Coastal zone management the process of program development

[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

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

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.

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

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

--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;

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

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-

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?

. 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

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-

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

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

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

...... ....

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

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-

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

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).

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.

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

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

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

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,

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.

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.

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-

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:

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.

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

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;

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

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".

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.

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;

. 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

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:

� 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;

(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

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,

I /V wwm

Q COASTAL WETLANDS
STUDY
Occaoc

19 20

SA#P LAK-Ef

CAAFP
-21
-N-

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

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

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

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-

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

(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.

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.

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,

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

(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-

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

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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).

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".

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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.

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;

(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.

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

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-

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-

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

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

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 '