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

            Lam.a;OASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

                   7,casta' Zone
                     i-.@--ormation

                                                the Process, of
              progrann devejope-nent

                                         4 -4

                                                                                                                                                                                  1P

                                                                             V!

      N-

                                                                                                                                              ell

                                                  '19
                                                             -z'g,

                                                                                                                                                                        A
                                                                                                                                                                              "w" P1,
                                                                                                                                                                           m,
                                                                                                                                                                        aw

                              HT
                              392
                              .C63
                              1974

                                                                                                                                   CT,", r,.L                                  S@ Is:'. XE
                                                                                                                                          i.,@ 7,.T   31;

             COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

                                                                                          (12

                                 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT:
                         THE PROCESS OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

                                                John Armstrong
                                                 Harold Bissell
                                               Russell Davenport
                                                Joel Goodman
                                                Marc Hershman

                                                Jens Sorensen

                                                     with
                                                  Lucy Sloan
                                               Daniel Wormhoudt

                                                 November, 1974

                                                Available through:
                                          Coastal Zone Management Institute
                                                  P.O. Box 221
                                               Sandwich, MA 02563

                                                                                                                                                   i

                                                          Library of Congress Catalog Card Number:
                                                          Printed in the United States

                                                          First Edition. 1974

                                                  FORWARD
                                                     by
                                              Robert W. Knecht

                       This document, which was prepared under contract to -the office of

                  Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, is intended to serve as a technical
                  guide to state and local officials involved in the development and im-
                  plementation of coastal zone management programs. It has been organ-
                  ized in such a way as to parallel the requirements for management

                  program development which are contained in the Coastal Zone Management

                  Act of 1972 and the Section 305 regulations published November 29,
                  1973, in the Federal Register (15 CPR 920). *Additional information on
                  the design of a management program consistent with the Act's require-
                  ments is contained in the criteria for management program approval pub-
                  lished in draft form August 21, 1974, in the Federal Register (15 CFR

                  923).

                       The Office of Coastal Zone Management has worked closely with the

                  Coastal Zone Management Institute to ensure that the information con-
                  tained in this document is generally consistent with the Coastal Zone

                  Management Act. Nonetheless, this document should not be viewed as

                  having the standing of official rules, regulations, or guidelines.
                  Such rules, regulations, and guidelines affecting the implementation of
                  the Act are formally published in the Federal Register on a regular

                  basis. Copies of all relevant rules and regulations published to date

                  are appended to this document.
                       It is our hope that the information contained in this document

                  will be of value both to those involved in long-term planning and those
                  working in coastal zone management on a day-to-day basis. This document

                  is one of several kinds of technical assistance that the Office of

                  Coastal Zone Management is making available to state and local officials.
                  Further information on this aspect of the program can be obtained by

                  writing to the Director, Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Rock-

                  ville, Maryland 20852.

                                                ACKNOWLEDGMENT

                        The authors wish to thank all individuals who reviewed and com-

                   mented upon various drafts of this document for their suggestions and

                   constructive criticisms. Special thanks must go to Whitney Beals of

                   the Connecticut Department of Natural Resources, Earl H. Bradley, Jr.

                   of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Lillian Dean of the

                   Georgia Department of Natural Resources, David N. Larson of the Chic-

                   ago Department of Development and Planning, and Peter C. Ryner of the
                   University of Michigan Coastal Zone Laboratory for their efforts in
                   reviewing the material in the text.

                        Special thanks must also go to Dennis Duscik for his assistance
                   in identifying bibliographic materials and to Joseph Peaely for his

                   work on the document's graphics.

                        The aid and support of the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
                   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was of much assistance
                   in preparing this document. Particular thanks are extended to Judith

                   Penna'of that Office in this regard.

          iv

                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

               Foreward -------------------------------------------------------------------- ii

               Acknowledgements  ------------------------------------------------------------ iii

               I. INTRODUCTION
                    1. Background  ------------------------------------------------------------1
                    2. Management Programs  ---------------------------------------------------1
                    3. Study Objectives and Approach  -----------------------------------------2
                    4. Report Content  ----------;-----------------------------------------------3

               II. SUBSTANTIVE ELEMENTS
                  A. Boundaries
                    1.  Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------5
                    2.  Existing Programs -----------------------------------------------------6
                    3.  Requirements of the Act -----------------------------------------------8
                        � Impact significance and directness  ----------------------------------8
                        �measurable amount of seawater -------------------------------------- 11
                    4.  Boundary Determination Problems -------------------------------------- 12
                         Recognition of natural systems  ------------------------------------- 12
                         Recognition of jurisdictional units  -------------------------------- 13
                         Recognition of social communities ---------------------------------- 15
                         Conflict representations  ------------------------------------------- 15
                         Knowledge of local conditions -------------------------------------- 16
                         Impacts from influences beyond boundaries -------------------------- 16
                         Interstate boundary consistency ------------------------------------ 17
                         Inland displacement effect  ----------------------------------------- 17
                         Availability of data  ----------------------------------------------- 17
                         Equal treatment ---------------------------------------------------- 17
                         Legal adequacy ----------------------------------------------------- 17
                         Permanence of boundary indicators ---------------------------------- 18
                         Seaward limit  ------------------------------------------------------ 18
                         Political acceptability  -------------------------------------------- 18
                         Cost of surveying boundaries  --------------------------------------- 18
                         Cost of administering program -------------------------------------- 18
                         Exclusion of areas  ------------------------------------------------- 19
                    5.  Determining a Planning Area  ------------------------------------------ 19
                    6.  mechanics of Boundary Delineation ------------------------------------ 21
                         Open water zone ---------------------------------------------------- 21
                         Estuarine zone ----------------------------------------------------- 21
                         Shorelands zone ---------------------------------------------------- 21
                    7. Boundary Changes ----------------------------------------------------- 21
                    Citations and References ------------------------------------------------ 22
                  B. Permissible Uses
                    1. Introduction --------------------------------------------------------- 24
                         Determination of land and water uses which will be assessed for
                         impact on coastal environment -------------------------------------- 24
                         Factors to consider ------------------------------------------------ 25
                    2.  Determining Criteria and Measures ------------------------------------ 26
                        . Applying criteria and measures to evaluate impact  ------------------ 28
                        *Cumulative impact  -------------------------------------------------- 29
                    3.  Categorizing Uses ---------------------------------------------------- 31
                        � Inventory of existing land and water uses -------------------------- 31
                        � Analysis of comprehensive plans ------------------------------------ 31

                                                                                                     v

                         Analysis of single-purpose plans   ----------------------------------- 32
                         Suitability analysis  ----------------------------------------------- 32
                         Coastal dependency and inland alternatives  ------------------------- 33
                         Input/output -analysis---                                      -------- 34
                    4.  Continuing Compilation, Verification, and Assessment of
                        Information ---------------------------------------------------------- 34
                         Coastal systems  ---------------------------------------------------- 34
                         Values of the coastal water and lands  ------------------------------ 35
                         Means of acquiring information  ------------------------------------- 37
                    5. Determining Permissible Uses  ----------------------------------------- 42
                    Citations  --------------------------------------------------------------- 43

                  C. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern
                    1.  Introduction --------------------------------------------------------- 49
                    2.  Criteria for Delineating Areas of Particular Concern ----------------- 51
                    3.  Identifying Areas of Particular Concern ------------------------------ 52
                        �Areas with significant natural values  ------------------------------ 52
                        �Transitional and intensely developed areas  ------------------------- 53
                        �Immediacy of need  -------------------------------------------------- 55
                        �Unsatisfied demand  ------------------------------------------------- 55
                        �Other relevant criteria --------------------------------------------  55
                    4.  Representative Area Types -------------------------------------------- 56
                        �Unique or fragile areas --------------------------------------------  56
                        �Areas of high natural productivity   --------------------------------- 57
                        �Areas of substantial recreational value  ---------------------------- 57
                        �Developments and facilities dependant upon utilization of or
                         access to coastal waters -------------------------------------------  58
                        �Areas of unique geologic or topographic significance   --------------- 58
                        �Areas of urban concentration  --------------------------------------- 58
                        �Areas of significant hazards if developed   -------------------------- 59
                        �Areas needed to protect or maintain coastal resources    -------------- 60
                         Other geographic areas of particular significance   ------------------ 60
                    5. @rocedures for Designating Areas of Particular Concern   --------------- 60
                    6. Geographic Segmentation  ---------------------------------------------- 61
                         Whether or not to segment is a subjective decision  ----------------- 62
                         Segmentation--pro and con ------------------------------------------  62
                    Citations and References ------------------------------------------------  63

                  D. Priority of Uses
                    1.  Introduction --------------------------------------------------------- 70
                    2.  Considerations for Determining Priority Uses ------------------------- 70
                        � Areas of particular concern  ---------------------------------------- 70
                        � Additional considerations ------------------------------------------ 71
                        --Prior commitment of lands ------------------------------------------ 72
                        --Control of surrounding land use  ------------------------------------ 73
                        --Impacts of uses on surrounding areas  ------------------------------- 73
                        --Scarcity and uniqueness -------------------------------------------- 74
                        --Diversity ---------------------------------------------------------- 74
                        --Irreversible commitments ------------------------------------------- 74
                        --Multiple use  ------------------------------------------------------- 74
                        --Dependency --------------------------------------------------------- 75
                        --Economic efficiency ------------------------------------------------ 76
                        --Social equity  ------------------------------------------------------ 76
                        --Regional benefits and national interest ---------------------------- 77

          vi

                          --Accepting fair share of social responsibility   ---------------------- 78
                          --Public preference --------------------------------------------------   78
                          --Ability to implement a designated priority use   --------------------- 78,
                      3.  Methods of Designation  -----------------------------------------------  79
                            Spatial representation  ---------------------------------------------  79
                            Graphic representation of relationships with use-specific areas    ---- 80
                            Definition of uses  -------------------------------------------------  81
                      4. Revision over Time ---------------------------------------------------    82
                      Citations ---------------------------------------------------------------    82

                 III. AUTHORITY AND ORGANIZATION
                    A. Means of Exerting Control
                      1. Process of Analysis --------------------------------------------------    85
                            Are current laws within the state sufficient for coastal
                            management under the Act  -------------------------------------------  85
                            White agency or group of agencies should a state give the
                            authority to implement and to administer the program    --------------- 87
                            Has the state considered sufficiently the taking issue    ------------- 88
                            Should a state's coastal management program be regulatory
                            (reactive) or should it designate specific uses or projects
                            (promotional)  ------------------------------------------------------  90
                            At what time during the program development process should a
                            state pass and implement new laws and should these include
                            interim controls ---------------------------------------------------   92
                            How may a state finance the development and implementation of
                            its coastal management program  -------------------------------------  94
                      2. Relationships of State and Local Governments   -------------------------  94
                      3. Adequacy of State Laws   -----------------------------------------------  97
                      Citations --------------------------------------------------------------     102
                    B. Organizational Ability to Implement
                      1.  introduction  --------------------------------------------------------   105
                      2.  Organizational Arrangements  -----------------------------------------   105
                            The lead agency  ---------------------------------------------------   106
                            The governor's role ----------------   ------------------------------  110
                            The role of substate government units   -----------------------------  110
                            Participation of regional groups  ----------------------------------   111
                      3.  Problems in Structuring Organizational Capabilities    ----------------- 113
                            From complex management structure to bureaucracy    ------------------ 113
                            The multiplicity of existing agencies and their possible
                            biases  ------------------------------------------------------------   114
                            Adequacy of existing programs -------------------------------------    114
                            Sufficient capability and authority to administer the
                            program  -----------------------------------------------------------   115
                            Policing and enforcing of program controls  ------------------------   115
                            Political realities and legislative support   -----------------------  116
                            Disparities in abilities among substate units of government    ------- 117
                            Interim controls pending state program adoption    ------------------- 118
                            Public confidence and support -------------------------------------    118
                            Information and communication -------------------------------------    119
                            Program costs  -----------------------------------------------------   119
                            Program flexibility  -----------------------------------------------   119
                      4. Cooperative Mechanisms   ----------------------------------------------   119
                          � Needs for coordination  --------------------------------------------   120
                          � Continuing coordination  -------------------------------------------   122

                                                                                                     vii

                     Citations  -------------------------------------------------------------  123
                   C. Cooperation and Coordination with Federal Agencies
                     1. Coordination Before Federal Approval ---- --------------------------   124
                     2. Required Consistency, Certification, and Complementarity    ----------- 126
                        � Federal agencies' responsibilities  -------------------------------  127
                        � License and permit consistency  -----------------------------------  128
                        � Consistency in state and local government applications
                          for federal assistance -------------------------------------------   129
                        � Consistency with water and air quality programs@   ----------------- 130
                        � Consistency with land use programs-    ----------------------------  131
                        � Non-derogation clauses -------------------------------------------   132
                        � Relationship to National Environmental Policy Act    ---------------- 133
                     Citations  -------------------------------------------------------------  134

               IV. ORGANIZATION AND USE OF INFORMATION
                     1. Introduction -------------------------------------------------------   135
                     2. Problems Regarding the Use of Information in Management
                        Programs  -----------------------------------------------------------  135
                        � Simplification of scientific knowledge  ---------------------------  135
                        � Information sufficiency ------------------------------------------   135
                        � Cost of acquiring data -------------------------------------------   135
                        � Data/model fit  ---------------------------------------------------  136
                        � Value of information ---------------------------------------------   136
                        � Understanding between users and producers of information    --------- 136
                        � Proliferation of information  -------------------------------------  137
                        � Information stability  --------------------------------------------  138
                     3. Types of Information Programs --------------------------------------   138
                     4. Information System Design Considerations  ---------------------------  139
                        . Compatibility of information system components   ------------------- 140
                        . Scale of in-house information services  ---------------------------  140
                        . Information coverage ---------------------------------------------   140
                        . Complexity of information needs ----------------------------------   140
                        . Spanning information requirement gaps  ----------------------------  140
                        ' Continued utility of data  ----------------------------------------  140
                     5. Knowledge of Existing Information ----------------------------------   141
                        . Information sources7 ---------------------------------------------   141
                        . Information formats --------------------------; --------------------- 143
                        . Directories of information sources  -------------------------------  144
                        * Types of information systems and services   ------------------------ 145
                     6. Improving Information Access  ---------------------------------------  147
                     Citations  -------------------------------------------------------------  148

               V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
                     1. Introduction -------------------------------------------------------   152
                     2. Reasons for Public Participation  -----------------------------------  152
                        � Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------   152
                        � Social equity  ----------------------------------------------------  153
                        � Program viability  ------------------------------------------------  153
                        � Watchdog control over undue influence  ----------------------------  154
                     3. Objectives of Public Participation  ---------------------------------  154
                        . The "safety-valve" function --------------------------------------   154
                        . Education  --------------------------------------------------------  155
                        . Management Program Information  -----------------------------------  155
                        . Identification of citizens' problems, values, and needs    ---------- 155
                        . Generation of new ideas ------------------------------------------   156

          viii

                           Review and comment on proposed policies  -------------------------- 157
                           Evaluation of alternatives  --------------------------------------- 158
                           Conflict anticipation and resolution  ----------------------------- 158
                      4. Problems in Public Participation ------  ---------------------------- 159
                           Geographic factors  ----------------------------------------------- 159
                           Socio-economic and ethnic factors  -------------------------------- 159
                           Age factors  ------------------------------------------------------ 160
                           Interest groups -------------------------------------------------- 160
                      5. Public Participation Techniques ------------------------------------ 160
                         � Rule-making public hearings  -------------------------------------- 161
                         � Advocacy planning ------------------------------------------------ 163
                         � Survey techniques ------------------------------------------------ 163
                         � Direct feedback methods ------------------------------------------ 164
                      Citations  ------------------------------------------------------------- 164

                 VI. ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES
                      1. Introduction  ------------------------------------------------------- 168
                      2. Designation and Delineation of a Sanctuary  ------------------------- 169
                           Natural ecological unit ------------------------------------------ 170
                           Boundary determination ------------------------------------------- 170
                      3. Estuarine Sanctuary Uses ------------------------------------------- 171
                         � Research and education ------------------------------------------- 171
                         � Other permissible uses ------------------------------------------- 172
                         � Prohibited uses -------------------------------------------------- 172
                      4. Relationship to State's Overall Program  ---------------------------- 173
                         � Controlling adjacent shorelands ---------------------------------- 173
                         � Uses of adjacent shorelands  -------------------------------------- 174
                         � Program requirements  --------------------------------------------- 174
                         . Organizational structure to manage sanctuary  --------------------- 174
                      Citations  ------------------------------------------------------------- 176

                  APPENDICES
                     A. State and Regional Bibliographies ------------------------------------ A-1
                     B. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 ---------------------------------- B-1
                        Section 305 Rules and Regulations ------------------------------------ B-4
                        Section 306 Rules and Regulations ------------------------------------ B-13
                        Section 312 Rules and Regulations ------------------------------------ B-29
                    C. Listing of Federal Activities  ---------------------------------------- C-1

                                               ABOUT THE AUTHORS

                         The primary authors of this document include, alphabetically, John

                    M. Armstrong, Director, Great Lakes Resource Management Program at the
                    University of Michigan; Harold Bissell, Principal, Jones and Stokes
                    Associates, Sacramento, California; Russell Davenport, Consultant, Sand-

                    wich, Massachusetts; Joel Goodman, Director Coastal Zone Resource Plan-

                    ning Project, University of Delaware; Marc Hershman, Research Director,
                    Sea Grant Legal Program, Louisiana State University; and Jens Sorensen,
                    Research Associate, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Univ-

                    ersity of California at Berkeley. These authors also serve collectively

                    as the trustees of the Coastal Zone Management Institute.
                         The secondary authors of the document include, alphabetically, Lucy
                    Sloan, Principal, GSO Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Daniel

                    Wormhoudt, Research Associate, Institute of Urban and Regional Develop-

                    ment, University of California at Berkeley.

                                                    CHAPTER I
                                                  INTRODUCTION

                   1. Background
                   The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was enacted to encourage the several
                coastal states to develop comprehensive coastal resources management programs
                which provide for wise and effective management of the nation's valuable
                coastal areas. In formulating their programs to comply with the Act, states
                may choose from several possibilities the management rationale or approach
                that best fits their needs and conditions.
                   The fundamental precept that each state must address is its commitment to
                the management of its coastal zone on a coordinated and comprehensive basis.
                To accomplish this the states will receive federal support to formulate goals,
                objectives, criteria, and approaches which result in a total and objective
                approach to the problems of the coastal zone.
                   The Act presents, either directly or indirectly, several objectives that
                states should consider:
                �A clear intent to raise the level of consciousness at all levels of govern-
                 ment regarding the importance of the resources of the coastal zone, and the
                 need for their balanced management;
                �the need for states to understand and articulate the impacts that can result
                 from various uses of the resources, and to understand the short and long-
                 term consequences of such impacts on the coastal zone;
                �the need to minimize adverse impacts; and
                �the need to broaden and diversify the decision-making process to include a
                 spectrum of those affected by management decisions.

                   2. Management Programs
                   The Act defines a management program as "a comprehensive statement in words,
                maps, illustrations, or other permanent media of communication ... setting forth
                objectives, policies, and standards to guide and regulate public and private
                uses of the lands and waters in the coastal zone."
                   A management program is more than the articulation of policies and management
                approaches; it is a set of procedures and institutional arrangements to carry
                out the program and thereby attain the stated goals and meet the adopted
                objectives.
                   The requirements of the Act appear to focus on process and leave the
                substance of the management programs to the states to define. Process can be
                viewed in two ways with respect to the Act:
                   (1) The process of developing a management program for the coastal zone.
                   (2) The process of management itself in the sense of operational and
                      administrative procedures.
                   The Act deals with the process of program development through the establish-
                ment of various elements states must examine in structuring coastal zone
                management programs. The management process is presented as a set of alterna-
                tives and combinations which are available to coastal states and will result
                from the program development process.
                   It is these two process functions with which this report is concerned, with
                emphasis placed on the program development process. The document provides a
                basic interpretative discussion of the Act and the problems states should
                consider in complying with it.
                   In developing their management programs states will carry out a number of
                separable tasks including:
                 development of basic goals and objectives for the use of coastal resources;

                                                        1

             2

                    development and utilization of procedures and programs to comprehend and
                    define the coastal zone as a natural and social system in terms of its
                    resource attributes and its capacity to assimilate the impacts resulting
                    from various uses;
                    formulation of basic policies to evaluate proposed uses of coastal resources
                    in terms of program goals and objectives; and
                    adoption of necessary legislation, regulations, and organizational arrange-
                    ments to implement policies which control or otherwise guide the development
                    of coastal zone resources.
                    The policies a state formulates as part of its management program can serve
                 a variety of purposes: first, they might help guide the selection of allowable
                 coastal zone uses through the determination of permissible uses; second, they
                 might help select preferences in allocating resources through the determination
                 of priorities of uses; third, they might help determine to what degree the
                 adopted objectives can be met; fourth, they might help design the organizational
                 structure necessary to implement the policies through determining the types of
                 manpower and programs required; fifth, they might help identify areas requiring
                 special attention through the determination of geographical areas of particular
                 concern; sixth, they might help guide the formulation of formal and informal
                 linkages among the agencies and units of government at all levels with respon-
                 sibilities and mutual concerns about the coastal zone.

                    3. Study Objectives and Approach
                    The study effort reflected in this document was carried out with the object-
                 ive of providing a substantive analysis of the key factors involved in formulat-
                 ing state programs which effectively manage the coastal zone--within the context
                 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. It is designed to present in an
                 understandable form an in-depth discussion of the various elements of the Act
                 and attendant regulations that the coastal states must consider in developing
                 their coastal zone management programs.
                    The authors have used examples extensively to reinforce various points made
                 throughout the text. These examples are presented to allow readers an opportun-
                 ity to benefit from state experiences with regard to certain points. In all
                 cases the examples show situations where states have proceeded without the
                 benefit of federal guidance, and as a result their actions might not comply with
                 the Act's requirements. With this in mind, readers should review the discussion
                 of examples in light of the guidelines set forth in the Act and attendant regu-
                 lations.
                    The document was prepared for a varied audience and was designed to serve a
                 different function for each segment thereof. For state and local government
                 officials it can serve as a means of gaining clarification of the federal
                 requirements, seeing how certain other states have handled certain problems,
                 and identifying other sources of the most up-to-date information available.
                 For elected officials it can serve as a reference guide to help in reviewing
                 legislative proposals pertinent to coastal zone management. For the academic
                 community it can serve as a reference document for classwork and for research
                 in coastal zone management, law, administration, and public policy. For special
                 interest groups it can serve as a guide to use in articulating their interests
                 and perspectives of coastal zone management. Finally, for the general public
                 it can serve as a reference to help them develop an understanding of the prin-
                 ciples of coastal zone management and how it might affect them and their life-
                 styles.
                    Since the contents of this document deal quite specifically with the major
                 individual elements of coastal zone management contained in the Act and the

                                                                                               3

             attendant regulations, readers can refer to any section for an in-depth discus-
             sion of an individual area of concern to them. Also, a bibliography covering
             each chapter or section thereof appears at the end of the respective chapters
             or sections. Readers should note, however, that there are many interrelation-
             ships among the sections and chapters. For this reason the authors suggest
             that the entire document be read sequentially so that the readers can clearly
             perceive these interrelationships, although there is extensive use of cross-
             referencing throughout.

                4. Report Content
                The next chapter in this report focuses on an in-depth analysis of the sub-
             stantive elements of a coastal zone management program, including boundary
             determinations, permissible uses, geographic areas of particular concern, and
             priority of uses. Section A of the chapter considers boundaries and the
             problems states may encounter in defining them and keeping them current with
             changes in programs and conditions. Section B considers permissible uses and
             means of assessing impacts of such uses and categories of uses. Section C
             considers geographic areas of particular concern, including criteria for
             designation and representative area types. Section D considers priority of
             uses, including criteria for designation and information needs.
                Chapter III focuses on authority necessary for and possible organizational
             structures of the state management programs. Section A of the chapter considers
             the means of exerting control, including the adequacy of existing and proposed
             state laws. Section B considers the organizational structure states might use
             to implement their programs and includes a discussion of the roles of various
             entities involved and problems to consider in designing the organizational
             capabilities. Section C considers cooperation and coordination with federal
             programs both during the program development effort and after the program has
             received federal approval.
                Chapter IV focuses on the use and organization of information in the state's
             program development effort. This includes a consideration of the types of
             information needed, the use and sources of existing information, and the means
             of organizing information.
                Chapter V focuses on public participation in the state's program development
             effort. This includes a discussion of the uses and limitations of public
             hearings as tools, problems inherent.to public participation, and participation
             techniques.
                Chapter VI focuses on estuarine sanctuaries and their relationships to a
             state's management program. This includes a discussion of natural ecological
             units, permissible and prohibited uses, and factors to consider in delineating
             the sanctuaries as well as their roles in the state's program development and
             implementation efforts.
                 The appendix of this document is divided into three parts which are inclu-
              ded to enhance the report's value as a reference source. Part A of the app-
              endix includes a state and regional bibliography which presents a selective
              and representative listing of documents organized according to the state or
              region upon which they focus. Included in the listing are planning documents,
              coastal resources inventories, discussions of existing state and regional
              programs , bibliographies, and discussions of specific coastal-related prob-
              lems. Part B of the appendix includes a copy of the Coastal Zone Management
              Act of 1972 and the rules and regulations proposed or promulgated under var-
              ious sections of the Act. These include the rules and regulations promul-
              gated under Section 305 of the Act; those proposed under Section 306 of the
              Act; and those promulgated under Section 312 of the Act. Part C of the app-

                                                                                              4

            endix presents a representative listing of -federal activities and programs
            which focus on the coastal zone. These activity listings are organized in
            three broad categories; financial and technical assistance, covering the gov-
            ernment's domestic assistance function; regulatory and licensing, covering
            the government's regulatory and licensing function; and direct action; cov-
            ering the government's management function.

                                                   CHAPTER II
                                              SUBSTANTIVE ELEMENTS

                 A. Boundaries
                   1. Introduction
                   Section 305 (b) (1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act stipulates that each
                 state's management program include "an identification of the boundaries subject
                 to the management program". The areas these boundaries delimit will constitute
                 the state's coastal zone for management purposes.
                   Section 304 (b) of the Act defines the coastal zone as "...the coastal waters
                 and the adjacent shorelands ... strongly influenced by each other and in proximity
                 to the shorelines.... " Further, "The zone extends, in the Great Lakes waters,
                 to the international boundary between the United States and Canada and, in other
                 areas, seaward to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea. The
                 zone extends inland from the shoreline only to the extent necessary to control
                 shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on coastal
                 waters...."
                   In determining the coastal zone boundaries for which Section 920.11 of the
                 rules and regulations calls (these were adopted under Section 305 of the Act),
                 states will also have to consider determining both permissible uses (920.12)
                 and geographic areas of particular concern (920.13). Those permissible uses
                 which may have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters can help
                 states determine the boundaries of their management programs. The e 'xtent of
                 some of the geographic areas of particular concern may affect the location of
                 the inland limit of the coastal zone for management purposes.
                   Those states that plan an estuarine sanctuary (Section 312  of the Act) should
                 consider the sanctuary as they determine their coastal zone.  Section 921.6 (a)
                 (2) of the rules and regulations promulgated under Section 312 of the Act states
                 that the area of control associated with the sanctuary must be adequate to
                 protect the estuary.
                   For many states the process of defining their coastal zone will be an
                 iterative one. A broadly defined area that a state may adopt initially for
                 planning purposes could be modified during the program development process to
                 include only those areas pertinent to the final management program. The tasks
                 involved in this definition process should address a series of questions that
                 the states might ask:
                 �What are the major problems that seem to relate to the state's land/water
                  interface area (e.g., filling of wetlands, public access, habitat protection)?
                 �What are the natural systems associated with these problems?
                 �What are the jurisdictional units associated with these problems?
                 �How large a planning area is adequate to allow the state to consider fully the
                  major problems and the associated systems and units?
                 �Do any of the problems within the planning area need immediate attention in
                  the form of interim controls?
                 �If these problems do require interim controls, what portions of the planning
                  area are involved and where are their boundaries?
                 �What are the existing and anticipated permissible uses which cause or could
                  cause direct and significant impacts on the coastal waters? (For discussion
                  of this, see Section B of this chapter, Permissible Uses.)
                 �Where are any geographic areas of particular concern? (For discussion of
                  geographic areas of particular concern, see Section II C, Geographic Areas of
                  Particular Concern.)
                 �What organizational arrangements will the state use to carry out the coastal
                  zone management program?

                                                        5

            6

                   . Should the planning area be modified to reflect the requirements of the manage-
                     ment program, and if so, to what degree?
                   . What monitoring will be necessary to provide the data base to modify the coastal
                     zone boundaries if this is necessary after the state has adopted its manage-
                     ment program (e.g., changes in environmental conditions)?
                      The diversity of the natural, institutional, and legal characteristics among
                   the coastal states means that each state's answers to these questions could vary
                   widely. And because some states have progressed further in developing coastal
                   zone management programs than have others, these states will already have an-
                   swered some of these questions.
                      The next part of this section discusses the approaches existing state coastal
                   resources-related programs use and the possible applicability of these to coastal
                   zone management. Part 3 discusses the requirements of the Act that the states
                   must consider in determining their coastal zone boundaries. Part 4 discusses
                   some of the problems that the states might face in determining their coastal
                   zone boundaries. Part 5 discusses the rationale for designating planning areas.
                   Part 6 discusses the technologies and techniques associated with boundary deter-
                   mination-and delineation. Part 7 discusses the possibilities of changes in
                   boundary locations after a state enacts or adopts a management program.
                      2.,Existing Programs
                      some coastal states have accumulated extensive experience in determining boun-
                   daries during their efforts to implement state-level coastal resources-related
                   programs which they established before the Coastal Zone Management Act became
                   law. All states can benefit from reviewing earlier boundary determination methods
                   which are part of these programs. These include using natural or cultural fea-
                   tures, jurisdictional units, demographic units, and distance offsets from base-
                   lines:                                             1
                   � The Delaware Coastal Zone Act (Act 175 of 1971)   , for example, uses the system
                     of coastal highways (which approximate the ten-foot contour) to delimit the
                     coastal zone.                           2
                   � The Oregon Beach Bill (Act 601 of 1967) uses the permanent vegetation line to
                     define the inland limit of the zone of control.
                   � The Texas Natural Resources Intera 3ency Council Comprehensive Coastal Study
                     (Senate Concurrent Resolution #38) uses the political boundaries of Texas'
                     coastal counties to define the landward limit of the study area.
                   � The Wisconsin Water Resources Act of 1965 defines the zone of control to be
                     all lands within 1,000 feet of a water body or stream, or the landward side of
                     the floodplain, whichever distance is greater.               5
                   � The Florida Coastal Coordinating Council (Act 259 of 1970) defines a planning
                     area by the boundaries of the census enumeration districts within which the
                     100-year floodplain is located.
                      Each state, then, chose or will choose a boundary that satisfies'the criteria
                   of the programs involved--but these boundaries do not necessarily meet the objec-
                   tives and requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Therefore, to deter-
                   mine the applicability to the Act of boundaries it had adopted earlier, each
                   state should assess both the criteria it uses and the way it applies the criteria
                   in its delineation process.
                      The delineation process is neither static nor universally applicable to all
                   situations. The coastal states can benefit both from one another's experiences
                   and from earlier efforts in their own states. States, however, should consider
                   two points before they build on these earlier efforts. First, before a state
                   adopts a boundary that uses an existing technique, it should identify and assess
                   carefully the criteria it used before and the context within which it applied
                   these criteria to test the adequacy of transferability. Second, a state should

                                                                                                 7

                also assess the technique's effectiveness by checking for boundary modification
                during the lives of the programs and the reasons for the modifications when they
                have occurred. Although earlier experiences can be helpful, each state should
                also realize that it should only use these approaches when the existing programs
                are able to deal not only with the similar boundary-related problems, but also
                with dissimilar ones.
                  Experiences Massachusetts and California have had are cited to clarify these
                points.
                  The Massachusetts Coastal Wetlands Act (Chapter 768 of 1965) was enacted to
                protect marine fisheries and public health and welfare. The boundaries that de-
                fine the zones of control are generally tied to natural featu9es (saltmarsh, con-
                tiguous freshwater wetlands, barrier beaches, and tidal flats ) which are defined
                by natural characteristics (e.g., vegetation, soil types). The limits of the
                zones of control have been extended during the life of the law as the knowledge
                of the interrelationships of the areas has been expanded. Initially, the zone
                of control was limited to the saltmarsh and its boundaries were determined by
                vegetation.
                  But after the state began to implement the Act, it became apparent that the
                zone of control should be expanded to include all critical elements of the system
                (e.g., contiguous freshwater wetlands, barrier beaches, and intertidal flats).
                The state reviewed the situation and determined that new criteria should be de-
                veloped. In the case of contiguous freshwater wetlands, the state determined
                that these should be included proceeding upstream until a barrier or other dis-
                continuity appeared in the rivers or streams. The state also determined that the
                long-shore limit of the barrier should be defined by a line which is tangent to
                the limit of the marsh or wetlands and intersects the shoreline at that point
                which is closest to the tangent point. Because this was landmark legislation
                in the field, the flexibility to modify the zone of control to better control
                the problems has been important. And an advantage of using these kinds of fea-
                tures to define the zone of control is that it allows a state's program to deal
                with complete environmental systems. The disadvantage of this approach, however,
                is that it does not consider institutional units (e.g., local political units
                with a shared resource) and this could cause fragmentation of certain jurisdic-
                tional responsibilities.
                  The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20) was
                enacted to protect and to enhance the coastal resources of California and to
                control development which could adversely affect these resources. The landward
                boundary is a specific distance (1,000 yards) from a predetermined baseline (ap-
                proximation of mean high tide line); this boundary defines a zone of interim
                control while the state plans within a larger area. The state established this
                bounda  on the recommendations of the California Comprehensive ocean Area Plan
                     5y
                (COAP) . Planners considered several aspects of the problem of boundary deter-
                mination before adopting this method. A general inspection of the state's
                coastal area indicated that most of the conflicts occurred within one-half mile
                of the coastline and no natural features (e.g., contours, ridgelines) existed
                there that could serve as limit markers. Many interests, including local govern-
                ments, opposed an extensive state management zone. Figally, the California De-
                partment of Parks and Recreation made a separate study which became an element
                of COAP; this study used an inland boundary one-half mile from the coastline.
                  The use of a specific distance to delimit the coastal zone offers the benefit
                of treating owners equally within the same proximity of the shoreline, but one
                drawback is that these boundaries do not necessarily correspond to natural sys-
                tems or jurisdictional limits. This might mean, for example, that a problem with
                environmental consequences could be transferred from one location.to another

                  within the system or jurisdiction.
                     These examples show quite different approaches which two states elected to use.
                  It is important to reaffirm here that the translation of boundary determinants
                  from one program or one state to another should only be done with full knowledge
                  and understanding of the bases of these determinants and consequences that can
                  result.

                     3. Requirements of the Act
                     Each coastal state will need to define a coastal zone for management purposes
                  the scale of which is adequate to deal with the problems that are arising or are
                  anticipated to arise as states comply with the Act. It is expected that most
                  states will identify initially a boundary for planning purposes while they exam-
                  ine the issues and problems associated with defining the coastal zone boundary
                  for management purposes (see part 5 of this section, Determining a Planning Area).
                     The act has two requirements each state must consider in determining its
                  coastal zone. First, the zone should extend inland only so far as necessary
                  "to control shorelands the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on
                  coastal waters". Second, the limit of coastal waters within an estuary must be
                  defined by a "measurable quantity or percentage of seawater".
                     Impact significance and directness: The Act stipulates that only those uses
                  which have both a direct and a significant impact on coastal waters should be
                  included in states' determination of which shorelands they should include in
                  their coastal zone.
                     As each state formulates its management program, it must determine what con-
                  stitutes direct and significant impact. This determination will help states
                  adopt policies for its coastal zone and enable it to identify those shorelands
                  the uses of which will require controls. Therefore, most states will probably
                  need to initiate varying levels of scientific and legal research into the ques-
                  tion of direct and significant impact. These discussions should help in this
                  effort.
                     An impact is the result of an action which generates a change in some element
                  of a human or natural environment. The bases for determining future changes will
                  be--at least in part--an evaluation of the existing states of the environmental
                  elements under consideration. An element of the human or natural environment
                  can be one of three categories: biological (including subcategories--human,
                  animal, plant); physical and chemical (including indicators which show changes
                  in air, land, or water characteristics); and social (including impacts on communi-
                  ties as well as on individuals).
                     The directness of an impact is associated with the cause of the change(s);
                  the envirorunental modification must not result from an intervening action if the
                  impact is to be defined as direct. In the context of the Coastal Zone Manage-
                  ment Act, then, an impact may be interpreted to be direct when, for example, it
                  causes a change in the characteristics of the coastal waters.
                     The question of what constitutes the different characteristics of coastal
                  waters (and thus are indicators of change) will be subject to several interpreta-
                  tions. Some states will prefer a narrow interpretation of direct when consider-
                  ing the Act's requirements. They might, for example, consider:
                      physical characteristics--e.g., circulation patterns, temperature;
                      chemical characteristics--e.g., salinity configuration, nutrient profiles,
                      chemical constituents;
                      biological characteristics--e.g., biotic types or diversity, viability of
                      biophysical environment; and
                      littoral characteristics--e.g., erosion or accretion patterns.
                     Other states will choose a broader interpretation of what constitutes a charac-

                                                                                                 9

               teristic o-' the coastal waters. The might, for example, also consider
                    socioeconomic characteristics--e.g., existing usage patterns of the water
                    surface, water body, or underlying terrain; and
                    aesthetic characteristics--e.g., sensory experiences.
                  The potential disparity between these interpretations is the result of the
               lack of precedents in determining impact directness. Each coastal state will
               want to develop consensus among opposing interests within the state regarding
               directness whenever and wherever this is possible.
                  For impact significance, however, several judicial decisions have clarified
               its interpretation.z;' Impact significance is generally associated with the extent
               or degree of change which results from an action. The National Environmental
               Policy Act of 1969 addresses the concept of impact significance as presented in
               the guidelines adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality (August 1, 1973).
               These list categories of impacts, including
                    an action that results in degradation of the quality of the environment;
                    an action that curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment;
                    an action that serves short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ-
                    mental goals; and
                    an action which may have both a beneficial and detrimental effect, even if
                    on balance the net effect is deemed to be beneficial.
                  Other federal agencies have adopted their own guidelines to determine or to
               identify significant impacts. The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines
               (January 10, 1973), for example, use categories such as
                  � actions having both beneficial and detrimental effects even if, on balance,
                    the net effect is deemed to be beneficial;
                  � the expected environmental impact of precedent-setting actions;
                  � the expected environmental impact of individually small but cumulatively
                    large actions; and
                  � actions which are likely to be highly controversial.
                  Figure 1 shows a two-place matrix which differentiates among the four combina-
               tions of impacts discussed above. Each state must decide whether to adopt a
               narrow or a broad interpretation of what constitutes a direct and a significant
               impact. With this interpretation as a basis, the state can then adopt specific
               indicators and measures for the characteristics of its coastal waters (to deter-
               mine impact directness) as well as specific categories of impacts (to determine
               impact significance).
                  For example, consider an estuary and its associated watershed within which a
               state must define a coastal zone. Pressures from representatives of different
               utilization plans might result in conflicts, either real or anticipated. A recrea-
               tion area (including a marina, beaches and swimming areas, and fishing piers)
               might well be located there. The area might also be under pressure for residen-
               tial development with proximity to the recreational facilities. Planners might
               also anticipate pressure from commercial development associated with the residen-
               tial and recreational uses (e.g., shopping centers, boatyards). Conservation
               interests might maintain that the area should be conserved as a natural system.
               Finally, industrial developers might bring pressure to take advantage of the
               coastal location and the potential labor force residing there.
                  A state confronted with a problem like this will have to determine which of
               these uses will have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters and
               which will therefore require the associated shoreland to be included in the coas-
               tal zone.
                  Figure 2 shows an estuary being impacted by a variety of uses. The effluent
               from the water supply facility could have a direct and significant impact on the
               coastal waters of the estuary. The same could be true of the impacts resulting

              10

                                                         IMPACT MATRIX
                                     DIRECT                                       INDIRECT
                    S   Those situations where an action             Those situations where an action
                    I   modifies the identified charac-              may modify the identified charac-
                    G   teristics of a state's coastal               teristics of a state's coastal
                    N   waters and the attendant impact              waters, but the modification is
                    I   falls within one of the categ-               caused by some secondary reaction
                    F   ories of impacts that a state                as opposed to the primary action
                    I   uses to determine significance.              even though the resulting impact
                    C                                                might fall within one of the cat-
                    A                                                egories of impacts that a state
                    N                                                uses to determine significance.
                    T

                    I
                    N   Those situations where an action             Those situations where an action
                    S   modifies the identified charac-              does not modify the identified
                    I   teristics of a state's coastal               characteristics of a state's coas-
                    G   waters, but the attendant impact             tal waters, nor does the action
                    N   does not fall within one of the              result in an impact that falls
                    I   categories of impacts that a                 within the categories of impacts
                    F   state uses to determine signifi-             that a state uses to determine
                    I   cance.                                       significance
                    C
                    A
                    N
                    T                                      FIGURE 1

                                        AGRICULTURE
                                                  NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
                                                           NATURAL GAS PLANT

                                                              . . . . .........

                                       WATER PIPELINE                     TER  MINAL
                                                   WATER SUPPLY FACILITY

                                                         FIGURE 2

               from the natural gas plant and its associated pipeline and terminal facilities;
               a somewhat simplified example of a complex system composes of many components.
               Finally, the runoff from the agricultural area might also cause direct and sig-
               nificant impacts on the estuary.
                  In resolving which uses to include in defining its coastal zone the state
               should identify all systems the components of which cause direct and signifi-
               cant impacts--as in the natural gas operation shown in Figure 2. Once such
               systems are identified states should determine to what degree the entire sys-
               tem should be included within the defined coastal zone.
                  For discussion purposes, consider three categories of use--conservation,
               recreation, and industry:
                  First, conservation use of the area might be an alternative: maintaining or
               enhancing its natural resource characteristics or attributes. A state will need
               to determine when such a use could alter the legally-defined composition of the
               coastal water (e.g., enhance the biological characteristics beneficially--or
               beyond, to eutrophication) or curtail other beneficial uses of the area or if
               the use could result in a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters.
                  Second, additional recreation use of the area might be a possibility when
               the natural resources' attributes could offer users a variety of recreation ex-
               periences. The coastal state will need to determine which of the specific rec-
               reational uses will have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters--
               based on its adopted criteria.
                  Third, industrial use of the area could broaden the economic base if the
               area were economically depressed. The state will need to apply its impact cri-
               teria carefully here or adopt performance standards to ensure that any impacts
               resulting from the development will not be direct and significant to an unac-
               ceptable degree.
                  Additional discussion related to these concepts appears in the sections on
               permissible uses, geographic areas of particular concern, and priority of uses.
                  In most cases states will not have much difficulty designating those uses
               with direct and significant impacts once they have adopted the criteria and
               measures to use as determinants. In some cases, though, the designation proc-
               ess may become more difficult, especially when a borderline case is involved.
                  For example, cumulative impacts will often have a bearing on both the sig-
               nificance and the directness of an impact (e.g., the recreational use of a
               shellfish bed may tend to depletethe resource over time if the users do not
               understand the effect of their actions). And the intensity of a use may affect
               determining whether its impact is significant (e.g., residential development at
               one unit per acre will probably result in different water runoff rates from the
               same type of development at six units per acre, unless standards are adopted to
               control this increased runoff).
                  With these problems in mind, states should attempt to develop guidelines that
               will present explicitly their interpretations of impact directness and signifi-
               cance as these pertain to the activities in their coastal zones and will also
               define the characteristics of the indicators they choose to identify impact dir-
               ectness as well as categories of significant impacts. If they do this, the
               states will remove much uncertainty in their interpretations, and landowners
               will know the requirements involved in developing their shorelands.
                  Measurable quantity or percentage of seawater: Determining the limit of
               coastal waters within an estuary, and thus determining the limit of the coastal
               zone for management purposes within that estuary, is an implied requirement in
               the Act. "A measurable quantity or percentage of seawater" will be subject to
               a variety of interpretations, depending upon the degree of precision necessary
               to define the upstream boundary within an estuary. Each state must determine

             12

                   the criteria to use and then apply these equitably to all its estuaries.
                      The classification of these coastal waters by chemical constituents is comp-
                   licated by the highly variable factors that affect the measurements; among
                   these,
                        the variability of terrestrial runoff over time;
                        the variability of climatic conditions over time;
                        the variability of tidal ranges and stages of the tide;
                        the variability of point sources (e.g., cooling water from power plants);
                        the variability of activities upstream of the limit of the estuary that
                        affect riverine flow rates; and
                        the modification of circulation patterns by dredge and fill actions.
                      These factors, and others less significant, will affect the linear extent of
                   coastal waters in the upper reaches of an estuary. (For more detailed discus-
                   sion on methods of determining the limit of coastal waters see John Clark,
                   Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management of the Coastal
                   Zone, available through the Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.)

                      4. Boundary Determination Problems
                      In addition to meeting the Act's requirements, many coastal states will be
                   confronted with different specific practical problems they will have to re-
                   solve. To define the boundaries of its coastal zone, the state should develop
                   answers to six questions that follow from the eleven questions posed in the
                   introduction to this section:
                    What are the problems associated with the state's coastal area with which the
                    state's coastal zone management program will deal?
                    Which of these problems do existing state programs already address?
                    What are the geographical boundaries of the areas these existing programs
                    cover?
                   �Are these areas adequate for the existing programs to solve the problems
                    effectively?
                   �If the areas are inadequate, how should they be modified?
                   �What additional areas would be needed to solve those designated problems
                    existing programs do not deal with?
                   The answers to these six questions will enable the coastal state to define a
                   coastal zone that will allow existing programs to merge into a framework for
                   the state's comprehensive coastal zone management program.
                      Many states will also be confronted with other related problems that may
                   complicate their boundary determinations. The Act recognizes the diversity of
                   the natural areas and the complexities of existing developmental, political,
                   and administrative realities in and among the states. This recognition allows
                   each state the necessary freedom to address the sets of complicating factors
                   that are pertinent to its situation. Recognition of the importance of natural
                   systems, social communities, legal adequacy, displacement effect on development,
                   and equal treatment of land owners are among some of the problems with which
                   states will have to deal. Certain problems will pertain to all coastal states;
                   others may be unique to one.
                      Recognition of natural systems: To define its coastal zone, then, each
                   state will need to develop an understanding of the natural or environmental
                   systems that exist within its broadly defined coastal environment as well as
                   the linkages and interrelationships among the systems. The environmental sys-
                   tem will vary according to the natural characteristics of each state, but might
                   include coastal watersheds, estuaries, atolls, and submarine canyons. The en-
                   vironmental systems of the coastal environment lie in one of three zones: open
                   water (seaward of the normal shoreline); estuarine (as defined by the Act); and
                   shorelands (landward of the normal shoreline)(Figure 3). Within the open water

                                                                                              13

                                                               ...... ....

                                                   df
                                                  10,
                                                  10
                                                    .. . . . . . . .. .

                                                               ..........
                                 Z           . . ........ . . . .

                                 _J
                                 Z
                                   _J     W

                                                    W
                                                 0
                            SH   R                J F
                             ZONE
                                   ESTLI RINE
                                   ZONE
                                             OP N WATER
                                              ZONE

                                                  FIGURE 3

               zone the environmental systems include several separable subsystems, among
               which are littoral regimes, habitats, submarine canyons, and biotic or vegeta-
               tive anomalies. In the estuarine zone the system and the zone are the same.
               The shorelands encompass various natural systems (e.g., river basins, water-
               sheds, habitats). The geographical limits of these natural systems can be de-
               lineated through the use of indicators of the composition that make the system
               separable or definable (e.g., ridgelines separating watersheds that are repre-
               sentative of topographic characteristics). These systems are directly linked
               by air and water and are affected by natural phenomena as well as by the ac-
               tions of components of social systems (e.g., resource extraction efforts).
               Problems that coastal states must address are: which of the natural systems, or
               elements thereof, require an active management program, what must this manage-
               ment program include, and what steps must the state take to reconcile the nat-
               ural and institutional systems to ensure an effective program?
                  Recognition of jurisdictional units: Three types of jurisdictional units
               may exist in a state's coastal area and therefore should be considered in the
               state's determination of its coastal zone boundaries. In most cases these
               units will not be unique to the coastal area and in many cases will cover or
               share the natural systems. The jurisdictional units include substate units of
               government, regional planning bodies, and special purpose districts (e.g.,
               park districts). A coastal state will need to differentiate among the units
               to decide which it should include in the program development effort and to what
               geographical extent the units chosen should be included in the coastal zone.
                  One example of a special purpose district is a waste disposal system that
               collects, treats, and disposes of sewage from a specific geographical or serv-
               ice area. This system can be large and complex (e.g., separate components and

             14

                   facilities for storm water, domestic, commercial, and industrial sewage) and a
                   state will need to determine, based on direct and significant impact on coas-
                   tal waters, which of the components it should include in the coastal zone. It
                   will serve little purpose to include those components, and their associated
                   uses, which do not cause such impacts unless a fragmentation of the system re-
                   sults which will adversely affect the total system; for example, requirement
                   to relocate the outfall of a treatment facility.
                     Unless states consider them carefully, the variety of jurisdictions covering
                   coastal areas may conflict with any attempt to develop a comprehensive coastal
                   zone program. States will need to reconcile the disputes within and among gov-
                   ernment units these conflicts cause to ensure that the coastal zone for manage-
                   ment purposes, as the state chooses to define it, is adequate to deal with
                   these problems. If it is not, conflicts between the jurisdictions will have
                   undesirable consequences on the effectiveness of the state's coastal program.
                     In most cases the boundaries are associated with a series of independently
                   established programs. The Massachusetts coastal wetlands are an excellent ex-
                   ample of a situation where a specific area is presently controlled and protec-
                   ted by numerous jurisdictions at the local, state, and federal levels.
                     Local zoning jurisdictions include those of the planning boards (land use)
                   and the conservation commissions (wetland areas). Local licensing or permit-
                   ting jurisdictions include the boards of selectmen (building permits) , boards of
                   health (sewage disposal and water supply), boards of appeals (substandard or
                   nonconforming uses), conservation commissions (wetland regulations), and the
                   planning boards (subdivision control).
                     State zoning jurisdictions include those of the Department of Natural Res-
                   ources (Coastal Wetlands Act). State-level permitting or licensing jurisdic-
                   tions include those of the Department of Natural Resources (overview and inter-
                   vention of local sewage disposal control), and the Division of Waterways (sub-
                   merged lands regulations).
                     Federal-level permitting or licensing jurisdictions include those of the
                   U.S. Axmy Corps of Engineers (control of navigable waters) and, in some cases,
                   the Environmental Protection Agency (water quality control), and various agen-
                   cies under the National Environmental Policy Act.
                     Most of the conflicts a state must resolve will result from differences in
                   the judgements of what uses are suitable and reasonable and what is the best
                   path through the labyrinth of jurisdictions. The Massachusetts example illus-
                   trates a problem many coastal states will face where ad hoc approaches have re-
                   sulted in complex jurisdictional configurations.
                     Obviously, many of the jurisdictional interests will differ in their deter-
                   minations of what the coastal zone should include for management purposes.
                   Each state, in this situation, will have three reasonable alternatives.
                     First, the coastal zone boundary could define an envelope encompassing the
                   interests of all jurisdictions. If a state selects this approach it is imper-
                   ative that it formulate mechanisms to ensure the necessary coordination among
                   the jurisdictions involved.
                     Second, the boundary could reflect jurisdictional exchanges in ways that the
                   need of the most pertinent jurisdictions (which would differ according to the
                   resource types involved) would govern boundary locations. Ths approach would
                   require a careful evaluative judgment to determine which should be the control-
                   ling jurisdictions.
                     Third, the jurisdictions involved could work out a compromise based on a
                   consensus among them. These compromises would consider various factors (e.g.,
                   the areas to be controlled, the need for additional active management, and the
                   political realities of existing programs). The compromises would require ex-

                                                                                              15

              tensive negotiations.
                Recognition of social communities: Many types of socioeconomic groups occ-
              ur in (but of course are not limited to) coastal areas that states can categor-
              ize as social communities. Income level would obviously be one group Indicator,
              as would kinds of occupation.
                Ethnic origin is another social community indicator. Often, these communi-
              ties are social anomalies; for example, the Wampanoag Indian community in Gay
              Head, Marthas Vineyard; the Louisiana Cajun communities; and the settlement of
              Moors in Delaware.
                Commonality of interest may be another indicator of a social community. A
              coastal example of this is the watermen of Chesapeake and Delaware Bays whose
              occupations dominate their communities and who are completely reliant on dir-
              ect access to the water bodies for their livelihoods. Non-urban communities
              that rely on commercial fishing are also examples.
                A state may wish to consider these and similar social communities in its
              boundary determinations if it anticipates that the management program or other
              related influences will divide or undermine existing communities. For example,
              low-income groups that have historically lived in coastal areas may be forced
              to relocate outside the coastal zone if they cannot meet the costs associated
              with the new regulations, while their non-coastal neighbors in the same income
              bracket would not be affected (e.g., a problem of social equity). A state may
              have to choose which of the social communities to include and which to exclude
              from its coastal zone. Discussion relevant to these choices is included in the
              section on geographic areas of particular concern. Surveying public attitudes
              (discussed in Chapter V, Public Participation) may also help the state define
              these social communities.
                Conflict representations: States should consider existing or potential con-
              flicts which result from the allocation of resources among competing demands
              and other associated factors. These conflicts can be related to impact signif-
              icance and impact directness and their function in determining permissible
              uses (see Section II-B). By assigning geographical limits in these cases and
              using map overlays, states should be able to define a coastal zone which is
              adequate to deal with these kinds of conflicts. Figure 4 shows an example of
              this approach in three different categories.
                First, states could determine boundaries in ecological conflicts by deline-
              ating certain natural components of the coastal watershed (e.g., wetlands, hab-
              itats, stands of trees). Second, they could determine boundaries in socioecon-
              omic conflicts by delineating certain jurisdictional areas within the coastal
              watershed (e.g., service areas). Third, they could determine boundaries in
              aesthetic conflicts by delineating areas with aesthetic potential (e.g., his-
              toric or cultural sites, zones of high visual experience). States could use
              these and other comparable delineations to represent and to study existing or
              possible situations for conflicts and controversies. By designating areas of
              mutual concern under overlapping jurisdictions, states will be able to identify
              commonalities and thereby define coastal areas that will require active manage-
              ment.
                When states use these techniques to delineate coastal zone boundaries, they
              should consider that the following problems may arise: First, it is sometimes
              difficult to identify the cause or causes of conflict and thus difficult to de-
              fine it geographically, because the conflict will generate not just information,
              but also misinformation. Second, changing public attitudes towards certain
              geographic or jurisdictional areas could have to be reflected in drastic boun-
              dary changes. Third, certain boundaries may only be established and conflicts
              resolved through (time-consuming) administrative or judicial action. This

             16

                                      STP
                                      SERVICE
                                      AREA          STP
                                      BOUNDARY

                                   VISUAL
                                   ISOLINE

                                                       . . . . . ........

                                                  . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                .... ..... ... . ....

                                               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                                                       . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                   WETLANU
                                   BOUNDARIES

                                                     FIGURE 4
                  third problem is discussed in some detail in a recent Louisiana report. 10
                     Knowledge of local conditions: Some states may be confronted by situations
                  where knowledge about local conditions, knowledge sometimes not readily avail-
                  able at the state level, will help them determine their coastal zone boundar-
                  ies. often this information*will be available through local officials or agen-
                  cies, academic or research institutions, special or public interest groups, or
                  knowledgable local citizens. If these states were to modify their coastal zone
                  boundaries, to reflect this valuable information, this could help improve the
                  states' effectiveness in resolving problems and might also increase the states'
                  programs' local credibility. However, states must use this information with
                  caution to avoid having their coastal zone programs embroiled in backyard con-
                  troversies. Massachusetts has used this kind of information effectively in
                  determining the areas which the state will manage under its Coastal Wetlands
                  Act (these areas have included saltmarshes, contiguous freshwater marshes, and
                  barrier beaches).
                     Impacts caused by influences beyond boundaries: Coastal states should real-
                  ize that wherever they draw their boundaries, they will still have tp deal with
                  activities that occur outside these boundaries, activities that will have a
                  significant impact on their coastal waters.  Rode Island's Coastal Resources
                  Management Council Act of 1971 is an example.    In some cases these external
                  influences will be beyond the control of the jurisdictional unit which is res-
                  ponsible for controlling that kind of activity in the state's coastal zone.
                  River basin systems and their influences on the composition of 1Pe coastal wa-
                  ters--for example, a pollutant load introduced into an estuary --would be one
                  case. In those cases where the cause of the external influence is in the same
                  state as the area affected, a state should work out cooperative agreements be-
                  tween or among the jurisdictions involved (e.g., coastal zone authority and
                  water qualitv authoritv).

                                                                                                17

                 Interstate boundary consistency: Two states that share a common political
              boundary will probably have problems if substantial disparities exist in the
              locations of coastal zone boundaries at their common political boundary. When
              a shared resource is involved and the coastal zone boundaries are not compat-
              ible or similarly derived, then the fifference in degrees of use of the shared
              resource can have an adverse impact.     Even when shared resources are not in-
              volved any substantial discontinuity in the coastal zone boundary at the
              states' boundaries can result in the displacement of future development into
              the state with the narrower zone.
                 Inland displacement effect: Coastal states may face a series of problems
              involving relocating developments outside their coastal zones. They may ex-
              perience this problem in one of three ways:
                 First would be the phenomenon of over-the-boundary-boom--where future devel-
              opment locates just beyond the boundary of a state's coastal zone, but still is
              close enough to the coastline to profit from the location. In those situations
              where the development occurs in a sensitive area adjacent to the coastal zone
              boundary, the related activities might still have an impact on the coastal wa-
              ters. Each state should carefully consider the feasibility of including such
              contiguous areas (e.g., unique landforms, freshwater wetlands), or it should
              work out cooperative arrangements with other state agencies which have juris-
              dictions in these areas.
                 Second, the development may locate in an adjacent state with a more narrowly
              defined coastal zone. In those situations where a shared resource is involved
              (e.g.r an estuary, a wetland) problems might transfer into the state with the
              wider coastal zone. For this reason states should seek interstate cooperera-
              tion to eliminate substantial discontinuities in coastal zone boundaries at
              their common political boundary.
                 Third, the development may locate in the interior of the state in a place
              with comparable resource attributes (e.g., from an ocean shore to a lake shore).
              In this case the state may still have problems, but not have their coastal wa-
              ters impacted. To deal with such potential problems, a state may wish to es-
              tablish state-wide land use controls or utilize some other means of control and
              coordinate these activities with its coastal zone management program.
                 Availability of data: The existing data base in each state will have geo-
              graphical boundaries associated with it. The state will have to consider each
              data component (e.g., environmental, socioeconomict demographic) separately and
              break it down into coastal and non-coastal elements.
                 States may wish to determine time and cost-effectiveness involved in keeping
              the data components intact versus attempting to subdivide them@ Florida, for
              example, opted for&e former when it defined its coastal zone by census enum-
              eration districts.     (For related discussion, see Chapter IV, Organization and
              Use of Information.)
                 Equal treatment: Each state should define its coastal zone using criteria
              which will allow it to define boundaries uniformly and consistently to assure
              that it treats all similarly situated property owners similarly.
                 Legal adequacy: Each coastal state must address the problems associated
              with the question of how accurately to define its coastal zone boundaries. It
              must research carefully existing legal requirements and constraints to deter-
              mine either their adequacy or the need to modify them.
                 Both people subject to the state's management program and the state's enfor-
              cing agency should be able to tell whether or not a piece of property is in the
              defined coastal zone. The importance of this legal adequacy problem in delim-
              iting the coastal zone will be determined by existing legislative policies along
              with legislative policies and judicial decisions and interpretations.

             18

                     In Massachusetts, for example, the state and its political subdivisions are
                  authorized by Chapty@ 222 of 1967 to use thematic maps without metes-and-
                  bounds descriptions   to depict areas with natural boundaries; these thematic
                  maps may-then become-legally definitive documents at-the registry of deeds and
                  in a court of law. Connecticut, on the other hand, is required by law to con-
                  duct geodetic surveys and monument boundaries 1-gat approximately cover the
                  limits of the natural areas (Act 695 of 1969).
                     Permanence of boundary indicators: Many states will face a variety of prob-
                  lems involving geographic and cartographic representations of the coastal zone
                  boundaries. In some situations a boundary which is determined to define the
                  coastal zone for management purposes might be unrealistic administratively un-
                  less it can be easily reproduced on the ground. In other situations, espec-
                  ially when natural factors are used, boundary indicators might be subject to
                  short-term fluctuations or to long-term changes of natural phenomena. Situa-
                  tions might occur where conditions are modified which serve as a frame of ref-
                  erence in boundary definition.
                     To avoid these problems, a state might well choose to use physical or cul-
                  tural features or some other indicator which approximates the desired boundary
                  to define the limit of its coastal zone. In Delaware, for example, the boun-
                  dary the state desired corresponded to the ten-foot contour so that the state,
                  in legally defining its coastal zone, chose its system of coastal highways
                  (i.e., a cultural feature) which approximated the contour.
                     Political acceptibility: Probably some coastal authorities will have prob-
                  lems in getting their state legislators to accept the coastal zone management
                  programs they develop. In California, for example, the state assembly did not
                  accept the recommendations of the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, even after
                  much debate. The question had to be presented to the people in the form of a
                  referendum--which passed handily.
                     In most cases, one of the key elements of the problem will be the scale of
                  the area the agency determines is necessary to control coastal impacts. To
                  mitigate this type of situation state agencies should adopt two policies:
                  first, they should involve legislative representatives from the beginning as
                  members of advisory committees or review panels so that the legislators may
                  offer counsel in the political realities. Second, state agencies should docu.-
                  ment all recommendations they make to the legislatures reinforcing the criteria
                  the agencies choose to determine the coastal zone boundaries.
                     Cost of surveying boundaries: one cost factor that may affect the indica-
                  tors states choose to delimit their coastal zones will be the expenses involved
                  in defining boundaries. Survey costs can be appreciable, especially where ex-
                  tensive manpower and sophisticated equipment are required to define boundaries.
                  For example, New Jersey spent a large amount of funds in mapping certain areas
                  governed by its Wetlands Act of 1970. Also, when extensive shorelines are in-
                  volved, survey costs can become excessive when metes-and-bounds surveys are
                  required as part of the delineation process. There will be a direct relation-
                  ship here among the boundary indicators chosen, legal accuracy required, and
                  the cost of surveying the boundaries (e.g., in a saltmarsh, using interpreta-
                  tion of aerial photographs vs. vegetative indicators of mean high water).
                     Cost of administering program: States with extensive shorelines will have
                  to assess the extent of manpower and funds necessary to regulate uses within
                  their defined coastal zones. The costs involved in regulating a variety of
                  actions within a broadly defined coastal zone may be high. Distributing these
                  costs will depend on allocations of management responsibilities, but states
                  must also realize these costs can affect how they-define their coastal zone
                  boundaries. They may have to make trade-off decisions among the scale of the

                                                                                                 19

               coastal zone for man 14 ement purposes, the scope of control, and the allocation
               of responsibilities.
                  Exclusion of areas: States will have situations where it is necessary or
               advisable to exclude certain areas from what they might otherwise include in
               their coastal zones. For example, they must exclude, by law, all federally
               controlled areas.
                  Many states will have to deal with federal agencies in potential conflicts
               which may affect the location of the states' coastal zone boundaries. First,
               because of the Act's exclusionary clause, situations will arise where boundar-
               ies of federally controlled lands bisect a resource--a wetland or other habi-
               tat. If there is a conflict over the uses of the shared resource (e.g., fill-
               ing a wetland vs. keeping it as a habitat), then the state and the federal
               agency should resolve it before the state adopts a final coastal zone boundary
               in that area. Second, the existing federally-owned property that the control-
               ling agency is classifying or might classify as surplus could generate a vari-
               ety of conflicting interests. If the state considers the federally-controlled
               area, in part or in total, as a resource that it would otherwise include in its
               coastal zone, then the state should try to determine what the final disposition
               of the area will be before it declares its management boundaries.
                  For the same reasonsi states should also consider existing and planned comp-
               lementary or cooperative federal/state programs which could conflict with their
               program's goals and objectives. To avoid, or at least to decrease this poten-
               tial for conflict, states may wish to extend their boundaries so that they are
               in a better position to deal with such potential problems. For example, in the
               case of a federal energy facility siting act, certain of the coastal states may
               consider extending the inland limit of their coastal zones into those contigu-
               ous areas that are suitable for such uses. And in the case of a federal land
               use act (although there should be few if any federal-state conflict situations)
               most states may wish to set coastal zone boundaries for management purposes
               that will allow them to realize the maximum amount of assistance from both pro-
               grams.
                  Any coastal state that anticipates these types of situations, or any other
               conflicts with federal agencies that will affect their coastal zone programs,
               should be prepared to make all reasonable attempts to resolve the problems be-
               fore they adopt boundaries or any other element of their management programs.
               The Secretary of Commerce has the authority under the Act to withold program
               approval if the state has not adequately considered the views of pertinent fed-
               eral agencies (See also Section III-C, Cooperation and Coordination with Fed-
               eral Agencies).

                  5. Determining a Planning Area
                  As said in 920.11(a) of the Section 305 rules and regulations, "states may
               wish initially to delineate a planning area which generally is larger than, and
               encompasses the area ultimately identified as the coastal zone." Further,
               "State management activities ... are likely to be based upon data, programs, and
               institutional boundaries that encompass areas larger than the coastal zone des-
               ignation." In addition, Section 920.16 requires that the state has "Coordina-
               ted its program with local, areawide, and interstate plans applicable to areas
               within the coastal zone...." The Act's suggestion to differentiate between
               planning and management areas may become necessary if a state is both to deal
               effectively with its coastal-related problems and to ensure continuity of other
               related or overlapping state-wide or areawide programs.
                  Many states are presently involved in a number of on-going resource planning
               and management programs that may have an impact on the coastal areas. States

             20

                 are developing state-wide outdoor recreation plans in which coastal areas play
                 an important role. Some states are developing solid waste disposal plans which
                 include creating special districts. Many substate units of government may be
                 developing or might have adopted comprehensive plans which include coastal
                 areas as an integral part of the plans. States must consider the philosophies,
                 institutional arrangements, and geographical areas of concern of all of these
                 programs and others like them in determining their coastal zones and in formu-
                 lating their management programs.
                    Delineating a coastal zone planning area in most cases will be easier than
                 defining the coastal zone for management purposes. The seaward or lakeward
                 limit, the Act specifies, shall not extend beyond the outer limit of the terr-
                 itorial sea nor the lateral interstate boundaries. The limit within an estuary
                 will normally be constrained by the definition of coastal waters in Section
                 304(b) of the Act or by the state's political boundary (unless there are water-
                 related problems upstream from the limit that affect coastal waters).
                    Although the Act is explicit in defining the seaward limit of the coastal
                 zone certain states will still have problems in identifying a seaward limit.
                 For example, some states are involved in litigation over the location of their
                 common interstate boundary within the territorial sea (e.g., Maine and New
                 Hampshire) which could affect the legal definition. Also, the Atlantic states
                 are involved in litigation over an extended resource zone (up to 200 miles)
                 (i.e., Maine et al. vs. United States) because some of them claim rights under
                 colonial charter beyond the three-mile territorial sea. Finally, outer conti-
                 nental shelf developments cannot help but affect states' coastal zones once
                 they are authorized. For these reasons, some coastal states may find it desir-
                 able to consider areas between three and two-hundred miles in separate, but
                 coordinated, programs.
                    For initial planning purposes the maximum limit of the shorelands may corres-
                 pond to the limit of the coastal watershed to effect solutions of the major
                 coastal-related problems (or to the state's political boundary if the problems
                 cross state lines). States may modify boundaries, however, so they will re-
                 flect, for example, plans which have coastal components or regions or deal with
                 many of the problems discussed earlier in this section--recognition of natural
                 systems, inland displacement, and availability of data.
                    Because of the varied state approaches to coastal management, different
                 states will have different views as to planning areas versus management areas;
                 each state should therefore adopt an interim boundary that satisfies its immed-
                 iate needs. Some states though may also find that certain problems demand im-
                 mediate attention in the form of interim controls or emergency programs. Whe-
                 ther they adopt these controls or programs at the beginning of or during their.
                 program development efforts will depend on the kinds of problems, immediacy of
                 needs, and pertinent knowledge available to the states.
                    The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 used this approach by
                 establishing a control zone while the state makes plans in a broader area en-
                 compassing the control zone. The California law gives the Coastal Zone Conser-
                 vation Commission'planning jurisdiction over an area that extends from the sea-
                 ward limit of the territorial sea to five miles inland or the ridge line of the
                 nearest coastal mountain range, whichever is the shorter distance. The law also
                 provides for interim permit control over that portion of the planning area that
                 lies between the three-mile limit seaward and 1,000 yards landward of mean high
                 tide.
                    Geographical segmentation is another option open to states that have prob-
                 lems which demand immediate attention. This approach would allow a state to
                 adopt management programs for specific areas within the designated planning

                                                                                              21

               area (e.g., geographic areas of particular concern) when such action appears
               warranted. For more detailed discussion of this concept, see Section II-C,
               Geographic Areas of Particular Concern.

                  6. Mechanics of Coastal Zone Boundary Delineation
                  The study techniques and technology applications a state can use to define
               its coastal zone will depend on the resources available to it. Each state will
               probably need to formulate a study effort to determine the configuration of
               its coastal zone for management purposes, and it must be prepared to document
               its choices based on the use of its available capabilities to produce proper
               evidence.
                  Open water zone: Geodetic survey techniques can determine and reproduce
               the lakeward or seaward limit of the state's control (e.g., not only for the
               purposes of the Act generally, but also specifically for offshore mineral lea-
               ses). This technique can also help to determine a datum plane (e.g., mean
               high water) and to define and to map geomorphic characteristics. Remote sen-
               sing technology--for example, multispectral aerial photography-- can help de-
               fine resource areas (e.g., fisheries, habitats, sand and gravel sources).
                  Estuarine zone: Salinometers can help determine the upper limit of the est-
               uary by measuring the extent of salt water intrusion within the estuary. Re-
               mote sensing technology--again, multispectral aerial photography, for example--
               can be used to define the configuration and extent of shellfish and grass beds
               and in combination with dyes to measure the linear extent of tidal flow. Field
               surveys can help establish ground truth as documentation of the aerial photo-
               graphs and map the extent of vegetative and faunal indicators. Professional
               judgment and expert opinion are essential in interpreting data from other
               elements of the study program.
                  Shorelands zone: Geodetic survey techniques can help reproduce a predeter-
               mined baseline or physical features that are associated with the inland bound-
               ary. Various instruments can measure flow rates of the riverine systems, de-
               fine groundwater profiles, measure and map phisiographic characteristics, and
               otherwise monitor the environment to obtain baseline data. Multispectral aer-
               ial photography can help delineate wetlands and fisheries habitats, soil types,
               and existing land uses. Field surveys obtain ground truth and map indicators--
               among them, faunal and vegetative characteristics or socioeconomic character-
               istics. Here also profes.sional judgment and expert opinion should be an inte-
               gral part of data interpretation and subsequent recommendations.

                  7. Boundary Changes
                  Many states may need to change their coastal zone boundaries as they imple-
               ment their management programs so they can better solve their coastal problems.
               Changes in states' management rationales, legal and political climates, or en-
               vironmental conditions should lead those states to reassess their programs to
               test the coastal zone configuration against the new requirements for which the
               changes call. States will have to make trade-off decisions during the time
               they formulate their coastal zone management program; they must assess the
               scope of the effort necessary to determine their coastal zone boundaries com-
               pared with the potential legal problems associated with any future program
               modifications. In doing this, they should consider many factors--among these,
               the state of flux of the coastal problems; using administrative orders to mod-
               ify boundaries; public sentiment; and political acceptance of their program.
                  States should anticipate that the need for changes will occur and be pre-
               pared to recognize the symptoms associated with the needs so that they can deal
               with them effectively. A change in conditions within the coastal environments
               can be caused by any number of uncontrollable factors. Legally or politically,

              22

                   judicial decisions or interpretations (e.g., boundary definitions not equitably
                   derived); changes in public attitudes (e.g., pressure to modify areas of con-
                   cern); or new legislation (e.g., energy development) will require immediate
                   action to maintain a program's effectiveness. Administratively revised posit-
                   ions might result in infrastructure changes, including reallocation of respon-
                   sibilities (e.g., increases or decreases in local control authority); scope of
                   program (e.g., areas requiring management); and management techniques (e.g.,
                   emphasize incentives and de-emphasize controls), all of which will require pro-
                   gram modifications if these changes in conditions are appreciable.
                      States will attain greater degrees of awareness of their coastal environ-
                   ments as they formulate and implement their management programs. This aware-
                   ness will result from the knowledge they will acquire over time. In some cases,
                   this greater knowledge will lead states to identify errors that were the re-
                   sults of inadequate information or incomplete understanding of the issues.
                      Increased knowledge will also allow a better understanding of the complex
                   interrelationships among the systems that constitute the coastal environments.
                   States should continue to conduct research to fill out the discontinuities in
                   their data bases. The increased data bases will give the decision-makers more
                   strength in their actions by decreasing the risks in their decisions. As
                   states' knowledge about their coastal zones becomes more comprehensive, they
                   will be able to reassess their coastal zone boundaries and realign them when
                   necessary.
                      When they need to modify their boundaries, coastal states might select one
                   of the following options. First, those states which anticipate substantial
                   difficulty in gaining acceptance of future modifications may choose to include
                   as broad an area as possible in their coastal zone jurisdiction and apply the
                   management program more intensively in certain areas or to control certain
                   groups of uses. The coastal authority could then modify the boundaries of
                   these areas using administrative orders to reflect changes in conditions while
                   the legislatively defined boundary remains the same. Second, in those states
                   that anticipate little difficulty in revising legislatively their program
                   boundaries, the coastal authority could opt for the narrowest possible zone
                   for management purposes and then introduce modifying legislation when,@needed.

                                                      CITATIONS

                   1. The Governor's Task Force on Marine and Coastal Affairs, The Coastal Zone of
                      Delaware, College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, 1972.
                   2. John E. Frohnmayer, Editor, Oregon Law Review, 50 (3) , Part II, June, 1971.
                   3. Interagency Council on Natural Resources and the Environment, Texas Coastal
                      Resources Management Program: A Comprehensive Report to the 63rd Texas Leg-
                      islature, Division of Planning Coordination, Governor's Office, 1972.
                   4. Donald F. Wood, "Wisconsin's Requirements for Shorelands and Flood Plain
                      Protection," Natural Resources Journal, 10(2), April, 1970.
                   5. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Florida Coastal Zone Management Atlas,
                      Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, 1972.
                   6. Russell Davenport, "Massachusetts Coastal Wetlands Act and Its Worth As An
                      Interim Planning Tool," Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the
                      Marine Technology Society, Marine Technology Society, 1972.
                   7. California State Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, California
                      Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, 1972.

                                                                                             23

            8.  California State Department of Parks and Recreation, California Coastline
                Preservation and Recreation Plan, 1971.

            9.  Steven S. Ross, Editor, Environmental Regulation Handbook, Environmental
                Information Center, 1973.
            10. Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources, Louisiana
                Wetland Prospectus, 1973.
            11. Act 279 of 1971 creating the Coastal Resources Management Council, Sections
                46-23-1 through 46-23-12 and 42-17-1 through 42-17-4 of the General Laws of
                Rhode Island.

            12. Alyn C. Duxbury, "Coastal Zone Processes and Their Influence on Estuarine
                Conditions," Nearshore and Estuarine Zone Symposium, University of Washington.

            13. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd, Inc., Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study, 1972.
            14. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Coastal Zone Management in Florida--
                1971, 1971

            15. Chapter 222 of the Acts of 1969 of the Massachusetts State Legislature.
            16. Earl H. Bradley, Jr. and John M. Armstrong, A Description and Analysis of
                Coastal Zone and Shoreland Management Programs in the United States, Uni-
                versity of Michigan Sea Grant Technical Report #20, 1972
            17. Peter M. Douglas, "Coastal Zone Management--A New Approach," Coastal Zone
                Management Journal, l(l), 1973.

                                         ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

            1. American Society of Photogrammetry, Proceedings of Coastal Mapping Symposium,
               Potomac Division, 1972.

            2. Ecbo, Dean, Austin, and Williams, State of Hawaii Land Use Districts and Reg-
               ulation Review, 1969.

            3. Engineering Agency for Resource Inventories, Inventory of Basic Environmental
               Data for North Carolina, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973.
            4.                , Inventory of Basic Environmental Data for Southern Louisiana,
               U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973.

            5. W.L. Fisher et al., Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zone--
               Galveston-Houston Area, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas, 1972.
            6. J. Michael Robbins, "Coastal Zone Delimitation: A Critical Analysis," Coastal
               Zone Management Journal, 1(3), 1974.

              24

                   B. Permissible Uses
                      1. Introduction
                      "Permissible land and water uses which have a direct and significant impact
                   on coastal waters", Section 920.12 of the Act's Section 305 regulations, is
                   closely tied to "geographic areas of particular concern", (920.13) and to "des-
                   ignation of priority uses within specific geographic areas throughout the coast-
                   al zone", (920.15). According to the regulations,
                        The inventory and analysis of the States' total coastal zone in Sec-
                        tion 920.12 should provide the basic data analysis, and criteria
                        necessary to identify specific geographic areas of particular con-
                        cern. (920.13)
                   Furthermore,
                        [Designation of priority of uses] is closely tied to the require-
                        ments in section 920.12 and 920.13 and should build upon the States'
                        findings and conclusions reached concerning "permissible uses" and
                        areas of "particular concern". (920.15)
                      The states should consider these three elements as interrelated components
                   of sequential process. In determining the permissible uses, states should
                   look ahead to geographic areas of particular concern and priority of uses to
                   ensure that the findings under 920.12 are directly relevant to information re-
                   quired for developing elements 920.13 and 920.15. It may be that determining
                   permissible uses will be less important in itself than it will be as a basis
                   on which states can identify geographic areas of particular concern and deter-
                   mine priorities of uses.
                      A state must carry out four separate tasks to determine "permissible uses
                   which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters". These are:
                   * Determination of land and water uses which will be assessed for impact on
                     identified coastal environments;
                   * 920.12 (a) Determining criteria and measures to assess the impact of existing
                     projects or proposed uses or classes of uses on the identified coastal environ-
                     ments;
                   * 920.12(b) Categorizing the nature, location, scope, and conflicts or current
                     and anticipated coastal land and water uses or classes of use; and
                   * 920.12(c) A continuing compilation, verification, and assessment of the general
                     characteristics, values and interrelationships within coastal land and water
                     environments.
                      We will discuss subsections 920.12(a), (b), and (c) in their order in the
                   regulations. However, some states may not find the (a), (b), (c) sequence to
                   be the most effective means of developing the information required to prepare
                   elements 920.12, 920.13, and 920.15, for the four tasks are obviously interre-
                   lated. States may undertake them concurrently. Whether a state chooses the
                   sequential or the concurrent ordering depends primarily on the nature and de-
                   velopment of that state's coastal zone management program. Several states are
                   well advanced in their coastal planning programs and may have accomplished
                   many of the tasks of 920.12, as well as portions of the other elements.
                      How states choose to accomplish these four tasks will depend on how they in-
                   terpret what are permissible uses. We discuss determining permissible uses at
                   the end-of this section.
                      Determination of land and water uses which will be assessed for impact on
                   identified coastal environments: The guidelines suggest that states should con-
                   sider "requirements for industry, commerce, residential development, recreation,
                   extraction of mineral resources, and fossil fuels, transportation and navigation,
                   waste disposal, and harvesting of fish, shellfish and other living marine re-

                                                                                               25

               sources". In addition to these eight general types of uses, states may with to
               identify others. For example, four other coastal uses might be national defense,
               coastal and marine research and education, agriculture and forestry, and water
               supply and desalination. Concerning education and research uses, states should
               note that the Act's estuarine sanctuaries provision (Section 312) is intended
               to assist states in
                    ... creating natural field laboratories in which to gather data and
                    make studies of the natural and human processes occurring within the
                    estuaries of the coastal zone.1
                  Factors to consider: Preparing lists of land and water uses for impact ass-
               essments will involve several considerations; among these:
                 excluding those uses that do not have a direct and significant impact (see
                 section II-A, Boundaries) on coastal waters. Each state must determine for
                 itself the meaning of "direct and significant", because the Act limits deter-
                 mination of permissible uses to those uses which have a direct and significant
                 impact on coastal waters. States must consider this determination as the de-
                 fine of the inland boundaries of their coastal zones.
                  States might consider all the uses that have coastal impact-associated prob-
                 lems--that either create coastal impacts which adversely affect other uses
                 or that are adversely affected by other uses. Identifying and analyzing
                 coastal uses with impact-associated problems was a basis for coastal zone
                 management programs designed for Long Island2, Chesapeake Bay3, and Delaware
                 Bay4.
                 considering future uses as well as the full range of existing uses. If a
                 state fails to consider an existing or future coastal use as it develops its
                 management program, it may evolve an unrealistic set of policies and plans
                 for those uses it is considering. States should be aware of new technologies
                 that may be applied to the coastal zone--for example, aquaculture; floating
                 platforms for airports; or offshore terminals. States might review forecasts
                 of future coastal technologies 5,617 and analytic forecasting technology8p9.
                 States might conduct brief analyses to determine those uses that will most
                 frequently occur in the next decade or before 2000 (e.g., public recreation,
                 housing) as well as those less frequent uses that presumably will produce
                 substantial impacts (e.g., power plants)3.
                      If a state does not assess existing or potential future uses for impacts
                 while it is developing its management program, it may fail to develop policies
                 and criteria that will allow substantive reviews and adequate evaluations of
                 these and other potential future uses. The list of uses will change as new
                 technologies and public preferences evolve.
                 considering "siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are
                 other than local in nature". State policy or public sentiment in the state
                 (or region) may not favor the siting of major facilities thay may be of na-
                 tional interest--refineries, offshore oil platforms and terminals, nuclear
                 power plants, coastal airports, or hazardous waste disposal areas. But states
                 should consider all coastal uses that are of national interest so that future
                 decisions--pro or con--regarding siting of those uses can be based on well-
                 documented information regarding relative costs and benefits.
                 defining "use" specifically. The eight types and uses the regulations suggest
                 may be too general to allow states to assess impacts. It is the actions norm-
                 ally associated with a use that create the impact, not the use per se. For
                 example, it is the actions of dredging, ship traffic, and spoils disposal
                 that create changes in environmental conditions, not the use, "marine trans-
                 portation". This diagram illustrates the sequential relationship:

              26

                     Use                    Actions               Changes in environmental or socio-
                                                                  economic conditions (impact)
                     For example:
                                            (Dredging)            (Decrease shellfish production)
                                                                  (Alter estuary circulation)
                     (Boat harbors)
                                            (Spoil disposal)      (Release of toxic sediments)
                                                                  (Filling of wetlands)

                          The more specifically a state defines a use (e.g., marinas, water contact
                     sports, camping, instead of coastal recreation generally), the more precisely
                     it will be able to define a use's associated actions, and the more specific-
                     ally it will be able to identify potential impacts. However, identifying
                     uses specifically will increase the number of uses a state must consider.
                     States will have to decide between the added advantages of information on
                     impacts and the added analysis costs required from considering a longer list
                     of uses. Planners have developed several impact identification methods
                     (matrices, networks, checklists) that relate actions associated with a use to
                     potential impacts those actions may generate. States might review surveys of
                     different impact identification techniques to determine which method or methods
                     are most appropriate to their needslOoll,12.

                   2. Determining Criteria and Measures to Assess Impacts
                        "Criteria" here means a measurable condition of a component of the environ-
                   ment, the society, the economy--e.g., nitrous oxides, employment, per capita
                   income. With this meaning of criteria, "measure" means an indicator for scaling
                   a criterion. "Identified coastal environments" means the socioeconomic environ-
                   ment as well as natural and physical environments.*
                        Three different methods of determining criteria and measures of impacts are
                   available:
                     analyzing case studies and using professional judgment on affected coastal
                     environments and how these changes have affected other uses, or vice-versa,
                     or how one particular use has affected others through changes in environmental
                     and socioeconomic conditions2,3,13;
                     analyzing environmental and socioeconomic conditions and systems to determine
                     how they might be changed by various actions associated with coastal uses
                     (see discussion of Section 920.12 (c))14,15; and
                     surveying public values and preferences for coastal activities and their asso-
                     ciated impacts to select assessment criteria and measures which reflect such
                     values and to allow public review of preliminary or proposed criteria and
                     measures. For example, dissolved oxygen or other chemical measures are scien-
                     tifically sound criteria to use in assessing environmental impacts, but the
                     public's perception depends generally on visual criteria--d.g., jetsam, turbid-
                     ity, discoloration--and although the two criteria are not generally mutually
                     exclusive, at times they are l6rl7.
                        These three methods can reveal several different types of impact. Each
                     cateqorv of impact has one or more criteria by which a state can measure change.

                     Based on Section 920.12 that specifies "economic indices of impact must be
                     developed" and on Section 920.13 which requires consideration of those areas
                     suited for intensive use or development.

                                                                                                    27

                The following list of impact types and criteria is based in part on environ-
                mental and socioeconomic considerations mentioned in the regulations and in the
                Act (e.g., full consideration of ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic
                values). The list is meant to illustrate the scope and nature of criteria that
                states could consider; it is not necessarily definitive.

                                          Impact of environment on use
                Type of impact     Criteria                          Measure
                floods              magnitude                height above mean sea level
                                   .damage                   dollars
                                   .frequency                events per X number of years

                seismic events      magnitude               -extent of movement
                                    damage                   dollars
                                   .frequency                events per X number of years

                landslides         -magnitude               -tons and area of movement
                                   .damage                   dollars
                                   .frequency                events per X number of years

                coastal erosion     magnitude                tons and area loss
                                   .damage                   dollars
                                   .frequency                rate per year

                         Impact of uses on environmental    and socioeconomic conditions
                Type of impact    Criteria                    Measures
                hydrologic         ground water quality     -ppm of salts, volume
                                   and quantity
                                  .surface water quality     ppm of dissolved oxygen, flow rate
                                   and quantity

                atmospheric        air quality               ppm of bases or particulates
                                  .climate modification      temperature, precipitation

                geologic and       erosion                   erosion rate, volume
                 soils             soil quality              fertility index

                biotic             vegetation type           decrease or increase in acres
                                  .species                   population size, species diversity

                aesthetics         visual quality            ranking of scenic prominence
                                  .acoustic quality          decibels of noise
                                  .smell                     standard comparison index

                access and         highway access            traffic levels, trip generation
                 circulation      -public access             access ways per mile of shoreline

                use of public      water supply              water consumption
                 services          sewage service            gallons per day
                                  .recreation                user days

                historic           historic sites            visitor days
                                  .architectural             visitor days
                                    monuments

             28

                           Impact of uses on environmental and socioeconomic conditions

                  Type of impact           Criteria                     Measures

                  economic             regional income           dollars
                                       .employment               percent employment
                                       .tax base                 appraised value
                                       .net tax revenue or
                                        deficit                  dollars

                  social               socioeconomic mix,        percent of socioeconomic groups
                                        social structure
                                       .per capita income        dollars
                                       .employment               job diversity
                                        opportunities
                  energy               energy consumption        fuel burned

                      As states begin  to develop their own criteria and measures for assessing
                  impacts, they might study some of the publications which discuss environmental
                  and social indicators in relation to impact assessmentl8P19120,21.
                      Applying criteria and measures to evaluate impact: A basic problem in assess-
                  ing impacts is that the measures for the criteria are not in common units (e.g.,
                  the difference between ppm of sediment and visitor days). Because measures do
                  not have a common denominator, it is not possible to add them directly into an
                  aggregate figure that will represent a total impact. Even if the measure were
                  in common units, adding them into a total impact figure is difficult because
                  the measured criteria are not perceived as being of equal importance.(Is scenic
                  quality of the same importance as employment? Is wildlife less important than
                  air quality?)11,22,23,24.
                      One school of thought says that measures of criteria can be combined into one
                  aggregate figure of impact25,26. The regulations' suggestion that four indices
                  be developed for determining impact (beneficial, benign, tolerable, adverse)
                  would be relatively easy to achieve if an aggregate figure of total impact
                  could be derived. Levels of beneficial, benign, tolerable, and adverse impact
                  could be set on a numerical scale according to the degree of beneficial or ad-
                  verse impact. For example, an impact would be termed beneficial if the aggre-
                  gate figure exceeded +100 environmental quality units and it would be determined
                  adverse if the aggregate figure exceeded -100 environmental units.
                      A second school of thought maintains that criteria should be kept separate
                  and measures not combined (multiple accounts or factor profile approach). Ad-
                  verse, tolerable, benign, beneficial levels of impact would be set for each of
                  the criteria. Each criterion could be evaluated in terms of adverse, tolerable,
                  benign, or beneficial change. A set of multiple accounts would be considered
                  in the evaluation proceSS24,27,28.
                      The intent of the four indices--beneficial, benign, tolerable, adverse--ap-
                  pears to be a simple means of summarizing how changes in the environmental and
                  socioeconomic conditions induced by one coastal use will affect other coastal
                  uses. For example, a small boat harbor, through its associated actions of
                  dredging and boat traffic, may degrade the estuary as a wildlife habitat with
                  consequent losses of waterfowl and marine mammal populations. Losing the wild-
                  life habitat and certain resident species is
                        an adverse impact on the value of the estuary for education, scientific,
                        research, and wildlife watching areas;

                                                                                                29

                     a tolerable impact for industrial uses;
                     a benign impact for a residential development with a view of the harbor;
                     and
                     a beneficial impact for boat repairers, boat and equipment salesrooms.

                   The most evident and direct means of evaluating the adverse or beneficial
                nature of a measured change in criteria (e.g., a ppm sediment increase) is by
                comparing the potential impact with relevant state and/or federal standards
                where these exist. The adverse/beneficial nature of impact would be based on
                the degree of compliance or conflict with state and federal standards, e.g.,
                air quality, water quality, traffic flow, noise, marine mannals protection.
                However, no measurable standards exist for many of the potential impacts asso-
                ciated with coastal uses, among these, aesthetic degradation or a community's
                socioeconomic mix.
                   If states are to use existing standards to evaluate impacts, they should be
                aware of at least three potential problems;
                   � the reasonableness of the state or federal standard. Does scientific
                     evidence support the standard? Does the standard take into account geo-
                     graphic variations in the environment?29p3O.
                   � the'costs and benefits of achieving these standards29r3O. Do the benefits
                     derived by maintaining environmental impact criteria within limits of the
                     standard more than offset the costs of meeting these standards? For exam-
                     ple, a power plant may have to spend eight million dollars in water cool-
                     ing and diffusion equipment to meet a state or federal standard that re-
                     quires a discharge water temperature not to exceed 40 above ambient water
                     temperature. But if the discharge water standard were set at 101 above
                     ambient water temperature, the cost of required cooling and diffusion
                     equipment might be reduced to two million dollars. Do the environmental
                     and social benefits gained from a six-degree decrease in effluent tempera-
                     ture equal or outweigh the six million dollar cost of additional cooling
                     and diffusion equipment? The impact assessment process may indicate that
                     state or federal standards should be modified.
                   � the problem of somewhat*arbitrary standards (standard governmental dis-
                     claimer: "There is no magic in the level set."). If an impact just exceeds
                     the level set by the standard, it does not mean that the adverse effects
                     will be any greater than those produced by an impact that was just below
                     the level set by the standard. Here again, in trying to deal with this
                     problem, states may find that existing standards might best be modified.
                   Whatever combination of standards a state chooses for evaluating impacts, it
                should select a method which includes public participation in the evaluation
                process, drawing especially on those groups or individuals that will be directly
                affected by a potential coastal use (see Chapter V for a discussion of public
                involvement in such related topics as identifying problems, values, and needs,
                reviewing proposed policies of the management program, and in evaluating program
                alternatives).
                   Cumulative impact: States should be aware that they can consider impacts
                from at least two perspectives: individual and cumulative. Individual impacts
                are changes actions of one event produce. Cumulative impacts are changes two
                or more events (simultaneous or sequential) produce.
                   Impact assessment, as it is currently practiced, is largely an incremental
                exercise in the sense that the assessment is usually focused on analyzing the
                added increment of impact that a proposed project may generate--e.g., a housing
                development that would add 600 more vehicle trips to a coastal highway's traffic

             30

                  load. The cumulative impact on the coastal highway system's traffic capacity
                  by permitting past and future housing projects with similar generation is usu-
                  ally not considered, or if it is considered, it is analyzed inadequately.
                     Impact assessment, as it is currently practiced, is largely an incremental
                  exercise in the sense that the assessment is usually focused on analyzing the
                  added increment of impact that a proposed project may generate--e.g., a hous-
                  ing development that would add 600 more vehicle trips to a coastal highway's
                  traffic load. The cumulative impact on the coastal highway system's traffic
                  capacity by permitting past and future housing projects with similar generation
                  is usually not considered, or if it is considered, it is analyzed inadequately.
                     Because impact assessment is conducted as an incremental exercise, the ass-
                  essment will usually fail to comprehend the threshold where many apparently in-
                  significant environmental condition changes will reach a cumulative level that
                  will result in the irreversible degradation of a coastal system. More simply,
                  we do not know our capabilities until we have'exceeded them. For example, a
                  housing development of 25 units on ten acres may not cause a significant change
                  in the sediment load entering an estuary. However, if all property owners were
                  permitted to construct similar density housing on all lands in the watershed
                  areas with similar site characteristics (as might be the property owner's right
                  under the Constitution's equal protection principles), they might build 10,000
                  units. The sediment load resulting from the construction of 10,000 units could
                  far exceed the thresholds of estuary water quality and circulation necessary
                  to maintain oyster production, productive waterfowl habitats, navigation chan-
                  nels, and fish nursery areas.
                     To assess cumulative impact accurately, one must consider not only the ad-
                  verse effects, but also the various measures available to mitigate these effects.
                  To mitigate erosion and sediment impacts, for example, one could build settling
                  ponds or check dams, or recontour the area. The obvious problem lies in deter-
                  mining how much housing (with mitigating measures) can be allowed before the
                  sediment load exceeds the desired thresholds of estuary water quality and cir-
                  culation.
                     one particular type of cumulative impact state and local governments may
                  want to consider is the potential residential and commercial buildout under
                  existing zoning practices. If all privately-held lands on Cape Cod (Barnstable
                  County) were developed to highest density permissible under the existing zoning
                  practices, for example, what would be the total population on peak summer week-
                  ends? How would this population stress the present highway system? Would water
                  supply and sewage services be adequate to handle such a population?
                     One effective aid in assessing cumulative impact is an area-wide data bank.
                  The bank would include maps and other spatially-defined data that exist about a
                  coastal region. Ideally, maps and spatially-defined data would be computerized
                  on a grid or point reference system to enable storage and retrieval according
                  to geographic coordinates3l,32,33.
                     Data banks and computer mapping also have direct application for inventorying
                  coastal resources and determining geographic areas of particular concern (see
                  below, this section, Means of acquiring information, Section C, *Geographic Areas
                  of Particular Concern, and Chapter IV, Organization and Use of Information.
                     To predict cumulative impacts, states must understand the dynamics of both
                  natural and social systems. Understanding the components and interrelationships
                  of coastal systems appears to be the underlying objective of Section 920.12(c),
                  via continuing compilation, verification, and assessment of the general charac-
                  teristics, values and interrelationships within coastal land and water environ-
                  ments".

                                                                                                 31

                3. Categorizing Uses
                   How do the various coastal uses interact with each other? How and to what
                extent will a substantial change in one coastal use affect other coastal uses?
                States could base answers to these questions on information developed in several
                inventory and analysis programs; among these:
                    inventory of existing land and water uses;
                    analysis of general plans;
                    analysis of single-purpose plans;
                    suitability analyses;
                    coastal dependency plus inland alternatives; and
                    input/output analysis.
                   Inventory of existing land and water uses: Knowledge of existing coastal
                land and water uses is a logical first step in understanding the interaction
                among uses. Despite the importance of land use inventories in comprehensive
                planning programs (long supported by HUD 701 grants), few accurate and detailed
                land use maps have been prepared on a statewide basis.
                   The Washington Department of Natural Resources has compiled an atlas of maps
                on water and shoreland uses along the state's coast34. Land use mapping is one
                component of the University of Texas' (Bureau of Economic Geology) extensive
                coastal atlas program35. The California Ocean Area Plan (COAP) mapped land use
                for the entire coastline (one-half mile inland and three miles to sea)36. In
                several states, numerous counties and substate regions have prepared detailed
                land use maps of varying quality37. State agencies also prepare maps of land
                use relevant to their particular responsibilities, e.g., agriculture, recreation
                use, wildlife preserves37. If states build on the existing local and state
                agency maps, original land use mapping may only be necessary to fill the gaps
                in state-wide coverage. New inventory and mapping techniques using EROS, other
                satellite programs, and other remote sensing techniques may greatly facilitate
                preparing accurate land use maps. (Earth satellite and remote sensing have
                several other applications to coastal zone management: up-dating land use maps
                to show development trends, assessing cumulative impact; and determining the
                dynamics of coastal systems are some of these38,39,40.)
                   Analysis of comprehensive plans: many cities, counties, and substate regions,
                coastal and non-coastal, have prepared one or more comprehensive general plans
                in conjunction with HUD's 701 planning assistance program. States may use those
                plans to assess the types, densities, and locations of coastal uses that local
                governments are considering or will consider. The general plans may discuss
                the nature of existing conflicts among coastal uses as well as potential means
                by which to resolve these conflicts.
                   A number of regional and local governments have also prepared comprehensive
                plans for their coastal zones. The Tampa Bay plan4l; the coastal plan for the
                San Francisco Bay region42; and the Chicago Lakefront plan43 are three. And the
                Florida Coastal Coordinating Council has compiled an inventory of local, regional
                and state comprehensive plans or the elements of comprehensive plans that agencies
                within the state at various levels have prepared for the state's coastal zone
                between 1960 and 197244.
                   The quality of comprehensive plans varies greatly, ranging from vague, irrele-
                vant, and inadequate efforts to strong programs that states have implemented45.
                obviously, the stronger the local general plan, the more consideration the state
                should give it,- especially if there are apparent conflicts between the local
                general plan and the coastal zone management program the state envisions.
                   States might consider requiring inclusion of a coastal element when a local
                government's comprehensive planning group prepares or revises a general plan.

             32

                  A requirement like this would provide some representation of local and regional
                  interests in the coast.
                     Analysis of single-Eurpose plans: State agencies, public utilities, and
                  private industry periodically prepare plans to guide their future action.
                  Common examples are plans for highways, water supplies, sewage services, recre-
                  ation, ports, and power plants. California, for example, @as had at least five
                  coast-related single purpose plans: California Small Craft Harbors and Facili-
                  ties Plan46, Ocean Coastline Study (Parks and Recreation)47, California Fish
                  and Wildlife Plan48, California Protected Waterways Plan4@0, and Marine Resources
                  for California Higher Education5O.
                     States should examine single-purpose plans to determine the degree to which
                  the information, assumptions, and analytic techniques in these may be biased
                  toward the interest of the proponent agency. The keystone of a single-purpose
                  plan is the analysis of present and future demands. Demand analysis is usually
                  the part of the plan that is most often criticized for bias and insubstantial
                  findings. Demand is difficult to assess because of the complicated factors one
                  must consider; among these,
                       analysis of population dynamics--areas of population increase and decrease
                       based on migration flows;
                       changing public attitudes, preferences, priorities--e.g., lowering environ-
                       mental quality standards to ease the energy crisis;
                       technology forecasting--new processes that will alter existing demands or
                       add new coastal resource demands, minimize or prevent existing or expected
                       conflict between coastal resource demands;
                       changes or elimination of existing federal and state programs, addition of
                       new federal and state programs;
                       supply of the resource the use requires, the economics of supply and demand;
                       and
                       change in the nature, pattern, or intensity of other coastal uses.
                     States may wish to encourage agencies, utilities, and industri&1 organizations
                  (e.g., a consortium of oil companies) to prepare single-purpose plans for coastal
                  uses. Even without revealing proprietary information, single-purpose plans can
                  provide the coastal management agency with several types of pertinent informa-
                  tion--examples could be how and to what degree a use is affected by other uses;
                  a coastal use's potential change over time; and why the use is important to the
                  state. Comparing single-purpose plans should, at least in some cases, allow the
                  state to determine specifically the location and degree of conflict or compati-
                  bility among coastal uses.
                     Suitability analysis: Suitability or resources analysis is one form of loca-
                  tion theory planners commonly use to evaluate potential sites for commercial and
                  industrial developments. Suitability analysis is based on the geographic loca-
                  tion of environmental or socioeconomic attributes that attract or constrain
                  particular coastal uses. Examples of attributes are:
                     � direct access to deep draft channels or potential deep draft channels for
                       port facilities;
                     � adjacency to port facilities for tank farms, refineries, bulk processing;
                     � non-living extractable resources--oil, gas, sand and gravel, mineral de-
                       posits;
                     � coastal climate influence on crop production for coastal specialty crops;
                     � coastal lands with exceptional scenic qualities for recreation and residen-
                       tial development;
                     � coastal waters with high waste water assimilation capacity for thermal and
                       sewage outfalls;

                                                                                               33

                   . coastal airsheds of high pollution assimilation capacity for highways and
                    heavy industry; and
                   . buildable sites--favorable slope, soil, absence of geologic hazards--for
                    residential, industrial, and commercial structures.
                   Usually planners will do a suitability analysis as one component of either a
                general or single-purpose planning program. Ian McHarg's Design with Nature
                is perhaps the best known example of the suitability analysis approach, but
                there are several others5l,52,53. States may wish to conduct suitability analy-
                ses to determine where two or more uses will conflict because of areas, environ-
                mental or socioeconomic attributes. This conflict can occur in two ways:
                first, potential uses may seek the same location. For example, tourist/commer-
                cial and residential development, and public recreation all compete for coastal
                lands of exceptional scenic quality. Second, a coastal location may have two
                or more attributes. When this is so, uses competing for any of the attributes
                are all competing for the same location. Coastal lands of exceptional scenic
                qualities (and therefore attractive to residential development and recreational
                uses) may also be adjacent to deep water and a highway, and thus suitable for
                port-related industries.
                   one particular advantage of suitability analysis is that it will provide a
                geographical overview of the intensity of potential conflict. Analyses should
                identify areas where competition is intense ("hot spots") versus areas of low
                or no conflict. Given limitations of time and funding, states may consider con-
                centrating the research and information collection on the hot spot areas, rather
                than expending effort evenly throughout the coastal zone. Maps and conclusions
                developed by suitability analysis are particularly relevant to determining geo-
                graphic areas of particular concern.
                   Coaatal dependency and inland alternatives: Within recent years the concept
                of a use's dependency on coastal resources has emerged as a possible criterion
                for choosing among competing coastal uses. The concept appears to have been
                initiated in the criterion of the San Francisco Bay Plan that stated-users seek-
                ing to locate on or immediately adjacent to the Bay should demonstrate that they
                require a waterfront location for their activities54. COAP extended the Bay
                Plan's waterfront requirement concept to its own criterion that uses permitted
                within the coastal zone must be substantially dependent on the resources of the
                coast for their existence36. Michigan recently considered using dependency as
                a means of setting priorities among proposed uses55. The underlying rationale
                of dependency is that non-coastal dependent uses' denial or removal of coastal
                dependent uses will raise the price and lower the quality of coastal goods and
                services available to the public.
                   One direct means to measure dependency is the calculation of opportunity costs.
                Usually the opportunity costs will be a combination of the extra investment
                needed to create inland the particular coastal zone attributes used in an opera-
                tion and the extra operating costs associated with an inland operation, such as
                transportation and equipment operation. Essentially, the higher the opportunity
                cost of moving inland, the higher the coastal dependency. COAP set four levels
                of dependency based on the percentage difference between the costs of inland
                and coastal location. The California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal
                Resources outlined a number of problems associated with criteria of dependency
                COAP presented56.
                   If a state uses the dependency concept to force non-dependent uses inland,
                it should consider both the inland and coastal impacts. What would be the
                variety and mix of coastal land uses if only coastal dependent uses were allowed?
                The coastal zone might be a continuous strip of marinas, ports, and bathing

             34

                  beaches if the state were to apply dependency criteria rigidly. If uses are
                  displaced from the coa st, where will they locate and what may be the environ-
                  mental and socioeconomic costs associated with the inland location? A state
                  should determine whether environmental and/or socioeconomic impacts of the
                  coastal use displaced to an inland location will be greater or less than the
                  net impacts that would occur if the use were allowed to locate on the coast.
                     Input/output analysis: One of the more sophisticated methods of determin-
                  ing interaction (specifically, economic interdependence) among coastal uses is
                  input-output analysis (sometimes called "interindustry analysis"). Basically
                  the input/output analysis shows the inputs (materials, labor) to each industry
                  from other industries and sectors; and how the output (product) of each industry
                  is distributed among other industries and sectors of the economy. (William
                  Miernyk's The Element of Input-Output Analysis, provides a non-mathematical
                  explanation of input/output analysis5l.)
                     The matrix relationship among coastal uses is called a transactions table.
                  Planners can use the model of economic interdependence developed by input/output
                  analysis effectively to estimate how a change in one of the uses listed in the
                  transactions table will affect (in terms of inputs and outputs) other uses listed
                  in the transactions table. There are several examples of the application of
                  input/output analysis for determination of the economic interdependence (and to
                  some degree environmental interdependence) of uses within a coastal
                  region58,59,60,61,62.
                     There are two notable problems with input/output analysis. Construction of
                  the transaction table requires the collection of considerable amounts of recent
                  economic data. Operating the system, once it is set up, requires the continuous
                  up-dating of the economic data. States could consider simpler and less costly
                  techniques, among which are trend analysis and econometric models, to analyze
                  the economic interactions among coastal uses.
                     If a state overlays and compares the information derived from two or more
                  of the six inventory and analysis programs mentioned above, it will see the
                  nature, location, scope, and conflicts of current and anticipated coastal uses.
                  For instance, if planners overlay a map of land uses as portrayed by single-
                  purpose plans with a map based on suitability analysis, they can compare loca-
                  tions of proposed use to locations where uses are inherently suitable. They
                  can identify areas where uses propose to locate on sites that are not inherently
                  suitable for the particular use. In cases of such mismatch, they could use analy-
                  sis of coastal dependency and maps of alternative inland locations to determine
                  the likelihood of locating a use inland and the comparative costs (impacts) be-
                  tween inland and coastal locations.

                  4. Continuing CM2ilation, Verification, and Assessment of Information
                     Knowledge of the general characteristics, values, and interrelationships
                  within coastal land and water environments is an obvious prerequisite for pre-
                  dicting the potential impacts that the actions of a given coastal use may gener-
                  ate. Determining the criteria and measures for impact (920.12(a)) depends on
                  understanding the interactions among actions associated with coastal uses and
                  environmental conditions and systems. (Environment is defined in its broadest
                  meaning to include natural, cultural and socioeconomic conditions.)
                     Coastal systems: Obviously, several problems coastal management must confront
                  derive from past failure to consider the coastal zone as a set of environmental,
                  public, and social systems63. Coastal systems and associated problems that
                  states could consider include:

                                                                                               35

                � Estuary watershed
                     ground water or stream pollution, estuary water quality, and effects on
                     biota;
                     ground or stream water flows, estuary and wetlands salinity, and effects
                     on biota;
                     stream sediment loads, estuary sedimentation, and effects on biota; and
                     stream sediment loads and deposition of beach materials on estuary or open
                     coast shore.
                � Estuary circulation system
                     direct discharge of wastewater into estuary from all sources, estuary water
                     quality, and effects on biota.
                � ocean basins
                     direct discharge of wastewater, oil, solid waste from all sources, quality
                     of ocean waters and sediments, and effects on biota; and
                     estuary pollution, quality of ocean waters and sediments, and effects on
                     biota.
                � Littoral circulation cells
                     control of coastal erosion and erosion-accretion dynamics within littoral
                     circulation cells.
                � Air basins
                     atmospheric emissions from all sources, ambient air quality, effects on
                     biota, and human health.
                � Populations of sport and commercial species
                     degradation of coastal streams and size of anadromous fish populations;
                     degradation of estuarine habitats and size of waterfowl, wildlife, and
                     fish populations;
                     harvesting of commercial or sport species and maintenance of a sustained
                     yield population; and
                     food web.
                .Public services
                     land use within sewage services district and capacity of sewage system;
                     land use within water services district and capacity of water supply
                     system; and
                     land use within highway service area and highway congestion.
                  This is only a partial listing. Thorough analysis of environmental systems
                has been prepared in John Clark's Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations
                for Management of the Coastal Zone64 and by Howard Odum and others in Coastal
                Ecological Systems of the United @@tateS65.   -
                   If states follow Section 920.12 carefully, they will collect information and
                develop models to understand the dynamics of coastal systems like those listed
                above and predict how systems will respond to the actions of coastal uses as a
                first step in planning for management.
                  Values of the coastal land and water environments: Subsection 920.12(c)
                specifies states should assess the values of the coastal land and water environ-
                ments. The Congressional findings of the Coastal Zone Management Act (Section
                302) include the declarations that
                     (b) The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial,
                         recreational, industrial, and esthetic resources of immediate
                         and potential value to the present and future well being of
                         the Nation;
                     (e) Important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values
                         in the coastal zone which are essential to the well being of
                         all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost;

             36

                       (f) Special natural and scenic characteristics are being damaged
                           by ill-planned development that threatens these values.
                     Political and legal support for determining permissible uses and designating
                  priority uses depends on demonstrating the social values that the coastal zone
                  management program is protecting or enhancing. The procedure by which states
                  determine the values of coastal land and water environments should answer the
                  question, "What is coastal zone management achieving?" (See also the discus-
                  sion of standards, Section II-A, Boundaries.)
                     States will have to weigh the economic and social costs of regulating coast-
                  al land and water uses against the overall values they will derive from implem-
                  enting the proposed coastal zone management programs. For example, states
                  should base their determinations that oil refineries are a nonpermissible use
                  of wetlands environment--at least in part--on the finding that protecting wet-
                  lands is necessary to maintain or to increase specific economic and social
                  values; among these, commercial fishing, sport fishing, waterfowl hunting, re-
                  search and education activities, and coastal tourism.
                     Identifying the values of coastal land and water environments usually does
                  not present a problem. In most cases identification is simply a matter of re-
                  lating the particular land or water environment to the uses which benefit from
                  its resources. Coastal lands with a view of the ocean are valuable for tourism,
                  recreational activities, and second home or other residential development.
                  Similarly, estuaries with rare species or rich in species diversity are valu-
                  able for educational and research uses.
                     The two significant problems in determining value are measuring and estimat-
                  ing how values will change with changes in land or water environments. For
                  this, monetary value is the most common and best understood measure.
                     The estimated annual monetary value of estuaries for the current level of
                  shellfish and sport fishing on the Georgia coast was 33.7 million dollars (or,
                  estuaries/acre/year value was $108.00)82,83. If the $108/acre figure is inter-
                  preted to be the annual "rent", the property value of the Georgia wetlands
                  would be approximately $1,250/acre (assuming rent represents an 8% return on
                  investment). Two other examples of measuring the monetary value of environments
                  are provided by studies on estuary water qu.ality84 and migratory waterfowl85.
                  Many qualities of coastal land and water environments do not lend themselves to
                  monetary evaluation. In these cases, states may use non-monetary measures
                  (e.g., intensity of use, number of people who benefit, scarcity/uniqueness,
                  willingness to travel, diversity indices, and direct public expression).
                     once the value of the coastal environments are measured, the problem is then
                  to estimate how the situations those measurements represent may change if the
                  coastal environment is altered by future development proposals. If a commercial
                  fishery is worth x million dollars per year, will the construction of a petro-
                  chemical complex on one estuary substantially reduce the dollar value of that
                  fishery? And even if it is determined that the dollar value of the fishery
                  will not be substantially reduced, will the non-monetary considerations (e.g.,
                  aesthetic impacts or change in community life-style) outweigh the potential
                  benefits of industrial development?
                     Ideally, states should develop the capability to estimate the relative social
                  values and costs that will accrue from managing coastal environments at differ-
                  ent levels of system maintenance. For example, states could determine one level
                  of values and costs for maintaining an estuary in near-pristine condition, as
                  well as other levels of costs and benefits that would be associated with differ-
                  ent types and intensities of development and corresponding levels of estuarine
                  degradation. Information on the costs and benefits of maintaining the estuary

                                                                                                  37

                 at different levels of quality would be the basis for determining the most de-
                 sirable mix of development and conservation uses.
                   Means of acquiring information: Inventorying, monitoring, and developing
                 models are three general means by which a state may acquire information on the
                 general characteristics, values, and interrelationships within and among the
                 coastal land and water environments. Each of these three methods develops in-
                 formation relevant to the determination of geographic areas of particular con-
                 cern. (See Section II-C, Geographic Areas of Particular Concern).
                  Inventorying and mapping: Several states, interstate regions, and substate
                  regions, and substate regions have already begun inventory programs to collect
                  information on environmental and socioeconomic conditions applicable to impact
                  assessment. The Smithsonian Institution has recently surveyed state-wide and
                  region-wide environmental inventorying programs. They issued a first draft
                  report in November 1973: "Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Inventory
                  and Evaluation in a Statewide Program"66.
                     The various coastal inventorying and mapping programs can be divided into
                  three types, depending on the nature of the information they depict:
                     single factor maps (area-wide or point : maps depicting one environmental
                     or socioeconomic condition, such as soil types, land use, vegetation commun-
                     ities, wildlife habitats, wetlands. Often the entire collection of maps is
                     assembled into an atlas. The Washington Marine Atlas33, the Anchorage
                     Atlas67, Oregon's Wetland Stu V . the Penobscot Bay Studyb2, Florida's      69
                     Coastal Zone Management Atlasbn, 'the Delaware River Estuarine Marsh Survey
                     and the Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zonej-1) are some
                     examples. Figure 1 provides a graphic example of the single factor map.
                     designation of units: two or more environmental or socioeconomic conditions,
                     such as soils, slope, vegetation, are combined to define units (e.g., highly
                     forested upland areas). Units have usually been defined to describe geo-
                     graphic areas of similar environmental or resource capability or suitability.
                     The land and water resource capability units the Texas coastal atlas program
                     developed are a good example34. Figure 2 is an illustration of the Texas
                     resource capability unit designation.
                     system delineation: one or more environmental or socioeconomic conditions
                     are used to define a system. System delineation can be very similar to
                     single factor maps or unit definitions. The difference is that system de-
                     lineation is based on dynamic interaction among environmental and/or socio-
                     economic components (watersheds and estuary-wetlands complexes are commonly
                     defined as systems). Several studies have inventoried and mapped coastal
                     systems; three of these show, respectively, ecological systems in the U. S.
                     coastal systems in Maine, and wetland systems in Louisiana65,7Or4l. In
                     Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management of the Coastal
                     Zone, the author shows the use of system delineations in combination with
                     unit'designations and single factor maps64.
                    one obvious value inventories and maps have is to help determine the total
                 supply and distribution of coastal resources. How many acres of coastal wet-
                 lands or of publicly accessible swimming beaches does a state possess? Inven-
                 tory and mapping programs should help answer questions about the uniqueness or
                 scarcity of coastal resources. The quantification of scarcity and uniqueness
                 is a commonly used criterion for determining geographic areas of particular
                 concern66. Scarcity and uniqueness are also values by which states may set
                 priorities among uses for specific geographic areas (See Section II-D, Priority
                 of Uses.
                    Developing a computer mapping capability (see discussion of Cumulative impact,

                  38

                                                                                                                     I /V wwm

                                                              Q                                                           COASTAL WETLANDS
                                                                                                                                     STUDY
                                                                                                                                  Occaoc

                                                                         19                                       20

                                                          SA#P   LAK-Ef

                                                            CAAFP
                                                                                                              -21
                                                                                                                                          -N-

                                                                                   w

                                      7t
                                     To

                                                                        r, 4,@
                                                                                                                          ARS
                                                                                                                             10N.
                                                                                                               a E

                                                                                                               LOW SAND M PSItREGON
                                                                     2
                                                                                                               LOW SOLT M SH

                                                                                                               swoorm MAR
                                                                                                               immATuiqE mirm MARSH
                                                                                                                               LEGEND
                                                                                                               MATURE HIGH MARSH
                                                                                                               SECTION CORNERS LOCATED FROM CONTROL "4ps
                                                                                                          IN-SULRUSH &SEDGE
                                                                                                               ififfffftTifflM GRAVEL MARSH

                                                                                                                                             OF MEAN LOW
                                                                                                               WA7ER AND AMAN HIGH WATER.

                                                                                            scAiF IN FEEr

                                                                                                                                   TIDELAW MAP
                                                                                          /ow     AVW    -low     *mv   mw
                                                                                                                                           OF       68
                                                                                                                                     SAND L4Kf'
                                                                        77PE1,AAV AV CVAFNLrV ON A KIEL AA01," ft"IffErRX
                                                r&-*,, Da mA,,          PW"ZW "M "Y /.g,-41 AIWW rOMPAPI/S.   "no
                                                                        PNOM  fp"rificAms AMW@r /072
                                                                                                                                   SWE OF OREWON
                                                                        CV#MOL AWAF OWSON STArE MOARD OF fVfttSMr AND           DIVISION OF STA7F "NOS
                                                                        OPEOM PrAWMENF Of REMOMW F0WJr COW# AMM aw-19".
                                                                                                                                        AMY 1972
                                                                        VAMM  STArf PLAN& COORPINAY", Af*J?7N ZO#E

                                                                        #CCrA#SVl-W

                                                                                         FIGURE 1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      39

                                                                                                                                                                                  V-C                                                                           V.,
                                                                                                               1V-C                                                                                                         lV_C

                                                                                                                                                    1:0

                                   /V_C
                                                                                                                                                    lV_C

                                                                                                                           1 V-4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -A

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             -C

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   V-C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    /-4
                                                                                                                                                                                         _5
                                                                                       --C                                               -V.-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -C                                    v
                                                                                                                                                    iv-c

                                                                                       V-A
                                                                                                                                                                                              V.
                                                                                                                         lV_C

                                                                                                    v
                                                                                       v
                                                                                       OP

                                                                                                                                                                    C

                                                                                                                                                 v1_

                                                                                                                           lV_C                 I-                                                                         V,
                                                                                                                                         Vj_
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   1-H
                                                                                                                        -C        V/-A

                                                                                                                    COASTAL WATER BODY AND LAND CLASSIFICATION

                                   1. Bays. lagoons, and estuaries                                              Ill. Coastal -,tend,                                                             V. Made land and spoil

                                             A. Riseu-influenced bay                                                 Salt marsh. fresh-ter marsh, mamps                                         VI. Coastal   strandplain
                                             B'Enclosed bay
                                             C. Reef and reell-nelated areas (absent)                           IV.  Coastal plains                                                                      A.   Beach and sho,efate
                                             D. G,-tla. (absent)                                                                                                                                         B.   Vegetated strandplain and charier flat
                                             E. Mobile Zy margin sands (absent)                                            A. Highly pe-cable sands                                                      C,   Wsfi,ver areat
                                             F. Tidally influenced open toy                                                B. Moderately permeable send,                                                 D.   Acti,, dunes (absent)
                                             G-S.b-- lostil                                                                C. I mpe-abl, muds                                                            E.   Tidal flats (absent)
                                             H. Tidal inlet and tidal delta                                                D. Broad, shallo, depressions (not illustrated)                               F,   S..Ics
                                               Wmd-lidal flats (absent)                                                    E. Highly forested upland areas
                                                                                                                           F@ Steep land,
                                   It. Major i- system                                                                     G. St.bil     iwd;egetated@ dunes and ..d flats (absent)
                                                                                                                           N. Un-bi ized W-getated) dunes (absent)
                                                                                                                                         Ii
                                             A. Point bar sands                                                            V  Fresh water sakes. ponds, sloughs, playas
                                             5 Oserthank muds and silts (not illustrated)                                  J. Mainland beaches (absent)
                                             C. Water (including related take, and sloug1m)                                K. Area, of cti,e f-Iting and subsidence (not illustrated)
                                                                                                                           L. He.el-d-c-cling usarns
                                                                    Schematic map of land and water resource capability units, Beaumont-Port Arthur area.                                                                                                     35

                                                                                                                                                     FIGURE 2

             40

                  above) can greatly assist the state in quantifying uniqueness and scarcity as
                  well as depicting geographic distribution of coastal resources72. Maps that
                  have been computerized can be overlaid to produce a uniqueness/scarcity measure
                  for a combination of environmental and social factors. For example, a computer
                  map could indicate the location of and acreage of areas that had a combination
                  of the following characteristics: view of the ocean, indigenous vegetation,
                  located within one hour drive of a central city, and in private ownership--if,
                  of course, each of these factors is mapped and entered into the computer.
                  Uniqueness/scarcity and geographic distribution can be determined without a
                  computer by simply overlaying transparent single factor maps. The manual     over-
                  lay technique may be a more cost-effective means of determining uniqueness/
                  scarcity and distribution than computer mapping would be. The comparative cost-
                  effectiveness of the two techniques will depend on the quantity and quality of
                  single factor maps, the application of the inventory information to other parts
                  of the management program, and particular issues that a state is trying to re-
                  solve in its coastal zone management program.
                    Inventory and mapping programs can also begin to describe the dynamics of
                  environmental and social impact. For example, the Texas Environmental Geologic
                  Atlas Program mapped environmental geology; physical properties; environments
                  and biologic assemblages; current land use; mineral and energy resources; active
                  natural processes, man-made features and water systems; rainfall discharge and
                  surface salinity; and topography and bathymetry35. These nine maps, and especi-
                  ally the environmental geology map, served as the bases for the land and water
                  resource capability units. The Atlas describes coastal activities of various
                  coastal uses in terms of compatibility with the environmental characteristics
                  that make up the land and water capability units (Figure 2).
                    Before embarking on costly inventory and mapping efforts, states should con-
                  sider some of the drawbacks of this technique. The Smithsonian researchers and
                  others have noted that one of the basic problems of inventorying and mapping
                  programs is that much of the information these programs develop turns out to
                  be marginally relevant to the resolution of issues confronting the management
                  program56166. (We discuss this further, as part of developing issue-oriented
                  information programs, in Chapter IV, Organization and use of information.)
                  States that embark on inventorying and mapping programs should be aware of five
                  other reasons these programs may not be useful: researchers collect the wrong
                  type of information; they do not collect certain "key" types of information;
                  they use too gross a scale; they base the inventory on marginally accurate of
                  inaccurate data; and they choose too small a geographic area to be useful32.
                   Monitoring: Monitoring programs involve the collection of time series data.
                   Most coastal states have several extensive programs monitoring environmental
                   and socioeconomic phenomena. Common subjects for monitoring programs are
                   water quality, air quality, stream flow, sediment transport, fish and wildlife
                   census, traffic counts, recreation user days. Often the time series data being
                   collected has little or no application to coastal zone management (or any
                   other form of resources management). Often the reason for collecting time
                   series data is that the particular phenomenon happens to be measurable over
                   time, not that there is a demonstrated need for this information. The dual
                   intent of monitoring programs for coastal zone management should be develop-
                   ing descriptive models that simulate the interrelationships within and among
                   coastal land and water environments (coastal systems); and predictive models
                   to estimate the probability, duration, degree, and spatial dimension of a use's
                   impact.
                      A state may improve substantially its capability to predict impact by moni-

                                                                                                41

                 toring environmental and socioeconomic phenomena. Common subjects for moni-
                 toring programs are water quality, air quality, stream flow, sediment trans-
                 port, fish and wildlife census, traffic counts, recreation user days. often
                 the time series data being collected has little or no application to coastal
                 zone management (or any other form of resources management). Often the rea-
                 son for collecting time series data is that the particular phenomenon happens
                 to be measurable over time, not that there is a demonstrated need for this in-
                 formation. The dual intent of monitoring programs for coastal zone management
                 should be developing descriptive models that simulate the interrelationships
                 within and among coastal land and water environments (coastal systems); and
                 predictive models to estimate the probability, duration, degree, and spatial
                 dimension of a use's impact.
                    A state may improve substantially its capability to predict impact by moni-
                 toring the environmental and socioeconomic condition before, during, and after
                 construction of coastal projects. The data it derives from monitoring these
                 projects can help the state develop improved predictive models.
                 Modelling: Researchers have constructed numerous models that use environmental
                 and socioeconomic data to estimate the probability, duration, degree, and
                 spatial dimension of uses' impacts, and to describe coastal systems' dynamics.
                 Others have conducted surveys of models applicable to a number of coastal en-
                 vironmental and socioeconomic conditions or systems--for example, estuary hy-
                 drodynamics73,74; watershed dynamics 75,76; noise77; public service systems
                 (highway, water, sewage)78; and visual impact79.
                    States can use models to examine the relationships within and among coastal
                 systems and to assess the impacts of use activities on coastal resources.
                 They can also use models to help determine the important data requirements in
                 coastal resource monitoring programs. Developing models is an iterative proc-
                 ess which initially assumes a structure for the coastal processes of interest
                 and which will therefore require the data relevant for parameter estimation
                 and model verification. As the model structure becomes more refined and veri-
                 fied, the data needs will become more specific in terms of key variables
                 states wish to measure.
                    For this reason, states should design monitoring programs concurrently as
                 they develop models to reduce acquiring large amounts of potentially unimport-
                 ant data. However, a well-designed monitoring program which precedes states
                 constructing models is useful--even essential--when enough resource system
                 data on which to build a model is not available.
                    In terms of impact criteria development, models which other researchers
                 have verified scientifically and experts have judged reasonable representa-
                 tions of a process can provide insights to the key variables that are some of
                 the criteria for assessing impacts.
                    Even though several researchers have developed a variety of models, plan-
                 ners are not using them extensively for impact assessment. Among the reasons
                 for this are lack of data and information necessary to operate the model; time
                 and monetary costs to put data into the model; and the absence of models that
                 can predict accurately the potential impacts that are of specific concern to
                 those trying to assess the impacts. In lieu of models, many planners use or
                 seek professional judgment.
                    Low cost and short time period are the two major advantages to using or
                 seeking professional judgment. But obviously the scope and the accuracy of
                 predictions from professional judgments is directly dependent on the capabili-
                 ties of the individuals involved. Experience with analogous situations and
                 familiarity with pertinent information are major determinants of the quality

             42

                     of the judgments. Because of the subjectivity inherent in predictions based
                     on professional judgmentl any such predictions are extremely susceptible to
                     criticism and to repudiation from opposing opinions.

                  5. Determining Permissible Uses
                     In determining permissible uses as one of the first steps in developing its
                  planning program, a state has at least two possibilities:
                     First, it may categorically exclude certain uses from the state*s entire
                  coastal zone, basing this exclusion on potential impacts the use would generate
                  or on the existence of suitable inland alternative locations. (A state might
                  define these uses as non-permissible.) A state could determine categorical ex-
                  clusion several ways; among these,
                     a use's potential impacts cannot comply with federal or state-wide performance
                     standards, in particular, with air or water quality standards. New oil re-
                     fineries unable to meet a state's existing, uniform coastal zone air quality
                     standards could be one example.
                     a use's potential impacts cannot comply with federal or state geographically-
                     defined standards or policies in all areas where the type of use seeks to lo-
                     cate. An example would be a state wetlands law that protects all potential
                     sites for small boat harbor development from dredging and filling activities
                     necessary for constructing these harbors, and
                     a use could be located inland because it is not dependent on a coastal loca-
                     tion, and inland locations exist that would provide higher net social benefits
                     than if the use were located on the coast. The COAP recommendation that resi-
                     dential development be considered a non-dependent coastal use and be required
                     to seek alternative inland locations is an illustration36.
                     Second, a state could categorically exclude certain types of coastal uses
                  from types of coastal environments or specific geographic areas that occur with-
                  in a state's coastal zone. Different types of coastal environments reoccur
                  within the coastal zone--wetlands, dunes, bluffs, flood plains, for example.
                  Specific geographic areas would be areas like San Francisco Bay, Florida Ever-
                  glades, and Suffolk County, New York.
                     A state could base exclusion on the potential impacts a use could generate
                  or on its degree of dependency on the type of coastal environment ("environment"
                  in this context is broadly defined to include natural, physical, and socioeco-
                  nomic situations) or specific geographic areas the use seeks.
                     For a state categorically to exclude a use under this second possibility
                  would involve determining that
                     the expected net adverse impact on an identified type of coastal environment
                     or specific geographic area would exceed desired levels. Examples would be
                     excluding residential and tourist commercial development from wetlands; and
                     prohibiting residential development on fill in San Francisco Bay.
                     a use's potential impact cannot fully comply with federal or state standards
                     for a type of coastal environment or a specific geographic area. Wetlands
                     control laws in New Jersey and Massachusetts, and beach laws of Oregon are
                     examples. Exclusion of oil terminal facilities from Penobscot Bay would be
                     another;
                     a use is not dependent on an identified type of coastal environment or specif-
                     ic geographic area--or conversely, the inherent suitability of the coastal
                     environment type or geographic area would conflict with specific types of
                     coastal use. Residential development does not depend on wetland locations
                     and wetlands do not have an inherent environmental suitability for residential
                     development. For example, proposed development on or adjoining San Francisco

                                                                                                43

                 Bay would have to demonstrate that its planned activities are waterfront-
                 related54.
                  A state seeking to determine categorical exclusions in this second category
               should consider as well "designation of priority uses within specific geographic
               areas throughout the coastal zone". (See Section II-D, Priority of Uses)
                  The several means of determining permissible uses are not mutually exclusive.
               A state will probably select a combination of measures to determine permissible
               uses. It may categorically exclude a few uses from its coastal zone and declare
               other uses "non-permissible" for certain types of coastal environments and/or
               specific geographic areas.
                  Given the size and diversity of most states' coastal zones, it is unlikely
               that many uses will be categorically excluded from the entire coastal zone on
               the basis either of potential adverse impacts or dependency on coastal location.
               If a state excludes "facilities (uses) necessary to meet requirements which are
               other than local in nature" from its entire coastal zone--the first kind of
               categorical exclusion we discuss above, the regulations indicate tl@at the state
               should demonstrate "adequate consideration of national interest" preceding the
               exclusion decision (see Section II-DPriority of Uses, for discussion of the
               national interest).

                                                   CITATIONS
               1. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                  "Estuarine Sanctuary Grants: Application and Selection Criteria Procedures,"
                  Federal Register, 39(46), 7 March 1974.
               2. Center for the Environment and Man, Inc., A Proposed Problem-oriented Marine
                  Research Program for Long Island, prepared for the Regional Marine Resources
                  Council, A Committee of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, February
                  1972.

               3. Robert H. Ellis, Philip Cheney and David Zoellner, A Method for Applying Re-
                  search to Environmental Planning and Management: A Case Study of Issues
                  Important to the Chesapeake Bay Region, prepared for the National Science
                  Foundation, RANN Program, May 1973.

               4. William McGuinness, Priority Management Areas and Problems in the Delaware
                  Estuary, prepared for the Delaware Estuary System Environmental Impacts and
                  Socio-Economic Effects project, sponsored by National Science Foundation,
                  RANN Program, May 1973.
               5. Miller B. Spangler, Long-Range Forecasts of Activities in the Marine Environ-
                  ment, National Planning Association, September 1971.
               6. Miller B. Spangler, New Technology and Marine Resource Development, A Study
                  in Government/Business Cooperation, Praeger, 1970.
               7. Marine Technology Society, Los Angeles Region Section, Coastal Zone Management
                  and the Western States Future, to be published by the Marine Technology Soci-
                  ety, Los Angeles Region Section, Summer 1974.
               8. Erich Jantsch, Technological Forecasting in Perspective, Organisation for
                  Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1967.
               9. Robert Ayres, Technological Forecasting and Long-Range Planning, McGraw-Hill,
                  1969.

             44

                 10. B. Schlesinger and D. Daetz, "A Conceptual Framework for Applying Environ-
                     mental Assessment Matrix Techniques", Journal of Environmental Sciences,
                     XVI(4), July/August 1973.

                 11. Jens Sorensen and Mitchell Moss, Procedures and Programs to Assist in the
                     Environmental Impact Statement Process, National Technical Information
                     Service, Publication COM-73-11033, April 1973.

                 12. Leonard Ortolano, Editor, Analyzing the Environmental Impacts of Water Proj-
                     ects, U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, Report 73-3, March
                     1973.

                 13. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Recommendations for Development Activi-
                     ties in Florida's Coastal Zone, April 1973.

                 14. University of Texas Division of Natural Resources and the Environment, Bay
                     and Estuarine System Management in the Texas Coastal* Zone, prepared for the
                     Office of the Governor, Division of Planning Coordination and Others, March
                     1973.

                 15. South Carolina wildlife and marine Resources Department, Guidelines for Evalu-
                     ating Coas 1 Wetland Developments, Charleston, January 1974.
                 16. David Fischer, Southern Rhode Island Coastal Zone Attitudes, University of
                    IRhode Island Sea Grant, Occasional Paper, 71-002, 1971.

                 17. Robert Ditton and Thomas Goodale, Marine Recreational Uses of Green Bay: A
                     Study of Human Behavior and Attitude Patterns, University of Wisconsin, Sea
                     Grant Program, Technical Report 17, December 1972.

                 18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, En-
                     vironmental Studies Division, Quality of Life Concept: A Potential New
                     Tool for Decision-Makers, Government Printing office, March 1973.

                 19. William Thomas, Editor, Indicators of Environmental Quality, Plenum Publishers,
                     1972.

                 20. Smithsonian Institution Ecology Program, Development of a Continuing Program
                     to Provide Indicators and Indices of Wildlife and the Natural Environment,
                     Prepared for U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, National Technical In-
                     formation Service, PB-210 734,.1972.

                 21. The Mitre Corporation, National Environmental Indices: Air Quality and out-
                     door Recreation, Prepared for U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, National
                     Technical Information Service, PB-210 668, 1972.

                 22. Richard Andrews, "A Philosophy of Environmental Impact Assessment", Journal
                     of Soil and Water Conservation, September/October 1973.
                 23. William Lord and Maurice Warner, "Aggregates and Externalities: Information
                     Needs for Public Natural Resource Decision-Making", Natural Resources Journal,
                     13(l):106--117, January 1973.
                 24. Bruce Bishop, "An Approach to Evaluating Environmental, Social, and Economic
                     Factors in Water Resources Planning", Water Resources Bulletin, 8(4):724--734,
                     August 1972.
                 25. Eugene P. Odum et al., "Totality Indices for Evaluating Environmental Impact:
                     A Test Case: Relative Impact of Highway Alternatives", Institute of Ecology,
                     University of Georgia, March 1973.

                                                                                               45

              26. Norbert Dee et al., "An Environmental Evaluation System for Water Resource
                  Planning", Water Resources Research, 9(3):513--535, June 1973.

              27. U.S. Water Resources Council, "Water and Related Sand Resources: Establish-
                  ment of Principles and Standards for Planning", Federal Register, 38(174),
                  September 10, 1973.

              28. Richard Andrews, "Comments on Environmental Evaluation Systems for Water Re-
                  sources Planning", by Norbert Dee et al., Water Resources Research, April
                  1974.

              29. U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Oceans and the Atmosphere, Hearings on Ocean
                  Pollution, June 12, 13 and 28, 1973 (see particularly testimony by Erman
                  Pearson), Document 93-146, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
              30. Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, Proceedings of the Conference of
                  Government Representatives on Discharges to the Pacific Ocean from Municipal
                  Wastewater Treatment Plants, July 12 and 13, 1973, San Francisco, Published
                  by the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, Seattle, 1973.

              31. Enviromedia, Inc., and Steinitz-Rogers Associates, Inc., Natural Resource
                  Protection Study, Prepared for the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities
                  Area, St. Paul, November 1970.

              32. R. F. Tomlinson, Editor, Geographical Data Handling: Symposium Edition,
                  Volume I, International Geographical Union Commission on Geographical Data
                  Sensing and Processing, UNESCO/IGU, Second Symposium on Geographical Informa-
                  tion Systems, Ottawa, August 1972.
              33. James Pepper, An Approach to Environmental Impact Evaluation of Land Use Plans
                  and Policies: The Tahoe Basin Planning Information System, Department of
                  Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley, 1972.

              34. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Surveys and
                  Marine Land Management, Washington Marine Atlas, Volume I, Olympia, 1972.

              35. W. L. Fischer et al., Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zone--
                  Beaumont-Port Arthur Area, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas
                  at Austin, 1973.
              36. California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, Comprehensive Ocean
                  Area Plan, Sacramento, May 1972.

              37. Marion Clawson and Charles Stewart, Land Use Information: A Critical Survey
                  of U. S. Statistics, Including Possibilities for Greater Uniformity, Resources
                  for the Future, Baltimore, 1965.

              38. Earth Satellite Corporation, Land Use Indicators of Environmental Quality:
                  An Examination of Existing Federal Data and Future Needs, Prepared for U.S.
                  Council on Environmental Quality, National Technical Information Service,
                  PB-211 399, 1972.

              39. H. G. Goodell et al., Environmental Application of Remote Sensing Methods to
                  Coastal Zone Land Use and Marine Resource Management, University of Virginia,
                  Department of Environmental Sciences, 1972.
              40. American Society of Photogrammetry, Potomic Region, Proceedings of a Symposium
                  on Coastal Mapping, American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Vir-
                  ginia , 1972.

              46

                 41. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Shoreline Resource Development, St.
                     Petersburg, April 1972.
                 42. Association of Bay Area Governments, Regional Ocean Coastline Plan Summary,
                     September 1973.
                 43. Chicago Park District, The Lakefront Plan of Chicago: A Summary Report, July
                     1973.

                 44. Milo Smith and Associates, Inc., Planning Inventory, Volume I: Counties and
                     Cities, December 1972; Planning Inventory, Volume II: Counties and Cities,
                     December 1972; Planning Inventory, Volume IIIv Statewide and Regions, De-
                     cember 1972.

                 45. Alan Altschuler, The City Planning Process: A Political Analysis, Cornell
                     University Press, Ithaca, 1965.

                 46. Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., California Small Craft Harbors and Facilities
                     Plan, Prepared for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Divi-
                     sion of Small Craft Harbors, March 1964.

                 47. California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Coastline Preserva-
                     tion and Recreation Plan, Sacramento, August 1971.
                 48. California Department of Fish and Game, California Fish and Wildlife Plan,
                     I and II., Sacramento, 1966.

                 49. California Resources Agency, California Protected Waterways Plan: Initial
                     Elements, Sacramento, 1971.

                 50. Martin Brittan, Marine Resources for California Higher Education: Phase 2,
                     Prepared for California Coordinating Council for Higher Education, 1972.
                 51. G. Angus Hills, Developing a Better Environment: Ecological Land-Use Plan-
                     ning in Ontario--A Study of Methodology in theDevelopment of Regional Plans,
                     Ontario Economic Council, Toronto, 1970.
                 52. Maine State Planning Office, Coastal Planning Group, The Penobscot Bay Res-
                     ource Plan, Augusta, 1972.
                 53. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Florida Coastal Zone Management Atlas:
                     A Preliminary Survey and Analysis, Tallahassee, 1972

                 54. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay
                     Plan, 1968.

                 55. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands,
                     Lansing, 1973.
                 56. California Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources, The Review
                     of the California Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, Sacramento, 1972.
                 57. William Miernyk, The Elements of Input-Output Analysis, Random House, 1965.

                 58. Walter Isard et al., Ecologic-Economic Analysis for Regional Development,
                     The Free Press, 1972.

                 59. Kingsley Haynes and Jared Hazleton, Establishment of Operational Guidelines
                     for Texas Coastal Zone Management: Interim Report on Economics and Land Use,
                     Division of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Texas, 1973.
                 60. Theodore Collin et al., Impact of Major Economic Change on a Coastal Rural
                     Economy: A Largo Aluminum Plant in Chatsop County, Oregon, Agricultural Ex-
                     periment Station, Oregon State University, 1972.

                                                                                               47

             61. William Strang, Recreation and the Local Economy: An Input-Output Model of a
                 Recreation-Oriented Economy, University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program,
                 Report 71-204, 1970.

             62. James Hite and Eugene Laurent, Environmental Planning, an Economic Analysis:
                 Applications for the Coastal Zone, Praeger, 1971.
             63. Bostwick Ketchum, Editor, The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal
                 Zone, MIT Press, 1972.

             64. John Clark, Coastal Ecosystems-_Ecological Considerations for Management of
                 the Coastal Zone, The Conservation Foundation, 1974.
             65. Howard T. Odum et al., Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States, The
                 Conservation Foundation, Republished in 1974.

             66. Center for Natural Areas, Smithsonian Institution, Planning Considerations
                 for Statewide Inventories of Critical Environmental Areas, U.S. Army Corps
                 of Engineers, 1974 (In Print).

             67.. Sidia Selkregg, Editor, Environmental Atlas of the Greater Anchorage Area
                 Borough, Alaska Resources and Sciences Services, Arctic Emvironmental Infor-
                 mationand Data Center, University of Alaska, 1972.

             68. Glenn Akins, Coastal Wetlands of Oregon, Prepared for the Oregon Coastal
                 Conservation and Development Commission, Florence, 1973.

             69. Thomas Walton and Ruth Patrick, Editors, "The Delaware River Estuarine Marsh
                 Survey", The Delaware Estuary System, Environmental Impacts and Socioeconomic
                 Effects, National Science Foundation, 1973.

             70. Reed and D'Andrea, Inc., Conservation Priorities Plan of the Coast of Maine,
                 in cooperation with the     ter for Natural Areas, Smithsonian Institution,
                 1973.

             71. Luisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources, Louisiana
                 Wetlands Prospectus, Baton Rouga, 1973.

             72. Joel S. O'Connor et al., "Environmental Illustrations of the Use of SYMAP,
                 A Computer Mapping Program," marine Technology Society Journal, 7(8), 1973.
             73. Leonard Ortolano and Philip Brown, Jr., The Movement and Quality of Coastal
                 Waters: A Review of Models Relevant to Long Island, New York, The Center for
                 The Environment and Man, Inc., Hartford, 1971.

             74. Tracor, Inc., Estuarine Modelling: An Assessment of Capabilities and Limit-
                 ations for Resource Management and Pollution Control, U.S. Environmental
                 Protection Agency, 1971.

             75. Earl Flowers and A.W. May, Computer Systems Approach to Environmental Pro-
                 tection, Planning and Management: Malibu Watershed, Water Resources Research
                 Center, University of California, 1972.
             76. R.C. Ward, Small Watershed Experiments: An Appraisal of Concepts and Res-
                 earch Developments, University of Hull Press, England, 1971.

             77. Theodore Schultz and Nancy McMahon, Noise Assessment Guidelines, U.S. Dep-
                 artment of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 1971.
             78. Alvin W. Drake et al., Analysis of Public Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge,
                 1972.

               48

                79. Martin Redding, Aesthetics and Environmental Planning, U.S. Evironmental
                    Protection Agency, Report 600/5-73-1009, 1973

                80. Thomas Dickert, "Methods for Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparison,"
                    Environmental Impact Assessment: Guidelines and Commentary, University Exten-
                    sion, University of California, 1974.

                81. Douglass Lee, "Requiem for Large Scale Models," Journal of the American Ins-
                    titute of Planners, May, 1973.

                82. J.G. Gosselink et al. "The Value of Tidal Marsh," Working Paper Number 3,
                    Urban and Regional Development Center, University of Florida, 1973.

                83. R.M. Pope and J.G. Gosselink, "A Tool for Use in Making Land Management De-
                    cisions Involving Tidal Marshland," Coastal Zone   Management Journal, l(l),
                    1973.

                84. Robert Stoevener et al., Multi-disciplinary Study of Water Quality Relation-
                    ships: A Case Study of Yaquina B,:@y, Oregon, Agricultural Experiment Station,
                    Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1972.
                85. G.M. Brown and Judd Hammack, "A Preliminary Investigation of the Economics
                    of Migratory Waterfowl," Natural Environment: Studies in Theoretical and Ap-
                    plied Analysis, Resources for the Future, 1972.

                                                                                              49

               C. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern
                  1. Introduction
                  This discussion of geographic areas of particular concern will consider
               criteria for delineating these areas; define representative areas; discuss
               procedures for designating areas of particular concern; and conclude with a
               discussion of geographic segmentation.
                  As discussed in earlier sections, the planning process requires establish-
               ing preliminary boundaries and developing inventories of uses and their im-
               pacts on coastal waters and of resources. The inventories can then provide a
               basis for designating and appraising geographic areas of particular concern by:
                    applying one or more of a set of directly applicable selection criteria
                    (e.g., physical uniqueness or cultural significance); and
                    determining the relative scarcity or other measures which derives from
                    reconciling available resources with desires and demands.
                  The sequence of graphs shown in Figure 1 illustrates the process by which
               the measure of the scarcity of resources can be derived. Reading from the top
               down, the first graph depicts the results derived from an initial inventory
               stage. Two types of inventories are produced. One of these covers uses--la-
               beled activity inventory; the relative sizes of the blocks in the first graph
               (1 through 5) is indicative of the current amount of each activity. The sec-
               ond type of inventory is an analysis of demand; the envisioned needs for each
               activity modified to represent the ultimate desires.
                  Having defined the activity inventory and desires, it is possible to move
               to the next step portrayed by the second graph in Figure 1--that of equating
               activities to resources. Each unit of activity in the inventory, for example,
               might use one unit of resource A, one of resource B, and one of resource C.
               Similarly, the inventoried amount of activity 2 might use one unit of resource
               A and one of D, and so on. The ned result is an expression of the impact of
               inventoried and desired activity on the use of and the needs for resources
               (A,B, etc.).
                  The significance of uses and needs of resources depends upon the availabil-
               ity of the appropriate types of resources. Thus, in the bottom graph of Fig-
               ure 1, an inventory of resources is reconciled with the uses and needs of these
               resources and geographic areas of particular concern equate to bounded areas
               subject to some degree of scarcity. Hence, the difference which results be-
               tween resources supply and demand is one basis for areal designation (see Sec-
               tion D of this Chapter, Priority of Uses). The inventory of activities should
               include those whose impact modifies the resource base either by direct change
               in carrying capacity (the ability of areas to absorb an impact) or because of
               spillover effects (the effect that an activity has upon surrounding areas or
               activities).
                  In this discussion geographic area means an area whose perimeter is defined
               by specific lines on a map. The precision with which the lines are defined
               should be determined by the way regulations are to be implemented and the needs
               for legal defensibility.
                  Geographic areas of particular concern do not have to fill the entire coas-
               tal zone, but nothing appears to preclude calling the entire coastal zone a
               geographic area of particular concern. If this were the case, however, the
               concept would lose its sensitivity as an indicator of unusual focus. Focusing
               attention on areas that should receive special management attention in this way
               could reduce chances for errors of omission and could provide an additional
               mechanism, with priorities and other devices, for exercising management control.
               Geographic areas of particular concern, defined as such for different reasons,

                50                                                            ACTIVITY NEEDS
                                                ACTIVITY              ACTIVITY DESIRES
                                                INVENTORY

                                                     2                             2
                                                     3                             3 1102
                                                                                   4   3
                                                     4
                                                                                       4

                                                         ACTIVITY     ACTIVITY
                                                       IMPACT         DESIRES
                                                                      Im CT
                                                           A-       Q
                                                          A               IA
                                                           Ic
                                                           2A
                                                     2     2 D            I c      2
                                                           3A                           2

                                                                          2A
                                                                          W        4
                                                                          AA
                                                     4     4B                      5   4
                                                     5     5c             48

                                                                                                                     FIGURE 1

                                                     USE  OF            NEEDED
                                                      RESOURCES          RESOURCES

                                                                RESOURCE
                                                                INVENTORY

                                                            2 -
                                                     2                             2

                                                     3
                                                                           2       4    3
                                                     4                    :3-      -   -
                                                                                   5    4
                                                     5                     4

                                                                EXCESS
                                                                CAPACITY
                                                                CASE

                                            GEOGRAPHIC AREAS    OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
                                                                                      @5

                                                                          T2
                                                                          _3
                                                                          @4

                                            EQUATE TO BOUNDED AREAS SUBJECT TO:

                                               1. RESOURCES FOR WHICH DEMAND (FOR ANY
                                                 REASON) EXCEEDS SUPPLY.
                                               2. ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH DESIRES EXCEED
                                                 AVAILABLE RESOURCE BASE.
                                               3. ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH THE RESOURCE BASE
                                                 IS NATURALLY LIMITED OR UNIQUE.

                                                                                              51

             might partially or totally overlap. For example, an area might be a unique
             habitat and be historically significant as well (as shown in Figure 2, below).

                                             AREA I

                                                i a2

                                                     M
                                                   AREA 2

                                             PARTIAL OVERLAP

                                            AREA I      TOTAL
                                                        OVERLAP

                                             AREA 2

                                                          AREA 3

                                         TOTAL
                                          SEPARATION

                                                 riGURE 2
              Another site might have high natural productivity and also be part of an area
              of significant hazard if developed. These overlapping areas would not cause a
              problem, however, because their designations would be determined by priority
              assignment (see Section II-D, Priority of Uses).

                 2. Criteria for Delineating Areas of Particular Concern
                 Criteria for delineating areas will vary widely from state to state, and
              even within parts of a single state. The Section 305 regulations suggest three
              basic criteria (920.13): (1) areas with significant natural values--among these
              physical or scenic; (2) transitional areas where either restoration or further
              development is called for or intensely developed areas where other modifica-
              tions may be necessary; and (3) areas which are threatened for various reasons
              or are already scarce.
                 When a state begins to develop delineation criteria, it should consider
              first existing plans and commitments; substate and multi-state regional inter-
              ests; national interests; economic value of various areas, now and potentially;
              and public consensus or degree of controversy.
                 Several techniques are available for establishing broad criteria; among
              these are supply/demand analyses, public hearings; surveys; legislative man-
              dates; and legal precedents from analogous situations in other jurisdictions.
                 Before examining the relationships among each of these criteria and tech-
              niques in greater detail, we shall discuss some general principles of delinea-
              tion.

             52

                     Identifying areas of particular concern is not a one-shot task. States
                  must expect changes to occur as man and the coastal zone interact. Controver-
                  sies and issues will come and go (e.g., the energy crisis, the ecological cri-
                  sis, offshore ports or oil); life style values will change; and technology
                  will created new opportunities and problems (e.g., coastal protection, trans-
                  portation). Although states should try to anticipate these effects, the ident-
                  ification process they select should provide sufficient flexibility to incorp-
                  orate change when the necessity arises.
                     States should also consider three qualities which are implicit in most del-
                  ineation decisions:
                       threshold--closeness in time of an area to change from one character to
                       another (e.g., what would be the impact of one more power plant, the im-
                       pact of removing an additional million gallons per day from watershed
                       discharge?);
                       rate of change--from the viewpoints of quality and quantity, with what
                       rapidity is change in a given use altering the resource base (e.g., acres/
                       year of marsh being lost to development); and
                       potential irreversibility--recognition of the need for immediate action
                       because of a potentially irreversible commitment to one use instead of
                       another and the corresponding potential inability to be taken from one
                       use and put to another (e.g., filling a saltmarsh for building purposes;
                       acting to avert catastrophes--such as imminent collapse of structures
                       from natural or man-induced processes; losing access to an area due to
                       imminent commitment to a conflicting use).
                     When an area exhibits all three, or even two of these qualities, it should
                  obviously have priority over other areas which exhibit only one. Further,
                  these qualities may well be reflected in criteria states select for area del-
                  ineation.
                     States should recognize that the criteria above are expressed in very broad
                  terms; they are not exhaustive. They do, however, represent a range of per-
                  spectives without which area delineation would be incomplete. Without reducing
                  the process to the absurd, it is desirable to include as many points of view
                  as possible which bear upon the delineation process.
                     Finally, assigning weight to criteria is vital because most areas of a coas-
                  tal zone will satisfy more then one selection criterion. It is therefore nec-
                  essary to think in terms of threshold values that lead to delineation. The
                  methods of ranking discussed in the previous section of this chapter, Permiss-
                  ible Uses, also apply in area delineation.

                     3. Identifying Areas of Particular Concern
                     states should give priority in their coastal zone planning to identifying
                  the three kinds of areas of particular concern mentioned above: (1) areas with
                  significant natural values; (2) transitional areas where further development or
                  restoration are called for; or intensely developed areas where modifications
                  may be necessary; and (3) areas which are threatened for various reasons or are
                  already scarce.
                     Areas with significant natural values: These are areas in which the nature
                  of the resources, their present or potential uses, and their relative abund-
                  ance are particularly susceptible to the timing of potential changes or irrev-
                  ersible commitments to one use over another.
                     A state can only determine the significant natural value of a given area
                  after it has made a thorough inventory of the nature of the area's resources
                  and analyzed their abundance. Suggestions for elements the T@itis should con-
                  sider in making these inventories appear in several sources.    I

                                                                                                53

                As well as considering natural and cultural features, the state should also
              consider the significance or importance of natural values in terms of relative
              measures--among these scarcity, usefulness, and threat timing. The state must
              be careful in identifying these areas so that it does not overlook   an other-
              wise small factor which is essential toa larger natural system, or   which is
              subject to cumulative effects from small increments of change. An    example of
              this would be small additions of non-biodegradable chemicals which   can cause
              cumulative contamination effects and thus destroy the value of the   resource
              for man.
                 Designating an area with significant natural values may require   expert eval-
              uation and perhaps lengthy studies. For these reasons, it may be advisable or
              necessary tentatively to define characteristics of areas or even entire areas
              on the basis of overestimations of significance. Later studies may enable the
              state to classify these tentatively designated areas more accurately.
                 As examples of the complexity of factors which can enter into the designa-
              tion process, consider the following:
                If it were known that a given square mile of eel grass beds supported large
                numbers of wild geese (brant) moving back and forth on a flyway, this would
                give the acre of grass a certain natural value. If the grass beds were the
                only ones, or the bulk of those present in the state, they would take on a
                particular and higher significance. And if filling or reclamation were pro-
                poses for that area within the next few months, the grass beds would attain
                yet a higher level of significance.
                If the plants or animals in an area are rare or endangered, then the value
                of that area would be higher than those surrounding it. Or if an area sup-
                ported animals economically valuable to man, that would raise its value. For
                example, an area that supported commercially desirable scallops would be of
                higher value than one which supported primarily marine worms and tunicates.
                Barrier beach systems and tidal flats serve as lines of defense that dissipate
                wave energy which attacks the shoreline--an important natural value. Immin-
                ent development which were to threaten to modify that capability would in-
                crease the significance of the resource under discussion as an area of parti-
                cular concern.
                These are only examples. States will obviously have other situations to con-
              sider if they weigh the various factors we discussed above.
                Transitional and intensely developed areas: Transitional areas are areas in
              which change is actively and perceptibly taking place; examples would be the
              accelerated residential development around the perimeter of San Francisco Bay
              and Rehobeth Bay. Intensely developed areas are those areas subject to the
              pressure of major multiple use conflicts; examples of these would be normal
              urban waterfront and the beach communities in Los Angeles County.
                 Identifying transitional or intensely developed areas of particular concern
              should be based on need or demand consistent with area-wide objectives. The
              Section 305 regulations suggest reclamation, restoration, and public access as
              needs states may want to address. But action on these areas could occur over
              an extended period of time; it is difficult to conceive of a situation, for
              example, where reclamation is needed immediately or where restoration cannot
              wait. Public access, on the other hand, may be more time-dependent. For exam-
              ple, if a road were built across an area as a means of -Dublic access to coastal
              waters, the change would be immediate. Therefore, the delineation process here
              should receive more rapid attention.
                Transitional areas: Within this category of delineation, states should desig-
                nate areas for restoration and reclamation. Circumstances states should con-
                sider when they identify these areas include:

             54

                       (a) areas where physical alterations will enhance or improve the quality
                       of the resource base. This would include areas of deterioration or
                       blight--decaying waterfront facilities, areas of environmental degrada-
                       tion that could benefit from man-induced changes like water circulation
                       to control eutrophication, areas that require shoreline expansion, open
                       space, or offshore space when allowed within the bounds of environmental
                       impact and is in the public interest; and
                       (b) areas where the exercise of regulation, control, and other management
                       skills can interrupt a trend or a transition to an undesirable state by
                       providing services, or by modifying zoning to control visual appearances,
                       population density, and other similar activities.
                       Access patterns are also frequently tied to or a function of rate of
                    transition and intensity of development and should therefore receive special
                    recognition as areas of particular concern. Factors states should consider
                    in identifying access pattern areas include requirements to satisfy needs
                    associated with physical movement and with visual experiences.
                    Intensely or potentially intensely developed areas: Planners frequently en-
                    counter a basic conflict in identifying these areas--whether to have continued
                    commitment and greater local impact or commitment of a new area and lower but
                    wider-spread impact. The first frequently results from intensifying uses
                    within an area. It may also result in economies of scale and decreased trans-
                    fer costs. The second is characterized by the real estate developer who seeks
                    uncluttered or aesthetically pleasing areas for his expanded activities or by
                    the decision-maker's need to consider safety as a factor in dispersing pipe-
                    line corridors across the coastal zone rather than concentrating them in one
                    area.
                       Methods and rationale for locating intensive development outside the man-
                    agement zone, for example, will frequently depend on the economic trade-offs
                    inherent in transportation costs, tax costs, and the costs of services.
                       Methodologically planners could analyze user requirements for coastal zone
                    resources, examine traditional site preferences, examine the effects of clus-
                    tering on use types, and identify alternative means for accomplishing the use
                    objectives.
                       The rationale for making a choice between intensive and extensive develop-
                    ment would probably depend on results of considering factors like the amount
                    of resources available, the assimilative capacity of the resources for rele-
                    vant kinds of impact, and economic considerations similar to those described
                    above. The extent of environmental damage, availability of resources, depend-
                    ence upon coastal zone resources, and societal.considerations must all enter
                    into the selection process. Three examples may help put these factors in
                    perspective:
                       (a) much less damage may result from expanding an existing refinery than
                       from building a new one in a pristine area because of areal requirements,
                       effluent loads, and intensity-of-use effect;
                       (b) intensive development for power generation may have entirely different
                       (and less severe) impacts than intensive residential development; and
                       (c) recognizing the need for access may facilitate defining areas particul-
                       arly suitable for establishing transportation corridors to non-urban areas.
                       In this case, development would spread over a wider segment of the non-
                       urban areas.
                       Generally, the feasibility of intensive development should be carefully ex-
                    amined for environmental impact on the coastal zone because of the suscepta-
                    bility of such areas to the loss of public access and open space.

                                                                                                  55

                Immediacy of need: In addition to areas undergoing physical, economic, or
             social change, there are potential areas of change subject to political deci-
             sions, or the subject of public controversy. These should receive priority
             treatment to provide the decision-maker with the best information available.
                Determining immediacy of need requires considerable investigation into the
             existing and proposed plans for the area.
                But before one can determine immediacy of need, one must determine need. A
             need may represent an essential ingredient in achieving an objective; for exam-
             ple, a corridor for public access is needed so the demand for swimming and
             fishing can be met. Effective demand in this case is determined by the extent
             that present facilities fail to accommodate those who are willing to pay for
             swimming and fishing opportunities.
                Unsatisfied demand may be defined as a demand for use opportunity which ex-
             ceeds supply where use opportunity is the available supply of the use     in ques-
             tion. The supply may depend on the space available for activities on      lands and
             waters and the amount of such activities these natural resources will     support.
                Having determined whether or not a need exists, one then looks for     the
             threats from present or proposed uses which would cause modifications     that
             would prevent fulfillment of the need. For example, an Army Corps of      Engineers'
             proposal to drain a saltmarsh starting in 1980 would effectively destroy a use
             program to develop the marsh as a waterfowl flyway stop. To avoid this, the
             state would have to act immediately to protect the saltmarsh. But if no new
             uses were proposed for the marsh, then it could receive a lower priority for
             action.
                Other relevant criteria: In the preceding section on permissible uses sev-
             eral criteria were discussed which are also appropriate to the delineation of
             areas of particular concern; these will therefore only be cited briefly.
                Existing plans for and commitments of areas to specific uses are usually
                available in government documents (federal, state, regional, and/or local).
                Although prior designation is not sacrosanct, it must certainly be considered
                as a starting point.
                National interest is one aspect the Act specifically requires states to con-
                sider. Potential sites for offshore gas and oil recovery and the correspond-
                ing onshore locations would be one example of areas of particular concern
                states must consider in the national interest.
                Regional interests are not included under permissible uses, but states should
                consider them as part of their area delineation process. Regional interests
                can be either multistate or substate. Multistate interests are frequently
                based on shared water resources; river basin commissions are an example.
                Pollution loads, withdrawals, and power plant sites are also frequently prob-
                lems of mutual concern. And port authorities and transportation authorities
                are growing areas of regional interest. States will probably find they will
                generally undergo some pressure to designate these types of areas for their
                particular concern.
                Economic value as a criterion may enter into many area considerations. We
                have discussed above its role with respect to areas especially suited for in-
                tensive development. Additional considerations include the role of economic
                values as a criterion for less well defined situations, among which would be,
                for example, evaluating the contribution of a saltmarsh to the economy of an
                area. The inability to establish accurately a monetary value for an area
                should not eliminate using this criterion because weighted indices (see dis-
                cussion in II-B) can provide an alternative for incorporating some measure of
                value in the overall assessment.

              56

                     Public consensus and degree of controversy as criteria are not necessarily
                     measures of demand, but rather are measures of commonality of purpose. If
                     by referendum, hearing, or survey the public manifests a consensus concern-
                     ing suggested or proposed uses for a coastal area, for any reason, then the
                     state should consider the area as a candidate for delineation. (See Chapter
                     V, Public Participation, for additional discussion.) States should also re-
                     member that in defining consensus, minority positions are frequently lost;
                     degree of consensus is, therefore, also necessary to measure the intensity
                     of controversy.
                      These are some of the more common criteria. Identifying and specifying
                    other criteria for a variety of situations as these will be an important  part
                    of the state's coastal zone program development process.

                    4. Representative Area Types
                      7Fhe Section 305 regulations suggest criteria for identifying eight categories
                    of areas (920.13). Each of these will be discussed briefly to provide examples
                    (common and uncommon) of what states should consider in their designation proc-
                    ess.
                      Unique or fragile areas: Fragile, as it is discussed in this document, means
                    susceptability to damage. Uniqueness, in contrast, is associated with a frame
                    of geographic reference--unique state-wide or nationally. Uniqueness is also
                    the final level of scarcity.
                      Unique or fragile areas can, therefore, fall into a variety of categories.
                    These include areas which are unique because of their locations (e.g., a salt-
                    marsh in California versus one in Georgia) or because of their physical charac-
                    teristics (e.g., a seamount versus a submarine canyon). Typical of fragile
                    areas (i.e., areas which can easily be endangered) are those areas with physical
                    characteristics like small or border-line size and corresponding susceptability
                    to overuse (e.g., tide pools, mud flats, nursery areas). Much depends on the
                    state's developing a thorough knowledge of what biota are present in these areas
                    and determining what their environmental requirements are--especially factors
                    that limit growth and reproduction.
                      Uniqueness and fragility may also be subjective in terms of an area's visual
                    characteristics. one seascape may be ruined aesthetically by the presence of
                    an oil drilling tower while another might not be significantly affected.
                      other unique or fragile areas for which states should determine criteria are
                    those which are areas of concern for their conservation or ecological values.
                    Among the relevant questions in these cases are:
                    �How many similar areas are there in the state and what function do they serve
                     in their natural state?
                    �How large an area is involved and what uses can it serve and still maintain
                     its integrity?
                    �Is there a need for immediate action to protect it?
                    �Based on the replies to these questions, is it worth preserving?
                      There are many areas of historical significance in the coastal zone. A few
                    from the many and obvious examples are Plymouth Rock, the Cabrillo Monument,
                    Mystic Seaport, and New Castle in Delaware. The zone also boasts many sites of
                    cultural value. Some are sites of archaeological significance as remnants of
                    early coastal Indian settlements. Others are communities that have maintained
                    their integrity for many years: Cajuns of the Louisiana bayous; Portugese and
                    Italian fishing colonies of California; and fishing villages of Maine and Massa-
                    chusetts, to name a few. In identifying these areas states should review the
                    work done under the sponsorship of other federal agencies, historical societies,

                                                                                              57

               expert testimony, and anthropological and archaeological societies and their
               publications.
                 Areas of high natural productivity: States should consider areas of high
               natural productivity, both flora--e.g., marsh grasses, algae--and fauna (e.g.,
               finfish, shellfish, waterfowl, mammals, reptiles). Such areas are not, however,
               restricted to living resources. of equal importance are non-living resources
               (e.g., sand, oil, gas, phosphorite, salt and bromides).
                 Identification schemes should also recognize the difference between areas of
               high natural productivity containing renewable and non-renewable resources, a
               partitioning equally applicable to living and non-living matter. In the in-
               stances of non-living resources, for example, productivity may be limited for
               the non-renewable resources--oil, gas, and sand. On the other hand, phosphor-
               ous ores, salt, and bromine are, for practical purposes, inexhaustible. The
               classification should reflect the practicalities of renewability.
                 In the case of living resources, those which are classified as renewable
               would be sustained yield populations; while living resources that are non-
               renewable would be sub-critical populations.
                 The essentiality of a habitat area should not be construed as a classifica-
               tion which implies exclusive use. These can also be areas identified as having
               a unique value for a species through topographic configuration, environmental
               characteristics, or dependence upon a limited flora or fauna nutrition (e.g.,
               brant/eel grass, sea otter/kelp; coral beds in Florida and kelp beds in Calif-
               ornia). Rookeries and bird nesting areas/fishing grounds or rock outcrops are
               also examples. An area's uniqueness may also be bases on the environmental
               characteristics or its need for the survival of rare or endangered species.
                 Planners will find classification factors and techniques through state
               agencies and through reports resulting from academic research. This material
               should be examined for relevance and background. The subjects of such studies
               have included, for examples, Louisiana marshes4, Georgia tidemarsh5, Massachu-
               setts tidemarsh6,7, mangrove swamps8, and flyways9
                 Areas of substantial recreational value: State; should answer a series of
               questions that will help develop adequately criteria for designating areas on
               the basis of their recreational value:
                 What type of recreational activities are in demand and is there an im-
                 mediate need for certain areas or activities? This should include
                 demands for private as well as public areas and tourist attractions
                 as well as those local populations use.
                 How are existing recreational areas being utilized?
                 What characteristic land types are necessary for each activity?
                 What are the areas best suited for the recreational activities and what con-
                 flicts exist between existing uses of those areas and the desired recreational
                 uses?
                 Where can use conflicts best be resolved and what areas are then best suited
                 for recreation?
                 In addition to these criteria, others which could incidate substantial value
               are intensities of use (frequently a measure both of inherent suitability and
               of accessibility) and direct relationship to a limited recreational specialty
               (e.g., soaring, surfing).
                 Current use is frequently the only reasonable measure of which new areas a
               state might develop and how it might do so, althougn more indirect measures--
               willingness to travel, to pay, to wait, and to invest in participating equip-
               ment--could also provide some insight.

              58

                      Developments and facilities dependent upon utilization Of or access to
                   coastal waters: The uses generally considered to be dependent upon coastal
                   waters are transportation, commercial fishing, marine recreation, and marine
                   research.
                      In the case of transportation, identification criteria include factors
                   like proximity to deep water; suitability for constructing offshore facilities;
                   presence of inter-modal transportation links; zoning compatibility; and the
                   capacity of the natural system to absorb the stresses transportation activities
                   induce.
                      In establishing criteria for marine recreation, states should decide whether
                   they should include policies which consider second home developments dependent
                   on direct access to or utilization of coastal waters. What states do decide,
                   to whatever extent, will be reflected in their choice of priorities in per-
                   missible use criteria.
                      For further discussion of dependency see Section II-B, Permissible Uses,
                   and Section II-D, Priority of Uses.
                      Areas of unique geologic or topographic significancet The significance and
                   uniqueness of geologic or topographic features are primarily measured by their
                   physical attributes such as soil types and conditions, relative elevations,
                   and presence of aquifers. The presence of mineral deposits of all types,
                   especially those with economic potential for mining, can also serve to identify
                   unique geologic and topographic features. other physical measures to use in-
                   clude bathymetry (e.g., deepwater areas for supertanker facilities), geo-
                   morphology, substrate and topographic orientation.
                      Another factor that might affect the significance of an area's attributes
                   is its location relative to the foci of use demands for its attributes. For
                   example, an area that is topographically and geomorphicologically suitable for
                   a power plant and is close to the market for power might qualify as an area
                   with unique significance for that purpose because of its geology and location.
                   On the other hand, an area with the same physical attributes, but located at a
                   distance from markets for power, might not be economically feasible as a site
                   for a power plant. In this case the relative location of the site will serve
                   as a tlualifier in determining the significance of the area's attributes.
                      States will find helpful information to assist them in establishing such
                   criteria in a number of sources. Documents publishIg by the Coastal Engineering
                   Researi@ Center of the U.S. Army Corps of EngineH s ; by th?  3National Ocean
                   Survey ; and by states--among these, California    and Texas    which have already
                   studied certain aspects of this problem.
                      Areas of urban concentration: Areas of this type are characteristically sub-
                   ject to intense competition for conflicting uses because commerce, industry,
                   recreation, and residential uses can often be mutually exclusive. Ecological
                   values have frequently already been sacrificed. Visual amenities for the resi-
                   dents of such areas can be high if they can get close enough to the water's
                   edge to avoid having the view usurped by anyone else. The pressures are to get
                   as close as possible to the water's edge, thereby contributing substantially to
                   the potential hazards of erosion and flooding. As a result, potentially high
                   costs and substantial effort may be required to stabilize and to protect the
                   coastal zone area. Selecting appropriate areas should obviously reflect these
                   numerous concerns.
                      For the most part, identifying the areas falling into this category will be
                   easy. Usually population density and land values are reasonable indicators of
                   the urban presence. The precedent of controversy is also a good indicator of
                   competitive use pressures and of an area of particular concern; this controversy

                                                                                              59

               generally will have manifested itself in hearings, litigation, laws allocating
               uses, and media exposure. Census information might also help states identify
               urban areas.
                  States could look at the need for restoration, reclamation, and increased
               access as other indicators of urban concentrations.
                  Areas of significant hazards if developed: Certain natural events, though
               sometimes infrequent, can result in catastrophic impacts upon the stability of
               natural systems. These impacts are also often felt by man, either directly or
               indirectly. With this in mind states should consider such phenomena as flood-
               ing (both coastal and riverine), tsunamis, earthquakes, and mud slides when
               developing designation criteria. Recognition of the significance of such events
               is reflected by various government planning and management actions (e.g., De-
               partment of Housing and Urban Development's flood insurance program, Hawaii's
               tsunami ordinance, Florida's hurricane flooding area designations, and the
               consideration of seismic-related mass movements in California's planning pro-
               grams).
                  Less dramatic, but more common hazards occur in those areas subject to ero-
               sion, storm-induced or not; mud slides; and areas where beach dunes or marshes,
               when left undisturbed, absorb the energy from wave action or impede the flow
               of damaging high waters. The National Shoreline Study of the U.S. Army Corps
               of Engineers; specific studies conducted by the Corps' district offices; and
               information from the National Flood Insurance Program are valuable references
               for identifying potential trouble spots.
                  Other areas of natural hazard states should consider are those subject to
               the presence of disease carriers, insect or animal, or those that harbor biting
               or stinging animals or insects. These include mosquito, biting fly, jelly fish,
               and some rodent habitats.
                  Coastal zone sites subject to subsidance because of sub-surface withdrawal
               or tectonic activity and sites subject to aquifer contamination also typify
               areas which should be included for their particular concern.
                  States should also consider areas of man-made hazard (e.g., airport approaches,
               buffers around plants producing toxic or dangerous volatiles) in designating
               such areas of concern.
                  Areas needed to protect or maintain coastal resources: In addition to desig-
               nating specific areas as necessary to maintain the natural characteristics and
               values of coastal resources, areas may also be required to buffer the effect of
               human intrusions in the coastal zone, such as urban concentrations and recrea-
               tion. The buffering effect may be considered from two viewpoints; depending
               on the nature of the coastal resource. From one perspective it might be neces-
               sary to prevent man's intrusion from impinging upon and destroying an ecologic-
               ally sensitive or valuable natural resource; from the other viewpoint it may be
               necessary to dedicate a coastal resource to the activities necessary to protect
               man's coastal zone investments from natural hazards and forces. States will
               probably find it easier to commit coastal areas to this use, either for con-
               struction or for exclusion, if they designate them as areas of particular
               concern. The range of types of areas appropriate to this designation may in-
               clude any topographic features which isolate man-made effluents, structures,
               or traffic from natural ecosystems for man's enjoyment of their natural state.
               Another type is borrow areas for beach replenishment. Also, they might include
               spoil disposal areas necessary to maintain navigable waterways. The effect of
               modifications to watershed runoff patterns on aquifer recharge areas is a
               classical example of cumulative impacts upon areas that are needed to maintain
               coastal resources; states should consider these in the designation process.

             60

                     Areas needed to protect or maintain coastal resources: In addition to desig-
                  nating specific areas as necessary to maintain the natural characteristics and
                  values of coastal resources, areas may also be required to buffer the effect of
                  human intrusions in the coastal zone, such as urban concentrations and recrea-
                  tion. The buffering effect may be considered from two viewpoints; depending on
                  the nature of the coastal resource. From one perspective it might be necessary
                  to prevent man's intrusion from impinging upon and destroying an ecologically
                  sensitive or valuable natural resource; from the other viewpoint it may be
                  necessary to dedicate a coastal resource to the activities necessary to protect
                  man's coastal zone investments from natural hazards and forces. States will
                  probably find it easier to commit coastal areas to this use, either for construc-
                  tion or for exclusion, if they designate them as areas of particular concern.
                  The range of types of areas appropriate to this designation may include any
                  topographic features which isolate man-made effluents, structures, or traffic
                  from natural ecosystems for man's enjoyment of their natural state. Another
                  type is borrow areas for beach replenishment. Also, they'might include spoil
                  disposal areas necessary to maintain navigable waterways. The effect of modi-
                  fications to watershed runoff patterns on aquifer recharge areas is a classi-
                  cal example of cumulative impacts upon areas that are needed to maintain coastal
                  resources; states should consider these in the designation process.
                     Other geographic areas of particular concern: There are other types of areas
                  of particular concern for which states should consider establishing criteria.
                     One example would be a situation where the coastal conditions are particularly
                  suited for the growth of special agricultural and marine products or where
                  coastal conditions substantially improve crop yields.
                     Among the terrestrial food crops which require special coastal conditions
                  are cranberries, artichokes, asparagus, and wild rice. Marine products such
                  as agar-agar and canageenan are derived from seaweed and Irish moss and certain
                  types of seaweed are also products much in demand.
                     Several tree species are also dependent upon specific geographic areas of
                  the coastal zone. Among these are coastal redwoods, Torrey pines, Monterey
                  pines, and mangrove. Several states have areas which are conducive to the
                  growth of such trees and should consider them in designating their areas of
                  particular concern. Source materials which offer insight into methods of iden-
                  tification and analysis of these areas is available from several sources includ-
                  ing the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Agricultur-
                  al Extension Services of such states as California, Louisiana, Michigan, Maine
                  and Florida.

                  5. Procedures for Designating Areas_of Particular Concern
                     States have a variety of ways for establishing procedures for area delinea-
                  tion. It can be relatively simple: an executive order or legislative mandate
                  designating an agency, creating a task force, or organizing an advisory committee
                  with the delegated responsibility as its function. It can also be as complex
                  as the development of a systems and procedures manual detailing the step-by-
                  step process users are to follow in the designation process. obviously, the
                  state's interpretation of this requirement is related to the overall implement-
                  ing structure for coastal zone management the state chooses. However, whatever
                  choice a state makes, there are some aspects common to all approaches; the states
                  should:
                    assure adequate public participation and coordination with other agencies;
                    perform an inventory of areas of significance;
                    evaluate immediacy of needs by comparing inventory with known and predicted
                    patterns of development and exploitation. This should follow priorities based

                                                                                              61

                upon the combined considerations of scarcity, uniqueness, and pressure, and
                should specifically include recommendations initiated at local and regional
                as well as state levels of government. The state should draw on as much ex-
                pertise as possible for this purpose; universities and special interest
                groups are two possible sources;
                determine feasible restoration methods; and
                evaluate economic implications of restoration options, including acquisitional
                or transactional costs, preservation methods, operations, and maintenance. If
                land is already publicly owned, perhaps only a law, regulation, or ordinance
                will suffice to exclude improper uses or to bring the area in question under
                proper management. If new funds are required, either to acquire land from
                private owners, or to carry out necessary work, then the public may have to
                support a tax increase or sale of bonds.
                 A standard procedure one might use would be to charge the state's coastal
              zone authority with responding to a public petition or an agency request, state
              or federal. The authority could schedule public hearings as appropriate, and
              the authority could determine the desirability of preserving or restoring the
              area in question. Action the state chose could be supportive of state or federal
              legislation to obtain or manage the area or, if the authority had the funds, it
              could acquire the area directly. The authority should serve primarily as a
              mechanism to determine what specific action, consistent with the state's coastal
              zone plan, is appropriate, and then to fund or lobby for acquisitions or other
              necessary steps.
                 A specific sequence of events might be:
                The authority, as management agency, receives a petition to act to preserve
                an estuary or to acquire a resource (e.g., an offshore island).
                The authority holds hearings on this petition at appropriate times and loca-
                tions.
                The authority obtains the official position from the agency with jurisdiction
                over the resources in question if they are publicly owned, or
                The authority obtains the position of the landowner if the area is privately
                owned.
                The authority sponsors or performs actions necessary to develop technical in-
                formation for decision-making, that is, on uses, user loads, restrictions,
                access factors, and other data for management.
                The authority or its designee takes steps to acquire, either by negotiation
                or by condemnation, to raise and/or transfer funds to appropriate agency for
                purchase, or for other management action.
                 Examples of procedures, studies and accomplishments, though not numerous, do
              exist. Some of the more recent ones include the work of the Florida Coastal
              Coordinating Council on establishing aquatic preserves14 and the Department of
              Interior's studies of the value of islandsl5,16,17. The proposed Island Trust
              Bill sponsored by Senator Kennedy is another recently developed approachl8.
              6. Geographic Segmentation
                 The Act permits states to develop and adopt management programs in segments
              "so that immediate attention may be devoted to those areas within the coastal
              zone which most urgently need management programs". The regulations clarify
              the meaning of segmentation by indicating that geographic, not functional seg-
              ments, are envisioned; that is, states may develop a complete management pro-
              gram for a specific geographic area such as San Francisco Bay and its associated
              shorelands, but may not submit for segmented approval a management program
              controlling a single type of area or class of use (e.g., wetlands, heavy indus-
              try).

              62

                     A state's decision to submit a management program in segments requires the
                   approval of the Secretary of Commerce. Before giving his approval, the Secre-
                   tary will have to be assured that the state "adequately provides for the ultim-
                   ate coordination of the various geographical segments of the management program
                   into a single unified program and that the unified program will be completed as
                   soon as it is reasonably possible".
                     Pros and cons of segmentation: A segmented approach to program implementa-
                   tion offers both advantages and disadvantages which states should weight care-
                   fully. Segmentation can provide an opportunity to move a portion of a state's
                   coastal area to approved program status more quickly. In areas where there are
                   major problems or conflicts, a state could accelerate its program development
                   to deal with such problems expeditiously; federal agencies would also be required
                   to conduct their activities in such an area in a manner consistent with the ap-
                   proved program. Also, in cases where the process of program development has
                   proceeded more rapidly in some parts of the state's coastal zone than in others,
                   management of the more advanced areas need not be held back. Through segmenta-
                   tion, a state can test its management techniques in a limited area, using this
                   experience to refine the management program ultimately implemented along the
                   entire coastline. Such testing might well result in greater public acceptance
                   of coastal zone management over time.
                     States should not ignore the potential problems of segmentation, however.
                   Because a segmented management program must have all components of a management
                   program for the entire state, states may find segmentation inefficient. It may
                   not take significantly longer to develop the necessary information and authority
                   for the entire coast than it does for a segment. For example, if each segment
                   were to require separate legislative action, extended delays could result.
                   States should also recognize the problems inherent in administering development
                   and implementation phases of the program simultaneously. In addition to adminis-
                   trative problems, states would probably require more complicated coordinated
                   coordinating mechanisms to manage a segmented program. Finally, states may well
                   experience difficulties if different sections of their coastal area appear to
                   be receiving preferential treatment.
                     Whether or not to segment is a subjective decision: States should give early
                   recognition and consideration to segmentation as an implementing option. Should
                   such a decision be made, states can then plan the timing of work tasks in such
                   a way as to accommodate segmentation and develop the necessary coordination
                   mechanisms.
                     A state could consider segmentation when:
                   . there is evidence of a backlog of problems;
                   . there is evidence of extensive controversy over certain activities or resources;
                   . the state has an extensive or complex shoreline; and/or
                   . there is evidence of similar situations in other states' coastal zone manage-
                    ment programs.
                     Public hearings, petitions, and direct communication by the public with gov-
                   ernment officials are some sources of evidence to use in determining the feasi-
                   bility of segmentation.
                     States will most readily achieve coherence and integration if the management
                   framework clearly identifies segmentation, implementation responsibilities
                   clearly lead to the designee for total program responsibility, and if program
                   monitoring and reporting functions are organized to oversee the program activi-
                   ties in the area of segmentation.

                                                                                               63

                                                   CITATIONS

                1. Center for Natural Areas, Smithsonian Institution, Plann@B2 Considerations
                   for Statewide Inventories of Critical Environmental Areas, U.S. Army Corps
                   of Engineers, 1974 (In Print).

                2. Interagency Task Force on Environmental and Land Use Planning, Criteria for
                   Identification of Areas of Particular Public Concern, North Carolina Office
                   of State Planning, 1973.

                3. Reed and D'Andrea, Inc., Model Inventory Methodology, Smithsonian Institution,
                   1973.

                4. Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources, Louisiana
                   Wetlands_Prospectus, 1973.

                5. Eugene P. Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia,
                   1971.

                6. Division of Marine Fisheries, Monograph Series on Marine Resources (Number
                   1-17), Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources.

                7. John and Mildred Teal, Life and Death of the Saltmarsh, Atlantic Monthly
                   Press, Boston, 1969.

                8. Albert R. Veri et al., Rookery Bay Land Use Studies: Environmental Planning
                   Strategies for the Development of a Mangrove Shoreline, The Conservation
                   Foundation, Washington, 1973.

                9. R.C. Murphy, Distribution of North Atlantic Pelagic Birds, Folio 14 of Series
                   Atlas of Marine Environment, American Geographic Society, 1967.

               10. David B. Duane, Sand Inventory of Offshore Waters of New Jersey and Northern
                   New England, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1969.

               11. National ocean Survey, Series of Hydrographic Charts at various scales con-
                   tinuously being updated.

               12. State Division of Mines and Geology, Non-living Resources.- Physical Environ-
                   ment and Resources, Appendix V, California Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan,
                   California Department of Navigation and ocean Development, 1971.

               13. W.L. Fischer et al., Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zone--
                   Beaumont-Port Arthur Area, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas
                   at Austin, 1973.

               14. Interagency Advisory Committee on Submerged Land Management, A Proposed System
                   of Aquatic Preserves - Report tothe Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust
                   Fund, Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, 1968.

               15. U.S. Department of Interior, Islancb of America, U.S. Government Printing Of-
                   fice, 1970.

             64

                  16. Advisory Committee for "The U.S. Virgin Islands and the Sea", The U.S.
                      Virgin Islands and the-Sea4 A Blueprint for Action, U.S. Government Print-
                      ing office, 1970.

                  17. office of the Governor of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico and the Sea, 1972.

                  18. S-3536 introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy in the Senate and HR-15081 in-
                      troduced by Representative Gerry Studds in the House--in the Second Session
                      of the 93rd Congress.

                                                ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

                  General Bibliographic Notes
                      Bibliographic references in this section are of two types:
                  (1) References which deal with analytical methodology pertaining to the designa-
                      tion of areas with special attributes; and
                  (2) References which inventory or describe areas in accordance with a set of
                      prescribed definitions. This latter grouping seldom offer much substantive
                      discussion of the rationale behind the designation process, but are, of
                      course, illustrative of "do" rather than "talk".

                                             Significant Natural Values
                  Type (1)
                  1.  Battelle Memorial Institute Northwest, Oregon Areas of Environmental Concern,
                      1973.

                  2.  Institute for Environmental Studies, The Investigation, Description, and
                      Recommendation of a Critical Resources Information Program for Wisconsin:
                      Phase I Report - Concepts of Resource Definitions, Uses, and Management
                      Criteria, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1973.

                  3. Virginia Division of State Planning and Community Affairs, Critical Environ-
                      mental Areas, 1972.

                  Type (2)
                  1.  Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Estuary Study, Volume 1-7,
                      U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

                  2.  Center for Natural Areas, Smithsonian Institution, Environmental Inventory
                      Activities and Information Sources in 44 States, with References to Selected
                      Literature and Individuals by Subject and State, U.S. Army Corps of Engin-
                      eers, 1974 (In Print).

                  3.  Engineering Agency for Resource Inventories, Inventory of Basic Environmental
                      Data for Southern Louisiana, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

                  4.                , Inventory of Basic Environmental Data for Washington, U.S.
                      Army Corps of Engineers.

                                                  National Interest

                  1. Center for Policy Alternatives, The National Interest in the Coastal Zone,
                      A study for OCZM/NOAA to be completed in the fall of 1974.

                                                                                              65

              2. Senate Committee on Commerce, Proceedings of Conference On National Inter-
                  est in the Coastal Zone, U.S. Government Printing Office, Available in
                  late 1974.

                                              Public Consensus
              Type (2)
              1.  Andrew Collver, Public Images and Coastal Zone Management Part I: Policy
                  Implications, National Technical Information Service, 1974.

              2.  David W. Fisher, Southern Rhode Island Coastal Zone Attitudes: Attitudes
                  of Property Owners in the Southern Rhode Island Coastal Zone and Their Im-
                  pact on the Coastal Environment, University of Rhode Island Sea Grant Pro-
                  gram, 1971.

              3.  Northeast Markets, Inc., Maine, An Appraisal by the People, Maine State
                  Planning office, 1973.

              4.  Jens Sorensen and John Ashbaugh, A survey of organized Groups with an Inter-
                  est in the California Coastal Zone, University of California Sea Grant Pro-
                  gram, In Preparation.

              5.  Joseph M. Viladas Company, The American People and Their Environment-1973:
                  A Study of National Opinion and Attitudes about Environmental Problems and
                  Their Solutions, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
                  Technical Information Service, 1973.

                                Unique, Scarce, Fragile, or Vulnerable Areas
              Type (1)
              1.  Coastal Research Corporation, Estuarine Landscape Survey and Analysis, Bur-
                  eau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1969.

              2.  Arthur C. Moore and Associates, Bright Breathing Edges of City Life: Plan-
                  ning for Amenity Benefits of Urban Water Resources, Office of Water Resour-
                  ces Research, U.S. Department of Interior, 1971.

              3.  National Park Service, Part Two of the National Park System Plan--Natural
                  History, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

              4.  office of Business Economics, Economic and Demographic Analysis and Projec-
                  tion for Twenty Estuary Economic Regions, U.S. Department of Commerce.

              5. Vineyard Open Lands Foundation, A Visual Analysis of Marthas Vineyard, 1973.

              Type (2)
              1.  Bureau of Census, Census of Population, 1970: General Social and Economic
                  Characteristics, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972.

              2.  Coastal Zone Resources Corporation, A Plan and Program for Amenities and
                  Aesthetics in the Escarosa Pilot Area, Florida Coastal Coordinating Council.

              3.  National Park Service, "The Natural Landmarks Program".

              4.                National Parks and Landmarks, U.S. Government Printing Office.

             66

                 5.            The National Register of Historical Places, U.S. Government
                     Printing Office, 1973.

                 6. L. Pesson, The Coastal Fishermen of LOilisiana; Their Characteristics, Atti-
                     tudes, Practices, and Responsiveness to Change, Center for Wetland Resources,
                     Louisiana State University, 1973.

                                        Areas of High Natural Productivity
                 Type (1)
                 1.  Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Estuary Study, Volume 1-7,
                     U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

                 2.  John Clark, Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management of
                     the Coastal Zone, The Conservation Foundation, 1974.

                 3.  Philip Douglas and Richard Stroud, Editors, Proceedings of Symposium of the
                     Biological Significance of Estuaries, Sport Fishing Institute, 1970.

                 4.  Federal Water Quality Administration, The National Estuarine Pollution Study,
                     U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

                 5.  Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, The Value of Massachusetts
                     Coastal Wetlands, 1971.

                 Type (2)
                 1.  S.K. Eltringham, Life in Mud and Sand, Crane, Russak, and Company, 1972

                 2.  R. Murphy, Distribution of North Atlantic Pelagic Birds, Folio 14 of Series
                     Atlas of Marine Environment, American Geographical Society, 1969.

                 3.  G.P. Spinner, The Wildlife Wetlands and Shellfish Areas of the Atlantic
                     Coastal Zone, Folio 18 of Series Atlas of Marine Environment, American Geo-
                     graphical Society, 1969.

                                          Areas of Recreation Potential
                 Type (1)
                 1.  R.L. Adams et al., Outdoor Recreation: A Legacy_for America-Appendix A: An
                     Economic Analysis, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1973.

                 2.  Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor America: A Plan for Providing Recrea-
                     tion Opportunities to the Nation, National Technical Information Service, 1973.

                 3.  Robert B. Ditton, The Social and Economic Significance of Recreation Activ-
                     ities in the Marine Environment, University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program,
                     1972.

                 4.  J. Knetsch et al., Outdoor Recreation and Water Resources Planning, Ameri-
                     can Geophysical Union, 1973.

                 5.  Soil Conservation Service, Guide to Making Appraisals of Potentials for Out-
                     door Recreation Development, U.S. Deapartment of Agriculture, 1966.

                                                                                              67

            Type (2)
            1.   Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Potomac Estuary-A Study of the Recreation,
                 Fish, and Wildlife Potential, U.S. Department of Interior, 1969.

            2.   Department of Development and Planning, The Lakefront Plan of Chicago, City
                 of Chicago, 1973.

            3.   John S. Marsh, Marine Parks: An Annotaded Bibliography, Council of Planning
                 Librarians, 1971.

            4.   Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan,
                 Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, 1972.

            5.   New England Marine Resources Information Program, Outdoor Recreation Uses
                 of Coastal Areas, University of Rhode Island, 1971.

                                 Facilities Depending on Coastal Waters
            Type (2)
            1.   Atomic Energy Commission, General Environmental Siting Guides for Nuclear
                 Power Plants, 1973 (Draft).

            2.   Harry C. Brockel, The Modern Challenge to Port Management, Center for Great
                 lakes Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1972.

            3.   John Clark and Willard Brownell, Electric Power Plants in the Coastal Zone:
                 Environmental Issues, American Littoral Society, Special Publication No. 7.

            4.   U.S. Coast Guard, Vessel Trafic Systems: Analysis of Port Needs, National
                 Technical Information Service, 1973.

            5.   Federal Power Commission, Guidelines for Protection of Natural, Historical,
                 Scenic, and Recreational Values in the Design and Location of Rights-of-way
                 and Transmission Facilities, 1970.

            6.   Institute forWater Resources, United states Deep Water Port Study, U.S. Army
                 Corps of Engineers, IWR Report 72-8, 1972.

            7.   92nd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Committee on Commerce, Background Report
                 on Power Plant Siting, 1972.

            Type (2)
            1.   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States,
                 "Waterways and Harbors", 1972.

            2.   Delaware Bay Oil Transport Committee of the State of Delaware, Energy, Oil,
                 and the State of Delaware: Technical Report, 1972.

            3.   Department of Interior, Deepwater Ports--Environmental Impact Statement,
                 1973 (Draft).

            4.   Environmental Protection Agency, Statistical Summary: 1968 Inventory of Mun@
                 icipal Waste Facilities, 1970.

              68

                  5.  A.T. Kearny, Inc., Domestic Waterborne Shipping Market Analysis: Great Lakes
                      Trade Area, National Technical Information Service, 1974.

                  6.            , Domestic Waterborne ShI22ing Market Analysis. Domestic Ocean
                      Trade Area, National Technical Information Service, 1974.

                  7.  U.S. Maritime Administration, Essential U.S. Foreign Trade Routes, U.S.
                      Department of Commerce, 1969.

                  8.  Public Health Service, Statistical Summary of Municipal Water Facilities in
                      the United States, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

                                 Areas of Unique Geology for Commerce and Industry
                  Type (2)
                  1.  American Petroleum Institute, Petroleum Facts and Figures, 1971.

                  2.  Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Port Facilities, U.S. Army Corps
                      of Engineers.

                  3.  Bureau of Land Management, Final Environmental Statement for Proposed Outer
                      Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale for Offshore Mississippi, Alabama,
                      and Florida, U.S. Department of Interior, 1973.

                  4.  Bureau of Mines, Mineral Facts and Problems, U.S. Government Printing office.

                  5.  Division of Mineral Resources, New England Offshore Mining Environmental
                      Study, Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, 1973.

                  6.  U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Mineral Resources, U.S. Government Printing
                      Office, 1973.

                  7.  Malcolm S.. Grant, Rhode Island's Ocean Sands: Management Guidelines for Sand
                      and Gravel Extraction in State Waters, Coastal Resources Center, University
                      of Rhode Island, 1973.

                  8.  Arthur D. Little, Inc., Potential onshore Effects of Deepwater Oil Terminals
                      and Related Industrial Development, 1973.

                  9.  National Petroleum Council, Petroleum Resources Under the Ocean Floor, 1969.

                  10. Northern Associates, Inc., "Physical Coastal and Port Characteristics and
                      Selected Deepwater Port Alternatives", U.S. Deepwater Port Study.

                  11. Soil Conservation Service, A List of Published Soil Surveys, U.S. Department
                      of Agriculture, Annually.

                                             Areas of Urban Concentrations
                  Type (2)
                  1. Bureau of Census, Census of Population: 1970, U.S. Government Printing Off-
                      ice, 1972.

                  2.            , Census of Housing: 1970, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

                                                                                              69

            3.           , County Business Patterns: 1972, U.S- Department of Commerce, 1973.

            4.           , Statistics for Federal Regions, States, and Metropolitan Areas,
                National Technical Information Service, 1973.

                                Areas of Significant Hazard if Developed
            Type (1)
            1.  Anonymous, Geologic Hazards and Public Problems--Conference Proceedings, U.S.
                office of Emergency Preparedness, 1969.

            2.  CLM/Systems, Inc., Airports and Their Environment: A Guide to Environmental
                Planning, National Technical Information Service, 1972.

            3.  Hittman Associates, Inc., Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control, Plan-
                ning, and Implementation, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

            4.  Water Resources Council, Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines, 1972.

            Type (2)
            1.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study, 1971.

            2.  John V. Byrne and William B. North, Landslides of Oregon North Coast, Oregon
                State University Sea Grant Program, 79-70.

            3.  Federal Aviation Administration, The National Aviation System--A Policy Sum-
                mary, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

            4.  Francis P. Shepard and Harold R. Wanless, Our Changing Coastlines, McGraw-Hill
                Book Company, 1972.

            5.  Samuel P. Snow, Study of Guidelines for Land Management and Use of Flood-
                Prone Areas in Alabama, Alabama Center for Urban and Regional Planning, Aub-
                urn University, 1973.

            6.  Raymond Sullivan and Raymond Pestrong, Coastal Hazards at Mussel Rock, South
                of San Francisco, Department of Geology, San Francisco State College, 1972.

                                   Areas for Resources Replenishment
            Type (2)
            1.  Malcolm S. Grant, Rhode Island's Ocean Sands: Management Guidelines for Sand
                and Gravel Extraction in State Waters, Coastal Resources Center, University
                of Rhode Island, 1973.

            2.  John Schlee, Sand and Gravel Resources on the Continental Shelf Off the
                Northeastern United States, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 602, 1968.

               70

                    D. Priority of Uses
                       T Introduction
                       Designation of priority uses is closely tied to the requirements in Section
                    920.12 and 920.13 of the Section 305 regulations; it should build upon the
                    findings and conclusions the state reaches concerning permissible uses (920.12)
                    and areas of particular concern (920.13). In this discussion, we assume that
                    the uses the state is considering for priority designation are all permissible
                    uses as determined under 920.12.
                       There are two interpretations  of non-permissible uses. In the first, a use
                    may be considered non-permissible for the state's entire coastal zone, in which
                    case the state may not consider it for priority use designation anywhere within
                    its coastal zone. In the second interpretation, non-permissible uses are det-
                    ermined for specific areas or types of environments. In this case, a state
                    would not assign priority designations to non-permissible uses within the spe-
                    cific areas or environmental types, but it might consider these same uses as
                    pennissible outside of those specific areas and assign them priority use des-
                    ignations.  For example, residential development may be classified as a non-
                    permissible use in coastal wetlands, however, may be allowed on coastal terr-
                    aces and in the latter case be given an appropriate priority designation.
                       The Section 305 regulations designate two types of geograhic areas which
                    are closely related:
                         "geographic areas of particular concern" in 920.13; and
                         I'specific geographic areas throughout the coastal zone" in 920.15.
                       Geographic areas of particular concern may or may not, at the option of the
                    state, have priority uses designated for them pursuant to 920.15. Specific
                    geographic areas throughout the coastal zone established in 920.15 must have
                    priority uses established for them.
                       Specific geographic areas may include areas of particular concern, but also
                    may include areas of no particular concern. However, if states have designated
                    geographic areas of @a-rticular concern and then do not use them as a framework
                    for establishing priority uses, they may incur additional costs.
                       States which use the areas of particular concern (920.13) as the areas in
                    which they designate priority uses will save themselves the time, trouble, and
                    expense of having to establish a wholly separate system of specific geographic
                    areas throughout the coastal zone.

                       2. Considerations for Determining Priority Uses
                       The criteria which states may use to determine priority uses can be divided
                    into two sets: areas of particular concern and additional considerations.
                       Areas of particular concern: These are as may suggest a priority use des-
                    ignation. For example, if a state finds an area of particular concern because
                    of its recreation value, it would logically follow that the priority use of
                    that area would be recreation. Relating the area of particular concern to spe-
                    cific geographic areas assumes that these areas have approximately the same
                    boundaries.
                       The reason a state might designate a given geographic area as an area of
                    particular concern is based on the inherent suitability or unsuitability of
                    potential or proposed uses. For example, areas of substantial recreational
                    value have recreation designated as a top priority use (inherent suitability);
                    areas that would have significant hazards if developed have residential uses
                    as lowest priority (inherent unsuitability).
                       The uses associated with an area of particular concern often overlap. When
                    this is so, there may or may not be conflict among uses. As an example of no

                                                                                               71

              conflict, a wetland area may be of particular concern because of waterfowl
              production, and an overlapping area may be of particular concern because of
              scenic qualities.
                 However, if an estuary is an area of particular concern because of its
              fisheries, and an overlapping area is of particular concern because of its
              value as a unique source of mineral deposits, there may be a degree of direct
              conflict.
                 Where the areas of particular concern overlap and their associated uses
              conflict, a state must give one use priority over the other. For example, a
              state could decide to give fishing priority over mineral extraction in the
              area where the estuary overlaps mineral resource deposit because of the poten-
              tially greater economic returns from utilizing a renewable resource on a con-
              tinuing basis.
                 For each of the eight types of geographic areas of particular concern pre-
              sented in the Section 305 regulations (920.13) several high and low priority
              uses are apparent. Examples are:
                areas of unique, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat:
                  high priority@use-scientific, educational, recreation;
                  low priority use--intensive public recreation, residential;
                areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat:
                  high priority use--fish and wildlife refuges, fishing;
                  low priority use--refineries, warehouses, power plants, residences on fill;
                areas of substantial recreational value:
                  high priority use--public beaches, resort developments;
                  low priority use-:-pulpmills, steel plants, sand and gravel extraction;
                areas where developments and facilities are dependent upon utilization of,
                or access to coastal waters:
                  high priority use--marinas, ports, fish unloading facilities;
                  low priority use--residential housing, shopping centers, small industries;
                areas of unique geologic or topographic significance to industrial or commer-
                cial development:
                  high priority use--port facilities (direct access to deep water channel and
                                      land transportation modes), extraction of oil, sand, and
                                     other minerals;
                  low priority use--warehouses, residences;
                areas of urban concentrations where uses are highly competitive:
                  high priority use-those uses which reduce conflicts;
                  low priority use--those uses which maintain or increase conflicts
                areas of significant hazard if developed:
                  high priority use--park, agriculture;
                  low prioritX use--residential developments, schools, hospitals; and
                areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal lands or resources:
                  high priority use--agriculture, recreation, scientific and educational re-
                                      serves, refuges;
                  low priority use--solid waste disposal
                 Additional considerations: Conceivably, states may not use the areas of
              particular concern at all as criteria for determining priority of uses, but
              this seems unlikely, given the effort which has been expended and the informa-
              tion developed in determining the areas of concern. It is more likely that the
              states will as well use additional considerations as criteria.
                 When one reviews the Congressional history of the Act, both the Act itself
              and the attendant regulations reveal several specific considerations a state
              may use to make priority use determinations; we have distinguished fourteen in

              72

                   the discussion that follows, and states could add others.
                      These considerations represent realistic approaches to the problems of es-
                   tablishing priorities; approaches that include economic and socioeconomic fac-
                   tors as well as aspects of the physical environment.
                      Any selection of considerations for priority use determination a state makes
                   will result in a listing of factors which are highly interrelated. For example,
                   in the listing below, states could combile "diversity" with "uniqueness" into
                   one consideration instead of two, or considerations 2 ("control of surrounding
                   land use") and 3 ("impacts of use on surrounding areas") into "relationship to
                   surrounding areas."
                      States should be aware that some of the following considerations are more
                   easily quantified than others. measures have been developed for quantifying
                   uniqueness, scarcity, regional benefits, multiple use, prior commitment of
                   land, fair share, and economic efficiency.
                      However, it is evident that social equity, irreversible commitments, and
                   public preferences are considerations which do not lend themselves to quantif-
                   ication and which require professional judgment and open public review for res-
                   olution.
                      In many cases, considerations will conflict. For example, a large capital
                   investment may have been made in the construction of an industrial facility
                   (prior commitment of land) on a site determined to be unique and worthy of
                   preservation (according to an inventory of unique and scarce resources).
                      Social equity is another consideration that often conflicts with other fac-
                   tors (e.g., irreversibility, economic efficiency, diversity) as well as areas
                   of particular environmental concern (e.g., areas of high natural productivity,
                   areas of scenic quality).
                      In the cases where conflicts do occur among considerations, a state will
                   have to make an evaluation and establish procedures for trade-off decisions.
                      The fourteen considerations are:
                      (1) Prior commitment of lands: Resources which are presently committed in
                   terms of laws, policies, and public consensus effectively already have a high
                   priority--in fact, possibly the highest of priorities. These include existing
                   strongly-supported special, comprehensive, or master plans which designate
                   areas of special value or use.
                      As a first. step, a state must obviously consider the existing laws when it
                   begins to set priorities. This may result in substantial constraints as the
                   state develops its management program; if so, these constraints will effect-
                   ively resolve contentious issues.
                      States accordingly should consider changing legislation if this is necessary
                   to implement up-dated priority use designations. This may mean that the states
                   might wish to evaluate existing programs to determine which they might wish to
                   terminate to achieve new goals.
                      Prior commitment of lands to a particular use on an area-wide basis may have
                   evolved in several ways. State or local governments may have committed land to
                   uses like recreation or university research areas. Public and private inter-
                   ests may have developed other areas extensively for industrial uses or ports.
                   In still other areas governments may have made considerable capital investments
                   in public services--e.g., water or sewer treatment facilities, highways, schools.
                   Given existing commitments like these, commitments either private or public
                   owners have made, and the benefits that are derived from these uses (employment,
                   recreation days, regional income), it is unlikely that the state will elect to
                   remove these uses; and the existing uses of either high capital investment or
                   high social benefits will remain the priority use.

                                                                                               73

                   other areas may be less precisely defined, but these may represent areas
               with strongly developed policies expressing broad public concern like conserva-
               tion of the natural values and amenities of areas like the Big Sur of California,
               the Everglades of Florida and the San Juan Islands of Washington.
                   Probably the stronger the public concern covering the particular environmen-
               tal or social values of the area, the narrower the range of uses which will be
               acceptable.
                   Any uses a state proposes for land committed as above must certainly be con-
               sistent with the public concern to rate a priority designation. The fact that
               the lands under consideration are being used as they are in response to public
               consensus may imply that the present use will remain the highest priority use.
                   (2) Control of surrounding land use: Any priority use designation of a
               specific geographic area should consider that activities on surrounding loca-
               tions may adversely affect the priority use. Designating priority uses should
               consider whether the use can be maintained over a period of time. Long-term
               maintenance of priority uses in this specific area depends upon controlling the
               impacts from uses in surrounding areas.
                   For example, if an estuarine water body is designated as a specific area for
               a wildlife preserve, the use of the surrounding area would have to be controlled
               to ensure that sediment run-off would not degrade the preserve's environmental
               conditions.
                   This suggests that many areas with special values may have to have adjoining
               "buffer" zones to protect them from adverse impacts. The state may choose to
               expand boundaries of the specific geographic area to include the buffer zone,
               or may work out organizational arrangements with other agencies to regulate
               activities within the buffer zone for the purpose of protecting the area with
               a designated priority usel12.
                   The estuarine sanctuaries regulations recognize this situation:

                    Sec. 921.3(b). ...The area chosen as an estuarine sanctuary, shall
                    to the extent feasible, include water and land masses constituting a
                    natural ecologic unit.
                    and
                    Sec. 921.6(a)(2). The state's coastal zone management program must
                    recognize and be designed to protect the estuarine sanctuary; approp-
                    riate land and water use regulations and planning considerations must
                    apply to adjacent lands.

                   (3) Impacts of use on surrounding areas: Designating a priority use in one
               area should consider the effects of that use on locations outside of the area.
               For example, designating a state park may lead to traffic congestion and in-
               creased littering outside the park boundaries, thus placing a burden on local
               public service systems like the police and trash collection. In determining
               designations for priority uses, states should consider the physical, economic
               and social capacities of the surrounding areas to absorb these impacts.
                   Analyzing consequences of impacts outside the specific area if the state does
               designate a priority use may require altering the priority use or adjusting the
               uses the state will permit. The Acadia National Park plan was modified to re-
               flect concerns with external impacts3. Furthermore, the state's coastal zone
               management authority may recommend or provide facilities required to absorb the
               spillover impacts into the adjacent areas. For example, determining an area as
               low intensity public recreation may generate significant adverse impacts outside
               the area--trailer parks, campgrounds, picnic areas. But if the state changes

             74

                   the use designation to high intensity public recreation, the campgrounds,
                   trailer parks, and picnic areas may be accommodated within the park, thus reduc-
                   ing the adverse impacts in the surrounding areas.
                      (4) Scarcity and uniqueness: A specific geographic area which possesses a
                   unique attribute is likely to have fewer options for alternative uses than
                   areas which have less unusual attributes. For example, coastal wetlands are
                   relatively scarce in California and are therefore highly regarded for scienti-
                   fic and educational purposes, whereas, coastal wetlands in Louisiana are quite
                   common and therefore the loss or degradation of one wetlands system may not be
                   as serious as it would be in California.
                      Inventorying coastal resource characteristics is a standard method for de-
                   lineating scarcity and uniqueness (see Section B of this chapter, Permissible
                   Uses).
                      Specific geographic areas may have value because of their scarcity or unique-
                   ness (see Section C of this chapter, Geographic Areas of Particular Concern).
                   Luna Leopold has constructed a methodology for detexmining scarcity and unique-
                   ness4.
                      The concept of protecting unique characteristics is closely tied to the con-
                   siderations of irreversibility and diversity. This point may be expanded to in-
                   clude the considerations we discuss in items 5 and 6 concerning diversity of
                   uses and irreversible modifications. Note that if an area is well-known to be
                   unique, it is probably already committed--as are the Everglades, for example.
                      (5) Diversity: The Act says:
                           The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial,
                        recreational, industrial, and aesthetic resources of immediate
                        and potential value to the present and future well-being of the
                        Nation. (320(b).)
                      Both natural systems and cultural systems are characterized by their inherent
                   diversity. The term "pluralism" is often used to describe the phenomenon of
                   cultural diversity (for discussion of pluralism see Chapter V, Public Partici-
                   pation . In the case of natural systems, differences in soils, vegetation,
                   wildlife, and geology are characteristics'distributed over a geographic area.
                   Similarly, cultural systems are characterized by differences in race, education,
                   income, religion, and social interests, which are manifested by diverse archi-
                   tectural styles, recreational preferences, and employment opportunities, and
                   a diverse preference for social objectives.
                      There are several reasons for maintaining the diversity of natural and cul-
                   tural systems. One of the reasons is to be able to maintain a broad spectrum
                   of future options. Another is that one can better maintain equilibrium of
                   natural and social systems because a system composed of many elements is more
                   resistant to stress than a system composed of few elements5.
                      Diversity of natural systems in a coastal zone may also provide a desirable
                   range for optional priority uses. Researchers who studied the Oregon estuaries6
                   analyzed them in terms of their estuaries' diversity, with the result that the
                   current objective of the state's estuary program is to maintain that diversity.
                   For example, the state will keep those estuaries that are pristine as they are,
                   and they may well not try to return to pristine conditions those estuaries which
                   have been modified by development.
                      (6) Irreversible commitments: The Act and the section 305 regulations deal
                   with irreversible commitments of coastal zone resources.
                      States must evaluate especially carefully uses which irreversibly change the
                   resources, whether through consumption (e.g., sand, oil, gravel) or through
                   landform modification (e.g., filling, dredging, excavation). An approach they

                                                                                               75

               may use would seek to determine if there is another better location or a possi-
               bility of substituting for the desired resource (e.g., compacted, burned solid
               waste residues for paving materials; geothermal steam instead of fossil fuel
               power plants) thus avoiding impacts that may cause irreversible change. Since
               irreversible commitments lead to a reduction in future options for resources
               utilization, this consideration will be especially important in designating
               priority of uses.
                  Few of the activities mentioned have impacts which are truly irreversible
               if cost is not a factor. However, activities which result in the loss of a
               species certainly lead to commitments which are truly irreversible, regardless
               of the costs. States must weigh the short-term gains against possible long-
               term losses. For example, port development may result in an immediate increase
               in local employment and income, but in the long term, it may result in an over-
               all reduction in the fishery harvest on a region-wide basis.
                  A marsh may be filled now, and eventually this might lead to extinction of a
               species which may have considerable scientific, sport or commercial value. A
               dam may be built now and result immediately in the loss of wild river values.
               And these lost wild river values may increase in time, as Krutilla discusses:
               Hell's Canyon provides an example of economic losses from irreversible commit-
               ments7.
                  The Act emphasizes that now resources are being irreversibly committed, but
               that we should consider future generations when we allocate resources:
                       Important ecological, cultural, historical, and aesthetic values
                    in the coastal zone which are essential to the well-being of all
                    citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost. (302(e)).
                       The Congress finds and declares that it is the national policy
                    (a) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore
                    or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this
                    and 'succeeding generations. (303).
                  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) specifically requires irrevers-
               ible commitments to be evaluated in assessing environmental impacts; section
               102(c) of NEPA indicates that all federal agencies shall
                    include in every recommendation or report or proposals for legisla-
                    tion and other major federal actions significantly affecting the
                    quality of the human environment, a detailed statement on... (IV)
                    the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment
                    and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, (V)
                    any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which
                    would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
                  For further discussion of how these concepts have been addressed, see the
               regulations the Council on Environmental Quality issued on 1 August 19738.
                  The concept of irreversibility should take into account the present versus
               the future value of coastal resources. For example, the value of wilderness
               shoreline may be low in terms of present value, but in the future it may be
               very high because fewer wilderness shorelines may remain and comparatively more
               people may appreciate the value it represents.
                  (8) Dependency':
                       Examples of some related statewide policies and programs which
                    will affect and should be considered in making determinations under
                    the act include: energy policy, siting of power plants and other
                    major water-dependent facilities.... (920.11; see also 920.13.)
                  States should ask to what extent does the proposed use need to be located om
               the coast? How dependent is the proposed use upon coastal resources for its

             76

                  existence?
                     With this approach, uses which could be accommodated at a location other
                  than in the coastal zone would have a lowerpriority than uses which required
                  some feature of the coastal zone to exist. Different studies have recommended
                  the dependency criterion9,10,11.
                     States could modify the dependency concept to another approach which would
                  be to compare the costs and benefits of alternative inland locations versus
                  coastal locations. In this case, one of the costs could be the pre-emption of
                  water-dependent uses (see also Sections B and C in this chapter).
                     States mus't examine the consequences of relocating a use from the coast to
                  an inland location. This relocation may be called the "displacement effect."
                  Certainly states proposing to relocate a use should determine the environmental
                  and economic impacts of this relocation as a basis for the comparative evalua-
                  tion of the coastal versus inland impacts.
                     (9) Economic efficiency: States should   ask whether priority use designation
                  will increase the economic efficiency of commercial and industrial enterprises.
                  Will increases in economic efficiency lead to lowered production costs and lower
                  product costs to the consumer? For example, locating power plants inland may
                  increase the costs of electrical power which ultimately may be reflected in
                  higher production costs in industries with large electrical consumptionl2.
                     States may also consider using priority use designation to cluster industrial
                  activities to minimize transportation and communication costs and/or achieve
                  economies of scale (e.g., clustering oil refineries with chemical, plastic or
                  paint industries; locating a fish processing plant with fertilizer and pet
                  food plants; locating power plants with desalination facilities).
                     Of course, concentrating industrial activities may significantly increase
                  adverse environmental impacts (i.e., water pollution, noise, air pollution).
                  However, where industrial activities are clustered, they may be able to share
                  the high cost of joint facilities for advanced treatment'of wastes.
                     Designating priority uses must also consider the needs for ancillary uses.
                  If the priority use is agriculture, states must consider the same or adjoining
                  areas for agricultural processing, fertilization, warehouses, farm workers'
                  housing, water supply, and other support activities. Another example is the re-
                  quirement that ports have for support industries (e.g., a ship chandlery, weld-
                  ing facilities, metal supplies and linkage with land transportation systems).
                     If a coastal use does not have ancillary facilities in close proximity, it
                  may incur substantial transportation and communication costs and therefore may
                  operate at an inefficient economic level.
                     (10) Social equity: one objective of social equity is to ensure that those
                  who are already socially disadvantaged are not further deprived for the benefit
                  of those who are socially advantaged13
                     States should be sensitive to the fact that benefits from coastal zone re-
                  sources are in most cases unevenly distributed among socio-economic groups.
                  Therefore, there will be cases in which states should designate coastal areas
                  so that the opportunity to enjoy the benefits from the coastal zone resources
                  are more widely and uniformly shared throughout the state's population. For
                  example, in areas with substantial disadvantaged populations, the State could
                  acquire coastal land and make the coastal resources available at little or no
                  direct cost to the user, including at least partially subsidized camping, pic-
                  nicking, boat launching and similar coastal-oriented facilities. In another
                  case, the state may encourage private development of coastal lands whose re-
                  sources are in turn made available at little or no cost to the user, except as
                  he may wish to pay for specific equipment or services associated with the area

                                                                                               77

               (e.g., boats, horses, guides, diving gearl which may be provided as a profit-
               making enterprise.
                  This private development might be accomplished through the availability of
               low interest loans, direct governmental subsidy, or by a purchase and lease-
               back arrangement.
                  The California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission considered social equity
               in a recent decision by which it granted approval of a recreation and vehicle
               campground project:
                        Uses of land in the coastal zone that can benefit many people
                      should have preference over uses that benefit a few. Or more pre-
                      cisely, when a piece of land is not proposed for public acquisi-
                      tion and is thus almost certain to be developed, should it be used
                      for housing--of benefit primarily to the residents of the housing--
                      or should encouragement be given to vacations or similarly temp  o-
                      rary uses, such as resorts, hotels, rental units, and recreational
                      vehicle parks, that will allow many more people to enjoy the amen-
                      ities of the coastal zone.13
                  (11) 'Regional benefits and national interest: One of the more difficult de-
               terminations a state must make in establishing priorities lies in assigning
               benefits and costs at the national level, the interstate, and the intrastate
               regional levels. The Act says
                        The Congress finds that--(a) there is a national interest in the
                      effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development
                      of the coastal zone. (302).
                  Section 302(h) also refers to uses of more than local significance:
                        The key to more effective protection and use of land and water
                      resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exer-
                      cise their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal
                      zone by assisting the states, in cooperation with federal and local
                      governments and other vitally affected interests, in developing
                      land and water use programs for the coastal zone, including uni-
                      fied policies, criteria, standards, methods and processes for
                      dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local
                      significance.
               And Section 305 regulations (920.12) in turn point out that
                        The management program must provide for adequate consideration
                      of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities
                      necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in
                      nature.
                  This is partly because in an advanced industrial economy, it is extremely
               difficult to identify the economic flows and to establish the geographic
               boundaries of economic systems (i.e., local, substate region, state, and multi-
               state regionl4).
                  Regional benefits may be especially important when several states share a
               common resource (e.g., properties in the Chesapeake Bay or in the Gulf of
               Mexico). These may include benefits of employment or of production. Another
               example: an electrical power generating plant located in one small community
               may provide economic benefits directly to communities over a wide area which
               supplies workers or services or products to the facility. Recreation facilities--
               beaches or national seashores--provide beneficial uses to people over extremely
               wide areas.
                  Determining regional costs and benefits is made more difficult because states
               must consider more than economic factors; they must consider, for example, ad-

            78

                 verse impacts resulting from loss of open space; destruction of wildlife habi-
                 tat; degradation of aesthetics; and reduction of future options for land use.
                    In these cases the authority may either reconsider the priority use desig-
                 nation to reduce the net cost to the local community, or it may develop compen-
                 satory mechanisms to reduce the net cost to the local community (e.g., land
                 banks, investments of public funds in public projects, revenue sharing, or tax
                 relief)(for further discussion see Section III-A, Means of Exerting Control).
                    Uses which are in the national interest or which represent national needs
                 generally will have impacts upon local communities similar to those resulting
                 from fulfilling regional needs. However, national needs may imply that feder-
                 ally financed programs may be available to compensate, at least partially,
                 local communities for costs they incur when national needs are filled. For
                 example, the federal government may acquire land,for defense purposes and the
                 local community will lose various resources--open space, wetlands. The local
                 community may receive compensation through land exchanges carrying other values.
                    (12) Accepting a fair share of social responsibilities: Many local govern-
                 ments and states consider a variety of coastal uses undesirable, and they there-
                 fore exclude these uses from locating in areas within their jurisdiction. Not-
                 able examples are oil refineries, heavy industry, intensive recreation, power
                 plants, oil extraction, solid waste disposal, off-shore oil terminals, low in-
                 come housing and airports.
                    Assuming that these uses are expressions of social needs, and at least to
                 some extent, must be located in the coastal zone, then states and local govern-
                 ments which already have accepted their "fair share" of "undesirable" uses
                 should not necessarily be forced to bear the burden of accepting more, while
                 other state or local governments which have less than their fair share should
                 not necessarily continue to exclude "undesirable" uses.
                    A well-known conflict with the fair share principle is the exclusion of low
                 income housing from suburban communities, a practice which concentrates it in
                 the central city. Numerous court cases have tended to strike down this form of
                 exclusionary zoning, using the fair share concept as one of the argumentsl5.
                    A state may have a legitimate argument for a policy for excluding oil refin-
                 eries on the basis that it already has disproportionately more refineries than
                 many other coastal states. According to the vice-president of Continental Oil
                 Company, the Governor of Louisiana "recently told other governors that it was
                 unfair for states that will not permit oil-producing or oil-refining activities
                 in their own area to expect other states to give up resources to meet the needs
                 of those laggard states"16.
                    In some cases a community may have assumed a disproportionate burden for
                 legitimate reasons, one of which might be the environmental capability of the
                 area. Generally states will have to weigh the fair share criterion against
                 their analyses of comparative impacts and alternative locations.
                    (13) Public preference: Authorities should be sensitive to public views,
                 particularly in an "anticipatory" sense; the regulations state:
                         Public participation is an essential element of development and
                      administration of a coastal zone management program. Through citi-
                      zen involvement in the development of a management program, public
                      needs and aspirations can be reflected in use decisions for the
                      coastal zone, and public support for the management program can be
                      generated. Participating states, therefore, should seek to obtain
                      extensive public participation in the development and administra-
                      tion of a coastal zone management program. (920.30)
                    The public is frequently on record at some level concerning its objectives

                                                                                                79

                for use of an area, and the public opinion expressed as a law or regulation.
                We have already discussed this point under pr_,Lor commitment.
                   The public may be presented with alternative priorities of use for a specific
                geographic area through hearings, surveys and announcements Cfor further dis-
                cussion, see Chapter V, Public Participation). By using these approaches, the
                state should be able to begin to establish which alternative the public prefers.
                   Public review and selection of priority use appears to be most useful either
                when the agency cannot distinguish between the relative benefits and costs of
                alternative uses for a specific geographic area, or when benefits and costs are
                extremely difficult to appraise by a quantifiable means because they are based
                on the wide range of social values held by a very diverse set of individuals,
                groups and organizations within the public (for further discussion of public
                participation in selection of alternatives, see Chapter V).
                   (14),Ability to implement a designated priority use: From a practical stand-
                point, this is a most important consideration. one may ask several questions
                about a proposed use; for example, does the authority or another unit of govern-
                ment have legal authority to carry out the implementation? If another unit of
                government has the authority, will it carry out the implementation? Will the
                priority-use decision be politically acceptable if the priority use requires
                that the authority purchase land either in fee simple or easement? Are there
                sufficient monies available for this or are there firm commitments for future
                acquisition?
                   If there are needs for development facilities to realize fully a priority
                use designation (e.g., developing intensive recreation facilities) are there
                sufficient funds available, or is there a firm commitment for future acquisition?
                If there are substantial management costs involved in monitoring priority use
                designation, are there sufficient funds available or committed for the future?
                   One of the management costs which the authority should avoid are the expenses
                incurred in preventing degradation of the resources upon which the priority use
                depends (see consideration 2 above). These concepts of budget, political accep-
                tability and legal means are discussed in the regulations, 920.14 and 920.16,
                under legal controls and organizational arrangements.
                   States should recognize that political and economic uncertainties increase
                with the length of a program's time.* Therefore, a priority use designation
                which requires several years to implement is generally more likely to encounter
                fiscal and political difficulties--among these, inflation and changes in adminis-
                tration--than one which can be implemented immediately. On this, the regulations
                say
                        Authority is provided in the Act for a State's management program
                     to be developed and adopted in segments so that immediate attention
                    may be devoted to those areas within the coastal zone which most ur-
                     gently need management programs. (920.44).

                3. Methods of Designation
                   Spatial representation: There are at least two methods of representing speci-
                fic geographic areas in a spatial configuration: continuous and scattered.
                   In the continuous concept, every geographic point within the coastal zone is
                within a specific predetermined area. An example of this is the Texas approach.
                For an actual map representation, see Figure 1 in Section II-B, Permissible Uses.
                   The scattered concept will result in priority determination only for discrete
                areas within the coastal zone. Therefore, locations within the coastal zone may
                or may not be within specific areas.

             80

                                                                     SPECIFIC
                                                                     AREAS

                                                                     COASTAL
                                                                     ZONE

                                              SCATTERED CONCEPT

                                                                     COASTAL
                                                                     ZONE

                                            CONTINUOUS CONCEPT

                                                      FIGURE 1

                    The scattered or continuous areas due to their complex nature may overlap.
                    Areas, either scattered or continuous, may require policies to control land
                  uses outside the area; this may affect the priority use designation. For ex-
                  ample, see considerations 2 ("control of surrounding land use") and 3 ("impacts
                  of use on surrounding areas") which look to impacts resulting from uses both
                  inside and outside the areas in question. Benefits and costs are associated
                  with each concept; the states must determine for themselves which to use when.
                    An advantage of the scattered area concept is that it can be applied to areas
                  of considerable heterogeneity--planning in relatively modest increments.
                    On the other hand, states may find that the continuous area concept is par-
                  ticularly useful where there is some homogeneity--environmental, institutional,
                  or social. Using the continuous area concept, however, may involve considerable
                  costs for information collecting and monitoring as well as for administrating.
                    Graphic representation of relationships with use-specific areas: There are
                  two ways to designate specific areas. one is by recurring type (e.g., wetlands,
                  dunes, terraces, estuaries, coastal plains); the other is by place name    areas
                  (e.g., San Francisco Bay, Humboldt Bay, Penobscot Bay, Assateague Island). A
                  graphic representation is shown in Figure 2 below which uses simple matrices of
                  the relationship which given uses may have to specific geographic areas.
                    If a state uses this approach, it must map the areas to indicate their speci-
                  fic location. (See Figure 2 in Section B of this chapter--prepared by the Texas
                  Bureau of Economic Geology.) Figure 3 which appears below also uses a simple
                  matrix concept, but in line with the place name area concept outlined above.

                                                                                                      81

                     Types of
                 Geographic Areas                              Use
                    (recurring)       Refinery        Marina          Residential       Fishing

                 Estuary                  U              I               U                 D
                 Beach                    U              0               U                 D
                 Coastal terrace          0              0               0                 X

                     D    desirable
                     U    undesirable
                     I    intermediate
                     *    inconsequential
                     *    indeterminate (needs specific on-site information)

                                                     FIGURE 2

                 Place, Name, Areas              Refinery     Residential     Fishing     Education

                 San Franciso Bay                   M              M             H             M
                 Napa River salt marsh              L              L             H             M
                 Bodega Marine Life Refuge          L              L             M             H

                        H  high value
                        M  medium value
                        L  low value

                                                      FIGURE 3

                    States may find other rating systems more useful; this will depend on how
                 much detail they desire, as well as the amount and quality of information avail-
                 able with which to make judgment.
                    Another rating system might be number values, where 1 is the highest value,
                 and 5 the lowest value, with 2, 3, and 4 representing intermediate values. But
                 unless the state has highly detailed and accurate quantified data available, us-
                 ing numbers to indicate rank does not necessarily imply a proportional relation-
                 ship (e.g., "4" is not necessarily twice as "bad" as 112").
                    matrices of these types actually may represent a net benefit-cost summary
                 based on the evaluation of impacts that result from activities associated with
                 each proposed use. For a fuller discussion of the matrix technique and problems
                 of assigning values to impacts, see Section B of this chapter.
                    Definition of uses: The more specifically the state wishes to have uses de-
                 fined, the higher the information collection and administrative costs will be to
                 the authority. For example, specifying different uses--surfing, swimming, water-
                 skiing, sport fishing--as uses for an area will require higher staff and plan
                 preparation costs than simply designating "recreation" as a use for an area.
                    In cases where the sensitivity of the area to adverse modification is either
                 high or of immediate concern, then these costs may be justified. For example,
                 in the case of an estuary, sport fishing may be determined to be a compatible
                 use, whereas waterskiing may be incompatible--distinctions which may have been
                 overlooked under a general heading of "recreation" as a use.
                    A number of states have grouped uses into categories for priority designation
                 purposes. Washington, for example, in the guidelines to its shoreline act states:

              82

                           The recommended system classifies shorelines into four distinct
                        environments (natural, conservancy, rural and urban) which provide
                        the framework for implementing shoreline policies and regulatory
                        measures.17
                   Florida has described a similar classification:
                           The Coastal Coordination Council approach utilizes three major
                        categories or zones of land and water use. These categories--
                        preservation (no further modifications), conservation (controlled
                        modification), and development (few if any state-level controls)--
                        are designated after consideration of the following eight factors.
                        1. Soils suitability of the area.
                        2. Ecological significance of the area.
                        3. Susceptibility of the area to flooding, both from runoff and
                           and hurricane driven tides.
                        4. Historical and archeological significance of the area.
                        5. Unique features that may warrant protection.
                        6. Water quality standards.
                        7. Present land use.
                        8. Geological factors to the extent possible with existing informa-
                           tion.18

                  4. Revision Over Time

                      States may designate priority uses over a period of time so that they may
                   give some areas which are immediately threatened prompt designation, and del&y
                   priority designations on those with no visible threats. Th ey may also use
                   moratoria to delay designation of priorities until they can conduct research
                   and information collection programs.
                      As goals and objectives change, priorities will change. The states must
                   constantly keep information concerning uses and their impacts up-dated and
                   stored and then be able to retrieve it when they need it. It will be very im-
                   portant to provide a feed-back into the information system, including a measure
                   of the-impacts occurring from earlier priority project implementations. All
                   such projects should be designed to provide for a periodic review and evalua-
                   tion.
                      The exact method of review, evaluation and actual change in priorities will
                   depend upon the management system the states choose. However, the basic prin-
                   ciple of selection of objectives for the coastal zone based on the wishes of
                   the people will always apply. The authority's constant review of the consequ-@-
                   ences of actions it and other agencies have already taken could provide a better
                   understanding of the value of new proposals. The states must always be prepared
                   to heed public preferences, whether or not they act on these preferences all
                   the time. As population increases or as popular activities change, so will the
                   demand for specific uses within the coastal zone.

                                                    CITATIONS

                   1. Albert Veri et al., "The Resource Buffer Plan: A Conceptual Land Use Study,
                      Study #2',' Rockery Bay Land use Studies: Environmental Planning Strategies
                      for the Development of a Mangrove Shoreline, Conservation Foundation, Wash-
                      ington, D.C., October 1973.

                   2. Conservation Foundation, An Environmental Management Program for Bolinas

                                                                                               83

                    Lagoon, California, February 1971

               3. U.S. National Park Service and the Maine State Office of Planning, Coastal
                  Planning Group, Acadia National Park: Revised Master Plan, expected publi-
                  cation date.- Summer 1974.

               4. Luna Leopold, "Quantitative Comparison of Some Aesthetic Factors Among Rivers,"
                  U.S. Geological Survey Circulars, No. 620, Washington, D.C.

               5. U.S. Water Resources Council, Summary Analysis of Public Response to the
                  Proposed Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Re-
                  sources and Draft Environmental Statement, July 1972.

               6. David A. Bella, and Peter C. Klingeman, General Planning Methodology for
                  Oregon's Estuarine Natural Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
                  March 1973.

               7. John Krutilla, and Charles J. Cicchetti, "Evaluating Benefits of Environmental
                  Resources with Special Application to the Hells Canyon," Natural Resources
                  Journal, 12(l):l--29, January 1972.

               8. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Preparation of Environmental Impact
                  Statements: Regulations, Federal Register, 38(147):20550--20562, August 1,
                  1973.

               9. California Resources Agency, California Department of Navigation and Ocean
                  Development, Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, Sacramento, 1972.

               10. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, A Plan for Michigan Shorelands,
                  Lansing, August 1973.

               11. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay
                  Plan, 1968.

               12. Gruen, Gruen & Associates and Sedway/Cooke, Lk22roaches Toward a Land use Al-
                  location System for California's Coastal Zone, prepared for Comprehensive
                  Ocean Area Plan, Appendix II, California Department of Navigation and Ocean
                  Development, October 22, 1971.

               13. Thomas Dickert, and Jens Sorensen, "Social Equity in Coastal Zone Planning",
                  Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1(2), Winter 1974.

               14. Allen Fred, "Behavior and Location: Foundations for Geographic and Dynamic
                  Location Theory", Part I, Land Studies in Geography, Series B Human Geography,
                  No. 27, Lund, 1967.

               15. Lawrence G. Sager, "Exclusionary Zoning: Constitutional Limitation on the
                  Power of Municipalities to Restrict the Use of Land", Land Use Control Annual,
                  1972.

               16. Ray Endarie, "The Case for Drilling off the Atlantic Coast", Our Sun, Corpor-
                  ate Public Relations Department of Sun Oil Company, St. Davids, Pennsylvania,
                  Winter 1974.

             84

                  17. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Final Guidelines Shoreline
                      Management Act of 1971, June 20, 1972.

                  18. State of Florida, Department of Natural ResourceSr Coastal Coordinating
                      Council, Recommendations for Development Activities in Florida's Coastal
                      Zone, April 1973.

                                                  CHAPTER III

                                         AUTHORITY AND ORGANIZATION

               A. Means of Exerting Control
                   In the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Congress found that
                     the key to more efficient protection and use of the land and water
                     resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exer-
                     cise their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal
                     zone by assisting the states in cooperation with Federal and local
                     governments and other vitally affected interests, in developing
                     land and water use programs for the coastal zone, including unified
                     policies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing
                     with land and water use decisions of more than local significance.
                     (Section 302(h).)
               The Act is therefore structured to achieve a state-level program that has suffi-
               cient legal authority to implement a coastal management program. To develop a
               plan that does not have implementing authority is not sufficient. Under the
               Act, the states' objective is to implement laws, procedures, and enforcement
               mechanisms to improve the manner in which decisions about coastal management
               are made.
                   Congress provided two sets of guidelines for states to follow in meeting
               this objective: The first provides three alternative general techniques for
               controlling land and water uses; the second provides a list of basic powers
               necessary for implementing the management program. We will discuss the alter-
               native general techniques and the list of basic powers in detail in this section.
               Discussion in this section refers primarily to Sections 305(b) (4), 306(c) (7),
               306(d), and 306(e) of the Act and Section 920.14 of the Section 305 regulations.

                   1. Process of Analysis
                   Stai- s will have to consider a variety of issues as they begin to bring their
               existing resources management laws in line with the Act's requirements. They
               will need processes for evaluating laws and for determining permissible uses,
               areas of particular concern, and guidelines on priorities of'uses within parti-
               cular areas. They should consider these questions:
                   Are current state laws sufficient for coastal management under the Act?
                   Which state agency or group of agencies should have authority to implement
                   and to administer the program?
                   Do existing state laws consider adequately private property interests--the
                   "taking issue"?
                   Should the state's coastal management program be regulatory (reactive)?
                   should it encourage specific uses or projects (promotional)? Should it have
                   elements of both?
                   At what time during the program development effort should the state enact or
                   modify pertinent laws? Are interim controls either desirable or necessary?
                   From what sources can the state finance the development and implementation
                   of its coastal zone management program?
                   Are current laws within the state sufficient for coastal management under the
               Act? Section 305 regulations require that the states address two issues (920.14(b):
                   are existing state powers and authority sufficient to exert one of three alter-
                   natives means of control specified in Section 306(e) of the Act; and
                   what specific modifications or strengthened mandates would be necessary to
                   qualify the state for management program approval under Section 306(d) and
                   306(e).

                                                      85

            86

                    The Section 305 regulations require the states to perform a study of their
                 laws as part of the developing of their management programs. The study con-
                 sists of a "listing" of laws and an "assessment" of those laws to determine
                 the need for legislation to establish a comprehensive and effective management
                 program. The assessment must consider current legal constraints or prohibitions,
                 necessary executive or legislative initiatives, and, where required, preparation
                 of the elements of any legislative program needed to establish a comprehensive
                 and effective management program (920.14(b)).
                    Below is a suggested list of legal materials relevant to coastal resources
                 management that a state should collect:
                    state constitutional provisions;
                    statutory provisions (e.g., general laws, special laws, appropriation mea-
                    sures, resolutions);
                    legislative grants of general power to agencies or political subdivisions
                    (e.g., home rule charters, agency organic laws);
                    rules and regulations of agencies granted power from the 16gislature;
                    ordinances, plans, resolutions, budgets, and other instrum ents of the state's
                    political subdivisions;
                    the findings of applicable court cases at the state and federal levels;
                    other agreements, practices, and memoranda that delineate decision-makers'
                    authorities and responsibilities regarding coastal resources; and
                    interstate or substate regional agreements or understandings.
                    Initially, a state should interpret this listing broadly rather than nar-
                 rowly. Those powers which result in withholding or granting of funds, review
                 of agency action, and required coordination or interaction among agencies cri-
                 tical to the listing.
                    A state's assessment of a law's sufficiency to implement a coastal manage-
                 ment program is a matter of legal interpretation. For this reason the attorney
                 general, the county, or the agency attorneys should participate in the assess-
                 ment.
                    This raises the question of whether a "study" of laws is necessary. States
                 may reason that if their attorneys general say that the law is sufficient, this
                 should satisfy federal requirements. However, specific statements in the regu-
                 lations and in statute say that a state should prepare a "listing" and an assess-
                 ment of its laws, presumably with evidence of a detailed study or analysis.
                 states may wish to consider using both a study and the comments of their attor-
                 neys general in developing their coastal management programs.
                    The content of the study should follow traditional techniques of legal ana-
                 lysis, noting how courts and administrators have interpreted analogous legal
                 provisions in the past as a measure of how an existing or proposed law might
                 operate in the future. To expand this analysis, a state should consider
                 operational or behavioral studies as a technique to measure a law's effective-
                 ness. Surveys or interviews with coastal users and regulators could reveal how
                 current admini6trative programs are working day-to-day, as well as reveal major
                 strengths and weaknesses of regulatory programs. A combined legal and opera-
                 tional assessment would provide a sounder base from which a state could develop
                 new laws or modify existing ones.
                    States should remember certain special considerations when they assess cur-
                 rent laws. A judicial precedent by itself may not be sufficient "law" to
                 establish a coastal zone management program. For example, in California, the
                 state's courts recognizing a public trust doctrine (Marks v. Whitney)', unless
                 it were specifically implemented by statute, might be insufficient to develop
                 a coastal zone management program. The power necessary to make administrative
                 decisions would not rest in a "manager".

                                                                                                87

                   Courts also do not give as much weight to executive orders as they do to
                statutes, for executive orders tend to be less permanent than Acts of the
                legislature, which suggests they may not have the same degree of "standing"
                for coastal zone management purposes.
                   Rules and regulations of state and local agencies can be hard to locate and
                identify. Few states, for example, have an equivalent of the "Federal Register,"
                and state agencies rarely have uniform procedures. Local governments, especially
                those in rural areas, frequently have no established procedures. Their practices
                are not codified and it would be difficult to point to specific legal materials
                outlining rights and responsibilities. Where such documents do not exist, states
                may wish to consider "certification'! from the appropriate official that he
                exercises his authority under certain procedures. With this listing of laws,
                states may consider publishing a directory of the laws and regulations that re-
                late to their coastal resources management for benefit of users and government
                officials at all levels within their states. Michigan, for example, is pre-
                paring a directory of laws, regulations, and agencies which affect development
                in the coastal zone.2 Massachusetts has a directory of environment and resource
                agency responsibilities that includes laws, regulations, and administrators'
                names and phone numbers.3
                   Below are examples of studies various states have done on the adequacy of
                state laws for coastal zone management. None were performed specifically for
                the purpose of meeting the federal Act's requirements and the implementing
                regulations'. We describe these particular studies because they represent
                several approaches to the coastal zone management legal issues:
                   In South Carolina, Leavell did a study on "Legal Aspect of ownership and Use
                of Estuarine Areas in Georgia and South Caroline".4  It is a thorough analysis
                of legal doctrines applicable to managing areas of waters and land along the
                coasts of Georgia and South Carolina.
                   In Maine, Halperin compiled a five-volume study, "Maine Law Affecting Marine
                Resources".5 Among the subjects this study discusses are federal limitations
                on state control; land and water uses; public and private rights and powers;
                and state agencies dealing with marine resources.
                   In North Carolina, a legal task force (state agency attorneys and univer-
                sity law professors) under the Attorney General is studying legal approaches
                to coastal zone management. The task force gives continuing advice to the
                Governor, the legislature, and key state officials on proposed draft bills for
                coastal zone management. Further, the University of North Carolina Law School
                produced a special law review issue on coastal law.6
                   In California, the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (COAP) produced a short
                analysis of selected legal issues that affect coastal and marine resources
                management in the "Supplement" to the COAP. The Supplement discusses an agency
                analysis, legal considerations in regulating land use, controlling subdivisions
                and access to the coastline, and taxation problems relating to coastal
                development.7
                   In Texas, the Coastal Resources Management Program recommended, as part of
                its initial work to establish a state coastal zone management program, amending
                key state laws which they felt were inadequate. Their legal studies related to
                the sale of submerged land to navigation districts (a practice which the legis-
                lature has now reversed) and legislative reform in the use of barrier islands.
                These special purpose studies were designed to meet specific problems recognized
                to be of priority in Texas.8 A more recent review of Texas legislation on
                coastal and marine resources is available.9
                   which agency, or group of agencies, should a state give the authority to im-
                plement and to administer the program? The agency (or agencies) chosen to

            88

                 implement a management program must have authority to administer land and water
                 use regulations.
                    The authority, or power, to administer land and water use regulations must
                 exist collectively in all of the state agencies a state chooses. Any agency or
                 group of agencies in a state, the combination of which will comply with the
                 federal law, is sufficient. The state must have a management program which
                 coordinates these agencies. Or a state could choose to put all necessary author-
                 ity in one agency. although all of the authority does not have to be in one
                 agency. As California, the state could distribute authority in regional commis-
                 sions as well as placing it in a state commission.10
                    The need for a legal survey and assessment, and the need to choose an agency
                 or group of agencies with sufficient authority to implement the coastal manage-
                 ment program, suggests that wherever possible states should use personnel of
                 agencies which will be administering the law to assist in the legal survey.
                 Using agency attorneys, staff lawyers of states' Attorneys General, state-sup-
                 ported legal research institutes at universities or state legislatures would
                 help ensure that a state was developing sufficient capability (920.43) (see
                 III-B, The Organizational Structure to Implement) to administer effectively
                 the coastal zone management program it was developing. Ensuring that legal
                 authority.is adequate and doing the job is a continuous process of planning,
                 revision, and evaluation. The legal component of the management program is a
                 major aspect of coastal managementt states should develop an effective in-house
                 capability to do so from the beginning.
                    Has the state considered sufficiently "the taking issue"? Because uses of
                 natural resources are their primary concerns, coastal management programs will
                 affect people's property interests. Pr-perty interests will include the accesses
                 to and uses of land and of other natural resources. The United States Constitu-
                 tion protects private property interests by precluding the government's taking
                 private property without just compensation. However, the United States and
                 state constitutions require government to protect the general welfare of the
                 citizens by exercising police power. The law has always recognized the right
                 of government to curb the exercixe of property interests where this is necessary
                 to protect citizens' health and well-being. But today, more frequently than
                 in the past citizens are asking whether governmental restrictions on uses of
                 private property in particular cases constitute "taking" the property; if it is,
                 the government must pay the owner(s) compensation.
                    To be effective, coastal management programs will require regulating private
                 property interests to some extent. But neither states nor the federal govern-
                 ment has enough money to pay compensation for all, or even a portion, of the
                 property states should manage under coastal management programs. Thus, states
                 will have to address several questions to determine whether the programs they
                 consider adopting involve "taking" issues in any way. A recent book, The Taking
                 Issueil, outlines in detail the legal and policy aspects of the subject.
                    The Section 305 regulations encourage states to innovate as they develop
                 legal techniques for implementing a coastal zone management program. Working
                 out new techniques for avoiding pitfalls of the taking issue would be an
                 example of innovation. Section 920.14(b) on exerting state control over land
                 and water uses also encourages states to consider innovative techniques or
                 strategies that planners are now testing and using in the United States and
                 elsewhere that the states think would be useful in their new management programs.
                    Legal innovations have already occurred in many states. The one most fre-
                 quently discussed involves government's purchasing a partial interest in land.
                 The interest the government purchases is normally that which the state wishes
                 to control for a public purpose. For example, a state might purchase land, but

                                                                                               89

              allow the present owners to enjoy the use of the land during their lifetimes.
              After they die, the land would revert to the state. States could also pur-
              chase a scenic easement or a development interest to maintain particular scenic
              amenities, forestall or encourage certain development options. Frequently these
              purchases of a partial interest in land are coupled with a tax reduction so
              that the state taxes the value of the land for its current use rather than for its
              potential use when the land is fully developed.12 The Nature Conservancy, a
              conservation organization whose objective is to save key parcels of land around
              the country for those lands' natural and recreational values, has become expert
              at the use of innovative legal techniques for accommodating private, local,
              national, and conservation interests.
                 There have been other legal innovations. In the Maryland wetlands statute13
              the legislature provided that an individual who believes his privately-owned
              wetlands were so regulated as to constitute a "taking" of the land can appeal
              to the courts for judicial determination of that issue. New Yorkl4, New Jerseyl5,
              and Florida16 have passed special bond issues to purchase wetlands and unique
              environmental areas. New York state and local governments shared the costs of
              administrating and managing wetlands and other unique areas. In Louisiana the
              legislature required the Louisiana Superport. Authority to develop an "environ-
              mental protection planIT19 concurrent with the Superport development project.
              The environmental protection plan includes limited land use and development
              controls and, in effect, is a coastal zone management plan for a region of the
              coast. Michigan is considering a scheme under which landowners will sell land
              to the state and the state will sell it back to the private owner with a con-
              servation easement and a reassessment of the property taxes.
                 Many others are also discussing innovative techniques for land use controls.
              Sorensen discusses four different techniques for achieving equity amont pro-
              perty owners when government regulations substantially alter the free market
              system in determining future uses of land. is  These techniques are designed to
              offset the "windfall and wipe-out" phenomenon. Property owner A would get a
              windfall if the state permits his property to be developed fully, while pro-
              perty owner B might be wiped out financially if his state's coastal management
              program required that his property be left substantially undisturbed.
                    Perhaps the most direct approach is to tax the windfall property
                    owners on the value added to their property by the land use desig-
                    nation. The value added tax could be applied two ways: tax only,
                    or tax and compensation. Lands allowed to develop could be taxed
                    so as to reduce their value to the value of lands with development
                    restriction. Lands with value added could be taxed and the reve-
                    nues derived from the tax distributed among owners of development
                    restricted property as partial compensation for profits lost by
                    land use designations. A tax only approach appears to be far
                    easier to administer than a tax and compensation system.
                       A second means of achieving equity among property owners is by
                    compensable regulations. Compensable regulations would require
                    the passage of state enabling legislation authorizing the coastal
                    management agency to impose compensable, regulations on all private
                    land designated by the coastal plan to be held in open space uses.
                    Following the adoption of such regulations, a special appraisal
                    would determine the market value of lands prior to and unaffected
                    by the imposition of the coastal land use designations. This
                    value would constitute the property owner's guarantee. Upon sale
                    on the open market of any land subject to compensable regulations,
                    if the price fell below the owner's guarantee, the coastal manage-

             90

                     ment agency would pay the seller the difference between the
                     guarantee and the price received.
                        A third means of distribution would be the establishment of
                     density transfer zones along the coast. The zone boundaries
                     would be based on similarity of environmental and socioeconomic
                     conditions or political jurisdiction limits. Within each zone
                     all property owners would be given approximately the same devel-
                     opment density (such as one dwelling unit per acre). If one
                     property owner desires a higher density (such as four dwelling
                     units per acre), he must purchase the additional density from
                     other property owners within the zone. The land owner who sells
                     the density rights receives. a proportional reduction in the maxi-
                     mum density permissible on his land (such as a reduction to one
                     dwelling unit per four acres). This approach appears most applic-
                     able to the preservation of landmarks and residential development
                     of rural areas. . .
                        The creation of a coastal land bank presents a fourth means
                     to achieve equity among coastal property owners. The coastal zone
                     management agency (or an institution working in conjunction with
                     the coastal zone management agency) through controlling the supply
                     of coastal land, would control the rate, density, and direction of
                     development. Land banking would involve both outright (fee simple)
                     purchase of land and the purchase of easements. The property
                     acquired by the land bank could be sold or leased to investors who
                     would then use the land in a manner consistent with the priority
                     use designations of the coastal plan. The revenues derived from
                     sale or lease of lands could be used to acquire additional pro-
                     perty. The English have used the land bank concept to acquire
                     and manage greenbelt lands around London. . . . A regional land
                     bank was one component of a Bay Area Conservation and Development
                     Agency proposed by A3 1057 (Knox) during the 1971 session of the
                     California Legislature.
                   Should a state's coastal management program be regulatory (reactive) or should
                it designate specific uses or projects_(promotional).? A state could develop a
                legally sufficient coastal management program that would regulate specific land
                and water uses based on performance standards applicable throughout the coastal
                zone. The assumption of this approach is that options for particular uses of
                the coastal zone lie with landowners so long as their use activities conform to
                specific rules and standards. A shorefront property owner could build on his
                land if he met certain standards, among these run-off and siltation, handling of
                waste waters to minimize pollution, structural requirements to ensure health and
                safety, and intrinsic suitability to accommodate the proposed use. Whether he
                built a home, a golf course, or a supermarket would not be the coastal manage-
                ment agency's concern (although other local government units might restrict
                types of development if zoning laws existed).
                   Another legally sufficient approach for a coastal management program would
                involve designating specific sites for specific uses in the coastal zone. This
                approach suggests that government, through a coastal management program, should
                establish a plan for use of the coastal zone and that the coastal management
                agency should encourage, through a review procedure of project proposals, only
                those uses the plan would permit. Many municipal plans use this approach.
                   However, even when a plan exists, individual projects or uses which affect
                that plan need authorization to proceed. (Under some city plans, a proposed
                use needs Planning Commission approval before it is allowed--regardless of

                                                                                              91

               whether it is a conforming or non-conforming use). This suggests that coastal
               management will probably involve aspects of the regulatory approach involving
               performance standards and aspects of the plan approach under which uses are
               designated in areas of particular concern.
                  The Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) combines both procedures
               nicely. Land use designations are delineated in a comprehensive plan the
               TRPA has established for the entire drainage basin of Lake Tahoe. In addition,
               the plan establishes a separate series of environmental capability units for
               the Lake Tahoe drainage basin. The land use designations and the environmen-
               tal capability units are overlaid to determine the criteria to be met in a
               given area. For example, environmental capability with respect to grading and
               impervious surfacing to control sediment runoff into the lake which coincides
               with an area designated for single-home dwellings, would result in certain
               conditions required for home construction. And within each use designation
               zone there are specific performance standards for the activities which may
               occur in that zone. A zone which allows residential development also contains
               specific performance standards to control sediment runoff into the lake. Under
               this plan, development is permitted, but degradation of the quality of Lake
               Tahoe is minimized 19
                  For many reasons, ;tates may wish.to structure coastal zone management pro-
               grams to encourage certain kinds of uses. For example, coastal zone renewable
               fishery resources which are underutilized could be utilized without altering
               natural features, thus increasing economic benefits without long-term losses.
               public recreational development in underused portions of the coastal zone for
               the benefit of inner-city residents could help alleviate a serious social prob-
               lem. And serious coastal erosion in some regions suggests that coastal manage-
               ment plans address how and where structures might be built or how other steps
               might be taken to alleviate the condition. Some have suggested that land-
               building--coastal zone extension--might be feasible in high density areas, for
               example, off the shores of ocean islands like Hawaii or off the shores of major
               cities like Chicago. 20
                  These ideas imply that a state could structure its coastal management program
               to foster these project-oriented programs. The coastal management agency could
               itself sponsor the projects. This would require that the state's law contain
               provisions that allowed it to enter into construction projects, acquire or
               condemn property, issue bonds, or tax property owners if this were necessary to
               carry out a project. But this might also put the agency in a conflict of inter-
               est position where it would be responsible for ensuring that performance standards
               are met in a project it is sponsoring. This potential conflict, where one agency
               regulates the same industry it promotes, has recently received much adverse
               public attention. The Atomic Energy Commission is one example.
                  But the coastal management agency need not be a project sponsor. It could
               suggest the need for a project to another agency (the state fisheries agency,
               the state recreation department and the state public works department for the
               examples above) and help secure funds and approval. When the state considers
               major water resource projects or major recreational developments, it should
               also consider close coordination with relevant federal agencies.
                  States have wide range for innovation in projects which could maximize use
               of coastal resources, encourage multiple uses, or restore coastal zone
               environments. Both North Carolina and Georgia have experiments in planting
               spartina and dune grasses to encourage revegetation for increased wildlife
               habitat and soil erosion control. Californians are experimenting in adapting
               marina designs to a tidal marsh environment. In the Gulf of Mexico and off
               California oil companies are developing totally submersible bottom completion

             92

                   oil wells. The oil companies are also discussing with the states ideas
                  regarding multiple use of retired oil and gas platforms in the Gulf. Engi-
                  neers are suggesting power plant cooling systems which extend far offshore
                  to avoid thermal effluents in estuaries. In Louisiana others are studying
                  tertiary treatment of sewage on marshes.
                     All of these possibilities suggest that coastal management programs could
                  go far beyond regulating competing coastal uses. In many cases, states will
                  solve problems only through projects that will in some ways alter the coastal
                  areas.
                     At what time during the programdevelopment process should a state enact or
                  amend legislation? Are interim controls desirable? It is difficult to predict
                  when a state legislature or governor will act to implement the state's coastal
                  zone management program. Before the Office of Coastal Zone Management approves
                  a management program, however, the state must adopt the program, including the
                  organization and authority to implement it. The state must consider when and
                  how this adoption occurs as part of the process for developing its management
                  program.
                     Two viewpoints on this problem make the dilemma clear. One state legislator
                  argues that he'd rather wait to see the final coastal management program be-
                  fore the state gives it any real authority--for example, the authority to con-
                  trol land uses. The energetic coastal planner, on the other hand, argues that
                  strong interim controls are imperative to test ideas under consideration for
                  the management program and to prevent developers rushing to get their projects
                  in before the state's permit system starts. Analysis of these polar views
                  suggests three possible alternatives: first, using interim permit controls;
                  second, creating a legislative framework into which the state can insert its
                  management program; and third, postponing the effective date of the state's
                  law or portion of that law.
                     using interim permit controls provides a check and review over development
                  projects while a state is designing its comprehensive plan. California uses
                  this approach in its Coastal Zone Conservation Act. The Act creates a special
                  permit zone in which all uses of the coastal zone require a permit. The Com-
                  mission is developing a comprehensive coastal zone management plan which will
                  go to the legislature in 1976. The interim permit controls operate only until
                  the legislature acts on the plan. Supporters of the interim permit controls
                  argue that these controls prevent irreversible commitment of coastal resources
                  that might be contrary to the plan the state ultimately adopts.
                     Another argument is that planners need interim controls to test planning
                  strategies and controls and to provide a learning laboratory for identifying
                  key issues, assessing political considerations, and becoming sensitive to
                  equity considerations. In California, in addition to permit review, Commis-
                  sioners must also develop and approve a plan. Peter M. Douglas comments on
                  the fast learning process imposed on lay commissioners who one day discuss
                  elements of a proposed coastal management plan and the next day hear arguments
                  from lawyers over a hotly contested permit request.21 Perhaps the strongest
                  argument for interim permit controls is that no such thing as a final plan
                  exists, that planning is a continuous process, and that planners and managers
                  must work together continually in coastal zone management. Using this argu-
                  ment planners find no valid basis for postponing implementing a permit system.
                     Interim permit controls serve another very useful purpose: If developers
                  learn that planners are preparing a land use plan which designates specific
                  uses in specific coastal areas, quite logically they will rush to begin their
                  projects before the state begins to implement its management program. This
                  can effectively undermine the planning program's purposes and encourage

                                                                                              93

              speculation in land. it may also spur reckless development schemes which,
              without the impending land use controls, developers would approach more
              cautiously. An unexpected boom in development pressure in an area where the
              state is developing a comprehensive planning program makes the planning pro-
              cess that much more difficult since patterns of predictable demand and land
              usage are distorted by the pressures toward development before the plan be-
              comes effective.
                 Interim permit controls can overwhelm the planning unit, forcing it to spend
              all its time on the permit load and none on planning. The permit system should
              provide ways in which minor permits can be separated from the major ones.
              Analyzing size, location, and degree of controversy surrounding a project
              should enable the agency to develop a threshold point on a scale by which they
              3udge all their permit requests. Those above the threshold would receive
              closer attention and analysis than those below. A state might also consider
              separating the planning and permit functions.
                 Moratorium is another interim control mechanism. The federal government
              declared a moratorium on outer continental shelf oil drilling in the Santa
              Barbara Channel from 1969 to 1973. The Texas State Land Office enforced a
              moratorium on the sale of submerged lands from 1970 to 1972. Many environmen-
              tal groups throughout the nation have suggested moratoria as a technique to
              control development. In almost all cases, moratoria are used as devices to
              halt development until government agencies can put forth plans or rational
              approaches. The Texas moratorium was limited to the end of 1972; at that
              time the state planners presented a comprehensive resources management program
              to the state legislature. If a state uses them judiciously, moratoria can be
              a valuable tool for a state which has a particularly pressing problem that needs
              solution.
                 Building a framework for an approved coastal zone management program is a
              second approach a state could use in its initial planning stages. For example,
              a state could create an agency, or an interagency group, or designate an
              existing office or offices which would be responsible for implementing the
              coastal zone management program. That agency would have jurisdiction over land
              and water uses in the coastal zone. The agency would also have authority to
              promulgate rules and regulations. The coastal management program would be
              implemented by a rule or regulation of the agency, by an executive order of
              the Governor, or similar administrative action. Before it implemented the
              coastal zone management program, the agency could exercise its jurisdiction
              by an interim permit control or selective control over key issues which the legis-
              lature had determined. If it were necessary, the state could suspend or post-
              pone the agency's jurisdiction until the state had progressed in developing the
              coastal zone management program. In this situation, the agency could work with
              other state or local agencies if issues were to arise that directly affect the
              state's proposed coastal zone management program. Although this approach would
              leave the question of interim controls unclear, the agency would exist and could
              begin to build a constituency for coastal zone management.
                 Postponing the effective date of the state's law or a portion of that law
              (e.g., until the state has completed its program development effort or has com-
              pleted some critical study element) is a third approach a state could consider.
              if the state has enacted legislation, this is clear notice that it is developing
              a coastal zone management program. And in a state which is approaching coastal
              zone management very cautiously, this approach may be a way to commit the state's
              budget and planning efforts to developing the program while a constituency is
              developed for it. In many cases building slowly toward coastal zone management
              helps assure management will ultimately be implemented by avoiding confrontations
              and opposition early in the process.

              94

                      How may a state finance the development and implementation of its coastal
                   zone management program? A state which takes full advantage of the federal
                   coastal zone management program could expect, assuming full funding at the
                   federal level, an average of $400,000 per year for planning (combining state
                   and federal shares) and an average of $1,000,000 per year for management
                   (again, combining state and federal shares). These estimates assume that the
                   state is making adequate progress toward an approvable coastal zone management
                   program; that Congress appropriates and Office of Management and Budget releases
                   coastal zone management funds; that Congress does not alter the current levels
                   of authorized spending; as well as many other factors. These sums may or may
                   not be sufficient for a well-developed coastal management program. States
                   that have extensive shorelines, wide coastal zones, or significant conflicts
                   among coastal users, will probably need additional resources to make their
                   programs successful. During the planning phase, these states could seek fur-
                   ther assistance in coastal zone management development from agencies with
                   related programs--for example, HUD 701 USGS Land Use Mapping Program, USDA Soils
                   and Land Use Maps, and the National Sea Grant Program. Numerous projects in
                   these programs are providing services to states which could help a state deve-
                   lop its coastal zone management program.
                      Once a state implements a coastal zone management program and sets up a
                   regulatory system, it could fund a management agency by assessing fees on
                   those who apply to that agency for permits. These fees could cover cost of
                   permit applications and related processing costs. But fees could raise an
                   equity question; a state should be careful not to burden small property owners
                   unfairly in terms of relatively minor fees large corporate owners would have
                   to pay. Dedicated revenues are another method a state might use. For example,
                   it could tax or assess dredging in a coastal area in amounts that would depend
                   on the amount of acreage the developer planned to dredge; these monies could
                   go into a special fund to finance the coastal zone management program. But
                   there are drawbacks to this method. An agency whose funds depend on granting
                   dredging permits may be reluctant not to grant these permits. And with
                   dedicated revenues there might also be insufficient legislative overview of the
                   coastal zone management program. Public administrators have criticized using
                   dedicated revenues recently.
                      Local governments could be another source of revenues for coastal zone
                   management programs if these governments are actively involved in the state's
                   planning and management process. Some states have considered giving develop-
                   ment and management grants to local governments on a matching fund basis to
                   get them involved in coastal zone management. This means additional sources
                   of revenue for the state program as well as additional people working on the
                   development and management process.

                      2. Relationships of State and Local Governments
                      After a state has analyzed factors involved in developing the authority
                   and controls portion of a coastal management program, it should also review
                   the language of the Act. In addressing the overall structure of a coastal
                   management program, the Act provides
                        (1) for any one or a combination of the following general tech-
                       niques for control of land and water uses within the coastal zone;
                           (A) State establishment of criteria and standards for
                          local implementation, subject to administrative review
                          and enforcement of compliance;

                                                                                                  95

                      (B) Direct state land and water use planning and regu-
                      lation; or
                      (C) State administrative review for consistency with
                      the management program of all development plans, projects,
                      or land and water use regulations, including exceptions
                      and variances thereto, proposed by any state or local
                      authority or private developer, with power to approve or
                      disapprove after public notice and an opportunity for
                      hearings. (Section 306(e).)
                 As it addresses the question of developing a means by which to control a
              coastal zone management program, a statemust consider the relationship be-
              tween state level agencies and substate units (local governments, regional
              governments, special districts). A state need not share its authority with
              local or regional governments, nor need it coordinate all its coastal manage-
              ment program with subunits of state government. A state, with its citizens'
              consent, could develop a state level management program to which all substate
              units would be subservient. The state should recognize, however, that poli-
              tical realities and realities of administering a comprehensive program require
              using fully the resources of local and regional units of government. The
              Section 305 regulations specify that one issue a state must address is
              "whether a shared state-local or state-areawide regional consolidated regula-
              tory system should be established." (920.14(b)(3).)
                 In analyzing its relationship with local governmental units, a state should
              consider two approaches: "shared" and "consolidated." In a shared program,
              state and substate units have authority to handle specific aspects of the
              coastal zone management program. They would have this authority through laws
              and administrative procedures that the state built into its coastal zone
              management system. For example, in Maine, under the Shoreland Zoning Act, the
              state is responsible for developing the guidelines for shoreland zoning; the
              local governmental units are responsible for implementing a zoning ordinance.
              Each has responsibilities within the coastal management system.
                 The second approach to relationships between the state and substate units
              is a "consolidated" relationship. For example, a group of agencies, each of
              which has different responsibilities for coastal resource uses, could be
              grouped together under an executive order or statute. This would require coor-
              dination among the agencies, assign various responsibilities to them, ensure
              no duplication or cross purposes exists, and set forth the interrelationships
              of the controls both the state and substate units would exercise. "Consoli-
              dation" of efforts is necessary to achieve the coordination and interrelation-
              ship the statute or executive order requires.
                 Typical mechanisms this interrelationship might use include a veto power
              in the state government if local government fails to comply in some part of
              the program; other review authority in state government over initial local
              government decisions; and local actions which are subject to strict guidelines
              from state agencies. For example, under the California Coastal Zone Cons(--rva-
              tion Act, regional commissions make initial decisions regarding uses of the
              coastal zone, but these decisions can be appealed to the state Coastal Zone
              Conservation Commission. In California, then, the system is consolidated
              because a clear interrelationship exists between substate and state level
              actions.
                 A state must have one of, or a combination of three, general approaches for
              controlling land and water uses in the coastal zone before the Secretary of
              commerce will approve its program. And whatever approach the state selects,
              agency or agencies obviously must have the authority to implement the program.

              96

                   Thus, a state need not place all coastal zone management authority in one
                   agency, but if it does elect to use more than one agency, it must assume that
                   the program it designs coordinates and integrates these agencies' powers.
                      The first general technique--state standards for local implementation--is
                   perhaps the most common technique for resource management programs. Typically,
                   the state legislature passes a law which states the overall policy and goals
                   of the legislature with respect to particular coastal problems and assigns the
                   program to a specific state agency. This normally requires promulgating guide-
                   lines and criteria for implementing the policy and goals. Further, it requires
                   local units of government to design and to implement programs that comply with
                   the guidelines and criteria. The state agency to which the program is assigned
                   reviews the local governments' plans and programs to ensure that these comply
                   with the law.
                      once this traditional structure is established, certain powers are given to
                   the state agency to ensure compliance by the local governments. For example,
                   the state might have the ability to cut off funds to local governments which
                   do not comply; or the state agency-might have power to veto a local plan or
                   program; or the state agency could override the local governments if they did
                   not act within a certain period of time. Three states--Washington22, Michigan23,
                   and Maine24 have passed laws relating to shoreland uses which follow this parti-
                   cular technique. In each case the primary responsibility for implementing the
                   shorelands program rests with local governmental units. To assist them, a
                   state agency (or agencies) is assigned the task of developing guidelines and
                   criteria the local governments can use. Should local governments fail to act,
                   the state government is empowered to take over the local unit's responsibility.
                      The second general technique involves direct state land and water regula-
                   tion. In most states, power over land and water uses is in the state legisla-
                   ture; thus, the legislature could put all land and water use controls at the
                   state level if it so desired. Considering the long history of land use con-
                   trols at the local level, and the specific requirements in the Act for close
                   coordination with local and regional organizations of government, however, it
                   is doubtful how many states could or would opt for this general technique.
                      State level land and water use planning and regulation occur when a state
                   level agency deals directly with a user. For example, the Delaware Coastal
                   Zone Act of 197125, which banned heavy industrial uses of the coastal area as
                   defined in that Act, directed the state planning office to regulate potential
                   users of the coastal zone (in this case, industrial developers). Fish and
                   game departments of state governments, most of which deal directly with users,
                   are another example. State land offices are yet another. Many states have
                   adopted wetland protection2@aws; Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and
                   Maryland are among others.    Many of these wetland protection programs are
                   managed at the state level. The state agency charged to implement them deals
                   directly with a user who wishes to construct on or otherwise use coastal
                   wetlands.
                      A state which elects to use this technique has three terms which it must
                   define. First, the state level planning and regulation is direct. If this
                   technique is combined with other general techniques there may be intervention
                   of substate units, however, in most cases, as discussed above, the user deals
                   directly with a state agency.
                      The state level planning and regulation relates to 'land and water use. In
                   most states land use control and water use control have developed along dif-
                   ferent lines historically and are now in different agencies. Hence, land and
                   water use planning and regulation, where units are in different agencies, must
                   both be at the state level to meet this particular requirement. States should

                                                                                              97

               remember that where a natural resources agency has been formed, frequently
               land and water uses may be combined under one administrator. However, even
               when this is the case, basic laws will differ, thus requiring different
               administrative techniques.
                  The state must have direct control over comprehensive planning and regula-
               tion. In most states, comprehensive planning and regulating have evolved
               along different lines. These are beginning to reconverge where, for example,
               state natural resource departments are developing planning divisions. States
               should remember that this technique does not require a single agency. It only
               requires that for each aspect of the coastal program--planning, regulation,
               land, water--that the state level agency be dealing directly with user groups.
               It is not clear whether this general technique can be used successfully in
               its "pure" form. it may generally be used in coOhin&tion with other general
               techniques.
                  The third alternative general technique involves state administrative re-
               view of all development plans, projects, or land and water use regulations in
               the coastal zone to ensure consistency with the management program. This
               suggests adopting a plan for a state's coastal zone. Under this interpreta-
               tion, all activities in a state's coastal zone must conform to the plan or be
               permitted under a variance. The comprehensive planning and zoning ordinances
               common to cities and municipalities are analogous to this plan technique. The
               Three phrases in the statutory provision suggest a plan: (1) all developmen-
               tal plans, projects, or land and water use regulations must be consistent with
               the management program; (2) "exceptions" and "Variances" as these words are used in
               the Act imply a relationship to comprehensive plans; and (3) the state review
               of projects relates to "consistency" with the state management program, thus
               suggesting a fairly detailed program containing use designations. These provi-
               sions add up to a plan.
                  This plan approach could involve approval of the management program by the
               state legislature. Again, by analogy to municipalities, the city council nor-
               mally approves comprehensive plans of the city. Further, if the state is to
               review regulations and development plans and projects for consistency with the
               management program, then the state legislature's approval of the program would
               seem necessary. The legislature would have to make clear the supremacy of the
               plan over other state laws if the plan is to have its intended effect. Two
               examples of this approach are the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop-
               ment Commission27, and the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Commission19. These
               commissions, operating at a regional level, have developed plans which are
               being implemented through a regional organization28.
                  There are policy plans and comprehensive land use plans. The San Francisco
               Bay Plan is a policy plan. General guidelines and principles control the
               commission's issuing permits on all uses 100 feet from the shoreline. These
               guidelines and principles are frequently called performance standards. The
               comprehensive land use plans, usually produced with HUD 701 funds, designate
               land uses for specific geographic areas. The Florida Coastal Zone Management
               Atlas and Guidelines 29 combines a policy plan and a comprehensive land use plan.
               it classifies the entire coastal zone of Florida into categories which indicate
               the general recommended use of the area. Within those areas a series of guide-
               lines are developed providing more specific guidance to users, local goverment
               planners, and others involved in coastal zone planning.

                  3. Adequacy of State Laws
                  The agencies a state chooses to administer its coastal zone management pro-
               gram must have, in addition to using one or a combination of the general tech-

             98

                  niques above, authority for the management of the coastal zone. This authority
                  shall include power -
                     (1) to administer land and water use regulations, control development in or-
                     der to ensure compliance with the management program, and to resolve con-
                     flicts among competing uses, and
                     (2) to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in lands,
                     waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when
                     necessary to achieve conformance with.the management program. (Section
                     306(d).)
                     The authority, or power, to administer land and water use regulations applies
                  only to those authorities necessary to implement the management program   The
                  management program is a series of proposed actions and regulations in a single
                  document that follows the Act's provisions. The agencies' authority need only
                  relate to what is needed to implement the management program. Authority
                  broader in scope than is necessary for the management program, however, does
                  not present a problem. only if the chosen agencies do not have sufficient
                  authority to implement the management program would the state have to increase
                  the level of authority before the Secretary could approve the state's manage-
                  ment program.
                     The agencies chosen to implement the state's management program must, then,
                  have sufficient authority to administer land and water use regulations.
                  Usually, the state's constitution, legislature, executive branch (executive
                  orders, regulations) or its judiciary would be the mechanisms to grant that
                  authority. To have this authority implies that the agency exercising the
                  authority must approve a proposed action under the management program before
                  it could happen. For example, a state's management program might require that
                  a permit, license, or letter of no objection be issued before anyone could act
                  on the proposal in question. As a further example, the authority might require
                  specific control over grants of money before it allowed a particular action.
                     Most states will not have difficulty finding sufficient authority within
                  state agencies. Traditionally, state legislatures have freely given authority
                  to control more activities than most state officials would seek to control.
                  What states lack uniformly is a coordinated program under which the variety of
                  authorities and agencies are coordinated to implement a management program.
                  Texas provides an example of this need for coordination. Under a new law, the
                  General Land Office of Texas administers public submerged lands in the state's
                  coastal zone. The state's water control board covers issues of water use and
                  water quality control. Local governments control land uses in coastal areas
                  which might have an impact on coastal waters. There may be sufficient authority
                  distributed throughout the agencies in the state of Texas to meet the require-
                  ments of the particular section. The challenge for Texas coastal planners is
                  to develop a program which coordinates effectively the three efforts. Louisi-
                  ana is an example of how insufficient authority might exist. The Louisiana
                  Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, along with the State Land office, can re-
                  view activities occurring below the high water mark. Some municipalities in
                  the coastal zone have zoning powers adjacent to coastal waters. However, the
                  Wild Life and Fisheries Commission and State Land Office have no guidelines or
                  programs on which to base decisions on uses of coastal waters. Further, many
                  parishes (counties) in Louisiana's coastal zone do not have zoning authority
                  from the state legislature. Therefore, only private decisions by adjacent
                  landowners would determine impacts on coastal waters. For this reason, to
                  develop a coastal management program which meets the Act's requirements,
                  Louisiana may have to consider revising some of its laws.
                     The state's authority must also include power to control development to en-

                                                                                                99

               sure compliance with.the management program. The state must decide whether
               to define development narrowly or broadly. Popularly, development is normally
               synonymous with construction and "improvement". But development could also
               refer to recreational development, development of fisheries resources, land
               development for living resource productivity (e.g., agriculture, water fowl,
               fish farming). The common denominator for development is the concept of
               change. Usually, as or after some human activity occurs to a region which
               changes it, this is called development.
                  Development control is also subject to either narrow or broad interpreta-
               tion. A control could prohibit or limit development. It could also guide
               and direct development. A state has available several techniques for con-
               trolling development: zoning; creating special districts; incentives; a
               licensing system with performance standards; and the placement of key
               facilities (roads, water and sewage, utilities). Each of these will be dis-
               cussed briefly.
                  First, shoreline zoning has been occurring in many states. This type of
               zoning delineates areas in which certain uses are preferred and certain uses
               prohibited. Examples abound. In the Great Lakes area, numerous state and
               local governments are encouraging development setback because of the serious
               erosion problem along the shores of the Great Lakes.23 These zoning require-
               ments mean developers are to build far enough back from the shorelin so  to
               make expensive shoreline protection works unnecessary. Both Georgia      and
               Delaware3l have controls over beaches and dunes instituted in the form of
               zoning at the local level.
                  Second, creating special districts to achieve certain objectives in a
               coastal management program is common. In Louisiana, the Louisiana Deep Draft
               Harbor and Terminal Authority was created to promote the development of a super-
               port and still protect the environment in which that superport authority can
               control development and determine how the region will be used.   States should
               be cautious in using special districts for although they can be designed to
               deal neatly and efficiently with one or two management problems  or objectives,
               their limitation in scope of interest may result in the lack of  comprehensive-
               ness and in fractionating coastal management activities. Also,   special dis-
               tricts frequently become autonomous because of special dedicated revenue
               sources unique to them and local political bases. Hence, once established, it
               may be difficult to combine them with other functions or make them responsible
               to an overall coastal zone management program.
                  Third, using incentives to bring about certain desired results is a techni-
               que all levels of government use. The most typical incentives involve funds.
               Local governments might place taxes on certain developments to discourage
               them and simultaneously relieve the tax burden in other areas to encourage a
               particular kind of development. Local Boards of Assessors in Massachusetts
               abate real estate taxes in exchange for conservation easements. Under the
               williamson Act of California, land left in agriculture or otherwise conserved
               receives a tax break. Using a state's spending power to encourage desired
               results is another example. A state agency, using grants-in-aid to local govern-
               ments, can control local activities to some extent. This has been done to a
               limited extent in Florida where the Coastal Coordinating Council, a state
               agency, provides small planning grants to local planning commissions as long
               as they apply the coastal zone management principles the state has adopted.
                  Fourth, a licensing system combined with performance standards is a tech-
               nique a state can use to control development. This is the traditional permit
               system. Actions are only licensed if they conform to certain guidelines, cri-
               teria, and standards promulgated at the state level. This system is in effect

             100

                   in many parts of the nation, the wetlands control statutes in effect in many
                   states along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts are notable examples of
                   this.
                      The placement of key public service facilities--among these, roads, water
                   and sewer lines, and utilities@-effectively controls the scope and type of
                   development occurring in the new area. In California, for example, the
                   issue of whether a new area should be opened for housing development arises
                   quite often when the local government unit must vote on authorizing the expan-
                   sion of a water, sewer, or drainage district or the siting of a new road on
                   the county's master road plan. Critical decisions about the opening of
                   undeveloped areas for development frequently turn on the question of require-
                   ments for additional public service facilities necessary for the proposed
                   development.
                      The ability to resolve conflicts among competing uses must be part of the
                   authority of the chosen agency or agencies administering the management pro-
                   gram. Competing uses include those causing controversies over space in the
                   coastal zone, over a limited stock resource, or over access to areas and
                   resources, and over changes in society or in the environment. Trading a
                   productive marshfor a power plant site, or a pipeline corridor for oyster beds,
                   is competition both for space and for a limited resource. When there are too
                   many fishermen or an overcrowded beach., this is competition for a limited stock
                   resource. When there is no access to a public beach or out-of-state fishermen
                   are excluded from domestic shellfish beds, this is competition for access to
                   areas and resources. Finally, competition is the result when it is necessary
                   to choose between added pollution or an increased tax assessment--the competi-
                   tion occurs because of the environmental and social impact of one use on another.
                      An additional aspect of competing uses is whether it is considered in a short-
                   term or long-term context. In the short-term, competing users need to have a
                   decision made regarding a specific piece of real estate or loss of resource or
                   equipment. This type of competing use demands a decision-making process which
                   can resolve the controversy. In a long-term context, competing users can turn
                   to management program or planning tool whereby conflicts between competing uses
                   are minimized through technology, government controls, public education, or
                   other avenues. This long-term context normally revolves around a planning
                   process and a subsequent management program.
                      States must be able to resolve conflicts among the competing uses. However,
                   to resolve conflicts may be only one part of a coastal-management program.
                   Where there is no apparent conflict, presumably use of coastal resources would
                   continue. For example, in marshland areas, many dredge and fill permits are
                   issued without objections. Yet, there may be no assessment of the cumulative
                   effect of many small projects. It may be that there is no conflict only be-
                   cause it has not yet materialized. The problem of resolving a conflict
                   usually involves a long series of decisions on various aspects of the conflict
                   involving people, agencies, public and private groups. It is rarely a one
                   issue/one decision-maker process. Hence, states should consider the conflict
                   resolution process in developing their coastal zone management programs.
                      The administrative process a state develops in its management program will
                   usually reflect the fact that a major conflict is resolved through a series of
                   steps, not just one. For example, a state might have an administrator who
                   initially decides to grant a permit or deny it. He can handle, routinely,
                   many small projects. Where there is controversy, or where the administrator
                   believes a decision of his board of commissioners is necessary, he can refer
                   the matter to the board on an administrative appeal. Here, it is presumed,
                   the conflict would be well developed. Public hearings would be held with

                                                                                               101

               expert testimony and cross-examination of witnesses. The board would render
              a decision on the issue.
                 The administrative process designed to resolve conflicts among competing
              uses must address a number of additional questions. For example, upon whom
              does the burden of proof lie? Whomust come forward with initial evidence
              to show that the coastal-management program is being met, or being violated?
              Frequently, this is a critical part of the administrative process. Also, the
              criteria for making decisions with respect to proposed uses of the coastal
              regions can limit a decision-maker's freedom of action in many ways. For
              this reason, a very detailed list of permissible and non-permissible coastal
              uses can make the resolution of conflicts-much simpler. This may also mean
              fewer matters are litigated because the area of uncertainty would be limited.
              These are only some of the details of administrative procedures and the
              drafting of legislation and regulations; states must be aware of many others.
                 State coastal management programs may include authority to acquire fee
              simple and less-than-fee simple interests in property. A fee simple interest
              in property includes the maximum number of rights an individual can have with
              respect to real property. These rights include the right to sell the property,
              the right to lease it and earn money from it, and the right to alter it in
              any way (subject to law). Less-than-fee simple interests in property include:
              right-of-way and access easements, development rights, surface rights (designed
              to exclude mineral rights), scenic easements, and remainder interests (pro-
              perty interests remaining after property is used by an individual during his
              lifetime).
                 There are two views as to whether a state coastal management program must
              include powers to acquire fee simple property interests through condemnation
              "or other means" (306(d)). one reading of the section leads to the view that
              the power must be in the chosen agency or agencies since it says the authority
              "shall include power ... to acquire fee simple and less-than-fee simple interests
              in land." Another interpretation is that the powers to acquire property
              interests are required only if necessary "for the management of the coastal
              zone in accordance with the management program." Hence, if a proposed manage-
              ment program does not call for the acquisition of property interests then,
              presumably, these powers would not have to be included. States must determine
              for themselves whether the power to acquire property is a necessary part of
              their coastal program.
                 States may acquire property interests through condemnation or other means.
              Condemnation requires the exercise of the power of eminent domain. States have,
              for the most part, codified their laws pertaining to eminent domain (condemnation).
              states must determine for themselves what the words "or other means" refer to.
              Some suggestions: states may purchase property rights; states may receive a
              donation of property; states may exchange property of equal value for the
              desired property; and, states may lease various interests from property owners.
              The State Development Corporation of New York has been created to purchase
              rights in lands and use them to control and direct development in certain areas.
              The California Land Bank has been established with the same purpose in mind.
              Maine has created a Development Corporation to promote aquaculture. In England,
              lands are purchased by the Green Belt Commission to preserve key parcels.
                 The property interests acquired by the state can be "lands, waters, or other
              property". Acquiring interest in land is a fairly common occurrance and is
              adequately dealt with in state law. However, acquiring "waters" is less clear
              and is a rare occurre,nce. Normally, states own water bottoms (except where
              they have conveyed them away), and in many cases they claim to own the waters
              as well. one can see situations where the state, through its coastal manage-
              ment program, could acquire a private lake or coastal pond, if those waters

              102

                   were nonnavigable. Conceivably, the state coastal management agency could
                   acquire from its general state land office a portion of navigable Waters for
                   landfill purposes. Again, whether this acquisition refers to the waterbottom
                   or the water itself is an unresolved question. in western states, water
                   rights can be purchased, or condemned, for a public purpose-@-usually only in
                   those states where the appropriation system for water rights is in effect.
                   presumably, states which.do not claim ownership of ground waters could pur-
                   chase or condemn recovery rights for ground water beneath private property.
                      States may acquire "other property" in addition to lands and waters:
                   improvements of or facilities on land (e.g.,buildings, recreational equipment).
                   Any personal property, movable or immovable, might also be included in "other
                   property". Most authorities or agencies created at the state or local levels
                   are given general power to acquire and hold property. The critical issue
                   generally ia whether the authorities or agencies may exercise the power of
                   eminent domain. As long as a governmental unit competes in the market place,
                   there usually is no legal objection to its acquiring and holding property.

                                                       CITATIONS

                    1.  Marks v. Whitney, 98 Cal. Rpts. 790, 491 P2d 374, California, 1971.

                    2.  University of Michigan Coastal Zone Laboratory, "Directory of Laws, Regu-
                        lations and Agencies Which Affect Development in the Coastal Zone" (due
                        for publication late in 1974).

                    3.  John H. Noyes, "Directory of Massachusetts Natural Resources Agencies",
                        Publication No. 29, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Massa-
                        chusetts, 1972.

                    4.  C. Leavell, Legal Aspects of Ownership and Use of Estuarine Areas in
                        Georgia and South Carolina, Institute of Government, University of
                        Georgia, 1971.

                    5.  D. Halperin and H. Henry, Maine Law Affecting Marine Resources, School
                        of Law, University of Maine, Portland, 1969--1970.

                    6.  North Carolina Law Review: Special issue on Coastal Law, 49 N.C.L.R. 857,
                        August 1971.

                    7.  Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, Comprehensive Ocean Area
                        plan, Vols. 1-6, State of California, 1969-1972.

                    8.  The Interagency Council on Natural Resources and the Environment, Texas
                        Coastal Resources Management Program, State of Texas, December 1972.

                    9.  Texas Coastal and Marine Council, Vernon's Ann. Civ. Stat. art. 4413(38),
                        supp. 4, 1973. (See Also, Texas Public Lands Management Act, Vernon's
                        Ann. Civ. Stat. art. 5415e-I et seq., Supp. 3, 1973.)

                   10.  California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972, 3 Pub. Res. Code 27000
                        et seq., Deering, Supp. 1973.

                   11.  F. Bosselman, et al., The Taking Issue, President's Council on Environ@
                        mental Quality, 1973. (See Also, F. Bosselman and D. Callies, The Ruiet

                                                                                             103

                   Revolution in Land Use Control, President's Council on Environmental
                   quality, 1971 and I. Heyman, "Innovative Land Regulation and Comprehen-
                   sive Planning", santa Clara Law, 13;185-235, Winter 1972.)

              12,  Charles E. Little and Robert L. Burnap, StewardshiL, Open Space Institute,
                   1965.

              13.  Maryland Wetlands Act, Md. Ann, Code art. 55c, 9725, 1970.

              14.  New York, Environmental Conservation Law (McKinley 1973), 97-010, note
                   0�260, et seq.

              15.  New Jersey Green Acres Act of 1961, N.J. $tat. Ann., �13.8A-1-13.8A-18,
                   1972.

              16.  Florida Land Conservation Act of 1972, Fa. Stat. Ann., �259.01, 1974.

              17.  Louisiana Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority, Environmental Protec-
                   tion Plan, State of Louisiana, 1974.

              18.  Jens Sorensen, "Coastal Zone Management in California: Three Factors
                   Influencing Future Direction", Proceedings, Coastal Zone Management and
                   the Western States Future, Marine Technology Society, Los Angeles Region
                   Section, 3 and 4 December 1973.

              19.  Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, "Land Use Districts Map" and "Land Use
                   ordinance", 1972.

              20.  Chicago Park District, The Lakefront Plan of Chicago: A Summary Report,
                   City of Chicago, 1973.

              21.  Peter M. Douglas, "Coastal Zone Management--A New Approach in California",
                   Coastal Zone Management Journal, l(l):l--26, Fall 1973.

              22.  Washington Shoreland Zoning Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. �90.58.000 et seq.,
                   Supp. 1971.

              23.  Michigan Shoreland Zoning Act, Mich. Compil. L. Ann. �281.631, 1970.

              24.  Maine Shoreland Zoning Act., Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, 94811, Supp. 4,
                   1973.

              25.  Delaware Coastal Zone Act of 1971. Del. Code Ann. 7001 et seq., 1972.

              26.  Earl Bradley, Jr. and John Armstrong, A Description and Analysis of
                   Coastal Zone and Shoreland Management Programs in the United States, Sea
                   Grant Program, University of Michigan, 1972.

              27.  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development commission, San Francisco
                   Bay Plan, State of California, 1969.

              28.  The American Law institute, A Model Land Development Code, 1971.

              104

                   29.  Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Florida Coastal Zone Management
                        Atlas; A Preliminary Survey and Analysis, State of Florida, 1972.

                   3Q.  C. M. Parrish, III, et al., Glynn County Beach- and DUne Study, State of
                        Georgia, 1973.

                   31.  Delaware Beach Preservation Act of 1972, Del. Code Ann. 7@6801 et seq.,
                        Supp. 1972.

                                                                                              105

               B. Organizational Ability to Implement
                  1. introduction
                  Designing the organizational mechanism a state chooses to implement the goals,
               policies, and controls of its coastal zone management program is one of the
               most critical steps it will take in its program development effort. To comply
               with the Act's requirements in designating its organizational structure, the
               state should answer several important questions:
                  How can the state coordinate its actions with those of local, regional, and
                  interstate agencies in developing and administering the state's coastal zone
                  management program?
                  How can it coordinate this program with existing plans?
                  How can the state best administer land and water use regulations and control
                  development to ensure compliance with the Act and to resolve conflicts among
                  existing and proposed uses in the coastal zone?
                  What means are available to acquire interests in property, both land and
                  water, if this action is necessary to conform with the state's approved
                  coastal zone management program?
                  What steps can the state take to assure effective continuing consultation
                  and coordination with local governments for their full participation in
                  carrying out the Act's purposes?
                  The particular organizational approach a state selects to comply with the
               Act and satisfy its own needs will depend on several factors:
                  First, that approach, or combination of approaches, identified in section
               306(e)(1) of the Act which would be most effective for the state; second, the
               structure and effectiveness of existing programs which control or regulate uses
               and activities in the state's coastal area; third, the most effective distribu-
               tion of administrative responsibilities among the local, regional, and state a-
               gencies and units of government; fourth, the functional role and authority of
               the state's designated lead agency; fifth, the most effective means of coordi-
               natingand correlating the individual management responsibilities authorized by
               the coastal zone management program; and sixth., the governor's role in imple-
               menting the program goals and policies.
                  A state should consider these six factors as well as others that might be
               peculiar to individual states if it is to establish an effective management
               structure for its coastal zone.
                  In the next part of this section we discuss the organizational arrangements
               a state should consider as it creates its coastal zone management program.
               These include complying with federal requirements; designing the most effective
               lead agency for that state; and clarifying the roles of the governor and sub-
               state elements in the state's management program. Part 3 of this section
               includes discussions of some of the problems a state can anticipate in struc-
               turing its organizational capabilities; among these, program costs, legislative
               and public support, legal adequacy, interim controls, and distribution of
               management responsibilities. Part 4 deals with cooperative mechanisms,
               including needs for and mechanics of coordination.
                  This section of Chapter III is closely related to other discussions through-
               out the document. The previous sectiont Means of Exerting Control, discusses
               a variety of implications in organizing to implement, among which is the legal
               adequacy of existing and proposed programs. The following section, Cooperation
               and Coordination with Federal Agencies, deals with another important planning
               element a state should consider in working to maintain effective-mechanisms
               as part of its management structure.

                  2. Organizational Arrangements
                  Under the Act (306(e)(1)), each state must select one or a combination of up

             106

                  to three approaches to coastal and water use management (see also Section III
                  A, means of Exerting Control). Each has advantages and disadvantages.
                     First, a atate could establish criteria and standards for local implemen-
                  tation, but retain responsibility for administrative review and enforcement
                  of compliance. Among the advantages of this approach.are minimizing oppor-
                  tunities for ineffectual bureaucracies to develop; taking advantage of
                  mechanisms and capabilities in existing programs.; developing close working
                  partnerships among state and substate units of government; and providing for
                  decisions to be made close to where their impacts would be felt.
                     Among the disadvantages of this approach are risking establishing a complex
                  management structure which could require a high degree of sophistication and a
                  large and detailed structure to operate; risking local agencies' misinterpre-
                  tations or inconsistent enforcement of state-set criteria and standards; and
                  dealing with varying degrees, of technically competent local governmental units.
                     Second, a state might assume responsibility for direct planning and regula-
                  tion of land and water uses. Advantages to this approach include facilitating
                  program modifications to reflect changes in attitudes and conditions; facili-
                  tating licensing and regulatory operations; inckeasing the likelihood of
                  equal treatment of all people in similar circumstances; minimizing the size of
                  the technical staff necessary to implement management programs; and having easier
                  access to final regulatory authorities.
                     Disadvantages of this approach include the possibilities of creating un-
                  manageable bureaucracies; the difficulty-of policing and enforcing the manage-
                  ment program; the possible lack of checks and balances to identify and deal
                  with potential inequities; the potential difficulties of supplanting/duplica-
                  ting traditionally local responsibilities, including the state agency's possible
                  unawareness of or insensitivity to local problems and conditions; and inadequate
                  access to appeal decisions without litigation. -
                     Third, the state might choose to review for consistency with its state-wide
                  plan or program all local programs and decisions involving plans, projects, or
                  land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances granted to both
                  the public and private sectors. Advantages, include maximum state awareness
                  and sensitivity to local problems and conditions; decision-making close to where
                  its impacts would be felt; utilization or development of local initiative and
                  prerogatives; extensive use of open public review; and flexibility built into
                  the program through local variances.
                     And disadvantages include the risk of extensive demands to adjudication by
                  all interests; a changed political climate could change priorities; the
                  necessity for articulating clearly policies and objectives to local units and
                  for having these reflect changes in conditions and attitudes.
                     Many states will opt for combinations of two or even all three approaches
                  as they establish their management programs. A state might choose to set
                  standards, for example, for sedimentation or water runoff, but leave policing
                  and enforcement to local governments. The same state might assume control
                  for siting and regulating major facilities (e.g., power plants, refineriest
                  heavy industry), but allow the sub-state governments to control the zoning of
                  the rest of the coastal areas. Whatever approach or combination of approaches
                  a state selects, it must have a single lead coastal zone management agency.
                     The lead agency: Section 306(c)(5) of the Act requires that the governor
                  of each coastal state designate "a single agency to receive and administer the
                  grants for implementing the management program". And Section 920.16(d) of
                  the Section 305 regulations states that this lead agency shall have
                       (1) Authority to correlate the activities of all state, local,
                            areawide/regional, or other entities in the coastal zone;

                                                                                              107

                    (2) Appropriate access to the Governor; and
                    (3) Requisite powers set forth in Section 306 of the Act.
                  In requiring that each state designate a single lead agency the Act and the
               Section 305 regulations acknowledge the problems inherent to ad hoc approaches.
               They also encourage states to make an integrated comprehensive assessment of
               their coastal zones and to establish effective management programs to resolve
               problems on a coordinated and rational basis. In fulfilling the federal
               requirements and satisfying the state's needs the lead agency might serve a
               variety of functions.
                  First, the lead agency might assume partial or even total regulatory
               responsibility for controlling land and water uses in the coastal zone; some
               of these responsibilitiesmight be transferred from other agencies or govern-
               mental units. (e.g., regulation of offshore oil and gas leases; regulation of
               port and harbor development; regulation and control of hazardous areas (flood
               plains, erosion zones); wetlands protection; regulation of filling and
               dredging; regulation of facility siting). In cases where the state did not
               assume all the authority to regulate coastal zone resources, this responsi-
               bility would be divided between the lead agency and the substate units already
               involved. Rhode Island uses this type of approach under the authority of its
               Coastal Management Council Act (Act 279-1971)1. A state should carefully and
               clearly define the lead agency's regulatory authority, either in the enabling
               legislation or in the rules and regulations it promulgates under that legis-
               lation. (See Section III-A for discussion of legal authority.)
                  Second, the state might choose to limit the lead agency's responsibilities
               to coordinating other state agencies' activities to ensure that their coastal-
               related actions are compatible with the state's coastal zone management pro-
               gram. In this case, the lead agency would promulgate and enforce rules and
               regulations established under the coastal zone legislation. A variation on
               this approach would be to establish administrative review procedures that would
               assess major proposals' impacts according to the combined views of all con-
               cerned state agencies and substate units. The governor of Massachusetts, by
               executive order, has established this procedure for all permits and licenses
               that require his signature2. The kinds of proposals that a state might
               review in this way could include highway layout or construction, siting of
               major facilities, state or regional park development, waste disposal, state
               planning, public services, or energy policy. In this case, most of the
               regulatory responsibility would remain with those agencies currently respon-
               sible, but the state could make any coastal-related policies or objectives
               consistent with those of its coastal zone management program. Too, it is
               essential that future legislation with implications for coastal zone manage-
               ment should include requirements for ceordinating mechanisms or other devices
               to assure policy compatibility among existing and future programs.
                  Third, the lead agency might establish and indirectly enforce standards and
               criteria for uses and activities that occur in the coastal zone. This way,
               the agency could leave enforcement to others and still retain certain respon-
               sibilities for effective management. The standards it adopted must cover
               water and air quality for all uses and activities. Such standards might also
               cover storm water runoff; sedimentation and associated turbidity; social
               equity; and amenity protection. The criteria it adopted might cover intrinsic
               suitability; use intensity; resources carrying capacity; water zoning; inter-
               ruption of tidal flow, and others related either to use or geographic areas.
               Because this is an indirect means of controlling coastal zone uses, the
               state should be especially careful that its criteria and standards are reason-
               able and enforceable.

             108

                     Fourth, the agency with lead responsibility might become a mediator among
                  the various levels of government in conflicts among them that involve the
                  state's coastal zone. The statemight choose to combine this mediator's role
                  with a lead agency role as coordinator of state-wide coastal"related programs.
                  This could be especially useful in resolving conflicts over shared resources
                  or overlapping Jurisdictions of two or more governmental units. For example,
                  local and regional concerns involving the siting of a major facility or the
                  filling of a specific wetland might conflict. The lead agency could supply
                  the forum to reconcile the differences. The Lead agency could also help
                  reconcile differences among those factions interested in change and those
                  interested in maintaining the status quo, The state should conceive and
                  carefully define legislatively the limits of the lead agency's mediator
                  position because the conflicts it does not mediate could easily then require
                  adjudication.
                     Fifth, the lead agency's role might include a research function, through
                  conducting or supporting research, to provide technical bases for solutions
                  to the state's coastal-related problems. This would include primarily
                  problem-oriented research (e.g., determination of criteria for siting heavy
                  industry) to assist in decisionmaking, The state's perception of the role
                  of research and of its own role in accomplishing the research will help
                  determine how the research function should fit into the management program's
                  organizational structure.
                     Sixth, the lead agency might establish an information clearinghouse to
                  coordinate the flow of information into and within the organizational structure,
                  as well as disseminating it to those parties with coastal zone interests and
                  responsibilities. The type of information involved could include basic
                  scientific data used to define and assess the coastal environment; inventory
                  dat about the physical, social, and economic elements of the coastal environ-
                  ment; research results; impact assessment; judicial decisions; additional
                  legislation affecting the state's coastal zone; and land and water use trends.
                  The users of this information might include regulatory or licensing agencies;
                  legislative research bureaus; the academic/research community; parties of suits
                  in litigation; private businesses; and, in some cases, the general public.
                  The degree of direct involvement that a state chooses for this activity will
                  determine the type, scale, and detail of information involved as well as the
                  type of infrastructure required.
                     seventh, a lead agency's responsibilities might include a combination of
                  some or all of the functions discussed above. This will depend on the
                  establishing authority, the program needs as the state perceives them, and
                  the conditions under which the program must operate.
                     To accomplish these functions, some states may decide to establish a new
                  agency. Reasons they might choose to do so include encouraging innovative
                  approaches to problems that might not be possible in existing agencies;
                  freeing new talent from entrenched biases and ineffectual policies that might
                  exist in present agencies; and allowing opportunities for the agency to gain
                  public trust without having to overcome mistrust associated with an existing
                  agency.
                     In some states, it might be necessary to persuade the legislature a new
                  agency is necessary. once this need waq eqtablished, a new agency's difficul,
                  ties might include a relatively weak position in the state government structure
                  because of sensitivity of existing and entrenched political power structure; a
                  new staff's incomplete understanding and capability to deal with established
                  political and administrative policies; opposition from vested interests in
                  existing agencies with coastal-related responsibilities; possible inability to

                                                                                              109

               obtain adequate funding because of existing agencies' established priorities;
               and possible length of time required to gain the legislaturels confidence in--
               and thus assistance with-new programs.
                  If it chooses to create a new coastal zone agency the state should consider
               carefully the legal base from which that agency must act. The new agency!s
               powers and authority should be clearly defined in the enabling legislation,
               and they should be easy to translate into administrative, legislative, or
               constitutional action (see also, Section III-A, Means of Exerting Control).
                  Other states might decide to designate an existing agency as the lead
               agency. Although this would a-void some of the difficulties inherent to
               establishing and using a new agency, it is not without drawbacks. Among these
               might be interagency-rivalries, which might result in ineffective coordination
               among agencies; bias or limited scope of interest because of previous or on-
               going responsibilities (e.g., erosion control, fish and wildlife); increased
               bureaucratic inflexibility; lack of public confidence because of agency's past
               performance, a tendency to increase the agency's responsibilities without
               providing adequate additional funding; and a tendency to maintain the status
               quo rather than to try to develop innovative approaches.
                  Several available documents discuss- agency arrangements, problems, and
               states' experiences. For a discussion of approaches to environmental problems,
               see Environmental Management: Nine States Seek the Answer3. For a discussion
               of land use controls, see The Quiet Revolution in Land Use4. For brief dis-
               cussion of different states' experiences in coastal zone management, see A
               Description and Analysis of Coastal Zone and Shoreland Management Programs in
               the United Stateso. And for additional and more specific references refer to
               the state and regional bibliography that appears at the end of this document.
                  The role the lead agency assumes will, with the kind of program the state
               chooses, have a tremendous effect on its final structure, for the Act requires
               that each state must establish sufficient capability to assure implementation
               and enforcement of its policies (see also Section III-A).
                  The organizational structure of the lead agency could take one of several
               forms. First, as a new organization, the state could establish a coastal
               commission to make specific policy decisions and carry out other functions.
               In states with extensive shorelines, the commission could delegate authority
               to substate regional units to deal with regional problems, plan, grant permits,
               and accomplish other functions within their areas of concern. California uses   6
               this type of structure, which the passage of Proposition 20 in 1972 established
                  Second, also as a new organization, the state might establish the coastal
               zone management agency as a new line-agency, or a new subdivision of an existing
               line-agency, to carry out program policies and controls. This might include
               creating regional offices of the lead agency which could deal with day-to-day
               matters and gain a closer perspective of local or regional problems.
                  Third, the state might delegate lead responsibility to an existing agency.
               This might or might not include transferring coastal-related responsibilities
               of existing agencies into that agency. In this case, the agency might
               establish new facilities or expand existing regional facilities if these were
               warranted,
                  Fourth, the state might create a special organization within the governorls
               office to assume lead responsibility in directing coastal zone activities of
               state agencies and/or substate units. This organization might delegate sub-
               stantial authority to specific units at all levels within the Btate and still
               retain coordinating and overview responsibilities, including financial over-
               views.

             110

                     Fifth, the state might assign lead responsibilities directly to a substate
                  regional organization. A state might use this approach if it has limited
                  $hQreland areas. The substate responsibilities might include program formu-
                  lation and implementation w1th the state role limited to fiscal approval and
                  administrative re-View.
                     The governor's role: section 306(c)(4) of the Act requires that the governor
                  review and approve the state's coastal zone management program as a prere-
                  quisite for federal approval.  In doing so, the governor acknowledges his
                  state's intention to carry out the Act's objectives.
                     on certain key problems the governor might serve as final state authority
                  (e.g., final approval of state permits). In other problems he might serve
                  as arbiter or mediator in intergovernmental or interagency disagreements. It
                  is for these and other related reasons that the agency with lead responsibility
                  should keep the governor's office fully aware of developing problems and
                  controversial proposals, as well as its plans and proposed activities for the
                  coastal zone.
                     The governor's authority and influence varies considerably from state to
                  state. In some states the governor might have strong override powers on
                  agency activities. In others his powers might be limited almost to a care-
                  taker's role. Because the governor's political powers are liable to change
                  from administration to administration, the chief executive's role might also
                  change significantly. His ability to function with the state's legislature
                  will be key to his effect on the coastal zone management program.
                     The governor's role, in most cases, will be closely related to any legis-
                  lative action, especially when new authority must be established, interagency
                  agreements given authority, and budgetary supports required. In these cases,
                  difficulties could arise which could affect a state's compliance with the Act's
                  requirements. If the governor and the legislature were to disagree on what
                  constitutes an appropriate program and institutional arrangements to implement
                  it, legislative proposals could then become embroiled in philosophical conflicts
                  or partisan politics. For example, the legislature might enact a coastal zone
                  management program which the governor would then veto; after that, the legis-
                  lature could override the veto. The Secretary of Commerce would then have to
                  decide whether or not he could legally approve the program under the provisions
                  of Section 306 of the Act.
                     The role of substate governmental units: The Section 305 regulations
                  (920.14) call for a state "to determine the appropriate role of local govern-
                  ments in administering its coastal zone program". The regulations recognize
                  that local governments are the units most closely associated with the impacts
                  of coastal zone management policies and decisions.
                     As it attempts to identify local governments' roles in its coastal zone
                  management program, a state should consider carefully several questions. First,
                  how effective have local governments been in regulating and controlling
                  resources allocation and distribution? Second, how effective have local
                  governments been in protecting the integrity and viability of the coastal
                  environment? Third, what were the causes of any shortcomings? Fourth, could
                  these shortcomings be overcome with state assistance or must the state assume
                  direct control? Fifth, what assurances or guarantees might the state provide
                  in good faith that would prove that it could do a better job?
                     Section 306(c)(1) of the Act requires that local units of government have
                  an adequate opportunity to participate in developing their statels coastal
                  zone management program. States might decide to provide grants to local govern-
                  ments to help those units develop coastal-related plans or reconsider
                  existing plans. Local governments can help the state identify early in the

                                                                                              ill

                program development process, those coastal areas or resources that are of more
                than local concern and those, the development or protection of which reflects
                local or substate regional interests. (See Section II-C, Geographic Areas of
                particular Concern.)
                  Local governments may also, as part of the. state's program development
                effort, hold public hearings on or otherwise determine local or regional
                coastal zone issues and problems to respond effectively to state program pro-
                posals. (See Chapter V, Public Participation@)
                  Participation of substate governments in coastal zone management program
                administration: The specific role of substate governments in administering
                the state program is something that the state and those units will work out
                during program development. State programs might use local governments ex-
                tensively to implement major portions of the program, leaving the remaining
                program elements for the state to administer. In some states, a delegation-
                of-authority principle would allow local zoning boards to regulate coastal
                developments except in areas the program designates as of statewide concern.
                Local units might also have decision-making responsibility in certain areas
                where the state retains responsibility for certain critical use categories
                (e.g., power plants, public access, harbor development). The state of
                Washington has done this.
                  As the state determines the roles local units of government will play in
                implementing the state program, it should consider whether and what dispari-
                ties exist in present local governments' authorities. Some local governments
                have specific powers authorized by the state legislature for land use zoning,
                permit programs, or taxation policies; others have limited powers with state
                or higher substate units possessing broader responsibilities. Some local
                units have authority to locate highways, park and recreation facilities, and
                plan for them as well as other programs. The states should consider these
                factors in designing its implementing organization and supporting legislation
                so that it can meet the Act's objectives. (See Section A of this chapter,
                Authority and organization).
                  Participation of regional groups: Substate and multi-state regional organ-
                izations have traditionally had certain planning and management responsibilities
                in coastal areas which will, in most cases, continue in some form after states
                have adopted their coastal zone management programs. With this in mind states
                should design their implementing organization so it can coordinate effectively
                with pertinent existing agencies at all levels, such as:
                  substate regional planning bodies (e.g., Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
                  Board on Long Island);
                  council of governments (e.g., Association of Bay Area Governments in the
                  San Francisco region);
                  special purpose districts or agencies (e.g., Chicago Park District in
                  Illinois, Massachusetts Port Authority);
                  interstate compact organizations (e.g., Tri-State Regional Planning Commis-
                  sion encompassing parts of Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, Minnesota-
                  Wisconsin Boundary Area commission); and
                  multi-state commissions (e.g., New England River Basins Commission, Gulf
                  States Fisheries Commission).
                  In determining what, if any, functions existing or newly developed organi-
                zations of this type might perform in their coastal management programs, states
                should carefully consider a series of general principles whichare pertinent
                to regionalism and which could affect the utility of such.organizations. First,
                generally as the size of the "constituency" increases the more difficult it
                becomes to obtain public consensus about broad-focused issues (*e.g., land use

             112

                  controls) as opposed to narrow-focused ones (e.g., control of wetland alter-
                  ations). second, as the dimensions of the defined "region" increase the more
                  difficult it becomes for the "interested public" to gain access throughout the
                  planning process and for the cQncerned agency(s) to interest the"affected
                  public" at any time. Third, problems with "regionall' impacts are generally
                  less complicated to study at the "regional" level. Fourth, economies of scale
                  can be realized by conducting certain studies as. regional efforts. Fifth, as
                  the number of separable government units involved in an organization's
                  deciaion structure increases (i. e., the number of jurisdictions and agencies
                  involved in making policy) the more complicated it becomes for the regional
                  group to define and maintain a specific direction. Sixth, the broader the
                  mandate a regional organization must work with the less effective it will
                  generally be in attaining its mandated objectives. Seventh, the problem-shed
                  (i.e., geographic area associated with the problem) does not always correspond
                  to the solution-shed (i.e., jurisdiction associated with the problem's solution).
                  Eighth, a state's constitution will often serve as a constraint in its dealings
                  with its neighbors. Ninth, the mandates and authority of government agencies
                  vary from state to state which constrain their ability to act as equal partners
                  in multi-state associations. Tenth., the mandates and authority of existing
                  regional agencies might require legislative modification in order for them to
                  perform functions as part of the coastal management program. These ten princi-
                  ples are far from an inclusive listing, but if states that envision regional
                  agencies as part of their coastal zone management structure do not consider
                  them in defining a regional role them adverse consequences will result.
                     .  'substate regional bodies: There are a myriad of responsibilities and
                  interests this type of body already has which have coastal zone implications.
                  Generally these organizations are presently involved in planning for land and
                  water resources or in planning for more specific topics such as housing, popu-
                  lation growth, transportation, and/or recreation for coastal areas. Other
                  substate regional bodies include special purpose districts and are involved in'
                  supplying public services to people in specific geographic areas.
                     A substate regional planning agency could serve a variety of functions in
                  the state's program. It could serve as an extension of the lead agency or as
                  a linkage between the state and the coastal localities to alleviate the prob-
                  lem of information transfer between the two bodies while also enhancing public
                  involvement in the formulation of state policies. It could provide a forum
                  where localities can interact on matters of regional interest. It could serve
                  as an information clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information
                  pertinent to coastal zone matters of the region. It could supply technical ser-
                  vices to assist the localities in fulfilling their coastal responsibilities.
                  Finally, it could prepare guidelines for the region that ensure uniform controls
                  that localities can use to regulate coastal land and water uses.
                     There are both advantages and drawbacks associated with using a substate
                  regional planning body. Among the advantages in such organizations are pre-
                  viously established ties with localities; jurisdictions defined by areas with
                  distinct "personalities" or commonalities; enhancement of program efficiency
                  by limiting contacts states must have; enhanced potential for interagency
                  communications; availability of technical staffs; and that they can serve as
                  an alternative to direct state intervention in local planning efforts. Among
                  the drawbacks inherent to such organizations are traditional mistrust of
                  regionalism by localities; disparities in size and competence of technical
                  staffs; possible domination of agency by minority representation; inability
                  to obtain public consensus about agency's function; and lack of enforcement
                  authority to implement plans.

                                                                                              113

                   special purpose districts usually encompass substate regions and Are gener-
                ally limited in scope of interest to one or two public service functions, in
                most cases suchdistricts have been established to achieve certa@n objectives
                and were given mandates and authority to take whatever steps they deemed
                necessary to achieve the objectives. such districts are presently involved
                in such functions as water supply, waste disposal, recreation, port develop-
                ment, resources conservation and public transportation.
                   There are also bothadvantages and Irawbacks-inherent to this type of
                organization. Among the advantages are the agency's traditional action-
                orientation and record of accomplishment' economies of scale and efficiencies of
                operation; and the availability of special sources of dedicated funding. Among
                the drawbacks are the traditional limited scope of interest, possible fragmen-
                tation of authority, general lack of overall control in coordinating individual
                efforts, and lack of accountability for actions.
                   . multi-state regional bodies: Existing organizations included in this
                grouping, like their substate counterpart$, are primarily involved in planning
                activities. if states choose to develop joint programs with their neighbors,
                they must work within the limit of their constitutional powers, but make
                sure that the organization they use or develop is an effective one. For example,
                the organization should be given a narrowly focused mandate, its work should not
                duplicate in-state efforts, it should seek new sources of funds rather than
                compete with state agencies for funds, it should not have autonomous powers,
                and it should be dissolved within a predetermined length of time.
                   Multi-state regional bodies could help states in many ways to fulfill their
                coastal zone responsibilities. They could help formulate management programs
                for resources two or more states share (e.g., estuaries). They could serve as
                a forum where states could work out joint policies for problems of multi-state
                concern (e.g., super ports, oil refineries). They could manage a joint research
                program to help formulate management policies for a biogeographic region involving
                two or more states. They could serve as information clearinghouses. Finally,
                they could facilitate communications between states.
                   There are both advantages and drawbacks inherent to such organizations. Among
                the advantages are that they allow states a forum to evaluate programs in light
                of those of their neighbors; promote efficiencies in certain studies; free
                studies from being limited by political boundaries; and they can open up new
                sources of funding not generally available to states. Among the disadvantages
                are lack of enforcement powers; lack of visability or political operating base;
                tendency for limited state participation in studies; and limited utility of
                study results to member states.

                   3. Problems in Structuring Organizational Capabilities
                   As a state designs the structure to implement the policies and controls of
                its coastal zone management program, it should consider problems which might
                affect the structure it selects. Many of these problems were introduced pre-
                viously in the discussion of organizational arrangements, but merit additional
                consideration. Some of them (e.g., sufficient capabilities, program costs) are
                inherent to the development of any new program whatever its structure. Others are
                pertinent to one or more of the three management approaches authorized by the
                Act (e.g., political realities, disparities among substate capabilities). States
                should anticipate these problems and either make a concerted effort to avoid
                them or be prepared to deal with them effectively if they arise.
                   From a complex management structure to bureaucracy,: A state should be alert
                to symptoms and causes of ineffectual bureaucracies as it considers alternative
                management structures. An organization that is slow-to make relatively simple

            114

                 decisions might try to avoid complex or controversial ones. Timely effective
                 decisions might be imposs1ble to make.; unnecessary delays, usual, lapses
                 in internal communication, routine; and insenaitivity to the public it was
                 designed to se-rve, commonplace. Complex management structures can work effec@
                 tively only as long as-they.are controlled and the distribution of authority
                 and responsibility within them is clearly defined. In designing such an
                 organization, then, the state should take several steps to make sure the
                 necessary control and definition exist.
                    First, the state should define clearly the lines of authority. Second, it
                 should identify publicly the review process each proposal or application must
                 go through, including the steps involved and the checkpoints along the way.
                 Third, it should identify specific individuals or offices who are responsible
                 for each step. Fourth, it should adequately staff each component of the organ-
                 izational structure and-maintain it at a size that corresponds to its workload.
                 Fifth, when more than one agency is involved, it should establish linkages at
                 the day-to-day working level to speed flow of information. Sixth, it would keep
                 unnecessary duplicative paperwork to a minimum; and eighth, it should include
                 an independent mechanism that can assess continually the effectiveness of the
                 organizational capabilities.
                    The multiplicity of existing agencies and their possible biases: Most states
                 generally already have a plethora of programs and government activities in their
                 coastal areas. As a result of these ongoing efforts there are bound to be
                 interagency conflicts and rivalries which will surface with any attempt to con-
                 solidate or to coordinate them. In some cases it is the limited scope of
                 interest of individual programs (e.g., control of submerged lands, energy policy)
                 which might cause the problems. In others it is the biases inherent to the
                 programs (e.g., wetlands preservation versus marina construction). Another
                 cause, not unique to coastal agencies, might be the desire of an existing agency
                 to pprpetuate its current status.
                    Because one of the prerequisites for federal approval of the state's
                 coastal zone management program is the resolution of organizational and insti-
                 tutional issues, a state should be prepared to resolve this problem early. To
                 do so, it might be helpful to consider several questions. First, what are the
                 critical organizational issues existing programs and activities cause? Second,
                 what distribution of administrative responsibilities complies with the federal
                 requirements and best suits the state's needs and conditions? Third, what
                 institutional arrangements need to be established or modified to authorize
                 sufficiently this administrative distribution? Fourth, which of those arrange-
                 ments can be made without opposition from agencies responsible for existing pro-
                 grams? Fifth, where can trade-offs be made without compromising the state's
                 coastal zone management program? Sixth, which of the organizational issues
                 require arbitration? Seventh, which, if any, can be resolved only by action of
                 the governor or by some other arbiter? Eighth, which alternatives should be
                 offered to arbitration?
                    Adequacy of existing programs: To assess the adequacy of existing programs,
                 a state should answer these ques@ions- First, are the combined powers and authority
                 of existing programs sufficient to comply with Section 306 (e) of the Act?
                 second, are these powers and authority adequate to deal effectively with the
                 state's coastal-relatea problems? Third, if the answer to either of the previous
                 questions is no, what modifications are necessary?
                    The tests For program adequacy include legal interpretation of bases for
                 managementr institutional evaluation for effectiveness, and environmental
                 assessment for protecting integrity of coastal resources. Although all three
                 tests are important in determining adequacy, the legal tests of the bases of

                                                                                               115

               management are deterministic in gaining federal acqe-ptance of the management
               program as adequate (See Section III-A, @jeanp og Exerting CQntrQlr for dis-
               cussion of legal adequacy of existing authority.
                  Because of the many existing program.% and activities, some. states might
               believe that they now have adequate capabilities-to manage their coastal zones.
               For example, water pollution stAtutes,protect their coastal waters; oil and
               gas regulations control development of these resources in the states' waters;
               highway masterplans control layout and construction of coastal highways; and
               zoning by-laws control the uses of shorelanda. But simply the existence of
               these separate programs does not guarantee the adequacy of any state's effort.
               Generally a single comprehensive overview is necessary to assess thoroughly
               the combined effectiveness of the individual efforts.
                  Sufficient capability and authority to administer: The Section 305 regula-
               tions (920.43) caution states to ensure that as the coastal zone managem ent
               program is being developed, sufficient capability to administer it should
               also be developing--at all pertinent levels. Implicit in this requirement is
               the need for states to define the roles of all agencies with coastal zone
               responsibilities or functions at all levels of government. In developing suffi-
               cient capabilities, states will find that the technical competence of the
               organizational components is just as important as the legal adequacy of their
               authority. Sufficiency here is, in part, a function of the distribution of
               responsibilities the management program authorizes. States should determine
               the capabilities each element of the organizational structure they choose to
               manage their coastal zone requires.
                  If a state establishes a new management agency and gives it control over
               land and water uses in the coastal area, this new state agency will require
               a variety of capabilities, from administrative to scientific. If, on the
               other hand, the state gives an existing agency the same authority, it would only
               have to supplement existing capabilities. Finally, if the state distributed
               the same authority to substate units, then the capabilities the state would
               require would differ from either of the above. Thus, a state could measure
               sufficiency by several standards. These might include ability to deal with
               coastal-related problems, public support, program flexibility, adequacy of
               requisite powers, resolution of organizational and institutional issues, and
               coordination of program with existing plans at all levels.
                  Policing and enforcing of program controls: The state should assure that
               its coastal zone policies will be carried out, whichever organizational struc-
               ture it adopts. The responsibility of monitoring, policing, and enforcing
               program requirements could create institutional problems. First, a state might
               decide to use the policing capabilities of existing programs or agencies
               (e.g., fish and game wardens, public health officials, air or water quality
               officials). unless additional financial support were to accompany this
               increased responsibility, all of the programs requiring policing might suffer.
               Second, by assigning policing responsibilities ':o substate units, the state
               might rid itself of some of the administrative responsibility, but unless some
               type of formal training were to accompany this additional responsibility, substate
               entities might not have the ability necessary to move with assurance against
               violations and complaints. Third, the police powers the state's program
               authorizes should be clearly defined and the consequences for violations or
               non-compliance with.the program policies: should be explicitly detailed. As
               an example, a state might use both civil and criminal procedures against
               violations of wetlands regulationa, but the policing force might have difficulty
               in deciding which should prevail in specific circumstances. Fourth, with the

             116

                  emerging public awareness and willingness. to become involved in environmental
                  affairs., a state might decide to allow private interest groups to intervene,
                  both. to try to prevent and to asseSS penalties., for non-coppliance and program
                  violations. But if the state does not see that this is done carefully through
                  the policing and enforcing funqtions-, it might become involved in "backyard
                  controversies!" to the disadvantage of other s-ituations-more in need of atten-
                  tion. Fifth-, a state should demonstrate clearly to its constituents how the
                  policing and enforcing functions fit into its organizational structure to
                  manage the coastal zone. This,demonstration should include a separation of
                  administrative elements from those of a judicial nature to make sure when the
                  state must move against violators, it takes all reasonable administrative steps
                  before it proceeds with.court action.
                     The policing and enforcement capabilities a state requires will depend on
                  the mechanisms with which it chooses to control the land and water uses in its
                  coastal zone. When direct state control is involved, and a license or permit
                  is required, then the capability and powers required might include means of
                  monitoring uses and activities to identify violations; ways of restraining
                  violators; means of restoring property to original condition if any physical
                  alteration has resulted in a dangerous situation; requiring units or agencies
                  to obtain licenses and permits; monitoring licensees once permits are given;
                  restraining permit holders from violating provisions of permit, and methods
                  of allowing intervention of public or private interest groups aggrieved by a
                  violation or non-compliance.
                     A state that allocates management responsibilities to substate units will
                  have a different set of policing requirements to ensure that the substate units
                  can fulfill their management responsibilities. In this situation the capabi-
                  lities and powers might include monitoring substate compliance; reviewing
                  complaints from aggrieved parties; withholding state funds for non-compliance;
                  mediating differences between substate units; and overriding local decisions
                  when necessary.
                     Political realities and legislative support: Adequate legislative support
                  is essential to the state's passage of enabling legislation for coastal zone
                  management as well as for its continued funding and program amendments when
                  these are necessary. Although legislative support is often correlated with
                  public support, there still are varying degrees of independence when the time
                  comes for specific legislative decisions. Strong communication linkages to
                  legislative committees and to the entire legislature are helpful and should
                  become an integral part of the coastal zone management program's organizational
                  structure. Opponents of legislative proposals or initiatives can use misin-
                  terpretations of agency conclusions and recommendations to defeat legislative
                  action unless the agency's actions have been clearly and precisely defined and
                  understood.
                     Political realities might, for example, become significant when the state
                  considers which responsibilities to transfer from one agency to another or
                  when questions of legislative support of existing agencies becomes involved, or
                  when the state considers the distribution of authority between state and
                  substate units--especially if local units might have less control than they
                  now have. The controversy which proposals can create in the legislature is
                  another consideration. This controversy could be related to the degree of
                  control needed (the taking issue) or the disruption of existing institutional
                  arrangements. Finally, an understanding of political realities might be impor-
                  tant in gaining continued fiscal support for the program. Inadequate awareness
                  of political realities can result in inefficient programs for several reasons,
                  which elected officials will not tolerate.

                                                                                               117

                   Disparitie@s in 4bilities mong quJastate units,; Most states will have this
                problem in various forms, but i@ will occur especially in those that allocate
                mucli of their regulatory and control responsibilities to substate units. A
                rural community or county is seldom capable, in terms of staff and technical
                knowledge, to deal with complex regulatory programs the way an urban or
                suburban unit might more likely be, If the s-tate allocates identical respon@
                sibilities to both units, then the rural unit may 1@ave a decided disadvantage
                in carrying out its. responsibilities. States s-nould consider this carefully
                as they determine management responsibilities and define the structure to carry
                them out. The disparity in abilitieshas many facets which might adversely
                affect a state's ability to manage its coastal zone.
                   First, most management responsibilities in small communities or counties
                are fulfilled by elected or appointed officials who often serve without either
                pay or staff support.
                   If these officials need technical capabilities which are not available, they
                must rely on volunteer assistance or consultants, both of which might prove
                unreliable. one solution to this problem might be for the state to establish
                regional offices or advisory capabilities to supply cost-effective technical
                services to the substate units as. needs arise.
                   Second, the same piece of information will have different implications--or
                lacks thereof--to different individuals, based on their backgrounds and their
                interests. For this reason, states might wish to consider carefully which
                kinds of basic technical data it distributes where. For example, several pages
                of such data about the relation of stormwater runoff to sedimentation of
                estuaries will mean very little to local board members unless they have a
                technical background. Because the acquisition, collation, storage, and dissemi-
                nation of technical information is an expensive operation, most communities do
                not use detailed, sophisticated performance standards and design criteria. A
                state could avoid this problem of too detailed or technical information, unused
                or misused, by establishing an information capability which substate units could
                draw on and from which information could be disseminated in a format which the
                substate unit would find usable and understandable.
                   Third, and closely related, sophisticated standards and criteria could cause
                problems in and of themselves if the substate units were unable to understand or
                to apply them effectively. Even if the burden of applying the standards is
                passed on to license and permit applicants, unless the government unit involved
                had the technical competence, it could not hope to judge how well the standards
                were applied. There are two possible solutions here. The state could supply
                technical advisory assistance or it could supply simplified versions of the
                standards and criteria to those without necessary staff capabilities (though
                the standards and criteria must still be fully effective).
                   Fourth, the possible bias of local judgment and opinions is another factor
                that can effect local capabilities. In many cases this is the result of trying
                to maintain status quo, misinterpreting issues, tending to make popular or
                expedient decisions, and refusing to adapt entrenched attitudes. These biases
                might result in citizens' mistrust of governmental functions, unnecessary
                litigation by aggrieved parties, and noncompliance with the policies of the
                state's management program. To resolve these kinds of difficulties., a state
                could create a positive environment of interaction in its dealings with substate
                units by working to build mutual trust and credibility. Since the alternative
                here is the imposition of state values and prerogatives without recourse (at
                the expense of local initiative) then the substate units would logically--though
                in some cases perhaps not without some struggle--become willing partners.

            118

                    Interim contrqIq gendipg stete Erpgram dution; A state. might decide that
                 interim controls are necessary or advisah@le to alleviate present threats to the
                 coastal zone until its management program is adopted in toto. From the perspec-
                 tive of organizational requirements, here states snould consider several questions;
                 among these ,
                 �  At what point should it enAct or adopt these controls?
                 �  Which land and wAter -uses demand this- interim attention?
                 �  What means of control are necessary?
                 �  Are new institutional arrangements or coordinating@mechanismp necessary to
                    administer the interim controls-?
                 �  When should the interim program be fitted or integrated into the overall
                    management structure?
                    A state should also be aware of two possible problems inherent in using interim
                 controls. First, it may encounter opposition if it attempts to take on large-
                 scale resource decision-making during its program development effort; the
                 responsible agency may have to make reactive decisions and 'in doing so might
                 lose public support and confidence If it appeared it were shooting from the hip.
                 second, the financial costs of administering interim controls might be higher
                 than the state anticipated--to the point where political exploitation of the
                 costs by factions opposing coastal zone-management might endanger passage of
                 the total program.
                    If a state determines immediate intervention is necessary it can use develop-
                 ment moratoria for certain areas. This is more arbitrary than interim controls,
                 but in some cases it is easier to achieve.
                    Segmentation is another possibility, one that the regulations (420.44)
                 explicitly authorize with federal financial support. This approach focuses on
                 establishing and implementing mini-programs in limited geographical areas
                 (for detailed discussion of segmentation, see Section II-C, Geographic Areas
                 of Particular Concern.)
                    public Confidence and Support: Public confidence is an essential prerequi-
                 site for*public support. For this reason, a state should include in its
                 coastal zone management program mechanisms to guarantee citizens' access to the
                 decision-making process. It should also openly solicit public views and atti-
                 tudes and integrate these into its management program or procedures. Further,
                 the state's program might include an ombudsman to hear, investigate, and act on,
                 in a timely manner, the public's suggestions and complaints. other possibilities
                 might include regional centers to handle public inquiries and disseminate infor-
                 mation; easily understood publications that deal with substantive issues and
                 problems; easily-accessible sources of information; and informal education
                 campaigns. A state must make the feedback system associated with public parti-
                 cipation work if its management program is to keep current with changing needs
                 and gain public acceptance. States need public support for their coastal zone
                 management programs if they are to succeed. The inability of the general public,
                 even of that of certain special interest groups, to communicate their views
                 and have them considered in the planning and.manage.ment processes has tradi-
                 tionally created much frustration and general mistrust of the regulatory agencies.
                 Because many of the coastal zone management Programs may infringe on the pro-
                 perty rights of individual-members of the public, the public should have a
                 forum in which it could express its views and concerns. The "taking issue"
                 discussed in Section III-A, Means of Exerting Control', could be an example of
                 potential conflict between public and private interests. The most realistic
                 way of attaining any degree of broad public support for a coastal zone manage-
                 ment program is to provide for adequate and effective public participation
                 (see also Chapter V, Public Participation).

                                                                                              119

                  information and c2MaunLcat@on; Information needs and the communication of
               information to people who want or neecl it are multifaceted. Primary facets
               include compatibility of the existing body of intormation about the coastal
               zone with the management Approaches the state has chosen; acquiring necessary
               information in a usable and understandable format; and establishing and main-
               taining a flow of information into, within, and from the management program
               for the wide variety of users who will seek this, information. The impact of
               these three considerations on the state's organizational capability will
               depend on its perception of the value of eachfunction and the level of
               funding necessary to achieve it. (See also dis-cussion of information sources,
               systems and access in Chapter IV).
                  Program Costs: Another consideration is. the sources of financial support
               for the management program. The state might use existing agencies, monitoring
               and policing capabilities for certain substate units, but even if a state
               allocates considerable authority and responsibilities to substate units, both
               state and substate governments will have some additional administrative costs.
               Another approach a statemight consider is user charges, similar to those
               Michigan's "Truthin Pollution" legislation calls for.7 Under this act, indus-
               trial water discharges are asses'sed a fee that partially covers the state's
               resources agency's monitoring costs.
                  Distributing these program-associated costs could be another problem.
               Unless a state carefully develops equitable distribution of costs, a dispro-
               portionate share of the burden could well fall on substate governments that
               could even less afford the financial costs than could the state. This is
               especially true in a state where criteria and standards are developed and
               then passed on to the local cormunities or counties for enforcement. In a
               case like this, a state might find it better to subsidize local regulatory
               activities rather than to create a new and different management structure.
               The combined questions of how much the management program would cost and who
               would pay for it are extremely important when the state considers the struc-
               ture of its management program.
                  Program Flexibility: Inherent to any complex regulatory or management
               structure is the danger of losing sight of the goals and objectives which
               the program has adopted and the danger of becoming inflexible and insensitive
               to needs for change. With this in mind, a state might wish to include mecha-
               nisms in its management structure to try to avoid these potential problems.
                  The necessity for flexibility could arise in many situations: in establish-
               ing a way to keep the program current with attitudes and conditions; in estab-
               lishing methods of dealing with extenuating circumstances (e.g., emergencies
               or disasters); in establishing processes for authorizing variances for non-
               conforming uses when such uses do not result in adverse impacts or do not com@
               promise the programs goals and objectives; establishing criteria to permit
               expanding the list of permissible uses to include unanticipated uses (see
               Section II-B); in establishing criteria for realigning priorities to reflect
               changes in attitudes (see Section II-D); and in establishing criteria that
               allow modifying geographic areas of particular concern when changing conditions
               indicate this is necessary (see Section II-C). Each.Qf these situations, as
               well as others that could emerge at any time, might warrant program changes,
               with or without additional legislation, but states should be careful to assure
               that those changes will result inmore effective management programs.

                  4. C    erative Mechanisms
                  The Act and Section 305 regulations specify that the statel:5 lead agency and
               its associated organizational structure must coordinate and cooperate the state's

             120

                 activities in two major areas:
                   development of the management program must reflect coordination with existing
                   local, substate regional, and multistate regional plans within the state's
                   defined coastal zone;
                   development of and strengthening of existing cooperative mechanisms for
                   state-federal consultations in geographical areas of the coastal zone where
                   there are key areas of mutual concern, particularly where federal activities
                   affect or may potentially affect the coastal zone.
                   The state, as it develops the organization of its coastal zone management
                 program, must coordinate its plans with existing plans of substate agencies; it
                 must also provide effective mechanisms for continuing this coordination as the
                 state's management program continues to operate.
                   Involving substate units of government in the organizational structure of the
                 state's program may frequently require arrangements different from those
                 necessary for coordinating and cooperating with agencies or units operating out-
                 side the formal management organization. For example, public health or safety
                 agencies might not be a formal element of the state's coastal zone management
                 organization; their activities and responsibilities, however, will directly
                 influence the management function in several areas, among these, public beach
                 regulation, law enforcement in coastal parks and campgrounds, and septic field
                 Permits for coastal residential development. The state's organizational im-
                 plementing structure will probably not contain all of the state's resource-
                 related functions and agencies; the state must therefore give special attention
                 to those functions and agencies whose action can both influence and be influenced
                 by the state's management program.
                   Agencies and other governmental units can have one of three arrangements
                 with the state's coastal zone management program: first, formal linkages for
                 example, the lead agency would have responsibility for coordinating coastal
                 zone management activities of related agencies; second, informal linkages with
                 communication exchange programs; or third, no linkages established. The king
                 of relationships between the lead agency for the management program and other
                 agencies can change over time--informal arrangements may become formal; formal,
                 informal. Several factors might cause this: new legislative action; executive
                 reorganization; constitutional amendment; or emergence of new and critical
                 issues.
                   Needs for coordination: Many situations could arise where a state might
                 design and implement resource management activities without appropriate coor-
                 dination or recognition of other existing related plans or planning efforts.
                 Examples might be state planning activities for development of offshore re-
                 source extraction allowed to evolve without recognition of, or coordination
                 with, fishery management plans and programs, or a state might not coordinate
                 an on-shore oil drilling operation fully with recreation and forest develop-
                 ment proposals. This problem is partially alleviated now, at least when
                 federal actions are involved, by the review process established under the
                 National Environmental Policy Act.
                   In California, critics have charged that the state's 'Comprehensive ocean
                 Area Plan fails to consider adequately the plans and activities of other
                 entities. The report Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, cites many examples
                 of the consequences of the lack of real coordination among resource agencies
                 and groups.
                   States should consider the various levels of coordination that must evolve at
                 the different levels of agencies' activities. These levels include: among
                 state agencies; between state and local units; between local units; between state

                                                                                                121

               and regional organizations; between and among states; and internationally.
                 A state must consult with those affected and coordinate its efforts when it
               becomes involved in displacement effects that an agency's or program's imple-
               menting policy causes. For example, resource development activities one agen-
               cy's policies regulates or prohibits may merely displace those activities to
               another geographical area and cause conflicts with which other groups must deal.
               Some states are already experiencing displacement effects from their coastal
               zone management efforts. Issues related to power plant siting, refineries, off-
               shore airports, and other development are being pushed inland by actions the
               states are taking to protect their coastal areas. These displacement actions
               may cause critical problems for programs and agencies with inland responsibili-
               ties.
                  Displacements from inland areas to the coastal zone might be the result of
               agencies' policies, if the agencies do not coordinate their activities and eradi-
               cate disparities in policies. For example, a state energy commission might re-
               ceive a mandate to fulfill a quota of powerplants for the state which, without
               the necessary coordination with the state's coastal zone management program,
               might lead to non-optimum resource utilization. unified statewide policies
               should reflect the goals and objectives of the coastal zone management program
               or other statewide policies should be coordinated with the coastal zone manage-
               ment program. See Section II-B, Permissible Uses, for additional discussion.
                  A recent harbor development controversy provides another illustration of the
               dangers of uncoordinated actions in the coastal zone. In Michigan, a state re-
               source commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were considering the de-
               velopment of harbor improvements which reflected an anticipated demand for boat
               docking and harbor facilities; which was related to the sport fishery program of
               the State Fishery Division. The proposed program was not coordinated adequately
               with the plans of the National Park Service (charged with developing adjacent
               lands for a national park) or with the state's existing long-range coastal man-
               agement objectives, which called for a policy of sponsoring only projects which
               do not have a significant impact on the coastal environment. The state's coastal
               resource objectives were never really related to the harbor development needs,
               and the harbor development project was ultimately defeated by the actions of
               local citizen groups who felt that the displacement effects of the harbor improve-
               ments would adversely affect them. The need for coordination can have interna-
               tional implications. For example, the proposed oil refinery in Eastport, Maine,
               might result in adverse economic and environmental impacts in the neighboring
               province of New Brunswick, Canada. In California, the restriction on coastal
               development, combined with the new highway in the Baja penninsula may be a
               major factor in a rapidly increasing influx of tourists and the related develop-
               ment to that area of Mexico, an increase with which the units of government there
               may be inadequately prepared to cope.
                  The displacement effect can, of course, occur between or among states. Chesa-
               peake Bay is an example; here the policy established in one state may serve to
               displace a coastal issue or problem to a neighboring state. See Section II-A,
               Boundaries, for a discussion of this.
                  The need for coordination is also important in research support as a state
               develops its coastal zone management program. Coordinating research efforts can
               be extremely important in pooling research talent and data to attack a problem
               for which many agencies share responsibility and can frequently result in more
               effective investigation and resolution of that problem.
                  The state's coastal zone management organization could identify the many re-
               search needs for issues involving coastal resource development or protection.
               The lead coastal zone agency, or any other chosen agency, could then coordinate

              122

              with those who have the research expertise, among these, universities and other
              state agencies--to link research programs that could help resolve the various
              issues.
                 In the harbor improvement example above, if the state had begun in the early
              phase of sports fishery development and coordinated this program with a study of
              the recreational access needs, this might have helped to avoid the confrontation
              and subsequent defeat of the proposal.
                 As it considers cooperative arrangements between and among the coastal manage-
              ment agency and other agencies and units at all levels the state should also
              examine the problem of overlapping or mismatched standards and regulations. Con-
              sider the example of a coastal zone management agency responsible for controll-
              ing the loss of sediment supply from a littoral system which maintains beach
              areas. Existing water resources agency practices or regulations may deal with
              the sediment from the perspective of upstream impoundment problems. The coastal
              agency might want to impose different standards on sediment control and dam con-
              struction because of its interest in maintaining beaches or protecting estuaries.
              States should develop interagency communication and coordination to the point
              where resource management approaches that are at cross-purposes, such as these,
              can be resolved.
                 Continuing Coordination: The requirement for continued coordination of the
              state's coastal zone management program with existing plans and with local, re-
              gional, and other appropriate agencies will have considerable influence on how
              � state organizes the structure to implement its management plan. For example,
              � state may find that to ensure continued coordination with these other agencies,
              it may have to incorporate formal mechanisms for coordination within its coastal
              zone management structure. These arrangements might include establishing advis-
              ory or review boards which include affected agencies; it might involve regular
              reviews or hearings of the management program with local, regional, and inter-
              state groups.
                 A state might establish advisory boards at various levels, or it might choose
              to deal functionally with certain areas of activity in coastal zone management:
                local government advisory boards, the objective of which would be to give local
                units an opportunity to comment on a regular and continuing basis on how the
                state's management program was working. Geography could be one basis for these
                boards' membership.
                state agency or regional planning advisory boards, the objective of which would
                be to deal with mutual policy issues; and
                coastal research advisory boards, to bring together research personnel from
                those agencies and organizations involved in research related to coastal issues
                or problems.
                 The lead agency might also further interagency communication and coordination
              through newsletters and activity reports. If these are done properly, they could
              be highly effective alerting local governments and state agencies to the issues
              and problems with which each agency involved in the coastal zone management pro-
              gram is dealing.
                 Other techniques to use to increase coordination include: distributing work-
              ing drafts of progress reports and research studies; holding formal or informal
              meetings on specific program elements; creating a formal agency liaison to work
              with other units to promote interagency communication; and using task force groups
              to examine specific issues and/or problems.
                 The Office of Coastal Zone Management will provide guidance through the Section
              306 regulations as to the federal requirements for mechanisms to assure adequate
              consultation and coordination with other entities at all levels. Each state must

                                                                                            123

              establish procedures which show its intention to pursue this requirement of the
              Act. Establishing various advisory boards or committees could be one way a state
              could show the extent of its commitment toward this end.

                                                CITATIONS

              1. Earl H. Bradley, Jr. and John M. Armstrong: A Description and Analysis of
                 Coastal Zone and Shoreline Management Programs in the United States, Univers-
                 ity of Michigan Sea Grant Program, 1971.

              2. Executive Order of Governor Francis W. Sargent adopted in 1972.
              3. Elizabeth P. Haskell: Managing the Environment: Nine States Look for New
                 Answers, Smithsonian Institution, 1971.

              4. Fred P. Bossleman and Richard Babcock: The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Con-
                 trol, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

              5. Bradley and Armstrong: op. cit.

              6. Peter M. Douglas, "Coastal Zone Management--A New Approach", Coastal Zone
                 Management Journal, l(l), 1973.

              7. Michigan Public Act 200 of 1970 as modified by Public Act 293 of 1972.

             124

                  C. Cooperation and Coordination with Federal Agencies

                     1. Coordination Before Federal Approval
                     While there are numerous references in the Act to state-federal cooperation,
                  consultation, participation, and adequate consideration of federal agency
                  views, this section deals primarily with Section 307 of the Act and with
                  Sections 920.3 and 920.10(c) of the Section 305 regulations. The overall
                  issue of state-federal interaction will be addressed in greater detail in a
                  document the Office of Coastal Zone Management is to publish shortly.
                     States should consider coordination with federal agencies as occurring
                  in two separate phases: first, that which states will need while they are
                  developing their coastal zone management programs; and second, that which they
                  will require once the Secretary of Commerce has approved their management
                  programs. Section 307(b) addresses the need for preapproval coordination:
                       The Secretary shall not approve the management program submitted
                       by a state pursuant to Section 306 unless the views of Federal
                       agencies principally affected by such programs have been ade-
                       quately considered.
                  Sections 307(c) and (d) address the requirements for coordination which must
                  be met after the Secretary has approved a state's coastal zone managment
                  program.
                     Before the Secretary approves a state's program, there will be at least
                  two stages for federal agency involvement in and review of the program. The
                  first federal agency involvement would occur while the state is developing
                  its coastal zone management program. The second would occur when the
                  state submits its management program to the Secretary for approval. At that
                  time the Secretary would be responsible for further review and coordination
                  among federal agencies.
                     It is necessary to identify which federal agencies should be considered
                  to be "principally affected" by a state's management program. This depends
                  upon the key issues within that state. For example, an extensive water
                  transportation industry and flood control problem makes the Corps of
                  Engineers a key agency in Louisiana. (For a representative listing of key
                  federal agencies refer to the Appendix.) To be sure it has considered all
                  relevant federal agencies, a state should examine its coastal zone to
                  determine which federal agencies have lands or substantial investments within
                  that coastal zone. (Federal lands are excluded from the state's coastal
                  zones by law, but coordination with federal agencies administering excluded
                  federal lands is necessary, since administration of these should be consistent
                  with the states' approved management programs.) An index which lists
                  coastal issues and subjects with relevant federal agencies may help a state
                  identify the federal agencies with which it should coordinate its program.
                     A state may wish to develop certain coordination and review mechanisms
                  and procedures to ensure that federal agencies have an opportunity to review
                  its coastal zone management program and respond to it. Some traditional
                  mechanisms and procedures a state might use include:
                   interagency task forces, members of which include federal officials, to
                   review and to comment on portions of the state's coastal zone management
                   program (this task force could be a working group, or a review or advisory
                   board);
                   hearings, at which federal agency representatives could observe and comment
                   on the coastal zone management program (see Chapter V, Public Participation);
                   progress reports, which a state would issue periodically, could provide
                   federal agencies opportunities to review and to comment;

                                                                                             125

                newsletters, which a state would send out regularly could be a means of
                describing milestones achieved in the program's development; and
                liaison personnel, who report on progress in the coastal zone management
                program's development and receive views and comments for the state's
                consideration (these people could be state or federal officials).
                 In some cases locally-based federal agents have views which differ from
              those their regional or Washington offices hold. A state which wishes to
              take a more cautious approach should involve all three levels of federal
              agencies in its management program review process. A state should also
              check to see if it has more than one office of a federal agency within its
              coastal zone. California, for example, has three Corps of Engineers districts
              within the state.
                 Several mechanisms exist in the federal government which might help a
              state in this consultation and review process. The federal executive boards
              located in numerous cities throughout the country could help ensure adequate
              federal agency review. Another mechanism would be the Federal Regional
              Councils, which are designed to provide a uniform federal response to problems
              of state and local government; especially where funds for particular activities
              or other forms of technical assistance and support come from more than one
              source.
                 During this preapproval review process, a state may clash with federal
              agencies over coastal resource management policy. Section 307(b) provides
                   In case of serious disagreement between any Federal agency and
                   the state in the development of the program the Secretary in coop-
                   eration with the Executive office of the President shall seek to
                   mediate the differences.
                 What are some potential "serious disagreements"? One example might be the
              National Park Service which administers the Cape Cod National Seashore. NPS
              is considering a policy against building further shore protection structures.
              Failure to build shore protection structures here, however, could harm
              Pleasant Bay to the south--a highly productive estuary--because water circula-
              tion would be cut off once increased sedimentation closes the mouth of the
              Bay. If Massachusetts chooses to emphasize the protection of Pleasant Bay
              as part of its coastal zone management program, "serious disagreement"
              between the state and the NPS may be the result.
                 Another example could be in Louisiana, where the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
              and Wild Life, Department of Interior reviews all applications to the Corps
              of Engineers for dredge and fill in coastal areas. In Louisiana, dredging
              in the estuarine zone is common and has been occurring for thirty years in
              waters less deep than the minimum recommended under informal guidelines from
              Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. If Louisiana's coastal zone manage-
              ment program wishes to allow dredging in the coastal zone in its more shallow
              waters, with prescribed safeguards, again "serious disagreement" between the
              state and the federal agency may result.
                 Because frequently federal agency standards and policies are still being
              debated and tested, state views regarding those policies are relevant and
              timely. Instead of "serious disagreement," perhaps a reconciliation could
              result. In the Massachusetts and Louisiana examples, both sets of federal
              policies are tentative and are still being tested.
                 In the selection of sites for ocean dumping, a program the Environmental
              Protection Agency administers, the federal guidelines on how to choose sites
              are still being debated. As states develop their coastal zone management
              programs, they are in ideal positions to influence the development of federal

              126

                   policies as those policies would affect states' coastal zones. Federal
                   agencies may welcome this interaction in formulating and revising of their
                   policies since it could save them from serious conflicts with state officials
                   and politicians should policies differ.
                      But despite federal and state efforts to reconcile differences, serious
                   disagreements could still result. The Act provides for the Secretary to
                   develop a mediation process. The Secretary may promulgate specific pro-
                   cedures regarding this mediation process. Should he do so, states might
                   well be responsible for initiating the procedures to try to resolve a
                   particular conflict.1,2
                      If mediation should fail the courts may have to resolve the conflict.
                   Conflicts might arise only after the Secretary approved a management
                   program, not before, because only after the Secretary has approved a state's
                   program is it necessary to invoke the provision of section 307(c) which
                   requires federal agency consistency with approved state programs. A variety
                   of problems will have to be addressed concerning the consistency issue;
                   among these,
                   � Must conflicting state laws yield to federal laws even if the state laws
                     were enacted pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act and
                     approved by the Secretary of Commerce?
                   � How are conflicting policies of a federal agency and a state's approved
                     coastal management program to be reconciled?
                   � How much weight is to be given the "non-derogation" clause of the Act
                     (307 (e)) when comparing approved coastal zone management programs with
                     conflicting policies of other agencies?
                   � Since federal agencies are to make their activities consistent with
                     approved coastal management programs, in any given case, how is it determined
                     that the required consistency has been met?
                      To avoid the need to invoke the mediation procedures, or to await a
                   final judicial determination of a disagreement, a state should make every
                   effort to notify federal agencies of proposed coastal management policies so
                   that objections and possible serious disagreements emerge early in the
                   planning process. It may not be wise for a state to assume that a federal
                   agency will not object to approval of a state's management program because
                   of that agency's failure to object during the program development period.
                      Congress is always passing new laws and states will also have to address
                   how new programs and policies are to be reflected in or coordinated with
                   approved coastal management programs. At this writing, Congress is con-
                   sidering or has passed legislation on deepwater ports, power plant siting,
                   beach access, and beach erosion. The fate of comprehensive land use planning
                   seems uncertain. A state should address specifically how these new programs   1
                   relate to the coastal zone management program for which it will seek approval.

                      2. Required Consistency, Certification, and Complementarity
                      We have been addressing coordination between the state and federal agencies
                   before the Secretary approves the state's program and the possible forms of
                   mediation and litigation should other procedures fail to resolve all dis-
                   agreements.
                      Once the Secretary approves a coastal management program, what requirements
                   do government agencies and private persons have to meet to conform their
                   actions to the management program? Section 307 specifically addresses this
                   question--for federal agencies (307(c)(1 and 2)); applicants for federal
                   licenses and permits (307(c)(3)); and for state and local governments

                                                                                             127

              307(d)). Section 307 also addresses how a state's coastal management pro-
              grams must relate to air and water quality laws (307(f)), proposed land use
              laws (307(g)), and other federal laws and programs (307(e)). Section 305
              regulations address requirements a state must meet under the National En-
              vironmental Policy Act as it prepares environmental impact statements
              (920.10(c)). We will discuss each of these required relationships separately.
                 Federal agencies' responsibilities: After the Secretary has approved a
              state's management program, each federal agency conducting, or supporting,
              or undertaking activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall do so in
              a manner which is, as much as possible, consistent with the approved state
              management programs.
                 Activities a federal agency might conduct could include those in which
              federal employees are directly involved in functional duties in the state.
              Corps of Engineers' flood protection programs require direct action by
              Corps staff using Corps equipment. Similarly, the National Park Service is
              directly involved in functional activities in states where a national seashore
              or national park is in the coastal zone.
                 Activities a federal agency supports include those activities it funds or
              provides facilities or personnel for. Two examples are small watershed
              projects in the coastal zone which the Soil Conservation Service sponsors
              and planning projects Water Resources Council programs fund.
                 Development projects a federal agency might undertake include construction
              for military installations, federal office buildings, federal parks or
              monuments, and perhaps, in some cases, airports. one might also include
              construction of access ramps to federally controlled spillways or reservoirs,
              even though these are to aid recreation. Water resource projects, of which
              flooding of large areas of wetlands to provide habitats for waterfowl is an
              example, could be considered a development project--developing wildfowl
              resources.
                 It is important, however, to note that the activities a federal agency con-
              ducts or supports must "directly affect" the state's coastal zone before the
              federal agency is required to coordinate its effort with the state's pro-
              gram. But under the terms of the Act, it does appear that nearly every
              federal activity is to consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with a
              state's coastal zone management program.
                 States and federal agencies must therefore interpret, for each case,
              the meaning of "to the maximum extent practicable." At the least, "maximum
              effort" and "practical" seem to imply a responsibility for cooperation.
              Whether there is a further responsibility to change a program is debatable.
                 For example, a federal agency might cooperate fully to the extent their
              finances and authority would permit, but it would not take any steps to
              reallocate funds, request more funds, or suggest a change in authorization.
              Shortly after regulations under the Act were promulgated, the Corps of
              Engineers, in its new regulations for structures permits in navigable waters,
              referred to the Coastal Zone Management Act and acknowledged the need for
              compatibility between a proposed action the Corps of Engineers might license
              and an approved coastal management program in the state in which the action
              would occur3. The Council on Environmental Quality and the Water Resources
              Council have done the same4,5.
                 States might study the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act in which
              the best "practicable" technology for controlling water pollution is
              required by 19776. How "practicable" is interpreted here might help states
              define it for purposes of coastal zone management.
                 Federal agencies should address the question of "maximum extent practicable"

              128

                    when they review a state's proposed coastal zone management program. If they
                    gave the program an intensive and detailed review process before the
                    Secretary approves it, this might resolve many potential difficulties in
                    coordinating federal and state activities in a particular state's coastal
                    zone.
                       Both states and federal agencies should remember that most activities
                    involving federal agencies have a local component to them. This component
                    could be an interest group or a state or local agency which encourages the
                    federal program. To help avoid conflicts between federal programs and
                    state actions, state and local components should try to examine potentially
                    contentious subjects before federal agencies become involved. For example,
                    debates over watershed projects between the Soil Conservation Service and
                    the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife will first arise between local
                    "cooperators" of the Soil Conservation Service system (farmers) and sportsmen
                    or fishermen. Presumably, if the matter can be resolved locally, potentially
                    greater federal agency involvement will diminish or not arise.
                       License and permit consistency: Once a state has an approved management
                    program, applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity
                    affecting land or water uses in its coastal zone
                         shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting
                         agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with
                         the state's approved program and that such activity will be con-
                         ducted in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time,
                         the applicant shall furnish to the state or its designated agency
                         a copy of the certification with all necessary information and
                         data. Each coastal state shall establish procedures for public
                         notices in the case of all such certifications and to the extent
                         it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in the con-
                         nection therewith. At the earliest practicable time, the state
                         or its designated agency shall notify the Federal agency con-
                         cerned that the state concurs with or objects to the applicant's
                         certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to
                         furnish the required notification within six months after receipt
                         of its copy of the applicant's certification, the state's con-
                         currence with the certification shall be conclusively presumed.
                         No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until
                         the state or its designated agency has concurred with the appli-
                         cant's certification or until, by the state's failure to act,
                         the concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secretary,
                         on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after
                         providing a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from
                         the Federal Agency involved and from the state, that the activity
                         isconsistent with the objectives of this title or is otherwise
                         necessary in the interest of national security.
                       The following hypothetical case explains how this provision in the Act
                    (307(c)(3)) operates:
                    � KenPen Construction Company applies to the Army Corps of Engineers to fill
                      in five acres of Coastal Bay for a condominium/parking lot/swimming pool
                      development.
                    � KenPen supplies the Corps of Engineers with all necessary information re-
                      garding engineering, required authorizations, and necessary approvals
                      from local and state agencies in accordance with local Corps of Engineers'
                      policy.

                                                                                                 129

                 In addition to this information, KenPen provides an additional document,
                 called a "certification," stating that KenPen's activities would comply
                 with the state's approved coastal management program and would be con-
                 ducted in a manner consistent with that program.
                 KenPen sends a copy of the certification to the state agency the Governor
                 has designated to administer the state's coastal zone management program.
                 This state agency gives public. notice that the certification has been
                 received, holds hearings if it deems them necessary, and, as soon as
                 possible, indicates to the Corps of Engineers that the state accepts, with
                 or without conditions, or rejects the certification provided. If the
                 state agency does not act within six months after it receives the
                 certification, the Corps of Engineers may presume that the agency accepts
                 the certification.
                 The Corps of Engineers may not grant the permit to KenPen unless the
                 state accepts the certification--whether that acceptance is actual or
                 presumed.
                 If the state objects to the certification, and KenPen Construction disagrees
                 with this objection, KenPen may appeal directly to the Secretary of
                 Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce, on his own initiative, could call
                 the case up before him. The Secretary would receive detailed comments
                 from the Corps of Engineers and from the state agency. He would then
                 decide whether the activity would be consistent with the Act's objectives
                 or otherwise necessary in the interests of national security.
                 A state should develop a list of the appropriate federal licensing pro-
                 cedures where this certification procedure would operate, and it may
                 wish to develop a set of rules to deal with the certification process. For
                 example, the rules might address the question of to whom a certification is
                 sent, the type of data and information that should be attached to the
                 certification (this will vary with the kind of federal permit or license
                 being applied for), the procedures for notices to other state agencies,
                 local governments and the public once the certification is received,
                 what conditions would require a public hearing upon a certification, and
                 other considerations.
                  The state has the responsibility to object to a certification. This implies
               that business will go on as usual unless state agencies charged with ad-
               ministering a coastal zone management program have the time and money to
               investigate certifications and object where they feel it is necessary. For
               this reason, a state may wish to include in its management program a review
               process over related federal licensing procedures, and it should budget per-
               sonnel and funds for this.
                  States may wish to review the certification procedures under other
               statutes (for example, the federal Water Pollution Control Act) for possible
               adoption for coastal zone management. Established state agency review pro-
               cesses could also be useful in this context.
                  Consistency in state and local government applications for federal
               assistance: State and local governments, as well as federal agencies and
               applicants for federal licenses or permits, must make their proposals con-
               sistent with a state's approved management program. Section 307(d) provides
                    State and local governments submitting applications for Federal
                    assistance under other Federal programs affecting the coastal zone
                    shall indicate the views of tl--,e appropriate state or local agency
                    as to the relationship of such activities to the approved manage-
                    ment program for the coastal zone. Such applications shall be

             130

                       submitted and coordinated in accordance with the provisions of
                       title IV of the Intergovernmental Coordination Act of 1968
                       (82 Stat. 1093). Federal agencies shall not approve proposed pro-
                       jects that are inconsistent with a coastal state's management
                       program, except upon a finding by the Secretary that such project
                       is consistent with the purposes of this title or necessary in the
                       interest of national security.
                     States must create a procedure for other agencies of state government and
                  for regional and local governments through which these groups can interact
                  and coordinate their activities with the approved management program.
                  Through the Intergovernmental Coordination Act of 1968, implemented by
                  OMB Circular A-95, all states have a procedure for circulating and reviewing
                  applications for federal funds. A state should use the current review
                  process and identify ways in which the coastal zone management program fits
                  into that system.
                     It is possible that the federal agency reviewing an assistance proposal
                  from a state or local agency and the state agency administering the approved,
                  management program could both establish procedures to determine if a proposal
                  for assistance is consistent with the state's program. A coastal municipality
                  applying to a federal agency for funds to construct a facility would need to
                  include in the application the views of the state's management agency about
                  the relationship of the facility to the state's coastal zone management program.
                  The coastal municipality and the management agency may disagree over the
                  location of the facility, for example. One interpretation of Section 307(d)
                  is that the federal agency may not approve the application if the state
                  coastal zone management agency has found the application to be inconsistent
                  with the state's approved management program. Another interpretation is that
                  the federal agency must determine if the application is consistent with
                  the state's approved program. The Secretary of Commerce could be asked to
                  resolve the matter under procedures for appeals to the Secretary.
                     Consistency with water and air quality programs:   By law, state coastal
                  management programs may not create water pollution or air pollution control
                  requirements which differ from those already required under federal laws and
                  programs:
                       Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, nothing in this
                       title shall in any way affect any requirement (1) established by
                       the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, or the Clean
                       Air Act, as amended, or (2) established by the Federal Government
                       or by any state or local government pursuant to such Acts. Such
                       requirements shall be incorporated in any program developed pur-
                       suant to this title and shall be the water pollution control and
                       air pollution control requirements applicable to such programs.
                       (307(f)).
                     A state must consider the question of the relationship of coastal zone
                  management programs with other federal water and air programs. A state might
                  wish to approach the problem by first identifying what water and air use
                  requirements are important for its management program as the program develops.
                  Once it has identified these elements of control, the management agency
                  might wish to consult with state and federal officials regarding the capability
                  of other federal laws and programs to handle these problems. If any other
                  of the programs could handle a particular problem, the management agency
                  could consider referring to it; if not, the state could deal with it in the
                  coastal zone management program.
                     It is well to remember that a considerable difference can exist between
                  what is supposed to be covered under a major comprehensive federal act like
                  the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and what is actually being done.

                                                                                             131

               EPA officals have acknowledged publicly that they must assign priorities.
               They are not dealing with some problems the law requires they handle because
               they have inadequate personnel and budget. A state's coastal zone management
               program may be useful as a vehicle to assist fuller coverage of problems
               under the Water Quality or Clean Air Acts where federal agencies are not
               properly staffed to handle them.
                  There are two areas where existing federal water and air programs have a
               significant effect on a state's coastal zone management program. Under the
               Clean Air Act, the "clustering" of new emission sources can be controlled
               in the interest of ensuring clean air. This is a land use control. Under
               the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, "basin" and "areawide"
               plans are to be promulgated so that decisions regarding the necessary
               sewage treatment for municipalities within the basin can be assessed in terms
               of total waste discharge and applicable water quality standards. These plans
               involve land use decisions since the size, spacing and capacity of sewage
               treatment facilities are involved.
                  The Louisiana-Mississippi River Corridor provides a good example of how
               Louisiana's coastal zone management program will have to consider EPA
               requirements under both the Clean Air Act and the Water Pollution Control
               Act. As an example, under the EPA program, "clustering" of commercial and
               industrial facilities may be discouraged in the interest of air quality. On
               the other hand, Louisiana might decide, through its coastal zone management
               program, that the wetlands of the state are too valuable to allow industrial
               development anywhere but the Mississippi River Corridor. In this case,
               the state's management agency would have to work closely with those federal
               and state officials concerned with clean air requirements. Louisiana would
               have the same problem regarding the basin plan requirements for sewage
               treatment plants. Louisiana is a major oyster producing state; oysters are
               significant industry in the coastal area. To protect that industry and
               the water quality where oysters grow, the state management program might
               consider that higher treatment standards for sewage treatment plants are
               necessary. A decision like this would require close coordination with the
               state's water pollution control offices.
                  Consistency with land use programs: Congress foresaw that coastal zone
               management and land use programs would have to coexist. Because both pro-
               grams might be required to deal with certain issues, Congress added section
               307(g) to resolve potential jurisdiction overlaps:
                    When any state's coastal zone management program submitted for
                    approval or proposed for modification pursuant to section 306 of
                    this title, includes requirements as to shorelands which also
                    would be subject to any Federally supported national land use
                    program which may be hereafter enacted, the Secretary, prior to
                    approving such a program, shall obtain the concurrence of the
                    Secretary of the Interior, or any such other Federal official as may
                    be designated to administer the national land use program with
                    respect to that portion of the coastal zone management program
                    affecting such inland areas.
                  The land use bills the House and Senate have considered recognize the
               existence of two separate programs and provide for coordinating the two so
               that jurisdiction between the programs within each state is clear, and funds
               are so apportioned that they reflect the relative sizes of coastal and non-
               coastal areas within states.
                  Regardless of the language in the Coastal Zone Management Act and of
               whatever--if any--land use law comes out of Congress, the burden of coordinating

             132

                  the two programs rests with the officials administering them within a state.
                  The inland boundary of the coastal zone must reflect both the dividing line
                  between coastal and non-coastal features and the respective jurisdictions
                  of the two programs. The question of agency responsibility within a state
                  can determine the ease or difficulty of coordinating the two programs.
                  A single planning agency overseeing the planning efforts of both programs
                  could facilitate ultimate coordination of both management programs. However,
                  many states would find it just as logical to assign coastal planning and
                  management to marine-oriented agencies and leave land use planning to agencies
                  concerned with general state planning problems.
                     Because these two programs--coastal zone management and land use planning--
                  are so closely linked and because the potential for overlap is so real,
                  states may determine it necessary to establish clear guidelines that outline
                  each program's respective role. This will occur, almost certainly, at the
                  federal level. State and local governments should consider it seriously
                  as well.
                     Non-derogation clauses: Congress included clauses (307(e)(1 and 2)) in
                  the Act to prevent a state's coastal zone management program from stepping
                  too hard upon the toes of related federal laws and programs:
                       (e) Nothing in this title shall be construed--
                          (1) to diminish either Federal or state jurisdiction, respon-
                       sibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or
                       control of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters;
                       nor to displace, supersede, limit, or modify any interstate com-
                       pact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established
                       joint or common agency of two or more states and the Federal
                       Government; nor to limit the authority of Congress to authorize
                       and fund projects;
                          (2) as superseding, modifying, or repealing existing laws
                       applicable to the various Federal agencies; nor to affect the
                       jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the International Joint
                       Commission, United States and Canada, the Permanent Engineering
                       Board, and the United States operating entity or entitles established
                       pursuant to the Columbia River Basin Treaty, signed at Washington,
                       January 17, 1961, or the International Boundary and Water Commission,
                       United States and Mexico.
                     This provision, commonly called the "non-derogation" clause, makes clear
                  that the Act does not diminish other federal or state laws.
                     The first subsection of this provision seems to be directly aimed at the
                  programs administered through the Water Resources Council, other water-
                  related programs created by interstate compact and by Congress, and programs
                  the Corps of Engineers adminsters after special authorization from Congress.
                  These programs have a critical effect on coastal regions, and a state should
                  pay special attention to them as it develops its coastal zone management
                  program. Three examples below indicate how states can combine other efforts
                  with coastal zone managemeht to enhance the effectiveness of both:
                    The Delaware River Basin Commission, which includes the states of New York,
                    New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, has developed many plans for the
                    basin and is involved in the decision-making process for uses of the basin.
                    The Commission works closely with water quality offices and the Corps of
                    Engineers. The Commission will presumably participate in making management
                    decisions affecting the Lower Delaware Bay.
                    The Great Lakes Basin Commission's framework study deals extensively with
                    shoreline erosion problems. The Commission views coastal zone management
                    as a mechanism for expanding the study into other management issues--among

                                                                                             133

                these, how to control the shoreline development which magnifies and
                heightens the erosion problem.
                The New England River Basins Commission (NERBC) is completing three studies:
                The Connecticut River Study, the Long Island Sound Study and the South-
                eastern New England Study. NERBC has been encouraging close cooperation
                among the three studies and coastal zone management studies because the
                objectives of the two efforts dovetail.
                 Should conflict arise between coastal management programs and other
               federal or state programs, the chief administrator or each of the programs,
               or the President (through his executive offices), must resolve these. The
               courts can help by interpreting the meaning of the laws. Congress intended,
               by including interagency coordination and cooperation provisions, to create
               procedures that would avoid confrontations among related federal programs.
                 Relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act: One final area in
               which a state must clarify its position is its management program's relation-
               ship to the National Environmental Policy Act. The section 305 regulations
               address this question (Section 920.10(c)):
                   It is anticipated that an environmental impact statement will be
                   prepared and circulated on a State's management program prior to
                   its approval by the Secretary of Commerce, in accordance with the
                   terms of the National Environmental Policy Act and its associated
                   adminstrative regulations. The Secretary will prepare and circulate
                   an environmental impact statement on the basis of an environmental
                   impact assessment and other relevant data, prepared and submitted
                   by the individual States.
                 A state must consider the procedures and requirements for preparing
               environmental impact statements while it is developing its coastal zone
               management program. It will need to submit impact assessment information and
               data to the Secretary before he approves its program. The state should
               develop an impact assessment process as part of its definition of permissible
               uses; in doing so, it should consider other impact assessment techniques, for
               example, those required under the NEPA rules and regulations. The Water
               Resources Council guidelines on planning water and related land resource
               projects5 would also help a state develop its impact assessment procedures.
                 Once a state has a management program, many projects to be reviewed as part
               of it will also require environmental impact statements or analysis under
               Water Resources Council guidelines. A state could therefore save time and
               money by including similar elements in its various assessment processes.
                 Both the Council for Environmental Quality guidelines for writing impact
               statements and the WRC guidelines for planning water and related land resource
               projects require that the federal agent responsible for a project coordinate
               project plans with those in states involved that are preparing or administering
               coastal zone management programs. This provides a good opportunity for
               federal and state planners and impact assessors to compare the techniques
               each is developing and to simplify the overall process by using common terms
               and values wherever possible.
                 The demands for coordination and cooperation in modern resource management
               laws and the overwhelming number of agencies and programs concerned with
               resources in the coastal zone make the coordination task extremely challenging.
               Some think it is impossible to meet and to talk with all of the people con-
               cerned.
                 Perhaps two fundamental considerations can assist in the coordination
               process: First, the planning system it develops and adopts should be an open

             134

                  one, encouraging any interested people to become involved, whether these
                  represent a governmental agency or a private interest. A state should not
                  preclude or inhibit anyone interested in effecting the coordination from
                  doing so. Second, in establishing the planning process, a state should make
                  explicit a mechanism through which interested agencies can respond to
                  proposed plans.

                                                    CITATIONS

                  1.  Marc Hershman and John Folkenroth, "Coastal Zone Management and Inter-
                      governmental Coordination," Oregon Law Review, Summer 1974.

                  2.  Harold Wise, David Hartley, and John Bosley, "State-Federal Relations
                      in the Coastal Zone Management Program," working paper prepared for
                      the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                      Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, March 1974.

                  3.  Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, "Permits for Activities in
                      Navigable Waters or Ocean Waters," 39 Fed. Reg. 12115, April 3, 1974.

                  4.  Council on Environmental Quality, "Preparation of Environmental Impact
                      Statements: Guidelines," 38 Fed. Reg. 20550, August 1, 1973.

                  5.  Water Resources Council, "Principles and Standards for Planning Water
                      and Related Land Resources," 38 Fed. Reg. 24778, September 10, 1973.

                  6.  Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500,
                      9301, 1972.

                                                CHAPTER IV

                                    ORGANIZATION AND USE OF INFORMATION

              1. Introduction
                 This chapter is divided into the following parts:
                Problems regarding the use of information in management programs;
                Types of information programs;
                Considerations in designing an information program;
                Knowledge of existing information; and
                Improving information access.
                 The first three parts deal with general problems and considerations in in-
              formation program design. The fourth part categorizes and provides specific
              examples of information services relevant to coastal zone management. The
              final part discusses means of obtaining access to pertinent types of information,
              particularly through establishing a clearinghouse function.

              2. Problems Regarding the Use of Information in management Programs
                 In developing research and technical information programs, state agencies
              should first have a clear understanding of their own needs as well as consider-
              ing the problems which are inherent in the design and operation of information
              systems. Although in most cases, the solutions discussed are only partial, the
              cost of ignoring them may be extremely high.
                 Simplification of scientific knowledge: It will never be possible to prove
              that unspecified variables are not operating, or that "unknown forces" are not
              leading the observer to believe that a causal relationship exists when in fact
              it does not. Therefore, simplifying assumptions of possible disturbing influ-
              ences and variables are necessary. Furthermore, there is no way of being cer-
              tain that all relevant variables have been included in a causal model or explana-
              tion of that the variables which are used are the most appropriate ones. These
              dilemas are apparently insoluble and require a kind of faith that the assumptions
              made are sound.
                 Information sufficiency: The information available to decision-makers is
              seldom sufficient. Even the simplest decisions generate consequences which, in
              combination with the consequences of other decisions and events, will often pro-
              liferate endlessly. Decision-makers, therefore, must accept a degree of uncer-
              tainty. They may be able to reduce the level of uncertainty or mitigate its
              effects, but if the cost of doing so is excessive or if circumstances necessit-
              ate immediate decisions, there is no alternative but to act on the "best possi-
              ble" analysis of the available information.
                 Cost of acquiring data: Much of the data state agencies will require is
              either presently unavailable or difficult to obtain; thus requiring costly pro-
              grams. A notable example is the University of Texas' Bureau of Economic Geology
              study. This study mapped composite environmental factors for an 18,000 square
              mile area at a unit cost of $20.00 or $360,000 and published them in an Environ-
              mental Geologic Atlas series. If administrative costs had been included in the
              calculations--as would be necessary if an outside consultant had conducted the
              research--the cost might at least have doubled.1
                 As in the Texas case, information on fragile coastal environments, shoreline
              recreational demand, or any number of other topics relevant to the planning ef-
              forts required in the formulation of a coastal zone management program will of-
              ten require original research--without the benefit of building on what was done
              previously. Coastal zone authorities, however, will need to consider whether
              the marginal costs of developing new information is worth the benefits resulting

                                                    135

             136

                   from the additional information. It is important for states to recognize that
                   time delays in collecting, processing, or delivering information may add sub-
                   stantially to the purchase price. Furthermore, the cost of processing the data
                   itself can be considerable.
                      Coastal zone authorities should recognize that any actual expenditure of
                   funds, for information or anything else, has what economists refer to as an
                   11opportunity cost". The funds spent to collect or manipulate data might better
                   be spent on something else--such as review of proposed projects--from which
                   greater benefits would have derived. This is a particularly important point
                   here due to the expense of gathering and processing data. The Section 305 regu-
                   lations (920.20 (d)) stipulate that:
                        the primary emphasis of the coastal zone management program is to
                        create the mechanism for states to exert appropriate control over
                        land and water uses and to begin the management process, not to
                        engage in long-term research projects. (920.20(d))
                      Data/model fit: One of the most troubling and persistent problems in informa-
                   tion system design is data/model misfit. There is no point in collecting ex-
                   tremely detailed and sophisticated information if there are no, or only a very
                   crude, explanatory and predictive systems in which to use it. Conversely, and
                   perhaps more typically, there is no justification for designing complex models
                   when the only data available to feed them are of poor and uneven quality. A
                   sophisticated model operating on unreliable data will simply compound the ori-
                   ginal measurement errors, sometimes "explosively"--as in the case of models
                   which raise variables to powers. Therefore, the quality of the model should
                   correspond to the quality of the data it uses--and vice versa.
                      Value of information: All information is value-laden. There are various
                   ways, for example, to measure the success of a coastal recreation area: num-
                   ber of visitors per day, user satisfaction surveys, public willingness to pay
                   for the use of the facility, and others. The answer to the question of which
                   of these is most useful depends to a large extent on what, precisely, the de-
                   cision-maker considers a successful recreation area to be. The meaning of
                   successful, in turn, depends on the person's own values--training, experience,
                   and beliefs. Thus, the groups of variables employed to determine the adequacy
                   of coastal recreation facilities, however rigorously measured, will include a
                   subjective element.
                      Moreover, the interpretation of "facts" is notoriously susceptible to value
                   distortions. Two observers may agree about what an object is and that it has
                   value, but still disagree on the nature of its value due to their assumptions
                   about how value should be measured.
                      The fact that information and information processing is always value-laden
                   does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to use it meaningfully; it does
                   mean, however, that coastal zone authorities should exercise caution and dis-
                   cretion in selecting data sources and processing techniques and try to limit
                   the extent and degree of bias in information systems.
                      Understanding between users and producers of information: In technologic-
                   ally advanced societies, information is a fundamentally important commodity.
                   Like other goods, it is produced, bought, and sold--sometimes in a form that is
                   useless to the purchasers. This problem seems to be widespread in the area of
                   environmental affairs.
                      It has been pointed out that many research results are difficult to use
                   because:3
                     The results are often too specialized for use in complex decision-making
                     situations;

                                                                                              137

                 the results include variables which are not directly pertinent to the needs
                 of decision-makers;
                 the research results are rarely "future oriented"; and
                 the results are often obscurely presented in jargon which limits its useful-
                 ness.
                  Decision-makers, on the other hand, have often failed to make the best use of
               available research; often, they rely on their own perceptions, practial experi-
               ence, or common sense, possibly due to their lack of confidence or mistrust of
               and non-training in the complex study techniques associated with quantitative or
               qualitative analysis. These points raise what might develop as a recurrent dil-
               emma for the state coastal zone authorities--scientific research is not neces-
               sarily or even ordinarily addressed to issues and problems with which decision-
               makers must deal. When research on a given situation is available, it is often
               difficult to locate or apply. Towards this end the Section 305 regulations
               recommend that:
                    States should review and develop explicit statements of their research
                    needs and strengthen their contacts and involvement with the private
                    and public research community, by taking a lead role in determining
                    research and technical priorities, continuing mutual project develop-
                    ment activities and translation of scientific findings into informa-
                    tion useful for managers. (920.21(i))
                  A number of states and regions have developed comprehensive statements of
               their applied research needs for coastal zone management4#516. Once the applied
               research efforts are initiated, the management authority should maintain close
               contact with the researchers; particularly to assure that the research program
               is carried out as originally intended.
                  Proliferation of information: Information is currently proliferating at an
               exponential rate which creates two problems for the design of information sys-
               tems. It is extremely difficult to anticipate: first, where or in what form the
               necessary information exists; and second, when and from what sources new relevant
               information may become available. The Federal office of Coastal Zone Management,
               with the assistance of the Environmental Data Service will
                    ... endeavor to serve generally as a clearinghouse for specialized
                    coastal zone technical information, and will issue pertinent publica-
                    tions and appropriate technical support available at least from
                    federal sources (920.20(b)).
                  The information explosion has two consequences of importance to the design of
               information systems:
                 Information does not normally accumulate in an orderly, systematic fashion.
                 Typically, data about specific scientific subjects is scattered throughout
                 a variety of publications including professional journals, monographs, tech-
                 nical reports, seminar proceedings. Some of the data is unpublished in the
                 general sense of the word--as theses and dissertations associated with ad-
                 vance degrees. Some data may appear in foreign language publications, or in
                 periodicals addressed to a limited and highly specialized audience. For these
                 reasons, it will be helpful for coastal zone authorities to foster and main-
                 tain contacts with academic and commercial research communities.
                 It will often be difficult for coastal zone authorities to know the effective
                 life of the data with which they are working. For example, apparently reliable
                 information about some aspect of estuarine ecology may be superceded by new
                 research whose results were impossible to anticipate or unavailable at the
                 time the program development is initiated. States should keep their program
                 development efforts as flexible as possible in order to accommodate new inform-

            138

                   ation as it becomes available.
                    Information stability: Some types of information are less stable or inher-
                 ently harder to evaluate than others. For example, attitudes toward environ-
                 mental quality and resource use have changed, drastically and unexpectedly in
                 some cases, over the last ten years. It is unlikely that data collected before
                 the last decade would have revealed the incipient public interest in and con-
                 cern with environmental quality.

                 3. Types of Information Programs
                    Information systems used for planning can generally be classified as one of
                 two types:
                   those which collect and provide specific, limited issue or problem-oriented
                   information (hereinafter referred to as "POIP"); and
                   those which collect and disseminate information on a continuing and comprehen-
                   sive basis (hereinafter referred to as "CONCOMP").
                    In many cases it is difficult to make a distinction between the two types of
                 systems; however each type is appropriate to a different range of decision-
                 making contexts. For example, the system adopted by the U.S. Bureau of Census
                 is a CONCOMP and although there have been numerous internal changes in the data
                 reporting and accounting systems; the Bureau has continuously accumulated in-
                 formation in a broad variety of categories--generally trying to comprehensively
                 describe the U.S. population in terms of demographic, housing, and economic
                 variables. Much of the data is useful in problem-solving situations, but it is
                 not collected to serve any specific short-term effort. POIP systems, on the
                 other hand, are typically established to cope with particular, often Pbne-shot",
                 problems. Information is not catalogued in standardized categories and formats
                 over long periods of time; but rather, in whatever fashion seems most useful to
                 deal with the problem at hand. In one instance of recreation research, for ex-
                 ample, attitudinal measures (e.g., polls) might be used; in another, behavioral
                 indicators might produce more useful information. The POIP system is based on
                 the assumption that each planning problem is essentially unique and until a
                 problem is defined it is impossible to know what information to collect in order
                 to solve it.
                    The CONCOMP system, in contrast, assumes that problems have enough generic
                 similarities so that they can be grouped and information categories or classes
                 constructed for them in advance of a specific need to solve the problem. Neither
                 a pure POIP or CONCOMP system will probably be adequate for all information needs
                 of a coastal zone management authority. Every state will require some mixture
                 of the two types.
                    In designing their information systems states should note that:
                    POIP systems tend to:
                      � rely on use of consultants;
                      � produce a number of "one-shot" research projects which are not necessarily
                        compatible with each other in terms of content or format;
                      � require the development of original data and sometimes new techniques to
                        deal with them; and
                      � be highly cost-effective in the short run.
                    CONCOMP systems, in contrast, tend to:
                        produce "basic" information which is generally useful in a variety of
                        situations;
                        require sizeable in-house staffs to collect the information, file it,
                        keep it current, and distribute it; and
                        Iroduce information which is extremely useful when considering changes,
                        trends, or effects over time.

                                                                                               139

                  The program proposed for Nassau-Suffolk Regional Marine Resources Counci17
               is a notable application of a POIP system. This proposal outlines the integ-
               rated data collection and research needs which are particularly relevant to
               water supply, waste water treatment and disposal, coastal stabilization, dredg-
               ing, and wetlands on Long Island.
                  It is important to note that the Long Island proposal does not concern itself
               with monitoring all of the variables relevant to coastal zone planning; nor does
               it attempt to address the problems of water supply at a generalized or universal
               level. The research efforts are restricted to a small number of specific man-
               ageable problems which concern the planners and decision-makers in a specific
               geographical region (Long Island).
                  The Long Island proposal outlines six functional steps to consider in the
               design of a POIP system:
                 (Problems)--identifies, classifies, and briefly analyzes the problems that
                 confront planners and decision-makers with regard to the area's coastal re-
                 sources.
                 (Knowledge requirements)--categorizes the data and knowledge necessary to make
                 sound decisions about the use of coastal resources.
                 (State-of-the-art)--assesses the availability and adequacy of the necessary
                 data and knowledge.
               � (Knowledge gaps)--determines necessary data collection and research activities.
               � (Data collection and research program)--formulates a priority-oriented, coastal
                 zone-related data collection and research program and monitors its implementa-
                 tion.
               � (Management information system)--develops a system for organizing and synthe-
                 sizing the data and knowledge and provides analyzed information to coastal zone
                 planners and managers.
                  Other recent examgles of the approach using POIP systemg are the Delaware
               Estuary System Study and the Chesapeake Bay Region Study.    The Chesapeake study
               makes the point, fundamental to the POIP system concept, that outputs from infor-
               mation systems must frequently serve planners and manageIrs who need quick and
               realistic answers to questions. The Chesapeake study also suggests some funda-
               mental questions that should be addressed in the design of an environmental in-
               formation system:
                 Which problems are important?
                 What aspect of the problem requires priority attention?
                 Which specific research projects are required and in what sequence should
                 they be conducted?
                 How should the research results relate to the problem and how will planners
                 and managers use the results to alleviate or solve the problem?
                  CONCOMP systems, on the other hand, are not usually specifically problem-
               oriented. They collect and process data and information descriptively--on an
               ongoing and comprehensive basis. Familiar examples of CONCOMP systems include
               Soil Conservation System reports, the U.S. Geological Survey stream monitoring
               programs, the Environmental Data Service climatic, oceanographic, and geophysical
               data programs, and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife migratory bird
               census.

               4. Information System Design Considerations
                  When designing information systems coastal zone authorities should systemati-
               cally evaluate alternative systems in terms of the following considerations.
                  Combination of POIP and CONCOMP systems: A carefully designed information
               system will employ elements of both POIP and CONCOMP systems. Nonetheless, the

             140

                  number, intensity, and perhaps most significant, the immediacy of need will
                  necessarily affect the emphasis the system takes. Some states will find them-
                  selves confronted with a large number of specific and pressing issues and prob-
                  lems; others will have more latitude and may find it better to establish infor-
                  mation systems approximating the CONCOMP model.
                    Compatibility of information system components: Since the coastal zone
                  authorities will require information of both the POIP and CONCOMP varieties, the
                  question of intrasystem compatibility is a major concern. For example, the
                  basic cartographic data collection units employed in a CONCOMP system--like the
                  "tracts" the Bureau of Census uses--will not necessarily be the same as those
                  employed in a POIP system; and further, standards and descriptors may vary from
                  one POIP study to another. It is clearly in the state's interest to standardize
                  variables, data formats, and mapping scales as much as possible. Whenever poss-
                  ible states should see that POIP-type information is compatible with their com-
                  prehensive information system so all components of the system can interact effect-
                  ively.
                    Scale of in-house information services: Coastal zone management authorities
                  will generally have to resolve the question of extent to which they develop their
                  own information service capabilities--as opposed to using those presently avail-
                  able elsewhere within the state. Frequently, more information about a given   9
                  subject is available than potential users realize--the problem is locating it
                  Coastal zone authorities will often find it less costly to acquire data from
                  existing sources (e.g., government, university, and commercial sources) rather
                  than generate it independently.
                    Information coverage: There is no point in the coastal zone authority collect-
                  ing data as inputs to its decision-making process unless the data is relevant to
                  the factors the authority is mandated to consider. For example, if industrial or
                  power plan siting is outside the purview of the authority it does not need infor-
                  mation pertinent to regulating such activities.
                    Complexity of information needs: Some states will have information needs that
                  are more complex and more pressing than others. With this in mind each state should
                  assess the complexities and urgency inherent in its needs as it designs its in-
                  formation system to minimize the possibility of having to revise or restructure
                  the system at some later date.
                    Spanning information gaps: It is extremely important for coastal zone author-
                  ities to determine existing sources of information relevant to their needs; assess
                  the source's reliability; and determine its acquisition costs. The coastal zone
                  authority can then use these determinations as a guide to identify the informa-
                  tion gaps it must fill with new studies. once the authority identifies the gaps
                  it can then determine:
                   How much of the missing information is vital and must be collected and when it
                   is needed?
                   How much of the missing information can feasibly be collected? (Some kinds of
                   data will be too costly or time-consuming to acquire--given the authoritsk.'s
                   decision-making responsibilities.)
                   Who should collect or retrieve the missing information? (It will not always
                   fall to the coastal zone authority to collect the information; especially in
                   cases where other agencies have interests or responsibilities in line with
                   such needs.)
                    Continued utility of data: In the interests of efficiency, information sys-
                  tems should include procedures and mechanisms for continuously evaluating data
                  utility. State coastal zone authorities should limit their data acquisition
                  efforts to ones which will enhance their decision-making capabilities. When

                                                                                                141

               the need for a particular kind of information ceases, states should consider
               terminating the collection program associated with that unneeded information--
               even if there was a sizeable previous investment involved and the body of data
               itself has some intrinsic value. The Section 305 regulations repeatedly caution
               states against conceiving of their coastal zone management authorities primarily
               as research organizations (920.20(d), 920.20(e), 920.21, 920.21(i)). It is im-
               portant, therefore, that the management authorities put evaluation and feedback
               mechanisms into their information systems to monitor the usefulness of the data
               along with the data-handling procedures it uses.

                  5. Knowledge of Existing information
                  As discussed previously in this chapter, scientific and technical informa-
               tion is present 18 expanding at quite a rapid rate. To cite just one example,
               Ocean Abstracts  follows more than 2,000 titles each year covering what it
               bills as the world's current literature on the oceans. Keeping current with
               the rapidly expanding body of knowledge about the coastal zone is one Problem
               all state management authorities will have.
                  No coastal zone authority will be able to identify all existing information
               relevant to its needs; therefore, there will be some duplications of effort be-
               tween the management authority's development of original information and previous
               developments of the same information by others. However, the coastal zone man-
               agement authority should try to eliminate any unnecessary duplication of effort.
               The Section 305 regulations underscore this point:
                   In developing their management programs, states should always endeavor
                   to locate and utilize existing information and research sources to the
                   extent applicable and available rather than undertaking unnecessary in-
                   dependent research or information gathering, as part of program develop-
                   ment effectiveness. '(920.20(c))
                  The ongoing problems of keeping track of the continuous flow of new informa-
               tion fall into four categories: information sources, directories of information
               sources, information formats, and types of information systems and services.
                  Examples are cited for each of these categories in tables appearing later in
               the chapter. Full citations to published documents appear in the reference list-
               ing at the end of the chapter. The examples cited do not comprise a definitive
               listing and are included only as illustrations of what is available now or will
               be in the near future.
                  Information sources: Information sources can be divided into five basic types,
               ranging from the specific to the general. These are shown in the pyramid struc-
               ture in Figure I below.
                  Levels 1 and 2 as shown in Figure I are the basic or factual information upon
               which decision-making depends.
                  Level 3 includes periodicals which present many different pieces of informa-
               tion on particular topics--limited or broad(e.g., Estuary and Coastal Marine
               Science vs. Ecology . Access to this specific information is often provided by
               the publications' annual indexes.
                  Periodicals can also be included in the fourth level when they present the
               assimilated information from the lower three levels in an easily accessible form.
               Level 4 information sources also include the types of services shown in Table I.
               States may often find that academic and research institutions subscribe to such
               services and might consider allowing the state's coastal zone authority access
               to them in that way.
                  Level 5--the apex of the pyramid--consists of various public and private data
               services with emphasis placed on the ones having computer storage capabilities.

             142

                                                     TA13LE I
                                             INFORMATION SERVICES
                                   Bi.bliogravhic and Abstract Services
                          Bibliogr phic Abstracts L.L
                          Environmental Law Abstracts 12
                          Fuel Abstracts 13
                          National Technical Information Service""Environmental Pollution 14
                          Sea Grant 70's 15

                                                  Data Services

                        OASIS--Oceanic and Atmospheric Scientific Information System:
                          Technical Information Division, Environmental Information Center
                          Environmental Data Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                          Administration, Washington, D.C.--covers data bases of interest
                          to the marine, atmospheric, and earth science fields.

                        Environmental Information ACCESS--Environmental Information Center
                          Inc., 124 E. 39th Street, New York, NY 10016--coverage of all
                          federal environment-related documents and publications,
                          including congressional hearings, EPA and CEQ reports, Federal
                          Register, and Congressional Record plus 3500 international
                          journals, conference proceedings, technical reports, newspaper
                          articles and speeches, books and films.

                        Coastal Zone Management Fast Announcement Service--Datatronic
                          Systems Corporation, Panorama City, CA 91402--a complete
                          resource of information on coastal zone management.
                        National Environmental Research Center, Cincinati, OH (through
                          the National Technical Information Service)--on-line retrieval
                          from the National Environmental Research Center Library... for'
                          any subject of interest pertinent to environmental sciences.
                        WESRAC--Western Research Application Center, University of
                          Southern California, 809 West 34th Street, Los Angeles, CA
                          90007--scientific, technical, and management information for
                          many fields (including several data bases relevant to coastal
                          zone management, such as Oceanic Index/Oceanic Citation Journal
                          and Water Pollution Abstracts).

                                                    FIGURE 1

                          Level                INFORMATION SOURCES

                      5  Data Services   ---------------------------

                      4  Bibliographic and Abstract Services---

                      3  Periodicals  ------------------------
                      2  Individual Reports and.Studie      s-_J
                      1  Data and Maps   -----------------    I

                                                                                                 143

               Using a mechanical retrieval process the data services absorb the material from
               the abstracting services and supply a set of collated results to their customers.
                  Information formats: However the information is organized--according to or-
               ganization, agency, institution, or topic--and wherever it fits into the infor-
               mation pyramid shown in Figure 1, three general types of information are distin-
               quishable:
               . Document based systems which include citations to bibliographic sources such
               as books, journals, newsletters, reports, and articles; as well as other related
               material is the first of these general types. (See Table II for an example.)

                                            INFORMATION FORMATS

                         Document Based Systems
                               National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Weekly
                               Governmy t Abstracts: Environmental Pollution and
                               Control

                               Sea Grant Program, Sea rrant Publication Index : Sea
                               Grant Newsletter In@de32--
                               ocean Abstracts 10

                         Map and Data Bases Systems

                               National Geophysical and Solar-Terrestrial Data
                               Center, Environmental Data Service--National Oceanic
                               and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

                               Earth Resources Satellite Photography (ERTS)--U.S.
                               Geological Survey

                               Water Data Bank--U.S. Department of Agriculture

                               Geographic Applications Program (GAP)--U.S. Geological
                               Survey

                               National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX)--U.S. Geological
                               Survey
                               Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM)--U.S. Soil
                               Conservation Service

                               Coastal and Offshore    Vironmental Inventory: Cape
                               Hatteras to Nantucket

                         Combinations of Document and Map/Data Based Systems
                               U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/
                               U.S. Geological Survey,  'San Francisco BahRegion
                               Environment and Resources Planning Study

                               U.S. National Climate Center, Environmental Data
                               Service--NOAA

                                                    TABLE II

             144

                 . Geographical and nautical map and data base systems which collect, collate,
                 and present geographically-related and/or statistical information is the second.
                 (See Table II for an example.)
                 . Combination of document-based and map/data-based systems is the third type.
                 (See Table II for an example.)
                    Computerized information retrieval capabilities exist in all three types of
                 systems. These capabilities generally key information to various descriptors--
                 author, title, location, or other descriptive words--which can be cross-
                 referenced to facilitate access through any of the descriptors. (See Table III
                 for examples of such systems.)

                                              COMPUTERIZED SYSTEMS

                          Document and Data.Based Systems
                                Coastal Zone Bibliography: Citations to Documents on
                                Planning, Resources Management, and IMRact Assessment"
                                Environmental Science Information Center, Environmental
                                Data Service

                                Environmental Protection Agency, STORET Program

                          Computer Mapping Programs
                                New York 22
                                Minnesota 23
                                          24
                                Wisconsin
                                Lake Tahoe, California 44

                                                    TABLE III

                   Another source of information states should consider is information available
                 from expert judgment or evaluations. The management authority should identify
                 such people and maintain good communication networks with them. Coastal zone
                 authorities can identify such talent through soliciting the opinions of community,
                 state, and other public agencies, and special interest groups and organizations
                 throughout the state (@r discussion of generation of new ideas in Chapter V,
                 Public Participation).
                   Directories of information sources: Information and research sources are usu-
                 ally listed according to the specific organizations which collect the information
                 (e.g., u.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Data Service), or by topics of in-
                 terest (e.g., water quality, wetlands, shoreline'erosion).
                   Sources listed by agency usually include the name of the entity collecting
                 the information. Table IV presents some of these types of directories of sources.
                   Sources listed by topic are usually organized according to key words or general
                 categories of information. Table V presents examples of some of these.
                   State authorities might find it helpful to prepare directories of persons with
                 expertise in various coastal zone-related fields (e.g., ocean engineering, littoral
                 processes). States will find such sources of expertise invaluable when informa-
                 tion is needed quickly, and the individuals may possibly provide a better class
                 of information to meet special needs than is available through the pertinent
                 literature.

                                                                                                 145

                  Types of information systems and services: As was said previously, an in-
               formation system is based on either documents, maps and data, or a combination
               of both; it will also be either limited in geographic scope (i.e., limited to
               an area within a certain geographic region), limited in topical coverage (i.e.,
               limited to a few specific areas of concern), limited in agency coverage, or a
               combination of one or more of these. Examples of computer applications in in-
               formation management are shown in Table III.

                                       DIRECTORIES OF INFORMATION SOURCES

                         AGENCY SPECIFIC
                               Areas of Critical Envirdnmental C?gcern: Inventory and
                               Evaludtion in a Statewide Program

                               Urban Shorelands Guide: A Discussion of Programs to
                               Assist wit 7t e Implementation of the Lakefront Plan
                               of Chicago
                               Spheres of Influence in HaW ii's Coastal Zone, vol. 1,
                               Federal Agency InvolvemOnt4

                               A Survey of Government Agencies, Studies, and
                               Public@ktions Concerned with the  Vioronment of the
                               Southern California Coastal Zone
                               Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 30
                               U.S. Government Organization Manual 31

                                                    TAME IV

                         TOPIC SPECIFIC
                               Federal Involvement in the California Cojgtal Zone:
                               A Topical Index to Agency Responsibility
                               Environmental Pollution and Control 14
                               Yearly Index of Projects 32
                               Coastal Zone Management Journal  17
                               Marine Technology Society Journal 34
                               Coastal Zone Management 33
                               Water Resources Research Abstracts 16
                               Oceanic Abstracts 10

                                                    TABLE V

                   Figure 2 shows a matrix which uses examples to indicate the interrelationships
               between the types of information and the means of organizing it. Since there are

             146

                                       Matrix of Types of -information Systems

                          Information
                              Type

                                          Data/Geographic      Documents         Combination
                        Means of\

                        Organization\

                                          Bureau of Land
                                          Management,        Narragansett
                                          U.S. Department                        HUD/USGS--
                       Geographic Area    of Interior--      Bay Marine   39     San Franci8co
                          Specific        California and     Bibliography        Bay Study
                                          Oregon Projects
                                          Contracted to
                                          Raytheon Comp.

                                          Environmental     National Technical
                                          Data Service
                           Agency         National oceanic  Information
                          Specific        and Atmospheric   Service, U.S.
                                          Administration    Department of
                                                            Commerce(NTIS)

                                          River Basin       National Technical   Environmental
                             Topic        Studies--U.S.     Information          Information
                           Specific       Bureau of Sport   Service--            System Office,
                                          Fisheries and     Environmental        Atomic Energy
                                          Wildlife          Pollutiqj and        Commission
                                                            Control

                                          USGS--CARETS;
                                          University of       Government
                          Combination     Rhode Island--      Reports
                                          Coastal and         Announcements
                                          Offshore            --Coastal Zo
                                          Environmenta        Bibliography
                                          Inventory...

                                                       FIGURE 2

                                                                                                    147

               many other programs and studies which can easily be subsumed into this frame-
               work for organizing information systems, the coastal zone management authorities
               should explore more fully the other resources available which are pertinent to
               their needs.
                  With the proliferation of data services and systems, the state authority may
               find it difficult to determine which service, if any, will help it meet its re-
               sponsibilities. In determining how its needs can best be met, the authority may
               ask:
                 Should we subscribe to an established service? More than one?
                 Should we buy computer tapes from a clearinghouse and reformat them for our
                 specific needs?
                 Should we set up our own system?
               System cost will be an important factor in determining which alternative is
               chosen.                                                                              35
                  There are six rules for designing information systems states may find useful:
               � The system should not contain a particular type of data for which there is no
                 readily identifiable use.
               � Only as much of a particular class of data as is needed should be put into the
                 system.
               � The frequency with which data is needed should determine its accessibility in
                 the system.
               � The way data is to be used should determine how it is put into the system.
               � Data stored in the system should be described according to source and relia-
                 bility.
               � The system should work just as efficiently next year as this year.
                  Since there is no standardized measure to determine user satisfaction with
               such a system, cost effectiveness is extremely difficult to assess. Each perti-
               nent agency must decide which sources are best suited to particular needs. One
               method of doing this is to compare a list of sources in the different areas with
               which the agency is concerned, and which it has successfully utilized in the past,
               with the sources covered by the various available data bases. This should help
               determine the amount of usefulness of any particular data base.

                  6. Improving Information Access
                  The establishment of a clearinghouse is one means of improving access to in-
               formation. A state level clearinghouse capability could serve as a useful tool
               to the coastal zone management authority. It could assimilate data and informa-
               tion from local sources and make it accessible to decision-makers. It could
               help improve access to research results and to other centers with coastal zone
               interests.
                  The scope of a clearinghouse could range from information about coastal zone
               management in general, to any related specific topics such as water quality,
               land use, power production, or fisheries. A nation-wide network of clearing-
               houses could also be possible, in which different centers assume responsibility
               for various specific topics--sharing such information among themselves and with
               other users. Also, regional centers are possible which could deal with the
               total topic--focusing on information most pertinent to their respective regions.
                  However it is organized, a clearinghouse should provide access to significant
               research and information pertinent to coastal zone management. Frequently,
               councils of government have set up such capabilities for particular areas of
               interest. Some examples of these capabilities include:
                 Florida Coastal Coordinating Council (Sample Publicatioj6 Marino Studies of
                 Florida's Gulf Coast-, Summary and Selected Bibliography )

            148

                   Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services (Sample Publication:
                   A Directory of Bibliograp@@es Relevant to the Environment and Activities of
                   the Coastal Plains Region-')
                   The clearinghouse should maintain an index of agency responsibilities to
                keep aware of other in R rmation collection programs, research projects, and
                sources of information . An index could include private organizations as
                well as public agencies and should be structured to list material by agency  with
                cross-references according to topic or vice versa.
                   A clearinghouse could publish periodic newsletters indicating recent library
                acquisitions, as well as  Wentifying Tgntinuing research projects. This is
                presently done in Florida   and Texas . The clearinghouse could also maintain
                a unified catalog of the library holdings for all agencies and organizations
                it covers and make it available to its member agencies.
                   A clearinghouse could issue an abstracts periodical which covers the litera-
                ture and other material it reviews. The clearinghouse could also develop a
                standard system of subject headings and key words for indexing available mate-
                rials. Using standardized access terms would facilitate information transfer.
                   The possible functions of a clearinghouse are many and potentially complex
                so that before a state authority establishes one it should clearly define the
                clearinghouse's scope and interrelationships with other capabilities so that
                all of its functions will coexist effectively.
                   When interagency relationships are not tied to a clearinghouse function, the
                exchange of information is usually accomplished through a cooperative network.
                These networks are often formed by agencies with complementary or supplementary
                interests to the mutual benefit of all. If communication lines are established
                among research organizations and coastal zone authorities, cooperative networks
                might result through interagency agreements.
                   Such informal networks require a substantial effort to operate; however, only
                minimal additional administrative costs are necessary if existing organizational
                structures are utilized.
                   The nature of the information needs will generally govern both the types of
                information states use and the design of the system necessary to organize that
                information. Although these needs will vary from state to state, the basic ob-
                jectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act should be a guide for all states
                in developing their respective information programs (for discussion of the Act's
                objectives see Chapter I, Introduction). Finally, in developing their informa-
                tion programs states could consider to what degree the collection and collection
                and presentation of such information will contribute to:
                  Raising the level of consciousness at all levels of government and mong the
                  public regarding the importance of managing coastal resources;
                  enhancing the ability of individuals, groups, and organizations who are af-
                  fected by management decisions to become involved in the decision making pro-
                  cess;
                  understanding and articulating the consequences that may result from various
                  uses of coastal respirces; and
                  preventing or minimizing the undesirable consequences of management decisions.

                                                   CITATIONS
                1. E.Gerald Wermund, Coordinator, Land Resource Laboratory, Bureau of Economic
                   Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Personal communication, May 3, 1974.

                2. William Alonso, "Predicting Best with imperfect Data," Journal of the American
                   Institute of Planners 34(4), July, 1968.

                                                                                             149

               3. Donald Appleyard, "Environmental Planning and Social Science: Strategies
                  for Environmental Decision Making," Institute of Urban and Regional Develop-
                  ment, University of California at Berkeley, Working Paper 217, 1973.

               4. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Florida Coastal Zone Applied Research
                  Needs--Second Revision, 1973.

               5. F.A. Smith, et al, Fourteen Selected Marine Resource Problems of Long Island,
                  New York: Descriptive Evaluations, Marine Resources Council, Nassau-Suffolk
                  Regional Planning Board, January, 1970.

               6. W.V. McGuinness, Priority Management Areas and Problems in the Delaware
                  Estuary, RANN Program, National Science Foundation, 1973.

               7. R. Pitchai and W.V. McGuinness, A Proposed Problem-Oriented Marine Research
                  Program for Long Island, Marine Resources Council, Nassau-Suffolk Regional
                  Planning Board, 1972.

               8. Robert H. Ellis, et al, A Method for Applying Research to Environmental
                  Planning and management: A Case Study of Issues Important to the Chesapeake
                  Region, RANN Program, National Science Foundation, 1973.

               9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Information
                  Symposium, An Agenda for Progress, National Environmental Research Center,
                  Cincinnati, 1973.

              10. Pollution Abstracts, Inc., Ocean Abstracts, La Jolla.

              11. BioSciences Information Services of Biological Abstracts, Biological
                  Abstracts, Philadelphia.

              12. James Curlin and Jack D. Jones, Environmental Law Abstracts, Volume II,
                  Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1972.

              13. Institute of Fuel, Fuel Abstracts and Current Titles, London, 1960-Present.

              14. National Technical Information Service, Government Abstracts--Environmental
                  Pollution and Control, Springfield, Virginia.

              15. Texas A&M Sea Grant Program, "Sea Grant 70's", College Station.

              16. Water Resources Scientific Information Center, Selected Water Resources
                  Research Abstracts, Office of Water Resources Research, Washington.

              17. Marc J. Hershman, Editor, Coastal Zone Management Journal, Crane, Russak,
                  & Company, New York.

              18. John Gamman, et al, Federal Involvement in the California Coastal Zone:
                  A Topical Index to Agency Responsibility, University of California, Berkeley,
                  1974.

              19. Davis J. Bressan, et al, Narragansett Marine Bibliography, Marine Resources
                  Program, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, 1968.

             150

                 20. U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
                     Program Design for San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning
                     Study,.Menlo Park, 1971

                 21. Jens Sorensen and Marie Demers, Coastal Zone Bibliography: Citations to
                     Documents on Planning, Resources ManagementL_and Impact Assessment, University
                     of California, La Jolla, 1973.

                 22. D. Belcher, et alt New York State Land Use Natural Resources Inventory-
                     Final Report Volume 106, Center for Aerial Photographic Studies, Cornell
                     University, Ithaca, 1971.

                 23. George Orning and Les Maki, Land Management Information in Northwest Minnesota:
                     The Beginning of a Statewide System prepared for Minnesota Land Management
                     Information System Study, 1972.

                 24. L.T. Fisher and R. Thomsen, Extraction of Resource Data for CRIP--Reyort 6
                     Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1973.

                 25. Marine Experiment Station, Coastal and Offshore Inventory: Cape Hatteras
                     to Nantucket Shoals Marine Publication #2, University of Rhode Island,
                     Narragansett, 1974.

                 26. Center for Natural Areas, Smithsonian Institution, Planning Considerations
                     for Statewide Inventories of Critical Environmental Areas, U.S. Army Corps
                     of Engineers, 1974 (In Print).

                 27. Russell Davenport, Urban Shorelands Guide: A Discussion of Programs to
                     Assist with the Implementation of the Lakefront Plan of Chicago, University
                     of Michigan Sea Grant Program, to be published in Fall of 1974.

                 28. Justin Rutka and Chennat Gopalakrishnan, Spheres of Influence in Hawaii's
                     Coastal Zone--Volume 1: Federal Agency Involvement, University of Hawaii Sea
                     Grant Program, 1973.

                 29. Lawrence M. Baird, A Survey of Government Agencies, Studies, and Publications
                     Concerned with the Environment of the Southern California Coastal Zone,
                     National Technical Information Service (COM-72-11116), 1972.

                 30. U.S. Office of the Management and Budget, Catalogue of Federal Domestic
                     Assistance, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, Annually Printed.

                 31. U.S. National Archives and Record Service, U.S. Government Organization Manual
                     U.S. Government Printing office, Washington, Annually Printed.

                 32. Office of Sea Grant, Sea Grant Newsletter Index 1968"72, National Oceanic
                     and Atmospheric Administration, 1973.

                 33. Nautilus Press, Inc., Coastal Zone Management, Washington.

                 34. Marine Technology Society, Inc., Marine Technology Society Journal, Washington.

                 35. R.D. Campbell and H.L. LeBlanc, An Information System for Urban Planning,
                     George Washington University, Washington, 1972.

                                                                                              151

               36. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Marine Environmental Studies of Florida's
                   Gulf Coast: Summary and Selected Bibliography, Tallahassee, 1973.

               37. Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services, A Directory of
                   Bibliographies Relevant to the Environment and Activities of the Coastal
                   Plains Region, Publication #72-3, Wilmington, North Carolina, 1972.

               38. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Newsletter, Tallahassee.

               39. Eugene Smith and Johnny Butler, An Expertise System for the Marine Resources
                   Information Center, Texas A&M Sea Grant Program, 1970.

               40. Office of Planning and Management, Environmental Information Systems
                   Directory--An Inventory of Environmental Sygtems__with Indexes, U.S.
                   Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 1973.

               41. Charlotte Ashby, Marine Science Newsletters--1973-an annotated Bibliography,
                   NOAA Technical Memorandum NODC-3, National oceanographic Data Center, 1973.

               42. Huey Dale Roberts, An Information System for the Management of Lake Ontario,
                   New York State Sea Grant Program, Albany, 1973.

               43. Clare A. Gunn, Annotated Bibliography of Resource Use--Texas Gulf Coast,
                   Texas A&M Sea Grant Program, 1969.

                                                      CHAPTER V

                                                 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

                      1. Introduction
                      Subpart D (of the Section 305 regulations), which requires public parti-
                  cipation in the development and management of coastal zone programs, sti-
                  pulates that the states must make a deliberate and careful effort to con-
                  sult with citizens who have an interest in, or who are likely to experience
                  the consequences of, coastal zone management programs, about the purpose and
                  content of those programs. Further, Subpart D urges the states to encourage
                  the public to enter actively into the process of creating and monitoring
                  coastal zone management programs. The regulations stipulate that states
                  "should seek to obtain extensive public participation in the development and
                  administration of a coastal zone management program." (920.30.)
                      Several mechanisms for soliciting public involvement are mEntioned. One--
                  the public hearing--is mandatory under Section 306(c) of the Act (920.30);
                  the others (e.g., citizen advisory committees and review groups) are encouraged
                  as means of improving the process of program development and guaranteeing
                  the general intent of Subpart D (920.32).

                      2. Reasons for Public Participation
                      The Section 305 regulations (920.30) set forth and briefly explain the
                  public participation requirement. The value of public participation in
                  decision-making processes has been widely discussed and acknowledgedl. In part,
                  interest in citizen involvement stems from a long-standing democratic tradi-
                  tion or principle that without it governmental bodies may act arbitrarily.
                  As Judge J. Skelly Wright put it in a recent Court of Appeals opinion, there
                  is
                        an incipient but powerful trend in the law--a new refusal to rely
                        blindly upon the unstructured exercise of official discretion
                        and a new judicial willingness to require promulgation of and obed-
                        ience to rules by administrative agencies.2
                      Citizen participation is desirable in agency policy making not only
                  because it promotes justice and ensures greater responsiveness, but also
                  because it facilitates the enforcement of administrative programs which depend
                  upon public cooperation, averts disruptive criticism, and satisfies judicial
                  demands that agencies employ high and consistent standards in their pro-
                  cedures3. Other rationales for public participation have been adduced as
                  well. Public participation, particularly where planning for complex
                  environments is concerned, may increase the supply of relevant information
                  and broaden the range of decision alternatives. It may ease the mutual ad-
                  justments and compromises among individuals, groups and institutions, which
                  are necessary in all--but especially in pluralistic, democratic societies.
                  It may encourage citizen and community understanding of social and political
                  processes, thereby increasing the general efficiency of government4.
                      The arguments for public participation which are most directly relevant
                  to the Act may he summarized under these headings: efficiency, social
                  equity, program viability, and watchdog control over undue influence.
                      . Efficiency: if the public is not aware of or has misunderstood the
                  inte    of governmental programs economic disturbances will occur. Information
                  is essential to all economic transactions and the absence of it may create
                  unforeseeable but significant costs--e.g., location and investment decisions
                  cannot be efficiently made in the absence of reliable interpretations of what
                  a coastal zone management authority considers "   permissible" and "non-permissible"

                                                          152

                                                                                             153

               uses in a given area. Private and public resources may be committed to
               projects which cannot then be completed, because they are found to be in
               conflict with agency policy.
                 Public participation in the creation of coastal zone management programs
               is thus a means of developing and distributing the information necessary to
               efficient market functions. In addition, to the extent that hearings and
               other forums of public participation provide coastal zone management agencies
               with data, they may improve the internal efficiency of the agencies' own
               planning and administrative procedures.
                  . Social equity: Social equity, the second major consideration underlying
               Subpart D, deals w1th the familiar ethical principle that persons likely to
               be affected by governmental policies should have a significant role in their
               formulation. Thus, section 920.31 stipulates that public hearings must be
               held in those geographic areas which "would be principally affected by the
               decisions on issues under consideration at the hearing" (920.31(d) and
               that in regions where the population of the coastal zone varies seasonally,
               efforts must be made to hold the hearings "when those populations most
               likely to be affected are present." (920.31(e))
                 Moreover, it is a fundamental democratic axiom that government must be
               responsive to its citizens. "Public needs and aspirations" (920.30) must
               be heard and considered by coastal zone management authorities. Direct
               citizen involvement in the agencies' procedures for developing and administering
               programs is perhaps the surest means of protecting the basic principle5. It
               is important to note that this view is not merely theoretical; it is one
               which the courts are accepting and applying to agencies with increasing
               regularity. For example, in one significant recent action, a court remanded
               a case for further proceedings precisely because the department involved
               had made a far-reaching policy decision without full public discussion.
               The Secretary of Agriculture had refused to cancel federal registration of
               the pesticide DDT, and more importantly, had failed to commence the formal
               administrative procedures that might have resulted in termination of the
               registration. In remanding the case, the court held that
                    the statutory scheme contemplates that these questions will be
                    explored in the full light of a public hearing and not resolved
                    behind the closed doors of the Secretary.
               The court declared that the importance of public participation is fundamental
               and that particularly where it has been installed as part of the procedure
               for deciding important questions of policy it "may not lightly be side-
               stepped by administrators."6
                  . Program viability: Experience in many areas of governmental activity,
               notably urban renewal and transportation planning, has demonstrated that
               where the broad public is not permitted or encouraged to participate in
               program development and administration, opposition to the programs and to
               the agencies which promulgate them arises. The opposition may become so
               overwhelming that it disrupts and sometimes severely damages the programs and
               their parent agencies. Since its inception as Title I of the 1949 Housing Act,
               urban renewal has repeatedly encountered difficulties because it has failed
               effectively to engage the interest and support of the citizens it was inteded
               to help. often, as in Chicago, an initial renewal project would go ahead
               (Lake Meadow); another, begun only a few years later, would encounter
               distinct opposition (Hyde Park-Kenwood); and in the end, projects would be
               passionately contested by their communities (Woodlawn and Near West Side)7.

             154

                     The cost of public suspicion and hostility, economic and social, may be
                  high--extended litigation, project delays, antisocial behavior, etc. The
                  Act clearly seeks to avoid such problems through an effective program of
                  public participation which will meet "public needs and aspirations" and
                  generate "public support." Citizen involvement in agency procedures can
                  "measurably enhance" confidence in the agency and willingness to cooperate
                  with it8.
                     . Watchdog control over undue influence: It is a well recognized political
                  fact that regulatory agencies have a strong tendency to drift under the
                  influence of those industries that they are empowered to regulate9. Reasons
                  for this phenomenon include:
                    public relations expertise and financial strength of the regulated
                    industry;
                    ability of the regulated industry to maintain constant pressure on the
                    agency to secure benefits deriving from favorable policy decisions and
                    to minimize disbenefits resulting from unfavorable decisions; and
                    compatability of professional and philosophical attitudes in the regulatory
                    agencies and the regulated industries.
                     Public participation is one means of preventing the control of the Coastal
                  Zone Management Authority by regulated industry, such as real estate
                  developers or marine commerce.
                          Don't think you can pass a law that sets up an agency and then
                       go on to the next battle. It may drive you nuts, but, unfortunately,
                       you can't. The people being regulated will capture the regulatory
                       agency without exception if the public doesn't stay interested.
                       If the public ever loses interest in any of these regulatory agenices,
                       they're dead as doornails, and you might as well wipe them out.10
                     Well informed and actively involved citizen groups can monitor the trans-
                  actions between the agency and the regulated industry and intervene in the
                  regulatory process when the public interest (as these groups perceive it)
                  it not being served. A recent analysis of public participation in the pro-
                  cedures of the Atomic Energy Commission examines the structure and dynamics
                  of the three way relationship formed by public intervenors, the regulated
                  industry, and the regulatory agencyll. The analysis demonstrates that active
                  public participation can be an effective deterrent to industry domination of
                  a regulatory agency.

                     3. objectives of Public Participation
                     Public participation will facilitate a number of specific objectives which
                  are of interest to coastal zone management authorities. The eight objectives
                  listed below may be conceived approximately as points on a scale: for
                  example, the first objective cited--the "safety-valve" function--is probably
                  the most modest achievement of public participation and it requires only
                  the simplest kind of agency-citizen interaction, while the last objective,
                  conflictresolution, is a much more complicated task.
                     . The "safety-valve" function: It is evident that no decision, particularly
                  a governmental decision, will benefit or please everyone. If, however, the
                  institution responsible for the decision provides the public with opportunities
                  to register complaints, however unfounded they may seem, or in fact may be,
                  it can relieve both pressures which have arisen between competing citizen
                  interests and between citizen interests and itself. Public hearings often
                  include presentations which do not introduce new information, explanations,
                  or even points of view, but simply allow their authors to declare their

                                                                                             155

               irritation and frustration. This is by no means a trivial function; on the
               contrary, since it reduces the probability of alienating individuals and
               groups from the ongoing discourse which is essential to a democratic society,
               the "safety-valve" function of public participation is highly useful.
                    Education: often, the public has little or faulty knowledge of the
               ecological--and economic--value of coastal areas. A coastal zone management
               authority should foster understanding of the complexity and importance of
               physical and biological systems in coastal zones, because such understanding
               is prerequisite to the informed and "meaningful" discussion of the agency's
               programs (920.32(a)). In California, for example, the North Central Region
               of the state's Coastal Zone Conservation Commission has produced a detailed
               document which explains the physical characteristics of the coast and processes
               on which life dependsl2. Summaries of this and other, similar reports are
               being prepared for wide distribution by newsletter type mailingsl3. The
               Commission has also arranged community meetings and workshops, and has made
               background materials available to public libraries. Oregon has taken a
               similar approach. The Coastal Conservation and Development Commission prepares
               newsletters which familiarize citizens with various aspects of the Commission's
               work and has held a series of one-night workshops throughout the statel4.
               Non-verbal means of communicating basic information about the environment are
               also effective. Presentations utilzing slide shows and various forms of
               visual simulation have come into fairly wide use in planning. Graphic
               displays may more clearly communicate descriptions of and plans for complex
               parts of the environment than verbal reportsl5.
                  . management program information: Sections 920.31 and 920.32 stipulate
               that the coastal zone management authorities must make public all materials
               relevant to proposed programs (i.e., studies, documents, and reports) *
               The intent of the Act is that, via public hearings and other mechanisms,
               the public will be provided extensive opporutnity to participate in coastal
               zone planning. This goal cannot be achieved unless agencies provide the
               public with clear and complete information. The public must be given a "full
               and effective opporutnity" to comprehend and become involved in "every portion
               of the plan" (920.31(c)). Agencies will sometimes find this requirement a
               difficult one to meet. Merely providing access to agency agenda, background
               studies, and data may not be a sufficient means of accomplishing the goal,
               particularly when the issues to which planning is addressed are complex.
               In such cases, the distribution of pamphlets, newsletters, or bulletins
               carefully explaining the agency's purposes and reasons are useful, as are
               small-group meetings between agency members and concerned citizens. William
               R. Ewald, Jr. is developing an ambitious "analysis/synthesis/ccmmunication,"
               or access, system in the south coast region of California centered around
               Santa Barbaral6. Recognizing the complexity of environmental issues and the
               difficulties of coordinating pertinent information from diverse sources,
               the system emphasizes graphic display. Ewald is exploring various sophisticated
               and powerful means of communication, such as computer-assisted graphics (in-
               cluding interactive television and plasma screen technology). Coastal zone
               agencies should make efforts to utilize various media effectively to disseminate
               the information vital to public participation.
                   . Identification of citizens' problems, values, and needs: Section 920.30
               states that one of the principal purposes of public participation is the ex-
               pression of "public needs and aspirations." Recognizing that public hearings
               may not be an adequate mechanism for discovering citizens' problems and needs,
               Section 920.32 urges that supplementary means of "ensuring" that "the public

             156

                  be heard" be adopted (e.g., advisory and review groups). This stipulation
                  has two sources--one ethical, the other practical. It is clear that attention
                  to the public will is fundamental in a democratic society. As previously
                  noted, there appears to be an increasing judicial inclination to rule against
                  agencies which do not "cut the squarest of procedural corners" in allowing
                                                    17
                  the public to make its views known  . Beyond the matter of equity, however,
                  is the more pragmatic consideration that governmental institutions which do
                  not understand citizens' attitudes and needs are almost certain to arouse
                  hostility and opposition. Highway, urban renewal, and engineering projects
                  have become increasingly vulnerable to attacks by citizens, often supported
                  by the courts, for failure to consider adequately the problems and desires
                  of the affected publicl8. There is no reason to think that this trend
                  will slow or reverse itself. It is a matter, therefore, of simple self-
                  interest for agencies to act as responsively as possible. Often, even the
                  most conscientious efforts by agencies will not be sufficient to deduce
                  specific groups' needs and problems; direct exposure, in public hearings or
                  less formal contacts, will be necessary. A novel and interesting program was
                  initiated in 1973 by the New York Regional Plan Association to elicit and
                  identify citizen opinions and desires in the general areas of transportation,
                  environment, poverty, housing, cities and government. The program, called
                  choices for '76, consisted of six television programs, one dealing with
                  each of the areas of concern. "Ballots" were distributed in New York, New
                  Jersey, and Connecticut, and viewers then voted on the alternatives presented
                  in the television programs. The programs reached one and one-half to three
                  million people of the New York region's eighteen million people, and while
                  some sectors of the public were distinctly underrepresented in the voting,
                  the experiment produced a wealth of information about the "needs and aspira-
                  tions" of the region's populationl9. Similarly, "voting" has been used by
                  the joint U.S.-Canadian commission responsible for Niagara Falls to determine
                  citizen views about the most attractive method of "preserving" the Falls,
                  although some of the schemes proposed actually contemplate substantial
                  design changes rather than strict preservation.
                      Generation of new ideas: one of the most useful functions of public
                  participation is the generation of new ideas. It is not likely that any
                  single group, official or not, can achieve a monopoly of relevant ideas for the
                  larger society in which it exists. It has been observed that, though they
                  are not frequently consulted, users of architectural structure and spaces
                  are rich sources of innovative ideas about their design and use 20 . Similarly,
                  the public, or in a given case some segments of it, may possess extremely val-
                  uable information and opinions. Coastal zone management agencies will find
                  that public participation often identifies or develops:
                   previously unrecognized sources of data;
                   new policy and implementation alternatives;
                   previously unanticipated policy impacts;
                   means of ameliorating a plan's undesirable consequences;
                   strategies for more effective presentation of coastal zone authorities'
                   goals and program; and
                   politically feasible trade-offs in program design.
                    The Act explicitly recognizes this aspect of public participation. Public
                  hearings are considered a means of information "exchange," not merely a forum
                  for the presentation of coastal zone authorities' predetermined plans (920.32).
                    The public often knows more about environmental issues than is supposed.
                  In Maine, for example, consultants working for the state and various con-
                  servation organizations consulted with citizens and public officials about

                                                                                             157

              the natural resources of the coast which they individually considered most
              worthy of protection. on the basis of this survey, the consultants were able
              to identify areas of high value for acquisition and protec-ion which con-
              ventional "expert" inventory might well have overlooked2l.
                   Review and comment on proposed policies: Section 920.32(c)(3) calls
              for the establishment of "processes to review component elements of the
              management program". Unlike public hearings, which are usually occasional
              in character, review and advisory procedures generally maintain a regular
              and continuous relationship between agencies and the public. There are
              various reasons why such a relationship is particularly useful:
                because its connection with an agency is continuous, a review or advisory
                group can alert the agency early in the planning process to impending con-
                flicts and citizen opposition. The agency then will be able to revise
                or abandon policy courses which are at odds with significant public
                interests before committing large amounts of either time or money to
                their development.
                because the continuous relationship characteristic of review procedures
                fosters ongoing agency-citizen feedback. This is a major asset for several
                reasons: regular feedback shortens public reaction time and thereby often
                prevents minor issues from becoming full-blown crises; encouraging ongoing
                feedback indicates good faith on the part of the agency in its commitment
                to public participation and consolidates public support for the agency's
                programs; regular feedback facilitates and sustains--as more sporadic
                public hearings cannot do--the two-way information flows which are crucial
                to democratic decision-making.
                citizen review and advisory groups can make substantive contributions
                to a coastal zone management authority's program development. If the members
                of the groups are experts in fields such as geology, marine biology, and
                soil mechanics, which are of interest to the agency, their knowledge is
                of immense potential benefit. In addition, if the members of reviewing
                bodies are highly respected in their various communities, they may act
                effectively as intermediaries between the agency and the larger public
                when misunderstandings or disputes do arise. Coastal zone management
                authorities should be sensitive, however, to two problems inherent in the
                use of review and advisory groups, and, indeed, in the use of all public
                participatory methods. First, it will be difficult for the coastal zone
                management authorities to ensure that the membership of these groups is
                representative of the total community. It will require special effort
                to prevent the selection process from favoring segments of the community
                which are disproportionately powerful and conspicuous in political and
                economic terms. Second, within advisory and review groups there will be
                an inevitable tendency for members with larger resources--such as outside
                staff support--to dominate those with more meager resources. If the
                coastal zone management authorities are aware of this problem, they may
                be able to control it to some extent. For example, they may make available
                to all members whatever reports and data are available and provide advice
                or other forms of special assistance to those members who need it.
                 It should be noted that Section 920.32(c)(3) calls for review by the
              "general public" as well as by the smaller "selected citizens' groups," whose
              role has been discussed. It will, therefore, be appropriate to provide the
              public at large with opportunities to study and to comment on programs as they
              develop. Series of public hearings provide one mechanism for accomplishing
              this end. "Voting" schemes, press releases, newsletters, summary reports,
              and workshops constitute others.

             158

                       Evaluation of alternatives: All planning involves the formulation and
                  consideration of alternatives, and the choice, according to some criteria,
                  of a "best" from among them. These alternatives and the choice among them are
                  never simply "matters of fact." Cultural, group, and individual values
                  inevitably influence the range of alternatives which will be conceived and
                  the principles according to which a selection of the optimum is made22.
                  The Act therefore encourages the states to solicit public participation in
                  all phases of coastal zone management and planning, from the general
                  "development of ... goals and objectives" (920.32(c)(1)) through detailed
                  review. It is essential for coastal zone authorities to be aware of and
                  to take into account public attitudes and values in the process of program
                  development. Although this is partly a matter of principle and social
                  equity, it is also a practical matter. If coastal zone authorities are
                  unaware of public values and "needs and aspirations," they will obviously
                  have difficulty in determining which alternatives for coastal zone use are
                  socially, politically, and economically realistic.
                     Although the evaluation of alternatives is a complicated matter under
                  any circumstances, in decisions affecting coastal zones, where many of the
                  environmental values are intangible or extremely difficult to quantify, the
                  problem is heightened and increasingly subject to debate. If the public has
                  not been involved in the development of the alternatives, decision-making
                  will suffer in terms both of efficiency and validity. It is unlikely that
                  the public will be able to understand the implications of the various alter-
                  natives. It will be able to treat them only in a superficial manner or with
                  general hostility.
                     It is, therefore, essential that the public be engaged in the process
                  of constructing and reacting to alternatives from the outset. In practice,
                  this means that the requirements of public participation discussed above--
                  education, information-distribution, review and comment, etc.--must be
                  satisfied by the coastal zone management authority before the stage of formal
                  alternatives evaluation is reached. In this sense, evaluation of alternatives
                  depends on the six aspects of public participation which "precede" it in
                  terms of difficulty and complexity; and it is prerequisite to the level of
                  public participation which follows it--conflictanticipation and resolution.
                     . Conflict anticipation and resolution: It is virtually impossible to
                  discover a single, unanimous public. Typically, each of the alternatives a
                  planning or management authority is considering has both public partisans and
                  critics. The hearings and other means the Act calls for may provide a
                  forum for segments of the public to present conflicting views and also to
                  air and negotiate the competing aims and interests as the coastal zone
                  agency perceives them versus how the public groups do. Accommodations are
                  more likely to be reached between interest groups, or between an interest
                  group and a coastal zone agency, if the interest groups have in fact had an
                  "adequate opportunity" to be heard (920.32) and the accommodations are also
                  more likely to receive general support.
                     The identification of potential conflicts is one of the most important
                  contributions the public can provide to the planning process. An agency's
                  efficiency may be seriously impaired if it confines its view of issues and pro-
                  blems to the present. Public hearings or review procedures frequently raise
                  points which reveal developing or incipient areas of public concern. Thus,
                  public participation, in addition to raising and resolving immediate con-
                  flicts, may enable coastal zone management agencies to forecast future
                  problems and to devise strategies for forestalling or disposing of these
                  problems before they become critical.

                                                                                             159

                 4. Problems in Public Participation
                 The general problem in public participation programs, whether coastal zone
              or other governmental agencies sponsor them, is in identifying "the" public.
              Many recently written articles and reports demonstrate that ours is an
              increasingly complex and pluralistic society, a collection of interest groups
              competing for available resources and power23. It is certain, then, that a
              coastal zone authority typically will find itself dealing not with a single
              public but rather with a set of publics. The Act implicitly recognizes this
              face or dilemma in distinguishing between the "public at large" and "interest
              groups" (920.32). Indeed, it appears that one reason for urging that public
              hearings be supplemented by other forms of citizen participation (920.32)
              is the recognition that public hearings frequently are inadequate to gauge
              the true range and depth of public sentiments. Public hearings are vulner-
              able to domination by well-organized, wealthy, and politically strong inter-
              est groups which may represent the views of numerically small segments of
              the population. This is a compelling reason for states actively to seek out
              means, for instance, as appointing broadly based advisory and review bodies
              (920.32 (c)).
                 In essence, the states face an option continuum with respect to public
              participation, a continuum whose end points or poles may be termed "self-
              identifying" and "identified" publics, respectively. It may be practical
              to accept the claims of a group or coalition of groups that it is or repre-
              sents "the public" in a given case--e.g., if the citizens who are likely
              to be affected by a particular coastal zone plan constitute a small pro-
              portion of the population, are able to identify themselves and to represent
              their views, there may be no need for a coastal zone authority actively to
              solicit additional participation. In this case, the "public" is self
              identifying--it claims, legitimately, to represent the population which will
              be affected by the management or development policy in question and it is
              capable of organizing itself and arguing its point of view. In most cases,
              however, a coastal zone authority pro ably will not be able to obtain suffi-
              cient citizen input to comply with the intent of Subpart D merely by providing
              forums for self-identified publics. The agency will have to identify and
              solicit the participation of groups other than those which have proclaimed
              themselves and their interests. There are a number of parameters which
              states may wish to use to identify their diverse publics and to ensure
              that coastal zone planning is benefitting from the "extensive" public
              participation which the Act requires:
                 . Geographic: Coastal zones frequently include resources which are used
              by a hierarchy of publics--national, state, regional, and local. As recrea-
              tion demand increases, so will competition among the various geographic
              groups for access to and use of the shore. Planning for the coastal zone
              will therefore entail obtaining the participation not only of people who
              live year round in the vicinity of the coastline, but also Of the other,
              transitory users. For this reason section 920.31(e) stipulates that in
              coastal areas where the population fluctuates significantly with the seasons,
              the coastal zone agency should hold public hearings when those persons "most
              likely to be affected"--who may, ordinarily, reside in other parts of the
              state or even of the country--are present. The coastal zone authority in
              this instance will have to make a careful effort to identify and then to
              engage the cooperation of the various relevant geographic groups.
                 . Socio-economic and ethnic: To ensure that people of all socio-economic,
              ethnic, and age groups receive consideration in planning for coastal zone use,

             160

                  the following observations should be considered.
                     Socio-economic differences characteristically affect the degree to which
                  the groups participate in governmental processes, including planning. in
                  the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, certain ethnic minorities have much
                  lower rates of personal access to cars than other groups24. People who
                  cannot easily get to agency meetings will be effectively discouraged from
                  participating in the workings of the agency. In planning the timing and
                  location of its public proceedings and in establishing mechanisms for in-
                  formation dissemination and informal public contacts, coastal zone management
                  authorities should recognize the problem and should do what they can to
                  alleviate it. Special efforts should be made to contact people who are
                  not mobile or who are generally alienated from decision-making processes.
                  In areas where there are substantial ethnic minorities, for example, notice
                  of hearings might be given not only in the major media carriers but also
                  in community newspapers and in community radio and television stations.
                     Coastal zone management authorities which do not obtain the participation
                  of minorities in the development and administration of programs are likely
                  to plan inefficiently as well as inequitably. Different socio-economic
                  groups use the coastal zone differently. It has been observed in california
                  that minorities exhibit distinct recreational styles. Different settings may
                  well have more recreational or aesthetic value for some groups than others25.
                  If the coastal zone management authorities are not aware of these variations
                  in preference, obviously they will not be able to take them into account
                  in program development, and unnecessary conflicts may result.
                     . Age: This is another factor which determines how people tend to use
                  the coastal zone. Children tend to place very different recreational demands
                  on the environment from what their elders d026. once again, it is*important
                  for management authorities to keep these differences in mind and attempt to
                  accommodate them.
                     . Interest groMs: The many groups which have formed about a particular
                  interest, such as boating, fishing, or hunting, represent significant numbers
                  of people who may have unique perspectives on important public issues. If
                  the groups are well financed and organized, they are likely to be highly
                  visible. They will probably receive media attention and be listed in one
                  or more of the numerous organizational directories--for example, the annual
                  Conservation Directory 7. A project is now under way at the University of
                  California, Berkeley, to study 126 organizations, ranging from the Inter-
                  national Bird Research and Rescue Team to the Pacific Chapter of the World
                  Dredging Association, with an interest in the coastal zone. The results of the
                  study will be produced as a directory. It is intended that the directory
                  will make available to agencies a continuously updated inventory of the
                  organizations which have an interest in the coastal zone and thus a claim
                  to be heard in the formation of policies28. Coastal zone management authorities
                  may have to make special efforts to contact many groups which are not formally
                  or well organized. Analysis of available demographic (e.g., Census) and
                  survey data, referrals from other public and private agencies, and meetings
                  with community leaders may all be helpful.

                     5. Public Participation Techniques
                     Sections 920.31 and 920.32 mention three general public participation
                  techniques: the public hearing, informal exchange and circulation of
                  information, and citizen review and advisory bodies. Each of these techniques
                  has assets and liabilities as a means of obtaining public participation and

                                                                                             161

               support. Three additional techniques--advocacy planning, survey research,
               and direct feedback methods--will also be discussed, although they are not
               specifically identified in the guidelines.
                  . Rule-making public hearings: This is the only participatory mechanism
               which is mandatory (306(c)(3)). The provisions of section 920.31 specify
               the manner in which a coastal zone management authority must hold its hearings.
                The Act encourages early notification. It requires that notice be given
                no less than thirty days in advance of public hearings.
                In addition to any publication of legal notice as specified by various
                states' laws, Section 920.31(a) stipulates that "reasonably informative
                news releases" should be provided to the media in affected areas.
                All agency materials pertinent to the hearing, such as studies, data,
                the agenda for the meeting, etc., must be made available to the public
                at the time when notice of the hearings is given.
                The Act does not require that more than one hearing be held. But "The
                key to compliance with provisions of the Act is the assurance that the
                public has had an adequate opportunity to participate in the development
                of a plan." (920.31(c).)
                  When a plan is canplex, or when the sector of the public which it will
               affect is large or diffuse, a single hearing will not be sufficient to
               provide the "asurance" of participation required by the Act. Instead, the
               authority must hold a carefully designed series of hearings in the particular
               geographic areas likely to be affected by plans when the impacts will be
               local in extent or in "places within the state where all citizens of the
               state may have an opportunity to comment"(920.31(d)) when comprehensive,
               state-wide management is involved. Hearings should be held when the people
               most likely to be affected are present. Por example, in coastal areas which
               have large seasonal population shifts, the hearings should be arranged to
               coincide with the period of residence of the seasonal inhabitants.
                  A detailed and thorough summary must be presented to the public within
               30 days after the conclusion of a hearing and copies of the summaries must
               be included in the management program documents which are submitted to
               the Secretary for approval.
                  States will generally conduct a public hearing that is "rulemaking"--as
               opposed to an "adjudicative" or trial-type--procedure and as such has certain
               advantages in policy making: All parties who may be interested are systemati-
               cally notified; preliminary versions of the rules are typically made available
               and written comments invited and considered before final rules are adopted.
               Since it permits all interested parties to participate, the rulemaking
               public hearing is democratic; informal consultation is possible under rule-
               making procedures; the open formulation of rules is preferable on grounds
               of equity; congressional committees and the public can much more readily
               monitor the activities of agencies whose business is conducted through open
               rulemaking29; even people who have not actually attended public hearings may
               follow their course and assess their results through the reporting of the
               mass media. The hearings are, thus, relatively economical as a device for
               disseminating information to large numbers of people and, in turn, obtaining
               opinions, objectives, and new information.
                  But the public hearing also has disadvantages, as the Act recognizes.
               In fact, the public hearing has the defects of its virtues. The fact that
               hearings are open, rather than ensuring broad public participation, often
               invites the participation of vocal, well-organized minorities who are familiar
               with the hearing process. In other words, the public hearing is vulnerable
               to domination by special interest groups, particularly those which have

             162

                   substantial, often disproportionate, economic and political resources. For
                   example, the requirement above (920.31(c)) that hearings on comprehensive
                   or total coastal zone management programs be held in places "where all the
                   citizens of the state may have an opportunity to comment," is plainly an
                   extremely difficult one with which to comply, particularly for large states
                   with large and heterogeneous populations. The "opportunity to comment" is
                   plainly a function of the ability physically to attend (mobility) and, as all
                   studies of the problems agree, mobility is not equally distributed throughout
                   populations. The poor, minorities, and the aged may be effectively excluded
                   from participation if hearings are the only mechanism the states provide.
                   Furthermore, if public hearings are economical as a means of transmitting
                   information, they are also frequently inefficient. There may not be enough
                   time to clarify complex or controversial points, or to permit all participants
                   to explain their points of view adequately. "Overlapping or frivolous"
                   participation frequently occurs30. If the hearings are dealing with
                   politically heated or delicate issues, they may become disorderly and break
                   down. And, of course, it will be extremely difficult for a coastal zone
                   agency to gauge how much of the public with which it wishes to communicate
                   is actually represented at a public hearing.   The more hearings an agency
                   holds, the more likely it may be to obtain the desired representation. As
                   a minimum, the Committee on Agency Organization and Procedures of the
                   Administrative Conference of the United States recommends the following
                   practices in public hearings:
                    Making available documents, materials, and public submissions upon which
                    any proposed program is based;
                    Inviting the presentation of all views in order that the agency may be
                    apprised of any relevant consideration before policy is formulated;
                    Developing effective means of providing notice to the affected public and
                    to groups likely to possess useful information; and
                    Allocating time fairly among participants3l.
                     In recognition of the problems inherent in public hearings, section 920.32
                   suggests additional means of participation-
                   �Informal exchange and circulation of information: This can take place
                    among governmental and private groups. Invitations can be extended to
                    relevant governmental organizations outside the coastal zone management
                    authority to contribute to the development of coastal zone programs
                    (920.32(a) and 920.32 (b)).
                   � Citizen review and advisory bodies: "Mechanisms" other than the public
                    hearings allow citizens to participate in plan construction and administra-
                    tion (920.32(c)).
                   The motivation for these various suggestions is the need to supplement the
                   frequently awkward and insufficiently representative public hearing and
                   to ensure close and continuing cooperation between the coastal zone management
                   authority and the public. Some appropriate devices and techniques have been
                   previously discussed in Part 2--citizen review and advisory groups, newsletters,
                   public presentations of policy alternatives, etc. The general approach
                   designed to maximize cooperation and minimize misunderstanding between
                   agencies and the public has been identified as "collaborative planning,,32.
                   In Toronto, for example, the Planning Board distributes summaries of its
                   planning districts. These proposals are then discussed in small group
                   meetings within subareas of each district and are amended in view of what
                   has been suggested in the meetings. Meticulous records are kept of all
                   citizen concerns and recommendation. The advantages of such a system are

                                                                                             163

               obvious: it virtually guarantees broad citizen participation; it is useful
               as a device for collecting and distributing information; it promotes public
               confidence in the planning agency and support for its programs. The drawback
               is that it may be extremely difficult and expensive to administer the
               collaborative planning approach.   Godschalck identifies three principal
               concerns:
                 Collaborative planning requires a large and well-trained staff;
                 Large amounts of data are produced which are difficult and time consuming
                 to analyze and synthesize;
                 Collaborative planning reduces the amount of time available to an agency
                 for the more traditional work of administration and plan preparation33.
               But the financial benefits may sufficiently outweigh the costs to recommend
               this approach, and, in any case, it is, in its general form, the method
               advocated by section 920.31 as a supplement to public hearings. Another
               successful example of the collaborative approach is available in the
               series of "workshops" sponsored by the Corps of Engineers in the 12 counties
               involved in the Puget Sound study. Though short-term and less formal than
               the Toronto procedure, the Puget Sound workshops brought together representa-
               tives of various federal, state, and local governments and members of the
               public to discuss broad policy questions affecting the environment in the 12
               county study area. The workshops were essentially used to identify the most
               pressing concerns to be taken up at final public hearings of the Puget
               Sound Task Force34.
                  Finally, coastal zone management authorities should consider the use of
               three additional participatory devices: advocacy planning, survey techniques,
               and direct feedback methods. Particularly in areas where coastal zone
               management authorities have reason to think that significant population
               groups are not contributing to the development and administration of coastal
               zcne planning, the authorities will need actively to seek out information
               about the opinions and aspirations of those groups.
                  . Advocacy planning: Because the economic and political resources of
               various population groups are unequal, considerations of equity suggest that
               planners should give special support and aid to the poor and minorities
               involved in the coastal zone planning process. The idea that planners, rather
               than merely considering themselves social technicians or detached arbiters,
               should become advocates for the interests of the disadvantaged, is a valuable
               one in situations where the disparities are great between the powers of
               affected groups35. For example, staff might be allocated to produce infor-
               mation especially relevant to the needs of less powerful groups and to help
               develop and argue their points of view in formats which are technically
               sophisticated and comparable to those employed by more advantaged groups.
                  . Survey techniques: A variety of techniques has developed which will
               permit coastal zone management authorities to study the attitudes and
               preferences of selected groups. These techniques are typically expensive and
               require the employment of expert consultants, but they may yield data which
               is invaluable in terms of coastal zone program development and administration.
               For example, measures of leisure activity patterns and general environmental
               disposition have been designed and are potentially useful to coastal zone
               management authorities interested in the recreational proclivities of particular
               groixps36. Techniques range from free, unstructured interviews to scales,
               checklists, and other devices. The Vermont Natural Resources Council
               recently commissioned a survey of public attitudes toward various environmental
               policy issues and legislation dealing with them. The survey revealed a
               number of interesting points, among them that a significant majority of

              164

                   Vermonters approve of the basic provisions of the state's new environmental
                   laws, that younger Vermonters (18-30) are the most conservation-conscious
                   age group, and that water pollution is regarded as a more serious problem
                   than either air quality or degradation of scenery37. The State of Maine
                   is currently undertaking a similar public opinion poll which specifically
                   includes a survey of public attitudes toward conservation and development in
                   the coastal zone38. It should be emphasized that survey research is a
                   specialized procedure; nonetheless, it is one which coastal zone management
                   authorities may wish to consider, particularly in cases where the conventional
                   participatory mechanisms have failed or where especially detailed and
                   accurate information is needed.
                      ..Direct feedback methods: As in Choices for '76 and the balloting on
                   various schemes for preserving Niagara Falls mentioned previously, planners
                   have made increasing use of direct feedback mechanisms such as the mock
                   vote to discover public concerns and choices. A further recent example is
                   provided by the American Association for the Advancement of Science's
                   "Capitol City Readout" exposition in Washington, D.C., in which the AAAS
                   mounted an exhibit around three themes--planning for social, physical and
                   technical resources; community health and well-being; and use, operation and
                   management of natural resources. Visitors to the exhibits were asked to
                   express their preferences for various alternatives by balloting. Of the
                   5,000 people who attended the exposition, 2,200 cast "votes-39.
                      The interactive exhibit is a device which might readily be adapted to
                   the purposes of coastal zone management authorities, substituting issues
                   such as coastal residential development, offshore oil terminals, etc.
                      The limitation of such schemes as participatory mechamisms is that they
                   may fail to engage the interest of enough people--or enough different
                   population groups--to produce information which is directly useful. For
                   example, relatively few of the people who watched the Choices for '76 pro-
                   grams actually "voted." Of those who did vote, few were poor or elderly or
                   members of minority groups. Nonetheless, coastal zone management authorities
                   may wish to consider direct feedback methods as a means of presenting
                   alternatives and obtaining at least preliminary response to them.
                      Whatever devices coastal zone management authorities employ, the Act
                   clearly requires a deliberate and sustained attempt to involve the public in
                   program development and administration. Numerous reasons for the require-
                   ment have been offered. In the end, the strongest is probably that cited
                   in the following Court of Appeals opinion:
                        The Supreme Court has made it clear in a series of cases that the
                        right of effective participation in the political process "is
                        of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on
                        that right strike at the heart of representative government.40

                                                     CITATIONS

                   1.  Paul Davidoff, "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning," Journal of the
                       American Institute of Planners, XXXI, November 1965.

                   2.  United States v. Bryant, 439 F. 2nd, 642 (1971).

                   3.  Ernest Gelhorn,"Public Participation in Administrative Hearings,"
                       report to the Committee on Agency Organization and Procedure of the
                       Administrative Conference of the United States, 1971.

                                                                                             165

               4.  Richard Warren Smith, "A Theoretical Basis for Participatory Planning,"
                   Policy Sciences, 4, 1973.

               5.  Cahn and Cahn, "The New Sovereign Immunity," 81 Harvard Law Review 929
                   (1968).

               6.  Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v Ruckelshaus, 439 F2nd 584, 594 (1971).

               7.  K. C. Parsons, "The Role of universities in City Renewal," in Eldredge,
                   Taming Megalopolis, vol. II, Anchor Books, Garden City, 1967.

               8.  Gelhorn, op. cit., p. 1.

               9.  Roger Noll, Reforming Regulation:  'An Evaluation of the Ash Council
                   Council PLoEosals, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1971.

               10. Joseph E. Bodovitz, transcript of a Conservation Foundation Forum as
                   quoted in a review draft, "Land Use: A Challenge for the States - A
                   Guide to State Land Use and the Coastal Zone Laws," by Wendell E.
                   Fletcher and William J. Duddleson, Conservation Foundation, Washington,
                   D.C., March 1974.

               11. Steven Ebbin and Raphael Kasper, Citizen Groups and the Nuclear Power
                   Controversy: Uses of Scientific and Technological Information, The MIT
                   Press, Cambridge, 1974.

               12. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission--North Central Region,
                   Life in the Sea, San Rafael, 1974.

               13. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission--North Central Commission,
                   The Coast Plan Bulletin, San Rafael, 1974.

               14.  Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, Newsletter,
                   Florence, 1973-1974.

               15. Donald Appleyard and Kenneth Craik, "The Berkeley Environment Simulation
                   Laboratory: Its Use in Environmental Impact Assessment," Institute
                   of Urban and Regional Development, Working Paper No. 206, Berkeley,
                   1973.

               16. William R. Ewald, Jr., ACCESS; The Santa Barbara Pilot Process,
                   National Science Founda on, 1973.

               17. Gelhorn, M. cit., p. 1.

               18. D. C. Federation of Civic Associations, Inc. v. Volpe, 434 F. 2nd 436
                   (1970).

               19. New York Regional Plan Association, Choices for '76, Newsletter, June 1973.

               20. Robert Sommer, Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design, Prentice-
                   Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, 1969.

             166

                  21.  Reed and D'Andrea, S. Gardner, Conservation Priorities Plan of the
                       Coast of Maine, 1973.

                  22.  Davidoff, op.cit., Lisa R. Peattie, "Drama and Advocacy Planning",
                       Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXXVI, November 1970.

                  23.  Edward C. Banfield, "Why Goverment Cannot Solve the Urban Problem",
                       Daedalus, Fall 1968.

                  24.  Donald L. Foley, "Some Implications of Rising but Differential Access
                       to Cars", unpublished seminar presentation, 1973.

                  25.  Robert Lee, "The Social Definition of Outdoor Recreational Places",
                       in Burch, Cheek, and Taylor, Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and
                       the Environment, Harper and Row, New York, 1973.

                  26.  Sylvia Law, Greater London Council, Surveys of the use of Open Space,
                       Vol. II, Research Memorandum, London, 1972.

                  27.  National Wildlife Federation, Conservation Directory, Washington,
                       D.C., 1973.

                  28.  Jens Sorensen.and John Ashbaugh, "A Survey of Organized Groups with an
                       interest in the California Coastal Zone", University of California
                       Sea Grant Program, La Jolla, California (forthcoming).

                  29.  Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Text, West Publishing Co.,
                       St. Paul, 1972, p. 142.

                  30.  Gellhorn, op. cit., p. 8.

                  31.  Committee on-Agency Organization and Procedure, Administrative Con-
                       ference of the United States, "Recommendation B.- Public Participation
                       in Administrative Hearings", Washington, 1971, p. 2.

                  32.  David R. Godschalk, "The Circle of Urban Participation", in Eldredge,
                       OP. Elt.

                  33.  Ibid.

                  34.  Ann Widditsch, Public Workshops on the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters
                       Study: An Evaluation, The National Technical Information Service,
                       Springfield, 1972.

                  35.  Davidoff, op. cit.

                  36.  George E. McKechnie, Environmental Response Inventory, 1971.

                  37.  Vermont Natural Resources Council, An Environmental/Economic Profile
                       of Vermont by Vermonters, Montpelier, Vermont, 1972.

                  38.  Coastal Planning Group, Maine State Planning Office, "Maine: An
                       Appraisal by the People", (forthcoming).

                                                                                            167

              39. Thomas V. Vanier and Richard A. Scribner, Community Information
                   Expositions, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
                   Washington, 1973.

    4         40. D. C. Federation of Civic Associations v. Volpe, 434 F2d 436, 441 (1970).

                                                   CHAPTER VI

                                             ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES

                   1. Introduction
                   Sect"ion 312 of the Act authorizes the establishment of a system of
                estuarine sanctuaries which are to help carry out the overall purposes and
                objectives of the Act. The Section 312 regulations articulate this very
                clearly:
                      The estuarine sanctuary program will provide grants to states on a
                      matching basis to acquire, develop, and operate natural areas
                      as estuarine sanctuaries in order that scientists and students
                      may be provided the opportunity to examine over a period of time
                      ecological relationships within the area. (921.1)
                Furthermore,
                      The purpose of the estuarine sanctuaries is to create natural
                      field laboratories in which to gather data and make studies of
                      the natural and human processes occuring within the coastal zone...
                      for research and education purposes especially to provide some
                      information essential to coastal zone management decision-making.
                      (921.3(a))
                   The legistlative mandate, as well as the limited financial resources
                authorized under this section, mean that not all states will receive
                federal support to establish sanctuaries. Also, some coastal states might
                decide that estuarine sanctuaries are neither feasible as part of nor
                necessary to implement their management program. With this in mind each
                coastal state should consider at the outset of its program development effort
                the feasibility and desirability of establishing and operating an estuarine
                sanctuary. The consideration could include an assessment of the potential
                sites, a determination and analysis of the federally-imposed constraints
                under which the sanctuary must be operated, a realistic assessment of the
                probable acquisition and operating costs of the area(s), and an assessment
                of the benefits the state might derive from establishing the sanctuary--
                including the degree to which the sanctuary might be in the regional or
                national interest.
                   Those coastal states which decide an estuarine sanctuary would be both
                feasible and desirable can then select one of the two approaches available
                to them:
                   First, the state may apply for a grant to establish a sanctuary prior
                to or during its program development effort. There are a number of advantages
                which can result from this course of action for the state can establish a
                research program within the estuary that may assist it almost immediately
                in the development of its management program. Also, the state can make an
                immediate determination of the conditions in this portion of its coastal
                environment and translate it into a course of action to ensure the integrity
                of the area as well as helping to develop controls to protect other com-
                parable or representative areas within the coastal zone. Further, by
                selecting an unspoiled site prior to implementing its coastal zone management
                program, a state can establish scientific control to use as a standard
                against which it can judge the effects and success or failure of its management
                approaches. In addition, a state could use the estuarine sanctuary as an
                interpretative center to show the public the principles of coastal ecology
                in action, along with the necessity of--or desire for--coastal zone management
                throughout the coastal zone, but especially in the fragile areas (e.g.,
                wetlands and barrier dunes) and seek public support in this way for the

                                                       168

                                                                                              169

               state's overall management plan. Finally, the state which takes the initiative
               early may have a competitive advantage over other equally qualified applicants
               for the limited funds which are available.
                  Alternatively, the state may delay its application until it completes
               its program development effort; the estuarine sanctuary would then evolve
               as a recommendation of the study. This approach gives the.state the following
               advantages over what it could derive from the option described above: the
               state would be in a position to optimize the design of a research program
               to study its coastal zone problems after they are fully described; in addition,
               the state can design its sanctuary management program to fit into its overall
               program management framework without being constrained by procedures adopted
               on an interim basis; finally, the state can establish research priorities
               in full knowledge of the problems the research must address rather than
               chancing a change of priorities established during an interim research
               program--thereby possibly increasing the research costs.
                  The benefits of one option serve as the disbenefits of the other; so
               each state interested in establishing a federally supported estuarine
               sanctuary must make the trade-off decision between what it perceives as
               its need for immediate action versus the need for action only if it results
               from the state's systematically formulated program development recommendations.
                  Prior to making any final decision about applying for an estuarine
               sanctuary grant, states should assess other federal acquisition programs
               to determine the differences between them and the estuarine sanctuary program--
               to make sure that the program they choose is the most logical one and offers
               the best chance for success in terms of the state's goals for the areas.
               For example, the estuarine program is mandated to consider the water body
               as the central focus, and only to include those adjacent lands which
               constitute a natural ecological unit. Also, this program will only consider
               representative areas, not unique ones. In addition, an estuarine sanctuary
               is to be just that and is not to support any extensive development or other
               intensive activities that could compromise its status. Other programs, such
               as those sponsored by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, have different
               constraints under which they operate and different goals they are mandated
               to seek. Before proceeding to apply for acquisition funds from any of the
               programs, states should have a clear understanding both of these programs'
               goals and constraints and of the state's own aims for the area.

                  2. Designation and Delineation of an Estuarine Sanctuary
                  In order to receive a grant to establish an estuarine sanctuary, a state
               must identify an area which satisfies the criteria promulgated by the Secretary
               of Commerce. Certain of these criteria are reflected in the following
               requirements:
                 The designated area must represent one of the major biogeographic class-
                 ifications of estuarines listed in the Section 312 regulations (921.4).
                 The area proposed for designation should not be replicative of any other
                 area in the state already protected and where research may be conducted.
                 The proposed area should be capable of assimilating impacts from other
                 uses that are compatible with the research and education purposes
                 (e.g., nature walks).
                 The designated area should generally be as natural and undisturbed as
                 possible and at the least should be relatively free of major development
                 intrusions (e.g., dredge and fill operations, industrial effluents).

            170

                   While focused on or around an estuary, the area must, as nearly as possible,
                   approximate a natural ecological unit--including adjacent wetlands and
                   uplands.
                    If an estuarine area can comply with these requirements then the state
                 has surmounted many of the problems associatedwith having the area designated
                 as a federally-supported sanctuary. one important added point states
                 should consider is the sufficiency of the land and water use controls they
                 must adopt to protect the integrity of the sanctuary.
                    Natural ecological unit: The requirement to consider a natural ecological
                 unit implies that each applicant must define the unit and then establish a
                 legally adequate boundary for the estuarine sanctuary that approximates the
                 natural limits of the unit--in so far as this is feasible. In order to
                 accomplish such a delineation states should identify a set of ecosystem
                 indicators they can use to delimit the unit. In most cases the basic unit
                 can be hydrologically delimited and the area might be grossly defined as
                 the mini-watershed associated with the estuary. The boundary that a state
                 adopts though must be adequately describable from a legal standpoint.
                 (See discussion of legal adequacy in SectionII-A, Boundaries.)
                    A state might use one or a combination of three categories of natural
                 factors in determining the extent of the ecosystem:
                   The hydrology of the estuarine area including the scale and configuration
                   of the allied watershed, tidal range, estuarine hydrodynamics, and rate
                   of riverine flow into the estuary;
                   the physiography of the coastal area encompassing the estuary including
                   the geomorphology of the area, shape of the estuary, and the soil types
                   of the watershed; and
                   the flora and fauna within the watershed that are coastal species (e.g.,
                   marshgrass, shellfish, birds) and the areas of interdependence (e.g.,
                   fish nursery areas, bird rookeries) associated with the species.
                    Through the use of base maps and overlays each of the indicators can
                 be represeAted and areas of overlap identified to determine the geographic
                 extent of interdependence (e.g., vegetation and soils, hydrology and physio-
                 graphy)
                    Boundary determination: In order to protect and maintain the integrity
                 of the natural ecological unit the boundary of the sanctuary might well
                 encompass a more extensive area of the watershed then would otherwise be
                 required. This means that the factors used to define the unit should be
                 expanded to include impacts on the estuary caused by uses in the mini-watershed.
                 (See discussion of direct and significant impact in Section II-A.) When
                 uses which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters of
                 the estuary are displayed in overlays, the extent of the areas of concern
                 used to define the boundary will probably expand appreciably. This broader
                 interpretation a natural ecological unit allows the identification of
                 shorelands within the watershed the uses of which the state must control to
                 protect the proposed sanctuary. The actual boundary a state adopts to define
                 the area of acquisition may have to be a compromise since a state may find
                 it impractical or impossible to purchase the total unit--including all of
                 the associated shorelands. Although priority will probably be given to those
                 states requiring a minimum of boundary compromises, a state can still
                 protect the integrity of the estuary through the use of a set of controls
                 regulating the uses of those shorelands not acquired.

                                                                                               171

                   3. Estuarine SanCtUau Uses
                   The purpose of the estuarine sanctuaries program is to help states acquire,
                develop, and operate natural areas to serve as field laboratories for scientists
                and students to study and investigate the ecological relationships within
                the areas over an extended period of time. Although the primary use of the
                sanctuaries is for research and education purposes, other uses are encouraged
                to the extent that they will not adversely affect these primary uses or the
                quality of the estuary. Those states which qualify for federal assistance
                must work with the Office of Coastal Zone Management to determine the
                kinds of uses--research, education, and others--and the intensity of these
                uses allowed in the sanctuary.
                   Research and education: Since the primary uses of the sanctuaries will
                be research and education the states which establish sanctuaries must deter-
                mine which activities associated with these uses they should pursue.
                   Some states may have a problem of competition among possible research
                projects; especially where conflicts are possible among the uses associated
                with long-term research (e.g., scientific studies of the ecological inter-
                relationships) and short-term research (e.g., assessing carrying capacity).
                This would be especially true where the research effort introduces certain
                human stresses to determine the limits of a resource's carrying capacity.
                In order to avoid any anticipated conflicts of this type, the orcPnization
                controlling the sanctuary should clearly define a coordinated research
                program, after considering such questions as:
                . Which of the specific research needs identified in the program development
                  effort can the sanctuary accommodate?
                . Which research desires separately identified by the academic community
                  can the sanctuary also accommodate?
                . How can research access be necessarily limited without jeopardizing
                  equitable access policies?
                . If the anticipated cumulative impact of the individual research efforts
                  is direct and signi-ficant,what access and control procedures are necessary
                  to keep the impacts within acceptable limits?
                   The Act and the legislative history associated with it emphasize that
                the sanctuaries are to be natural field laboratories to provide areas for
                long-term research and education uses. The Section 312 regulations present
                examples of such uses including those which are designed:

                     (1) To gain a thorough understanding of the ecological relation-
                     ships within the estuarine environment.
                     (2) To make baseline ecological measurements.
                     (3) To monitor significant or vital changes in the estuarine environment.
                     (4) To assess the effects of man's stresses on the ecosystem and to
                     forecast and mitigate possible deterioration from human activities.
                     (5) To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness
                     of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their value and benefits
                     to man and nature, and the problems which confront them. (921.3(a))
                   The subject of manipulative research is also discussed with the conclusion
                that it will not normally be allowed in the sanctuary (921.3(c)).
                   The educational uses to which the sanctuary is dedicated represent another
                problem states must address in determining estuarine uses. In general there
                are three groups whose educational needs the sanctuary might help satisfy.
                First, there are students enrolled in formal academic programs in biological
                sciences or other fields involved in studying the ecological relationships

             172

                  within the estuary--as separated from practicing scientists--whose needs are
                  satisfied in the research functions. Second, there are informed members
                  of the public (e.g., naturalists by avocation) who are interested in witnessing
                  the range of natural phenomena that can occur unmolested in the sanctuary.
                  Third, there are the uninformed members of the public who are interested
                  in learning about the flora and fauna of the estuary and about the need for
                  and purposes of coastal zone management. States must determine, in consulta-
                  tion with the Office of Coastal Zone Management, which audiences to satisfy
                  and to what degree to satisfy them within the sanctuary.
                     Other permissible uses: Although the primary purposes of the sanctuaries
                  are to serve as natural field laboratories, a multi-purpose philosophy is
                  both permitted and encouraged to the extent that the primary purposes are
                  not adversely affected. This means that a state may determine other
                  permissible uses (see Section II-B) , but with additional constraints that
                  such uses must not degrade the quality of the estuary and will not interfere
                  with the primary uses. A complication in the determination of other allowable
                  uses may be the compatibility of historical or existing uses of the sanctuary
                  area with the research efforts (e.g., commercial fishing versus scientific
                  studies of productivity).
                     The determination of other permitted uses should consider a variety of
                  factors that are reflected in the following discussion of categories of uses.
                     One category of allowable uses in the sanctuary, exclusive of research and
                  education uses, includes those existing uses requiring resource attributes
                  not available elsewhere in the region or state--subject to the determination
                  that such uses are compatible with the research efforts and do not degrade
                  the quality of the estuary. An example of this is an extensive scallop
                  bed that proves to be the only productive area of its scale in the region.
                     Another category might include uses resulting in a substantial public
                  benefit--subject to the qualifiers as the previous category. An example of
                  this category is the establishment of an overlook that allows visual access
                  to an area with exceptional scenic qualities.
                     A third category of allowable uses might include those uses which are non-
                  destructive in nature or associated with low intensities--subject to the
                  same qualifiers as the first category. An example of such use is recreational
                  activities such as swimming, hiking, or picnicing.
                     These three categories of uses are representative of the types of uses
                  which can coexist with the primary uses of the sanctuary. States will need
                  to work with the Office of Coastal Zone Management in identifying the specific
                  uses pertinent to each category.
                     Prohibited Uses: The Section 312 regulations emphasize that all estuarine
                  uses:
                        - which would cause significant short or long-term ecological
                        change or would otherwise detract from or restrict the uses
                        of the sanctuary as a natural field laboratory, will be pro-
                        hibited. (921.5(b))
                     In determining prohibited uses states should find groups of uses which
                  they will categorically exclude including:
                    Uses which should be completely prohibited from the sanctuary, as withon
                    shorelands adjacent to sanctuaries, due to the physical impact they might
                    have on estuarine quality. These would include uses that do not or cannot
                    comply with federal or state air and water-quality standards adopted to
                    protect the sanctuary specifically or the coastal area in general; for
                    example, it would generally include heavy industry and mining operations.

                                                                                              173

                �Uses which should be prohibited from certain parts of the sanctuary, as
                 well as certain of the shorelands adjacent to the sanctuary, due to their
                 physical impact on certain elements of the estuary. These would include
                 uses that could not comply with standards adopted for certain areas within
                 or adjacent to the sanctuary, but could comply elsewhere; for example,
                 it could include uses requiring physical alterations such as structures or
                 trails on barrier dunes or aquaculture in salt ponds.
                �Uses which should be prohibited from part or all of the sanctuary due to
                 their incompatibility with the primary purpose and uses of the area. These
                 would normally include consumptive uses of estuarine resources or other
                 uses which could infringe on the scientific control for research established
                 in the estuary; for example, insect or pest control activities.
                �uses which would normally be prohibited from or closely controlled in
                 parts or all of the sanctuary due to the cumulative nature of the impacts
                 the uses have on the area. These would include time-related accumulations
                 as well as intensity-related ones; for example, nutrient additions from
                 farms which become significant over time and oil slicks from pleasure
                 boats which become significant with a high intensity of usage.
                �Uses which would normally be prohibited or closely controlled in part or
                 all of the sanctuary at certain times of the year due to possible adverse
                 effects on the natural processes of the flora and fauna in the estuary; for
                 example, uses which impact on bird rookery areas during the hatching period
                 or on the estuary itself during fish spawning season.
                   States should select these or other categories of uses and then work with
                the office of Coastal Zone Management to identify the specific uses under
                each category.

                   4. Relationship to the States Overall Program
                   As called for in the Section 312 regulations, the state's estuarine
                sanctuary program must interact with its overall coastal zone management
                program in two ways. First, the research conducted in the sanctuary should
                provide the decision-makers with an information base to assist them in the
                development and/or operation of the state's total management program. Second,
                the management program itself must recognize the sanctuary and be designed to
                protect it from uses of lands and waters adjacent to it which could compromise
                its integrity. This means that the states must include within their management
                structure mechanisms to control uses in these areas.
                   Controlling adjacent shorelands: In protecting its estuarine sanctuary,
                a state might identify geographic areas of particular concern outside the
                sanctuary, within which it could establish controls as part of the overall
                state coastal management program. Further, it might set priority uses in
                the shorelands adjacent to the sanctuary to encourage uses which are compatible
                with those in the sanctuary. States may find that establishing zones of
                control and/or setting priority uses in these and other particular areas is
                essential to the land and water use controls it must adopt. This action
                can serve the duel purpose of protecting the estuary while demonstrating
                the rationale behind the management program.
                   If a state uses areas of particular concern as zones of control to protect
                the sanctuary then it should choose factors to define the concern which
                reflect the areas' association with the sanctuary. For example, an area
                which is inherently unstable and so potentially erodible could cause a
                sedimentation problem in the estuary if the erosion processes are aggravated;
                so it is of concern because of the erosion potential and all uses which might

            174

                  cause such problems should be excluded. (See discussion of representative
                  factors in Section II-C, qeographic Areas of Particular Concern)
                    Also, a priority use which would normally be assigned to an area due to
                  its resource attributes and other factors should be reassessed if it en-
                  couraged uses which are not compatible or conflict with the uses in the
                  sanctuary. For example, an area inherently suitable for constructing or
                  extending an airport should be reconsidered if such a use might interfere
                  with the birdlife in the sanctuary.
                    Uses of adjacent shorelands:   In determining which uses are allowable on
                  shorelands outside the sanctuary and in what priority to encourage them
                  states should look to key factors:
                  �compromises required in delimiting the sanctuary;
                  �scale of the adjacent shorelands requiring controls;
                  �inherent suitability of such areas to support uses;
                  �existing commitments to which shorelands are dedicated;
                  �impacts of uses on estuarine sanctuary;
                  �ability to adopt and enforce performance standards to mitigate impacts;
                  �ability to control uses without aggravating the "taking issue";
                  �ability to encourage certain compatible uses through priority designation;
                   and
                  �ability to adopt innovative measures to encourage specific uses such as
                   new taxing techniques, acquisition of partial interests in lands, purchase
                   and lease-back of lands, among others.
                  Each of the factors presented above is discussed elsewhere in the document
                  and should be referred to if additional clarification is required. They
                  may be found in Sect-ion II-B--Permissible Uses--, Section II-D--Priority
                  of Uses--, and Section III-A--Means of Exerting Control.
                    Program requirements: The state's overall coastal zone management program
                  must reflect the existence of the estuarine sanctuary and include a set
                  of controls to regulate, where necessary, areas not in public ownership.
                  The control of these areas is especially important in those situations where
                  compromises are required in defining the sanctuary's boundary.
                    The research plan a state adopts for its sanctuary should also identify
                  the controls the state will use in managing or coordinating the individual
                  research efforts.
                    The state should analyze all possible means of sanctuary control an
                  select the option that best fits into its overall management structure.
                  Towards this end, in setting up the area, states might take advantage of
                  innovative measure to enhance their ability to control uses and impacts.
                  Also, in the case where the watershed associated with the sanctuary is
                  extensive, the state agency controlling the sanctuary might coordinate its
                  program with other jurisdictions to ensure the overall control of the sanctuary
                  with the adjacent shorelands in a compatible and effective manner.
                    Organizational structure to manage the sanctuary: States should consider
                  a variety of questions when determining how the management of the sanctuary
                  will fit into the organizational structure of their overall coastal zone
                  management program:
                  �Who should manage the estuarine sanctuary?
                  �What arrangements should be worked out with other agencies--both public
                   and private--to protect and manage the estuary?
                  �How can monitoring or surveillance programs to test the estuarine quality
                   be adequately funded and conducted, since no Section 312 funds are
                   available for the purpose?

                                                                                              175

                  How can the estuarine sanctuazy program be coordinated with other pre-
                  servation-oriented programs within the state?
                  How can equity in research and education access policies be guaranteed?
                  How can the research results be widely disseminated.
                   In answering the question of who should manage the sactuary states should
                assess the available alternatives. These might include the estuary being
                managed by the state's coastal zone authority or lead agency, by some other
                state agency (e.g., state parks or land agency), by a consortium of
                institutions who will be conducting the estuarine research, or by a special
                puxpose organization established especially to manage the sanctuary. The
                agency or organization the states select must have adequate authority to
                manage the sactuary and it should have some experience in land management
                as well as not being inordinately biased toward research uses to the dis-
                advantage of education and other uses and finally, it should be held
                accountable to the state's overall coastal zone management program.
                   In determining the arrangements it must make to protect the sanctuary
                a state should consider several points. Among other factors these might
                include the existing uses on shorelands adjacent to the sanctuary, uses or
                categories of uses which might adversely affect the estuary, the legal
                limit of available controls, the compromises the state made in defining the
                sanctuary's boundary, the means the state selects to control permissible
                uses, and the need(s) to deal with other government agencies.
                   In determining the degree of need for and the design of the surveillance
                mechanism to monitor estuarine quality states should assess the cost
                effectiveness of such a program and identify possible sources of support.
                These sources might include "piggybacking" on existing water quality monitoring
                efforts, attaching a monitoring component to certain research projects,
                utilizing volunteer assistance, establishing environmental quality standards
                for certain users to be monitored by sensors paid for by those users, and
                estalbishing tax incentives to attract donors. These few potential sources
                could supplement support from or offer alternatives to traditional sources
                of budgetary support (e.g., agency budget, federal or private grants-in-aid).
                   In identifying possible sources of support for estuarine research states
                should look to both the public and private sectors. There are, of course,
                numerous federal and private programs that could serve as sources of support.
                The forms of support could include grants-in-aid for general programs or
                specific projects, cooperative federal-state research, technical assistance,
                advisory services, endowments, or outright gifts--all of which must be fitted
                into the research franEwork the state adopts. Two specific documents states
                might refer to in identifying sources are the Catalog of Federal Domestic
                Assistance17 and the Annual Register of Grant Support.18
                   In identifying other preservation-oriented programs to coordinate their
                activities a state should identify all lands within its coastal area which are
                presently dedicated to conservation purposes; either by government or private
                actions (e.g., wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness areas, land banks, conser-
                vation easements, conservancy areas). States may find that the best examples
                of representative areas are already protected or that by acquiring certain
                key remaining parcels they can thus establish an estuarine sanctuary. In
                cases such as these though, it is essential that all agencies or organizations
                controlling lands or waters within the sanctuary boundary coordinate
                their activities in the area.

            176

                                                    CITATIONS

                 1.  Battelle Memorial Institute, The Economic Importance of Estuaries,
                     Federal Water Quality Administration, 1968.

                 2.  Battelle Memorial Institute, Oregon Areas of Environmental Concern,
                     Northwest Laboratories, 1973.

                 3.  Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Estuary Study, (Volumes 1-7),
                     U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

                 4.  John Clark, Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management
                     of the Coastal Zone, Conservation Foundation, 1974.

                 5.  Coastal Research Corporation, Estuarine Landscape Survey and Analysis,
                     Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1969.

                 6.  Philip Douglas and Richard Stroud, Editors, Proceedings of Symposium on
                     the Biological Significance of Estuaries, Sport Fishing Institute, 1970.

                 7.  Alyn C. Duxbury, "Coastal Zone Processes and Their Influence on Estuarine
                     Conditions", Proceedings of Nearshore and Estuarine Zone Symposium,
                     University of Washington, 1970.

                 8.  Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, The National Estuarine
                     Pollution Study, U.S. Government Printing office, 1969.

                 9.  Georgia Vital Areas Council, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, 1974.

                 10. Interagency Task Force on Environmental and Land Use Planning, Criteria
                     for Identification of Areas of Particular Public Concern, North Carolina
                     Office of State Planning, 1973.

                 11. George F. Lauff, Editor, Estuaries, American Association for the
                     Advancement of Science--Publication #83, 1967.

                 12. D.F. McMichael, Conservation of Estuarine Regions and the Coastal Zone,
                     International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1972.

                 13. H.T. Odum et al. Editors, Coastal Ecological Systems of the United
                     States, Conservation Foundation, 1974.

                 14. U.S. Senate Committee on Government Operations, Protecting America's
                     Estuaries: Puget Sound and the Straits of GeoK2ia and Juan de Fuca,
                     U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

                 15. Rules and Regulations Promulgated under Section 312 of the Coastal Zone
                     Management Act of 1972, Federal R6qister, 39(108), June 4, 1974.

                 16. Public Law 92-532, Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

                 17. office of management and Budget, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
                     U.S. Government Printing office, Printed Annually.

                 18. Academic Media, 1973/74 Edition of Annual Register of Grant Support, 1974.

                                                                                               177

     I

                                                  APPENDIX

                                                                                              A-1

                                      STATE AND REGIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

                  This bibliography includes a selective and representative listing of
                documents organized according to geographical areas. Many of the references
                cited below also appear in the citations at the end of each chapter. They
                are also listed here to be useful to those readers interested in identifying
                the most up-to-date information about the efforts pertinent to the various
                coastal states and territories.
                  The references listed below include several types of documents. First,
                discussions of present state coastal zone programs are included. Second,
                representative samplings of coastal resources inventories, with recommendations
                for management, are included. Third, comprehensive plans for the use of
                coastal resources are included. Fourth, coastal zone bibliographies are
                included. Fifth, discussions of specific coastal-related resource management
                problems, with conclusions and recommendations, are included. These five -
                types of documents will assist the readers in developing a good perspective
                of the coastal zone problems that the states' programs must address.

                                             GENERAL REFERENCES

                1.  Earl H. Bradley, Jr. and John M. Armstrong, A Description and Analysis of
                    Coastal Zone and Shoreland Management Programs in the United States, Univ-
                    ersity of Michigan Sea Grant Program, 1972.

                2.  Fred Bosselman and.David Callies,.The Quiet.Revolution in Land Use
                    Control, U.S. Government.Printing Office, 1971.

                3.              ,'The Taking Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits
                    of Land Use Control, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

                4.  Elizabeth P. Haskell, Managing the Environment: Nine States Look for
                    New Answers, Woodrow   son International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian
                    Institution, 1971.

                5.  Public Land Law Review Commission, one Third of the Nation's Land, U.S.
                    Government Printing Office, 1970.

                6.  U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,.The National Estuary Study,
                    U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

                                              STATE IMFERENCES

                                                  Alabama

                1.  J. H. Cammack, T. J. Joiner, and R. D. Schneeflock, Bibliography of
                    offshore and Estuarine Areas of Alabama with Selected Annotations,
                    University of Alabama, 1971.

                2.  South Alabama Regional Planning Commission, South Alabama Regional
                    Goals, Phase IIt Program Development, 1972.

                3.  W. H. Wallace, Jr. et al., Alabama Planning Handbook, Alabama Development
                    office, 1973.

            A-2

                                                     Alaska

                 1.  Anonymous, Challenges in the Alaskan Coastal Zone, Alaska Sea Grant
                     Publication, 72-1, 1972.

                 2.  Sidia Selkregg (editor), Environmental Atlas of the Greater Anchorage
                     Area Borough, Alaska Resources and Science Services, Artic Environmental
                     Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, 1972.

                                                   California

                 1.  California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, Comprehensive
                     Ocean Area Plan and Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan Supplement, Sacramento,
                     Calif. 1972.

                 2.  California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Coastline
                     Preservation and Recreation Plan, Sacramento, 1971.

                 3.  Ruthann Corwin (editor), Tomales Bay Environmental Study: Compendium of
                     Reports. Prepared for the Conservation Foundation: Washington, D.C. 1972.

                 4.  Peter M. Douglas, "Coastal Zone Management--A New Approach in California,"
                     Coastal Zone Management Journal, Fall, 1973, l(l).

                 5.  Gary D. Fay et al. (The Mendocino Coastal Research Group), The Mendocino
                     Coast--A Vanishing Resource, Western Interstate Commission for
                     Higher Education: Boulder, Colorado, 1972.

                 6.  Frank Hotchkiss, James Perry, and Craig Estes, Regional Coastline
                     Planning Program: Final Report, Appendix A: memorandum on Meeting with
                     Coastal Cities, Appendix B: Coastal zone Resource Analysis System, Southern
                     California Association of Governments, 1973. @

                 7.  Marine Technology Society, Los Angeles Section, Coastal Zone Management and
                     the Western States' Future--Proceedings of a conference held December 3&4,
                     Newport Beach, Ca, Northridge, 1974.

                 8.  Marsha Rood and Robert Warren, The Urban Marina: Management and Develop-
                     ment of Marina Del Rey, University of Southern California, Center for
                     Urban Affairs: Los Angeles, Expected publication date: summer 1974.

                 9.  San Diego County Comprehensive Planning Organization, Initial Coastline
                     Plan, San Diego, Expected publication date: May 1974.

                 10. Sedway/Cooke, Regional Ocean Coastline Plan for the San Francisco
                     Bay Area, Prepared for the Association of Bay Area Governments: Berkeley,
                     1973.

                 11. Sedway/Cooke, Tri-County Coastline--Stage II: A Policy Plan for Conser-
                     vation and Development: A Summary of theTechnical Report, San Francisco.
                     Prepared for the Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Cruz Counties
                     Planning Departments, 1973.

                                                                                                A-3

                                                 Connecticut

               1.   Connecticut Interagency Water Resources Planning Board, Statewide
                    Long Range Plan for the Management of the Water Resources of Connecticut,
                    Phase I Report, 1971.

               2.   Connecticut Office of State Planning, Proposed Plan for Conservation and
                    Development for Connecticut, 1973.

               3.   Daniel Lufkin, 'The Necessity of Land Use Planning@-Connecticut's Approach,
                    New England River Basins Commission Regional Report, 1972.

                                                   Delaware

               1.   Delaware Bay Oil Transport Co=nittee of the State of Delaware, Energy,
                    Oil, and the State of Delaware-Technical Report.

               2.   Delaware State Planning office, Delaware Natural Resources Inventory, 1970.

               3.           , Preliminary Delaware Coastal Zone Plan, 1973.

               4.   Joel M. Goodman, Economic and Social Aspects of Delaware's Coastal Zone--
                    Delaware Bay Report Series, College of Marine Studies, University of
                    Delaware, 1973.

               5.   Governor's Task Force on marine and Coastal Affairs, The Coastal Zone
                    of Delaware, College of Marine Studies, University oi-Delaware, 1972.

                                                   Florida

               1.   Division of State Planning, Final Report and Recommendations for the
                    Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, 1973.-

               2.   Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Coastal Zone Management in Florida-
                    1971, 1971.

               3.            Coastal Zone Management in Florida--1972, 1972.

               4.             Florida Coastal Zone Management Atlas: A Preliminary Survey and
                    Analysis, 1972.

               5.          , Recommendations for Development Activities in Florida's Coastal
                    Zone, 1973.

               6.           Statistical Inventory of Key Biophysical Elements in Florida's
                    Coastal Zone, 1973.

                                                   Georgia

               1. Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission, Coast 1 Georgia
                    Industrial Sites, 1973.

               2.            Existing Land Use Survey and Analysis, 1971.

             A-4

                  3.              F overall Economic Development PrograMfor Coastal Georgia,
                      1970.

                                                      Hawaii

                  1.  Doak C. Cox and Lawrence C. Gordon, Jr., Estuarine Pollution in the
                      State of Hawaii: Volume I Statewide Study, Water Resources Research
                      Center, University of Hawaii, Technical Report 31, 1970.

                  2.  Chennat Golpalakishnan and Justin Rutka, "Some Institutional Constraints
                      to Coastal Zone Development: A Case Study of Hawaii," American Journal
                      of Economics and Sociology, To be published in Fall 1974 issue.

                  3.  Gene Grace, Marine Atlas of Hawaii: Bays and Harbors, Hawaii Sea Grant
                      Program, 1974.

                  4.  Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, Hawaiis'Shore-
                      line, 1964.

                  5.  Hawaii and the Sea 1974 Task Force, Hawaii andthe Sea--1974, Prepared
                      for the Governor's Advisory Committee on Science and Technology,
                      Department of Planning and Economic Development, 1974.

                  6.  Justin Rutka and Chennat Gopalakishnan, Spheres of Influence in Hawaii's
                      Coastal Zone: Volume 1 Federal Agency Involvement, University of Hawaii
                      Sea Grant Program, 1973.

                  7.  Stephen Smith et al., Atlas of Kaneohe Bay: A Reef Ecosystem Under
                      Stress, The University of Hawaii Sea Grant Program, Honolulu, 1973.

                                                     Illinois

                  1.  Department of Development and Planning, Lakefront Plan of Chicago,
                      City of Chicago, 1973.

                                                    Louisiana

                  1.  Engineering Agency for Resource Inventories, Inventory of Basic
                      Environmental Data for Southern Louisiana, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

                  2.  Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources, Louisiana
                      Wetlands Prospectus, 1973.

                  3.  Louisiana Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority, Superport Environmental
                      Protection Plan, 1974.

                  4.  Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, CoOperativ2 Gulf of Mexico
                      Estuarine Inventory and study, Louisiana (Phases I-IV), 1971.

                                                                                             A-5

                                                   Maine

               1.  Coastal Planning Group, Coastal Zone Management in Maine: A Natural
                   Resources and Economic Perspecti , Maine State Planning Office, In print.

               2.  Coastal Planning Group, Penobscot Bay Resource Plan, Maine State Planning
                   office, 1972.

               3.  Harriet P. Henry, Coastal Zone Management in Maine: A Legal Perspective,
                   State Planning Office, 1973.

               4.  Maine State Planning office, Maine Coastal Development Plan, Phase 1
                   Report, Maine State Planning office, 1970.

               5.  Reed and D'Andrea, Conservation Priorities Plan, Coastal Overview,
                   Reed and D'Andrea, 1973.

               6.  Shoreland zoning Project, Shoreland Zoning: The Maine Experience,
                   1972-3, Environmental Studies Center, University of Maine, 1973.

                                                  Maryland

               1.  Maryland Department of State Planning, A Land Use Classification Scheme
                   for a Statewide Land Use Inventory of Maryland, 1972.

               2.  Chesapeake Bay Study: Inventory of Natural Resources and Economic
                   Development Problems, Maryland Department of State Planning, 1972.

                                               Massachusetts

               1.  Citizens' Task Force on Environmental Reorganization, "Report of
                   Coastal Zone Management Subcommittee," Executive Office of Environmental
                   Af f airs, 1972.

               2.  Division of Marine Fisheries, Monograph Series on Marine Resources
                   (Number 1-17), Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources.

               3.  Marine Research Foundation and Conservation Law Foundation of New England,
                   Coastal Zone Management in Massachusetts: Preliminary Recommendations,
                   New England Regional Commission, 1972.

               4.  Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive
                   Plan, Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, 1972.

                                                  Michigan

               1. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands,
                   1973.

               2.  University of Michigan Sea Grant Program, Traverse Bay Shorelands
                   Management and Planning Project, 1971.

             A-6

                                                    Minnesota

                  1.  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, A Guide for Buying ... Lakeshore,
                      Undated.

                  2.   -     , Shoreland Management, Supplementary Report No. 1--ClassifiCation
                      @cheme for Public Waters, 1971.

                  3.         , Shoreland managementsupplementary Report No. 2--Elements and
                      Eip-loration of the Shoreland Rules and Regulations, 1971.

                                                   Mississippi

                  1.  Mississippi Marine Resources Council, Annual Report of 1972, 1973.

                  2.           Annual Report of 1973, 1974.

                  3.           Coastal Zone ManagementPrcgre-M. 1972.

                                                  New Hampshire

                  1.  Resources Development Center, The Impacts of Oil Refineries Located
                      in Southeast New Hampshire, University of New Hampshire, 1974.

                                                     New York

                  1.  Douglas M. Carlson, Management of the Biological Resources of the Lake
                      Ontario Basin, New York State Sea Grant Program, 1973.

                  2.  Regional marine Resources Council, Guidelines for Long Island Coastal
                      Management, Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1973.

                  3.  St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission, "The St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario
                      Shreline Study: A Planning Guide", Undated.

                  4.  Water Resources Commission, Program for a Special Cooperative StHdy for
                      Comprehensive Water Resources Development of the Long Island Sound and
                      the North Shore of Long Island, New York, 1970.

                                                  North Carolina

                  1.  Division of Commercial and Sport Fisheries, A Plan for the North Carolina
                      Estuary Study, Department of Conservation and Development,1970.

                  2.  Interagency Task Force on Environmental and Land Use Planning, Criteria
                      for Identification of Areas of Particular Concern, North Carolina Land
                      Policy Council, 1973.

                  3.  North Carolina Marine Science Council, North Carolina and the Sea, 1971.

                  4.         , North Carolina'sCoastal Resources, 1972.

                                                                                             A-7

               5. Office of State Planning, A Land Policy for North Carolina, Department of
                   Administration, 1972.

               6.  Office of State Planning, Critical Environmental Areas of North Carolina,
                   Department of Adminstration, 1972.

                                                    Ohio

               1.  Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Past Activities in Ohio's Shore
                   Zone, 1974.

                                                   Oregon

               1.  Glenn Akens, Coastal Wetlands of Oregon, A natural resource inventory
                   report ot the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission,
                   Florence, 1973.

               2.  David A. Bella and Peter Klingeman, General Planning Methodology for
                   Oregon's Estuarine Natural Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
                   1973.

               3.  Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, Estuary Planning
                   Guidelines, Florence, 1973.

               4.  Oregon Division of State Lands, Oregon Estuaries, State Printing Office,
                   Salem, 1973.

               5.  Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, Estuarine
                   Sanctuaries Committee, "A Proposal for an Estuarine Sanctuarine South
                   Slough and McCaffery Slough Oregon," Florence, 1974.

                                                Puerto Rico

               1. Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico and the Sea, 1972.

                                                Rhode Island

               1.  Comprehensive Transportation and Land Use Planning Program, Report of
                   the Governoes Committee on the Coastal Zone, Rhode Island Statewide
                   Planning Program, 1970.

               2.  Malcolm J. Grant, Rhode Island's Ocean Sands: Management Guidelines for
                   Sand and Gravel Extraction in State Waters, The Coastal Resources Center,
                   University of Rhode Island, 1973.

               3.  Stephen B. Olsen and Malcolm J. Grant, Rhode Island's Barrier Beaches:
                   A Report of a Management Problem and an Evaluation of Options, The Coastal
                   Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, 1973.

               4.  Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, Program Prospectus for the
                   Coastal Resources Management Council, Statewide Planning Program, 1971.

             A-8

                                                   South Carolina

                   1. Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services, A Bibliography of
                       the Coastal Zone for South Carolina, 1973.

                   2.  James Hite and Eugene Laurent,.Enviromental Planning: An Economic
                       Analysis, Praeger,1972.

                                                       Texas

                   1.  Bureau of Economic Geology, Environmental Geologic Atlas of Texas
                       Coastal Zone, Series of 8, University of Texas at Austin, 1972.

                   2.  Division of Natural Resources and the Environment, Establishment of
                       Cperational Guidelines for Texas Coastal Zone Management, Series of
                       12 Reports, Division of Planning Coordination, office of the Governor,
                       1974 (In Print).

                   3.         , The Management of Bay and Estuarine Systems in the Texas Coastal
                       -Zo--n-e,Pha-se II, University of Texas at Austin, 1973.

                   4.  Interagency Council of Natural Resources and the Environment, Texas
                       Coastal Resources Management Program-Project Report Summaries, Division
                       of Planning Coordination, office of the Governor, 1973.

                                                      Virginia

                   1.  Division of State Planning and Community Affairs,,Critical Environmental
                       Areas (by Planning District), 1972.

                   2.  Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester County Coastal Zone,
                       1972.

                   3.           Local Management of Wetlands: Environmental Considerations,
                       1973.

                   4.  - .   , Virginia State Agencies Concerned with Coastal Zone Planning,
                       Management, or Scientific and Engineering Activities, 1973.

                                                   Virgin Islands

                   1.  Advisory Committee for "The U.S. Virgin Islands and the Sea," The U.S.
                       Virgin Islands and the Sea: A Blueprint for Action, U.S. Government
                       Printing office, 1970.

                                                    Washington

                   1.  Robert Bish, Robert Warren, and Louis Wechsler, Coastal Resources Use:
                       Decisions on Puget Sound, University of Washington Press: Seattle,
                       i974 (In print).

                   2.  R. Murray, Shorelines Management: The Washington Experience, University
                       of Washington Press: Seattle, 1973.

                                                                                             A-9

             3.  Arden Olson and David Jamison, Marine Land Management In Washington,
                 Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Surveys and marine
                 Land Management, 1973.

             4.  Wallace Spencer, Environmental Management for Puget Sound: Certain
                 Problems of Political Organization and Alternative Ap2roaches, WSG-MP 71-2,
                 University of Washington, Division of Marine Resources: Seattle, 1973.

             5.  Washington Department of Ecology, Final Guidelines Shoreline-Management
                 Act of 1971, Olympia, 1972.

             6.         , Procedures for Shoreline Inventory: Shoreline Management Act of
                 1971, Olympia, 1972.

                                               Wisconsin

             1.  Institute for Environmental Studiest The Investigation, Description, and
                 Recommendation of a Critical Resources Information Program for Wisconsin:
                 Phase I Report-Concepts of Resource Definitions, Uses, and Measurement
                 of Criteria, University of Wisconsin at Madison, 1973.

             2.  Northwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning and Development Commission,
                 Wisconsin's Lake Superior Shoreline, Undated.

             3.           , South Shore Resource Development Potential, Undated.

             4.  Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Floodland and
                 Shoreland Development Guide, 1969.

             5.  A. R. Striege, Shoreland and Flood Plain Zoning Along the Wisconsin
                 Shore of Lake Michigan, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1970.

                                           REGIONAL REFERENCES

                                             Atlantic Coast

             1.  New England River Basins Comission, A Suggested Approach to Coordinated
                 Planning and Action for Conservation and Development of the Coastal Zone,
                 New England River Basins Commission, Undated.

             2.            Long island Sound Regional Study, Interim Reports, New England
                 River Basins Commission, 1973.

             3.          , Southeast New England Regional Study, Interim Reports, New England
                 River Basins Commission, 1973.

             4.          A Possible Approach to A Comprehensive Water and Related Land
                 Resource Planning Program for the Maine-New Hampshire Coastal Basins, New
                 England River Basins Commission, 1973.

             5.  George P. Spinner, A Plan for the Marine Resources of the Atlantic
                 Coastal Zone, American Geographical Society, 1969.

             A-10

                   6.  Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, "An Interim Management Guidefor
                       the Tri-State Coastal Zone," Tri-State Regional Planning Commission,
                       In Print.

                   7.  Anonymous, North Atlantic Region Water Resources Study--Appendix U,
                       Coastal and Estuarine Areas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972.

                                                    Great Lakes

                   1.  Arrowhead Regional Development Commission and Northwest Wisconsin
                       Regional Planning and Development Commission, Lake Superior Basin Water
                       Quality Management Study, In Print.

                   2.  James A. Burkholder, Natural Resources Management in the Great Lakes
                       Basin, New York State Sea Grant Program, 1973.

                   3.  Schenker and Bunamo, The Great Lakes Container Dilemma, University of
                       Wisconsin Sea Grant Program, 1971.

                   4.  University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program, Multiple-Use Problems in the
                       Great Lakes, 1972.

                   5.             "Our Great Lakes," 1973.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          B-1

                                                            Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

                                                                                                        P.L. 92-583

                                    TITLE III-111ANAGEMENT OF THE COASTAL ZONE                                           waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and
                                                                                                                         in P-x'-i'        the shorelines 'f the si@'v@ml coastal stites, and includes
                                                                 SHORT TITLE                                             traniticV= intertidal aress, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches.
                                                                                                                         The zone extends, in Great Lakes waters, to the international bound-
                                   SEC. 301. This title may be cited as the "Coastal ZoneManagement                      ary between the United States and Canada and, in other areas, seaward
                                 Act of 1972".                                                                           to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea. The zone extends
                                                          CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS                                         inland from the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control
                                              The.Congi,ess finds that-                                                  shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on
                                   (a) There is a national interest in the effective management, bene-                   the coastal waters. Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use
                                 ficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone;                            of which is b@law subaect solely to the discretion of or which is held in
                                                                                                                                                    overnment, its officers or agents.
                                   (b) The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial. rec-                   (b) 4iConstall waters" means (1) in the Great Takes area, the waters
                                 reat,onal. industrial, and esthetic resources of immediate and potential                within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States consisting of
                                 value to the present and future well-being of the Nation;                               the Great I.Akes, their connecting waters, harbors, roadsteads, and
                                   (c) The increasing and competing &mands upon the lands and                            estuary-type areas such as bays, shallows, and marshes and (2) in
                                 waters of our coastal zone occasioned by population growth and eco-
                                 noniie deve-opment, including requirements for industry, commerce,                      other areas, those waters, adjacent to the shorelines, which contain a
                                                                                                                         measurable quantity or rreentage of sea water, including, but not
                                                                                                                                                      a,         a
                                 residential development, recreation, extraction of mineral resources                    limited to, sounds, ba 81 agoons, ayous, gOnds, and estuaries.
                                 and fossil fuels, transportation and navigation, waste disposal, and har.                  (c) "Coastal state'Tmeans a state of t e United States in, or ])or-
                                 vesting of fish, shellfish, and other living marine resources, have                     derinun, the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico,
                                 resulted in the loss of livnH, marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-r       .ich        Long sland Sound, or one or more of the Great Lakes. For the.pxkr-
                                 areas, permanent and adven; changes to ecological systems, deer-easing                           f this title, the term also includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin
                                 open Space  for public use, and shoreline erosion;
                                   (d) The      astal zone, and the fish, shellfish, other living marine                            Guam, and American Samoa.
                                              co                                                                            (d) "Estuary" means that part of a river or stream or other body
                                 resources, and wildlife therein, are ecologically fragile and conse-                    of water having unim       aired connection with the open sea, where the
                                 quently extremely vulnerable to destruction by Dian's alterations;                      sea water is messurabfy diluted        with fresh water derived from land
                                   (e) Important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values in                  drainat
                                 the coastal zone which are. essential to the well-being of all citizens are                        I The term includes estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes.
                                                                                                                            (e)     stuarine sanctuary" means a research area which may include
                                 being irretrievably damaged or lost;                                                    any part or all of an estuary, adjoining transitional areas, and adja-
                                   (f) Special natural 0 scenic characteristics are being damaged by                     cent uplands, constituting to the extent feasible a natural unit, set
                                 M-planned development that threatens these values;                                      aside to provide scientists and students the opportunity to examine
                                   (g)  In li,,ht of competing demands and the urgent neect to protect                   over a period of time the ecological relationships within the area.
                                 and to give, hiAi priority to natural systems in the coastal zone, pres-                      f) "Secretary" means the Secreta7
                                 ent state and l7ocal institutions] arrangements for planning and regu-                                                            , of Commerce.
                                                                                                                               ) "Management program" inclu es but is not limited to, a com-
                                 latin land and water uses in such areas are inadequate; and                             preflensive statement in words, maps, illustrations, or other media of
                                   (h@ The key to more effective protection and use of the land and                      communic@tion,prepa7d and adopted by the state in accordance -with
                                 water resources of the coastal zone IS to encourage the States to exercise              the provisions o this title, setting forth objectives, policies, and stand-
                                 their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by                   ards to guide public and private uses of lands and waters in the coastal
                                 assisting the states, in cooperation with Federal and local governments                 zone.
                                 and other vitally affected interests, in developix land and water use                      (h) "Water use" means activities which are conducted in or on the
                                            for the coastal zone, including uni ed policies, criteria,                   water; but does not mean or include the establishment of any water
                                             methods, and processes for dealing with land and water'                     quality standard or criteria or the regulation of the discharge or runoff
                                 use decisions of more than local significance.                                          of water pollutants except the standards, criteria, or regulations which
                                                                                                                         are incorporated in any program as required by the provisions of
                                                          DECLARATION Or POLICY                                          section 307(f).
                                                                                                                            (i) "Land use" means activities which are conducted *n or on the
                                   Svc. 303. The Congress finds and declares          that it is the national            shorelands within the coastal zone, subject to the requiiZinents out-
                                 policy (a) to preserve, protect, develop, apil where possible, to restore               lined in section 307(g).
                                 or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for            this and
                                 suc ding neratons,(b)toencourWaii assist the states to exercise                                       MANAGEMENT rROGRAX DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
                                 e     vely t eir        risibilities in the co    I zone through the devel-
                                 opm t an im lementation of management programs to achieve wise                             SEc. 305.  (a) The Secretary is authorized to make annual -rants to
                                 use of the Ian and water resources of the coastal zone giving full                      any coastal state foi- the purpose of assisting in the developinent of it
                                 consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as                 management program for the land and water resources of its coastal
                                 well as to needs for economic development, (c) for all Federal agencies                 zone.
                                 ,jagaged ir@ Krograms affecting the coastal zone to cooperate and par-                     (b) Such management program shall include:
                                 ticipate wit state and local governments and regional agencies in                               (1) an identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone sub-
                                 effectuating the purposes of this title, and (d) to encourage the par-                        ject to the management program;
                                 ticipation of the public, of Federal, state, and local governments and                          (2) a definition of what shall constitute permissible land and
                                 of regional agencies in the development of coastal zone management                            water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and signifi-
                                 programs. Wi   th respect to implementation of such managament pro-                           cant impact on the coastal waters;
                                 grams, it is the national policy to encourage cooperation among the                             (3) an inventory and designation of areas of particular con-
                                 various state -and regional agencies including establishment of inter-                        cern within the coastal zone;
                                 state and         I agreements, cooperati iveb       ed         d joint action                  (4) an identification of the means by which the state proposes
                                               -egarding environmental pO @= ures, an                                          to exert control over the land and water uses referred to in pars-
                                 particularly"1011a
                                                                                                                               graph (2) of this subsection including a listing of relevant con-
                                                                  DEFINITIONS                                                  stitutionfti provisions, legisiative enactments, regulations, and
                                   SEC. 304. For the purposes of this title-                                                   judicial decisions -
                                                                                                                               ii @5@ broad guMelines on priority of uses in particular areas,
                                   (a) "Coastal zone" means the coastal waters (including the lands                            Iclu ing specifically those uses of lowest priority;
                                 therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the                              (6) a description of the organizational structure proposed to

    implement the management program, including the responsibili-
    ties and interrelationships of local, areawide, state, regional, and
    interstate agencies in the management process.
    (c) The grants shall not exceed 66 2/8 per centum of the costs of
    the program in any one year and no state shall be eligible to receive more
    than three annual grants pursuant to this section. Federal funds
    received from other sources shall not be used to match such grants. In
    order to qualify for grants under this section, the state must reasonably
    demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such grants will
    be used to develop a management program consistent with the require-
    ments set forth in section 306 of this title. After making the initial
    grant to a costal state, no subsequent grant shall be made under this
    section unless the Secretary finds that the state is satisfactorily devel-
    oping such management program.
    	(d) Upon completion of the development of the state's management
    program, the state shall submit such program to the Secretary for
    review and approval pursuant to the provisions of section 306 of this
    title, or such other action as he deems necessary. On final approval of
    such program by the Secretary, the state's eligibility for further grants
    under this section shall terminate, and the state shall be eligible for
    grants under section 306 of this title.
    	(e) Grants under this section shall be allocated to the states based
    on rule and regulations promulgated by the Secretary: Provided,
    however, That no management program development grant under this
    sectioin shall be made in excess of 10 per centum nor less than 1 per
    centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out the purpose of
    this section.
    	(f) Grants or portions thereof not obligated by a state during the
    fiscal year for which they were first authorized to be obligated by the
    state, or during the fiscal year immediately following, shall revert to
    the Secretary, and shall be added by him to the funds available for
    grants under this section.
    	(g) With the approval of the Secretary, the state may allocate to a
    local government, to an areawide agency designated under section 204
    of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of
    1966, to a regional agency, or to an interstate agency, a portion of the
    grant under this section, for the purpose of carrying out the provi-
    sions of this section.
    	(h) The authority to make grants under this section shall expire on
    June 30, 1977.

    			ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS

    	Sec. 306. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make annual grants to
    any coastal state for not more than 66 2/3 per centum of the costs of
    administering the state's management program, if he approves such
    program in accordance with subsection (c) hereof. Federal funds
    received from other sources shall not be used to pay the state's share
    of costs.
    	(b) Such grants shall be allocated to the states with approved pro-
    grams based on rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary
    which shall take into account the extent and nature of the shoreline
    and area covered by the plan, population of the area, and other rele-
    vant factors: Provided, however, That no annual administrative grant
    under this section shall be made in excess of 10 per centum nor less than
    1 per centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out the pur-
    poses of this section.
    	(c) Prior to granting approval of a management program submitted
    by a costal state, the Secretary shall find that:
    	(1) The state has developed and adopted a management program for
    its coastal zone in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated
    by the Secretary, after notice, and with the opportunity of full partici-
    pation by relevant Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments,
    regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties,
    public and private, which is adequate to carry out the purposes of this
    title and is consistent with the policy declared in section 303 of this
    title.
    	(2) The state has:
    	(A) coordinated its program with local, areawide, and inter-
    	state plans applicable to areas within the coastal zone existing on
    	January 1 of the year in which the state's management program
    	is submitted to the Secretary, which plans have been developed
    	by a local government, an areawide agency designated pursuant to
    	regulations established under section 204 of the Demonstration
    	Cities, and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, a regional
    	agency, or an interstate agency; and
    	(B) established an effective mechanism for continuing con-
    	sulatation and coordination between the management agency desig-
    	nated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection and with local
    	governments, interstate agencies, regional agencies, and areawide
    	agencies within the coastal zone to assure the full participation
    	of such local governments and agencies in carrying out the pur-
    	poses of this title.
    	(3) The state has held public hearings in the development of the
    	management program.
    	(4) The management program and any changes thereto have been
    	reviewed and approved by the Governor.
    	(5) The Governor of the state has designated a single agency to
    	receive and administer the grants for implementing the management
    	program required under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
    	(6) The state is organized to implement the management program
    	required under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
    	(7) The state has the authorities necessary to implement the pro-
    	gram, including the authority required under subsection (d) of this
    	section.
    	(8) The management program provides for adequate consideration
    	of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities necessary
    	to meet requirements which are other than local in nature.
    	(9) The management program makes provision for procedures
    	whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserv-
    	ing or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological,
    	or esthetic values.
    	(d) Prior to granting approval to the management program, the
    	Secretary shall find that the state, acting through its chosen agency or
    	agencies, including local governments, areawide agencies designated
    	under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
    	Development Act of 1966, regional agencies, or interstate agencies, has
    	authority for the management of the coastal zone in accordance with
    	the management program. Such authority shall include power--
    	(1) to administer land and water use regulations, control devel-
    	opment in order to ensure compliance with the management pro-
    	gram, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses; and
    	(2) to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in
    	lands, waters, and other property through condemnation or other
    	means when necessary to achieve conformance with the manage-
    	ment program.
    	(e) Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall also find that
    	the program provides:
    	(1) for any one combination of the following general tech-
    	niques for control and land and water uses within the coastal zone;
    	(A) State establishment of criteria and standards for local
    	implementation subject to administrative review and enforce-
    	ment of compliance;
    	(B) Direct state land and water use planning and regula-
    	tion; or
    	(C) State administrative review for consistency with the
    	management program of all development plans, projects, or
    	land and water use regulations, including exceptions and
    	variances thereto, proposed by any state or local authority or
    	private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after
    	public notice and opportunity for hearings.
    	(2) for a method of assuring that local land and water use
    	regulations within the costal zone do not unreasonably restrict
    	or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit.
    	(f) With the approval of the Secretary, a state may allocate to a
    	local government, an areawide agency designated under section 204
    	of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of
    	1966, a regional agency, or an interstate agency, a portion of the grant
    	under this section for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
    	section: Provided, That such allocation shall not relieve the state of
    	the responsibility fo ensuring that any funds so allocated are applied
    	in furtherance of such state's approved management program.
    	(g) The state shall be authorized to amend the management pro-
    	gram. The modification shall be in accordance with the procedures
    	required under subsectioin (c) of this section. Any amendment or
    	modification of the program must be approved by the Secretary before
    	additional administrative grants are made to the state under the pro-
    	gram as amended.
    	(h) At the discretion of the state and with the approval of the
    	Secretary, a management program may be developed and adopted in
    	segments so that immediate attention may be devoted to those areas
    	within the coastal zone which most urgently need management pro-
    	grams: Provided, That the state adequately provides for the ulmtimate
    	coordination of the various segments of the management program into
    	a single unified program and that the unified program will be com-
    	pleted as soon as is reasonably practicable.

    	                  	INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

    	Sec. 307. (a) In carrying out his functions and responsibilities
    under this title, the Secretary shall consult with cooperate with, and,
    to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate his activities with
    other interested Federal agencies.
    	(b) The Secretary shall not approve the management program sub-
    mitted by a state pursuant to section 306 unless the views of Federal
    agencies principally affected by such program have been adequately
    considered. In case of serious disagreement between any Federal
    agency and the state in the development of the program the Secre-
    tary, in cooperation with the Executive Office of the President, shall
    seek to mediate the differences.
    	(c)(1)Each Federal agency conducting or supporting activities
    directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those
    activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable,
    consistent with approved state management programs.
    	(2) Any Federal agency which shall undertake any development
    project in the coastal zone of a state shall insure that the project is,
    to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state
    management programs.
    	(3) After final approval by the Secretary of a state's management
    program, any applicant for a required Federal license or permit to
    conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the costal zone of
    that state shall provide in the applicatioin to the licensing or permit-
    ting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with
    the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted
    in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the appli-
    cant shall furnish to the state or its designated agency a copy of
    the certification, with all necessary information and data. Each coastal
    state shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all such
    certifications and, to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for
    public hearings in connection therewith. At the earliest practicable
    time, the state or its designated agency shall notify the Federal agency
    concerned that the state concurs with or objects to the applicant's
    certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to furnish the
    required notification within six months after receipt of its copy of the
    applicant's certification, the state's concurrence with the certification
    shall be conclusively presumed. No license or permit shall be granted
    by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has con-
    curred with the applicant's certification or until, by the state's failure
    to act, the concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secretary,

                                                                                                                                                                                                  B-3

                                       on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after pro-       (b) Members of the committee who are not regular full-time
                                       viding a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Fed-            employees of the United States, while serving on the business of the
                                       'a  involved and. from the state, that the activitT is consistent              eommittee, including traveltime, may receive compensation at rates
                                       'raltgen%                                                           St
                                       with he . jectives of this title or is otherwise necessary in the intere       not. exceeding $I(H) per diem; and while so serving away from their
                                       of national aecurit
                                       (d) State and &al governments submitting applications for Fed-                 lionies or regular places of business may be allowed travel expenses,
                                       eral assistance under other Federal programs affecting the coastal zone        including per them in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by Section
                                       shall indicate the views of the appropriate state or local agency as to        5703 of title 5, United States Code, for individuals in the Govern-
                                       the relationship of such activities to the approved managmme t         -       ment service employed intermittently.
                                                                                                  itt% pro
                                       gram for the coastal zone. Such applications shall be su          and
                                       coordinated in accordance with the provisions of title IV of the Inter-                              ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES
                                       rvezriental Coordination Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098). Federal agen-            SEC. 312. The Secretary, in accordance with rules and regulations
                                       .es , not approve proposed projects that ire inconsistent with a
                                       coastal state'8                                                                promulgated by him, is authorized to make available to a coastal state
                                               management program, except upon a finding by the                         ts of up to 50 per centurn of the costs of acquisition, development@
                                       Secretary that such project is consistent with the purposes of this title      gran
                                       or necessary in the interest of national secu it                               and operation of estuarine sanctuaries for the purpose of creating
                                       (e) Nothing in this title shall be const n                                     natural field laboratories to gather data and make studies of the
                                                                            ruel-.
                                       (1) to diminish either Federal or state jurisdiction, responsi-                natural and human processes Occurring within the estuaries of the
                                       bility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control            coastal zone. The Federal share of the cost for each such sanctuary
                                                                       I                                              shall not exceed $2,000,000. No Federal funds received pursuant to
                                       of water resources, submerged ands, or navigable waters; nor to                section 305 or section 306 shall be used for the purpose of this section.
                                       displace, supersede, limit, or modify any interstate compact or the
                                       jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established joint or                                        ANNUAL REPORT
                                       common agency of two or more states or of two or more states and
                                       the Federal Government; nor   -to limit the authority of Congress              SEC. 313. (a) The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Presi-
                                       to authorize and fund projects                                                 dent for transmittal to the Congress not ater than November I of each
                                       (2) as superseding; modifying, or repealing existing laws appli-               year a report on the administration of this title for the preceding fiscal
                                       cable to the various Fed  I    ncies; nor to affect the jurisdiction,          year. The report shall include but not be restricted to (1) an identifi-
                                            or prerogatives of tC International Joint Commission,                     cation of the state programs approved pursuant to this title during
                                       Min) States and Canada, the Permanent Engineering Board,                       the preceding Federal fiscal year a.nd a description of those programs;
                                       and the United States operating entity or entities established pur-            (2) a listing of the states participating in the provisions or this title
                                       suant to the Columbia River Basin Treaty, signed at Washington,                an a description of the status of each state's programs and its accom-
                                       J@n@ary 17,1961, or the International Boundary and Water Com-                  plishments during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (3) an itemiza-
                                       mission, United States and Mexico.                        .     .              tion of the allocation of funds to the various coastal states and a
                                       (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, noth     in his         breakdown of the major projects and areas on which these funds were
                                                                                                "In
                                       title shall in n way affect any requirement (1) establishlby the               expended; (4) an identification of any state programs which have been
                                       Federal Water ollution Control Act, as amended, or the Clean Air               reviewed and disapproved or with respect to which grants have been
                                       Act, as amended, or (2) established by the Federal Government or by            terminated under this title, and a statement of the reasons for such
                                       any state or local government pursuant to such Acts. Such require-             action; (5) a listin,%of all activities and projects which, pursuant to
                                       ments shall be incorporated in any program developed pursuant to               the provisions of su section (c) or subsection (d) of section 307, are
                                       this title and shall be the water pollution control and air pollution          not consistent with an ap
                                                                                                                                                 _plicable approved state manadement pro-
                                       control requirements applicable to such program.                               gram: (6) a summary of the regulations issued by the Secretary or in
                                       (g) When any state's coastal zone management program, submitted                effect during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (7) a summary of a
                                       for ap royal or proposed for modification pursuant to section 306 of           coordinated national strategy and program for the Nation's coastal
                                       this ti Ne, includes requirements as to shorelands which also would be         zone including identification and discussion of@Federal, regional, state
                                       subject to any Federally supported national land use program which             and local responsibilities and functions therein; (8) a summary ol
                                       may be hereafter enacted, the Secretary, prior to approving such pro-          outstanding problems arising in the administration of this title in
                                       gram, shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, or        order of priority; and (9) such other information as may be appro-
                                       such other Federal official as may be designated to administer the             prIate.
                                       national land use program, with respect to that portion of the coastal         (b) The  report required by subsection (a) shall contain such recom-
                                       zone management program affecting such inland areas.                           mendations for additional legislation as the Secretary deems necessary
                                                                                                                      to achieve the objectives of this title and enhance its effective operation.
                                                             PUBLIC HF-ARINGS
                                       SEC. 308. All public hearings required under this title must be                                       RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                       announced at least thir days prior to the hearing date. At the time            SEC. 314. The Secretary shall devel           and         I @ate, pursuant
                                       of the announcement, aw agency materials pertinent to the hearings,            to section 553 of title 5, Vnited States OU, a4ermutpice an, oppor-
                                       including documents, studies, and other data, must be made available           timity for full participation by relevant Federal agencies, state
                                       to the public for review and study. As similar materials are subse-            agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities,
                                       quently develored, they shall be made available to the public as they          and other interested parties, both public and private, such rules and
                                       hecome availab e to the agency.                                                regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
                                                                                                                      title.
                                                         REVIEW OF PERFOICUANCE
                                       Sc. '09. (a) The Secretaruliall conduct a continuing review of                                  AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
                                       the management programs oft  coastal states and of the performance             SEC. 315. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated-
                                       of each state.                                                                      (1) the sum of $9,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 80,
                                       (b) The Secretary shall have the authority to terminate any financial            19 3, and for each of the fiscal years 1974 through 1977 for grants
                                       assistance extended under section 306 and to withdraw any unexpended             under section 306, to remain available until expended;
                                       portion of such assistance if (1) lie determines that the siate is failing          (2) such sums, not to exceed $30,000,000, for the fiscal year
                                       to adhere to and is not justified in deviating from the program                  ending June 30,1974, and for each of the fiscal years 1975 through
                                       ngroved by the Secretary; and (2) the state has been given notice                1977, as may be necessary, for grants under section 306 to remain
                                       othe prop d termination and withdrawal and given an o portunity                  available until expended; and
                                       to present oesevidence of adherence or justification for Nering its              . (3) such sums, not to exceed $6,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
                                       program.                                                                         Him June 30. 1974, as may be necessary, for grants under section
                                                                  RECORDS                                               312 to remain available until expended
                                                                                                                      (b) Here are also authorized to be agpiopriated such sums, not to
                                       Sm. 310. (a) Each recipient of a grant under this title shall keep             exceed $3,000,000, for fiscal year 1973 an for each of the four succeed-
                                       such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records which         ing fiscal years as may be necessary for administrative expenses
                                       fully disclose the amount and disposition of the funds received under          incident to the aaOnistration of this title.
                                       the grant, the total cost of the project or undertaking supplied by            Approved October 27. 197Z.
                                       other sources, and such other reer.11. its will facilitate an effective
                                       audit.
                                       (b) The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United
                                       State. , or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have
                                       access for the      f audit and examination to any books, docu-
                                       merits, papers, lalffr'ec@rods of the recipient of the grant that are perti-
                                       lient to the determination that fluids granted are used in accordance
                                       with this title.
                                                           ADVIRORY COHXITTFE                                         LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
                                       SEC. 311. (a) The Secretary is authorized and directed to establish
                                       0. Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee to advise, consult               HOUSE REPORTSt No. 92-1049 sooomparVing H.R. 14146 (Co=. on Meroharit
                                                                                                                                     Marine and Fisheries) and No, 92-1544 (Co=. of
                                       with, and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters of policy                          Conferenoe)
                                       concerning the coastal zone. Such committee shall be composed of not           SENATE REPORT  No. 92-753 iComo on Cotaineree),
                                       more than fifteen persons designated by the Secretary and shall per-           CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 118 (1972)t
                                       form Such functions and operate in such a manner as the Secretary                   Apr. 25, oonoidered and passed Senate.
                                       may direct. The Secretary shall insure. that the committee member-                  Aug. 21   oonsidered and passed House, wnended, in lieu of H.R. 14146.
                                       ship as a group ossesses a broad range of experience and knowledge                  Get. 12,  House and Senate agreed to oonference report.
                                       rela@llig to grfiems involving management, use, conservation, pro-             WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 8, No. 448
                                       tection. and elopment of coastal zone resources.                                    Dot. 28, Presidential statesent,

             B-4
                                                          Reprinted from FEDERAL REGISTER

                                                          TIMIRSIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1973
                                                          WASHINGTOK D.C.

                                                                                        xaso
                                                          Volume 38 0 Number 229
                                                                                               4!

                                                          PART V

                                                                                         1934

                                                            DEPARTMENT OF
                                                                  COMMERCE

                                                               National Oceanic and
                                                            Atmospheric Administration

                                                                              0

                                                                 COASTAL ZONE
                                                                  MANAGEMENT
                                                                      PROGRAM
                                                          DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

                                                              NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING

                                                                Adopted Under Section 305
                  33044                                                  RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                                B-5

                    Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade            in the coastal zone of particular          con-      3. Several suggestions were made that
                  CHAPTER IX-NATIONAL OCEANIC AN13                 Gem to the State: (4) identification or           the seven representative factors listed
                    ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DE-                establishment of the means by which               under � 920.13 be expanded to include
                    PARTMENT OF COMMERCE                           the State. together with other levels of          renewable resource lands. The commen-
                                                                   government, shall exert control over the          tators expressed concern that this im-
                  PART 920--COASTAL ZONE               MANAGE-     land and water uses in Its coastal zone;          portant area in the coastal ecosystem was
                  MENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS                  (5) designation of priority uses within           not specifically identified. As a result of
                    The National Oceanic and Atmos-                specific geographic areas throughout the          the concern expressed by the commenta-
                  pheric Administration (NOAA) on June             coastal zone; and (6) description of the          tors, renewable resource lands are in-
                  13, 1973, proposed guidelines (originally        organizational structure and intergov-            cluded in the list of representative f actors
                  published as 15 CPR Part 960), pursuant          ernmental arrangements sufficient to              which will assist in the designation of
                  to section 305 of the Coastal Zone Man-          develop and maintain an effective and             certain areas as being areas of particular
                  agement Act of 1972 (Pub. L. No. 92-583,         coordinated management process.                   concern.
                  86 Stat. 1280), hereinafter referred to as          The National Oceanic and Atmos-                   4. The requirement that a "more coin-
                  the "Act," for the purpose of defining           pheric Administration is publishing               prehensive management program design"
                  the procedures by which States can               herewith the final regulations describ-           be submitted within 120 days after ap-
                  qualify to receive development grants un-        ing procedures for applications to re-            proval of the grant application has been
                  der section 305 of the Act and policies          ceive development grants under section            amended under � 920.45(d). The final
                  for development of their management              305 of the Act. The final regulations and         guidelines require that the management
                  program,                                         criteria published herewith were revised          program design be submitted at the same
                    Written comments were to be submit-            from the proposed guidelines based on             time as the application for the initial
                  ted to the office of Coastal Environ-            the comments received. A total of sixty-          grant. The reason for the above change is
                  ment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric           three (63) States, agencies, organiza-            that the 120-day delay is not necessary
                  Administration before August 13, 1973,           tions and Individuals submitted respons-          and would serve as a potential source of
                  and consideratton has been given these           es to the proposed section 305 Guide-             confusion to the applicants.
                  comments.                                        lines published in the FEDERAL REGISTER              5. Several comments received pertain-
                    The Act recognizes that the coastal            on June 13, 1973. Of those responses re-          ing to � 920.14 recommended that NOAA
                  zone is rich in a variety of natural, com-       ceived, twelve (12) were wholly favor-            emphasize the point that institutional
                  mercial, recreational, industrial, and           able as to the nature and content of              questions should be raised early in the
                  esthetic resources of immediate and po-          the Guidelines as they appear in the              overall process. Commentators expressed
                  tential value to the present and future          FEDERAL REGISTER on June 13, 1973.                concern that waiting until all the "tech-
                  well-being of the Nation. Present State          Forty-one (41) commentators submit-               nical work" is completed and the "Plan"
                  and institutional arrangements for plan-         ted suggestions concerning the proposed           developed to consider the institutional
                  ning and regulating land and water uses          section 305 Guidelines.                           vehicles for implementation would be a
                  in the coastal zone are often inadequate            The following analysis summarizes key          mistake that could forseeably delay the
                  to deal with the competing demands               comments received on various sections of          implementation of the plan. As a result
                  and the urgent need to protect natural           the interim regulations and presents a            of the comments received, language has
                  systems in the ecologicgAly fragile area.        rationale for the changes made:                   been inserted to encourage the States to
                  Section 305 of the Act authorizes an-               1. Several commentators asserted that          determine at an early stage whether or
                  nual grants to any coastal State for             there was a need for further elaboration          not legislation is needed.
                  the purpose of assisting the State in            on the definitions contained under
                                                                                                                        6. There appeared to be general mis-
                  the development of a management pro-             � 920.2. No changes were made in re-              understanding of the Public I-learing re-
                  gram for the land and water resources            sPonse to these comments since the pres-          quirements cited under � 920.31. In order
                  of its coastal zone (development grant).         ent definitions allow the States to adjust        to clarify this section it has been rewrit-
                  Once a coastal State has developed 9,            their programs as local conditions                ten. The present section emphasizes that
                  management program it is submitted to            require.                                          "the key to compliance with the provi-
                  the Secretary of Commerce for appro-                2. Sixteen comments were received on           sions of the Act is the assurance that the
                  val and, if approved, the State is then          the necessity of submitting an Environ-           public has had an adequate opportunity
                  eligible, under section 306, to receive          mental Impact Statement as required by            to participate in the development of the
                  annual grants for administering its man-         � 920.10(c). The National Environmental           plan."
                  agement       program         (administrative    Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332, and imple-               7. Several comments received indi-
                  grants).                                         menting regulations, 38 PR 20562, Au-             cated a lack of understanding by several
                    The guidelines contained in this part          gust 1, 1973, require an Environmental            commentators as to the exact meaning
                  are for grants under section 305 to de-          Impact Statement be prepared and cir-             of "segmentation" under � 920.44. To
                  velop a management program that will             culated on:                                       eliminate any misinterpretation, the
                  meet the requirements of section 306.               (1) The environmental impact of the            term "geographic" has been inserted
                  Section 305 provides guidance as to              proposed action,                                  before the terms "segment and segmen-
                  what must be included in a management               (ii) Any adverse environmental ef-             tation" as they appear in �920.44.
                  program while section 306 sets forth re-         fects which cairmot be avoided should                8. One commentator expressed con-
                  quirements that must be met before the           the proposal be implemented,                      cern over � 920.45(f) which required
                  Secretary can approve a State's man-                (III) Alternatives to the proposed             that where "a State chooses to reject
                  agement program for administrative               action,                                           (completed and approved regional and
                  grants. Participating States, therefore,            Qv)  The relationship between local,           local) plans, it should be prepaxed to
                  must insure that the management pro-             short-term uses of man's environment              justify its actions as part of the manage-
                  gram they develop under section 305              and the maintenance of enhancement of             ment program." The above language has
                  will meet the requirements of section            long-term productivity, and                       been amended to require a State "to
                  306. These guidelines incorpomte some of            (v) Any irreversible and irretrievable         advise the local government wherein"
                  the requirements of section 306. Guide-          commitments of resources which would              "its plan is deficient," rather than to
                  lines for section 306 are being developed        be involved in the Proposed action should         "justify" its actions. The commentator
                  and will be published when available.            it be implemented.                                argued that it would be irmppropriate to
                    In general terms, section 305 requires         (42 U.S.C. 4332 [C])                              establish a burden of proof for the States
                  a management program to include (1)                                                                when it disagrees with actions of a
                  the boundaxies of the State's coastal               It is anticipated that such Environ-           regional or local body created by the
                  zone; (2) a process pursuant to which            ment.al Impact Statements will be pre-            State.
                  permissible land and water uses which            pared by the Secretary, primarily on the             9. Several suggestions were made that
                  have a direct and significant impact on          basis of an environmental impact assess-          the 15-day limit under � 920.47 be ex-
                  coastal waters are defined; (3) criteria         ment and other relevant data, prepared            panded. On the basis of the comments
                  for and designation of geographic areas          and submitted by the individual States.           submitted, the time limit was expanded

                                                     FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 229-THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1973

                                                                       Adopted Under Section 305
                         B-6                                                    RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                                 33045
                         to "30 working days." one commentator               � 920.2 Definition&                             � 920.3 Applicability of air and water
                         believed, that this would afford the Sec-           As used In this part, the following                  pollution control requirements.
                         retary greater time and opportunity                 terms shall have the meanings indicated
                         to thoilghtfully respond to State re-                                                                 Notwithstanding any other provisions
                         quests pursuant to this section.                    below:                                          of this part, nothing in this. part shall in
                                                                             (a) The term "Act" means the Coastal            any way affect any requirement (a) es-
                         Accordingly, having considered the                  Zone Management Act of 1972, Pub. I@            tablished by the Federal Water Pollution
                         comments received and other relevant                92-583, 86 Stat. 1280.                          Control Act, as amended, or the Clean
                         information, the Secretary concludes by             (b) -coastal zone" means the coastal            Air Act, as amended, or (b) established
                         adopting the final regulations describing           waters (including the lands therein and         by the Federal Government or by any
                         the procedure for application to receive            thereunder) and the adjacent shore-             State or local goverrunent Pursuant to
                         development grants under section 305 of             lands (including the waters therein and         such Acts. Such requirements shall be
                         the Act, as modified and set forth below.           thereunder), strongly influenced by each        incorporated in any program developed
                         Effective date. November 29, 1973.                  other and in proximity to the shorelines        pursuant to these guidelines and shall
                         Dated: November 26,1973.                            of the several coastal States, and includes     be the water pollution control and air
                                                                                                            areas, salt
                                                                             transitional and intertidal                     pollution control requirements applica-
                                            ROBERT M. WHITE,                 marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone        ble to such program.
                                                  Administrator.             extends, in Great Lakes waters, to the
                         See.                                                international boundary between the                 Subpart B--Content of Management
                                     Subpart A-General                       United States and Canada and, in other                            Programs
                         920.1 Policy and objectives.                        areas, seaward to the outer limit of the        � 920.10 General.
                         920.2 Deftnitions.                                  U.S. territorial sea, The zone extends in-        (a) The guidelines for section 305 of
                         020.3 Applicability of air and water pol-           land from the shorelines only to the ex-
                                 lution control requirements.                tent necessary to control shorelands, the       the Act have been structured to parallel
                         Subpart B-Content of Management Programs            uses of which have a direct and signifi-        the language and sequence cf require-
                         920.10 General.                                     cant impact on the coastal waters. Ex-          ments in the Act. This approach has been
                         920.11 Boundaries of the coastal zone,              cluded from the coastal zone are lands          followed to facilitate references to the
                         920.12 Permissible land and water uses.             the use of which is by law subject solely       Act, It is not required that this sequence
                         920.13 Geographic areas of particular               to the discretion or which is held in           be rigorously followed in developing the
                                 concern.                                    trust by the Federal Government, its of -       management program and in carrying
                         920.14 Means of exerting State control over                                                         out the specific tasks contained therein.
                                 land and water uses.                        fIcers or agents.
                         920.15 Designation of  priority uses within         (c) "Coastal waters" means (1) those            it is anticipated and acceptable that the
                                 specilic geographic areas through-          waters, adjacent to the shorelines, which       approach taken for development of pro-
                                 out the coastal zone.                       contain a measurable quantity or Per-           grains Will vary. These guidelines should.
                         920.16 Organizational structure to imple-           centage of seawater, including but not          not be interpreted as limiting State aP-
                                 ment the mana ement program.                limited to, sounds, bays, lagoons, bayous,      proaches or the contents of their man-
                         Subpart C-Research and Technical Support            ponds, and estuaries; and (2) in the            agement development grant applications.
                                                                                                                               (b) Section 305 (b) required the inclu-
                         920.20 General.                                     Great Lakes am, the waters within the
                         920.21 Approaches to research activities.           territorial jurisdiction of the United          sion of six elements in the initial devel-
                                                                             States consisting of the Great Lakes,           opment of State coastal zone manage-
                               Subpart D-Public Participation                their connecting waters, harbors, road-         ment     programs.       These       minimum
                         920.30 General.                                     steads, and estuary-type areas such as          requirements are set forth below with
                         920.31 Public hearings.                             bays, shallows, and marshes.                    accompanying commentary that Is de-
                         920.32 Additional    means      of    public        (d) "Coastal State" means a State of            signed to guide State responses to these
                                 participation.                              the United States in, or bordering on,          key provisions of the management
                         Subpart E-Applications for Development Grants       the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the     program development grant effort.
                         920.40 General.                                     Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Bound, or             (c) it is anticipated that an environ-
                         920.41 Administration of the program.               one or more of the Great Lakes. For the         mental impact statement will be pre-
                         920.42 State responsibility.                        purposes of these guidelines, the term          pared and circulated on. a State's man-
                         920.43 Allocation.                                  also includes Puerto Ricq, the Virgin Is-       agement program prior to its approval
                         920.44 Segmentation.
                         920.45 Application for initial grant.               lands, Guam, and American Samoa.                by the Secretary of Commerce, in ac-
                         920.46 Approval of applications.                    (e) "Estuary" means that part of a              cordance with the ternis of the National
                         920.47 Amendments.                                  river or stream or other body of water          Environmental Policy Act and its asso-
                         920.48 Application for second year grants.          having unimpaired connection with the           ciated administrative regulations. The
                         920.49 Application for third year grants.           open sea, where the seawater is meas-           Secretary will Prepare and circulate an
                         AvTnoRrry: See. 305, Coastal Zone Manage-           urably diluted with freshwater derived          environmental Impact statement on the
                         ment Act of 1972 (Pub. L. No. 92-583; 86            from land drainage. The term includes           basis of an environmental impact assess-
                         Stat.1280).                                         estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes.          ment and other relevant data, prepared
                                  Subpart A---General                        (f) "Secretary" means the Secretary             and submitted by the individual States.
                         � 920.1 Policy and objectives.                      of Commerce or his designee.                    � 920.11 Boundaries of the coastal zone.
                                                                             (g) "Management.program" includes,               Section 305 (b) (1) requires the man-
                         (a) This part establishes guidelines                but is not limited to, a comprehensive          agement program to include "an identifi-
                         on the procedures to be utilized by                 statement in words, maps, illustrations,        cation of the boundaries of the coastal
                         coastal States to obtain development                or other permanent media of oommuni-            zone subject to the management pro-
                         grants under section 305 of the Coastal             cation, prepared and adopted by the             gram." The definition of the coastal zone
                         Zone Management Act of 1972, Pub. L.                State In accordance with the provisions         in the Act recognizes that no single geo-
                         92-583, 86 Stat. 1280, and sets forth poll-         of these guidelines, setting forth objec-       graphic definition will satisfy the man-
                         cies- for the development of coastal zone           tives. policies, and standards to guide and     agement needs of all coastal States,
                         management programs.                                regulate public and private uses of lands       because designation of the coastal zone
                         (b) Coastal zone management pro-                    and waters in the coastal zone.                 for management purposes must take into
                         grams developed by the States shall com-            (h) "Water use" means activities                account the diverse natural, institutional,
                         ply with the policy of the Act; that is,            which are conducted in or on the water          and legal characteristics that are subject
                         the program must give full considera-               within the coastal zone.                        to decisions made in fulfillment of other
                         tion to ecological, cultural, historic, and         (I) "Land use" means activities which           requirements of the Act and this subpart.
                         esthetic values, as well as to needs for            are conducted in or on the shGrelands           Determination by a State of the extent
                         economic development.                               within the coastal zone.                        of the coastal zone of that State land-

                                                         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 229-THURSDAY, NOVIMSER 29, 1973

                                                              Adopted Under Section 305
                 33046                                                RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                          B-7

                 ward from the shoreline presents a very          the views of Federal agencies principally    "an inventory and designation of areas
                 important conceptual and operational             affected by the management program.          of particular concern." The inventory
                 issue for State study, analysis, and de-         States having excluded Federal lands in      and analysis of the States' total costal
                 cision. The following factors should be          coastal zone must indicate the manner        zone in � 920.12 should provide the basic
                 considered:                                      in which they will coordinate with Fed-      data analysis, and criteria necessary to
                    (a) In order to develop an orderly and        eral officials administering such lands in   identify specific geographic areas of
                 effective management program. States             the development of their management          particular concern. It should be noted
                 my wish initially to delineate a planning        program.                                     that geographic areas of particular con-
                 area which generally is larger than, and         � 920.12 Permissible land and water          cern are likely to encompass not only
                 encompasses the area ultimately identi-             uses which have a direct and signifi-     the more-often cited areas of significant
                 fied as the coastal zone. Such a two-step           cant impact on coastal waters.            natural value or importance, but also:
                 procedure would enable a State to under-                                                      (a) Transitional or intensely developed
                 take planning studies and Policy devel-           Section 305(b) (2) of the Act requires      areas where reclamation, restoration,
                                                                  that the management program include          public access and other actions are espe-
                 opment for a relatively broad region             ,
                 aimed at a later final determination of          a definition of what shall constitute        cially needed; and (b) those areas espe-
                 the smaller coastal zone where specific          permissible land and water uses within       cially suited for intensive use or develop-
                 land and water use controls, regulations,        the coastal zone which have a direct         ment. In addition, immediacy of need
                 and active management activities will be         and significant impact on coastal            should be a major consideration in de-
                 applied. Demographic, economic, devel-           water." In determining permissible uses,     termining particular concern. While the
                 opmental, and biophysical factors and            States should give consideration to "re-     States will vary in their perceptions of
                                                                  quirements for industry, commerce,           what areas are of particular concern,
                 their analysis, which will largely deter-        residential development, recreation, ex-
                 mine State management activities in              traction of mineral resources and            criteria derived from assessing the fol-
                 coastal waters and the landward and                                                    fossil lowing representative factors will assist
                 seawaxd areas and uses affecting them,           fuels, transportation and navigation,        in these designations:
                                                                  waste disposal, and harvesting of fish,         (1) Areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or
                 are likely to be based upon data, Pro-           shellfish, and other living marine re        vulnerable natural habitat, physical fea-
                 grams, and institutional boundaries              sources." As stated in the declaration of    ture, historical significance, cultural
                 (such as counties or areawide agencies)          congressional policy, these uses are to      value and scenic importance;
                 that encompass geographic areas larger           be managed "giving full consideration           (2)' Areas of high natural productivity
                 than the coastal zone designation. Spe-          to ecological, cultural, historic, and es-   or essential habitat for living resources,
                 cific coastal zone programming and regu-         thetic values as well as to needs for eco-              fish, wildlife, and the various
                 lation must take into account current
                                                     adminis-     nomic development." Developing indices       trophic levels in the food web critical to
                 developmental, political, and                    for determining environmental and eco-       their well-being;
                 trative realiti6, as well as biophysical         nomic impact-beneficial, benign, toler-         (3) Areas of substantial recreational
                 processes, that may be external to the
                                                     ted for      able, adverse-is the first essential ana-    value and/or opportunity;
                 restricted zone eventually selec                 lytical and policy step needed to give          (4) Areas where developments and fa-
                 direct management control.                       substance and clarity to those uses which    cilities axe dependent upon the utiliza-
                    (b) The coastal zone for management           are "permissible." Some of the factors       tion of, or access to, coastal waters;
                 purposes extends inland only "to the             involved in this determination include          (5) Areas of unique geologic Or t0P0-
                 extent necessary to control shorelands,          location, magnitude, the nature of im-       graphic significance to industrial or com-
                 the uses of which have a direct and sig-         pact upon existing natural or man-made       mercial development;
                 nificant impact on the coastal waters."          environments, economic, commercial,             (6) Areas of urban concentration
                 However, the States are encouraged to            and other "triggering" impacts, and          where shoreline utilization and water
                 take early and continuing account of             land and water uses of regional benefit.     uses are highly competitive;
                 existing Federal and State land/water            In responding to this requirement, there-       (7) Areas of significant hazard if de-
                 use and resource planning programs. In           fore the following general types of          veioped, due to storms, slides, floods, ero-
                 addition, States may wish to anticipate          stu@y and evaluation should be under-        sion, settlement, etc.; and
                 a national land-use policy, including its        taken utilizing existing data and avail-        (8) Areas needed to protect, maintain
                 application in their State, unless the           able analysis where possible:                or replenish coastal lands or resources,
                 State coastal zone management Program             (a) Determining criteria and meas-          such areas including coastal flood plains,
                 applies to the entire State. States may          ures to assess the impact of existing,       aquifer recharge axeas, sand dunes, coral
                 also wish to anticipate the desired co-          projected, or proposed uses or classes of    and other reefs, beaches, offshore sand
                 ordination between the coastal zone arid         uses on the identified coastal environ-      deposits, and mangrove stands.
                 proposed land use or broad resource              ments;
                 management programs. Examples of                  (b) Categorizing the nature, location,      This inventory and designation of geo-
                 some related statewide policies and pro-         sco e, and conflicts of current and an-      graphic areas of particular concern win
                 grams which will affect and should be            . P                           ater use or    be of assistance in meeting the require-
                                                                  ticipated coastal land and w
                 considered in making determinations              classes of uses;                             ment in section 306 (c) (9) of the Act
                 under the Act include: Energy policy,             (c) A continuing compilation, verifi-       which requires that the management
                 siting of power plants and other major           cation, and assessment of the general        Program "make provision for procedurep
                 water-dependent facilities, surface and          characteristics, values, and interrela-      whereby specific areas may be designated
                 subsurface mineral extraction controls,          tionships within coastal land and water      for the purpose of preserving or restoring
                 overall land and water conservation              environments.                                them for their conservation, recreational,
                 policies, and many others.                       in establishing permissible usm States       ecological, or esthetic values."
                    (c) Lands the use of which are by             must also be cognizant of the require-       � 920.14 Means of exerting State con-
                 law subject solely to the discretion of, or      ment in section 306(c) (8) of the Act             trol over land and water uses.
                 which are held in trust by the Federal           that the management program must                Section 305(b) (4) of the Act requires
                 Government, Its officers or agents are           provide "for adequate consideration of       that the management program include
                 excluded from the coastal zone. How-             the national Interest involved in the sit-   "an identification of the means by which
                 ever, section 307(c) of the Act requires         Ing of facilities necessary to meet re-      the State proposes to exert control over
                 Federal agencies conducting or support-          quirements which are other than local        land and water uses referred to in
                 ing activities in the coastal zone to con-       in nature." The State must have ade-         Q 920.12) including a listing of relevant
                 duct or support those activities in a            quate processes for providing such ade-      constitutional provisions, legislative en-
                 manner which is, to the maximum ex-              quate consideration.                         actments, regulations, and judicial deci-
                 tent practicable, consistent with ap-                                                         sions " A fundamental purpose of this
                 proved State management programs.                � 920.13 Geographic areas of particular      lej;@Iad;n is to broaden the perspective
                 Furthermore, before the Secretary can               concem.                                   by which decisions affecting the coastal
                 approve a management program, he Is               Section 305(b) (3) of the Act requires      zone are made to incorporate a statewide
                 required under section 307 (b) to consider       that the management program Include          view. Congress in section 306 (e) provided

                                                   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 229-THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1973

                                                                  Adopted Under Section 305
                    B-8                                                   RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                             33047

                    three methods by which a State might            with the management program. Such au-           relating to characteristics of the coastal
                    carry out its management responsibilities       thority shall include power-                    zone when planning for specific uses. For
                    in an acceptable manner. Section 306(e)            (1) To administer land and water use         example, dataon flood inundation at 100-
                    of the Act provides:                            regulations, control development in order       year intervals should be examined to de-
                       (a) Prior to granting approval, the          to insure compliance with the manage-           termine the feasibility or wisdom of con-
                    Secretary shall also find that the pro-         ment program, and to resolve conflicts          struction on affected sites.
                    gram provides:                                  among competing uses; and,                      � 920.16 , Organizational structure to
                       (1) For any one or a combination of             (ii) To acquire fee simple and less than          implement the management program.
                    the following general techniques for con-       fee simple interests in lands, waters, and
                    trol of land and water uses within the          other property through condemnation or             Section 305(b) (6) requires a manage-
                    coastal zone:                                   other means where necessary to achieve          ment program to include: "A description
                       (I) State establishment of criteria and      conformance with the management                 of the organizational structure proposed
                    standards for local implementation, sub-        program.                                        to implement the management program,
                    ject to administrative review and en-           The required listing of relevant constitu-      including the responsibilities and inter-
                    forcement of compliance;                        tional provisions, legislative enactments,      relationships of local, areawide, State,
                       Qi) Direct State land and water use          regulations and judicial decisions will, of     regional and interstate agencies in the
                    planning and regulation; or                     course, be one foundation for analyzing         managem6nt process." One essential ele-
                       (III) State administrative review for        and making decisions concerning the             ment of the organizational structure is
                    consistency with the management pro-            above issues and alternatives. In order to      the requisite State involvement in land
                    gram of all development plans, projects,        undertake the kinds of work outlined            and water use decisions in the coastal
                    or land water use regulations, including        above, however, it will be necessary to go      zone as set forth in � 920.14. Another, is
                    exceptions and variance thereto, pro-           beyond a mere listing by preparing an           the process of coordination by the State
                    posed by any State or local authority or        assessment of current legal constraints         with local, areawide, regional and inter-
                    private developer with power to approve         or prohibitions, needed executive or leg-       state agencies, in the development and
                    or disapprove after public notice and an        islative initiatives, and where required,       administration of the management pro-
                    opportunity for hearings.                       to prepare the elements of any legislative      gram. Chiidance with respect to organiza-
                    It is for the several States to determine       program needed to establish.a compre-           tional structure is provided in section 306
                    the appropriate role of local governments       hensive and effective management pro-           (c) which requires that the Secretary,
                                                                                                                       . r to granting approval of a manage-
                    in administering its coastal zone pro-          gram. There is room to exercise strength-       Pr1o
                    gram. The Act recognizes that local             ened design and management imagina-             ment program, find that:
                    governments are closest to those who will       tion and creativity under this program             (a) The State has-
                    be most affected by a management pro-           for coastal zone management. While past            (1) Coordinated its program with
                    gram! and that many sub-State units             research and planning efforts have often        local, areawide, and interstate plans ap-
                    often can make a useful contribution to         been limited by existing law, policy and        plicable to areas within the coastal zone
                    the development of the program. Section         practices, theAct encourages creative ap-       existing on January 1 of the year in
                    306 requires that: Local governments            proaches to action programs for orderly         which the State's management program
                    and other interested public and private         development, and preservition or resto-         is submitted to the Secretary, which
                    parties must have an opportunity for full       ration of areas within the coastal zone         Plans have been developed by a local gov-
                    participation in the development of the         for their conservation, recreational, eco-      ernment, an areawide agency designated
                    management program; the State has co-           logical or esthetic values. Thus, the           pursuant to regulations established under
                    ordinated with local, areawide, and             States are encouraged to consider in_           section 204 of the Demonstration Cities
                    interstate plans; and, the State has            novative techniques or strategies that          and Metropolitan Development Act of
                    established an effective mechanism for          are now being tested and utilized both in       1966, a regional agency, or an interstate
                    continuing consultation and coordination        the United States and elsewhere that            agency; and
                    with local governments and other units          they deem suitable to their management             (2) Established an effective mech-
                    to Insure their full participation in carry-    needs.                                          anism for continuing consultation and
                                                                                                                    coordination between the management
                    ing out the management program (e.g.,           � 920.15 Designation of priority uses           agency designated (by the Governor) and
                    advisory councils composed of represent-             within specific geographic areas           with local governments, interstate Agen-
                    atives of local government).                         throughout the coastal zone.               cies, regional agencies, and areawide
                       (b) Some of the issues to be addressed
                    in identifying the means by which a State          Section 305(b) (5) of the Act requires       agencies within the coastal zone to assure
                    will propose to exert Us control include:       that the management program include             the full participation of such local gov-
                                                                    ',broad guidelines on priority of uses in       ernments and agencies in carrying out
                       (1) Whether existing State powers            particular areas including specifically         the purposes of this Act.
                    and authority are sufficient to exert one       those uses of lowest priority." This re-           (b) The management program and
                    of the three alternative means of control       quired element is closely tied to the re-       any changes thereto have been reviewed
                    specified in section 306 (e) ;                  quirements in �� 920.12 and 920.13 and          and approved by the Governor.
                       (2) What specific modifications or           should build upon the States' findings
                    strengthened mandates would be needed           and conclusions reached concerning                 (c) The Governor of the State has
                                                                                                                    designated a single agency to receive and
                    to qualify the State under section 306(d)       "permissible uses" and areas of "partic-        administer- the grants for implementing
                    and (e) ;                                       ular concern." These decisions should           the management program.
                       (3) Whether a shared State-local or          assist the State in establishing preferred
                    State-areawide regional consolidated            uses tailored to specific areas in its             (d) The State is organized to imple-
                    regulatory system should be established.        coastal zone. Priority guidelines will serve    ment the management program required
                                                                    three essential purposes:                       under paragraph (d) (1) of this section.
                    It is important that the States determine          (a) To Provide the basis for regulating      Based on policies, management ap-
                    at an early stage whether legislation is        land and water uses in the coastal zone;        proaches, technical data, priorities and
                    needed, and Identify the elements of that          (b) To provide the State, local govern-      existing or potential powers and authori-
                    legislation to meet the requirements in            ents, areawide/regional agencies, and        ties developed by the State in �� 920.11
                    section 306(d) and (e). This requires           m                                               through 920.15, the critical issues of or-
                    that the State, acting through its chosen       citizens with a common reference point          ganizational structure, administrative re-
                    agency or agencies, including local gov-        for resolving conflicts, and                    sponsibilities and institutional arrange-
                    ernments, areawide agencies designated             (c) To articulate the States' interest       ments must be resolved. While a detailed
                    under section 204 of the Demonstration          in the Preservation, conservation, and          Institutional structure for achieving the
                    Cities and Metropolitan Development Act         orderly development of specific areas in        Act's objectives cannot be specified in ad-
                    of 1966, regional agencies, or interstate       its coastal zone.                               vance of development of the manage-
                    agencies, have authority for the manage-        It should be noted that States will be ex-      ment program, the agency designated, or
                    ment of the coastal zone in accordance          pected to utilize all available information     to be designated, by the Governor to re-

                                                       FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 229-THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1973

                                                             Adopted Under Section 305
                 33048                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                            B-9
                 ceive and administer management grants         management program Is to create the            program in the ocean and atmospheric
                 should have:                                   mechanism for States to exert appropri-        sciences. Contact Environmental Re-
                   (1) Authority to correlate the activ-        ate control over land and water uses and       search Laboratories, National Oceanic
                 ities of all State, local, areawide/reglonal   to begin the management process, not to        and Atmospheric Administration, Boul-
                 or other entities In the coastal zone;         engage In long-term research project&          der, Colo. 80302.
                   (2) Appropriate access to the Gov-           Applications for management program              (f) Office of Coastal Environment:
                 ernor; and                                     development grants which contain sub-          Contains responsibility for administra-
                   (3) Requisite powers set forth in sec-       stantial research elements will be care-       tion of the Coastal Zone Management
                 tion 306 of the Act.                           fully reviewed to assure that these            Act as well as a number of coastal en-
                 In addition, States should strengthen co-      elements axe essential to the successful       vironmental studies and manned under-
                 operative mechanisms for State-Federal         development of a State's management            water activity programs. Contact Office
                 consultation in key mutual areas of con-       program and are an integral part of a          of Coastal Environment, National Oce-
                                                                comprehensive review of existing infor-        anic and Atmospheric Administration,
                 cern, particularly where Federal actlvi-          ation relating to the management            Rockville, Md. 20852.
                 ties affect the coastal zone. Section 306      in
                                                                program. Clearly, the nature of this pro-        (g) Other sources of Information and
                 requires that the management program           gram will give preference to and encour-       resourses are:
                 provide for a method of assuring that          age reseaxch in such applied activities          (1) Research carried on by or for the
                 local land and water use regulations           as resource surveys, inventories, and de-      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
                 within the coastal zone do not unreason-       termination of environmental carrying            (2) The Environmental Protection
                 ably restrict or exclude land and water        capacities.                                    Agency has information on environmen-
                 uses of regional benefit. Cooperation             (e) In developing their management          tal programs and water quality studies
                 among the various State and regional           programs, States should always endeavor        and could be consulted for technical in-
                 agencies Including establishment of            to locate and utilize existing information     formation and assistance in environmen-
                 interstate and regional agreements, co-        and research sources to the extent ap-         tal pollution control problems and tech-
                 operative procedures, and joint action,        plicable and available rather than under-      niques;
                 particularly regarding environmental           taking unnecessary independent research          (3) Department of Housing and Urban
                 problems and resource development in           or information gathering, as part of Pro-      Development research program;
                 the national or regional interest, is en-      gram development effectiveness. In this          (4) Office of Water Resources Re-
                 couraged.                                      respect, the Office of Coastal Environ-        search, U.S. Department of the Interior;
                    Subpart C-Research and Technical            ment should ordinarily be initially con-         (5) National Science Foundation-Re-
                                   Support                      tacted to ascertain, what information and      search Applied to National Needs; and
                   920.20 General.                              assistance it can provide.                       (6) U.S. Geological Survey water and
                   (a) It is clear that     the process of      � 920.21 Approaches to research activi.        minerals resources investigations.
                 developing (and operating) a manage-                ties.                                       (h) In addition to the research activi-
                 ment program for the coastal zone will            In addition to taking full advantage of     ties cited above, there axe many ongoing
                 necessarily involve frequent access to in-     the vaxious sources of technical informa-      programs conducted by agencies at the
                 formational and research sources. In           tion found within the individual States,       State and Federal level which can pro-
                 many cases, adequate understanding of          the States will also find that one of the      vide technical assistance and should be
                 questions such as dune stabilization,          important sources of technical informa-        utilized where appropriate. Inasmuch as
                 barrier beach dynamics, salt marsh             tion will be the various components Of         further effort will be made to identify
                 productivity and estuarine circulation         NOAA which support ongoing programs            relevant Federal program, they are not
                 and flushing, to mention only a few, will      in coastal research and mapping, physi-        described in detail here. They are, how-
                 be needed In order to develop successful       cal oceanography, and hydrography.             ever, housed in such Federal agencies as:
                 management programs. Also, the process         Those elements of NOAA which States            Regional Economic Development Commis-
                 of Inventorying and mapping the nature         may wish to contact for assistance In-           sions,
                 of a State's zone, and designation of          clude:                                         Soil Conservation Service,
                 areas of particular concern almost cer-           (a) Office of Sea Grant: S        orts a    U.S. Geological Survey,
                                                                                                 UPP           National Aeronautic and Space Administra-
                 tainly will benefit from the application       large  program of university research            tion,
                 of technologies such as those employing        aimed largely at coastal zone-related          Atomic E,egy Commission,
                 remote sensing.                                problems. Contact Office of Sea Grant,         Water Resources Councils and Associated
                   (b) A substantial number of sources          Pennsylvania Building, 425 13th Street           River i3asin Commissions.
                 for such Information exist within Federal      NW., Washington, D.C.
                 agencies, in universities, in State and           (b) National Ocean Survey: Conducts           (1) Finally, it is important to establish
                 Federal laboratories and research cen-         a substantial inhouse effort on coastal        and maintain a relationship with the re-
                 ters, and in the private sector. NOAAS         mapping and charting, geodesy, hydrog-         search community, designers, plarmers,
                 Office of Coastal Environment, with the        raphy, and related subjects. Contact           decisionmakers, and managers. Because
                 astistance of the Environmental Data           National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic        applied and basic research will be a con-
                 Service, will endeavor to serve generally      and Atmospheric Administration, Rock-          tinuing need in coastal zone manage-
                 as a clearinghouse for specialized coastal     ville, Md. 20852.                              ment, States should review and develop
                 zone technical information, and will is-          (c) National Marine Fisheries Service:      explicit statements of their research
                 sue pertinent publications on appropri-        Undertake biological and ecological re-        needs and strengthen their contacts and
                 ate technical support available at least       search and other programs relevant to          involvement with the private and public
                 from Federal sources.                          commercial and sport fisheries of all          research community, by taking a lead
                    (c) Because some features of the            types. Contact National Marine Fisheries       role in determining research and tech-
                 coastal zone remain incompletely under-        Service, Page Building 2, 3300 White-          nical assistance priorities, continuing
                 stood, States may find it necessary to act     haven Street NW., Washington, D.C.             mutual project development activities
                                                                                                               and translation of scientific findings into
                 without all of the basic technical infor-         (d) . Environmental Data Service:           .
                 mation that they require. The Office of        Monitors large quantities of environmen-       information useful for managers.
                                                                                                                    Subpart D-Public Participation
                 Coastal Environment intends to identify        tal data of all types, including weather,
                 unsolved coastal -research Problems and        oceanographic and earth sciences. In-
                 will seek to facilitate their solution.        eludes National Oceanic Data Center.           � 920.30 General.
                 Monitoring programs established as part        Contact Environmental Data Service,              Public participation is an essential
                 of the development of a management             National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-           element of development and administra-
                 program may also, if properly designed,        ministration, Page Building 2, 3300            tion of a coastal zone management pro-
                 produce data which can be used to eluci-       Whitehaven Street NW., Washington,             gram. Through citizen Involvement in
                 date important coastal zone phenomena.         D.C.                                           the development of a management pro-
                    (d) It should be pointed out that the          (e) Environmental Research Labora-          gram, public needs and aspirations can
                 primary emphasis of the coastal zone           tories: Conduct a wide ranging research        be reflected In use decisions for the

                                                   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 229-THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1973

                                                                  Adopted Under Section 305
                   B-10                                                    RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                               33049
                   coastal zone, and public support for the          the population of the coastal zone fluc-         coastal zone which most urgently need
                   management program can be generated.              tuates significantly with the seasons of         management programs: Provided, That
                   Participating States, therefore, should           the year. Efforts should be made to insure       the State adequately provides for the
                   seek to obtain extensive public participa-        that heaxings axe held when those popu-          ultimate coordination of the various geo-
                   tion in the development and administra-           lations most likely to be affected are           graphical segments of the management
                   tion of a coastal zone management                 present.                                         program into a single unified program
                   program.                                             (f) Report. A verbatim transcript of          and that the unified program will be
                                                                     the hearings need not be prepared but a          completed as soon as is reasonably prac-
                   � 920.31     Public hearings.                     comprehensive summary should be pre-             ticable. Grants given to the State must
                      Section  306(c) (3) of the Act requires        pared and made available to the public           be expended for the development of a
                   that public hearings be held in the de-           within 30 days after the conclusion of           management program that meets the re-
                   velopment of the management Program.              the hearing. A copy of there summaries           quirements of the Act. The grants shall
                      (a) Notice. Notification of public hear-       shall accompany the management pro-              not exceed two-thirds of the costs of the
                   ing should provide the public the longest         gram when it is submitted to the Secre-          annual programs. Federal funds received
                   period of notice practical, but in no event       tary for approval.                               from other sources cannot be used to
                   should notice less than the 30-day                � 920.32 Additional means of public              match these grants. No more than three
                   statutory minimum be provided. An-                      participation.                             annual management program develop-
                   nouncement of the hearings should be                                                               ment grants can be awarded to a State.
                   through media designed to inform the                 Formal public hearings may not pro-              (b) Section 305 (c) of the Act provides:
                   public-not merely to provide "technical           vide an adequate opportunity for infor-             in order to qualify for grants under this
                   notice." Therefore, in addition to any            mation exchange. To insure that the pub-         section, the State must reasonably demon-
                   publication of legal notice as required by        lic is heard during the development o         e  strate to the satisfaction of the Secretary
                   State law, reasonably informative news            program, efforts -should be made to en-          that sucl;i grants will be used to develop a
                   releases should be made available to the          courage discussion in various forums of          management program consistent with the re-
                   news media in the affected communities.           the subject matter of the hearings and           quirements set forth in section 3D6 of the
                      (b) Access to document. At the time of         to take other steps to insure that the           Act. After making the initial grant to a
                   the announcement, all agency materials            public can participate in the process in         coastal State, no subsequent grant shall be
                   pertinent to the hearings, including doc-         a meaningful manner. The following are           made under this section unless the Secretary
                                                                                                                      finds that the State Is satisfactorily develop-
                   uments, studies, the agenda for the               suggested to accommodate increased               ing such management program.
                   hearing, and other data, must be made             public participation:
                   available to the public for review and               (a) Establish arrangements for ex-            � 920.41 Administration of the program.
                   study in the locale where the hearings            changing information, data, and reports,            The Congress. assigned the responsi-
                   are to be conducted.                              among State and local government agen-           bility for the administration of the
                      (io) Number of hearings. Where a               cies, citizen groups, special interest           Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
                   State has determined that a public hear-          groups, and the public at large, through-        to the Secretary of Commerce, who has
                   ing or hearings will be held only on the          out the development and administration           designated the National Oceanic and
                   entire plan, it shall assure that the pub-        of the coastal zone program.         e, after    Atmospheric Administration as the
                   lic is afforded an adequate opportunity to           (b) The State should provid                   agency in the Department of Commerce
                   participate in the hearings.                      notice, the opportunity of participation         to manage the program. NOAA has es-
                   Where a portion of the plan has been              by relevant Federal agencies, State agen-        tablished the Office of Coastal Zone Man-
                   developed prior to the effective date of          cies, local organizations, port authorities      agement for this purpose. Requests for
                   this Act, the requirement for public              and other interested parties both public         information on grant applications and
                   hearings under this Act shall be satisfied        and private.                                     the applications themselves should be di-
                   if the State shows that hearings com-                (c) Develop mechanisms in addition            rected to:
                   plying with requirements of this section          to public hearings to allow citizens and
                   have been held on such earlier developed          the public at large to effectively partici-         Director, Office of Coastal Environment,
                                                                     pate in the coastal zone program. The fol-       ilational. Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
                   portions of the plans, or if the State pro-       lowing are examples of some of      -the com-    tration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rock-
                   vides a full opportunity for public hear-         ponents that may be used in the par-             ville, Md. 20852.
                   ings on the plan prior to submission of           ticipation process:                              � 920.42 State responsibility.
                   the plan for approval under section 306.
                   In reviewing the plan submitted by a                 (1) Citizen involvement in the devel-            (a) Applications for initial develop-
                   State, the Secretary will not approve any         opment of the goals and objectives.              ment grants must be submitted by the
                   plan unless there has been a full and                (2) Citizen appointment by the agency         Governor of a coastal State or his des-
                   effective opportunity for public involve-         to a Citizen Advisory Committee.                 ignee.
                   ment in every portion of the plan. The               (3) Establishment of processes to re-            (b) The application shall designate
                   key to compliance with the provisions of          view component elements of the manage-           a single State official, agency, or entity.
                   the Act is the assurance that the public          ment program by selected citizen groups          to receive development grants and have
                   has had an adequate opportunity to par-           and the general Dublic.                          responsibility for the development of the
                   ticipate in the development of a plan.            Subpart E-Applications for Development           State's coastal zone management pro-
                   More than one public hearing on the plan                              Grants                       gram. The designee need not necessarily
                   is not required: Provided, That a hearing                                                          be that agency which will be designated
                   is conducted prior to final adoption of           � 920.40 General.                                by the Governor under the provisions of
                   the plan and members of the public are               (a) The primary purpose of the de-            section 306 (c) (5) of the Act as the single
                   given adequate notice of the hearing and          velopment grant is to assist States in           agency to receive and administer the
                   a full opportunity to effectively partici-        developing a comprehensive management            grants for implementing the manage-
                   pate and make their views known at such           program for their coastal zone. While            ment program.
                   a hearing.                                        the majority of the responsibility for de-          (c) A single State application will
                      (d) Location of hearings. Hearings             veloping a management program resides            cover all program development activities,
                   should be held in those geographic areas          with the State, a State is permitted to          whether carried out by State agencies,
                   which would be principally affected by            allocate a portion of its grant to sub-          areawide/regional agencies, local gov-
                   the decisions on issues under considera-          State entities, or multi-State organiza-         ernments, regional or interstate entities.
                   tion at the hearing, e.g., establishment          tions, to assist In the development of a
                   of priority uses for a given geographic           management program. At the discretion            � 920.43 Allocation.
                   area. Hearings on the total management            of the State and with the approval of the           Section 305(g) allows a State to al--
                   program should be held in places within           Secretary, a management program may              locate a portion of its development grant
                   the State where all citizens of the State         be developed and adopted in geographical         to sub-State or multi-State entities.
                   may have an opportunity to comment.               segments so that immediate attention             States must insure, in the development of
                      (e) Timing of hearings. In many cases,         may be devoted to those areas within the         the management program, that they de-

                                                       FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 229-THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1973

                                                                Adopted Under Section 305
                 33050                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                          B-11
                 velop sufficient capability to administer      from interstate or multi-State agencies,      tends to involve various levels of govern-
                 the coastal zone management programs           but only from the individual States In-       ment in the development and imple-
                 they are developing. If the State Intends      volved In the joint program.                  mentation of the management Program;
                 to allocate a portion of Its grant, the        � 920.44 Geographical segmentation.             (5) A mechanism for coordination
                 application for a development grant shall                                                    with agencies administering excluded
                 set forth the manner in which a State            Authority is provided in the Act for a      Federal lands that are in the coastal
                 plans to allocate any portion of its grant     State's management program to be              land; and
                 to sub-State units, multi-State units, or      developed and adopted in                        (6) A tentative approximation of the
                 any other allocation. Requests for alloca-     segments so that Immediate attention          bolundaries of the State's coastal zone.
                 tion will not be approved unless It Is         may be devoted to those areas within the        (e) Submission of an annual work pro-
                 clearly demonstrated that the State is         coastal z9ne which most urgently need
                 developing sufficient capabilities, and the    management programs." Request by a            grarn consisting of a precise statement
                 work to be accomplished as the result of       State to develop and adopt a program in       of what is intended to be accomplished
                 such allocations is integrated into the        geographical segments is subject to the       during the year. Such a statement will
                 State's coastal zone management pro-           additional proviso that the State "ade-       include:
                 gram development effort and win clearly        quately provides for the ultimate coordi-       (1) Identification of the plans, pro-
                 contribute to the development of effec-        nation of' the various geographical seg-      grams and studies to be produced.
                 tive applications of State's policy in the     ments of the management program into a          (2) Definition of the major tasks
                 coastal zone.                                  single unified program and that the           needed to Produce the Plans, Programs
                   (a) Areawide / Regional agencies.            unified program will be completed as soon     and studies.
                 Should the application indicatei the de-       as it is reasonably Practicable." Undue         (3) For each task, the following should
                 sire of the State to allocate a portion of     geographical segmentation creates the         be specified:
                 its management program development             possibility of continuing the status quo        (I) Approach and techniques to be
                 grant to an axeawide/regional agency           without creating a comprehensive man-         used,
                 under the provisions of section 305(g)         agement program.                                0i)  Data and studies already avWl-
                 of the Act, In the absence of State law        � 920.45 Application for the initial          able,
                 to the contrary, preference shall be given         grant.                                      (III) Manpower requirements,
                 to those agencies recognized or desig-           The application for the initial develop-      (IV) Time schedule,
                 nated as areawide/regional comprehen-          ment grant shall include but not be             (v) Costs, and
                 sive plarming and development agencies         limited W:                                      (vi) Source of funds.
                 under the provisions of office of Manage-        (a) Identification of the designated of-      (f) Identification of any other State
                 ment and Budget circular No. A-95, un-         ficial, the State agency or entity desig-     and Federal planning, programming, or
                 der section 204 of the Demonstration           nated by the Governor to prepare and          activity which may have a significant
                 Cities and Metropolitan Development            submit the State's management program         impact on the State's coastal zone. Such
                 Act of 1966 or 9fttle IV of the Intergov-      and receive its development grant as well     Planning, programming or activities in-
                 ernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. The         as the legal authority or other basis         cludes work accomplished or to be un-
                 provisions of part IV, OMB circular No.        under which the lead agency or entity         dertaken by any State, areawide, local,
                 A-95 dealing with the "Coordination of         operates. It shall also indicate what other   regional or interstate agencies funded,
                 Planning in Multijurisdictional Areas"         State agencies may be involved in the         in part or in total, by State or local
                 apply to the areawide/regional agencies        development of the management pro-            money, with or without Federal assist-
                 designated as recipients of management         gram and, if the State desires to allocate    ance. Completed and officially approved
                 program development grants under this          a portion of its grant to other govern-       regional and local plans provide invalua-
                 Act.                                           mental units, it should identify those        ble input and guidance in the develop-
                   (b) Local government. Should the ap-         units and set forth the work proposed to      ment of a State's coastal zone manage-
                 plication indicate the desire of the State     be accomplished by each unit so identi-       ment program. It should be pointed out
                 to allocate a portion of its management        fied.                                         that where a State chooses to reject such
                 program development grant to a local             (b) A summaxization of the State's          Plans, It should advise the local govern-
                 government under the provisions of sec-        past and current activities in its coastal    ment wherein its proposed plan is defl-
                 tion 305(g) of the Act, units of general-      zone, the current status of coastal zone      cient and claxify what needs to be done
                 purpose local government are preferred         management, and other activities.             to correct the &-ficiency. The objective
                 rather than special-purpose units of local       W A discussion and ranking by gen-          Of this Provision is to seek and achieve
                 government, as provided in section 402         eral order of importance of the major         as complete coordination and Integra-
                 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation           coastal zone related problems and issues      tion as possible at the State level of all
                 Act of 1968.                                   f acing the State, as well as identification  local, State and Federal programs that
                   (c) Interstate agencies. At the discre-      of the goals and objectives the State         lead to the setting of Policy or the devel-
                 tion of two or more Governors of adja-         hopes to achieve by development of its        opment of Public and private works, fa-
                 cent or related coastal Stater, ooordi-        coastal zone management program.              cilities or programs in the State's defined
                 nated management programs or research            (d) A management program design             coastal zone. The Act provides in section
                 and planning efforts may be developed          detailing the work to be accomplished in      307(c) (1) that: "Each Federal agency
                 leading to the establishment of manage-        the development of the State's coastal        conducting or supporting activities di-
                 ment programs for such interstate or           zone management Program. The manage-          rectly affecting the coastal zone shall
                 multi-State areas. Such proposals for in-      ment Program design serves as an outline      conduct or support those activities in a
                 terstate cooperation and action shall be       for the State's plan of action for develop-   manner which is to the maximum ex-
                 set forth in the application for each          Ing a management Program and should           tent Practicable, consistent with ap-
                 State together with the interstate fund-       include a projection of how the State will    proved State management programs."
                 ing, arrangements proposed for the joint       seek to meet the requirements set forth       To this end, the application shall reflect,
                 work. The States involved may desig-           in subpart B of this part. In addition, the   and the developed coastal zone manage-
                 nate Interstate compact agencies, Re-          management program design should in-          ment program will provide, methods to
                 gional Action Planning Commissions,            clude:                                        integrate tfie following types of pro-
                 river basin commissions, or an interstate        (1) An identification of existing infor-    grams and activities as they affect the
                 areawide/regional planning agency to ac-       mation and sources of information;            coastal zone of the state: (1) Federally
                 complish the management program de-              (2) A projection as to additional Infor-    assisted planning development and man-
                 velopment work for the coastal zone            mation which must be acquired;                agement programs, such as but not lim-
                 management area within each jurisdic-            (3) A description of methods to insure      ited to (the Program numbers and titles
                 tion as they see fit. Applications for in-     public participation;                         listed below are those contained in the
                 terstate management program develop-             (4) A description of the intergovern-       1972 Catalog of Federal Domestic As-
                 ment grants will not be accepted directly      mental process by which the State in-         sistance as published by OMB):

                                                  FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 229-THURSDAY, NOVEMSER 29, 1973

                                                                                    Adopted Under Section 305
                       B-12                                                                     RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                                                        33051

                                       PUBLic LAw REPERENCE                             notify the applicant in writing and set                              year grant, the Secretary will consider
                                                                                        forth in detail the manner in which the                              among other things whether a State has
                       Pub. L. 87-703;      Resource Conservation           (10.901)    application fails to conform to the re-                              completed:
                         91-M; 74-46.         and Development.
                       Pub. L. 83-6W- - -   Comprehensive Planning          (1& 203)    quirements of the Act or this subpart                                (1) An analysis of the existing.legal
                                              Assistance.                               Conferences may be held on these mat-                                authority to exert control over land and
                       Pub. L. 88-578- - -  Outdoor Recreation State        (15.401)    ters. corrections or other adjustments to                            water uses in the coastal zone;
                                              Planning.
                       Pub. L. W-304;       Anadromous Fish Con-            (15.600)    the application will provide the basis for                           (2) A description of the activities and
                         91-249.              servation.                                resubmittal of the application for fur-                              authorities of the various agencies
                                            Fish Restoration   ----------   115. W)
                                            Wildlife Restoration   -------  (15.611)    ther consideration and review.                                       (State, local, regional, areawide or in-
                       Pub. L. 74-292-      Historic American Build-        (15-903)        (c) The Secretary may, upon finding                              terstate) involved in activities or regula@
                                              ings Survey.
                       Pub.L.89-M--- Historic Preservation-----             (15.9N)     of extenuating circumstances relating to                             tion of activities In the coastal zone;
                       Pub. L. 91-258-      Airport Planning Grant          (20-103)    applications for assistance, waive appro-                            and
                                              Program.                      (20,2D5)    priate administrative requirements con-                              (3) An analysis of the existing or
                       Pub. L. 90-495;      Highway Research Plan-
                         91-M; 89-674.        ning and Construction.                    tained herein.                                                       needed legal authorities with which the
                       Pub. L. 91-463;      Urban Mass Transporta-          (20-505)                                                                         State believes it can insure compliance
                         88-365.              tion Technical Studies                    � 920.47 Amendments.
                                              Grants.                                                                                                        with coastal zone management program
                       Pub. L. 89-80-       Water Resources Planning-       (65.001)        Amendments to an approved develop-                               resolve conflicts among competing uses,
                                            Air Pollution Survey and        (66.005)    Ment prograin Must                 Submi
                                              Demonstration Grants.                                                   be            tted to, and             and acquire fee simple end less than fee
                                            Solid Waste Plamung             (6& 301)    approved by the Secretary prior to ini-                              simple interests in lands, waters, and
                                              Grants.                                   tiation of the change contemplated. Re-                              other property through condemnation Or
                                            Water Pollution Control         (66.401)
                                              Comprehensive Plan-                       quests for substantial changes should be                             other means when necessary to achieve
                                              ning Grants.                              discussed with Pederal officials well in                             conformance with the management
                       Pub. L. 88-MO;       Air Pollution Survey and        (66.005)
                         89-272; 89-675;      Demonstration Grants.                     advance. It is recognized that, while all                            program.
                         90--148; 91-60C                                                amendments must be approved by the
                       Pub. L. 92-500-      water Quality Manage-           (K 023)     Secretary, most such requests will be                                (4) This analysis will permit a State to
                                              n!ent Technical Plan-                                                                                          determine what legislative action will be
                                              mng Assistance.                           relatively minor in scope; theriefore, ELP-
                       Pub. L. 89-272;      Solid Waste Technical As-       (6& 304)    proval by the Secretary may be presumed                              needed to qualify under section 306 of the
                         91-512; 93-14.       sistance, Training and                                                                                         Act. States may propose alternate stand-
                                              Information Services.                     for minor amendments if the State has
                       Pub. L. 92-583-      Marine Protection Re-                       not been notified of objections within                               ards of accomplishment for considera-
                                              search and Sanctuaries.                                                                                        tion by the Secretary in determining
                                                                                        30 working days of date of postmark of                               ,
                                                                                        the request.                                                         satisfactory Progress" towards eomple-
                          (2) public works land acquisition and                         � 920.48 Applications for second year                                tion of the management program.
                       development projects conduc". Pro-                                      grants.                                                       920-49 Application for third year
                       posed to be conducted. proposed to be                                                                                                    grants.
                       Conducted or assisted by a Federal                                   (a) Second year development grant                                (a) The general requirements set forth
                       agency, authorized and financed outside                          applications will follow the procedures                              in paragraph (a) of � 920.46 shall apply
                       of the Federal programs listed above,                            set forth in � 920.45: Provided, however,                            to review of the application for the third
                       such as activities conducted with respect                        That the management program design                                   year development grant.
                       to rivers and harbors, small watershed                           and annual work program shall be up-                                 (b) In evaluating whether a State is
                       development, wastewater collection and                           dated to indicate the progress made                                  making satisfactory progress In devel-
                       trestraent facilities, railitary reserva-                        toward the development of the State's                                opment of the management program to
                       tions, wildlife refuges, PaXk and recreav-                       coastal zone management program under                                determine eligibility for the third year
                       tion areas, improvements in navigation,                          the initial development grant and should                             grant, the Secretary will consider among
                       fiood control and so forth;                                      in addition:                                                         other things whether a State has com-
                          (3) Any Federally supported national                              (1) Demonstrate how the past year's                              pleted:
                       land use program which may be herein-                            work activities and products contributed                             (1) Identification of the boundaries of
                       after enacted as specified in section 307                        to the realization of management pro-                                the coastal  zone;
                       (g) of the Act;                                                  grain development goals if such goals                                (2) Development of a process by which
                          (4) Activities in the coastal zone stem-                      have not been fully realized. Either docu-                           permissible land and water uses having
                       ming from the Rural Development Act                              ment the extent to which they have been                              a direct and significant Impact upon
                       of 1972;                                                         met or present modified goals.                                       coastal waters can be defined; and
                          (5) state programs dealing with lend                              (2) Identify major constraints upon                              (3) Criteria for, designating geograph-
                       use controls in the coastal zone or other                        or problems encountered in establishing                              ical areas of particular concern. Accom.-
                       regulatory, licensing, permit or operating                       and implementing an adequate manage-                                 Plishiment of these tasks will put the
                       program in the coastal zone including,                           ment Program for the State.
                       but not limited to, activities such as min-                          (3) Reexamine and assess the devel-                              State in a position to provide guidelines
                       eral extracting, po%ver plant siting and                         opment program's broad goals and niess_                              on priority of uses in particular areas
                       harbor construction.                                             urable planning objectives; and                                      and allow a State to complete develop-
                                                                                            (4) Reexamine and, if necessary, re-                             ment of its management program by the
                       � 920.46 Approval of applications.                               vise management program designin light                               end of the third ydar. States may propose
                                                                                                                                                             alternate standards of accomplishment
                          (a) The Secretaxy shall approve any                           of emerging or continuing Priority prob-                             for consideration by the Secretary in
                       application which he finds complies with                         lems and Opportunities.                                              determining "satisfactory progress" to-
                       policy and requirements of the Act and                               (b) In evaluating whether a State is                             ward completion of the management
                       these guidelines.                                                making satisfactory progress in the de-                              program-
                          (b) Should the Secretary determine                            velopment of the management Program
                       that an application Is deficient, he shall                       to determine eligibility for the second                              [FR Doc.73-25362 Pqled 11-28-73;8:45 am]

                                                                     FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 229-THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1973

                                        Adopted Under Section 306                          B-13
                                                   Reprinted from FEDERAL REGISTER

                                                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 9,1975
                                                   WASHINGTON, D.C.

                                                                                  Op
                                                   Volume 40 E Number 6               e.

                                                   PART I

                                                                                1934

                                                     DEPARTMENT OF
                                                           COMMERCE

                                                         National Oceanic and
                                                     Atmospheric Administration

                                                          COASTAL ZONE
                                                           MANAGEMENT
                                                              PROGRAM
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS

                                                       NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING

            00%.UT/04,

           J
            CPO

                                                                        Adopted Under Section 306                                                                      B-15

                                                                              RMES AND REGULATIOM                                                                     1683

                                                                          The regulations below set forth (a)              was amended to reflect the requirement
                                                                        criteria and procedures to be utilized in          of the National Environmental Policy
                                                                        reviewing and approving coastal zone               Act environmental impact statement
                                                                        management programs pursuant to sec-               requirements.
                                                                        tion 306 of the Act, and (b) procedures              3. Several comments Indicated that the
                                                                        by which coastal States may apply to               States did not have a clear understand-
                                                                        receive administrative grants under see-           Ing as to what was meant under � 923.11
                                                                        tion 306(a) of the Act. The criteria and           (b) (4) which refers to Federal lands sub-
                                                                        procedures under (a) constitute the                ject solely to the discretion of, or which
                                                                        "guidelines for section 306" referred to           Is held in trust by, the Federal govern-
                                                                        in 15 CFR 920.                                     ment, its officers and agents. This section
                                                                          The National Oceanic and Atmospheric             has been amended in order to provide a
                                                                        Administration is publishing herewith              procedure for identifying those lands
                                                                        the final regulations describing proce-            which are within the framework of this
                                                                        dures for applications to receive admints-         section.
                                                                        trative grants under section 306 of the              4. Several commentators Indicated
                                                                        Act. The final regulations and criteria            that there was uncertainty as to what the
                                                                        published herewith were revised from the           requirements of the national interest
                                                                        proposed guidelines based on the com-              were pursuant to � 923.15. This section
                                                                        ments received. A total of thirty-two (32)         has been amended in order to more suc-
                                                                        States, agencies, organizations and Indi-          cinctly state what the requirements are
                                                                        viduals submitted responses to the pro-            pursuant to this section and how a
                                                                        posed section 306 guidelines published in          State must meet these requirements dur-
                                                                        the FrDERAL RZGMTER on August 21, 1974.            ing the development and administration
                                                                        Of those responses received, nine (9)              of its coastal zone management progranL
                                                                        were wholly favorable as to the nature             At the request of several commentators,
                                                                        and content of the guidelines as they ap-          several additions have been made to the
                                                                        Peared In the FEDE"L RrGXSTER on                   list of requirements which are other than
                                                                        August 21, 1974. Twenty-three (23) com-            local in nature.
                       Title 15--Cornmerce and Forsdgn Trade            mentators submitted suggestions con-                 5. Several commentators indicated
                                                                        cerning the proposed Section 306 guide-            that � 923.26, which pertains to the de-
                    CHAPTER IX---NATIONAL OCEANIC AND                   lines.                                             gree of State control needed to imple-
                         ATMOSPHERIC ADMINMTRATION                        The following analysis summarizes key            ment a coastal zone management pro-
                    PART 923-COASTAL ZONE MANAGE-                       comments received on various sections              gram, did not offer sufficient guidance in
                       MENT PROGRAM APPROVAL REGULA-                    of the draft regulations and presents a            interpreting the legislation. In response
                       TIONS                                            rationale for the changes made:                    to these comments, � 923-26 has been ex-
                       The National Oceanic and Atmospheric               1. Several commentators asserted that            panded to include specific examples of
                    Adrninistratloh (NOAA) on August 21,                the guidelines did not adequately reflect          how a State may implement this section.
                    1974, proposed guidelines (originally               the environmental considerations con-                6. Comments received indicate there
                    published as 15 CPR Part 923). pursuant             tained In the Act. No changes were made            was some misunderstanding in interpret-
                    to the Coastal Zone Management Act Of               in response to these comments since the            ing 1923.43, which deals with geographi-
                    1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280),               guidelines more than adequately reflect            cal segmentation. This section has been
                    hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for            the environmental concerns In the legis-           substantially gAnended in order to indi-
                    the purpose of defining the proced@@es by           lation as evidenced In part by the com-            cate that the segmentation issue refers to
                    which States can qualify to receive ad-             ment section under 1923.4:                         geographical segmentation of a State's
                    ministrative grants under the Act.                    Management programs will be evaluated in         coastal zone management program. The
                       Written comments were to be sub-                 the light of the Congressional findings and        requirements for a State to receive aP-
                    mitted to the Office of Coastal Zone                policies as contained in Section 302 and Sec-      proval on a segmented basis are clearly
                    Management, National Oceanic and At-                tion 303 of the Act. These sections make it        set forth in the amendment to the regu-
                    mospheric Administration, before No-                clear that Congress, In enacting the legisla-      lations.
                                                                        tion, was concerned about the environmental          7. Extensive discussions have taken.
                    vember 22, 1974, and consideration has              degradation, damage to natural and scenic          place with various elements of the U.S.
                    been given these comments.                          areas, loss of living ma ine resources and
                       The Act recognizes that the coastal              wildlife, decreasing open space for public use     Environmental Protection Agency (EPAY
                    zone is rich in a variety of natural, com-          and shoreline erosion being brought about by       concerning the applicability of air and
                    mercial, recreatioual, industrial and               population growth and economic develop-            water pollution requirements to the
                    esthetic resources of immediate and po-             ment- The Act thus has a strong environ-           development, approval and implemen-
                    tential value to the present and future             mental thrust, strewing the 'urgent need to        tation of State management programs
                                                          nt State      protect and to give high priority to natural       p&suant to � 923.44 of the proposed reg-
                    well-being of the nation. Prese:                    systems in the coastal zone.                       ulations. State coastal zone management
                    and Institutional arrangements for plan-
                    ning and regulating land and water uses               2. Several comments were received on             programs have also been surveyed in or-
                    in the coastal zone are often inadequate            the necessity of the Secretary of com-             der to determine current and anticipated
                    to deal with the competing demands and              merce preparing and circulating an en-             problems, issues and opportunities asso-
                    the urgent need to protect natural sys-             vironmental Impact statement on each               ciated with carrying out the require-
                    tems In the ecologically fragile area. Sec-         Individual State application as required           ments of section 307(f) of the Coastal
                    tion 305 of the Act authorizes annual               by � 923.5. The National Environmental             Zone Management Act, and � 923.44 of
                    grants to any coastal State for the pur-            Policy Act, 42 USC 4332, and imple-                the draft approval regulations. Con-
                    pose of assisting the State in the devel-           menting regulations, 38 FR 20562, August           solidated EPA comments have been re-
                    opment of a management program for                  P 1973, require an environmental im-               ceived, together with State reviews, and
                    the land and water resources of Its                 pact statement be prepared and cir-                one comment from the private sector.
                    coastal zone (development grant). Once              culated on each individual State's ap-             Specific claxifications and changes as a
                    a coastal State has developed a manage-             plication. An environmental impact                 result of these reviews are contained in
                    ment program, It is submitted to the Sec-           statement shall be prepared on each In-            �� 923.4, 923.12, 923.32 and 1923.44 of
                    retary of Commerce for approval and, if             dividual State's application by the Sec-           these regulations.
                    approved, the State is then eligible under          retary, primarily on the basis of an                 8. One commentator objected to the
                    Section 306 to receive annual grants for            environmental assessment, and other                amount of detail required In section 306
                    administering its management program                relevant data, prepared and submitted              applications and the undue administra-
                    (administrative grants).                            by the individual States. This section             tive burden proposed pursuant to Sub-

                                                           FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY               9, 1975

                 B-16                                                    Adopted Under Section 306

                 1 G84                                                      RULES AND REGULATIONS

                 part F of the proposed regulations. The               AuTnoRrry; 86 Stst. 1280 (16 U.8.C. 1451-          305 of the Act, and which does not
                 revisions attempt to both clarify and re-           1464).                                               make the State eligible for grants under
                 duce those requirements, while still re-                         Subpart A---General                     Section 306 of the Act.
                 quiring sufficient information for the              � 923.1 Purpose-                                       "Use of regional benefit" means a land
                 Office of Coastal Zone Management to                                                                     or water uge that typically provides
                 approve management programs and                        (a) This part establishes criteria and            benefits to a significant area beyond the
                 make sound funding decisions.                       procedures to be employed In reviewing               boundaries of a single unit of the lowest
                   Accordingly, having considered the                and approving coastal zone management                level of local, general-purpose govern-
                 comments and other relevant informa-                programs submitted by coastal States                 ment.
                 tion, the Administrator concludes by                and for the awarding of grants under                 � 923.3 Submission of management
                 adopting the final regulations describing           Section 306 of the Act.                                   programs.
                 the procedure for application to receive               (b) The Act sets forth in sections 305,
                 administrative grants under section 306             306 and 307 a number of specific re-                   (a) Upon completion of the develop-
                                                                         reme
                 of the Act, as modified and set forth               qul       nts which a management pro-                ment of its management program, a
                                                                     gram must fulfill as a condition for ap-             State shall submit the program to the
                 below.                                              proval by the Secretary. These require-              Secretary for review and final approval
                   Effective date: January 8. 1975.                  ments are linked together as indicated               in accordance with the provisions of
                                                                     in the subparts which follow. Presenta-              these regulations. A program submitted
                   Dated: January 6, 1975.                           tion of the State management program                 for final approval must comply with all
                                          ROBERT M. WHITE,           in a similar format is encouraged since              of the provisions set forth in Subparts
                          Administrator, National Oceanic            it will enable more prompt and sys-                  A-E of this part, including,, in partic-
                             and Atmospheric Administra-             tematic review by the Secretary. How-                ular, Subpart C, which requires that cer-
                             tion.                                   ever, there is no requirement that a                 tain authorities and plans of organiza-
                               Subpart A-General                     State present its management program                 tion be in effect at the time of the sub-
                 Sec.                                                in the format which corresponds exactly              mission.
                 923.1    Purpose.                                   to the listing of categories below. The                (b) Optionally, the State may subirtit
                 923.2    Definitions.                               broad categories are: Land and Water                 for the preliminary approval of the Sec-
                 923.3    Submission    of management pro@           Uses, Subpart B; Authorities and Orga-               retary a program complying with the
                             grams.                                  nization, Subpart C; Coordination, Sub-              substantive requirements of this part,
                 923.4    Evaluation    of mankgement pro.           part D; and Miscellaneous, Subpart E.                but for which the proposed authorities
                             granis--general.
                 923.5    Environmental impact a&%essment.           Subpart F, Applications for Administra-              and organization complying with the
                                                                     tive Grants, deals with applications for             provisions of Subpart C are not yet legal-
                          Subpart D-Land and Water Uses              administrative grants upon approval of               ly effective. In reviewing a program sub-
                 923.10   General.                                   State coastal zone management Pro-                   mitted for preliminary approval, the
                 c
                 923.11   l3oundary of the coastal zone.             grams which will be subject to periodic              Secretary may grant such approval sub-
                 923.12   Permissible land and water uses.           review by the Secretary in accordance                ject to establishment of a legal regime
                 923.13   Areas of particular concern.
                 923.14   Guidelines on priorities.                  with Section 309 of the Act. In addition             providing the authorities and organiza-
                 923.15   National Interest facilities.              to providing criteria against which State            tion called for in the program. If the
                 923.16   Area designation for preservation and      coastal zone management programs can                 State elects this option, it shall continue
                             restoration.                            be consistently and uniformly Judged                 to be eligible for funding under Section
                 923.17   Local regulations and uses of re-          in the approval process and establish-               305 but it shall not yet be eligible for
                             gional benefit.                         Ing procedures for the application by                funding under Section 306 of the Act
                          Subpart C-Authordles and Organization      States for administrative grants, it is              until such time as its program is fir-ally
                 923.20   General.                                   the intent of this part to provide guid-             approved. Upon a showing by the State
                 923.21   Means of exerting State con#xol over       ance to coastal States in the develop-               that authorities and organization neces-
                 928.22   0  land and water uses.                    ment of management programs. There-                  sary to implement the program which
                             rganizational structure to Imple-
                             ment the management program.            fore, many of the sections dealing with              has received preliminary approval are in
                 923.23   Designation of a single agency.            approval requirement in the subparts                 effect, final approval shall be granted.
                 923.24   Authorities to administer land and         are followed by a "comment" which re-                  Comment. The purpose of the optional
                             water uses, control development         fers to a section or sections of the Act             procedure is to provide a State with an op-
                             and resolve conflicts.                  and indicates the interpretation placed              portunity for Secretarial review of its pro-
                 923.25   Authorities for property acquisition.      upon the requirements of the Act or the              gram before State legislation is enacted to
                 923.26   Techniques for control of land and
                             water uses.                             regulation by the Secretary.                         put the program into legal effect. Some
                                                                                                                          States may prefer not to utilize the optional
                             Subpart D-Coordination                  � 923.2 Definitions.                                 procedure, especially those which have leg-
                 923.30   General.                                      In addition to the terms          defined in      islative authority enabling the coastal zone
                 92-3.31  Full participation by relevant bodies      the Act and 15 CFR 920.2, the following              agency of the State to put the program into
                             in the adoption of management           terms shall have the meanings indicated              effect by administrative action. In any event,
                             programs.                               below:                                               the office of Coastal Zone Management will
                 923.32   Consultation and coordination with            "Final approval" means, with respect              be available for consultation during all
                             other planning.                         to a coastal zone management program,                phases of development of the program.
                             Subpart E--Miscellansous                approval of a program which terminates                 (c) States completing the require-
                 923.40   General.                                   the eligibility of the State for grants              ments set forth in Subpart B-Land and
                 923.41   Public hearings.                           under Section 305 of the Act and makes               Water Uses, and Subpart D-Coordina-
                 923.42   Gubernatorial review and       approval.   the State eligible for grants under Sec-             tion, will be deemed to have fulfilled the
                 923.43   Segmentation.                              tion 306 of the Act. In cases where a                statutory requirements associated with
                 923A4    Applicability of air and water pollu-      State has elected to follow the geo-                 each criteria. If, however, a State chooses
                             tion control requirements.              graphical segmentation option pursuant               to adopt alternative methods and proce-
                          Subpart F-Applications for Administrative  to � 923.43, final approval will appl                dures, which are at least as comprehen-
                 923.50   General.     Grants                        only to that specific geographical seg-              sive as the procedures set forth below.
                 923.51   Administration of the program.             ment. The State will continue to remain              for fulfilling those statutory require-
                 923.52   State responsibility.                      eligible for development grants pursuant             ments contained in Subpaxta B and D,
                 923.53   Allocation.                                to Section 305 of the Act for the re-                they may do so upon prior written ap-
                 923.54   Geographical segmentation.                 mainder of the State's coastal zone.                 proval of the Secretary. The States are
                 923.55   Application for the initial admilds-          "Preliminary approval" means, with                encouraged to consult with the Office of
                             trative grant.                          respect to a coastal zone management                 Coastal Zone Management as early as
                 923.56   Approval of applications.                                                                       possible.
                 923.57   Amendments.                                program, approval of a program which
                 923.58   Applications for second and subse.         does not terminate the eligibility of the              Comment. The thrust of the Act is to en-
                             quent year grants.                      State for further grants under Section               courage coastal. States to exercise their full

                                                          FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

                                                                         Adopted Under Section 306                                                                              B-17

                                                                                  RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                                        1685

                      authority over the lands and waters in the            Congress, in enacting the legislation, was            and considered. In this connection, develop-
                      Coastal zone by developing land and water             soncerned about the environmental degrada-            ments outside the coastal zone may often
                      use programs for the zone, including uni-             tion, damage to natural and scenic areas, loss        have a significant impact within the coastal
                      fied policies, criteria. standards, methods           of living marine resources and wildlife, de-          zone and create a range of public problems
                      and processes for dealing with land and               creasing open space for public use and shore-         and issues which must be dealt with In the
                      water uses of more than local significance.           line erosion being brought about by popula-           coastal zone management program.
                      While the Act mandates a State to meet spe-           tion growth and economic development. Its               The Secretary encourages the States to
                      cific statutory requirements in order for the         Act thus has a strong environmental thrust,           develop objectives toward which progress can
                      State to be eligible for administrative grants,       stressing the "urgent need to protect and to          be measured and will review program sub-
                      It does not require the State to follow spe-          give high priority to natural systems In the          missions In this light. While It is recognized
                      cific processes in meeting those require-             coastal zone." A close working relationship           that many essential coastal zone manage-
                      ments. The Secretary will review any State            between the agency responsible for the                ment objectives are not quantifiable (e.g.
                      management program that meets the re-                 coastal zone management program and the               public aspirations, "quality of life"), others
                      quirements contained In Subparts B and D              agencies responsible for environmental pro-           are, and shouTd be set forth in measurable
                      In addition to the other subparts contained           tection is vital In carrying out this legis-          terms where feasible (e.g. shore erosion,
                      herein.                                               lative Intent. States areencouraged by the            beach access, recreational demand, energy
                                                                            Act to take Into account ecological, cultural,        facility requirements). Identifying and an-
                         923.4 Evaluation of management Pro-                historic and esthetic values as well as the           alyzing problems and Issues in measurable
                            giame--general.                                 need for economic development in preparing            terms during the program development phase
                         (a) In reviewing management pro-                   and Implementing management programs                  will facilitate the formulation of messur-
                                                                            through which the States. with the partici-           able objectives as part of the approval sub-
                      gram submitted by a coastal State pur-                pation of all affected Interests and levels of        mission.
                      suant to 9 923.3, the Secretary will eval-            government, exercise their full authority over        � 923.5 Envirounwrital impact assess-
                      uate not only all of the individual pro-              coastal lands and waters.
                      gram elements required by the Act and                   Further assistance in meeting the intent                  ment.
                      set forth in Subparts B-E of this I*rt,               of the Act may be found in the Congression-             Individual       environmental           impact
                      but the objectives and policies of the                &I Committee Reports associated with the              statements will be prepared and circu-
                      State program as well to assure that they             Passage of the legislation (Senate Report 92-         lated by NOAA as an integral part of the
                      are consistent with national policies de-             753 and House Report 92-1049). It is clear            revlew and approval process for State
                                                                            from these reports that Congress intended
                      clared In Section 303 of the Act.                       anagement programs to be comprehensive              coastal zone management programs pur-
                         (b) Each program sUbmitted for ap-                 and that a State must consider all subject            suant to the National Environmental
                      Proval shall contain a statement Of PrOb-             areas which are pertinent to the peaticular           Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 USC 4321
                      lems and Issues, and objectives and poli-             circurnstances which prevail In the State. A          et seq) and Its implementing regulations.
                      cies. The statements shall address:                   comprehensive program should bave con-                The Administrator of NOAA will circu-
                         (1) Major problems and issues both                 sidered at least the following representative         late an environmental impact statement
                      within and affecting the State's @oastal              elements:
                      zone;                                                   (1) Present laws, regulations. and appli-           prepared primarily on the basis of an en-
                                                                            cable programs for attainment of air and              vironmental impact assessment and other
                         (2) Objectives to be attained in inter-            waiter quality standards, on land and water           relevant data submitted by the individual
                      agency and Intergovernmental coopera-                 uses, and on environmental management by              applicant States.
                      tion, coordination and institutional ar-              all levels of government;
                      rangements; and enhancing manage-                       (2) Present ownership patterns of the land               Subpart 8--LmW aRd Water Uses
                      ment capability involving Issues and                  and water resources, including adurinistra-           � 923.10 General.
                      problem Identification, conflict resolu-              tion of publicly owned properties;
                                                                              (3) Present populations and future trends,            (a) This subpart deals with land and
                      tion, regulation and adnih-Astrative efn-             Including assessments of the Impact of pop.           water uses in the coastal zone which are
                      ciency at the State and local level;                  ulation growth on the coastal zone and es-            subject to the management program.
                         (3) Objectives of the program in pres-             tuarine environments;                                   (b) In order to provide a relatively
                      ervation, protection, development, resto-               (4) Present uses, known proposals for               simple framework upon which discus-
                      ration and enhancement of the State's                 changes and long-term requirements of the             sion of the specific requirements asso-
                      coastal zone;                                         coastal zone:
                         (4) Policies for the protection and con-             (5) Energy generation and transmission,             clated with this subpart may proceed,
                      servation of coastal zone natural sys-                  (6) Estuarine habitats of fish, shellfish Zd        it May be helpful to categorize the vari-
                                                                            wildlife:                                             ous types of land and water uses which
                      tems, cultural, historic and scenic areas,              (7) Industrial needs;                               the Act envisions.
                      renewable and non-renewable resources,                  (8) Housing requirements;                             (1) The statutory definition of the
                      and the Preservation, restoration and                   (9) Recreation, Including beaches, parks,           landward portion of tht coastal zone
                      economic development of selected coastal              wildlife preserves, sport f1shing, swimming           states that It "extends Inland from the
                      Zone areas.                                           and pleasure boating;
                                                                              (10) Open space, including educational              shorelines only to the extent necessary
                         (c) The Secretary win review the                   and natural preserves, scenic beauty, and             to control shorelands, the uses of which
                      management program for the adequacy                   public access, both visual and phystma, to            have a direct and significant impact on
                      of State Procedures utilized in its deVel-            coastlines and coastal estuarine areas;               the coastal waters." Thus, the coastal
                      opment and will consider the extent to                  (11) Mineral resources requirements-,               zone will Include those lands and only
                      which its various elements have been                    (12) Transportation and navigation needs;           those lands where any existing, pro-
                      Integrated into a balanced and compre-                  (13) Floods and flood damage prevention,            Jected or Potential Use will have a "di-
                      hensive program designed to achieve the               erosion (including the effect of tides and cur-       rect and significant Impact on the coastal
                      above objectives and Policies.                        rents upon beaches and other shoreline                waters." Any such use will be subject to
                                                                            areas). land stability, climatology and me-           the terms of the management program,
                         Comment. Evaluation of the statutory re-           teorology;
                      quirements established in this subpart will             (14) Communication facilities;                      Pursuant to Section 305(b) (2).
                      concentrate prim fly upon the adequacy of               (15) Commercial fishing; and                          (2) There mav well be uses of certain
                      State processes In dealing with key coastal             (16) Requirements for protecting water              lands included within the coastal zone
                      problems and Issues. It will not, In general,         quality and other important natural re-               which will not have such "direct and sig-
                      deal with the wisdom of specific land and             sources.                                              nificant Imnact." Such uses may be sub-
                      water use decisions, but rather with 4 deter-         The list of considerations Is not meant to be         ject to regulFttton by local units of gov-
                      m1nation that in addressing those problems            exclusive, nor does it mean that each con-            ernMent within the framework of the
                      and Issues, the State Is aware of the full            sideration must be given equal weight. State          management program.
                      range of present and potential needs and              initiative to determine other relevant factors          (3) The Act also reautres that man-
                      uses of the coastal zone, and has developed           and consider them In the program Is essen.
                      procedures, based upon scientific knowledge,          tial to the management of the coastal zone            agenlent DroRrams contain a method of
                      public participation and unified govern-              as envisioned by congress.                            assuring that Olocal land and water use
                      mental policies, for making reasoned choices            In assessing programs submitted for ap.             regulations within the coastal zone do
                      and decisions.                                        PrOval. the Secretary, In consultation with           not unreasonably restrict or exclude
                         Management program win be evaluated in             Other Concerned Federal agencies will ex-
                      the light of the Congressional findings and           amine such programs to determin; that the             land and water uses of regional benefit."
                      policies as contained In Sections 302 and 803         full range of public problems and Issues af-          This requirement is described more fully
                      of the Act. These sections make It clear that         fecting the coastal zone have been Identified         In � 923.17.

                                                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, No. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

                B-18                                                   Adopted Under Section 306

                1686                                                    RULES AND REGULATIONS

                  (c)  As part of the State's manage-            the Act regardless of whether those uses            (3) A State's coastal zone must in-
                ment program, it must address and ex-            are found, upon analysis, to be "per-             clude transitional and I    *ntertidal areas,
                ercise authority over the following:             missible." The coastal zone must include          salt marshes, wetlands and beaches.
                  (1) Land and water uses which have             within it those lands which have any              Hence the boundary determination pro-
                a direct and signiftcant impact upon             existing, projected or potential uses             cedure must include a method of Identi-
                coastal waters. These uses are described         which have a direct and significant im-           fying such coastal features. In no case,
                more fully in � 923.12.                          pact upon the coastal waters and over             however, will a State's landward coastal
                  (2) Areas of particular concern. Sec-          which the terms of the management                 zone boundary include only such areas
                tion 305(b) (3) specifies that the man-          program will be exercised. In some                in the absence of application of the pro-
                agement program include an Inventory             States, existing regulations controlling          cedure called for herein or In � 923.43.
                and designation of areas of particular           shoreland uses apply only in a strip of             (4) Since the coastal zone excludes
                concern within the coastal zone. Section         land of uniform depth (e.g. 250 feet,             lands the use of which is by law subject
                923.13 deals more thoroughly with this           1,000 yards, etc.) behind the shoreline.          solely to the discretion of, or which is
                statutory requirement. Such areas must           Such a boundary will be acceptable if             held In trust by the Federal government,
                be considered of Statewide concern and           it approximates a boundary developed              itg officers and agents. the coastal zone
                must be addressed In the management              according to the procedure outlined               boundary must identify such lands which
                program.                                         above and extends Inland sufficiently for         are excluded from the coastal zone. In
                  (3) Siting of facilities necessary to          the management program to control                 order to complete this requirement. the
                meet requirements which are other than           lands the uses of which have a direct             State should indicate those Federally
                local in nature. The management pro-             and significant impact upon coastal               owned lands, or lands held in trust by the
                gram must take "adequate consideration           waters. States may wish, for administra-          Federal government, and over which the
                of the national interest involved In the         tive convenience, to designate political          State does not exercise jurisdiction as to
                siting of facilities necessary to meet re-       boundaries, cultural features, property           use. In the event that a State falls to
                quirements which are other than local            lines or existing designated planning and         identify lands held by an agency of the
                in nature" (Section 306(c) (8)). This re-        envtror=ental control areas. as bound-            Federal government as excluded lands.
                quirement is more fully discussed in             aries qg the coastal zone. While the Sec-         and the agency, after review of the pro-
                � 923.15.                                        retary will take into account the desir-          gram under Section 307(b). is of the
                � 923.11 Boundaries of the coastal zone.         ability of Identifying, a coastal zone            opinion that such lands should be ex-
                                                                 which is easily regulated as a whole, the         cluded, the disagreement will be subject
                  (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill           selection of the boundaries of the coastal        to the mediation process set forth In said
                the requirement contained in Section 305         zone must bear a reasonable relation-             sectiorL
                6) (1), the management program must              ship to the statutory requirement. Noth-
                show evidence that the State has devel-          ing in this part shall preclude a State           � 923.12 Permissible land and water
                oped and applied a procedure for iden-           from exercising the terms of the man-                  Uses.
                tifying the boundary of the State's              agement program in a landward area                  (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill
                coastal zone meeting the statutory defi-         more extensive than the coastal zone              the requirements contained in Section
                nition of the coastal zone contained In          called for in this part. If such a course         305(b)(2), the management must show
                Section 304(a). At a minimum this pro-           is selected, the boundaries of the coastal        evidence that the State has develop6d
                cedure should result in:                         zone must nevertheless be identified as           and applied a procedure for defining
                  (1) A determination of the Inland              above and the provisions of the Act will          "permissible land and water uses within
                boundary required to control, through            be exercised only in the defined coastal          the coastal zone which have a direct and
                the management program, shorelands               zone. It should be borne in mind that the         significant impact upon the coastal wa-
                the uses of which have direct and Sig-           boundary should include lands and                 ters," which includes. at a minimum:
                nificant impacts upon coastal waters,            waters which are subject to the manage-             (1) a method for relating various spe-
                  (2) A determination of the extent of           ment program. This means that the                 cific land and water uses to impact upon
                the territorial sea, or where applicable,        policies, objectives and controls called          coastal waters, including utilization of
                of State waters in the Great Lakes,              for in the management program must be             an operational definition of "direct and
                  (3) An identification of transitional          capable of being applied consistently             significant impact."
                and Intertidal areas, salt marshes, wet-         within the area. The area must not be so          ' (2) an inventory of natural and man-
                lands and beaches,                               extensive that a fair application of the          made coastal resources,
                  (4) An Identification of all Federally         management program becomes difficult                (3) an analysis or establishment of
                owned lands, or lands which are held in          or capricious, nor so limited that lands          a method for analysis of the capability
                trust by the Federal government, its of-         strongly influenced by coastal waters             and suitability for each type of resource
                ficers and agents in the coastal zone and        and over which the management pro-                and application to existing, Projected or
                over which a State does not exercise any         gram should reasonably apply, are                 Potential uses-
                control as to use.                               excluded.                                           (4) an analysis or establishment of a
                  (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-             (2) Inasmuch as the seaward bound-             method for analysis of the environmen-
                tion 305(b) (1):                                 ary of the coastal zone is established In         tal impact of reasonable resource utili-
                  such management program shall include          the Act, the States will be required to           zations.
                                                                                                                     (b) Comment. Statutory citation:
                      an identification of the boundaries of     utilize the statutory boundary, Le. in the        Section 305(b) (2):
                the coastal zone subject to the management       Great Lakes, the international bound-                                           in shall include
                programs-                                        ary between the United States and Can-              Such management progra
                                                                 ada, and elsewhere the outer limits of the               a definition of what shall constitute
                Useful background information con-                                                                             land and water uses within the
                                                                 United States territorial sea. At present,        permissible                   direct and sig-
                cerning this requirement appears in Part         this limit is three nautical miles from the       coastal tzone which have a
                920.11, which is incorporated Into this          appropriate baselines recognized by in-           nifican impact upon the coastal waters.
                part by reference.                               ternational law and defined precisely by          Useful background information concern-
                  (1) The key to successful completion           the United States. In the event of a stat-        ing this requirement appears in 15 CFR
                of this requirement lies in the develop-         utory change in the boundary of the ter-          920.12, which is incorporated into this
                ment and use of a procedure designed to          ritorial sea, the question of whether a           part by reference. Completion of this re-
                identify the landward extent of the              corresponding change in coastal zone              quirement should be divided into two
                coastal zone. Included in this procedure         boundaries must be made, or will be               distinct elements: a determination of
                must be a method for determining those           made by operation of law, will depend on          those land and water uses having a di-
                "shorelands, the uses of which have a            the specific terms of the statutory change        rect and significant impact upon coastal
                direct and significant impact upon the           and cannot be resolved in advance. In             waters, and an identification of such
                coastal waters." These uses shall be con-        the waters of Lake Michigan, the bound-           uses which the State deems permissible.
                sidered the same as the "land and watf         -r
                uses" described in � 923.12, reflecting the      ary shall extend to the recognized bound-           (1) Section 305(b) (4). In identifying
                requirements of Section 305(b) (2) of            aries with adjacent States.                       those uses which have a "direct and sig-

                                                      FEDEr.AL R@@GISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY          9, 1975

                                                                    Adopted Under Section 306                                                                       B-19

                                                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                                  1687
                     nificant impact," the State should define         surrounding resource utilization           and     Useful background information concern-
                     ULM phrase in operational terms that              which will have a tolerable impact                 Ing the requirement appears in 15 CFR
                     can be applied uniformly and consist-             upon the environment. These analyses,              920.13, which is incorporated here by
                     ently, and should develop a method for            In part. will be provided through exist-           reference. it should be emphasized that
                     relating various uses to impacts upon             Ing Information on environmental pro-              the basic purpose of inventorying and
                     coastal waters. Existing, projected and           tection programs, and should be sup-               designating areas of particular concern
                     potential uses should be analyzed as to           plemented to the extent necessaxy for              within the coastal zone Is to express some
                     the level and extent of their impact, be          determining the relationship between               measure of Statewide concern about
                     It adverse, benign or beneficial, intra-          land uses and environmental quality.               them and to include them within the
                     state or interstate. These impacts should         Where a State Prohibits a use within               purview of the management program.
                     then be assessed to determine whether             the coastal zone, or a portion thereof, it         Therefore, particular attention In re-
                     they meet the definition of "direct and           should identify the reasons for the pro-           viewing the management program will be
                     significant impact upon coastal waters."          hibition, citing evidence developed In             directed toward development by the State
                     (These are the ones by which the bound-           the above analyses. It should be Pointed           of implementing policies or actions to
                     aries of the coastal some are defined.)           out that uses which may have a direct              manage the designated areas of particu-
                     Those uses meeting that definition are            and significant impact on coastal                  lar concern.
                     automatically subject to control by the           waters when conducted close to the                 � 923.14 Guidelines on priority of uses.
                     management prqgram.                               shoreline may not have a direct and
                       (2) In determining which land and               significant impact when conducted                    (a) Requirement. The management
                     water uses may be deemed permissible,             further Inland. Similarly, uses which              Program shall include broad policies or
                     a State should develop a method for as-'          may be permissible in a highly indus-              guidelines governing the relative priori-
                     suring that such decisions are made in            trialized area may not be permissible in           ties which will be accorded in particular
                     an objective manner, based upon evalua-           a pristine marshIand. Accordingly, thg             areas to at least those permissible land
                     tion of the best available information            definition may also be correlated with             and water uses identified pursuant to
                     concerning land and water capability and          the nature (including current uses) and            1923.12. The priorities will be based upon
                     suitability. This method should Include           location of the land on which the use Is           an analysis of State and local needs as
                     at a minimum:                                     to take place. The analyses which the              well as the effect of the uses on the area.
                                                                       -State will undertake pursuant to this             Uses of lowest priority will be specifically
                       (1) An Inventory of significant natural         section should also be useful in satisfy-          stated for each type of area.
                     and man-made coastal resources, includ-           ing the requirements of 1923.13 through              (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
                     Ing but not limited to, shorelands,               1923.17.                                           tion 305(b) (5)
                     beacries, dunes, wetlands, uplands, bar-
                     rier Islands, waters, bays, estuaries, har-       � 923.13 Areas of particular concern.               Such management program shall in-
                                                                                                                          clude 0 0 0 broad guidelines on priority of
                     bors and their associated facilities. This           (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the        uses in particular areas, including specifically
                     should not be construed as requiring              requirements contained in Section 305              those uses of lowest priority.
                     long-term, continuing research and base-          (b) (3), the management program must
                     line studies, but rather as providing the         show evidence that the State has made              As pointed out In 15 CPR 920.15, the
                     basic information and data critical to            an inventory and designation of areas              priority guidelines will set forth the
                     successful completion of a number of re-                                                    as       degree of State interest in the preserva-
                                                                       of paxticular concern within the co tal            tion, conservation and orderly develop-
                     Quired management program elements.               zone. Such designations shall be based
                     States are encouraged, however, to con-           upon a review of natural -and man-made             ment of specific areas including at least
                     tinue research and studies as necessary           coastal zone resources and uses, and               those areas of particular concern identi-
                     to detect early warnings of changes to            upon consideration of State-established            fled In 1923.13 within the coastal zone,
                     coastal zone resources. It is recognized          criteria which include, at a                       and thus Provide the basis for regulating
                     that in some States a complete and de-            those factors contained in 15           Zli:       land and water uses in the coastal zone,
                     tailed inventory of such resources may,           namely:                                            as well as a common reference point for
                     be expensl,@e and time consuming in re-              (1) Areas of unique, scarce, fragile or         resolving conflicts. Such priority guide-
                     lation to the value of information                vulnerable natural habitat, physical fea-          lines will be the core of a successful
                     gathered in the development of the man -          ture, historical significance, cultural            management program since they will
                     agement program. Much information, of             value and scenic importance;                       provide a framework within which the
                     course, already exists and should be In-             (2) Areas of high natural productiv-            State, its agencies, local governments
                     tegrated into the inventory. The Secre-           ity or essential habitat for        living re-     and regional bodies can deal with
                     tary, in reviewing this particular                sources, including fish, wildlife slid the         specific proposals for development activ-
                     requirement. Will take into account the           various trophic levels in the food web             ities in vaxtous areas of the coastal zone,
                     nature and extent of the State's coast-           critical to their well-being;                      In order to develop such broad guidelines,
                     line, the funding available and existing             (3) Areas of substantial recreational           the management program shall indicate
                     data sources.                                     value and/or opportunity;                          that a method has been developed and
                       (ii) An analysis or establishment of               (4) Areas where developments and                applied for (1) analyzing State needs
                     a method for analysis of the eapabil-             facilities are dependent upon the utEfta-          which can be met most effectively and
                     Ities of each resource for supporting             tion of, or access to, coastal waters;             efficiently through land and water uses
                     various types     of uses (including the             (5) Areas of unique geologic or topo-           in the coastal zone, and (2) determining
                     capability for    sustained and undimin-          graphic significance to industrial or com-         the capability and suitability of meeting
                     ished yield of   renewable resources), as         mercial development;                               these needs in specific locations in the
                     well as of the suitability for such re-              (6) Areas of urban concentration                coastal zone. In analyzing the States,
                     source utilization when evaluated in              where shoreline utilization and water              needs, there shouk be a determination
                     conjunction with other local, regional            uses are highly competitive;                       made of those requirements and uses
                     and State resources and uses. Resource               (7) Areas of significant hazard if de-          whish have Statewide, as opposed to
                     Capability     analysis     should      include   veloped, due to storms, slides, floods, ero-       local, significance. Section 302(h) of the
                     physical, biological and chen-Lical param-        sion, settlement, etc.; and                        Act states in part that land and water
                     eters as necessary.                                  (8) Areas needed to Protect, maintain           use programs for thb coastal zone should
                       (III) An analysis or establishment of           or replenish coastal lands or resources,           include "unified policies, criteria, stand-
                     a method.for analysis of the Impact of            Including coastal flood plains, aquifer re-        ards, methods and processes for dealing
                                                                                                                          with land and water use decisions of
                     vanous resource uses upon the natural             charge areas, sand dunes, coral and other
                     environment (air, land and water) -               reefs, beaches, offshore sand deposits and         more than local significance." The in-
                     Based upon these analyses and appli-              mangrove stands.                                   ventory and analyses of coastal resources
                     cable Federal, State and local policies              (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-           and uses called for In 1923.12 will provide
                     and standards, the State should define            tion 305(b) (3).                                   the State with most of the basic data
                     permissible uses as those which can be               Such management program shall include           needed to determine the specific loca-
                     reasonably and safely supported by the            - * - an inventory and designation of areas        tions where coastal resources are
                     resource, which are compatible with               of paiticular concern within the coastal wns.      capable and suitable for meeting State-

                                                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6--YHURSDAY, JANUANY 9, 1975

                    B-20                                                                         Adopted Under Section 306

                    1688                                                                         RULES AND REGULATIONS

                    wide needs. In addition, these analyses                             then one locality (generally, the lowest                           can be supplied only through the use of
                    should permit the State to determine                                unit of local, general-purpose govern-                             facilities in the coastal zone in order
                    possible constraints on development                                 ment, excluding situations such as with                            to make reasonable provision for such
                    which may be applied by particular usea.                            cities and counties which exercise con-                            facilities in light of the size and popu-
                    The Program should establish special                                current Jurisdiction for the same geo-                             lation of the State, the length and char-
                    procedures for evaluating land use deci-                            graphic areas). in order to provide as-                            acteristics of Its coast and the contribu-
                    sions, such as the siting of regloritai                             sistance to the States In completing this                          tion such State is already making to
                    energy facilities, which may have a sub-                            requirement, a listing is presented below                          regional and national needs. This will
                    stantial impact on the environment. In                              w1itch identifies those requirements                               require the State to enter into discus-
                    such cases, the program should make                                 which are both (1) other than local in                             sions with appropriate Federal agencies
                    provision for the consideration of avail-                           nature, and (2) possess siting character-                          and agencies of other States In the re-
                    able alternative sites which will serve the                         istics in which, in the opinion of the                             gion, a process which should begin early
                    need with a minimum adverse inVact.                                 Secretary, there may be a clear national                           in the development of the management
                    The identifying and ordering of use pri-                            interest. For each such need, there is a                           program so that the full dimensions of
                    orities in specifit coastal areas Should                            listing of associated facilities. In addi-                         the national ir4erest may be considered
                    leaAd to the development and adoption of                            tion, the principal cognizant Federal                              as the State develops its program
                    State policies or guidelines on land and                            agencies concerned with these facilities                           Q 923.31 and �923.32). The management
                    water use In the coastal zone. Such pol-                            are also listed. This list must not be con-                        program should make reference to the
                    Icies or guidelines should be part of the                           sidered, inclusive, but the State should                           views of cognizant Federal agencies as
                    management program as submitted by                                  consider each requirement and facility                             to how these national needs may be met
                    the State and should be consistent with                             type in the development of its manage-                             In the coastal zone of that particular
                    the State's specified management pro-                               ment program. Consideration of these                               State. States should actively seek such
                    gram objectives. Particular attention                               requirements and facilities need not be                            guidance from these Federal agencies.
                    should be given by the State to applying                            seen as a separate and distinct element                            particularly in view of the fact that an
                    these guidelines on use priorities within                           of the management program, and the                                 management programs will be reviewed
                    those "areas of particular concern" des.                            listing is provided to assure that the                             with the opportunity for full comment
                    Ignated pursuant to � 923.13. In addl.                              siting of such facilities is not overlooked                        by all affected Federal agencies prior to
                    tion, States shall indicate within the                              or ignored. As part of its determination                           approval. It is recognized that Federal
                    management Program uses of lowest                                   of permissible uses in the coastal zone                            agencies will differ markedly In their
                    priority in particular areas, including                             Q 923.12). as well as of priority of uses                          abilities to articulate policies regarding
                    guidelines associated with such uses.                               (� 923.14), the State will have developed                          utilization of individual State's coastal
                                                                                        a procedure for inventorying coastal re-                           zones. NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone
                    � 923.15 National interest in the siting                            sources and identifying their existing or                          Management will encourage Federal
                           of facilities.                                               potential utilization for various purposes                         agencies to develop policy statements re-
                       (a) Requirement. A management pro-                               based upon capability, suitability and                             garding their perception of the national
                    gram which integrates (through develop-                             impact analyses. The process for re-                               Interest in the coastal zone and make
                    ment of a body of information relating                              sponding to the requirements of Section                            these available to the States. The States
                    to the national interest involved in such                           306(c) (8) should be Identical to, and                             should also consult with adjacent and
                    siting through consultation with cogni-                             part of, the same procedure. No separate                           nearby States which share similar or
                    zant Federal and regional bodies, as well                           national interest "test" need be applied                           common coastal resources or with re-
                    as adjacent and nearby States) the siting                           and submitted other than evidence that                             gional interstate bodies to determine how
                    of facilities meeting requirements which                            the listed national interest facilities have                       regional needs may be met in siting fa-
                    are of greater than local concern into                              been considered in a manner similar to                             cilities. Specific arrangements of "trade-
                    the determination of uses and areas of                              all other uses, and that appropriate con-                          offs" of coastal resource utilization
                    Statewide concern, will meet the re-                                sultation with the Federal agencies listed                         should be documented with appropriate
                    quirements of Section 306(c) (8).                                   has been conducted. As a preliminary to                            supporting evidence. The Importance of
                       (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-                            adequate consideration of the na-                                  this type of interstate consultation and
                    tion 306 (c) (8):                                                   tional interest, the State must determine                          cooperation in planning cannot be over-
                       Prior to granting approval of a manage-                          the needs for such facilities. Manage-                             emphasized for it offers the States the
                    ment program submitted by a coastal State,                          ment programs must recognize the need                              opportunity of resolving significant na-
                    the Secretary shall find that * * 0 the man-                        of local as well as regional and national                          tionitl problems on a regional scale with-
                    agement program provides for adequate con-
                    sideration of the national interest involved                        Populations for goods and services which                           out Federal Intervention.
                    In the siting of facilities necessary to meet                       j?cquirements which are other than twat in nature and In the alling 01 which there Inay be a dear national interest (with
                    requirements which are other than local in                                                                auociated facilitter and cVatzant Federal agenew)
                    nature.
                       This policy requirement Is intended to                                         Requirements                             Associated facilities                 Cognizant Federal Agencies
                    assure that national concerns over fa-
                    cility siting are expressed and dealt With                          1. Energy production and transmis- Oil and gas wells; storage and distri-                Federal Energy Administration,
                                                                                             start.                                     L)ution facilities; refineries; nu-         Federal Power Commission, B11-
                    In the development and implementation                                                                               clear, conventional, and hydro.             reau of Land management, Atomic
                    of State coastal zone management pro-                                                                               electric powerplants; deepwater             Energy Commissdon, Maritime Ad-
                                                                                                                                        ports.                                      ministration. Geological Survey,
                    grams. The requirement should not be                                                                                                                            Department of Transportation,
                    construed as compelling the States to                                                                                                                           Corps of Engineers.
                    propose a program which accommodates                                2- Recreation (ofan interstate nature)-- National seashores, parks, forests:             National Park Service, Forest serv-
                                                                                                                                        large and outstanding beaches and           ice, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
                    certain types of facilities, but to assure                                                                          recreational waterfronts; wildlife
                    that such national concerns are included                                                                            reserves
                    at an early stage in the State's pl                                    interstate transpqrtatton    ------------    nterstate highways, airports, aids       Federal Highway Administration,
                                                                         anning                                                         to navigation; ports and harbors,           Federal Aviation Administration,
                    activities and that such facilities not be                                                                          railroads.                                  Coast Guard, corps of Engineers,
                                                                                                                                                                                    Maritime Administration. inter-
                    arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably re-                                                                                                                        state Commerce Commission.
                    stricted in the management Program                                  C Production of food and fiber       --------   Prime agricultural land and facili.      Soil conservation Service. Forest
                    without good and sufficitnt reasons. It                                                                             ties; forests; mariculture facilities;      Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
                                                                                                                                        fisherim                                    National Marine Fisheries Service.
                    is recognized that there may or may not                             5. Preservation of life and property     ....   Flood and storm protection facilt-       Corps of Engineers, Federal Insur-
                    be a national Interest associated with                                                                              ties-, disaster warning facilities.         ance Administration, NOAA, Soil
                                                                                                                                                                                    conservation Service.
                    the siting of facilities necessary to meet                          6. National defense and aerospace       ------  Military installations; defense man-     Department of Defense, NASA.
                    requirements which are other than local                                                                             uracturing facilities; acres 8`400
                                                                                                                                        launching and tracking facililes.
                    in nature. Requirements which are other                                Historic cultural esthetic and con- i[listoric sites; natural areas; areas of         National Register of Historic Places,
                    than local in nature shall be considered                               -;=Xan vaiii;!                               unique cultural significance; wild-         National Park Service. Fish and
                                                                                                                                        life refuges; areas of species and          Wildlife Service, National Marine
                    those requirements which. when fill-                                                                                habitat preservation.                       Fisheries Service.
                    filled, result in the establishment of fa-                          a. Nneral resources     --------------------    Mineral extraction facilities needed     Bureau of Mines. Geological Survey.
                    cilitles designed clearly to serve more                                                                             to dlrecti@ support activity.
                                                                         FEDERAL     REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

                                                                      Adopted Under Section 306                                                                            B-21

                                                                              RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                                       1689
                       923.16 Area designation for Prawrnl-              *xdude iand and vater uses of regional               the State has identified a means for con-
                        tion and restoration.                                 L                                               trolling each permissible land and water
                       (a) Requirement. in order to ruifin the           This requirement Is intended to prevent              use specified in 1923.12. and for preclud-
                       requirement contained In Section 306(c)           local land and water use decisions from              Ing land and water uses in the coastal
                       (9), the management program must show             arbitrarily excluding certain land and               zone which are not permAssible. The
                       evidence that the State ha3 developed             water uses which are deemed of impor-                management program should contain a
                       and applied standards and criteria for            tance to more than a single unit, of local           list of relevant constitutional provisions,
                       the designation of areas of conservation,         government. For the purposes of this re-             legislative enactments, regulations, Judi-
                       recreational, ecological or esthetic values       quirement, a use of regional benefit Will            cial decisions and other appropriate offi-
                       for the purpose of preserving and restor-         be one which provides services or other              cial documents or actions which estab-
                       Ing them.                                         benefits to citizens of more than one unit           lish the legal basis for such controls, as
                       (b) Comment,. Statutory citation: Sec-            of local. general-purpose government                 well as documentation by the Governor
                       tion 306(c) (9):                                  (excluding situations such as In cities              or his designated legal officer that the
                       Prior to granting approval of a manage-           and counties which exercise jurisdiction             State actually has and is prepared to im-
                       ment program submitted by a coastal state.        over the same geographic areas). In                  plement the authorities, including those
                       the Secretary shall And that * * * the man-       order to assure that arbitrary exclusion             contained in Section 306(d), required to
                       e6gement program makes provision for pro-         does not occur, the State must first                 implement the objectives, policies and
                       cedures whereby speciftc areas may be desig-      Ident4fy those uses which Lit perceives              Individual components of the program.
                       nated for the purpose of preserving or            will affect or produce some regional                   (b) Comment. Statutory citation:
                       restoring them for their conservation, recre-     benefit. This designation would normally             Section 305(b) (4):
                       ation, ecological or esthetic values.             be derived from the inventory and anal-                Such management program shall include
                       (1) This requirement Is closely linked            ysis of the uses contained in 1923.12. In              * 0 an identification of the means by
                       to that contained in 1923.13, dealing with        any *vent. however, these uses should                which the State proposes to exert control
                       designation of areas of particular con-           include those contained in the table of              over the land and water uses refeired to in
                       cem. Unless the State can make a com-             1923.15. In addition, the State may                  paragraph (2) Of this subsection, Including a
                       pelling case to the contrary, all areas           determine that certain land and water                listing of relevant constitutional provisions,
                       designated according to the methods               uses may be of regional benefit under                legislative enactments, regulations and Judi-
                       called for in this part shall also be con-        certain sets of circumstances; the State             ow decisions;
                       sidered as areas of particular concern.           should then establish standards and                  Statutory citation: Section 306 W (7)
                       (2) This requirement Is reasonably                criteria for determining when such con-                Prior to granting approval of a manage-
                       self-explanatory. The State must de-              ditions exist. There should be no blanket            ment program submitted by a coastal State,
                       velop Procedures for the designation of           exclusion or restrictions of these uses In           the Secretary shall And that 0 0 0 the
                       areas wtth certain characteristics. The           areas of the coastal zone by local regu-             state has the authorities necessary to Im-
                       State, in doing so, must:                         lation unless It can be shown that the               pleraeut the program, including the author-
                       (I) Establish standards and criteria for          exclusion or restriction is based upon               ity required under subsection (d) of this
                       the possible designation of coastal areas         reasonable considerations of the sult-               section-
                                                                                                                                   Ul inf rMa I        r
                       Intended for preservation or restoration          ability of, the area for the Uses or the             Usef        0     t on Oneerriing this 're-
                       because of their conservation, recrea-            carrying capacity of the area. The re-               quirement appears in 15 CF%t, 920.14,
                       tional, ecological or esthetic values, and        quirement of this section does not ex-               which Is incorporated into this part by
                       (11) Apply those standards and criteria           clude the possibility that In specific axess         reference. The key words in this require-
                       to the State's coastal resources. (In this,       certain uses of regional benefit may be              ment are, "to exert control over the
                       the Inventory associated with the re-             Prohibited,     However, such exclusions             land and water uses." This reflects the
                       Quirement of 1923.13 will be most help-           may not be      capricious. The method by            Congressional finding that the "key to
                       ful.)                                             which the      management program will               more effective Protection and use of the
                       (3) The requirement of the statute                assure that such unreasonable restric-               land and water resources of the coastal
                       goes to the Procedures rather than sub-           tiOns Or exclusion not occur in local land           zone is to encourage the States to exer-
                       stance; the f act that a State may be             and water use decisions will, of course.             cise their full authority over the lands
                       unable to move rapidly ahead with a               be UP to the State, but It should Include            and waters in the coastal zone * 0 *.11
                       program of preservation or restoration            the Preparation of standards and criteria            It is not the intent of this part to specify
                       will not prevent the program from being           relating to State interpretation of         . "un-   for the States the "means" of control;
                       approved. The State should also rank in           reasonable restriction or exclusion', as             this is a State responsibility. The State
                       order of relative priority areas of its           well as the establishment of a continuing            must, however. describe in the manage-
                       coastal zone which have been designated           mechanisms for such determination.                   ment program its rationale for develop-
                       for the purposes set forth in this section.        Subpart C-Authorities and OrganIzation              ing and deciding upon such "means."
                       As funds become available. such a rank-                                                                The "means" must be capable of actually
                       ing will provide a set of Priorities for          � 923.20 General.                                    Implementing the objectives, policies
                       selecting areas to be preserved or re-              This subpart deals with requirements               and individual components of the man-
                       stored.                                           that the State possess necessary authori-            agement program. As such, requirements
                                                                         ties to control land and water uses and              shall be reviewed In close conjunction
                       923.17 Local regulations and uses of              that It be organized to Implement the                with 1923.24, 923.25 and � 923.26, relat-
                          regional henefiL                                  nagement. It should be emphasized                 ing to actual authorities which the State
                       (a) Requirement. in order to fulfin               that before final approval of a coastal              must Possess. The management program
                       the requirement contained in Section              zone management program can be given                 Should also indicate those specific land
                       306(e) (2), the management program                by the Secretary of Commerce, the au-                and water uses over which authoriti
                       must show evidence that the State has             thorities and organizational structure               Jurisdiction or control will be exercised
                       developed and applied a method for de-            called for In the management program                 concurrently by both State and Federal
                       termining uses of regional benefit, and           inuit be in place. Preliminary approval,             agencies, particularly those uses affecting
                       that it has established a method for as-          however, can be given to a proposal                  water resources, submerged lands and
                       suring that local land and water use              which will require subsequent legislative            navigable waters. The management pro-
                       controls In the coastal zone do not un-           or executive action for implementation               grain must provide for control of land
                       reasonably or arbitrarily restrict or ex-         and eligibility for administrative grants            and water uses In the coastal zone, al-
                       clude those uses of regional benefit.             under Section 306.                                   though the exercise of control may L e
                       (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-             � 923.21 Means of exerting State control             vested in, or delegated to, various agen-
                       tion 306 (e) (2) :                                      over land and water uses.                      cies or local government. AS Part Of th3
                       Prior to granting approval, the Secretary                                                     fulfill  approval of a management program, the
                       shall also And that the program provides             (a) Requirement. In order           to            Secretary must find that the means for
                       00 0 for a method of assuring that local          the requirements contained In Sections               controlling land and water uses identi-
                       land and water use regulations within the         305 (b) (4) and 306 W (7), the          manage-      fled In J 923.21 are established and in
                       coastal zone do not univasonably restrict or      Ment program must show evidence that                 Place, and that the means include the

                                                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY                 9, 1975

                  B-22                                                       Adopted Under Section 306

                  1690                                                      RULES AND REGULATIONS

                  authorities contained in � 923.24 and              the Act. Review of the management pro.             and to resolve conflicte among competing
                  � 923.25. This finding will be based upon          gram for compliance with this require-             uses *  0  0.
                  documentation by the Governor of the               ment win be lundertaken as a single re-            This requirement shall be reviewed in
                  coastal State or his designated legal offl-        view with review of the requirements               close conjunction with that of �� 923.21,
                  cer that the State possesses and Is pre-           contained in � 923.31, full participation          923.25 and 1923.26, dealing with author-
                  pared to implement the requisite au-               by interested bodies in adoption of man-           ities which the State's organizational
                  thorities.                                         agement programs, and � 923.23, desig-             structure must possess in order to ensure
                  � 923.22    Organizational structure to im-        nation of a single State agency.                   Implementation of the management pro-
                       plement the management program.               � 923.23 Designation ot a single agency.           gram. The language of this requirement
                    (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the           (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the         makes it clear that the State may choose
                                                                                                                        to administer its program using a va-
                  requirement contained in Section 305 (b)           requirement of Section 306(c) (5), the             riety of levels of governments and agen-
                  (6), the management program must con-              management program must contain ap-                cies, but that if it does, the State must
                  tain a description of how the State is or-         propriate documentation that the Gov-              have available to it the authorities spec-
                  ganized to implement the authorities               ernor of the coastal State has designated          ified.
                  identified in � 923-21. In addition, the           a single agency to be responsible for re-
                  management prograrn must contain a                 ceiving and administering grants under             � 932.25 Authorities for property acqui-
                  certification by the Governor of the               Section 306 for implementing an ap-                      sition.
                  State or his designated legal officer that         proved management program.                            (a) Requirement. The management
                  the State has established Its organiza-              (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-            program shall contain documentation
                  tional structure to implement the man-             tion 306(c) (5):                                   by the Governor or his designated legal
                  agement program.                                     Prior to granting approval of a manage-          officer that the agency or agencies, in-
                    (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-            ment program submitted by a coastial State,        cluding local governments, areawide
                  tion 305 (b) (6) :                                 the Secretary shall find that 0 * 0 the Gov-       agencies, regional or Interstate agen-
                   Such management program shall In-                 ernor of the State has designated a single         cies, responsible for implementation of
                  clude * * * a description of the organizational    agency to receive and administer the grants        the management program have available
                  structure proposed to implement the man-           for Implementing the management program
                  agement program, including the responsi-           required under paragraph (I) of this subsec-       the power to acquire fee simple and less
                  bUities and interrelationships of local, area-     tiOn-                                              tharx fee simple interests in lands, waters
                  wide, State, regional and interstate agencies                                                         and other property through condemna-
                  in the management process.                         This  requirement is closely related to            tion or other means where necessary to
                                                                     that contained In � 923.22, relating to a          achieve conformance with the manage-
                  Statutory citation: Section 306 (c) (6)            description of the organizational struc-           ment program. Where the power in-
                   Prior to granting approval of a manage-           ture which will implement the manage-              cludes condemnation, the State shall so
                  ment program submitted by a coastal State,         ment program. While this requirement is            Indicate. Where the power includes other
                  the Secretary shall find that 0 * * the state      self-explanatory, it should be pointed out         means, the State shall specifically iden-
                  Is organized to Implement the management           that States will undoubtedly come for-             tify such means.
                  program -required under paragraph (1) of this      ward with a wide variety of organiza-                 (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
                  subsection.                                        tional structures to implement approved            tion 306(d) (2):
                  Useful background information and                  management Program. Some will prob-
                                                                     ably be quite complex, utilizing a vaxiety           Prior to granting approval of the manage-
                  guidance concerning this requirement                                                                  ment program, the Secretary shall find that
                  appears in 15 CFR 920.16, which is in-             of control techniques at a number of gov-          the State, acting through its chosen agency
                  corporated into this part by reference.            ernmental levels. Nothing in this part             or agencies, Including local governments,
                  The legislative history of the Act makes           should be construed as limiting the op-            areawide agencies designated under Section
                  it clear that the States should be ac-             tions available to a State for implement-          204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metro-
                  corded maximum flexibility in organiz-             ing its program. The purpose of the re-            politan Development Act of 1966, regional
                  ing for implementation of their coastal            quirement is simply to identify a single           agencies or interstate agencies, has authority
                  zone management programs. Thus,                    agency which will be fiscally and pro-             for the management of the coastal zone in
                                                                     grainmatically responsible for receiving           accordance with the management program.
                  neither the Act nor this part provide an                                                              Such authority shall include power * * * to
                  organizational model which must The fol-           and administering the grants under Sec-            acquire fee simple and less than fee simple
                  lowed. While individual State programs             tion 306 to implement the approved man-            interests in lands, waters and other prop-
                  may have a wide range of interstate,               agement program.                                   erty through Condemnation or other means
                  State, local or areawide agency roles to           � 923.24 Authorities to administer land            when necessary to achieve conformance with
                  play, the program will be reviewed closely              and water uses, control development           the man enaent program 0 * *.
                  for assurance that it constitutes an or-                and resolve conflicts.                        In most cases, it win not be necessary
                  ganized and unified program. Consistent              (a) Requirement. (1) The manage-                 to acquire fee simple ownership. Nor-
                  with this principle, there must be a clear         ment program must contain documenta-               many, appropriate use restrictions will
                  point of responsibility for the program,           tion by the Governor or his designated             be adequate to achieve conformance with
                  although program implementation may                legal officer that the agencies and gov-           the program. In other cases, an ease-
                  be undertaken by several State entities-           errunents chosen by the State to admin-            ment may be necessary to achieve con-
                  In those cases, where a complex inter-             ister the management program have the              formance with the management pro-
                  agency and intergovernmental process is            authority to administer land and water             gram. Where acquisition is necessary,
                  established, the State must submit a de-           regulations, control development in ac-            this section contemplates acquisition by
                  scription of roles and responsibilities of         cordance with the management program               condemnation or through other means.
                  each of the participants and how such              and to resolve use conflicts.                      However, the mere authority to acquire
                  roles and responsibilities contribute to a           (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-            an interest in lands or waters by pur-
                  unified coastal zone management pro-               tion 306 (d) (1) :                                 chase from a willing vendor will not be
                  gram. This description should be suf-                Prior to granting approval of the manage-        sufficient in cases where the acquisition
                  ficiently detailed to demonstrate that a           ment program, the Secretary shall find that        of interests in real property Is a neces-
                  coherent Program structure has been                the state, acting through its chosen agency
                  proposed bY the State and the State is             or agencies, including local governments,          sary and integral part of the program.
                  prepared to act in accordance-with the             areawide agencies designated under Section         In Such cases, the power of condemna-
                  objectives of the management program.              201 of the Demonstration Cities and Metro-         tion need be no broader than necessary
                                                                     politan Development Act of 1966, regional          to achieve conformance with the pro-
                  Although the Act does not prescribe the            agencies, or Interstate agencies, has authority    gram. For example, if a State's program
                  creation of a central management agency            for the management      of the coastal zone In     includes provisions expressly requiring
                  at the State level, it envisions the               accordance with the     management program,        that power transmission lines and pipe-
                  creation of a coastal zone management              Such authority shall include power 0 * * to
                  entity that has adequate legislative and/          administer land -and    water use regulations,     lines be located in specified energy and
                  or executive authority to implement the            control development In order to ensure             transportation corridors to minimize en-
                  policies and requirements mandated in              compliance with the     management program         vironmental impact, and for flitate ac-

                                                         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO.      6-THURSDAY, JANUARY        9, 1975

                                                                      Adopted Under Section 306                                                                           B-23

                                                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                                     1691

                    quisition of such transportation corri;-             merit plans, projects, or land and water            sultation and cooperation with               such
                    dors, then the State should have the                 regulations, including exceptions and               bodies has taken place and will continue
                    power to acquire corridors for such pur-             variances thereto proposed by any State             in the future.
                    poses through condeirination. It is not              or local authority or private developer,            � 923.31 Full participation by relevant
                    necessary that the power to acquire real             with power to approve or disapprove af-                   bodies in the adoption of manage-
                    property be held by any one particular               ter public notice and an opportunity for                  ment programs.
                    agency involved in implementing the                  hearings." This option leaves the local
                    management program. The authority                    unit of government free to adopt zoning                (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the
                    must, however, be held by one or more                ordinances or regulations without State             requirement contained in section 306(c)
                    agencies or local governments with a                 criteria and standards other than the               (1), the management program must
                    statutory responsibility to exercise the             program itself, but subjects certain ac-            show evidence that:
                    authority without undue delay when                   tions by the local unit of government to               (1) The management program has
                    necessary to achieve conform nce with                automatic State review, Including public            been formally adopted in accordance
                    the management program.                              notice and a hearing when requested by              with State law or, in its absence, admin-
                                                                         a party. Such actions include:                      Istrative regulations;
                    � 923.26 Techniques for control of land                (1) Adoption of land and water use                   (2) The State has notified and pro-
                          and water uses.                                regulations, ordinarily in the       form of a      vided an opportunity for full participa-
                       (a) Requirement. The management                   zoning ordinance or regulation.                     tion in the development of its manage-
                    program must contain documentation by                  (ii) Granting of an exception or vari-            ment program to all public and private
                    the Governor or his designated legal of-             ance to a zoning ordinance or regulation.           agencies and organizations which are li-
                    ficer that all existing, projected and po-             (ill) Approval of a development plan              able to be affected by, or may have a
                    tential land and water uses witkin the               or Project proposed by a Private develop-           direct interest In, the management pro-
                    coastal zone may be controlled by any                er. This may be defined to exclude ap-              gram. The submission of the manage-
                    one or a combination of the techniques               PrOval of minor projects, such as small             ment program shall be accompanied by a
                    specified in Section 306(e) (1).                     residences or commercial establish-                 list.identifying the agencies and organi-
                                             Statutory c                                                                     zations referred to in paragraph (a) (2)
                       (b) Comment.                         itation:     ments, or those which do not have a
                    Section 306(e) M:                                    significant impact.                                 of this section, the nature of their in-
                                                                           (4) It should be noted that State re-             terest, and the opportunities afforded
                       Prior to granting   approval. the    Secre'tary                                                       such agencies and organizations to par-
                    shall also find that the program provides            view is for consistency with the manage-
                    * * 0 for any one or a combination of the            merit program, not of the merits or of              ticipate in the development of the man-
                    following general techniques for control of          the facts on which the local decision is            agement program. These organizations
                    land and water uses within the coastal               based.                                              should include those identified pursuant
                    zone:                                                  (5) The State may choose to utilize               to � 923.32, which have developed local,
                                                                         only one of the specified techniques, or            areawide or interstate plans applicable
                       (1)  Section 306(e) (1) (A) "State es-            more than one, or a combination of them             to an area within the coastal zone of the
                    tablishment of criteria and standards for            in different locations or at different              State as of January 1 of the year in which
                    local implementation. subject to adnlin-             times. Within the parameters set forth              the management program is submitted
                    Istrative review and enforcement of com-             in the requirement, there is a large va-            for approval; and
                    pliance." This option requires the State             rietY of tools which the management                    (3) The management program will
                    to establish general criteria and stand-             program could adopt for controlling land            carry Out the Policies enumerated in sec-
                    ards within the framework of the coastal             and water uses. The Program should                  tion 303 of the Act.
                    zone program for implementation by                   Identify the techniques for control of                 (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
                    local government. Such criteria and                  land and water uses which It Intends to             tion 306(c) M:
                    standards would provide for application              use for existing, projected and potential              Prior to granting approval of a manage-
                    of criteria and standards to specific local          uses within the coastal zone. This re-              ment program submitted by a coastal State,
                    conditions. Implementation by a local                quirement will be reviewed in close con-            the Secretary shall find that * 0 * (t) he State
                    unit of government would consist of                  Junction with those contained in �� 923.            has developed and adopted a management
                    adoption of a suitable local zoning ordi-            21, 923.24 and 923.25, dealing with State           program for Its coastal zone in accordance
                    nance or regulation, and enforcement                 authorities to implement the manage-                'with rules and regulations promulgated by
                    on a continuing basis. Administrative                ment program.                                       the Secretary, after notice, and with the op-
                    review at the State level requires pro-                                                                  portunity of full participation by relevant
                    vision for review of local ordinances and                     SUbPart D-Coordination                     Fqderal agencies, State agencies, local gov-
                                                                                                                             ernments, regional organizations. port au-
                    regulations and local enforcement ac-                � 923.30 General.                                   thorities, and other interested parties, pub-
                    tivity for consistency with the criteria                                                                 lic and private, which is adequate to carry
                    and standards as well as programs, not                 One of the most critical aspects of the           out the purposes of this title and is consist-
                    review of specific cases on the merits. In           development of State coastal zone man-              ent with the policy declared in section 303
                    the event of deficiencies either in regu-            agement programs will be the ability of             of this title.
                    lation or local enforcement, State en-               the States to deal fully with the network
                    forcement of compliance would require                of public, Quasi-vublic and private bodies          ThIs requirement embodies the actual
                    either appropriate changes in local reg-             Which can assist in the development                 approval by the Secretary of Commerce
                    ulation or enforcement or direct State               process and which may be significantly              of a State's coastal zone management
                    intervention.                                        impacted by the implementation of the               Program Pursuant to all of the terms
                       (2) Section 306(e) (1) (B) "Direct                program. Each State will have to develop            of the Act, plus associated administrative
                    State land and water use plannin and                 its own methods for accommodating, as               rules and regulations. As the operative
                    regulation." Under this option the%tate              appropriate, the varying, often conflict-           section, it subsumes all of the require-
                                                                         ing interests of local governments, water           ments included in this part, which shall
                    would become directly involved in the                and air Pollution control agencies,                 be considered the "rules and regulations
                    establishment of detailed land and water             regional agencies, other State agencies             Promulgated by the Secretary" men-
                    use regulations and would apply. these               and bodies, interstate organizations,               tioned in section 306(c) (1). The citation,
                    regulations to indiv4dual cases. Initial             Commissions and compacts, the Pederal               however, also includes some specific ad-
                    determinations regarding land and water              government and interested private                   ditional requirements, for which guid-
                    use In the coastal zone would be made                bodies. It is the intent of these require-          ance and performance criteria are
                    at the State level. This option Pre-                 ments for coordination with govern-                 necessary. These additional requirements
                    emPts the traditional role of local gov-             mental and Private bodies to assure that            include:
                    ernment in the zoning process involving
                    lands or waters within the coastal zone.             the State, in developing its management                (1) Adoption of the management pro-
                                                                         program, is aware of the full array of              gram by the State. The management pro-
                       (3) Section 306(e) (1) (C) "State ad-             Interests represented by such organiza-             gram must demonstrate that it repre-
                    ministrative review for consistency with             tions, that Opportunity for participation           sents the official policy and objectives of
                    the management program of all develop-               was provided, and that adequate con-                the -State. In general, this will require

                                                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-7HURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

                  B-24                                                      Adopted Under Section 306

                  1692                                                      RULES AND REGULATIONS

                  documentation in the management pro-                  (2) A listing of the specific contacts           them, or which are commonly recognized
                  gram that the State management entity              made    with all such entities In order to          by the entity as a guide for action. The
                  has formally adopted the management                coordinate the management program                   list of relevant agencies required under
                  program in accordance with either the              with their plans,                                   � 923.31 will be of use in meeting this
                  rules and procedures established by                   (3) An identification of the conflicts           requirement. It will enable the State to
                  statute, or In the absence of such law,            with those plans which have not been                identify those entities mentioned in (A)
                  administrative regulations.                        resolved through coordination, and eon-             which have such plans and to provide
                    (2) Opportunity for full participation           tinuing actions contemplated to attempt             evidence that coordination with them
                  by relevant Federal agencies, State agen-          to resolve them, and                                has taken place. The process envisioned
                  cies, local governments, regional orga-               (4) Indication that a regular consul-            should not only enable a State to avoid
                  nizations, port authorities, and other             tive mechanism has been established and             conflicts between its program and other
                  interested parties, public and private. A          is active, to undertake coordination be-            plans applying within its coastal zone,
                  major thrust of the Act is its concern for         tween the single State agency designated            but to draw upon the planning capabili-
                  full participation and cooperation in the          pursuant to � 923.23, and the entities in           ties of a wide variety of local govern-
                  development and implementation of                  paragraph (B) of Section 306(c) (2).                ments and other agencies. In developing
                  management programs by all inferested                 (b) Comment. Statutory citation:                 and implementing those portions of the
                  and affected agencies, organizations and           Section 306 (c) (2) :                               program dealing with power transmission
                  Individuals. This is specifically Included            "Prior to granting approval of a manage-         lines, pipelines, interstate transportation
                  in the statement of national policy in             ment program submitted by a coastal         State,  facilities and other facilities which will
                  section 303(c). The State must provide             the Secretary shall find         that the State     significantly impact on neighboring
                  evidence that the listed agencies and              has:                                                States of a region, particular attention
                  parties were, in fact, provided with an               (A) Coordinated its program with local,          should be paid to the requirements of this
                  opportunity for full participation. it will        areawide and interstate plans applicable to         section.
                  be left to the States to determine the             areas within the coastal zone exLfting on
                  method and form of such evidence, but              January I of the year In which the State's                   Subpart E--Miscellaneous
                  it should contain at a minimum:                    management program is submitted to the              � 923.40 General.
                    (i) A listing, as comprehensive as po            Secretary, which plans have been developed            The requirements In this subpart do
                                                              . S-   by a local government, an areawide agency
                  sible, of all Federal and State agencies.          designated pursuant to regulations estab-           not fall readily into any of the above
                  local governments, regional organiza-              lished under section 204 of the Demonstra-          categories but deal with several impor-
                  tions, port authorities and public and             tion CIties and Metropolitan Development            tant elements of an approvable man-
                  private organizations which are likely to          Act of 1966, a regional agency, or an Inter-        agement program. They deal with public
                  be affected by, or have a direct interest          state agency; and                    inechantern    hearings In development of the manage-
                  In, the development and implementation                (B) Established an effective                     ment Program, gubernatorial review and
                  of a management program (including                 for continuing consultation and coordina-           approval, segmentation of State pro-
                                                                     tion between the management agency desig-
                  those identified in � 923.32), and                 nated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this             grams and applicability of water and
                    (ii) A listing of the specific      interests    subsection and with local governments,              air pollution control requirements.
                  of such organizations in the development           interstate agencies, regional agencies and          � 923.41 Puhtic hearings.
                  of the management program, as well as              arexwide agencies within the coastal zone to
                                                                     assure the full participation of such local           (a) Requirements. In order to fulfill
                  an identification of the efforts made to           governments and agencies n earrying out             the requirement contained in section
                  involve such bodies in the development             the purposes of this title."                        306(c) (3), the management program
                  process.                                              Relevant background information on               must show evidence that the State has
                    (a) "Opportunity for full participa-             this requirement appears in 15 CIFR                 held public hearings during the devel-
                  tion" is interpreted as requiring partici-         920.45(f), and is incorporated by refer-            bpment of the management program
                  pation at all appropriate stages of man-           ence herein. While the State will exercise          following not less than 30 days notifica-
                  agement program development. The as-               its authority over land and water -uses of          tion, that all documents associated with
                  sistance which can be provided by these            Statewide significance in the coastal zone          the hearings are conveniently available
                  public and private organizations can               by one or more of the techniques set                to the public for review and study at
                  often be significant, and therefore con-           forth In � 923.28, the State management             least 30 days prior to the hearing, that
                  tact with them should be viewed not                program must be coordinated with exist-             the hearings are held in places and at
                  only as a requirement for approval, but            ing plans applicable to portions of the             times convenient to affected populations,
                  as an opportunity for tapping available            coastal zone. It should be noted that this          that all citizens of the State have an
                  sources of information for program de-             section does not demand compliance of               opportunity to comment on the total
                  velopment. Early and continuing con-               the State program with local plans, but             management program and that a report
                  tact with these agencies and organiza-             the process envisioned should enable a              on each hearing be prepared and made
                  tions is both desirable and necessary. In          State not only to avoid conflicts and am-           available to the public within 45 days.
                  many cases it may be difficult or ImPOs-           biguities among plans and proposals, but              (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
                  sible to identify all interested parties           to draw upon the planning capabilities              tion 306 (C) (3) :
                  early in the development of the State's            of a wide variety of governments and                  Prior to granting approval of a manage-
                  program. However, the public hearing               agencies. Coordination implies a high               ment program submitted by a coastal State,
                  requirement of � 923.41 should afford an           degree of cooperation and consultation              the Secretary shall fin(t that 0 * * (t)ho
                  opportunity to participate to interested           among agencies, as well as a mutual will-           State has held public,hearings on the de-
                  persons and organizations whose interest           ingness on the part of the participants             velopment of the management program.
                  was not in' Aially noted.                          to accommodate their activities to the              Extensive discussion and statements of
                    (3) Consistency with the policy de-              needs of the others in order to carnj out           policy regarding this requirement ap-
                  clared in section 303 of the Act. In order         the public interest. Perceptions of the             pears in �� 920.30, 920.31 and 920.32,
                  to facilitate this review, the State's man-        public good will differ and it is recognized        which is incorporated herein by lZer-
                  agement program must indicate specift-             that not all real or potential conflicts can        ence.
                  cally how the program will carry out the           be resolved by this process. Nevertheless,          � 923.42 Cubernaforial review wid ap-
                  policies enumerated in section 303.                It is a necessary step. Effective coopera-               proval.
                  � 923.32 Consultation and coordination             tion and consultation must continue as
                      with other planning.                           the management program is put into                    (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the
                                                                     operation so that local governments, in-            requirement contained in section 306(c)
                    (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the         terstate, regional and areawide agencies            (4), the management program must con-
                  requirements contained in section 306(c)           can continue to participate in the carry-           tain a certification signed by the Gover-
                  (2), the management program must In-
                  clude:                                             Ing out of the management program. The              nor of the coastal State to the effect that
                    (1) An identification of those entities          "plans" referred to in (A) shall be con-            he has reviewed and approved the man-
                  mentioned which have plans in effect on            sidered those which have been officially            agement program and any amendments
                  January I of the year submitted,                   adopted by the entity which developed               thereto. Certification may be omitted in

                                                         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY               9, 1975

                                                                  Adopted Under Section 306                                                                        B-25

                                                                          RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                                   1693

                  the case of a program submitted for pre-           ments of a mana ement program. Re-                � 923.44 Applicability of air and water
                  liminary approval.                                 gional agencies and local governments                   pollution control requirements.
                    (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-            may play a large role in developing and              (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill
                  tion 306 (c) (4) :                                 carrying out such segmented Programs.             the requirements contained in Section
                    Prior to granting approval of a manage-          but there must be a continuing State              307(f) of the Act the management pro-
                  ment program submitted by a coastal Stat;e,        Voice throughout this Process. This State         gram must be developed in close coordi-
                  the Secretary shall find that 0 * * the man-       involvement shall be expressed in the             nation with the planning and regulatory
                  agement program and any changes thereto            first segment of the management Pro-              systems being implemented Under the
                  have been reviewed and approved by the             gram in the form of evidence that (I) the         Federal Water Pollution Control Act and
                  Governor.                                          boundaries of the coastal zone for the            Clean Air Act, as amended, and be con-
                  This requirement is self-explanatory.              entire State have been defined (pursuant          sistent with applicable State or Federal
                                                                     to � 923.11) and QD there has been ade-           water and air pollution control stand-
                  � 923.43 Segmentation.                             quate consideration of the national in-           ards in the coastal zone. Documentation
                     (a) Requirement. If the State intends           terest involved in the siting of facilities       by the official or officials responsible for
                  to develop and adopt its management                necessary to meet requirements which              State Implementation of air and water
                  program in two or more segments, it shall          are other than local in nature (pursuant          pollution control activities that those re-
                  advise the Secretary as early as prac-             to � 923.15) for the State's entire coast-        quirements have been incorporated Into
                  ticable stating the reasons why segmen-            al zone. These requirements are de-               the body of the coastal zone management
                  tation is appropriate and requesting his           signed to assure that the -development of         program should accompany submission
                  approval. Each segment of a management             a Statewide coastal zone management               of the management program.
                  program developed by segments must                 Program Proceeds in an orderly fashion               (b) Comment: Statutory citation:
                  show evidence (1) that the State will              and that segmented programs reflect ac-           Section 307(f) :
                  exercise policy control over each of the           curately the needs and capabilities of               Notwithstanding any other provision of
                  segmented management programs prior                the State's entire coastal zone which are         this title, nothing in this title shall in any
                  to, and following their integration Into           represented In that particular segment.           way affect any requirement (1) established
                  a complete State management program,                 (3) The Act's intent of encouraging             by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
                  such evidence to include completion of             end assisting State governments to de-            as amended, or the Clean Air Act, as amend-
                  the requirements of � 923.11 (Boundaries           velop a comprehensive program for the             ed, or (2) established by the FederaJ govern-
                  of the coastal zone) and 1 923.15 (Na-             control Of land and water uses in the             ment, or any State or local government pur-
                  tional Interest in the siting of facilities)       coastal zone is clear. This intent should         suant to such Acts. Such requirements shall
                  for the State's entire coastal zone, (2)           therefore apply to segments as well, and          be incorporated In any program developed
                                                                                                            rograms    pursuant to this title, and shall be the water
                  that the segment submitted for approval            segmented       management          P             pollution control requirements and air pol-
                  includes a geographic area on both sides           should be comprehensive In nature                 lution control requirements applicable to
                  of the coastal land-water interface, and           and deal with the relationship between            such program-
                  (3) that a timetable and budget have               and among land and water uses. No ab-
                  been established for the timely comple-            solute minimum or maximum geographic                 (1) The basic purpose of this require-
                  tion of the remaining segments or                  size limitations will be established for          ment is to ensure that the management
                  segment.                                           the area of coverage of a segment. On             program does not conflict with the na-
                     (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-           the one hand, segments should include             tional and State policies, plans and regu-
                  tion 306 (h) :                                     an area large enough to permit compre-            lations mandated by the Federal Water
                    At the discretion of the State and with          hensive analyses of the attributes and            Pollution Control Act, as amended, and
                                                          manage-    limitations of coastal resources within           the Clean Air Act as amended. The pol-
                  the approval of the Secretary, a                                                                     icies and standards adopted pursuant to
                  ment program may be developed and adopt-           the segment of State needs for the util-
                  ed in segments so that Immediate attention         ization or protection of these resources          these Acts should be considered essential
                  may be devoted to those areas within the           and of the interrelationships of such util-       baselines against which the overall man-
                  coastal zone which most urgently need man-         izations. On the othef hand, it is not            agement program is developed. This is a
                  agement programs: Provided, That, the State        contemplated that a segmented man-                specific statutory requirement that re-
                  adequately provides for the ultimate coordi-       agement program will be developed sole-           flects the overall coastal zone manage-
                  nation of the various segments of the man-         ly for the purpose of protecting or con-          ment objective of unified state manage-
                  agement program into a single, unified pro-
                                                                     trollmg a single coastal resource or use,         ment of environmental laws, regulations
                  gram, and that the unified program will be                                                           and applicable standards. To this end,
                  completed as soon as reasonably practica-          however desirable that may be.
                  ble.                                                 (4) One of the distinguishing features          management programs should provide
                                                                     of a coastal zone management program              for continuing coordination and cooper-
                     (1) This section of the Act reflects a          is its recognition of the relationship be-        ation with air and water programs dur-
                  recognition that It may be desirable for           tween land uses and their effect upon             ing subsequent administration of the ap-
                  a State to develop and adopt its man-              coastal waters, and vice versa. Segments          proved management program.
                  agement program in segments rather                 should likewise recognize this relation-             (2) There are also significant oppor-
                  than an at once because of a relatively            ship between land and water by includ-            tunities for developing working relation-
                  long coastline, developmental pressures            ing at least the dividing line between            ships between air and water quality
                  or public support in specific areas, or            them, plus the lands or waters on either          agencies and coastal zone management
                  earlier regional management programs               side which are mutually affected. in the          programs. These opportunities include
                  developed and adopted. It is important             case of a segment which is predominant-           such activities as joint development of
                  to note. however. that the ultimate ob-            ly land, the boundaries shall include             Section 208 areawide waste treatment
                  jective of segmentation is completion of           those waters which are directly and sig-          management planning and coastal zone
                  a management program for the coastal               nificantly impacted by land uses in the           management programs; consolidation
                  zone of the entire State In a timely               segment. Where the predominant part               and/or incorporation of various plan-
                  fashion. Segmentation is at the State's            of the segment is water, the boundaries           ning and regulatory elements into these
                  option, but requires the approval of the           shall' Include the adjacent shorelgrids
                  Secretary. States should notify the Sec-           strongly influenced by the waters, includ-        closely related programs; coordination
                  retary at as early a date as possible re-          ing at least transitional and inter-tidal         of monitoring and evaluation activities;
                  garding intention to prepare a manage-             areas, salt marshes, wetlands and                 increased management attention being
                  ment program in segments.                          beaches (or similar such areas in Great           accorded specifically to the coastal
                     (2) Continuing involvement at the               Lake States).                                     waters; consultation concerning the de-
                  State as well as local level in the de-               ( 5) Segmented management programs
                  velopment and implementation of seg-               su@litted for approval will be reviewed           sirability of adjusting state water quality
                  mented programs is essential. This em-             and approved in exactly the same man-             standards end criteria to complement
                  phasis on State participation and ao-              ner as programs for complete coastal              coastal zone management policies; and
                  ordination with the gr9gram. as a wilde            zones, utilizing the same approval cri-           designation of areas of particular con-
                  should be reflected In the individual seg-         teria, plus those of this section.                cern or priority uses.

                                                         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

                  B-26                                                 Adopted Under Section 306
                  1694                                                   RULES AND REGULATIONS

                  Subpart F-Applicatlons for AdmlnhdmtW*          � 923.53 Allocation.                             taneously with the distribution of the
                                     Grants                         Section 306(f) allow a Statie to al-           preapplication form.
                    923.50 General.                               locate a portion of Its ad-in' trative             W Costs claimed as charges to the
                    The primary purpose of administratIve         grant to sub-State or multi-Stste entities       grant project must be beneficial and
                  grants made under section 306 of the Act        if the work to result from the allocauGn         necessary to the objectives of the grant
                  is to assist the States to implement            contributes. to the effective implementa-        Project. The allowabili  ty of costs will be
                  coastal zone management program fol-            tion of the State's approved coastal zone        determined In accordance with the provi-
                  lowing their approval by the Secretaxy of       man ement program. The requirements              sions of FMC 74-4. Administrative grants
                  Commerce. The purpose of these guide-           for Identifying such allocations are set         made under section 306(a) of the Act
                  lines is to define clearly the processes by     forth in I 923-55(e).                            are clearly Intended to assist the States
                  which grantees apply for and administer                                                          In administering their approved man-
                  grants under the Act. These guidelines          � 923.54 Geographical segmentation.              agement programs. Such Intent precludes
                  shall be used and interpreted in con-             Authority Is provided in the Act for a         tasks and related costs for long range
                  junction with the Grants Management             State's management program to be de-             research and studies. Nevertheless it is
                  Manual for Grants under the Coastal             veloped and adopted in segments. Addi-           recognized that the coastal zone and its
                  Zone Management Act, hereinafter re-            tional criteria for the approval of a seg-       management is a dynamic and evolving
                  ferred to as the "Manual." This Manual          mented management program are set                process wherein experience may reveal
                  contains procedures and guidelines for          forth in Subpart E � 923.43. Application         the need for specially focused, short-term
                  the administration of all grants covered        procedures for an administmtive grant            studies. leading to Improved management
                  under the Coastal Zone Management               to assist in administering an approved           processes and techniques. The OCZM will
                  Act of 1972. It has been designed as a          segmented management program will be             consider such tasks and their costs, based
                  tool for grantees, although it addresses        the same as set forth in this subpart for        upon demonstrated need and expected
                  the responsibilities of the National            applications to administer an approved           contribution to more effective manage-
                  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-             management Program for the entire                ment Programs.
                  tion and Its Office of Coastal Zone Man-        coastal zone of a State.                           (d) The Form CD-292, Application for
                  agement, which is responsible for admin-        � 923.55 Application for the initial ad-         Federal Assistance (Non-Construction
                  istering programs under the Act. The                 ministrative grant.                         Programs). constitutes the formal appli-
                  Manual incorporates a wide range of                                                              cation and must be submitted 60 days
                  Federal requirements, Including those             (a) The Form CD-n88, Preapplica-               prior to the desired grant beginning date.
                  established by the Office of Management         tion for Federal Assi tance, required            The application must be accompanied by
                  and Budget, the General Services Ad-            only for the initial grant, must be sub-         evidence of compliance with A-95 re-
                  ministration, the Department of the             mitted 120 days prior to the beginning           quirements Including the resolution of
                  Treasury, the General Accounting Office         date of the requested grant. The Pre-            any problems raised by the Proposed
                  and the Department of Commerce. In              application shall include documentation,         project. The OCZM will not accept appli-
                  addition to specific policy requirements        signed by the Governor, designating the          cations substantially deficient in adher-
                  of these agencies, the Manual includes          State office, agency or entity to apply for      ence to A-95 requirements.
                  7ecommended policies and procedure, for         and administer the grant. Copies of the            (e) The State's work program imple-
                  grantees to use in submitting a grant           approved management program are not              menting the approved management pro-
                  application. Inclusion of recommended           required. The preapplication form may            grain is to be set forth in Part IV, Pro-
                  policies and procedures for grantees does       be submitted prior to the Secretary's            gram Narrative, of the Form CD-292 and
                  not limit the choice of grantees in select-     approval of the applicant's management           must describe the work to be accom-
                  ing those most useful and applicable to         program provided, after consultation             plished during the grant period. The
                  local requirements and conditions.              with OCZM, approval is anticipated               work program should Include:
                                                                  within 60 days of submittal of the                 (1) An Identification of those elements
                    923.51 Administration of the           pro,   preapplication.                                  of the approved management program
                      gram.                                         (b) An applications are subject to the         that are to be supported all or In part
                    The Congress assigned the responsi-           provisions of OMB Circular A-95 (re-             by the grant and the matching share,
                  bility for the administration of the            vised). The Form CD-288, Preapplica-             hereinafter called the grant project. In
                  Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to          tion for Federal Assistance, will be             any event, activities related to the es-
                  the Secretary of Commerce, who has des-         transmitted to the appropriate clear-            tablishment and implementation of State
                  ignated the National Oceanic and Atmos-         Inghouses at the time It is submitted to         responsibilities pursuant tD Section 307
                  pheric Administration (NOAA) as the             the Office of Coastal Zone Management            (c) (3) and Section 307(d) of the Act, are
                  agency in the Department of Commerce            (Oczm). if the application Is deter-             to be included In the grant project.
                  to manage the program. NOAA has estab-          mined to be Statewide or broader In na-            (2) A precise statement of the major
                  lished the Office of Coastal Zone Man-          ture, a statement to that effect shall be        tasks required to implement each ele-
                  agement for this purpose. Requests for          attached to the Preapplication form              ment.
                  information on grant applications and           submitted to OCZM. Such a determina-               (3) For each task, the following should
                  the applications themselves should be           tion does not preclude the State clear-          be specified:
                  directed to:                                    Inghouse from Involving areawide                   (I) A concise statement of how each
                  Director, Office of Coastal Zone Management     clearinghouses In the review. In any             task will accomplish all or part of the
                    (OCZM)                                        event, whether the application is con-           program element to which it is related.
                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminla-       Sidered to be Stateuide or not, the Pre-         Identify any other State. areawtde, rd-
                    tration,                                      application form shall include an attach-        gional or Interstate agencies or local gov-
                  US. Department of Commerce                      ment indicating the date copies of the           ernments that will be allocated respon-
                  Rockville, Maryland 20852                       Preapplication form were transmitted to          sibility for carrying out all or portions of
                  � 923.52 State responsibility.                  the State clearinghouse and if appli-            the task. Indicate the estimated cost
                    (a) The application shall      contain a      cable, the identity of the areawide clear-       of the subcontract/grwA for              each
                  designation by the Governor of a coastal        inghouse(s) receiving copies of the Pre-         allocation.
                  State of a single agency to receive and         application form and the date(s)                   (11) For each task Indicate the        esti-
                                                                  trapsmitted. The Preapplication form
                  have fiscal and programmatic responsi-          may be used to meet the project notifl-          mated total cost. Also Indicate the esti-
                  bility for administering grants to imple-                                                                  tal man-months, if any, allo-
                  ment the approved management pro-               cation and review requirements of OM33           mated to
                  gram-                                           Circular A-95 with the concurrence orf           cated to the task from the applicant's
                    (b) A single State application will cover     the appropriate clearinghouses. In the           in-house staff.
                  all program management elements,                absence of such concurrence the project
                  whether carried out by State agencies,          notification and review procedures,
                  axeawide/regional agencies, local govem-        established State and areawide clearing-         U21111111111111111
                  ments, interstate or other entities.            houses, should be implemented simul-

                                                      FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY           9, 1975

                                                                            Adopted Under Section 306                                                                      B-27

                                                                                 RULES AND REGULATIONS

                     (4) The sum of all the task costs in sub-para-    with any approved amendments, is operative and
                 graph (3) of this paragraph should equal the          has not been materially altered. This statement
                 total estimated grant project costs.                  will provide the basis for an annual OCZM
                     (5) Using two categories, Professional and        certification that the approved management pro-
                 Clerical, indicate the total number of personnel      gram remains in effect, thus fulfilling, in part,
                 ineach category on-the applicant's in-house staff,    the requirements of section 309(a) for a continu-
                 that will be assigned to the grant project. Addi-     ing review of management programs.
                 tionally indicate the number assigned full time          (3) The Governor's document designating the
                 and the number assigned less than full time in        applicant agency is not required, unless there
                 the two categories.                                   has been a change of designation.
                     (6) An identification of those management            (4) Copies of the approved management pro-
                 program elements, if any, that will not be            gram or approved amendments thereto are not
                 supported by the grant project, and how they          required.
                 will be implemented.                                           [FR Doc.75-738 Filed 1-6--75;8:45 am)
                 � 923.56 Approval of applications.
                     (a) The application for an administrative
                 grant of any coastal State with a management
                 program approved by the Secretary of Commerce,
                 which complies with the policies and require-
                 ments of the Act and these guidelines, shall be
                 approved by OCZM, assuming available funding.
                     (b) Should an application be found deficient,
                 OCZM will notify the applicant in writing, set-
                 ting forth in detail the manner in which the
                 application fails to conform to the requirements
                 of the Act or this subpart. Conferences may be
                 held on these matters. Corrections or adjust-
                 ments to the application will provide the basis
                 for resubmittal of the application for further
                 consideration and review.
                     (c) OCZM may, upon finding of extenuating
                 circumstances relating to applications for assis-
                 tance, waive appropriate administrative require-
                 ments contained herein.
                 � 923.57 Amendments.
                     Amendments to an approved application must
                 be submitted to, and approved by, the Secretary
                 prior to initiation of the change contemplated.
                 Requests for substantial changes should be dis-
                 cussed with OCZM well in advance. It is recog-
                 nized that, while all amendments must be ap-
                 proved by OCZM, most such requests will be
                 relatively minor in scope; therefore, approval
                 may be presumed for minor amendments if the
                 State has not been notified of objections within
                 30 working days of date of postmark of the
                 request.
                 � 923.58 Applications for second and
                       subsequent year grants.
                     (a) Second and subsequent year applications
                 will follow the procedures set forth in this
                 subpart, with the following exceptions:
                     (1) The preapplication form may be used at
                 the option,of the applicant. If used, ty procedures
                 set forth in � 923.55 (b) will be followed and
                 the preapplication is to be submitted 120 days
                 prior to the beginning date of the requested grant.
                 If the preapplication form is not used, the A-95
                 project notification and review procedures estab-
                 lished by State and areawide clearinghouses
                 should be followed.
                     (2) The application must contain a statement
                 by the Governor of the coastal State or his
                 designee that the management program as ap-
                 proved earlier by the Secretary of Commerce,

                                                                   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

                                                                                                                               B-29

                                                                    TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

                                                                    WASHINGTON, D.C.

                                                                                                              ES
                                                                    Volume 39 0 Number 108                   T-1
                                                                                                                      e,
                                                                                                                      tit
                                                                    PART IV

                                                                                                             1934

                                                                      DEPARTMENT OF
                                                                              COMMERCE

                                                                           National Oceanic and
                                                                      Atmospheric Administration

                                                                          Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines

                 NO. 108-Pt. rv-1

                  B-30                                         Adopted Under Section 312
                  19922                                                RULES AND REGULATIONS

                     Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade         the proposed regulations and presents          and House Committee Reports and are
                  CHAPTER IX-NATIONAL OCEANIC AND                the rationale for the responses made.          considered sufficient to reflect the kinds
                     ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DE-               Section 921.2 Deftnitions. Three com-        of uses intended within an estuarine
                     PARTMENT OF COMMERCE                        ments requested that the term "estuary"        sanctuary.
                                                                 be defined. Although the term is defined         Several comments were received per-
                     PART 921-ESTURAINE SANCTUARY                In the Act and also in the regulations         taining to � 921.3(c) involving the re-
                                  GUIDELINES                     dealing with Coastal Zone Management           strictions against overemphasis of de-
                     The National Oceanic and Atmos-             Program Development Grants (Part 920           structive or manipulative research. Ten
                  pheric Administration (NOAA)               On  of this chapter) published November 29,        comments indicated that the section was
                  March 7, 1974, proposed guidelines (15         1973, it has been added to these regula-       too weak and would not provide sufficient
                  CFR Part 921) pursuant to section 312 of       tions and broadened slightly to include        long-term protection for the sanctuary
                  the Coastal Zone Management Act of             marine lagoons with restricted fresh-          ecosystem. Several commentators spe-
                  1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280),          water Input such as might occur along          cifically recommended deleting the words
                  hereinafter referred to as the "Act," for      the south Texas coast.                         "would not normally be permitted" and
                  the purpose of establishing the policy           Two other comments requested that            inserting in their place "will not be per-
                  and procedures for the nomination, se-         the "primary purpose" referred to in           mitted." In contrast, three respondents
                  lection and management of estuarine            � 921.2 (b) be clearly defined. Although       indicated that the potential use of estu-
                  sanctuaries.                                   elaborated upon In � 921.3 (h), for the        arine sanctuaries for manipulative or
                     Written comments were to be sub-            purpose of clarity this change has been        destructive research was too restricted,
                  mitted to the Office of Coastal Environ-       made.                                          and that these uses should be generally
                  nient (now the Office of Coastal Zone            Section 921.3 Objectives and Intple-         permitted If not encouraged.
                  Management), National Oceanic and              mentation. Several comments suggested            The legislative history of section 312
                  Atmospheric      Administration,      before   that the estuarine sanctuary program           clearly indicates that the intent of the
                  April 8, 1974, and consideration has been      objectives were too narrowly defined and       estuarine sanctuary program should be
                  given those comments.                          specifically that they should be broad-        to preserve representative estuarine
                     The Act recognizes that the coastal         ened to include the acquisition and pres-      areas so that they may provide long-
                  zone is rich in a variety of natural, com-     ervation of unique or endangered estu-         term (virtually permanent) scientific
                  mercial, recreational, industrial and          axies for wildlife or ecological reasons.      and educational use. The uses perceived
                  esthetic resources of immediate and po-        Although the Act (section 302) declares        are compatible with what has been de-
                  tential value to the present and future        it the nation's policy to preserve, protect,   fined as "research natural areas." In
                  well-being of the nation. States are en-       develop, and where possible, to restore or     an era of rapidly degrading estuarine
                  couraged to develop and implement              enhance coastal resources, this is per-        environments, the estuarine sanctuary
                  management programs to achieve wise            ceived to be achievable through State          program will ensure that a representa-
                  use of the resources of the coastal zone,      actions pursuant to sections 305 and 305.      tive series of natural areas will be avail-
                  and the Act authorizes Federal grants to       While it is recognized that the creation       able for scientific or educational uses
                  the States for these purposes (sections        of an estuarine sanctuary may in fact          dependent on that natural character, for
                  305 and 306).                                  serve to preserve or protect an area or        example, for baseline studies, for use In
                     In addition, under section 312 of the       biological community, the legislative his-     understanding the functioning of natural
                  Act, the Secretary of Commerce is              tOrY Of section 312 clearly indicates the      ecological systems, for controls against
                  authorized to make available to a coastal      estuarine sanctuary program was not in-        which the impacts of development in
                  State grants of up to 50 per centum. of        tended to duplicate existing broad pur-        other areas might be compared, and as
                  the cost of acquisition, development and       pose Federal preservation programs, such       interpretive centers for educational pur-
                  operation of estuarine sanctuaries. The        as might be accommodated by use of the         poses. Any use, research or otherwise,
                  guidelines contained in this part are for      Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.          which would destkoy or detract from the
                  grants under section 312.                      Instead, both in the Act as well as its        natural system, would be inappropriate
                     In general, section 312 provides that       legislative history, the objective Is de-      under this program.
                  grants may be awarded to States on a           fined as preserving representative estu-         In general, the necessity of or benefit
                  matching basis to acquire, develop and         arine areas for long-term research and         from permitting manipulative or de-
                  operate natural areas as estuarine sanc-       educational uses.                              structive research within an estuarine
                  tuaries in order that scientists and stu-        Three other comments suggested the           sanctuary is unclear. While there is a
                  dents may be provided the opportunity          objectives of the program should be en-        legitimate need for such kinds of re-
                  to examine over a period of time ecologi-      larged to include the restoration of en-       search, ample opportunity for manipu-
                  cal relationships within the area. The         vironmentally degraded areas. This, too,       lative or destructive research to assess
                  purpose of these guidelines is to establish    is perceived to be a State requirement         directly man's impact or stresses on the
                  the rules and regulations for implemen-        separate from section 312. In addition,        estuarine environment exists now with-
                  tation of this program.                        adequate authority for restoring de-           but the need for creation or use of an
                     The National Oceanic and Atmospheric        graded water areas now exists (for ex-         estuarine sanctuary for this purpose. In
                  Administration is publishing herewith          ample, Pub. L. 92-500 In addition to           contrast, a clear need exists for natural
                  the final regulations describing the pro-      sections 302, 305 and 306 of the Act).         areas to serve as controls for manipula-
                  cedures for applications to receivd grants     No significant additional benefit would        tive research or research on altered
                  for estuarine sanctuaries under section        appear to result from declaring an area        systems.
                                                                 an estuarine sanctuary for the purposes          The section on manipulative research
                  312 of the Act. The final regulations and                                                     has been changed to reflect the concern
                  criteria were revised from'the proposed        of restoration.
                  guidelines based on the comments re-             A few comments indicated that the            for continued maintenance of the area
                  ceived. A total of fifty (50) States agen-     examples of sanctuary use were too heav-       as a natural system. However, the modi-
                  cies, organizations and individuais sub-       ily weighted toward scientific uses to         fler "normally" has been retained be-
                  mitted responses to the proposed sec-          the exclusion of educational uses. Public      cause, within these limits, it is not felt
                  tion 312 guidelines published in the           education concerning the value and ben-        necessary to preclude all such uses; the
                  FEDERAL REGISTER on March 7, 1974. Of          efits of, and the nature of conflict within    occasion may rarely arise when because
                  those responses received, eight (8) of-        the coastal zone, will be essential. to the    of a thoroughly demonstrated direct ben-
                  fered no comment or were wholly favor-         success of a coastal zone management           efit, such research may be permitted.
                  able as to the nature and content of the       program. The section has been changed            Several comments suggested that the
                  guidelines as originally proposed. Forty-      to reflect an appropriate concern for          program should Include degraded estua-
                  two (42) conimentators submitted sug-          educational use.                               rine systems, rather than be limited to
                  gestions concerning the proposed section         Some commentators suggested changes          areas which are "relatively undisturbed
                  312 guidelines.                                in or additions to the specific examples       by human activities." Such areas would
                     The following summary analyzes key          of sanctuary uses and purposes. These          permit research efforts designed to re-
                  comments received on various sections of       examples were taken from the Senate            store an estuarine area. As indicated

                                                        FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE-4, 1974

                                                            Adopted Under Section 312                                                                       B-31

                                                                       RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                             19923

                 above, an ample legislative mandate to           that the primary purpose of the sanc-           Grants. Two comments requested that
                 restore environmentally degraded are9A           tuary would be more clearly protected.          the source and nature of acceptable
                 already exists; the benefits to be derived       In contrast, two commentators felt that         matching funds should be explicitly
                 from declaring such areas estuarine              the definition might prove too restrictive      Identified.
                 sanctuaries would be marginal. Indeed,           and should be broadened. Several com-             OMB Circular A-102 generally defines
                 it would appear that If restoration ef-          mentators suggested that examples of            and Identifies legitimate "match" for
                 forts cannot occur without estuarine             anticipated multiple use might be               Federal grant projects. In general, refer-
                 sanctuary designation, then, given the           appropriate.                                    ence should be made to that document.
                 limited resources of this program, such            While recognizing that it is not always       However, the section has been expanded
                 efforts would not be feasible.                   possible to accommodate more than a             in response to some specific and frequent
                    A few commentators suggested that             single use in an environmentally sensi-         questions.
                 the phrase Q 921.3 (e) ) "if sufficient per-     tive area, it is not the intention to un-         Two comments stressed the need for
                 manence and control by the State can             necessarily Preclude the uses of sanc-          increased availability of research funds
                 be assured, the acquisition of a sanctu-         Wary areas where they are clearly com-          to adequately utilize the potential of es-
                 ary may involve less than the acquisition        patible with and do not detract from the        tuarine sanctuaries. While not an ap-
                 of a fee simple interest" be more clearly        long-term Protection of the ecosystem           propriate function of the estuarine sanc.-
                 defined. Explanatory language has been           for scientific and educational purposes.        tuary program, the Office of Coastal Zone
                 added to that section.                           The language of 1921.5 has been changed         Management is discussing the necessity
                    Section 921.4 Zoogeographic Classiftca-       accordingly.                                    of adequate funding with appropriate
                 tion. Because the classification scheme            Section 921.6 nelationship to Other           agencies.
                 utilized plants as well as amimal , two          Provisions of the Act and to Marine               One comment suggested that the term
                 commentators suggested that zoogeo-              Sanctuaries. Several comments were re-          "legal description" of the sanctuaxy
                 graphic be changed to biogeographic,             ceived which commended and stressed             (i 921.11(a)) is not appropriate for all
                 This change is reflected in the final            the need for close coordination between         categories of information requested. Me
                 regulations.                                     the development of State coastal zone           word "legul" has been omitted.
                    One comment suggested that selection          management Programs, especially and               Three reviewers indicated that the Act
                 of sanctuaries should depend on the pres-        land and water use controls, and the            provides no basis for consideration of
                 sures and threats being brought to bear          estuarine sanctuary program.                    socio-economic Impacts Q 921.11(1))
                 upon the natural areas involved even if            The relationship between the two Pro-         and that this criterion seemed inappro-
                 this meant selecting several sanctuaries         grams is emphasized: estuarine sanctu-          priate to selecting estuarine sanctuaries.
                 from one classification and none from            aries should Provide benefit-both short-        Apparently these reviewers n-dsunder-
                 another.                                         term and long-term-to coastal zone              stood the Intention of this requirement.
                    The legislative history of section 312        management decision-makers, and State           The information In this section is neces-
                 clearly shows the intent to select estu-         coastal zone management programs must           sary for preparation of an environmental
                 arine sanctuaries on a rational basis            provide necessary protection for estu-          impact statement which will be prepared
                 which would reflect regional differentia-        arine sanctuaries. This necessary coordi-       pursuant to NEPA. Although required in
                 tion and a variety of ecosystems. The bio-       nation is discussed not only in the estu-       the application, such information is not
                 geographic classification system, which          arine sanctuary regulations, but will also      a part of the selection criteria, which are
                 reflects geographic, hydrographic. and           be addressed in an appropriate fashion          addressed In Subpart C, � 921.20.
                 biologic differences, fulftlls that Inten-       in guidelines and rules for Coastal Zone          One similar comment was received
                 tion. A scheme which would abandon               Management Program Approval Criteria            with regard to consideration of existing
                 that system, or another similar on% and          and Administrative Grants.                      and potential uses and conflicts (� D21.-
                 would not fulfill the requirements Of pro-         Three commentators discussed the              11 (h) ). This item is also discussed under
                 viding regional differentiation and a            need for swift action by both State and         selection criteria (i 921.20(h)). It Is in-
                 variety of ecosystems, would not be con-         Federal governments to establish- and           tended that this criterion win only be
                 sistent with the intended purpose of the         acquire estuarine sanctuaries. The Office       considered when choosing between two
                 Act.                                             of Coastal Zone Management intends to           or more sanctuary applications within
                    A few comments received suggested             Pursue the Program as swiftly as avail-         the same biogeographic category which
                 that the biogeographic classification            able manpower restraints Will permit.           are of otherwise equal merit,
                 scheme be enlarged by the addition of a            A few comments sought reassurance               One comment drew attention to an
                 new class reflecting an area or State of         that the estuarine sanctuaries program          apparent typographic error in � 921.11
                 special concern or Interest to the re-           will In fact be coordinated with the            (m) where the term "marine estuaries"
                 spondent. (No two commentators sug-              Marine Sanctuaries Program (Title III,          seems out of context. This has been cor-
                 gested the wune area.) It is felt that           Pub. L. 92-532). The guidelines have            rected.
                 adequate national representation is pro-         been changed to reflect that both pro-            Two commentators suggested that
                 vided by the biogeographic scheme pro-           grams will be administered by the same          public hearings should be required In the
                 posed, and that the changes offered were         office.                                         development of an estuarine sanctuary
                 in most cases examples of sub-categories           SUBPART B-APPLICATION FoR GRANTS              application. Although such a hearing is
                 that might be utilized.                                                                          deemed desirable by the Office of Coastal
                    One oo-men suggested E6 specific                section 921.10 General. one reviewer          zone management, it would not always
                 change in the definition of the "Great           Indicated uncertainty about which State         seem to be necessary. The language in
                 Lakes" category. Portions of that sug-           agency may submit applications for              1 920.11(l) has been changed to reflect
                 gestion have been incorporated into the          grants under section 312. Although indi-        the sincere concern for the adequate in-
                 final rules.                                     vidual States may vary in the choice of         volvement of the public, which is also
                    Two commentators requested assur-             individual agencies to apply for an es-         addressed under a new � 920.21.
                 ance that sub-categories of the biogeo-          tuarine sanctuary, because of the neces-          One respondent suggested that a new
                 graphic scheme will in fact be utilized          sitY for coordination with the State            section be added requiring the appli-
                 The final language substitutes "'will b;         coastal zone management program the             cant to discuss alternative methods of
                 developed and utilized" for "may be de-          entity within the State which is the cer-       acquisition or control of the area, includ-
                 veloped and utilized."                           tified contact with the Office of Coastal       ing the designation of a marine sanctu-
                    Section 921.5 Multiple Use. Several           Zone Managemerit, NOAA, responsible             ary, in place of establishing an estuarine
                 comments were received pertaining to             for the administration of the coastal           sanctuary. A new section Q 920.11 (n)
                 the multiple use concept. Three com-             zone management program must en-                has been added for this purpose.
                 mentators suggested that the multiple            dorse or approve an estuarine sanctuary           Section 921.12 Subsequent Application
                                                                  application.                                    for Development and Operation Grants.
                 use directive was contrary to or absent            Appropriate language has been in-             Three commentators expressed concern
                 from the Act and should be omitted. Ten          cluded to ensure this coordination.             that the intent of 1921.12 be more clearly
                 respondents felt the concept should be             Section 921.11 Initial Application for        expressed. Appropriate changes have
                 more explicitly defined and restricted so        Acquisition, Development and Operation          been made.

                                                          FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE        4, 1974

                      B-32                                           Adopted Under Section 312
                   19924                                                         RULES AND REGULATIONS

                      one comment was made that a pro-                     Two commentators expressed concern                to the extent feasible a natural unit, set
                   vision should be included to use existing            for enforcement capabilities and activi-             aside to provide scientists and students
                   Federally owned land for the purpose of              ties to ensure protection of the estuarine           the opportunity to examine over a period
                   the estuarine sanctuary Program. A sec-              sanctuaries. A new section has been                  of time the ecological relationships with-
                   tion has been added for that purpose.                added which addresses this issue.                    in the area.
                      Section 921.20 Criteria for Selection.               Finally, one suggestion was received              41 (b) For the purposes of this section,
                   One comment suggested that the Con-                  that a vehicle for change in the manage-                estuary" means that part of a river or
                   sideration of conflict with existing or po-          ment policy or research programs should              stream or other body of water having un-
                   tential competing uses should not be in-             be provided. A new section has been                  impared connection with the open sea
                   cluded as a selection criterion. As dis-             added for that purpose.                              where the seawater is measurably diluted
                   cussed above, this criterion is considered              Accordingly, having considered the                with freshwater derived from land drain-
                   appropriate.                                         comments received and other relevant                 age. The term Includes estuary-type
                      Another reviewer suggested the addi-                                                                   areas Of the Great Lakes as well as la-
                                                                        information, the Secretary concludes by                 ons in more arid coastal regions.
                   tion of a new criterion, consideration of            adopting the final regulations describing            go
                   "the need to protect a particular estuary                     OC ur         a                                (c) The term "multiple use" as used
                                                                        the pr ed e for pplications to receive               in this section shall mean the simulta-
                   from harmful development." As dis-                   estuarine sanctuary grants under section             neous utilization of an area or resource
                   cussed earlier, this criterion Is not con-           312 of the Act, as modified and set forth
                   sidered appropriate. Such a basis for                below.                                               for a variety of compatible purposes or
                   determining selection would lead to a                                                                     to provide more than one benefit. The
                   reactionary, random series of estuarine                 Effective date: June 3, 1974.                     term Implies the long-term, continued
                   sanctuaries, rather than the rationally                 Dated: May 31,1974.                               uses of such resources in such a fashion
                   chosen representative series mandated                                                                     that other uses will not interfere with,
                   in the legislative history.                                                 ROBERT M. WHITE,              diminish or prevent the primary purpose,
                                                                                                     Administrator.          which is the long-term. protection of the
                      Two reviewers commented that the                                                                       area for scientific and educational use.
                   limitation on the Federal share ($2,000,-                           Subpart A-General
                   000 for each sanctuary) was too low and                                                                   � 921.3 Objectives and implementation
                                                                        921.1    Policy and objectives.                            of the program.
                   would severely restrict the usefulness of            921.2    Definitions.
                   the program. However, this limitation                921.3    Objectives and implementation of               (a) General. The purpose of the es-
                   is provided by the Act.                                         the progmm.                               tuarine sanctuaries program Is to create
                      Another commentator suggested that                921.4    Biogeographic classincation.                natural field laboratories in which to
                   9 921.20(g) was unnecessarily restrictive            921.5    Multiple use.                               gather data and make studies of the
                   In that it might prevent selecting an                921.6    Relationship to other provisions Of         natural and human processes occurring
                   estuarine sanctuary In an area adjacent                         the Act and to marine sanctuaries.        within the estuaries of the coastal zone.
                   to existing preserved lands where the                         Subpart B-Application for Grants            This shall be accomplished by the estab-
                   conjunction might be mutually benefi-                921.10   General.                                    lishment of a series of estuarine sanc-
                   cial. The language of � 921.20 (g) does              921.11   Application for Initial acquisition,        tuaries which will be designated so that
                   not preclude such action, but has been                          development and operation grants.         at least one representative of each type
                   changed to specifically permit this pos-             921.12   Applicatilon for subsequent develop.        of estuarine ecosystem will endure into
                                                                                   ment and operation grants.                the future for scientific and educational
                   sibility.                                            921.13   Federally owned lands.                      purposes. The primary use of estuarine
                      Two commentators inquired whether
                   the reference to a "draft" environmental                       Subpart C-Selection Criteria               sanctuaries shall be for research and
                   impact statement (� 921.20, last para-               921.20   Criteria for selection.                     educational purposes, especially to pro-
                   graph) indicated an Intention to avoid               921.21   Public participation.                       vide some of the information essential to
                                                                                                                             coastal zone management decision-mak-
                   further compliance with NEPA. It Is the                            Subpart D--Operation                   ing. Specific examples of such purposes
                   firm Intention of the Office of Coastal              921.30   General.                                    and uses Include but are not limited to:
                   Zone Management to fully comply In all               921.31   Changes in the sanctuary boundary,             (1) To gain a thorough understanding
                   respects with NEPA. The word "draft"                            management policy or research             of the ecological relationships within the
                   has been struck.                                                program.                                  estuarine environment.
                      Three reviewers addressed the prob-               921.32   Program review-                                (2) To make baseline ecological meas-
                   lems of providing adequate public par-                  AuTHORrry: See. 312 of the Coastal Zone           UreMentS.
                   ticipation in the review and selection               Management Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86              (3) To monitor significant or vital
                   process. In addition to the change In                Stat. 1280).                                         changes in the estuarine environment.
                   � 920.11 (1), a new section has been added                        Subpart A---General                        (4) To assess the effects of man's
                   to address this Issue.                                  921.1 Policy and Objectives.                      stresses on the ecosystem and to forecast
                             SUBPART D-OPERATION                                                                             and mitigate possible deterioration from
                                                                           The estuarine sanctuaries program will            human activities.
                      Section 921.30 General. One commen-               provide grants to States on a matching
                   tator suggested that during contract                 basis to acquire, develop and operate                   (5) To provide a vehicle for increasing
                   negotiations, there should be V, meeting             natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in            public knowledge and awareness of the
                   between the applicant agency and pro-                order that scientists and students may be            complex nature of estuarine systems,
                   posed sanctuary management team, and                 Provided the opportunity to examine over             their values and benefits to man and na-
                   representatives of the Office of Coastal             a period of time the ecological relation-            ture, and the problems which confront
                   Zone Management. The general pro-                    ships within the area. The purpose of                them.
                   visions have been broadened to provide               these guidelines is to establish the rules              (b) The emphasis within the program
                   for this suggestion.                                 and regulations for implementation of                will be on the designation as estuarine
                                                                        the program.                                         sanctuaries of areas which will serve as
                      Two comments were submitted which                                                                      natural field laboratories for studies and
                   urged that some discretion be exercised              � 921.2 Definitions.                                 investigations over an extended period.
                   in the use and access to the sanctuary                  (a) In addition        to the definitions         The area chosen as an estuarine sanc-
                   by scientists and students. Two other                found in the Act and in the regulations              tuary shall, to the extent feasible, in-
                   comments were received which requested               dealing with Coastal Zone Management                 clude water and land masses constituting
                   specific protection for use by the general           Program Development Grants published                 a natural ecological unit.
                   public. The guidelines have been changed             November 29, 1973 (Part 920 of this                     (c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
                   to include these suggestions.                        chapter) the term "estuaxine sanctuary"              tuary will be available for future studies,
                                                                        as defined in the Act, means a research              research involving the destruction of any
                      One comment was received suggesting               area which may include any part or all               portion of an estuarine sanctuary which
                   language to clarify � 921.30(g), This         was    Of an estuary, adjoining transitional                would permanently alter the nature of
                   incorporated into the guidelines.                    areas, and adjacent uplands, constituting            the ecosystem shall not normally be

                                                              FEDERAL   REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE           4, 1974

                                                              Adopted Under Section 312                                                                             B-33
                                                                          RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                                  19925

                  permitted. in the Unusual CirCii-stanees           dented and Subject to winter Icing; blots             (b) The estuarine sanctuaries program
                  where permitted. manipulative field re-            boreal to aub-Arctic-                              will be conducted in close cooperation
                  search shall be carefully controlled. No              9. Subarctic. West and north coasts of          with the marine sanctuaXies program
                                                     anipulaUve      Alaska; Ice stressed coasts; blots Arctic and      (Title 3311 of the Marine Protection, Re-
                  experiment which involves m                        sub-Arctic.
                  research shall be initiated until the ter-            10. Insular. IArger Islands, sometimes with     search Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-532, which
                  mination date is specified and evidence            precipitous mountains; considerable wave           Is also administered by the Office of
                  given that the environment will be re-             action; 'frequently with endemic species;          Coastal Zone Management, NOAA),
                  turned to its condition which existed              larger island groups primarily with tropical       which recognizes that certain areas of
                  prior to the experiment.                           blots.                                             the ocean waters, as far seaward as the
                    (d) it is anticipated that most of the              11. Great Lakes. Great Lakes of North           outer edge of the Continental Shelf, or
                  areas selected as sanctuaries will be rel-         America; bluff-d- or rocky. glaciated              other coastal waters where the tide ebbs
                  atively undisturbed by human activities            shoreline; limited wetlands-, freshwater only:     and flows, or of the Great Lakes and
                                                                     blots a mixture of boreal and temperate            their connecting waters, need to be pre-
                  at the time of acquisition. Therefore,             species with anadromous species and some
                  most of the areas selected will be areas           marine invaders.                                   served or restored for their conservation,
                  with a minimum of development, indus-                                                                 recreational, ecologic or esthetic values.
                  try or habitation.                                    (b) Various sub-categories will be de-          it Is anticipated that the Secretary on
                    (e) If sufficient permanence and con-            veloped and utilized as appropriate.               occasion may establish marine sanctu-
                  trol by the State can be assured, the              � 921.5 Multiple use.                              aries to complement the designation by
                  acquisition of a sanctuary may Involve                                                                States of estuarine sanctuaries, where
                  less than the acquisition of a fee simple             (a) While the primary purpose of es-            this may be mutually beneficial.
                  interest. Such Interest may be, for ex-            tuarine sanctuaries is to provide long-                Subpart B--Application for Grants
                  ample, the acquisition of a conserva-              term protection for naturvl areas so that
                  tion easement, "development rights--, or           they may be used for scientific and edu-           � 921.10 General.
                  other partial Interest sufficient to assure        cational purposes, multiple use of estu-              Section 312 authorizes Federal grants
                  the protection of the natural system.              arine sanctuaries will be encouraged to            to coastal States so that the States may
                  Leasing, which would not assure perma-             the extent that such use Is compatible             establish sanctuaAes according to regu-
                  nent protection of the system, would not           with this primary sanctuary Purpose.               lations promulgated by the Secretary.
                  be an acceptable alternative.                      The capacity of a given sanctuary to ac-           Coastal States may file applications for
                    921.4 Biogeographic classification.              commodate additional uses, and the                 grants with the Director, Office of Coastal
                                                                     kinds and Intensity of Such use, win be            Zone Management, National Oceanic and
                    (a) It is intended that estuarine sanc-          determined on a case by case basis. While          Atmospheric Administration, U.S. De-
                  tuaries should not be chosen at random,            it is anticipated that compatible uses             partment of Commerce, Rockville, Mary-
                  but should reflect regional differentia-           may generally include activities such as           land 20852. That agency which has been
                  tion and a variety of ecosystems so as             low Intensity recreation, fishing, hunt-
                  to cover all significant variations. To            ing, and wildlife observation, it is reo-          certified to the Office of Coastal Zone
                  ensure adequate representation of all es-          ognized that the exclusive use of an area          Management as the entity responsible
                  tuarine types reflecting regional differ-          for scientific- or educational purposes            for administration of the State coastal
                  entiation and a variety of ecosystems;             may provide the optimum benefit to                 zone management program may either
                  selections will be made by the Secretary           coastal zone management and resource               submit an application directly, or must
                                                                  -  use and may on occasion be necessary.              endorse and approve applications sub-
                  from the following biogeographic class                                                                mitted by other agencies within the
                  ifications:                                           (b) There shall be no effort to balance         State.
                    1. Aroadian. Northeast Atlantic coast            or optimize uses of an estuarine sanctu-
                  South to Cape Cod. glaciated shoreline sub-        ary on economic or other bases. All addi-          � 921.11 Application for initial acquisi-
                  ject to winter icing; well developed algal         tional uses of the sanctuary are clearly                 tion, development and operation
                  flora; boreal biftL                                secondary to the primary Purpose and                     grants.
                    2. Virginian. Middle Atlantic coast from         uses, which are long-term maintenance                 (a) Grants may be awarded on a
                  Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras; lowland streams.        of the ecosystem for scientific and educa-         matching basis to cover the costs of
                  coastal marshes and muddy bottoms; char-           tional uses. Non-compatible uses, includ-          acquisition, development and operation
                  acteristics transitional between I and 3:          ing those uses which would cause Sig-              of estuarine sanctuaries. States may use
                  blots primarily temperate with some bot               flCant
                  representatives.                              *al  ni         short or long-term ecological           donations of land or money to satisfy all
                    3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast from         change or would otherwise detract from             or part of the matching cost require-
                  Cape Hatteras to Cape Kennedy; ex@ensive           or restrict the use of the sanctuary as            ments.
                  marshes and swamps; waters turbid and              a natural field laboratory, will be pro-              (b) In general, lands acquired pur-
                  productive; blot& temperate with seasonal          hibited.
                  tropical elements.                                                                                    stiant to this section, including State
                    4. West Indian. South Florida coast from         � 921.6 Relationship to other provisions           owned lands but not State owned sub-
                  Cape Kennedy to Cedar Key; and Caribbean                of the act and to marine sanctuaries.         merged lands or bay bottoms, that occur
                  TAands; shoreland low-lying limestone;                (a) The estuarine sanctuary program             within the proposed sanctuary boundary
                  calcareous sands, maris and coral reefs;           must Interact with the overall coastal             are legitimate costs and their fair market
                  coastal marshes and mangroves; tropical            zone management program in two ways:               value may be included as match. How-
                  blota.                                                                                                ever, the value of lands donated to or by
                    5. Louisianian. Northern Gulf bf Mexico,         (1) the intended research use of the
                  from Cedar Key to Mexico; characteristics          sanctuary should provide relevant data             the State for inclusion in the sanctuary
                  of 3, with components of 4; strongly infiu-        and conclusions of assistance to coastal           may only be used to match other costs
                  enced by terrigenous factors; blots primarily      zone management decision-making, and               of land acquisition. In the event that
                  temperate.                                         (2) when developed, the State's coastal            lands already exist in a protected status,
                    6. Californian. South Pacific coast from         zone management program must recog-                their value cannot be used as match for
                  Mexico to Cape Mendocino: shoreland Influ-         nize and be designed to Protect the estu-          sanctuary development and operation
                  enced, by coastal mountains. rocky coasts          Erine sanctu        -                              grants, which will require their own
                  with reduced fresh-water runoff: general                          ary, appropriate land and           matching funds.
                                                                     water use regulations and planning con-
                  absence of Marshes and swamps; blots               SiderStionS Must apply to a
                  temperate.                                                                         dJacent lands.        (c) Development and operation costs
                    7. 00lumbian. North Pacific coast from           Although estuarine sanctuaries should              may Include the administrative expenses
                  Cape Mendocino to Canada; mountalneous             be incorporated into the State coastal             necessary to monitor the sanctuary, to
                  shoftland; rocky coasts; extensive algal oom-      zone management program, their desig-              ensure its continued viability and to pro-
                  munitles; blots prim Ily temperate with            nation need not await the development
                  some boreal.                                       and approval of the management Pro-                tect the integrity of the ecosystem. Re-
                    8. Fiords. South coast Alaska and Aleu.          grain where operation of the estuarine             search will not normally be funded by
                  tians: precipitous mountains: deep estuaries,      sanctuary would aid in the development             Section 312 grants. It Is anticipated that
                  BOMB with glaciers; shoreline heavily In.          of a progranL                                      other sources of Federal, State and

                                                            FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108--TUESDAY, JUNE          4, 1974

                   B-34                                         Adopted Under Section 312

                   19926                                                  RULES AND REGULATIONS

                   private funds will be available for re-         aries, the States should attempt to coor-              Subpart C-Selection Criteria
                   search in estuarine sanctuaries.                dinate their activities. This will help to       � 921.20 Criteria for selection.
                     (d) Initial applications should contain       minimize the possibility of similar estu-
                   the following Information:                      arine types being proposed for designa-            Applications for grants to establish
                     (1) Description of the proposed sanc-         tion In the same region. The application         estuarine sanctuaries will be reviewed
                   tuary Include location, boundaries, aim         should Indicate the extent to which              and judged on criteria including:
                   and cost of acquisition, operation and de-      neighboring States were consulted.                 (a) Benefit to the coastal zone man-
                   velopment. A map should be included, as            W Discussion, including cost and              agement program. Applications should
                   well as an aerial photograph, if available.     feasibility, of alternative methods for          demonstrate the benefit of the proposal
                     (2) Classification of the proposed            acquisition, control and protection of the       to the development or operations of the
                   sanctuary according to the biogeographic        area to provide similar uses. Use of the         overall coastal zone management pro-
                   scheme set forth in � 921.4.                    Marine Sanctuary authority and funds             gram, including how well the proposal
                     (3) Description of the major physical,        from the Land and Water Conservation             fits into the national program of repre-
                   geographic and biological characteristics       Fund Act should be specifically ad-              sentative estuarine types; the national
                   and resources of the proposed sanctuary.        dressed.                                         or regional benefits; and the usefulness
                     (4) Identification of ownership Pat-                                                           .n research.
                                                                   � 921.12 Application for subsequent de-          - (b) The ecological characteristics of
                   terns; proportion of land already In the             velopment and operation grants.             the ecosystem, Including its biological
                   public domain.
                     (5) Description of intended research             (a) Although the initial grant appli-         productivity, diversity and representa-
                   uses, potential research organizations or       cation for creation of an estuarine sanc-        tiveness. Extent of alteration of the
                   agencies and benefits to the overall            tuary should Include initial development         natural system, its ability to remain a
                   coastal zone management program.                and operation costs, subsequent appli-           viable and healthy system in view of the
                     (6) Demonstration of necessary au-            cations may be submitted following ac-           Present and possible development of ex-
                   thority to acquire or control and manage        qYisition and establishment of an estua-         ternal stresses.
                   the sanctuary.                                  nne sanctuary for additional develop-              (c) Size and choice of boundaries. To
                     (7) Description of proposed manage-           ment and operation funds. As Indicated           the extent feasible, estuarine sanctuaries
                   ment techniques, including the manage-          in � 921-11, these costs may include ad-         should approximate a natural ecological
                   ment agency, principles and proposed            ministrative costs necessary to,monitor          unit. The minimal acceptable size will
                   budget including both State and Federal         the sanctuary and to protect the Integ-          vary greatly and will depend on the na-
                   shares.                                         rity of the ecosystem. Extensive manage-         ture of the ecosystem.
                     (8) Description of existing and poten-        ment programs, capital expenses, or re-            (d) Cost. Although the Act limits the
                   tial uses of and conflicts within the area      search will not normally be funded by            Federal share of the cost for each sanc-
                   if it were not declared an estuarine sanc-      section 312 grants.                              tuary to $2,000,000, it is, anticipated that
                   tuary; potential use, use restrictions and         (b) After the creation of an estuarine        in practice the average grant will be sub-
                   conflicts if the sanctuary is established.      sanctuary established under this pro-            stantially less than this.
                     (I) Assessment of the environmental           gram, applications for such development            (e) Enhancement of non-competitive
                   and socio-economic impacts of declaring         and operation grants should include at           uses.
                   the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ-        least the following information:                   (f) Proximity and access to existing
                   ing the economic impact of such a desig-           (1) Identification of the boundary.           research facilities.
                   nation on the surrounding community                (2) Specifications of the management            (g) Availability of suitable alternative
                   and its tax base.                               program, including managing agency and           sites already prGtected.which might be
                     (9) Description of planned or antici-         techniques.                                      capable of providing the same use or
                   pated land and water use and controls              (3) Detailed budget.                          benefit. Unnecessary duplication of ex-
                   for contiguous lands surrounding the               (4) Discussion of recent and projected        isting activities under other programs
                   proposed sanctuary (including if appro-         use of the sanctuary.                            should be avoided. However, estuarine
                   priate an analysis of the desirability of          (5) Perceived threats to the integrity        sanctuaries might be established adja-
                   creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent         of the sanctuary.                                cent to existing preserved lands where
                   areas).                                         � 921.13 Federally owned lands.                  mutual enhancement or benefit of each
                     (10) List of protected sites, either                                                           might occur.
                                                                      (a) Where Federally owned lands are             (h) Conflict with existing or potential
                   within the estuarine sanctuaries program        a part of or adjacent to the area pro-           competing uses.
                   or within other Federal, State or private       posed for designation as an estuarine              (I) Compatibility with existing or pro-
                   programs, which are located in the same         sanctuary, or where the control of land          posed land and water use In contiguous
                   regional or biogeographic classification.       and water uses on such lands is neces-           areas.
                     (I) It is essential that the opportunity      sary to protect the natural system within
                   be provided for public involvement and          the sanctuary, the State should contact          If the Initial review demonstrates the
                   input in the development of the sanctu-         the Federal agency maintaining control           feasibility of the application, an environ-
                   ary proposal and application. Where the         of the land to request cooperation in pro-       mental Impact statement will be pre-
                   application is controversial or where           viding coordinated management policies.          pared by the Office of Coastal Zone Man-
                   controversial Issues are addressed, the         Such lands and State request, and the            agement in accordance with the National
                   State should provide adequate means to          Federal agency response, should be iden-         Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and
                   ensure that all Interested parties have         tifled and conveyed to the Office of             implementing CEQ guidelines.
                   the opportunity to present their views.         Coastal Zone Management.                         � 921.21 Public participation.
                   This may be in the form of an adequately           (b) Where such proposed use or con-
                   advertised public hearing.                      trol of Federally owned lands would not            Public participation will be an essen-
                     (ii) During the development of an             conflict with the Federal use of their           tial factor In the selection of estuarine
                   estuarine sanctuary application, all land-      lands, such cooperation and coordination         sanctuaries. In addition to the participa-
                   owners within the proposed boundaries           is encouraged to the maximum extent              tion during the application development
                   should be Informed in writing of the pro-       feasible.                                        process (� 921.11(e)), public participa-
                   posed grant application.                           (c) Section 312 grants may not be             tion will be ensured at the Federal level
                     (III) The application should indicate         awarded to Federal agencies for creation         by the NEPA process and by public hear-
                   the manner in which the State solicited         of estuarine sanctuaries In Federally            ings where desirable subsequent to NEPA.
                   the views of all interested parties prior       owned lands; however, a similar status           Such public hearings shall be held by the
                   to the actual submission of the appli-          may be provided on a voluntary basis for         Office of Coastal Zone Management in
                   cation.                                         Federally owned lands under the provi-           the area to be affected by the proposed
                     (e) In order to develop a truly repre-        sions of the Federal Committee on Eco-           sanctuary no sooner than 30 days after It
                   sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu-           logical Preserves program.                       Issues a draft environmental Impact

                                                          FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

                                                            Adopted Under Section 312                                                                 B-35
                                                                      RULES AND REGULATIONS                                                         19927

                statement on the sanctuary proposal. It        the granting agency. As a minimum, the         search program may only be changed
                will be the responsibility of the Office of    grant document for each sanctuary              after public notice and the opportunity
                coastal zone management, with the as-          shall:                                         of public review and participation such
                sistance of the applicant State, to issue        (a)  Define the Intended research pur-       as outlined In � 921.21.
                adequate public notice of its intention        poses  of the estuarine sanctuary.               (b) Individuals or organizations which
                to hold a public hearing. Such public no-        (b)  Define permitted, compatible, re-       are concerned about possible improper
                tice shall be distributed widely, espe-        stricted and prohibited uses of the sanc-      use or restriction of use of estuarine
                cially in the area of the proposed sanc-       tuary.                                         sanctuaries may petition the State man-
                tuary; affected property owners and              (c) Include a provision for monitoring       agement agency and the office of Coastal
                those agencies, organizations or individ-      the uses of the sanctuary, to ensure com-      Zone Management directly for review of
                uals with an identified interest in the        Pliance with the intended uses.                the management program.
                area or estuarine sanctuary program              (d) Ensure ready access to land use          � 921.32 Program review.
                shall be notified of the public hearing.       of the sanctuary by scientists, students
                The public notice shall contain the            and the general public as desirable and          It.is anticipated that reports will be
                name, address and phone number of the          permissible for coordinated research and       required from the applicant State on a
                appropriate Federal and State officials to     education uses, as well as for other com-      regular basis, no more frequently than
                contact for additional information about       patible purposes.                              annually, on the status of each estuarine
                the proposal.                                    (e) Ensure public availability and rea-      sanctuary. The estuarine sanctuary
                          Subpart D-Operation                  sonable distribution of research results       program will be regularly reviewed to
                                                               for timely use in the development of           ensure that the objectives of the program
                � 921.30 General.                              coastal zone management programs.              are being met and that the program it-
                  Management of estuarine sanctuaries            (f) Provide a basis for annual review        self is scientifically sound. The key to
                shall be the responsibility of the appli-      of the status of the sanctuary, its value      the success of the estuarine sanctuaries
                cant State or its agent. However, the          to the coastal zone program.                   program is to assure that the results of
                research uses and management program             (g) Specify how the integrity of the         the studies and research conducted in
                must be in conformance with these              system which the sanctuary represents          these sanctuaries are available in a
                guidelines and regulations, and others         will be maintained.                            timely fashion so that the States can
                implemented by the provisions of indi-           (h) Provide adequate authority and           develop and administer land and water
                vidual grants. It is suggested that prior      Intent to enforce management policy and
                to the grant award, representatives of         use restrictions.                              use programs for the coastal zone. Ac-
                the proposed sanctuary management                                                             cordingly, all information and reports,
                team and the Office of Coastal Zone Man-       � 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary              Including annual reports, relating to
                agement meet to discuss management                    boundary, management policy or
                policy and standards. It is anticipated               research program.                       estuarine sanctuaries shall be part of
                that the grant provisions will vary with         (a) The approved sanctuary boundar-          the public record and available at all
                individual circumstances and will be           ies; management policy, including per-         times for inspection by the public.
                mutually agreed to by the applicant and        missible and prohibited uses; and re-           [FR Doe.74-12775 Filed 5-31-74;9:57 wnl

                                                      FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

                                                                                             C-1

                                             FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

                  There are numerous federal activities that can enhance the states' efforts
               in coastal zone management or with which states should establish dialogue. The
               following is a representative listing of agencies and their programs; which are,
               for easy reference, organized into three broad categories of interest--financial
               and technical assistance, regulatory and licensing, and direct action. A more
               comprehensive discussion of federal activities will appear in a soon to be pub-
               lished document on intergovernmental relations being prepared by the federal
               Office of Coastal Zone Management.

                                     FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

                  This category of programs covers the government's domestic assistance func-
               tions including grants and technical assistance for research studies as well as
               to promote development.
               AGRICULTURE
                  Cooperative State Research Service: scientific research and cooperative ex-
                                                       tension services
                  Farmers Home Administration: loans for rural farmers and communities for re-
                                                source conservation and development
                  Forest Service: forestry research and cooperative extension services.
                  Soil Conservation Service: soil and water conservation research, river basin
                                              surveys, and resource conservation and develop-
                                              ment research

               COMMERCE
                  Economic Development Administration: planning grants and public works loans
                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: fisheries conservation and
                                                                    development study, sea grant
                                                                    research, and estuarine
                                                                    sanctuary acquisition grants
                  Bureau of the Census: Demographic studies and statistics

               DEFENSE
                  Corps of Engineers: flood control, navigation, and beach erosion projects
                                       and studies and flood plain management services

               HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
                  National Institutes of Health: environmental health research, technical as-
                                                  sistance, and training
                  Office of Education: environmental education, library support, and academic
                                        facilities support
                  office of the Secretary: surplus property utilization

               HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
                  Community Planning and Development: comprehensive planning
                  Office of Policy Development and Research: general research and technology
                                                              activity grants
                  Federal Disaster Assistance Administration: grant support for state disaster
                                                               plans and programs

               INTERIOR
                  Bureau of Outdoor Recreation: outdoor recreation planning, acquisition, and
                                                 development
                  Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife: fisheries conservation and management,
                                                           wildlife research and restoration

             C-2

                      Geological Survey: resource surveys and mapping and water resource investiga-
                                          tions
                      Office of Water Resources Research: research grants

                   TRANSPORTATION
                      Federal Aviation Administration: airport planning and development
                      Federal Highway Administration: highway research, planning, and construction
                                                       and highway beautification
                      Urban Mass Transportation Administration: technical studies and capital im-
                                                                 provements

                   REGIONAL COMMISSIONS
                      Coastal Plains: planning grants
                      New England: planning grants
                      Upper Great Lakes: planning grants
                      Pacific Northwest: planning grants

                   NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: basic and applied research grants

                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: air and water pollution research planning, and
                                                     demonstration grants, as well as construction
                                                     grants

                                              REGULATORY AND LICENSING

                      This category of programs covers the government's regulatory and licensing
                   function including the controlling of activities and the adopting and enforcing
                   of standards.

                   AGRICULTURE
                      Forest Service: permits for activities in National Forests

                   DEFENSE
                      Corps of Engineers: permits for filling, dredging, spoil disposal, and con-
                                           struction in navigable waters

                   HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
                      Federal Insurance Administration: flood insurance
                      office of Interstate Land Sales Registration: interstate land sales

                   INTERIOR
                      Bureau of Land Management: permits for mining and occupancy on public lands
                                                  including the continental shelf
                      Bureau of Reclamation: permits at damsites and recreation areas
                      Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife: permits on certain lakes, streams,
                                                               and wildlife reservations

                   JUSTICE
                      Land and Natural Resources Division: injunctions and lawsuits

                   TRANSPORTATION
                      Coast Guard: boating safety and licensing
                      Federal Highway Administration: highway safety and regulation
                   ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION: licensing sites and siting for nuclear power plants
                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: injunctions and standards for water, air, and
                                                     noise pollution
                   FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION: fuel allocations and offshore permits for drill-
                                                   ing

                                                                                            C-3

               EDERAL POWER COMMISSION: Licensing for power plant sites and interstate trans-
                                        mission and pipe lines

                                               DIRECT ACTION

                  This category of programs covers the government's management function includ-
               ing direct federal development, information services, and program coordination.

               AGRICULTURE
                  Forest Service: acquisition and development of system of national forests
                                  and wilderness areas

               COMMERCE
                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: establishment and manage-
                                                                   ment of a system of marine
                                                                   sanctuaries

               GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION: management of federal property and installa-
                                                tions

               INTERIOR
                  Bureau of Land management: administration and management of federally-owned
                                             lands
                  National Park Service: acquisition and development of a system of national
                                         parks and recreation areas
                  Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife: acquisition and management of fish
                                                          and wildlife sanctuaries
                  Geological Survey: development and management of resources and land informa-
                                     tion program (RALI)
               WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL: support and coordination of studies of River Basin
                                        Commissions

               OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: overseer of procedures adopted under OMB
                                                Circular no. A-95

               FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCILS: coordination of multi-agency studies and administra-
                                          tor of Integrated Grants Administration programs

                                                                          1
                                                                            INNIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111 1
                                                                             3 6668 14109 1019 '