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








                                                                                                                  CRC MULICATION NO. 1001




                                                        CASE STUDIES ()lF
                                   -fl7j,k,STAL MANAkilp-4
                                                                                                                                     CIE
                                                                                 from the United States



                                                                   -w        -
                                                                                            twAl
















        LLJ


        LLJ
                                                                                                                                                                                                               7A,

        V)
        uj
        L.)
        cr_
        =3
        c:)
        V)                                                                             lw
        LLJ
                                                                                                 or
                                                                          ow
        -j




        CD
        V)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                It

        C)
                                                                                                     -:4

                                                                                                                                                                                                              7e,

        V)                HT                                                                                                                                                                  jil
        Lu                 392
                            C37
                           1991                MEN

        V)
                                             Cj=M Rmuw Centw,, The Ufdvm* of RWe Mand
        C)


















































              Sponsored By:

              National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

              Office of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau for Research and Development,
              U.S. Agency for International Development

              Coastal Resources Center, The University of Rhode Island








                         CASE STUDIES OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT@/

                           EXPERIENCE FROM THE UNITED STATES














                                  Editor and Coordinator: Brian Needham



                           Project Directors: Stephen Olsen and Lynne Zeitlin Hale




                                                   1991






                                          Coastal Resources Center



                                       The University of Rhode Island




                                                                                                                                           I























































                 The individual case studies included in this report represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
                 the views of the sponsoring agencies.









                                                 LIST OF CONTENTS


               Acknowledgements                                                                               ii


               Preface


               PART I: INTRODUCTION


               Coastal Management in the US: The Context for the Case Studies

               The Case Studies                                                                               4


               PART 11: THE CASE STUDIES                                                                      7

               Approaches to Program Design and Implementation

               The Alaska Coastal Management Program: Involving local people in coastal                       9
               resource planning and decision making.                          Author: Jan Caulfield

               The Coastal Management Program in North Carolina: Establishing a process                      23
               for managing development in hazard areas and preparing coastal land use plans.
                                                                               Author: David Owens


               Strong State Coastal Regulations: Threats, incentives, loopholes and the design               35
               of the New Jersey Coastal Program, 1970-1991.                   Author: David Kinsey

               American Samoa's Coastal Program: Land and water resource management within                   47
               a traditional leadership and communal land tenure system.       Author: Lelei Peau

               A Management Plan for a Coastal Ecosystem: Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region.                   57
                                                               Authors: Stephen Olsen & Virginia Lee


               Management Strategies for Environmentally Sensitive Sites

               Efforts to balance marine-based tourism with protection of coral reefs and sea                71
               grass beds in a Caribbean Park.                                 Author: Caroline Rogers

               A perspective on planning in the Florida Keys: Habitat-based land use planning.               83
                                                                               Author: George Garrett

               Development in Hawaii: Management of a major resort development (Kaanapali).                  97
                                                                               Author: Philip Ohta

               Private development of Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands, S. Carolina.                        107
                                     Authors: Melvin Goodwin, Margaret Davidson & Shirley Connor



                                                            i





















              ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


              Thanks are due to all the authors for their hard work and dedication in the timely production of case
              studies despite their normal busy schedules.

              Also acknowledged are the contributions of Virginia Tippie, former Assistant Administrator of the
              National Ocean Service, NOAA, and Nora Berwick, Coastal Resources Management Project
              Officer, Agency for International Development. Their efforts and enthusiasm to get the project
              underway are much appreciated.

              For the preparation of these case studies an Advisory Committee was established consisting of
              representatives from NOAA and the Staff of the Coastal Resources Center:
                      Marcella Jansen, NOAA
                      Katie Ries, NOAA
                      Stephen Olsen, CRC
                      Lynne Hale, CRC
                      Virginia Lee, CRC
                      Donald Robadue, CRC
                      Brian Crawford, CRC


              Thanks are due to the committee for their contribution to this project. They helped set the guidelines
              and select the case studies, participated in the Working Meeting with the authors, and assisted in the
              review of draft texts.


              Thanks are also due to members of the Administrative Staff of the Coastal Resources Center, in
              particular Jean Krul for her overall administrative assistance, Annette Burgess for her painstaking
              word processing, and to Carol Hunter, Cindy Moreau and Jeanne Nava for their outstanding
              organization of the two day Working Meeting of the authors and Committee.

              Acknowledgement is also due to Wendy Andrews for her cover design and Betsy Watkins for her
              contribution to the production of graphics.










                                                            PREFACE




               Coastal regions are home to three-quarters of the world's population. They support many of the
               world's most productive and biologically diverse ecosystems, produce most of the world's fish catch,
               and support significant portions of the world's agriculture, industry and tourism. The number and
               variety of demands placed on coastal resources create a complex and urgent need for integrated rather
               than sectorial resource management strategies.

               Successful coastal management is issue driven and is achieved by resolving existing problems with
               a combination of science, policy, law making and administration. How programs evolve is highly
               dependent upon the social, political, cultural and economic circumstances in th@ country concerned,
               and thus each program is unique. However, the experience gained from the past successes and failures
               of others can be of great use to current practitioners.

               Experience in coastal management in the United States now spans 20 years. There are many examples
               of both successes and failure in addressing coastal problems. It is our belief that there is much to be
               learned from this experience.

               In an effort to make some of the US coastal management experience more accessible to others,
               National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); the lead national agency for US coastal
               management, teamed up with the Agency for International Development (A.I.D.); the agency
               primarily responsible for US foreign assistance, and the University of Rhode Island (URI) Coastal
               Resources Center (CRQ; an organization dedicated to the formulation of effective management
               strategies for coastal environments, worked together to prepare a set of case studies on two aspects
               of the US experience in Coastal Management. The two topics illustrated by the case studies are:
               approaches to program design and implementation, and management strategies for environmentally
               sensitive sites.


               The purpose of this initial set of case studies is to test the hypothesis that a series of case studies
               focusing on selected topics of interest to coastal managers will be instructive, and give practitioners
               in other locations useful ideas about how they might address similar situations. The selection of case
               studies included in this volume was made by a Working Committee comprised of NOAA and CRC
               Coastal Management professionals. Initial draft case studies were presented and discussed at a lively
               authors' workshop, held at the University of Rhode Island in May of 1991. At this session, lessons
               were drawn from the cases and their commonalities and differences discussed.


               We invite comments back from you our readers and hope these Case Studies prove useful to those
               tackling similar problems elsewhere in the world.



               John Carey, Acting Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, NOAA
               Richard Bissel, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Research and Development, A.I.D.,
                       Washington, D.C.
               Stephen Olsen, Director, Coastal Resources Center, URI



                                                             iii









                                                PART 1: INTRODUCTION



                COASTAL MANAGEMENT INTHE UNITED STATES: THE CONTEXT FOR THE CASE
                STUDIES


                Essential to understanding any experience is some knowledge of the physical, socio-economic and
                political context in which the events described have occurred. Important facts about the United
                States (US) and its coastal areas that shaped how coastal management evolved in this country include
                the following:

                1. The US is a wealthy country with a per capita GNP of almost $17,000. It also has tile highest per
                capita consumption of natural resources in the world.

                2. The US coastline extends more than 95,000 miles and encompasses a diversity of habitats ranging
                from subtropical coral reefs to frozen reaches of the Arctic.

                3. Seventy-five percent of the US population lives within 50 miles of the shore. For people in the
                US, the coast is a place to live, work and recreate. The US coastal population continues to increase
                and place ever growing stresses on coastal ecosystems.

                4. The economic interests found in US coastal regions such as ports, energy production facilities
                and other industrial and commercial activities, exert great environmental, social and political
                pressures. The intensity, variety and diversity of interests results in occasional severe conflicts.

                5. There are diverse and separate political jurisdictions and a wide variety of governance arrange-
                ments for managing and allocating coastal resources.

                6. The US has a "federalist" political system. This means that individual states have considerable
                independence and authority in managing their natural resources. In some states, particularly those
                on the Atlantic Coast, municipal governments also have considerable authority and have tradition-
                ally had primary jurisdiction over land use decisions.

                7. There would, be strong political opposition to any large scale, centralized national effort to
                regulate development in the United States' coastal areas. A decentralized approach to coastal
                management was therefore adopted to provide a balance among national, state and local interests.

                "Coastal management," began as a distinct endeavor in the US with the passage of the Coastal Zone
                Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The CZMA was one of a number of environmental legislative
                initiatives, which also included the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the
                Fisheries Management and Conservation Act, that were passed by the US Congress in the early 1970s
                to protect and better manage the nation's environment and natural resources.

                The CZMA was prompted by the recognition that environmental quality along many coastlines of
                the United States has been degraded; critical habitats, especially wetlands, have been lost at alarming
                rates; fisheries are declining; development of coastal areas is accelerating; and use conflicts are


                                                                     1







              increasing. The CZMA did not, however, attempt to resolve all these issues. The legislation is an
              attempt to bring order to the development process along the nation's shoreline, to avoid of minimize
              use conflicts, and to reduce losses in coastal environmental quality.

              The CZMA sets forth four national coastal management policies:

                  To preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the
              coastal zone of the United States.


                  To encourage and assist the states to develop and implement coastal management programs that
              meet specified national standards.

              0   To encourage the preparation of "special area management plans" to protect significant natural
              resources, to ensure "reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth" and to provide "improved
              protection of life and property in hazardous areas and improved predictability in government
              decision making."

              0   To encourage the participation and cooperation of public, state and local governments, interstate
              and other regional agencies, and federal agencies in achieving the purposes of the CZMA.

              To encourage states to participate in this voluntary program, the federal government offered both
              financial and policy incentives. Planning grants were given to states for up to three years to design
              Coastal Management Programs which help achieve the national policy objectives. Plans which met
              with federal approval were given additional funding for implementation. The policy incentive,
              "federal consistency" with approved state plans, was of equal or even greater importance than the
              grant funds in encouraging state participation in the National Coastal Management Program. Federal
              consistency means that the federal government is required to conduct their activities within a state's
              coastal zone in a manner consistent with the approved state program. This provision gives coastal
              states substantially more control over important national decisions such as offshore oil and gas
              development and licensing of power plants than they would have without an approved coastal
              management plan.

              In order to gain national approval for their coastal management plans, states had to meet a number
              of procedural and substantive requirements set by the national government. State coastal plans were
              required to define the inland boundary of the coastal zone and to demonstrate they had the authorities
              necessary to implement the policies included in the plan. The states were required to have an open
              and participatory planning process, identify key interest groups, and actively seek their participation.
              States also had to work with national government agencies to define and provide for the "national
              interest" in their coastal zone. Substantively, states were required to give "adequate consideration"
              and formulate policies for such priority issues as:

                   protection of natural resources;

                   management of coastal development to minimize loss of life and property in hazardous areas;

                   siting major industrial, commercial and energy facilities in the coastal zone; and

                   public access to the shore.
                                                                2








             As of 1991, 29 out of 35 eligible states participate in the National Coastal Management Program.

             Because of consistent national requirements, the state coastal management programs that have
             emerged over the past 20 years share many common features. All have a designated coastal zone,
             permit systems for selected coastal developments, policies on shorefront development and all limit
             or prohibit the filling of coastal wetlands. The variation in how states have tailored these program
             components to the unique environmental and socio-political context of their state is both interesting
             and instructive. For example, state coastal zone inland boundaries vary from only one hundred feet
             landward of mean high water in sections of urban New Jersey to several hundred miles inland in rural
             Alaska. In North Carolina, managing coastal development in high hazard areas was the program's
             initial focus; in New Jersey, stopping the filling of wetlands was the priority issue. The diversity
             in each State's specific policy objectives and how these objectives were met reflects the diversity of
             environments, local governance arrangements and values found in the different coastal states.

             The CZMA is administered at the national level by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
             Administration's (NOAA) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), which is
             part of the Department of Commerce. NOAA makes grants to states of federal funds and conducts
             biennial evaluations of state program performance. Congress has strengthened and expanded the US
             CZM program with amendments to the CZMA in 1980 and 1985. The Act was reauthorized and
             further strengthened in 1990.

             When examining coastal management in the US, the following four points should be bome in mind:

             1. The CZMA attempts to achieve national policy objectives for coastal management through
             a voluntary partnership between federal and state levels of government.

             Because of both the physical and political diversity of the United States, the CZMA recognizes that
             if coastal management is to be effective, determining how national policy objectives are to be
             achieved must be left to each state. No new national regulatory agency is setup by the CZMA. On-
             the-ground coastal management, both planning and implementation, is carried out by each state and
             in some cases by local governments. The national role in coastal management is to set policy and
             determine standards that state programs must meet. The national government approves state plans
             and periodically evaluates state program performance against CZMA criteria. In approving state
             programs, the federal government ensures that the "national interest" in a state's coastal zone is
             adequately considered. Upon approval, the federal government is obligated to conduct its activities
             in a manner consistent with the coastal management program of the appropriate state.

             2. The CZMA attempts to balance competing interests in coastal areas.

             Because the CZMA has both protection and development clauses, coastal management programs
             must balance and accommodate competing interests such as protecting critical resources while
             ensuring "reasonable" economic development and growth. This means that coastal management in
             the US is about choices and the allocation of limited resources. Therefore, coastal programs must
             and do consider societal values as well as technical and scientific information in their planning and
             decision-making processes.




                                                                3







                3. Coastal management programs have been shaped by extensive public participation.

                The CZMA was, at the time of passage, unusually specific in its requirements for public participation
                in the coastal management process. The professional planners, lawyers, and scientists involved in
                coastal programs have grown to recognize the significance of this provision. The public participation
                requirements have often driven the planning process and set the stage for the bargaining and
                accommodation among competing uses that characterizes coastal zone management programs in the
                United States.


                4. Coastal management in the US is essentially an attempt to bring order to the development
                process and avoid unnecessary conflicts and losses in environmental quality.

                As a result of the CZMA and complimentary state and local initiatives, the pace of degradation of
                the the US coastal region appears to have slowed. There have also been some noteworthy cases of
                restoration of key areas and of conflict resolution. The CZMA and the resulting state programs have
                not, however, dealt directly with such key resource degradation issues as loss of coastal fisheries or
                declining water quality, nor have state coastal programs attempted to define sustainable levels of use
                within coastal regions.



                THE CASE STUDIES


                Approaches to Program Design and Implementation

                A basic question for any new or evolving coastal management program is what its basic design
                strategy will be. Programs must answer questions such as:

                ï¿½ What are the problems that need solving in the coastal region?

                ï¿½  Will the coastal program attempt to be comprehensive or will it focus on a few issues or a limited
                   geographic area?

                ï¿½  How will the planning process proceed?

                ï¿½  Who will make key decisions?

                ï¿½  What role will resource users have in planning and implementation?

                ï¿½  Will the program be primarily regulatory or will non-regulatory management techniques such as
                   incentives, public education, land acquisition, and improved coordination play key roles?

                Five case studies were selected to illustrate a variety of coastal management program design choices
                made in response to the US Coastal Zone Management Act. This topic was chosen as one that is
                particularly relevant to developing countries that are now attempting to design coastal management
                programs.





                                                                4







              Many countries have strongly centralized govemance systems and thus focus on national level coastal
              planning and implementation and lack experience in the delegation of responsibilities to local levels
              of govemment. The US coastal management experience included in the five selected case studies
              show different approaches to balancing planning and management responsibility among federal, state
              and local levels of govemment to achieve national policy objectives.

              For example, in Alaska, when CZM was introduced, the state was in a period of rapid development.
              There was no local govemment in many rural areas, and no local voice in shaping how development
              would occur. Here the coastal program became committed to local self-determination and created
              local planning boards to formulate regional coastal management plans. These framework plans
              embraced local values and were designed to shape how development would proceed. In contrast, in
              New Jersey local municipalities have traditionally made all land use decisions. Such decisions had
              larger than local consequences, and alarming resource degradation was occurring along the coast.
              New Jersey's coastal program therefore provided the state with a major role in how development may
              or may not proceed in critical coastal habitats. This' was achieved by introducing state permits for
              development in designated, narrowly-defined coastal areas. The North Carolina program has worked
              to balance state and local responsibilities. This program encourages local planning, but gives the state
              a major role in protecting critical coastal habitats and controlling specified forms of development.

              The five program design case studies also illustrate differences in the focus of state coastal programs.
              None are comprehensive: all have made decisions about which issues to address in specific
              geograph  ic locations. For example, in Rhode Island, an entire ecosystem is the focus for a special area
              management plan; in Alaska maintaining the fish and wildlife which support the subsistence lifestyle
              of rural Alaskans is central; and in North Carolina, controlling development in high hazard areas has
              been made a priority.

              There is also diversity in how policy objectives are achieved. In America Samoa and New Jersey,
              coastal development permits are a central feature of these coastal programs. In the America Samoa
              case, the special challenge of attempting to institute such a permit system within a traditional culture
              is particularly interesting. In Rhode Island, North Carolina and Alaska, non-regulatory management
              measures such as education and increased coordination among levels and units of govemment play
              a larger role.

              Finally, the practice of coastal management has demonstrated time and again that coastal programs
              cannot only address technical issues but must consider a society's values. For this reason, in three of
              the cases-Alaska, Rhode Island, and North Carolina-states chose to create Councils composed
              largely of citizens or representatives of local government, not technical experts, to make the
              Program's policy decisions.

              Management Strategies for Environmentally Sensitive Sites

              Managing development by directing it away from sensitive areas, minimizing environmental impacts
              and reducing conflicts among different uses has been a major feature of coastal management in the
              US. The four cases included in this section illustrate a variety of techniques that have been used to
              promote environmentally sound development. The cases all focus on tourism-related development.
              The tourism industry is experiencing explosive growth in many developing countries and depends in
              large part upon high quality habitats, good water quality and the protection of scenic and cultural


                                                                 5








                 resources. Few locations, however, have been successful in managing tourism development so as
                 to maintain these amenities.


                 In all the cases included in this volume, state coastal management has been only one of several
                 programs used to manage development. Regulation through permit programs, prohibited and
                 limited use areas, and zoning has been the primary management tool. In Hawaii, South Carolina and
                 the Virgin Islands, authors report that stringent regulations have been most effective and accepted
                 by the public when they have been applied to limited geographic areas that are recognized as critical.
                 or fragile. In Florida, comprehensive land use planning based on habitat protection  .is an innovative
                 management technique.

                 Despite the need to rely on regulation, all authors also emphasize the importance of building a
                 constituency and achieving adequate consensus that stringent regulation is required and ultimately
                 benefits all parties. All the authors in this group also underscore the importance of government
                 decisions in providing or withholding infrastructure as a key means for controlling demands to
                 intensify development. In the Florida Keys, for example, the author concludes that infrastructure.
                 decisions will ultimately limit development more effectively than plans and regulations.



                                                                         By: Stephen Olsen and Lynne Zeitlin Hale
                                                                                            Coastal Resources Center
                                                                                          University of Rhode Island





























                                                                 6
















                                     PART 11: THE CASE STUDIES








              Alaska









                                                                                Rhode Island

                                                                             New Jersey


                                                                             North Carolina

                                                                          South Carolina

                            Maui
                             91                                            Florida
                           Hawaii                                         (Keys)

                                                                          U.S. Virgin Islands


              American Samoa



                         U.S. STATES AND TERRITORIES SELECTED FOR CASE STUDIES
















                                                    7



















































































                                                             8






              The Alaska Coastal Management Program

              Involving Local People in Coastal Resources Management Decisions

              Jan Cauffield

                  Alaska is a unique state; it is the largest but most sparsely populated state in the United
                  States. It has a coastline of 33,000 miles, which is highly valued by Alaskans as having
                  cultural, economic, recreational and spiritual significance. The maj             ority of the total
                  population of 550,000 live on or near the coastline, including many in remote, small villages.
                  The populations of Alaska's coastal villages consist largely of Native Alaskans who have
                  inhabited these areas for tens of thousands of years, and rely on the natural resources of the
                  coastal area for their primary source of food and income. Major changes are occurring to
                  these resources as a result of oil and gas development, development of wetlands and
                  waterfront areas, and increasing recreational uses by non-residents.

                  In formulating a Coastal Management Program, Alaska has been successful in involving
                  coastal residents in decisions about the use, development and protection of coastal
                  resources. Local governmental units, created through the coastal program, are responsible
                  for preparing management plans for the coastal areas in which they live-setting their own
                  priorities and working with the state and federal governments to implement the plans.
                  Local residents and government units have learned to effectively participate in a planning
                  and decision-making process that balances their interests with those of the state and
                  national government, private industry and special interest groups.

                  This case study focuses on one of Alaska's 32 coastal districts, the Bristol Bay Coastal
                  Resource Service Area (CRSA). The case reviews how the Bristol Bay CRSA utilized the
                  coastal management planning process to influence how development will proceed in their
                  region. The Bristol Bay CRSA designed its plan to protect fish and wildlife habitat from
                  incompatible resource development, to maintain the subsistence way of life in the region,
                  and to resolve conflicts over use of a popular recreation area by local residents and new
                  tourism businesses. Through planning and cooperation with the state and federal
                  governments in plan implementation, the Bristol Bay CRSA has achieved many of its goals.


              INTRODUCTION                                            resource decisions. It focuses on the Bristol Bay
                                                                      Coastal Resource Service Area, one of Alaska's 32
              Through examination of the Alaska Coastal Man-          local coastal districts, and looks at the district's
              agement Program, this case study explores the           success in addressing local concerns by the follow-
              opportunities for coastal residents, communities        ing means:
              and regions to participate in decisions about the
              use, development and protection of coastal re-              the development of a coastal management plan
              sources. The study describes the features of Alaska's   for the region
              coastal program that involve local people in coastal    -   preparation of a specific management plan for
                                                                      a heavily used recreational fishing and hunting
              Jan Cau4fteld was aformer Coastal Program Coordinatorfor area
              Alaska and now works in the Department of Environmental
              Conservation.


                                                                   9







                cooperation with state and federal governments       The Alaska Coastal Management Act was enacted
            in implementation of the plans.                          in 1977 by the state Legislature to ensure that as
                                                                     Alaska's coast is used and developed, its resources
            Finally, the study looks at Alaska's success in          and values are conserved and protected.
            achieving strong local involvement in coastal deci-
            sions, and discusses some remaining challenges.          This case study focuses on one of the three primary
                                                                     goals of Alaska's coastal program: involving local
            Alaska's oceans and coastal areas are vital places,      people in decisions about the use and protection of
            rich in natural resources that provide food andjobs      coastal resources. The Alaska Coastal Manage-
            for local residents, they create economic opportu-       ment Act recognizes that Alaskans want to have the
            nities for private industry, generate revenue for        maximum control over decisions affecting the
            government, and supply energy and mineral re-            coastal areas in which they live, and is structured to
            sources that benefit the nation. The coasts are of       involve local people in these decisions.
            cultural, recreational and spiritual value to Alas-
            kans, including indigenous Native Alaskans who
            have inhabited and depended upon coastal areas           BACKGROUND
            for tens of thousands of years. Alaska's coastal
            waters, wetlands, and watersheds also nurture some       Local involvement in coastal management can be
            of the most productive fishing stocks in the world,      most successful if local people are active in all
            and provide habitat for thriving populations of          aspects of the program: stating their goals and
            marine mammals, waterfowl, caribou, and other            concerns at public meetings, writing plans, and
            animals. Daily decisions made by the state and           putting their plans into action by working with
            federal governments regarding coastal develop-           others to make decisions about development
            ment projects determine the fate of Alaska's 33,000-     projects and to resolve conflicts. The Legislature
            mile coastline. Questions regarding coastal devel-       designedthe following structure forAlaska's coastal
            opment in Alaska touch on all aspects of resource        program to ensure that this occurs.
            use, environmental protection and public concern.
            For example:                                             Local Representation on Statewide Council
                                                                     The Legislature established a 16-member Coastal
                Where should offshore oil and gas exploration        Policy Council to oversee the state program. Nine
            and development occur, and what should be done           of the Council members are locally-elected offi-
            to protect marine mammals and valuable fisheries         cials such as city mayors, appointed by the Gover-
            from oil spills, noise disturbance, and other im-        nor to represent each of the state's nine coastal
            pacts?                                                   regions. Working with the seven state government
                                                                     representatives on the Council, the local represen-
                Which wetland and waterfront areas in Alaska's       tatives ensure that local concerns and issues are
            villages and cities should be developed for com-         expressed, discussed and acted upon by the top
            munity growth, and which protected from develop-         policy-making body in the program.
            ment?
                                                                     Coastal Districts Plan for Local Areas
                How can conflicts be resolved between coastal        Alaska's program is designed to allow local coastal
            residents who have traditionally used fish and           areas, called "coastal resource districts," to write
            wildlife for subsistence, and non-residents whose        plans that will guide coastal activities and develop-
            use of coastal areas for recreational fishing and        ment. Although the Coastal Policy Council de-
            hunting is increasing?                                   fined an initial coastal zone boundary for the state
                                                                     and adopted general coastal development stan-
                                                                     dards, these were interim rules. They were in-

                                                                   10












                     PROFILE


                     Mandate for the Alaska Coastal Program
                     The three primary goals of the Alaska Coastal Management Act are:

                     ï¿½  To balance natural resource protection and resource development throughout
                        Alaska's coastal zone
                     ï¿½  To involve Alaskans in decisions about the use and protection of their coastal resources
                     ï¿½  To simplify the state permitting process for coastal development projects, and reduce
                        the time it takes to obtain state government approval for a project

                     Geographic Scope
                     The Alaska Coastal Management Program covers the 33,000 mile coastline of the State of
                     Alaska. The state's "coastal zone" extends seaward three miles offshore. The inland boundary
                     of the coastal zone varies throughout the state, is set by the local planning entity, and extends
                     inland to the extent necessary to manage development projects that are likely to impact Alaska's
                     coastal resources. In some cases, the inland boundary extends more than 200 miles inland, along
                     the courses of anadromous fish streams.


                     Program Structure
                     A 16 member Coastal Policy Council, consisting of local government representatives and state
                     officials with representation from Alaska's nine coastal regions, oversees the Coastal Manage-
                     ment Program. Thirty-two local coastal areas known as Coastal Resource Districts have
                     responsibility to write and implement local plans, which must be approved by both the state
                     Coastal Policy Council and the federal government. In four large rural coastal regions, in which
                     no local level of government exists, Coastal Resource Service Areas have been created to
                     involve local residents in coastal planning.

                     Approved local coastal management plans are implemented primarily through a "consistency
                     review" process at the state level which ensures that government-sponsored and private coastal
                     development projects that require state or federal permits, are in compliance with the policies
                     of approved local coastal management plans.



                tended to be replaced by more specific plans writ-        Fourof Alaska's coastal districts arecalled "Coastal
                ten at the local level.                                   Resource Service Areas" (CRSAs). CRSAs are
                                                                          organized in large rural coastal regions of Alaska
                In Alaska, 32 coastal resource districts have been        that are not represented by an organized local
                formed to prepare and implement coastal manage-           governmentl. These areas have no local govern-
                ment plans (Figure 1). Twenty-eight of the coastal        ment authorities that would allow them to regulate
                districts are cities and boroughs (regional govern-       coastal development projects. The state Legisla-
                ments, called "counties" in most other states),           ture created CRSAs to allow local residents in
                which are organized local governments with land           these areas to influence where and how coastal
                use powers, such as zoning and local permitting.          development projects occur, through participation

                                                                       11







                                CHUKCHISEA                         BEAUFORT SEA
                                                                                   ACTIVE COASTAL DISTRICTS
                                                                                               UNDER THE
                                                                                          ALASKA COASTAL
                                                                                      MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

                                        OME                                           0 CITIES
                                                                                          BOROUGH. MUNICIPALITY,
                                                                                          AND CRSA BOUNDARY




             BERING SEA
                                                                     ANCHORAG                         JUNEAU
                             BRISTOL BAY                                   GULF F
                                  CRSA                                      ALA A


                                                  BRISTOL     BAY
                                                  BOROUGH - --
                                                                    ALEUTIANS WEST CRSA,,,,p
                          0    MILES 300



            Figure I. Alaska's Coastal Districts




            in state and federal government permitting deci-        Local Participation in Plan Implementation
            sions.                                                  Approved coastal district plans are implemented in
                                                                    a variety of ways. However, the primary way in
            Coastal resource districts write local management       which plans are implemented is through the "con-
            plans that:                                             sistency review process" established in state and
                inventory resources in the region                   federal coastal management law2. Under the con-
                consider issues of concern to local residents       sistency review process, all government- sponsored
                define an appropriate coastal zone boundary         and private development projects that may impact
                adopt policies to guide coastal development         the coastal zone must be reviewed to make certain
            decisions                                               they comply with Alaska's coastal program before
                describe how the plan will be implemented.          they receive state and federal permits or approvals
            Coastal districts may also write more specific man-     to proceed. Projects are approved only if they are
            agement plans for areas with unique coastal values,     consistent with the policies of local coastal man-
            or where there are particular conflicts over the use    agement plans.
            of the area. Local coastal management plans must
            be approved by the state Coastal Policy Council         Coastal districts have a strong role in this review
            and the federal government. Once approved, the          process. The state agencies coordinating the re-
            local plans have the force and effect of state and      views consider the coastal districts to be experts in
            federal law.                                            applying the policies of their local management
                                                                  12








               plans. If conflicts arise during project reviews,         The degree to which local concerns are met also
               coastal districts, government agencies and the            depends on the willingness of the state and federal
               project applicant meet to discuss ways to resolve         governments to work in good faith with local
               the concerns. Ultimately, if a coastal district dis-      people to help them achieve their goals. The state
               agrees with the results of a project review, it can       and federal governments have a responsibility to
               appeal the decision to higher levels in state govern-     help reconcile diverse interests fairly, by involving
               ment, the Governor, and the Coastal Policy Coun-          local people and other affected interests in discus-
               cil.                                                      sions and negotiations to resolve disputes. Achiev-
                                                                         ing the correct "balance of power" between local
               Public Participation                                      interests and those of the state and federal govern-
               To ensure that local management plans are sup-            ments, and ensuring that private industry and other
               ported by residents and respond to local concerns,        interest groups are also treated fairly, is a challenge
               Alaska's coastal districts closely involve the public     both during the development and implementation
               during plan development and implementation.               of each local coastal management plan.
               Coastal districts talk with local communities, Na-
               tive Corporations3, private industry, and otherpub-       The opportunities for local people to address their
               lic interest groups. Districts use workshops, for-        concerns through Alaska's coastal program, as
               mal public hearings, questionnaires, newspaper            well as the challenges involved in resolving con-
               and radio stories, and brochures or newsletters to        flicts between local desires and other points of
               educate the public and ask for public input.              view, can be seen in the following case study.

               Coastal District Funding                                  CASE STUDY: The Bristol Bay Coastal
               Finally, adequate and stable funding is needed for        Resource Service Area
               coastal districts to actively participate in coastal
               management. State and federal funds are provided          The Bristol Bay CRSA is located in southwestern
               to Alaska's coastal districts to allow them to pay        Alaska, north of the Aleutian Chain, bordering the
               one or two staff, prepare management plans, par-          productive coastal waters of Bristol Bay. The
               ticipate in the project review process, track impor-      region includes 40,000 square miles of land, rang-
               tant coastal issues, and educate the public about the     ing from wet coastal lowlands to rugged volcanic
               plans. Over $1 million is distributed in grants to        mountain ranges, as well as the bay itself. Acces-
               Alaska's coastal districts each year.                     sible to the Test of Alaska only by air or water, the
                                                                         region includes 29 different communities, popu-
               Although Alaska's coastal program is structured to        lated by 7,000 people from four ethnic and linguis-
               favor local involvement, local views cannot solely        tic groups: Eskimo, Aleut, Athapaskan Indians and
               control decisions on where and how coastal devel-         Caucasians.
               opment will occur.       There are often legitimate
               conflicts between the goals of local residents, and       The state and federal governments own most of the
               the state and federal agencies obliged to manage          land in the region. The largest private landowners
               resources for the benefit of all members of the           are the village and regional Native Corporations.
               public, notjust those in the local vicinity. Conflict-    Only a very small proportion of the land is owned
               ing views on coastal management decisions may             by private individuals. At the time the CRSA was
               also be expressed by other affected parties, such as      formed, there was no organized local government
               private industry, Native Corporations, or environ-        representing the larger Bristol Bay area4.
               mental organizations. Local coastal districts have
               the responsibility to balance their goals with the        The Bristol Bay region is internationally recog-
               views and needs of these other parties.                   nized for its abundant fish and wildlife resources.
                                                                         Commercial fishing is theregion's economic main-

                                                                       13








              stay, providing 45% of alljobs in the cash economy.                  The CRSA Coastal Management Plan
              The region supports the largest salmon fishery in                    Local residents voted to form the Bristol Bay
              the world. In 1990, Bristol Bay's commercial                         CRSA in October 198 1, and held another election
              fishermen were paid approximately $200 million                       to choose a seven-member CRSA Board in January
              for their salmon catch. The bountiful salmon,                        1982. Over the next three years, the CRSA Board
              herring, shellfish and bottom fish stocks of the bay                 and two staff planners worked to inform the public
              and rivers, along with the abundant wildlife, also                   of the planning process, discover what the public's
              support a thriving subsistence economy. Govern-                      concerns were, consult with private industry and
              ment is the second largest cash employer in the                      Native Corporations with interests in the region,
              region, followed by a growing tourism industry.                      inventory coastal resources, and write a manage-
                                                                                   ment plan that would receive state and federal
                   CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS                                      approval.
                   1972        United States Congress adopts the fed-              The CRSA's staff were "planners", rather than
                               eral Coastal Zone Management Act
                   1977        Alaska State Legislature adopts the                 professional scientists trained in the technical as-
                               Alaska Coastal Management Act                       pects of oceanography or marine biology. As
                   1978        Alaska Coastal Policy Council adopts                planners, the staff were skilled in research and
                               initial coastal zone boundaries for the             writing, organizing information, conducting pro-
                               State of Alaska and general regulations             ductive meetings, and communicating effectively
                               with which coastal development projects
                               must comply                                         with the public and government agencies. The staff
                   1979        Alaska Coastal Management Program is                used paid consultants and government agencies to
                               approved by the federal government.                 obtain the specific technical and scientific exper-
                               Following federal approval, local coastal           tise that was needed to prepare the plan.
                               communities and regions in Alaska be-
                               gin to organize as "coastal districts" and
                               prepare specific management plans for               While the Bristol Bay CRSA was planning for the
                               coastal resources within their districts            coastal zone, others were planning for major oil
                   1981        Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service                and gas lease sales in the federal waters of the bay
                               Area (CRSA) organizes as a coastal dis-             outside the state limit. In 1986, nine private com-
                   1982        trict, by public election                            anies paid $95 million to the federal government
                               Bristol Bay CRSA elects a seven-mem-                p
                               her Board to represent the districtduring           in exchange for the right to explore for oil on Outer
                               coastal management planning and imple-              Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Sale 92 in Bristol
                               mentation                                           Bay5. Additional OCS lease sales were scheduled
                   1985        Bristol Bay CRSA Coastal Management                 forcomingyears. Although the State of Alaska had
                               Program is approved by the state Coastal            deferred oil leasing in state waters within three
                               Policy Council
                   1987        Bristol Bay CRSA program is approved                miles of the shore because of its concern for the
                               by the federal government. The CRSA                 bay's valuable fisheries, the state was leasing land
                               begins development of the Nushagak &                on shore for oil exploration.
                               Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Manage-
                               ment Plan for a heavily-used coastal                Oil and gas exploration was not the only develop-
                               recreation area
                   1990        Recreation managementplan is approved               ment issue facing the region. Other on-going or
                               by the state Coastal Policy Council and             potential development activities included placer
                               the federal government                              and hard rock mining, sand and gravel extraction,
                   1991        Bristol Bay CRSA continues to imple-                construction of new transportation and energy trans-
                               ment both approved plans, primarily                 mission corridors, commercial fish processing,
                               through reviewing coastal development
                               projects that require state or federal gov-         settlement of wilderness areas by new residents,
                               emment permits for consistency with                 and increasing use of remote areas for commercial
                               the plans                                           lodges and other recreation facilities.

                                                                                 14








                Local residents were concerned with the possible          of shore (the limit of the state's jurisdiction), and
                impacts of these new developments on the rich             all lands and waters below 200 feet in elevation
                fisheries and wildlife of the region. If not properly     throughout most of the region8.
                conducted, resource development could result in
                oil and fuel spills, toxic waste contamination, noise     The new coastal zone boundary extended inland to
                and disturbance, shoreline and wetland alteration,        a distance over 200 miles from the shoreline, along
                water withdrawal, and pollution of salmon streams         the courses of all anadromous fish streams and
                and marine waters. Activities that might interfere        their tributaries, which are the lifelines of the
                with residents' traditional subsistence and recre-        region's cash and subsistence economies. The
                ational uses of fish and wildlife also concerned the      boundary also included a corridor of land one mile
                public.                                                   wide on each side of anadromous fish streams and
                                                                          200 feet wide on each side of their tributaries, to
                The primary goal of the CRSA management plan              ensure that activities near these important waters
                was to ensure that the fish and wildlife upon which       would be subject to the coastal manag6ment plan.
                residents depend would be protected from harm,
                while allowing for compatible resource use and            The CRSA Board drafted 52 management policies
                development6. The goal was stated as follows:             to regulate private, state and federal projects that
                                                                          are located within the coastal zone boundary, or
                    The fish and wildlife of the Bristol Bay              that may affect coastal resources within the bound-
                    region form the basis of the economy,                 ary. The policies covered a wide range of uses and
                    whether used for commercial, subsistence              activities in the region, including: waterfront de-
                    or recreational purposes. These popula-               velopment, oil and gas, mining, recreation, trans-
                    tions depend upon adequate amounts of                 portation and utilities, seafood processing, subsis-
                    natural habitat for their health and sur-             tence, habitat protection, air and water quality,
                    vival. Development activities create com-             geophysical hazards, and historical/archaeological
                    peting demands for this habitat which could           resources. Rather than establishing very explicit
                    lead to reduced populations. The goal of              siting or design criteria, the policies were written as
                    the Bristol Bay CRSA coastal manage-                  "performance standards" to give the project appli-
                    ment plan is to maintain and enhance the              cant the flexibility to design a development project
                    natural productivity of fish and wildlife             that meets the intent of the policy. For example:
                    populations and habitats. The objective of
                    the plan is to ensure that development                    Subsistence: Maintenance of subsistence
                    activity occurs in a manner that has no, or               use will be given the highest priority when
                    minimal, impact on important fish and                     approving proposed land uses in [subsis-
                    wildlife populations.                                     tence use] areas. Before a potentially
                                                                              conflicting activity may be authorized, an
                The CRSA began to achieve its goals by defining               analysis of the possible adverse impacts
                a new coastal zone boundary that included consid-             upon subsistence use must be conducted
                erably more area than the interim boundary set by             and appropriate safeguards... must be pro-
                the Coastal Policy Council. Coastal districts are             vided.
                allowed to redefine the interim coastal zone bound-
                ary to include areas where development activities             Habitats: Maintenance and enhancement
                may have a significant impact on marine coastal               of fisheries will be given the highest prior-
                waters and on the fish and wildlife that depend               ity when evaluating projects which may
                upon coastal waters, such as marine mammals and               impact fish spawning, migration, rearing,
                anadromous fish7. In Bristol Bay, the interim                 and overwintering areas. Shorelines that
                boundary included marine waters within three miles            have banks, beaches, and beds critical to

                                                                       15







               fish populations will be maintained in a              ary 1985, the coastal zone boundary was approved
               productive natural condition.                         without change.

               Water Quality: No petroleum products                  Although many of their concerns had been ad-
               or toxic substances will be stored in such            dressed through changes in policy language, some
               form or manner that they could contami-               representatives of private industry were not satis-
               nate waterbodies, including groundwater.              fied with the result of the state Coastal Policy
               Measures to prevent and cleanup spills of             Council vote, and asked the federal government to
               petroleum or toxic materials will be incor-           require additional changes to the plan. During the
               porated into the design and operation of all          federal review of the plan, debate again raged over
               storage facilities.                                   the extent of the coastal zone boundary, and also
                                                                     focused on three policies that regulated oil and gas
           When the CRSA coastal management plan was                 activity. The first policy prohibited the use of
           submitted to the state Coastal Policy Council for         explosives for in-water seismic testing, and re-
           review and approval, comments on the plan were            quired the use of other technology that would be
           received from state and federal agencies, private         harmless to fish and wildlife. The second required
           industry, Native Corporations, environmental or-          that oil produced offshore be transported to shore
           ganizations, commercial fishing groups, and mem-          via pipeline, rather than stored offshore. The third
           bers of the public. Although many of the com-             required that oil pipelines crossing fish streams be
           ments suggested only minor changes to technical           designed to minimize damage from oil spills.
           information or the wording of policies, some sig-
           nificant conflicts did emerge. Private companies          The federal approval process, normally concluded
           interested in developing the region's oil, gas and        within four weeks, took two years to complete. The
           other resources, and several state and federal agen-      federal government prepared a detailed report,
           cies, objected that the new coastal zone boundary         analyzing the effects of the expanded coastal zone
           included too much area and extended too far in-           boundary and the three policies on the national
           land. They were also concerned that the policies          interest in production of oil and gas to satisfy the
           regulating oil and gas development would unnec-           country's energy needs. To obtain federal ap-
           essarily restrict the oil and gas industry's planned      proval, it was necessary to change the three policies
           activities. The CRSA, and other parties interested        relating to oil exploration and development - the
           in protecting the bay's fisheries from possible           first to remove the prohibition on the use of explo-
           development impacts, argued that the boundary             sives for in-water seismic exploration, and the
           and policies were warranted given the value of the        others to allow for a case-by-case consideration of
           fisheries.                                                costs and benefits when decisions are made about
                                                                     offshore oil storage and oil pipeline design. The
           The state Coastal Policy Council's staff moderated        federal government eventually concurred with the
           a series of informal meetings between the CRSA,           state's decision on the coastal zone boundary, and
           state government agencies, and private interest           no changes to the new boundary were required.
           groups to attempt to reach agreement on the plan.
           The CRSA agreed to make changes, both minor               The resolution of these disputes between the CRSA
           and substantive, to the plan's policies in order to       Board, the state and federal governments, and the
           address public comments. However, the Council             public constituents they represented, required many
           determined that the extremely high value of the           meetings, conference calls, exchanges of letters,
           Bristol Bay fisheries warranted the protection pro-       and the assistance of Alaska's Congressional del-
           vided by the extensive coastal zone boundary pro-         egation. It was a lengthy, difficult and contentious
           posed by the CRSA Board. When the plan was                process. At times, the CRSA Board and the state
           approved by the Coastal Policy Council in Febru-          Coastal Policy Council openly questioned the fed-

                                                                   16







                eral government's commitment to fairly address-          their planning goals. In the Fall of 1987, the CRSA
                ing the concerns of local people. However, all           Board signed a cooperative agreement with the
                parties were eventually able to reach agreement on       state departments of Natural Resources (manages
                acceptable policy language. When the plan re-            state land) and Fish and Game (manages fish and
                ceived federal approval in February 1987, two            wildlife) to develop a recreation management plan.
                years to the day after its state approval, it repre-
                sented a consensus of these parties.                     The plan addressed some very sensitive issues:
                                                                         public access, the quality of each individual's rec-
                The Nushagak & Mulchatna Rivers Recreation               reational experience, and the feeling of "owner-
                Management Plan                                          ship" held by long-time users of the area. Tradi-
                After completing the regional management plan,           tional recreation users wanted to ensure that the
                the Bristol Bay CRSA tackled a local controversial       quality of their experience and their success in
                issue - the use of the Nushagak and Mulchatna            hunting and fishing would not be diminished. New,
                riverdrainages and theirfish and wildlife resources,     visitors from outside the region, and entrepreneurs
                by a growing tourism industry. Use of the area by        with tourism businesses, insisted on fair treatment
                visitors from outside the Bristol Bay region for         and equal access to the area and use of its resources.
                sport fishing, hunting and recreational boating had
                increased dramatically in recent years. The de-          The CRSA and state agency planning team went to
                mand for sites for tourism facilities (such as lodges,   great lengths to involve all affected parties. An
                airstrips, docks and fishing camps) raised local         advisory board was established, including repre-
                concern about possible infringement on traditional       sentatives of environmental organizations,' sport
                uses of the area and its resources by local residents,   fishing and hunting groups, Native Corporations,
                as well as the ability of the area's fish and wildlife   tourism businesses, and federal agencies. Work-
                to support more recreation use.                          shops, public service announcements, and a series
                                                                         of planning team newsletters were used to provide
                A survey of commercial tourism businesses con-           information on the plan. Public input was received
                ducted by the CRSA in 1986 showed the potential          through the advisory group, public meetings, infor-
                for conflict. Between 1982 and 1986, average             mal conversations and phone calls, and a detailed
                sport fishing effort by both local and visiting fish-    workbook asking for public responses to specific
                ermen increased by 85% over the previous five-           management alternatives being considered by the
                year average, with intensive fishing each year from      planning team. The planning team also developed
                June to September. Sport hunting of moose and            attractive information displays that combined writ-
                caribou had also increased dramatically. Sixty           ten text with maps and photographs. The displays
                percent of the tourism businesses in the region          were placed in airports to educate visitors about the
                (recreation guides, air carriers and lodges), had        region, its recreational values, and the recreation
                opened for business within the previous ten years.       management plan.
                Most clients using these services were not local
                residents, but were from other places in Alaska or       Over a three-year period, the planning team wrote
                from outside the state.                                  a detailed recreation management plan for all state
                                                                         lands and waters within the planning area9. The
                The CRSA Board wanted to prepare a plan that             plan accomplished the following:
                would accommodate new commercial recreation
                users, while ensuring that traditional use would not         1. Designated 25 management units for primi-
                be displaced from areas used intensively by local            tive, semi-primitive or semi-developed use
                people for fishing, hunting and recreation. Since            experiences. In primitive areas, visitors would
                the State of Alaska owns and manages 85% of the              see little or no evidence of human use, while in
                lands within Nushagak and Mulchatna river drain-             semi-developed areas, visitors might see evi-
                ages, the CRSA joined with the state to accomplish           dence of heavier use. For each designation, the
                                                                       17







               plan specified what types of facilities could be    projects such as construction of temporary recre-
               developed. For example, permanent facilities        ation camps, to major development questions such
               (such as lodges and airstrips) were prohibited      as the federal government's plans for further oil
               within primitive and semi-primitive units, but      and gas leasing in federal waters near Bristol Bay.
               could be allowed within semi-developed units        In each case, the CRSA asks affected cities and
               under certain circumstances. The plan also          villages for their comments and reviews the project
               included general guidelines for the siting and      for compliance with: the policies of its approved
               operation of recreation facilities.                 management plans. The CRSA provides its com-
                                                                   ments to the state agency coordinating the review,
               2. Designated 49 "public use sites" that are        and meets with agencies and other parties to dis-
               important for public access, camping, hunting,      cuss and resolve any conflicts that arise. A typical
               fishing, or other recreation or public use. Pub-    coastal project review, which was not controver-
               lic use sites will remain open for use by all       sial, is described below.
               members of the public. Permanent and tempo-
               rary facilities were prohibited at these sites.     In February 199 1, the state Department of Natural
                                                                   Resources asked the CRSA for comments on a
               3. Recommended:                                     proposal to construct a temporary camp for a com-
               0 continued cooperation to work on remain-          mercial sport fishing business on the Middle
               ing issues, such as the allocation of fish and      Nushagak River. The project developer, a fishing
               wildlife among users, and managing the num-         guide, had applied to the state for permission to
               ber of people using the area for recreation         locate the camp on state land. The proposed
               9  establishing agreements with federal and         facilities were modest: a 12 by 25 foot tent, smaller
               Native Corporation landowners to encourage          tent for equipment storage, temporary boat dock
               compatible management of their lands                and pit latrine. The camp was located next to an.
               * increased enforcement of regulations that         important king salmon spawning area, and offered
               protect fish, wildlife, and environmental           excellent sport fishing for salmon and other fish.
               quality
               ï¿½ additional public education                       The CRSA staff contacted the traditional village
               ï¿½  removal of existing trespass structures.         councils and village Native Corporations of four
                                                                   nearby communities. Staff also reviewed the pro-
          The recreation management plan was approved by           posal for compliance with the Nushagak and
          the state Coastal Policy Council and the federal         Mulchatna recreation management plan. The pro-
          government as an amendment to the Bristol Bay            posed camp site was located within a management
          CRSA plan in 1990. Only minor changes to the             unit designated as "semi-primitive." The plan
          plan were necessary to address public comments           allowed the temporary camp at the proposed loca-
          received during the state Council's review. The          tion, provided it was sited and developed to mini-
          recreation management plan was also adopted by           mize evidence of human use.
          the state Department of Natural Resources as an
          amendment to its land management plan.                   The CRSA approved of the project, but suggested
                                                                   some changes to ensure the camp would have
          Coastal Management Plan Implementation                   minimal impact on fish, wildlife and other recre-
          Because it has no local government powers of its         ation users. The CRSA suggested that:
          own, the Bristol Bay CRSA implements its plans               0 the camp be located out of view from the
          through the coastal project review process coordi-           main river channel, with its facilities placed
          nated by the state. The CRSA Board is asked to               close together to minimize disturbance of the
          review and comment on an average of 35 coastal               natural area
          development projects each year, ranging from small               public acces s for other recreational users be

                                                                 18







                  allowed                                                 agement plans, written by local people and ap-
                  * fuel be stored away from the river and                proved by the Coastal Policy Council and the
                  waste and wastewater disposed of properly               federal government, are now the basis for coastal
                  0    any cultural or historical resources discov-       resource decisions in most of Alaska. Districts
                  ered on the site be left undisturbed.                   have used these plans to participate in state-coordi-
                                                                          nated reviews of a wide range of proposed coastal
               These requirements will be included as part of the         development projects. The involvement of coastal
               state land use permit issued for the project.              districts in meetings to reach consensus on dis-
                                                                          puted development projects has been successful,
               Through project reviews such as this, the Bristol          and relatively few decisions have been elevated to
               Bay CRSA is able to put its coastal management             a higher level of state government for reconsidera-
               plans into action and achieve its original planning        tion10, or appealed to the Coastal Policy Council
               goals. As it gains experience through implementa-          for formal dispute resolution 11. This has benefited
               tion of the plans, or as new coastal issues arise in the   project developers, since local concerns are re-
               district, the plans can be amended.                        solved through negotiation, rather than through
                                                                          time-consuming administrative appeals and court
               CONCLUSIONS                                                disputes.

               Alaska's coastal program has been successful in            Each coastal district plan accomplishes something
               involving local coastal residents in decisions about       different, depending upon the needs and interests
               the use and protection of coastal resources. Con-          of people in the area. Plans for rural areas have
               ducting coastal management planning at the local           often taken the approach used by Bristol Bay, and
               level, rather than the state level, has been the           emphasized protection of fish and wildlife and
               primary reason for this success. Although not all of       subsistence activities. Coastal plans for Alaska's
               Alaska's local coastal districts are as active as the      urban areas have often focused on streamlining
               Bristol Bay CRSA, each has benefited from the              governmen   ,t approvals for waterfront and wetland
               opportunity provided by the Alaska coastal pro-            development projects to encourage community
               gram to be involved in coastal resource decisions.         growth and economic opportunity. Coastal dis-
                                                                          tricts have also completed special management
               Since 1979, 30 local coastal management plans              plans and projects related to specific local con-
               have been completed. Alaska has learned that the           cerns, including floodplain management and drain-
               planning process takes time. The state Legislature         age control, port and harbor development, protec-
               originally set a deadline of 30 months for comple-         tion of watersheds for city drinking water supplies,
               tion of all local coastal management plans. The            enhancement of coastal public access, and preven-
               process has taken over 12 years. Local coastal             tion of marine debris.
               districts that have written plans recently have com-
               pleted their plans in less time (now averaging             As Alaska's coastal program moves from plan
               approximately two years), since they have used the         development to implementation, there are chal-
               earlier plans as examples, have received more              lenges ahead. First, the program must maintain its
               training in coastal management planning from the           commitment to resolving local concerns, and con-
               state government, and have benefitted from the             tinue to find the proper balance of power between
               knowledge of state government staff and private            local, state, federal and non-government interests
               consultants that are now experienced in the coastal        in coastal management. There has been a recent
               management planning process.                               tendency in Alaska to view the state government
                                                                          administration's decisions as paramount in the
               Although the planning process has been time-               program. Legislation introduced by the state ad-
               consuming, the policies of the local coastal man-          ministration in 1990 would take away the Coastal


                                                                       19








            Policy Council's role in hearing appeals of state          development projects occur, and ensure thatprojects
            government decisions on development projects.              are compatible with the views of local residents
            While this legislation has not been adopted by the         regarding how their coastal areas should be used
            state Legislature, it signals the state government's       and protected.
            interest in gaining more control over development
            decisions. This trend should be reversed by strength-      - Involving local people in coastal management
            ening the Council's role in establishing coastal           planning takes time and money. 'Me amount of
            management policy for Alaska, and retaining their          time and money that must be invested to produce
            role in resolving disputes over the state's coastal        local plans can be reduced by: (1) providing suit-
            development decisions.                                     able examples of successful plans for local plan-
                                                                       ners to use, (2) providing training for local plan-
            Second, state government agencies should recog-            ning staff, and (3) relying on state government
            nize the contributions that local coastal districts        agencies and private consultants that are experi-
            could make in monitoring development projects              enced in coastal management planning.
            for compliance with environmental regulations.
            Although this has been discussed by Alaska's                  Coastal management laws should establish a
            coastal program managers in recent years, no real          structure that specifically provides for local in-
            progress has been made toward establishing a               volvement, through (1) local participation on a
            cooperative relationship between agencies and dis-         coastal policy-making body, (2) local responsibil-
            tricts forproject monitoring. The state should work        ity for plan preparation, (3) a strong role for locals
            with coastal districts to determine how they can           in plan implementation, and (4) strong public par-
            assist with monitoring efforts, and provide them           ticipation requirements.
            with necessary funding and training.
                                                                       *  Local people must have access to adequate
            Finally, the state should take steps to increase the       funding, during plan development and after the
            awareness of the general public - the "person on           plan is approved, to ensure that they can fully
            the street" - of Alaska's coastal program and the          participate in coastal management decisions.
            opportunities it offers to local people. Although
            support for the program is strong among the local          - There may be legitimate conflicts between the
            coastal districts, the general public has little knowl-    goals of local residents, the state and federal gov-
            edge of the program. As pressure to reduce govern-         ernment agencies, and non-govemment interests,
            ment spending builds in Alaska, grassroots public          such as private industry. Local coastal districts
            support will be needed to ensure that funding is           have the responsibility to balance their goals with
            available for plan implementation and new initia-          the views and needs of these other parties. Like-
            tives to address emerging coastal issues. The              wise, the degree to which local concerns are met
            public's recognition of the opportunity Alaska's           depends on the willingness of the state and federal
            coastal program provides for local involvement in          governments to work in good faith with local
            coastal resource decisions will be critical to main-       people to help them achieve their goals, through
            taining the program.                                       negotiation with all affected parties.

            LESSONS LEARNED                                            Notes

                Local involvement in coastal resource deci-            1.  Two rural regions that originally organized as CRSAs, later
                                                                           voted to become organized boroughs and assume full local
            sions can be successfully achieved by preparing                government powers and responsibilities. These include the
            coastal management plans at a local, rather than               Northwest Arctic Borough and the Aleutians East Borough.
            state government, level. Local management plans            2.  In addition to participation in the "consistency review" pro-
            can be used to influence where and how coastal                 cess described here, cities and boroughs may implement their


                                                                   20









                          coastal management plans using local goverriment powers                     cerns, the Coastal Policy Council denied the appeal. The
                          such as local permitting, zoning, capital improvement projects,             Council determined that the state government had followed
                          or purchase of coastal lands and waters.                                    correct procedures when holding the lease sale and had
                                                                                                      properly considered the policies of the CRSA's approved
                    3.    Regional and village native Alaskan Corporations were formed                coastal management program. 71e CRSA is pursuing the
                          with the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act                 case in state court.
                          of 1971. The Corporations are major landowners in the State
                          of Alaska.                                                            References

                    4.    The Bristol Bay Borough, a small borough located within the
                          region, is an incorporated local government with its own              Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Department of
                          approved coastal management plan. In April 1989, another              Fish and Game, and Bristol Bay Coastal Resource -Service Area.
                          part of the BristolBay region voted to incorporate as the Lake        August 1988. Nushagak & Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Manage-
                          and Peninsula Borough. Thenewly-formed borough will also              ment Plan: Resource Assessment.
                          prepare its own management plan for the area within its
                          jurisdiction.                                                         _. August 1990. Nushagak & Mulchatna Rivers Recre-
                                                                                                ation Management Plan.
                    5.    OCS Lease Sale 92 was the subject of litigation by the State
                          of Alaska and other affected parties. In October 1989, the            Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area. January 1984. Bristol
                          United States Congress placed a moratorium on oil and gas             Bay Coastal Management Program. Volume 1, Resource Inven-
                          exploration activities inBristol Bay, which has been extended         tory.
                          through September 30, 1991.
                                                                                                              June 1986. Commercial Recreation Service Providers
                    6.    Other goals and objectives of the plan related to the wide            Study. Jon Isaacs and Associates.
                          variety of issues in the region, including subsistence, oil and
                          gas, mining, transportation, residential settlement, historical       _. June 1987. Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program.
                          and archaeological resources, and recreation.                         Volume 2, Management Plan.

                    7.    "Anadromous fish" are fish that live in the sea, but ascend           Office of Coastal Zone Management and Office of Coastal Manage-
                          rivers from the sea to spawn.                                         ment, 1978. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed
                                                                                                Coastal Management Program for the State of Alaska. U.S.Depart-
                    8.    On the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, the interim coastal        ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
                          zone boundary included lands and waters below 1000 feet in            tration.
                          elevation.
                                                                                                Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 1986. Envi-
                    9.    Although the plan applies only to state lands and waters, the         ronmental Assessment: Amendment No. 2, Inclusion of the Bristol
                          planning team hoped that other major landowners (primarily            Bay Coastal Management Program into the Alaska Coastal Man-
                          the federal government and the Native Corporations) would             agemcnt Program. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oce-
                          consider its intent while managing their lands.                       anic and Atmospheric Administration.

                    10.   From July 1, 1989 to June 30,1990 the Office of theGovernor                       . 1987. Final Finding of Approvability: Amendment
                          coordinated the review of 450 coastal development projects.           Request to the Alaska Coastal Management Program to Include
                          Local coastal districts were given the opportunity to partici-        Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area Coastal Management
                          pate in each of those reviews. Of the 450 projects, only seven        Program. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
                          were elevated to a higher level in the state government for           Atmospheric Administration.
                          reconsideration.
                                                                                                Seaman, G.A., in press. Alaska Coastal Management Program:
                    11.   Since 1979, the Coastal Policy Council has received only five         Development of the Coastal Zone Boundary. Alaska Departmentof
                          appeals of coastal development project decisions, four filed          Fish and Game.
                          by members of the public and one filed by a local coastal
                          district. The four appeals filed by the public were each              State of Alaska, Division of Governmental Coordination. February
                          withdrawn or inactivated following meetings attended by the           1985. Revised Findings and Conclusions for the Bristol Bay Coastal
                          Coastal Policy Council and moderated by the Office of the             Management Program.
                          Governor. The appeal filed by a coastal district (the Cenaliulriit
                          CRSA in the Yukon-Kuskokwim area) concerned a state                   _. June 1989. Alaska Coastal Management Program
                          offshore mining lease sale. After hearing the CRSA's con-             Statutes and Regulations.








                                                                                            21








          For further information and provision of key
          references contact:
          The Division of Governmental Coordination
          PO Box AW
          Juneau, Alaska 99811





















































                                                    22






              The Coastal Management Program in North Carolina

              Establishing a Process for Managing Development in Hazard Areas and Preparing Coastal
              Land Use Plans


              David Owens



                 North Carolina has a coastline of barrier islands facing the Atlantic and an extensive
                 inland coastal area of shallow estuaries and wetlands. The last 40 years have witnessed an
                 acceleration of urban development along the barrier islands, while the rest of the coastal
                 area remains largely rural in character.

                 The North Carolina coastal program established standards for development in high
                 hazard areas and helped develop local comprehensive land use plans for all coastal
                 communities. This case study examines the process through which a coastal program was
                 developed in North Carolina. It discusses how local governments and affected parties and
                 interest groups were actively involved in the state-mandated program. The case looks at
                 when and why the North Carolina Coastal Program has been successful.

                 The author concludes that active involvement of local governments and affected parties in
                 all stages of program development, from issue definition to evaluation, makes an impor-
                 tant contribution to program effectiveness and was politically necessary. Use of a fair and
                 open decision-making process, an active public education and involvement program,
                 multiple management tools, and commitment of adequate time to develop and refine
                 program policies were also critical aspects of program success. Finally, he concludes that
                 a focus on using the coastal management program to produce results rather than plans or
                 documents, and having capable program leaders, were also of vital importance.


              INTRODUCTION                                          Setting for Coastal Management
                                                                    The coastal area of North Carolina (Figure 1)
              As North Carolina developed its coastal manage-       consists of two subareas with distinctive environ-
              ment program, it was confronted with the chal-        mental, economic and social settings. The inland
              lenge of designing a program that would address       portion of the coastal area is a region of broad,
              key state and national management concerns in a       shallow estuaries and extensive wetlands, with
              context where there was a strong tradition of local   small towns and widespread rural areas. Primary
              government autonomy and private landowner in-         land uses in this area are agriculture and forestry.
              dependence. To have a successful program it was       Many sections have high unemployment and low
              vital to develop regional consensus that resource     wages, and the social and political structure has
              management was necessary and that a state-local       been relatively stable for generations.
              partnership was essential.
                                                                    The barrier island portion of the coastal area is
              David Owens is aformer Director of the Division of Coastal different. Here change has been rapid. Over the
              Management in the Department ofNatural Resources, North past forty years there has been an acceleration of
              Carolina. He now worksfor the Institute of Government at the urban development, and there are now substantial
              University ofNorth Carolina.


                                                                  23










                                                          Elizabeth     C i t VY
                                                                                               Atlantic

                                                                                                 Ocean
                                                                                                      N


                                       Washington,.

                                                                               0
                                                                                            CAPE HATTERAS
                                                                                0.00,


                                        Morehead City

                                                                      CAPE LOOKOUT



                                                  Atlantic
                       Wilm  Iington-
                                                   Ocean


                                     4 CAPE FEAR                         L


            Figure 1. North Carolina's Coastal Area

            tourism and recreational developments along the           BACKGROUND
            barrier islands. In this part of the coast, land values
            are very high and there have been large short term        Development of a coastal management
            profits from land development. Increasing num-            program
            bers of retirees and permanent service workers are        The state's first step in developing a coastal man-
            bringing additional change. As a result of these          agement program was to adopt special-purpose
            changes, the social and cultural setting on the           legislation to address the most pressing and visible
            islands has been substantially altered.                   problems of coastal development. In 1969 laws
                                                                      were adopted to halt the destruction of salt marshes
            A decline in coastal water quality and fishery            through dredging and filling and to require coastal
            productivity, combined with a sense that the barrier      counties to regulate alteration of frontal sand dunes
            islands were being "overdeveloped," were the prin-        along the oceanfront. These laws demonstrated to
            cipal factors motivating state interest in coastal        local governments and landowners that the state
            management. Prior to the late 1960's, virtually all       was serious about coastal management and would
            land use and development decisions in coastal             take steps to address the matter, but would also
            areas, as elsewhere in North Carolina, were left          involve local governments in implementation where
            solely in the hands of individual landowners. Only        possible. The knowledge that something was going
            a few of the small towns had local land use regula-       to be done to address these questions convinced
            tions; state and national regulations were minimal.       local people to actively participate in the design
                                                                      and implementation of a more comprehensive pro-
                                                                      gram when that offer was made in the early 1970's.

                                                                   24










                   PROFILE


                   Mandate for Program
                   The primary goals of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act are:
                   ï¿½  to provide a management system capable of preserving and managing the natural ecologi-
                      cal conditions
                   ï¿½  to ensure the development or preservation of the land and water resources in a manner
                      consistent with ecological considerations
                   ï¿½  to ensure the orderly and balanced use and preservation of coastal resources
                   ï¿½  to establish policies, guidelines, and standards for the protection, preservation, and con-
                      servation of natural resources; economic development; recreation; transportation; and
                      historic, cultural, and scientific aspects of the coastal area

                   Geographic Scope
                   The geographic scope of the program is set by law. The "coastal area" for planning purposes
                   was defined as those counties with land bordering either the Atlantic Ocean, a coastal estuary,
                   or waters subject to tidal influence. The law listed the types of critical environmental areas
                   that could be subject to the regulatory program, but left some discretion as to which areas
                   were actually designated.

                   Program Structure
                   The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act established a citizen Coastal Resources
                   Commission to develop coastal policies and state guidelines for mandated local plans. Local
                   land use plans were required to be prepared in accordance with the state guidelines within a
                   strict time limit. The Act also required critical environmental areas to be designated and that
                   standards for development in those areas be established and enforced through a new state-
                   level permit program. The Coastal Resources Commission also developed management
                   strategies which include regulation, education, land acquisition and public investment for key
                   coastal issues such as development in high hazard areas.


              The requirement for this more comprehensive ap-          The initial proposal was to place decision-making
              proach was set by the 1974 adoption of the Coastal       power at the state level and in the hands of the
              Area Management Act (CAMA). This law estab-              professional staff. This proved politically unac-
              lished a comprehensive regional resource manage-         ceptable to the affected local governments. It was
              ment program for the state's twenty county coastal       also opposed by private property owners and the
              area.                                                    development community, both of whom felt they
                                                                       would have more influence if the decisions were
              A key initial issue in program design was assign-        made locally by political rather than technical
              ment of authority for making major decisions. Two        personnel. After considerable debate a compro-
              key questions were presented. The first was the          mise decision was reached. The decision was made
              degree to which decisions would be made at the           to share power between the state and local govern-
              state as opposed to the local level. The second was      ments and to use a citizen commission rather than
              how much power to place in the hands of profes-          a professional staff for major policy decisions.
              sional staff.




                                                                      25







            Program policy decisions are made by a citizen          The mandatory land use planning provision of
            Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) appointed            CAMA required all coastal counties to adopt com-
            by the governor. CRC membership is not a full-          prehensive land use plans in accordance with stan-
            timejob; commission members all have otherjobs,         dards adopted by the Coastal Resources Commis-
            mostly in the private sector. The members volun-        sion. The state standards define the issues that must
            teer their time for commission meetings, which          be addressed and the procedures to be followed, but
            usually last two days and are held at six to eight      leave substantive policy decisions to the local
            week intervals.                                         governments. Plans must be updated every five
                                                                    years. The state spends about $250,000 per year on
            The commission has fifteen members and all but          land use plans.
            two must be residents of the coastal area. The
            governor's appointments are made from nomina-           The regulatory provisions apply to all of the state's
            tions submitted by local governments. The law           coastal waters and wetlands and to about three
            requires that a wide variety of real estate, agricul-   percent of the most critical land area in the coastal
            ture, forestry, local government, and financing         area. These regulated areas include oceanfront
            interests be represented on the commission. The         areas subject to erosion, storm flooding, and inlet
            coastal legislation would not have been approved        movement, estuarine and public trust waters, coastal
            by the legislature without this mandated active         wetlands, a buffer strip around coastal waters,
            involvement of local governments and coastal citi-      several small surface watersheds and public well
            zens in the operation of the program.                   fields, and a key archaeological site. Any develop-
                                                                    ment in these areas requires a permit and must
            There are several implications of this choice. First,   conform both to state standards and to any appli-
            it emphasizes that the design of a coastal manage-      cable provisions in an approved local land use plan.
            ment program must consider political, cultural,         Actual permit administration is handled by the
            social, and economic factors. It cannot be consid-      state for major developments, and by local govern-
            ered on technical or ecological concerns alone.         ments for smaller development projects. The state
            Second, it proved to be important to actively in-       processes between 250 and 400 major develop-
            volve those most affected by coastal management         ment applications per year, and local permit offic-
            directly in the design of the management system.        ers process 1,000 minor development permits an-
            Third, and perhaps most important, the choice           nually. Permit processing time averages 75 days
            pushed the coastal management program towards           for major projects and 20 days for minor projects.
            consensus building as the model for decision-           Another 1,000 simpler projects per year receive an
            making. It developed that many of the substantive       expedited permit review that takes only a few days.
            program decisions that were eventually made were
            more environmentally sensitive, had more land           Land acquisition is used as a coastal management
            owner and affected party support, and had far           tool to secure beach access and protect particularly
            greater public understanding and backing than any       important natural areas. The beach access program
            set of technical directives issued by state bureau-     focuses on securing pedestrian access to beaches,
            crats could have secured.                               with the provision of parking and restrooms also
                                                                    addressed in some sites. With natural areas, the
            Overview of the program                                 state buys the land for the reserve sites and main-
            The coastal management program that has been            tains the land in a undeveloped state for research,
            developed as a result of the CAN4A, integrates          education and low-intensity recreational use.
            planning, regulatory, land acquisition, policy de-
            velopment, and public education components.             A further major program function is that of policy
                                                                    development and coordination. Although many
                                                                    key policy issues are dealt with directly in regula-

                                                                  26







                 tory provisions and land use planning standards,                manage development in oceanfront hazard areas;
                 others result in adoption of general policy state-              the second is the effort to bring modem, effective
                 ments, legislative recommendations, and sugges-                 land use planning to the rural coastal area.
                 tions for action by other state and federal agencies.
                 Issues the state has addressed to date have included            Oceanfront development management
                 such diverse topics as beach access, erosion, float-            Developing a reasonable management plan for
                 ing homes, peat mining, coastal water quality,                  oceanfront development was the focus of the North
                 mitigation, post-storm planning, and maritime for-              Carolina coastal management program's efforts
                 est protection.                                                 from 1978 to 1985.

                 Public education initiatives have also been impor-              North Carolina's 320-mile ocean coastline is sub-
                 tant. Handbooks have been prepared for local gov-               ject to the natural forces typical on barrier islands.
                 emments, developers, and the general public to                  Hurricanes strike the state's coast once every ten
                 explain major program components. Workshops,                    years, on average. Winter storms cause similar
                 newsletters, and public meetings are also exten-                devastation. Inlets form and migrate. Most of the
                 sively used.                                                    coast suffers from long term erosion, with two feet
                                                                                 per year being typical and substantial areas having
                                                                                 an erosion rate of six feet per year or higher. This
                   CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS                                    dynamic natural system has faced increasing de-
                                                                                 velopment pressure. The barrier island beach com-
                   General:                                                      munities now predominantly consist of single-
                   1974 Coastal Area Management Act adopted                      family cottages and small motels, with increasing
                   1978     Supreme Court upholds the CAMA as                    pressure for high-rise buildings and relatively dense
                            constitutional
                                                                                 development along the oceanfront.
                   Hazard area development standards:
                   1977     Initial permit standards developed                   There were several reasons that establishing stan-
                   1978     Permit program initiated                             dards for development in coastal high hazard areas
                   1979     Minimum oceanfront setback adopted                   was a key concern. The high public cost of im-
                   1981     Limited non-permanent structures allowed in
                            part of setback                                      proper development, the loss of access to the beach,
                   1983     Setback doubled for large structures                 the aesthetic impact of high-density oceanfront
                   1983     Post storm land use plans mandated                   development, and the results of efforts to stabilize
                   1985     Shoreline hardening structures banned                the shoreline were of substantial concern to the
                   Land use planning:                                            state. The state's sandy ocean beaches, tradition-
                   1974 Original planning guidelines adopted                     ally uncluttered and freely available to the public,
                   1975     Deadline for production of original plans            are "the coast" to many of the state's citizens. To
                   1978     Guidelines revised to add policy focus               them, keeping the beaches from being despoiled is
                   1980     Deadline for first plan updates                      the reason for the coastal program's existence.

                                                                                 The oceanfront development standards that were
                                                                                 adopted by CRC address several key factors, in-
                 CASE STUDY: Development in Oceanfront                           cluding the location of new development, the types
                 Hazard Areas and Land Use Planning                              of erosion protection efforts that can be undertaken
                                                                                 by upland property owners, the density of develop-
                 Examples of collaborative process                               ment in inlet areas, construction standards, the
                 Two work areas will be discussed              in   detail to    protection of existing beach accesses, and notice of
                 illustrate how a collaborative decision-making pro-             coastal hazards to builders.
                 cess has been implemented. The first is the effort to


                                                                              27







           The adoption and implementation of a minimum             - a distance equal to thirty times the long-term
           setback for new oceanfront development illus-            annual erosion rate, measured from the vegetation
           trates the collaborative decision-making process.        line;
                                                                    0 the crest of the "primary dune" (defined as the
           The CRIC spent substantial time considering what         first dune with an elevation to the 100-year storm
           the public interest in this subject was-why gov-         level plus six feet);
           emment should get involved at all. They concluded        - the landward toe of the "frontal dune" (defined
           that a statewide minimum oceanfront setback was          as the first dune with substantial protective value);
           necessary to minimize loss of life and property,         and
           reduce public costs from poorly sited develop-           - sixty feet landward of the vegetation line.
           ment, protect future public use of the beach, protect
           natural dunes,. provide a natural buffer area for        Even though this rule was developed through a
           beach movement, preserve aesthetic values, and           very public process, strong opposition did not arise
           offer some protection for unwary land purchasers.        during consideration of the rule. In the year follow-
           They decided local government action alone would         ing its adoption, however, the rule's effect became
           not be sufficient for three main reasons: there was
           a need to assure a minimum level of protection for
           state-owned beaches; complex technical and legal
           issues were involved that individual local govern-
           ments did not have the capability to address; and                         0             FIRST LINE OF STABLE
                                                                                     30 x EROSION
           small municipalities competing for quality tourism                               RATE   NATURAL VEGETATION
                                                                                                             OCEAN
           developments were in a difficult position to take
           independent action on setback requirements.
                                                                                      0 x EROSIO14 FIRST LINE OF STABLE
                                                                                            RATE   NATURAL VEGETATION
           So the CRIC embarked on a highly publicized effort                  CIRESt            6
                                                                              OF DUNE                         OCEAN
           to establish a reasonable and workable setback                                     F NTAL
                                                                         PRIMARY              DUNE
           rule. It attempted to formulate precisely the man-              DUNE
                                                                                    I-SO x E
           agement objectives of a setback rule, to develop a                TOE OF         Rosiot FIRST LINE OF STABLE
                                                                             FRONTALI       RATE   NATURAL VEGETATION
           better understanding of the natural forces and de-                DUNE.....
                                                                                    FRON AL
           velopment pressures affecting the immediate ocean-                          DUN  -E
           front, and to examine fully the technical and legal
           aspects of various alternative setback rules. It is      (A)(B)(Q. The different minimum oceanfront setbacks required
           important that this entire process took place in a       when building small structUTes.
           very open, public setting. All meetings and presen-
           tations were held in coastal locations and were
                                                                    0 0      60 x EROSION RATE OR    FIRST LINE OF STABLE
           open to the public. Interested citizens were allowed              30 x EROSION RATE 1061  NATURAL VEGETATION
           to attend, and ask questions of the technical ex-        00    :3 WHICHEVER IS LESS "..:
           perts, staff and commission members. Substantial         00
           press coverage of the discussions greatly aided in
           public education and understanding of the issue
           and choices facing the commission.
                                                                    'Me minimum setback required when building large structures on
                                                                    the Oceanfront.
           The result was the adoption of a rule in 1979 that
           established a four-part minimum oceanfront set-          Figure 2. Setback Requirement
           back requirement. The rule, illustrated by Figure 2,
                                                                                            E
                                                                                            @R     FR     NE  F -TA  LE
                                                                                            OS-O    I ST L'  0 r
                                                                                            RATE   NATURA   VEGETATION

                                                                                                             0CEAN




                                                                                      30    EROSION
                                                                                            RATE
                                                                                R
                                                                                 EST
                                                                              0, DUNE
                                                                                              FRONT
                                                                                               U@
                                                                                                NE





                                                                                                             0 EAN























           required all new development to be the furthest
           landward of


                                                                28







              apparent to coastal real estate agents and property     A second example of collaborative decision-mak-
              owners, especially those with interests in some 800     ing for development in hazard areas involved set-
              parcels of land that could not be developed under       ting standards for oceanfront erosion control ef-
              the setback standard. The intense public debate and     forts. The minimum oceanfront setback prevents
              political pressure generated by this concern led the    most immediate problems with new development.
              commission to reexamine its stand on a minimum          However, given extensive existing development
              oceanfront setback. The CRC commissioned an             and pervasive continuing erosion hundreds of ex-
              independent evaluation of the financial effects of      isting structures are or will soon be in danger of
              their rule and conducted extensive public discus-       falling in the ocean. Traditional responses to this
              sion and dialogue with developers, landowners,          problem; bulkheads for individual homes and sea-
              and local governments.                                  walls for entire communities, can destroy the pub-
                                                                      lic beach, can increase erosion for neighbors, and
              The reevaluation led to two changes in the setback      are very costly. The alternative of abandoning
              rule in 198 1. First, an exemption to the setback was   large private investments in beachfront develop-
              adopted to allow very low-intensity uses of the area    ment was considered politically infeasible. There-
              between the vegetation line and setback line, such      fore the CRC was faced with the difficult tasks of
              as campgrounds, small gazebos, and unpaved park-        finding an appropriate balance between these pub-
              ing lots. A second exemption provided limited           lic and private interests, developing the necessary
              "grandfathering" of lots subdivided before the          public and political consensus for implementation,
              setback's original effective date. It allowed single-   and fashioning an effective set of implementing
              family residences to be located in front of the         management tools.
              erosion-rate setback, provided they met the sixty-
              foot minimum and dune setback provisions and            The same general collaborative process that was
              more stringent construction standards. This ex-         successfully used for the development of the set-
              emption still left some 500 lots unbuildable.           back rule was used to develop a rule for erosion
                                                                      control structures. The CRC started by establishing
              Even with these changes, the CRC continued to           a special task force made up of state, local, and
              reevaluate the effectiveness of the setback rule        federal officials to develop recommendations. This
              over the next two years. Experience with the origi-     formalized the informal intergovernmental work-
              nal setback, especially given the rapidly escalating    ing relationships that had been established earlier.
              demand for high-density development, convinced          All of the task force's meetings were open to the
              the CRC that the setback was inadequate for large       public and were held on the Outer Banks, the area
              structures. The physical bulk and frequent multiple     suffering the greatest immediate erosion problems.
              ownership of large structures makes relocation, the     The task force concluded that the state should take
              preferred method of dealing with erosion prob-          a policy stand against attempts to permanently
              lems, considerably more difficult as well as in-        stabilize the shoreline, but should allow temporary
              creasing potential loss of life, property, and public   efforts to deal with erosion problems, such as beach
              resources. So after very active and public delibera-    nourishment and low, temporary sandbag bulk-
              tion, in 1983 the minimum erosion rate portion of       heads. The CRC subsequently adopted these rec-
              the setback rule was doubled for large structures.      ommendations in 1985.

              This action again caused a great deal of contro-        The CRC is now reexamining its total ban on
              versy. But because the commission had taken time        shoreline hardening structures. Given changes in
              to involve the public in developing its rules and had   CRC appointments, new members are serving who
              based the action on a clear, well-understood ratio-     had not participated in the earlier education and
              nale, there was strong support for the rule.            policy development process. The federal govern-
                                                                      ment, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

                                                                    29








           (who have a responsibility to regulate any struc-       such as water and sewer lines, must be located
           tures or alteration in navigable waters), several       outside hazard areas. The national flood insurance
           local governments, and a modest number of land-         program has been revised to allow insurance pay-
           owners have urged that greater flexibility be al-       ments to be used for the relocation of endangered
           lowed so that some erosion control structures could     structures prior to storm damage rather than after
           be allowed. The matter is still under discussion and    such an event.
           reevaluation.
                                                                   Comprehensive land use planning
           As with the setback, the process used to develop the    Before the CANIA instituted mandatory local land
           regulations proved to be critical to success. This      use planning, most of the rural counties and small
           meant paying careful attention to the purposes to be    municipalities in coastal North Carolina had no
           addressed, developing a thorough understanding          comprehensive land use plans orregulations. Much
           of the natural dynamics of the shoreline and effects    of the early opposition by landowners and coastal
           of development, considering a range of options for      local governments to the idea of coastal manage-
           meeting the objectives, developing a broad under-       ment was based on the premise that coastal local
           standing of the problems, and securing a consensus      governments were being singled out unfairly to
           for action among both state and local officials.        institute the unpopular practice of determining
                                                                   limits to what private property owners could do
           It is important to note that in addition to these two   with their land.
           regulatory initiatives, the state also was using a
           number of nonregulatory techniques to manage            Yet comprehensive local land use planning was
           oceanfront development in North Carolina. Use of        made one of the cornerstones of the program. The
           these measures not only served to more effectively      legislature concluded that, whereas the state regu-
           address the issues of development in hazard areas,      latory program could directly protect the most
           they also significantly improved the political ac-      sensitive lands and waters, planning at a local level
           ceptability of the overall program.                     was the best method for addressing long-term
                                                                   general development issues such as density of
           These nonregulatory initiatives included the re-        development, the character of coastal communi-
           quirement, as of 1983, that local land use plans        ties, and other traditional land use concerns.
           include a post-storm policy section to address pre-
           storm mitigation program, evacuation plans, and         The process for plan development was that the
           post-storm reconstruction policies. The state's         CRC set standards for the plan, local governments
           beach access law, adopted in 1981 at the height of      then did the technical studies and public discussion
           the setback rule controversy, mandated that a pri-      required and adopted the plans, which were re-
           ority for acquisition be given to access lands that     viewed and approved by the CRC. As with the
           were unsuitable for permanent substantial struc-        oceanfront standards, the commission took great
           tures. This legislative recognition that some ocean-    care to discuss the proposed standards with local
           front property is unsuitable for development pro-       governments prior to adopting them.
           vided additional legal and political support for the
           setback concept, although in practice very few          The land use planning standards that were adopted
           acquisitions were made under that mandate. How-         reflectthis collaborative effort. The CRC setmostly
           ever, acquisition of large parcels through the estua-.  procedural standards, such as the extent of public
           rine sanctuary, wildlife refuge, and parks programs     participation required, the kind of analysis re-
           has been a vital element in resolving key individual    quired, and what issues had to be addressed. The
           controversies. Public investment policies likewise      choice of what policy to adopt for each issue was
           have been incorporated into the management pro-         left to local elected officials.
           gram. New growth-inducing public investments,

                                                                 30







               The land use plans are put into effect in several         critical in the long-term survival and effectiveness
               fashions. At the local level, they are increasingly       of the management program. No single level of
               used by elected officials as guides to local deci-        government has adequate knowledge and authority
               sion-making, although it must be noted that the           to successfully design and implement a coastal
               quality of individual plans still varies significantly.   management program, thus necessitating a work-
               The plans provide guidance on broad policy ques-          ing partnership.
               tions, such as the formulation of regulatory ordi-
               nances and public investment programs, as well as         It is also essential to have those most directly
               on individual projects. Citizens have come to view        affected participate directly in program decisions.
               the process of updating and amending the plans as         The concept of a citizen commission making key
               a means to elevate community discussion of par-           policy decision rather than the professional bu-
               ticularly important issues and reach community            reaucracy was initially considered a major weak-
               consensus. At the state level, the plans'policies are     ness of the North Carolina program. But having
               mandatory standards to be considered for coastal          local opinion leaders thoroughly consider an issue,
               management permits. Moreover, all state agency            debate alternatives, discuss it with their neighbors,
               decisions, particularly public investment decisions,      and come to a consensus on the best course of
               must be consistent with approved plans. Since the         action, can contribute greatly to the wise resolution
               plans are an official part of the state's coastal         of the many difficult issues involved in coastal
               program, they also constrain federal agency deci-         management.
               sions through the consistency provisions of the
               federal Coastal Zone Management Act. These fac-           Still, it is also critical to note that participation
               tors, over the course of years, have led local offi-      alone is inadequate. It is vital to secure the involve-
               cials and citizens to take the plans more seriously.      ment of citizens with integrity, devotion, skill and
                                                                         a commitment to building consensus and serving
               CONCLUSIONS                                               the overall public good. There is also a dilemma
                                                                         posed by the active involvement of those most
               Coastal management in North Carolina has matched          directly affected, be they development, fishing,
               a coordinated management system with a complex            conservation, or other interests. There is a ten-
               natural system. Many critical coastal resources are       dency for each group to become narrow advocates
               being preserved, protected, and reasonably man-           of their particular point of view and to see coastal
               aged to the long-term benefit of both public and          management merely as the referee between com-
               private interests.                                        peting interests. Effective coastal management must
                                                                         go beyond this referee role to affirmative promo-
               The intergovernmental partnership for manage-             tion of the public interest.
               ment has been important. National interests are
               being served, from the protection of habitat critical     It is important that the process used to reach coastal
               for interstate fisheries to the protection of beaches     management decisions be fair and open. The broad
               serving national tourism. Yet these coastal man-          public perception in North Carolina that balanced,
               agement issues require complex policy decisions           fair decisions were generally reached was at least
               that cannot be reduced to uniform national techni-        in part based on confidence that a fair process was
               cal standards. A successful coastal management            used. This builds public knowledge of and support
               system must remain sensitive to local needs and           for the program. This is essential if the program is
               desires for the future, incorporating the balance         to serve the broader public interest rather than only
               necessary to resolve equitably the conflicts be-          the interests of the politically powerful, or those
               tween competing legitimate interests. This balance        with the greatest economic stake in the outcomes.
               can only be fairly achieved by remaining readily          It is not necessary that a highly formalized process
               accessible to the people of the coastal area, a factor    be used. In fact, in North Carolina while a deliber-

                                                                       31








            ate, rational decision-making model was employed,        of these tools is more effective in accomplishing
            it was very .important that it was conducted rela-       management objectives than any one tool alone.
            tively informally in order to be accessible to citi-     This also builds political and public support for the
            zens. People did not have to hire lawyers, engineers     program. It is especially important that coastal
            or scientists to participate. They could come to         management not be viewed strictly as a regulatory
            meetings, listen, learn and offer their opinions         program, a task which is seldom politically popu-
            directly. These decisions did not turn into a battle     lar, as almost all constituencies will believe the
            of experts. This kind of informal, collaborative         regulators are either doing too much or not enough.
            decision-making is increasingly difficult to secure
            in North Carolina, as coastal management has             North Carolina's coastal management program
            become increasingly adversarial. The adversarial         successfully used a consensus building, collabora-
            process may well better serve the interests of nar-      tive approach to address several important and
            row special interests, but at the expense of collabo-    difficult issues. Success, however, has been diffi-
            ration and the overall public interest.                  cult to sustain, especially where the management
                                                                     needs are less clear and the solutions more com-
            Another consideration is the importance of focus.        plex. A concerted effort to protect and improve
            Even a strong coastal management program can             coastal water quality has been underway for six
            take on only a limited number of difficult and           years and is still incomplete. Addressing the tre-
            controversial issues at any one time. Staff and          mendous environmental and cultural pressures
            budget limitations, the limited ability to focus         generated by rapidly increasing levels of high-
            popular attention, and the necessity of avoiding the     density resort development is barely underway.
            creation of a critical coalition of opponents all        Still, a process for effective resolution of these
            dictate the careful selection of key targets for         issues has been established and is available to
            action. The strategy for building a program in           address such issues as the state has the will and
            North Carolina was to select highly visible and          leadership to confront.
            important topics, such as hazard area standards and
            land use planning, and do an excellentjob on them,       LESSONS LEARNED
            thereby building a record of accomplishment and
            program credibility that could be carried forward        There are several lessons from this experience in
            to new issues.                                           managing oceanfront development.

            Coastal management should also be primarily con-         First is the critical importance of involving all
            cerned with results. A plan in and of itself is not the  affected parties in the decision-making process. It
            goal of coastal management. Improved manage-             is important that this be done at all stages of policy
            ment of coastal resources is the goal, which re-         development - defining the problem to be ad-
            quires an on-going management process. This on-          dressed, selecting a course of action, and evaluat-
            going effort requires substantial policy and politi-     ing the effectiveness of the actions taken. For
            cal leadership to be sustained. A key task of coastal    example, when adopting the oceanfront setback
            management is to identify individuals with vision        standard, the program's citizen decision-makers
            and leadership at all governmental levels and se-        spent many hours debating what public purposes
            cure their active participation in the program.          the rule should address, carefully questioning tech-
                                                                     nical experts as to the accuracy and reliability of
            Another important consideration is the benefit of        their data, learning the legal implications of the
            using a variety of tools for addressing coastal          alternatives, and considering the economic and
            management issues. Regulations, land acquisition,        social consequences of their action. As a result,
            tax policy, and education have all been vitally          they were well prepared to deal with the intense
            important in North Carolina. The coordinated use         pressures generated by their decision. Also, since

                                                                   32







                these decisions were made as the result of very           vate decisions. Increasing the level of understand-
                open public discussion with full opportunity for          ing of planning purposes, procedures, and even
                both formal and informal participation by those           terminology takes time and a great deal of discus-
                affected, there was greater public acceptance of the      sion. As each locality has invested the time it takes
                decision.                                                 to accomplish this (rather than relying on a stan-
                                                                          dardized plan hurriedly prepared by an itinerant
                A second lesson is the value of flexibility on            professional planner), each generation of plans has
                means. On the setback issue, when opposition was          been used increasingly as an effective management
                expressed, the CRC was prepared to thoughtfully           tool.
                reevaluate the effects of their decision and to seri-
                ously consider other alternatives for achieving           A second key lesson is that the character of the plan
                their policy objectives. This reasonable approach         and of the planning process must be closely related
                was important in maintaining the commission's             to the character of the individual community un-
                credibility and political support.                        dertaking the planning. In rural areas with modest
                                                                          development levels, meetings and discussions about
                A third lesson is that complex and controversial          community water supply, the appearance of the
                issues such as these require considerable time and        shopping district, the availability of park space, or
                resources to resolve. High financial stakes, strong       housing rehabilitation in a deteriorating neighbor-
                emotions, and difficult technical and legal issues        hood are more productive investments of planning
                are involved. Five years were devoted to studies,         resources than developing computerized mapping
                deliberation, action, evaluation, and revision of the     or high-tech performance standards. Technical data
                hazard area standard. Steadiness of purpose, flex-        on topics from soil types to economic projections
                ibility as to means, commitment to action, and            are helpful and necessary, but the planning must
                perseverance are essential attributes to policy mak-      maintain a scale that its principal users, particularly
                ers during this process.                                  local officials and citizens, understand and can use
                                                                          in day-to-day operations.
                Fourth, public education and consensus-building
                are essential. Establishing broad public understand-      A third lesson is that planning works best where
                ing of the need for action and of the rationale for the   there is something to plan, such as where there are
                choices made is critical in creating a political          development pressures and sensitive resources and
                environment in which difficult choices can be             the resultant questions of balance and community
                made and implemented. While it is critical that           direction. In North Carolina, one of the key roles of
                those most directly affected have a strong role in        the planners has been to raise community aware-
                these policy choices, it is important to recognize        ness of the benefits of planning by clearly showing
                that others are also affected and the broader public      the links between development and its long-term
                interests must be addressed. Public education and         effects.
                discussion help assure that these broader, more
                long-term concerns are addressed.                         A fourth lesson is the importance of actively in-
                                                                          volving the public in the planning process. Al-
                Several lessons can be learned from North                 though plans must be technically accurate and
                Carolina's experience with land use planning. The         legally defensible, from the outset an emphasis has
                first is that effective land use planning in largely      been placed on making them "people plans" rather
                rural areas is a labor-intensive, evolutionary pro-       than "planner plans." That has required an empha-
                cess. Many local elected officials previously made        sis on participation and policy rather than just
                decisions based on who was involved and the               studies and technical data. This emphasis has served
                circumstances at the time of decision. Landowners         to significantly increase public rights in coastal
                feared government intervention in previously pri-         waters, wetlands, and beaches, the effects of devel-

                                                                       33








              opment, and the role of good planning in managing                       Owens, David W. 1980. The future of the Currituck Outer Banks.
              that development. Consequently it has led to broad                      Carolina Planning 6, 2:44-52.
              popular and political support for planning and                                           . 1983. Land acquisition and coastal resources
              CAMA and has greatly increased acceptance of                            management: A pragmatic perspective. William and Mary Law
              land use planning as a legitimate function of gov-                      Review 24,4:625-667.
              emment.                                                                                   . 1985. Coastal Management in North Carolina:
                                                                                      Building a Regional Consensus. Journal of the American Planning
              Note                                                                    Association 51, 3:322-329.

                                                                                      Parker, Francis, David Brower, and Dirk Frankenberg. 1976. Eco-
              Portions of this case study were previously published in the Journal    logical determinants of coastal area management. Raleigh: Sea
              of the American Planninp Association.                                   Grant College Program, University of North Carolina.


              References                                                              Schoenbaum, Thomas J. 1974. The management of land and water
                                                                                      use in the coastal zone: A new law is enacted in North Carolina.
                                                                                      North Carolina Law Review 53, 2:275-302.
              DeGrove, John M. 1984. Land growth and politics. Chicago: APA
              Planners Press.                                                                        . 1982. Islands, capes, and sounds. Winston-Salem,
              Heath, Milton S. 1974. A legislative history of the Coastal Area        N.C.: John F. Blair Publishers.
              Management Act. North Carolina Law Review 52, 2:345-398.
              Liner, Charles D. 1982. An analysis of the Coastal Area Manage-         For further information and provision of key
              ment Act erosion rate setback regulation. Chapel Hill: Institute of
              Government, University of North Carolina.                               references contact:
                                                                                      Department of Environment, Health and
              McElyea, William D., David R. Godschalk, and David R. Brower.           National Resources,
              1982. Before the storm: Managing development to reduce hurricane
              damages. Raleigh, N.C.: Office of Coastal Management.                   Division of Coastal Management
                                                                                      225 North McDowell Street
              Outer Banks Erosion Task Force. 1984. Report to the          Coastal    Raleigh, NC 27602
              Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.: Office of Coastal Manage-
              ment.













































                                                                                  34






             New Jersey's Strong State Coastal Regulation

             Threats, Incentives, Loopholes, and Coastal Program Design, 1970-1991

             David N. Kinsey


                 Although the most densely populated state in the nation, New Jersey has miles of sandy
                 beaches and protected bays and estuaries which support major tourism and commercial
                 fishing industries. Residential property along this coastline is enormously valuable. Other
                 parts of the coast, along river and bay fronts, were developed for heavy industry 75 years
                 ago, but are now often severely deteriorated or underutilized. There are intense pressures
                 on New Jersey's coastal area as competing interests have tried to find a balance between
                 further development and the preservation of the environment. The state has a history of
                 powerful, special interest groups with political influence making concensus building
                 difficult.


                 This case study describes how the New Jersey coastal program has developed in stages
                 over a period of 20 years and analyses three successful and two unsuccessful attempts to
                 influence coastal program design.

                 The State of New Jersey instituted direct state regulation of coastal development during the
                 decade of the 1970's and has continued to rely on this approach to coastal management
                 throughout the 1980's and now into the 1990's. Resource management issues evolved over
                 this 20 year period, beginning with preserving wetlands and protecting resort and rural
                 coastal regions from industrial development, before moving on to comprehensive coastal
                 planning and management, urban waterfront planning and regulation, and dune protec-
                 tion.


                 The case concludes that the New Jersey CZM program has been most successful in
                 managing coastal development; it has been less successful in protecting critical coastal
                 resources. The political and economic influence of coastal property owners, developers, and
                 local governments have repeatedly combined to inhibit efforts to integrate state coastal
                 policies into municipal land use decision-making in all of New Jersey's diverse coastal
                 regions.


             INTRODUCTION                                           basic task for designers of coastal programs. The
                                                                    State of New Jersey has opted, since the 1970's, to
             Deciding which levels of government should pro-        rely heavily on regulation by a strong state agency
             tect and manage coastal resources, and how gov-        to control coastal development. Why did New
             ernmental agencies should relate to each other, is a   Jersey choose and maintain this approach?

                                                                    Threats to natural coastal resources from develop-
             David N. Kinsey is an international consultant in urban, ment, as well as the incentives of federal funds and
             environmental, and coastal planning and a partner of Kinsey &
             Hand in Princeton, NJ. He worked in the New Jersey Depart- influence over federal coastal decisions prompted
             ment of Environmental Protectionfrom 1975-1983 and served as the State of New Jersey to design, implement, and
             Director of its Division of Coastal Resources.

                                                                 35








             refine its coastal program over the course of two
             decades. Initial threats in the 1970's included ram-
             pant dredging and filling of coastal wetlands, as                                       NEW YORK
             well as proposals for deepwater oil ports, refiner-
             ies, and offshore oil exploration. The federal Coastal
             Zone Management Act of 1972 provided funds to
             design the program as well as the major incentive
                                                                                                       Jersey
             for New Jersey to extend its coastal program to the                                        City    0
             state's urban waterfronts. Continued dune destruc-                                                  .5,
             tion, overdevelopment, and nonpoint pollution of
             bay and ocean waters threatened the coast in the                                                     Sandy
             late 1980's.                                                                                         Hook

                                                                       PENNSYLVANIA           Trenton
             This case study examines how these threats and
             incentives influenced the design of New Jersey's                          e@                           Q/
             coastal program., specifically the choice of the                    e
             strong state regulatory approach. Throughout 1970-           00'                                   1Al
             1991, program design has been a dynamic process                                                   co
             in New Jersey. As the program has matured, new
             threats have become politically important, and the
             influence of different actors and interests has risen                                     Atlantic
             or fallen. The fundamental decision to rely on state                                        City
             coastal regulation has not yet been modified. The                                                N
             political pragmatism and economic realities to be          DELAWARE
             examined in this case study will explain why the
             strong state regulation approach, even with its                                Cape May
             loopholes, has been retained, despite periodic de-                                      0        20
             bates on the advantages of involving other levels              CAFRA Boundary
                                                                                                        miles
             and agencies of government more directly in coastal
             management.

             BACKGROUND                                               Figure 1. New Jersey coastal zone boundary

             To understand these coastal program design issues,       developed barrier islands at the Jersey Shore face
             an environmental-political portrait of New Jersey        the Atlantic Ocean for 127 miles (204 km), backed
             must first be outlined.                                  by bays and tidal rivers with vast wetlands (see
                                                                      Figure 1). Built-up waterfronts, ports, and refiner-
             Located on the East      Coast of North America,         ies in northeastern New Jersey and along the Dela-
             between and part of the metropolitan regions cen-        ware River contrast with summer resorts, such as
             tered on New York City and Philadelphia, New             Atlantic City, and suburbs at the Shore. Northeast-
             Jersey has a land area of 7,468 square miles (19,342     ern New Jersey is densely populated, while South
             km2). The state had a 1990 population of 7,7 30,18 8     Jersey and the northwestern part of the state are
             people, with the highest state population density in     more rural.
             the United States, i.e., 1,035 people per square mile
             (400 people per km2). While primarily a state of         Before 1969, New Jersey's 567 municipalities held
             older, growing, and new suburbs, almost one-half         exclusive control over land use decision-making.
             of New Jersey is forest land. Sandy beaches and          Twenty-one counties, an intermediate level of gov-

                                                                   36










                  PROFILE


                  Mandate for the New Jersey Coastal Program
                  The Coastal Management Program has a mandate to protect natural resources, manage coastal
                  resources, consider economic interests of coastal residents, and protect public health and safety.

                  Geographic Scope
                  The boundary of New Jersey's Coastal Program and the scope of regulatory jurisdiction varies
                  by region. All tidal, bay, and ocean waters of the state, and a strip of uplands between 100'
                  (30 m) to 500'(152 m) inland of the mean high water line along more urban, built-up tidal
                  waterways. Elsewhere included in the coastal zone the upland coastal boundary extends at least
                  one mile (1.6 km) and up to 20 miles (32 km) inland of the ocean, to encompass about 20% of
                  New Jersey's land area.

                  Program Structure
                  The New Jersey Coastal Management Program is administered by the State Department of
                  Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources. Division responsibilities include:
                  ï¿½   Coastal planning, policy development, and advocacy
                  ï¿½   Regulation of new development through coastal construction permits
                  ï¿½   Managing State-owned tidelands real estate
                  ï¿½   Engineering (shore protection, dredging, and navigation)
                  ï¿½   Monitoring and enforcing regulatory and tidelands laws
                  ï¿½   Promoting sound coastal development and protection, through grants to local governments
                      and special studies
                  ï¿½   Marine law enforcement, through the Marine Police (transferred to the State Police in 198 1)
                  ï¿½   Protecting freshwater wetlands, regulating stream encroachments, mapping flood hazard
                      areas, and supervising dam safety statewide (since 1987)



              emment, exercise only advisory roles in regional       Seven major actors have been involved in coastal
              planning, and merely regulate drainage and devel-      program design in New Jersey:
              opment along county roads. Over the past two
              decades, however, state legislation has entrusted a    -   the governor
              cabinet-level agency, the New Jersey Department        -   the state coastal agency, i.e. the Division of
              of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and several            Coastal Resources in the NJDEP
              state commissions with responsibility for regional     -   the state legislature
              and site-specific land use planning and regulation.    9   state courts
              To protect wetlands, flood plains, an historic canal   -   local governments (municipal and county)
              park, coastal and forest regions, reservoir water-     -   private economic interests (home builders, real
              sheds, and aquifer recharge areas, these laws cre-         estate brokers, banks, and property owners)
              ated a strong role for state government in land use    *   environmental interest groups
              policy, in the name of environmental protection.
              Four different governors from two different politi-    Consensus does not come easily among these play-
              cal parties have wielded great influence in propos-    ers. The actions, as well as inaction, of some actors
              ing and enacting these laws'.

                                                                   37







              have prompted others to make coastal protection                  and then continued to refine the program and
              initiatives. Players hold sharply different views on             undergo periodic federal program evaluations. This
              the importance of natural coastal resources. Trust-              case study analyzes three successful and two un-
              ing relationships have never existed among all                   successful spurts of coastal program design.
              participants in coastal program design in New
              Jersey. For example, environmental interest groups               While the regulatory component of New Jersey's
              generally distrust local governments and private                 coastal program is emphasized, it should not be
              economic interests, which they view as pro-devel-                forgotten that other important coastal resource and
              opment. Finally, the relative interest, influence,               statewide water resource management functions
              and importance of some participants in coastal                   are carried out by the agency known since 1979 as
              issues has fluctuated over these two decades.                    the Division of Coastal Resources.


                                                                               Protecting Coastal Wetlands, 1970-1973
                 CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS                                    During the 1960's, home builders, with the ap-
                                                                               proval of local governments, dredged and filled
                 1970       State Coastal Wetlands Act enacted                 about 1,500 acres (607 ha) of coastal wetlands each
                 1972       Federal Coastal Zone Management Act en-            year at the edges of the bays of the Jersey Shore, in
                 1973       acted                                              order to develop summer, retirement, and year-
                            State Coastal Area Facility Review Act
                            (CAFRA) enacted                                    round houses.2 Three factors combined to lead the
                 1978       New Jersey Coastal Management Program,             Governor and State Legislature to enact New
                            Bay and Ocean Shore Segment                        Jersey's Coastal Wetlands Act3 in 1970
                            approved by federal government
                 1980       State Dune and Shorefront Protection Act               growing awareness of the public benefits of
                            proposed
                            State Attorney General's Opinion allowed           wetlands protection
                            expansion of Waterfront Development Law                the model of other Northeastern states which
                            Jurisdiction Statewide New Jersey Coastal          had passed coastal wetlands laws in the 1960's
                            Management Program approved                        *   and the fervor of environmental protection
                 1987       New Jersey Coastal Commission proposed             launched by the first Earth Day in April 1970.
                            by Governor (not approved)
                 1988       Emergency rules to protect Shore and
                            revise thresholds on state coastal                 The law assigned NJDEP, not local governments,
                            agency's jurisdiction adopted by NJDEP             the responsibility of implementing this new pro-
                 1990       NJDEP emergency rules invalidated by               gram to regulate, and essentially prohibit, pro-
                            State Courts                                       posed development of wetlands through a new
                                                                               state permit process. NJDEP and its predecessor
                                                                               agencies had some experience in managing and
                                                                               regulating coastal resources. For example, the
              CASE STUDY: Two Decades of Evolution in                          agency had sold and leased state-owned tidelands
              State Coastal Regulation                                         real estate for more than a century and had admin-
                                                                               istered a permit program for docks, piers, bulk-
              New Jersey's present system of managing coastal                  heads, dredging and other development in navi-
              resources, largely but far from exclusively through              gable waters for decades, since passage of the 1914
              state agency coastal construction permits, has                   Waterfront Development Law.4
              evolved over two decades, with several spurts of
              program design initiatives and legislative battles.              To protect the interests of property owners and to
              New Jersey developed and obtained federal ap-                    assisi NJDEP in administering the new wetlands
              proval for its coastal program under the federal                 permit program, the law required the state coastal
              Coastal Zone Management Act during 1974-1980,                    agency to map about 300,000 acres (121,3 80 ha) of

                                                                           38







              coastal wetlands, notify each property owner that         above sea level in the coastal plain, in order to
              wetlands were to be strictly regulated, and hold          include and protect promptly most coastal wet-
              public hearings in each county before adopting the        lands. The legislators intended this boundary to
              maps and beginning to implement this new pro-             plug the procedural loophole in the Coastal Wet-
              gram. The law exempted two areas of wetlands in           lands Act that had allowed wetlands filling to
              urban-industrial northeastern New Jersey: along           continue while NJDEP undertook the mapping
              all tidal rivers and bays and in a 19,730 acre (7,983     required by the law.
              ha) region regulated by a then recently-established
              state-level regional development agency.5 While           NJDEP staff scientists and lawyers reviewed the
              NJDEP embarked on costly, time-consuming, and             legislators' proposal and developed a counter-pro-
              detailed (scale of 1:2,400 or I"=200') wetlands           posal which focused the legislative debate. The
              mapping, developers continued filling wetlands,           state coastal agency proposed a landward bound-
              sometimes literally until the hour this wetlands          ary further inland, to protect uplands adjacent to
              protection program took effect. After full imple-         tidal waterbodies, soils with physical limitations
              mentation in 1973, following tempestuous public           for development, and water quality in densely
              hearings with outraged property owners, the an-           populated areas. Rather than prohibit industrial
              nual rate of wetlands filling plummeted to less than      land uses, NJDEP proposed a coastal permit pro-
              one acre (0.4 ha) by 1979.                                gram using performance standards to regulate a
                                                                        detailed list of industrial, energy, and other types of
              Protecting the Shore from Industrial Develop-             facilities. The list included residential develop-
              ment, 1972-1973                                           ments of 25 units or more, roads, and public facili-
              Before the state coastal agency could implement           ties such as wastewater treatment plants, but did
              fully the Coastal Wetlands Act, state legislators         not include commercial development.
              proposed in 1972 a new, more comprehensive
              coastal regulatory program to protect the Shore,          Local governments and private economic interests
              bays, and Delaware River coastal regions from             opposed the legislation. Environmental groups
              energy and industrial development. Targeted at            supported it. Amendments narrowed its geographic
              threats to the environment and coastal resort             jurisdiction to the Jersey Shore and back bays,
              economy posed by proposals for deepwater ports            Raritan Bay, Delaware Bay, and their tidal tributar-
              for importing foreign oil, new petrochemical fa-          ies and adjacent uplands, a "coastal area" of 1,376
              cilities, and onshore facilities for offshore oil ex-     square miles (3,563 km2), about 20% of New
              ploration, this legislation proposed to exclude heavy     Jersey's land area. Passage of the federal Coastal
              industry from the residential-resort Jersey Shore         Zone Management Act in late 1972 gave further
              fronting the Atlantic Ocean, its back bay shores,         impetus to this state-level proposal, which called
              and the rural, undeveloped edges of the Delaware          for completion of a state coastal management strat-
              Bay. This.initiative also proposed a new state            egy within four years. The federal law provided a
              coastal permit program for industrial development         national framework and funds for assisting the
              along the 115 mile (184 km) long tidal portion of         development of state coastal management pro-
              the Delaware River, up to the state capitol at            grams. The last minute intervention by a candidate
              Trenton.                                                  for governor saved the coastal proposal from fur-
                                                                        ther crippling amendments.
              Two additional concerns prompted this proposal:
              (a) the time required to map and make effective the       The Coastal Area Facility Review Act was then
              Coastal Wetlands Act of 1970 and (b) extensive            enacted in 1973.6 The law specifically stated that
              development of summer and retirement homes at             this new state coastal permit program, entrusted to
              the Shore. The proposed inland coastal boundary           NJDEP, was to supplement existing municipal
              was set at the 10 foot Q meter) contour interval          land use planning, zoning, and regulation. Devel-

                                                                     39








             opers of regulated facilities in the coastal area      tion to protect dunes, in effect to lower CAFRA's
             would need approvals from both local government        25 unit regulatory threshold and protect the few
             and the state coastal agency.                          remaining oceanfront dunes from even single fam-
                                                                    ily development. The Governor then deferred this
             Protecting Beaches and Dunes, 1979-1980                initiative for a year, as protection of a vast forest
             In 1988 the federal government approved New            region had higher priority on his political agenda
             Jersey's coastal program for the first segment of its  and that of legislative leaders and statewide envi-
             coastal zone, the "coastal area" under CAFRA.          ronmental groups.8
             The program included myriad detailed policies,
             from beach erosion to power plants, from white         One year later, NJDEP drafted, and with the
             cedar stands to hotel-casinos, to guide NJDEP's        Governor's tacit support, a non-coastal legislator
             coastal permit decisions. Yet the program had          introduced the proposed Dune and Shorefront Pro-
             insufficient regulatory jurisdiction to protect        tection Act.9 This initiative proposed a new state
             beaches and dunes from inappropriate develop-          coastal permit for construction, reconstruction, or
             ment, due to the thresholds under CAFRA that           expansion of structures in beaches, dunes, and a
             allowed residential development of 24 or fewer         "shorefront area" extending inland to the first paved
             dwelling units and commercial development of           road parallel to the ocean, to allow for the natural
             299 or fewer parking spaces7 withouta statecoastal     movement landward of wind-blown sand dunes.
             permit. These thresholds had become significant        While the bill proposed additional state coastal
             loopholes.                                             regulation, it also authorized NJDEP to delegate
                                                                    implementation and enforcement to municipalities
             Despite these gaps in the regulatory system, the       that adopted dune and shorefront protection ordi-
             federal government decided that the state's legal      nances acceptable to NJDEP.
             authority under CAFRA, coupled with the Coastal
             Wetlands Act, Waterfront Development Law and           Prompted in part by the increased likelihood of
             laws on tidelands real estate and coastal engineer-    major losses of life and property damage along the
             ing, provided a sufficiently strong mandate for        coast from flooding and storm surges due to dune
             direct state agency involvement in the key deci-       destruction, the state coastal agency drafted this
             sions affecting the coastal region. This pragmatic     legislation with the advice of scientists and the
             approach, the only feasible option under New Jer-      support of environmental groups. NJDEP esti-
             sey law at the time, recognized the political impos-   mated that at most 200 undeveloped building lots
             sibility of either amending CAFRA to plug the          remained along the 127 tnile (204 km) oceanfront.
             loopholes or passing new legislation delegating        However, the politically fatal flaw in the bill be-
             coastal decision-making to local governments with      came its provision that would prohibit rebuilding
             guidance and oversight from the state. The national    structures more than 50% damaged by coastal
             economic recession of the mid- 1970's had arrived      storms. Seven hundred oceanfront and barrier is-
             just as NJDEP began implementing the CAFRA             land property owners, rallied by local govern-
             permit program. Regulatory delays on coastal per-      ments, banks, builders, building contractors, real
             mits had outraged homebuilders, while some local       estate interests and an astute international public
             governments had complained that the state coastal      relations firm, packed the second and final legisla-
             agency usurped their land use powers. In that          tive hearing on the bill.
             political-economic climate, NJDEP decided that
             seeking expanded jurisdiction through new legis-       Land values along the ocean are staggering. For
             lation would have been futile.                         example, average real estate values on one 23 mile
                                                                    (37 km) long developed barrier island, Long Beach
             In 1979, the state coastal agency proposed and the     Island, are nine times that of average real estate
             Governor announced an initiative to seek legisla-      values in New Jersey. Oceanfront land values are

                                                                  40







              even higher, with the land often worth more than          to explain this approach to expanded statejurisdic-
              even expensive oceanfront houses. Repeated bitter         tion without explicit legislative authorization, and
              complaints about the bill's threat to property val-       accepted the agency's justification. Riverfront in-
              ues and near unanimous opposition at the hearing          dustries and private sector groups opposed the
              combined to force its sponsor to withdraw the bill.       reinterpretation. The state builders association chal-
              Environmental groups stayed silent in face of the         lenged the rules, but a state appeals court upheld
              overwhelming opposition.                                  NJDEP's initiative. 10

              Regulating Urban Waterfronts, 1980                        Successful adoption of this expanded state coastal
              To complete the statewide coastal program under           permit jurisdiction in 1980 completed the legal
              federal law, New Jersey had to demonstrate coastal        authority needed to meet the federal standards for
              control over land uses along tidal waterfronts out-       coastal program approval. This enabled New Jer-
              side of the "coastal area" defined by the State           sey to invoke the "federal consistency" provisions
              Legislature in CAFRA in 1973. Tackling this chal-         of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This
              lenge at the same time as its ill-fated dune bill         meant that the state had more influence in dealings
              initiative, the state coastal agency had to accom-        with federal agencies on their activities in or affect-
              plish this legal-political task without new state         ing the coastal zone, particularly offshore oil ex-
              legislation.                                              ploration that threatened the state's marine fishing
                                                                        industry. This approval also enabled New Jersey to
              Reinterpretation of the agency's jurisdiction under       continue to receive vital federal funds to imple-
              the 1914 Waterfront Development Law provided              ment, enforce, monitor, and refine its program,
              the key that opened the program of regulating             conduct special studies, and review comprehen-
              urban waterfronts, mainly areas along the Hudson          sively and revise its substantive policies in 1986
              River across from Manhattan and along the Dela-           and 1990.
              ware River in southwestern New Jersey. Unregu-
              lated waterfront development had prompted pas-            The new urban waterfront regulatory authority
              sage of this law, to increase the competitiveness of      provided other benefits, too. First, it plugged a
              New Jersey municipalities which vied with New             loophole in wetlands jurisdiction by bringing an
              York City, for port and harbor development in the         additional 3,800 acres of tidal wetlands in north-
              era before municipal zoning and land use regula-          eastern New Jersey under a state coastal permit
              tion. For 64 years NJDEP and its predecessor              program. Second, it enabled the state coastal agency
              agencies had interpreted this law as applying only        to advocate and insist on public access to the
              to activities at or below the mean high water line.       waterfront as a condition of permits. Numerous
              The term "waterfront" had been viewed simply as           large and small residential and office development
              itwater."                                                 proposals to redevelop dilapidated piers, aban-
                                                                        doned railroad yards, and obsolete industrial build-
              A formal opinion of the state's attorney general          ings along the Hudson River proliferated during
              authorized the state coastal agency to define, by         the real estate boom of the 1980's. All along the
              rule, the term "waterfront" to include a narrow strip     state's tidal riverfronts NJDEP promoted water-
              of uplands. As the federal government had previ-          front walkways and required public visual and
              ously approved a narrow upland coastal boundary           physical access, relying on its legal authority under
              around San Francisco Bay in California, NJDEP             the reinterpreted 1914 Waterfront Development
              followed that precedent and established the land-         Law. Local governments even adopted the com-
              ward limit of the waterfront by rule at a minimum         pelling vision of NJDEP's plan for a walkway
              of 100 feet and a maximum of 500 feet of uplands,         along the Hudson River in municipal land use plans
              outside of the "coastal area." A committee of the         and ordinances, although no law linked these state
              State Legislature summoned the state coastal agency       and local plans. The national Trust for Public Land

                                                                     41








             helped create the Hudson River Waterfront Con-           named his proposal in mid-1987, calling for the
             servancy, to develop a high quality, standard-set-       State Legislature to establish a new and powerful
             ting walkway at the missing links between pri-           New Jersey Coastal Commission. 13 Coastal legis-
             vately-developed segments of the walkway.                lators then introduced a b     'ill, drafted by the
                                                                      Governor's office and environmental groups, that
             Protecting the Shore and Ocean Water Quality,            assigned broad coastal planning, regulatory,
             1987-1991                                                intergovernmental, land acquisition, advocacy, and
             Mysterious deaths of dolphins in the Atlantic Ocean      financial powers to the proposed new regional
             and forced closings of ocean summerresort beaches        commission and appropriated $20 million for its
             due to polluted ocean waters in the mid-1980's           operation.14 The geographic scope for the new
             signaled a coastal and political crisis in New Jer-      agency was to be the same "coastal area" as defined
             sey, where tourism is one of die. state's largest        by the State Legislature fourteen years earlier in the
             industries. Local governments at the Shore com-          CAFRA law. The bill proposed to transfer the state
             Plained about water quality, inadequate shore pro-       coastal agency staff, funds, and files concerning
             tection funds and programs, and ocean disposal of        the "coastal area" to the new commission.
             wastes. Builders and local governments decried
             the dual control over land use decisions by munici-      The bill proposed three new thresholds for coastal
             palities and the state coastal agency as duplicative,    construction permits, to modify the thresholds un-
             confusing, and frustrating.                              der CAFRA. First, a coastal permit was to be
                                                                      required for any residential, commercial, or other
             Environmental groups protested the impact of             type of structure on an undeveloped lot fronting on
             nonpoint sources of water pollution, the lack of a       the ocean, bay, or river shores, with the exception
             land use management plan for the coast, locally-         of public facilities for shore protection, transporta-
             approved luxury cabanas built at hazardous sea-          tion, or beach uses. Second, any proposal to de-
             wall locations, I I blocked public access for fishing    velop three or more dwelling units and 10 or more
             and swimming, and the adverse cumulative impact          parking spaces within 1,000 feet (305 m) of the
             of extensive coastal construction built below the        ocean, tidal rivers, or tidal bays would require a
             residential and commercial development thresh-           coastal permit. Third, the bill proposed relaxed
             olds of the Coastal Area Facility Review Act and its     regulation beyond the 1,000 feet (305 m) coastal
             rules. So pervasive were 24 unit projects, one unit      strip in regions designated for growth, with a higher
             below the threshold, that observers quipped that         threshold of 75 units before a coastal permit would
             future archaeologists would suggest that 24 units        be -required.
             had been the ideal building type.
                                                                      To promote intergovernmental consistency, the
             Many actors agreed that issues with regional im-         bill required state, regional, county, and municipal
             pacts, important to the Shore environment and            government agencies to comply with the coastal
             economy, such as transportation, stormwater con-         management plan to be prepared by the new coastal
             trol, land use, were regulated not on a regional         commission. This provision would dramatically
             basis, but instead from a narrower, municipal per-       restructure the relationships between agencies and
             spective. Many actors also agreed that more funds        levels of government, and eventually shift away
             were needed to protect and manage the Shore.             from direct state regulation as the approach to
                                                                      coastal control.
             To address these problems, 12 the Governor pro-
             posed a powerful new Clean Ocean Authority in            The State Legislature slowly considered this com-
             early 1987. After-his staff and senior NJDEP staff       plicated, almost radical initiative in 1987-1988, as
             met local leaders from every one of the 48 ocean-        its proponents refined their proposal, with the as-
             front municipalities, the Governor revised and re-       sistance of environmental groups and state coastal

                                                                   42







               agency staff. 15 Homebuilders, local governments,         Instead of appealing this legal setback, the state
               and some coastal legislators reacted warily to the        coastal agency, legislators, and environmental
               Governor's ambitious proposal. Frustrated that the        groups developed and advocated new coastal leg-
               proposal was stalled in the Legislature, the Gover-       islation in 1991. Although scaled-down from the
               nor invoked emergency powers in late 1988, de-            Coastal Commission proposal, the latest initiative
               claring that the "coastal area@' faced "imminent          still proposed ambitiously to amend the Coastal
               peril" because the CAFRA thresholds allowed               Area Facility Review Act, plug its loopholes, re-
               one-half of coastal development to proceed with-          vise its thresholds, mandate a detailed coastal man-
               out adequate safeguards, and directed the state           agement land use plan, and require other local,
               coastal agency to adopt emergency rules to plug the       regional, and state agencies to conform with this
               loopholes. Acting again under the 1914 Waterfront         plan. The explicit intent of the new bill was to
               Development Law, NJDEP interpreted by rule the            protect the coastal environment; the bill proposed
               term "waterfront," within the "coastal area," to          to delete from existing law favorable references to
               extend inland from beaches, dunes, wetlands, and          economic growth.19 Homebuilders opposed this
               water areas at least 100 feet (30 m) or, if farther, as   comprehensive legislative approach, fearing that
               far inland as the first residential, commercial, or       the purpose of the coastal plan would be limiting
               industrial land use with a building.                      growth, rather than protecting the environment.
                                                                         Environmental groups offered only weak political
               The Governor anticipated that the emergency rules         support, viewing the proposal as not strong enough
               would create public pressure for the Legislature to       to protect the coastal environment.
               enact his Coastal Commission proposal, a tech-
               nique that had been successfully used twice in the        The governor, beleaguered with a tax revolt and a
               previous ten years. 16 Instead, outraged property         State Legislature anxious about reelection, did not
               owners and developers successfully challenged             actively support this legislation. As a result, a
               this upland regulatory initiative in state courts. The    stalemate persisted among the principal actors in-
               state coastal agency attempted to modify its new          volved in coastal program design, as over-develop-
               regulations to comply with an appeals court's rul-        merit and inappropriate development at the Jersey
               ings, by limiting the upland to a maximum of 1,000        Shore belied the myth that CAFRA protected the
               feet (305 m) from the most inland beach, dune, or         coast.20
               wetlands, but the State Supreme Court invalidated
               the new upland jurisdiction in 1990. 17 The Court         CONCLUSIONS
               declared that the expanded jurisdiction, intended
               primarily to protect the coastal environment, ex-         New Jersey has succeeded in managing its coast,
               ceeded the underlying purpose of the Waterfront           but failed at protecting its coast. The distinction
               Development Law, which was to regulate com-               between management and protection is real. Coastal
               merce along the waterfront itself, not areas 1,000        management includes promoting needed coastal
               feet or more from the water.                              development at the right locations. Management
                                                                         means striking balances between competing objec-
               NJDEP responded to the court decision, with the           tives. Protection means protecting all fragile and
               support of a new governor, by adopting revised            sensitive natural resources that merit protection.
               rules, changing the maximum upland boundary to            The thresholds that became loopholes under
               500 feet (154 m) from the most inland oceanfront          CAFRA and the lack of integrated state-local coastal
               beach or dune. Again property owners successfully         decision-making explain this mixed record of suc-
               challenged this refinement. An appeals court again        cess and failure.
               invalidated the NJDEP rules in late 1990 as ex-
               ceeding the agency's legal authority under the
               Waterfront Development Law. 18

                                                                      43








           Compared with the condition of its coastal regions      stormwater runoff, is increasingly a concern
           and waterfronts in the 1960's, New Jersey has           throughout the United States, not just in New
           made staggering progress in protecting coastal          Jersey. Indeed, the federal Coastal Zone Manage-
           resources and promoting environmentally-respon-         ment Act Amendments of 1990 require coastal
           sible coastal development. For example, destruc-        states to develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
           tion of certain natural resources has been halted,      Control Program. In New Jersey, large residential
           particularly wetlands. Public access to beaches and     projects approved with CAFRA permits that re-
           waterfronts has increased dramatically. Explosive       quire "best management practices" to control
           development took place in the Atlantic City region,     stormwater quality and quantity have no demon-
           spurred on by new casinos, while New Jersey's           strable adverse impacts on water quality, even on
           edge of the Hudson River became a focal point of        nearby sensitive shellfish areas.22 By contrast,
           urban revitalization, both without harming the          smaller projects that escape state coastal regulation
           coastal environment. Coastal high-rise construc-        often discharge polluted stormwaters to coastal
           tion continued, but at locations that did not abuse     waters and rely on subsurface disposal of wastewa-
           scenic vistas, cast shadows on beaches, or over-        ter, using individual septic systems rather than
           whelm neighborhoods. NJDEP easily achieved the          sewers. While the state coastal agency regulates
           original goal of CAFRA, to protect the coast from       only about one-half of new development in the
           extensive energy industrial development, as few         coastal area, existing developed areas and farming
           applications for such facilities were ever even         practices generate significant polluted stormwaters
           submitted. NJDEP also upgraded its monitoring           that adversely affect coastal water quality without
           and enforcement functions at several field loca-        any state or local regulation or remedial action.
           tions, once federal funds were available to cover
           the statewide coastal zone.                             Despite the commitment to strong state coastal
                                                                   regulation, closer links have been forged between
           The $24 million investment in federal coastal man-      the state coastal agency and local governments.
           agement funds in New Jersey since 1974 has been         NJDEP used federal coastal funds to help local
           indispensable to the achievement of these results.      governments develop numerous boat ramps, fish-
           The state's 1973 CAFRA law had included only a          ing piers, waterfront walkway plans, and public
           paltry $ 100,000 appropriation to carry out its am-     access projects. State courts have required and
           bitious regulatory and planning mandate. A peak of      supported municipal efforts to recognize statewide
           about $1 million per year in coastal permit applica-    coastal policies on beach access23 and marinas.24
           tion fees paid by developers reimbursed the cost of     The state and local governments have systemati-
           most, but not all of the NJDEP staff that review        cally invested increased shore protection funds in
           those projects. This federal financial incentive        beachfilling, dune creation, and related projects
           served its purpose effectively, and enabled the state   following priorities established in the state coastal
           to hire a diverse planning, regulatory, and enforce-    agency's 1981 Shore Protection Master Plan.
           ment staff, conduct special studies, and share about
           10% of its funds with local governments for coastal     Yet the political influence of the local governments
           projects. Good coastal management requires funds.       and the private sector, protecting the important
           Federal funds have made the difference in New           economic interests of oceanfront and coastal prop-
           Jersey between good coastal management with a           erty owners along the Jersey Shore, has proven to
           vision and mere regulation of some coastal devel-       be decisive in thwarting efforts to regulate devel-
           opment.                                                 opment strictly at naturally hazardous locations
                                                                   along the ocean and bays. Dunes remain vulnerable
           The issue of coastal nonpoint pollution highlights      to developer destruction with local government
           the mixed record of the New Jersey program.21           acquiescence. While the state coastal agency has
           This type of water pollution, largely from              undertaken extensive scientific studies and public

                                                                 44








                  education on shoreline change, beach-dune pro-                        - Take advantage of threats and incentives to
                  files, and storm hazard reduction strategies, the                     increaE@@ the management and protection of coastal
                  Jersey Shore remains vulnerable to a catastrophic                     resources
                  coastal storm.25                                                      0   Act pragmatically in the political context
                                                                                        0 Recognize and identify economic interests and
                  In developing New Jersey's federally-approved                         their power
                  coastal management program, the state coastal                         -   Act with a long-tenn perspective
                  agency successfully involved diverse interests to                     -   Be patient
                  shape the management strategy and its policies
                  during 1975-1980.26 This base of involvement did                      Notes and References
                  not lead, however, to a legislative expansion of                             See also David N. Kinsey, "Lessons Learned from the New
                  coastal jurisdiction and a reordering of state-local                  1      Jersey Coastal Management Program," Journal of theAmeri-
                  coastal relationships, despite initiatives by three                          can Planning Association, Vol. 5 1, No. 3, Summer 1985. pp.
                  successive governors from two different political                            330-336, and David N. Kinsey, "CZM from the State Per-
                  parties, the state coastal agency, and legislators in                        spective: The New Jersey Experience," Natural Resource
                  the 1980's and early 1990's.                                                 Journal, Vol. 25, January 1985, pp. 73-102.
                                                                                        2      On wetlands in New Jersey, see Ralph W. Tiner, Jr., Wet-
                  No consensus coalesced in New Jersey on further                              lands of New Jersey, National Wetlands InventoKy (Newton
                  protecting the Jersey Shore through mid-1991 due                             Comer, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985).
                  to three factors: first, the enormous economic stake                  3      New Jersey Statutes Annotated 13:9A-1 to -10.
                  of coastal property owners and developers in main-                    4      New Jersey Statutes Annotated 12:5-3.
                  taining the status quo; second, a continuing lack of
                  aconstituency for comprehensive, balanced coastal                     5      Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission es-
                  management and protection; and third, the lack of                            tablished in 1969. SeeNew Jersey Statutes Annotated 12:17-
                  astute, passionate state-level political leadership                          1 to -67.1.
                  committed to long-term coastal protection. Gover-                     6      New Jersey Statutes Annotated 13:19-1 to -21.
                  nors and legislators in the late 1980's and early                     7      The state coastal agency created this threshold by regula-
                  1990's tinkered with regulatory thresholds instead                           tion, by limiting the statutory definitionOf"Toad" construc-
                  of first building coalitions to support improved                             tion to roads more than 1,200 feet in length and large parking
                  protection for coastal beaches, dunes, erosion haz-                          lots with 300 spaces or more. See New Jersey Administra-
                  ards areas, and critical wildlife habitat. Well-known                        tive Code 7:7 -2. 1 (b) 1.
                  loopholes remain which weaken but do not fatally                      8      The Pinelands Protection Act, New Jersey Statutes Anno-
                  flaw the effectiveness of New Jersey's coastal                               tated 13:18A-1 to -29, was enacted in 1979. See Beryl
                                                                                               Robichaud Collins and Emily W.B. Russell, editors, Pro-
                  program. Built pragmatically on a base of existing                           tecting the New Jersey Pinelands (New Brunswick, NJ:
                  laws in the late 1970's, this coastal program is                             Rutgers University Press, 1988). UNESCO designated the
                  likely to continue to use strong state coastal regu-                         1,719 square mile (4,452 km2) "Pinelands area" and its
                                                                                               surrounding federally-defined Pinelands National Reserve
                  lation as its strategy throughout the 1990's.                                as a world Biosphere Reserve in 1988.

                  LESSONS LEARNED                                                       9      N.J. General Assembly, A-1825,1980.

                                                                                        10     New Jersey Builders Association v. New Jersey, Superior
                  These two decades of New Jersey experience sug-                              Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-
                  gest five lessons for would be coastal managers and                          984-80-T 1, November 30, 1982; unreported.
                  other players in the game of coastal Program de-                      11     The state coastal agency had attempted to regulate under
                  sign:                                                                        CAFRA a beachfront, motel-like bathhouse project of 130
                                                                                               cabanas, butwasrebuffed by the New Jersey SupremeCourt
                                                                                               as it had not adopted a rule defining "dwelling units" to
                                                                                               include cabanas, DEP v. Stavola, 103 N.J. 425 (1986).
                                                                                               NJDEP then amended its rules to capture projects of 25 or
                                                                                               more cabanas.


                                                                                    45







              12      For an independent analysis of these problems, see Erhnd              Peter Kerr, "Lasissez-Faire Legacy on Jersey Shore: How
                      Villamore, "Coastal Disturbances, Learning from CAFRA's               Not to Do It," The New York Times May8,1991,p.B-1.
                      Mistakes," New Jerspy RMgrter November 1987, pp.20-
                      25.                                                            21     See Cahill Associates, Stormwater Management in the
                                                                                            Coastal Zone of New Jersey, report prepared for the New
              13      Thomas J. Kean, Governor, State of New Jersey, "A Pro-                Jersey Department.of Environmental Protection, Division
                      posal for the Coast: The New Jersey Coastal Commission,"              of Coastal Resources, Trenton, New Jersey, April 1989.
                      July 1987.                                                     22     See Tavit 0. Najarian et al., "Development Impacts on
              14      N.J. General Assembly, A-4437, "New Jersey Coastal Com-               Water Quality: A Case Study," Journal of Water Resources
                      mission Act," 1987.                                                   Planning -and Management, Vol. 112, No. 1, January 1986,
                                                                                            pp. 20-35.
              15      N.J. General Assembly, Assembly Committee Substitute           23     Lusardi v. Curtis Point PropgM Owners Association 95
                      for A- 122, 1988.                                                     N.J. 306 (1981).
              16      Governor Byrne had used an executive order to establish        24     Anfuso v. Seelgy, 243 N.J. SMer. 349 (App. Div., 1990).
                      strict interim regulations and pressure the Legislature to
                      enact the Pinelands Protection Act in 1979. Governor Kean      25     See Karl F. Nordstrom, et al., Living with the New Jersa
                      had used a similar approach to prod enactment of the                  Shore (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986).
                      Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act in 1987, New Jersey
                      Statutes Annotated, 13:9B-1 to -30.                            26     See David N. Kinsey, "Organizing a Public Participation
              17      Last Chance Dev@lo=ent Partnership v. Kean 119 N.J.                   Program: Lessons Learned from the Development of New
                      425(1990).                                                            Jersey's Coastal Management Program," Coastal Zone
                                                                                            Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1980, pp. 85-101.
              18      Long Beach Township Oceanfront Prol&M Owners Asso-
                      ciation v. NJDEP, 245 N.J..Super 143 (App. Div., 19go).        For further information and provision of key
                                                                                     references contact:
              19      N.J. Senate, Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Nos.       New Jersey Department of Environmental
                      2849 and 2821, adopted by the State Senate Land Use
                      Management and Regional Affairs Committee, May 13,             Protection and Energy
                      1991.                                                          Land Use Regulation Element
              20      See William J. Watson and Michael Diamond, "Assault on         CN401
                      the Shore: The Myth of Coastal Protection," ne Press           Trenton, N.J. 08625
                      Atlantic City, N.J,, February 17, 1991, pp. A17-A20, and































                                                                                  46






               The American Samoa Coastal Management Program

               Land and Water Resource Management Within a Traditional Leadership and Communal Land
               Tenure System

               Wei Peau


                   American Samoa consists of a group of seven islands situated in the South Pacific, 2,400
                   miles south of Hawaii. American Samoa's traditional values and environment have been
                   dramatically affected by change over the last 20 years. An alarming population growth,
                   associated with increased demands for energy, consumer goods and housing, has led to
                   an acute shortage of land and coastal resources which traditional management and
                   stewardship practices have not been able to resolve.

                   American Samoa's Coastal Management Program was intended to address local needs
                   for improved coastal management, while at the same time meeting U. S. program
                   standards. The American Samoa Coastal Program has emphasized the regulation of
                   coastal deveopment. After eleven years, environmental awareness is increasing, but
                   only limited progress in resource management has been achieved.

                   This case study describes the process through which a coastal program has been
                   introduced into a socio-cultural environment which is now based on a mixture of
                   traditional and borrowed values, and the challenges of making a regulatory program
                   effective in this cultural context. The case focuses on the development and implementa-
                   tion of an inter-agency decision-making mechanism, known as the Project Notification
                   and Review System.


               INTRODUCTION                                           American Samoa maintains close ties to its tradi-
                                                                      tional leadership system, the basis for which is the
               American Samoa, the only United States Territory       extended family's chief, or "matai". A family matai
               south of the equator, is a group of seven islands      is traditionally the steward of land and water re-
               with a total land area of 76 square miles and a        sources claimed under the ownership of his/her
               combined population of 47,000 people.The largest       title. A matai decides which lands will be used by
               island in American Samoa is Tutuila, approxi-          each household within the extended family, or
               mately 54 square miles in area with 95% of the         "aiga". Prior to the beginning of this century, the
               Territory's population. The small islands to the       surrounding coral reefs and submerged lands were
               east include Manua Ofu, Olosega, Ta'u, and Rose        also claimed under matai ownership and given
               Island (an uninhabited coral atoll and National        proper stewardship accordingly.
               Wildlife Refuge). SwainsIsland, aprivately owned
               coral atoll, lies approximately 225 miles to the       The impact of European contact on resource man-
               north (Figure 1).                                      agement in Samoa was felt through the gradual
                                                                      shift which occurred from a subsistence to a cash
                                                                      economy. In 1900, the U.S. reached agreement
               Lelei Peau is currently the Manager of the American Samoa with Germany and Great Britain that its own colo-
               Coastal Management Program in the Government of Samoa  nial administration would be limited to the eastern
               Economic Development Planning Authority.

                                                                   47








           portion of the Samoan archipelago, later to become       cils for four-year terms. The judicial branch in-
           known as American Samoa. Today, differences              cludes a High Court and five District Courts. Sa-
           between the politically distinct Samoas (i.e. West-      moan remains the vernacular language of Ameri-
           ern and American Samoa) are evident in all aspects       can Samoa, although the official language of gov-
           of their development, and especially so in the type      ernment business is English.
           and degree of environmental degradation and ad-
           ministrative/social responses to such emerging           The environmental problems which American Sa-
           problems. Nevertheless, both countries have suc-         moa experiences today are exacerbated by a high
           ceeded in legally precluding the alienation of land      population growth rate and a growing dependence
           by non-Samoans.                                          on commodity and petroleum product imports.
                                                                    With only 54 square miles of land and the majority
           BACKGROUND                                               of the population on Tutuila, the Territory's 3.7%
                                                                    population growth rate is indeed alarming. While
           The American Samoa Government is established             detailed data are unavailable, some sources esti-
           based on an American-styled system with three            mate that the groundwater supplied government
           branches. The Executive Branch is headed by an           drinking water system is now operating at close to
           elected Governor. A bicameral Legislature, the           85% of sustainable capacity. 1 Although this is not
           Fono, has law-making authority under the Territo-        meant to suggest that drinking water will be the
           rial Constitution. Members of the House of Repre-        primary limiting factor for future development, itis
           sentatives are elected for two year terms and may        illustrative of the struggle that infrastructure plan-
           include residents of all social strata. Senators are     ners have in keeping up with the accelerated pace
           registered chiefs who are selected by County Coun-       of development and infrastructure demand.






                      ob    SWAIN                                    OFUISLAND            OLOSEGA
                           ISLAND                                                           ISLAND


                                                    NORTHEAST                              MANU'A
                                                      SHORE                                ISLAND
                         @P    PAGO                                                                    SAND& ROSE
                                PAGO                                   AUNU#U                              ISLANDS
                                                                       ISLAND
                                                                   0
                                                        SOUTHEAST                                        100
                                                           SHORE                                        MILES
                          TUTUILA
               WEST                                   14020'S
              TUTUILA                         +
                                              1700-40'W          pacific Ocean



                          1  2  3 4
                           i -i  i i mile
                      LAND SCALE





           Figure 1. American Samoa

                                                                 48










                    PROFILE


                    Mandate for Coastal Program
                    In 1980 the American Samoa Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) was established by
                    law. The purpose of the Program is to provide effective resource management by protecting,
                    maintaining, restoring and enhancing the resources of the coastal zone. ASCMP, from the
                    very beginning, has been a fully federally funded program.

                    Geographic Scope
                    The entire islands of Tutuila and Aunn'u, the Manu'a Islands, Rose Island, Swains Island, and
                    all coastal waters and submerged lands for a distance of three nautical miles seaward in all
                    directions are designated as the coastal zone management area of American Samoa and
                    subject to the coastal zone management policies of the Territory. In addition Special
                    Management Areas have been established for Pago Pago Harbor and Pola Lagoon.

                    Management Procedures/Techniques
                    American Samoa has an American-style state agency structure, including numerous single
                    purpose agencies. Since establishment of the ASCMP, a land use permit is necessary for all
                    uses, developments, or activities which impact the American Samoa coastal zone. The
                    Economic Development Planning Office (EDPO) is vested with exclusive authority to
                    designate uses subject to management. EDPO also approves, approves with condition, or
                    disapproves in a timely manner all land use permit applications.

                    The Project Notification and Review System is an interagency consultation process designed
                    to assist the regulatory agencies to better coordinate land use decisions.



              Of great concern and cause for increasing social         current generation of elder matai - whose own
              tension is the growing shortage of land available        upbringing is deeply rooted in traditional custom
              for human use. Tutuila's steep topography limits         and from a time generally free of environmental
              human settlements to a narrow coastal strip, with        concerns - is struggling to maintain tradition and
              the exception of a broad, ancient lava flow known        family autonomy from seemingly overwhelming
              as the Tafuna plain, to which the focus of new           government regulatory controls.
              residential and industrial/commercial activity has
              recently shifted. Land prices have risen to as much      Current wisdom of developing country resource
              as $20,000 per 1/4 acre and legal battles over land      management would give strong support to efforts
              ownership are all too common.                            to reestablish local responsibility forresource man-
                                                                       agement. Indeed such efforts are continually un-
              And so, as American Samoa begins now to look             dertaken in American Samoa within the limitation
              ahead to the 2 1 st century, its residents cannot deny   imposed by insufficient human and financial re-
              visible evidence of a breakdown of its traditional       sources presently experienced by most resource
              leadership and land tenure system. The accumula-         agencies. The reality however is that traditional
              tion of private wealth, the increased incidence of       stewardship of land and water has not kept pace
              transfering land registration from "communal" to         with accelerated change and its associated influx of
              "privately held", and leased government property         potentially more destructive products and tech-
              are all evidence of the breakdown. Meanwhile, the        nologies. Simply put, even if traditional self-man-

                                                                     49







            agement mechanisms were now in place at the                   would be a monumental if questionable task, given
            local, village level, the traditional leadership sys-         the staffing and organizational history of the pro-
            tem has not evolved to concern itself with issues of          gram. Furthermore, the policies and regulations
            island-wide, longer-term significance.                        that were adopted to model the ASCMP are of
                                                                          generally "stateside" methodology; many were not
            CASE STUDY: Coastal Resource Management                       applicable to the Samoan land tenure system. Much
            within a traditional land tenure system                       work was needed to establish policies that would
                                                                          be acceptable to the local people, while conform-
            It was within this setting that the American Samoa            ing to federal program guidelines.
            Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) was es-
            tablished in 1980. Like most, if not all resource             Nevertheless, ASCMP managed to make signifi-
            management programs in the Territory, ASCMP                   cant progress in raising general environmental
            from the very beginning has been a fully federally            awareness during its initial seven years. This was
            funded program. Despite the lack of local contribu-.          accomplished through public education efforts fo-
            tion to the program's funding, significant effort             cused on people of all ages. Limited progress was
            was invested in securing the understanding and                made, however, toward its primary goal of provid-
            support from traditional and elected leaders for the          ing effective land and water resource management
            program's policies and objectives. Indeed, the de-            for the Territory, or in gaining substantial public
            cision to authorize the ASCMP by Executive Or-                support for the program's regulatory mechanisms.
            der, was strictly a local, voluntary one undertaken
            after considerable public participation in the plan-          Such limited progress was perhaps due in part to
            ning process. The program's jurisdictional area               the aforementioned ingrained cultural oppositions
            was established to include all lands in the Territory         to external intervention in the dispensation of na-
            and coastal waters seaward to the three mile teni-            tive lands. They were also due in part to the ineffec-
            torial sea limit.                                             tiveness and inefficiency of a land use permit
                                                                          review process that had two principle shortcom-
                                                                          ings:
                CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS                                - favoritism: permits were predominantly issued
                1980       American Samoa Coastal Management              on a "who you know" basis, undermining regula-
                           Program (ASCMP) established by Ex-             tions and policies.
                           ecutive Order
                1987       ASCUP legislation submitted to theFono.          another layer of bureaucracy, requiring more
                           ASCMP hosted the Annual Pacific CZM            paper work and running around.
                           Conference in Pago Pago
                1988       ASCMP legislation resubmitted                  The Project Notification and Review System
                           Executive Order (3-80) amended with
                           new Stop Order Authority                       The AS CMP was in operation for eight years when,
                           Project Notification and Review System         in 1988, it initiated the establishment of a coordi-
                           Introduced                                     nated, interagency decision-making process for
                1990       ASCMP established under statute                thereview of land use permit applications. The new
                                                                          initiative, known as the Project Notification and
                                                                          Review System (PNRS), was adapted for local
            Although ASCMP's original planning documents                  needs from similar permit systems in use else-
            outlined a process whereby village participation in           where in the insular Pacific. Three principle fea-
            land use decisions would be achieved through the              tures of the PNRS were advocated by the ASCMP
            establishment of decentralized "Village CZM Pro-              staff as the system's major benefits:
            grams", this strategy was never implemented. This

                                                                       50







                    timely review of land use permit applications         resources of the Territory, must apply for a land-
               by providing coordination on all aspects of regula-        use permit. Depending upon the type and nature of
               tory requirements of the various resource manage-          the structure or activity, a dredging, filling, or
               ment agencies represented on an interagency PNRS           excavation clearance, zoning variance, building
               Committee.                                                 permit, and/or business license may also be re-
                                                                          quired. Other Federal requirements may also ap-
                    more meaningful environmental review of               ply."2
               development proposals by bringing together the
               collective experience of some 7 or 8 professionals,        Since 1988, ASCMP has worked to establish a
               rather than a single person as was previously the          coordinated system of land use review, which
               case.                                                      involves several American Samoa governmental
                                                                          agencies, each with its own technical expertise and
                    a reduction in expense for the public by requir-      authority over various economic, social and envi-
               ing early review of a project proposal at the concep-      ronmental planning concerns. Although responsi-
               tual site planning stage, rather than at the stage         bility for the program and the permitting system
               when building blueprints were already approved             rests with the entire government, ASCMP has been
               by the Department of Public Works. This would              assigned the responsibility of overall program de-
               eliminate expensive modifications to architectural         velopment, administration, and coordination.
               plans, or in the event of project denial, eliminate the
               expense for such plans entirely.                           The strength of ASCMP is thus derived from the
                                                                          coordinated contributions of individual govern-
               The PNRS was ready for implementation by mid-              ment agencies whose operations and technical ex-
               1988. Three goals of the implementation strategy           pertise form the backbone of the Territory's per-
               were identified:                                           mitting system. The new Project Notification Re-
                                                                          view System was established as "one-stop shop-
                    inform the public that land use permit applica-       ping" for all permits. The Coastal Management
               tions would be received at the Economic Develop-           Program, under the umbrella of the Economic
               ment Planning Office (rather than at the Depart-           Development Planning Office (EDPO), was desig-
               ment of Public Works), and that only a vicinity            nated as the lead coordinating entity for the PNRS.
               map/site plan, and an application fully describing
               the proposal would be required at the application          The Implementation Strategy
               stage.                                                     As a first step, a briefing was conducted for the
                                                                          Governor in August of 19 8 8 on the proposed PNRS,
                    educate the directors and technical personnel         to gain support for the revised permit process, but
               from the various participating agencies about their        also to have the Governor initiate a cabinet (direc-
               new roles in the PNRS review process.                      tor) level briefing and training workshop. As the
                                                                          Governor had little knowledge of the goals and
                    draft revisions to the program -including anew        objectives of resource management planning,
               stop order provision - through amendment to the            ASCMP provided him with a report and followed
               Executive Order which had established the ASCMP            with a lengthy presentation on the significance of
               in 1980.                                                   making changes in permit processing procedures.

               The basis for the PNRS is that: "All persons, both         As a result of the Governor's briefing, the Execu-
               private citizens and American Samoa Government             tive Order was amended giving ASCMP the au-
               (ASG) representatives, proposing to build or modify        thority to implement the revised PNRS. The
               a structure, or to conduct any activity which af-          AS CMP was authorized to issue stop orders, rather
               fects, or may affect, the natural, cultural, or historic   than continue to rely on Public Works/Building

                                                                       51








            Branch for that matter. Stop order authority was        lowable thirty working days to issue a land use
            necessary to strengthen the enforcement capability      permit.4
            and to have better control over proposed develop-
            ments.                                                  ASCMP established a Permit Information Section
                                                                    with staff trained to assist applicants to determine
            A three-day workshop for government personnel           which permits (local or federal), licenses, or vari-
            explained the permitting system, and set Novem-         ances are needed for a particular project. The
            ber 22, 1988, as a start date for the revised PNRS.     ASCMP staff coordinates an interagency review
            All department heads were invited to a morning          of any proposed project for adherence to coastal
            session opened with welcoming remarks by the            management policies and applicable local pro-
            Governor. The following two and a half days were        grams, plans, and policies. In this way, the coordi-
            geared toward technical matters involving the vari-     nated review process saves time and money, and
            ous PNRS review agencies.                               provides an earlier indication to the public of
                                                                    whether or not permits can be issued.
            Prior to the workshop, and as a critical part of the
            program, a consolidated land use/building permit        The Early Months
            application was developed. The two-step process         During the early months of the revised PNRS, there
            -land use and building permit-requires only one         was significant interest at the director level in the
            application form, which is available along with         process, indicated by their regular attendance at
            instructions at the EDPO. The land use permit is        meetings. Much of the early debate and discussion
            obtained from EDPO/ASCMP, while the building            took place on policy issues, a predictable result of
            permit is obtained from the Department of Public        the limited knowledge and experience with the
            Works/Building Branch. The building permit is           new process.
            only granted after the land use permit is issued by
            EDPO/ASCMP.                                             Several ASCMP polices had been established eight
                                                                    years earlier and were as yet only vaguely under-
            Another step in the process is the distinction be-      stood. In addition, many new laws and regulations
            tween minor and major cases. A "minor project" is       were approved subsequent to the initial program,
            one that is determined to have a minimal impact on      causing some confusion to the PNRS Committee
            the island's land and water resources, and is not       members. Only after months of meeting and argu-
            located on or adjacent to a steep slope, a wetland      ments were the PNRS policies solidly formed and
            area, or floodplain zone. Most minor projects are       applied with some consistency. A legal counsel
            reviewed as a routine function of the PNRS, and         was hired to assist the PNRS on legal matters
            require less than the ten allowable working days to     involved with its decision-making.
            issue a land use permit, provided there are no
            environmental or land use planning concerns. 3          Although the various media were used to inform
                                                                    the public on the revised PNRS, neither the change
            On the other hand, a "major project" is one that is     in procedures, nor the title "Project Notification
            determined to have significant potential impact on      Review System" were readily understood. Some
            the coastal zone. An "impact" can result from           applicants were still going to Public Works for a
            increased discharge of pollutants or sediments to       land use/building permit application for up to a
            ground or surface waters, or from an overtaxing         year following the changes. Furthermore, because
            burden on existing infrastructure. Major projects       of the previously discussed communal land tenure
            require additional review and comment by govern-        system, these revisions to the permit process were
            ment departments having their own particular au-        an opportunity for the public to open old questions
            thority over planning and environmental concerns.       about the involvement of government in approving
            Major projects generally require less than the al-      development on communal land. The term "PNRS"

                                                                 52







               had no easy translation into Samoan, and so entered      decision was made to require all reconstruction to
               common use without much meaning to the com-              undergo the permit review process.
               mon citizen; even worse, its meaningless acronym
               perhaps signified bureaucracy.                           A positive message had to be made to the public.
                                                                        That message was that the PNRS is designed to
               These changes resulted in chaos among govern-            reduce risk from future disasters. Onceagain,work-
               ment agencies as well, and prompted additional           shops were held after Cyclone Ofa to explain to the
               public and government workshops to explain the           public the environmental review process that takes
               new system in more detail. A brochure was devel-         place in the PNRS.
               oped in both languages on the revised PNRS.
               Additional in-house training was conducted to            Because of the tremendous increase in applications
               educate the staff on the type of information re-         due to rebuilding after Cyclone Ofa, two temporary
               quired on the land use permit application.               application centers were established in the outlying
                                                                        districts of Tutuila. This minimized the travel and
               The Administration Changeover                            other time delays to the applicant during the initial
               Four months after the revised PNRS was imple-            critical months of reconstruction. Surprisingly, the
               mented, a new administration was swom in. As a           public proved to be receptive to the need for a
               result, a new EDPO director was appointed, a new         permit that would ensure that their homes were
               ASCMP manager was transferred from within the            constructed with respect to regulations which por-
               department, and a new PNRS Coordinator was               trayed public safety as a priority.
               appointed. The outcome was that some of the key
               players were people who either failed to see a need      This positive image was later used by EDPO/
               forresource management, or were sufficiently close       ASCMP staff to lobby the American Samoa Legis-
               to the politics of the new administration to be able     lature (Fono) to pass the "Coastal Management Act
               to give full support for regulations that were not       of 1990", giving enabling statutory authority to the
               always in the best interests of the PNRS. The new        ASCMP for the first time in its ten year history.
               PNRS coordinator was a matai, a titled chief, who
               viewed the land use permit process unfavorably           Getting Back On Track
               and had little experience or understanding of plan-      For a brief period after the passage of the new law,
               ning concepts. His decisions were based on his own       the ASCMP image was again on a positive track.
               traditional beliefs and did not conform with the         The hiring of a new PNRS Coordinator to replace
               spirit of the coordinated, interagency review of the     the political appointee proved however to be a new
               PNRS. The integrity of the ASCMP was brought             test for the ASCMP and the land use permit system,
               into question, as decisions were made against the        as the new incumbent was inexperienced with
               program's policies to accommodate the needs of           permitting systems, and lacked the general under-
               certain powerful individuals. This conflict was          standing of and commitment to resource manage-
               eventually seen to be unresolvable, and a decision       ment and planning needs. With no clear direction
               was finally made to bring in a replacement.              as to the importance of consistent application of
                                                                        environmental laws and regulations, staff morale
               Meanwhile... Development Does Not Wait                   was unfavorably affected.
               In the meantime, development did not wait for
               government to get its act together. Much effort and      The situation was essentially a repeat of what took
               commitment was required to improve the public            place earlier during the change of administration.
               image of ASCMP and the PNRS. Additional pres-            Politics became a growing force and influence in
               sure was placed on the program when, in February         some of the major permit decisions. The media was
               1990, Cyclone Ofa struck the Territory and re-           not standing idle, however, and several obvious
               sulted in major destruction to the islands. A critical   political scandals were brought to public knowl-

                                                                     53








            edge. The ASCMP had entered into a new era of           Effective management of the PNRS requires the
            public suspicion of its overall intent and honesty,     support and clear direction from higher authori-
            which will take time to overcome.                       ties, as well as the competent skill of a dedicated
                                                                    PNRS Coordinator. The support from all govern-
             Life is not as perfect as one may expect in the        ment agencies as instructed under statute still
            tropical South Pacific. While ASCMP is trying to        remains to be seen. The enforcement of specific
            sort out its priorities, development continues to       regulations pertaining to each agency's responsi-
            take its course. In addition, the program has a major   bilities still needs to be improved through commit-
            responsibility: to continue to educate the public on    ment and action taken in the field.
            the importance of proper management in a highly
            vulnerable, tropical island environment.                A new generation of Samoans has emerged and is
                                                                    frustrated with the local politics. Violations are
            CONCLUSIONS                                             now made public through the use of the media.
                                                                    Resource management is quickly becoming a pub-
            The introduction of an effectiv   'e coastal manage-    lic issue, and the PNRS a decision-making body
            ment program has presented a major challenge.           that will undergo increased public scrutiny for
            The flexibility of the CZMA has permitted Ameri-        consistency in its decisions.
            can Samoa to develop its own program but the need
            to accommodate a rapid population increase within       LESSONS LEARNED
            a mixture of traditional and borrowed cultures, has
            proved to be extremely difficult. Early intentions to   The ASCMP has come a long way and has learned
            design a program that paralleled the traditional        many lessons during its first 11 years. Following
            village council process, were never carried out.        are some of the lessons learned as we have pro-
            The program that was developed was successful in        gressed with coastal management planning in an
            raising environmental awareness, but has made           island setting:
            little progress towards effective land and water
            resource management, due to cultural opposition             In order to make coastal management proce-
            and the weaknesses of the land use permit review        dures like the PNRS more relevant and easily
            process.                                                understood to traditional societies speaking an-
                                                                    other language, use simpler terminology that can
            The Project Notification and Review System was          be easily translated. Information and workshops in
            designed to assist the regulatory agencies to better    the local language can help facilitate public sup-
            coordinate land use decisions. The goal of the          port for new management strategies.
            mechanism is to issue land use permit decisions
            that are consistent with each agency's rules and            Administration is the critical test of
            regulations. Despite a number of personnel and          sustainability for any management program. Inad-
            management constraints that have plagued the sys-       equate staffing or training for proper (i.e. mean-
            tem since its inception in 1988, the PNRS has           ingful) information management is a perpetual
            greatly increased the interagency communication         handicap and source of "organizational anxiety".
            and coordination in the environmental review of
            Aevelopment proposals in the Territory. The event       -   A committeereview and decision-makingpro-
            of getting staff together from eight different agen-    cess can be highly effective in reducing favorit-
            cies on a bi-monthly basis has greatly increased the    ism, nepotism, and/or political persuasion. It will
            awareness and public acceptance of the need for         take strong leadership to entirely remove these
            resource management in the small islands of Ameri-      destructive elements.
            can Samoa.
                                                                        Devise a strategy whereby the goals, objec-
                                                                    tives, and methodology of resource management
                                                                  54








                are presented to the public and key decision mak-                   Notes
                ers on a continuing basis. Political administrations
                changes (every four years in the U.S. system)                       1.  M. Dworsky, ASPA Water Division, personal communica-
                requires that new leadership be educated.                               tion, 1991.
                                                                                    2.  U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmo-
                      Start early to identify the political and indi-                   spheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management,
                vidual personalities that will be necessary for                         American Samoa Coastal Manaizement Program and Final
                publicly stated support and commitment for re-                          Environmental Impact Statement.
                source management and its policies. These efforts                   3.  Economic Development Planning Office, American Samoa
                must include traditional leaders.                                       Goven-tment. Land and Water Resource Management inAmeri-
                                                                                        can Samoa. The PNRS: A User's Guide. 1989.

                      A record of the committee's proceedings and                   4.  Ibid.
                rationale for its decisions is essential for creating               References
                the foundation for continued, internally consistent
                decision-making. Consistency is perhaps the most                    American Samoa Code Annotated, Executive Order, 1988.
                critical element of all for building the long-term                  American Samoa Code Annotated, Executive Order, 1980.
                basis for public support and commitment to re-                      Economic Development Planning Office, American Samoa Gov-
                                                                                        ernment, The Permit Process, 1989.
                source management.                                                  Economic Development Planning Office, American Samoa Statis-
                                                                                        tical Digest Draft, 1990.
                      Central to all components of a well-function-                 Public Law 21-35, the Twenty-First Legislature of American Sa-
                                                                                        moa, 1990.
                ing system are individuals, each with their own                     U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                unique set of personal, social, and professional                        Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management, Ameri-
                needs. Human resource development should be                             can Samoa Coastal Management Program and Final Environ-
                given at least equal attention as that given to goal                    mental Impact Statement.
                setting and program development.                                    For provision of further information and key
                                                                                    references contact:
                      Take advantage of every opportunity to gain                   Economic Development Planning Office
                further support of the CZM program by identify-                     Pago Pago,
                ing it with issues that are directly relevant to the                American Samoa 96799
                public, such as public safety.




















                                                                                  55































































































                                          I











                                                             56







             A Management Plan for a Coastal Ecosystem:

             Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region

             By Stephen Olsen and Virginia Lee


                This case study describes the process of formulating a management plan for a coastal
                ecosystem comprising six coastal lagoons and their 82.4 km2 watershed in southern Rhode
                Island. The principal issues-deteriorating water quality, rapid sedimentation, overfishing,
                increased vulnerability to hurricane damage and mounting user conflicts-are all closely
                ,interrelated and driven by rapid residential development in the watershed. The complexity
                of the resource management issues is matched by the complexity of governmental authority
                fragmented among agencies of municipal, state and federal government. The plan required
                four years of scientific research to estimate the causes, linkages and significance of selected
                expressions of loss in environmental quality and two years of collaborative planning and
                negotiation with many agencies of government. During the six years following its formal
                adoption as an element of the Rhode Island Coastal Management Program, the plan has
                achieved many of its objectives but has not halted the gradual erosion of environmental
                quality in this beautiful and productive coastal region.


             INTRODUCTION                                             petition among often incompatible activities threat-
                                                                      ens to overwhelm the capacity of the salt ponds to
             Since the Rhode Island Coastal Management Pro-           absorb wastes, provide shelter for boats and ves-
             gram began in 197 1, concern that the environmen-        sels, produce seafood and maintain the scenic quali-
             tal quality of the salt pond region is rapidly eroding   ties that attract residents and tourists and underpin
             has been a major concern, both locally and for           the exceptionally high value of the land. Large
             officials of state government. A process of rapidly      areas of the salt ponds are poorly flushed, which
             intensifying use was spurred in the 1950s by the         makes them valuable as fish and shellfish nurseries
             construction of highways that have made the re-          but also particularly susceptible to eutrophication
             gion ever more accessible to commuters and a             and bacterial contamination. Their ecology can be
             booming national economy. The number of houses           drastically changed by such alterations as stabiliz-
             in the watersheds of the six lagoons selected as the     ing the inlets that connect them to the ocean,
             focus for the management plan increased threefold        dredging channels, and altering the quality and
             between 1950 and 1980 from 1,775 to 5,570 units          quantity of freshwater inflow.
             (Figure 1). Under state and municipal land use
             control regulations in force in 1984, there was a        BACKGROUND
             potential for three times more houses and seven
             times more residents being crowded into this small       Rhode Island is the smallest of the 48 contiguous
             area. During summer months an additional 165,000         states and one of the most densely populated. It lies
             tourists pour into the south shore on a peak day.        between New York City and Boston and is thus a
             This burgeoning population and increasing com-           part of the northeast coastal megalopolis that
                                                                      stretches over some 130,000 km2 across ten states.
             Stephen Olsen is the Director, and Virginia Lee is a Program Until the mid 1970s, Rhode Island's population
             Manager at the Coastal Resources Center of the University of was concentrated in the northern part of the state
             Rhode Island. They are the co-authors of the SpecialArea around Providence, the capital city and the south-
             Management Planfor the Salt Ponds Region.

                                                                   57








               ern part of the state was rural and heavily wooded.               In the late 1970s, residents of the region were
               Since then, a boom in residential development has                 galvanized by the possible siting of a nuclear
               decentralized the state's growing population.                     power plant on excess Navy property on the shores
                                                                                 of Ninigret Pond. In a series of public hearings that
               A string of sandy barrier beaches and scenically                  accompanied the adoption of the statewide coastal
               beautiful coastal lagoons (known locally as "salt                 management plan, local residents forcefully re-
               ponds") that have been extremely bountiful in                     quested that government pay greater attention to
               fish, shellfish, and waterfowl, stretch along the                 the region, align contradictory policies and man-
               Atlantic coast (Figure 2). This are is the center for             age environmental changes in the region more
               lucrative summer tourism and contains a large                     effectively, so that the quality of life and the
               proportion of the state's most valuable residential               economy of the area could be sustained.
               property (Table 1). The state's biggest commer-
               cial fishing port is at the mouth of Point Judith
               Pond.
                                                                                 Table 1. Selected characteristics of the lagoons and
                                                                                 their watersheds.


                                                                                 Area of Land and Land Use in 1981              82.4 km2
               Number of houses in pond watersheds 1939-1988                       Developed                                    27%
                                                                                   Undeveloped                                  73%
                                                                                   Conservation                                 12%
               50W                                                               Area of the six lagoons                        17 km2

                                                                                 Ho
                                                                                   ging units in watersheds, 1980               5,570
                                  QUONCHONTAUG                                        ojected at saturation                     12,400
               4000     -0- POINT JUDITH/POTTER                                  Boats at marinas, 1981                         1,274
                                                                                 Boats at private docks, 1981                   1,432
                                 NINIGRE7/GREN HILL                              Fishing vessels home ported at Galilee         160
               3000               WINNAPAUGMASCMUG                               Estimated, frqhwater inflow to lagoons
                                                                                 64.2 x 10.3m.5/yr
                                                                                   Ground ater                                  51%
                                                                                   Streams                                      34%
                                                                                   Precipitation                                12%
               20W                                                                 Surface Runoff                               3%
                                                                                 Estimated finfish harvest 19792                5 1,000 kg
                                                                                 Estmyted shellfish harvest (meats)
               low -                                                             1979                                           5,200 kg
                                                                                 Estinyted bay scallop harvest (meats)
                                                                                 1979                                           80,000 kg


                    0
                    1930    1940     1950     1900    1970     1980      1990    1 Some 57 percent of the total stream flow enters the head
                                                                                      of one of the six lagoons (Pt. Judith).
                                              Year                               2Landings in all coastal pond fisheries are highly variable.
                                                                                      In 1978, the bay scallop catch was approximately
                                                                                      160,000 kg while in 1980 it was less than 3,000 kg.
                                                                                      American eel landinis declined from 30,000 kg in
                                                                                      1979 to approximate y 1,000 kg in 1982.
               Figure 1. Trends in Housing Development.                          From Olsen, 1984.





                                                                              58







                The Deterioration of Environmental Quality                 1982; Harlin and Thorne-Miller 1981; Lee and
                                                                           Olsen 1985).
                The evidence of deteriorating environmental qual-
                ity can be summarized as follows:                          0 Unmanaged growth threatens to overwhelm
                                                                           the ecosystem's capacity to assimilate waste and
                   Fish and shellfish stocks have declined drasti-         sustain potable drinking water; the farmland and
                cally (Crawford, 1984, 1985).                              woodland that give the area much of its character,
                                                                           beauty and sense of community are being lost.
                   Stabilized inlets are causing rapid siltation in
                the lagoons: shoaling inlets no longer provide                 Building continues in highly hazardous coastal
                boats with safe access to the ocean and are chang-         flood zones where property destruction and loss of
                ing water circulation patterns (Boothroyd 1988,            life have been severe in past hurricanes (Miller,
                Isaji et al, 1985).                                        1975).

                   Water pollution is becoming more severe and                 User conflicts are accelerating: competition
                widespread: bacterial contamination threatens to           between aquaculture, recreational and commercial
                close shellfishing grounds and eutrophic condi-            fisheries, residents and commercial interests are
                tions are degrading fishing habitats and the quality       mounting as the number of people using the la-
                of the lagoons for swimming and boating (Nixon             goons and their environs increases.




                               N
                                                      MA55ACHUSETTS'..                                               41ID35'

                                                       RHODE.t
                                                       ISLAN.


                                     CONNECTICUT
                                                                                     419 2 5'
                            NEW,
                            YORK                          6
                                                                                                                     41(Q3O'
                                                             C E   N
                                                           0
                                                     -T C
                                               L   N
                                                           I @o'30'                  POINT
                                                                                    JUDITH

                                                                                                           144       41925'
                                                                       GREEN   POTTER
                                            QUONOCHONTAUG              HILL

                                                        NINIGRET
                               WINNAPAUG
                           MASCHAUG

                                                                                     Sta.5   Sta. 3
                                                                Sta.  12   Sta. 10                                   41(P20'
                                             Sta. 1 9A  Sta. 16A                    0           6          12Km
                                                  Block Island 5ound

                                 7 10 50'                      71q40'                       7 1IR30'



                Figure 2. The Salt Ponds Region.

                                                                         59







           Overlying these specific concerns was a belief and ineffectual. What appeared to be most urgently
           among the public that government had not been required for the salt pond region was a comprehen-
           responsive. Agency decision-making was viewed sive management strategy or plan that would pro-
           as cumbersome, contradictory, time consuming, vide a common basis for policy and permit deci-


             PROFILE


             Mandate for Coastal Management

             The Coastal Resources Management Act enacted by the Rhode Island legislature in 197 1 states that:

             "...it shall be the policy of this state to preserve, protect, develop and where possible restore coastal
             resources for this and succeeding generations ... through comprehensive, long-range planning and
             management designed to produce the maximum benefit for society and that the preservation and
             restoration of ecological systems shall be the primary guiding principal by which alteration of coastal
             resources will be measured, judged and regulated."

             The legislation created a seventeen-member Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC)
             representing various elements of state and municipal government and provided it with authority to
             (a) coordinate federal, state and local actions in the coastal region, (b) undertake the required long-
             term planning, and (c) regulate specified areas and activities through a permit program.

             Geographic Scope

             The CRMC has authority over any alteration within (a) the three-mile territorial sea, but excluding
             fisheries; (b) a zone extending inland 206 feet from the shoreward boundary of coastal features (e.g.,
             cliffs, beaches, coastal wetlands) and (c) specified actions (e.g., sewage treatment facilities,
             petroleum processing) wherever they may occur within the state if they are found to pose a reasonable
             probability of damage to the environment of the coastal region.

             Management Procedures

             0 From 1971 through 1985, planning and policy development for the CRMC was carried out,
             through annual contracts, by the Coastal Resources Center at The University of Rhode Island.
             Starting in 1986, the CRMC retained an executive director and its own policy, planning and permit
             staff.


             0 The permit program consumes the majority of the time of the CRMC and its staff. Approximately
             800 permits are processed each year. The permit process is governed by the 1983 statewide Coastal
             Resources Management Program, a document that sets forth CRMC policies, procedures and
             regulations and by a series of more detailed Special Area Management (SAM) Plans. The SAM Plans
             provide the CRMC with permit authority over larger areas of land than the 200 ft. permit capture zone.

                 The CRMC relies largely upon the Department of Environmental Management to enforce its
             regulations.



                                                                 60








                sions by municipal, state and federal agencies.          there was little information of a scientific nature on
                                                                         the resources and condition of the lagoons, the
                The Rhode Island Coastal Management Pro-                 CRC worked with an interdisciplinary team of
                gram                                                     research scientists to prepare an ambitious research
                                                                         program. Federal grants from the Sea Grant Pro-
                Rhode Island has been one of the pioneers in             gram and the CRMC's federal funds for planning
                coastal management in the United States. A year          and policy development, supplemented by small
                before passage of federal legislation, in 197 1, the     grants from other governmental agencies and mu-
                Rhode Island General Assembly enacted ambi-              nicipalities, provided the resources for a six-year
                tious legislation that created a 17-member Coastal       research and planning process.
                Resources Management Council (CRMC) and
                granted it broad powers (see Profile Box). An
                initial comprehensive management program was
                adopted by the CRMC in 1975, but proved to be too        CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS
                cumbersome for the routine permit applications
                that came before the CRMC during a protracted            GENERAL:
                boom in residential development. In 1980, the            1971        Rhode Island Coastal Resources Manage-
                CRMC and the URI Coastal Resources Center                            ment Council created by state legislature
                agreed to work together on a new response to the         1972        Federal CZM Act enacted
                legislative mandate to "plan for the preservation        1975        State Coastal Zone Management Plan
                and restoration of ecological systems" and to rede-                  adopted by CRMC
                sign of the supporting regulatory program. The           1978        RI CRMP approved in conformance with
                1980 strategy to revise the state's coastal program                  national CZM Act
                had two mutually- supporting elements:                   1983        RI CRMP revised
                                                                         SALT POND REGION:
                   The regulatory procedures and standards for
                routine permit applications would be simplified          1975        Public hearings for adoption of RICRMP
                and the CRMC's objectives for balancing among                        highlighted problems of the Salt Pond
                                                                                     Region
                competing interests would be made explicit by            1979        Ecological history conducted
                zoning the shoreline and all state waters. The           1980-84     Multidisciplinary research project published
                activities to be encouraged, considered, or prohib-      1983-84     Salt Ponds Advisory Committee meetings
                ited would be specified within each zone. The            1984        Special Area Management Plan for the Salt
                revised regulatory program was formally adopted                      Pond Region adopted by CRMP
                                                                         1985        Amendments to the plan
                in 1983 and continues today as the basis for all         1985-90     Further amendments in response to lessons
                CRMC permit decisions.                                               of implementation

                0 Recognizing that the permit program is by
                nature responsive and cannot address the root causes     I
                of the complex set of problems that result in envi-
                ronmental degradation and conflict in some areas,        CASE STUDY: A Coastal Ecosystem
                the second element of the strategy was a set of          Management Plan
                "Special Area Management Plans" that would ana-
                lyze problems and their causes in priority geo-          Estimating the Causes, Linkages and Signirl-
                graphically-defined areas and present a compre-          cance of Priority Problems
                hensive strategy for their resolution.
                                                                         Ecological History. If it is to succeed and be
                The area most urgently requiring a Special Area          sustained, any resource management strategy re-
                Management Plan was the Salt Pond Region. Since          quires the active support of major segments of the
                                                                     61







          concerned public. In the year before funds for the      Water quality problems proved to be the best
          research phase were secured, the Coastal Resources      integrator among all the problems affecting the
          Center commissioned Dr. Scott Nixon and his             region. The water quality problems in the salt pond
          associate, Virginia Lee, to prepare an ecological       region range from bacterial contamination, that
          history that traced the changing relationship of        had already closed areas of the lagoons to
          man with the coastal lagoons. This proved to be an      shellfishing, to contamination of drinking water
          excellent means for involving the public at the         supplies and symptoms of eutrophication.
          outset of the planning process. The complaints
          heard at public meetings suggested that the condi-      A year of monitoring coliform levels (Nixon 1982)
          tion of the ponds had been significantly different      in the lagoons demonstrated that the concentra-
          within living memory. Although there was very           tions of these bacteria had increased markedly
          little formal scientific data, old records, fishing     since samples had been analyzed by the state some
          logs, and interviews with "old timers" who had          years before. Review of studies conducted else-
          fished the salt ponds or farmed adjacent lands, were    where in the United States on the sources of bacte-
          examined and integrated in a booklet entitled The       rial contamination and the distribution of areas of
          Elusive Conpromise, RhodeIslandsCoastalPonds            high concentration in the lagoons led to the conclu-
          and Their People (Lee 1980). It became a local          sion that the sources were surface runoff from
          best seller. It presented a convincing and appealing    densely developed residential areas, particularly
          picture of a time when the salt ponds were in           older communities where on-site sewage disposal
          balance with their human users. Many of the             systems were failing.
          stories of large and productive oyster beds, abun-
          dant harvests of a variety of fish and shellfish, and   Concern for eutrophication called for a major ef-
          rapid changes in the salinity regimes brought by the    fort to develop nutrient input budgets for the la-
          construction of permanent stabilized inlets, were       goons. This work has shown that by far the largest
          verified and documented. This was a vindication         nitrogen loading to the lagoons was the nitrate in
          for the "old timers" who felt that for once they had    groundwater. A synthesis of the research on nutri-
          been carefully listened to and their vast knowledge     ent sources in the salt pond region combined with
          and insight into these systems recognized. The          research conducted elsewhere, particularly on Long
          story made for good newspaper articles and pro-         Island, New York (Koppleman, 1978), led to the
          vided the research team with an appreciation for        conclusion that residential development, specifi-
          the changing character of the place. Most impor-        cally on-site sewage disposal and fertilizers, was
          tant of all, the ecological history identified the      the principal source of this anthropogenically de-
          salient issues that a research and management           rived nitrogen. Field experiments (Harlin and
          strategy would need to address.                         Thorne-Miller, 198 1) demonstrated that additions
                                                                  of nitrogen in the form of nitrate and ammonia
          Once the major contributors to declining environ-       trigger massive blooms of nuisance algae
          mental quality had been defined, research priori-       (Enteromorpha spp., Ulva spp.) that is all too
          ties had to be selected. This was a complex task,       apparent in several salt ponds during the summer
          that was led by Dr. Scott Nixon. The traditional        months. An analysis of existing municipal zoning
          "ecological characterization" was avoided. In-          plans and ordinances that determine the density
          stead, research was carefully focused on improv-        and distribution of development had shown that the
          ing our understanding of a few key ecosystem            development process was less than half complete
          processes. The perceptions of declining environ-        and that under existing regulations the numbers of
          mental quality were simplified to three principal       houses in the watersheds of the lagoons could be
          research topics: declining water quality, sedimen-      expected to double and the resident population to
          tation and overfishing, each of which required a        increase fourfold. Additional deterioration is un-
          number of research tasks.


                                                               62








               avoidable. For instance, the research on the enrich-    tial for what appeared in the 1970s to be a promis-
               ment of groundwater with nitrate raised the addi-       ing small-scale oyster aquaculture industry. Eutro-
               tional issue of the potability of drinking water        phic conditions -also are increasing areas of soft,
               supplies. In the United States the limit for potable    highly organic bottom sediments that are virtually
               water is 10 mg/L of nitrate nitrogen. This level has    devoid of shellfish. These areas were formerly
               already been attained in some areas of the SaItPond     productive sandy bottoms. The effects of eu-
               Region, and such concentrations are expected to         trophication on finfish stocks are less obvious but
               extend over much larger areas at saturation devel-      may be equally significant. Localized fish kills that
               opment.                                                 may be attributed to low oxygen and high tempera-
                                                                       tures are known to occur and, if they become more
               A common response to problems such as these is to       common and widespread, could have a significant
               build, at great expense, public water supply and        impact on thejuvenile flounder that are abundant in
               sewage systems. A small public water supply             the lagoons during the summer.
               system already exists to service older communities
               where wells are contaminated by bacteria. A             One of the biggest threats of increasing water
               regionwide water system, however, will pose the         pollution to fisheries, however, is indirect. If the
               enormous probleffis of securing an adequate source      lagoons become more polluted by high levels of
               of unpolluted supply and in altering freshwater         bacterial contamination and eutrophic waters, there
               inputs to the individual salt ponds. A public sewer     will be mounting pressure to increase water circu-
               system will effectively eliminate major sources of      lation and flushing. This could be readily accom-
               nitrate and bacteria to groundwater. However,           plished by dredging out channels and inlets and by
               experience in neighboring states has shown that         cutting new connections between adjoining la-
               such services encourage dense development. A            goons and to the ocean. Research relating the
               large number of users is needed to defray the costs     hydrography of the salt ponds to their value for
               of building and maintaining such services and as        fisheries showed, however, that such modifica-
               the area becomes increasingly urban in character        tions have profound implications on the conserva-
               the nutrients and bacteria carried by surface runoff    tive qualities of the lagoons as nursery areas for
               become more significant. The likely end result          finfish and can have major impacts on the produc-
               would be eutrophic salt ponds with large areas          tivity of shellfish stocks as well. Such modifica-
               closed by bacterial contamination-a similar con-        tions would also in many instances accelerate the
               dition to that produced by smaller populations          already severe problem of rapid siltation of the
               without these amenities. A better strategy is, if       lagoons by sand carried in the inlets by fast-flow-
               possible, to reduce the ultimate density of develop-    ing tidal currents. Thus, eutrophication, bacterial
               ment and to implement a variety of measures to          contamination and strategies to address their water
               reduce the flow of nutrients and bacteria into both     quality problems have major implications for fish-
               groundwater and the lagoons.                            eries management.

               Fisheries. The implications of water pollution on       Declines in habitat quality, however, are only one
               fisheries are enormous. State law requires that         reason for the remarkable decline in the fisheries of
               areas be closed to shellfishing when coliform bac-      the salt ponds in this century. Equally important is
               teria concentrations attain prescribed levels. The      the chronic overfishing by commercial and recre-
               studies suggested that if the development trends        ational fishermen. The research has demonstrated
               were to continue unchecked, areas that still support    that undersized shellfish dominate in beds acces-
               intensive shellfishing would eventually have to be      sible to fishermen. In the Ninigret and Point Judith
               closed. In certain coves, episodes of low oxygen        lagoons it is typical for 50 percent of the quahogs
               limit the few remaining oyster populations to near      (Mercenaria mercenaria), 75 percent of the soft-
               surface waters. This has greatly reduced the poten-     shelled clams (Mya arenaria) and 90 percent of the

                                                                    63







          oysters (Crassostrea virginica) to be undersized.        draulics of Point Judith salt pond were assessed.
          While commercial fishermen will stop fishing when        Dredging other areas of this pond would provide
          the catch-per-unit of efforts become too low to be       for more "boat habitat," and perhaps temporarily
          economically attractive, recreational fishermen will     improve water quality in some areas, but only at the
          continue to work areas where hours of digging            cost of increased sedimentation and the likelihood
          yield only a handful of undersized shellfish. The        of adverse impacts on fisheries habitats and unde-
          planning team became convinced that in the con-          sirable degradation of conservative mixing pat-
          text of a free and common fishery, regulations           terns critical for the successful larval development
          alone will not solve overfishing. The fisheries of       of commercially important species.
          the lagoons are too small to warrant the enforce-
          ment effort that would be needed if existing regu-
          lations were to be strictly applied. The research        The Negotiation Process
          also demonstrated that the fisheries of the lagoons
          change rapidly from one year to another and that         There were two distinct forms of negotiation and
          effective management must be founded on a sus-           collaborative thinking required to formulate the
          tained and attentive monitoring program. If man-         plan. The first was internal, among those con-
          agement is to be effective, the responses to new         cerned with the policy and planning implications
          problems and opportunities must be rapid and             of the work and the researchers. The second was
          based on good information.                               the more formal and structured process of negotia-
                                                                   tion among public interest groups and among gov-
          Sedimentation. Reports dating back to the last           ernmental agencies.
          century document that it has long been believed
          that greater water exchange between the lagoons          Collaborative Research. During 1980 through
          and the ocean will enhance fisheries, promote the        1983, it was no simple matter to create and main-
          use of -lagoons as safe anchorages and flush out         tain the sense of a collaborative effort among the
          pollutants. However, that permanent artificially         many principal researchers. It was also a major
          stabilized breachways connecting the lagoons to          challenge to keep track of the research findings and
          the ocean have caused a rapid increase in sedimen-       the initial interpretations thereof, and apply them to
          tation, altered the bottom habitat for fisheries,        the management questions as the components of a
          made boating hazardous and did not solve the             management strategy gradually evolved. An im-
          pollution problem. Detailed studies (Boothroyd,          portant technique for building a common sense of
          198 1) of Ninigret Pond have demonstrated that the       purpose was a series of annual reviews, at which all
          permanent breachway built in 1952 more than              major participants in the endeavor were required to
          doubled the annual rate of sedimentation on the          spend a full two to three days to review the research
          tidal delta from 2,000 m3 to 5,000 m3. The               findings and brainstorm on their possible implica-
          .accelerated rate of sedimentation, if unchecked,        tions and interrelationships. The major manage-
          will result in the lagoon being cut in two by a sand     ment questions, including what modifications to
          flat within thirty years. Similar problems are           recommend for the breachways, what to conclude
          associated with the breachways of all the salt           from the shellfish surveys, and how to reduce
          ponds. The only exception is in Point Judith Pond.       nutrient inputs, served as reference points for the
          Because the fishing port of Galilee is just inside the   discussions. Many of the ideas that later became
          breachway, the harbor is kept functional by the          central to the management strategy first emerged in
          U.S. Army Corps by dredging out some 10,000 m3           these sessions. The need for a considerable number
          of tidal delta sediment approximately every five         of mid-course corrections in the research priorities
          years (Friedrich 1988). Using the hydrodynamic           also surfaced and were incorporated into the re-
          computer model (Isaji et al, 1985) the ramifications     search plans of the investigators. Collaborative
          of making further large-scale changes to the hy-         field studies and interpretation of research results

                                                                 64







                for management strategies also helped build an             The Process of Drafting the Management
                appreciation for the many interrelationships among         Strategy
                the research findings.
                                                                           The Coastal Resources Management Council as-
                Efforts to involve interested citizens into the pro-       sembled an advisory committee that included mu-
                cess of research and understanding issues within           nicipal officials, representatives of major interest
                the ponds were highly successful. This was orga-           groups (fishermen, environmentalists, development
                nized around the concept of "pond watchers."               interests), representatives of the Department of
                These were citizens who lived near the ponds and           Environmental Management, and members of the
                who had expressed an interest in the project and           CRMC. This group worked intensively over two
                offered to help, at earlier meetings or workshops.         periods in 1983 and 1984. The first round focused
                A number of principal investigators used pond              upon detailed syntheses of research findings on
                watcher observations in theirresearch results, most        each of the major topics to be addressed by the plan.
                notably the work on waterfowl, water quality, and          The second round of the Committee's delibera-
                documenting the magnitude of the recreational              tions focused on what to do, rather than the analysis
                fishing catch. Such detailed coverage would have           of the problems and their implications. It had
                been prohibitively expensive to obtain in any other        emerged from the first round of meetings that
                way and extremely important data were produced.            "non-regulatory initiatives" would be fully as im-
                The pond watcher program had many other ben-               portant as the more traditional rules and regula-
                efits in that it provided a core of citizens to serve as   tions of permitting agencies and much time was
                a conduit for information and ideas within their           given to shaping actions that could be carried out
                communities and provide the participants with a            on a voluntary basis.
                sense of ownership of the overall effort. The key to
                adoption of any new management strategy was to             Once the draft plan had been approved in principle
                engender a philosophy of stewardship amongst the           by the Committee, it was released to the press and
                citizenry. The overall effort could only succeed if        again became the subject of another set of in-depth
                the citizenry itself was committed and were active         and supportive newspaper articles. At the same
                participants in the entire research management             time, the Plan was presented at a series of public
                planning process.                                          workshops, which built further support. The Plan
                                                                           was then subject to the formal hearing process
                Involvement of Municipal Officials. Another                required by the Rhode Island Administrative Pro-
                major challenge was to convince municipal offi-            cedures Act. This is an often contentious and
                cials that they did have the power and the ability to      awkward process that does not easily promote
                influence how the land was developed. The means            negotiation among parties in conflict. It is a testa-
                of achieving this was by organizing dinner semi-           ment to the enormous amount of work that pre-
                nars and inviting members of the town councils, the        ceded the fon-nal hearing process that all conflicts
                planning boards, and the zoning boards of all three        had been worked out well in advance and the
                towns. By bringing them together, they could get           formal hearing consisted almost entirely of strong
                to know one another and learn the commonalties of          statements in support of the strategy from a broad
                their problems and experience. As a result, a              cross-section of government officials at both the
                critical mass of the local officials were convinced        municipal, state and federal level, and many citi-
                that problems could indeed be overcome and that            zens. The Plan was formally adopted by the Man-
                exciting new approaches to old problems were               agement Council in November 1984, approximately
                being successfully tested elsewhere. They helped           one year after formal adoption of the new statewide
                create a sense of common purpose and trust.                regulatory coastal program.




                                                                        65







             A major challenge posed to those attempting to                    general welfare" of the resident population through
             structure an integrated management plan, that                     zoning ordinances that regulate the size of indi-
             once formally adopted would have the force of                     vidual lots and set performance standards on how
             law, was the fragmentation among governmental                     they may be developed. Changing existing zoning
             authority and land ownership. While the lagoons,                  to reduce the number of buildable lots in an area is
             and their associated beaches, wetlands, fisheries,                an undertaking with major political implications.
             waterfowl and even the state-owned fishing port                   The strategy, therefore, was to achieve sufficient
             are all common property resources over which                      consensus among all parties as to the nature of the
             governmental authorities are well established, 88                 problems and to then define common management
             percent of the watershed is privately owned and                   objectives. Both governmental agencies and the
             here the authorities of government are less strong.               public must thoroughly understand the nature of
             Privately owned land is owned by thousands of                     the problems and alternative courses of action
             individuals the great majority of which own a                     before any attempt is made to mount a politically
             single house lot. For those owning the non-public                 charged new initiative. Therefore adopted a flex-
             portion of the undeveloped land that comprised 73                 ible, iterative approach was adopted where re-
             percent of the watershed in 19 84, the value of their             search results and their interpretation were exam-
             land is directly proportional to the number of                    ined and discussed by major stakeholders over a
             house lots into which it can be subdivided.                       protracted period. Instead of a massive report,
                                                                               discussion of individual topics through a newslet-
             Municipal governments control the density and                     ter, newspaper articles and public presentations.
             type of development for the "health, safety and
             The Plan that was adopted in late 1984 contains the following major features:
                               Problems                                              Actions Taken Through The Plan
             1. A sequential permit process involving several munici-          Coordinated permit review whereby major enivronmental
             pal and state regulatory agencies results in inefficiency,        issues posed by a development proposal are identified at
             unnecessary expense and an unsatisfactory planning and            the outset and the information and analysis requirements
             negotiation process.                                              of local and state governmental agencies are shared.


             2. Non-regulatory resource management initiatives are             Form an Action Committee chaired by the CRMC that
             uncoordinated and ad hoc in nature.                               includes municipal and state agencies to identify annual
                                                                               priorities and coordinate non-regulatory initiatives.


             3. The potential number of houses and resident population         Three of the four municipalities have amended their land
             in the watershed must be reduced to reduce nutrient and           use zoning plans to increase lot sizes in critical areas (from
             bacterial loading, to protect the qualities of the region and     1/4-acre lots to 3 and 5-acre lots).
             to forestall the eventual need for sewering and expanding
             public water systems.

             4. (a) Salt pond water quality threatened by increasing            For pre-existing development: upgrade and maintain
             bacterial contamination and eutrophication.                       sewage disposal systems, reduce sources of runoff so there
               (b) Public water supplies (groundwater) threatened by           are no direct discharges to the ponds.
             excessive nitrate loadings from on-site sewage disposal           - For new development: decrease the density of develop-
             and fertilizers.                                                  ment by increasing the lot sizes and in specificed areas
                                                                               require construction setback and undisturbed buffer zones.
                                                                               *Severely limit extensions to public water and sewer
                                                                               systems where these would encourage high density
                                                                               residential or commercial development.
                                                                               - Strong public education and incentive programs.
                                                                               *Promote research and implementation of denitrification
                                                                               technology.
                                                                                Establish wastewater management districts for non-
                                                                               sewered areas.
                                                                             66








                 5. Stablized inlets have brought increased sedimentation,            - Strictly limit further dredging.
                 destroyed brackish water fisheries and reduced nursery               - Detailed regulations for the maintenance of catchment
                 habitats.                                                            basins in each inlet.
                                                                                      - Proposals for tide gates where appropriate.


                 6. Chronic overfishing and habitat degradation have                  - Fisheries stewards proposed to monitor stocks, inten-
                 severely reduced fin and shellfish populations: once                 sively manage selected sites to increase yields, demon-
                 important brackish water fisheries eliminated.                       strate how fisheries can be improved, and enforce pre-
                                                                                      existing regulations.
                                                                                      - Several modifications to catch and size limits and fishing
                                                                                      seasons recommended to R.I. Fisheries Council.



                 7. Hurricanes periodically devastate the region; develop-            - Construction setback of 30 times the annual erosion rate
                 ment is currently at an unprecedented level and future               and more for commercial structures.
                 destruction to property and alterations to salt pond ecology         - Construction on designated undeveloped barriers
                 will be large.                                                       prohibited.
                                                                                      - Expansion of public utilities prohibited in high hazard
                                                                                      areas of barrier spits.
                                                                                      - Post storm building moratorium in high damage areas.


                 8. Human uses and conflicts will further intensify as                - Priority sites for preservation identified.
                 development proceeds; some further deterioration in                  - Recommended upgrading of public facilities and
                 environmental quality is inevitable.                                 infrastructure specified.



                 CONCLUSIONS                                                          0 The municipalities have adopted modifications
                                                                                      to their zoning plans and ordinances that have
                 The Special Area Management Plan has now been                        significantly reduced the ultimate density of devel-
                 in effect for six years. With the benefit of hind-                   opment within the watersheds of the lagoons.
                 sight, the major features of the strategy and their                  Opposition to some of these modifications was
                 relative success appear to be as follows:                            intense and well-organized, but the Plan and con-
                                                                                      cem forprotecting environmental quality persuaded
                      The Plan has succeeded in providing three                       the majority of voters to support the changes.
                 levels of government (municipalities, state agen-
                 cies and federal agencies) with a common, for-                            The DEM has extensively reviewed the criteria
                 mally adopted set of objectives and strategies. The                  by which it evaluates the potential impacts of on-
                 sense of isolation and working at cross purposes                     site sewage disposal systems. State codes have
                 between municipal and state regulatory agencies                      been changed to provide for more stringent siting
                 has been largely overcome. The coordinated re-                       and construction standards for septic systems in the
                 view of major development proposals that is a                        salt pond region. Legislation has been passed to
                 major feature of the Plan does not occur with the                    allow towns to establish wastewater management
                 formality originally envisioned, but the town re-                    districts for non-sewered areas.
                 quests a review by the CRMC staff at the initial
                 stages of formulating a proposal so that the local                        No large-scale proposals have been made to
                 planning boards can benefit from technical review                    invest in infrastructure such as sewer systems and
                 and may assume that proposals meet CRMC stan-                        public water supply systems that would ultimately
                 dards from the beginning of the development pro-                     increase the density of development. Moreover,
                 cess.                                                                public infrastructure has been prohibited from storm
                                                                                      hazard areas and in one case public water lines have
                                                                                      been removed from a hazardous barrier beach area.

                                                                                  67






              @
                   Non-point source pollution loadings are re-                              The ecological history was of enormous
                uced by buffer strips, building setbacks, limiting                   value in framing the issues, providing a common
              the number of docks, and requiring grassy swales                       context for all participants, and involving major
              to treat road runoff.                                                  segments of the local populace.

              # Heightened awareness has been sustained                              - The Plan was negotiated on the basis of a fair
              among the public and governmental officials for                        and open process of evaluation and planning. It
              the costs of development in terms of both environ-                     was crucial that one group, the URI Coastal Re-
              mental quality and the public services that must be                    sources Center, was committed to the planning and
              sustained by local taxes.                                              negotiation process and provided consistent lead-
                                                                                     ership through the four-year period of formulating
                   The Special Area Management Plan has served                       the strategy.
              as the model for similar linked research and plan-
              ning initiatives elsewhere in Rhode Island and in                      - The Special Area Management Plan demon-
              other coastal states. The major features of the Plan                   strates how research, planning, policy reform and
              have been adopted by planners for the watersheds                       public education can be successfully knit together
              abutting the original Salt Pond Region to the north                    into a coherent mutually supportive process.
              and west.


              LESSONS LEARNED                                                        REFERENCES

                   Activity associated with the preparation of the                   Bookthroyd, J., N. Friedrich. and S. McGinn. 1985. Geology of
                                                                                               Microtidal Coastal Lagoons: Rhode island. Marine Geol-
              Plan succeeded in modifying the behavior of gov-                                 M. Vol. 63. p. 35-76.
              ernment and the population living within the wa-                       Crawford, R. 1984. Rhode Island Lagoon Fishieries; the Conse-
              tershed of the lagoons. The actions taken, how-                                  quences of 100 Years of Habitat Restoration. Manage-
              ever, have not been sufficient to reverse or halt the                            ment of Coastal Lagoons, Fisheries Studies and Reviews
              identified trends in environmental degradation.                                  No. 61, Vol 2. FAO, Rome, Italy.
              Fishery resources today are not more abundant in                       Crawford, R. and C. Grove-Carey. 1985. Retention of Winter
              the lagoons, the sedimentation process continues                                 Flounder Larvae within a Rhode Island Salt Pond. Estu-
              and water quality in some areas is worse. Many                                   aries. Vol. 8 p. 217-227.
              actions have been taken but the lesson appears to be                   Harlin, M.M. and B. Thorne-Miller. 198 1. Nutrient Enrichment of
              inescapable that society is not willing or able to halt                          Seagrass Beds in a Rhodelsland Coastal Lagoon. Marine
              the development process when land is fragmented                                  Biology Vol. 65, p. 221-229.
              in thousands of private holdings and when the                          Isaji,T.,M. Spaulding, andJ. Stace. 1985. Tidal ExchangeBetween
              economic and social pressures are intense to con-                             a Coastal Lagoon and Offshore Waters. Estuaries. Vol. 8 p.
              tinue the transformation from a rural to a residen-                           203-216.
              tial community.                                                        Koppelman, L. 1978. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste
                                                                                            Treatment Management Plan. Hauppauge, N.Y., Nassau-
                     The notable successes achieved in new re-                              Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 2 vols: 364p.
              source management initiatives and revisions to the                     Lee, V. 1980. An Elusive Compromise: Rhode Island's Coastal
              procedures and policies of government agencies                                Ponds and Their People. Coastal Resources Center, Univer-
              came because local citizens worked hard to ac-                                sity of Rhode Island Marine Technical Report No. 73,
              tively support the Plan. Without their participation                          Kingston R.I.
              the required compromises and commitments would                         Lee, V. and S. Olsen. 1985. Eutrophication and Management
              not have been made. It was very important to                                  Initiatives for theControl of NutrientInputs to Rhodelsland
              formulate management strategies that actively in-                             Coastal Lagoons. Estuaries. Volume 8, p. 191-202.
              volved the interested populace in the research,
              monitoring and planning process.
                                                                                 68








                Miller, H.C. 1975. -Coastal Flood Plain Management and the                      special Area Management Plan, Rhode Island Coastal Re-
                        National Flood Insurance Program; A Case Study of Three                 sources Management Council, Adopted November 1984.
                        Rhode Island Communities. Environmental Comment.
                        Urban Land Institute, p. 2-14.                                  Olsen,  S. 1985. Science and Politics in the Management of
                                                                                                Ecosystems: Some Lessons From Rhode Island.m Proceed-
                Nixon, S. 1982. Nutrient Dynamics, Primary Production and                       ings of the International Symposium on Utilization of Coastal
                        Fisheries Yields of Lagoons. Proceedings of the Intema-                 Ecosystems: Planning, Pollution and Productivity, 21-27
                        tional Symposium on Coastal Lagoons. Bordeaux, France.                  November 1982, Rio Grande, Brazil, Vol. 1.
                        September 198 1. Oceanological Acta. No. SP.
                                                                                        State of Rhode Island. 1983. Coastal Resources Management
                Olsen, S. and V. Lee. 198 1. Inlet Modifications: An Example of                 Program. Providence, R.I.
                        an Holistic Approach to Lagoonal Management. Proceed-
                        ings of the International Symposium on Coastal Lagoons,         For further information and provision of key
                        Bordeaux, France, September 1981. Oceanologica Acta,            references contact:
                        1982 No. SP.

                Olsen, S. 1984. A Holistic Approach to Management of Coastal            The Coastal Resources Center
                        Lagoons. Management of Coastal Lagoons, Fisheries Stud-         The University of Rhode Island
                        ies and Reviews. No. 61. Vol 2. FAO, Rome Italy.                Narragansett, RI 02882
                Olsen, S. and V. Lee. 1984. Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region: A













































                                                                                    69



















































































                                                              70






              Virgin Islands National Park

              Efforts to Balance Marine-based Tourism with Protection of Coral Reefs and Seagrass Beds in a
              National Park


              Caroline S. Rogers


                 The marine resources within the Virgin Islands National Park include coral reefs, seagrass
                 beds, and the fishes and other organisms, including endangered species such as sea turtles
                 which depend on these ecosystems. Stress on these resources come primarily from tourism
                 and intense recreational use, overfishing, and coastal and upland development. Marine-
                 based tourism provides the most visible evidence of change as dramatic increases in the
                 number of people visiting the park has led to congestion and crowding of some beaches;
                 conflicts between the different groups using the park (e.g., boaters and fishermen);
                 breakage of corals by inexperienced snorkelers; and habitats destruction from boats'and
                 ships running aground on shallow coral reefs and anchoring on seagrass beds and reefs.
                 The National Park Service has attempted to minimize the adverse effects of human activity
                 by a combination of education, research, communication and direct resource management.
                 This case study describes the efforts of park managers to reduce anchor damage to coral
                 reefs and seagrass beds. It highlights the need for and use of scientific information in the
                 management process. Coral protection is one element of a strategy to manage marine based
                 tourism, based on the clear management objectives of the National Park Service.



              INTRODUCTION                                            Documentation of the damage to these valuable
                                                                      resources by the park research staff led to specific
              Efforts are being made to balance marine-based          resource management actions, which are a focal
              tourism and preservation of marine resources within     point of this case study. Unlike many Caribbean
              Virgin Islands National Park (VINP) on the Carib-       islands seeking to increase tourism to bring in
              bean island of St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)     much needed revenues, St. John is seeking to avoid
              (Figure 1).                                             excessive use. As with all U.S. National Parks,
                                                                      VINP is mandated to conserve its resources while
              Virgin Islands National Park is now experiencing        still allowing for public use. The challenge is to
              many adverse consequences associated with recent        ensure that people can continue to enjoy the park
              increases in tourism. The combined resident and         without causing further degradation of valuable
              tourist use level has more than tripled since 1976.     marine resources.
              The impact of this number of people on the marine
              resources and park infrastructure has been signifi-
              cant. Many visitors arrive on cruise ships or charter   BACKGROUND
              sailboats whose anchors and associated anchor
              chains have caused unacceptable levels of damage        The marine portion of VINP was established in
              to coral reefs and seagrass beds inside the park.       1962, six years after the terrestrial portion. The U.
                                                                      S. Code of Federal Regulations prohibits destruc-
              Caroline Rogers is a National Park Service Research Biologist tion of marine resources in VINP, stating as fol-
              serving the Virgin Islands National Park.               lows: "No person shall ... remove, displace, or break

                                                                   71









                                               Francis Bay

                             Trunk Bay
             Hawksnest Bay





                                                      ST. JOH



              Cruz Bay




                                                                                                               N
                                                               Little
                                                         Larneshur Bay      Greate
                                           VL*                          Larneshur Bay
                             ST. JOHN                                                          0        1        2
                                                                                                      --7777777M
                                                                                                     MILES



             Figure 1. Map of St. John and location of Virgin Islands National Park


             off any underwater growth and formation. Nor              park, most come to enjoy swimming off the white
             shall any person ... injure orimpairthe natural beauty    sandy beaches, snorkeling or diving on coral reefs,
             of the underwater scene". Also, "No watercraft            and sailing. The average number of boats in park
             shall be operated in such a manner, nor shall             waters increased from about 20 per day in 1976 to
             anchors or any other mooring device be cast or            over 80 per day ten years later (Figure 3). About
             dragged or placed, soas to strike or otherwise cause      30,000 boats per year anchor in.the park. Use of
             damage to any underwater features". These regula-         Trunk Bay, the park    7s most popular beach, rose
             tions have been very difficult to enforce.                from less than 20,000 people in 1966 to almost
                                                                       170,000 in 1986. The largest cruise ships, up to
             The estimated number of people visiting the park          1,000'long and carrying as many as 2,000 passen-
             rose from about 200,000 in 1976 to over 800,000 in        gers, anchor outside park boundaries and use small
             1988 (Figure 2). Visitation fell slightly in the last     boats to transport passengers to shore in Cruz Bay.
             two years, perhaps reflecting the effects of Hurri-       The park Superintendent has recently been getting
             cane Hugo in September 1989, concern over trav-           increasing numbers of requests for permission to
             eling during the Persian Gulf crisis, and a de-           bring groups of up to 800 people for a day on the
             pressed economy. Given a resident population of           beach.
             less than 4,000, and an area of only 20 square miles,
             this level of visitation has resulted in substantial
             social and environmental pressures. While many
             people enjoy the hiking trails and scenery in the

                                                                     72











                 PROFILE


                 Mandate for Program
                 The marine portion of the Virgin Islands National Park was established in 1962 with a mandate
                 to the NPS "to preserve for the benefit of the public significant coral gardens, marine life and
                 seascapes." The ultimate responsibility for decision making within the park rests with the
                 Superintendent, who has a staff of about 60 and works closely with the US Virgin Islands
                 Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR).

                 The Coastal Zone Management Act for the U.S. Virgin Islands became effective in 1978 and
                 established a Coastal Zone Management Commission within DPNR. The Commission provides
                 policy direction and leadership on coastal management issues and can promulgate regulations.
                 The Commission consists of three Committees, one from each of the major islands, which
                 evaluate and issue coastal zone management permits. The NPS, as afederal agency, mustconduct
                 its activities within the coastal zone, in a manner consistent with the CZM Program.

                 Geographic Scope                                                                      I
                 St. John is one of the U.S. Virgin Islands with an area of 20 square miles, situated in the Caribbean
                 Sea, about 85 miles east of Puerto Rico. The Virgin Islands Coastal Zone includes the islands of
                 St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix, all offshore islands and cays, and the territorial sea. The VINP
                 boundary encompasses 56% of the island of St. John and nearly 9 square miles of nearshore
                 waters within the territorial sea (Figure 1).

                 Management Procedures/Techniques
                 The park's General Management Plan and Resource Management Plan provide the framework
                 forpark management. Regulations in supportof the plans established"no boat" zones, designated
                 and prohibited anchoring areas, and mooring areas. Proposed regulations are subject to public
                 review and scrutiny through publication in the Federal Register and public hearings. In some
                 cases, task forces consisting of park employees and local citizens tackle key issues and make
                 recommendations. The Superintendent also has authority to enact emergency regulations.


              A number of stresses affect the marine resources in     ever, it is not the intent that the park should act as
              VINP. The impacts from recreational activities          a refuge for heavily exploited species.
              (see Table 1) are being superimposed on an already
              deteriorating environment as a result of storms,        The most serious threat to the park's marine re-
              coral disease, and, most recently, an oil spill and     sources is probably the accelerating pace of coastal
              subsequent cleanup operations. Hurricane Hugo           and upland development over which the Park Ser-
              caused severe destruction to seagrass beds and          vice has virtually no control. Private lands within
              coral reefs, primarily off the eastern and southern     and outside the park boundary are being cleared
              shores of the island.                                   and bulldozed to make way for condominiums,
                                                                      hotels, and home sites. Erosion and runoff of
              Fishing with traps, hand-lines, and certain types of    sediment from these sites can result in reduction of
              nets is allowed within park boundaries, although        light available for photosynthesis by marine organ-
              spearfishing and gill netting are not. There is evi-    isms and smothering of organisms, leading to dete-
              dence of severe depletion of reef fishes, conchs,       rioration of water quality and degradation of
              and lobsters within the U. S. Virgin Islands. How-      nearshore ecosystems.

                                                                    73








                                                            diversity of living organisms, and which took cen-
                PEOPLE (Thousands)                          turies to develop. The anchor from a large vessel
                                                            can weigh several tons and is capable of doing far
             800-                                           more serious damage than the lighter anchors of
                                                            smaller boats. Large anchors can actually fracture
             600-                                           the ftamework of the reef.

             400-
                                                            Recovery of seagrass beds and reefs is a slow
             200-                                           process. Corals grow a maximum of a few centime-
                                                            ters a year. In cases where corals have been pulver-
               0                                            ized or displaced, recovery depends on successful
                1967 1960 1963 INS 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 *84 1987 1990
                                 YEAR                       recruitment of live coral fragments and settlement
                Figure 2. Recreational visit& to V.I. National Park. 1957-90 of coral planulae (larvae). These larvae require
                                                            hard substrate for colonization. Often the anchor
                                                            scar contains loose sediments and rubble which do
             too- AVG BOATS PER DAY                         not provide a suitable substrate. Recovery may be
             so-                                            prevented or delayed if anchoring continues or if
                                                            storms or heavy seas prevent the cementation and
             so-                                            stabilization of detached coral colonies or coral
                                                            rubble. Seagrass beds take decades to recover if the
             40-                                            rhizomes have been severed. In addition, the root
                                                            and rhizome systems of seagrass plants stabilize
             20-                                            sand, and their destruction can increase sedimenta-
               0                                            tion in nearby areas.
                1966 1"9 t972 1975 1978 198t 1984 1987 1990
                                 YEAR

                Figure 3. Boats In V.I. National Park water*, 1966-90



                                                              Table 1. Effects of recreational activities on coral reefs and
                                                              scagrass beds (Adapted from Marion, 1988).
          Although careless development is potentially the    Boating
          greatest threat to the park's marine resources, boat       Anchor/chain damage
          anchors are currently causing the most immediate           Damage from boats striking or grounding on reefs
          damage.                                                    Propeller damage
                                                                     Increased water turbidity
                                                                     Oil/gas residues
          Damage Associated with Anchoring                           Dumping of garbage, human waste, etc.

                                                              Snorkeling and Diving
          Anchors and their attached chains can severely             Damage to corals from touching or standing
          damage seagrasses and coral communities. In many           Harassment/displacement of marine organisms
          cases, the chain is more detrimental than the anchor       Feeding of marine organisms
                                                                     Collection of living marine organisms
          itself because it scours the bottom as the vessel
          shifts in the wind and currents, or else moves up   Fisning
                                                                 -   Depletion of reef fishes by spearfishing and
          and down, bouncing off the bottom. In VINP,                hook and line
          anchors and their chains have pulverized hard coral    -   Overharvesting of marine invertebrates
                                                                     (lobsters, conch)
          colonies, ripped sponges and soft corals off the
          bottom, smashed and overturned small patch reefs,
          and flipped corals upside down. A single anchor
          drop can destroy reef areas, which support a high

                                                           74








                                                                            1988) revealed that the average length of the suT-
                    CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS                              veyed boats was about 45', and 46% of them were
                                                                            anchored in seagrass or coral communities. Severe
                    1956      V1 National Park established                  disruption of the bottom was noted in 23% of the
                    1962      Boundaries revised to include marine          incidents. This estimate is conservative as many
                              areas                                         rubble and sand bottoms may have supported
                    1972      Federal Coastal Zone Management Act           seagrass and coral communities in the past. Long-
                    1978      CZMA for USVI became effective                time residents of St. John have expressed dismay
                    1979      CZM Program for USVI federally
                              approved                                      over the degradation of some of their favorite
                    1982      VI Resource Management Cooperative            snorkeling sites.
                              (VIRMC) established
                    1983      NPS provides research funds for VIRMC         Although aware of some damage from the anchors
                    1983/88   Research on marine systems                    of "mini-cruise ships" which range in length from
                    1988      Coral Reef Assessment Program funded
                    1988      Major cruise ship damage incident             about 150' to 225', attention initially was directed
                              monitored                                     to the numerous smaller boats because up until the
                                                                            mid 1980's, it was unusual for more than one or two
                                                                            of these mini-cruisers to anchor in park waters. The
                                                                            proliferation of these cruise ships in the last,5 or 6
               CASE STUDY: Anchor and cable damage to                       years raised concern because they are capable of
               coral reefs and seagrass beds.                               entering very shallow, environmentally sensitive
                                                                            areas that are inaccessible to larger vessels. The
               The park's Research and Resource Management                  cruise lines were contacted and the Park Service
               Division consists of a Resource Management Spe-              expressed its concern about environmental de-
               cialist, a Research Biologist and two Biological             struction from anchoring. In fact, park biologists
               Technicians. Studies of reef damage were initiated           made several dives trying to find suitable anchor
               because of evidence from staff observations and              areas for one cruiseline which wanted permission
               from concerned island residents that boaters were            to anchor its ships (about 225' long) close to shore
               running aground on reefs and inexperienced                   in popular bays. Each ship would have to put out
               snorkelers were breaking off shallow corals with             three large anchors and the two bow anchors would
               their fins. Although the south shore of the island is        have to be about 900' from the stem anchor to be
               getting increasing use, most boating and snorkel-            effective in keeping the ship in place. No suitably
               ing takes place in the northern and northwestern             large mud or sandy bottom could be found within
               bays. In 1986 and 1987, coral colonies were moni-            the park.
               tored in Hawksnest Bay and off Windswept Reef,
               two of the hardest hit areas on the north shore,             A dramatic incident on October 8, 1988 made it
               (Figure 1), for evidence of damage from natural              clear that the greatest threat to the marine resources
               processes (e.g., coral diseases, heavy swells) and           in the park, the destruction by cruise ship anchors,
               from human activity (e.g., snorkeling, boat ground-          was not being adequately addressed. On that day, a
               ings). While it is often not possible to differentiate       440'cruise ship dropped its anchor on a coral reef,
               between natural stresses and visitor-related dam-            dragging it along the reef slope which rises from a
               age, it was clear that boats and snorkelers caused a         depth of 75' to 25' in waters west of Francis Bay
               considerable amount of coral breakage. In some               (Figure 1). The incident could easily have gone
               cases, blue or red boat-bottom paint was observed            undetected. However, one of the park biologists
               on smashed coral colonies.                                   was out in his boat and was contacted by friends
                                                                            who had witnessed the plume of sediments stirred
               A survey of boats anchoring in northern park                 up by the ship's anchor and anchor chain. Divers
               waters from January to March 1987 (Rogers et al              discovered a distinct scar, approximately 420'long

                                                                         75







            and 6-10' wide. Corals and other reef organisms           tists and managers of the Florida Marine Sanctuar-
            were pulverized, overturned, and ripped from their        ies who have had to deal with hundreds of ground-
            bases. An area of 340 sq. yards was virtually             ings (Rogers et al. 1990).
            destroyed. The National Park Service has sued the
            cruise line, and the case is in litigation.               It should be noted that it is not possible to accu-
                                                                      rately determine the amount of reef area within the
            The documentation of damage from this incident            park which has already been degraded by boat
            and others led to the establishment of new regula-        anchors. Many of the reefs are deep and uncharted.
            tions designed to provide better protection for the       It is not feasible to get an overview of the damaged
            marine systems in the park. In the fall of 1989, the      areas park-wide. Even excellent aerial photographs
            Superintendent established restrictions on the size       only show reefs down to a maximum of 60' and do
            of boats which are allowed to anchor in the park.         not reveal the condition of the reefs. It is often not
            Boats which are longer than 225' are not permitted        possible to determine what caused the death of
            -to anchor anywhere in the park, while boats rang-        coral colonies or to differentiate between damage
            ing from. 150' to 225' are permitted to anchor only       from natural processes or human activities. The
            in Francis Bay in over 30'of water. Francis Bay was       incidents documented in this paper arejust a few of
            selected as a designated anchorage for these larger       those which are known to have occurred. Most
            vessels because it has a predominantly sandy bot-         incidents go undetected. In spite of these draw-
            tom with few coral or seagrass communities.               backs, it is known that anchors have caused and
                                                                      continue to cause unacceptable levels of destruc-
            About a year after the October 1988 anchoring             tion, destruction which is superimposed on that
            incident, a park employee came across a glossy            from all other causes. The reefs and sea grass beds
            magazine advertisement for cruises which stopped          will never recover if these pressures continue.
            in St. John, including a photograph of what ap-
            peared to be a very large ship. No reference was          Minimizing Damage to Marine Resources
            made to Virgin Islands National Park. The Super-
            intendent personally wrote a cordial letter to the        A variety of reasons make it difficult to reduce the
            cruise line explaining the park's restrictions on         damage to the park's marine resources.
            anchoring. In October 1990, about one year after
            this letter was sent, the ship which had been fea-        The Park boundary. A major constraint to man-
            tured in the advertisement, pulled into park waters       agement is the 360 degree access to park waters.
            and anchored. The park's Chief Ranger went out to         The marine boundary is not marked with signs or
            the ship and explained to the captain that the ship       buoys. To further complicate matters, the bound-
            (438' long) was too large to be anchoring in the          ary appears to have been arbitrarily defined. It cuts
            park. The anchor site was examined by divers the          through the middle of some bays and lies at varying
            following day. Although the anchor had landed in          distances from shore. This open, unmarked bound-
            sand, the anchor chain had smashed and toppled            ary has two major consequences. Firstly, many
            coral colonies on the nearby reef in 60 feet of water.    people who cruise or sail into the park have no idea
            Park biologists have documented the damage, and           that they are entering a protected area. Some sail,
            a case is being prepared against the cruise line.         anchor, dive and snorkel in park waters but never
                                                                      setfooton shore. Secondly, those who do go ashore
            Park biologists have had to spend a considerable          may never stop at the Visitor Center located in Cruz
            amount of time attempting. to document the dam-           Bay on the western side of the island. Therefore a
            age caused by large ship anchors and, to a lesser         special effort must be made to make people aware
            degree, small boat groundings. Guidelines for as-         that they are in a national park with protective
            sessment of reef damage have been devised based           legislation and to seek their cooperation.
            on staff experience and conversations with scien-

                                                                    76








              Provision of moorings. Moorings have been used          The navigational charts which are available only
              very successfully in several marine protected areas     show the shallowest reef areas. The park has bot-
              to eliminate or reduce the destruction caused by        tom maps which show reefs and seagrass beds
              anchors. In VINP, it is not simply a matter of          down to 60'. There are currently no maps which
              installing a few moorings and requiring that boat-      show the deeper reefs, some of which are the best
              ers use them. In some other protected areas, such as    developed reefs around St. John.
              Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, Key Largo
              National Marine Sanctuary, Buck Island Reef Na-         Some conflict exists between boaters and fisher-
              tional Monument, and Saba Marine Park, the desir-       men. Out of respect for traditional activities, cer-
              able locations for moorings are fairly evident. All     tain types of fishing are permitted within VINP.
              of these areas are comparatively small, with well-      Some fishermen are concerned that existing and
              defined coral reefs and boater destinations. Most of    planned "No Boat" zones will prevent them from
              the people who visit Looe Key National Marine           netting the baitfish which school in shallow waters
              Sanctuary arrive in power boats to dive and snorkel     in several bays.
              on the forereef. The people who visit Buck Island
              Reef National Monument arrive on sail and power         Enforcement. In some cases, it is evident that
              boats and pick up moorings near the main attrac-        anchoring has caused severe destruction of seagrass
              tion-the underwater snorkeling trail. At Saba,          beds and coral reefs. However, it is difficult to
              location of moorings was based on popular dive          judge what should be done in cases where an
              sites. People come to VINP primarily for sailing        anchor topples a few coral colonies or tears up a
              and snorkeling in 15 bays and at a number of areas      small section of a seagrass bed. These incidents
              scattered throughout the park. While SCUBA div-         present problems for people who are trying to
              ing occurs in VINP, most diving goes on outside         enforce protective regulations, but the emphasis
              park boundaries.                                        should be on minimizing damage, not seeking
                                                                      compensation for damaged resources.
              The moorings that have been successfully used in
              the Florida Marine Sanctuaries and in Saba Marine       The park generally has only one to four rangers on
              Park appear to be able to accommodate boats up to       duty each day. It is not always possible to have a
              a maximum of 65'. Moorings which could handle           ranger out patrolling park waters. Unfortunately,
              mini-cruise ships require heavier and more expen-       recent increases in drug traffic through the park,
              sive hardware and other materials. In any event, the    and the USVI in general, have reduced the amount
              chains associated with such moorings can cause          of time available for dealing with environmental
              extensive damage to the bottom near the mooring.        protection. Even with a substantially larger ranger
                                                                      staff, it would not be possible to adequately protect
              Designated anchorages. The size of the park and         the marine resources without the assistance of the
              the patterns of use make designation of appropriate     boating public. With increased awareness of park
              anchorages difficult. To date, the park has estab-      regulations and appreciation of marine resources,
              lished "No Boat" zones, all of which parallel shore-    enforcement becomes less difficult.
              lines. These "swim areas," delineated with marker
              buoys, reduce anchor damage to nearshore shallow        Management Actions Taken to Date
              bottom communities and allow people to swim
              mostly without fear of being run over. Unfortu-         The National Park Service has taken a number of
              nately, the increased number of people visiting the     actions in an attempt to balance use of the park with
              park has been accompanied by increased incidence        protection of the marine resources for which the
              of violations in the form of dramatic jet ski and       park was established. These include communica-
              dinghy forays into the prohibited areas.                tions with user groups, specific resource manage-
                                                                      ment actions, environmental education efforts, re-
                                                                      search programs and regional cooperation.
                                                                   77








           Communication with cruise lines and                       recovery of shallow seagrass beds and coral com-
           charterboat companies. The interests of boaters           munities.
           and park managers are certainly not mutually ex-
           clusive. Damage to marine resources from recre-           The park received NPS funding for further studies
           ational activities is notintentional. Emphasis should     of the bottom areas around St. John and for instal-
           be on sharing information on desired uses of the          lation of marker and mooring buoys. Buoys were
           park and on the locations of especially vulnerable        installed in May 199 1. Prior to installation, the park
           areas. Several successful meetings were held with         staff identified specific locations which were ap-
           boaters and owners of charterboat companies dur-          propriate for mooring buoys for boats under 65'and
           ing development of the park's mooring plan. Dur-          estimated the desirable number of buoys per bay. A
           ing these meetings, a number of misunderstand-            Marine Mooring Plan was developed. The follow-
           ings were cleared up. For example, some people            ing sources of information proved to be extremely
           feared a total ban on anchoring after installation of     valuable in developing this plan:
           the mooring buoys. The park is not proposing such
           a regulation at this time. Anchoring is to be prohib-     - Aerial photographs (taken in 1983) which
           ited only in Greater and Little Lameshur Bays, the        showed presence of reefs and seagrass beds.
           sites of long-term research projects.
                                                                     0 A comprehensive set of benthic (bottom) maps
           Unfortunately, it has been difficult to communi-          prepared by National Park Service and other scien-
           cate as effectively with cruise line owners and           tists (Beets et al. 1986) based on the aerial photo-
           operators for several reasons. All of the commer-         graphs referred to above, and extensive diving and
           cial cruise lines are based outside the US VI, e.g., in   snorkeling around the park.
           Seattle and Miami. It is difficult to meet with the
           owners or ship captains. In some cases, a new             - Additional observations- by park staff and oth-
           captain is not informed of the regulations by the         ers diving and snorkeling in the park.
           cruise line. The park has contacted the cruise lines
           in writing on several occasions, to explain regula-       - Records from park ranger boat patrol logs and
           tions and solicit cooperation.                            observations on use patterns, i.e., most popular
                                                                     anchorages.
           The park staff need to work more closely with the
           cruise lines and other boat operators in the future to    In the future, the park plans to mark the marine
           express concerns over marine resource damage, to          boundary and to identify environmentally sensi-
           publicize the new boat length restrictions, and to        tive areas in deeper water to assist both boaters and
           identify ways that people can continue to enjoy the       park rangers.
           park without further deterioration of marine sys-
           tems.                                                     The park's research and resource management
                                                                     staff has attempted to address the increased visita-
           Resource management actions. Specific resource            tion atTrunkBay and other popular beaches through
           management actions which have been taken in               a draft management plan which identifies low,
           VINP have been based on research on the coral             medium, and high density beaches. The park will
           reefs and seagrass beds and careful documentation         be developing fairly specific guidelines for each
           of resource degradation. As mentioned above, the          beach-for example, Trunk Bay can probably ab-
           Superintendent established regulations which pro-         sorb between 500-800 people, while Hawksnest
           hibit boats over 225' long from anchoring in the          Bay no more than 75. Establishment of use levels
           park and which require boats from 150'to 225'long         will allow a range of different recreational experi-
           to anchor in Francis Bay. Some nearshore areas            ences for residents and visitors. The Superinten-
           have been designated off limits to boats to allow         dent recently had to deny some groups use of the

                                                                    78








              already crowded beaches. Heavy use of beaches on        Other specific actions to improve education in-
              St. John is more of a social issue than an environ-     clude:
              mental one. It is a vitally important issue that the
              park has just begun to address.                              Each of the most popular beaches has a sign
                                                                      which depicts coral breakage from a snorkeler's fin
              Environmental education. In the last three years,       and asks for cooperation in protecting coral reefs.
              VINP, in particular the Division of Interpretation,
              has made exceptional progress in its environmental           A video on the park addresses both cultural
              education program. All of these initiatives can lead    and natural resources and special park programs
              to increased appreciation of marine resources.          with a section on the coral reefs. The video is now
                                                                      shown on cruise ships and in the park's Visitor
              The park's Research and Resource Management             Center.
              Division and the Division of Interpretation col-
              laborated on production of a VINP Mooring and                The newly renovated visitor center has a salt-
              Anchoring Guide. This guide includes information        water aquarium stocked with colorful reef fish and
              on the park's marine resources and brief descrip-       corals and enhanced by a "light box" of interpretive
              tions of bays where moorings have been installed.       photographs and legends.
              It also includes information on the proper way to
              use moorings or to anchor. Specific protective               A new park brochure is being produced that
              regulations are listed.                                 contains a beautiful set of illustrations which de-
                                                                      pict terrestrial and marine resources and identifies
              The park employs a full-time interpreter assigned       many of the plants and animals found in the park.
              to Environmental Education. This person visits
              local schools to present slide shows on marine          In the future, the park hopes to have a volunteer on
              systems and to discuss protection of natural re-        a boat anchored in Francis Bay, one of the most
              sources, and leads programs such as the snorkeling      popular bays. This individual will make informal
              trips for beginners and the seashore walk. During       contact with the boating public and distribute edu-
              the busy season, park interpreters, biologists, and     cational material related to marine recreation.
              others give presentations several evenings a week
              at the popular Cinnamon Bay campground.                 Research programs. The National Park Service
                                                                      has shown a substantial commitment to increasing
              The park has a support group called "Friends of         our knowledge of the marine resources in Virgin
              Virgin Islands National Park," whose members            Islands National Park and Biosphere Reserve, and
              contribute time and funds for special projects to       Buck Island Reef National Monument, another
              benefit the park. For example, the Friends produce      NPS site located 25 miles south in St. Croix.
              a newsletter on the park and a series of field          Beginning in 1983, NPS provided funds to support
              seminars on park resources.                             a series of research projects by members of the
                                                                      Virgin Islands Resource Management Coopera-
              Old signs along theTrunkBay underwater snorkel-         tive (VIRMC). VIRMC, established in 1982, is
              ing trail have been replaced with more colorful and     composed of NPS staff members and 15 other
              informative signs. Most cruise ship passengers          members, including local and federal government
              who visit St. John are taxied to Trunk Bay Beach.       agencies, research and educational institutions
              This year, the Friends Group plans to install a booth   based in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the British Virgin
              at Trunk Bay where a volunteer will talk with           Islands (BVI), and Puerto Rico. Between 1983 and
              visitors and distribute interpretive materials. Dur-    1988, VIRMC members completed 30 projects
              ing the summer, park lifeguards and interpreters        which emphasized baseline studies of marine sys-
              teach local children to swim at Trunk Bay.              tems (seagrass beds, coral reefs, reef fishes), moni-

                                                                   79







            toring, and synthesis of information (Rogers and             ods and reef fish censusing techniques. In May,
            Teyraud 1988). Much of the information from                  two VINP scientists went to the BVI for five days
            these VIRMC projects has provided an essential               to assist with on site establishment of a reef moni-
            basis for resource management in the park.                   toring program.

            The results of these studies and additional observa-         With the support of the NPS Office of International
            tions by park biologists led to concerns over the            Affairs, six other individuals have visited the park
            environmental consequences of the increasing level           to learn more about overall park management,
            of tourism in the park. In 1988, NPS provided                interpretation, administration, and research, and to
            further funding to support the Coral Reef Assess-            tell the park about the programs in their own
            ment Program for 3-5 years. The overall goal of              countries.
            this program is to establish effective long-term
            research and monitoring sites at NPS units in the            Anchor damage has been recognized as a serious
            U.S. Virgin Islands (VINP and Buck Island Reef               problem around many Caribbean islands, includ-
            National Monument) and in Florida (Biscayne                  ing the British Virgin Islands, Bonaire, and the
            National Park, Fort Jefferson National Monument).            Cayman Islands (Rogers 1985). One outcome of
            There are six cooperating institutions in this pro-          the Reef Assessment Program will be a Manual of
            gram, including universities and federal and local           Coral Reef Monitoring, which will be made avail-
            governmental agencies. Participants in this pro-             able to other practitioners. Frequent requests for
            gram are working to standardize methods for deter-           advice on monitoring of coral reefs and techniques
            mining long-term trends in coral reef systems. It            for damage assessment are received by the NPS.
            should be noted that the deleterious results of
            marine-based tourism are superimposed on marine              CONCLUSIONS
            resources which have been subjected to a variety of
            stresses from natural processes and various human            The coral reefs and seagrass beds within VINP
            activities.                                                  have deteriorated both from natural processes and
                                                                         human activities, but it is not possible to apportion
            Regional    cooperation. Virgin Islands National             the causes. Elevation of sea water temperatures
            Park is actively cooperating with people from                associated with global warming may aggravate
            several Caribbean islands who have established               their decline. Storms and coral diseases cannot be
            marine protected areas or who are hoping to estab-           controlled, however, these marine systems can
            lish them in the near future. Several of the VIRMC           recover if pressures from the island's development
            projects referred to above focused on descriptions           and tourism are effectively reduced. As part of this
            and mapping of marine systems in the British                 effort, park managers are trying to reduce anchor
            Virgin Islands. The research staff in VINP works             damage by encouraging the use of recently in-
            with the Conservation Office in the BVI on com-              stalled moorings and by enforcing restrictions on
            mon resource management problems. This joint                 boats entering nearshore swim areas. Anchoring is
            effort is particularly important because of similar          still allowed except in two bays which are sites of
            resource management issues such as boat damage               long-term research. Enforcement of the restriction
            and fisheries management. Also, actions which the            on boats over 150' is essential.
            BVI take could affect resources in the USVI and
            vice versa. It is worth noting that some of the cruise       The management strategy that is being used to
            ships which are no longer allowed to anchor in               manage marine-based tourism in VINP is multi-
            VINP appear to be causing reef damage in the BVI.            faceted and dynamic. It consists of environmental
            In March of this year, two biologists from the               education, con sensus- building, research programs,
            Conservation Office came to St. John to receive              and specific resource management actions. The
            training in the field in coral reef monitoring meth-         carrying out of this strategy has been a park-wide

                                                                       80








                effort involving the Superintendent, biologists,             park or other protected area without evidence that
                interpreters, and park rangers.                              such use is causing unacceptable degradation of
                                                                             natural resources. The Superintendent of a national
                No formal evaluation of this        strategy has been        park deals with a myriad of issues on a daily basis.
                carried out, and it is difficult to measure the degree       He or she must rely on the park staff to assist in
                of success that has been achieved to date. Intan-            identification of management priorities. In VINP,
                gibles like increased appreciation of the natural            the Superintendent was able to establish critical
                environment are not easy to quantify.                        environmental regulations because he had solid
                                                                             evidence of degradation of marine systems in the
                LESSONS LEARNED                                              park. Such evidence comes not only from biologi-
                                                                             cal data and assessment but information on recre-
                A number of valuable lessons can be learned from             ational use patterns.
                the attempts to balance intensive use of a small
                marine park with protection of the fragile marine            Managers will never have all the infort-nation they
                resources for which the park was created.                    need. Decisions have to be made on the best avail-
                                                                             able data, and the information must be objective. If
                Planning. Anticipation of problems such as tour-             any errors are made, they should be on the side of
                ism development, adjacent uses and future trends is          resource protection. Restrictions on visitation or
                an integral part of a planning process designed to           use can always be relaxed if warranted. It is diffi-
                balance recreational use with preservation of ma-            cult to revive a dead reef. It is also far easier to start
                rine resources. In order to diversify tourist activity       off with a good set of regulations rather than add
                the designation of high, medium and low density              them as an afterthought. Exposure and publicizing
                use areas may be appropriate.                                of the damage occurring in the park provided the
                                                                             momentum for a substantial amount of funding to
                Education. Protection of marine resources pre-               address it. For example, the park received funds for
                sents unique challenges. As was pointed out by               long-term assessment of coral reefs and for instal-
                Marion (Marion 1990), "Due to the alien and                  lation of buoys following documentation of severe
                hidden nature of marine resources, their protection          resource destruction.
                is often overlooked by resource administrators and
                the public alike. The vastness of the sea implies an         The management process. Effective manage-
                unlimited capacity to absorb mankind's pollution             ment of marine-based tourism depends on a strat-
                and the side-effects of our commercial and recre-            egy of consensu s- building, environmental educa-
                ational uses". It is essential to keep in mind that the      tion, research on marine resources, and specific
                marine environment is only a little less familiar to         resource management actions. Management is a
                many people than outer space. It is very difficult to        dynamic process which does not stop with the
                get people to care about something they never see,           passing of a regulation or the adoption of a resource
                such as a coral reef in 90 feet of water. Most people        management plan. Planning and management re-
                will not be able to throw on SCUBA gear and                  quire adjustments as new conditions arise. Com-
                personally observe the destruction. Public educa-            munication of the park's policies should not con-
                tion is thus a necessary ongoing process and visual          sist of a few press releases which will go unnoticed
                aids such as still photographs and videotapes must           or else be forgotten. It requires a constant effort by
                accompany quantitative descriptions of damage.               park employees and continual communication with
                                                                             people using the park.
                Research. The value of research as a basis for
                management has been demonstrated. It is not rea-
                sonable to expect a manager to establish regula-
                tions which curtail recreational use of a national


                                                                           81









               References                                                              Rogers, C., McLain, L., and C. Tobias. 1990. Damage to marine
                                                                                       resources in Virgin Islands National Park; often out of sight but no
               Beets, J., Lewand, L. and E. Zullo.      1986. Marine conununity        longer out of mind. Marine Tourism Congress, Hawaii.
               descriptions and maps of bays within the Virgin Islands National        Rogers. C., and R.Teytaud. 1988. Marine and terrestrial ecosystems
               park/Biosphere Reserve. Biosphere reserve research report no. 2.        of the Virgin Islands National park and Biosphere Reserve. Bio-
               VIRMC/NPS. 118 pp.                                                      sphere reserve research report no. 29. 112 pp. Williams, S.L. 1988.
                                                                                       Thal assia jtaWdinum productivity and grazing by green turtles in a
               Marion, J. 1990. Ecological impacts of nature-dependent tourism.        highly disturbed seagrass bed. Mar. Biol. 98:447-455.
               Proc. of Twenty-First Annual Conference "Me Tourism Connec-
               tion: Linking Research and Marketing", Travel and Tourism Re-           For further information and provision of key
               search Association. pp. 243-249.                                        references contact:
               Rogers, C.S. 1985. Degradation of Caribbean andWestern Atlantic         National Park Service
               coral reefs and decline of associated fisheries. Proc. Fifth Inter.
               Coral Reef Congress 6:491-496.                                          Virgin Islands National Park
                                                                                       PO Box 710
               Rogers, C., McLain, L., and E. Zullo. 1988. Damage to coral reefs       St. John, USVI 00830
               -in Virgin Islands National Park and Biosphere Reserve from recre-
               ational activities. Proc. 6th Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2:405-410.
















































                                                                                     82






                A Perspective on Planning in the Florida Keys

                Habitat-Based Land Use Planning

                George Garrett

                     Monroe County, which includes the entire Florida Keys, is one of the fastest growing
                     counties in the State of Florida. At the same time the Keys are home to a rapidly
                     diminishing assemblage of tropical flora and temperate fauna unique in the United States.
                     There are currently over 75 plant and animal species resident in the Florida Keys which
                     are listed as endangered, threatened, or under other protected status.

                     The resource management issues that are faced in the Florida Keys include:
                     ï¿½  Continued upland and wetland habitat destruction and fragmentation as a direct
                        result of development activities
                     ï¿½  Continued declines in protected species because of habitat degradation
                     ï¿½  Degradation of nearshore marine resources as a result of legal but inadequate sewage
                        treatment requirements, nonexistent stormwater management, marina impacts, and
                        boater impacts
                     ï¿½  An apparent degradation of the Keys' reef complex as a result of natural and human
                        impacts
                     ï¿½  Poorly planned and high density land subdivision in the 1950s and 1960s coupled with
                        limited or no infrastructural improvements required in these subdivisions
                     ï¿½  High development expectations as a result subdivision lot availability, accessibility
                        created by bridge improvements, and the convenience provided by water line im-
                        provements
                     ï¿½  Impending capital facility decisions for highways, solid waste sites, the provision of
                        potable water, and hurricane evacuation.

                     Local opposition to the state's efforts to improve resource management in Monroe County
                     led to its being declared an area of critical state concern. This exerted pressure on the
                     county to resolve these resource management issues. The subsequent introduction of the
                     Florida Coastal Management Program required the county to produce a comprehensive
                     plan, which was adopted in 1986.

                     This case study describes as the development and implementation of the comprehensive
                     plan, with examples of how habitat based land use planning is being applied with very
                     different results in North Key Largo and Big Pine Key.

                INTRODUCTION                                            scheme. The scheme's intention is to protect the
                                                                        Keys'native habitats through the mandated preser-
                This case study is intended to illustrate creative      vation of a high percentage of existing habitat areas
                approaches to resource protection, including the        on development sites. Maintaining the character
                development of a habitat based land use planning        and quality of the habitat as a primary component
                George Garrett is the Director of Environmental Resources in of the development approval process is comple-
                the Department ofPlanningfor Monroe County, Florida, a  mented by the establishment of a transferable de-
                position he has heldforfive years.

                                                                     83







            velopment right program designed to promote den-         Monroe County's population in 1991 is estimated
            sity restrictions, and the creation of a Land Author-    to be over 82,000, with 6 1,000 additional residents
            ity to acquire properties deemed unsuitable for          during peak season. 'Me population has increased
            building.                                                at an average rate of 3.4 percent per year for the past
                                                                     ten years. These are substantial increases for a
            A number of problem issues and potential solu-           county whose potable water is piped 150 miles
            tions are identified in the development of the Florida   from the mainland of Florida, whose access is via
            Keys Comprehensive Plan, and examples of both            a single highway connecting 36 islands, whose
            successful and unsuccessful planning processes in        solid waste facilities are nearing capacity, and
            North Key Largo and Big Pine Key are described.          whose hurricane evacuation plan requires 36 hours
                                                                     to carry out.
            Monroe County, encompassing the Florida Keys,
            provides a spectacularly beautiful setting for some      Development has mirrored the rate of population
            -of the most challenging coastal planning issues in      growth. In addition, development interests have
            the United States. In almost all aspects, the marine     tried to provide increasing numbers of resort facili-
            and upland resources of the Florida Keys are unique.     ties for a burgeoning touri st industry. The result has
            They have received an inordinately high level of         been a substantial destruction of upland resources,
            protection and will receive more in the future.          saltmarsh and mangrove habitat, and has resulted
            However, the impact that growth has imposed on           in significant nearshore water quality degradation.
            those resources has been substantial.                    Tropical forests have been removed to be replaced







                                                                         FLORIDA MAINLAND


                            THE FLORIDA KEYS                                                                      KEY

                                                                                                                LARGO


                                                                                FLORIDA     BAY




                  GULF OF MEXICO

                                                                                                 0
                                                BIG PINE
                                                   KEY                                                          N




                                                                         ATLANTIC OCEAN.

                 KEY WEST                                                                                  0        10
                                                                                                             Miles





            Figure 1. The Florida Keys

                                                                   84







               by single family homes, while wetland areas have        bestowed on the local government, Monroe County,
               succumbed to the bulldozer and dredge for the           but the serious criticism by the State Legislation of
               creation of filled lots and canals. Since no location   the County's failure to properly implement its land
               on any developed island is greater than a mile from     use and environmental regulations.
               the shoreline water quality degradation is inevi-
               table on an island chain composed of extremely          The purpose of the designation is as follows:
               porous carbonate geology, and where on-site sep-
               tic systems are the principal method of sewage               "to provide a framework for comprehensive
               treatment.                                                   plans and development regulations that will
                                                                            preserve water quality, provide for the opti-
               Rapid growth rate in the Keys became an issue in             mum utilization of the limited waterresources
               1975 with the Keys' designation as an "Area of               of the area, facilitate orderly and well-planned
               Critical State Concern." This was not an honor               development, protect the offshore resources



                  PROFILE


                  Mandate for Program
                  Monroe County was designated as an "Area of Critical State Concern" in 1975 under Florida Statute
                  390. This designation was based upon a decision by the State of Florida that Monroe County was
                  not managing its resources through appropriate implementation of the development guidelines in
                  place at the time. It required that the County adopt new and more stringent development standards.
                  An outcome of the designation was a requirement to control development by means of a comprehen-
                  sive plan, which was adopted by the county in 1986.

                  The Florida Coastal Management Program was established in 1981 and is based upon a networking
                  of existing state authorities. The Florida Program addresses regional planning, coastal hazards and
                  disaster preparedness, submerged lands, areas of special concern, beach and shore preservation, and
                  air and water pollution control. Currently Monroe County is updating its comprehensive plan. The
                  required coastal management and conservation elements of the plan are intended to meet the
                  mandates of the state and federal coastal zone management programs.

                  Geographic Scope
                  The entire State of Florida has been designated as the Coastal Zone. Monroe County encompasses
                  the entire length of the Florida Keys from Soldier Key in Biscayne Bay near Miami, to Key West and
                  the Dry Tortugas. The entire area is included in the coastal zone. The County also has authority to
                  designate Areas of Critical County Concern, which was done for the two planning examples
                  presented from North Key Largo and Big Pine Key.

                  Management Procedures
                  Under the Florida CZM Program resource management and planning issues are resolved through
                  local government comprehensive plans and implemented through land development regulations.
                  Monroe County is unique in its development of a plan predicated upon and driven by criteria which
                  protect the functional and ecological integrity of remaining habitat and which promotes the voluntary
                  reduction of allocated zoning density in environmentally sensitive areas. The County also has a local
                  program which has been established to acquire environmentally sensitive land through purchase. The
                  Monroe County Land Authority was established to achieve this.


                                                                    85








                 of the Florida Keys from the adverse impacts      the bank reef formations which lie parallel to the
                 of onshore development, and protect the health,   Keys and adjacent to the Straits of Florida. These
                 welfare, safety, and  'quality of life of the     waters advect into the waters of the Florida Cur-
                 residents of the State."                          rent; the Gulf Stream.


            These goals were and are being achieved through        The low nutrient character of the nearshore waters
            the development of a comprehensive plan and land       of the Keys supports unique marine habitats and a
            development regulations, which were adopted in         diverse variety of flora and fauna, including coral-
            1986. The development and implementation of the        dominated patch    and bank reefs, seagrass beds,
            1986 comprehensive plan is a study in itself, but      hardbottom communities, and extensive fringing
            may best be analyzed through the on-going plan-        mangrove habitats.
            ning processes for two areas within the County.
            During the development of Monroe County's com-         The distinguishing feature of the marine environ-
            prehensive plan, particular areas were defined as      ment of the Keys is the living coral reef tract and
            "Areas of Critical County Concern" because the         associated patch reef assemblages. The coral as-
            environmental planning issues were too tenacious       semblages and the hundreds of other invertebrates
            to be resolved within the scope and time frame for     and fish that comprise this community are found in
            the completion of the comprehensive plan for the       no other part of the continental United States. As
            County as a whole.                                     such, these areas are particularly important eco-
                                                                   nomic and environmental resources. These re-
            Two of the critical areas in question are North Key    sources are currently under strong natural and
            Largo, located at the northeastern end of the island   anthropogenic (man-induced) stresses. Also asso-
            chain, and Big Pine Key which is located 30 miles      ciated with the reef areas and throughout Hawks
            east of Key West (Figure 1). The major issues in       Channel, the island passes, and Florida Bay, are
            both areas is the adequate and legally required        expansive seagrass meadows, which are of poten-
            management of endangered species. While North          tially even greater ecological significance than the
            Key Largo is characterized by large tract owner-       reef system.
            ship and is relatively unpopulated, Big Pine Key is
            extensively subdivided and is receiving consider-      The upland habitats of the Keys are equally unique
            able development pressure.                             in the continental United States. Tropical hard-
                                                                   wood forests, or "hammocks," characterize the
            BACKGROUND                                             majority of the undisturbed upland resources. In
                                                                   addition, the lower Keys with its characteristic
            The Florida Keys    are a 225 mile long archuate       freshwater lens, also contain pineland plant com-
            archipelago which extends southwest from Soldier       munities. The Keys represent the edge of the north-
            Key in Biscayne Bay near Miami, to the Dry             ern limits of a tropical flora and the southern edge
            Tortugas and Fort Jefferson National Monument          of the limits of a temperate fauna. This makes it an
            (Figure 1). The Keys separate the marine environ-      area unique in the world for this pattern of floral
            ment of the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Bay from        and faunal assemblage. No less than 75 endan-
            Hawks Channel, the Straits of Florida, and the         gered, threatened, or commercially exploited spe-
            Atlantic Ocean. There are numerous tidal passes        cies of flora and fauna exist within Monroe County,
            between the islands, particularly in the lower Keys,   as defined by the State and Federal government. In
            which provide for water exchange between these         addition, experts in the field feel that many other
            waterbodies. Typically the net flow of water is        plant species should be listed.
            from Bay to Ocean in a south westerly direction.
            Thus, water from the Bay moves through the tidal       The tropical ecosystems of the Keys are naturally
            channels between islands to Hawks Channel and          subject to the stresses of wind and water damage


                                                                 86








                from tropical storms and hurricanes. It is the addi-                Efforts to preserve the quality of this resource and
                tional man-made encroachments, however, that                        heritage are evident in the existence of four Federal
                may contribute to future ecological imbalances in                   wildlife refuges, two national parks, one national
                the form of water quality degradation, loss of                      monument, three national marine sanctuaries, three
                native habitat, and extinction of endemic species.                  state aquatic preserves, one state geologic site, four
                                                                                    state parks, and two state botanical sites. The
                                                                                    seriousness of the perceived necessity for protect-
                     CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS                                     ing the natural areas in Monroe County gained its
                                                                                    ultimate strength in. 1990, with the federal designa-
                     1950-70     Extensive and excessive subdivision of             tion of all waters surrounding the Keys as the'
                                 land within Monroe County                          largest national marine sanctuary in the nation.
                     1973        Development and implementation of a                Without question, the reason for the many levels of
                                 comprehensive Zoning Code                          protection afforded much of Monroe County, is the
                     1975        Designation of the County as an "Area of           state and nationwide perception that government at
                                 Critical State Concern"                            a local level has failed to protect the resources.
                     1981        Florida Coastal ManagementProgram fed-             Development Patterns
                                 erally approved                                    During the years of the 1950s through the early
                     1984        Initiation of the planning process to create       1970s, Florida was experiencing a massive expan-
                                 and adopt the Florida Keys Comprehen-              sion in its subdivided lands. Large tracts were
                                 sive Plan as required under the County's           bought from the state or the federal government
                                 status as an Areaof Critical StateConcern          and divided for sale by real estate interests. Most of
                     1984        Initiation of the Governor's Study Com-            these areas were designed for residential use. The
                                 mittee for development of the North Key            Florida Keys were not exempt from this activity
                                 Largo Habitat Conservation Plan                    nor from the problems often associated with it.
                     1986        Adoption and implementation of the                 Platting of land was not well regulated or moni-
                                 Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan, in-
                                 cluding the establishment of BigPine Key           tored during these periods and, as a result, the
                                 and North Key Largo as "Areas of Critical          subdivisions that were created were not well
                                 County Concern"                                    planned. Local and state governments frequently
                     1986        Presentationof theNorth KeyLxgoHabi-               did not require assurances that roads or utilities
                                 tat Conservation Plan Study Committee's            would be provided by subdivision developers, or
                                 report for later inclusion into the Florida        that other needed infrastructure would be available
                                 Keys Comprehensive Plan                            to those interested in buying lots. Thus, the poten-
                                                                                    tial for growth in these subdivided lands was not
                     1986        Initiation of the Big Pine Key community           balanced by local public expenditure to accommo-
                                 planning process                                   date their development. On the other hand, some
                     1990        Initiation of the process for Florida Keys         types of infrastructure improvements were made
                                 Comprehensive Plan update                          beyond the immediate need. In the late 1970s and
                     1990        Designation of the waters surrounding the          early 1980s, a rather treacherous bridge system
                                 Florida Keys as the largest National Ma-           connecting the islands was replaced and improved.
                                 rine Sanctuary in the country                      In the same time period the potable water supply
                                                                                    was improved through a major expansion of the
                     1991        Completion of the Big Pine Community               pipeline leading from the mainland. At that point,
                                 Plan process for later inclusion into the          a changed perception of accessibility and conve-
                                 comprehensive plan                                 nience spurred development expectations in con-

                                                                                 87







            cert with the ready availability of platted and semi-    State Concern designation was to place legislative
            improved lands.                                          pressure on Monroe County to take special plan-
                                                                     ning measures to ensure protection of its resources
            Within Monroe County, the early 1970s to the mid         and provide that approved new development pro-
            1980s were the years of the "major development"          posals were and are compatible with regulatory
            project. Under the County's major development            protection efforts.
            ordinance (now repealed), large parcels of land
            were rezoned for high intensity resort, condo-           However, in the opinion of the author, the problem
            minium, residential, and commercial uses. As in          was not the lack of regulation, but the lack of
            other areas of Florida, such projects were required      political interest and desire to enforce the existing
            to assess their impacts on capital facilities and        laws. The Governor of the State had the authority,
            infrastructure (roads, solid waste capacity, and         if not the justification, to remove the County Com-
            potable water), but were not required to pay the         mission from office and reappoint its members.
            price for their improvement. The value of such           This had been done once in Monroe County in
            projects to the immediate economy was seen as            actions involving the Florida Keys Aqueduct Au-
            more important than the resource areas that were         thority Board. The political expedient, however,
            affected by their completion.                            was to direct the enactment of more comprehen-
                                                                     sive regulations. Since the time of designation, the
            Though there were multiple      steps leading to the     County Commission and state have been locked in
            approval of such major development projects, lo-         a clash of wills, but after the 1990 election of a
            cal planning review was limited by the competency        professed conservationist majority, the relation-
            and depth of available staff, More importantly,          ship may be improving.
            approvals were virtually assured in a system politi-
            cally "greased" to issue permits. Monroe County,         It is important to understand the impact of the Area
            an area infamous for its history of pirating and         of Critical State Concern designation on Monroe
            shipwrecking, was following what appeared to be          County, both legislatively and politically. The state,
            its destiny with little regard for the consequences.     through this legislative designation, maintains
                                                                     oversite responsibility for all development review
            Area of Critical State Concern                           in Monroe County. The state has the right to appeal
            In 1975 the State of Florida recognized the con-         any development order (building permit) issued by
            flicts between resource protection and an acceler-       Monroe County which, in its legal opinion, does
            ating growth trend in the Florida Keys. In that year     not comply with adopted local Land Development
            the Keys were designated as an Area of Critical          Regulations. The state also maintains authority to
            State Concern. During the years of the mid-seven-        approve or deny, through the Governor and Cabi-
            ties, Monroe County government frequently yielded        net, any amendments to the law, based on the State
            to local special and/or personal interests with a        Statutes and the local comprehensive plan. Thus, in
            profit motivation. Commissioners and/or friends          a County which is known for its fierce indepen-'
            may have been the limited benefactors of County          dence, and with a County Board which, over a state
            Commission actions in the approval of some sub-          drug interdiction policy voted to secede from the
            divisions and other large development projects.          union to become "The Conch Republic," this state
            The losers in this decision making process were;         oversite authority has not been well accepted.
            the environment, through permitted destruction of
            upland and wetland habitats, and the tax payers          CASE STUDY: Environmental Planning in the
            who are now beginning to feel the burden of the          Florida Keys
            development expectations created through past
            unchecked subdivision and other development ac-          Comprehensive Plan Implementation
            tivity. Thus, the purpose of the Area of Critical        Based on the Area of Critical State Concern man-


                                                                  88








              date and subsequent adoption of the Florida Coastal       future has sparked the interest of many public and
              Management Program, the Florida Keys Compre-              private conservation initiatives. The same growth
              hensive Plan was completed in 1986 and provided           "panics" that have spurred individuals and devel-
              sweeping changes to development regulations in            opers to build, have prompted conservation entities
              the County. It occurred through the continual threat      to buy. In 199 1, there are one federal, two state, and
              of sanctions from the state and with the reluctance       one local government agency actively acquiring
              of the Monroe County Commissioners that ap-               land in the Florida Keys. In addition, three non
              proved it. Meanwhile, concern over the content of         profit conservation groups are a part of this pro-
              the Plan spurred a three fold development increase        cess. One pla'y)s a major role in assisting each of
              in the year prior to its adoption. Since the Plan's       these government agencies in their efforts.
              adoption additional development "panics" have
              occurred when it was publicly perceived that de-          Concern has been raised in the Keys over the effect
              velopment in certain areas would cease until capi-        of the many land acquisition programs on the
              tal facility or infrastructure deficits were rectified.   county tax base. Generally, acquisition is seen as a
              Rapid and uncontrolled development was some-              positive step toward protecting the Keys. It is
              thing implementation of the Plan was intended to          believed, as well, thatreduction of potential buildout
              manage, but to date it has not succeeded. On the          density may reduce the proportionate cost of future
              other hand, new and clearer environmental regula-         infrastructure needs. The concerns of many resi-
              tory restrictions were adopted for proposed new           dents may be allayed through an analysis of the
              development. These regulations, which control the         current and future cost of infrastructure and capital
              degree of habitat destruction allowed, have been in       outlay when compared to the cost of acquisition.
              place since the 1986 Plan was adopted. Though             Acquisition may well prove to be less expensive.
              they are not perfect, they have provided a more
              definitive basis than previous regulations for what       Environmental Standards
              is allowed.                                               As time passes, the components of the 1986 com-
                                                                        prehensive plan and expected revisions that "drive"
              The 1986    comprehensive plan also provided a            the planning process will not be environmentally
              mechanisn-i--the Monroe County Land Author-               based, but driven by capital facilities issues. This
              ity-for preserving environmentally sensitive lands,       has resulted because reasonably sound environ-
              buying lands made unbuildable by the new regula-          mental standards are in place today. These stan-
              tions, and acquiring lands for needed public facility     dards will be refined and better enforced, but are
              improvements or additions. Although the program           not likely to become much more restrictive. Devel-
              seemed desirable and quite straight forward, initial      opment approval with attached environmental de-
              implementation was not easy.                              sign standards and mitigation are and will continue
                                                                        to be the appropriate burden born by all developers.
              To date the Land Authority has bought property            Land acquisition, through the Land Authority, the
              valued at over $2.4 million through this acquisition      state or other non-profit conservation entities will
              process, has loaned nearly $3 million to the Mon-         be the only alternative.
              roe County and a local land trust for public facili-
              ties and environmentally sensitive lands respec-          Environmental standards for development were
              tively, and has received hundreds of acres of land        established with two assumptions:
              in donations. This has resulted in a direct benefit to
              the overall effort to preserve remaining forested         - that development was going to occur
              lands in the Florida Keys.                                * that environmental protection had to be provided
                                                                          in such a manner as to protect the biological and
              Interestingly, the attention paid Monroe County             functional integrity of the Keys' resources.
              through its long effort to plan for the County's


                                                                     89







            There are two essential components of the 1986             tions, on site assessments are required of potential
            Comprehensive Plan that establish development              developers and are reviewed by Monroe County
            criteria; the Land Use District (zoning), and the          biologists and planners for accuracy. From an
            environmental character of the parcel proposed for         environmental perspective, the purpose of this re-
            development. Through the land use district cat-            quirement is to define the least sensitive portions of
            egory, allocated densities and uses are established        a parcel and to confine development to concise
            on a per acre basis. Through the Monroe County             clustered locations within these areas. The benefit
            Existing Conditions Maps and on site review, habi-         of this on site refinement is to avoid destruction of
            tat character is established.                              more sensitive or pristine areas on a parcel and to
                                                                       maintain a maximum contiguous habitat area.
            The comprehensive plan was written with environ-
            mental protection in mind. Thus, lower density             One further component of the 1986 Comprehen-
            land use districts typically reflect areas of native       sive Plan provides a mechanism for transferring
            character. Based on habitat character, Environ-            allocated density from one parcel to another. Allo-
            mental Design Criteria established in the Monroe           cated densities, termed "development rights," are
            County Land Development Regulations are ap-                provided to all Land Use Districts on a per acre
            plied to proposed development. Attached to these           basis. Since allocated density, as defined, is dis-
            Environmental Design Criteria are "open space"             crete and measurable based on the size of a parcel,
            requirements which define what percentage of               it is possible to transfer the allocated units as
            each habitat type may be cleared for development.          "Transferable Development Rights." The rules for
            Theopen space and Environmental Design Criteria            transfer are established based on environmental
            were developed through a process of scientific peer        standards. Density may be transferred from native
            review established to determine the sensitivities          habitat areas to more suburban or urban areas and
            and impact potential of each habitat. Additionally,        from areas of higher habitat quality and sensitivity
            open space standards were established, based on            to areas of lower habitat value. The intent of these
            the best data available at the time, for the minimum       regulations is to provide an owner with a reason-
            habitat required to maintain the functional and            able use of his/her land, but to provide the incentive
            biological integrity of each habitat type in the           to transfer the development rights away from envi-
            Keys. By definition, open space must be main-              ronmentally valuable areas. Transferable Devel-
            tained in its natural state.                               opment Rights are provided on the market for sale
                                                                       and are managed in a manner similar to real prop-
            In addition to the development of open space               eny sales.
            standards, the County has established a habitat
            sensitivity matrix. The creation of this matrix was        Environmental Planning Examples
            designed to provide a mechanism to allow county            Two examples of environmental planning in the
            biologists to direct development away from habi-           Keys are relevant: the Planning processes for the
            tats considered to be more sensitive to the penurba-       North Key Largo and Big Pine Key Areas of
            tions of development. The process of determining           Critical County Concern. Understanding the plan-
            habitat sensitivity and developing the matrix was          ning experience for either area lends an additional
            also left to the expertise of the peer group of            perspective on the environmental issues in the
            scientists noted above. In the development of this         Keys. Issues in both areas have provided conten-
            matrix as later formulated in the Land Develop-            tious environmental planning problems. The plan-
            ment Regulations, habitats requiring greater open          ning process in combination with an active acqui-
            space are considered to be "more sensitive."               sition program for North Key Largo has been
                                                                       successful, while the planning process for Big Pine
            In order to fine tune the open space and density           Key has largely been a failure. There are several
            requirements of the Land Development Regula-               reasons for these outcomes as will be discussed
                                                                       briefly below.

                                                                    90







                                                                     stellar example of remaining contiguous tropical
                                                                     hardwood forest in the Florida Keys.

                  FLORIDA MAINLAND
                                                                     North Key Largo has strategic environmental im-
                                                                     portance for two reasons. It is the remaining com-
                                                                     ponentin aplan soughtby some to connect publicly
                                                          OCEAN      owned preservation lands and waters from the
                                                           REEF
                                                           CLUB      Florida Everglades to the Key Largo National
                                                                     Marine Sanctuary (now encompassed by the larger
                                                                     Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary). It is also
                                                                     the home of six endangered fauna species: the
                                                                     North American crocodile, the Key Largo woodrat
                                                                     and cotton mouse, Schaus' swallowtail butterfly,
                   BARNES SOUND                    4@                the Eastern Indigo snake, and the Miami Black-
                         N                        @r                 headed snake. It was for the endangered crocodile
                         t                 NORTH KEY LARGO           that the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
                                                                     was created in 1982 on the northwest side of
                              2                                      highway 905.
                       Miles
                                                                      If the 3,000 people that currently live on North
                                            LOCATION                 Key Largo create an appearance of quiet serenity,
                                               MAP
                                                                     development activities of the mid 1970s and early
                                                                     1980s show a marked contrast. In 1982, 23,485
                                                                     units of residential and resort development had
              Figure 2. North Key Largo                              been approved or were in various stages of receiv-
                                                                     ing final approval. However, the listing of the
                                                                     species noted above, particularly the crocodile,
              North Key Largo                                        severely limited the ability of the development
              North Key Largo lies at the northeastern terminus      community tocomplete theirprojects. In the 1980s,
              of the connected islands of the Florida Keys (Fig-     the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a "jeop-
              ure 2). It is connected to the Florida mainland at     ardy opinion" stating that planned development in
              either end by two roads, U.S. Highway I and the        the refuge would "jeopardize" (a legal term of art
              Card Sound Road. U.S. Highway I also connects          for "threaten") the continued existence of the spe-
              North Key Largo to the rest of the Keys. The two       cies. The legal impact of this assessment was the
              roads are connected to one another by highway 905      required cessation of Federal funding or backing
              which bisects the long axis of the island.             for government or private activities which could
                                                                     limit the recovery of the species. Technically this
              Historically, North Key Largo was settled by home-     includes funds for utility projects or federally in-
              steaders who cleared areas within the native hard-     sured loans for development projects, either of
              wood forests in order to raise tomato and pineapple    which would have been required in order to com-
              crops. Although life was difficult, settlers were      plete approved development at that time.
              able to subsist and even to export their produce to
              areas as far away as the Carolinas. With the excep-    The incumbent Florida Governor appointed a North
              tion of the posh residential and resort community      Key Largo Habitat Conservation Plan Study Com-
              of Ocean Reef Club and several small subdivi-          mittee to complete a planning effort for the area.
              sions, the previously fanned lands have returned to    Through a test of wills, and yet a great deal of
              native forested land. From one end to the other,       cooperative effort, the conflicting issues of prop-
              approximately 12 miles, North Key Largo is the         erty rights and the continued survival of the six

                                                                  91








           listed species were resolved. As a planning pro-          Deer, adirninutive subspecies of the Virginia White-
           cess, the resolutions did not meet with the approval      tailed Deer. It exists in the lower Florida Keys and
           of all participants and could be classified as a          the core of its range is Big Pine Key. It has never
           failure in terms of implementation. In fact, all          been particularly numerous, but hunting activities
           involved agreed that acquisition of all land in the       of the 1950s led to its near extinction. Through the
           area would satisfy the goal of protecting habitat         1960s and 1970s the deer herd returned to a sem-
           and the endangered species, while justly compen-          blance of its historic stature, but in the 1980s and
           sa ting land owners. The planning process itself can      early 1990s, the deer has been in a state of decline.
           best be characterized as a mechanism which pro-           The principal issues surrounding the deer's contin-
           vided a level of comfort to developers until a land       ued viability are mortality on the island's roads,
           acquisition program could be completed. The plan-         continuing habitat loss, and resulting habitat frag-
           ning process established the importance and value         mentation.
           of the development potential which guaranteed a
           reasonable, if not high return, in the acquisition        The planning effort for Big Pine Key has been less
           process.                                                  than successful. Environmental groups, both local
                                                                     and national, have become pitted against property
           Today, nearly 100 percent of the land in the Croco-       owners who have both a financial and personal
           dile Refuge has been acquired by the Federal              investment in their land. Land is being acquired by
           Government. The state has similarly bought ap-            the Federal and State governments and by one non-
           proximately 60 percent of the land on the opposite        profit conservation group. However, the salient
           side of highway 905 as a botanical site and as buffer
           lands for the National Marine Sanctuary. The state
           is continuing to buy.

           Big Pine Key                                                                            LOCATION MAP
           Big Pine Key lies in the lower Florida Keys, ap-
           proximately 30 mile east of Key West. U.S. High-                                      p.
           way 1 connects the Key to the islands lying to the
           east and west of it. Big Pine Key is approximately
           seven miles long with its length axis oriented in a                                            NO NAME
           north-south direction (Figure 3). U.S. Highway 1                                                  KEY
           bisects the island in a roughly east-weFt direction.

           The early history of Big Pine Key is similar to that
           of North Key Largo. It was settled by homesteaders
                                                                        BIG PINE   KEY
           who were generally farmers and lived a reasonable,
           if modest life style. They traveled by sail to the City                 RT 1
           of Key West to obtain provisions, a days journey at
                                                                                N
           that time. Otherwise, these islanders were quite
           isolated. During the years of the 1950s and 1960s,                   t
           Big Pine Key was witness to an era of considerable                                                       RT 1
           land subdivision. Over 40 separate subdivisions                0     1
           were ultimately created, establishing more than                    Miles
           9,000 new lots which ranged in size from 5,000
           square feet to one acre.
                                                                     Figure 3. Big Pine Key
           During the same era and extending into the 1970s,
           considerable attention was being paid to the Key

                                                                  92








               question that remains is; "Will acquisition of 'green  establish specified dates for implementation and
               space' be enough?" On an island with a population      compliance. Topics which received little serious
               of 5,000 which is projected to double within the       attention in the past must now be addressed. Ex-
               next 20 years; an island which will see increased      amples include the establishment of a sewage treat-
               traffic generation, and which still contains 3,800     ment master plan, development and implementa-
               developable lots, the question is a difficult one to   tion of a hurricane evacuation plan, a stormwater
               answer.                                                management plan, and a potable water manage-
                                                                      ment plan. As a coastal county, in a state that
               The principal differences between the two plan-        receives funding under the Federal Coastal Zone
               ning processes involve the "nature of the beasts"      Management Act (CZMA), the updated Compre-
               requiring protection, the ownership pattern of the     hensive Plan will also have to meet CZMA criteria.
               land, and the character of that ownership. First, the  Issues relating to wetlands protection, stormwater
               Key Deer is a much more mobile animal and              management, sewage treatment, marina siting cri-
               requires a much greater range to subsist. It fre-      teria, and water dependant recreation will be Para-
               quently comes into contact with people. Second,        mount issues. And finally, under the tenets of
               the ownership pattern in Big Pine Key is one of        "concurrence management," defined in the Florida
               single family residential and commercial subdivi-      Comprehensive Planning Act, development will
               sions in single lot ownership. In North Key Largo      only be allowed if necessary capital facilities and
               land is largely undivided, remaining in acreage        infrastructure are available.
               tracts. Third, the character of the ownership on Big
               Pine Key is one of personal interest, while, in North  Concurrent with this process, although not in legal
               Key Largo the interests are investment based. These    terms, will be the development of a management
               three points have served to make planning efforts      plan which includes a water quality protection plan
               for Big Pine Key substantially more contentious        for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
               and intractable. 'ne immediate and daily impact of     This planning process will focus attention on the
               development and human habitation on the deer           protection Qf the marine resources surrounding the
               creates an immediate need for acquisition of neces-    Florida Keys. It will also assess the impacts of
               sary lands. The large number of small lots on the      Monroe County's existing development and future
               island makes land assembly through acquisition a       growth on the marine environment. Maintenance
               literal nightmare. Finally, it is frequently much      of water quality, boater impacts on the resource,
               easier to negotiate land acquisition with a devel-     commercial fishing, sport diving, tropical fish col-
               oper whose motives are profit oriented. Single lot     lecting, and marine salvage, will be important
               owners, whose lives and livelihoods may be tied to     issues.
               a single residential lot, tend to have a far more
               proprietary interest and are, therefore, much more     Monroe County in 1991, appears to want to effec-
               difficult to negotiate with.                           tively and appropriately manage these issues. The
                                                                      federal government certainly will expect results
               Florida Comprehensive Planning Act and the             and is looking to Monroe County as a cooperative
               Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary                 and enthusiastic local partner.
               The future stands before Monroe County and the
               Florida Keys. The County will complete an up-          CONCLUSIONS
               dated Comprehensive Plan encompassing a broader
               range of issues, early in 1992. The guidelines         The Planning process in Monroe County has been
               governing the adoption of this revised Plan are        long, arduous, and is beginning to meet with some
               more definitively stated than for any previous Plan.   success. Evidence of success includes the follow-
               For each element, adopted goals, objectives, and       ing:
               policies will outline measurable outcomes and


                                                                    93








              Increasingly the issue of planning for the future,        voters. These facts have a profound impact on the
            for coordinated, rational, and responsible growth,          types of planning decisions made by the County
            has become an acceptable practice and less a point          Commission, who's members are elected officials.
            of contention between the county and the state.
                                                                        The effort to protect North Key Largo, its habitat,
              Through the Florida Comprehensive Planning                and endangered species has been successful. Ef-
            Act, administered at the state level, all counties and      forts to acquire land in Big Pine have also met with
            municipalities in the State of Florida must produce         success, but the effort to plan for the inevitable
            a comprehensive plan in accordance with certain             interaction of an increased human population with
            standards. This has made the planning process in            the Key Deer, and to appropriately plan for and
            Monroe County more acceptable.                              direct growth, has failed to date. The Commission-
                                                                        ers have not been willing to act against a growth
              Environmental protection in the Florida Keys is           oriented local constituency. The issue, again comes
            being achieved in a much more thorough and                  down to the fact that substantially too many lots
            consistent fashion through the 1986 Comprehen-              were allowed to be platted during the 1950s through
            sive Plan than previously. Additional improve-              the 1970s. The cost to our unique natural resources
            ments will be made through the 1992 update.                 of allowing continued growth may be too high.
                                                                        Paralleling this concern is a suggestion that the cost
              Environmental planning in the the Keys is more            of growth in needed infrastructure and capital
            firmly based on the best available resource data            facilities may be too high as well. In view of these
            than it has been in the past. The development               concerns, the county will need to assess the impacts
            review process is more objective and less subject to        of future growth against its natural resources and
            political pressures.                                        its ability to pay for needed capital facilities and
                                                                        infrastructure.
              Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the County
            has committed resources to increase staffing levels         So that the County does not fail in its continuing
            and provide the salaries required to hirie competent        planning efforts, the following must be assessed:
            professionals. The County has at times been reluc-
            tant to do this and it is to the state's credit that they   - the costs of additional development in relation to
            have been willing to financially assist the County          the cost of paying for required capital improve-
            in its planning efforts. To complete such a planning        ments
            process requires financial commitment and ad-               - the costs of new commitments, such as a sewage
            equate staff.                                               treatment master plan or a stormwater master plan,
                                                                        for existing development and future growth
            The negative side of the Monroe County experi-              - the cumulative impacts of future growth and
            ence can be related to a comparison of the North            existing development on the natural resource base
            Key Largo and Big Pine Key efforts. In North Key            - the impact of additional development on quality
            Largo, the irreversible commitment of subdivision           of life issues (community character and the reasons
            approval had not been made prior to the planning            that people have come to reside in the Keys)
            effort, whereas it had been in Big Pine Key. Land           - the cost of acquiring vacant residential and com-
            holdings in North Key Largo were held by corpo-             mercial property against the cost of permitting its
            rations whose interests were investment based.              development.
            Further, and very importantly, most of the partners
            in these corporations lived outside of Monroe               LESSONS LEARNED
            County and thus had no local vote. In contrast,
            ownership of land in Big Pine was principally in            With hindsight, the planning process in Monroe
            single lots and the 'owners were residents and              County has been carried out in less than ideal


                                                                     94








                   circumstances. Since designation as an Area of                       ronmental resource protection if economic costs
                   Critical State Concern, Monroe County has been                       are too high. As planners and biologists dealing
                   looking over its shoulder, concerned about the                       with resources issues, learn to lead with economic
                   state's scrutiny, rather than making rational deci-                  arguments. Enviromentalism is not always popu-
                   sions based on the issues that are attendant to an                   lar. Concern over one's pocketbook gets attention
                   area like the Florida Keys. Lessons to be taken                      readily.
                   from the Monroe County experience are:
                                                                                        In conclusion, six years ago the author would have
                     Planning is affected by the structure of the politi-               felt a kindred spirit with a favorite childhood char-
                   cal system and the decision making process.                          acter, Don Quixote. Tilting at windn-fills was some-
                   - As stated in a recent article (Pattison, Carolina                  thing well practiced by the seven Planning Direc-
                   Planning, Vol. 16, No. 1), "Do not take credit for                   tors holding that position in Monroe County over
                   developing a land use plan. Until it has been adopted                the last 10 years. The situation is improving and the
                   and implemented in a political arena, you have not                   author is optimistic.
                   done very much." The political arena that the
                   author referred to was Monroe County. The object                     References
                   lesson is that commitment to comprehensive plan                      DeGrove, J.M. 1984. Chapter 4. Florida: Harmonizing Growth and
                   implementation is essential.                                                   the Environment. In, "Land Growth and Polifics." Plan-
                   - In an inherently democratic system, successful                               ners Press. American Planning Association. 454 pp.
                   implementation of a comprehensive plan can only                      Pattison, C.G. 1990. Fear and Loathing in the Planning Profession:
                   be accomplished with the support of a public con-                              Ten Comments on the Political Factor. Carolina Planning
                                                                                                  (Spring 1990) 16(l): 12-16.
                   stituency. Seek it at all costs.                                     Siemon, C.L. 1989. Carrying Capacity Planning: Rx for the Future.
                   - The "Political factor" is not one of the elements                            In, "Implementation of the 1985 Growth Management
                   of traditional or theoretical planning training. In                            Act: From Planning to Land Development Regulations."
                                                                                                  Edited by Barbara C. Brumback and M.J. Marvin. FAU/
                   reality it is the principal element. Embrace it, make                          FIO Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems.
                   it a friend, it is a part of life as an environmental                          Monograph #89-1.
                   planner.                                                             Florida Statutes and Administrative Codes:
                   - From the perspective of environmental protec-                      Florida Statute 163
                   tion, outside political influences can help establish                       Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code
                   a more -balanced arena for local decision making.                    Florida Statute 380 (380.0552 & 380.0663)
                                                                                                  Chapter 2717-8, Florida Administrative Code (Principles
                   The influences of the many national non-profit                                     for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of
                   conservation entities have helped immeasurably,                                    Critical State Concern (later amended))
                   particularly in the areas of land acquisition and                           Chapter 87-170, Florida Administrative Code
                   endangered species protection.                                                     (Land Authority)
                   - Concurrent management of growth and neces-                         Monroe County Law:
                   sary infrastructure and capital facility improve-                    Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan (1986)
                                                                                               Volume 1: Background Data Element
                   ments is essential to the rational functioning of                           Volume II: Policy Element
                   increasingly densely populated societies.                            Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (1991)
                   - Protection of natural resources is vital to quality                       Technical Document
                   of life, to the protection of resource based indus-                         Policy Document
                   tries and, particularly, tourism economies.                                 Map Document
                   - The economics of growth related to needed capi-                    Monroe County Code
                   tal improvements may work to the benefit of envi-                           Chapter 9.5: Land Development Regulations





                                                                                     95







         For further information and provision of key
         references contact:
         Monroe County Growth Management Division
         5100 Junior College Road
         Key West, Florida, USA 33040

















































                                                    96






               Development in Hawaii:

               Management of a Major Resort Development (Kaanapali)

               Philip Ohta


                   The island of Maui, like the remainder of the Hawaiian chain, has witnessed an extraordi-
                   nary increase in tourism-related development over the past thirty years. Although some
                   early projects were thought to be environmentally progressive, during the 1970s reduced
                   beach access and parking, increased shoreline use, decreasing visual quality and degrading
                   coastal resources, slowly emerged as problems that required resolution. Hawaii's Coastal
                   Zone Management Program (HCZMP) was approved in 1978 and provided an extra level
                   of protection that had not been available earlier. The establishment of Special Management
                   Areas and associated Use-Permits enabled local authorities to resolve many of these
                   emerging societal concerns for sensitive development.

                   This case study describes a major resort development, the Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort
                   on Maui. It compares how development proceeded before and after establishment of the
                   HCZMP and describes the Special Management Area regulatory procedures that provided
                   the means to control aspects of resort development.




               INTRODUCTION
                                                                        public was allowed access to the beach. As devel-
               This case study addresses management of a major          opment progressed, it became evident to the public
               resort development, the Royal Kaanapali Beach            that clear access and parking areas adjacent to the
               Resort, in Lahaina on the island of Maui.                beach were diminishing, shorelines were being
                                                                        encroached by buildings, views to the ocean were
               This study describes the development of the resort       becoming obscured, and coastal resources began to
               before and after the establishment of the Coastal        lose their attractiveness. The Coastal Zone Man-
               Zone Management (CZM) Program in the State Of            agement Program provided a tool to address these
               Hawaii and developments after Hawaii's adoption          unforeseen problems.
               of the CZM Program in 1978. A comparison is
               made of the differences and effects that the resort
               has incurred since the CZM Program, such as              BACKGROUND
               beach access, protection of coastal resources, and
               building design criteria.                                The Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort is in Lahaina
                                                                        on the western side of the island of Maui (Figure 1)
               Prior to the development of this resort, the Kaanapali   which is the second largest in the Hawaiian chain.
               area provided open and unobscured access to the          In Hawaiian, the words "Ka' Ana Pali" mean "the
               beach. Although the land was privately owned, the        rolling cliffs" a reference to the wide, open ridges
                                                                        behind the Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort that
               Philip Ohta is the Planner and Coastal Zone Management   sweep upward to Pu' u Kukui, the highest moun-
               Administrator in the Planning Department in the County of tain peak on West Maui.
               Maui, Hawaii.

                                                                      97










              PROFILE


              Mandate for Program
              The objectives of the Hawaii CZMA are:
                 ï¿½  provide for and protect recreational resources
                 ï¿½  protect and restore historic and cultural resources
                 ï¿½  improve scenic and open space areas
                 ï¿½  protect coastal ecosystems
                 ï¿½  provide for coastal-dependent economic uses
                 ï¿½  reduce coastal hazards
                 ï¿½  improve the process for managing development
                 ï¿½  provide for public participation

              Geographic Scope
              The Hawaii coastal zone includes the state's waters and all land areas except the state forest
              reserves. In addition Special Management Areas (SMAs) are designated around the shoreline of
              each island. In the county of Maui the SMA surrounds the entire island but is predominantly
              located on the ocean side of the major coastal highway. It includes most of the Kaanapali Resort
              area.


              Management Procedures/Techniques
              The lead state agency for the Hawaii coastal management program is the Department of Planning
              and Economic Development. Policies are implemented through a network of existing legal
              authorities, a number of state agencies and the four county governments, one of which is Maui.
              The coastal management program has a statewide Advisory Committee, which includes repre-
              sentatives from state and local government agencies, and interest groups.

              The HCZMP gives authority to county governments in designated Special Management Areas.
              Within SMAs, local governments administer SMA Use Permit programs to control a number of
              aspects of development, including public access, parking and visual design qualities. In Maui
              County an Urban Design Review Board advises the local Planning Commission, which reviews
              SMA Use Permit applications.

          In ancient times, Hawaiian fishing villages were      can Factors, Ltd., which was shortened to Amfac,
          built in the Kaanapali area. In the early eighteenth  Inc. in 1966.
          century, a major battle was fought at Kaanapali
          between two half-brothers and their warriors for      In 1956, American Factors decided to develop a
          control of Maui. The battle lasted for four days and  planned resort on a substantial section of unprofit-
          because the slaughter was great on both sides, the    able plantation scrubland along two sandy beaches,
          battle was given a fitting name, Koko-o-na-moku,      stretching approximately 3 miles, at Kaanapali. A
          which means "Blood-of-the-Islands".                   Master Plan was drawn up for the development of
                                                                the Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort. The first incre-
          From the mid-nineteenth century to mid-twentieth      ment included a 500-acre section of land. Owner-
          century, the land at Kaanapali was put to various     ship of the land remained with Amfac, Inc. which
          uses related to sugar production. During this time,   gave stockholders additional return on their invest-
          the sugar plantation became the property of Ameri-    ment from appreciating property values. It was also


                                                              98











                                          N i 1 h a u


                                                  Kauai                    Molokai
                                                              Oahu . r,'@                   Maui
                                                                         LanaisqwQ.,




                                                                                   Hawaii







                                             Kapalua
                                                                                 Kean e
                                            Kaanapali Kahului
                                              La   aina                   Maui
                                                                                                    Hana-
                                                   ....Maalae               Haleakala National
                                                                                       Park
                                                                                    O'heo     Falls:.,
                                                                      Kihei


                                                                         Wallea






                 Figure 1. The Hawaiian Islands with Maui inset.


                                                                                 CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS
                 believed that a single owner could best control the
                 density and type of structure built, balancing prof-            1957-61      Preparation of Master Plan and building
                 itability against an open-spaced design to please                            of preliminary infrastructure
                 residents and draw vacationers back year after                  1962         Royal Lahaina Beach Club and golf
                 year.                                                                        course completed
                                                                                              Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort offi-
                                                                                              cially opened
                 One problem that the proposed resort development                1963-75      Nine individual development projects
                 faced was that the highway along Kaanapali was                               completed (Table 1)
                 located along the coastline. Together with the                  1978         Hawaii's Coastal Zone Program
                 County, Arnfac obtained federal funds to move the                            approved
                                                                                 1980-82      Four additional development projects
                 old highway inland to its present location. This                             completed (Table 2)
                 project was completed by 1957, which freed                      1984-88      Additional beach parking and access
                 beachfront land for hotel, condominium and golf                              required for renovation of existing
                 course sites.                                                                structures
                                                                                 1990         Kaanapali Beach Hotel Special
                                                                                              Management Area Use Permit
                                                                                              approved for renovation and additions,
                                                                                              including beach access and parking


                                                                           99







                  CASE STUDY: Development of the Kaanapali                                          development progressed. The need to address these
                  Resort                                                                            issues slowly became apparent. Hawaii's CZM
                                                                                                    Program became the tool that was needed to ad-
                  Between 1957 and 1961 progress on the new resort                                  dress these issues.
                  consisted of building a water supply system, grad-
                  ing hotel sites, constructing a golf course, con-                                 Table 2 lists the developments which were con-
                  structing underground electrical systems, utilities-                              structed afterHawaii's establishmentof the Coastal
                  access roads, a sewage treatment plant and a la-                                  Zone Management Program.
                  goon.
                  The official opening date of the Royal Kaanapali                                  Table 2. Post CZM Program Development
                  Beach Resort was December, 1962. At that time                                     Project                       Size (acres)       Dam         Beds/Units
                  the infrastructure, golf course and the private Royal                             Hyatt Regency Maui                18.5*          1980            815
                                                                                                    Kaanapali Royal                    7             1980          107 units
                  -Lahaina Beach Club were completed. The Royal                                     Maui Marriott                     15*            1981            757
                  Lahaina Beach Club comprised 31 two-story indi-                                   Kaanapah Alii                      8*            1982          264 units
                  vidually owned cottages each containing 6 holiday                                 Westin Maui
                  units, all situated along Kaanapali's upper beach                                 I(formerly Maui Suro              12*            1987            762       1
                  and golf course.                                                                  *Note: public beach access and parking provided.

                  After the opening of the Royal Kaanapali Beach
                  Resort, other development followed. Table I lists                                 The Coastal Zone Management Program
                  the developments which were constructed in the
                  resort before the Hawaii Coastal Zone Manage-                                     In 1978 the State of Hawaii's Coastal Zone Man-
                  ment Program                                                                      agement Program was approved by the U.S. Secre-
                                                                                                    tary of Commerce. This made the state eligible for
                  Table 1. Pre-CZM Program Development                                              federal funding support under the Federal Coastal
                    Project                    Size (acres)       Date           Beds[Units         Zone Management Act. Chapter 205A of the Re-
                                                                                                    vised Hawaii Statutes legislation sets forth the
                    Sheraton-Maui                   23       January 1963            503            procedures governing the implementation of the
                    Kaanapali Beach
                    Hotel                           10.5 February 1964               430            Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program. This
                    International Colony                                                            legislation contains special controls on develop-
                    Club                            11.0              1964       44 cottages
                    Royal Lahaina Hotel             38    September 1966             724            ments within an area along the shoreline where
                    Maui Eldorado                   10                1970       204 units          deemed necessary to avoid permanent loss of valu-
                    Kaanapali Plantation
                    and South Golf Course           10                1970       62 units           able resources and the foreclosure of management
                    Maui Surf                       12    December 1971              556            options. The legislation requires adequate access
                    Whalers Village Complex          8.5        May 1971
                    The Whaler on                                                                   by dedication or other means to publicly owned or
                  I Kaanapah Beach                    7               1975       36 units           used beaches, recreation areas, and natural area
                  The majority of these developments were con-                                      reserves. The legislature declares that it is the state
                  structed along the shoreline and were all part of the                             policy to preserve, protect, and where possible, to
                  MasterPlan's firstincrement, which located devel-                                 restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of
                  opment on the southern portion of Kaanapali.                                      Hawaii. To ensure that this policy was imple-
                                                                                                    mented, Special Management Areas were estab-
                  This first       phase of the Royal Kaanapali Beach                               lished within the shorelines of the state.
                  Resort Plan was thought to be very progressive at
                  the time. Problems relating to decreasing public                                  Special Management Area
                  access and parking, increasing shoreline use and                                  Special Management Area authority was given to
                  reduced visual quality were gradually perceived as                                the four counties (Maui, Kauai, Oahu and Hawaii)

                                                                                                100








              of the State. Each county established their Special      Board submits a recommendation to the Commis-
              Management Area Rules and Regulations and iden-          sion, but may on occasion also defer its report to
              tified their Special Management Area boundaries          allow the applicant to correct concerns raised by
              on maps. In the case of this study, the Special          the Board.
              Management Area for the County of Maui is a
              continuous strip of coastline surrounding the entire     Special Management Area Use Permit
              island, mainly located on the ocean side of the          The Special Management Area Use Permit is the
              major highway. Most of the Kaanapali Resort area         essential tool used by the counties to assure confor-
              is located within the SMA.                               mity with the policies, objectives and guidelines of
                                                                       the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program.
              The legislation requires that no development be          An environmental assessment is required by Maui
              allowed in any county within the Special Manage-         County as part of all applications.
              ment Area without a Special Management Area
              Use Permit. The Maui and Molokai Planning Com-           The environmental assessment provides general
              missions have the authority to grant these permits       information on the property to be developed (loca-
              within the County of Maui.                               tion, ownership, description, surrounding uses,
                                                                       infrastructural services, access, etc.) and includes:
              Urban Design Review Board
              To gain professional views of the design and qual-                a biological survey to ensure that no rare,
              ity of proposed developments, the Special Man-                threatened or endangered species of flora or
              agement Area Rules and Regulations of the County              fauna exists on the project site or will be af-
              ofMaui established an Urban Design Review Board.              fected by the development
              The Board consists of seven regular members and
              four alternates, all of whom are registered archi-                an archaeological survey to ensure that no
              tects, landscape architects, engineers or persons             significant archaeological features are present
              with interest or experience in urban planning, fine
              arts, conservation or historic preservation. The                  a project description of the proposed project,
              Board is advisory to the Planning Commission and              including the schematic drawings presented to
              reviews, recommends and comments on all appli-                the Urban Design Review Board
              cations within the SMA which could potentially
              affect the overall quality of the coastal zone envi-              an assessment addressing conformance with
              ronment. Their recommendations and comments                   the objectives, policies and guidelines set forth
              consider the maintenance, restoration, and enhance-           in the Special Management Area Rules and
              ment of the Special Management Area consistent                Regulations of the County of Maui.
              with the objectives, policies, and guidelines of the
              Special Management Area Rules and Regulations.           Depending on the type and size of the develop-
                                                                       ment, the permit application may also include a
              Before a Special Management Area Use Permit              preliminary drainage plan, a certified shoreline
              application is scheduled for public hearing with the     survey, (if the proposed development is located
              Planning Commission, the proposed development            along the shoreline) and a traffic study. Also re-
              is reviewed by the Urban Design Review Board.            quired is a list of the tax map showing the names
              Schematic drawings, plans (site plan, floor plan,        and addresses of all owners and lessees, and a map
              elevations, landscape planting and irrigation plans,     clearly defining the 500-foot boundary around the
              lighting plans, etc.) and the project's description      development; within which the owners of all par-
              are presented by the applicant. The Board basically      cels must be notified.
              examines the size, design, and conformity of the
              proposal with the County's building codes. The

                                                                     101







             The application, environmental assessment and              Zone Management Program, Maui County has
             other submittals are transmitted to agencies that          developed Shoreline Setback Rules and Regula-
             may be affected by the development. Their com-             tions and Special Accessory Use Permits to restrict
             ments and/or recommendations are used as part of           certain types of development and uses along the
             the findings for the permit report to the Commis-          shoreline.
             sion. Such comments and/or recommendations may
             impose requirements on the applicant.                      Shoreline Setback Rules and Regulations of the
                                                                        County of Maui.
             After the agencies have responded and the pro-             Increasing demands for utilization of the beach and
             posed development has been reviewed by the Ur-             ocean resources has made it imperative that:
             ban Design Review Board, the Planning Depart-
             ment will determine from this input whether the                    public use and enjoyment of the shoreline
             development will incur any special problems.                   area be insured for the public to the fullest
             Where such problems are found to be present, the               extent possible
             applicantwill needtoresolve thernwith the agency.
             Once such problems are resolved, a Planning Com-                   the natural shoreline environment be pre-
             mission public hearing date is scheduled.                      served

             A public hearing notice is published in both a local           * man-made features in the shoreline area be
             county and a statewide newspaper. This notifica-               limited to features compatible with the shore-
             tion, as well as notification to the surrounding               line area
             owners and lessees of property within a 500-foot
             radius of the project site, are submitted no less than             the natural movement of the shoreline be
             25 days prior to the public hearing. This allows the           protected from development.
             public time to seek more information and offer
             written testimony on the proposed development.             Such policies are necessary because development
                                                                        and other man-made innovations have resulted in
             At the public hearing the Planning Department              encroachment of structures near the shoreline, and
             presents a report on the proposed development.             in numerous instances, erosion and other distur-
             Their report includes: information obtained in the         bances affecting the natural movement of the shore-
             environmental assessment; the project's schematic          line. These rules are also necessary because the
             drawings; agency inputs; written public inputs; and        Hawaiian Islands are subject to tsunamis and high
             an analysis of the project's relationship to the           wave action that pose hazards to residences and
             objectives, policies and guidelines of the Special         other structures near the shoreline. Consequently,
             Management Area Rules and Regulations. Oral                the purpose of these rules and regulations is to
             and written testimony are then presented to the            establish shoreline areas within which the use and
             Commission.                                                activities are regulated in order to protect the health,
                                                                        safety, and welfare of the public.
             Conditions may be attached to a permit stipulating:
             a time period for initiation of construction of the        The setback rules and regulations require that all
             project; conformance with agency recommenda-               lots which abut the shoreline shall have a shoreline
             tions; mitigating measures during construction;            setback line of 40 feet, with certain exceptions,
             provision of beach right-of-ways and public beach          depending on lot depth and buildable area. Struc-
             parking; and if needed, a self-enforcing provision.        tures are prohibited in the shoreline area without a,
                                                                        Shoreline Setback Variance unless it is determined
             Although the Special Management Area Use Per-              by the Director of Planning to be a minor structure
             mit is the key tool for implementing the Coastal           which does not affect beach processes, does not


                                                                     102







              artificially fix the shoreline, and does not interfere   Commission approval of a Special Accessory Use
              with public access or public views to and along the      Permit is required. This process helps to control
              shoreline. Some examples of minor structures are         these uses within the shoreline area.
              landscaping features or irrigation designed to sta-
              bilize and enhance the buildings, paved lanais,          Impact of the Management Program
              swimming pools, beach use facilities, and paved
              walkways for public access. A public hearing and         The Special Management Area Use Permit has
              Planning Commission approval are required for a          been the major tool in the preservation of natural,
              Shoreline Setback Variance. The processing and           cultural and coastal resources and environmentally
              review of the variance request is similar to the         sensitive areas within the Royal Kaanapali Beach
              Special Management Area Use Permit. A variance           Resort. Through the Special Management Area
              may be granted for a structure or activity; if the       Use Permit, open space quality has been main-
              Commission finds that the proposed development           tained at the Hyatt Regency, Maui Marriott and
              is necessary for or ancillary to cultivation of crops,   Kaanapali Alii. View corridors to the ocean have
              aquaculture, landscaping, drainage, boating, mari-       also been maintained. Kaanapali Alii is a prime
              time or water sports recreational facilities, public     example of maintaining view corridors. This de-
              facilities or improvements, private facilities, or       velopment includes four towers which are spaced
              improvements that are clearly in the public interest.    apart to allow views to the ocean.
              The rules and regulations further state that no
              variance will be granted unless appropriate condi-       Landscaping, including shade trees, are required
              tions are imposed:                                       for parking areas and additional landscaping has
                                                                       always been recommended for areas within the
                      to maintain safe lateral access to and along     hotel grounds to soften impacts from the continuity
                  the shoreline or adequately compensate for its       of building structures. Natural vegetation along the
                  loss                                                 shoreline has been preserved to distinguish the
                                                                       hotel boundaries with the beach.
                      to minimize risk of adverse impacts on
                  beach processes                                      Any changes or modifications to existing struc-
                                                                       tures, landscaping, etc. are required to be reviewed
                      to minimize risk of structures falling and       and processed by the Planning Department by way
                  becoming loose rocks or rubble on public prop-       of a Special Management Area Use or Minor
                  erty                                                 Permit. Because of this, continuity of building
                                                                       design, color, etc. can be maintained. The Whalers
                      to minimize adverse impacts on public            Village Complex, through the years, has had its
                  views to, from, and along the shoreline.             floor space expanded. The owners have not ex-
                                                                       panded outside of the original complex but have
              Special Accessory Use Permit                             developed within. A continuity of design and color
              All of the parcels located along the shoreline of the    has always been required through the Special Man-
              Kaanapali Beach Resort are hotel zoned with the          agement Area permits.
              exception of the Whalers Village Complex, which
              is zoned resort commercial. The County of Maui's         Conformance with these requirements has also
              hotel zoning ordinance provides a limited amount         been established through the Urban Design Re-
              of permitted uses (related to services provided for      view Board. In 1988, Whalers Village applied for
              the hotel guests) within this district. Other uses, not  a permit to provide a new structure for their whale
              specifically listed as a permitted use, that are hotel   skeleton display. The Board considered that the
              guest oriented are considered to be accessory uses.      proposed structure was too large and not within the
              In order to establish this accessory use, Planning       original framework of the complex. The Board

                                                                     103








                       recommended that a slimmed down display be                                                             been developed. This walkway is available for
                       designed to coincide with the existing structures.                                                     hotel guest and public use. Conditions of these
                                                                                                                              permits have prohibited any construction of im-
                       The Board has also recommended that landscaping                                                        provements, except landscaping, on the ocean side
                       be implemented in certain areas of a proposed                                                          of this walkway. The result of this provision is an
                       project to soften the visual impacts of the project.                                                   unobstructed view to the ocean.
                       Lighting features for parking areas and walkways
                       are also reviewed by the Board to ensure height,                                                       Uses that have required Special Accessory Use
                       safety, direction and brightness are within their                                                      Permit approval and which may create potential
                       guidelines.                                                                                            impacts along the beach, are beach activity centers.
                                                                                                                              Various services are offered within these centers,
                       Another of the major problems that the Royal                                                           'such as rental of beach equipment (snorkel equip-
                       Kaanapali Beach Resort Master Plan did not ad-                                                         ment, air mattresses, boogie boards, etc.), kayaks,
                       dress is the provision of public beach access. At the                                                  wind surfing equipment; and sales of ocean excur-
                       time the Plan was adopted, access to beaches at                                                        sions, snorkeling expeditions, and other activities.
                       Kaanapali and Maui in general was not a problem
                       due to sparse development along the coastline. But
                       as development progressed along the Kaanapali                                                                        LAHAINA
                       coastline, the public realized that it was becoming
                       difficult to access the beach and also to find avail-                                                                       OLD KAANAPALI
                       able areas to park their cars.                                                                                                      AIRPORT

                       The Special Management Area Use Permit has
                       been the key element in establishing public beach
                       access and parking within the Kaanapali Resort.                                                                                                  7        T
                       Developers were required to provide and construct                                                                                             >           74
                                                                                                                                                                     Z           _J     ROYAL KAANAPALI
                                                                                                                                                                     >              41                            0
                       improved public beach rights-of-way and parking                                                                                                                  GOLF COURSE               IZ
                                                                                                                                                                                 0
                                                                                                                                                                                 Z                                Z
                       along their projects by way of easements to the                                                                                                           0                                Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  X
                       County as conditions of the permit. Presently, a
                       total of 7 public beach rights-of-way and 150                                                                                                                                              0
                       public parking places have been created between
                       the Hyatt Regency in the south and the Royal                                                                                            HANAKAO'O BEACH
                                                                                                                                                                                 PARK
                       Lahaina Resort to the north (Figure 2). All beach                                                                                   WAHIKULI BEACH PARK
                       right-of-ways and parking stalls are for public use
                       only and provided 24-hours a day. Through condi-                                                                      Shoreline Access
                       tions of the Special Management Area permits, the                                                                           Hyatt                            (DKasnapall Airport
                                                                                                                                                                                        Paved access;dt access:
                                                                                                                                                   Marriott-Hyatt                       sandy ?)each: roadside
                       access and parking lot providers are required to                                                                                                                 parking: AD !Ficiiiiiiis:
                                                                                                                                                   AIII-Marrlott                        swiMM,ng.1pICnICking.
                       monitor the use and prohibit all non-public beach                                                                           Paved accesses off of
                                                                                                                                                   Honeakai Drive: sandy
                                                                                                                                                   be.th, parking:                  Wahikull Beach Park
                       users, such as commercial vehicles or hotel em-                                                                             swimming                         Paved access. sandy beach@
                                                                                                                                                   Westin-Aill                      Park ' r"'r       - ions.     s@
                       ployees, from utilizing these facilities. This strat-                                                                                                                            "*'
                                                                                                                                             @ Whaler-Westin                        swimining,'plenicking.
                       egy has been very successful.                                                                                               Sheraton                         Hanakaoo Beach Park
                                                                                                                                                   Paved accesses off of            Paved access: sandy harich:
                                                                                                                                                   Kaenapall Dfive. sandy           carting. restroom, shower$.
                                                                                                                                                   beat ; parking (only for         PIC, ic tables. pavilions, life
                                                                                                                                                   Westh i: swimming.               luards, swimmingipicnicking.
                       Through the Special Management Area permit and                                                                                  in
                       Shoreline Setback process, a concrete public walk-
                       way, starting from the southernmost boundary of
                       Kaanapali (Hyatt Regency Maui) to its northern-
                       most developed boundary (Royal Lahaina), has                                                              Figure 2. Shoreline Access

                                                                                                                          104








               Conditions of this permit approval restricts the sale           end with restrooms, showers, picnic and paved
               of these services within the activity center and                parking facilities and landscape planting
               prohibits solicitation on the beach. Beach equip-
               ment is also required to be stored on the hotel                      provision of a shoreline open space area for
               property. Public beach accesses and parking may                 public use with a paved shoreline walkway
               not be used by those involved in this commercial                setback approximately 30 feet from the ocean
               activity.                                                       side property boundary.

               Future Expansion                                             This open space area would be established for
               The Kaanapali North Beach Joint Venture (Amfac               public use with emphasis on maintaining the exist-
               Property Investment Corporation and Tobishima                ing natural shoreline character and topography,
               Pacific, Inc.) is planning to develop 95 acres of            including abundant tree cover, and providing a
               ocean front property directly north of the existing          defined and usable public space separate from the
               Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort. The joint venture              hotel grounds. This walkway would connect the
               has received Special Management Area Use Per-                north and south public beach parks and span the
               mit approval for the subdivision of this property. A         entire length of the 3,200 foot long beach. Shower
               total of eleven lots, which may be consolidated into         poles would be provided at appropriate intervals
               a maximum of six hotel sites and two park sites, had         along this walkway, and a public restroom facility
               been created. There is also the possibility that             is planned for a central location.
               fewer but larger hotel sites will be developed.
                                                                            In addition, each hotel developer is required to
               Conditions of this Special Management Area Use               provide employee housing units for their staff to
               Permit approval include:                                     meet the affordable housing shortages on the is-
                                                                            land. This policy requires that the developer pro-
                        height restrictions for the hotels, depend-         vide @Dne affordable housing unit to its hotel staff
                   ing on their appropriate zoning                          for every five hotel rooms constructed. These units
                                                                            are constructed on separate property within the
                        a minimum shoreline setback of 80 feet,             hotel's region.
                   which may be increased by the Planning Com-
                   mission                                                  CONCLUSIONS


                   0 the establishment of a transportation man-             The first phase of the Royal Kaanapali Beach
                   agement plan dealing with employee and guest             Resort was essentially completed before the estab-
                   traffic                                                  lishment of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management
                                                                            Program. Although the Kaanapali plan was a very
                        a limitation on the total number of hotel and       progressive concept at that time, there were short-
                   condominium rooms to not exceed 3200 for a               falls that were not originally perceived; such as
                   period of ten years after the start of operation of      reduced public beach access and parking, increas-
                   the initial project                                      ing shoreline use and deterioration of visual qual-
                                                                            ity. Through the adoption of the Hawaii Coastal
                        a prohibition on construction of the initial        Zone Management Area Program, Maui County
                   project until the Lahaina Bypass Highway has             was given the tools to redress these shortfalls
                   been implemented                                         through Special Management Area permits, Shore-
                                                                            line Setback Rules and Regulations, and Special
                        provision of a    5.0 acre improved public          Accessory Use Permit procedures.
                   beach park on the extreme north end and a 3.0
                   acre improved public beach park on the south

                                                                         105







              With future proposed developments at the north                            Development should be limited to the ex-
              end of Kaanapali, Maui County has taken steps to                      isting infrastructure capacity.
              require the developer to address and resolve shore-
              line concerns before initial development. it is evi-             References
              dent that this could not have been achieved without
                                                                               County of Maui, Special Management Area Rules and Regula-
              the Coastal Zone Management Program, upon                               tions of the County of Maui.
              which Maui County has relied heavily to provide
              for and protect shoreline uses from the impact of                Kaanapali Beach Operators Association, Facilities Guide,
              development.                                                            Kaanapali, Maui.
                                                                               State of Hawaii, 1978. Coastal Zone Management Program.
              LESSONS LEARNED                                                  Kaanapali Beach Resort Master Plan.
                                                                               Archer, J. 1988. Coastal Management in the United States: A
                       The successful control of large scale devel-                   Selective Review and Summary, Technical Report@ Series
                   opmentrequires aconstraining framework such                        TR-D-1, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode
                                                                                      Island.
                   as the Coastal Zone Management Program.
                                                                               For further information and provision of key
                       The permit process can be used effectively              references contact:
                   to achieve preservation of desired values.
                                                                               Plans and Coastal Zone Management
                       The permit process can be an important                  Administration
                   tool to persuade existing development to come               Maui Planning Department
                   into line with new policies, when applying for              County of Maui
                   a retrofit or expansion.                                    250 South High Street
                                                                               Waikuku, Maui, HaWaii 96793
                       Intelligent zoning is effective in limiting
                   development.

























                                                                             106






               Coastal Resources Management in South Carolina

               Private Development of Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands

               Melvin Goodwin, Margaret Davidson and Shirley Conner


                   This comparative study examines resource management issues related to the private
                   development of two sea islands on the South Carolina coast. The primary issues involved
                   are water quality, wetlands protection, protection of beaches and dunes, public access to
                   common property resources, and protection of unique cultural resources.

                   Development on one of the islands studied occurred in the 1950s prior to the introduction
                   of the State's Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP). Decisions about how development
                   would occur were made by private developers. Initial Hilton Head developments were
                   widely hailed as environmentally sound and were used as an example of a place where both
                   profit and environmental objectives were met. Subsequently unregulated developments on
                   Hilton Head were not so enlightened and led to significant adverse impacts on coastal
                   resources. In the second example, Daufuskie Island was developed after the State CZMP
                   and other regulatory programs were put in place. The environmental impact of develop-
                   ment to date on Daufuskie Island appears less severe. The reason for the latter circum-
                   stance is due to a combination of the introduction of government regulation and an
                   awareness among developers and resource managers of the negative aspects of previous
                   development activities. Residents of both islands have experienced significant cultural
                   impacts that have not been addressed either by existing coastal zone management processes
                   or the private developer.


               INTRODUCTION                                           while environmental concerns on Hilton Head Is-
                                                                      land were left largely to the conscience of develop-
               The focus of this case study is the private develop-   ers, development on Daufuskie Island has been
               ment of two sea islands on the coast of South          subject to a formal process of coastal zone manage-
               Carolina, and the successes and failures of two        ment through the Federal Coastal Zone Manage-
               different approaches to coastal zone management.       ment Act and the South Carolina Coastal Zone
               Resort development on Hilton Head Island in the        Management Act.
               1950's was led by pioneers in the field of environ-
               mentally sensitive development. Unfortunately,         In 1949, the Hilton Head Company (HHC) was
               these early developers were followed by others         organized to purchase 19,000 acres on Hilton Head
               who were less conscientious. In the 1980's, devel-     Island, which represented approximately 70% of
               opment on Daufuskie Island began with great con-       the total land area. Six years later, the Sea Pines
               cern among residents over the probable impact of       project began, a 4,500 acre planned community
               development on their island's environment. But         that set new standards for environmentally sensi-
                                                                      tive development. Serious commitment of Sea Pines
                                                                      developers to conservation of the natural beauty of
               The authors are associated with South Carolina Sea Grant and Hilton Head Island resulted in coastal,communities
               collectively have extensive experience ofeconomic development
               and coastal resource issues, as well as ongoing involvement with that were unique for the 1960's. However, the
               coastal development impacts upon natural and cultural re- absence of environmental protection regulations or
               sources.


                                                                   107







             guidelines, coupled with the temptation to produce     Development ofplanned communities on Daufuskie
             quick profits resulted in other projects that caused   began in the mid 1980's amid concerns that it
             significant degradation of natural resources. In       would repeat the experience of Hilton Head Island.
             1982, it was estimated that 33% of all freshwater      Daufuskie residents were mainly low-income blacks
             wetlands on the island had been eliminated and         whose families had owned property on the island
             another 20% had been seriously altered by devel-       since the end of the Civil War, and they did not
             opment activities on their periphery, that affected    want to be forced to, move or see their island
             the natural drainage patterns.                         destroyed. Long-time residents wanted improved
                                                                    services and employment opportunities while still
             The predominantly black population that existed        maintaining the unique charm and character of
             on Hilton Head Island in the mid 1950's had little     Daufuskie. The local planning commission finally
             impact on the decision making process. In the early    decided to formulate a. land use plan in 1983 after
             1970's they reorganized the local National Asso-       several developers requested approval for con-
             ciation for the Advancement of Colored People          struction projects. Unlike the process on Hilton
             (NAACP) in an attempt to make their voices heard,      Head island, Daufuskie landowners were involved
             but funding for the project failed to materialize.     in the initial planning and have even been con-
             Later, many whites also became dissatisfied with       sulted by at least one developer.
             development practices. The only agency with ap-
             plicable regulatory authority (the Beaufort County
             Joint Planning Commission) appeared unable or          BACKGROUND
             uninterested in controlling the aesthetics of con-
             struction projects. In 1983, Hilton Head residents     In 1977, the South Carolina Coastal Zone Manage-
             incorporated as a municipality to achieve some         ment Act (SCCZMA) created the South Carolina
             control over development in their community.           Coastal Council (S CCC) as the official state agency




                  PROFILE


                  Mandate for Program
                  The South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act was enacted in 1977 and created the South
                  Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC), with responsibility for directing the state's coastal program.
                  The primary goal of the program is to achieve a rational balance between economic develop-
                  ment and conservation of the coastal zone's natural resources.


                  Geographic Scope
                  The coastal zone is comprised of eight coastal counties containing "critical areas;" which
                  consist of tidelands, beaches, primary oceanfront dunes and coastal waters. Both Hilton Head
                  and Daufuskie Islands are within the coastal zone.


                  Management Procedures/Techniques
                  Regulations allow SCCC to have direct permitting authority for activities which take place in
                  critical areas, and indirect influence in non-designated areas. Decisions on permit applications
                  are based upon evaluation of the economic importance of the proposed activity, the dependence
                  of the activity upon a coastal/critical area location, and the probable impact of the proposed
                  activity upon coastal waters. A Special Area Management Plan has been prepared for Hilton
                  Head.


                                                                 108







                  to implement the CZMA.. The SCCC has two                     tailed site plans including:
                  potentially conflicting mandates:                            -Delineation of wetlands and other critical areas
                                                                               -Aerial and/or topographical surveys
                  ï¿½ To protect the quality of the coastal environment          *Soil analyses
                  ï¿½ To promote the economic and social improve-                -Archaeological surveys
                  ment of the coastal zone and of all the people of the        oStormwater runoff plans
                  state                                                        -Diagrams and proposals for roads and utilities

                  The primary goal of the SCCC management pro-                 Adequate review of proposed coastal development
                  gram. is to achieve a rational balance between               must address the problems of land-use and carry-
                  economic development and conservation of the                 ing capacity in a comprehensive manner. Ideally,
                  coastal zone's natural resources. Another goal is to         the entire project is submitted and reviewed as a
                  promote intergovernmental coordination and pub-              whole, because the opportunity for environmental
                  lic participation in the development and implemen-           degradation is increased when individual compo-
                  tation of the coastal managcment program for the             nents of a project are considered separately.
                  state. Activities in critical areas (beaches, primary
                  sand dunes, tidelands and coastal waters) are con-
                  trolled by a permit system. Though seemingly
                  comprehensive, these mandates and goals do not
                  give the SCCC total control over coastal develop-
                  ment. A variety of other federal and state agencies           CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS
                  are also involved. The Beaufort County Joint Plan-
                  ning Commission, the Hilton Head Planning Com-                   1949       Hilton Head Company organized
                  mission, and the Low Country Health District are                 1955       Sea Pines development begins on
                  three of the most important local agencies involved                         Hilton Head Island
                  with coastal zone management in the area of this                 1957       Bridge constructed to connect Hilton
                                                                                              Head Island with mainland
                  case study.                                                      1957-74    Hilton Head Company master plan
                                                                                              prepared and revised
                  The coastal management program encourages pub-                   1959       Oyster industry on Daufuskie Island
                  lic involvement in several ways:                                            collapses due to pollution
                                                                                   1972       Federal Coastal Zone Management
                                                                                              Act enacted
                    Complete files for each permit application are                 1977       South Carolina Coastal Zone Manage-
                  available for inspection by the general public                              ment Act enacted
                  - The SCCC is required to hold a public hearing for              1981       Preliminary approval granted for 2330
                  any application if twenty or more citizens of the                           acre development on Daufuskie Island
                  affected county request such a hearing                           1982       Special Area Management Plan
                                                                                              prepared for Hilton Head Island
                    Permit applications must be accompanied by a                   1983       Hilton Head Island incorporated as a
                  copy of a newspaper advertisement giving public                             municipality
                  notice of the application                                        1985       Daufuskie L -and Use plan adopted by
                                                                                              Beaufort County Joint Planning
                  If a developer believes that a project might gener-                         Commission
                                                                                   1988       Beach Management Act adopted for
                  ate a great deal of controversy, a special review can                       South Carolina
                  be requested from the SCCC. A less detailed appli-               1990       Zoning and Development Standards
                  cation is submitted than is required for a regular                          Ordinance adopted in Beaufort County
                  review so that less money need be invested in a
                  project that might not be approved. Final approval
                  is granted after appropriate agencies review de-


                                                                            109








            THE CASE STUDY: Hilton Head and Daufuskie development of the previously sparsely populated
            Islands                                               island.


            Hilton Head Island                                    The individuals who first envisioned and then
            Hilton Head Island is a sea island located between    developed a resort community on Hilton Head
            Port Royal Sound to the north and Daufuskie Island    Island believed that this area had the potential to
            to the south (Figure 1). The two islands are sepa-    become an important resort location where people
            rated by Calibogue Sound while a narrow band of       and nature could coexist. With no previous ex-
            marsh and creek separates Hilton Head Island from     amples to follow, these early developers invested a
            the mainland. The island is 11.5 miles in length and  great deal of effort and money into turning their
            6.8 miles wide, including both high ground and        original concepts into reality. Sea Pines Plantation
            marsh. A sandy beachfront runs the length of the      was started in the late 1950's well before the
            island, and elevations range from sea level to 21     existence of the CZNIA or state and/or local man-
            feet. In 1971, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers       agement programs. The goal of the Hilton Head
            estimated the annual rate of erosion to be 6.2 feet.  Company was 'protection of the Island's natural
            Construction of a bridge in 1957 connected Hilton     beauty and character.' As a first step, boundaries
            Head Island to the mainland, permitting large scale   were delineated forconservation areas: salt marshes,







                                                                  0








                                                                             0
                           SOUTH                                            190
                                                                                  0
                         CAROLINA                                                            ATLANTIC
                                                                                               OCEAN




                                                                            Hilton Head
                                                                               Island




                                                      Daufuskie
                                                         Island
                                                                                    South Carolina




                       GEORGIA






            Figure 1. Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands

                                                                110








               bird rookeries and selected forest areas. Next, a         plans to build traditional brick houses and seek
               preeminent environmental scientist was retained to        architectural assistance to create a totally new type
               determine which areas should remain undeveloped           of dwelling. This blending with nature makes Sea
               and protected, establish guidelines for ecological        Pines feel more sparsely populated than aerial
               planning and protection of the conservation zones,        photography would indicate. It is a concept that has
               and review the final detailed site plan for each          endured the test of time.
               development. These plans preserved individual
               stately trees and even left a particularly attractive     It was not, unfortunately, a concept shared by all
               pine tree in the center of a golf fairway. The plans      developers. As the potential for resort develop-
               also contained recommendations concerning wa-             ment on Hilton Head Island became increasingly
               terfront setbacks, buffer zones, storm water runoff,      clear, other projects were started whose overriding
               discharge into marshes and the use of effluent for        concern was rapid generation of maximum profit.
               golf course irrigation. This commitment to the            This resulted in the creation of structures designed
               environment was based on the developer's desire           to accommodate large numbers of tourists, with
               to produce an environmentally sensitive develop-          little regard for the impact of the structures or their
               ment; there were no governmental mandates to              occupants on the surrounding natural environment.
               control development.                                      The absence of an enforceable policy to protect
                                                                         natural and cultural resources made it possible for
               The master plan prepared for the HHC yields an            these resources to be degraded by inappropriate
               interesting look at a state-of-the-art development        development; the profits to be made from such
               plan from the early 1970's. The plan examined the         development made degradation a virtual certainty.
               whole island and addressed among other things t     'he
               topics of traffic congestion, low-income housing          In 1982, the resident population of 14,000 periodi-
               for support personnel, conservation of natural re-        cally swelled to more than 40,000 by visitor influx.
               sources, saltwater intrusion and the need for a           The prevailing development trend at that time
               single Public Service District (PSD) to supply            suggested that these numbers would eventually
               water, sewage and fire protection services. In 1972       increase to 70,000 and 150,000 respectively. Dis-
               there were three PSDs, and many homes still relied        charge of treated sewage and storm water       ' runoff
               on wells and septic tanks. The Sea Pines Company          had already resulted in significant trouble spots
               reserved the right to continuously revise its master      that were expected to expand and change from
               plan for unimproved land to incorporate experi-           short-term occurrences to long-term or permanent
               ences gained during the development process; nine         problems. Pressure was steadily increasing for
               district master plans were prepared between 1957          filling of wetlands to accommodate buildout or for
               and 1974. Creation of pioneering land-use cov-            dredging to allow marina construction. Later
               enants and 1,280 acres of parks and forest pre-           projects built ever closer to beaches and dunes,
               serves were two of the developer's most important         often removing secondary dunes and maritime
               contributions to the nature of coastal zone develop-      forests that had provided some. protection from
               ment. It is important to point out that, though the       erosion. Proliferation of private resorts steadily
               plan is impressive and innovative, today's stan-          reduced public access to recreational areas. That
               dards would require a much more intensive soil            year, 'concern over long-term implications for the
               survey, as well as attention to archaeological or         natural environment, public resources and the sta-
               cultural resources which were not considered at all.      bility of its economy' prompted the SCCC to
                                                                         develop a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
               Sea Pines gained considerable recognition as a            for Hilton Head Island. In 1983, the island's resi-
               pioneer in the field of environmentally sensitive         dents incorporated as a municipality to better regu-
               development. Extensive covenants were created to          late continued construction of unsightly utility
               preserve the dream of harmonious coexistence.             buildings that had been erected in large numbers.
               Many property owners were forced to abandon








            The apparent disregard of many developers for the        950 of which are saltmarsh. Elevations range from
            interests of the long-term blackresidents has caused     sea level to 30 feet. Compared to other shorelines
            a great deal of animosity. In 1950, most Hilton          in the area, the shoreline of Daufuskie Island is
            Head Island residents were black; but today, whites      relatively stable (Figure 1).
            outnumber them by at least 8 to 1. Before Sea Pines
            was completed, blacks owned one-third of the             Daufuskie Island is much more isolated than Hilton
            Island. As land values and property taxes increased,     Head Island. The absence of a bridge to connect it
            the black population began to sell their land to the     to the mainland and its smaller size have prevented
            developers. An acre of land that used to sell for        the large scale development that has occurred on
            $100 now brings $100,000. High prices caused             Hilton Head Island. The population of Daufuskie
            some to sell voluntarily, but many others were           reached a peak of approximately 1000 in the early
            living on limited incomes and simply could not           1900's before cotton crops were destroyed by the
            afford to pay increased property taxes.                  boll weevil and oyster beds were closed because of
                                                                     pollution from a neighboring state. With extremely
            Those blacks desiring to develop their own prop-         limited employment opportunities, residents were
            erty have been stopped by the lack of public sewer       forced to leave the island to support their families.
            and water services. The large planned communi-           By the time construction of exclusive develop-
            ties like Sea Pines helped establish a Public Service    ments began on the old plantations in the mid
            District to provide water and/or sewage service for      1980's the population had dwindled to fewer than
            their residents. Small landowners are not allowed        200. Those that remained were generally the eld-
            to tie into this system and cannot afford to install     erly with limited incomes.
            their own facilities. The only option is to sell their
            property to a developer who can obtain these nec-        Even before developers showed serious interest in
            essary services.                                         Daufuskie, long-time residents were concerned
                                                                     that it might turn into another Hilton Head Island.
            Developments on Hilton Head Island that attempted        Although they welcomed the prospect of increased
            to build in harmony with nature have been used as        employment opportunities, better health care ser-
            models by agencies with mandates to assist in            vices, and improved county services, they feared
            environmentally sensitive development. People like       that development would destroy the special charm
            the Sea Pines developers were invaluable in the          of Daufuskie. The prospect of large compounds
            creation of agency programs to protect the environ-      surrounded by fences and guarded gates (common
            ment. Unfortunately, advice concerning island-           on Hilton Head Island) that would prevent them
            wide planning for roads, utilities and low-income        from visiting the cemeteries of their ancestors, was
            housing was not as readily accepted. Today, Hilton       especially distasteful. Residents voiced their con-
            Head as a whole suffers from lack of initial com-        cerns through the Daufuskie Island Community
            prehensive planning and either incomplete under-         Improvement Club (DICIC), an organization
            standing or blatant disregard for the protection of      founded in 1966 to represent the islanders' inter-
            the natural environment on the part of many devel-       ests to the county goverament.
            opers.
                                                                     In 198 1, the Daufuskie Island Land Trust (Interna-
            Daufuskie Island                                         tional Paper) appeared before the Beaufort County
            Daufuskie Island is separated from Hilton Head           Joint Planning Commission (JPQ seeking prelimi-
            Island by Calibogue Sound and from the mainland          nary approval for a 2,330 acre development. Al-
            by a broad expanse (14 miles) of saltmarsh. It is 2.7    though the JPC expressed concerns about solid
            miles wide, including both high ground and marsh,        waste disposal, hurricane evacuation, domestic
            and 5.0 miles long with 3.0 miles of sandy               water, sewage disposal, public beach access and
            beachfront. There are approximately 6,100 acres,         transportation, preliminary approval was granted

                                                                  112







               within one month. When final approval for a twenty        little to help individual property owners retain title
               six lot subdivision was requested in 1983, the JPC        to their land.
               voted to "draft a plan which would recommend
               appropriate governmental actions for community            To some extent, Daufuskie Island is benefitting
               services, transportation and land use."                   from the thirty years of experience gained from
                                                                         development on Hilton Head. That experience pro-
               The JPC met with the DICIC as part of the planning        vides a vivid demonstration of the adverse impacts
               process to discuss the problems that might occur          of uncontrolled growth, not only upon local resi-
               because of development. All property owners also          dents and natural resources, but also upon visitors
               received a questionnaire that contained three mul-        and investors. The same experience illustrates the
               tiple choice questions and one which asked for any        importance of public involvement in charting the
               other actions the property owner would like gov-          course of development. Some lessons learned from
               ernment agencies to take to achieve orderly growth        Hilton Head Island are reflected in regulations that
               or a desirable development pattern on Daufuskie.          prohibit at least some of the detrimental activities
               In addition to the concerns voiced earlier by the         that characterized that island's development. Ex-
               JPC, respondents expressed the desire to protect          amples are the need for adequate infrastructure and
               low income property owners from tax increases             preservation of wetlands.
               and showed an overwhelming concern to prevent
               Daufuskie from becoming another Hilton Head               It is unlikely that development on Daufuskie Island
               Island. After reviewing the questionnaires, land          will replicate the Hilton Head experience. Absence
               surveys, recommendations of the Low Country               of a bridge to the mainland will not only prevent the
               Health District and the implications of the CZMA,         traffic congestion seen on Hilton Head Island, but
               the staff prepared the Daufuskie Island Plan which        will also provide the impetus for adequate trans-
               was adopted by the JPC in 1985. The result was a          portation for workers and residents after they ar-
               land-use plan that addressed all of the previously        rive. Cars are prohibited within Haig Point and
               mentioned concerns except the property tax issue.         Melrose, two exclusive communities that operate
               But the plan is only a recommendation, and much           their own ferries. International Paper Reality Corp.
               of the island is now owned by different develop-          of SC, developer of Haig Point Plantation, and the
               ment companies.                                           Melrose Corp. currently control approximately 50%
                                                                         of the land on Daufuskie. Developers have indi-
               At least one Daufuskie Island developer has been          cated a strong desire to produce environmentally
               willing to negotiate with residents outside the           sound developments, but the need for effective
               planned communities. The developer of the Melrose         regulatory control is demonstrated by the construc-
               Plantation has hosted cook-outs and public meet-          tion of a long sea wall to protect a golf course in one
               ings to discuss his plans with residents before           of the developments. At the time of construction,
               seeking agency approval. When residents expressed         the SCCC was only able to regulate to seaward of
               concem that another cemetery would be behind              the primary oceanfront sand dune and the wall was
               plantation fences, he agreed to change his plans and      built three feet behind it. That wall could not be
               permit unrestricted access. This type of give-and-        built today, because tht Beachfront Management
               take did not occur on Hilton Head Island where the        Act of 1988 requires implementation of a forty year
               JPC and developers generally ignored the resi-            retreat policy and long-range beach management
               dents' desire to be involved in the planning pro-         plans, which would not permit such a structure.
               cess. This lack of concern may hav%.. caused resi-        Conscientious development of remaining land can
               dents to bring in national human rights organiza-         only be ensured if all of the agencies involved
               tions to champion their cause. One such organiza-         adopt binding land-use plans, zoning ordinances,
               tion involved with Daufuskie Island residents has         and environmental protection policies for the en-
               generated considerable controversy, but has done          tire island.


                                                                       113







            But while the impact of development on natural          saltmarsh, dune systems and wetlands were not
            resources of Daufuskie Island may be better con-        fully understood and many developers were not
            trolled than was the case on Hilton Head Island,        able to resist the temptation to turn a quick profit.
            there are few formal mechanisms to control the          If customers wanted a beach house, the dunes were
            impact on local cultural resources. While more          often replaced by homes. Development in environ-
            black residents have returned to Daufuskie as de-       mentally sensitive areas was able to.command the
            velopment created new jobs, availability of em-         highest prices and many developers were more
            ployment in menial capacities on Hilton Head has        than willing to accommodate the demand. One of
            been accompanied by an increased school dropout         the Sea Pines visionaries still remembers com-
            rate among children who leave school forjobs that       ments from fellow developers advising him to
            require -little education. A tradition of self-suffi-   flatten the dunes and build expensive homes be-
            ciency among Daufuskie islanders is being gradu-        cause that was his most "valuable" property.
            ally eroded as more and more of the island is
            contained within private resorts, separating resi-      Coastal zone management on Hilton Head Island
            dents from what were once common property re-           evolved in a reactionary and piecemeal fashion.
            sources. While historic and prehistoric resources       Residents did not organize to develop zoning ordi-
            are of concern to current coastal zone management       nances until they were dissatisfied with existing
            programs, living cultural resources are highly vul-     construction projects. Even then, each project was
            nerable. The processes of cultural degradation can      viewed as if it were an isolated community. The
            be insidious; many black sea island residents are       infrastructure demands of the island as a whole
            unhappy that new enclosed developments on Hilton        were not examined until it was too late to achieve
            Head Island and Daufuskie Island are called 'plan-      significant improvements. The importance of in-
            tations'. They realize that development is inevi-       corporating road and utility systems into initial
            table and even welcome the improved employment          planning became clear when the difficulty and
            opportunities, but feel that these new plantations      extreme expense of retrofitting were realized.
            offer little more than those during slavery times:
            low paying jobs with little or no chance for ad-        The progression of development activities on
            vancement or reasonable benefits and no real secu-      Daufuskie Island suggests that coastal zone man-
            rity.                                                   agement goals have a greater chance of being
                                                                    achieved than was the case on Hilton Head Island.
            CONCLUSIONS                                             Daufuskie Island is benefitting from the experi-
                                                                    ence of Hilton Head, as well as the existence of
            In one sense, all development on both Hilton Head       enforceable regulationsthat are intended to protect
            Island and Daufuskie Island has been successful in      coastal resources. While a few dedicated visionar-
            achieving some goals. The goals achieved, how-          ies have developed communities that protect the
            ever, have not all been those that reflect concern for  environment on theirown initiative, hindsight shows
            coastal resource management. The Sea Pines de-          that more traditional, compelling, and formal in-
            velopment on Hilton Head Island has been widely         centives are required.
            recognized as a model for environmentally sensi-
            tive development, indicating that the goals of those    LESSONS LEARNED
            developers were achieved. Those goals were not
            shared by other developers who achieved their own       Given the virtual absence of regulatory mandates
            goals related to economic profits, but did so to the    for environmental protection in the 1950's, the
            detriment of goals related to sound environmental       management strategy used by the developers of
            management.                                             Sea Pines on Hilton Head Island seems entirely
                                                                    .suitable. But while this strategy was certainly suit-
            In the early years of development on Hilton Head,       able for those who chose to pursue it, the absence
            the long-term effects of altering or destroying         of a regulatory mandate for its use limited the
                                                                  114








              impact of this strategy on the island as a whole. If    cessful projects and experience tremendous pres-
              one were an omnipotent, environmentally sensi-          sure to perpetuate practices that may cause envi-
              tive developer in the 1950's one could improve the      ronmental degradation. The temptation to discount
              Sea Pines strategy by forcing uniform compliance        environmental sensitivity in favor of profit is not
              with its provisions by all developers. Because such     confined to developers alone. One Sea Pines devel-
              legal mandates are beyond the capability of single      oper believes that when the development began,
              individuals, the only improvements that might have      "stakeholders and the public would have preferred
              been made relate to broadening the scope of envi-       an approach similar to that employed at Myrtle
              ronmental assessments (e.g., by including histori-      Beach as a model for Hilton Head." The approach
              cal and cultural resources).                            referred to, resulted in an extremely dense, high
                                                                      rise strip development on the beachfront, designed
              The management strategy being employed on               for the benefit of high density tourism and paying
              Daufuskie Island has the potential to build on the      little attention to environmental protection. He
              positive aspects of the Hilton Head experience. But     suggests that it was the private land owners rather
              the equivalent of a Sea Pines visionary has not         than the public officials, who wanted a radically
              emerged on Daufuskie. While some developers             improved, environmental approach on Hilton Head
              appear to be pursuing a more responsible approach       and Daufuskie Islands.
              than is evident in the problematic areas of Hilton
              Head Island, the extent to which environmentally        - Environmentally sensitive development re-
              sensitive development is achieved still depends         quires substantial capital investment. Resource
              very much upon the discretion of the developer.         surveys, special construction techniques and the
              The legal instruments to better ensure such devel-      potential presence of large critical areas combine
              opment are largely in place. The most significant       to greatly increase the developer's initial costs. If
              improvement that might be made would be more            he is not financially secure enough to carry these
              substantial public support to require adherence to      cost (sometimes for several years), the project may
              planning recommendations.                               fail and cause other developers to abandon their
                                                                      plans to develop land in the resort area. One of the
              Several general lessons emerge from the experi-         developers on Daufuskie Island determined that
              ence of Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands:              his development would require approximately three
                                                                      years to break even. Losses for those first three
                  Cultural resources are not adequately addressed     years totaled six million dollars. Unless they re-
              in existing coastal zone management programs.           ceive substantial government incentives or work as
              While some degree of cultural impact from devel-        subcontractors for larger companies, small devel-
              opment is probably inevitable, the character and        op&s will not be able to participate in environmen-
              extent of such impact is much less well-defined and     tally sensitive coastal development. While the gen-
              receive much less formal consideration than is the      eral consensus of those interviewed is that the most
              case for impacts on the natural environment. This       desirable developments are large planned commu-
              deficiency should receive particular consideration      nities, the same effect could result from compre-
              in coastal zone management programs intended for        hensive land-use planning.
              use in developing countries.
                                                                      * The Hilton Head Island experience underscores
                  Agencies involved in coastal zone manage-           the importance of ensuring adequate infrastruc-
              ment must have the authority to restrict harmful        ture. A comprehensive approach to planning could
              practices and a mandate to propose, encourage and       have examined the important question of carrying
              regulate innovative approaches to protect the envi-     capacity of the area (how much can it reasonably
              ronment. Because of the large sums of money             accommodate?) Without the answer, planners can
              involved, developers tend to-imitate previous suc-      not hope to achieve an environmentally sensitive


                                                                   115







               development. Thorough resource surveys (natural                       view of the development process and the desired
               and social) are necessary before agencies begin to                    outcomes.
               develop land-use plans and zoning ordinances. If
               this had occurred on Hilton Head Island, the road                          Perhaps most important is the pivotal role of
               system could have been designed to adequately                         public involvement. A primary motivation for en-
               handle the heavy traffic demands and the freshwa-                     acting the Coastal Zone Management Act was
               ter supplies could have been more wisely manag                ed.     public concern. Concerned citizens on both Hilton
               Today, long-time residents forced to ration water                     Head Island and Daufuskie Island have been re-
               harbor great resentment toward developers who                         sponsible for importantinitiatives to improve coastal
               built golf courses and hundreds of housing units                      resource management and environmentally sensi-
               with apparently no thought toward the water re-                       tive development. An informed and active con-
               quirements of the island.                                             stituency is probably the best assurance that agency
                                                                                     mandates to protect the environment will actually
                     Somewhat similar is the problem of worker                       be carried out. In sum, the case studies reported
               availability. Resort employees generally receive                      here suggest that environmentally sensitive devel-
               rather low salaries and can not afford to live close                  opment requires a dedicated and innovative effort
               to their place of employment. Planners need to                        by a constituency sufficiently powerful to achieve
               develop zoning that incorporates affordable hous-                     its objectives. This constituency may be a small
               ing units into the area and creates communities. A                    group of dedicated developers, environmental regu-
               logical solution is to encourage construction of                      latory agencies, or the local residents. The power
               retail businesses (restaurants, gift shops, etc.) with                may come from financial capability, legislative
               apartments on the upper floors.                                       mandate, or significant numbers of voters. Unless
                                                                                     such a power base is established, the case studies
                     An obvious deficiency of the South Carolina                     reported here suggest that environmentally inap-
               system is fragmentation of responsibilities. There                    propriate decisions and actions. are likely to be
               are six natural resource agencies possessing regu-                    taken by individuals who seek to maximize per-
               latory/management authority; some activities are                      sonal profit regardless of the cost to society or
               managed by several agencies while others are not                      subsequent generations.
               managed at all. Developers are forced to deal with
               a multiplicity of agencies to obtain final approval                   REFERENCES
               for development projects. Consulting and negoti-
               ating with more than one agency can be time                           Blockson, C.L., Sea Change In the Sea Islands: "Nowhere to Lay
                                                                                               Down Weary Head", National Geographic, pg. 734-763.
               consuming and frustrating but are critical to final                             December 1987.
               project approval. Developers need to cultivate good                   Campbell, E.S. Historical Sketch of Daufuskie Island. 1988.
               working relationships with the agencies in order to                   Cerruti, J., Sea Islands: Adventuring Along the South's Surprising
               achieve timely completion schedules. Improve-                         Cur, ing  Coast. National Geographic, pg. 366-393. March, 1971.
                                                                                         n ham, M.G., The Implementation of Policy; Coastal Zone
               ment could take several forms. One of the first                                 Management Symposium on Coastal Water Resources-
               should be to ensure that agencies involved in coastal                           America Water Resources Association. May, 1988.*
               zone management have a clearly understood man-                        Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology,
                                                                                               Clemson University, Community Development Needs of
               date to protect the environment. Similarly, each                                Daufuskic Island, South Carolina. 1974.
               component of the development process should be                        Departmentof Commerce, SouthCarolina's Coast: A State-Federal
                                                                                               Partnership in the Management of Coastal and Marine
               assigned to a specific agency. This is not meant to                             Resources. Department of Commerce. 1983.
               negate the value of checks and balances, but to                       Fraser, C.E. (1988). Hilton Head Island Revisited: A Unique and
               ensure that nothing is overlooked or "falls between                             Unexpected Foundation Stoneof the SouthCarolinaLow
                                                                                               Country Economy.
               the cracks." With this type of system, interagency                    Goodwin, M.H. & Prioleau, E., A Citizen's Guide to the Regulation
               relationships are critical. Agencies need specific                              and Management of Coastal Resources in South Carolina.
               coordinating mechanisms, regardless of the num-                                 Charleston Harbor Estuary Committee.
               ber of agencies involved, and a clear and accurate                    Hilton Head Company. Master Plan For Hilton Head Island.
                                                                                 116









                             Skidmore, Owings & Merrell, Washington. June 1972.            South Carolina Coastal Council, Guidelines and Policies of the
                   Hoge, P.,Wright.N., Rivera, C.L., andLeonard, F.S.,TheDaufuskie                   South Carolina Coastal Management Program. NOAA.
                             Island Plan: An Element of the Beaufort County Compre-        South Carolina Coastal Council, Special Area Management Plan for
                             hensive Plan. Beaufort County Joint Planning Commis-                    Hilton Head Island, South Carolina Coastal Council.
                             sion. 1985.                                                             1982.
                   King, K.S., Daufaskie Island, South Carolina: An Ecological Char-       South Carolina Coastal Council. Rules and Regulations for Permit-
                             acterization and an Analysis of the Impending Develop-                  ting in the Critical Areas of the Coastal Zone. South
                             ment, Master's Thesis, University of Oregon, 1983.                      Carolina Coastal Council. 1990.
                   Mattews, T.D., Stapor, F.W., Jr., Richter, C.R., Miglarese, J.V.,       South Carolina Coastal Council. Storm Water Management Guide-
                             McKenzie, M. D., and Barclay, L.A., Eds.; Ecological                    lines. South Carolina Coastal Council. 1988.
                             Characterization of the Sea Island Coastal Region of          South Carolina Coastal Council. Geographic Areas of Particular
                             SouthCarolina andGeorgia, Volume I: Physical Features                   Concern: as defined by the State of South Carolina Coastal
                             of the Characterization Area. U.S. Government Printing                  Management Program and Final Environmental Impact
                             Office, Washington, D.C., 1980.                                         Statement. South Carolina Coastal Council.
                   McKenzie, M.D., Miglarese, J.V., Anderson, B.S., and Barclay,           South Carolina Coastal Council/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
                             L.A., Eds., Ecological Characterization of the Sea Island               Developer's Handbook for Freshwater Wetlands. South
                             Coastal Region of South Carolina and Georgia, Volume                    Carolina Coastal Council.
                             II: Socioeconomic Features of the Characterization Area.      South Carolina Coastal Council. Rules and Regulations for Permit-
                             U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,                      ting in the Critical Areas of the Coastal Zone. South
                             1980.                                                                   Carolina Coastal Council. 1990.
                   McPhee, J. Encounters With The Archdruid. Farrau, Straus and            Stuck, W.M. (1980). Soil Survey of Beaufort and Jasper Countries,
                             Giroufl New York. 1971.                                                 South Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture
                   Rozin, S., Time Catches Up with a Special Island, Audobon, pg. 60-
                             69. September, 1981.                                          For further information and provision of key
                   Sandifer. P.A., Miglarese, J.V., Calder, D.R., Manzi, J.J., and
                             Barclay, L.A., Eds. Ecological Characterization of the        references contact:
                             Sea Island Coastal Region of South Carolina and Georgia,      SCCC, 4130 Faber Place,
                             Volume III: Biological Features of the Characterization       Suite 300,
                             Area. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
                             D.C. 1980.                                                    Charleston, SC 29405, USA.


























                                                                                       117































                                                       AT F- D Ll










































                                                            3 66-68 ODOOO 0234