on Land Use in
Selected Areas. Princeton, N.J.: Center for Environmental Studies.
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and international Affairs, Princeton
University, June 1976.

"Coastal Zone Management," Part C of "Bibliography on marine Affairs l."
Ocean Management, Vol. 2, 1974.

D'Ambrosi, Joan. Coastal Land Use: a Selected Biblioaraphy. Council of
Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography. No. 685. Monticello,
Ill., 1974.

Florida, Department of Natural Resources. Coastal Coordinating Council.
"Coastal Zone Management: a Bibliography." Newsletter, May 1975.

Heikoff, Joseph M. Shorelines and Beaches in Coastal Manaaement: a
Bibliography. Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography.
No. 876. Monticello, Ill., 197.5.

Jenks, B., J. Breadon and J. Sorenson. Coastal Zone Bibliography:
Citations to Documents on Planning Resource Management and Impact
Assessment. University of California Institute of Marine. Resources.
IMR Ref. 76-8, June 1976.

Passero, B. and M. J. Seale. Coastal Zone Manacement: Focus on New
Enqland: an Annotated Selected Bibliography. Massachusetts
Institute of. Technology, Sea Grant Project office Report,'
February 15, 1976.. MITSG-75-21.

Sea Grant Publications Index 1977. University of Rhode Island. National
Sea Grant Depository, January 1978.

U.S. Deoartment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Environmental Data Service. Packaged Literature Search 77-4: The.
Coastal Zone. 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C., 1977

U. S. DerIartment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
office of Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Zone Information Center
Bibliography on Land Use. Washington, D.C., July-Dedember, 1977.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Zone Information Center
Bibliography on Planning and Management. Washington, D.C.,
July-December,,1976.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
office of Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Zone Iniormation Center
Bibliography on Ports. Washington, D.C., 1976.

.U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric.Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. 'Coastal Zone Management Annotated
Bibliography ' Washington, D.C., 1977.

U.S. Department of Transportation. "Annotated Bibliography. Environmental
Assessment Reference Book: Notebook No. 6. DOT P 5600.4. Washington,
D.C., 1975.
-2-05 6US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 625-879/2027 1-3

REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK TO
The DOT Program Of University Research
DOT/RSPA/DPB-50/80/15 "Federal Transportation Policy and the Coastal
Zone Management Program" DOT-OS-700639
Old Dominion University, April 1980
YES NO
El El Did you find the report useful for your particular needs?
If so, how?
F-1 El Did you find the research to be of high quality?
C3 El Were the results of the research communicated effectively
by this report?
1:1 El Do you think this report will be valuable to workers in the
field of transportation represented by the subject area of
the research?

Are there one or more areas of the report which need
strengthening? Which areas?
El E3 Would you be interested in receiving further reports in this
area of research? If so, fill out form on other side.

Please furnish in the space below any comments you may have concerning the
report. We are particularly interested in further elaboration of the above
questions.
0

COMMENTS

Thank you for your cooperation. No postage necessary if mailed in the U.S.A.
FOLD ON TWO LINES, STAPLE AND, MAIL.

RESEARCH, -FEEDBACK

Your comments, please.
'This booklet wa&published by the DOT Program of University Research and
is intended- to serve as a reference source for transportation analyst
s, planners,
and operators. Your comments on the other side of this form will be reviewed
by the persons responsible for writing and publishing this material. Feedback
is extremely important in improving the'quality of research results, the transfer
of researchi nf ormat ion, and the communication link between the researcher
and the user.

FOLD ON TWO LINES, STAPLE AND MAIL.

Fold Fold
...............................................................................................................................

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESEARC14 AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION POSTAGE AND FZER PAID
WASHINGTON D.C. 20590 DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Official Busineag DOT 513 tLLMAIL

PENALTY FOR, PRIVATE USE, SM

OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH (DPB-50)
Research and Special Programs Administration
U.S. Department d1ransportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D,,C 1. 20590

.......................... ..................................
Fold REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM Tl@i'U* *N*I'V'E*RSITY'RESE'ARCH*PROGR*AM Fold
DCheck here if you would like to be placed on the mail list for the
University Research Program Solicitation Booklet (DT-63C)
IF YOU WISH TO BE ADDED TO THE MAIL LIST FOR FUTURE
REPORTS, PLEASEFILL OUT THIS FORM.

Name Title
Use Block Letters or Type

Department/Off ice/Room

Organization

Street.Address

City State Zip

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
WASHINGTON, D.C.,20590 RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
OFFICIAL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 DOT 513

DATE-DUE

dw
ofl

.2333 IPRINTEDINU.S.A

'.k

3 6668 14106 8991
ILLMAIL