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


                                     Evaluation of the
                                     lVational Coastal Zone
                                      Management Program




                                                                      tj




    I" VIX ZS-II'--;-1,Ij"--








                                                                      1 4






















          395
                                                                        10
          U6
          IJ55
           1991





       AU











                                                                               NCRI Publication No. NCRI-W-91-003







                                             EVALUATION OF THE
                    NATIONAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM






                                                            by

                                        The Center for Urban and Regional Studies
                                      of the Department of City and Regional Planning
                                      The University of North Carolina. at Chapel Hill
                                            Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599




                                                      February 1991


















               This project was funded by the National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute,
               Newport, Oregon, under Contract No. 2-5633-01 and by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
               Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
               Washington, D.C., through a grant made under Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
               of 1972, as amended, and printed through Grant No. NA 16RGO167-01 by the National Oceanic and
               Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.











                     PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
                     David J. Brower
                     Research Professor and Associate Director
                     Center for Urban and Regional Studies
                     The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                     Chapel Hill, North Carolina

                     CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
                     Jack H. Archer, Associate Professor
                     Environmental Sciences,
                     University of Massachusetts at Boston
                     Boston, Massahusetts

                     Dennis C. Coates, Ph.D., Associate Professor
                     Department of Economics
                     Tbe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                     Chapel Hill, North Carolina

                     David R. Godschalk
                     Professor of City and Regional Planning
                     Center for Urban and Regional Studies
                     The University, of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                     Chapel Hill, North Carolina

                     Michael I. Luger, Ph.D., Associate Professor
                     Department of City and Regional Planning
                     The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                     Chapel Hill, North Carolina

                     David Owens, Associate Professor
                     Institute of Government
                     The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                     Chapel Hill, North Carolina

                     RESEARCH ASSISTANTS
                     Neil Armingeon, Research Associate
                     Center for Urban and Regional Studies
                     The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                     Chapel Hill, North Carolina

                     Nancy Grossman, Research Associate
                     Center for Urban and Regional Studies
                     The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                     Chapel Hill, North Carolina

                     Bill Henderson, Research Associate
                     Center for Urban and Regional Studies								   Recycled
                     The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill                                       Paper
                     Chapel Hill, North Carolina                                                                                          

                     Anna Schwab; Research Associate
                     Center for Urban and Regional Studies
                     The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                     Chapel Hill, North Carolina                                             Cover Photo: Jessie M Page







                                                                                                 Executive Summary


                         This study concludes that the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) has met with
                   great success in the nearly two decades since it was first signed into law. The states and territories
                   which have chosen to participate in the program have seen vast improvement in many aspects of
                   the management of their coastlines, in both economic and noneconomic terms. This report
                   demonstrates that these coastal activity-related benefits have a direct relationship with. federal
                   CZMA expenditures, and that the value of continued federal support for coastal management at
                   the state and territorial level cannot be underestimated.


                         The first chapter of this study addresses the question: "How have the nation's coastal
                   resources been managed under CZMAT' by presenting an overview of the history of the program
                   carried out under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This chapter emphasizes that, since
                   its inception, the CZM program has been distinguished by its voluniMnature, using incentives
                   instead of penalties to generate a unique federal/state/local partnership in which the states have
                   considerable latitude to define their own priorities. It is likely that the nature of the partnership
                   will continue to be an issue, with the coastal states seeking program flexibility and autonomy and
                   the federal government seeking program focus and accountability. From this creative tension, as
                   well as the longstanding tension between coastal conservation and development, future United
                   States coastal management programs will evolve.

                         As the CZM program enters the -1990s, it clearly continues to be a dynamic, flexible and
                   effective vehicle for addressing coastal issues. )While the institutional structure at the federal level
                   remains split among several agencies and programs, the "coastal management" concept has proven
                   powerful enough to facilitate coordination, albeit with some friction. A testament to the power
                   and importance of the concept is its ability to survive two terms in the 1990s under a hostile
                   administration and to retain a vital programmatic focus into the 1990s. Review of its history
                   shows that the CZMA of 1972 sired a unique and durable program whose life span already has
                   exceeded that of many other intergovernmental planning initiatives.

                         The second chapter of the report deals with the consistency provisions of Section 301 of the
                   CZMA, and the role that federal consistency has played in coastal management. One very
                   important, although often overlooked aspect of the CZMA is its voluntary nature. Because states
                   are not required to establish coastal management programs, their participation had to be secured
                   by offering them 1) substantial federal financial assistance, and.2) the promise that, if the states
                   underwent the complicated program development and approval process prescribed in the federal
                   Act to establish legally-enforceable standards and procedures to protect the coastal zone and its
                   resources, federal agencies and permittees engaged in activities affecting the coastal zone would
                   act consistently with such standards. This "promise" is of course the heart of the federal consis-
                   tency provisions of the CZMA.

                         However, the past decade has demonstrated that the federal consistency doctrine is not
                   merely an appendage of the main body of coastal management practice in the United States, meant
                   to serve as an incentive to states to participate in the CZMA. Rather, the consistency provisions
                   constitute an essential mechanism for securing the compliance of federal agencies and permittees
                   with legally enforceable state coastal policies. Without the federal consistency provisions,
                   federally permitted and conducted activities that affect coastal areas and resources could be carried
                   out with little or no regard for state coastal policies.

                         Implementation of the CZMA's consistency section has been generally successful. The
                   bo dy of consistency decisions by the Secretary of Commerce appears to strike a balance between
                   state interest under the CZMA and coastal programs, and national economic and security interests.
                   Based on this record, it is clear that federal development projects in the coastal zone, as well as
                   private development projects that require a federal permit, are subject to state coastal management


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management               Program










                                      policies and may be substantially modified at the insistence of the states to conform to these
                                      policies.

                                            Chapter three provides an analysis of the National Estuarine Reserve Research System
                                      (NERRS). This program was created by Section 315 of the CZMA, and was originally conceived
                                      to protect the nation's estuarine areas and forestall the ecological degradation of this valuable
                                      natural feature. The NERRS has certainly accomplished this mandate; although legal Provisions
                                      for the management and protection of estuaries are diverse and often complex, currently 18
                                      reserves protect over 262,000 acres of estuarine acreage.

                                            With the passage of the Reauthorization Act of 1985, education and research became the
                                      primary focus of the NERRS. The Reserves serve to protect estuaries as field "laboratories," and
                                      the NERRS encourages their use for long-term scientific research. Today, one of the most
                                      important services of the program is to provide information to the public at large, and to the
                                      coastal management decision-maker. By fostering a healthy atmosphere for learning now, future
                                      managers and planners will be able to act on responsible decisions concerning the protection of
                                      our estuarine environment.


                                            It is difficult to assign a cost/benefit value to the NERRS. In the long run, perhaps the most
                                      valuable contribution will be to set Aside extremely crucial areas that people now tend take for
                                      granted. This, coupled with the NERRS role as educator, may ensure that future generations-
                                      both human and animal-will be able to derive the benefits from estuaries in their natural state for
                                      years to come.

                                            Chapter four is entitled "An Analysis of the Coastal Energy Impact Program." At the time
                                      of its passage in 1976, the Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) enjoyed broad-based support
                                      and a varied constituency. The CEIP was a program that appealed, to state and local governments,
                                      environmentalists, and somewhat surprisingly, the energy industry. Simply state, the purpose of
                                      the CEIP was to provide financial assistance to meet the needs of coastal states and local govern-
                                      ments that result from energy activity affecting the coastal zone. The CEIP sought to strike a
                                      balance between the national objectives of achieving increased energy self-sufficiency and of
                                      protecting and managing the nation's coastal resources.

                                            The CEIP provided financial assistance--loans, bond guarantees, and grants-to help
                                      coastal states and local communities affected by new or expanded coastal energy activity. The
                                      CEIP was unique among federal programs because it allowed considerable discretion by state and
                                      local governments in identifying the problems that local communities faced in overcoming Outer
                                      Continental Shelf (OCS) off and energy activities, and establishing the priorities for projects to be
                                      funded, The CEIP funded many unusual projects, but in addition to that, the CEIP was unique
                                      program because it involved a high level of state, federal, and local cooperation to complete these
                                      projects.

                                            Despite the fact that the CEIP was widely supported and served as a model of how various
                                      levels of government can work together to meet local, state, and national objectives, and despite
                                      the fact the program was associated with two issues of national importance-energy independence
                                      and environmental quality-the CEIP did not become a permanent addition to the federal coastal
                                      management program; in fact, a few years after its inception, the program effectively ended.

                                            One reason-cited for the CEIP's demise is the lack of demand by states for credit assistance,
                                      due in part to the high interest rates charged by the CEIP. As state interest in CEIP funds began to
                                      wane, so too did the Carter Administration's support for the program. The 1980 presidential
                                      election provided the final component that was needed to end the CEIP; once elected; one of
                                      Ronald Reaga's first federal budget cutting targets was the CZM program, specifically the CEIP.


                             iv                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                             Executive Summary

                   It is hard to assign an exact date as to when the CEIP ended, but for all practical purposes, the
                   program expired in fiscal year.1983.

                         The CEIP was a short-lived program, and the majority of its existence was spent in start-up
                   time. By the time the appropriations were awarded and the results of the ftmding became visible,
                   the program had ended. Because the CEIP was young, it did not have time to develop an en-
                   trenched bureaucracy or powerful constituency and was, therefore, an easy target for budget
                   cutting. More importantly,, the issue that was the central focus of the CEIP, the "energy crisis," had
                   faded from the public psyche. As the gas lines disappeared from the media's scrutiny, so, too,
                   dissolved the nation's concern for energy independence and conservation. Ironically, many of the
                   OCS energy activities that were controversial during the CEIP's existence are still being debated.

                         The next four chapters of the report describe in detail the state CZM programs. As the
                   chapter introducing the state programs points out, a very difficult problem confronted those
                   designing the national CZM program in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The coastal area has
                   tremendous value and the need for improved management of development in coastal areas to
                   protect this national treasure was clear. Then as now, however, the wide range of issues to be
                   addressed and the diversity of the coast presented a daunting challenge to the design of a national
                   CZM program.

                         The range of development issues to be@ addressed in coastal resource management is quite
                   broad. Moreover, the nation's coasts have tremendous physical, economic, political and cultural
                   diversity. This diversity of the nation"s coastal area makes the design of a uniform national , I
                   approach to coastal management issues impossible. The answer to this dilemma that was incorpo-
                   rated into the federal CZMA was to use state coastal management programs to address national
                   concerns about proper management of coastal resources. State programs could incorporate the
                   diversity of the coasts while meeting minimum national standards.

                         Twenty-nine states and territories have developed individual CZM programs that have been
                   approved by the federal government as meeting the minimum national standards established by the
                   CZMA. Under the CZMA, states and territories are granted considerable latitude on how best to
                   allocate avai'lable funds to address priority national interest areas. An examination of how these
                   funds have been allocated and what tasks the states have undertaken provides insight into coastal
                   management priorities of the 1980s. This part of the study focuses on program expenditures in
                   seven major categories, based on the national interest areas specified in the CZMA. The catego-
                   ries used for analysis are: 1) improving governmental decision-making; 2) natural resource
                   protection; 3) improving public access to coastal resources; 4) urban waterfront development; 5)
                   hazards mitigation; 6) natural resource development, and 7) ports and marinas. VVhile there is a
                   national concern with each of the seven subject areas, the incidence of each particular issue is not
                   uniformly distributed around the country.

                         This study confirms that the CZMA has been successful in one of its key objectives
                   establishing a national program that incorporates state diversity. The states and territories are
                   devoting the bulk of their attention to two key subjects, improving government decision-making
                   and protecting the coast's natural resources; but the states and territories have retained the ability
                   to address other national interest areas where they exist and need management attention.

                         Another striking finding of the study is how much has been done with limited resources.
                   Coastal zone management has not been lavishly funded in the United States. Annual federal
                   expenditures for program implementat   'ion in the study period were on the order of $34.75 million.
                   The total federal grants for program implementation for the six year detailed analysis period (1982
                   through 1987) was $190 million. These funds were spread among 29 participating states and
                   territorial programs and were used.to address the wide variety of subjects noted above.


                   Evaluation ofthe National Coastal Zone Management Program









                                             This collection of 29 uniquely des  'igned state and territorial programs does serve important
                                       national interests. Through a variety of methods,government decision-making on coastal issues
                                       andmatural resource protection has been improved in every participating state and territory. Where.
                                       wan-anted, careful. attention is also being-given to other key issues, such as improved public access
                                       to the coast" better management- of development in natural hazard areas, and development of
                                       coastal natural resources. Some programs are undoubtedly more active and more effective than
                                       others. Six states are not participating in the CZMA at all. Yet most of the -nation's coa9fline-is
                                       covered by an, approved coastal management program and the aggregate of their-efforts will result
                                       in a coastal zone that is healthier, more productive, and more attractive for the long"term benefit of
                                       the nation.


                                             The final chapter of this report sets forth our findings on the economics of coastal zone
                                       management. This section addresses two questions of importance to coastal zone planners and
                                       policy-makers: Mat is the economic value ofthe coastal zone? and What is the relationship
                                       between spending on coastal zone management activities and the economic value ofthe coastal
                                       zone?

                                             Proponents of coastal zone protection legislation typically claim that special action is needed
                                       to-preserve the "value" of the coastal zone. Yet, only afew researchers have -attempted to quantify
                                       that "value." 'Mat quantification is necessary to:establish a baseline for further benefit-cost
                                       analysis of coastal protection activities.

                                             We define the coastal zone was defined as the 413 counties in'30 states and 5territories-that
                                       --are either adjacent to or within 50 miles of the oceans, bays, or Great Lakes, or lie withinan
                                       estuarine region. The value of the economic activity and natural resources foundin the zone has
                                       two components: 1) the current market value of all goods'and services that are-produced directly
                                       and indirectly from-coastal resources and coast-related activities (which is equivalent to the gross
                                       national product t(GNP)---originating in the coastal zone, or "coastal ONP"), -and 2) the intangible
                                       value of recreation and other activities and resources that people enjoy, but for which -they do not
                                       pay:directly (termed "nonmarket values").

                                             Economists have measured coastal value in different ways; by focusing. on market and
                                       nonmarket values, and by estimating the importance of the coast for the nation-as a whole -and for
                                       specific places and types of activities or coastal resources. These estimates have one common
                                       interpretation: regardless of how one measures coastal value, it is sizeable. Looking.at current
                                       market values of goods and services -produced by just three coast-related industrial sectors, the
                                       value was $58 billion in 1987. When the list of sectors is expanded to some 60 industries, the
                                       estimate of coastal value doubles. When coastal value is measured in terms of the market value of
                                       the embodied energy at the coast, rather than in terms of standard transactions, the value is still
                                       higher. As high as these figures are, they still may understate the full value of -the coast since they
                                       exclude the consumersurplus that is created by people's willingness-to-pay for beach access,
                                       coastal proximity, and coastal views in excess to what they are actually charged.

                                             We identify three types of economic activity create value in the coastal zone: 1) economic
                                       activities, located in the coastal zone, that are locationally dependent on coastal resources-
                                       specifically, the ocean, bays, Great Lakes and estuaries, and their contents (coast-dependent
                                       activities); 2) economic activities that use the ocean, bays, Great Lakes and estuaries and their
                                       contents in the production process, or that produce intermediate inputs for coast-related activities,
                                       but are not necessarilyin the coastal zone (coast-linked activities)@ and 3) economic activities, not
                                       included in 1), -that are located in the coastal zone and provide service toxesidents and visitors to
                                       the coastal zone (coastal service activities). The sum of the value-of these three types of activities
                                       can be considered to be the economic value of the coastal zone.




                              Vi                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                Executive Summary

                          Based on payroll and employment, our raw measures of economic activity, our estimates
                    demonstrate that the coastal zone is a key economic sector that contributes more than 30 percent of
                    the national GNP. Most of this value comes from the service sector, but even without that type of
                    economic activity, the coastal zone accounted for some $55 billion in 1985. Our estimates also
                    show that the coastal zone has become more important over time, growing from 30.1 percent of
                    GNP in 1978 to 31.4 percent in 1985. We show, finally, that the coastal zone is critical to the
                    economies of many coastal states and territories.

                          Our study concludes that a strong relationship exists between program spending on CZM-
                    related activities, specifically in the seven national interest areas contained in the CZMA and
                    changes in coastal GNP. The existing literature does not address the relationship between CZM
                    spending and coastal GNP directly. However, several studies relate coastal regulatory activities
                    that may be supported by CZM program funds with gains in economic welfare.

                          Furthermore, we conducted correlations and ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions using
                    absolute and relative changes in coastal GNP, in total and by activity type, and CZM expenditures.
                    We found absolute real output change and CZM spending to be correlated positively for each of
                    the components of coastal GNP. We also found that, for all specifications of the OLS model, a
                    dollar increase of CZM spending is always associated with greater than a dollar increase in coastal
                    output. The magnitude of the association, moreover, is sizable for all definitions of coastal GNP
                    except "coast-linked." Admittedly, our evidence is sketchy and original statistical tests somewhat
                    crude. But, at least circumstantially, we have compelling evidence that CZMA monies have been
                    well spent in a benefit-cost sense. These results suggest that if the level of CZM spending were
                    reduced, the level of coastal (and hence national) GNP would fall, as well.

                          The uniqueness of the CZMA hes in its voluntary nature, and the degree of flexibility
                    granted to participating states and territories in using federal funds to manage their coastal zones.
                    While not every aspect of the CZMA has had a lasting effect, (specifically, the CEIP), the CZM
                    program has been widely successful. Twenty-nine states and territories have taken the initiative,
                    under federal guidance, to conserve and even enhance the character and intrinsic value of the
                    nation's coastline. The economic benefit in terms of both market and nonmarket activities derived
                    from federal monies spent in the coastal zone has more than paid back the taxpayers' expenditures.






















                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                  Vii








                                                                                                                Contents

                                                                                                             Page


                 Chapter One         HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL
                                     ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                          David R. Godschalk
                                     Introduction                                                                 I
                                     Precursors of Coastal Management:
                                          Recognition of the Resource Crisis 1962-1971                            3
                                     Passage of 1972 Coastal Management Act:
                                          Struggle for Program Control 1969-1972                                  5
                                     State Coastal Program Planning:
                                          National Energy Crisis Impacts 1973-1980                                9
                                     Coastal Program Implementation:
                                          Effects of a Hostile Administration 1980-1988                         13
                                     Reassessing the Coastal Program:
                                          Forging an Arena for the Nineties 1988-1990                           19
                                     Endnotes                                                                   23
                                     References                                                                 24
                                     Appendix: Coastal Zone Management Act Chronology                           27
                                     Figure 1. Participating and Nonparticipating Coastal
                                          States in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program                 15
                                     Table 1. Approved State Coastal Management Programs                        I I
                                     Table 2. CZMA Program Development Funding ($000)                           12
                                     Table 3. Coastal Program Expenditures,
                                          Fiscal Years 1974-1988                                                17
                                     Table 4. State Allocation of CZMA Program Implementation
                                          Funds to National Interest Areas, 1982-1987                           18
                                     Table 5. 309 Project Funding Through Fiscal Year 1989
                                          By Region ($000)                                                      19

                 Chapter Two         THE CZMA'S FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DOCTRINE:
                                     FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT
                                          Jack H. Archer
                                     Introduction                                                               33
                                     The Role of Federal Consistency in Coastal Management                      33
                                     The Consistency Process                                                    33
                                     State Implementation                                                       37
                                     Conclusion                                                                 38
                                     Eadnotes                                                                   39
                                     References                                                                 40


                 Chapter Three       AN ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL ESTUARINE
                                     RESERVE RESEARCH SYSTEM
                                          Neil Armingeon
                                     Introduction                                                               43
                                     Legislative History of the National Estuarine
                                          Reserve Research System (NERRS)                                       43
                                     Conclusion                                                                 46
                                     References                                                                 47
                                     Table 1. National Estuarine Reserves, 1990                                 45





                 Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                            ix











                                                 Chapter Four               AN ANALYSIS OF THE COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM
                                                                                  Neil Armingeon
                                                                            Introduction                                                                                       49
                                                                            CEIP Projects                                                                                      49
                                                                            The End of the CEIP                                                                               49
                                                                            Conclusions                                                                                        50
                                                                            References                                                                                         50


                                                 Chapter Five               INTRODUCTION TO STATE COASTAL ZONE
                                                                            MANAGEMENTPROGRAMS
                                                                                  David Owens
                                                                            Role of the States in the National Coastal Zone Management Programs                              53
                                                                            References                                                                                         60
                                                                            Chart 1. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
                                                                                  Section-306 and 306A Funding: 1976-1988                                                      56
                                                                            Chart2. Section 306 and 306A Grant Expenditures 1982-1987                                         57
                                                                            Table 1. State Allocation of CZMA Program
                                                                                  Implementation. Funds, 1982-87                                                                 58

                                                 Chapter Six               DESCRIPTION. OF STATE COASTAL. MANAGEMENT
                                                                            ACTIVITIES.
                                                                                  Anna Schwab
                                                                            Introduction                                                                                       63                                                                            
                              							    Improved Governmental,Decision-Making                                                             63
                                                                            Natural Resources Protection                                                                        64
                                                                            Public Access to Coastal Resources                                                                 66
                                                                            Urban, Waterfront Development                                                                       67
                                                                            Coasta1 Hazards Mitigation                                                                          69
                                                                            Natural Resources Development 												  70
                                                                            Interstate Accomplishments,                                                                         73

                                                 Chapter Seven               ANALYSIS OF. STATE ALLOCATION OF
                                                                            COASTAL MANAGEMENT FUNDS                                                                           75
                                                                                  Bill Henderson -
                                                                            Table 1. Program Expenditures by Subject Matter                                                  76
                                                                            Table 2. Relative Allocations by State 1982-1987                                                  77

                                                 Chapter Eight              SUMMARIES OF INDIVIDUAL STATE AND
                                                                            TERRITORY PROGRAMS
                                                                                  Nancy Grossman
                                                                            Introduction                                                                                      81
                                                                            Alabama                                      82       New Hampshire                           123
                                                                            Alaska                                        84        New Jersey                              126
                                                                            American Samoa                                86        New York                                 129
                                                                            California                                    88        North Carolina                          134
                                                                            Connecticut                                  94        Northern Mariana Islands                 137
                                                                            Delaware                                     96        Oregon                                   139
                                                                            Florida                                       98        Pennsylvania                          142
                                                                            Guam                                       101        Puerto Rico                              145
                                                                            Hawaii                                      103        Rhode Island                             148
                                                                            Louisiana                                   105         South Carolina                          152
                                                                            Maine                                      108        Virgin Islands                          155
                                                                            Maryland                                    111         Virginia                                 157

								x
                                                                                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                  Contents

                  Chapter Eight (continued)

                                       Massachusetts                    114      Washgtc)n                       159
                                       Michigan                         117      Wisconsin                       162
                                       Mississippi                      120      Nonparticipating States         165
                                                                                 Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
                                                                                 Minnesota, Ohio, Texas


                  Chapter Nine         THE ECONOMICS OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
                                           Michael 1. Luger and Dennis C. Coates
                                       A. The Economic Value of the Coastal Zone                                 167
                                           A-1 The Coastal Zone and Coastal Zone Value                           167
                                           A-2 The Literature                                                    168
                                           A-3 Estimates                                                         172
                                           A-4 Summary and Implications for Policy                               175
                                       Table A-1. Estimates of Coastal "Value"                                   171
                                       Table A-2. Employment, Payroll and GNP-Originating in
                                           Coastal Zone, 145 and 1978                                            174
                                       B. The Relationship Between CZM Spending and Coastal GNP                  175
                                           B-1 Conceptual Basis                                                  175
                                           9-2 Relevant Literature                                               176
                                           B-3 Research Design and Results                                       177
                                           B-4 An Alternative Research Design for Measuring the
                                               Effect of CZMA Spending on the Coastal Economy                    181
                                           B-5 Summary and Implications f   .or Policy                           185
                                       Table B-3. Changes in Coastal GNP and Total CZM Spending                  178
                                       Table B-4. Correlations between Absolute Real Output Change and
                                           CZM Expenditures                                                      179
                                       Table B-5. Correlations between Percentage Change in Real
                                         I Output and CZM Expenditures                                           179
                                       Table B-6. Dollar Increase in Coastal Output Associated with a
                                           Dollar of CZM Spending                                                181
                                       Endnotes                                                                  186
                                       References                                                                189
                                       Appendix                                                                  191



















                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                              xi







                                                                                                                       Chapter One

                     INTRODUCTION


                           The purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of the history of the program carried
                     out under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, from the early stirrings of the
                     41coastal management" idea in the 1960s to its present mature stage in 1990. While the primary
                     thrust here is to describe the program over time, it is impossible to avoid some assessment of its
                     accomplishments and shortcomings in the course of the description. The primary question of
                     interest is: How have the nation's coastal resources been inanaged under the CZMA?

                           The chapter is arranged in chronological fashion, proceeding through several time periods
                     marked by coastal program developments. Given the broad and complex nature of the program
                     and its responsiveness to societal change, such stages tend to include several concurrent and
                     overlapping historical trends in addition to the major program activities. The primary stages
                     include:


                           1)     Precursors of Coastal Management: Recognition of the Resource Crisis 1962-1971
                           2)     Passage of 1972 Coastal Management Act: Struggle for Program Control 1969-1972
                           3)     State Coastal Program Planning: National Energy Crisis Impacts 1973-1980
                           4)     Coastal Program Implementation: Effects of a Hostile Administration 1978-1988
                           5)     Reassessing the Coastal Program: Forging an Agenda for the Nineties 1988-1990

                           To orient the reader, an overview of actions during the program stages is presented first and
                     then amplified in the following discussion. This overview is keyed on the listing of events in the
                     CZMA chronology contained in the Appendix at the end of this chapter. More details on selected
                     aspects of the program, including federal consistency, the National Estuarine Reserve Research
                     System (NERRS), the Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP), state coastal management activi-
                     ties, and the economics of coastal zone management are presented in the following chapters of this
                     report.

                     Overview of Progmm Stage Actions


                     Precursors


                           The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program was preceded by a decade marked by rising
                     tides of concern for protecting coastal recreation areas and estuaries, while at the same time
                     making productive use of coastal resources, setting up what some perceive as dichotomous goals
                     of coastal conservation and development. These coneems were crystallized in a number of
                     federally-commissioned reports, the most notable of which was the Stratton Commission's 1969
                     report, Our Nation and the Sea. While the idea of coastal management legislation was under
                     debate, a related Congressional debate on a national land use policy act was raging. Had it passed,
                     a national land use act could have preempted the coastal management act, under the logic that
                     coastal management was simply a subset of comprehensive land use management. At the same
                     time, an effort was underway to modernize and strengthen the legal framework of land use
                     regulation, exemplified in the American Law Institute's Model Land Develppment Code, and a
                     push began for more environmentally sensitive land use planning under the National Environmen-
                     tal Policy Act of 1969.

                     Passage of the 1972 Act

                           Starting in 1969, a number of coastal management bills were introduced in Congress,
                     distinguished by whether they emphasized "ocean development" under the aegis of the newly
                     created National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Com-
                     merce (DOC) or "conservation and land use" under the traditional federal land agency, the


                     Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program







                             Historical -Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                       @Department of Interior-(DOI). Some conservationists supported DOC over DOI, however, due to
                                       .tbeir.perception of a pro7-development bias in DOI. The 1972 Act settled the debate by placing
                                       administrative responsibility for coastal management under NOAA in- DOC and by announcing
                                       goals of both coastaldevelopment and coastal. conservation. It devolved primary. responsibility for
                                       alwo-stage program of 1) planning-and 2) implementation to the individual coastal states, who
                                       were- encouraged to participate voluntarily through a combination of federal -grants and the
                                       ppqrnise of required "consistency" of federal actions with approved state coastal'program provi-
                                       gions. At the signing of the bill, the President expressed support for a future national land,use act
                                       --that would encompass.coastal management, but such an act never passed. The,1972'CZMA
                                       @became the nation's only national envirorimental/land use legislation.

                                       State Coastal Program Planning and the Energy Crisis

                                             The coastal program started slowly, as adnidnistrators formulated a sttategy for dealing with
                                       -the,diverse political realities of passing new coastal laws in individual coastal'states. Funding also
                                       was slow, with the first appropriation not.granted -until FY 1974. However,'the program pit-ked -up
                                       steam rapidly and 3 1 of the,34 eligible states and,territories applied for-and, received program
                                       development -grants under. Section 305 of the Act in 1974. At the same time,the energy,crisis;an
                                       outside event which would inject a new set. of issues into coastal management, was taking shape.
                                       These issues came to a head in the CEIP enacted in the 1976 CZMA amendments, with ,authofiz@d
                                       appropriations- of $1-.2 billion over 8 years, a quantum leap in the amount ofte8ources allob.Am'. to
                                       coastal management. Meanwhile, states were completing.their coastal management programs',
                                       submitting them to Washington for Approval. By 1980, all 35 eligible states -and territoriosliad
                                       participated in the program and 25 had received approval, of their programs.

                                       Coastal Program Implementation

                                             The second stage of coastal management begankto gather momentum, in 1980, as those states
                                       @.with approved.programs acted. to implement them. To focus these implementation efforts,
                                       C ongress set forth nine areas of "national interest",.that states must address'. and tightened tip
                                       performance review procedures. During this period, Congress also enacted another,coastal
                                       :initiati,ve,,not directly related to the CZMA program. The Coastal -Barrier Resources Act of -1082,
                                       under the $ecretary oUnterior, withdrew federal flood insurance and financial, assistance4o
                                       designated undeveloped coastal barriers. Meanwhile, the initial consensus-that both resource
                                       -development and protection could be accomplished under a government management approach
                                       .splintered under the private enterprise focus of.the Reagan Administration. Congress continued to
                                       fund and reauthorize the federal coastal program, however, despite a determined effort by -the ,
                                       Reagan Administration to eliminate it. The states also continued to support the coastal,program
                                       .,and four more state programs were approved between 19 80 and 1988, bringing @the total to 29
                                       states and territories implementing approved coastal programs.

                                       Re-assessing -the Coastal Program

                                             Toward the endof the 1980s, Congress began a broad reassessment of the goals@ priorities,
                                       and procedures of the coastal program. Reauthorized in 1976, 1980, and 1986, the CZMA was
                                       'due for reauthorization again in 1990. A sense began to build that coastal water quality had not
                                       been adequately protected under past approaches, and that new efforts were needed to I ink local
                                       land use planning to enforceable water quality standards and to wetlands protection. In addition,
                                       proposals were made to revitalize federal leadership, to increase state and local *incentives for
                                       coastal management, and to resolve issues of consistency. Several bills were introduced to address
                                       these concerns,'and at the eleventir, hour before adjournment the 101st Congress@ passed the
                                       _.sw.eeping 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization as part of the budget reconciliation measure. In
                                       .,4ddition, the Congress adopted a number of changes in the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act, and


                             2                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                   Chapter One

                    the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requested that the National Academy of
                    Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) advise them on strategies for coastal erosion zone
                    management. It appeared that a new agenda, at least partly hearkening back to oniiissions in the
                    original 1972 Act, was being formulated for coastal management in the nineties.

                    PRECURSORS OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT:
                    RECOGNITION OF THE RESOURCE CRISIS 1962-1971


                          The CZMA of 1972 emerged from an intense national re-evaluation of the effectiveness of
                    U.S. environmental protection and land use planning, in which many argued that coastal manage-
                    ment was only one part of the larger land use puzzle. This reevaluation was prompted by a
                    growing sense of crisis over the exploitation of coastal natural resources.

                          The consensus supporting a national coastal initiative grew out of a series of national
                    debates and studies of outdoor recreation, marine resource development, estuarine pollution, and
                    land use policy. Each of these contributed to the final form of the CZMA of 1972 and to its
                    subsequent amendments. Zile (1974, p. 236) divides the period prior to the act into four phases:

                          The act did not grow out of a single concept advanced by a single interest or a set of
                          compatible interests. It was brought about by discrete and sometimes discordant constituen-
                          cies motivated by a variety of concerns and advocating the pursuit of diverse goals by a
                          wide range of means. We believe that four fairly distinct clusters of ideas, political factors,
                          and proposals dominated the four successive though somewhat overlapping periods of the
                          act's history., We have chosen to refer to them chronologically as recreation phase, estuary
                          protection phase, ocean development phase, and land use policy phase to indicate the central
                          coastal concern at each of the four periods. The act in its final form reflects something of
                          each of these concerns and phases. This perhaps accounts in large part for the act's form
                          and contents, its gaps and contradictions, and the uncertainty of its future.

                          Outdoor recreation, typically seen in terms of public acquisition of lands along the shore,
                    was the earliest organized, expressed reason for coastal management. A series of reports urged the
                    preservation of virgin shorelines for public use. In 1962, the Outdoor Recreation Resources
                    Review Commission issued its report, Outdoor Recreation for America, stating that only a small
                    fraction of 5-7 percent of the recreational shorelines of the oceans and Great Lakes in the 48
                    contiguous states was in public ownership and dedicated to recreational uses. In 1968, the
                    President's Council on Recreation and National Beauty issued its report, From Sea to Shining Sea,
                    also calling for placing additional shoreline into public ownership. Meanwhile, there was some
                    additional acquisition under the National Seashore Program between 1961 and 1972, when nine
                    other seashores (Cape Cod, Point Reyes, Point Keyes, Padre. Island, Fire Island, Assateague, Cape
                    Lookout, Gulf Islands, and Cumberland Island) were added to the Cape Hatteras National Sea-
                    shore established in 1937. And the National Lakeshore Program added four Great Lakes lake-
                    shores (Pictured Rocks, Indiana Dunes, Apostle Islands, and Sleeping Bear Dunes) between 1966
                    and 1970. Matching grants for planning, acquiring, and developing land and water areas for
                    outdoor recreation were made available under the 1964 Land and Water Conservation Act. Some
                    of these funds were used for coastal recreation areas, but the amounts available were inadequate to
                    meet the need. According to Zile (1974, p. 240), "the coastal programs generated in the recreation
                    phase have been inadequate in scope and concept, and dismally implemented where undertaken."

                          Estuary pLotection was the second concern contributing to the eventual adoption of the
                    CZMA. In 1965, a bill was introduced in the House to establish a Long Island National Wetlands
                    Recreation Area and in 1966, this concept was broadened in a House bill to establish a national
                    system of estuarine areas. After a number of objections and weakening amendments, an "eviscer-
                    ated" version of the bill directing the Secretary of the Interior to study and inventory estuaries and


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                     3







                              Historic-al. Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                        4o,recommend thedesirability of a nationwide system of estuarine areas was. passed in 1968 as the
                                        'Estuary Protection Act. (Zile, 1974). In 1970, the National Esfti4a Study authorized under. this
                                        Act discussed the ongoing destruction of estuaries and recommende&establishment of a system of
                                        estuarine areas under the federal/state management, but its recommendation was not implemented.
                                        Meanwhile, the report -of the National Estuarine Pollution Study, authorizedunaer the Clean
                                        Water Restoration Act of 1966 and issued in 1969, concluded that estuary protection should be an
                                        integral part of a comprehensive coastal zone management program. It recommended an approach
                                        remarkably similar to that adopted under the CZMA, with the states responsible "for managing
                                        their coastal areas and the federal role confined to assistance to the -states and coordination of
                                        federal activities. It said that enactment of federal enabling legislation should declare national
                                        policy, lay down broad guidelines, and grant ftmds.to- states for developmentif&d-admirtistration of
                                        coastal management    'programs. Meanwhile, estuary protection became one of a number df'broader
                                        environmental protection concerns, highlighted -in -1969*by the first major U.S. oil spill off Santa
                                        Barbara, and by the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

                                              Ocean developmen was a third concern expressed in the coastal management debate.
                                        Unlikethe conservation posture of the recreation and estuarine resource studies, resource `deve4-
                                        ppment" was the thrust of the main report in this area, Our Nation and the Sea, issued in 1969'by
                                        the Stratton Commission under the Marine Resources and Development Act of 1966. According
                                        to Zile (1974, p. 256), the floor debate on this act "suggested the thing to do was to learn afithat
                                        could be learned about the untapped wealth of the oceans@and then tap it through boundless private
                                        initiative before others got there first," and "the Commission's report reflected the development
                                        bias of its mandate." The Stratton Commissionleport noted that the coast is, in many respects,
                                        "the Nation's most valuable geographic feature" where the greater part of our tradeand industty
                                        'takes place and the waters are among"the most biologically productive. Its executive -director
                                        claimed that the Commission was the first to coin the term "coastal zone", asan area'having
                                        unique characteristics and requiring special management (Lawrence, 1976, p. 12). Concluding
                                        that the problems had outrun the abilities of local governments, the report recommended a
                                        management system focused on state responsiblity and action, similar to that of the National
                                        Estuarine Pollution Study but with federal coordination vested in a new National Oceknickfd
                                        Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Zile (1974, p.258) saw NOAA as a kind of "wet NASA
                                        for a never-before-attempted exploration and exploitation of the riches of the oceans," but the
                                        Commission also saw the need for encouraging coastal recreation and preventing coastal pollution.
                                        Essentially, they defined the primary problem of the coastal zone as a "management problem" and
                                        proposed that state coastal zone authorities be given broad powers for planning, regulation, land
                                        acquisition, and development, including the leasing of offshore areas, or "seasteads" (Knauss,
                                        1976, p. 16). The Stratton Commission report recommendations were incorporated by Vice
                                        President Agnew into his 1969 announcement, as Chairman of the National Council on Marine
                                        Resources and Engineering Development, of a five point program in ocean sciences. Its recom-
                                        mendation for creation of NOAA was implemented within the DOC, under the President's 1970
                                        Reorganization Plan.

                                              Land use policy was the fourth concern interwoven with the coastal management debate. As
                                        Zile (1974, p. 268) states,

                                              "During this fourth and final phase the coastal zone was, at last, considered in the context of
                                              the total natural environment. The coast was now perceived not merely as a playground, an
                                              ecologically fragile water's edge, or a land base for the support of an unfolding ocean
                                              technology, but also as an integral part of the entire land mass. The conclusion was reached
                                              that there could be no rational policy toward the land component of the coastal zone in the
                                              absence of a policy toward the management of all lands."




                              4                                                                                             NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                  Chapter One

                          During this time the American Law Institute was conducting its pathbreaking study of
                    improvements in the nation's legal framework affecting land use. This study, initiated in 1964 by
                    top land use law experts, produced the first of several draft proposals in 1968 leading to the
                    adoption in 1975 of its Model Land Develgpinent Code. Along with its increased attention to the
                    state role in land use planning and regulation, this Code contained two new concepts which would
                    influence the CZMA: 1) "Areas of Critical State Concern", where special development principles
                    were needed to prevent uncontrolled development, and 2) "Development of Regional Benefit",
                    where special provisions were made to allow developments that provide benefits to an area beyond
                    a single local government but may cause problems within the local area, such as a public utitility
                    or low income housing project. In 1970, the Public Land Law Review Commission issued its final
                    report, One Third of the Nation's Land, which pointed out the need to coordinate land use plan-
                    ning for both federal and nonfederal lands. Meanwhile, the fu-st national land use policy bill was
                    introduced by Senator Jackson in 1970, and by spring of 1972 there were over 200 other land use
                    policy proposals before 13 congressional committees. There were two adverse consequences for
                    coastal zone management in this situation. First, a national land use policy act could preempt the
                    narrower coastal zone focus but would at the same time be more controversial and less likely to
                    pass. Second, the growth in the number of proposals and interested congressional committes
                    complicated the legislative process and also decreased chances of passage.

                          Thus, the precursors of coastal zone managern   .ent set the stage for the congressional debate,
                    recognizing the coastal resource crisis and putting forth some proposed solutions. It was then up
                    to the Congress to bring this raw material together into acceptable legislation.

                    PASSAGE OF 1972 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT:
                    STRUGGLE FOR PROGRAM CONTROL 1969-1972


                          Passage of the CZMA took 3 years, during which there was a heated struggle over whether
                    the act would be focused on ocean development with NOAA as the lead agency or on land use and
                    conservation with the DOI as lead agency. A related struggle occured. over whether there would
                    be a free-standing, some said "piecemeal", coastal act or coastal management would be subsumed
                    under a "comprehensive" national land use policy act. In the end, the coastal act garnered enough
                    support to win Congressional passage, while the national land use act failed. The coastal manage-
                    ment compromise focused both on development and conservation to be achieved by individual
                    state management programs under NOAA as lead agency.

                    Hammering Out the Legislation

                          In 1969 during the 9 lst Congress, the first coastal management bills (H.R. 13247 and S.
                    2802) attempted to enact the recommendations of the Stratton Report as amendments to its parent
                    Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966. They were followed by an Admin-
                    istration bill in the House (H.R. 14845) and a counterpart in the Senate'(S. 3183) that took an
                    opposing tack, with DOI as lead agency under a new section of the Federal Water Pollution
                    Control Act. Various other bills followed and were sorted out according to whether they had a
                    "landward" or "seaward" orientation (Lee, 1976, p. 4). Those concentrating on water-mlated
                    problems and assigning responsibility to the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineer-
                    ing Development were referred to the Senate DOC or House Merchant Marine and Fisheries
                    Committees. Those with a land use/conservation focus and favoring the DOI were referred to the
                    Senate Public Works or the House Public Works Committees. However, the consensus on an
                    individual state management approach in these bills persisted through the Congressional debates
                    and appears in the adopted CZMA of 1972.

                          Critics felt that the individual state management approach was too soft to achieve effective
                    management of the coastal system, and that Congress was submitting to perceptions of politically


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                    5







                               Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                         feasible action in playing down the federal role (Zile, 1974, p. 261). The coastal states saw it
                                         differently. They formed the Coastal States Organization (CSO) in 1970, composed of gubernato-
                                         rial delegates from 22 coastal states to assure state representation in the development of national
                                         coastal policy (Brower and Carol, 1984, p. 3). They were staunch backers of the concept of
                                         delegating substantive program decisions to the individual coastal states.

                                               In 1971 during the 92nd Congress, the Administration's position changed from support of a
                                         coastal management program under DOI to support of a comprehensive national land use policy.
                                         The new coastal bills introduced during this first session all favored the Stratton Commission
                                         recommendations (S. 582, S. 638, H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493, H.R. 9229). It appeared that, without
                                         Administration support for a coastal program under DOI, the advantage had shifted to NOAA and
                                         DOC. However, as the favored approach moved toward adoption during the second session in
                                         1972, DOI again entered the picture. The Senate passed S. 3507 (an amended S. 582) by a
                                         unanimous vote. But in the House vote on H.R. 14146 (an amended version of H.R. 9229), a
                                         surprise floor amendment was approved, moving responsibility from DOC to DOI and stunning
                                         Congressman Lennon, the bill's sponsor who attributed the switch to an intense lobbying cam-
                                         paign, particularly by the American Petroleum Institute (Zile, 1974, p. 372). Some felt that this
                                         would block passage, of any bill, but a last minute compromise (S. 3507) was worked out just
                                         before adjournment which gave responsibility for implementation to the Secretary of DOC with an
                                         expectation that he would delegate, it to NOAA, with the requirement that DOI's concurrence be
                                         obtained in case of overlap with any national land use program which might be enacted. This
                                         compromise by the conference committee was approved in both chanbers in October 1972.

                                               President Nixon signed the CZMA of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) on October 27, a few days before
                                         the presidential election. However, he expressed displeasure that responsibility was placed in
                                         DOC rather than DOI and that Congress had not approved a national land use policy act. He
                                         urged creation of a new Department of Natural Resources, to reverse the fragmentation of federal
                                         environmental programs.


                                         Provisions of CZMA


                                               The resulting Act was relatively broad and simple in outline. It declared that it is the
                                         national policy:
                                               (a)   to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore, to enhance, the resources
                                               of the nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations,
                                               (b)   to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the
                                               coastal zone through the development and implementation of management progranis to
                                               achieve the use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration
                                               to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as to needs for economic devel-
                                               opment,
                                               (c)   for all federal agencies engaged in programs affecting the coastal zone to cooperate
                                               and participate with state and local governments and regional agencies in effectuating the
                                               purposes of this title, and
                                               (d) . to encourage the participation of the public, of federal, state, and local governments
                                               and of regional agencies in the development of coastal zone management programs.

                                         It also declared it is the national policy to encourage cooperation among state and regional
                                         agencies including establishment of interstate and regional agreements, cooperative procedures,
                                         and joint action particularly regarding environmental problems.

                                               The Act defined its key terms, including:
                                               (a)   "coastal zone" means coastal waters and adjacent shorelands strongly influenced by
                                               each other and in proximity to the shorelines of the coastal states.


                               6                                                                                              NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                   Chapter One

                          (b)   "coastal waters" means the areas of the Great Lakes within the U.S. territorial jurisdic-
                          tion and in other areas those waters adjacent to the shorelines containing a percentage of sea
                          water, extending outward to the outer limit of the territorial sea and the international
                          boundary with Canada and inland to the extent necessary to control shorelands whose uses
                          have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters, and excluding Federal lands.
                          (c)   "coastal state" means a state bordering the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, Gulf of
                          Mexico, Long Island Sound, or a Great Lake, and includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
                          Guam, and American Samoa.
                          (d)   "estuary" means that part of a river or stream or other water body having connection
                          with the open sea, where sea water is diluted with fresh water from land drainage, including
                          Great Lakes estuaries.
                          (e)   "estuarine sanctuary" means a research area including all or part of an estuary,'
                          adjoining transitional areas, and adjacent uplands, constituting to the extent feasible a
                          natural unit.
                          (f)   "secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce.
                          (g) "Management program!' includes a comprehensive statement prepared and adopted by
                          the state setting forth objectives, policies, and standards to, guide public and private uses of
                          lands and waters in the coastal zone.
                          (h)   "water use" means activities conducted on the water, but does not include establish-
                          ment of water quality standards or criteria or regulation of discharge or runoff of water
                          pollutants.
                          (i)"land use" means activities conducted on the shorelands within the coastal zone.

                          Three major sections of the Act laid out its primary techniques and concepts. These
                    included initial grants to "develop" management programs for federal approval under Section 305,
                    follow-up grants to "administer" or implement these approved programs under Section 306, and a
                    requirement that federal actions be- "consistent" with approved state coastal management programs
                    under Section 307.


                          Section 305 of the Act defined Management Program Development Grants. These initial
                    grants, could cover up to two-thirds of the costs of program development over a 3-year period.
                    Management programs had to include:

                          I .   Identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone.
                          2.    Definition of permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone.
                          3.    Inventory and designation of areas of particular concern.
                          4.    Identification of means by which state control is proposed to be exerted over land and
                          water uses, including constitutional provisions, legislative enactments, regulations, and
                          judicial decisions.
                          5.    Broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas.
                          6.    Description of the organizational structure proposed to implement the management
                          program, including responsibilities and interrelationships of local, areawide, state, regional,
                          and interstate agencies.

                          Section 306 of the Act defined Administrative Grants. These second stage grants also could
                    cover up to two-thirds of the costs of administering a state's coastal management program,with no
                    time period specified. To be eligible for an administrative grant, a state first had to receive
                    approval of its management program, which had to meet both procedural and substantive require-
                    ments. The program had to provide for control of land and water uses within the coastal zone
                    under one or a combination of.


                          1 .   state establishment of criteria and standards for local administration, subject to
                          admistrative review and enforcement of compliance,


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                      7







                              Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                              2.    direct state land and water use planning and regulation, and/or
                                              3.    state administrative review of all development plans, projects, or regulations proposed
                                              by state or local authority or private developer for consistency with the coastal management
                                              program, with power to approve or disapprove.

                                       It also had to provide a method of assuring that local regulations do not unreasonably restrict or
                                       exchide uses of regional benefit, and that adequate consideration is given to the national interest
                                       involved in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements other than local in nature.

                                              Section 307 of the Act provided for Interagency Coordination and Cooperation, including
                                       the federal "consistency" provisions. It required the Secretary to coordinate program activities
                                       with other federal agencies, and required all federal agencies to ensure that their licenses, permits,
                                       and financial assistance are consistent with approved state coastal management programs. It
                                       further specified that federal activities and development. projects must be conducted in a manner
                                       consistent to the maximum extent practicable with approved state management programs. It
                                       recognized and protected a number of existing authorities and laws, specifically exempting
                                       requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control and Clean Air Acts from effect by the Act. It
                                       also required the Secretary to obtain the concurrence of DOI or any other administrator of any
                                       future federal national land use program before approving a state's coastal management program
                                       which includes shorelands also subject to the land use program.

                                              The Act also contained some further provisions relating to administration. Section 308 set
                                       Public Hearing procedures. Section 309 directed the Secretary to conduct a continuing Review of
                                       Performance of the state management programs. Section 310 required grant recipients to keep
                                       Records as prescribed on the amount and disposition of funds. Section 311 authorized the
                                       establishment of an Advisory Committee. Section 312 authorized grants of up to 50 percent of the
                                       costs of acquisition, development and operation of Estuarine Sanctuaries for natural field laborato-
                                       ries. Section 313 required the submission of an Annual Report. Section 314 required the promul-
                                       gation of program Rules and Regulations. Section 315 was the Authorization of Appropriations,
                                       totaling some $186 million for FYs 1973-1977. (As the Act was later amended, some section
                                       numbers and titles were changed. I

                                              With passage of CZMA, coastal zone management was finally underway. Critics, such as
                                       Zile (1974, pp. 235-36 and 274), described the act as "poorly drafted, deficient in substantive
                                       standards, vague on policy, and uncertain regarding agency responsibility" and characterized the
                                       start as "shaky and uncertain". Environmentalists would have preferred an Act with a stronger
                                       federal role with substantive environmental performance standards and required state participation
                                       with centralized state authorities for coastal planning and management. Pragmatists were willing
                                       to accept the Act as a beginning and to use it to build coastal management support and capacity at
                                       the state level. They believed that only an incentive-based, voluntary state participation program
                                       built upon existing state regulatory authority could have passed Congress (Kitsos, 1985, p. 278).


                                       STATE COASTAL PROGRAM PLANNING:
                                       NATIONAL ENERGY CRISIS IMPACTS 1973-1980


                                              The next stage of coastal management belongs to NOAA and the coastal states. Congress
                                       set the initial policy framework and returned periodically to review and amend it. But the job of
                                       turning broad federal policy guidelines into explicit state coastal management programs devolved
                                       upon a new set of coastal bureaucrats. Since no one had done "coastal zone management" before,
                                       the new managers had to invent concepts and procedures on the job.





                              8                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                              Chapter One

                   Buildin2 A Coastal Program and BureauctLcy

                         The Nixon Administration appropriated no funds to the program during its first year,
                   reflecting the President's reservations about the CZMA. It was nearly 14 months after the
                   enactment of the law before the first $72 million appropriation was made (Kitsos, 1985, p. 278).
                   However, NOAA established a Coastal Zone Management Task Force to inventory the status of
                   state coastal programs, develop guidelines and recommendations, coordinate federal agencies, and
                   assess information needs. This group became the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM)
                   within NOAA when ftmding was provided in 1974. According to a top federal coastal official, by
                   then states were at various stages in developing their programs (Matuszeski, 1985, p. 267). Some,
                   such as California and Rhode Island, already were operating programs and expected immediate
                   federal approval. Others saw the planning grants primarily as another source of federal funds. But
                   most saw the value of the funds to start up coastal management and understood they had a limited
                   time to get the job done.

                         Once the initial appropriation was made, the OCZM moved rapidly to award the first
                   Section 305 program development grants. In 1974, 31 of the 34 eligible states and territories
                   received planning grants totaling $7.199 million. This initial response was so strong the the
                   original $9 million planning grant authorization under Section 305 appeared, after only a short
                   time, to be insufficient (Kitsos, 1985, p. 278).

                         In 1975, the 93rd Congress approved, without opposition, amendments (PL 93-612) making
                   minor administrative changes and increasing the grant authorization to $12 million for each FY
                   through 1977, an increase of $27 million. A number of coastal interest groups testified in support
                   of the coastal management program and the amendments, including the CSO, the presidentially-
                   appointed National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, and representatives of
                   individual states. Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Merchant Marine
                   and Fisheries Committee had staked out the coastal management area, and a coastal policy "iron
                   triangle" composed of NOAA, the committee staffs, and the state bureaucrats had formed.
                   According to one observer, "By the start of the 94th Congress, coastal management.had become
                   institutionalized, although somewhat tenuously, in the fabric of the political system" (Kitsos,
                   1985, p. 279).

                   Ener2izin2 Effects of the Energy Crisis

                         At the same time that the coastal management program development effort was underway,
                   the national energy crisis was taking shape. The two were closely linked because of the large
                   potential offshore oil and gas reserves. Under the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (PL
                   83-212), the DOI manages the outer continental shelf (OCS) extending seaward from the 3-mile
                   territorial sea which is the boundary of the coastal zone. Following the 1973 OPEC oil embargo,
                   President Nixon directed the DOI to greatly expand OCS leasing, moving it beyond the Gulf of
                   Mexico, in an effort to increase energy independence. Because of the potential onshore and
                   coastal waters environmental impacts of OCS development, the coastal states were alarmed about
                   thisincrease.


                         Their fears were not calmed by a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Maine
                   that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over resource development beyond the 3-mile
                   limit. States were excluded from OCS development decisions and from any bonuses or royalties
                   from offshore leasing.

                         The 94th Congress waded into the coastal energy issue on two fronts, taking up both a CEIP
                   amendment to the CZMA to help coastal states address the effects of OCS leasing, exploration,
                   and development, and an OCS revenue sharing bill to give coastal states a cut of the federal


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                 9







                              Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                        revenues from offshore production (Kitsos, 1985, p. 279). The OCS revenue sharing bill failed,
                                        but the CEIP approach succeeded. Tbe Senate and House both passed bills (S. 586 and H.R.
                                        3981) and the conference committee went to work. After intense negotiation with the Administra-
                                        tion, a compromise CEIP measure was passed in 1976 and President Ford signed PL 94-370, the
                                        CZMA Amendments of 1976.


                                              Inspired by the crisis atmosphere and some dramatic projections of potential impacts, the
                                        1976 Amendments made radical changes in the CZMA. They stated that the national, objective of
                                        greater energy self-sufficiency would be advanced by federal financial assistance to meet state and
                                        local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activity in the coastal zone. To this end they
                                        created the CEIP with authorized appropriations of $1.2 billion (including $.8 billion for loans
                                        over 10 years and $.4 billion for grants over 8 years), along with increases in other CZMA
                                        activities of $20 million for interstate grants, $40 million for research and technical assistance, $24
                                        million for estuarine sanctuaries, and $100 million for beach access. And they raised the federal
                                        share of grants from two-thirds to 80 percent. The total authorization was a whopping $1.664
                                        billion. With this major funding increase in the 1976 Amendments, coastal management gained
                                        the potential to become a "big money" program (Kitsos, 1985, p. 280), although congressional
                                        representatives did not expect actual CEIP appropriations to reach the $1.2 billion authorization
                                        level. And as it turned out, the support for CEIP waned quickly after the end of the seventies (not
                                        to reappear until the next energy crisis at the end of the 1980s).
                                              The 1976 Amendments also tried to straighten out -the issue of the states' role in O@s
                                        development, requiring OCS leasing to be consistent with approved state coastal management
                                        programs. (However, the U.S. Supreme court in a 1984 decision, Secretary of Interior v. Califor-
                                        nia, was to rule that consistency provisions only covered actual development, not leases.) And
                                        they provided for a mediation process to resolve federallstate disagreements of state coastal
                                        management programs. Almost unnoticed were some procedural changes, which both eased and
                                        complicated the planning process (Matuszeski, 1985, p. 269). Planning funds were extended for 3
                                        years; total planning grants were limited to 4 years unless "preliminary approval" was granted;
                                        segmented approval of a portion of a state's coastal zone was allowed (which would be used in
                                        New Jersey and New Hampshire); and new planning requirements were added for beach access,
                                        energy facility siting, and shoreline erosion (Sections 305(b)(7)(8)(9)).

                                        Defining Program A1212-r-Oval Standards

                                              The OCZM had requested that the program be reauthorized by Congress in 1976, a year
                                        earlier than required under the initial 5-year authorization. This reauthorization was made a part
                                        of the 1976 Amendments. As a result of the 1976 reauthorization debate, federal CZM officials
                                        realized that time was running out on the planning funds and that they needed to define a clear
                                        process for "approval" of state programs so that the states could enter the "administration" or
                                        implementation phase (Matuszeski, 1985, p. 269). In retrospect, it is surprising that the formal
                                        regulations were issued so late, with the original program development regulations published in
                                        1977 and program approval regulations published in 1978. However, as Matuszeski (1985, p.
                                        269) points out, in 1976 the federal staff did not have enough experience with the results of the
                                        state planning efforts to be able to match them against the very general CZMA requirements and
                                        the unhelpful CZMA program organization options (direct state control; state review of local
                                        programs, and state review of local decisions). They had to deal with how to approve a state
                                        program that relied on local coastal plans before the local plans were completed and how to judge
                                        whether a "networked" state program created from linking existing state laws and programs -rather
                                        than creating a new coastal management statute would be sufficient in scope, specificity, and
                                        enforceability. What this came down to was a careful case-by-case review of each unique state
                                        program.



                               to                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                      Chapter One

                          The Washington state program was the first to be approved, in 1976. By the end of 1979,
                    when the funding for the program development effort under Section 305 expired, 19 programs had
                    been approved, creating the *start of a national network of operating coastal management programs.
                    Another group of seven programs was approved in 1980 (see Table 1).




                            Table 1. APPROVED STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS


                          PARTICIPATING                   PROGRAM               PARTICIPATING                 PROGRAM
                       STATE OR TERRITORY APPROVED                           STATE OR TERRITORY, APPROVED


                          Washington                         1976             Delaware                             1979
                          Oregon                             1977             Alabama                              1979
                          California                         1978             South Carolina                       1979
                          Massachusetts                      1978             Louisiana                            1980
                          Wisconsin                          1978             Mississippi                          1980
                          Rhode Island                       197.8            Connecticut                          1980
                          Michigan                           1978             Pennsylvania                         1980
                          North Carolina                     1978             New Jersey (remaining section)       1980
                          Puerto Rico                        1978             Northern Marianas -                  1980
                          Hawaii                             1978             American Samoa                       1980
                          Maine                              1978             Florida                              1981
                          Maryland                           1978             New Hampshire
                          New Jersey                                          (ocean & harbor segment)             1982
                          (bay & ocean shore segment)        1978             New York                             1982
                          Virgin Islands                     1979             Virginia                             1986
                          Alaska                             1979             New Hampshire
                          Guam                               1979.            (remaining section)                  1988

                          NONPARTICIPATING STATES                     DATE OF ACTION


                                 Illinois                             withdrew 1978
                                 Minnesota                            withdrew 1978; developing program 1990
                                 Ohio                                 withdrew 1980; developing program 1990
                                 Georgia                              not approved 1980
                                 Indiana                              withdrew 1981
                                 Texas                                withdrew 1981




                    Program Development Funding

                          The program development phase was limited to 3 years in the initial Act. This was extended
                    to 4 years in the 1976 amendments to the Act, and could be stretched out for two more years under
                    the preliminary approval provisions of Section 305(d) .(Matuszeski, 1985, p.274). In all, the
                    program development phase extended from FY 1974 through FY 1979. Program development
                    grants to states under Section 305 during that period totaled $69.72 million. (See Table 2 for an
                    overview of program development funding.)






                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program







                               Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program



                                                        Table 2. CZMA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT FUNDING ($ 000)

                                         SECTION FY74            FY75        FY76         TQ        FY77       FY78        FY79       TOTAL

                                           365        7,199      8,991      14,892      2,832     15,356      9,351       2,291      $60,912
                                           305(b)                                          .64      1,988        309        450         2,811
                                           (7)(8)(9)
                                           305(d)                                                   1,159     2,385       2,453         5,997

                                           TOTAL                                                                                     $69,720



                                         (305-prbgram development; 305(b)(7)-beach access, (8)-energy facility siting, (9)-shorelinc. erosion;
                                         305(d)-program not yet finally approved)
                                         Source: OCRM, 1988-a



                                               In 1978, Congress enacted the OCS Lands Act Amendments (PL 96-464), which included
                                         changes to the CEIP. Appropriations procedures-were adjuste∧ authorizations for OCS
                                         formula grants were increased from $50 million per year to $130 million per year and from 8 years
                                         to 10 years. Appropriations for the formula grants never reached their authorization level, but they
                                         grew to $27.7 million in 1980.

                                         Early Program Evaluations

                                               Given the staying power of the CZMA for. some 18 years over dramatically changing coastal
                                         issues, today it is somewhat ironic to look back at the number of times that the future of the
                                         program has been characterized as "uncertain". In 1976, the U.S. General Accounting Office
                                         (OAO) issued its report, The CZM Program: An Uncertain Future, in connection with the re-
                                         authorization hearings. The GAO report questioned the role of NOAA as "the state's friend" in
                                         the program development process, and in response some observers believed that NOAA became
                                         less collaborative and more directive (Lowry, 1985, p. 295). The 1979 report by the Office of
                                         Coastal Zone Management, The First Five Years of Coastal Zone Management: An Initial
                                         Assessment, was more optomistic. It stated that all 35 eligible states and territories had partici-
                                         pated in the program and that 13 state programs had been approved during the first 5 years of the
                                         Act. Noting that it is too early to expect full scale results, the report nevertheless. said that the
                                         coastal management effort is "beginning to make a difference". Looking ahead to the 1980.
                                         reauthorization debate, the report identified significant accomplishments in resource protection,
                                         development management, recreational access, and improved government decision-making. A
                                         parallel assessment by the House Oceanography Subcommittee declared that the basic provisions
                                         and concepts incorporated into the Act 8 years ago remain sound and the "partnerships which have
                                         developed between the Federal Government and state and local governments have been respon-
                                         sible for many of the successes in coastal management" (U.S. Congress, 1980).

                                               As the decade drew to a close, the CZMA appeared to be off t6 a good start. President
                                         Carter designated 1980 as "The Year of the Coast", although the DOC sent a CZM reauthorization
                                         bill to Congress that would begin to decrease program funding in light of federal budgetary
                                         problems. In commenting on the Administration's bill, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee
                                         on Oceanography of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Congressman Gerry
                                         Studds, remarked, "I guess you cannot see the coast from the Rose Garden." (U.S. Congress, 1980.
                                         p. 1900) As the coastal program entered its implementation years, it began to meet with mixed


                               12                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                Chapter One

                    signals. Looking back, one veteran congressional coastal staffer characterized the period from
                    1975 to 1980 as the "halcyon years" and noted that the CZM bubble burst quickly after the
                    inauguration of President Reagan (Kitsos, 1985, pp. 279-82).

                    COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION:
                    EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE ADMINISTRATION 1980-1988


                          The implementation period of a federal prograrn is the "payoff", when the hopeful declara-
                    tions of policy are measured against the realities of practice. The coastal program had the bad
                    fortune to enter its implementation period under the cloud of a hostile Administration bent on
                    deregulation of private enterprise in every area of public policy and of a president who previously
                    had specifically opposed coastal management as governor of California. Not only did the Reagan
                    Administration propose to phase-out federal financial support for the CZM and CEIP programs
                    beginning in 1982, it staunchly opposed funding the program throughout President Reagan's two
                    terms. And it sought to increase the OCS leasing program throughactions by Interior Secretary
                    James Watt.


                          On the other hand, the coastal program was fortunate in its federated structure, which placed
                    the major implementation responsibility in the hands of the participating coastal states. Not only
                    were these states ready to carry out program implementation, they also were willing to support
                    continuation of the federal program by Congress. The collaborative philosophy adopted by the
                    federal coastal planners in the early years generated solid continuing working relationships with
                    the coastal states. Even though some believed that the federal officials became more directive
                    after the 1976 reauthorization debates (Lowry, 1985, p. 295), the direction of the program was by
                    then solidly structured around the individual state programs and their perceptions of what should
                    be done to manage their coastal zones. With this continuing base of state support, Congress
                    continued to reauthorize and support CZMA through the 1980s.


                    The Second Reauthorization Hurdle


                          The 96th Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act of 1980 (PL 96-
                    464), which was aimed at guiding the implementation process. This Act added a new finding that
                    demands for food, energy, minerals, defense needs, recreation, waste disposal, transportation, and
                    industrial activities are creating the need for resolution of conflicts among competing uses and
                    values in coastal and ocean waters. In order to provide more specific criteria for state coastal
                    managment efforts and to recognize the cooperative nature of the program under which states
                    implement national objectives, the Act declared a new national policy defining nine areas of
                    national interest that states must address:


                          I .   natural resource protection,
                          2.    hazards management,
                          3.    major facility siting,
                          4.    public access for recreation,
                          5.    redevelopment of urban waterfronts and ports,
                          6.    simplification of decision procedures,
                          7.    coordination of affected federal agencies,
                          8.    public participation, and
                          9.    living marine resource conservation.

                          In the 1980 Act, Section 312, Review of Performance was amended to require written
                    assessment of the extent to which a state has addressed the national interest needs and to provide
                    for reduced funding 'if significant improvement is not made in achieving them. The Act also
                    declared a national policy to encourage the preparation of special area management plans


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                  13







                              Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                        providing for increased specificity in protecting natural resources, reasonable coastal-dependent
                                        economic growth, protection of life and. property in hazardous areas, and predictability in govern-
                                        mental decision-making. It added a new title, Section 306A, authorizing resource management
                                        improvement grants funded at $20 million per year for 5 years to help states finance low-cost
                                        construction projects, preserve fragile. coastal areas, redevelop waterfronts and ports, and provide
                                        public access to the shore. And it provided CEIP grants to mitigate environmental or recreational
                                        losses from coal shipment facilities.

                                        The CowWnion Coastal Act: CBRA

                                              In 1982, Congress passed another law affecting the coastal zone but not part of the existing
                                        coastal management program, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA). In a major
                                        departure from past federal policy, the Act used the removal of federal financial assistance and
                                        flood insurance as leverage to curb public losses associated with development of undeveloped
                                        coastal barriers (Godschalk, 1987). Its passage was the result of an unusual coalition of environ-
                                        mentalists and fiscal conservatives within the budget-cutting environment of the 97th Congress
                                        (Kitsos, 1985, p. 283). Administration of CBRA is the responsibility of the DOI, which has
                                        continued to revise its coverage and definitions of undeveloped barriers. By placing CBRA under
                                        DOI, as well as having federal flood insurance administered by the FEMA and maritime water
                                        quality under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), some believe that the necessary
                                        integrated response to comprehensive coastal management was unduly fragmented.

                                        Prog.ress Toward a Coastal Network

                                              During the 1980s, the total number of approved programs increased to 29, with the addition
                                        of Florida in 1981, New York and New Hampshire (ocean and harbor segment) in 1982, Virginia
                                        in 1986, and the remaining section of New Hampshire in 1988. (See Figure 1.) Of the 35 eligible
                                        states and territories, 6 elected not to participate. Nonparticipants included the Great Lakes states
                                        .of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, and Illinois, as well as Georgia and Texas.' Ohio did not enact
                                        necessary state legislation; Indiana did not establish the new organizational structure required for
                                        implementation: Minnesota withdrew as a result of opposition from-two rural counties, but has
                                        continued with harbor management plans; the Illinois state legislation failed to pass; Georgia was
                                        found to be not making satisfactory progress toward program approval; the Texas coastal program
                                        was withdrawn by the Governor (Coastal States Organization, 1985). Even with the six non-
                                        participants, it appeared on the surface that the coastal program was prospering during the 1980s
                                        but underneath a sea change was taking place.

                                              According to Mitchell (1986, p. 319), the early 1980s were "watershed years" for U.S.
                                        coastal management. Although few of the basic laws were significantly amended, the advent of
                                        the Reagan Administration's markedly different policies made important changes. The Reagan
                                        Administration sought to reduce federal spending and the scope of federal government and to
                                        develop natural resources to increase the country's economic independence. It declared that the
                                        need for a federal role in coastal management had ended, terminated federal activities such as
                                        technical assistance, proposed that Congress appropriate no money for 306 grants, and sought to
                                        have the states take responsibility for coastal management  .3 Mitchell believes that the Reagan
                                        Administration policies profoundly changed the U.S. coastal program, weakening the federal
                                        Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (formerly the OCZM) to the point that it no
                                        longer provided vigorous national leadership.


                                        Mid-Course Evaluations       -


                                              Other evaluations echoed concerns about coastal program problems. A 1986 GAO report
                                        summarizing previous coastal program evaluations listed a number of problems, including:


                              14                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                    Chapter One









                 Figure 1.          Participating and Non-participating Coastal
                 States In          the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program



                             U I/                                                      N
                                                          MN                                     MA


                                                                   IL  IN   OH               E
                                                                                             D

                                                                                                 YEAR APPROVED

                                                                             GA                        1976 to 1978
                                                   TX                                                  1978   to  1979

                  HI                                                                                   1979   to  1980

                                                                                                       1980   to  1981

                                                                                                       1981   to  1982

                                                                                                       1982   to  1986

                                                                                                       1986 to    1988
                 SOURCE-OCRM,1988            Territories not shown:PR-78,VI/GU:79,NM/AS:80              Non-participating States














                 Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                       15







                               Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                               1.    delays in implementing coastal management plans,
                                               2.    failure to use appropriate evaluation guidelines and criteria,
                                               3.    many staff vacancies and high turnover rates among program managers,
                                               4.    poor communications between Federal and State offices,
                                               5.    inadequate follow-up on corrective actions, and
                                               6.    various types of bureaucratic infighting.

                                        The impact was not limited to the federal coastal agency. The GAO report surveyed the states and
                                        territories participating in CZMA and found that termination of federal ftinding would cause six to
                                        end their programs and would bring significant reductions in the activities of the others.

                                               In a 1985 special issue of the Journal of the American Planning Association, state program
                                        managers reported on some of the best coastal programs, those in North Carolina (Owens, 1985),
                                        California (Fischer, 1985), and New Jersey (Kinsey, 1985). Each describes dwindling interest and
                                        commitment at the state level. Mitchell (1986) attributes this decrease in the dynamism of coastal
                                        government agencies to the impact of an abrupt change in government ideology that trickled down
                                        from Washington, DC.

                                               A second major factor affecting coastal management was the radical change in policies
                                        governing leasing of federal OCS lands to private companies which took effect in 1983. During
                                        1983 and 1984, an additional 270 million acres were opened to competitive bidding, and some 14
                                        million acres were newly leased, more than had been leased in the previous 8 years (Mitchell,
                                        1986, p. 333). This was accompanied by a 1984 Supreme Court ruling in Secretary of Interior v.
                                        California that OCS leases were not subject to consistency requirements under the CZMA because
                                        the act of leasing did not directly affect the coastal zone, as did oil and gas development activities.
                                        The Court majority declared that the 1972 Congress did not intend that Section 307(c)(1) should
                                        cover OCS lease sales, "finally putting to rest a controversy that in many ways diverted energy
                                        and attention away from the substantive goals and achievement-, of the federal-state cooperative
                                        scheme" (Wolf, 1985, p. 19). Yet at the same time, the market for leasing declined, reflecting a
                                        fall in world oil prices, continuing state opposition, unsuccessful explorations, and lengthy legal
                                        diversions.


                                               In 1984, OCRM issued its Biennial Report to Con2ress on Coastal Zone Management:
                                        Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983, as required under Section 316 of CZMA as amended. This report
                                        discussed the allocation of funds in response to the 1981 Administration proposal to phase-out
                                        federal financial support for the CZM and CEIP programs beginning in 1982, when they were
                                        deemed sufficiently successful to be returned to the states. In 1982,,Congress reprogrammed $33
                                        minion from the Coastal Energy Impact Fund for firial state CZM grants and $7 million for final
                                        CEIP grants. In 1983, Congress appropriated $7 million for CZM grants. According to the report
                                        by OCRM (1984, p. 17), the situation was not entirely negative (a view not shared by program
                                        supporters in Congress or the coastal states):       -

                                               "Dining the period of phase down of Federal funds, the states have modified the structure of
                                               their staffs and emphasized the maintenance of a strong core program. Changes have
                                               included reducing the number of staff, transferring staff to other funding sources, and
                                               requiring individual staff members to diversify their areas of responsibility. Resources have
                                               been directed toward basic program functions such as permitting, monitoring and enforce-
                                               ment, and coordinating and consolidating agency activities. States have not concentrated on
                                               expanding state capabilities and initiating innovative programs ... Despite some areas of
                                               conflict, relationships.between the states and the Federal agencies continue to improve. In
                                               part this progress resulted from greater state attention as programs evolved from the devel-
                                               opment into the implementation phase. The recognition of common goals and the need to
                                               simplify government processes also contributed to this trend. Finally, the expertise which


                               16                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                       Chapter One

                           several of the states developed in coastal problems, such as those mentioned above; encour-
                           aged the Federal agencies to look to the states for advice."


                     The Third Reauthorization


                           The Administration recommended rescinding the 1985 state grant appropriations, but
                     Congress continued funding for Section 306 grants. And in 1986, the 99th Congress passed the
                     Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1985 (PL 99-272). This Act kept the coastal
                     program alive but put it on an increasingly strict diet. Administrative grant matching ratios were
                     reduced to four to one (from the previous five to one or 80 percent) in FY 1986,23 to one in FY
                     1987, 1.5 to one in FY 1988, and one to one (50 percent match) thereafter. The Act also renamed
                     estuarine areas as National Estuarine Reserves and created the NERRS under Section 315.


                     Cumulative Pro-gram Funding

                           As national expenditures go, the coastal program has not been a big spending effort.
                     Cumulative federal funding from the first grants in FY 1974 through FY 1988 for all elements of
                     the coastal program has amounted to less than $696 million. (See Table 3.) The largest amount,
                     some 49 percent, has been allocated to Program Administration, encompassing the activities by
                     the states to implement their approved coastal programs. The next largest amount, about 34
                     percent, has gone to the CEIP. Program Development, the phase in which the states designed and
                     enacted their coastal management program, received 10 percent of the overall funding for the
                     period. Estuarine Reserves received just under 5 percent. And modest amounts of less than I
                     percent of the total were allocated to Interstate Coordination, Research and Technical Assistance,
                     and P.L. 92-532, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.



                             Table 3. Coastal Program Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1974-1988. (OCRM, 1988-a)

                             Section                                                     Amount         Percent of Total


                              305             Program Development                          69,720              10.02
                              306.            Program Administration
                                              (Implementation)                           341,477               49.08
                              308             COP                                        239,217               34.38
                              309             Interstate Coordination                       4,208              00.60
                              310             Research & Technical Assistance                 236              00.03
                              315.1           Estuarine Reserves                           33,589              04.83
                              P.L92-532       (Marine Sanctuaries)                          6,733              00.97

                           Total (does not add due to rounding)                         $695,775




                     Proeress Assessment


                           One way to assess the progress of the coastal program is to compare its costs and benefits
                     over its lifetime to other possible uses of the federal ffinds allocated to it. For example, it is
                     tempting to make comparisons with the costs of various pieces of expensive military hardware or
                     with the success of other national programs, such as air quality, in meeting mandatory national
                     standards. Rather than make such possibly spurious comparisons, this research has instead
                     focussed on the accomplishments of the coastal program and on the relative importance of the
                     coastal zone to the U.S. economy. By these measures, the $696 million invested in the coastal


                     Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                        17







                            Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                      program over its first 14 years has generated remarkable returns, motivating 29 states to design
                                      and carry out far-ranging coastal management efforts in the coastal counties where some 31.7
                                      percent of the 1985 U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) originated and where 59 percent of the
                                      nation's population growth between 1980 and the year 2000 is expected to occur. And the
                                      participating coastal states are matching the federal grants, at least dollar for dollar and in some
                                      cases more, with their own state funds. At this macro scale, the coastal program's relatively small
                                      federal funding "carrot", coupled with its willingness to let the states design programs to fit their
                                      individual.situations, has produced a very active intergovernmental coastal management partner-


                                           Another way to assess the programs' progress in dealing with coastal problems is to review
                                      the way that states spent their implementation funding relative to the national priorities declared
                                      by Congress. Looking at the use by the states of their federal program grants, a great variety of
                                      allocations is evident. Table 4 shows the amounts and percentages of state program implementa-
                                      tion funds allocated to a set of seven national interest areas (aggregated from the nine areas
                                      specified in the 1980 Act) for the six FYs between 1982 and 1987, the latest period for which data
                                      was available. Not unexpectedly in a program dedicated to resolving coastal interagency and
                                      private sector conflicts, the largest expenditure category, totaling some 39 percent, was improved
                                      government decision-making. Second highest, at about 28 percent, was natural resource protec-
                                      tion. Public access was the third highest category at about I I percent. Urban waterfront redevel-
                                      opment, hazard mitigation, and natural resource development were grouped together in fourth
                                      place, at between 6 percent and 8 percent each. And ports and marinas expenditures were the
                                      smallest, at about 2 percent.


                                                    Table 4. State Allocation of CZMA Program Implementation Funds to
                                                         National Interest Areas, 1982-1987 (1982 Constant Dollars)



                                              Item                                              Dollars                Percent
                                              Improved Government Decision-Making             73,930,076               38.88
                                              Natural Resource Protection                     52,796,776               27.76
                                              Public Access                                   20,034,997               10.54
                                              Urban Waterfront Development                    14,259,697                7.50
                                              Hazards Mitigation                              13,969,763                7.35
                                              Natural Resource Development                    11,933,415                6.28
                                              Ports and Marinas                                 3,237,976               1.70



                                      Source: Compiled from OCRM data



                                           A 1988 report by OCRM documented a number of successful projects carried out by the 29
                                      federally-approved state coastal management programs. This report described accomplishments in
                                      terms of the nine national interest areas under the CZMA. For each area, the problem was
                                      identified and specific benefits ascribed to state CZMA projects, following the format of a similar
                                      1985 report by the CSO. This framework, also to be utilized in the new 1989 Section C-Annual
                                      Report of Performance, provides decision-makers with a more structured way to evaluate the
                                      funding priorities of state programs relative to national policies. In the past, it has been difficult to
                                      assess the central trends in state coastal program spending and the relationship of state to federal
                                      priorities.




                                                                                                                    NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                  Chapter One

                    Interstate Coordination


                            In addition to the 306 Program Administration grants, states have received other funding
                    related to specific elements of the CZMA. The CEIP and estuarine reserves programs are dis-
                    cussed in later chapters. One other program element is Interstate Projects, which were authorized
                    under Section 309 of the 1976 amendments to the CZMA, in order to improve coordination
                    between neighboring coastal states and between federal and state agencies. Section 309 authorizes
                    grants to any group of two or more states under an interstate agreement or compact or temporary
                    planning and coordinating entity. (See Table 5 for Innding summary.) The intent of Congress is to
                    provide incentives and mechanisms to improve interstate planning efforts and to reduce the
                    likelihood of conflict between Federal and state managers of the coastal area. Examples of recent
                    interstate projects are:

                            -    the Long Island Sound Dredged Materials Management Plan involving Connecticut
                            and New York state,
                            -    the Comprehensive Regional Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and Planning
                            project involving Califomia, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska;
                            -    the Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources project involving
                            Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; and
                            -    the ControllingToxic Pollution in the Great Lakes project involving Illinois, Indiana,
                            Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.



                                                                   Table 5.
                                     309 Project Funding Through Fiscal Year 1989 By Region ($000)

                                            North Atlantic                              $1.076.4
                                            Pacific                                      1,419.6
                                            South Atlantic/Gulf                          1,443.5
                                            Great Lakes                                    729.3
                                            Chesapeake Bay                                 350.3
                                            Total                                       $5,019.1



                    Source: OCRM, nd.



                    REASSESSING THE COASTAL PROGRAM:
                    FORGING AN ARENA FOR THE NINETIES 1988-1990


                            Looking back on the implementation of the CZMA during the 1980s, it is clear that the
                    program continued to function despite the impact of a hostile Administration. Even those critics
                    who judge that the governmental sector of the coastal field has become less dynamic, more
                    fragmented, narrower in application, and less innovative, find that active coastal management
                    initiatives continue within individual federal agencies and states. They see a balancing expansion
                    of the roles of nongovernmental organizations, such as scientific and conservation groups. And
                    they identify a new intellectual phase of coastal management marked by greater breadth of vision
                    in which "coastal scholars and managers are beginning to ponder fundamental choices among
                    contrasting management philosophies, interrelationships among coastal and marine management,
                    links between coasts and the broader canvas of the global environment, and ways of developing
                    more effective, flexible partnerships between public and private sectors" (Mitchell, 1986, p. 345).




                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Progi-am                                                   19







                               Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                               In looking to the future, coastal interests currently advocate maintaining the national coastal
                                        program, but broadening and strengthening it. At a 1989 meeting of national coastal and estuarine
                                        program managers (OCRM, 1989, p. 3), the Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean
                                        Service supported reauthorization and pointed out that it will have to consider issues of coastal
                                        pollution, sea level rise, wetlands loss, hazards, and significant program improvements. Others
                                        cautioned about the uncertain potential for increased federal CZM appropriations and about
                                        regaining consistency authority over OCS lease sales through legislation. There was agreement
                                        that coastal pollution and hazards issues provide a basis for reauthorization, if grass roots political
                                        support is forthcoming from the states, which seems likely.

                                               The issues facing the coastal program were higlighted by a 1988 oversight report from the
                                        House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, entitled Coastal Waters in Jeopgdy-
                                        Reversing the Decline and Protecting America's Coastal Resources, and by a 1990 report from the
                                        National Research Council, entitled Managin2 Coastal Erosion.


                                        The 1990 Reauthorization


                                               Congressional action on reauthorization of the coastal program in 1990 could have taken
                                        several forms. Congress could have simply continued the program on its present tack, incremen-
                                        tally or radically revised and strengthened it, built linkages between it and other environmental
                                        programs, or decided to terminate it. Termination was unlikely, in light of the program's record of
                                        achievement and its new found support from the Bush Administration, which reversed the Reagan
                                        policy and requested Congressional appropriations for state implementation of the coastal program
                                        and proposed its own bill to reauthorize the CZMA in 1990. During the pre-authorization debates,
                                        the most likely outcomes were either continuation or further strengthening and linking to other
                                        environmental programs.

                                               The 101st Congress held hearings on a number of bills affecting coastal management, whose
                                        content illustrates the current issues under debate during the reauthorization period. The Report
                                        from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (U.S. Congress, 1990) on H.R. 4450,
                                        Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, lists eight coastal issues of the 1990s:

                                               I .   Coastal environmental protection problems emphasize the need for a stronger priority
                                               for maintaining the function of natural systems in the coastal zone, in light of impacts from
                                               pollution of beaches and coastal waters, continued growth in coastal population, and the
                                               potential for sea level rise in response to global warming.
                                               2.    Coastal Mllution problems emphasize the need for improved coordination between
                                               coastal management. of land use and coastal water quality, particularly nonpoint source
                                               pollution, to reverse the declining health of coastal waters.
                                               3.    Wetlands managment and protection problems emphasize the need for better mecha-
                                               nisms for managing and protecting coastal wetlands, in order to achieve the proposed goal of
                                               ,,no net loss" of the nation's remaining wetlands base.
                                               4.    Natural hazards management problems emphasize the need for more effective state
                                               and local measures to manage and deter development in hazard-prone areas through set-
                                               backs, limitations on infrastructure in hazard areas, and other techniques, whose value was
                                               highlighted by the impacts of Hurricane Hugo.
                                               5.    Public access problems emphasize the need for increasing the ability of the public to
                                               gain access to the shore as coastal population increases, through means such as purchase of
                                               land, low cost construction of boardwalks, and other methods.
                                               6.    Cumulative and,seeonLlaa impacts problems result from the collective effects of
                                               various land and water using activities and from those indirect effects that do not result
                                               directly from the activity itself but have impacts on related resources, requiring new impact
                                               assessment approaches that do not look at individual projects in isolation or narrowly.


                               20                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                           Chapter One

                         7.    Coastal energy development problems emphasize the need for effective ways to site
                         necessary coastal energy facilities while protecting the environment, especially in light of
                         the high level of oil imports and the uncertainty about future Persian Gulf sources.
                         8.    Federal consistency wit state CZM pLogmms problems center around the issues of
                         whether oil and gas leases should undergo consistency review and what other activities
                         "directly affect" the coastal zone, following the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Secre
                         of the Interior v. Caliform that lease sales do not directly affect the coastal zone.

                         Other coastal resource issues in the 101 st Congress included a possible reorganization to
                   elevate coastal zone management to a higher position at NOAA and a search for alternate ways to
                   fund both traditional and new coastal management programs. As Simmons (1990) points out, not
                   all of these issues were addressed in a single bill, and several alternative approaches were pro-
                   posed. Four bills focused on coastal management program approaches: H.R. 4030, H.R. 4450,
                   H.R. 443 8, and S. 1189. Three other bills added key roles for EPA in improving coastal water
                   quality through the Clean Water Act, sometimes in combination with the CZMA: H.R. 2647, S.
                   117 8, and S. 1179.

                         In the end, Congress adopted a comprehensive and innovative coastal management bill
                   (including parts of H.R. 4030, H.R. 4450, and S. 1189, and identified as H.R. 4450), as part of the
                   Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Despite opposition from a number of cabinet-level federal
                   departments, especially to the consistency-oveftuming-provision, Congress passed the Coastal
                   Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, which made the fallowing major changes to the
                   CZMA of 1972.


                         1. ' Amended the federal consistency provisions (Section 307) in order to overturn the
                         Supreme Court's 1984 decision in SecrejaU of Interior v. California, clarifying that all
                         federal agency activities, in or outside the coastal zone, are subject to the consistency
                         provisions of the CZMA if they affect natural resources, land uses, or water uses in the
                         coastal zone.
                         2.    Established a Coastal Zone Management Fund (under Section 308) consisting of CEIP
                         loan repayments from which the Secretary shall pay for the federal administrative costs of
                         the program and fund special projects, emergency state assistance, and other discretionary
                         coastal management activities.
                         3.    Reinstated program development grants (Section 305) by authorizing the Secretary to
                         provide assistance to a state for development of a CZM program.
                         4.    Set up the Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Program (Section 309) to encourage
                         each coastal state to continually improve its CZM program in one or more of eight areas:
                         coastal wetlands management and protection; natural hazards management (including
                         potential sea and Great Lakes level rise); public access improvements; reduction of marine
                         debris; assessment of cumulative and secondary impacts of coastal growth and development;
                         special area management planning; ocean resource planning, and siting of coastal energy
                         and government facilities.
                         5.    Authorized annual Walter B. ]ones Awards (Section 313) to recognize individuals,
                         local governments, and graduate students for outstanding accomplishments in coastal
                         management.
                         6.    Authorized appropriations for five years at increased levels.
                         7.    Established a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program to require each state to
                         develop a program to be implemented through the CZMA and Section 319 of the Clean
                         Water Act, to protect coastal waters from nonpoint pollution from adjacent coastal land uses.

                         In addition to the reauthorization of CZMA, the 101st Congress passed an expanded version
                   of the CBRA of 1992. The 1990 Coastal Barrier Improvement Act significantly expanded the
                   coverage of the Coastal Barriers Resources System to include areas in the Florida Keys,


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Progi-am                                             21







                              Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                       Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, as well as areas of associated aquatic habitats, and secondary
                                       barriers, and authorized a joint study of options for ftiture conservation of coastal barriers.

                                             The breadth of topics in the 1990 coastal management and related bills illustrates the
                                       contemporary increase in concerns linked to coastal management. However, the historical
                                       perspective also shows that, along with the new issues of sea level rise and wetlands preservation,
                                       a number of the early issues, such as the parity of conservation and development, state versus
                                       national standard setting, impacts of coastal land use on water quality, coastal energy develop-
                                       ment, and relationships with other federal environmental agencies have resurfaced     .4 The 1990
                                       reauthorization debates produced a clear consensus on the need for more effective coastal environ-
                                       mental protection; the challenge was one of creating consensus on the means to achieve it. The
                                       bold initiatives adopted by Congress showed their willingness to develop new and innovative
                                       means to make coastal management effective in the face of increasing challenges.

                                       Directions for the Next Stage


                                             Since its inception, the coastal program has been distinguished by its voluntary nature, using
                                       incentives instead of penalities to generate a federal/state/local partnership in which the states had
                                       considerable latitude to define their own priorities. As the program has matured, Congress has
                                       increasingly sought to focus it on more specific national interest areas. That effort was reflected in
                                       the delineation of eight coastal zone enhancement objectives in the adopted 1990 reauthorization
                                       amendments. It is likely that the nature o  'f the partnership will continue to be an issue, with the
                                       coastal states seeking program flexibility and autonomy and the federal government seeking
                                       program focus and accountability. From this creative tension, as well as the longstanding tension
                                       between coastal conservation and development, future U.S. coastal management- programs will
                                       evolve.


                                             As the CZM program enters the 1990s, it clearly continues to be a dynamic and flexible
                                       vehicle for addressing coastal issues. While the institutional structure at the federal level remains
                                       split among several agencies and programs, the "coastal management" concept has proven
                                       powerful enough to facilitate coordination, albeit with some friction. A testament to the power
                                       and importance of the concept is its ability to survive two terms in the 1980s under a hostile
                                       administration and to retain a vital programmatic focus into the 1990s. As this review of its
                                       history has shown, the CZMA of 1972 has sireda unique and durable program whose life span
                                       already has exceeded that of many other intergovernmental planning initiatives. Given the extent
                                       to which its scope and resources have been enlarged by Congress during the 1990 reauthorization,
                                       coastal management should remain one of our premier intergovernmental environmental programs
                                       into the next century.


















                             22                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                            Chapter One

                   ENDNOTES


                   'The titles of Sections 301-306 were unchanged through the 1985 amendments. As of the 1985
                   amendments, changes in section tides and numbers included the following.

                   Section      1972 Act        1976 Amendments . 1980 Amendments              1985 Amendment
                    306A                                                Resource Management
                                                                        Improvement Grants
                    307      Interagency Co-     Coordination
                             ordination and      and Cooperation
                             Cooperation
                    308      Public Hearings     Coastal Energy Impact
                                                 Programs
                    309      Review of           Interstate Grants
                             Performance
                    310      Records             Research & Technical                            Repealed
                                                 Assistance for Coastal
                                                 Zone Management
                    311      Advisory
                             Committee           Public Hearings
                    311A                                                Citizen Suits
                    312      Estuarine           Review of
                             Sanctuaries         Performance
                    313      Annual Report       Records and Audit
                    314      Rules and           Advisory Committee                              Repealed
                             Regulations
                    315      Authorization of    Estuarine Sanctuaries  Estuarine Sancruaries    National Estuarine
                             Appropriations      and Beach Access       and Island Preservation  Reserve Research
                                                                                                 System
                    316      -                   Annual Report          Coastal Management
                                                                        Report
                    317      -                   Rules & Regulations
                    318      -                   Authorization of
                                                 Appropriations

                   21n the 1990s, some nonparticipants have started to return to the fold. Approval of Ohio's program
                   is listed as "pending" in the 1988-1989 ReWrt to Cong[ess on Coastal Zone Manage
                   (OCRM, 1990), and Minnesota is reported to be developing a coastal program.

                   'In response, the states undertook more national efforts, including strengthening the C SO from a
                   small informal operation to an active Washington office with full-time staff members.

                   4Along with the earlier issues, some of the earlier players also are back on the scene. For example,
                   Dr. John Knauss, who testified before Congress as the NOAA Administrator (Under Secretary for
                   Oceans and Atmosphere in the Department of Commerce) in the recent hearings, also testified
                   some 20 years ago on behalf of the original legislation as chair of the Stratton Commission's Panel
                   on Coastal Zone Management, which originally brought coastal management to the forefront of
                   national attention.








                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                              23







                            Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                     REFERENCES


                                     American Law Institute. 1976. A Model Land Develppment Code. Philadelphia.

                                     Brower, David J., and Daniel S. Carol. 1984. Coastal Zone Mana2ement as Land Plarmin2.
                                     Washington, D.C.: National Planning Association.

                                     Coastal States Organization. 1985. America's Coasts: ProLyress and Promise. Washington, D.C.

                                     Fischer, Michael L. 1985. "Califorriia's Coastal Program: Larger-than-Loca I Interests Built into
                                     Local Plans". Journal of the American Planning Association 51,3.

                                     Godschalk, David R. 1987. "The 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act: A New Federal Policy
                                     Tack". In Cities on the Beach: Manaaement Issues of Develgppd Coastal Barriers, Platt et at,
                                     editors. University of Chicago, Department of Geography.

                                     Kinsey, David N. 1985. "Lessons from the New Jersey Coastal Management Program". Journal of
                                     the American Planning Associa      51,3.

                                     Kitsos, Thomas R. 1985. "Coastal Management Politics: A View from Capitol Hill". Journal of
                                     the American Planning Associatio!j 51,3.

                                     Knauss, John A. 1976. Testimony to House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Conference on Coastal
                                     Zone Management. In Legislative History of the CZMA of 1972. Washington, D.C.: Library of
                                     Congress, Congressional Research Service.

                                     Lawrence, Samuel A. 1976. Testimony to House Merchant Marine and.Fisheries Conference on
                                     Coastal Zone Management. In Legislative History of the CZMA of 1972. Washington, D.C.:
                                     Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.

                                     Lee, Martin R. (compiler) 1976. Legislative HistqZ of the CZMA of 1972. Washington, D.C.:
                                     Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.

                                     Lowry, Kern. 1985. "Assessing the Implementation of Federal Co  astal Policy". Journal of the
                                     American Plannina Association 51,3.

                                     Matuszeski, William. 1985. "Managing the Federal Coastal Program: The Planning Years".
                                     Journal of the American Planning Association 51,3.

                                     ,Mitchell, James K. 1986. "Coastal Management Since 1980: The U.S. Experience and Its Rel-,
                                     evance for Other Countries". Ocean Yearbook. University of Chicago.

                                     National Research Council 1990. Managing Coastal Erosion. Washington, D.C.

                                     Office of Coastal Zone Management. 1979. The First Five Years of Coastal Zone Managemen .
                                     Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration.

                                     Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. nd. Summary of Interstate Projects Funded
                                     Under Section 309 of the CZMA. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                     Adminstration.






                            24                                                                                     NCRI- W-91-003






                                                                                                             Chapter One

                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 1984. Biennial R-e-Wrt to Congress o
                   Coastal Zone Management: Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and
                   Atmospheric Adminstration.

                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 1988. Coastal Management: Solutions to Our
                   Nation's Coastal Problems. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration.

                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 1988-a. Summary of Financial Assistance
                   Programs: FY 1974-FY 1988. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanii6 and Atmospheric Administra-
                   tion.


                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 1989. Proceedings of the National Coastal &
                   Estuarine ProgLa-m Managers' Meeting. March 20-22,1989, Bethesda, Maryla . Washington,
                   D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration.

                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Managment. 1990. Biennial Report to the Congress on
                   Coastal Zone Managment: Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and
                   Atmospheric Administration..

                   Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Outdoor Recreation for America.
                   Washington, D.C.       -

                   Owens, David W. 1985. "Coastal Management in North Carolina: Building a Regional Consen-
                   sus". Journal of the American Planning Association 51,3.

                   President's Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty. 1968. From Sea to Shining Sea. Washing-
                   ton, D.C.

                   Public Land Law Review Commission. 1970. One Third of the Nation's Land. Washington, D.C.

                   Simmons, Malcolm M. 1990. "Coastal Resource Issues in the 10 1 st Congress". Washington,
                   D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

                   Stratton Commission. 1969. Our Nation and the Sea. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on
                   Marine Science, Engineering and Resources.

                   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 197 1. National Shoreline Study. Washington, D.C.

                   U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 1990. RWort to Accompany
                   H.R. 4450, Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Washington, D.C.

                   U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 1989. Coastal Waters in
                   &Mardy: Reversing the Decline and Protecting America's Coastal Resources. Washington, D.C.

                   U.S. Congress, I-louse Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 1980. Hearings Before the
                   Subcommittee on OceanogLa"h on Coastal Zone Management. Washington, D.C.

                   U.S. Department of Interior. 1969. The National Estuarine Pollution Study. Washington, D.C.

                   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. National Esfthir. S      Washington. D.C.: Department of
                                                                         y tud
                   Interior.





                   Evaluation of tire National Coastal Zone Management Program                                              25







                           Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                   U.S. General Accounting Office. 1976. The CZM Program: An Uncertain Future. Washington,
                                   D.C.

                                   U.S. General Accounting Office. 1986. Resource Management: Information on the Coastal Zone
                                   Management Progra . Washington, D.C.

                                   Wolf, Michael A. 1985. "Accommodating Tensions in the Coastal Zone: An Introduction and
                                   Overview". Symposium on Coastal Zone Management. Natural Resources Journal 25, 1.

                                   Zile, Zigurds L. 1974. "A Legislative-Political ffistory of the CZMA of 1972". Coastal Zone
                                   Management Journal 1, 3.




















































                           26                                                                                ?VCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                               Chapter One

                                                               APPENDIX.
                                       COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CHRONOLOGY


                    PRECURSORS OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT:
                    RECOGNITION OF THE RESOURCE CRISIS 1962-1971


                    1962 - Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission report, Outdoor Recreation for
                    America, calls for public preservation of diminishing recreational shorelines

                    1966 - U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources (Stratton Commission)
                    created by the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966

                    1966 - The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 authorizes a comprehensive study of the effects
                    of pollution in estuaries

                    1968 - President's Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty report, From Sea to Shining Sea,
                    recommends public acquisition of shorelines

                    1968 - Estuary Protection Act directs Department of Interior to study nation's estuaries

                    1968 - American Uw--Institute issues Tentative Draft No. I of the Model Land Development Code
                    (subsequently adopted in 1975 with provision for regulation of areas of critical state concern and
                    developments of regional impact)

                    1969 - Stratton Commission issues final report, Our Nation and the Sea, recommending a federal
                    act creating state coastal zone authorities funded by matching federal grants under the proposed
                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                    1969 - The report of the National Estuarine Pollution Study (under Clean Water Restoration Act of
                    1966) concludes that estuary protection should be part of a comprehensive coastal zone manage-
                    ment system

                    1969 - Santa Barbara oil spill occurs.

                    1969 - Vice President Agnew, Chairman of the National Council on Marine Resources and
                    Engineering Development, announces an Administration program in ocean sciences, including
                    coastal zone management

                    1969 - Congress passes the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

                    1970 - Department of Interior (under the Estuary Protection Act) issues National Eqtgm Study,
                    concluding that estuaries are in jeopardy, describing management problems, and calling for a
                    federal/state management system.

                    1970 - Public Land Law Review Commission issues final report, One Third of the Nation's Land,
                    recognizing need to coordinate land use planning for federal and nonfederal lands.

                    1970 - Senator Henry Jackson introduces first national land use bill, the start of a flood of land use
                    policy proposals which grew to over 200 before 13 Congressional committees by 1972, and which
                    threatened to preempt the coastal management proposals.





                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                 27







                           Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                    1970 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) created irk the Department of
                                    Commerce under President's Reorganization Plan.

                                    1971 - National Shoreline Study, authorized by 90th Congress in response to coastal erosion
                                    concerns, published.


                                    PASSAGE OF 1972 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT:
                                    STRUGGLE FOR PROGRAM CONTROL 1969-1972


                                    1969 - Coastal management bills based on the Stratton Commission recommendations (an ocean
                                    development emphasis) introduced in the House (H.R. 13247) and Senate (S.:2.802) as amend-
                                    ments to the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966, during 9 1 st Congress.

                                    1969 - Coastal management bills based on the National Estuarine Pollution Study introduced in
                                    the House (H.R. 14845) and Senate (S. 3183) with Department of Interior as lead agency (a land
                                    use/conservation emphasis) and proposing to create a new section of the Federal Water Pollution
                                    Control Act


                                    1970 - Coastal States Organization forms, as an unofficial adjunct of the National Governors
                                    Association.

                                    1971 - Adminstration withdraws support for coastal management under Department of Interior in
                                    favor of a national land use policy.

                                    1971 - Coastal management bills introduced in the House (H.R. 2492, 2493, 9229) and Senate (S.
                                    582, 63 8) based on Stratton Commission recommendations, during 92nd Congress..

                                    1972 - Senate passes coastal management act (S. 3507, a revision of S. 582, with NOAA as lead
                                    agency) and House passes an act (H.R. 14146, an amendment of H.R. 9229 with, Department of
                                    Interior as lead agency), during 2nd session of 92nd Congress.

                                    1972 - House and Senate agree to conference committee recommendation (S. 3507) with imple-
                                    mentation by Secretary of Commerce, and thus NOAA; Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
                                    authorizes $186 million appropriations for FY 1973-1977.

                                    1972 - President Nixon sig
                                                            gns CZMA of 1972 (PL 92-583), while expressing hope that Congress
                                    will next pass a national land use policy act with Department of Interior as lead agency and that a
                                    new Department of Natural Resources can be created to end fragmentation of federal programs.


                                    STATE COASTAL PROGRAM PLANNING:
                                    NATIONAL ENERGY CRISIS IMPACTS 1973-1980


                                    1973 - NOAA Coastal Zone Management Task force created to inventory status of state coastal
                                    management, develop guidelines and regulations, coordinate federal agencies, and assess informa-
                                    tion needs.


                                    1973 - Administration provides no funds for program during its first year.

                                    1974 - First funding of the Act occurs with appropriation of $8.023 million (including $7.199
                                    million for S ection 305 program development grants) for FY 1974.

                                    1974 - First Section 305 program development grants made to 31 of 34 eligible states and
                                    territories.


                           28                                                                                  NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                   Chapter One

                    1973-1974 - Arab oil embargo produces call for U.S. energy self sufficiency.

                    1975 - 93rd Congress passes Amendments of 1974 (PL 93-612), making minoradministrative
                    changes and increasing authorization for appropriations by $27 million through 1977.

                    1975 - U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Maine determines that federal government has sole
                    jurisdiction over resource development beyond the 3-mile limit, excluding states from Outer
                    Continental Shelf (OCS) development decisions and lease proceeds.

                    1975 - NOAA requests early reauthorization for the CZMA.

                    1975-76 - 94th Congress introduces a number of bills dealing with coastal energy concerns; Senate
                    passes S. 586 and House passes H.R. 3981; conference committee agrees on amendments stating
                    that the national objective of greater energy self-sufficiency would be advanced by federal
                    financial assistance to meet state and local needs resulting trom new or expanded energy activity
                    in the coastal zone, creating a Coastal Energy Impact Program with authorized appropriations of
                    $1.2 billion, requiring OCS leasing to be consistent with approved state coastal management
                    programs, providing for a mediation process in case of federal/state disagreement over a state
                    coastal program, increasing the federal CZM share from 66 2/3 percent to 80 percent, and autho-
                    rizing additional funding for interstate grants, research and technical assistance, estuarine sanctu-
                    aries, and beach access.

                    1976 - President signs CZMA Amendments of 1976 (PL 94-370), stating that energy and environ-
                    ment issues would be of high priority in the ftiture.

                    1976 - Washington state CZM program approved.

                    1976 - U.S. General Accounting Office issues report, The CZM Program: An Uncertain Future.

                    1977 - Oregon CZM program approved.

                    1978 - California, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Michigan, North Carolina, Puerto
                    Rico, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, and New Jersey (bay and ocean shore segment) CZM programs
                    approved.

                    1978 - 95th Congress amends Act by adjusting appropriations procedures and increases authorized
                    appropriations for section 308(b) coastal energy impact program grants and for section 308(c)(2)
                    energy facility siting.

                    1979 - Virgin Islands, Alaska, Guam, Delaware, Alabama, and South Carolina CZM programs
                    approved.

                    1979 - Section 305 program development funding expires, not reauthorized.

                    1979 - Office of Coastal Zone Management-issues report, The First Five Years of Coastal Zone
                    Management: An Initial Assessment, stating that all 35 eligible states and territories had partici-
                    pated in the program and that 13 state programs have been approved during the first 5 years of
                    effort under the Act.


                    1980 - Louisiana, Mississippi, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey (remaining section),
                    Northern Marianas, and American Samoa CZM programs approved.




                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                     29







                             Historical Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program

                                       COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION:
                                       EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE ADMINISTRATION 1980-1988

                                       1980 - 96th Congress passes Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act of 1980 (PL 96-464),
                                       adding a new finding on the need for resolution of conflicts among competing uses and values in
                                       coastal and ocean waters; adding nine areas of national interest to be addressed,by state programs;
                                       encouraging preparation of special area management plans linking natural resource protection and
                                       coastal-dependent economic growth; and adding section 306A, resource management improve-
                                       ment grants.

                                       1981 - Administration proposes to phase-out federal, financial support for the CZM and CEIP
                                       programs beginning in 1982.

                                       1991 - Florida CZM program approved.

                                       1982 - Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 passed, withdrawing federal financial assistance and
                                       flood insurance to undeveloped coastal barriers.

                                       1982 - New York and New Hampshire (ocean and harbor segment) CZM programs approved.

                                       1984 - Supreme Court in Secretary of Interior v. California ends consistency requirements for
                                       OCS lease sales.


                                       1984 - OCRM issues Biennial Report to Congress on Coastal Zone Management for FY 1982 and
                                       1983, describing Congressional funding in response to Administration phase-out proposal and
                                       program activities.

                                       1085 - National estuaries study/management program initiated by EPA, with $4 million appropria-
                                       tion and four demonstration sites: Narragansett, Buzzards Bay, Long Island Sound, and Puget
                                       Sound,

                                       1986 - EPA initiates Near Coastal Waters Program to coordinate coastal water quality protection
                                       efforts.


                                       1986 - Virginia CZM program approved, bringing approved programs to 29, with six non-
                                       participating states (Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Illinois, Texas).

                                       1986 - 99th Congress passes Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1985 (PL 99-272),
                                       gradually reducing Section 306 administrative grant matching ratios from 80 percent federal to 50
                                       percent federal after FY 1988 and creating a National Estuarine Reserve Research System.

                                       1987 - Water Quality Act of 1987 adds Section 320 to establish National Estuaries Prog  ram within
                                       EPA.


                                       1988 - New Hampshire CZM program (remaining section) approved.


                                       REASSESSING THE COASTAL PROGRAM:
                                       FORGING AN AGENDA FOR THE NINETIES 1988-1990


                                       1988 - Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries issues oversight report;-Coastal Waters in
                                       JeWardy: Reversing the Decline jind Protecting America's Coastal Resources.




                             30                                                                                        NCRI-IV-91-003







                                                                                                          Chapter One

                   1989-90 - Congress holds hearings on bills dealing with changes in the coastal zone management
                   program, with special attention to marine and estuarine water quality.

                   1990 - National Research Council issues Managing Coastal Erosion.

                   1990 - 101st Congress passes Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, strengthen-
                   ing federal consistency provisions, establishing a Coastal Zone Management Fund, reinstating
                   program development grants for nonparticipating states, setting up a Coastal Zone Enhancement
                   Grants Program, creating Walter B. Jones Awards, increasing authorized appropriations, and
                   setting up a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.

                   1990 - 101st Congress passess Coastal Barrier Improvement Act, expanding coverage of the
                   Coastal Barrier Resources System.












































                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Ptogram                                           31






                                                                                                                  Chapter Two


                    INTRODUCTION


                          The consistency provisions of Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
                    (CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 1456) comprising the federal consistency doctrine have become well-
                    known in recent years because of several highly-publicized controversies between state coastal
                    managers and environmental organizations, on one side, and federal officials and industry, on
                    the other, concerning sizable projects involving offshore oil and gas, at-sea incineration, and
                    the disposal of dredge spoils. Unfortunately, the size and costs of these large scale coastal and
                    ocean projects and the conflicts they have generated have tended to overshadow other elements
                    of the federal-state consistency review process. Through many years, state and federal agency
                    staff as well as applicants for federal permits have routinely used the consistency process to
                    facilitate the successful review of thousands of projects affecting coastal resources and uses)

                          Despite the fact that the consistency provisions of the CZMA have become generally
                    known among the interests and actors concerned with coastal and ocean resource management,
                    misunderstanding of the elements of the doctrine persisted, and more seriously, federal and
                    state officials continued to disagree about its legal status throughout the 1980S.2 Much of this
                    misunderstanding and uncertainty, especially with respect to the activities of federal agencies,
                    including the conduct of offshore oil and gas lease sales by the Department of the Interior
                    (DOI), has been resolved as a result of the 1990 amendments to the CZMA, as discussed more
                    fully below.

                          This chapter 1) considers the role of the federal consistency provisions, as amended by
                    the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 in the context of the national
                    coastal zone management program; 2) briefly describes the consistency appeals that have been
                    decided, by the Secretary of Comme   Irce, and 3) examines the implementation of the consistency
                    provisions by the states. As appropriate, the chapter addresses the legal issues described
                    above.


                    THE ROLE OF FEDERAL CONSISTENCY IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT


                          One very important, although often overlooked, aspect of the CZMA is its voluntary
                    nature. Because states are not required to establish coastal management programs, their
                    participation had to be secured by offering them 1) substantial federal financial assistance and
                    2) the promise that, if the states underwent the complicated program development and ap-
                    proval process prescribed in the federal Act to establish legally-enforceable standards and
                    procedures to protect the coastal zone and its resources, federal agencies and permittees
                    engaged in activities affecting the coastal zone would act consistently with such standards.
                    This "promise" is of course the heart of the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA.

                          However, the federal consistency provisions are not so much an "incentive" to secure
                    state participation, but an essential and significant component of a national program dependent
                    upon state authority to protect coastal resources from the consequences of thousands of
                    projects affecting such resources either conducted or permitted by federal agencies. Thus,
                    rather than an afterthought added to the main features of the CZMA, federal consistency
                    should be seen an integral part of national coastal management policy necessary to ensure its
                    success. It is the single mechanism in the CZMA to ensure that the federal government itself
                    obeys the law with respect to proper management of the coastal zone and its resources.

                    THE CONSISTENCY PROCESS


                          The consistency review process applicable to the cate   gories of federally-conducted,
                    permitted, and assisted activities is discussed following.

                    The CZMA's Federal Consistency Doctrine                                                                       33







                              The CZMA's Federal Cosistency Doctrine

                                        Federal Agency Activities

                                               Under Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA, asamended (1990), activities conducted by federal
                                        agencies either "within or outside the coastal zone" that affect "any land or water use or natural
                                        resource of the coastal zone" must be carried out in a manner which is consistent. "to the maxi-
                                        mum extent practicable" with "the enforceable policies of approved state management pro-
                                        grams." Section 307(c)(2) of the CZMA, applicable to federally conducted development projects
                                        "in the coastal zone" was amended to require compliance with "enforceable" state policies.
                                        Finally, the 1990 amendments clarify that all federal agency activities are subject to the provi-
                                        sions of Section 307(c)(1) unless they are subject to the provisions of Section 307(c)(2) (federal
                                        development projects in the coastal zone) or (c)(3). (federally permitted activities)

                                               This category of activities proved to be the most controversial. For example, the DOI and
                                        the oil and gas industry during the late 1970s and 1980s opposed state claims to review oil and
                                        gas lease sales under the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act (43 U..S.C. 1801 et seq.) for
                                        consistency with state policies protective of coastal resources and uses thought to be affected by
                                        subsequent exploration and development activities on the leased &acts. In 1984,a sharply
                                        divided Supreme Court decided, based on a reading of the legislative history concerning the
                                        phrase "directly affecting" in section 307 (c)(1), that leasing of oil and gas tracts on the outer
                                        continental shelf offshore central California were not subject to state review under the CZMA
                                        even when the State objected to leasing of tracts located in or near sensitive marine habitat areas
                                        (Secretary of the Interior v. California, 1984). This decision has now been overturned by the
                                        1990 amendments.


                                               Despite the 1984 decision. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini tratioii (NOAA)
                                        continued to interpret Section 307 (c)(1) to apply to the activities of federal agencies if they
                                        "directly affected" the coastal zone, regardless of the location of such activities. But other
                                        federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of
                                        Engineers (COE) argued, on the basis of the 1984 decision, that their activities were precluded
                                        from state review, regardless of any effects on coastal resources and uses, if such activities
                                        occurred outside the boundaries of the coastal zone or if they are exempted by federal law       .3    In
                                        view of the 1990 amendments, these arguments are groundless.

                                               Apart from disputes about the geographical scope of Section 307(c)(1) and whether certain
                                        federal activities are included under the section, there were relatively few disagreements between
                                        the states and federal agencies concerning other requirements of this section during the 1980s.
                                        For example, no serious questions have yet been raised about the process requirements of state
                                        review of federal agency activities or about the meaning of the phrase consistent "to the maxi-
                                        mum extent practicable." With respect to the procedural requirements of Section 307(c)(1), it
                                        was agreed that federal agencies initially determined whether their activities "directly affected" a
                                        state's coastal zone (33 F.C.R. 930.33). Although the 1990 amendments deleted the qualifier
                                        "directly" from the phase "directly affecting," and clarified that the "effects" of interest are those
                                        on "any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone," it is clear that the burden
                                        remains on federal agencies to make the initial determination of the effects of their activities. A
                                        state coastal agency, however, may object to the determination by the federal agency, and, if the
                                        disagreement cannot be resolved informally or through mediation by the Secretary of Com-@
                                        merce, the state may seek to 'enjoin the federal agency from carrying out its activity on the
                                        ground that the activity is "inconsistent" with the state program (15 C.F.R. 930.116).

                                               The 1990 amendments provide another mechanism to resolve disputes between federal
                                        agencies and coastal states under (c)(1). After a "final judgment" of a federal court "that a
                                        specific federal agency activity is not in compliance "with the provisions of 307(c)(1)(A), and if
                                        the Secretary certifies that mediation will not resolve the dispute, the Secretary may request the


                               34                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                           Chapter Two

                    President, in wrifing, to exempt from compliance "those elements of the Federal agency activity
                    that are found by the Federal court to be inconsistent with an approved state program..." The
                    President may authorize such an exemption if he finds that the activity "is in the paramount
                    interest of the United States." The President, however, may not base any exemption on the
                    ground of the lack of appropriations unless the President specifically requested such appropria-
                    tions and Congress failed to make them (Section 307(c)(1)(B)). The 1990 amendments further
                    clarify that federal agencies must provide consistency determinations to control states no later
                    than 90 days before final approval of the federal agency activity unless both the federal and
                    state agencies agree to a different schedule (Section 307(c)(1)(C)).

                          The few attempts to mediate (c)(1) consistency disputes between state and federal
                    agencies have been unsuccessful, indicating at least a partial failure in the consistency review
                    process envisioned by the Congress (NOAA, 1985). But no serious legal challenge to the other
                    elements of this process has yet been brought; the federal court cases decided to date have all
                    concerned challenges to the state's right under the CZMA to review a particular federal agency
                    activity rather than challenges to aspects of the Section (c)(1) consistency review process
                    (Eichenberg and Archer, 1987). In view of the 1990 amendments, the state's review authority
                    under (c)(1) is no longer open to question.

                          With respect to the meaning of the phrase consistent "to the maximum extent practi-
                    cable"--the standard of compliance with state-poyicies that federal agencies must meet-
                    NOAA and the coastal states have enforced the longstanding rule (since 1979) requiring federal
                    agency activities to be "fully consistent" with state policies "unless compliance is prohibited
                    based upon the requirements of existing law applicable to the Federal agency's operations" (15
                    C.F.R. 930.32(a)). The 1990 amendments do not affect this longstanding standard of compli-
                    ance; indeed, they may be needed to support the existing standard.

                          In spite of the several, serious disputes between state and federal agencies concerning the
                    consistency of particular federal activities with state coastal policies, little attention has been
                    given until 1990 to clarifying the legal theory supporting state consistency review of federal
                    agency activities under Section 307(c)(1). Some have argued that state exercise of federal
                    consistency authority is "unconstitutional" or otherwise illegal, because the states have invaded
                    the dominion of federal agencies committed to them by federal law and the Constitution
                    (Whitney, et al., 1988). These arguments fail to consider that, in enacting Section 307 (c)(1) of
                    the CZMA, Congress in effect waived the sovereign immunity of federal agencies with respect
                    to activities affecting the coastal areas and resources-a technique to achieve legislative
                    purposes that Congress has employed in many similar instances-and required federal agencies
                    to subject themselves to the substantive and procedural standards of state coastal and environ-
                    mental law. The 1990 amendments clarify the conditions of the 1972 waiver of sovereign
                    immunity by incorporating a Presidential exemption mechanism with respect to inconsistent
                    federal agency activities that are determined to be in the nation's "paramount interesf'. This
                    language closely parallels the provisions of other federal law waiving the community of federal
                    agencies vis-a-vis state substantive and procedural requirements (Archer, 1989).

                    Federally-Permitted and Assisted Pro-jects and Activitieï¿½

                          Under Section 307(c)(3)(A) and (B), federally-permitted activities, either "in or outside of
                    the coastal zone," including outer continental shelf oil and gas exploration, development, and
                    production activities, must be "consistent" with "enforceable" state program policies if they
                    @affect" the land and water "uses" and resources of the coastal zone (16 U.S.C. 1456 (c)(3)(A)
                    and (B), as amended). Permit applicants "certify" to the state that their projects are consistent
                    with state policies; if the state determines that such projects are inconsistent, federal permits
                    may not be issued, unless the Secretary of Commerce overrides the state's consistency


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                      35







                              The CZMA's Federal Cosistency Doctrine

                                         objection and authorizes the permit to be issued. (See 15 C.F.R. Subpart D, 930.50 et sg,-q.
                                         (federal permits); Subpart H, 930.120 et seq. (administrative appeals); also see Eichenberg and
                                         Archer, 1988 for a complete description and analysis of the Section 307(c)(3). consistency
                                         review process).'

                                               As 'in the case of Section 307(c)(1), OCS oil and gas activities have been the occasion for
                                         conflict between state agencies and the industry and DOI. Of the 21 consistency appeals to the
                                         Secretary of Commerce filed through 1987, 6 involved sizable exploration and development
                                         projects offshore California (Eichenberg and Archer, 1987). Although-there have been disputes
                                         concerning other federally-permitted projects (10 appeals involved disputed COE permits), it is
                                         the body of early consistency appeals of state objections to offshore oil and g#s projects that has
                                         helped to define the secretarial appeals process and to establish the standards according to
                                         which all consistency appeals may be decided (NOAA, 1985; Eichenberg and Archer, 1987;
                                         Archer and Bondareff, 1988). These administrative decisions have interpreted and applied the
                                         consistency appeals criteria set forth in the CZMA. The Secretary may override a state's
                                         objection after finding that the activity or project, although inconsistent with the state program,
                                         is 1) nevertheless consistent with the national objectives of the CZMA, or 2),is necessary in the
                                         interest of national security (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3) and (d)).

                                               The statutory override criteria have been further defined by NOAA in its consistency
                                         regulations. To override on the first ground, the Secretary must find that the activity meets all
                                         of four separate tests:

                                         (1) it must ftirther one or more of the "competing national objectives" of the CZMA;

                                         (2) its contributions to the national interest must outweigh its adverse individual and cumulative
                                         environmental impacts;

                                         (3) it must not violate any standard under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and

                                         (4) there must be no "reasonable alternative" to the activity that would allow it to be conducted
                                         consistently with the state coastal policies (15 C.F.R. 930.121).

                                               To override on the second ground, the Secretary must find that the activity -directly
                                         supports" national defense or other national security objectives or that such objectives, would
                                         be -significantly impaired" if the activity were not permitted to go forward as proposed (15
                                         C.F.R. 930.122).'

                                               The legal basis for state consistency review of applications for federal permits, and of
                                         proposed federal financial assistance projects, may be set forth briefly. Congress, which
                                         possesses sufficient authority under the U.S. Constitution to enact legislation regulating such
                                         areas. as water quality, offshore energy exploration and production, and the filling of wetlands,
                                         may delegate to the states all or any part of such authority. As is well understood, such delega-
                                         tions have occurred under the Clean Water and Air Acts, as well as other federal laws.

                                               Although federal agencies and some legal writers have argued that the CZMA does not
                                         authorize the states to impose requirements on applicants for federal permits in addition to those
                                         imposed by other federal law (YvNtney, et al., 1988), it is clear that the CZMA's consistency
                                         provisions (Section 307 (c)(3)) are in fact a delegation of authority by the Congress to the
                                         states, and that states may effectively prohibit the issuance of federal permits for activities that
                                         are inconsistent with state program policies developed under the CZMA and approved by the
                                         Secretary of Commerce.



                               36                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                 Chapter Two

                    STATE IMPLEMENTATION


                          The only comprehensive study of state implementation of the federal consistency provisions
                    of the CZMA was prepared by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)
                    in NOAA and published in draft form in 1985. The Federal Consistency Study consists of three
                    volumes of data and information, including summaries of comments of state and federal officials
                    and individuals describing the experience of implementing the federal consistency doctrine over
                    many years. In addition, the Study focuses attention on state review of more than 8,300 federally-
                    conducted or permitted activities during fiscal year 1983, and provides the following summary
                    table:


                    The data from federal agencies show that for FY 93:

                    -States concurred with about 93 percent of the approximately 400 direct federal activities re-
                    viewed under Section 307(c)(1) (including OCS lease sales which were reviewed during FY 83
                    only);

                    -States concurred with about 82 percent of the approximately 5,500 federally licensed and
                    permitted activities reviewed under Section 307 (c)(3)(A) (nearly 5,000 of which were COE
                    dredge and fill permits);

                    -States concurred with about 99 percent of the nearly 435 plans for OCS exploration (POEs) and
                    development and production (DPPs) reviewed under Section 307(c)(3)(B); and

                    -States concurred with 99.9 percent of the nearly 2,000 federal assistance proposals reviewed
                    under Section 307(d) (NOAA, 1985, Vol. I at i).

                          Based on the findings of the Federal Consistency Study, NOAA concluded that even in
                    cases when a state, program objected to a proposed project of activity:

                    objections were often resolved by further negotiations to develop conditions or mitigating
                    measures. In a relatively few cases in which a state objected, the issues were litigated, appealed
                    to the Secretary of Commerce under the CZMA, or resolved by Congressional intervention
                    (NOAA, 1985, Vol. I at i).

                          The Federal Consistency Study also examined the time periods for categories of state
                    consistency reviews:

                    First, states often request extensions of the 45-day review period for direct federal activities and,
                    in a number of cases, the consistency review required more than 60 days. In nearly all cases
                    examined in which the consistency review lasted more than 60 days, the state and federal agen-
                    cies were able ultimately to reach an a&eement. Second, most federally licensed and permitted
                    activities were reviewed within 90 days (90-100 percent) although the CZMA allows a maximum
                    of 180 days to review Federal licenses or permits under Section 307(c)(3)(A) and (B). Also,
                    NOAA compared the time required to review OCS plans by Louisiana and California.

                    In both states, the relatively less complicated POEs took less time to review than DPPs. The
                    average review period for POEs was 25 days in Louisiana and 31 days in California. The average
                    review period for DPPs was 46 days in Louisiana and 116 days in California (NOAA, 1985, Vol.
                    I at i-ii).


                          As a result of this comprehensive study, NOAA concluded that the consistency review


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                 37






                             The C,ZMA's Federal Cosistency Doctrine

                                      process was' working reasonably well, and no specific legislative fixes were required (NOAA,
                                      19U, Vol. I at ii).

                                            A 1988 study of state implementation of the federal consistency provisions during 1987 by
                                      researchers at the University of Hawaii updated the findings of NOAA's 1985 Federal Consis-
                                      tency Study and assessed the relationship between state coastal management agencies and their
                                      federal counterparts and the overall effectiveness of the federal consistency review process
                                      (Lowry, et al., 1988). In addition to the questions posed in the earlier study with respect to the
                                      categories and numbers of federal activities reviewed by state coastal agenciesi -state officials
                                      were asked to describe their relationships with specific federal agencies and to indicate any
                                      changes over the previous 5-year period, to judge the effectiveness of consistency review in
                                      ensuring that state coastal policies have been adequately considered, and to determine the
                                      strengths and Weaknesses of the consistency review process.

                                            The results of the 1988 study, although limited to fewer states than surveyed in the
                                      national study, substantially support the findings of the earlier study with respect to the types
                                      and numbers of consistency reviews. In 1983, coastal states ultimately concurred with about 99
                                      percent of all federal activities reviewed; in 1987, they concurred with about 97 percent. As in
                                      198@, the greatest number of objections involved Corps of Engineers dredge and fill permits,
                                      which made up the largest category of federal activities reviewed in both years (63 percent).
                                      The 1988 findings clearly indicate an increasing effort by the coastal states to modify projects
                                      involving dredge and fill activities. In 1987, states agencies sought to impose additional
                                      conditions on 30 percent of the projects subject to review (17 percent in 1983), and used their
                                      conkstency authority in an attempt to enforce compliance (Lowry, et al., 1988, at 5-10).

                                            State coastal agency officials rated their relationships with federal agencies generally
                                      "good" or "fair". Among the states surveyed, the following agencies received "excellent" or
                                      "good" ratings: the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Re-
                                      source Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers and the Environmental
                                      Protection Agency. The Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration
                                      received the lowest ratings. Practically all states surveyed found a definite trend toward im-
                                      provement in federal-state agency interactions under the CZMA during the 5-year period
                                      preceding the study (Lowry et al., 1988, at 17-18).

                                            State officials rated the consistency review process as highly effective in securing federal
                                      compliance with state coastal policies, particularly with respect to dredge and fill activities, less
                                      so with respect to offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling plans (Lowry et al., 1988, at 19-
                                      20). "Enhanced" state involvement in federal coastal and ocean resource management decisions
                                      was cited as the main strength of the consistency review process. Identified weaknesses
                                      included short time limits for consistency reviews, inadequate information for determining
                                      consistency of federal activities, problems in enforcing "conditional concurrences," disagree-
                                      ments regarding the consistency review process, and the burdens of technical analysis and
                                      paperwork to carry out the review process (Lowry et al., 1988, at 21).


                                      CONCLUSION


                                            The past decade has demonstrated that the federal consistency provisions are not merely
                                      anippendage of the main body of coastal management practice in the United States, but
                                      constitute an essential mechanism for securing the compliance of federal agencies and permit-
                                      tees with legally-enforceable state coastal policies. Federal agencies, facilities, and projects all
                                      have major impacts on coastal areas and resources. There are, by one count, an estimated
                                      20,000 federal facilities in the United States, many of them located in the coastal zone. These
                                      facilities are the source of substantial pollution to their surrounding environment (Breen, 1985).


                             38                                                                                      NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                  Chapter Two

                    By law, all federal facilities are excluded from the coastal zone. The federal consistency doctrine
                    ensures that federally-conducted activities, wherever they occur, must be consistent with state
                    policies if they affect the coastal zone and its resources.

                          With respect to federally-permitted activities, the Federal Consistency Study amply
                    documents the number, if not the magnitude, of such activities affecting coastal areas and
                    resources. Except for the federal consistency provisions, such activities would be carried out
                    with little or no regard for state coastal policies.

                          The Federal Consistency Study is currently the only reliable source of information regard-
                    ing state practice inimplementing the CZMA's consistency provisions. It tells a generally
                    successful story of this implementation record. Further, the body of consistency decisions by the
                    Secretary of Commerce has filled in the regulatory outlines of the consistency process as pro-
                    vided by the Act and its regulations. These decisions appear to strike a balance between state
                    interest under the CZMA and coastal programs, and national economic and security interests. On
                    the record of these decisions, it is clear that development projects in the coastal zone are subject
                    to state coastal management policies and requirements, and may be substantially modified at the
                    insistence of the states to conform to these requirements. None of the Secretary's consistency
                    decisions has yet been appealed to federal court.

                          The 1990 amendments settled many questions thatarose fromthe-1984 -Supreme Court
                    decision in Secr4aa of the Interior v. California. First, the specific holding in that decision was
                    overturned 'as discussed above, and OCS oil and gas lease sales are once again subject to state
                    review. In addition, the amendments make clear that federal agency activities both "within or
                    outside the coastal zone" are covered by, and that no federal agency activity is exempted from,
                    the requirements of the CZMA's federal consistency doctrine. Finally, the provision of a
                    Presidential exemption mechanism for inconsistent federal agency activities that are determined
                    to be, in the nation's "paramount interest" provides additional support for the view that the
                    Congress has waived the sovereign immunity of federal agencies with respect to their activities
                    subject to the CZMA's federal consistency doctrine.


                    ENDNOTES


                    'According to the only comprehensive study done of state implementation of the federal consis-
                    tency provisions of the CZMA, in FY 83 state coastal programs reviewed      'more than 8,300
                    federally-conducted, permitted or assisted activities and projects affecting the coastal zone for
                    consistency with their coastal policies (Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Nat' I
                    Ocean Serv., Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Federal Consistency Study -
                    Draft" 1995 (hereafter Federal Consistency Study) I at i).

                    'Conflicting views were held by federal agencies themselves. The Raegan Administration
                    Department of Justice adopted an especially jaundiced view of state consistency authority, and
                    stated opinions contradictory to NOAA's consistency regulations and to the Agency's implemen-
                    tation of federal consistency. For example, in the dispute between the states of South Carolina
                    (which has a coastal program) and Georgia (which does not) over a development project in the
                    Savannah River, NOAA supported South Carolina's claim to conduct a consistency review of the
                    project based on the substantial effects on its coastal zone. The Army COE and Justice supported
                    Georgia, and Justice stated that the CZMA "provides no strong sense that Congress intended to
                    allow NOAA ... to be the ultimate arbiter of such interstate conflicts" (Letter to NOAA General
                    Counsel from Donald A. Carr, U.S. Dept. of Justice, April 27, 1989; see Archer and Eichenberg,
                    1989).




                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                  39







                              The CZMA's Federal Cosistency Doctrine

                                              In a memorandum prepared by the Department of Justice addressing the proposed expan-
                                         sion of the U.S. territorial sea to 12 miles, the Department also discussed the effects of such an
                                         extension on existing federal law, including the CZMA. With respect to whether state consis-
                                         tency authority extended to activities seaward of the coastal zone, Justice stated its view that
                                         Section 307(c)(1) and (3) of the CZMA, as originally enacted in 1972, did not apply to activities
                                         seaward of the coastal zone (U.S. Dept. of Justice Memorandum for the Legal Adviser, Presiden-
                                         tial.Proclamation to Extend the Territorial Sea," (October 4, 1988, p. 33). Justice's 1988 opinion
                                         directly contradicted both the 1979 and current NOAA consistency regulations (15 C.F.R. 930.33
                                         and 930.53) as well as the Department's 1979 opinion which held that OCS lease sales were
                                         subject to state consistency review (see U.S. Dept. of Justice Advisory Opinion (April 20, 1979)).

                                         'See COE's proposed rules governing the discharge of dredged material in U.S. and ocean
                                         waters, in which COE argues that it need only be consistent with state coastal policies when the
                                         discharge would occur "within the coastal zone" (51 Fed. Reg. 19,694, 19,699 (1986)); also see
                                         Memorandum from Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, EPA, entitled "Coastal Zone
                                         Management Act Consistency Provisions and Designation of Ocean Dumping Sites under
                                         Section 102(c) of Ocean Dumping Act" (October 23, 1989), in which EPA states that it does not
                                         necessarily assent to the view that the consistency provisions require it to be consistent with state
                                         programs, but that EPA will determine the consistency of its proposed site designations with state
                                         programs "as a matter of policy."

                                         4Federalfinancial assistance projects to state and local governments must also be "consistent"
                                         with state coastal policies, and federal flinds for such a project may not be granted unless the
                                         state concurs in the consistency of the project (16 U.S.C. 1456(d) and 15 C.F.R. Subpart F,
                                         930.90 et s!@q.).

                                         'The Secretary has not yet relied on the "national security" criterion to override a state consis-
                                         tency objection.


                                         REFERENCES


                                         Archer. Resolving Intergovernmental Conflicts in Marine Resource Management: The U.S.
                                         Experience. Ocean and Shoreline Management. 12(3):253-269; 1989.

                                         Archer; Knecht. The U.S. National Coastal Zone Management Pr6gram-Problems and Oppor-
                                         timities in the Next Phase. Coastal Management. 15(2):103-120; 1987.

                                         Archer" Bondareff. Implementation of the Federal Consistency Doctrine-Lawful and Constitu-
                                         tional: A Response to Whitney, Johnson and Perles. The Harvard Environmental Law Review.
                                         12(l):4 15-156; 1988.

                                         Breen. Federal Supremacy and Sovereign Immunity Waivers in Federal Environmental Law.
                                         Environmental Law Reporter. 15:10326-10332; 1985.

                                         California Attorney General Memorandum. The Effect of the Presidential Proclamation Extend-
                                         ing the Territorial Sea to 12 Miles on the Obligations of the California Coastal Commission.
                                         1989. p. 24.

                                         Eichenberg; Archer. The Federal Consistency Doctrine: Coastal Zone Management and 'New
                                         Federalism'. Ecology Law Quarterly. 14(l):9-68; 1987.

                                         Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 179 (1976).



                               40                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                      Chapter Two

                  Lowry; Jarman; Maehara. Federal-State Coordination in Coastal Management: A Study of
                  the Federal Consistency Provisions of the CZMA. Unpublished Sea Grant Study. Honolulu:
                  University of Hawaii. 1988

                  NOAA. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service,
                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Federal Consistency Study -Draft. Three
                  Vols; 1985.

                  Secretary of the Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 312 (1984).

                  Whitney, et al. State Implementation of Coastal Zone Management Consistency Provisions:
                  Ultra Vires or Unconstitutional? The Harvard Environmental Law Review. 12(l):67-114;
                  1988.
















































                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management 1rogram                                       41







                                                                                                         Chapter Three

                   INTRODUCTION


                         The estuaries of the United States are recognized as one of our nation's most valuable
                   natural features. Until passage of die, Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, how-
                   ever, there were no federal laws to regulate development and exploitation of this fragile ecotype
                   (Wright, 1987). The coastal zone management initiative recognizes that coastal resources
                   management must embrace land and water issues jointly and concurrently. "It is clear that land,
                   or "dryside", developments can have a strong effect on water, or "wetside", resources" (Clark
                   and McCreary, 1987). History has shown that some of the most controversial coastal manage-
                   ment issues involve controlling "dryside" impacts. One of the CZMA's primary goals was to
                   bring "dryside" land development under control through a joint land-use regulatory undertaking
                   with the states (Clark and McCreary, 1987).

                         "While the coastal management program was thought to have a good potential for success
                   in "dryside" control, neither Congress nor any of the outside proponents believed that adequate
                   protection for research estuaries could be guaranteed by regulation" (Clark and McCreary,
                   1987). At the same time, there was a growing need for more and more information regarding
                   the functions and processes of estuarine ecosystems, and human's effects on them, but fewer and
                   fewer undisturbed or non-polluted estuarine areas remained for scientific study and public
                   education. (Division of Coastal Management, 1985). In response to these issues, Congress
                   established the National Estuarine Sanctuary-Program., The-primary purpose of the program,
                   now renamed the National Estuarine Reserve Research System (NERRS), was to forestall
                   ecological degradation of certain estuaries, and to encourage long-term scientific research in
                   these field "laboratories." Today, the program also has a strong emphasis on public education,
                   helping to provide citizens with an opportunity to acquire knowledge, skills, values, and
                   attitudes concerning the protection of estuaries.


                   LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESERVE RESEARCH
                   SYSTEM (NERRS)

                   Section 315 of the CZMA of 1972. as Amende

                         The NERRS was created by Section 315 of the CZMA of 1972 (PL 92-583). Provisions
                   under Section 315 authorized the Secretary of Commerce to, "Acquire, develop, or operate
                   estuarine sanctuaries, to serve as natural field laboratories in which to study and gather data on
                   the natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone" (16 U.S.C.
                   1461, 1972)@ The intent was to maintain a representative sample of unique natural areas in
                   @near-baseline" conditions (Clark and McCreary, 1987). In addition, under the 1972 Act, the
                   program was to, "Acquire lands to provide for access to public beaches and other public coastal
                   areas of environmental, recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and for
                   the preservation of islands" (16 U.S.C. 1461, 1972). To accomplish these goals, the Secretary
                   was authorized to make financial assistance awards on a 50-50 basis to coastal states (including
                   the Great Lakes). The grant funds were to be used for planning, acquisition, and the first 5 years
                   of managing the approved sanctuaries.

                   Section 303 of the Coastal Zone Management Imp-ro-vement Act of 198

                         In regards to the Estuarine Sanctuaries, Section 303 of the Coastal Zone Irnprovement Act
                   (CZIA) of 1980 (P.L. 96-464) contained a few minor alterations to the language of the original
                   bill. Perhaps the most striking change in respect to the NERRS program involved the amend-
                   ments to Section 303 of the original CZMA. This Section (16 U.S.C. 1452), also known as the
                   "Congressional Declaration of Policy", included guidelines that the coastal states must follow in
                   their respective coastal programs. The first provision called for, "The Protection of natural

                   An Analysis of the National Estuarine Reserve Research System                                          43







                                An Analysis of the National Estuarine Reserve Research System

                                         resources, including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs,
                                         and fish and wildlife and their habitat, within the coastal zone" (16 U.S.C. 1452, 1980). In
                                         addition, the guidelines provided each state with, "Assistance to support comfWdhensive plan-
                                         ning, conservation, and management for living marine resources..." (16 U.S.C. 1452, 1980).
                                         Clearly, these guidelines directed states to give a priority to the protection of estuarine areas.
                                         With this amended Declaration of Policy, Congress had voiced its support for the mission of the
                                         Estuarine Sanctuary Program.

                                         The Clark RepQrt ("Assessing the National Estuarine SancMM ProgLam")

                                                In 1974, NOAA published guidelines for selection and operation of sanctuaries and for the
                                         operation of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program (ESP) (Clark, 1982). To aid ifilfie selection of
                                         sites, the NOAA guidelines contained a biogeographic classification system (1@6C) which
                                         defined 11 "types" of estuarine ecosystems including a brief description of each. Based on the
                                         BGC classification, the first 12 sites were selected (Clark, 1982).

                                                in 198 1, the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) commissioned John Clark
                                         (1982) to evaluate the 1974 BCG system and make specific recommendationi;@; Clark added 27
                                         biogeographical subcategories termed Regions to the original I I ecosystem chissifications, and
                                         suggested a typology classification to be used for site evaluation and selection which considered
                                         estuary characteristics that were not related to regional locations. This two-tiered approach
                                         allowed for "regional differentiation" as well as ensured a "variety of ecosystems" for the ESP.

                                         Section 6041 of the Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1986

                                                While the original goal of the ESP   was to acquire, develop, and operate estuarine areas      as
                                         natural field laboratories, the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 1986 (PL 99-272) added a
                                         new emphasis to. the Program-that of education-deleted the nonftmded sectibn for barrier
                                         island acquisition, and changed the name of the program to the NERRS. The: 1986 Actalso
                                         called for revisions of the procedures for selecting, designating, and operating Estuarine Saiictu-
                                         aries, as suggested in the "Clark Report." In addition, a new preacquisition fi-Amework was
                                         included, whereby eligible states could apply for awards to aid in selecting'an estuarine sitein
                                         conformity with the classification scheme and typology in site selection. The'1086 rea        'uthori-
                                         zation language emphasized, for the first time, the research value of a site. Aiiarea can be
                                         designated a National Estaurine Research Reserve if the Secretary of Commerce finds, among
                                         others, that "the area is a representative estuarine ecosystem that is suitable f6i long-term
                                         research and contributes to the biogeographical and typological balance of theSystem. That is
                                         why it was renamed to National Estuarine Research Research System.

                                         Site Description

                                                Clark defined an Estuarine Sanctuary as, "A research area which may i&lude any part or
                                         all of an estuary and any island, transitional area, and upland in,  'adjoining, or adjac!6jit to such
                                         estuary, and which constitutes to the extent feasible, a natural unit, set aside to provide scientists
                                         and students the opportunity to examine, over a period of time, the ecological re'lationships
                                         within the area" (Clark, 1982). Currently, there are 18 established Reserves irithe NERRS
                                         protecting approximately 262,009acres of estuarine lands. This figure represents less than 20
                                         percent of the total number of estuaries in this country. Table I lists the NEkRS sites by region.

                                                In addition to the 18 Reserves now in the system, new sites are proposed in Maryland (two
                                         components), South Carofina (two reserves); Virginia (four components); the St. Lawrence River
                                         Basin, Delaware (two components); San Francisco Bay, and major expansions proposed at
                                         Rookery Bay, Maryland and North Carolina. The coal of the NERRS is to establish and manage


                               44                                                                                              NCRI-W-91403






                                                                                                             Chapter Three

                   a system of reserves representing different coastal regions and estuarine types that exist in the
                   United States and its territories. The completed NERRS will include a site representing each of
                   the nation's biological and geographic coastal regions (Wright, 1987). Clark believed that to
                   fulfill this goal the NERRS should contain a total of at least 27 sites (Clark, 1982).




                                              Table 1. National Estuarine Reserves, 1990


                                      Name and Location                Designa        Area (Acres) Land & Water
                              Designated Estuarine Reserves
                              I  South Slough, Oregon                       1974                        4,700
                              2  Waimanu Valley, Hawaii                     1976                        3,600
                              3  Sapelo Island, Georgia                     1976                        5,905
                              4  Rookery Bay, Florida                       1978                        8,400
                              5  Apalachicola, Florida                      1979                     193,758
                              6  Elkhorn Slough, California                 1980                        1,330
                              7  Padilla Bay, Washington                    1980                        2,564
                              8  Narrangansett Bay, Rhode Island            1980                        2,626
                              9  Old Woman Creek, Ohio                      1980                         543
                              10 Chesapeake Bay, MD (Monie Bay only     .)  1981                        3,426
                              11 Jobos Bay, Puerto Rico                     1981                        2,800
                              12 North Carolina (3 components)              1982                        4,639
                              13 Tijuana River, California                  1982                        2,150
                              14 Hudson River, New York                     1982                        4,130
                              15 Wells, Maine                               1984                        1,550
                              16 Weeks Bay, Alabama                         1986                        3,028
                              17 Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts                 1988                        2,199
                              18 Great Bay, New Hamshire                    1989                        6,129
                              Subtotal Designated Reserves                                           253,477

                              Additional Components and Expansions of Existing Reserves in Progress
                              4  Rookery Bay (expansion                     1990-91                  142,000
                              10 North Carolina (Masonboro)                 1990                        5,046
                              12 Maryland (Otter Creek)                     1990                         700
                                 (Jug Bay)                                  1990                         722
                              14 Hudson River                               1990                         402
                              Subtotal Expansions and New Components                                 148.87

                              New Reserves in Development
                              19 Ches. Bay, VA (York River)                 1990                        5,403
                              20 Delaware Bay, Delaware                     1991                       13,000
                              21 A.C.E. Basin, SC                           1991                       15,802
                              22 North Inlet, SC                            1999                        8,000
                              23 Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence, NY              T13D                        5,000
                              24 San Francisco Bay, CA                      TBD                         TBD
                              Subtotal New Reserves                                                  191,205
                              TOTAL ALL SITES                                                        39F =1


                   Source: NOAA 6/15/90





                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                               45







                               An Analysis of the National Estuarine Reserve Research System

                                         Acquiring NERRS Funds and Funding Levels

                                               Funding appropriations for the NERRS are designed to accomplish numerous objectives.
                                         NOAA is authorized to make 50 percent grants to coastal states to help defray the costs associ-
                                         ated with the designation and operation of the reserves. Three types of grants are available: 1)
                                         the preacquisition award, for site selection and draft management plan preparation; 2) the
                                         acquisition and development award, for land acquisition, minor construction activities (such as
                                         nature trails and boat ramps) and program development, and 3) the operation and management
                                         award, for assistance in implementing the research, educational, and administrative programs that
                                         are detailed in the individual research reserve management plans. Any coastal state with laws
                                         that afford long-term protection to estuarine resources is eligible for the match*ng grants. At the
                                         conclusion of federal financial assistance, funding for the long-term operation of the reserve
                                         becomes the state's responsibility (Jarman, 1987).

                                               Following a "start-up" appropriation of $4,000,000, funding levels during the initial stages
                                         of the program (FY 1975-1978) remained below $2 million. Because the program was new, it
                                         took most of the coastal states a few years "start-up" time to begin their Estuarine Research
                                         Reserve programs. As more and more states began their programs, funding levels began to
                                         increase. Beginning in FY 1979, funding levels approached $3 million, and they remained at this
                                         level during most of the 80s although there were some fluctuations. Funding finally broke the $3
                                         million level in 1990 with a $3.49 million appropriation.


                                         Research Programs


                                               Although protection of estuaries is a primary goal of the NERRS, many estuaries are part
                                         of a multiple-use system where natural resources are used as well as studied. In order to stimu-
                                         late high-quality research within designated estuaries, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
                                         Management's Marine and Estuarine Management Division (MEMD) provides limited financial
                                         support for research in the NERRS. Funds are available on a competitive 50 percent matching
                                         basis to any university, qualified public or private research institution, or coastal state'to conduct
                                         estuarine research. Each reserve management plan specifies priorities and outlines research
                                         needs within its system. In addition to these site-specific needs, NOAA announces annual
                                         research opportunities for each fiscal year. A phased monitoring program was started in 1989.
                                         Phase I concerns site characterization. Phase 11 is the development of a site profile document.
                                         Phase 11.1 is a long-term monitoring program.

                                         Education Progm

                                               Educational programming at the Reserves creates a direct link between estuarine scientists
                                         and the public. A variety of classes, guided walks, and workshops are offered at the Reserves
                                         and are available to schools from kindergarten through college level (OCRM, 1987). Specifi-
                                         cally, the 1985 Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act authorized the award of grants for
                                         educational and interpretive activities, including: design, development, and distribution/place-
                                         ment of educational media; development and presentation of curricula, workshops, lectures, for
                                         on-site facility and field use; extension/outreach programs; and creative and innovative methods
                                         for implementing interpretive or educational projects (Federal Register, 1988).


                                         CONCLUSION


                                               Estuaries are among the most biologically productive systems on earth. The NERRS was
                                         originally conceived to protect natural estuarine areas as laboratories for teaching and research.
                                         The program has certainly accomplished this mandate, currently 18 Reserves protect over
                                         262,000 acres of estuarine acreage. Each of these Reserves has its own character and flavor, a


                               46                                                                                             NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                             Chapter Three

                   reflection of local commitment to the program. Although legal provisions for the management
                   and protection of estuaries are diverse and often complex, progress is being made toward
                   protecting these important coastal wetlands. More recently, the reserves have served purposes
                   other than protection; some sites in the reserve program.have become models for testing innova-
                   tive combinations of land regulation, purchase of public land, and resource management to
                   protect a single ecosystem (Clark and McCreary, 1987).

                         With the passage of the Reauthorization Act of 1985, education and research became the
                   primary goals of the program. The reserves are operating long-term scientific and educational
                   programs that provide information for coastal management decision making. The education
                   programs involve a diverse group of individuals, including students. By providing a healthy
                   atmosphere for learning now, future leaders will be able to enact responsible decisions concern-
                   ing the protection of the environment in later years.

                         It is difficult to assign a cost/benefit value to the NERRS. Perhaps the most important
                   service provided by it cannot be measured in dollars and cents. In the long run, the most valuable
                   contribution will be to set aside extremely important areas that people now tend to take for
                   granted. Future generations-both human and animal-will be able to enjoy estuaries in their
                   natural state, free from the changes caused by growth and development.


                   REFERENCES


                   Bureau of Coastal Zone Management. Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve Draft
                   Management Plan. Florida Department of Environmental Management, Tallahassee, Florida.
                   1988. 363 p.

                   Clark, J.R. Assessing the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program: A report to the Office of
                   Coastal Zone Management. The American Littoral Society. Highlands, New Jersey. 1982. 54
                   pp.

                   Clark, J.R.; S.C. McCreary. Special Area Management at Estuarine Reserves. In: Managing
                   Land-Use Conflicts. eds. D.J. Brower and D.S. Carol. North Carolina: Duke University Press;
                   1987. 323 p.

                   Division of Coastal Management. Annual Report: North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary
                   Program. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, North
                   Carolina. 1983. 106 p.

                   Estuarine Protection Office. NOAA Estuarine Research Development Plan. U.S. Department of
                   Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, D.C. 1987. 18 p.

                   Federal Register, 15 C.F.R. Part 921, National Estuarine Sanctuary Program Regulations: Final
                   Rule. 49(125): 26502-26520; 1984, June 27.

                   Federal Register. 15 C.F.R. Part 921, National Estuarine Research Reserve System Regulations:
                   Proposed Rule. 5 3 (209):43 816-43 828; 1988, October 28.

                   Jarman, M.C. Alternatives to fee simple acquisition of property for estuarine reserves. in:
                   Coastal Zone '87. Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. eds.
                   O.T. Magoon, H. Converse, D. Miner, L.T. Tobin, D.Clark, and G. Comurat. (1): 161-169; 1987.

                   Knox, G.A. Estuarine Ecosystems: A Systems Approach. Volume 1. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC
                   Press, Inc; 1986. 198 p.


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                47







                             An Analysis of the National Estuarine Reserve Research System

                                      Livingston, R.J. Resource atlas of the Apalachicola Estuary. Florida Sea Grant Report No.
                                      SGR-55. Gainesville, Florida. 1983. 64 p.

                                      McClusky, D.S. The Estuarine Ecosystem. New York: John Wiley and Sons;, 1981. 225 p.

                                      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Estuarine Inventory Data Atlas,
                                      Volume 2: Land Use Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 1987.
                                      33 p.

                                      Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Bulletin: Research opportunities in the
                                      National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Marine and Estuarine Management Division,
                                      Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C. 1987. 2 p.

                                      Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Bulletin: Education opportunities in the
                                      National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Marine and Estuarine Management Division,
                                      Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C. 1987. 2 p.

                                      Sadler, L.A. Suggestions on the development of estuarine sanctuary education programs. In:
                                      Proceedings of the workshop on the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, October, 1979. eds.
                                      J. Zinn and H. Neuhauser. Office of Coastal Zone Management, Department of Commerce.
                                      Washington, D.C. 1982. 119 p.

                                      Sullivan, J.K.; J.H. Falk. Perspectives in estuarine sanctuaries. In: Proceedings of the workshop
                                      on the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, October, 1979. eds. J. Zinn and H. Neuhauser.
                                      Office of Coastal Zone Management, Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C. 1982.
                                      119 P.

                                      Taggert, J.; E.A. Blair. Opportunities in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
                                      Unpublished Bulletin. 1988. 4 p.

                                      Wright, G. The National Estuarine Reserve Research System: A Review. Natural Areas Journal
                                      7(2):75-78; 1987.


                                      16 U.S.C. 1452. 1972.


                                      16 U.S.C. 1461. 1972.
























                            48                                                                                     NCR]- W-91-003







                                                                                                                  Chapter Four


                    INTRODUCTION


                          On July 26, 1976, after intense debate and compromise between Congress and the Adminis-
                    tration, President Ford signed Public Law 94-370, the Coastal Energy Impact Program (also
                    known as the Coastal Zone Act Amendments of 1976, or "1976 Amendments"). The amendments
                    addressed the concern voiced by members of Congress that coastal states needed assistance in the
                    form of grants and loans to address the effects that OCS leasing, exploration, and development had
                    on their coastal zones. The bill as signed included a provision, on the Adminis-tration's insis-
                    tence, that the grants would be issued only if a state had used up its loan fimds.

                          At the time of its passage, many believed that the CZMA, strengthened by the CEIP
                    amendments, would become an important national resource management program (OCZM, 1976;
                    Kitsos, 1985). At the time of its passage, the program enjoyed broad-based support. A diverse
                    mix of special interest groups lobbied for the bill's passage and testified during the Congressional
                    hearings.

                          Simply stated, the purpose of the CEIP was to provide financial assistance to meet the needs
                    of coastal states and local governments which result from energy activity affecting the coastal
                    zone. Coastal energy activity was defined in the CZMA to include: (1) Outer Continental Shelf
                    (OCS) energy activity; (2) any transportation or processing of liquefied natural gas; and (3) any
                    transportation, transfer, or storage of coal, oil, or natural gas (OC- ZM, 1976).


                    CEIP PROJECTS


                          The CEIP was unique among federal programs because it allowed considerable discretion by
                    state and local governments in identifying the problems that local communities faced in overcom-
                    ing OCS oil and energy activities and establishing the priorities for projects to be funded. There
                    was a lot of flexibility in the program, and to most, this was a plus. The CEIP was designed to be
                    adaptable because OCS activities presented a multitude of potential impacts on the coastal zone.
                    More importantly, energy related impacts and concerns varied by region.

                          The CEIP was designed to be able to address the impacts of energy facility siting as well as
                    the impacts that would become evident as energy activities increased. Given the varied methods
                    of obtaining appropriations, the range of CEIP projects receiving funding was very broad. Eligible
                    community development projects included planning or funding for roads, libraries, schools,
                    hospitals, parks, police, jail facilities, police cars, and fire equipment.

                          The CEIP funded many unusual projects, but in addition to that, the CEIP was a unique
                    program because it involved a lot of state, federal, and local cooperation to complete these
                    projects. The program stressed innovative solutions and approaches to problems, and was a model
                    of how local, state, and the federal governments can work together by funding various programs
                    and activities to meet national, state, and local objectives (Mylroie, 1979). By the late 70s, there
                    were few vocal critics of the program. The CEIP enjoyed broad-based support, and it was
                    associated with two issues of national importance, energy independence and environmental
                    quality. It appeared that the CEIP would certainly become a permanent addition to the federal
                    coastal management programs; however, less than three years later the program effectively ended.
                    The question is, why?

                    THE END OF THE CEIP


                          Although the CEIP began in 1976, there was little movement regarding the program until
                    1978. The CEIP originated in a national and political climate that was changing rapidly. In
                    retrospect, the CEIP was a short-lived program that was gaining popularity as it was ending.


                    An Analysis of the Coastal Energy Impact Program                                                              49







                              An Analysis of the Coastal Enprgy Impact Program

                                        Although the 1978 Amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) significantly
                                        increased the CEIP formula grant funding levels, and despite the fact that the authorization period
                                        for these grants was extended, there was virtually no demand from the states for CEIP credit
                                        assistance. This lack of demand was based in part upon the program's high interest rates. An-
                                        other, perhaps larger, reason for this lack of demand was that many of the anticipated impacts
                                        from OCS activities had not materialized.

                                              As state interest in CEIP funds began to wane, so too did the administration's support for the
                                        program. During the Carter years, formula grants appropriations decreased in,the budget proposal,
                                        and there were no new funding requests for the CEIP in the budget. Clearly, the CEIP was a
                                        program that seemed to be reaching the end of its legislative life.

                                              The 1980 presidential election provided the final component that was needed to end the
                                        CEIP. During the campaign, Ronald Reagan promised severe federal budget cutting measures.
                                        Once elected, one of his first targets was the coastal zone management program, specifically the
                                        CE,IP. The OMB justified the termination of the program because the original "boom-and-bust"
                                        cycle never materialized. Budget cuts of previously allocated CEIP loan funds effectively ended
                                        the CEIP program, and in the subsequent fiscal years funds remaining in the CEIP treasury were
                                        rescinded or dispersed by Congress. It is hard to assign an exact date as to when the CEIP ended;
                                        for all practical purposes, the program ended in fiscal year 1983. In the three following years,
                                        ,some loan payments continued to reach the program and were dispersed to states for previously
                                        accepted grant proposals, but the administrative staff was dismantled and reassigned to other OCZ
                                        of fices.


                                        CONCLUSIONS


                                              The CEIP was a short lived program, and the majority of its existence was spent in start up
                                        t,ime. By the time theappropriations were awarded and the results of the funding became visible,
                                        the program had ended. Because the CEIP program was young, it did riot have time to develop an
                                        entrenched bureaucracy or powerful constituency, therefore, it was an easy target for budget
                                        cutting. More importantly, the issue that was the central focus of the CEIP, the "energy crisis",
                                        faded from the public psyche. As the gas lines disappeared from the media's.scrutiny, so too,
                                        dissolved the nation's concern for energy independence and conservation. Ironically, many of the
                                        OCS energy activities that were controversial during the CEIP's existence are still being debated
                                        today; witness California, North Carolina, and New Jersey.


                                        REFERENCES


                                        Coastal Zone Management: 9(2). J.R. Botz-am and R. Jacobius, eds. Washington, D.C.: Nautilus
                                        Press; January 11, 1978. 6p...

                                        Coastal Zone Management: 10(3)@ J.R. Botzum and R. Jacobius, eds.. Washington, D.C.:
                                        Nautilus Press; January 17, 1979. 6. p.

                                        Coasta'I Zone Management: 10(38). J.R. Botzum and R. Jacobius, eds. Washington, D.C.:
                                        Nautilus Press; September 26, 1979. 6p...

                                        Coastal Zone Management: 11(27). J.R. Bo.tzurn and R. Jacobius, eds. Washington, D.C.:
                                        Nautilus Press; July 9, 1980. 6p...

                                        Coastal Zone Mana. ement: 12(5). J.R. Botzum and R. Jacobius, eds. Washington, D.C.: Nautilus
                                                        . 9
                                        Press; February 4, 1981. 6p...



                              50                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                         Chapter Four

                   Coastal Zone Management: 12(27). J.R. Botzum and R. Jacobius, eds. Washington, D.C.:
                   Nautilus Press; July 15, 1981. 6p...

                   Coastal Zone Management: 13(6). J.R. Botzurn and R. Jacobius, eds. Washington, D.C.: Nautilus
                   Press; February 10, 1982. 6p...

                   Gendler, M. Offshore Oil Power Plays: Maximizing State Input Into Federal Resource Decision
                   Making. Natural Resources Lawyer 12(2):347-388; 1979.

                   Hildreth, R.G.; R.W. Johnson. Ocean and Coastal Law. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1983.
                   514 p.

                   Kitsos, T.R. Coastal Management Politics: A View from Capitol Hill. J. American Planning
                   Association. 51(3):275-287; 1985.

                   Lowry, K. Assessing the Implementation of Federal Coastal Policy. J. American Planning
                   Association. 51(3):288-298; 1985.

                   Matuszeski, W. Managing the Federal Coastal Program: The Planning Years. J. American
                   Planning Association. 51(3):266-274; 1985.

                   Mylroie, G.R. The Coastal Energy Impact Program-A Workshop for Local Officials in Coastal
                   Zone Management. Today and Tomorrow-die Necessity for Multiple Use (Vol. 11), eds. K.B.
                   Fitzpatrick and J.L. Rasmussen. Glenden Beach, Ore-on, February 20-23, 1979. 140 p.
                                                                     C

                   Mylroie, G.R. The Coastal Energy Impact Program. Practicing Planner. 23-25; 1978.

                   National Oceanic @nd Atmospheric Administration. Secretarial Decision Paper: Coastal Energy
                   Impact Fund (CEIF), Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
                   Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 1982. 13 p.

                   Office of Coastal Zone Management. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Rules and Regula-
                   tions for Implementing the Coastal Energy Program Section 308. The Coastal Zone Management
                   Act of 1972 as Amended. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                   Administration, Washington, D.C. 1976. 23 p.

                   Office of Coastal Management. The CTARP energy facility siting study. Volume 1: Coastal
                   Facility Siting and the National Interest. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
                   Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 1979. 132 p.

                   Office of Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Energy Impact Program, an Evaluation. U.S.
                   Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Budget
                   and Program Evaluation, and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Washington, D.C. 1980.
                   90 P.

                   Office of Coastal Zone Management. Managing the Nation's Coast, Biennial Report to the
                   Congress on Coastal Zone Management. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
                   Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 1982. 139 p.             I

                   Ohio Department of Energy (ODOE). Evaluation findings for the Ohio Coastal Energy Impact
                   Program covering the period from February 1978 through September 1982 inclusive. Ohio
                   Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio. 1983.



                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                         51






                            An Anal   .ysis of the Coastal Energl Impact Program

                                    Rhode Island Coastal Management Program (RICMP). Evaluation findings for the Rhode Island
                                    Coastal Zone Management Program covering the period from January 1982 through April t983,
                                    The Coastal Energy Impact Program from April 1978 through April 1983, and- the Narragansett
                                    Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary covering the period from September 1980 through April 1983.
                                    Department of Environmental Management, Providence, Rhode Island. 1983. 66 p.

                                    Rosener, J. B. The Federal Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP): aid or SOP to State and local
                                    crovernments? Oral presentation to the annual meeting of the American Society of Public Admin-
                                    z
                                    isti-Ation, San Francisco, California, April 14, 1980.

                                    Stobaugh, R. and D. Yergin. Energy Future, Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Busi-
                                    ness School. New York- Random House, Inc.; 1980. 493 p.

                                    United States General Accounting Office. Issues in leasing offshore lands for oil and gas develop-
                                    ment (Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General). EMD-81-59. United States General
                                    Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 1981.











































                           52                                                                                  NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                          Chapter Five


                  ROLE OF THE STATES IN THE
                  NATIONAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM


                       A very difficult problem confronted those designing the national coastal zone management
                  (CZM) program in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The coastal area has tremendously value and
                  the need for improved management of development in coastal areas to protect this national
                  treasure was clear. Then, as now, however, the wide range of -issues to be addressed and the
                  diversity of the coast presented a daunting challenge to the design of a national CZM program.

                       The range of development issues to be addressed in coastal resource management is quite
                  broad (CSO 1979; Knecht 1979; Myers 1981). Coastal management includes protecting wetlands,
                  coastal water quality, dunes and beaches, and other important natural areas, preventing loss of life
                  and property due to storms and erosion, providing public access to beaches and waters, assuring
                  adequate space for ports, and resolving increasingly intense conflicts between competing uses for
                  limited and environmentally sensitive coastal resources.

                       Moreover, the nation's coasts have tremendous physical, economic, political and cultural
                  diversity. The physical setting along the United States' 95,000 mile coast varies tremendously. It
                  includes natural systems as different as the rocky headlands of Maine, the barrier islands of the
                  Carolina's, the wetlands of Louisiana, the harbors of Lake Michigan, the rugged Alaska shores,
                  and the coral reefs of American Samoa. The type and extent of development pressures also varies
                  tremendously. Some portions of the American coast are heavily urbanized, with intense pressure
                  for additional residential, commercial, and industrial development. Others are resort communities.
                  Still others are largely rural areas, with agricultural, forestry, and fisheries development predomi-
                  nating. Some coastal areas are having a difficult time coping with tremendous development
                  pressures while others are suffering through economic decline and high unemployment. The
                  nation's coastal area also has tremendous political diversity. The coastal area has 35 states and
                  territories with over 400 coastal counties and thousands of municipalities and special purpose
                  authorities. Each has different laws, varying state-local legal relationships, and disparate ap-
                  proaches to the management of coastal development.

                       This diversity of the nation's coastal area makes the design of a uniform national approach
                  to coastal management issues impossible. The answer to this dilemma that was incorporated into
                  the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was to use state coastal management pro-
                  grams to address national concerns about proper management of coastal resources. State programs
                  could incorporate the diversity of the coasts while meeting minimum national standards.

                       Twenty-nine states and territories have developed individual coastal zone management
                  programs that have been approved by the federal government as meeting the minimum national
                  standards established by the CZMA.

                       This chapter address the question of what the states have actually done with their coastal
                  management programs. We examined the types of projects completed and the pattern of expendi-
                  tures of federal grant funds. The focus was on results-what has actually been done in the states
                  to implement the national mandate of improving coastal zone management.

                  Study Methods

                    Work on this project began in June 1989 with the development of a detailed study plan, which
                  was approved by the project's Technical Advisory Committee on July 11, 1989. This plan
                  envisioned gathering information on state CZM program activities from literature reviews, data
                  from the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) of the National
                  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, and direct


                  Introduction to State Coastal Zone Management Programs                                                53







                               Introduction to State Coastal Zone Management Programs

                                        solicitations of information from the 29 states participating in implementation of the CZMA as of
                                        the end of 1989.


                                               An initial request for studies, reports and relevant information was made to delegates of the
                                        Coastal States Organization (CSO) onluly 10, 1989 at that organization's annual meeting in
                                        Charleston, S.C. A letter requesting information and a contact person for review of preliminary
                                        project reports on state activities was sent to all state coastal zone program managers on August
                                        30,1989.


                                               Previously published reports of state program activities were also reviewed. These included
                                        both general program overviews (Burgess 1989; Knecht 1979; Matuszeski 19.85; OCRM 1988;
                                        OCZM 1984; OCZM 1982) and reports on particular subject areas, such as hazard area manage-
                                        ment (OCRM 1990a) and nonpoint source water pollution (OCRM 1990b). Also, overviews
                                        prepared by the states collectively (CSO 1985; CSO 1981; CSO 1979) and by Congressional
                                        review agencies (U.S. GAO 1986; U.S. GAO 1980) were reviewed, as were detailed discussions
                                        of individual state programs (DeGrove 1984; Fischer 1985; Guy 1983; Kinsey 1985; McCrea and
                                        Feldman 1077; Owens 1985).

                                               The next step in the study was to have a study team member review state@program files at
                                        OORM to prepare individual state and territory summaries of program activities. In addition to
                                        textual summaries of program accomplishments, a review was made of the grant files to allocate
                                        program expenditures by seven major subject areas. The seven subject area categories chosen
                                        were based on the national interest areas specified. in the CZMA. The ca    tegories used for analysis
                                        were: 1) Improving governmental decision-making (e.g., permit simplification efforts, land- use
                                        plan preparation, and intergovernmental conflict resolution); 2) natural resource protection (e.g.,
                                        permitting for wetland protection, water quality studies, habitat protection projects); 3) improving
                                        public access to coastal resources (e.g., beach access studies, acquisition and construction of
                                        parking and access facilites); 4) urban waterfront development; 5) hazards mitigation (e.g., erosion
                                        and flooding studies, development of setback programs and hazard education efforts); 6) natural
                                        resource development (e.g., improvement of fisheries facilities, acquaculture development); and 7)
                                        ports and marinas.

                                               The task of assigning CZMA expenditures to these subject areas was complicated by the fact
                                        that there are no uniform grant application, performance report or program evaluation standards
                                        that compile expenditure information in a consistent fashion. Also, some projects address several
                                        subject areas and others do not clearly fit into any of the seven categories. Therefore, the expendi-
                                        ture analysis should be regarded as a general indication of the areas of spending and the relative
                                        degree of effort devoted by the states to these subjects-not a precise fiscal analysis.

                                               The study limited its detailed analysis of financial expenditures to the six fiscal years of
                                        1982 through 1987. This was done for several reasons, including the availability of grant files at
                                        OCR-M, selecting a. period whe  n a complete range of states and territories were actively participat-
                                        ing in the program, and having final performance reports of the year's activities available for
                                        review. Grant applications, state performance reports, 312 evaluations, state program reports, and
                                        interviews with OCRM staff were used to develop these state summaries. This work was carried
                                        out from September to December 1989.

                                               Individual draft summaries of state programs and the allocation of their grant funds were
                                        sent to the designated state contact persons for review and comment on January 10, 1990.
                                        Revisions were made and a revised draft was sent to the states and territories for final review on
                                        March 9, 1990. Discussions, were held with a number of states to clarify the reports and resolve
                                        questions at the national coastal zone program managers meeting in Washington, D.C. on



                              54                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                   Chapter Five

                    March 28,1990. Final comments from all 29 states with approved coastal management programs
                    were received by early May, 1990.

                    Overview of the Findings

                          The principal means of federal financial support for the implementation of coastal zone
                    management programs has been grants to states under Section 306 of the CZMA. Chart I depicts
                    the level of funding of this program over its entire history, with the period of detailed analysis for
                    this study indicated.

                          Under the CZMA, states and territories are granted considerable latitude on how best to
                    allocate available funds to address priority national interest areas. Grants are made on an annual
                    basis, with each state's share of available federal ftmds being determined by a formula that
                    considers shoreline mileage and population.


                          An examination of how these funds have been allocated and what tasks that states have
                    undertaken provides insight into coastal management priorities of the 1980's. Chart 2 indicates
                    the relative fluiding attention the seven major national interest subjects received in the first full
                    decade of program implementation.


                          To see the relative allocation of resources in constant 1-982-dollars see Table 1.


                          CZM programs occupy the unique niche of looking at the coastal region in its entirety,
                    including its environmental, economic, social, and cultural dimensions. The state and territorial
                    programs identify problems, facilitate solutions, and attempt to coordinate the multitude of single
                    purpose governmental programs that affect development and use of coastal resources. Therefore it
                    is not surprising that the focus of state coastal management programs has been in improving
                    government.decision-making. This category of work includes expediting and simplifying permit
                    reviews, developing and implementing new plans, improving the data available for management
                    decisions, and increasing public participation in coastal zone management. Thirty nine percent of
                    the federal funds available to the states and territories for program implementation in the 1982-97,
                    study period were devoted.to this purpose. The second largest area of concentration has been the
                    protection of natural resources, with 28 percent of the funds being devoted to this purpose. These
                    two program activities, which together account for two-thirds of coastal zone management
                    spending, indeed reflect the.core of what the CZMA was designed to accomplish-implernenta-
                    tion of more effective decisions to better protect the natural resources of the coast.

                                        7
                          State programs have also addressed other critical concerns in their particular state or
                    territory. Improving public access to coastal resources, with 11 percent of the fimds, was the third
                    largest area of state coastal zone program activity. Natural resource development, hazards
                    mitigation and urban waterfront development each received 6-7 percent of the funds, with port
                    projects getting 2 percent. This allocation of management attention is consistent with the original
                    design of the program; that of allowing individual states to devote priority attention to those
                    critical national interest areas that most affect their coast, but doing so in the context of the
                    national program.

                          The expenditure data for individual programs supports the wisdom and necessity of this
                    flexible approach. The diversity of state programs and their expenditure pattern indeed reflects the
                    diversity of their coasts. All of the programs devoted at least some of their financial resources to
                    the two core subjects of improving government decision-making and natural resource protection.
                    But even for these the range of need and importance varied significantly. For example, five
                    programs spent less than 20 percent of their resources on improving governmental decision
                    making, but three programs spent more than 70 percent on this. Similarly, for natural resource


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   55







                     Introduction to State Coastal Zone Management Programs


                                                   CHART 1
                        Fede'ral Coastal Zone Management Act
                    Section 306 and.306A Funding: 1976-1988

                    60 millions



                    50 .... ...





                    40 -                                                      . .. .. ...





                    30 -               .... .... .. . . ....     .. ... ... .. .. ... ......... ...........





                    20-,               ... ............ .............. . ..... ......... .. .. .. . ............................. ...................





                    10-1.                               ... ... ... .. ... ............... ................... ............





                      0
                      76 77 78 79 80 81 82                     83 84 85 8-6 87 88
                                                        Study Period


                     56                                                            NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                    Chapter Five



                                                 CHART 2

              Section 306 and 306A Grant Expenditures
                                  (Constant 1982 Dollars)
                                              1982-1987





                                                                  Imp Gov't Decisions
                                                                       73930080














                                                                                  Ports and Marinas
                                                                                       3237976
                Nat Res Protection
                     52796780
                                                                                 Nat Res Development
                                                                        ...            11933420


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


                                                                             Hazards Mitigation
                                                                                 13969760



                                                                   Urb Waterfront Dev't
                                        Public Access                    14259700
                                          20035000


















              Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                      57





















            00








                                                                                                  Table 1.


                                                                                                                     10
                                                                    State Allocation of CZMA Program Implementati n Funds, 1982-87
                                                                                          (1982 Constant Dollars)





                                              Improved             Natural                            Urban                               Natural            Ports
                                              Government           Resource          Public           Waterfront        Hazards           Resource           and
                                               Decision Making     Protection        Access           Development       Mitigation        Development        Marinas



                                Total
                                Expenditures     73,930,076        52,796,776        20,034,997       14,259,697        3,969,763         11,933,415        3,237,976

                                Percent of
                                Total            38.88             27.76             10.54            7.50              7.35              6.28              1.70







                                                                                                                      Chapter Five

                     protection, two programs spent   more than 50 percent of their resources on this topic, and two
                     programs spent less than 10 percent.

                           While there is a national concern with each of the seven subject areas, the incidence of each
                     particular issue is not uniformly distributed around the country. Port expansion may be a major
                     concern for one state while another may not even have nor need a commercial port. This diversity
                     of interest and need is reflected in state and territorial program activity. For five subject areas, at
                     least two programs did not devote any CZMA funds to that subject. However, other state pro-
                     grams devoted significant attention to each of these subjects. Twelve programs devoted more than
                     10 percent of their funds to public access improvements, nine over 10 percent for natural resource
                     development, eight over 10 percent for both hazard area mitigation and urban waterfronts, and two
                     over 10 percent for ports issues.

                           This study confirms that the CZMA has been successful in one of its key objectives-
                     establishing a national program that incorporates state diversity. The states and territories are
                     devoting the bulk of their attention to two key subjects, improving government decision-making
                     and protecting the coast's natural resources, but the states and territories have retained the interest
                     and ability to address other national interest areas where they exist and need management atten-
                     tion.


                           Another striking finding of the study is how much has been done with limited resources.
                     Coastal zone mana ement has not been lavishly funded in the United States. Annual federal
                     expenditures for program implementation in the@ study period were on the order of $34.75 million.
                     The total federal grants for program implementation for the 6-year detailed analysis period was
                     $190 million. These funds were spread among 29 participating state and territorial programs and
                     were used to address the wide variety of subjects noted above.

                           This fact should be kept in mind as the program accomplishments are discussed below. For
                     example, $15.3 million was devoted over 6 years to hazards mitigation. Yet this modest invest-
                     ment has produced significant results. Thirteen states have instituted shorefront setback programs.
                     Studies have been completed to determine erosion rates. Plans have been developed for storin
                     evacuation and post-storm rebuilding. Flood warning and shore protection plans have been
                     developed. Critical hazard areas have been purchased for open space and recreational use.
                     Coastal managers played a critical role in securing reform of the flood insurance program to
                     promote relocation and other pre-stonn loss reduction measures. As Hurricane Hugo so graphi-
                     cally proved in the Virgin Islands and South Carolina in 1989, coastal storms put billions of
                     dollars of public and private development at risk every year. The coastal management projects
                     undertaken by the state programs will significantly reduce these losses in the future.

                           These data also confirm that through the constructive use of finan6al assistance, state
                     priorities can be shifted to devote greater attention to critical national policy concerns. The
                     clearest example of this is found in the expenditure information on public access to coastal
                     resources. For the first 3 years of the detailed study period, 1982-84, expenditures on public
                     access averaged $1.7 million per year. In 1985 funds were for the first time made available under
                     Section 306A for land acquisition and low cost construction projects to improve public access.
                     For the final three years of the detailed study period, 1985-87, expenditures on public access
                     increased to an average of $5.7 million per year. Part of this increase can be attributed to higher
                     overall funding levels for Sections 306 and 306A. However, the allocations by the states for
                     public access relative to other subjects also rose dramatically after 1985. In 1982-84, public
                     access received an average of 6.25 percent of available funds. In 1985-87, this rose to 13.67
                     percent.




                     Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                    59






                               Introduction to State Coastal Zone Management Programs

                                              Section 306A has been popular with the states and territories. Of the 28 states that received
                                        program implementation grants in 1985-87, seventeen exercised the option of using some of their
                                        funds for Section 306A funding. In all, the states and territories devoted an average of 12.67
                                        percent of each year's available funds to these,projects. Public access projects were the leading
                                        use of these funds. By adjusting the eligibility standards to allow broader use of funds for ,
                                        installation of beach access projects, the states' and territories' relative effort on public access was
                                        doubled.


                                              It is difficult to make generalized conclusions about these 29 individual programs. The
                                        individual programs vary significantly, as do their coasts and their development pressures. Some
                                        programs directly regulate development to protect environmental resources. Others primarily play
                                        a role of coordinator, broker, or facilitator amongst other line agencies at the state and local level
                                        (Born and Miller 1988).

                                              This collection of 29 uniquely designed state and territorial programs does serve important
                                        national interests. Through a variety of methods, government decision-making on coastal issues
                                        and natural resource protection has been improved in every participating state and territory. Where
                                        warranted, careful attention is also being given to other key issues, such as improved public access
                                        to the coast, better management of development in natural hazard areas, and development of
                                        coastal natural resources. Some programs are undoubtedly more active and more effective than
                                        others. Six states are not participating in the CZMA at all. Yet most of the nation's coastline is
                                        covered by an approved coastal management program and the aggregate of their efforts win result
                                        in a coastal zone that is healthier, more productive, and more attractive for the long term benefit of
                                        the nation.


                                        REFERENCES


                                        Born, Stephen M.; Allen H. Miller. Assessing Networked Coastal Zone Management Programs.
                                        Coastal Management 16:229-243; 1988.

                                        Burgess, James P. Status of the Coastal Prograrn-A Federal Perspective. In Coastal Zone '89.
                                        New York: American Society of Civil Engineers; 1989.

                                        Coastal States Organization. America's Coasts: Progress & Promise. 1989.

                                        Coastal States Organization. Coastal Management-A Sound Investment. - 1989

                                        Coastal States Organization. Coastal Management-Options for the '80's Final Report. 1979.

                                        DeGrove, John M. Land Growth & Politics. Chicago: APA Planners Press; 1979.

                                        Fischer, Michael L. California's Coastal Program: Larger-Than-Local Interests Built into Local
                                        Plans. J. American Planning Association. 51:312-321; 1985.

                                        Guy, William E., Jr. Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program: A Critical Analysis. Coastal
                                        Zone Management Journal. 11:219-245; 1983.

                                        Kinsey, David N. Lessons from the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. J. American
                                        Planning Association. 51:330-336; 1985.

                                        Knecht, Robert W. Coastal Zone Management: The First Five Years and Beyond. Coastal Zone
                                        Management Journal. 6:259-272; 1979.



                              60                                                                                            NCRI- W-91-003






                                                                                                         Chapter Five

                   Matuszeski, William. Managing the Federal Coastal Program: The Planning Years. J. American
                   Planning Association. 51: 266-274; 1985.

                   McCrea, Maureen; James H. Feldman. Interim Assessment of Washington State Shoreline
                   Management. Coastal Zone Management Journal. 3:119-150; 1977.

                   Myers, Jennie C. America's Coasts in the '80's: Policies & Issues. Washington, D.C.: The Coast
                   Alliance; 1981.


                   Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S
                   Department of Commerce. The First Five Years of Coastal Zone Management: An Initial
                   Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1979.

                   Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
                   Department of Commerce. Managing the Nation's Coast: Biennial Report to the Congress on
                   Coastal Zone Management for Fiscal Years 1980 and 198 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
                   Printing Office; 1982.

                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
                   tration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Biennial Report to the Congress on Coastal Zone Man-
                   agement for Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office;
                   1984.


                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
                   tration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Coastal Management: Solutions to Our Nation's Coastal
                   Problems. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 101. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
                   Commerce; 1988.


                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
                   tration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Coastal Management Solutions to Nonpoint Source Water
                   Pollution. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 102. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
                   Commerce; 1990a.


                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
                   tration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Coastal Management Solutions to Natural Hazards.
                   (Draft). Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 103. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Com-
                   merce; 1990b.


                   Owens, David W. Coastal Management in North Carolina: Building a Regional Consensus. J.
                   American Planning Association. 51:322-329; 1985.

                   U.S. General Accounting Office. Problems Continue in the Federal Management of the Coastal
                   Zone Management Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office; 1980.

                   U.S. General Accounting Office. Resource Management: Information on the Coastal Zone
                   Management Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office; 1986.









                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                         61






                                                                                                                    Chapter Six


                     INTRODUCTION


                           The 29 states and territories actively participating in implementation of the federal Coastal
                     Zone Management Act (CZMA) have completed a wide range of activities to address national and
                     state interests. This chapter summarizes these activities in seven key subject areas: 1) improved
                     governmen decision-making; 2) natural resource protection; 3) improved public access to coastal
                     resources; 4) urban waterfront development; 5) hazards mitigation; 6) natural resource develop-
                     ment, and 7) ports and marinas.

                           This description covers highlights and illustrations of state program activities rather than
                     attempting a comprehensive listing of all program accomplishments. Detailed individual state by
                     state summaries of program activities are in Chapter 8.

                           Throughout this chapter the abbreviation "CMP" is used for "Coastal Management Pro-
                     gram." This generic term is used for all state and territorial programs under the CZMA, though
                     they have a wide variety of actual titles (e.g., "Coastal Zone Management," Coastal Resource
                     Management," etc.).

                     !IMPROVED GOVERNMENTAL DECISION-MAKING

                           The activities states are pursuing to improve government decision-making and operations in
                     coastal zone management are many and diverse. Each state has advances to report in permitting
                     processes; enforcement of local, state, and federal laws and regulations; coordination of govern-
                     mental agencies; public outreach; and numerous other areas.

                     ImpLoving Permit Review Process

                           Many states are making efforts to expedite their review process for the issuance of coastal
                     development permits. Cooperation among state and federal agencies, as well as between the state
                     and local governments, has ensured consistency among various agencies' standards and policies,
                     as well as eliminated unnecessary duplication of permit requirements. For instance, in Rhode
                     Island, the CMP is attempting to expand its permit review process for all substantial impact
                     projects to include local review and comment. This program involves a coordinated review effort
                     by the CMP and the town to concurrently review projects that meet both local requirements and
                     state coastal policy. Typical of federal-state level cooperation is the Memorandum of Agreement
                     between Michigan and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The agreement provides for the
                     issuance of joint public notices and allows for the use of one permit application which is shared by
                     both agencies for statutes regulating the land and water interface.

                           Other states, such as North Carolina, have developed coordinated state-federal wetland
                     permitting programs. These programs result in the Corps issuing a general federal permit for state
                     permitted activity. This reduces permit processing time for the applicant and saves the federal
                     government the cost of a duplicative permit review.

                     Assisting Local Coastal Managemen

                           Approximately one-third of the State CMFs have been instrumental in assisting local
                     governments to actively manage coastal areas within their jurisdictions, and to enforce both state
                     and local regulations. For instance, in Maine, a formal training program and certification proce-
                     dure for local code enforcement officers has been instituted. Certified code enforcement officers
                     are now able to testify in district court, consequently improving enforcement of local zoning and
                     environmental laws. In Washington, local governments have been granted authority to institute a
                     civil fine procedure to deal with violations of the State Shoreline Management Act.


                     Description of State Coastal Management Activity                                                            63






                          Description of State Coastal Management Activity

                                   The Washington Department of Ecology provides basic policy guidance and recommendations to
                                   local governments on how to construct procedures for fines, penalties, and liens.

                                         Another activity to improve government decision-making has been the production of
                                   detailed land use and similar studies and plans. For example, in North Carolina all 20 coastal
                                   counties and over 60 municipalities have prepared CZM mandated comprehensive plans that meet
                                   minimum state standards. The plans are updated, largely using CZMA fimds, every 5 years.

                                   Advances in Technology

                                         Several states have improved their coastal zone management operations by updating the
                                   technology used. For instance, the Pennsylvania CZM program has streamlined its administrative
                                   process through computerization, resulting in a substantial time and cost savings to the program.
                                   The computer system can also be used to track grant tasks and reviews, and has improved the
                                   management of grants and projects. The Northern Marianas has put land use and natural resource
                                   data onto a Geographic Information System (GIS). Information will be used in a cooperative
                                   effort with the Marianas Public Land Corporation to update the CNMI Plan for public land use.
                                   Virginia's CMP is providing support to Virginia's developing EcoMaps Program, a comprehen-
                                   sive natural resources inventory and GIS which will be used by state and local governments in
                                   making environmental management decisions. In Rhode Island, the CMP has helped develop an
                                   interactive setback computer program for activities located within the coastal zone. Based on
                                   average annual erosion rates and the anticipated sea level rise for a given area, the program
                                   determines an adequate construction setback for proposed activities.


                                   Public Involvement


                                         Most state CMPs have attempted to involve the public in coastal management operations.
                                   The CMP in Maryland has conducted a number of workshops on issues of coastal zone manage-
                                   ment concerns, e.g., recreational boating workshops for the public to address the issues of boating
                                   safety, excessive noise, and shoreline erosion caused by boat wakes. A local outreach program to
                                   the local village chiefs in the American Samoas attempts to gain the chiefs' support for the
                                   American Samoan CMP and to foster their participation in the program. Many states and territo-
                                   ries have also developed newsletters, magazines, and other public information on programs to
                                   educate and involve the public.


                                   NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION


                                   PennAtIng

                                         Many state coastal management agencies put a permitting process to use in protecting
                                   natural resources. For instance, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources reviews and
                                   issues project permits under a consolidated permit process that encompasses a total of nine state
                                   statutes and four federal programs. New Hampshire uses wetland inspectors in an expanded pre-
                                   application review process to protect coastal wetlands. The Connecticut Coastal Management Act
                                   requires that towns conduct coastal site plan reviews in conjunction with zoning and building
                                   permit reviews for all coastal development projects to determine the possible effects on coastal
                                   resources.


                                         The Massachusetts Wetlands Restriction Program addresses the cumulative impacts of
                                   development on wetlands by acting as a zoning overlay, barring certain activities on a town-by-
                                   town basis. Subdivision proposals in Rhode Island must have mitigation and control plans for
                                   stormwater runoff, and approval is stipulated on a ban on certain lawn care pesticides and fertiliz-
                                   ers in areas of concern. In Virginia, a study was conducted which evaluated wetlands


                          64                                                                                    NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                     Chapter Six

                    compensation mitigation as a management tool for use within Virginia's shoreline permit pro-
                    gram.


                          Several states have introduced special permitting processes to be used in certain designated
                    coastal areas. In North Carolina, the states coastal waters, wetlands, beaches, and other sensitive
                    areas have been designated as "Areas of Environmental Concern" where all development activities
                    require a Coastal Area Management Act permit. The North Carolina CMP reviews approximately
                    2,000 development projects per year under this program. New York has established Scenic Areas
                    of Statewide Significance for the Hudson River coastal region to provide regulatory protection. In
                    the Virgin Islands, Areas of Particular Concern are used to improve predictability in the decision-
                    making process for permits, and to determine which areas should not be developed at all.

                          Some states, such as Maine, have instituted a system of computerized maps to ensure that
                    permit decisions are consistent and are based on sound geological criteria. In New Hampshire,
                    wetlands maps are distributed for use by state and local regulatory agencies responsible for
                    making permit and other resource management decisions. Often data from mapping projects are
                    incorporated into a GIS for use in water use permitting, as is done in Wisconsin.

                    Coastal Pollution Control


                          Many of the state coastal management programs address the issue of marine and coastal
                    pollution, including oil spills. The Massachusetts CMP is involved in and provides staff support
                    for planning a long-term solution to the problems of pollution in Boston Harbor, and is working
                    with federal, state, and local officials to update the regional oil spill contingency plans in two of
                    Massachusetts' bays. CMP funds in American Samoa are used to contract with a local boat owner
                    who has been given authority to issue fines and citations to polluters and to patrol Pago Pago
                    Harbor to remove debris. The crew has received training in oil spill cleanup. The Washington
                    Ocean Resources Management Act designates financial responsibility for vessels that spill oil;
                    while the New Hampshire CMP has been instrumental in developing a comprehensive oil spill
                    contingency plan, to which oil industry representatives have responded by agreeing to purchase oil
                    spill response equipment. A new litter law incorporated into Mississippi's MCP prohibits dis-
                    charge of litter in the ocean and nearshore coastal waters, and includes standards and guidelines
                    based in part on recommendations made at the MARPOL conference. In South Carolina, guide-
                    lines controlling nonpoint pollution and stormwater runoff are a major consideration in the .
                    processing of over 1,400 federal consistency reviews each year. The 1988 revisions to the South
                    Carolina guidelines require both a pollution control system and assurances that the system will be
                    maintained.


                    SMcial Area Management Plans

                          Many states have in place Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) or similar plans
                    designed to protect coastal natural resources. Tlie Florida CMP has focused efforts to develop a
                    statewide perspective of estuarine pollution and develop an overall estuarine management policy.
                    In addition, management plans for many aquatic preserves have been developed with funds from
                    the Florida CMP to protect resources from degradation due to population growth. In South
                    Carolina, SAMPs address the effects of treated sewage and storrawater on water quality, alter-
                    ations of natural land drainage patterns, creation of artificial lagoons and reservoirs, dredge and
                    fill of wetlands, beach erosion, and threats to prehistoric and archaeological sites. A model
                    Mangrove Management Plan for selected areas in Puerto Rico was generated to be used as a basis
                    for an island-wide management plan, with the goals of designing protective measures and develop-
                    ment of recommendations for land uses compatible with the ecology of the area.




                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                     65







                               Description of State Coastal Management Activity

                                         Natural Resource Acquisition

                                               Several states have undertaken direct responsibility for natural resource protection by
                                         acquisition of land in the coastal zone. Often, as was the case in Delaware and California, the
                                         State CMP catalyzes the purchase and acquisition of parks, wetlands, natural areas, and open
                                         space; or CMP funds are used to negotiate agreements, as in New Jersey, where a critical habitat
                                         used as a stopover for migrating shorebirds was acquired. In New Hampshire, the CMP contrib-
                                         uted to the purchase of a parcel of land with bay frontage that was incorporated into the Estuarine
                                         Research Reserve. In North Carolina, funds have been used to acquire the state's largest remain-
                                         ing maritime forest and an island previously slated for development that is located in a key
                                         shellfishing area (and also included a vital archaeological site). In Puerto Rico, funds have been
                                         established by the Natural Heritage Program to acquire critical natural areas now in private
                                         ownership.

                                         PUBLIC ACCESS TO COASTAL RESOURCES


                                         Low Cost Construction


                                               The CMPs of many states have improved public access to their coastlines by engaging in
                                         low cost construction projects. Amenities provided to the public include walkways, bicycle paths,
                                         viewing areas, interpretative trails, boat ramps and docks, picnic areas, as well as restroorns,
                                         showers, and parking lots. North Carolina used CZMA funds to more than double the size of its
                                         beach access program in 19 85 through 1988, allowing the state to establish 13 8 public accessways
                                         by the end of 1988. Many states have made extensive use of Section 306A funds to implement
                                         land acquisition and construction of these projects. Often small-scale access projects open the
                                         area to further public and private investment. In Wisconsin, for instance, CMP seed money for a
                                         small harbor provided the impetus for a larger project, including a 900-slip marina, support
                                         facilities, a county park, and public boating facilities.

                                         Zoning and Permitting for Access

                                               Some CZMA participants have made use of zoning requirements and the permitting process
                                         to provide public access to the shoreline. In the Northern Marianas, the CMP has required
                                         developers to provide public access, such as bicycle/pedestrian paths, through permit conditions.
                                         Regulations adopted in Puerto Rico in 1983 require setbacks for any new coastal development, as
                                         well as limitations on uses in areas designated as public beaches, natural areas, reserve areas, and
                                         mangroves. Other states, such as Washington, provide technical assistance and workshop oppor-
                                         tunities to local government officials for reviewing shoreline permits for public access. A hand-
                                         book prepared by the North Carolina CMP informs local governments of techniques available for
                                         requiring public accessways. In Pennsylvania, the CMP has helped city governments develop
                                         comprehensive plans that encourage private developers to incorporate public access provisions
                                         into their development plans for urban waterfront areas. Under the New York City Local Water-
                                         front Revitalization Program, the City has obtained approximately 30 miles of shoreline public
                                         access through development exactions.


                                         Access Inventories


                                               Several state CMPs have compiled inventories,, and have made available to the public
                                         guidebooks and pamphlets that identify, locate and describe, often with maps and site photo-
                                         graphs, natural features and developed facilities of state public access sites. These guides can help
                                         the public find recreation areas, and are also put to other purposes. The Washington guide aids in
                                         the selection of Sections 306 and 306A public access projects, while in Guam, a shoreline access
                                         study provides information used by land use planners as well as recreation seekers. In Hawaii, the


                               66                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                             Chapter Six

                   Kauai Beach Access inventory has provided a basis for maintaining public rights to accessways
                   and easements and for protecting these accessways from encroaching development pressures. The
                   inventory includes copies of assessment maps, deeds, and deed restrictions.

                   Acqj Lisition

                         Many states have ensured permanent access to their coastal areas through the acquisition of
                   shorefrout property. in 1987, a $30 million Open Space Bond was passed in Massachusetts to
                   continue coastal acquisition efforts. The Bond was passed largely as a result of the Massachusetts
                   CMP's past successful acquisition efforts to obtain land for public access. Florida CMP funding
                   helped one county develop a management plan that included a local bond referendum which
                   generated local investment to acquire land for public access. In South Carolina, state and local
                   governments are pursuing the F@deral Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Section 1362
                   program to acquire hazard prone beachfront property following Hurricane Hugo.

                   URBAN WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT


                   TyMs of Projects

                         A wide range of activities has been undertaken by coastal towns and cities in efforts to
                   develop and redevelop their waterfront districts. Specific projects that-have been carried out in -
                   several communities as a result of the implementation of revitalization plans include construction
                   of marinas, docks, piers for commercial and recreational fishermen, boat ramps, retail, office,
                   restaurant, and condominium complexes, and public access facilities. In Ponce and San Juan,
                   Puerto Rico, docking facilities for cruise ships are being improved; while in Reedsport, Oregon,
                   moorage for Antarctic research vessels has been designed.


                   CMP Assistance


                         Many state CMPs have contributed to local communities' urban waterfront development
                   efforts through grants of financial and technical assistance. Some localities have joined with each
                   other and with the state CMP in a collaborative effort to revitalize an entire waterfront area. In
                   New York, the state has established the Horizon's Waterfront Commission to develop a regional
                   waterfront development plan for the entire Erie County waterfront. Representing municipalities,
                   the county, and the state, the Commission has bonding authority and eminent domain powers to
                   implement its plan. All of the participating local governments are implementing or preparing local
                   waterfront plans which will provide the basis for development and implementing the Horizon's
                   Waterfront Plan,


                         Some projects have been carried out with the use of CZMA funding, including Sections 306
                   and 306A monies. In some areas, a combination of federal and state funding has resulted in a
                   successful project, as in Houghton, Michigan, where a waterfront development plan was funded by
                   the Michigan CMP, while financial assistance from the CMP allowed the City to do the purchas-
                   ing and renovating of over a mile of shoreline in the downtowm area.


                   Public Involvement


                         In Rhode Island, the public plays an important role in carrying out the Special Area Manage-
                   ment Plan for Providence Harbor. The plan allows for extensive public review and discussion of
                   important issues and problems facing the Harbor through a variety of forums.

                         Other states keep the public and local officials informed of waterfront development plans
                   through the use of publications. The California Coastal Commission publishes a quarterly


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                            67







                             Description of State Coastal Management Activity

                                       magazine, "California Waterfront Age," to provide an evaluation of public and private initiatives
                                       for waterfront restoration. The Oregon State University Sea Grant uses 306 funds to publi@h a
                                       "Waterfront Revitalization Guide" for small communities that provides detailed instructions for
                                       implementing waterfront revitalization plans.

                                       Growth in Revitalized Areas


                                             Many. states are reporting substantial private and public investment taking place in and
                                       around refurbished urban waterfronts. For instance, CMP funds were used in-Kewaunee, Wiscon-
                                       sin to plan and construct a 150-slip marina and waterfront park; the development catalyzed
                                       significant private investment in the area, in addition to attracting over 100,000 tourists annually.
                                       In Jersey City, New Jersey, a waterfront park and pier project was recently completed, and $2
                                       bilho'n in new construction condominiums and retail shops now surround the new park. The
                                       Malaloa Bulkhead project in American Samoa has opened the door for four new marine dependent
                                       businesses operating adjacent to the bulkhead. Several waterfront redevelopment studies funded
                                       by the CMP resulted in the Philadelphia Waterfront Comprehensive Plan whidh catalyzed over
                                       $3 10 million in private investments and millions of dollars in tax revenue to the City of Philadel-
                                       phia and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Connecticut CMP funds were critical in revitalizing
                                       the Norwalk waterfront, leading to the expenditure of over $26 million to implement a revitaliza-
                                       tion plan.


                                       Public Education and Awareness


                                             The states participating in the CZM program have implemented a variety of measures
                                       designed to protect the natural resources of their coastal areas. The vast majority of states have
                                       initiated some sort of public education and awareness program, often by issuing public service
                                       announcements on radio and television, or distributing videos and handbooks regarding issues
                                       such as wetland protection, shoreline pollution, and other environmental concerns. Many states
                                       urge citizens to get involved in protecting their natural resources by sponsoring "Coastweek"
                                       activities. Events during Coastweek in New Hampshire include education forums, harbor cruises,
                                       and walking tours; while Coastweek participants in American Samoa can go on reef walks,
                                       compete in sign and trash can painting contests, and join in beach clean-up projects.

                                             Certain states' coastal agencies have also published and distributed guidebooks or manuals
                                       for use by developers, local governments, and citizen groups, as well as by the general public. For
                                       instance, Michigan issues a guidebook discussing the value of the state's wetlands, and explains
                                       the wetland review process; Alaska makes available a "How-to" booklet for conducting beach
                                       clean-up projects; Massachusetts issued a "Primer for Dredging in the Coastal Zone;" and the
                                       Northern Marianas has funded a guidebook on stormwater control for farmers and developers.

                                             Integrating environmental education programs into the local public school curriculum is also
                                       a priority for many states' coastal programs, with some states, such as Florida, coordinating efforts
                                       with the state Department of Education. Many educational programs, such as that in Alabama,
                                       include training for teachers as well as instructional manuals and booklets on coastal awareness.
                                       American Samoa's Marine Awareness Program includes research competitions for school age
                                       children, and a Marine Symposium for high school students. While not a Section 306 activity,
                                       education programs developed under the CZMA's estuarine research reserve program have also
                                       been a part of some states' CMP.








                             68                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                    Chapter Six

                    COASTAL HAZARDS MITIGATION


                    Managing DevelQpment in Hazard Areas

                          Thirteen coastal states have adopted setback regulations to require that new development        be
                    located outside of the most hazardous coastal locations. Maine requires construction to be outside
                    of areas subject to wave action in a 100-year storm. North Carolina, New York, Michigan, and
                    South Carolina have adopted setbacks based on the extent of erosion risks. A number of states
                    have adopted construction standards for development in hazardous areas, such as the Maine
                    requirement for elevation of structures above flood levels and the California Bay Conservation and
                    Development Commission's requirements that new infrastructure incorporate earthquake and sea
                    level rise threats.


                    Natural Hazard MitiLyation Plans


                          Many coastal communities have addressed the problems caused by coastal storms and
                    natural hazards through comprehensive natural hazard mitigation plans. Oregon has established
                    state-wide land use planning goals which set specific standards for local communities to use for
                    natural hazard planning in their coastal zones. These goals limit development in areas subject to
                    natural disasters and hazards, coastal shorelands, and on beaches and dunes. A variety of tech-
                    niques to regulate development has been-implemented on-the-local level, including hazard overlay
                    zoning, site-specific geologic report requirements, and density bonus awards to developers who
                    avoid hazardous areas. A comprehensive hazard management program has been completed by the
                    New York CMP to address the problems of chronic flooding and erosion along the south shore of
                    Long Island. The program will spell out options, costs, and recommended. actions needed to cope
                    with continuing erosion, disjointed public and private responses, and sea level rise. In Puerto
                    Rico, 16 area-specific flood hazard mitigation plans have been undertaken under the CZM,
                    program. Completion of some of the planning documents is waiting on the provision of computer-
                    generated storm surge and wave height data being developed by the Sea Grant Program of the
                    University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.


                    Sea Level Rise


                          Several CMPs have concentrated on studying sea level rise and ways to mitigate its adverse
                    affects on coastal areas. In Washington, a sea level rise task force is examining the interactions
                    between sea level rise and vertical land movement, and is developing a citizen education program
                    on sea level rise. In California, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has
                    taken the initiative to implement policies concerning the coastal impacts of sea level rise. Under
                    these new policies, projects must incorporate sea level rise as a design criteria for development
                    projects. The BCDC has sponsored a workshop for local governments to encourage and assist
                    them in addressing the issue of sea level rise in their local plans and ordinances. And in New
                    Jersey, the impact of potential global sea level rise is being studied to aid coastal planning. Shore
                    retreat estimates will be determined using three different methodologies: trend analysis, Brunn
                    Rule calculations, and numerically derived sediment budget computations.


                    Coastal Erosion/Erosibn Control Structures


                          The high cost of erosion along many coastlines is being addressed by most CMPs. In North
                    Carolina, long-term erosion rates were determined by the CMP, and a permanent technical
                    advisory committee on coastal erosion was established to ascertain the cause and extent of erosion
                    and its impact on coastal development. The committee studies coastal erosion and reviews erosion
                    abatement projects. Study topics include: the economic impacts of erosion, erosion response
                    methods, and the cost and feasibility of relocating large structures threatened by erosion. A beach/

                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   69






                             Description of State Coastal Management Activity

                                       dune profiling system has been developed in New Jersey to monitor shoreline and beachfront
                                       conditions, including erosional trends. The system will be used to aid decision-making in beach
                                       design. Municipalities with significant erosion rates will be provided with large-scale mylar maps
                                       depicting local erosion conditions and predictions. The Shoreline Change Summary Map in
                                       Massachusetts identifies areas that are safe to build on or unsafe depending upon shoreline erosion
                                       rates.


                                             Regulating erosion control structures is of concern in many state CMPs. For instance, the
                                       Connecticut legislature amended the state's regulatory boundary from the mean high water line to
                                       the high tide line to better regulate erosion control structures and to be concurrent with the Corps
                                       jurisdiction, eliminating a loophole that had allowed some developers to build structures just
                                       above the mean high water line to avoid state regulation. The Connecticut. Coastal Management
                                       Act was also amended so that any structure which meets the statutory definition of a coastal flood
                                       and erosion control structure must be reviewed by municipalities for conformance with state
                                       coastal management policies and standards. Under the Maine Natural Resource Protection law,
                                       seawalls and other structures on or seaward of a frontal dune or in,high hazard areas are prohib-
                                       ited; while regulations promulgated by the North Carolina CMP prohibit permanent erosion
                                       control structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, groins or jetties. The Maryland CMP conducted a
                                       non-structural erosion control training program for contractors interested in providing services to
                                       private shorefront property owners receiving grants to implement nonstructural shore protection.


                                       Post Disaster Plans and Activities


                                             Many state CMPs have attempted to prepare coastal communities to deal with the aftermath
                                       of a natural disaster. The CMP in Rhode Island has approved regulations that provide post
                                       hurricane and storm permitting procedures. Included is the authority to impose a 30-day morato-
                                       rium on all development permits to allow time to assess damage and identify mitigation opportuni-
                                       ties. The North Carolina CMP mandates that all local governments prepare post-storm rebuilding
                                       plans. The Florida CMP is providing a grant to the South Florida Regional Planning Council to
                                       prepare a model post-disaster redevelopment plan (PDRP). The PDRP will provide local commu-
                                       nities as well as the state with guidelines for redevelopment after tropical storms and hurricanes.

                                             Shortly after Hurricane Hugo, the South Carolina CMP assessed each beachfront structure
                                       (including houses, pools, and seawalls) to determine which could be rebuilt under the 1988 Beach
                                       Management Act. Also following Hugo, educational programs stressing coastal programs and
                                       rebuilding methods were.held in each community. Citizens and landowners were informed about
                                       coastal hazards and the provisions of the Upton-Jones relocation program and Section 1362 of the
                                       Flood Insurance Act that can be used to reduce future property damage.


                                       NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT


                                             The coastal states have engaged in a wide varie  ty of activities in order to develop their
                                       natural resources, especially those resources that are endangered, are ecologically vital to the
                                       coastal region, or are of great importance to the states' economies. The Department of Natural
                                       Resources in Puerto Rico has taken a very comprehensive approach, using the CMP to protect and
                                       develop many different critical coastal resources, including beaches, mangroves, reefs, aquifers,
                                       sand deposits, and endangered species of flora and fauna. Special attention is being given to
                                       critical areas in Puerto Rico, such as beaches, that are vital for the continuing expansion of the
                                       island's tourism industry.






                             70                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                               Chapter Six

                   Aquatic Resources

                         The aquatic resources industry is a major source of revenue and jobs in many coastal states,
                   and several CMPs are making efforts to protect and expand the industry. In Alaska CMP funds
                   are being used to help identify sites for the development of mariculture, the cultivation of plants
                   and animals in seawater. Commercial and recreational fishing are of particular importance in
                   several states, as in New York, where the CMP has completed an economic study on the state's
                   commercial fishing industry to identify trends affecting the industry and propose public and
                   private solutions addressing adverse trends. In Massachusetts, a.pproximately $7 million was spent
                   to improve fish piers and other marine-related industry projects to enhance the. state's fishing
                   industry.

                         Shellfish are another important resource in coastal states. To protect and enhance soft-shell
                   clam stock reserves, an important recreational commodity along New Hampshire's coast@ the CMP
                   provided funds to purchase and place nettings in selected clam flats to reduce clam spat mortality
                   by protecting clams from predators. The Connecticut CMP maintains a close cooperative working
                   relationship with the State Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture Division, to Ensure that coastal
                   development does not adversely impact the shellfish resource or industry.

                   Energy Resource Develp
                                           @pment

                         Protecting the environment, while allowing for important oil, gas, and other energy resource
                   development is a priority of many state CMPs. The California Coastal Commission has used the
                   federal consistency process to ensure that 41 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas plans of
                   exploration, development, and production have included the necessary provisions to protect the
                   environment. The North Carolina CMP is also involved in a consistency review concerning plans
                   by Mobil Oil to explore off the North Carolina coast. Meetings between Mobil, their contractors,
                   and the state have been held concerning rules and regulations governing the activity. The Ala-
                   bama CMP has studied the socioeconomic impact of energy-related construction to better prepare
                   Alabama for future oil/gas exploration. And in Oregon, the CMP staff participated with other
                   state agencies on the state-federal Marine Placer Mineral Task Force, which is investigating the
                   economic and environmental aspects of exploration and recovery of marine placer mineral
                   deposits off the coast of Oregon.


                   Wetlands Protection


                         Wetlands protection and enhancement is an important aspect of many state CMPs. In New
                   Jersey, upland sites have been identified for ftiture wetlands mitigation banking to restore the past
                   loss of wetlands. Wetlands are restored at a rate of two acres created for each acre lost. In
                   Louisiana, a geological review procedure that reduces wetlands loss is being applied to an in-
                   creased number of energy exploration activities. The procedure has led to a decrease in the
                   average oil and gas canal length.


                   Ports and Marinas


                         Many state CMPs, realizing the value of their states' ports, harbors, and marinas, have
                   actively participated in efforts to create, preserve, and enhance these facilities. For instance, in
                   California, where commercial fishing is a very important industry, a Coastal Commission permit
                   for a marina was conditioned upon 80 percent of the marina's berths being reserved for commer-
                   cial fishing vessels. Navigation in New York Harbor has been enhanced by the New York CMP,
                   which has facilitated the development of the tidal guage system. Port users of New York Harbor
                   will be able to obtain time data on actual tide levels, wind speed and direction from four stations



                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                               71






                              Description of State Coastal Management Activity

                                       with this system. Port users will also be able to obtain this data via a telephone dial-up system
                                       linked to the users' computer.

                                       CMP Assistance for Plans and Commissions


                                             A frequent method by which state CMPs are involved in efforts to preserve ports and
                                       marinas is providing funds for the development of local management/development plans for
                                       harbor and marina facilities. The Guam CMP, for instance, helped fund a Master Plan for the Port
                                       of Guam, which addresses military and civilian commercial port needs, recruitment opportunities,
                                       and heavy industry opportunities. Oregon Port Division funding helped support the development
                                       of Strategic Business Plans by port districts. Each district must evaluate its marketing competi-
                                       tiveness to other ports in the region and set priorities for capital improvements and dredging
                                       projects. In New Jersey, CMP grants allow oceanfront communities to prepare harbor develop-
                                       ment plans, including a marina feasibility study and waterfront area design.

                                             Some CMPs encourage the creation of local commissions to create and implement harbor
                                       programs. The Rhode Island Harbors Management Project recommended the establishment of a
                                       Harbor Management Plan (HMP) in each of Rhode Island's 21 coastal towns. The HMP calls for
                                       the development of a local commission, as well as public workshops and a database to establish a
                                       management program for harbors that is consistent with the goals of the Rhode Island CMP. The
                                       Harbor Management Act in Connecticut also encourages the creation of local commissions; the
                                       Act authorizes municipalities adjacent to navigable waters to establish special Harbor Commis-
                                       sions to prepare and enforce local harbor management plans under supervision of the state's
                                       Coastal Resources Management Division. A harbor management plan essentially becomes a map
                                       for the use and management of a town's harbor lands and water. Once a town's plan is approved,
                                       the state is committed to employ standards established in municipal plans when rendering penrnit
                                       and enforcement decisions.


                                       Protecting Water Dependent Uses

                                             Several state CMPs focus on the need to preserve the waterfront for water dependent uses.
                                       Connecticut has developed strong water dependent use standards in the country; municipal
                                       decision-makers must take into consideration future impacts on water dependency and disallow
                                       diminishment of water dependent uses. The CMP in Rhode Island has co-sponsored a New Yorkl
                                       New England Coastal Zone Task Force study that promotes the feasibility of regulations and
                                       policies for the protection and development of water dependent uses. In New Jersey, areas within
                                       New York Harbor are being identified for long-term water dependent uses while allowing for
                                       waterfront revitalization. In Massachusetts, the state's CMP Designated Port Area (DPA) Pro-
                                       gram has identified twelve DPAs. Under this Program, both filled and flowed tidelands are
                                       reserved exclusively for either current or future maritime industry use. The Department of State of
                                       New York has taken a leadership role to revive and increase maritime activity of New York City
                                       Harbor by creating a "Coastal Management Advisory Committee on the New York Harbor
                                       Maritime Industry." The goal of the Committee is to assure the availability of maritime facilities
                                       by monitoring residential and commercial waterfront development and assessing land needs for
                                       water dependent industry activity.

                                       Marina3ifing

                                             Several states have issued guidelines for the siting of marinas along their coastlines. The
                                       Washington Department of Ecology is currently developing guidelines that include standards for
                                       siting marinas, as well as the design, renovation, or expansion of new and existing marinas. The
                                       State Port Authority in New Hampshire has completed a study on mooring placement; as a result
                                       of the study, an additional 165 moorings were sited within the study area.


                              72                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                      Chapter Six

                          In Puerto Rico, a Marina Siting Manua was prepared to provide information related to
                    marina siting and operation and the required permits. In Florida, a marina siting plan is being
                    developed using the computerized GIS. Data concerning shellfish harvesting areas and endan-
                    gered species are examples of information that will be analyzed from the GIS.

                    Safety in Ports and Marinas

                          Safety in ports and marinas is another concern of many coastal states. In Florida, a marina
                    evacuation study is being conducted by Metro-Dade County to generate evacuation plans for
                    berthed boat owners. In an attempt to identify problems associated with overuse, the Michigan
                    Department of Natural Resources initiated a boat use survey on one of the more heavily used lakes
                    in the state to determine if maximum watercraft capacity has been reached and if the lake has
                    become hazardous and unsafe for use. The report will be used to make future permit decisions on
                    expansion of marinas, boat launches, and other facilities.

                    Concerns for Water QjLalityMLedged Material

                          Several states have focused on measures for improving the water quality in harbors and
                    marinas. The Rhode Island CMP is participating in a state-wide marine interest group, the Boat
                    Sewage Management Task Force, that is developing recommendations for the improvement of
                    water quality in the state's ports and harbors. The Task Force has identified sources of water
                    pollution and measures for its improvement. In Maryland, studies have been conducted to identify
                    suitable dredged material disposal sites both for the navigational channels to the Port of Baltimore
                    and for the maintenance of channels to public and private marina facilities. The New York CMP
                    participates in the New York Harbor Dredging Steering Committee. The current focus of the
                    Committee concerns disposal methods for the 10 million cubic yards of dredged material gener-
                    ated annually.


                    INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                          In addition to these programs activities conducted by individual states, many coastal states
                    are making efforts to coordinate activities with their neighboring states with regard to common
                    natural resources and geographically shared areas. A wide variety of issues of common concern
                    have received attention using cooperative, interstate projects funded under Section 309 of the
                    CZMA. For instance, all coastal states have contributed to a national study of the public trust
                    doctrine, placing particular emphasis in its relation to today's coastal issues. The states of
                    Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York have completed three separate
                    studies designed to improve government decision-making concerning: 1) preservation and
                    protection of water dependent uses of regional waters, particularly with regard to commercial and
                    recreational boating facilities; 2) strengthening the public trust doctrine with regard to public
                    access, and 3) the development of an interstate policy to improve the effectiveness of floodplain
                    management.


                          New York and its sister Great Lakes coastal states have supported efforts by two Great
                    Lakes states and Canadian provinces to cooperatively manage their shared water resources. These
                    efforts have lead to the signing of the Great Lakes Charter and the development of formal consul-
                    tation agreements regarding activities affecting the Great Lakes.

                          Issues of particular joint interest among coastal states include: 1) coastal water quality as
                    exemplified by the cooperative effort of New York and New Jersey to improve the use of scien-
                    tific information concerning pollution problems in the Bight, and by the Chesapeake Bay Agree-
                    ment (supported by Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake
                    Bay Commission, and the EPA) which involves recent interest grants funded under the CZMA


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   73







                             Description of State Coastal Management Activity

                                      that focus on initiating a citizens' water quality monitoring network for each state surrounding the
                                      Bay and brings together leaders in various technical fields to develop toxicity assessment proto-
                                      cols; 2) dredged material disposal, as illustrated by the bi-state and federal agency agreement that
                                      will formalize the protocols for how and where open-water disposal of dredged material will be
                                      carried out in Long Island Sound; 3) management, as shown by the Gulf of Maine Working
                                      Group, which involves representatives from Canada and the U.S. working together to improve the
                                      management of the Gulf of Maine; and 4) hazard mitigation plans, such as the cooperative study
                                      carried out by Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi to develop a long-,range strategy for hurricane
                                      loss and contingency planning for their tri-state area.


















































                             74                                                                                     NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                      Chapter Seven

                           The distribution of federal grants under Sections 306 and 306A of the Coastal Zone Man-
                    agement Act (CZMA) reflects the diversity of the states participating in the national program and
                    the changes in national priorities over time. Dollar figures referred to below were gathered
                    through an extensive analysis of state program records maintained by the federal Office of Ocean
                    and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) and a review of the results of this analysis by state
                    coastal management program personnel. Because grants under Sections 306 and 306A provided
                    the bulk of federal funding for implementation -of CZM (CZM) efforts, the analysis of these grants
                    provides indications of the effects of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) upon
                    state coastal management efforts. Another major source of federal ftinding to states, the Coastal
                    Energy Impact Program, is discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.

                           The data resulting from this analysis should be interpreted in light of the nature of CZM
                    efforts. This analysis categorizes state CZM efforts as falling into one of seven broad subject
                    matter categories that are grounded in legislatively expressed areas of national interest. In reality,
                    some of the efforts of state CZM programs are multidimensional, serving a number of areas of
                    national interest. Still other program activities are not easily classified into one or another area of
                    national interest. For these reasons, a good deal of judgement was involved in some of the
                    categorizations of individual program activities. Thus, the comparative statistics presented below
                    should be viewed as general indicators of CZM priorities and the ways in which those priorities
                    were expressed in individual state programs rather than as a precise accounting of expenditures
                    under the CZMA.


                           A year-by-year summary of the expenditure of state grants under Sections 306 and 306A of
                    the Coastal Zone Management Act between 1982 and 1987 is contained in Table I., As Table I
                    illustrates, two subject matter categories accounted for the bulk of CZMA expenditures. Over the
                    period from 1982 to 1987, two thirds of the program's funds were devoted to improving govern-
                    mental decision-making and better natural resource protection. Four other subjects-public
                    access, urban waterfront development, hazards mitigation, and natural resource development-
                    received a secondary level of attention. Each of these four subjects received between 5 and 15
                    percent of the funding in each year of the study period. Finally, the seventh subject area, ports and
                    marinas, generally received 1-2 percent of the program's funds.

                           These data reveal a number of noteworthy trends that have emerged throughout the life of
                    the CZMA. These trends are illustrated in Table 2. An important long-term trend evident in these
                    data has been the relative decline of spending in the area of improving government decision-
                    making. Expenditures in this area over the period 1982-1987 declined from 45.65 to 36.35 percent
                    of total grants to states and territories. In general, this decline should be expected, as over time the
                    structures necessary to administer CZM programs are developed and become more firmly estab-
                    lished. Activity to streamline permit processing and develop detailed land use and other planning
                    was accomplished during the earlier years of the program in many states, freeing resources to
                    address other pressing problems.

                           It should be noted, however, that significant needs remain in this area. The actual amount
                    spent annually for improving government decision-making did not decline over the study period.
                    Rather, the amount spent remained relatively constant and, as overall program expenditures
                    increased, additional funds were devoted to other subject areas. This confirms the proposition that
                    a core of ongoing program activity is needed to maintain improvements in the governmental
                    decision-making process.




                    'As Virginia's coastal program was only approved in 1986, expenditure data for Virginia were not included in
                    this analysis.


                    Analysis of State Allocation of Coastal Management Funds                                                            75







                                  Analysis of State Allocation of Coastal Management Funds




                                                                                               TABLE I


                                                                                        PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
                                                                                                   BY
                                                                                           SUZJECT MATTER


                                            ---------------------------------         114TIOX@L INTEREST AREAS        --------------------------------


                                          @Improved     Natural                       Urban                          Natural
                YEAR                      :Government Resource         Public         Waterfront Hazards             Resource       Por.ts and
                                          :Decisions :Protection!Access               2evelopment:Mitigation,       :Development:Marinks         !Total         i


                1982   Dollars              15108075 :      7604515       2219712         2601890        2628828         2474713        455997 :   33093730
                       % of Total              45.65%:        22.98V          6.71%:          7.86,.:        7.94%:         7.48%1         1.33*1.:   100.00%i


                1983   Dollars              10233276        6125432       1471812 1       2096722        2143952         1582483        151584     23805260
                       % of Total              42.99%1        25.73V          6.18V           8.81%:         9.01%:         6.65%:         0,64'bi    100.00%:
                                                                       i
                1984   Dollars              11221738        7252165       1518781         2171692        1820319         1623565        300401     25908660
                          of Total        i    43.31%1        27.99%:         5.86%:          8.3W           7.03%:         6,27%:                    100.00%:


                1985   Dollars              11672878 1    10709483        5669404         3224528        3473762         2178772        767470     37696297
                       % of Total              30.97V         28.416:        15.04ot:         8.55%:         9.22%:         5.78%:         2.04%:     100.00%1'

                1986   Dollars              15981545 1    12520625 1      6180348         2203998        2444043         2603201        901794     42835556 1
                       % of Total              37.31%:        29.23V         14.4314:         5.15%1         5.71%1         6.08%@         2.11%;     100.009.@


                1987   Dollars              16474004      14022249        5237919         3272921        2717889         2563493        1027970    45315,447
                       % of Total              36.35%1        30.94%:        11.56%1          7.22%;         6.00%;         5.66%:         2.27%;     100.00%:
                                                        i              i                                            i              i                            i
                Total  Dollars              80691516 @    58234470 1      20826165,1     15571752       15228793 :     13026227 ;     3605216 ;208655@50
                       % of Total              38.67V         27.91%:         9.98%:          7.46%1         7.30V          6.24%:         1.73%:     100,00%:


                Total  (1982 Dollars):      73930076      52796776 1      20034997    1   14259697       13969763       11933415   1  3237976 ;190162700
                          of Total             .38. 88V       27.76%:        10.54%:          7.501.1        7.35"bi        6 .28cb':      1.70V      100.00V


               (Nominal and Real Dollar Totals)


















                                  76                                                                                                    NCRI-W-917003







                                                                                                                                                Chapter Seven





                                                                                                                      TABLE 2


                                                                                                     RELATIVE ALLOCATIONS BY STATE
                                                                                                                    1982-1987
                                                                                                           (CONSTANT 1982 DOLLARS)


                                                         ------------------         --------------         NATIONAL INTEREST AREAS            ----------------------------------


                                                         :Improved       Natural                           Urban                              Natural
                                  STATE                  :Government Resource            Public            Waterfront Ha7ards                 Resource          Ports and
                                                         :Decisions @Protection!Access                     @Development!Nitigation :Development:Marinas                         :Total


                          ALABAMA                              52.67T.:        11.43%:            1 . 8 3111b:      0.00%:          22.38%:             11 .70',*b      0.00%:       100 .000b,
                          ALASKA                         i     84.49%1           7.15%:           0.00%;            0 . 00,110, @      I . 20% 1        7.15%@          0.00%:       100.00%1@
                          AMEPACAN SAMOA                       51.44%;         21.49%:            5.56%:            0.00%:             0.00%:           19.85%:         1.66%:       100.00%:
                          CALIFORNIA                           58.71%:         21.44%:            4.3204',;         2.84"'.:           1.55%i           11.14*b:        0.00%:       100.00%:
                          CONNECTICUT                          13.78%1         21- 68%.:          13.19%:          -1 -3. 9 0'/' .: 15.43%:             5. 830b' @    16.19%@        100. 00*0:
                          DELAWARE                       i     11 .331',;      56.38%!            5.81%:           11 .33%'!           3.81%@           11 .33%@        0.00%:       100.00%:
                          FLORIDA                              14.46%:         70.271t;           0.1W              0. 951bl:       I I . 0 1 1%:       1.87%:          1.29*t:      100. 00".;
                          GUAM                           I
                                                               72.74%1         17.041:            5.001%i           0.88%:             1.40%1           2.93%:          0.00111.:    100.001a@
                          HAWAII                               59.01%:         27.68%1            3.90%:            0.00%"             5.53%:           3.88%:          0.00%:       100.00%i
                          LOUISIANA                            62.27%1         29.1 911t:         3.37%1            0.00%:             1.87%1           3.30%:          0 . 0 Olt,   100.00%:
                          MAINE                                32.61%1         18.73%;            8.88%:           14.29"b:            1.04%:           18.69%:         5.76%:       100.00%:
                          MARYLAND                             20.75%:         47.55%1            12.85t"!          0.90%:             8.66%:           5.03%:          4.24,',,@    100.00%@
                          MASSACHUSETTS                        16.52%:         35.94%:            11.09%:          12.83%:             5.24%:           4.53%1        13.86`%@       100.00%@
                          MICHIGAN                       1     33.5=           16.87%:            30.74%:           6.04%:          11.73cb':           0.73%:          0.39`t@      100.00%:
                          MISSISSIPPI                          22.73%:         29.27%':           17.38%:          14.82%:             3.66%:           9.30%:          2.85%@       100.00%!
                          NEW HAMPSHIRE                        49.93%;         28. 28T.:          12.96%1           2. 06% @           4.03%:           2.29%*1         0. 46%11;    100.0=
                          NEW JERSEY                           64.20%:         19.74%:            6. 8 4"'b' :      2.05%:             5.324%:          1.03%:          0.80%:       100.00%:
                          NEW YORK                             39.09"bi          8.31%;           5.45%;           29. Brt @        10.17%,             7.11%:          0.00%:       100.001t1i
                          NORTH CAROLINA                 i     34.29%!         36.04%:            28.09%:           0.34%@             1.13%:           0.10%@          0.0r.:       100.00%:
                          NORTHERN MARIANA IS.:                51.79%:         29.77%:            2.18V             0.001%@            3.00%1           13.26%:         0.00%;       ioa.00%:
                          OREGON                               52.085ft@       13.54%:            15.21%:           5.820t, :          3.07%@           10.28%:         0 . 00111b;  100.00%@
                          PENNSYLVANIA                         29.98%;         21.931             40.33%:           4.OS%@             3.681% :         0.00%:          0. 001% @    100.00%i
                          PUERTO RICO                            9.62%:        44.60%:            7.42%;            0.00%:          17.40%:             19.33%;         1.63%1       100.00%1
                          RHODE ISLAND                         361.4P@!        27.93%1            21.59*b@          7. 5"b @           1.31%1           2.62%:          2.5801.!     100. 00ev:
                          SOUTH CAROLINA                       48.14%!         21.99V             6. 45010':        0.00%;          21.06%:             2.36%:          0.00%:       100.00%:
                          VIRGIN ISLANDS                       83.53%@         16.04%@            0.00%:            0.00%i             0 . 0011%;       0.00%:          0 . 431. @   I 00.00OZ!
                          WASHINGTON                     i     10.53%1         39.58%;            19.68%:          12.98%:             1.29%1           15.66T.:        0. 28". 1    100.00%;
                          WISCONSIN                      i     15 . 6 4,t, 1   27.94%;            16.21%1          19 . 7 3111 1    16.29%:             4.2W            0.00%:       100. 0044 i


                          MAXIMUM, PERCENTAGE                  84.49%:         70.27*1*:          40.33%1          29.88%:          2 2. 3 r1b 1        19.85%:       16.19%@        100.001,10!
                          MINIMUM PERCENTAGE                     9.62%@           7.15%:          0.00%:            0.0=               0.00%:           0 . 0040, @     0.00%i       100. 0011b, ;
                          MEAN PERCENTAGE                1     40.44%1         27.42%;            10.95V            5.83%:             6.51%:           6.98V           I .87ot' 1   100.00%:
                          MEDIAN PERCENTAGE                    37.7W           24.84V             7.13%,            2.06'1'0@          3.7516:          4.78%:          0.14:        100.00%:






                          Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                                                  77







                              Analysis of State Allocation of Coastal Management Funds

                                              As the relative allocation.of funding to improve government decision-making has declined,
                                        the allocation. of funding to other subject areas has correspondinglyincreased. Perhaps the most
                                        dramatic increase in funding has been seen in the area of public access. In 1982 about 6.71
                                        percent of grants to states and territories were spent on improving public access to coastal re-
                                        sources. This percentage declined slightly over the next 2 years, but increased to over 15 percent
                                        in 1985. This increase in public access expenditures can be accounted for by two factors. First, the
                                        CZMA was amended in 1980 to require the production of analyses of beach access needs and
                                        plans to meet those needs. More significantly, in 1985 fimds became available under Section
                                        306A to fund land acquisition and construction of low-cost improvements for public access
                                        projects (boardwalks, parking lots, restrooms, piers, docks, etc., costing no more than $50,000).
                                        Beginning in 1985, states began to receive one allocation from OCRM for basic program imple-
                                        mentation (Section 306) and for these land acquisition and construction projects (Section 306A).

                                              Other subject areas have also displayed discemable funding trends. Over the period from
                                        1982 to 1987 natural resource protection increased its share of grants to states under the CZMA
                                        from 22.98 percent to 30.94 percent, paralleling growing public concern over the degradation of
                                        coastal ecosystems. Port and marina projects likewise claimed a greater share of grant funding,
                                        increasing from 1.38 percent of grant iftinding in 1982 to 2.27 percent of graptfunding in 1987.
                                        Theshare of grant funding devoted to two other areas of national interest, natural resource
                                        development and hazards mitigation, declined slightly over the period from 1982 to 1987. Yet
                                        another area of national interest, urban waterfront development, exhibited yW-to-year variations
                                        over the course of this period, but remained relatively stable in terms of its proportion of total
                                        grant funding.

                                              While the figures found in Table I suggest shifts in priorities and needs jthroughout the years
                                        between 1982 and 1987, caution should be exercised in assuming from these data the existence of
                                        long term trends and extending the results of this analysis past 1987 and into t 'he ftiture. It is likely
                                        that spending priorities are somewhat cyclical in nature, and the appearance ofa decline in
                                        spending in the short term may in fact be part of a long term pattern of rise and decline. In
                                        addition, spending in any given year is influenced by current needs and events that impose new
                                        demands on state CZM programs. For example, spending in the area of hazards mitigation might
                                        very well increase in the years following a season of especially severe coastal storms.

                                              The changes in expenditure patterns described above illustrate an important strength of the
                                        CZMA: its ability to evolve as state CZM programs gain greater experience.and to adapt to
                                        changing needs and public concerns. There is another aspect to this flexibility. While national
                                        trends in the expenditure of grants to states under the CZMA are worthy of consideration, the
                                        emphasis of individual CZM programs varies widely from state to state. Table 2 outlines the
                                        allocation of inflation adjusted Section 306 and 306A grant funding by state over the period
                                        between 1982 and 1987. These data illustrate that while CZM is indeed a national program with
                                        the ability to respond to changing national conditions and priorities, it is also a program with
                                        considerable flexibility to take adapt to local needs and demands,

                                              One of the most striking findings contained in Table 2 is that in only two subject areas,
                                        natural resource protection and improved government decision-making, did every state or territo-
                                        rial government participating in the federal CZM program expend some portion of its grant
                                        funding. In the other five subject areas at least two, and in many cases a relatively large number,
                                        of state and territorial governments chose not to expend any of their funding under the CZMA.
                                        However, at least two states or territories devoted over 10 percent of their available grant funds to
                                        each of these five subject areas.

                                              One cannot conclude from this variation that governments participating in the federal CZM
                                        program participate in only a narrow range of activities. Only two state or territorial governments


                               78                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                 Chapter Seven

                    expended grant funds in fewer than five subject areas, and only nine state or territorial govern-
                                                                                                               Z@
                    ments expended grant funds in fewer than six subject areas. Primarily represented among these
                    nine governments are U.S. territories and those states with relatively small coastal programs or
                    relatively homogeneous coastal areas.

                          Where states or territories choose to expend grant funding in one of the areas of national
                    interest, there is a wide range in the degree of emphasis that these governments choose to place on
                    that subject area. For example, the average state in the period from 1982 to 1987 expended 27.42
                    percent of its grant funds, adjusted for inflation, in the area of natural resource protection. Within
                    this area, however, there is a wide range of spending. Two states, Alaska and New York, chose to
                    spend less than 10 percent of their grant funds directly for natural resource protection between
                    1982 and 1987, while two other states, Delaware and Florida, spent more than 50 percent of their
                    grant funds for this subject during the same period. Thus, average expenditure patterns across all
                    participating governments do not tell the entire story of variety in the administration of coastal
                    zone management.

                         Further, the differences between mean and median percentages of Sections 306 and 306A
                    hmds spent by states and terTitories in each area of national interest suggest that state and territo-
                    rial spending does not follow a smooth, symmetrical distribution where spending by one state or
                    territory, one or another area, lies at a point upon a continuum of similar coastal management
                    programs. Understanding expenditures of grant funds under the CZMA thus requires more than a
                    notion of the "average" state coastal management program. It also requires a recognition of the
                    complexity and variety of the coastal zone and of the limitations of tabular data and broad catego-
                    ries in the characterization of state coastal programs.

                         The summaries of individual state programs in Chapter 8 provide a sense of the diversity of
                    state and territorial coastal management programs. These summaries, prepared in conjunction
                    with the collection of financial information discussed in this chapter, provide greater insight into
                    the differences between states and territories and responsiveness to local conditions that is a vital
                    part of the national CZM program.

























                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                    79






                                                                                                              Chapter Eigh


                   INTRODUCTION


                         The state and territory summaries in this section provide a better sense of the diversity of
                   individual state or territory coastal resources and management programs than can be gained from
                   the statistical information presented in Chapter 7. Each state summary consists of a state map
                   highlighting the coastal counties in that state and a brief table highlighting the state's coastal
                   resources. As county divisions do not apply with regard to territories, maps are not presented for
                   territories.


                         Also included for those states and territories with coastal programs approved by the federal
                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management is a more detailed description of each state's
                   coastal resources and coastal zone management program. This description includes information
                   about management challenges facing the state or territory's coastal resources, the state or terri-
                   tory's coastal zone boundaries and coastal zone management program, and selected accomplish-
                   ments of the state or territory's coastal program.

                         NOTE: The darkened portion of each state illustration indicates the coastal counties.






































                   Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs                                                       81







                                Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                           ALABAMA















                                                                                        Date of Program Approval: 1979
                                                                                        Federal Program Support 1982-1989:
                                                                                        Coastal GNP (1985): $3.9 Billion (8.0% of state total)
                                                                                        Coastal Population (19&5): 464,600 (11.6% of state total)
                                                                                        Shoreline Mileage: 607 miles
                                                                                        National Estuarine Research Reserves: Weeks Bay
                                                                                          (3,028 acres)



                                           COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                           SWeial/National Significance of Alabama's Coast
                                              Alabama possesses extensive bays, estuarine waters and wetlands, many species of birds, a
                                           valuable commercial fishing industry and a growing tourism industry, in addition to the barrier
                                           islands located in the Gulf of Mexico.


                                           Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                           ï¿½ Effects of potential hurricanes on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                                           ï¿½ Water pollution issues in Mobile Bay, Inter Coastal Waterways (ICWW), and Perdido Bay
                                           (Alabama/Florida).
                                           ï¿½ Restoration of shellfish beds, particularly oyster beds, which have declined in the past decade.
                                           ï¿½ Preservation of state's remaining wetland areas including monitoring and enforcement of Army
                                           Corp of Engineer (Corps) permits in wetlands, particularly permits requiring mitigation.
                                           . Development of gas fields in Mobile Bay and state coastal waters.

                                           COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

                                           Program Descdpji@on:
                                              Alabama's CZM activities are implemented by the Alabama Department of Environmental
                                           Management (ADEM) and the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs
                                           (ADECA). Much of the permitting and inspection activities are carried out through contracts
                                           between the state and coastal counties and towns.


                                           Defined Coastal Zone:
                                              The Alabama coastal zone contains the lands and waters between a continuous 10-foot inland
                                           contour to the seaward limit of the state's territorial water, including the coastal islands. The
                                           coastal zone contains some 51 miles of Gulf Coast and 453 miles of brackish and freshwater
                                           shoreline.


                                           Federal Program Sppport 1982-1989: $5.8 million




                                82                                                                                                NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                  Chapter Eight

                    Major Program Accomplishments:
                    . The Weeks Bay National Estuarine Reserve, located in Mobile Bay, was designated in 1986.
                    Many endangered species, such as the shovelnose sturgeon, Black pine snake, and Florida black
                    bear are found within the Reserve.
                    . Alabama significantly increased public awareness of the state's coastal resources through its
                    participation in the 1988 National Coastal Clean-up program.
                    . Authority has been delegated to Baldwin County and the Town of Gulf Shores to perform
                    permit reviews, septic tank inspections, building inspections, and to provide permit information to
                    citizens through permit information centers.
                    . A construction Control Line (CCL) used for setback development for Baldwin County, the
                    town of Gulf Shores, and the major portion of Dauphin Island, was successfully completed.

                    SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                    Protecting Natural Resources
                    . Alabama and Florida continue a coordinated joint research effort to analyze water quality
                    problems in the Perdido Bay.
                    . Alabama's CZM program completed an Environmental Education Program that included
                    training to teachers concerning coastal awareness issues, in addition to instructional manuals and
                    booklets.
                       In order to reduce waste loads to treatment-plants and area streams, the feasibility of commer-
                    cially marketing seafood waste has been studied.
                    . The Mobile-Tensaw River Delta, 289 square miles of water and wetlands, is classified as a
                    geographical area of particular concern.
                    . Studies to determine the feasibility of reestablishing the submerged grassbeds in Mobile Bay
                    continue.

                    Providing Public Access to Coastal Recrqgfim
                       A Public Acctss and Recreational Area pamphlet was prepared and distributed. In addition to
                    this access booklet, more public access signs were install to better identify these recreational areas.

                    Improving Government Qperations,
                    . A Coastal Area Devel2pment Guide has been completed to provide citizens with guidelines for
                    obtaining development permits.
                    . Permit information centers have remained available for persons who wish to obtain information
                    regarding the permit process. Field offices are operating in Mobile and Montgomery. Also,
                    permit information centers continue to operate in Baldwin County, the Town of Gulf Shores, and
                    the Town of Orange Beach.
                       Conflict resolution methods were developed to address development issues arising from
                    competing water-dependent development interests.

                    Developing Natural Resources
                    . Alabama's Coastal Area Management Program (CMP) has studied the socio-economic impacts
                    of energy-related construction to better prepare Alabama for future oil-gas exploration.
                    . Alabama's CMP identified critical spawning and early growth areas for certain commercially
                    valuable species of fish.

                    Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazard
                    . The Dune Protection Program, instituted to prevent the destruction of Alabama's dunes and
                    beaches, continues to be supported by the CMP. Part of the Dune Protection Program provides for
                    daily patrolling (in a random pattern) of the beaches in order to detect unpermitted vehicular
                    traffic, destruction of sea oats, and other violations.
                    . A shoreline monitoring program has been implemented to analyze shoreline changes in order to
                    monitor beach erosion rates.

                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                    83







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                      ALASKA



















                                         Date of Program Approval: 1979
                                         Federal Program Support 1982-1989:
                                         Coastal GNP (1995): $5.9 Billion (53-5% of state total)
                                         Coastal Population (19M): 392,600 (73.8% of state total)
                                         Shoreline Mileage: 33,904 miles


                                      COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                      SpecialfNational SigWficance of Alaska's Coas
                                         Alaska's coastal resources contain vast, healthy ecosystems together with renewable and
                                      nonrenewable resources, especially energy resources. Three-quarters of the state's population lives
                                      in close proximity to the coast. Many of these people earn their living directly or indirectly from
                                      Alaska'a coastal resources.


                                      Princit)al Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                      ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal resources, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                                      ï¿½ Effective management of the environmental impacts resulting from the extraction of fossil
                                      energy sources.
                                      . The continued protection of commercial and subsistence resources, including Alaska's fish
                                      habitats and timber resources.
                                      . Preservation of the state's wetlands.


                                      COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

                                      Program Description
                                         The Alaska Coastal Management Act (ACMA) of 1977 is the basis for the Alaska Coastal Zone
                                      Management Program (ACMP). The Alaska Coastal Policy Council (CPC), the governing body
                                      of th'e ACMP, with representatives of seven state agencies and nine public members, administers
                                      the ACMP.


                                      Defined Coastal Zone
                                         Alaska's coastal zone is defined by a boundary system which assesses the relationships
                                      between the marine environment and the terrestrial environment. The boundary system contains
                                      three main elements: the inland boundary, the seaward boundary, and areas excluded from the
                                      coastal zone (i.e., federal lands).

                                      Federal Prop-ram Support 1982-1989: $16.1 million.




                             84                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                         Chapter Eight

                  Major Program Accomplishments
                  . The ACMP has a unified coastal consistency review process that streamlines and coordinates
                  all state permits and leases in addition to the state's review of Federal actions that affect the
                  coastal zone. This coordinated process provides a single-point of contact for project applicants
                  and expedites the permit process. In 1988, for example, the ACMP review of oil and gas projects
                  were completed in an average of 29 days. This review process also includes provisions for public
                  involvement by local coastal districts and people living near a proposed project.
                  . The ACMP has provided local governments (cities and boroughs) and regional coastal resource
                  service areas with funding and technical assistance to undertake planning and to develop local
                  coastal programs. Through the ACMP, local communities and regions have been able to bring
                  their priorities for coastal resource protection and development into state and federal decision
                  making. In many of the smaller communities, the local coastal plan represents the first compre-
                  hensive planning effort.


                  SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                  Protecting Natural Resources
                  . Alaska's CMP funds are being used to develop site design and rehabilitation measures to
                  restore gravel mine sites in the North Slope oil fields.
                  1. The Anchorage District Program has used CMP ftuiding to develop a revegetation manual for
                  restoring disturbed wetlands sites.
                  . Marine debris is becoming an increasingly serious problem in Alaska. CMP funds are being
                  used to increase public awareness of the problem and public participation in its resolution through
                  community beach clean-up events. In cooperation with Sea Grant, the ACMP has developed a
                  how to booklet on conducting beach clean up.

                  Improving Government OT!gration
                  . Alaska's CMP held special workshops for coastal district staff to explain the consistency
                  review process and to educate local governments about their role in this process. Training
                  sessions for potential applicants were also conducted.
                  . Alaska's CMP is involved in an interagency effort to provide continuous on-site monitoring
                  and enforcement for the North Slope Monitoring Project (oil and gas development activities).
                  . Alaska's CMP provides funding and technical assistance to coastal boroughs and districts to
                  help implement and monitor local programs and to participate in the state consistency review
                  process. To date, the ACMP have helped 31 localities develop local coastal programs.
                     Tlie ACMP is working with the state Division of Natural Resources (DNR) to develop a
                  recreation mana ement plan for the Nushagak and Mulchatna Rivers. This management plan
                  should help resolve growing conflict between user groups (subsistence, sport, comm   ial, and
                  recreation).
                  . The ACMP has coordinated a Marine Debris Task Force, established to increase public
                  awareness of marine debris issues and galvanize local action through beach cleanups.

                  Developing Natural Resources

                     Alaska's CMP funds are being used to help identify sites for the development of mariculture,
                  the cultivation of plants and animals in seawater.
                  . As a result of Alaska's expedited permit process, the consistency review process for the Red
                  Dog lead and zinc mine were completed in 43 days (compared with the 180 days allowed by
                  Federal regulations.) This translates in a savings of $1.9 million in interest savings. Upon full
                  operation, the Red Dog Mine will be the largest domestic zinc producer.





                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                            85







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                      AMERICAN SAMOA














                                                             Date of Program Approval: 1980
                                                             Lead Agency Development Planning Office
                                                             Average Annual Federal Support 1982-1989: SA Million
                                                             Coastal GNP (1985): Not Available
                                                             Coastal Population (1985): 37,100 (100016 of,territory total)
                                                             Shoreline Mileage: 126 Miles






                                      COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                      Special/National Significance of American Samoa's Coas
                                        The Territory of American Samoa, the only United States territory located south of the equator,
                                      consists of seven islands. The islands possess unique and valuable resources, such as the coral
                                      reefs that surround the islands and Pago Pago Harbor.

                                      Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                      . Continuing efforts to improve the water quality of Pala Lagoon and inner Pago Pago Harbor.
                                      Pago Pago Harbor's water quality has been severely damaged from tuna canneries, boat refuse,
                                      and oil spills.
                                      ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal resources, especially in erosion hazard area.
                                      ï¿½ Continuing outreach efforts by the Development Planning Office (DPO) to work with village
                                      chiefs to understand the need for land use planning for protecting American Samoa's significant
                                      coastal resources. The American Samoan people mostly live on communally-owned land, headed
                                      by a matai or chief. The chief manages the village's land as well as the village's economic,
                                      political, legal and social affairs.
                                      ï¿½ Protecting the Territory's coral reefs from significant stress due to filling and sedimentation.
                                      ï¿½ Increasing enforcement of land use permit conditions and implementation of the stop work
                                      order provision, when necessary, for development projects.


                                      COASTAL PROGRAM IN-FORMATION


                                      ProgLam Descripjim
                                        Authority for the American Samoan Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) is provided by an
                                      Executive Order. The Executive Order contains sixteen objectives and policies concerning the
                                      coastal zone, as well as procedures for all permit reviews by the ASCMP. The Develo    ent
                                                                                                                          ,pm
                                      Planning Office (DPO) is responsible for the implementation of the ASCMP. The DPO operates
                                      the permit process to assure consistency with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.  A land
                                      use permit is required for all uses, developments, or activities that impact the coastal zone.





                             86                                                                                     NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                       Chapter Eight

                    Defined Coastal Zone
                       The coastal zone includes all lands as well as Territory waters and submerged lands extending
                    seaward 3 miles. Federal lands are excluded.


                    Federal Program SWVort 1982-1989: $3.5 million.

                    Major Program Accompjishments
                    . The ASCMP has led an ongoing interagency effort to cleanup the inner Pago Pago Harbor.
                    Pago Pago Harbor is considered one of the finest natural harbors in the South Pacific. This
                    cleanup effort led to an increase in public awareness and support for the Harbor.
                    . The ASCMP has developed a revised Project Notification and Review System (PNRS) that
                    decreases permit approval time and coordinates interagency reviews. The revised permit system
                    differentiates between major and minor permits. Minor permits currently take 1-3 days for
                    approval compared to 3-5 weeks under the old process; major permit projects are now processed
                    in 10- 15 days compared to 2-3 months under the old system.


                    SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                    Protecting Natural Resources
                    . The ASCMP has been actively involved in cleaning up Pago Pago Harbor. CZMP funds have
                    been used to contract with a local boat owner who has the authority to issue fines and citations-to
                    polluters and to patrol the harbor daily to remove debris. The boat's crew has also received
                    training to clean up oil spills.
                    . The Marine Awareness Program, sponsored by the ASCMP, is a highly successful public
                    awareness and education program. The Program includes a boat trip, as well as research competi-
                    tions for school children. For example, over 5,600 eighth grade students have participated in boat
                    trips around the island of Tutulia on various research and monitoring expeditions. Also, high
                    school students participating in "Amerika Samoa Marine Symposium" conducted and presented
                    research projects concerning the marine environment to scientists, teachers, peers, and the general
                    public.
                    . Coast Week'88 activities provided additional public awareness for the ASCMP. Coast Week
                    activities included reef walks, a sign and trash can painting competition, beach clean-up, and
                    lectures on coastal resources.


                    Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                    . The ASCMP has constructed an archaeological park to restore and maintain the Tafuna "Tia-
                    Lupe" (star-mound) site for public use and to include the site in its registry of Historic Parks. The
                    "Tia-Lupe" is located at the edge of a virgin lowland forest that is the last of its kind. Although
                    the exact fimction of these rock formations is not known, it is hypothesized that they were used for
                    ancient pigeon and dove hunting around 1300-1400 A.D.
                    . ASCUT funding has catalyzed efforts to increase public access towards the Fisheries dock.
                    The Malaloa Bulkhead, which was constructed as part of the major Fagatogo Downtown Redevel-
                    opment Project, provides better water access and mooring for recreational and comm               ial fishing
                    fleets.


                    Promoting Urban Waterfront Development
                       The Malaloa Bulkhead project has opened the door for four new marine dependent businesses
                    operating adjacent to the bulkhead.

                    Improving Government Operations
                    . As part of the revised PNRS, an Interagency Review Committee has been established to aid the
                    new permitting process. Under the revised system, an interview between the applicant and review
                    agencies is required to determine what permits will be necessary for the project and to explain the


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                          87








                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                       application procedures.
                                          The DPO undertook a local outreachprogram to the local village chiefs to gain the chief s
                                       support for the ASCMP and foster their participation in the Program.
                                          The ASCMP is working closely with the Department of Public Safety to stop the illegal mining
                                       of sand and coral rubble. Increased enforcement (routine beach patrols) as well as public outreach
                                       and education efforts are being implemented to control this problem.

                                       Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                                         The ASCMP has commissioned a study of Landslide High Hazard Areas for the Territory,
                                       which will eventually result in upgraded construction standards and/or review criteria for construc-
                                       tion within such zones.










                                       CALIFORNIA


                                                                                   




                                       COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION

                                       Special/National Significance of California's Coast
                                          The California coast is an area of unsurpassed beauty containing rich and varied resources. The
                                       coastline includes mountain ranges, streams, rocky shores, beaches and islands, in addition to vast
                                       renewable and nonrenewable offshore resources. California also possesses one of the largest
                                       natural bay-estuary systems in the world-the San Francisco Bay.

                                       Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                        Increased and rapid residential and commercial development is reducing open space and
                                       encroaching on valuable wildlife habitats in the San Francisco Bay area and is degrading limited
                                       coastal resources in Southern California.
                                        Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate and natural resources, especially in erosion
                                       hazard, wetlands and subsiding areas.

                              88                                                                                         NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                               Chapter Ei ht

                   ï¿½ Encouraging coast-dependent development over other development on the coast.
                   ï¿½ Increased enforcement efforts to better monitor permitted projects and activities and detect and
                   enforce unpermitted activities.

                   COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

                   Program Descripti
                      California's Coastal Management Program (CMP) is administered by two separate agencies,
                   the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the California
                   Coastal Commission (CCC). The BCDC has responsibility for the San Francisco Bay area. Its
                   activities are governed by the McAteer-Petris Act and the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act. The
                   CCC has responsibility for the rest of the coast. The CCC was established by the California
                   Coastal Act, which also requires all coastal cities and counties to prepare local coastal programs to
                   implement the Coastal Act at the local level.


                   Defined Coastal Zone
                      California's coastal zone is made up of two segments; an ocean coastline segment and a San
                   Francisco Bay segment. The ocean coastline segment extends 3 miles seaward and inland far
                   enough to include important coastal estuarine habitat, and recreation areas. In rural areas, the
                   coastal zone extends up to 5 miles inland. In developed urban areas, it extends as little as a f@w
                   hundred feet. The San Francisco Bay segment of the-coastal zone includes all of San Francisco
                   Bay and the Suisun Marsh and extends inland 100 feet from the shoreline of San Francisco Bay.

                   Federal Program Sul2pW 1982-1989: $18.6 million.

                   Major Program Accomplishments -
                   . CZM funds have been used to acquire public access, valuable coastal wetlands, and coastal
                   areas of archeological significance.
                   . Obtaining public accessways along California's coast has been an important element of
                   California's coastal management program. Both the BCDC and the CCC review all development
                   projects for public access impacts. In the last 2 years, 44 miles of beach access have been opened
                   along the California coast. Public access mitigation is frequently required as a permit condition.
                      Since 1970, BCDC's permitting program has resulted in the creation of over 1,100 acres of new
                   Bay surface.


                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protecting Natural Resources
                   . To help protect the San Francisco Bay area's decreased wetland and open space inventory,
                   CZM funds were used to help purchase the Rush Ranch in Suisun Marsh in Solano County.
                   . CZM funds have been used by the California Coastal Conservancy to develop wetlands
                   restoration and enhancement plans and habitat conservation plans for Federally endangered
                   species.
                      California contains two National Estuarine Research Reserve Programs, Elkhorn Slough and
                   Tijuana River, which provide research and educational opportunities.

                   Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreatio
                   . Since BCDC was established, over 96 miles of public access to the Bay Shoreline has been
                   provided.
                   . Established prior to the CZMA, the BCDC has stimulated public interest and impetus to
                   provide the framework for establishing the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This national
                   park hosts 25,000,000 visitors per year.



                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                  89







                                Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                             Using the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA, the CCC was'able to acquire an
                                          abandoned railroad corridor from the Southern Pacific Railroad. This corridor has been developed
                                          into a regional recreational trail that hosts a Monarch Butterfly forest, Fisherman's Wharf,
                                          Steiribeck's Cannery Row, and sea otter observation points in addition to other recreational
                                          amenities.
                                          . Again, using the consistency review process, the CCC negotiated an'agreement with the Air
                                          Force to permanently preserve 135 acres of land at White Point and create White Point Park; an
                                          important urban coastal park. The Department* of Parks and Recreation estimates that when
                                          finished, the park will generate $600,000 in tourism generated revenue per year.

                                          Promoting Urban Waterfront Development
                                             The California Coastal Conservancy publishes a quarterly magazine, "Calif6rnia Waterfront
                                          Age", to provide an evaluation of private and public initiatives for waterfront restoration.

                                          Pfeservina Ports and Marinas
                                             CZM funds were used to help Sonoma County develop a plan to provide a badly needed marina
                                          for the state's commercial fishing industry. The Spuds Point Marina was developed to provide
                                          full-service facilitie@ to the commercial fishing,industry.. The terms of the permit by the CCC
                                          det@rmined that at least 80 percent of the marina's berths must be reserved for comm             ial fishing
                                          vessels. The marina also provides public fishing access along the breakwater.

                                          Improving Government QWrations
                                          . The Design Review Board (DRB), a panel made up of eminent architects, landscape architects,
                                          engineers and site planners, advises the BCDC on whether the designs for projects proposed along
                                          the San Francisco Bay shoreline will provide public access. The BCDC uses the DRB's recom-
                                          mendations to assure that the public access in BCDC-approved projects will be effective and
                                          inviting.
                                          . The BCDC has established an Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRBY, a panel consisting
                                          of geologists, civil engineers specializing in soils engineering, structural engineers, and architects,
                                          to review all major projects proposed to be built on new Bay fill so that appropriate safety mea-
                                          sures are incorporated into the project designs. The independent engineering review provided by
                                          the ECRB has assured that the structures built on new Bay fill over the past two decades have been
                                          designed to reflect the latest information on seismic safety. As a result, the projects scrutinized by
                                          the ECRB suffered very little damage during the 1989 earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area.
                                          . A total of 43 out of 71 Local Coastal Plans (LCP) have been certified by the CCC, including 12
                                          out of 15 counties. Certification by the CCC results in the transfer of permitting responsibility to
                                          the local jurisdictions. In addition, the CCC is responsible for reviewing the LCPs every 5 years
                                          for consistency with the California Coastal Act.
                                          . The CCC has an effective working relationship with many federal and state agencies. Particu-
                                          lar efforts have been made over the last year to improve relations with other federal agencies. For
                                          example, the CCC and the Minerals Management Service are considering scheduling periodic
                                          meetings to discuss application or project status (of exploration activities), in addition to policy
                                          and consistency concerns.
                                          . The BCDC is consolidating its three application forms into one form and has prepared easy-to-
                                          understand instructions for completing the form. The BCDC allowed applicants to use the new,
                                          form on a trial basis for 5 months and revised the form and instructions to reflect the results of the
                                          trial. The application form can be used for federal consistency submittals as well as for permit
                                          applications.

                                          DevelgVmg Natural Resources
                                             Using the federal consistency process, the CCC has worked to ensure that 41 OCS oil and gas
                                                  Z@
                                          plans of exploration, development and production have included the necessary provisions to
                                          protect the environment.


                                90                                                                                                 NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                          Chapter Eight

                  Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                     The BCDC has taken the initiative to implement policies concerning the coastal impacts of sea
                  level rise. Under these new policies, projects must incorporate sea level rise as a design criteria
                  for development projects. The BCDC has sponsored a workshop for local governments to
                  encourage and assist them in addressing the issue of sea level rise in their local plans and ordi-
                  nances.





















                  CONNECTICUT


















                                           Date of Program Approval: 1980
                                           Federal Program Support 1982-1989: S5.7 Million
                                           Coastal GNP (1985): W.6 Billion (33.8% of state total)
                                           Coastal Population (1985): 1,973,900 (62.2% of state total)
                                           Shoreline Mileage: 618 miles



                  COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                  SWcial/National Significance of Connecticut's Coast
                     Connecticut contains the northern shoreline of Long Island Sound, which is a protected estuary
                  commonly referred to as America's Mediterranean, comprised of extensive salt water tidal
                  wetlands, shellfish beds, significant recreational boating facilities, and a nuclear submarine base.

                  Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                  ï¿½ Water quality/nutrient enrichment in Long Island Sound.
                  ï¿½ Restoration of diked or degraded coastal marshes (restoration potential for 8,000-10,000 acres).
                  ï¿½ Balancing further expansion of recreational boating with the protection of sensitive coastal
                  resources.
                     Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.


                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                              91







                              Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                       COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION'


                                       Program Description
                                           Balancing.the realistic need for coastal towns to grow economically with the responsibility to
                                       preserve and protect Connecticut's natural resources and marine heritage for future generations'.

                                       Description of Coastal Zone
                                           The Connecticut coastal zone consists of all lands within the interior contour elevation.of the
                                       I 00-year frequency flood zone or a f 000 foot setback from the mean high water mark or a 1,000
                                       foot setback from the inland boundary of mapped tidal wetlands, whichever is farthest inland.

                                       Federal Program SgVVW 1982-1989: $5.8 million.

                                       Major Rmgram Accomplishments
                                       . Municipal coastal programs provide. municipalities with an effective way to identify specific
                                       resources, design long-range land use plans, and address coastal issues of particular local concern..
                                       To date, nearly every Connecticut coastal town has completed a municipal coastal program.
                                           As direct result of the statutorily-mandated coastal site plan review proce9s; conditions on
                                       project approvals have been imposed providing over 8 miles of new public access which would
                                       otherwise not be available to the general public.
                                       . The CZMA contains policies and standards for the protection of coastal reï¿½ohrces. All federal
                                       and state activities and permits and local zoning decisions must conform with these policies and
                                       standards, which are highly protective of fragile natural resources, and more permissive for the
                                       less sensitive resources and developed waterfronts. As a result, allowable land uses all along the
                                       state's shoreline are based upon-the ability of specific coastal resources to accommodate them
                                       without significantly degrading the@ environment.
                                           The Department of Environmental Protection used fimding from a Coastal -Energy Impact
                                       Program (CEIP) grant to establish a Mid-Coast/Lower Connecticut River Oil Spill Cooperative as
                                       well as three other, smaller cooperatives located in the Greenwich, Milford and Groton area. The
                                       funding covered the purchase of boats and oil spill containment equipment, the design of a training
                                       course for local officials and volunteer firefighters, and the development of Connecticut's Oil Spill
                                       Contingency Guide to identify and'prioritize environmentally sensitive coastal resources and to
                                       outline specific emergency protection strategies in the event of a spill.
                                       . Connecticut places high priority on wetland restoration and protection efforts. Over the past 10
                                       years, some of the more significant efforts have included:

                                           the restoration of the Long Cove marsh in Guilford-restoring a channel across the beach and
                                           cleaing the ditches and creeks to reintroduce tidal-flushing and control mosquitos in the mile-
                                           long marsh utilizing more modem, less environmentally damaging techniques;

                                           the development of a use andmanagement plan for the 800-acre Bluff Point Coastal Reserve in
                                           Groton, placement of signs cautioning visitors about the location of fragile resources and
                                           nesting areas, and designation of a portion of'the reserve as a wildlife sanctuary;

                                           the construction of the Great Creek flood control project in Milford-reintroducing significant
                                           tidal circulation in the marsh so that plant and animal habitat will be restored as well as
                                           relieving flooding problems in nearby homes during periods-of heavy rain;
                                           and the development of a management strategy for the 380 acres of tidal wetlands at Barn
                                           Island in Stonington. Implementation is resulting in the reintroduction, after 40 years, of tidal
                                           flushing to sections of the upper marsh In conjunction with other planned marsh restoration
                                           activities, this will attract more waterfowl and shorebirds to the area and will increase recre-
                                           ationa I opportunities while returning diked sections of marsh to their natural, state.


                              92                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                               Chapter Eight

                      The Connecticut Coastal Embayment Advisory Board was established by the legislature in
                   response to a coastwide survey funded and supervised by the Coastal Management Program
                   (CMP), which evaluated the environmental condition of the state's embayments. The board
                   developed standards to evaluate the environmental quality of embayments, and then selected and
                   supervised three cove improvement pilot projects along the coast. As a result of these efforts, a
                   statewide embayment restoration program was established by the legislature in 1986.
                   . The Harbor Management Act authorizes, on a voluntary basis, towns adjacent to navigable
                   waters to establish special harbor commissions and to prepare and enforce local harbor manage-
                   ment plans under the supervision of the state's CMP.


                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protectin2 Natural Resources
                   . The CZMA requires that towns conduct coastal site plan reviews (CSPR) for all coastal
                   development projects in the coastal boundary to determine their potential beneficial and adverse
                   effects on coastal resources. Planning and zoning commissions and zoning boards of appeals
                   conduct these reviews in conjunction with zoning and building permit reviews. Developers are
                   required to assess the potential impacts of their projects and to demonstrate that the proposed
                   activities are consistent with the policies and standards of the Act.
                   . The Department of Environmental Protection denied an expansion application for Cedar Island
                   Marina in 1989 which would have resulted in the destruction of-more than-16 acres of intertidal
                   flats for 396 new slips. The Department determined that the applicant had not sufficiently
                   demonstrated the acceptability of coastal resource impacts nor that no feasible and prudent
                   alternatives exist. The CZMA provides specific policies and standards which require the preserva-
                   tion of intertidal resources, and this denial is consistent with these policies and standards.
                   . At Milford Point, a barrier beach located within Milford's high-velocity flood hazard area,
                   proposed condominiums which would have destroyed coastal resources and posed a clear danger
                   to life and property in the event of coastal flooding were denied based upon serious conflicts with
                   the applicable coastal management standards and direct staff involvement during the coastal site
                   plan review process. Ultimately, Milford Point was purchased and made a part of the Connecticut
                   Coastal National Wildlife Refuge.
                   . Coastal Resources Management staff assisted in the designation of Connecticut's first coastal
                   Natural Area Preserve at Hammonasset State Park in Madison and Clinton in 1985. As a result,
                   special protection has been provided to over 400 acres of pristine salt marsh, beaches and critical
                   habitat for coastal birds.
                   . As components of their municipal coastal programs, many coastal municipalities incorporated
                   wetland setbacks into their zoning, regulations, providing assurances that adjacent development
                   will proceed in a manner which precludes adverse wetland impacts. Branford, Clinton, Darien, the
                   City and Town of Groton, Old Lyme, Waterford, Westbrook and Westport are among those with
                   the most protective regulations.
                   . A CEIP grant, combined with matching funds, allowed the City of New Haven to purchase
                   tidal wetlands adjacent to the Quinnipiac River. This marsh is highly valued not only for its
                   biological and habitat values, but for its aesthetic and historic significance as well.

                   Providin.2 Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                   . Public access required during the mandated CSPR process has provided the general public with
                   over 8 miles of walkways, parks and scenic viewpoints which would not otherwise have been
                   available.
                   . Two of the more impressive accessways include a walkway nearly 2,000 feet in length in an
                   urban port in Stamford and a combined effort by developers of adjacent properties in Westport
                   which yielded a walkway approximately 1,500 feet long along the Saugatuck River.
                   . The Coastal Resources Management Division (CRMD) played a key role in the successful
                   efforts to develop public access to Sheffield Island and its historic lighthouse off Norwalk by


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Pi-ogram                                                 93







                               Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                        improving the docking facilities on the island, allowing regular and safe transportation to the
                                        historic lighthouse via a small ferry for caretakers and the general public.
                                        . Other innovative access projects funded by the CMP include a handicapped access ramp at
                                        New London's City Pier and improvements to foot bridges of an abandoned trolley trail known as
                                        the Branford Trolley Trail, which is now used as a wetland walkway and nature trail.

                                        Promoting Urban Water Develppment
                                        . The CRMD has worked closely with the City of New Haven toward the revitalization of the
                                        city's waterfront. First, the waterfront was rezoned as part of New Haven's Municipal Coastal
                                        Program, and a significant intertidalfiat area was preserved. At the conclusion of a design
                                        competition, the city selected the Long Wharf Maritime Center project, a $250 million Mixed use
                                        project featuring office, public access, retail, and marina development. The project is in phase two
                                        of development, and public access has been established across the entire waterfront at this large
                                        si te.
                                        . Norwalk's waterfront has undergone a dramatic transformation,'Aich has been influenced
                                        sigriificantly by Connecticut's coastal policies and standards. A CRMD grant enabled the city to
                                        look closely at redevelopment potential at the seaport area. One of the outcomes of this effort is
                                        the $26 million Maritime Center, which opened in 1988. Coastal management funds have also
                                        been used to plan for major improvements at the city's central waterfront park and new docking
                                        facilities at the Sheffield Island Lighthouse for public landings and access to this historic structure.

                                        Preserving Ports and Marinas
                                        . Connecticut has some of the strongest water dependent use standards in the country, requiring
                                        that municipal decision-makers take into consideration future impacts to water dependency and
                                        'disallow diminishment of water dependent uses.
                                        . The Harbor Management Act was implemented in response to increased coastwide pressures
                                        and competing demands for harbor use and development. The act authorizes municipalities
                                        adjacent to navigable waters to establish special harbor commissions to prepare and enforce local
                                        harbor management plans under the supervision of the state's Coastal Resources Management
                                        Division. A harbor management plan essentially becomes a map for the use and management of a
                                        town's harbor lands and waters. Once the state approves a town's plan, the state is committed to
                                        employ standards established in municipal plans when rendering permitting and enforcement
                                        decisions. Planning efforts have been initiated in many communities, including Bridgeport,
                                        Chester, Clinton, Darien, East Lyme, Essex, Fairfield, Fenwick, Groton, Guilford, Milford, Noank,
                                        Norwalk, Norwich, Old Lyme, Stonington, and Stratford. Stonington, Milford, and Norwalk now
                                        have state-approved plans.

                                        Improving Government QVerations
                                        . In July of 1988, the CRMD assumed the direct responsibility for the permitting and enforce-
                                        ment of regulated coastal activities. Staff is focusing on providing environmentally sound and
                                        consistent decisions on applications, as well as attempting to streamline the permitting and
                                        enforcement processes to reduce the backlog of permit applications and pending violations.
                                        1. Using federal and state CMP funding, 36 eligible coastal communities have prepared municipal
                                        coastal programs to improve their ability to review coastal development projects and manage
                                        significant coastal resources. In addition, Stratford has recently completed a draft plan which has
                                        been state-approved. It will probably be locally adopted in 1990.
                                        . In cooperation with the Corps, the CRMD has effectively reduced duplicative permit review
                                        and processing through the approval of Corps general permits for minor regulated activities. This
                                        eliminates the need for duplicative public notices for minor activities, but still ensures that they are
                                        carefully scrutinized by the CRMD. Additionally, the state and the Corps participate in monthly
                                        joint permit processing meetings.
                                        . Through the federal coastal cousistency nocess, the CRMD successfully resolved a conflict
                                        between Navy security interests and public access on the Thames River for public and commercial


                               94                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                  Chapter Eight

                    fishing. Rejecting the Navy's original proposal, which would have precluded general public use,
                    CRMD staff negotiated a compromise which improves security while allowing most public uses.
                       Working with state coastal management staff, local officials are developing harbor manage-
                    ment plans with competing resource user groups such as recreational boaters, marina owners/
                    operators and commercial shellfishing operators.

                    Develgpm
                             L-g Natural Resources
                       Using federal coastal funding, Connecticut has developed a comprehensive fisheries manage-
                    ment strategy. This strategy will better track marine environmental conditions, measure trends in
                    shellfish and finfish yield, and identify emerging interstate fisheries issues and challenges.
                    . State coastal management officials have investigated the market potential for aquaculture
                    development in Connecticut and the New England region. The CRMD also maintains a close
                    cooperative working relationship with the State Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture Division,
                    to ensure that coastal development does not adversely impact the shellfish resource or industry.

                    Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                    . In 1987, the state legislature amended the state @ s regulatory boundry from the mean high water
                    line to the high tide line in order to better regulate coastal erosion structures and to be concurrent
                    with the Corps'jurisdiction. This eliminated a loophole which allowed some developers to build
                    structures just above the mean high water line to avoid state regulation. Also, the CZMA was
                    amended so that any structure which meets the statutory definition of a coastal flood and erosion
                    control structure must be reviewed by municipalities for conformance with state coastal manage-
                    ment policies and standards.
                    . In 1979, coastal management staff prepared and published the Shoreline Erosion Analysis an
                    Recommended Planning Process as the foundation of a long-range strategy to identify and reduce
                    the risks to lives and property *in the coastal region. The book details historic shoreline changes in
                    Connecticut from the 1700s to the present and shows the average rates of erosion and the direction
                    of sand and sediment movement along the entire coastline. This information has been useful to
                    both state and local officials in evaluating coastal development proposals.


                    INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                    . A federal 309 grant was awarded to Connecticut, and Coastal Management Program staff are
                    currently coordinating a studyof the National Public Trust Doctrine with particular emphasis on
                    its relation to today's coastal issues.
                    . A water dependent use study of the New York/New England region was completed in 1989.
                    The results of this study verified that water-dependent uses can be profitable and protected at the
                    same time. It also reafirmed the wisdom of policies which effectively preserve public trust
                    tidelands and abutting waterfronts for water-dependent purposes.
                    . Another 309 grant awarded Connecticut involes the preparation of a Dredge Materials Manage-
                    ment Plan for Long Island Sound. A bi-state and federal agency agreement (die interim plan) will,
                    once revised, formalize the protocols for how and where open-water disposal of dredged materials
                    will be carried out in Long Island Sound.
                    . Connecticut is also involved with another interstate effort with the state of Rhode Island which
                    includes efforts to manage the Pawcatuck River basin which is geographically shared and regu-
                    lated by the two states.
                    . Connecticut Coastal Management staff have been working with New York Coastal Manage-
                    ment staff on the establishment of the "Bi-State Long Island Sound Marine Resources Committee"
                    recently enacted jointly by the legislatures of both states to coordinate the management and
                    cleanup of the Sound and propose any management-related legislation that may be necessary in
                    each of the two states.






                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                     95







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                     DELAWARE











                                                                            Date of Program Approval: 1979
                                                                            Federal Program Support 1982-1989: S4, 7 Million
                                                                            Coastal GNP (1985): $7.0 Billion (51.90/. bf state total)
                                                                            Coastal Population (1085): 622,100 (100% of state total)
                                                                            Shoreline Mileage: 381 miles










                                     COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                     SWcial/National Significance of Delaware's Coast
                                        Delaware's coast, tidal wetlands and inland bays offer both important habitats for birds,
                                     waterfowl, and fish and extensive recreational opportunities. Two federal national wildlife..
                                     refuges, Bombay and Prime Hook, are located in the state.

                                     Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                     . Intense recreational demands, in addition to second home and retirement home development
                                     pressures from nearby urban areas (Washington, D.C., Baltimore and Philadelphia).
                                        Degradation of the Inland Bays and other coastal waters due to poor agricultural practices and
                                     residential and marina development.
                                     ï¿½ Continued loss of freshwater wetlands; over 120,000 acres have already been lost.
                                     ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard, Areas.

                                     COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                     Program Descript
                                                      @io
                                        Delaware's Coastal Management Program (CMP) relies primarily on four state laws, including
                                     the,Beach Preservation Act, which controls use of beaches and dunes, and die Delaware Coastal
                                     Zr one Act, which requires permits for industrial activity, including manufacturing, in the state's
                                     coastal areas.


                                     Defined Coastal Zone
                                        Delaware's coastal zone includes all of the state. The entire state is located less than 8 miles
                                     from coastal waters. The state's coastal beach strip is 24.5 miles in length.

                                                      Support  198
                                     Federal Program              2-1989: $4.7 million.

                                     Major Program Accomplishments
                                     . Under the Inland Bays program, the state CMP has initiated an innovative nonpoint source
                                     pollution program designed to reduce erosion, septic tank pollution, stormwater flow, and agricul-
                                     tural rtmoff into coastal waters. Improved agricultural practices such as no-fill planting and

                            96                                                                                     NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                             Chapter Eight

                   poultry manure management are promoted through county conservation district programs (in
                   Sussex, Kent, New Castle and the Murderkill River Corridor) and cost-sharing programs ftinded
                   by the CMP. Additional work in the Inland Bays is being sponsored by the Environmental
                   Protection Agency's (EPA) National Estuary Program.
                   . The state's Development Advisory Service (DAS), which is funded by the CMP, provides early
                   advice to project developers regarding state permit requirements and reduces permit time for
                   qualified projects. The DAS reviewed over 500 projects during 1987 and 1988, receiving a
                   commendation from the Governor's Environmental Legacy report in 1988.
                      New housing constructed in shoreline areas is protected from ftiture storin damage through
                   setback requirements.
                   . Delaware's CMP has played a key role in recent gubernatorial initiatives designed to strengthen
                   state environmental protection, including the state's Environmental Legacy Report and Executive
                   Order 56, which requires state agencies, where possible, to conserve and enhance freshwater
                   wetlands. The CMP also supported development of a non-tidal wetlands report which outlines a
                   freshwater wedand regulatory program.

                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protecting Natural Resources
                   . Delaware's CMP has catalyzed the purchase and acquisition of key additional park and natural
                   areas, including 35 acres-to Killens Pond State Park, 2 acres to Brandywine Creek-State Park, 6.5
                   acres to the Murderkill River Nature Preserve, and 29 acres to the Delaware City Community Park
                   District.
                   . State coastal officials have actively restored unique wetland habitats, including the Great
                   Marsh, which is used by over 55 species of birds and waterfowl.-
                      The state CMP has aggressively used computer mapping and other surveying techniques to
                   prevent new private building and other encroachments on the State owned extensive recreational,
                   wildlife habitat, and natural areas.


                   Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                   . The state CMP has constructed recreational accessways, including anew signing program
                   designed to ensure that the public safely reach newly-designated surf fishing areas.
                      The state CMP has also provided for the reconstruction of interpretative trails at Cape
                   Henlopen and Delaware Seashores State Parks.

                   Improving Government Qperations
                   . Conservation district coordinators have been funded by the CMP to promote local government
                   cooperation and provide technical assistance to farmers in implementing the state's nonpoint
                   source management program.
                   . Working with the Corps, Delaware's coastal management program has reduced duplicate
                   development permit requirements. As a result, the Corps' General Permits are jointly processed
                   with relevant state permit requirements.
                      Delaware CMP officials led an effort to develop a new state fisheries law which has ended a
                   multi-year dispute between the state's commercial and sport fishing industries.
                   . Delaware CMP officials were instrumental in mitigating a dispute between the Delaware
                   Department of Transportation (DOT) and the EPA concerning the construction of a highway over
                   a wetland area. Under the compromise that was reached, the DOT agreed to build 200 foot bridges
                   over the area for $2 million instead of EPA's proposed bridge which would have cost the DOT $8
                   million.


                   Develgjp@in& Natural Resources
                      Under the CMP-funded Conservation District program, state officials have developed a forestry
                   management plan for 5,000 acres of state-owned woodlands in the New Castle District.


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                 97







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                      Mitigatin2 Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                                      . A Legacy Program report, -Beach 2000," identified beach erosion and mitigation and the
                                      management measures to correct this problem as one of Delaware's most significant environmen-
                                      tal challenges. Delaware's CMP provides technical expertise to the Environmental  Legacy
                                      Program.
                                      . Delaware's coastal program has initiated a number of programs to protect and enhance the
                                      value of coastal real estate, though the institution of beach erosion controls, rebuilding of dunes
                                      after storms, and funding of beach restoration programs.
                                      . Delaware's CMP has become a national leader in developing innovative open marsh water
                                      management techniques, using mosquito control methods which minimize the use of pesticides.














                                      FLORIDA















                                              Date of Program Approval: 1981
                                              Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $18.8 Million
                                              Coastal GNP (1985): $98.1 Billion (62.1% of state total)
                                              Coastal Population (19&5): 9,246,800 (81.3% of state total)
                                              Shoreline Mileage: 8,426 Miles
                                              National Estuarine Research Reserves: Apalachicola (193,758 acres)
                                               and Rookery Bay (9,400 acres)



                                      COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                      Special/National Significance of Florida's Coast
                                         Florida's coastal region is the state's most important asset. The state possesses extensive
                                      wetlands, estuarine systems and bays, in addition to major industrial centers and military bases.
                                      Tourism is the state's leading industry, and its beaches are the state's major tourist attraction.

                                      Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                      . Uncontrolled and extensive development along Florida's coastline has caused deterioration in
                                      the water quality of the state's marine and estuarine systems.
                                         Preserving the quality and quantity of Florida's ground water supply to be used as drinking
                                                                                             tal)


















                                      water. Competition for groundwater between agriculture and industry have produced shortages of

                             98                                                                                     NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                              Chapter Eight

                   potable water.
                   . The destruction of primary sand dunes as a result of improper development has caused erosion
                   of Florida's beaches. This has resulted in decreased recreational and aesthetic value of the
                   beaches, in addition to loss of life and property.
                   ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                   ï¿½ Preservation of Florida's remaining wetlands and mangrove areas.

                   COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                   ProgLarn Descdption
                     The Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) is based on existing laws and regulations.
                   Although the entire state lies within the coastal zone, local governments eligible for CZM funds
                   are confined to those Gulf and Atlantic coastal cities and counties which are contiguous to State
                   water that contains marine species and vegetation. Also only projects within the coastal counties
                   are generally reviewed for consistency. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) is
                   the agency designated to implement the FCMP, although the DER works closely with the Depart-
                   ments of Natural Resources and Community Affairs and the Governor's Office of Planning and
                   Budget.

                   Defined Coastal Zone
                     The entire state, including its territorial waters are part of Florida's coastal zone.,

                   Federal Program SgppW 1982-1989: $18.8 million.

                   Major ProgLarn Accomplishments
                     The Henderson Wetlands Protection Act was approved in November 1988 as an amendment to
                   the FCMP. The Act will provide better protection of wetlands through a more comprehensive
                   statute.
                   . As a result of CZM grants, ten coastal counties in Apalachicola and West Florida were able to
                   accelerate the preparation of hurricane evacuation plans. These plans were completed just before
                   two major hurricanes, Elena and,Kate, hit the Florida coast. All affected counties were success-
                   fully evacuated as a result of these evacuation plans.
                   . Florida contains two National Estuarine Research Reserve Systems, Apalachicola and Rookery
                   Bay. The Apalachicola Reserve is the largest of all the National reserves, encompassing 193,758
                   acres of land and water. Rookery Bay Reserve contains mangrove forests, marshes and open
                   waters, in addition to endangered species, such as the pelican and bald eagle.
                   . The FCMP is involved in an interagency effort to provide improved policy direction, manage-
                   ment and protection of the State's estuarine systems. A current ma@jor effort of this program is to
                   assist in basin-wide, coordinated management techniques in priority estuarine systems.


                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protecting Natural Resources
                   . The FCMP has focused its efforts to develop a statewide perspective of estuarine pollution and
                   to develop an overall estuarine management policy. This includes the development of long-term
                   goals to monitor changes in estuaries from pollution and to prevent declines in water quality. The
                   initiative has focused on four watershed systems, Lower Mantanzas River, Little Manatee River
                   and Turkey Creek Watershed and the Mayakka River watershed.
                   . The FCMP is coordinating efforts with the Department of Education to integrate an environ-
                   mental education program (that includes coastal awareness) into the public school curriculum.
                   . Funding provided by the Coastal Management Program has allowed Florida's Aquatic Preserve
                   Program to develop a management plan for many of the state's aquatic preserves. Management
                   plans are needed to protect these important resources from degradation due to the extensive


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Progi-am                                                99







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                     population growth that has occurred in Florida over the last several decades.
                                     . The FCMP is helping to fund a project to develop a database on rare and endangered species.
                                     The database will aid the state and local decision making process concerning land use planning
                                     and will provide- habitat protection for endangered species.

                                     Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                        With the help of FCMP funding, Martin County was able to develop a management plan for
                                     Hutchinson Island. The plan included a local bond referendum whichgenerated local investment
                                     to acquire land for public access,

                                     Preserving Ports and Marinas
                                     . A marina evacuation study is being conducted by Metro-Dade County to generate evacuation
                                     plans for berthed boat owners. Potential boating evacuation patterns will be analyzed (from a-
                                     survey of boat owners) in order to recommend alternative evacuation programs and policies.
                                     . The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council is developing a marina siting plan using
                                     the computerized Geographic Information System (GIS). Data concerning shellfish harvesting
                                     areas'and endangered species are examples of information that will be analyzed from the GIS.
                                     The purpose of this study is to protect the water quality of the Halifax River and Indian River
                                     Lagoon estuary systems from degradation due to human factors such as poor marina siting criteria.

                                     Impioving Government Qperations
                                     . The state legislature has enacted several major laws concerning the management of Florida's
                                     coastal resources. Examples of these are: 1) the Apalachicola Bay Protection Act which ad-
                                     dresses water quality, fisheries and estuarine issues along the Bay; 2) The 1985 Coastal,Zone
                                     Protection Act which imposes strict construction standards in sensitive portions of the coastal area,
                                     and 3) the Henderson Wetlands Protection Act, which provides increased protection to Florida's
                                     wetland areas.
                                        Florida's CMP is coordinating its estuarine initiative with national estuarine management
                                     pr.ogrants within NOAA and the EPA.
                                     . Under the Wetlands Act, a system to monitor and inventory wetlands has been established.
                                     The program monitors wetland losses that have resulted from permitting activities as well as
                                     wetland acreage that has been restored due to mitigation or permit conditions. The inventory also
                                     includes wetlands lost to unpermitted activities.

                                     Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                                     . As a result of CZM funding, much needed hurricane evacuation plans for Apalachicola and
                                     West Florida were completed in a timely manner. Successful evacuation during hurricane Elena
                                     resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in America (1.25 million people).
                                     . The CZM is providing a grant to the South Florida Regional Planning Council to prepare a
                                     model post-disaster redevelopment plan (PDRP). This PDRP will provide local communitites as
                                     well as the state with guidelines- for redevelopment after tropical storms and hurricanes. For
                                     example, the study will provide instructions for decision maldng concerning the repair and
                                     relocation of damaged structures.


                                     INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                                     . Florida and Alabama continue a coordinated joint research effort to analyze water quality
                                     problems in the Perdido Bay.
                                     . The states of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi have completed a cooperative study to develop
                                     a long-range strategy for hurricance loss and contigency, planning for their tri-state area.






                            100                                                                                   NCRI-041-003







                                                                                                          Chapter Eight


                   GUAM














                                          Date of Program Approval: 1979
                                          Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $3.7 Million
                                          Coastal GNP (1985): $0.4 Billion (100% of territory total)
                                          Coastal Population (1995): 124,000 (100% of territory total)
                                          Shoreline Mileage: 110 Miles








                   COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                   Special/National Significance of Guam's Coast
                     The Territory of Guam, which is the southernmost and largest island in the Mariana's Chain,
                   possesses unique and valuable resources including estuaries, fringing reefs, barrier reefs, patch
                   reefs, barrier reef channels, fringing reef channels, mangroves, seagrass beds, cut benches and
                   submarine cliffs and ravine forest. Guam's limestone forests are unique natural areas that provide
                   wildlife habitat for many rare and endangered species, and collection areas for medicinal plants
                   and edible animal life such as the coconut crab.


                   Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                   ï¿½ Resort and residential development threatens certain ecological communities.
                   ï¿½ Point source pollution from sewer outfalls and storm drains has created serious problems in
                   Pago Bay, Sleepy Lagoon, Ylig River and nonpoint pollution from solid waste land fill into Pago
                   River and other areas. Nonpoint source pollution firom septic tanks and inadequate septic systems
                   threatens groundwater resources in the northern part of the island.
                   ï¿½ Periodic typhoons with wind strength attaining 200 mph and associated storm surge.
                   ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal resources, especially in erosion hazard areas.


                   COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                   Program Desgfipti
                     The Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP) is a networked program with the Guam
                   Bureau of Planning (BPO) as the lead agency. The Program is implemented through various
                   executive orders, the Comprehensive Planning Enabling Legislation, Zoning Law, Subdivision
                   Law, Territorial Beach Act, and the Territorial Seashore Protection Act. Land use decisions are
                   made by the Territorial Land Use Commission (formerly the Territorial Planning Commission)
                   and the Territorial Seashore Protection Commission; all other coastal resource and development
                   decisions are made by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency, Public Utility Agency, and
                   the Departments of Public Works, Land Management, Parks and Recreation, Public Health and
                   Social Services, and Agriculture.



                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                             101







                             .Summaries, of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                        Defined Coastal Zone
                                           The entire island, includijjg the surrounding sea to the 3-mile territorial limit, is included under
                                        the GCMP's jurisdiction.

                                        Federal Prop-ram'Sppport 1982-1989: $3.7 million.

                                        MaJor Program Accomplishments
                                           The Bureau of Planning (BOP) has strengthened its role as intermediary for all natural resource
                                        issues and reviews all plans and proposed legislation for the Governor. This emphasis on natural
                                        resource issues will ensure the GCMP that the implementation of its coastal policy goals will be
                                        met.
                                        . The BOP and the Land Use Permit Task Force worked together to obtain amoratoriurn on new
                                        public land leases over the northern water lens area.

                                        SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                        Protecting Natural Resources
                                        . The GCMP has begun to work closely with the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) to increase
                                        public awareness concerning the protection of historic and pre-historic sites from destruction as a
                                        result of development activities. The GCMP is supporting the HPO to produce posters to increase
                                        public awareness, a handbook for developers detailing their responsibilities regarding historic
                                        materials found at their development site and any new legislation and regulations that may be
                                        necessary to increase the protection of this valuable resource.
                                        . A land use training video was developed to be used as an educational and public awareness
                                        tool. The video will be aired on local television stations and in school classrooms.
                                        . Environmental educational materials were prepared for grammar school-aged children to
                                        increase their public awareness of coastal issues.

                                        Providin2 Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                        . The completed Public Access to Shoreline SWdy identifies public access sites for residents
                                        seeking recreation as well as public access sites for land use planners. The pamphlet lists all
                                        public access points and facilities and includes a map of an these facilities.
                                        . Using CZM funds, construction improvements at a newly acquired public park at Cocos Island
                                        have attracted 47,000 visitor days per year compared to zero visitors before the improvements
                                        were made. CZM money was used to build facilities such as restrooms and showers.

                                        Preserving Ports and Marinas
                                           The GCMP helped fund the Master Plan for the Port of Guam, which addresses military and
                                        civilian commercial port needs, recruitment opportunities and heavy industry opportunities.

                                        Improving Government QVerations
                                        . The GCMP has taken the lead as a coordinator in resolving conflicts between various users of
                                        the nearshore waters (mechanized water craft users, windsurfers, snorklers, swimmers, surfers, and
                                        other recreational users) and environmental concerns. This effort has resulted in an approved plan
                                        which confines mechanized vehicles to specific locations and will conclude with the adoption of
                                        permanent rules and regulations. GCMP coordinated the views of all government agencies and
                                        private citizens through a series of working meetings and public hearings.
                                        . In June 1986, the "Guide to Land-Use Decision Making For Territorial Planning Commission/
                                        Territorial Seashore Protection Commission Members" was completed. The book is used as a
                                        decision making and informational tool. As a result of this book, several national objectives have
                                        been promoted, including natural resource protection, coastal development management and
                                        construction, and simplified government decisioninaking procedures.
                                           The GCMP has produced guidelines for federal consistency, including a simple "fill in the


                                                                                                                            NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                          Chapter Eight


                   blank" form.
                     The GCMP developed two products for government personnel charged with inspecting and
                   enforcing the varius land-use laws of Guam. These books, Training and Reference Guide for
                   Building InsWctors on Zoning and Land-Use Laws and Regulatio , and Inspectors Fieldbook are
                   designed to assist in training inspectors and in providing a handy reference document to be carried
                   in the field.


                   Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                     The GCMP was intrumental in the development of flood hazard rules and regulations for
                   review of projects in defined floodplain or flood hazard areas.











                   HAWAII,







                                                                  ow








                                                    Date of Program Approval: 1978
                                                    Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $5.6 Million
                                                    Coastal GNP (1995): $11.6 Billion (a5.8% of state total)
                                                    Coastal Population (1985): 1,053,5W (100% of state total)
                                                    Shoreline Milcaac: 1,0S2 Miles
                                                    National Estuarine Research Reserves: Waimanu Valley (3,600 acres)




                   COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                   Special/National Significance of Hawaii's Coast
                     Hawaii's coastal area contains resources of great recreation, scenic, historic, and scientific
                   value. The state, which consists of 8 major and 116 minor islands, provides critical habitat areas
                   for the islands' unique wetland birds, strand plants, and maritime and freshwater aquatic species,
                   in addition to strategically located military bases. Tourism is the state's largest industry, and the
                   coastline is the state's largest tourist attraction.

                   Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                   ï¿½ Improvement of the regulatory processes for development activities.
                   ï¿½ Development of a comprehensive management plan to address issues of emerging development
                   pressures (i.e., marina and tourism development) on Hawaii's resources.
                     Increased efforts by the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program to expand public


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                             103







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                       awareness about the state's coastal program.
                                          Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.

                                       COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                       Program Description
                                          Hawaii's CZM program is based on seven objecti,@6s with supporting policies. A permit
                                       system to assure that developments comply %vith the objectives and special management areas
                                       (SMA) in the shoreline areas, the counties administer the Hawaii CZM program (i.e., protecting
                                       coastal ecosystems, reducing hazards, etc.)


                                       Defined Coastal Zone
                                          The coastal zone includes the waters from the shoreline to the seaward limit- of the state's
                                       jurisdiction and all land areas excluding those lands designated as state forest reser'ves.

                                       Federal Progmin SLipport 1982-1989: $5.6 million.

                                       Major Program Accomplishments
                                          Asa result of a public access initiative by the Hawaii CZM program from 1984-1986, the
                                       Hawaii Legislature appropriated $644,000 to continue the work of the public access program.
                                       This statewide public access program-included an inventory of existing public Access sites, and
                                       recommendations to acquire additional sites.
                                          The Hawaii CZM program has helped developers better understand and participate in the
                                       regulatory process through the Consolidated Permit Application Process (CAP). This applicant-
                                       initiated procedure is particularly advantageous when multiple permits are involved and reduces
                                       the time for permit processing. A brochure explaining the CAP has been mailed to development
                                       and other professional organizations to encourage their use of the process.


                                       SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                       Protectin Natural Resources
                                       . The Kauai Historic Preservation Cominission has played a significant role in preserving the
                                       County's archaeological and historical resources. The Commission developedthe Kauai Historic
                                       Resources Management Plan which provides the fi-amework for the preservation efforts. The plan
                                       includes a record of local historic resources, site survey criteria and standards- for permit reviews.
                                       . The Hawaii CZM program is helping to create a database of rare and endangered plants and
                                       animals to help the counties and other agencies develop natural resource protection plans and
                                       development review strategies.


                                       Providin2 Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                          "Adopt-anmaccess" project, implemented by the County of Maui, was a highly successful
                                       volunteer program that alleviated the pressure to use county funds to maintain access projects.
                                       The county recruited individuals and organizations to help maintain selected acces'sways.
                                       . The County of Maui also improved public shoreline accesses by installing signs identifying
                                       access areas and by organizing onsite cleanup efforts at these access areas.
                                       . The Kauai Beach Access Inventory has provided the county with a basis for maintaining public
                                       rights to accessways and easements and for protecting these accessways from,encroaching -
                                       &velopment and redevelopment pressures. The inventory includes copies of assessor's maps,
                                       deeds, and deed restrictions.
                                       . A Honolulu Coastal View Study has successfully addressed the issue of public coastal view
                                       protection. Proposed development on Oahu has raised concern over the impact that these develop-
                                       ments might have on the County's important public views. This study will provide policy
                                       guidelines to developers and the public concerned with this issue.


                              104                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                               Chapter Eight

                   Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazard
                   . The Hawaii CZM program is developing a management program to address the problem of
                   erosion. The goals of the program are to maintain beaches for recreation uses, maintain coastal
                   water quality, reduce hazard to life and property, and preserve Hawaii's biological diversity.
                   . The Kauai Beach Warning Program has significantly increased the safety of offshore swim-
                   ming for residents and visitors in the county. A brochure prominently displays Beach Safe!y iips,
                   which include an emergency call number and water safety signs to identify dangerous swi           g
                   conditions and tips for safer swimming. This brochure has been distributed throughout the
                   County.












                   LOUISIANA

















                                                            Date of Program Approval: 1980
                                                            Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $17.1 Million
                                                            Coastal GNP (1985): $26.4 Million (45.1% of state total)
                                                            Coastal Population (19a5): 3,467,800, (77.3% of state total)
                                                            Shoreline Mileage: 7,721




                   COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                   SMial/National Significa e of Louisiana's Coast
                      Louisiana's diverse coastal resources contain 40 percent of the nation's coastal wetlands. The
                   state's vast estuarine systems and bays provide 28 percent of the nation's fishery harvest and much
                   of the country's sugar and rice. Louisiana also provides the largest individual state contribution of
                   oil and gas from its petroleum and natural gas reserves.

                   Principal Coastal Threats and Emer&g Challenges
                   . Large-scale restoration projects as well as better management techniques are needed to preserve
                   Louisiana's remaining wetlands. Significant wetland loss and coastal erosion (40-60 sq. mi./yr.) is
                   a result of natural and man-induced factors, such as relative sea-level rise, leveeing of the Missis-
                   sippi River for flood control, channelization of waterways, and direct and indirect impacts from
                   energy development activities.


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   105







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                         The creation of better administrative procedures, such as a fine and/or penalty system to
                                      effectively deal with permit violations
                                      ï¿½ Effects of relative sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                                      ï¿½ The degradation of water quality from point and nonpoint source pollution in the state's
                                      estuarine systems such as Lake Pontchartrain, Barataria Basin, and the Mermentau River.


                                      COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                      Program Description
                                         The Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP) is based on the State and Local Coastal
                                      Resources Management Act of 1978 in addition to other pre-existing state laws which are incorpo-
                                      rated into the program. The LCRP is implemented primarily by the Coastal Management Divi-
                                      sion/Department of Natural Resources (CMD/DNR) through a permit program and coordination
                                      with pre-existing state permits. Local governments may assume responsibility for the permitting
                                      of certain uses of local concern by developing a local coastal program.


                                      Defined Coastal Zone
                                         The inland boundary of the coastal zone includes all or part of 19 parishes; the seaward
                                      boundary extends to the outer limit of the United States territorial seas. Federal lands are ex-
                                      cluded.

                                      Federal Program Sppport 1982-1989: $17.1 million.

                                      Major Program Accomplishments
                                         The Louisiana Coastal Management Program has developed two general permits that simulta-
                                      neously expedite energy exploration activities and minimizes the loss of wetlands. The new
                                      permit procedures, in concert with a required geologic review process, have decreased the destruc-
                                      tion of wetlands for the average oil and gas canal from 5.5 acres in 1983 to 2.5 acres in 1988 while
                                      saving the oil and gas industry over $1 million (from decreased permit processing time). The
                                      applicant must prove for each permit that there are no less damaging alternative sites or access to
                                      the site.
                                      . Since 1983 the LCRP and the U.S. Corps have issued joint public notices for permitting
                                      activities that fall within the domain of New Orleans district and the Louisiana Coastal Zone. This
                                      joint notification policy has decreased the permit review time, and has resulted in an annual
                                      savings $5.3 million to the oil and gas industry.

                                      SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                      Protecting Natural Resources
                                      . The LCRP is continuing to evaluate the effectiveness of marsh management planning as a
                                      technique for preserving wetlands. The LCRP has provided funding for a contract with the U.S.
                                      Soil Conservation Service to develop a manual to be used as a policy guideline for marsh manage-
                                      ment. The LCRP has also identified wetlands that should receive priority attention for federal and
                                      state acquisition.
                                      . The LCRP has developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) which facilitates the permit
                                      review process as well as allowing the state to conduct analysis such as monitoring wetlands loss.
                                      . The LCRP is developing a special area management plan (SAMP) to improve the water quality
                                      for Lake Ponchartrain. Urban runoff and sewage dischar,,,;,e has significantly decreased the water
                                      quality of this heavily used lake.
                                      . Public awareness of LCRP activities and coastal issues has increased in recent years because
                                      the state Coastal Management Division (CMD) has taken an active role in public outreach and
                                      education. This outreach program has involved speaking to environmental, civic and industrial
                                      organizations, as well as providing educational materials to schoolteachers.


                             106                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                          Chapter Eight

                      To address the problem of coastal debris and trash, the LCRP has compiled a pictorial inven-
                   tory of unauthorized trash and litter sites located in the coastal zone. These pictures were used
                   during Coast Week '88 to increase public awareness to this problem.

                   Improving Government Qperations
                   . The LCRP has increased its efforts to provide technical assistance to local parishes to develop
                   local coastal programs (LCPs). To date, the LCRP has approved eight LCPs and is cwTently
                   working with four additional parishes to develop plans for a local coastal program.
                      To improve consistency between state agencies, a LCRP staff member is serving as a liaison
                   between the CMD and the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Office of Water
                   Resources on two water quality programs. The staff member will participate on committees,
                   comment on documents for the CMD and coordinate CMD activities with the DEQ to avoid
                   duplicative efforts between the two agencies. Also, the consistency staff member will review the
                   present oil contingency plan for potential environmental effects and adequacy of procedure.

                   Develppmg Natural Resources
                      A geological review procedure that decreases wetland loss is being applied to an increased
                   number of energy exploration activities. Formerly, oil and gas canals of 500 feet or less in length
                   or oil field roads of 1,500 feet of less in length (threshold lengths) in wetlands did not have to
                   undergo a geological review. However, recent research has shown that these threshold lengths are
                   not justifiable; therefore, all proposed exploration sites involving. wetlands modification must
                   undergo this procedure. This geological review has led to a decrease in the average oil and gas
                   canal length.


































                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Pi-ogram                                             107







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                      MAINE


                                         Date of Program Approval: 1978
                                         Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $12 Million
                                         Coastal GNP (1985): &5.0 Billion (34.3% of state total)
                                         Coastal Population (1985): 831,900 (71.4% of state total)
                                         Shoreline Mileage: 3,478 Miles
                                         National Estuarine Research Reserves: Wells (1,600 acres)

















                                      COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                      Special/National Sim-tificance of Maine's Coast
                                        Maine's coast is a diverse and complex combination of human and natural resources. It
                                      includes urban regions such as Portland, fishing villages, remote island communities, and wild
                                      timberland areas without local governments, in addition to sandy beaches, mountains, islands,
                                      large marshes, and rocky, highly indented shorelines.

                                      Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                      ï¿½ Cumulative impact of incremental development on coastal peninsulas and bays.
                                      ï¿½ Protecting and managing the Gulf of Maine in concert with the other states and provinces that
                                      border the Gulf.
                                      ï¿½ Expanding coastal access opportunities.
                                      ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion prone areas.

                                      COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                      Program Description
                                        Maine's Coastal Management Program (MeCMP) is based on thirteen core laws administered
                                      by the state and local governments. The State Planning Office (SPO) is the lead agency for
                                      implementing the MeCMP. The Departments of Environmental Protection (DEP), Conservation
                                      (DOC) and Marine Resources (DMR) have prima y responsibility along with some local agencies
                                      for administering the core laws of the MeCMP.


                                      Defined Coastal Zone
                                        Maine's coastal zone consists of all coastal towns and townships on tidal waters, all coastal
                                      islands, and its territorial seas to the extent of the state's territorial limit.

                                      Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $12 million.

                                      Major Program Accomplishments
                                      . An $11 million bond referendum to construct new fish piers and other support facilities was the
                                      result of a MeCMP funded study that analyzed and identified inadequacies in the infrastructure of

                            108                                                                                      NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                               Chapter Eight

                    the fishing industry. Additional local and federal investment resulted in new or rehabilitated fish
                    piers in Stonington, Portland, Eastport, Kennebunkport, Saco, Rockland, and a fish processing
                    plant in Vinalhaven. Later, a new fishing boat facility and fresh fish auction was constructed in
                    Portland.
                       The Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, located in the southern part of Maine, was
                    designated in 1984. The Reserve contains approximately 1,600 acres of undeveloped marsh and
                    upland fields and forests, in addition to endangered species-the bald eagle and die peregrine
                    falcon.
                    . CZM funded Waterfront Action Grants have helped communities provide 1) improved public
                    access to beaches and shoreland areas, 2) port and waterfront redevelopment activities, and 3)
                    preservation and restoration of shoreland and other nationally significant resources.
                    . Two new laws, Maine's Coastal Management Act and Maine's Comprehensive Planning and
                    Land Use Regulation Act provide a basis for municipalities to establish comprehensive land use
                    plans to address natural resource management and land use and development issues brought on by
                    the recent growth and development of Maine's coast.

                    SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                    Protecting Natural Resources
                    . The state has increased protection for natural arm through the enactment of the Critical Areas
                    Program. More than 600 areas have been designated by the -SPO and more than half of these are
                    located along the coast.
                    . The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)'s Marine Monitoring Program, initially
                    funded through the state's coastal program, is providing a dataset concerning toxic chemicals in
                    Maine's marine environment. This database will help the DEP and MeCMP plan pollution
                    mitigation projects to improve water quality.
                    . The DEP's administration and implementation of Maine's Sand Dune Law has been improved
                    through the generation of computerized maps. These maps include barrier beaches, wetlands, salt
                    marshes and tidal flats, and have been developed to assure that DEP permit decisions are consistent
                    and are based on sound geological criteria.

                    Providine Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                    . Three interpretive overlooks were built at Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve with a
                    CZM grant. These overlooks increase public awareness and education concerning the marshland
                    ecosystem.
                    . In 1989, the MeCMP has helped increase public access to shoreland areas through the funding
                    of coastal acquisition projects. For example, coastal funding provided $50,000 for the acquisition
                    of the $2.35 million Dodge Point property in Newcastle; $35,000 in CZM funds helped acquire
                    Shackford Head in Eastport. These two acquisition projects open a total of 4 miles of coastline to
                    the public.
                    . The City of South Portland's Spring Point Shoreway project provides 4 miles of walkway along
                    urban shoreline. This project was supported by $130,000 from MeCMP and $700,000 in state and
                    local funds.
                       The rehabilitation of the Town Wharf in York Harbor, funded by a Waterfront Action Grant,
                    has improved public access to the water for both recreational boaters and commercial fishermen.

                    Promoting Urban Waterfront Develgpment
                    . The expansion of Augusta's Waterfront Park along the Kennebec River is part of a plan to
                    rehabilitate the River's deteriorated waterfront. This expansion project, which included placing
                    granite steps for access to the water and adding benches in the upland areas, was funded by a
                    Waterfront Action Grant.
                    . CZM funds were used to help the town of Bucksport continue its waterfront revitalization
                    efiorts. A Waterfront Action Grant was employed to rehabilitate the Town Dock, improve the


                    Evaluation. of the National Coastal Zone Management Alogi-am                                                109







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                      access road to the dock and complete a walkway path to the dock.

                                      Preservina Ports and Marinas
                                         Gilkey'.s Harbor, located on the island of Islesboro, underwent facility improvements that
                                      enhanced year-round access to the island and also increased Harbor safety. Facility improvements
                                      included rehabilitation of the town Pier and boat ramp.

                                      Improving Government Qperations
                                      . The Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988 requires that coastal
                                      communities plan for the future and protect coastal resources. This Act establishes the following
                                      goals: 1) to provide direction and consistency for localities and state agencies planning regulatory
                                      action that affect natural resource protection and land use development; 2) to establish technical
                                      and financial assistance programs to help municipalities develop growth management programs,
                                      and 3) to establish a review process for local growth management programs to ensure consistency
                                      with the requirements of the Act.
                                         The Permit by Rule regulation, which was established to save time and expense for certain
                                      development activities in addition to providing standards for how these activities should be carried
                                      out, became effective on February 15, 1989. This Rule establishes that certain activities that do
                                      not significantly affect wetlands and water bodies (e.g., the placement of water-monitoring devices
                                      or moorings) require only a notice to be filed with the Maine DEP.
                                         The Shoreland Zoning Act Amendments of 1989 empower municipalities- to adopt, administer,
                                      and enforce improved shoreland zoning ordinances for their jurisdictions. The amendments
                                      strengthen both the administrative and environmental standards of the Shoreland Zoning Act of
                                      1971.
                                      . A formal training program and certification procedure for local code enforcement officers has
                                      been instituted. Certified code enforcement officers are now able to testify in district court,
                                      consequently improving enforcement of local zoning and environmental laws.

                                      Develqf@mg Natural Resources
                                         To help communities protect against loss of water-dependant activities and structures that
                                      support marine industries, the SPO and DECD have prepared Protection of Prime Sites for Water
                                      DeMndent Use. This publication describes the regulatory and non-regulatory options that are
                                      available- to communities to resolve conflicts between marine industries that require a waterfront
                                      location and new residential or commercial development plans that do not require a waterfront
                                      location.


                                      Mitintina, Coastal Storm Dama 2e and Coastal Hazards
                                      . The state has addressed sea level rise and other coastal hazards through new regulatory provi-
                                      sions under its Natural Resources Protection law. Under the law, seawalls and other structures on
                                      or seaward of a frontal dime or in high hazard areas are prohibited. Elevation. and area require-
                                      ments for buildings are included along with a provision for relocating structures encroached on by
                                      a. coastal wetland.
                                      . The state completed its first -Statewide Hazard Mitigation Plan" in December 1987. The Plan
                                      discusses hurricanes and other coastal hazards, identifies areas in need of improved management
                                      and contains draft language for legislative changes to address the management issues identified.


                                      INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                                      . Maine's SPO has taken the lead role in establishing the international Gulf of Maine Initiative.
                                      This Initiative, which contains representatives from Canada as well as the United States, was
                                      formed to improve the management of the Gulf of Maine. The goals of the working group are to
                                      improve communication on Gulf related issues and to develop recommendations to protect the
                                      Gulf s natural resources.
                                         The states of Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York have completed


                             110                                                                                        NCRI-W,91-003







                                                                                                            Chapter Eight

                    three separate studies designed to improve government decision making concerning: 1) the
                    preservation and protection of water-dependent uses of regional waters, particularly with regard to
                    commercial and recreational boating facilities; 2) the strengthening the public trust doctrine with
                    regard to public access, and 3) the development of an interstate policy to improve the effectiveness
                    of floodplain management.
















                    MARYLAND
















                             Date of Program Approval: 1978
                             Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $12 Million
                             Coastal GNP: $25.9 Billion (35.8% of state total)
                             Coastal Population (1985): 3,159,900 (72.0% of state total)
                             Shoreline Mileage: 3,190 Miles
                             National Estuarine Research, Reserves: Chesapeake Bay (3,400 miles)




                    COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                    Special/National Significance of Mgaland's Coast
                      Maryland's coastal area contains two distinct regions; the Atlantic Coast shoreline and the
                    Chesapeake Bay area. The Atlantic Coast, bounded by barrier islands backed by coastal bays, is
                    the site of extensive recreational activities and vast areas of cord grass dominated salt marshes.
                    The majority of the state's shoreline borders the nation's largest and most productive estuary-the
                    Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, including the Potomac to Washington, D.C. The Bay is the
                    center of this country's largest oyster and crab producing region as well as the location of exten-
                    sive fin fish, waterborne commerce, and petroleum activities. More importantly, the Chesapeake
                    Bay provides an important habitat for thousands of water dependent species.

                    PrincW Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                    ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                                                             1
                                                                 moo"
                                                                 @@























                    ï¿½ Continued support for the Chesapeake Bay Initiative and related programs to ensure continued

                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                              lit







                           Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                    improvement in the water quality of the Bay and its tributaries.
                                    . The management of pointand nonpoint.source pollution, especially in the Chesapeake Bay and
                                    its.tributaries.
                                    . '@he management of the rapidly increasing development and resource depletion in the Chesa-
                                    peake Bay region.
                                       Preservation of the state's remaining wetlands.


                                    COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                    ,ProgLam Descriptio
                                       The Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP) is administered by the Maryland
                                    Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Within the DNR, the Coastal Resources Division
                                    (CRD) is responsible for coordinating and monitoring the implementations of the MCZMP. In
                                    addition, the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee (CRAC) represents all participants in the
                                    MC,ZMP, including representatives from each coastal county government, the five regional
                                    citizens advisory groups, and interest groups. The CRAC provides a forum where participants, in
                                    coastal activities are informed of Program actions and where they can present their views on
                                    Program activities.

                                    Defined Coastal Zone
                                       Maryland's coastal zone is. defined as the inland boundary of the counties bordering the
                                    Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, and the Potomac River, as far as the municipal limits of Wash-
                                    ington, D.C. In addition, an area of management focus is identified coincident with the*boundaries
                                    of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area in land lying within 1,000 feet of tidal waters and tidal
                                    wetlands.


                                    Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $12 million.

                                    Major Program Accomplishments
                                    . A $60,000 CZM funded study that analyzed and recommended solutions to Ocean City's
                                    erosion problems, played a major role in the decision by state and local governments to commit
                                    over $12 million to renourish the state's most heavily utilized beach. The total property value
                                    protected by this renowishment project is $2 billion.
                                    . Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Protection Act is recognized as one of the most
                                    progressive state actions to deal with development and pollution problems in an environmentally
                                    sensitive coastal area. This Act required local governments to develop land use management
                                    prpgrams in accordance with state regulations that strictly control development within 1,000 feet
                                    of all tidal waters and tidal wetlands associated with the Chesapeake Bay and it tributaries. The
                                    concept for the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program originated from several CZM studies.
                                    . The Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was in 1981. The Reserve contains
                                    salt marshes and islands of swamp pine forests extending over four tributary creeks and provide
                                    habitats for aquatic populations that require a salinity half the strength of sea water. The Reserve
                                    also contains a variety of resident and migratory birds, such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon,
                                    and is home to the red fox, gray fox, river otter, mink, and white-tailed deer.
                                    . The Coastal Resources Division funded the Maryland Natural Heritage to identify important
                                    plant and wildlife habitat areas in the state's coastal zone and to develop long-term management
                                    programs to protect these areas.


                                    SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                    Protectiniz Natural Resources
                                    - The Maryland Critical Areas Program helps to protect Chesapeake Bay fisheries, which
                                    generated $56.5 million in revenue in 1986 with CZM funds instrumental in their development.


                           112                                                                                   NC'Rl- 0141-003






                                                                                                                Chapter Eight

                       As part of the state's Chesapeake Bay Initiatives, management programs have been developed
                    to protect nontidal wetlands and to promote the use of nonstructural vegetative shore erosion
                    control measures.
                       The Maryland Environmental Trust has been effective in securing conservation easements in
                    the state, especially along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
                       In accordance with the objectives of the Chesapeake Bay Program, the MCZMP plays a lead
                    role in the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) program. This Program focuses on the research,
                    monitoring and management activities associated with revegetating the state's wetlands.

                    Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                       Maryland has made extensive use of Section 306A of the CZMA. These low cost construction
                    projects provide improvement for public access to the state's shoreline. Examples of these are the
                    Nordiside Park Wetlands Walk in Ocean City, the acquisition and improvements of a boat ramp
                    and dock at Indian Head, the construction of nature walks and picnic areas in Leight Park, and the
                    construction of the Rock Hall Waterfi-ont Park.


                    Promoting Urban Waterfront Develo
                       Chesapeake Beach, such as Snow Hill, Betterton, and several of the state's smaller waterfront
                    communities, has developed and implemented waterfront rehabilitation plans.

                    Preserving Ports and Marinas
                       Several studies have been undertaken to identify suitable dredged material disposal sites both
                    for the navigational channels to the Port of Baltimore and for the maintenance of channels to
                    public and private marina facilities.

                    ImpLoving Government gVeration
                    . Under the MCZMP, the CRD/DNR is required to ensure consistency of state actions with
                    coastal policies. This is especially important because the MCZMP is a networked program that
                    relies on existing regulations that are implemented through other state agencies.
                    . The CRD has conducted a number of workshops on issues of coastal zone management
                    concerns, e.g., recreational boating workshops for the public to address the issues of boating
                    safety, excessive noise, and shoreline erosion caused by boat wakes.

                    Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                    . The MCZMP will update its historical shoreline and erosion rate maps using state-of-the-art
                    techniques such as imagery processing and computerization.
                    . The MCZMP conducted a nonstructural erosion control training program for contractors
                    interested in providing services to private shorefront property owners receiving CZM grants to
                    implement nonstructural shore erosion control techniques.
                    . The state used CZM funding to undertake several studies which formed the basis for the
                    implementation of the state's Hurricane Protection/Beach Nourishment Protection for the Ocean
                    City area.


                    INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                       The states of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay
                    Commission, and the EPA support the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Recent interstate grants,
                    funded by CZM, focused on initiating a citizens water quality monitoring network for each state
                    surrounding the Bay (Maryland, Virginia, and Pemsylvania) and bringing together leaders in
                    various technical fields to develop toxicity assessment protocols.






                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                  113







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                       NL4LSSACHUSETTS














                                                    Date of Program Approval: 1978
                                                    Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $11.6 Million
                                                    Coastal GNP (19a5): $70.7 Billion (53.3% of state total)
                                                    Coastal Population (1985): 4,373,600 (75.1% of state total)
                                                    Shoreline Mileage: 1,519 Miles
                                                    National Estuarine Research Reserves: Waquoit Bay (2,199 acres)




                                       COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                       Special/National Significance of Massachusetts's Coast
                                          The Massachusetts's coast is of historic, scenic, economic, and recreational importance. The
                                       Commonwealth's coast consists of 1,200 miles of rocky shoreline, sandy beaches, salt marshes,
                                       estuaries, large urban harbors, tidal flats, and dozens of small islands. Migratory birds, particu-
                                       larly waterfowl and shorebirds, are dependent upon the salt marshes, tidal flats, and protected
                                       waters of Massachusetts for feeding and nesting areas. In addition, it is estimated that 70 percent
                                       of the commercially important fish catch spends a part of its cycle in Massachusetts' estuarine
                                       waters.


                                       Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenge
                                       . Preservation of the state's remaining wetlands.
                                       . Continued efforts to protect and improve coastal water quality.
                                       . Encouraging the acquisition of undeveloped hazard prone areas for conservation or recreation
                                       use, and providing technical assistance for hazard area zoning and mitigation.
                                       . Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.

                                       COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                       ProgLam Descril2ti
                                          The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) is the designated lead agency for
                                       implementing the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP). Within the
                                       EOEA, two mkjor offices are involved in the program: 1) the Office of Coastal Zone Management
                                       advises the Secretary on coastal zone planning and policy formulation and reviews activities for
                                       consistency with the regulatory provisions of the MCZMP, and 2) the Environmental Impact
                                       Review Section. evaluates and monitors state environmental impact statements.


                                       Defined Coastal Zone
                                          The Massachusetts coastal zone includes the land and waters within the area defined by the
                                       seaward limit of the state's territorial sea extending from the Massachusetts-New Hampshire
                                       border south to the Massachusetts-Rhode Island border, and landward to 100 feet inland of
                                       specified major roads, rail lines, or other visible rights-of-way. The coastal zone includes all of


                              114                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                               Chapter Eight

                   Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantuckett. Federal lands are excluded.

                   Federal Program S=ort 1982-1989: $11.6 million.

                   Major ProgLam Accomplishments
                   . The Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, located on the South side of Cape Cod,
                   was designated in 1988. The Reserve contains 2,199 acres of marsh, open water, upland fields and
                   forest, in addition to areas which are relatively untouched by human activities.
                      The MCZMP was instrumental in obtamimig legislative backing for an $18 million bond to
                   support the Coastal Facilities Improvement Program (CFIP       The CFIP has revitalized coastal
                   .facilities which support commercial fisheries and recreational use in the coastal area.
                   . The MCZMP has been instrumental in acquiring 1,636 acres of prime coastal real estate for
                   public access. This was accomplished by working with private donors, the state appropriations
                   process and federal agencies.
                   . The MCZMP is working in cooperation with the EOEA to implement the coastal Areas of
                   Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), a state program for identification, designation, and
                   protection of critical areas. Eleven of the 14 ACEC sites designated since 1974 are located in the
                   coastal zone.


                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protecting Natural Resources
                   . The Wetlands Restriction Program addresses the cumulative impacts in wetlands and bars
                   certain activities in these environmentally sensitive areas. This rogram, which acts as a zoning
                   overlay, identifies and restricts activities on a town-by-town basis, in addition to providing these
                   towns with wetland area maps.
                   . The MCZMP has been directly involved in the planning of a long-term solution to the pollution
                   problems of the BostonHarbor. The MCZMP has provided staff support for the various task
                   forces involved in the Boston Harbor cleanup, coordinated projects, and initiated innovative
                   efforts to solve short-term and chronic problenis associated with the Harbor.
                   . The handbook Primer for Dredging in the Coastal-Zone of Massachusett addresses such topics
                   as dredging technologies, disposal alternatives, environmental impacts, regulatory framework, and
                   environmental testing.
                   . The Southeast CZM regional coordinator is working with federal, state, and lodal officials to
                   update the regional oil spill contingency plans for Buzzards Bay and Mount Hope Bay.

                   Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                      In 1987, Massachusetts voters provided the state with a $30 million Open Space Bond to
                   continue its coastal acquisition efforts. This bond was passed largely as a result of the MCZMP's
                   past, successful acquisition efforts to obtain land for public access.

                   Preserving Ports and Marinas
                   . One million dollars in CFIP reauthorization money has been allocated for the development of
                   harbor management plans.
                   .. The MCZMP Designated Port Area (DPA) Program has identified 12 DPAs. Under this
                   program, both filled and flowed tidelands are reserved exclusively for either current or future
                   maritime industry use.

                   lmp@roving Government Operations
                      In May 1988, the DEP won a major victory restricting construction in wetlands. The Massa-
                   chusetts' Appeals Court ruled that the DEP may place restrictions on the siting of a home in
                   coastal wetlands, while allowing the site to be used for other purposes, such as refreshment booths,
                   certain farm activities, wharves, and fish and shellfish businesses.


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   115







                           Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                       In accordance with the Chapter 91 amendments, the MCZMP provides comprehensive project
                                    reviews that ftequently lea&to modifications in project designs. For example, the Rowe's Wharf
                                    development project was'altered to provide better access to the harbor. Other development
                                    projects that would have adversely affected water dependency, water quality or- fisheries were also
                                    altered according to MCZMP specifications (i.e., Heritage Towers, Pines River Condormimium,
                                    and Harborside Landing).
                                    - Ue Community Assistance Grant Program, administered by the MCZMP, awarded money to
                                    local governments to help pay for coastal related projects such as port-and harbor development and
                                    waterftont renewal plans,, preliminary engineering studies, appliedscience investigations, recre-
                                    ation plans, and coastal hazard mitigation studies.

                                    Develol@mg Natural Resource
                                       Under the CFIP; Massachusetts spent approximately $7 million to improve fish piers and other
                                    mifihe-related industry projects. These improvements have enhanced the state's commercial
                                    fishery industry, one of the nation's highest producers of fish pounds landed, and the value of the
                                    landing.

                                    Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                                    . The Shoreline Change Summary Map, generated as a result of the Shoreline Change Project,
                                    identifies areas that are either safe to build on or unsafe depending upon shoreline erosion rates.
                                    Suggestions concerning property protection are provided to real estate owners:
                                    . The MCZMP has developed a draft policy document on sea level rise. This document, Passive
                                    Retreat of Massachusetts Coastal Upland Due to Relative Sea-Level Rise is the result of a recently
                                    completed Massachusetts Coastal Submergence Study. The draft policy is currently being
                                    implemented on a site-specific basis (ie., Buzzards Bay).


                                    INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                                       The states of Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Y6rk have completed
                                    three separate studies designed to improve government decision making concerning: 1) the
                                    preservation and protection of water-dependent uses of regional waters, particularly with regard to
                                    comm     ial and recreational boating facilities; 2) the strengthening the public@ trust doctrine with
                                    regard to puitc access, and 3) the development of an interstate policy to improve the effectiveness
                                    of floodplain management.

























                                                                                                                NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                 Chapter Eight

                    NUOUGAN














                              Date of Program Approval: 1978
                              Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $12.8 Million
                              Coastal GNP (1985): $39-5 Billion (23.4% of state total)
                              Coastal Population (198S): 4,&SI,200 (S3A% of state total)
                              Shoreline Mileage: 3,224 Miles






                    COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                    SMcial/National Significance of Michigan     s Coast
                       Michigan's coastal zone, bordering Lakes Michigan, Huron, Superior, Erie, and Lake St. Clair
                    gives the state the longest freshwater coastline in the world. A unique mix of shore geography is
                    found on each of the Great Lakes' shoreline. These include clay bluffs, white sandy beaches,
                    sandstone cliffs, rock bluffs, rock beaches, low plains, and freshwater wetlands. Some of the
                    largest sand dunes in the world are found in Michigan's coastal zone. Although the majority of
                    Michigan's shoreline is privately owned, approximately 30 percent of Michigan's shoreline is held
                    in public ownership, and the bottomlands of the Great Lakes are held in public trust. The coastal
                    region provides an important habitat and nursery area for many commercial and sport fisheries,
                    migratory birds and furbearing animals. Coastal waters supply municipal drinking water, recre-
                    ational boating opportunities, and the transport of over 200,000,000 tons of industrial and agricul-
                    tural materials through the Great Lakes commercial shipping industry.

                    PrinciWl Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                    . Effects of lake level fluctuation on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard and flood
                    risk areas.
                    . Implementing shoreline and sand dune protection programs that manage and minimize the
                    effects of intense recreational use, development and sand extraction activities.
                    . Regulation of shore erosion control techniques to minimize the adverse effects on natural
                    systems and avoid damage to adjacent property owners.
                    . Minimize the impacts of increased development in coastal areas and over-crowding in coastal
                    lakes, harbors and drowned river mouths.
                    . Preservation and enhancement of the state's remaining coastal wetlands.


                    COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                    Program Description
                       The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the lead agency for the Michigan Coastal
                    Management Program (MCMP). The major legislation under which the MCMP is administered
                    are the Shorelands Protection and Management Act, the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act, the
                                                                                            n Wetlands Protection A
                    Sand Dunes Protection and Management Act, the Goemaere-Anderso                                   ct,


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   117







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                       the Inland Lakes and Streams Act, and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act. The Natural
                                       Resources Commission (NRC), a seven member body appointed by the Governor, establishes
                                       policy guidelines for the DNR.


                                       Defined Coastal Zone
                                          Michigan's coastal boundary includes all waters and submerged lands of the Great Lakes to the
                                       international boundary in the middle of the lakes. The state's landward boundary is defined as the
                                       Jurisdictional border that Michigan shares with Ontario, Canada and the states of Minnesota,
                                       Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The coastal zone includes all islands, drowned river
                                       mouths, and coastal lakes. The inland boundary extends a minimum of 1,000 feet from the
                                       ordinary high water mark or fin-ther inland to include designated wetland, flood risk, sand dune,
                                       high risk erosion areas, and coastal state parks.

                                       Federal Program SgppW 1982-1989: $12.8 million.

                                       Major ProgLam Accomplishments
                                       . Waterfront planning under the MCMP has catalyzed extensive waterfront revitalization efforts
                                       in many of the state's 300 coastal cities, including Detroit, Houghton, and the Saginaw Bay area.
                                       . The Saginaw Bay Area Initiative is an integrated management plan for the Bay that targets
                                       DNR development priorities and resources in a joint effort with local interests. The goal of this
                                       project is to pool resources from the DNR, local government, and private investors to develop new
                                       economic growthopportunities for this area while protecting sensitive areas and avoiding hazard-
                                       ous areas.
                                       . Protection of historical and archaeological underwater resources through legislation designating
                                       seven Great Lakes Bottomland Preserves. The Preserves, which comprise nearly 5 percent of
                                       Michigan's Great Lakes' bottomlands,,provide protection to many of the 3,000 shipwrecks that
                                       have gone down in Michigan waters.
                                       . Passage of amendments to the Sand Dunes Protection and Management Act that strengthen the
                                       ability of the statute to protect designated sand dunes by establishing standards for development
                                       and use. The statute provides an opportunity for local communities to assume regulatory authority
                                       of the act.
                                       . Michigan Was the first and only demonstration state that used federal CZM funds for low cost
                                       construction projects. Due to the success of this pilot program, all participating coastal states may
                                       now apply for Section 306A low cost construction prqject fimds to enhance public access to their
                                       states' shoreline. Local officials state that the impacts of these low cost projects usually have a
                                       greater than expected economic benefit, particularly in attracting private investment.

                                       SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                       Protectin2 Natural Resources
                                       . Michigan is the only state to have received authority from the EPA to administer the federal
                                       Water Pollution Control Act's Section 404 Program. Michigan's assumption of 404 program
                                       authority relied on the existence of state legislation that established regulation over the discharge
                                       of dredge and fill materials into state waters. Michigan recently adopted administrative rules
                                       under the Wetlands Protection Act to strengthen the enforcement of permitted activities.
                                       . Several guidebooks describing the value of wetlands and explaining the wetland permitting
                                       process were made available to the public by the MCMP. These are; 1) the Wetland Protection
                                       Guidebook; 2) Michigan Wetlands: A Guide for PLoperty Owners and homebuilders, and 3)
                                       Manual for Wetland Evaluation TechniqjLes.
                                       . The Michigan DNR reviews and issues project permits under a consolidated permit process that
                                       currently encompasses a total of nine state statutes and four federal programs.
                                       . The Great Lakes Information System (GLIS), ftinded in part by the MCMP, is a computerized
                                       geographical inf6miation system designed to consolidate Great Lakes resource data. This


                             118                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                Chapter Eight

                    information system emphasizes environmentally sensitive areas and critical habitats. The GLIS
                    compliments the Michigan Resource Inventory Program, a land-based statewide geographical
                    information system.


                    Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                       Since 1978 Michigan has passed through more than half of its grant for 306A low-cost con-
                    struction projects. Improvements for public access to the state's shoreline is provided by funding
                    the construction or reconstruction of access structures and the enhancement, preservation or
                    restoration of public access at existing sites. Other projects have involved directing public access
                    to control indiscriminate use thereby preventing shoreline erosion problems.
                    . Forty-two of Michigan's 94 State Parks are located along the Great Lakes or on coastal lakes
                    within Michigan's coastal zone. These parks provide public access to over 115 miles of prime
                    shorelands.


                    Promoting Urban Waterfront Develgpment
                    . The revitalization of Detroit's deteriorated waterfront was initiated by a CZM funded "Linked
                    Riverfront Parks Master Plan". This linked park system has stimulated millions of dollars in
                    private investment and has created an estimated 1,200 new jobs. The project is designed to create
                    several parks along the Detroit River that are linked by a bike path system.
                    . The revitalization of Houghton's waterfront in Michigan's Upper Peninsula has resulted in
                    substantial private and public investment for the cities of Houghton and Hancock (Houghton's
                    sister city). Redevelopment of the waterfront resulted from a waterfront development plan funded
                    by the MCMP. With the assistance of CZM funding the City of Houghton has purchased, reno-
                    vated and opened to the public all but 200 feet of the 1.25 miles of shoreline in the downtown
                    area.


                    Preservin2 Ports and Marinas
                    . CZM has funded a number of port development studies to examine the feasibility of creating,
                    repairing and expanding existing port facilities in the cities of Escanaba, Monroe, St. Joseph,
                    Ludington, and Sault Ste. Marie.
                    . In an attempt to identify the problems associated with overuse, the DNR has initiated a boat use
                    survey on one of the more heavily used lakes in the state. The survey is an attempt to determine if
                    maximum watercraft capacity has been reached and if the lake has become hazardous and unsafe
                    for use. When completed, this report will be used to make future permit decision on expansion of
                    marinas, boat launches and other facilities.


                    Improving Government ftrations
                    . The MCMP plays a key role in administering Michigan's coastal statutes. CZM funded field
                    staff conduct site visits to evaluate the impacts of proposed projects, monitor development and to
                    enforce the Department's regulatory statutes and permit conditions.
                    . Michigan has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Corps that provides for the issuance of
                    joint public notices and allows the use of one permit application which is shared by both agencies
                    for statutes regulating the land and water interface, including Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
                    Act and 404 of the Clean Water Act, Michigan's Wetlands Protection Act, the Inland Lakes and
                    Streams Act, and the Submerged Lands Act.
                    . The MDNR has developed a Coastal and Inland Waters Permit Information System (tlWPIS)
                    for permit processing. CIWPIS is a computerized data base management tool that allows all
                    permit applications to be efficiently processed and tracked, and all infonnation relative to permit
                    applications to be available to all Division staff. The CIWPIS system can identify a wide variety
                    of parameters and is very useful in identifying areas of special interest or concern.





                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   119







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                     Miti2ating Coastal Storm Dama2e and Coastal Hazards
                                        The Michigan Shorelands Protection and Management Act requires a permit for: 1) any
                                     dredging, filling, alteration of drainage or vegetation or construction of a structure within a
                                     designated environmental (wetland) area; 2) construction of any permanent structure requiring a
                                     setback from the bluff within a designated High Risk Erosion Area, and 3) any construction of a
                                     permanent structure within a designated flood risk area.
                                     . As a result of record high water levels experienced in the Great Lakes during the mid 1980s, a
                                     record number of permits to construct shore protection structures were applied for. As a result of
                                     this increase in permit applications, the MCMP was involved in a program to subsidize loans to
                                     move homes away from the state's eroding shoreline.















                                     MISSISSIPPI













                                                                             Date of Program Approval: 1980
                                                                             Federal Program Support 1982-1989: S4.6 Million
                                                                             Coastal GNP (1985): $1.6 Billion (6.7% ofstate total)
                                                                             Coastal Population (1995): 327,900 (12.5% of state total)
                                                                             Shoreline Mileage: 359 Miles







                                     COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                     Special/National Significance of Mississippi's Coast
                                        The Mississippi coastal zone contains barrier islands, sandy beaches, salt marshes, and exten-
                                     sive freshwater bottomlands, in addition to several nationally strategic defense installations.
                                     Major shipbuilding facilities and ports, some of which access the Mississippi Sound, are also
                                     located along the coast.

                                     PrinciMI Coastal Threats and Emegging Challenge
                                        Mir@imizing the need for new industrial waterfront sites by completely utilizing waterfront areas
                                                  Q
















                                     currently set aside for industrial use.


                            120                                                                                     NCRI-1441-003






                                                                                                         Chapter Eight

                     Continued efforts to ensure that dredging and the disposal of dredged material minimiizes
                   adverse effects on water quality, physical processes, marine habitat and productivity, and public
                   health.
                   . Conservation of the state's remaining wetlands.


                   COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                   Progjarn Desgdpfio
                     The Mississippi Commission Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MWFP) is the responsible agency
                   for implementing the Mississippi Coastal Program (MCP). The MWFP executes the MCP through
                   the Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR), which receives and administers the program's federal
                   funding. The BMR and the Bureau of Pollution Control and Land and Water Resources (BPC),
                   both in the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Archives and History
                   (DAH), administers the regulatory permits that are required for activities affecting the coastal
                   zone. The BMR coordinates the activities of the various state agencies through their consistency
                   review.


                   Defined Coastal Zone
                     The Mississippi coastal zone consists of Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, the barrier
                   islands and all the waters to the extent of the 3 -mile limit.


                   Federal Progmin SIW4@grt 1982-1989: $4.6 million.

                   Major ProgLam Accomplishments
                   . A SAMP for the Port of Pascagoula was developed and implemented to address the conflicting
                   resource development and protection issues of the Port and its surrounding area. The Plan
                   identified both areas that were appropriate for water-use development and areas that needed to be
                   protected and left in their natural state (i.e., wetlands).
                   . The Biloxi Waterfront Master Plan initiated the redevelopment of 45 acres of deteriorated
                   waterfront (abandoned fish pier facilities and several vacant land-locked parcels). The completed
                   Waterfront also contains a marine education center.
                   . The CZM funded Harrison/Hancock County Beach Study provides recommendations for beach
                   management and recreational improvements. These recommendations have been adopted by
                   Harrison and Hancock Counties and five municipalities located along the beach.

                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protecting Natural Resources
                   . The MCP is incorporating the 1989 Marine Litter Law into its program. This Law prohibits the
                   discharge of litter in both ocean and nearshore coastal waters and includes standards and guide-
                   lines for litter disposal and fines for violators. This is the first state to adopt those recommenda-
                   tions from the MARPOL (an international treaty dealing with marine pollution) conference.
                   . The MCP provides funds for the Southern Mississippi Planning and Development District
                   (SMPDD) to implement Harrison and Hancock County's Sand Beach Master Plans. The goals of
                   the Plan include developing erosion control practices, general maintenance programs, user and
                   vendor regulations for beach use and summaries of the plans for public distribution.
                   . The MCP is helping municipalities analyze how they can dispose of their dredged material
                   while ensuring the integrity of the environment A study commissioned by the BMR recom-
                   mended over 1,000 acres of upland sites to handle the anticipated dredged disposal needs for the
                   next 30 years. This is because upland disposal is preferable to disposal in environmentally
                   sensitive wetland areas.
                     A 100 foot bulkhead was constructed at Moss Point to help stabilize portions of bluff on the



                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                            121







                             Summaries of Individual State and, Territory Programs

                                       PascagoulaRiver. Due to wave action caused by commercial and recreational boating, the bluff
                                       was erodingat wrate of 3 feet per, year.

                                       Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                       . Round Island (110 acres) was given to the City of Pascagoula to be used as a public park. A 7-
                                       year plan for-the Island recommends stabilizing the beach erosion rates, restoring the 130-year-old
                                       lighthouse, and developing dune walkways, walking trails, and a primitive camping area.
                                       . Numerous low cost construction projects, ftinded by the MCP, are used to renovate and
                                       construct piers, pavilions; boardwalks, parking and picnic areas to increased public accessto the
                                       state's coastal areas. Examples of these are the Bayou Caddy and McInnis Bayou Boat Launches,
                                       'the Ulman Avenue Park Pier, and the Choctaw Marina Pier Renovation.
                                         The BMR contracted and completed a State Waters Access Site Study that inventoried and
                                       assessed the public access needs in coastal Mississippi.

                                       Promoting Urban Waterfront DevelWment
                                       . Redevelopment efforts to the Biloxi waterfront area (catalyzed by the MCP) include the
                                       modi,-mization of a seafood industry museum, acquisition of 17 acres-of land, and,the construction
                                       of a $5.4 million, 300-slip marina and fuel dock. Festivals and other activities on the waterfront
                                       havi@ attracted a large number of visitors to the area each year.
                                       . Waterfront,improvement studies for Moss Point, the City of Waveland, and. The City of Bay St.
                                       Louis were carried out with MCP and federal CZM funds. The studies recommend development
                                       stfategies for public and private investment, and address the need to encourage appropriate land
                                       and water uses in these areas.


                                       Preserving Ports,and Marinas
                                       . the Port of Pascagoula development plan expedited the permit approval time for the Navy
                                       Homeport project for Pascagoula at Singing River Island. This project helped to create 2,200 new
                                       jobs- and $100 million in economic growth in the Pascagoula area. The Plan was developed within
                                       the framework of a CZM sponsored multi-agency SAMP for the Port.
                                       . A study assessing future marina needs on the Mississippi Gulf Coast was commissioned by the
                                       BMR using MCP funds. This study findings included an update of BMR's marina inventory on
                                       the Gulf Coast and interviews with owners/managers of recreation and commercial boat. marinas
                                       and seafood processing plants. The study conclusions contained recommendations for changes in
                                       the agency's marina guidelines to protect and conserve the State's public trust wetlands and
                                       fisheries habitats.


                                       IW&Qying Government Qperations
                                          The MCP assists the state clearinghouse in reviewing projects and activities, that may have an
                                       impact on coastal resources.
                                       . Monitoring and enforcement are an important part of the Mississippi's Wetlands Law. The
                                       MCP's monitoring process includes an inspection of areas within a 2-mile radius of all applicant
                                       pr6perties before a permit is issued. In addition, when violations of the Wetlands. Law signifi-
                                       cantly damages or destroys wetlands, restoration orders are issued. Examples of the orders include
                                       the removal of fill from wetlands and filling dead-end canals or boatslips that cause water quality
                                       problems.

                                       Developing Natural Resources
                                          A Mississippi Coastal Zone Regional Permit is required for minor projects such as building
                                       piers, bulkheads, and minor dredging. The BMR has worked with the Mobile and Vicksburg
                                       districts of the Corps to establish this regional permit which reduces the applicant's waiting period
                                       for both BMR and Corps authorizations.




                              122                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                            Chapter Eight

                    Miti2ittin2 Coastal Storm Dama2e and Coastal Hazards
                      The MCP is funding a workshop concerning sea level rise. At this workshop, federal and state
                    agency people as well as academics will address long-term planning efforts to minimize the
                    adverse effects from this problem.
                    . Additional efforts funded by the MCP include enhancing educational efforts addressing coastal
                    flooding and other natural hazards.


                    INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                      Mississippi participated in a "Tri-State Hurricane Property Loss and Contingency Planning
                    Study, Phase I" with Alabama and Florida. The objective of the study is to develop hurricane
                    recovery plans by estimating the property damage that could occur from hurricanes striking the
                    most vulnerable areas of the central gulf coast.












                    NEW HAMPSHIRE









                                 Date of Program Approval: 1982 (Ocean and Harbor Segment),
                                   1998 (Remainder)
                                 Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $6.3 Million
                                 Coastal GNP (1985): $2.1 Billion (11.6% of state total)
                                 Coastal Population (19a5): 306,700 (30.7% of state total)
                                 Shoreline Mileage: 131 Miles
                                 National Estuarine Research Reserv= Great Bay (800 acres)









                    COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                    SW&ial/National Significance of New Hampshire's Coast
                      New Hampshire's coast is composed of three distinct areas: 1) the Atlantic coast, which offers
                    public beachfront and a rocky shoreline; 2) the Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, a
                    revitalized urban waterfront, which offers a mixture of tourism and water-dependent industry, and
                    3) the Great Bay estuary, a relatively undeveloped area inhabited by significant wildlife and
                    marine species.

                    Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                    . Effective water quality management (including the control of point source pollution) to


                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Progi-am                                             123







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                       preserve New Hampshire's coastal ecosystem and fish and shellfish industry.
                                          Pressure from increasing demands for access to New Hampshire's limited coastline (18 miles)
                                       and submerged lands has created conflict between private land owners and the state. An important
                                       issue that needs to be addressed is the impact of shoreline development (through private owner-
                                       ship) on public access and water quality.
                                       ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                                       ï¿½ Preservation of state's wetland areas.


                                       COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                       Program Descripti
                                          The New Hampshire Coastal Management Program (CMP), is implemented under a segmented
                                       approach through the Office of State Planning. For example, the ocean and harbor segment was
                                       approved in 1982 and the Great Bay segment was approved in 1988. The CMP coordinates all
                                       operating state agency coastal activities. federal funds are also provided to local agencies as well
                                       as state agencies to improve the management of coastal resources and development. Local
                                       participation in the state's CMP is voluntary.


                                       Defined Coastal Zone
                                          New Hampshire's coastal zone includes all coastal waters to the seaward limits of state
                                       jurisdiction and all land along the state's Atlantic Ocean shoreline from Seabrook to the Ports-
                                       mouth/Newington town line, extending inland 1,000 feet from the mean high water, or to the
                                       limits of the Wetland Board's jurisdiction over tidal waters, whichever is further inland. The
                                       boundary around Great Bay extends inland to identifiable features such as roads, which in most
                                       cases are more than 1,000 feet from the shoreline to the limits of the Wetlands Board's jurisdiction
                                       along estuarine rivers.

                                       Federal Program SWport 1982-1989: $6.3 million.

                                       Major Program Accomplishments
                                       . The Great Bay National Estuarine ResearchReserve, designated in October 1989, contains over
                                       800 acres of salt marsh, bluffs, rocky shores, woodlands, open fields, and 4,500 acres of tidal
                                       waters.
                                       . The town of Seabrook purchased and, therefore, protected rare sand duties (53 acres) with the
                                       help of New Hampshire's coastal program. The CMP's work, which was supported by the
                                       Seabrook Conservation Commission, documented the sand dune's value and investigated the
                                       possibility of its purchase. The state's Wetland Law was subsequently amended to incorporate the
                                       sand dunes into its jurisdiction.
                                       . The New Hampshire CMP is supporting the development of Harbor Management Plans
                                       (HMPs) through the State Port Authority to address the issue of rapid growth in the coastal
                                       population during the past several years and the increased pressure that this growth has caused on
                                       the state's coastal resources. The HMPs are designed to address the interests of both local
                                       communities and the State. HMPs will be completed for several communities, including a plan
                                       for Newmarket and the Lamprey River.


                                       SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                       Protecting Natural Resources
                                       . Coastal wetlands protection has been increased as a result of an expanded pre-application
                                       review process conducted by wetland inspectors who operate out of the Coastal Program Office in
                                       Portsmouth.
                                       . New Hampshire's CMP has made informal recommendations to the Portsmouth Harbor Oil
                                       Spill Committee to develop a comprehensive, coordinated oil spill contingency plan for the oil


                              124                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                            Chapter Eight

                   terminals located on the Piscataqua River. In response to these recommendations, oil industry
                   representatives have agreed to purchase equipment needed to properly respond to oil spills.
                   . New Hampshire's CMP takes an active role in Coast Week, a public coastal awareness pro-
                   gram. Activities include educational forams, harbor cruises, and walking tours.
                   . Using CZM funding, the New Hampshire Coastal Program contributed $50,000 to the purchase
                   of a 40 acre parcel of land in the town of Greenland with 3,000 feet of frontage on Great Bay.
                   This parcel will be included in the Great Bay Estuarine Research Reserve and is home to several
                   rare/endangered species.
                      Using CZM funds, the state completed and distributed wetland maps for several towns. The
                   maps provide updated information for both the local and state regulatory agencies responsible for
                   making permit and other resource management decisions.

                   Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                   . Grants awarded by the federal CMP have catalyzed water-dependent public access initiatives
                   such as a boat launch project on the Lamprey River in Newmarket and boat ramp improvements
                   for Rye Harbor.
                   . Another public access project includes improvements to Prescott Park, a major waterfi-ont park,
                   located in Portsmouth. The CMP helped fund the construction of park facilities, such as side-
                   walks, handicap ramps, and improved lighting to the waterfront area of the park.
                   . With CMP funding, a development plan for Odiorne Point State Park was produced. The plan
                   emphasized the protection and interpretation of New Hampshire's natural resources and
                   multi-season operation. The recommendations of this plan resulted in funds from the legislature to
                   build a new visitors center.


                   Promoting Urban Waterfront DevelMment
                      The New Hampshire CMP funded a study for the Department of Resources and Economic
                   Development to outline future use alternatives for the former Seabrook Barge facility. DRED
                   constructed a commercial fishing pier at the barge facility which minimizes conflicts and problems
                   between comrn     ial and recreational boaters at the town harbor.


                   Preserving Ports and Marinas
                      The State Port Authority completed a study on mooring placement. As a result of this study, an
                   additional 165 moorings were sited within the study area.
                   . Using a grant from New Hampshire's CMP, the State Port Authority was able to determine
                   whether increased moorings could be made, available by improving the alignment in Little Harbor.
                   As a result of this study, 73 additional moorings were accommodated, generating approximately
                   $98,000 in revenue, in addition to an increase in public recreation and access.

                   ImpLoving Government Operations
                   . Hapag-Lloyd, the only ocean carrier feeder service in the Port of Portsmouth, reversed its
                   decision to cease operaiions at the Port. New Hampshire's Port Authority staff, funded by the
                   CMP, played an integral role in Hapag-Lloyd's decision to continue operations at the Port.
                   . The authority of New Hampshire's CMP is provided by the permit programs of the Wetlands
                   Board, the Water Supply and Pollution Control Division, the Fish and Game Department, the Port
                   Authority, and the Energy Facilities Siting Committee.
                   . Field office operations are a strong part of the New Hampshire's CMP. 'Me monitoring and
                   enforcement activities of the Wetlands Board and the Water Pollution Supply Control Division
                   have been improved as a result of the Portsmouth field office.

                   Deyelgpmg Natural Resources
                      In order to protect and enhance soft-shell clam stock reserves, an important recreational
                   commodity along New Hampshire's coast, the State CMP provided ftmding to purchase and place
                   nettings in selected clam flats to reduce clam spat mortality by protecting clams from predators.


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                               125







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                      Mitigatini! Coastal Storm Dama2e and Coastal Hazards
                                      . To help control erosion and sedimentation of New Hampshire's coastline, a regulation model
                                      for erosion control was developed along with a document that explains the problems of erosion.
                                      This document was given to coastal communities in an effort to educate them on this important
                                      issue.
                                      . The New Hampshire CMP'funded a study to evaluate the potential effects of sea level rise on
                                      the coastal area. The completed study, titled Rise in'Sea Level and C stal Zone Planning has
                                      been distributed to all coastal communities and regional planning -agencies.

                                      INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                                      . The New Hampshire CMP is a member of the Gulf of Maine Working Group. T%s working
                                      Group, which contains representatives from Canada as well as the United States, was formed to
                                      improve the management of the Gulf of Maine.
                                      . New Hampshire CMP, through its membership on the New York/New England Coastal Zone
                                      Task Force, participated in a regional project which focused on preserving water dependent uses.
                                      The end result of this project was a two volume guidebook on managing the shoreline for water
                                      dependent uses. The report was widely distributed throughout the study area.












                                      NEW JERSEY




                                                                            Date of Program Approval: 1978 (Bay and Ocean Shore),
                                                                              1980 (Remainder)
                                                                            Federal Program Support 1982-1989: SlS.9 Million
                                                                            Coastal GNP (1995): $79.6 Billion (51.0% of state total)
                                                                            Coastal Population (1985): 5,972,800 (78.9% of state total)
                                                                            Shoreline Mileage: 1,792















                                      COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                      Special/National Significance of New Jersey's Coast
                                         Many competing resources share New Jersey's coastline, including beaches, sand dunes, and
                                      shellfish, as well as tankers and power plants. In addition to these resources, New Jersey's
                                      coastline accounts for one of its largest industries-tourism.


                             126                                                                                    NCRI- IV-91-003







                                                                                                         Chapter Eight

                  Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                  ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                  ï¿½ Beach and dune restoration and preservation are needed to maintain New Jersey's thriving
                  tourist industry.
                  ï¿½ Preservation of New Jersey's remaining wetlands.
                  ï¿½ Effective water quality management, including stormwater management and the control of
                  nonpoint source pollution, to preserve New Jersey's coastal ecosystem, residents, and fish and
                  shellfish industry.
                     Public access remains a challenge as competing interests escalate for use of New Jersey's finite
                  shoreline, and public costs for providing and insuring quality access continue to rise.

                  COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                  ProgLarn Descripti :
                     New Jersey's Coastal Management Program (CMP), administered through the Department of
                  Environmental Protection (DEP), utilizes the direct state control approach to manage its coastal
                  resources. The CMP relies on existing laws and statutes; the Coastal Area Facility Review Act
                  (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act, the Waterfront Development Act, and the Riparian Statutes.

                  Defined Coastal Zone
                     New Jersey's coastal zone extends 1) up to the first road or property line from the mean high
                  water north of the Raritan Bay, 2) the area under the jurisdiction of the Hackensack Meadowlands
                  Development Commission, 3) an area extending from the Raritan Bay south along the Atlantic
                  shoreline up to the Delaware Memorial Bridge which varies from one-half mile inland up to 21
                  miles inland, and 4) an area north along the Delaware River to Trenton, extending inland to the
                  first road inclusive of all coastal wetlands.


                  Federal Program &94@W 1982-1989: $15.9 million.

                  Major Progmm Accmplishment
                  . In 1985, New Jersey's Emergency Beach and Dune Restoration Program provided a framework
                  to implement emergency funds to localities to repair dunes and beaches damaged by hurricanes.
                  . Waterfront planning under the CMP has catalyzed extensive waterfront revitalization efforts in
                  the state's coastal cities, for example, Jersey's City's Exchange Place.
                  . New Jersey's coastal permit program has been consolidated. It is now organized on a regional
                  basis instead of a statute basis.
                     In July 1988, the Freshwater Wetlands Act went into effect. The Act provides for a buffer zone
                  of 50-150 feet adjacent to wetlands.
                  . The destruction of coastal wetlands has been reduced from an average of 1,500 acres per year
                  to less than 10 acres per year.
                  . Development has been successfully directed out of important coastal resources and concen-
                  trated on upland areas of existing development.


                  SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                  Protecting Natural Resources
                  . New Jersey's Coastal Program obtained funds to acquire a critical habitat along the Atlantic
                  Flyway that is used as a stopover for migrating shore birds. Scientists have identified this site on
                  the Flyway as the most important spring habitat for these birds. CZM funding was used to help
                  negotiate this wetland mitigation agreement.
                  . The New Jersey CMP continues to screen and identify suitable dredge material disposal sites
                  that will help preserve the integrity of New Jersey's coastal environment.
                     Coastal wetlands losses have been reduced significantly.


                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                            127







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                          Several habitats have been identified and protected through the regulatory program.

                                       Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                       . T he Hudson River Walkway Plan and design guideline have been completed. The Walkway
                                       will be a continuous public access waterfront walkway along the length of the Hudson River from
                                       the, George Washington Bridge to the Bayonne Bridge. New Jersey's CMP provided funding for
                                       the development of planning and design guidelines for this walkway.
                                       . Improved public access to New Jersey's oceanfront is provided through local grant awards. For
                                       example, funding from New Jersey's CMP helped the City of Asbury Park produce a Beachfront
                                       Revitalization Plan to increase waterfront recreation and public access and- develop a linkage
                                       between the city's transportation center and its beachfront.

                                       Promoting Urban Waterfront Development
                                       . A Waterfront. Park and pier was recently completed at Exchange Place in, Jersey City. Two
                                       billion dollars in new construction, condominiums and retail shops surround the new Park. This
                                       waterfront revitalization plan was developed with the help of a CZM grant.
                                       . Local waterfront development plans are catalyzed by grants awarded to beach and bayfront
                                       communities to prepare waterfront revitalization plans. For example, Point Pleasant Beach was
                                       given a grant to design a waterfront park and conservation plan for the development.

                                       Preservin2 Ports and Marinas
                                          Using grants awarded from New Jersey's CMP, oceanfront communities are able- to prepare
                                       harbor development plans. For example, Penns Grove in Salem County conducted a marina
                                       feasibility study and waterfront area design in coqjunction. with the Green Acres.acquisition
                                       project.
                                       . Areas within the, N ew York Harbor are being identified for long-term water dependent uses
                                       while allowing for waterfront revitalization.

                                       Improving Government OWrations
                                       . Three permit programs, established under the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the
                                       Wetlands Ac@t, and the Waterfront Development Act, provide authority to New. Jersey's coastal
                                       management program.
                                       . New Jersey's CMP has continued to analyze, and refine state policy concerning issues ad-
                                       dressed under CAFRA, the Wetlands Act, and the Waterfront Development Act. Current issues
                                       being addressed are nonpoint source pollution, regional air quality, and shellfish management.
                                       . New Jersey's CMP continues to improve coordination,between its state agencies in order to-
                                       improve the management of the state's coastal resources and to promote the CMPs coastal.
                                       objectives.
                                          Local-grants, administered through New Jersey's shore protection program, are, conditioned to
                                       comply with the DEP's rules on coastal resources and development pertaining to public access to
                                       shorefront, beaches, dunes and erosion hazard areas. Local governments must demonstrate that
                                       their shore protection plans comply with these rules.
                                       . New Jersey's CMP is working with the State Office of Planning to incorporate coastal manage-
                                       ment policies into the state's statewide Development and Redevelopment Plan@

                                       Develqj@ing Natural Resources
                                       . A.hard clam spawner sanctuary program has been developed to increase clam-stocks and
                                       revitalize this important industry.
                                       . Upland sites have been identified for future wetlands mitigation banking to restore the past loss
                                       of wetlands. Wetlands restoration is restored at a rate of 2 acres created for each acre lost.


                                       Mitigatiniz Coastal Storm Damaae and Coastal Hazards
                                          The impact of potential global sea level rise is being studied to aid coastal planning. Shore


                              128                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                                  Chapter Eight

                   retreat estimates will be determined using three different methodologies; trend analysis, Bruun
                   Rule calculations and numerically derived sediment budget computations.
                   4 A beachidune profiling system has been developed to monitor general shoreline and beachface
                   conditions, including erosional trends. This profiling system will be used to aid decision making
                   in beach design.
                   . As a result, of the aforementioned beach/dune profiling system, municipalities with significant
                   erosion rates will be provided with large-scale mylar maps depicting local erosion conditions and
                   predictions.
                      A state Shore Protection Master Plan has been prepared to identify the most cost effective
                   methods of shore protection for specific geornorphic units.













                   NEW YORK



                          Date of Program Approval: 1982
                          Federal Program Support 1982-1'989: $20.1 Million
                          Coastal GNP (19&5): $230.2 Billion (62.5% of state total)
                          Coastal Population (19115): 14,887,100 (83.8% of state total)
                          Shoreline Mileage: 2,625 Miles
                          National Estuarine Research Reserves: Hudson River (4,000 acres)
















                   COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                   SpecialtNational Significance of New York's Coast:
                      New York's coastal zone is unique among coastal states in the extent and diversity of marine
                   and freshwater coastal resources. The coast is readily divided into five distinct regions: 1) the
                   Great Lakes, including portions of lakes Erie and Ontario, and the Niagara and St. Lawrence
                   Rivers, a vast freshwater region whose lakes, streams and estuaries constitute one of the nation's
                   most valuable sports fisheries; 2) the Hudson River estuary, extending 150 miles inland from New
                   York Harbor and providing invaluable spawning and breeding areas for a wealth of sport and
                   commercial fish species and an important link in the state's transportation system; 3) New York
                   Harbor, a major international port with a highly varied combination and intensity of land and
                   water uses; 4) Long Island Sound, a national estuary bordered by New York and Connecticut and
                                                                     J7@L


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                       129







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                       home to 10 percent of the nation's population, and 5) the Atlantic coast of Long Island, containing
                                       an extensive @barrier island complex and some of the largest East Coast beaches.

                                       Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                       . Continuing to improve. state and local government management of coastal growth and develop-
                                       ment.,
                                       . Developing management plans for designated coastal habitats and scenic areas.
                                       . Preservation of the state's coastal wetlands.
                                       . Managing the use and development of coastal areas recognizing the possible effects of sea level
                                       rise, particularly.in coastal hazard areas.
                                       ï¿½ Improving ocean and near shore coastal water quality.
                                       ï¿½ Interstate coastal management issues involving the New. York Bight. (NY/NJ), Long Island.
                                       Sound (NY/CT), and the Great Lakes (NY/PA/OH/IN/ILIMN/MI/Wl and Canada)..
                                         Ocean management invol*ing coastal states and the federal government.

                                       COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

                                       Program Descril2tio
                                         New York's Coastal Management Program (NYCMP) is based primarily on the State, Water-
                                       front Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (WRCRA). The WRCRAprovides the legal
                                       authority for the NYCMP and establishes policies, coastal boundaries, a prqc@ï¿½@,for coordinating
                                       state activities in the coastal zone, and a, program for managing coastal growth and'development in
                                       partnership with local governments.. Program implementation is administered by the Department
                                       of.State and through the coordination of federal and state resource management and environmental,
                                       laws and programs.


                                       Defirted Coastal Z6ne
                                          New York's coastal inland boundary is 1,000 feet from the shoreline, plus all identified
                                       geographic area of particular. concern. In urbanized areas and other developed locations along the
                                       coast, the boundary is approximately 500 feet from.the shoreline orless than 500 feet at locations
                                       where a major roadway or railway line runs parallel to the shoreline. The coastal boundary
                                       includes maj6r state-owned lands and facilities and electric power generation facilities that abut
                                       the shoreline.


                                       Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $20.1 million.

                                       Mg-jor Program Accomplishments
                                       . Managing coastal land use and development is a major component of the NYCMP. Since New
                                       York local governments have principal jurisdiction for regulating land use and development, the
                                       NYCMP enables coastal-Qommunities to prepare Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs
                                       (LWRPs) as a component of the state CMP. To date, 115 coastal municipalities are preparing or
                                       implementing State approved LWRPs. These municipalities have jurisdiction ove      'r more than 70
                                       percent of the 3,200 miles of coastline and account for over 90 percent of the state's coastal
                                       population.
                                       . The LWRP component of the NYCMP provides planning, preconstru          ction, small scale con-
                                       struction, and land acquisition funds on a competitive basis to coastal communities seeking to
                                       revitalize deteriorated and under utilized waterfronts and manage critical coastal, resources. Since
                                       1982, $4.1 million in CMP- funds have been awarded to coastal communities.
                                       . The NYCMP provides a framework for ensuring the public's right to access and use coastal
                                       resources. In conducting federal and state consistency reviews, public access is often required as a
                                       condition of approval. In other ways the program is seeking solutions to physical, barriers to the
                                       coast, water quality impacts, and innovative ways to accommodate mixed public and private use of
                                       the coast. Coastal communities preparing LWRP's are also instituting both management


                              130                                                                                       NCRI-IV-91-003







                                                                                                               Chapter Eight

                   techniques and capital investment programs to meet local and, in turn, statewide public access
                   needs.
                      Protecting lives and property from the threats of coastal flooding and erosion is an on-going
                   focus of the NYCMP. Under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, New York has developed
                   building setbacks for coastal development in coastal hazard areas. The NYCMP has also begun to
                   develop regional management strategies to coordinate and focus current federal, state and local
                   government actions in hazard areas.
                      Preserving critical coastal resources is a major focus of the NYCMP. Under the program over
                   200 significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats have been designated and scenic areas of state-
                   wide significance in the Hudson River Valley are currently being evaluated for designation. These
                   two programs for the first time provide for comprehensive regulation and management of signifi-
                   cant coastal habitats and scenic resources. Moreover, local governments preparing LWRPs are
                   developing land use standards to augment State protection of these critical coastal resources.
                      The NYCMP and LWRPs seek ways to maintain, promote and enhance the water dependent
                   uses of the coast in ways consistent with the economic and environmental productivity of the
                   coast. The programs attempt to reserve the waterfront for activities that are truly water dependent.


                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protectin2 Natural Resources
                   . The goal of the Richmond Creek watershed study-is to provide resource protection for the Fresh
                   Kills fish and wildlife habitat. The project will study the viability of the watershed and make
                   recommendations for enhancement and restoration.
                   . The DOS is working with several public and private organizations to develop plans to improve
                   the management and the quality of the New York Bight, a valuable coastal area located by New
                   York City, Long Island, and New Jersey. The Bight has been seriously degraded from point and
                   nonpoint source pollution.
                      Over 200 significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats have been designated by the DOS and
                   given protection under the NYCMP.
                   . DOS is currently completing the designation of Scenic Areas of Statewide significance for the
                   Hudson River Coastal region which will provide regulatory protection to such areas under the
                   NYCMP.


                   Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                   . Low cost construction and acquisition projects tunded undef Section 306A of the CZMA
                   provide for public access to New York's coastal areas. Examples of these projects are sand dune
                   construction in Long Beach, wetlands restoration in the City of Glen Cove, and redevelopment of
                   a public waterfront open space in the Village of Sackets Harbor.
                   . Virtually every local government preparing an LWRP is developing land use standards to
                   require public access as a condition of development.
                   . Under the New York City Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, the City has obtained
                   approximately 30 miles of shoreline public access through development exactions.
                   . Working with other state agencies the DOS has been developing public access strategies for
                   various coastal areas, including plans to increase public access in the Hudson River Valley and
                   manage public use in sensitive coastal areas.
                   . The DOS has completed a review of existing state and local laws and enabling statutes for
                   providing public access. This study will provide the basis for new legislation to improve public
                   use of and access to the coast.
                   . The waterfront revitalization program for a former Coast Guard Base on Staten Island, which is
                   adjacent to the Staten Island Ferry terminal, will provide access to waterfront recreation for
                   resident, tourists, and workers in the area.




                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   131







                              Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                        Promoting Urban Waterfront DeveloDment
                                           Under the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program,"the City of New York is prepar-
                                        ingwaterfront development strategies for its five boroughs.
                                        - -The NYCMP provides financial and technical assistance for thedevelopment of LWRPs by
                                        coastal communities. Of particular note is that all of the State's 26 coastal cities, save two, are
                                        preparing waterfront programs which not only protect coastal resources -but provide for wise
                                        development and redevelopment of waterfront areas.
                                        . The State has established the Horizon's Waterfront Commission to develop a regional water-
                                        front development plan for the entire Erie County waterfront. Representing municipalities,@Erie
                                        County and the State, the Commission has bonding authority and7eminent domain powers to
                                        implement its plan. All of the participating local governments are implementing or-preparing
                                        LWRPs which will provide the basis for developing and implementing the Horizon's Waterfront
                                        Plan,


                                        -Preserving Ports and Marinas
                                        . The NYCMP has. initiated the development of the tidal gauge system, a service for navigation.
                                        Port users of the New York Harbor will be able to obtain time data,on actual tide-levels, wind
                                        speed and direction from four stations with this system. Port users will also be able to obtain this
                                        data via a -telephone dial-up system linked to the users' computer.
                                        . The NYCMP participates in the New York Harbor Dredging Steering Committee. , The current
                                        focus of this Committee concerns the disposal methods for the 10 million cubic yards of dredged
                                        material generated annually.
                                        . The DOS has taken a leadership role to revive and increase maritime activities of the New'York
                                        City Harbor by creating a "Coastal Management Advisory Committee on the New York Harbor
                                        Maritime Industry". The goal of the Committee is to assure the availability of maritime facilities
                                        by monitoring residential and commercial waterfront development and assessing land needs for
                                        water-dependent industry activities.

                                        Improving Government Qperations
                                        - The NYCMP aggressively implemented its federal consistency provisions provided by the
                                        CZMA and protected significant wetland destruction in Suffolk County. When the General
                                        Services Administration (GSA) ignored the NYCMP's objections to the GSA's intent to sell the
                                        former Montauk Air Force Base, the NYCMP successfully initiated legal proceedings to protect
                                        the property.
                                        - The Department of State met with several Suffolk County representatives and property owners
                                        to'resolve a conflict regarding the dredging of the Shinnecock Canal. Dredging the canal would
                                        have impacted the waterfront properties downstream. After several meetings, the County agreed
                                        to establish a sand by-passing system to minimize the downdrift effects of the project.
                                        . The NYCMP has routinely taken a firm stand in favor of water dependency in reviewing
                                        projects involving construction in or over public trust waters. In cases involving residential,
                                        commercial, and governmental. projects,'the DOS has consistently objected to such projects as
                                        being inconsistent with the program's water dependent use policies. On appeal to the U.S.
                                        Secretary of Commerce, these decisions have been upheld.
                                           The Corps developed an extensive erosion control project for Westhampton Beach on the South
                                        Shore of Long Island that the DOS has found inconsistent with the NYCMP. The prqject,
                                        estimated to cost over $70 million, involved the development of massive jetties and routine sand
                                        replenishment to address chronic erosion problems. The DOS determiried the public cost of the
                                        Corps' approach outweighed the public benefit of the project, and that the proposal would likely
                                        not-relieve existing erosion problems and exacerbate erosion in downdrift areas. The DOS has
                                        recommended an alternative approach that would afford appropriate erosion control, result in
                                        increased public access to coastal waters, and mitigate downdrift affects, all at a cost to the public
                                        estimated at $35 million--one half of the Corps' original proposal.



                              132                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                        Chapter Eight

                  Develql@mg Natural Resources
                    The NYCMP has initiated a number of actions aimed at expanding the aquatic resources
                  industry. Most recently, the NYCMP has completed an economic study on New York's commer-
                  cial fishing industry to identify trends affecting the industry and propose public and private
                  solutions addressing adverse trends.

                  Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                    To address the problems of chronic flooding and erosion along the South Shore of Long Island,
                  the NYCMP has completed a comprehensive hazard management program. The South Shore
                  Hazard Management Program (SSHMP) will spell out options, costs, and recommended actions
                  needed to cope with continuing erosion, disjointed public and private responses, and sea level rise.

                  INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                  . New York and New Jersey are working together to improve the use of scientific information
                  concerning policy decisions concerning the pollution problems in the Bight.
                  . Federal coastal grants support new efforts by Connecticut and New York to study regional
                  environmental alternatives for the disposal of dredge spoil into Long Island Sound.
                  . New York and its sister Great Lakes coastal states have supported efforts by the Great lakes
                  states and Canadian provinces to cooperatively manage their shared water resources. These efforts
                  have led to the signing of the Great Lakes Charter and the development of formal consultation
                  agreements regarding activities affecting the-Great Lakes.
                  . New York and the New England coastal states have undertaken joint studies to assess trends
                  affecting water dependent uses of the coastal zone and the projected affects of sea level rise on the
                  northeastern seaboard.
                  . New York, together with all other coastal states, has contributed to a national study of the
                  Public Trust Doctrine.

































                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                           133







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                        NORTH,CAROLINA














                                              Date of Program Approval, 1978
                                              Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $14.7 Million
                                              Coastal GNP (19a5): $3.5 Billion (3.8% of state total)
                                              Coastal Population (19a5): 655,8W (10.5% of state total)
                                              Shoreline Mileage: 3,375 Miles
                                              National Estuarine Research Reserves: Currituck Banks (964 acres),
                                                Masonboro Island (5,046 acres), Rachel Carson (2,625 acres) and
                                                Zeke's Island (1,165 acres)



                                        COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION

                                        Special/National Significance of North Carolina's Coast
                                          North Carolina's coastline contains vast estuarine and wetland resources, as well as major port
                                        facilities and military installations. 'Me state's wetlands provide one of the East Coast's major
                                        commercial and sport fisheries' spawning and nursery areas as well as valuable waterfowl and
                                        wildlife habitats. fh6 beaches of the state provide recreational benefits that are the cornerstone of
                                        the, state tourism 6condmy.

                                        PrihcipAl Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                        ï¿½ Effects of nonpoint source coastal pollution due to increased development and marinas.
                                        ï¿½ Maintaining natural beach and dune systems.
                                        ï¿½ the preservation and protection of the state's maritime forests and wetlands.
                                        ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                                        ï¿½ Protecting primary fish nursery areas and areas of significant shellfish production.

                                        COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                        Program Descripjfiion
                                          The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and the State Dredge and Fill Act form the basis
                                        for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program (NCCMP). The lead agency is the Depart-
                                        rn6fit of Environmental Health and Natural Resources. Within the EHNR the Division of Coastal
                                        Management (DCM) implements the NCCMP. The Coastal Resources Commission formulates
                                        policy and regulations to implement the Program. Development within the Areas of Environmen-
                                        tal Concern (AEC) require a CAMA permit. AECs are critical resource areas. Major develop-
                                        ment pen-nits are handled at the state level and minor permits are administered through local
                                        governments with state overview. In addition, a citizen's Coastal Resource Advisory Council
                                        (CRAQ provides assistance to state agencies regarding coastal issues.


                                        Defined Coastal Zone
                                          North Carolina's coastal zone consists of the 20 counties that lie within the Tidewater region of
                                        the state. The inland boundaries are defined as the inland limits of a sound or tributary river under
                                        normal conditions (low stream flow or high tide). The seaward boundary extends to the state's
                                        jurisdictional limits.

                              134                                                                                       NCRI-H41403







                                                                                                                Chapter Eight

                   Federal Progmm Support 1982-1989: $14.7 million.

                   Major Program AccoMlishments
                   . An important element of the NCCMP is its Public Access Program. Through this program, over
                   130 new public access sites were obtained and/or developed with state, local and federal monies,
                   including environmentally sensitive areas, such as Permuda Island and Buxton Woods.
                   . The North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve, designated in 1982, is comprised of Zeke's
                   Island, Rachael Carson, Masonboro Island, and Currituck Banks. The Reserve contains maritime
                   forests, marshes, tidal creeks and grassy flats, as well as endangered species such as the American
                   Loggerhead turtle, the eastern brown pelican, and the southern bald eagle.
                   . The time necessary to obtain coastal permits has been reduced through the establishment of a
                   general permit process for routine activities and a joint permitting process,%ith the Corps.,
                      The NCCMP was one of the first states to establish coastal construction setbacks based on
                   erosion rates. Every 5 years the NCCMP updates the annual erosion rates along the state's
                   Atlantic shoreline. Residential structures must be constructed at least 30 times the annual erosion
                   rate landward of the first line of vegetation. Commercial structures must be setback 60 times the
                   annual erosion rate.
                   . Local land use plans are an integral part of the NCCMP. These plans are designed to protect
                   natural resources and avoid environmental crisis. They are also used as a guide for planning,
                   permitting and funding decisions. The CRC requires these plans to be updated every 5 years.


                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protecting Natural Resources
                   . Some of North Carolina's maritime forests are being protected through acquisition and county
                   ordinances. An example of protection measures is the acquisition of 337 acres of Buxton Woods
                   on Hatteras Island and extending the original Buxton Woods well field AEC designation to
                   include the entire Buxton Woods freshwater well field.
                   . Development activities in Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) require a CAMA permit
                   from the DCM. The state AEC's cover a major portion of the coastal resources. In 1989, the
                   NCCMP increased its authority under the estuarine shoreline AEC from 75 feet landward of the
                   mean high water mark to 575 feet in areas adjacent to outstanding resource waters.
                   . The Albemarle-Pamlico Sound Estuarine Study was established in 1987 to evaluate water
                   quality for the Sound and to develop management strategies for the area. Although the Study was
                   sponsored by the EPA, the DCM was active in the initial selection and continues to play a major
                   role in the study.


                   Providin2 Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                   . From 1981 to 1988, a total of 138 public access sites were provided through the coastal access
                   program using federal and state funds. These sites serve neighborhoods, localities and specific
                   regions along the 3,500 miles of North Carolina's ocean and estuarine shoreline.
                   . Beach access workshops, sponsored by the NCCMP, inform local governments of techniques
                   available for requiring developer dedication of public accessways.
                      The towns of Elizabeth City and Plymouth acquired urban waterfront properties to enhance
                   pedestrian and visual access to,their shorelines.

                   Promoting Urban Waterfront Develgpment
                      Wilmington's waterfront revitalization plan resulted in a riverfront park extension, a boat
                   launch and parking facilities, the refurbishment of an old rail house into an inn, a conference
                   center, shops and offices, and the restoration of 10 buildings. An annual waterfront festival
                   attracts thousands of people to the area each year.




                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   135







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                     Preservin2 Ports and Marinas
                                        Marina standards, adopted in June 1086, define the amount of public trust waters that can be
                                     used for residential marinas and'specify design guidelines to protect estuarirf6 'reserves. These
                                     standards also provide guidelines for constructing piers in' man-made canals. The regulations apply
                                     to both new marinas or the expansion of existing marinas.

                                     Improving Government QVerations
                                     . Through modifications of the federal consistency review proce9s, the state has made provisions
                                     for earlier involvement of the DCM staff in the evaluation,of development projects. This earlier
                                     involvement will allow more time f@r DCM field staff to identify p6tential problems and make
                                     recommendations.
                                     . A Handbook for DevelMment in North CaroiinA's Coastal Area Was prepa@edto,helo develop-
                                     6rs i ffiderstand the development standards and permit procedures of the NCCMP. The handbook
                                     describes the permit program and its procedures and the AEC's and the Commission's guidelines
                                     for development. 'Other public information activities include The. 1986 and 1987 Annual &Wrts
                                     and the CAMA Qjmrteft, a magazine discussing current activities of the Program.

                                     Developing Natural Resource
                                        The NCCMP is involved in a consistency review concerning a Mobil Oil exploration plan.
                                     Mobil Oil is proposing to drill an exploration well for natural gas approximately 40 miles off the
                                     coast of North Carolina. Meetings between Mobil, their contractors and the Statehave been held
                                     concerning the rules and regulations governing the activities.

                                     Mi tigafin2 Coastal Storm Dama2e and Coastal Hazards
                                     ` In 1985, the NCCMP promulgated regulations prohibiting the hardening of the ocean shoreline.
                                     Pr6oerty and structure may not be protected by any hard structures.
                                     . the DCM has t@@6'n designated by FEMA as the agency responsible for evaluating the condition
                                     of oceanfront buildings that may be in danger of collapse due to coastal erosion. Owners of
                                     ihi@6atened buil dings are eligible for FEMA funds that allow them to move, reconstruct or demol-
                                     ish the building.
                                     . A permanent technical advisory committee on coastal erosion was established to Ascertain the
                                     cause and eiient of erosion and its impact on coastal development. The committee studies coastal
                                     erosion and reviews erosion abatement projects. Study topics include the economic impacts of
                                     eibsion, erosion response methods, and the cost and feasibility of relocating large structures
                                     threatened by erosion.




















                             136                                                                                  NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                            Chapter Eight


                   NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS













                                           Ibte of Program Approval: 1980
                                           vCderal Program Support 1982-1989: S3.8 Million
                                           Coasial 6NP (1985): No[ Available
                                           Coasuil Population ( IIK';): 19.W) ( I(Xt"; of 1cri-ilon. total)
                                           Shorclinc Mileage: 2rV) Miles








                   COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                   Special/National Significance of the Northern Marianas' Coast
                      The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) contains fourteen Pacific islands,
                   located 1,500 miles east of the Philippines. Several of the Islands are uninhabited. Each island
                   possesses a fi-agile coastal ecosystem in which small changes in land use activities can have
                   profound impacts. The Islands contain many diverse resources such as, steep cliffs, serene
                   beaches, lagoons, brackish ponds and wetlands, coral reefs, limestone plateaus, sea level lakes,
                   narrow peninsulas, and active volcanos. Some species, the Marianas Mallard, presumed extinct,
                   for example, are indigenous only to this 400 mile archipelago. The tourist and garment factories
                   are vital to the CNMI economy.

                   Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                   . Protecting and enhancing the coastal resources on which the tourist industry relies; specifically
                   maintaining the quality of beaches, lagoons, and natural habitats, and improving access to beaches
                   and boat launches for deep sea fishing.
                   . Controlling the impact of tourists on fragile lagoon ecosystems; specifically, the amount of
                   gasoline leaked from motorboats, and the amount of coral removed from reefs by divers and
                   snorklers which reduces sediment from land clearings and impacts coral growth.
                   . Protecting and improving the fisheries for both subsistence level and commercial fishing by
                   minimizing point and nonpoint source pollution and improving harvesting methods.
                   ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal resources, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                   ï¿½ Protecting wetlands from intense development pressures.

                   COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                   Program Desq6ptio
                      The authority for the CNMI Coastal Resources Management Program (CRMP) was originally
                   established through a Gubernatorial Executive Order and subsequently embodied in statute
                   through the Coastal Resources Management Act of 1983 and the implementing regulations. The
                   statute and regulations set forth policies for issuing permits. Coastal permits are issued by a Board
                   of Commonwealth Agency Directors, including the Coastal Resources Management Office
                   (CRMO). Individual agencies retain the authority to issue other permits, like earthmoving and

                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                               137






                             Summaries of Individual. State and- Territory Programs

                                      water quality permits. The CRMP has also designated "Areas of Particular Concern (APC).".
                                      These are: Shoreline APC, Lagoon and Reef APC, Wetlands and Mangroves APC, and Port and
                                      Industrial APC.


                                      Defined Coastal Zone
                                         The coastal zone includes all lands as well as Commonwealth waters and submerged lands
                                      extending seaward 3 miles. Federal lands are excluded.

                                      Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $3.8 million.

                                      Major Program Accomplishment
                                      . Through the coastal permit process, the CRMO has been able to negotiate with developers to
                                      require infrastructure improvements as a condition of the development. For example, the CRMP
                                      used the coastal permit process to negotiate an agreement with a developer for Japan Airlines to
                                      build a sewer line to the closest wastewater treatment plant on an undeveloped portion of Saipan
                                      Island. The sewer line was oversized to allow small villages to hook up to it. This sewer Ue was
                                      needed to serve a 320-room hotel. The originally proposed sewage treatment methods would have
                                      polluted the nearby Saipan Lagoon.
                                      . A Marine Water Quality Monitoring Program has been instituted by the CRMO in cooperation
                                      with the Division of Environmental Quality. This strategy was developed to survey and monitor
                                      the ambient water quality and marine life in the Commonwealth, particularly in areas where there
                                      is agricultural or industrial activity. Under this Program, a "Suspended Sediment Load Study at
                                      Saipan Lagoon and Laulau Bay" has been completed.


                                      SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                      Protecting Natural Resources
                                      . The CRMO funded a Storinwat@-r Control Handbook which provides site-specific information
                                      'of CNMI soils, drainage, vegetation and technical specifications to help developers and farmers
                                      identify , plan and implement storinwater control systems.
                                         An "Adopt-A-Beach" campaign was instituted at local schools. This campaign involved a sign
                                      competition for "Don't Litter" and "Don't Take Sand" and a beach cleaning competition.

                                      Providing Public Access to CoasW Recreation
                                         Through permit conditions, the CRMP has required developers to provide public access. For
                                      example, several developers are ctuTently constructing a bikelpedestrian path along the Saipan
                                      I-agoon.

                                      Improving Government Qperation@
                                      . The CRMO produced a video to promote the concepts of zoning and community design. This
                                      video was presented to the legislature and was shown on television.
                                      . The CRMO,,,&ith the assistance of a consultant, has put land use and natural resource data onto
                                      a GIS. This information will be used in a cooperative effort with the Marianas Public Land
                                      Corporation to update the CNMI plan for public land use.

                                      Develgj$ng Natural Resources
                                      . The CRMO, in cooperation with the Mariana Visitors Bureau, completed a tourism impact
                                      study for the Mariana Islands.
                                      . The CRMO has ftmded a geological study to identify alternative sand sources (surface and
                                      subsurface). The use of these altemative sand sources should alleviate pressures of illegal sand
                                      mining from beaches. Sand is used to make concrete, the primary building material in the CNMI.




                             138                                                                                       NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                         Chapter Eight

                  Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                  . The CRMO played a key role in the implementation of a "State Hazard Mitigation Plan"
                  instituted by the Governor following Supertyphoon Kim.
                  . The CRMO co-sponsored erosion control workshops in Saipan, Rota, and Tinian. These
                  workshops were attended by farmers, consultants, builders and agency personnel.
                  . The CRMO has a 150 foot shoreline setback zone where vertical building is generally prohib-
                  ited.


















                  OREGON

















                                                      Date of Program Approval: 1977
                                                      Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $9 Million
                                                      Coastal GNP (1985): $13.1 Billion (34.7% of state total)
                                                      Coastal Population (1985): 1,12.5,600 (41.9% of state total)
                                                      Shoreline Mileage; 1,410
                                                      National Estuarine Research Reserves: South Slough (4,400 acres)


                  COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                  Special/National Significance of Oregon's Coast
                     The Oregon coastal zone consisting primarily of the coastal mountain range watershed, con-
                  tains many unique wildlife habitats and areas of great natural beauty. These include rainforests,
                  estuarine systems, tidal marsh and wetlands, wilderness areas, beaches and dunes, and scenic
                  rivers. A great percentage of the coastal zone remains undeveloped.

                  Pfincipgl Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                  ï¿½ Cooperative management with federal government on states ocean resources.
                  ï¿½ Managing rapid population growth occurring in small urban areas along the coast.
                  ï¿½ Preservation of the state's remaining wetlands.
                  ï¿½ Review of development plans with wetland permit procedures to prevent further wetland loss.


                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                             139







                           Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                    . Development of a comprehensive plan to address the problem of erosion of parts of Oregon's
                                    coastline.
                                    . Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard'aireas.

                                    COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                    Program Descriptio
                                       Oregon's legislative base is not exclusively coastal as in many '6 ther states. Oregon's coastal
                                    program is based the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Depart-
                                    ment of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). the forty-one local coastal jurisdictions
                                    use the statewide planning goals and guidelines mandated by the LCIJC and the DLC D to develop
                                    land use plans and ordinances. Other state agencies assist the LCDC in implementing the Oregon
                                    Coastal Management Program (OCMP).


                                    Defined Coastal Zone
                                       Oregon's designated coastal boundary is the watershed from the crest of the coastal mountain
                                    range to the 3-mile jurisdictional seaward boundary and includes all of the coastal, counties.

                                    Federal Program SUport 1982-1989: $9 million.

                                    Major Prog-ram Accomplishments
                                       The South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, designated in 1980, consists of 4,400
                                    acres in the Coos Bay Estuary. The Reserve contains an upland forest of hendock, spruce and
                                    cedar trees, a freshwater and saltwater marsh, openwaters, and at least 30 species,of marine and
                                    estuarine fish.
                                    . Comprehensive management plans have been developed and adopted for each of Oregon's 22
                                    major estuaries indiiding the Columbia River estuary and all of its minor estuaries.
                                       A 38-acre wetlands mitigation bank was established in 1986 to facilitate the ptocess of siting
                                    development projects that require mitigation in the Lower Columbia Estuary. State wetlands
                                    mitigation rules require one-for-one mitigation with a preference for like-kind mitigation.
                                    . The Oregon Ocean Resources Act of 1987 was approved by the state legisl@ture. The Act calls
                                    for an Ocean Resources Management Plan for Oregon's territorial waters and includes manage-
                                    ment recommendations for the federal Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

                                    SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                    Proiectiu Natural Resources
                                    . A computerized Geographic information System (GIS) program is helping to provide base
                                    maps showing tidal wetland fill and mitigation sites. The system will be expanded to contain
                                    detailed information on estuarine habitat, land use, and zoning.
                                    . A new Wetlands Management Act revises and updates the regulation of wetlands and provides
                                    the Division of State Lands a networking OCMP Agency with authority to adopt "wetland
                                    conservation plans". These plans will be jointly implemented by DSL and affected local govern-
                                    ments.
                                    . The Oregon Oceanbook provides information concerning the Oregon coastline and its marine
                                    resources. This publication is used by primary and secondary school teachers to educate school-
                                    children about the state's coastal resources.
                                    . The Dune Management Study for Nedonna Beach provided an economical and ecologically
                                    eftective areawide dime management program that can also be applied to other shoreline areas.

                                    Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                    . A field guide to Oregon's public access sites was prepared and made available to the public.
                                    The guide includes a location map, facilities map and description, a site photograph and project


                            140                                                                                 iVCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                  Chapter Eight

                    costs for all of Oregon's Section 306A projects. The guide is revised periodically with the
                    addition of new sites.
                    . DLCD and the Oregon Department of Transportation has published an inventory of all public
                    accessways to coastal lakes, estuaries, and ocean beaches. This inventory has been distributed to
                    local governments and libraries.
                       A visual access plan for Highway 101 has identified important coastal views and reduced
                    negative visual effects along the coastal highway.

                    Promoting Urban Waterfront DevelMment
                    . An increase in tourism and retiree settlements in many of Oregon's coastal towns prompted the
                    publication of a Waterfront Revitalization Guide for small communities. Detailed instructions for
                    implementing waterfront revitalization plans are provided in the guide. The guidebook is pub-
                    lished by The Oregon State University Sea Grant using Section 306 funds.
                    . Approximately 1 mile of Astoria's urban waterfront is the site for a landscape architecture and
                    waterfront access design plan. Included in this area is the Columbia Estuary Maritime Museum or
                    a previous public access and Pier redevelopment project. The state has used Section 306A funds
                    to construct pier redevelopment and public access projects.
                       A preliminary design for Reedsport's waterfront revitalization project along the Umpqua River
                    was completed in the winter of 1989-90. With the objective of attracting tourists to the area, the
                    project consists of an interpretive center, recreational boat ramp, picnic and parking facilities, and
                    moorage for the Antarctic research vessels, the Hero and the Glacier.

                    Preservin2 Ports and Marinas
                       Port Division funding helps support the development of Strategic Business Plans by port
                    districts, Each district is forced to realistically evaluate its marketing competitiveness to other
                    ports in the region, and to set priorities for capital improvements and dredging projects. Plans
                    have been developed for Coos Bay, Newport, and Astoria.

                    ImRroving Government Operations
                    . The Municipal and Industrial Ocean Effluent SqLdy was supported by the DLCD to ensure that
                    the results will be useful to resource managers.
                       Monthly Statewide Interagency Meetings (SWIM) between project applicants and state agency
                    representatives help to facilitate the permit review process. A coastal permit specialist attends the
                    meeting as well to provide input on projects in the coastal zone.
                    . A users guide to streamlining the permit process: PERMIT AEROBICS: Getting your Process
                    in Shape was published to help local officials who implement the land development and permitting
                    procedure. The guide presents various techniques for jurisdictions to use to organize and maintain
                    an efficient and effective permitting system.
                       The DLCD will work with the Division of State Lands (DSL) and affected local governments
                    and interest groups to improve coordination between comprehensive plans and wedand permitting
                    procedures. This will be accomplished through the development of a notice system by which local
                    governments can obtain assistance from the DSL in identifying wetlands subject to regulatory
                    jurisdiction.

                    DevelMing Natural Resources
                       The DLCD staff participate with other state agencies on the state-federal Marine Placer Mineral
                    Task Force. This Task Force is investigating the economic and environmental aspects of explora-
                    tion and recovery of marine placer mineral deposits off the Oregon coast.
                    . DLCD also staffs the "Oregon portion" of the OCS Task Force between Oregon, Washington
                    and USDI/MMS. The Task Force oversees environmental studies and other policy issues associ-
                    ated with OCS oil and gas development offshore Oregon and Washington.




                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                    141







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                      Miti2atin2 Coastal Storm DamaLye and Coastal Hazards
                                         Statewide land use planning goals set specific standards for local communities to use for
                                      natural hazard planning in the coastal zone. These goals limit development in areas subject to
                                      natural disasters and hazards, coastal shorelands; and on beaches and dunes. A variety of tech-
                                      niques to regulate development have been implemented on the local level including hazard overlay
                                      zoning, site-specific geologic report requirements, and density bonus awards to developers who
                                      avoid hazardous areas.
                                      . Coastal erosion is.a problem along parts of the Oregon coastline. The DLCD will complete a
                                      preliminary assessment of the potential coastal erosion sites in Oregon, and of the ability of state
                                      and local policies to manage development in these erosion-prone areas.













                                      -PENNSYLVANIA














                                                                               Date of Program Approval: 1990
                                                                               Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $6.2 Million
                                                                               Coastal GNP (1985): $36.2 Billion (18.5% of state total)
                                                                               Coastal Population (1985): 3,004,100 (25.3% of state total)
                                                                               Shoreline Mileage: 140 Miles





                                      COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                      SMial/National Significance of Pennsylvania's Coast
                                         Pennsylvania's coastal zone is comprised of two distinct regions, the Lake Erie shoreline and
                                      the tidal Delaware River. The most outstanding feature of the Lake Erie shoreline is the 7-mile
                                      long Presque Isle Peninsula. Presque Isle, which attracts three to four million recreational visitors
                                      each year, is also an important habitat for fish and wildlife. The industrialized Delaware River
                                      segment contains mostly manufacturing or transportational facilities. The Delaware River estuary
                                      system provides an important habitat for migratory fish and birds.

                                      Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenge
                                      . Preservation of the state's wetlands through improved cumulative impact review and mitigation


                             142                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                         Chapter Eight

                  policies.
                     Effects of lake level fluctuation on coastal areas, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                     Developing dredging and spoil disposal activities that do not cause water quality degradation or
                  the loss of valuable wildlife habitat.
                  ï¿½ Need for recreational opportunities.
                  ï¿½ Need for economic/urban waterfront revitalization.


                  COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                  ProgLain Descripti
                     An Executive Order provides the administrative authority to network existing laws into the
                  Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program (PCZMP). All regulatory policies included in
                  the program are executed by the Department of Environmental Resources (DER). The other
                  Commonwealth agencies responsible for implementing the encouragement policies included in
                  PCZMP have entered into a Memoranda of Understanding with DER.


                  Defined Coastal Zone
                     The boundary of the Lake Erie coastal zone extends to the international boundary with Canada
                  in Lake Erie, and on land and water to the borders of Ohio and New York. This area extends from
                  900 feet to over 3 miles inland from the shoreline. The eastward boundary of the Delaware
                  Estuary coastal zone extends east to the New Jersey boundary of the Delaware River, north to the
                  upper extent of the tidal influenced near Morrisville, Pennsylvania, and south to the Delaware state
                  boundary. The coastal area also includes all tributaries to the Delaware border.

                  Federal Pro2ram Support 1982-1989: $6.2 million.

                  Major Program Accomplishments
                  . The Pennsylvania CZMP provides technical assistance to lakeshore property owners in the
                  Lake Erie Coastal Zone concerning bluff stabilization and shore protection methods. This service
                  includes a site visit from the coastal program staff as well as other permitting employees.
                  . Public access planning by the PCZMP catalyzed the construction of fishing and boating
                  facilities for the city of Chester, Pennsylvania. The facility is now visited by 30,000 boaters and
                  shore fishermen per year. Chester, an economically depressed city, has reported a modest increase
                  in business investment and sales since the opening of the facility.
                  . Waterfront planning in Pennsylvania's coastal cities, Erie and Philadelphia, has catalyzed
                  extensive revitalization efforts which have generated millions of dollars in private investment and
                  in city and state tax revenues.
                  . A joint permit application between the Corps and DER has been developed to enable applicants
                  to apply simultaneously for a CORPS and DER permits. This simultaneous review process
                  provides a time and cost savings to the applicant as well as the permitting agency. In 1987, the
                  CORPS and the DER collectively published and distributed the Joint Permit Application with an
                  instructional booklet for the applicants and agencies to use.


                  SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                  Protecting Natural Resources
                  . The PCZMP has developed a new system to monitor and protect Pennsylvania's coastal
                  wetlands. The new monitoring system has been developed in conjunction with the Bureau of
                  Dams and Waterways Management (RDWM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
                  Included in these efforts are aerial photography, digitized mapping, and field verification to
                  evaluate the amount of wetland loss or gain.
                  . The use of helicopter overflights has proven to be an effective method for the PCZMP to
                  monitor its coastal zone for potential violations. In addition, the PCZMP's computerized system


                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                            143







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                       can provide status reports and better tracking of enforcement actions.
                                       . A Resource Management Plan for-Presque Isle State Park is being implemented to protect the
                                       resources of this fragile ecosystem from the impact of tourism.

                                       Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                       . The PCZMP has helped city governments develop comprehensive plans that encourage private
                                       developers to incorporate public access provisions into their development plansfor urban water-
                                       front areas. For example, the City of Erie. has made public access provisions a requirement for
                                       developers to address as part of comprehensive planning efforts.
                                       . Low cost construction projects provided public access to the state's shoreline.- Two examples
                                       of these are: the East Avenue Boat Launch Parking Facility, a roadway and'parking,lbt to provide
                                       access between the beach and boat ramp in Erie, Pennsylvania; and the Commodore Barry Bridge
                                       Access Site, located in Chester, Pennsylvania. This facility includes four boat-ramps, two perma-
                                       nent piers, two floating docks, and parking for approximately 150 cars and trailers:
                                       . The PCZMP has developed a long-term plan to turn Elk Creek, in Erie County, into a major
                                       public recreational facility. The plan includes the acquisition of approximately 60 acres of land
                                       and appurtenances and the construction of a small boat harbor.

                                       Promotin2 Urban Waterfront Develppment
                                       . Several waterfront redevelopment studies funded by the CZMP resulted in-the-Phil    adelphia
                                       Waterfront Comprehensive Plan. This development plan catalyzed over $310.1million in private
                                       investments and millions of dollars in tax revenue to the City of Philadelphia and- the Common-
                                       wealth.
                                       @. A CZM grant helped the city of Erie develop a revitalization plan for its water-front area.
                                       Efforts are now underway to secure capital to carry out the plan.

                                       lb2provirm Government Operations
                                       . The PCZMP has streamlined-its administrative process through computetization. This has
                                       resulted in a substantial time and cost savings tolhe prograrn. For example, a grant application
                                       can now be prepared in 5-7 days compared to 3-4 weeks before computerization. This computer
                                       system is also used to track grant tasks and reviews, and has improved the management of grants
                                       and projects.
                                       . The PCZMP actively solicits public participation in coastal issues decision making through
                                       workshops, meetings, and conferences. For example, the citizens of Erie were encouraged to
                                       discuss their concerns about public access regarding the Erie Waterfront Comprehensive Plan.
                                         The Urban Waterfront Action Group (UWAG), which the PCZMP initiated and administers,
                                       helps to expedite the permit processing time for proposed waterfront development projects. The
                                       UWAG, made up of various federal, state, regional, county and local permitting agencies, meets
                                       on a monthly basis. Its main purpose is to review proposed waterfront projects while they are still
                                       in the early planning stages and to offer suggestions to the developer that would make the project
                                       more acceptable to the permitting agency, thus increasing the likelihood of permit issuance.

                                       Developing Natural Resources
                                         The PCZMP managed the Norfolk Moraine Fisheries Baseline Study in Lake Erie to determine
                                       whether fish in the lake would be adversely affected by sand and gravel extraction activities.


                                       Miti2ating Coastal Storm Dama2e and Coastal Hazards
                                         The PCZMP administers the Bluff Recession and Setback Act. A provision of the Act is for
                                       municipalities to provide recommendations to the PC ZMP concerning the administration of the
                                       setback regulations. Several municipalities have already participated in the administration of these
                                       regulations, including the borough of Lake City and the townships of Fairview, Girard,
                                       Harborcreek, Lawrence Park, Millcreek, North East and Springfield.



                             144                                                                                        NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                            Chapter Eight

                   PUERTO RICO












                                       Date of Program Approval: 1978
                                       Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $8.3 Million
                                       Coastal GNP (19&5): $12.9 Billion (100% of commonwealth total)
                                       Coastal Population (19&5): 3,293,000 (100% of commonwealth total)
                                       Shoreline Mileage: 700
                                       National Estuarinc Re-search Rc=rvcv. Jobo6 Bay (2,800 Arcs)






                   COASTAL RESOURCES INFORMATION


                   Smial/National Signiticanct, of Puerto Rico Coast
                      The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico encompasses the smallest and easternmost island of the
                   Greater Antilles. The coastal area contains rocky cliffs, sand dunes, beaches, fresh and salt water
                   lagoons, forests, mangroves, swamps, and flood plains and coral reefs. Agriculture has been
                   supplanted by manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, business and personal services, and
                   tourism in the island's economy. The coastal area is vital for Puerto Rico's tourism and local
                   recreation.


                   Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenge
                      Effects of sea level rise on coastal resources, especially in areas prohe to erosion and storm
                   surges.
                   . DNR leadership role, particularly with respect to monitoring and enforcement, concerning the
                   resolution of coastal environmental problems, suchas at La Parguera and Culebra.
                   . Preservation of Puerto Rico's mangroves, coral reefs, bays and other valuable natural resources
                   in the face of the ever-present threat of oil spills due to the passage of tankers through the waters
                   around the island.


                   COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                   Progjam Descril2tio
                      The Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program (PRCMP) is an element of the island-wide land
                   use plan established by the Puerto Rico Planning Board and adopted by the Governor in 1977.
                   Although the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the designated agency for administration
                   of the PRCMP, other major agencies, such as the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PB), the Regula-
                   tions and Permits Administration (RPA), and the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) participate
                   in program implementation. Puerto Rico's 78 municipal governments do not regulate local
                   planning, zoning, or construction activity.

                   Defined Coastal Zone
                      The boundary of Puerto Rico's coastal zone extends inland 1,000 meters from the shoreline and
                   farther inland in places where it is necessary to include critical drainage basins, plus all offshore
                   islands and waters within the 3 -mile limit.


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                               145







                              Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                        Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $83-million.

                                        Major Program Accomplishment
                                          Asa result of a Puerto Rico Flood Hazard Mitigation- Plan recommendation'(prepared under a
                                        CZM task), an island-wide flash flood warning system has been installed. This warning system
                                        serves approximately one million people or about one-third of Puerto Rico's population.
                                        . Another aspect of the Puerto Rico Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan provided area-specific
                                        guidance for flood mitigation planning in the Rio Grand de Loiza!Valley. As a result of the Plan,
                                        the Legislature appropriated $51 million to clear the floodway, restore or build new protective
                                        dikes, improve flood drainage in areas along the river, and relocate:about 1,300 families.
                                        .. The Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, located in the southern coastal plain in
                                        Puerto Rico, was designated in 1981. This Reserve contains diverse resources such-as mangrove
                                        fringes,, tear-shaped inlets that interact with seagrass beds, mangroves, and coral reefs.

                                        SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                        Protectin2 Natural Resources
                                        . Under the Coastal Program, the DNR has prepared a Management Plan, for'La Parguera, one of
                                        the Commonwealth's most beautiful areas. Some of the natural resource. protection actions taken
                                        by@the -DNR to protect this area include reforestation, increased enforcement ac tivities, refuse
                                        collection, and working with the Corps to solve problems, such as -pollution of-coastal waters and
                                        theuse of houseboats.
                                        . The Natural Reserve (NR) Designation Program, implemented by the DNR and PB, provides
                                        protection to some of Puerto Rico's valuable coastal resources. The PE has formally designated
                                        18 of the 28 natural reserves recommended in the PRCMP. For example, the PB approved the
                                        designation of the Vieques Bioiuminiscent Day Natural Reserve (NR).in 4999. nisNRclassifi-
                                        cation was the [email protected] a Critical Area Management Plan prepared by the DNR.
                                        0 A model mangrove management plan for selected mangrove areas was generated to-be used as
                                        a basis for development of an island-wide management plan. The goals of the plan were to design
                                        protective measures and to develop recommendations for specific land use that are compatible
                                        with the ecoloo of the area.
                                                      aly
                                          Public environmental education is an important element of the PRCMP. Activities under this
                                        program include brochures, television programs (i.e., documentaries), newspaper articles, and
                                        Coast Week projects.
                                        . The Natural Heritage Program established a fund for acquiring critical natural areas that are
                                        now in private ownership. Some sites designated by the program are critical'areas protected by
                                        SAMPs. For example,, a SAMP being prepared for Torrecilla Alta-Vana Talega area, has certified
                                        more than 100 sites of archaeological value.

                                        Providine Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                          The PB adopted a regulation in 1983 to implement policies of the PRCMP with respect to
                                        zoning districts in coastal areas and access to the shore. These include setback requirements for
                                        any new coastal development, as well as limitations on uses in areas designated as public beaches,
                                        natural reserve areas, and mangroves.
                                        - A 1986 law regulates the use of recreational boats in the vicinity of public beaches. The PB is
                                        charged with identifying the beaches most frequently used by bathers, and DNR must then place
                                        and maintain marker buoys to separate boats from bathing areas. DNR is charged with the
                                        registration of recreational boats, and the purchaser of every recreational boat is required to take
                                        the boating safety course offered by DNR's Commissioner of Navigation on a regular basis.

                                        Promoting Urban Waterfront Development
                                          Port zones are regulated by the Puerto Rico Port Authority (PA). The PA is working with the
                                        municipalities of San Juan and Ponce to improve their waterfront areas, especially for the
                                        enhancement of the piers for cruise ships.

                              146                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                   Chapter Eight

                    Preserving Ports and Marinas
                       A Marina Siting Manual was prepared to provide information related to marina siting and
                    operations and the required permits. This manual was developed to respond to the increasing
                    public demand for marina sites, as well as a need to provide public access and facilities for
                    launching small recreational boats.

                    Improving Government Operations
                    . The DNR is making surveys of the maritime zone and property boundaries of the lands in
                    Culebra that were conveyed by the Federal Government to the Commonwealth. Once the survey
                    is completed, the DNR will be able to prosecute the people living in Culebra illegally. DNR and
                    the Culebra Conservation and Development Authority cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                    Service to patrol and maintain the transferred lands, especially the beaches that are nesting areas
                    for endangered sea turtles.
                    . The DNR is developing new maritime zone regulations. Other regulations already prohibit
                    sandmining at beaches and dunes and the taking of coral.

                    Developing Natural Resou es
                       DNR uses the CZM program to protect and develop critical coastal resources, including
                    beaches, mangroves, reefs, aquifers, sand deposits, and endangered species of flora and fauna.
                    Special attention is being given to critical areas, such as beaches, that are vital for the continuing
                    expansion of the island's tourism industry. The development of alternative sources of sand for
                    construction also serves to protect beaches and dunes that were once the primary source of such.
                    material. A dune restoration manual has been prepared to guide DNR in regulating sand extrac-
                    tion.


                    Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazard
                    . The unit established within DNR to deal with coastal hazards under the PRCMP has been
                    institutionalized by legislative action, and its charge has been expanded to cover all natural
                    hazards and the entire island. The work of the unit now must be coordinated with the Governor's
                    Earthquake Safety Commission, the State Civil Defense Agency, and FEMA. The unit is now
                    responsible for actions related to hazard mitigation after Hurricane Hugo, including a new hazard
                    mitigation plan, and participation in the new Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
                       Sixteen area-specific flood hazard mitigation plans have been undertaken under the CZM
                    program. The first priority project (Rio Grande de Loiza) has been completed at a cost of $51
                    million in local funds. The second (Rio de la. Plata) is awaiting legislative authorization. Comple-
                    tion of the other planning documents is waiting on the provision of computer-generated storm
                    surge and wave height data being developed by the Sea Grant Program of the University of Puerto
                    Rico at Mayaguez.
                    . The flash flood warning system designed with the help of the National Weather Service
                    subsequent to Hurricane David in 1979 has been expanded twice, using local funds. The addition
                    of another 10 automatic reporting rain gages will complete the basic system. A complementary
                    system of stream-flow sensors has been initiated under a cooperative program involving DNR and
                    the USGS Water Division. The stream-flow sensors will permit the extrapolation of rainfall data
                    into rapid projections of flash floods, accelerating warning time and giving critical additional
                    minutes to evacuate threatened areas.











                    Evaluation ofthe National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                       147






                            Summaries-of IIndividual State and Territory Programs

                                     RHODE ISLAND















                                                 Date of Program Approval: 1978
                                                 Federal Program Support 1982-1989: S5.2 Million
                                                 Coastal GNP (19a5): $9.1 Billion (573% of state total)
                                                 Coastal Population (198S): 966,800 (100% of state total)
                                                 Shoreline Mileage: 384 Miles






                                     COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                     SMial/National Significance of Rhode Island's Coas
                                        Although Rhode Island is the smallest state in the nation, it contains over 400 miles of shore-
                                     line and vast saltwater resources. The Narragansett Bay, famed for its beauty, contains several
                                     harbors and a large fish and shellfish population. Barrier beaches and a string of unique lagoons,
                                     known as the salt ponds, lie to the east and west of the Bay.

                                     Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                     . The development of a broader public awareness program is needed to help the Rhode Island
                                     Coastal Management Program (RICMP) implement and enforce the goals.
                                     ï¿½ Improved development and management of the state's right-of-ways (ROW).
                                     ï¿½ Although major construction projects are underway, the insufficient number of sewage treat-
                                     ment plants and combined sewage outfall continues to keep the upper Narragansett Bay closed for
                                     swimming and fishing.
                                     ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                                     ï¿½ Preservation of the state's remaining wetlands, including the salt ponds.

                                     COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

                                     Prop-ram Desedpfign
                                        The Rhode Island Coastal Management Program (RICMP) is based on the Rhode Island
                                     Coastal Resources Management Act of 197 1. The Office of the Governor administers the
                                     RICMP's funds and the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) implements the
                                     Program. The CRMC has direct permitting authority in all the state's coastal waters, tidal wet-
                                     lands and contiguous lands.


                                     Defined Coastal Zone
                                        The coastal boundary for the state extends 200 feet iffland of a defined coastal feature. Certain
                                     activities which occur throughout the state and may impact the coastal zone are also regulated.
                                     For federal consistency review, the boundary of the coastal pro-ram extends inland to the first
                                     town boundary.



                             148                                                                                  A"CRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                Chapter Eight

                   Federal Program SiWort 1982-1989: $5.2 million.

                   Major ProgLam. Accomplishments
                   . The Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, designated in 1980, contains
                   diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats and nesting sites for many species of birds.
                   . The RICMP developed a Salt Pond Management Plan to protect this fragile ecosystem from the
                   impacts of development. This highly successful Plan, which was adopted in 1984, requires
                   development to be set back at least 200 feet fi-om the ponds, reduces the amount of housing and
                   boat docks, requires septic tank inspection, and a coordinated permit review process between the
                   federal, state, and local agencies.
                   . Obtaining public accessways along Rhode Island's coast has been an important element of the
                   RICMP. The RICMP, which issues all development permits within 200 feet from the coastline,
                   reviews all development proposals for public access impacts.
                   . Despite the substantial increase in category A assents, the CRMC continues to process these
                   applications in an average of 4-6 weeks.


                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protecting Natural Resources
                   .. The CRMC has established a SAMP for the Narrow River and its watershed. The SAMP
                   provided a plan to deal with point source runoff, water quality, dredging issues, plant and animal
                   habitat, failing septic systems, and other matters of concern to the state's Coastal Resource
                   Management Council and the local citizens.
                   . The CRMC is participating with the DEM to develop a nonpoint source pollution management
                   plan.
                   . In order to protect critical habitats and/or required buffer zones, CRMC has imposed mitigation
                   measures in many subdivision and condominium proposals, as well as smaller projects which
                   occur close to the required buffer. Measures call for a demarcation structure, often a fence, to be
                   erected at the inland edge of the buffer zone.
                   . Stricter nonpoint source pollution controls are implemented by the CRMC in its request that
                   subdivision proposals provide a mitigation and control plan for potential stormwater runoff
                   induced by the activity. In addition, stipulations are made that disallow certain lawn care pesti-
                   cides and fertilizers in areas of concern.
                      The CRMC has prohibited new or expanded infrastructure or utilities on all barrier beaches.
                   While this policy does not pertain to individual, on-site water supply systems, individual sewage
                   disposal systems, or gas lines, it further enables the CRMC to protect and restore barrier beaches
                   to act as natural storm buffer systems and remain sensitive conservation areas.
                   . The CRMC has expanded setback provisions based on average annual erosion rates in Critical
                   Erosion Areas that reflect recent changes in the National Flood Insurance Act.
                   . Conservation easements as a deed restriction have been incorporated by the CRMC for activi-
                   ties that impose additional development concerns to pollution such as runoff to ensure that buffer
                   areas are integrated within the project area.
                      Some development activities that propose to tie into a municipal sewage treatment plant (STP)
                   have been granted conditional approval by the CRMC for a portion of the proposed activity while
                   the STP was being upgraded to provide secondary treatment. The Council grants this approval
                   since the proposed activity's additional expected sewage load may overwork the treatment plants'
                   capacity to handle the additional sewage.

                   Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                   . An important feature of the RICMP is its ROW designation program. The CRMC Subcommit-
                   tee on Rights-of-Way is delegated the task of discovering ROWs to tidal areas and designating
                   them. To date, 170 ROWs have been designated.
                      The Shoreline Access Program (SAP), which is being carried out as a cooperative agreement


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Progiam                                                   149







                              Summaries of Individual State. and Territory Programs

                                       with the DEM, makes available funds to 16calities for shoreline improvement      s. The aim of the
                                       SAP is to increase public awareness of public access sites by marking and mapping sites, encour-
                                       aging policies at the local level'to maintain and manage the sites, and encouraging efforts at the
                                       local level to upgrade sites that are currently unsuitable but have the potentia:f1o, be a safe,
                                       -environmentally sound shoreline access location.
                                          Local municipalities have been participating in a cooperative public accesg(fight-of-way)
                                       designation program with the CRMC. Municipalities research and determine, the legal status of
                                       local ROWs in preparation for CRMC designation of those ROW's@as-public access sites. The
                                       program will facilitate the development of a Public Access Guide identifying all public ROWs in
                                       .the state.
                                       . The, CRMC has instituted a policy where it may reduce'tees for certain activities,based on the
                                       amount of proposed public access, the potential use by the pubic of this access, or other relevant
                                       considerations.


                                       Promoting-Urban Waterfront.Development
                                       . Waterfront planning under the RICMP's Community Coastal Assistance Program (CCAP) has
                                       catalyzed waterfront revitalization efforts in the several of the state's coastal cities. Examples of
                                       these are the Rockwell and Town Docks at Bristol and the Carousel Park Pier Piling Removal
                                       Project in East Providence.
                                       . The CRMC has developed a SAMP for Providence Harbor. The SAMP provides strategies to
                                       balance shoreline uses, improve water quality, increase recreational and public access opportum-
                                       ties, and plan for a coordinated port development effort. It also allows for extensive public review
                                       and discussion of important issues and problems facing Providence Harbor through avariety of
                                       forums.


                                       Preservin2 Ports and Marinas
                                       . The Rhode Island Harbors Management Project, initiated by the CRMC, recommended the
                                       establishment of a Harbor Management Plan (HMP) in each of Rhode Island's 21 coastal towns.
                                       The HMP calls for the development of a local commission, public workshops, and the generation
                                       of a database to establish a management program for a harbor that is consistent with the goals the
                                       RICMP. These goals include public access, control of nonpoint source pollution, and prioritizing
                                       water-dependent uses over non-water dependent uses. To date, 16 communities have either
                                       received approval of their HMP or are developing an HMP. The remaining five communities have
                                       all expressed their willingness to develop a HMP in the near future.
                                       . The CRMC is participating in a state-wide marine interest group that is developmiig recommen-
                                       dations for the improvement of the water quality of the state's ports and harbors. This group of
                                       marine interests, the Boat Sewage Management Task Force, has identified sources of water
                                       pollution and measures for its improvement, especially as it related to water dependent uses found
                                       in the states ports and harbors.
                                          The CRMC has co-sponsored a New York/New England Coastal Zone Task Force Study which
                                       promotes the feasibility of regulations and policies for the protection and development of water
                                       dependent uses.

                                       ImpLoving Government Operation
                                       . The CRMC has expanded its permit review process for subdivision developments to include
                                       input from the towns where the development project is occurring. Under this approach, the town
                                       has the benefit of receiving technical expertise from the CRMC: the prcjects' developer's have
                                       the benefit of receiving the town's input early int he project. A pilot program was begun with the
                                       town of Jamestown which has now extended to include two additional towns with four other
                                       towns wishing to develop similar agreements.
                                       . The CRMC is attempting to expand its permit review process for all substantial impact projects
                                       to include local review and comment. This project would be a coordinated review effort. by the
                                       CRMC and the town to concurrently review projects that meet both local requirements and state


                              150                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                         Chapter Eight

                  coastal policy. The town of Westerly has asked to be the pilot town for this endeavor.
                     The CRMC has developed, with the assistance of the University of Rhode Island's Coastal
                  Resources Center, an interactive setback computer program for activities located within the coastal
                  zone. Based on average annual erosion rates, and anticipated sea level rise for a given area, the
                  program estimates the impacts of sea level rise on the area.

                  Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                     The CRMC has approved regulations that provide post hurricane and storm permitting proce-
                  dures. Included is the authority to impose a 30-day moratorium on all development permits to
                  allow time to assess damages and identify mitigation opportunities.
                  . The CRMC has adopted a Post Hurricane Recovery and Mitigation Plan for the Salt Pond
                  Region. The Plan provides guidelines for resolving conflicts between recovery and mitigation
                  actions, coordinates state and municipal plans and actions for post hurricane recovery and mitiga-
                  tion, and identifies mitigation actions, which represent special opportunities for reducing future
                  hurricane caused damages, to be undertaken with recovery actions.


                  INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                     The RICMP, in conjunction with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,
                  will prepare an SAMP for the Pawcatuck River Estuary and the Little Narragansett Bay. The goal
                  of the SAMP is to develop a management plan that will protect as well as develop the resources of
                  this water body that is shared by both states.


































                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Progi-am







                            Summaries of Individual State, and Territory Programs

                                     SOUTH CAROLINA
















                                                                    Date of Program Approval: 1979
                                                                    Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $9.9 Million
                                                                    Coastal GNP (19a5): $5.6 Billion (13.1% of state total),
                                                                    Coastal Population (1985): 817,706 (24.517o of state total)
                                                                    Shoreline Mileage: 2,876 Miles



                                     COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                     Special/National Significance of South Carolina's Coast
                                        South Carolina's coastal zone is an area of great cultural, historical, and ecokpgical signifi-
                                     cance. The state, home to one of the richest and most unique habitats in this col-111try, contains
                                     over one-half in@t4qp. acres of coastal marsh and two unique ecosystems, the Pocosins and the
                                     Carolina Bays. The coastal area also contains several national defense installations. The beaches
                                     of the state provide recreational benefits that are the cornerstone of the state tourism economy.

                                     Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                     . Ensuring an equitable regulatory approach regiwding the reconstruction of homes that were
                                     destroyed by Hurricane Hugo. The 1988 Beach Management Act prohibits building or reconstruc-
                                     tion in a no-construction zone in all areas and forces new construction and reconstruction far
                                     landward as'possible within 40-year setback area.
                                     ï¿½ Preservation of the states remaining fresh water coastal wetlands.
                                     ï¿½ Nonpoint sources of coastal pollution and stormwater runoff for a development in place prior to
                                     stormwater regulations adopted in 1985.
                                     ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                                     ï¿½ Promotion of a comprehensive local government beach management plan that includes an
                                     assessment of shoreline erosion effects, the study and evaluation of methods to control, or lessen
                                     erosion's impacts, and the restoration of areas adversely affected by erosion.
                                        Development of a long-term management objective and program to protect Charleston Harbor,
                                     the South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC) will begin to develop a SAMP to address develop-
                                     ment in the Charleston harbor region. This effort will include federal, state, and local government,

                                     COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                     ProgLam Descril2ti
                                        The South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC), established by the South Carolina Coastal
                                     Management Act of 1977 (SCMMA) and 1988 amendments, implements the South Carolina
                                     Coastal Zone Management Program (SCC-LA4P). Two types of management authority are
                                     granted to the SCCC: 1) direct permitting authority over the critical areas, and 2) indirect manage-
                                     ment and certification authority throughout the eight county coastal zone. The critical areas are


                             152                                                                                    NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                          Chapter Eight

                   defined as coastal waters, tidelands, beaches, and the oceanfront 40-year setbackarea. In addition,
                   the SCCMA directs the SCCC to review all state and federal permits in coastal counties for
                   consistency with the SCCMP and approve, conditionally approve or deny these certifications.

                   Defined Coastal Zone
                     The South Carolina coastal zone is defined as all the coastal waters and submerged lands
                   seaward to the state's jurisdictional limits and all lands and waters in the eight counties of the state
                   which contain one or more of the critical areas.


                   Federal Progmm Support 1982-1989: $9.9 million.

                   Major Program Accomplishments
                   . The South Carolina Beach Management Act was enacted in 1988. The goals of this act are to
                   protect and restore the beach dune system and permit it to erode and accrete. naturally and to
                   improve beach access for the public. Local beach management plans will be developed and
                   enforced by ordinances. The law prohibits new environmental structures and significantly restricts
                   the rebuilding of pre-existing erosion control structures rendered nonfunctional.
                   . From 1985 to 1987, the SCCC assisted towns in the development of shorefront management
                   plans. These plans regulate setback controls, beach renourishment, and erosion control projects
                   for 65 percent of the State's developed shoreline. The Corps has used these plans as a basis for
                   their Storm Damage Reduction Reports.
                   . The SCCC developed guidelines to control nonpoint source pollution and stormwater runoff.
                   These regulations protect water quality along 2,876 miles of shoreline, by mitigating the detrimen-
                   tal effects of stormwater in sensitive coastal waters.
                     No net loss policies for all control of alteration of all freshwater wetlands under 404jurisdic-
                   tion.


                   SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                   Protecting Natural Resources
                   . Over 35 miles of wetlands and waterways adjacent to Savannah River Navigation Project are
                   protected by an agreement between the SCCC and the Corps' Savannah District that modifies the
                   Corps dredged spoil disposal operations. These changes affect the practice of open water disposal
                   and call for diking all spoil areas in the state for Corps projects such as the Savannah Harbor
                   project. This policy also applies statewide to all dredging activity.
                   . Guidelines controlling nonpoint pollution and stormwater runoff are a major consideration in
                   the processing of over 1,400 federal consistency reviews each year. The 1988 revisions to the
                   guidelines require both a pollution control system and assurances that the system will be main-
                   tained.
                      An ecological and physical characterization of Charleston Harbor was initiated in 1987 with the
                   aid of a special award authorized by Congress. This comprehensive study is a cooperative effort
                   by several agencies and institutions, including the SCCC. The project will determine the ecologi-
                   cal effects of the Harbor by the redivertion of the Cooper River into the Santee River,
                   . SAMPs have been developed for Hilton Head Island, Folly Island, the Shem. Creek area of
                   Charleston Harbor, and Trenchard's Inlet in Beaufort County. These plans address the effects of
                   treated sewage and stormwater on water quality, alterations of natural land drainage patterns and
                   land forms, creation of artificial lagoons and reservoirs, the indiscriminate dredging and filling of
                   freshwater wetlands and beach erosion, and threats to prehistoric and archaeological sites.

                   Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                   . The 1988 Beach Management Act requires a provision in local government beachfront plans
                   for the protection, enhancement, and improvement of access opportunities. Public access criteria
                   for state funded beach renourishment projects have increased the public access potential in


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                              153







                             Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                      Beaufort, Colleton, and Charleston Counties.
                                      . State and local governments are pursuing FEMA's Section 1362 program to acquire hazard
                                      prone beachfront property following Hurricane Hugo. Such acquisition will increase public access
                                      in areas such as Folly Beach, Garden City, and North Myrtle Beach.

                                      Improving Government Qperations
                                         In the wake of Hurricane Hugo, the SCCC issued a series of emergency orders and general
                                      permits to facilitate reconstruction of damaged properties not located in severe erosion areas.
                                      During the 60 days following the storm, all nonessential permitting was suspended to allow the
                                      Council to address important rebuilding requests.
                                      . Full staffing and provision of support for the agency's law enforcement division has helped to
                                      strengthen the SCCC permit enforcement program. Attorneys work on behalf of the SCCC by
                                      coordinating magistrate court proceedings that concern ticketed violations and are present in the
                                      court to assist the enforcement officers.
                                      . A citizen's creek and beach watch program both informs the public about coastal management
                                      and provides the council with greater assistance in detecting and prosecuting violations.

                                      Mitigting Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                                      . Shortly after Hurricane Hugo, the SCCC assessed each beachfront structure (including houses,
                                      pools, and seawalls) to determine which could be rebuilt under the 1988 Beach Management Act.
                                      . Following Hugo, education programs stressing coastal programs and rebuilding methods were
                                      held in each community. Citizens and landowners were informed about coastal hazards and the
                                      provisions of the Upton-Jones Program and Section 1362 Flood Insurance Act that can be used to
                                      reduce property damages.
                                         The 1988 Beach Management Act requires that setback provisions be strictly enforced locally
                                      and by the state as a means to minimize future storm losses.

































                             154                                                                                     NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                             Chapter Eight

                   VIRGIN ISLANDS















                                           Date of Program Approval: 1979
                                           Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $3-5 Million
                                           Coastal GNP (1985): $0.9 Billion (100% of territory total)
                                           Coastal Population (1985): 109,000 (100% of territory total)
                                           Shoreline Mileage: 175 Miles






                   COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                   SMial/National Significance of the Virgin Islands' Coast
                      The U.S. Virgin Islands consists of three main islands, St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John, and
                   more than 60 smaller islands and cays. Although the three main islands are in close proximity to
                   each other, each is physically distinct. The Virgin Islands' coastal zone is the Territory's most
                   essential resource, providing sites for petroleum refining and major port activities, as well as
                   breeding grounds for many endangered species. Also, the Islands' excellent scuba diving, fishing
                   and sailing provide an important recreational and economic resource to the Territory.

                   Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenge
                   . Current efforts of the CZM program has been directed toward rehabilitation of the Virgin
                   Islands' resources and hurricane contingency planning. Hurricane Hugo, which struck the Virgin
                   Islands in September, 1989, caused severe and extensive damage throughout the Territory.
                   ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                   ï¿½ An increase in permitting and enforcement personnel is needed to maintain the present level of
                   enforcement efforts and to replace lost personnel.
                   . Improvement of the regulatory criteria or guidance needed to provide more effective processing
                   of major and minor permits, including an increase in permit fees (this fee increase is currently
                   pending).


                   COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                   Program Description
                      The Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Program (VICZMP) is based on the 1978 Virgin
                   Islands Coastal Zone Management Act. The Act established the Department of Conservation and
                   Cultural Affairs (DCCA) as the lead administrative agency for the VICZMP and created a Coastal
                   Zone Management Commission to act as decision-maker for major permits. The Virgin Islands
                   Planning Office (VIPO) and the Public Works Department assist in implementing the VICZMP.
                   After a major reorganization in 19 87, the DCCA and the VIPO became part of the Department of
                   Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR).




                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Progiam                                                 155







                              Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                        Defined'Coastal Zone
                                           The Virgin Islands coastal zone consists of all of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix islands, all
                                        offshore islands and cays, and the territorial sea. CZM permits are required within the "first tier",
                                        established by the legislature, to identify the most critical lands in. proximity to the coastal zone.

                                        Federal Program SU" 1982-1989: $3.5 million.

                                        Major Program AccoWlishments
                                        . Reorganization of the Territory's government resulted in the merging of the DCCA into the
                                        DPNR. This increased the efficiency of the planning, managing_a:qo permitting,process of the
                                        VICZMP.
                                           Due to increasing pressure to develop coastal property. for hotels and condominiums, the DPNR
                                        has undertaken a survey of the Islands' natural resources and is developing a comprehensive land
                                        and,water use plan for the Islands. This survey will be used to improve the pe
                                                                                                                       ,yrnitting process and
                                        reduce the cumulative impacts of development.
                                        . New civil fine regulations, established by the DPNR, have improved the efficiency and
                                        enforcement of CZM permit violations. Enforcement of the. fines have resulted in    :increased
                                        requests for permit modifications, favorable press coverage, and more administrative time spent on
                                        enforcement.


                                        SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                        Protecting Natural Resources
                                           Development of a management plan for the 18 "Areas of Particular Concern" (APC). will
                                        improve the predictability in the decision making process for granting permits in these areas and
                                        determine which areas should not be developed at all. Included in the development of each plan
                                        will be an analysis of the potential im acts of activities that may be allowed within the APC
                                                                              p
                                           Coast Week activities included a poster contest for students in the Virgin Islands, Public
                                        Schools. Posters depicted some aspect of the Territory's coast, line. The w@nAmg, poster was
                                        reproduced and distributed throughout the Islands.

                                        Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                           A boat ramp for use by recreational boaters and fishermen was constructed in Coral Bay, St.
                                        John.

                                        Improving Government QVeration
                                        . A new voluntary permit pre-application meeting provides major permit applicants with an
                                        opportunity to confer with VICZMP staff about the necessary requirements for a permit applica-
                                        tion. These meetings ensure applicants a greater amount of predictability coji@@rping the time
                                        frame necessary to process their permit and creates, a more manageable workload for the DPNR
                                        staff.
                                        . A procedure to inform adjacent tenants of CZM authorized development activities was imple-
                                        mented, as well as a procedure to assure the review of archaeological and cultural resources prior
                                        to development.
                                        . CZM analysts patrol the islands with the Bureau of Environmental Enforcement (BEE) officers
                                        to monitor permit compliance and violations and to perform follow-up inspections.
                                        . A seminar for developers was held to distribute the Developer's Handbook describing permit
                                        procedures and to provide a forum for discussion on the weaknesses of the permit process. Also
                                        presentations on the CZM program were made at the Board of Realtor's Exam.

                                        Mitigatine Coastal Storm Dama2e and Coastal Hazards
                                           The DPNR's response to the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo has been significant. Despite great
                                        difficulties of staff turnover and logistic problems with basic services, DPNR personnel have been
                                        professionally attending to the permit, monitoring and planning duties of the current year.


                              156                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                         Chapter Eight

                  VIRGINIA







                             Date of Program Appronl: 1986
                             Federal Program Support 1982-1989-. $7.7 Million
                             Coastal GNP (1985): $32.6 Billion (38.1% of state total)
                             Coastal Population (1985): 3,103,100 (54.4% of state total)
                             Shoreline Mileage: 3,315 Miles














                  COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                  Special/National Significance of Virginia's Coast
                     Virginia possesses extensive estuarine wetlands, in addition to its Atlantic Ocean coastline.
                  Approximately 25,000 acres of tidal wetlands serve as a buffer for flooding and storm damage.
                  Tidewater Virginia (29 percent of the state) contains level and fertile soil for agricultural and
                  forest production. Its rivers are important for transportation and its beaches provide great recre-
                  ational and economic opportunities. Virginia's coastal zone also contains barrier islands, signifi-
                  cant mineral deposits, and wildlife habitats.

                  Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                  ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                  ï¿½ Continued support for the Chesapeake Bay Initiative and related programs to ensure continued
                  improvement in the water quality of the Bay.
                  ï¿½ The management of point and nonpoint source pollution, especially in the Chesapeake Bay.
                  ï¿½ Maintaining natural beach and dune systems.
                  ï¿½ Managing growth pressures in Northern and Tidewater Virginia and preserving wetlands.


                  COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                  Program Desgdpti
                     The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program (VCRMP) was approved in 1986. The
                  program is based on a networking of existing regulatory programs. The Council on the Environ-
                  ment, Virginia's lead agency for the VCRMP, implements the program through monitoring and
                  coordination with stateagencies and local governments.

                  Defined Coastal Zone
                     Virginia's coastal zone includes the 28 counties that border on its tidal waters and 18 separate
                  cities. The seaward boundary is the 3-mile jurisdictional limit.

                  Federal Program S=ort 1982-1989: $7.7 million.




                  Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Progi-am                                           157







                              Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs


                                        SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                        Protectin2 Natural Resources
                                        . The Middle Perminsula. Planning District's coastal coordinator assisted local representatives of
                                        King and Queen County and Gloucester County to develop the Dragon Run Conservation District.
                                        Dragon Run is an undeveloped river noted for its scenic quality, wetlands value, and recreational
                                        use.
                                        . The VCRMP is providing funds to the State Water Quality Board (SWQB) to increase the
                                        accuracy of instream water quality monitoring and data analysis performed by the SWQB. This
                                        improved monitoring system will help the SWQB better regulate wastewater discharges, particu-
                                        larly in the Chesapeake Bay.
                                        . Comprehensive plans have been produced in Charles City, Gloucester, Isle, of Wight, King
                                        George, King and Queen, New Kent, Northampton and Prince William Counties and the towns of
                                        Cape Charles, Exmore, Urbanna and Wachapreague. These plans have had particular emphasis on
                                        coastal resources protection.
                                        . Stormwater management plans were developed in Caroline, King George and Stafford Coun-
                                        ties. In addition a regional plan was developed for the seven cities of Hampton Roads.
                                        . Eight localities have adopted new or revised zoning ordinances or development regulations
                                        aimed at improved protection of coastal resources.
                                        . Four localities are involved in Natural Heritage Inventories. These inventories identify the
                                        least disturbed natural habitats within the locality so that they may be protected.
                                        . A recently completed project evaluated wetlands compensation mitigation as a management
                                        tool for use within Virginia's shoreline permit program. ,
                                           A recent project developed a set of three reports on shoreland management options. Volume I
                                        looked at practices nationwide, Volume II was a survey of local practices within the state, and
                                        Volume III provided an evaltiation of various techniques. These documents have been widely
                                        distributed.


                                        Pr6vidin2,Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                                           A comprehensive guide to public access in the Chesapeake Bay area was produci@,d and
                                        distributed.
                                        ï¿½ Access tothe beach at Chippokes State Park has been provided.
                                        ï¿½ A shoreline access plan has been developed in Mathews County.

                                        Preserving Ports and Marinas
                                           The Towns of Quantico and Wachapreague have completed plans to upgrade their marinas.
                                        Both marina sites are in a state of deterioration.


                                        ImpLoving Government Operations
                                        . VCRMP is providing partial support to Virginia's developing EcoMaps.program, a comprehen-
                                        sive computer-based natural resource inventory and geographic information system which will be
                                        used by state and local governments in making environmental management decisions.
                                        . The Council's Local Assistance unit has to date provided land use planning and development
                                        -review expertise to local government officials from 36 localities in Tidewater Virginia. One
                                        hundred forty two projects were reviewed and improved in the past 1-3/4 years.

                                        Developing Natural Resources
                                           The city of Norfolk created 5 acres of wetlands as part of a mitigation study program.

                                        MitiL-atin.2 Coastal Storm Damaize and Coastal Hazards
                                           The City of Virginia Beach undertook a stiidy of erosion and restoration options for both the
                                        Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay portions of its shoreline.



                               158                                                                                         NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                               Chapter Eight

                   INTERSTATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                      The states of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay
                   Commission, and the EPA support the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Recent interstate grants,
                   funded by VCRMP, have focused on implementation of that Agreement. Projects have included a
                   citizens water quality monitoring network for each of the states (Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsyl-s
                   vania); a workshop to bring together leaders in various technical fields to develop toxicity assess-
                   ment protocols; and a current project developing a guide to assist localities in locating, developing
                   and funding public access sites.













                   WASHINGTON
















                                                       Date of Program Approval: 1976
                                                       Federal Program Support 1982-1989- $13 Million
                                                       Coastal GNP (1985): $31.3 Billion (46.9% of state total)
                                                       Coastal Population (1985): 3,291,400 (74.7% of state total)
                                                       Shoreline Mileage: 3,026 Miles
                                                       National Estuarine Research Reserves: Padilla Bay (7,500 acres)



                   COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                   Special/National Significance of Washington's Coast
                      Washington's shoreline contains vast diverse resources such as Olympic National Park, the San
                   Juan Islands, Puget Sound, and Willapa Bay. Nutrient rich estuaries and streams support both
                   local sport and commercial fisheries, in addition to providing propagating waters for salmon which
                   are important to national and international fisheries. Although the state's coastal zone contains
                   only 29 percent of the state land, two-thirds of the state population lives there.

                   Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                   ï¿½ Effects of sea level rise on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                   ï¿½ Preservation of the state's remaining wetlands.
                   ï¿½ The implementation of a comprehensive plan to clean up Puget Sound, which has been con-
                   laminated from both point and nonpoint source pollution.


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   159







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                     COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                                     Program Description
                                        Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) is based on the Washington
                                     Shoreline Management Act. The Act established the Department of Ecology (DOE) as the. lead
                                     agency for the WCZMP; however, several state agencies, 15 counties and 36 cities are also
                                     involved in the implementation of the Coastal Program. These participating counties and cities are
                                     guided by locally-developed, state-approved Shoreline Master Programs (SMP) and have the
                                     authority to issue or deny permits within the first tier management area (see Defined Coastal
                                     Zone). Under the SMA and other state laws, the WCZMP is also authorized to protect coastal
                                     resources from adverse impacts associated with development in the second tier management area.


                                     Defined Coastal Zone
                                        Washington's coastal zone consists of the entirety of the 15 counties with saltwater shoreline.
                                     It is divided into two tiers. The first or primary tier contains all the state's marine, estuarine, and
                                     fresh waters and their associated wetlands, including at a minimum all upland area 200 feet
                                     landward from the ordinary high water mark. Local governments- have the option of including the
                                     100-year floodplain within shoreline jurisdiction. The second tier is composed of-the area outside
                                     the first tier, but within the 15 coastal counties which front on saltwater.

                                     Federal Program Sqpport 1982-1989: $13 million.

                                     Major Progtam Accomplishments
                                     . The Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan, adopted by the relevant local governments, was
                                     initiated to protect the entire estuary from uncontrolled, piecemeal'd6velopment, including
                                     Bowerman Basinjimi important site for mignatory shorebirds.
                                     .  IThe Padilla t@y National Estuarine Research Reserve, located in Skagit-County, was desig-
                                     nited. in 1980. This 10,000 acre reserve contains eelgrass meadows, subtidal,sand and mud, as
                                     well as grassland and forest. Padilla Bay contains the largest contiguous.seagrass;meadow in the
                                     Pacific Northwest, which is a nursery for salmon and-Dungeness crab. Harbor seals also live and
                                     pup in the reserve.
                                     . Wetlands along the margins of the Greater Puget Sound were the focus of a WCZMP study
                                     designed to identify sites that support native vegetation and provide important fisheries and
                                     wildlife habitat. As a result of the study, over 1,000 acres of these wetlands have been acquired
                                     and are protected by the state or nonprofit organizations.
                                     . The Nisqually River Basin Management Plan, undertaken by the Nisqually River Council,
                                     include neighborhood water quality monitoring, sensitive area mapping, public access planning,
                                     and a: citizen's basin watch.


                                     SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                     Protectin2 Natural Resources
                                     . In order to protect commercial shellfish beds, the WCZMP developed a Shellfish Protection
                                     Strategy and undertook a pilot water quality investigation in Burley Lagoon and Minter Bay. The
                                     initial project, undertaken in 1983, was the model for later, work on shellfish beds under the 1987
                                     Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
                                        The Puget Sound Water Quality Mana-ement Plan, which was developed by the Puget Sound
                                     Water Quality Authority, aims to assure, among other goals, that the most important wetlands in
                                     the Puget Sound Basin'are preserved and that degradation of other wetlands in the Basin are
                                     minimized. This goal is achieved through the identification of critical wetlands and through
                                     guidelines developed by the DOE to help local governments establish wetland management
                                     programs. The final plan will be completed in 199 1.



                            160                                                                                   NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                         Chapter Eight

                     Public service announcements concerning wetlands protection were developed and.  distributed
                  to network television stations for airing. Also, a teacher's curriculum on wetlands consisting of
                  booklets, videos, and wetlands displays was developed and distributed to 45 different schools and
                  public and private organizations.
                  . Four coastal counties, King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Thurston, are conducting research on the
                  effects of urban stormwater on wetlands ecosystem functioning. Results of the study'Mil. be used
                  to develop or modify local shoreline plans, zoning, and wetlands ordinances.
                  . In 1989, the Ocean Resources Management Act was passed. This Act designates financial
                  responsibility for vessels that spill oil in state waters and establishes guidelines for the manage-
                  ment of Washington's coast.

                  Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                  . A guidebook to public saltwater shoreline access sites in Washington's coastal zone was
                  completed in 1986. Public Shore Guide: Marine Waters identifies, locates, and describes the
                  natural features and developed facilities of state public access sites, and is an aid in the selection of
                  Section 306A public access projects.
                  . The DOE staff provides technical assistance for reviewing shoreline permits for public access.
                  For example, over 100 local government officials attended a workshop on "Public Access and
                  Zoning Impacts on Private Lands".
                  . Low-cost construction projects provide improvement for public access to the state's shoreline.
                  Examples of these are a bicycle/pedestrian pathway along Bayview Edison Road in Skagit County,
                  the LaConner public access float, and the Seattle Aquarium floating dock.

                  Promoting Urban Waterfront Develonment
                  . The implementation of the City of Hoquiam Downtown Waterfront Redevelopment Plan has
                  resulted in a park pavilion and a river walkway.
                  . An urban renewal plan for the City of Bremerton in Kitsap County has resulted in commit-
                  ments to build a naval museum, a remodeled restaurant, a recreational marina, and a new ferry
                  terminal.


                  Preservin2 Ports and Marinas
                     The DOE is currently developing guidelines that include specific standards for the siting,
                  design, renovation, or expansion of new and existing marinas.

                  Improving Government Q12erations ,
                  . The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) provided authority to the WCZMP and is implemented
                  with state oversight through a local permit system. To determine whether or not applicants are
                  adhering to permit conditions, the DOE undertakes an in-depth review of the local master pro-
                  grams and provides recommendations concerning the implementation and enforcement capabili-
                  ties of the local programs.
                  . The 1987 amendments to the SMA provide local governments with the authority to institute a
                  civil fine procedure to deal with SMA violations. The DOE provides basic policy guidance and
                  recommendations to local governments on how to construct procedures for fines, penalties and
                  liens.


                  Developing Natural Resources
                  . The Aquaculture Use Conflict Report addresses four issues in the area of salmon pen siting.
                  These issues include commercial fishing, recreational fishing, the use of aquaculture in different
                  environments, and visual impact control. The DOE also worked with the Washington Department
                  of Fisheries to develop a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for salmon pen
                  siting.
                  . Commercial shellfish beds produce tip to 80,000 pounds of food per acre annually at a state-
                  wide value of approximately $95 million. The Shellfish Protection Strategy also protects


                  Evaluation ofthe National Coastal Zone Management Program                                              161







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                     recreational shellfish resources. In 1987, recreational shellfishing produced I I million pounds of
                                     clams and a $250,000 oyster harvest.

                                     Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                                        A Sea Level Rise Task Force has been developed to examine the problems associated with sea
                                     level rise. The Task Force is examining the interaction between sea level rise and vertical land
                                     movement, and is also developing a citizen education program.













                                     WISCONSIN


















                                                                             Date of Program Approval: 1M
                                                                             Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $6.5 Million
                                                                             Coastal GNP (19a5): $18,.7 Billion (Z4.8% of state total)
                                                                             Coastal Population (19&5): 1W,SW (39.1% of state total)
                                                                             Shoreline Mile-age: 820 Miles



                                     COASTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION


                                     Special/National Significance of Wisconsin's Coast
                                        Wisconsin's shoreline borders Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and Green Bay. Most of the
                                     state's coastal land consists of unconsolidated glacial material that is prone to erosion. Wisconsin
                                     possesses few remaining coastal wetlands; therefore, the state's coastal region has proven to be an
                                     excellent resource for industrial, residential, and agricultural activity.

                                     Principal Coastal Threats and Emerging Challenges
                                     ï¿½ Effects of lake level fluctuation on coastal real estate, especially in erosion hazard areas.
                                     ï¿½ Finding alternatives to the disposal of maintenance dredged material.
                                     ï¿½ Maintaining water quality in the state's lakes and bays for human consumption and recreation.
                                     ï¿½ Promoting the use of shoreline erosion control techniques that provide long-term protection,
                                     minimize the adverse effects on natural systems, and avoid damage to adjacent property owners.
                                        Improvement of monitoring and enforcement activities, especially in the state's wetlands.


                            162                                                                                    NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                 Chapter Eight


                    COASTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION


                    Program Description
                       The Bureau of Coastal Management, located within the Department of Administration, is the
                    lead agency for implementing the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP). Regulatory
                    responsibilities for the WCMP are carried out through the Departments of Natural Resources,
                    Transportation and the Public Service Commission and counties (shoreland zoning). Consistency
                    is provided by executive orders and memorandas of understanding. A gubernatorially appointed
                    Wisconsin Coastal Management Council, consisting of representatives from the legislature, state
                    agencies, local officials, tribal governments, citizens, and the University, oversees program
                    implementation and advises the Governor on state policies affecting the Great Lakes.


                    Defined Coastal Zone
                       Wisconsin's inland coastal boundary consists of the 15 coastal counties. The seaward boundary
                    extends to the state's jurisdictional limits.

                    Federal Program Support 1982-1989: $6.5 million.

                    Major Program Accomplishments
                    . Wisconsin's Waterfront Redevelopment Program is an important element to the WCMP.
                    'Under this program, funding is provided to muncipalities; to revitalize abandoned or deteriorated
                    waterfronts and to improve public access.
                    . The Wisconsin Coastal Program provided a grant to help the City of Superior reconstruct a
                    general cargo facility. As a result of this, the state appropriated $1.7 million to make the cargo
                    port operable again. Today, the cargo port handles approximately 35,000 tons of cargo annually.
                    . The Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Land Use Plan (funded by the WCMP) provides for the
                    management and protection for remnant prairie habitat. This habitat, which is located between
                    Chicago and Milwaukee, was being impacted by increased urban development.


                    SPECIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                    Protecting Natural Resources
                    . The WCMP is sponsoring public education and awareness activities to stimulate and enhance
                    citizen involvement concerning the clean up of the Sheboygan and Green Bays. The WCMP will
                    use innovative educational techniques to help find appropriate solutions for cleaning up the state's
                    contaminated harbors.
                    . Technical studies to solve the contamination problems associated with the Great Lakes are
                    being funded by the WCMP. These studies include Potential Detoxification of Sheboygan Harbor
                    PCB's, and Background Levels of Sediments Contaminants.
                    . The WCMP has helped fund a project to map and update a portion of Wisconsin's coastal
                    wetlands. This data will be incorporated into a Geographical Information System (GIS) of coastal
                    wetlands that will ultimately be used for water regulation permitting.

                    Providing Public Access to Coastal Recreation
                    . A small boat harbor in Racine was built using CZM funds. As a result of this project, a larger
                    project was then implemented-the Racine Festival Project Site, which includes a 900-slip marina,
                    support facilities, a 17-acre county park, and a public boating facility. Local officials credit the
                    original seed CZM ftinding for providing the impetus for this larger project.
                       Low-cost construction projects provide improvement for public access to the state's shoreline.
                    Examples of these are the Manitowoc pedestrian walkway along the City's waterfront, a parkway
                    and walkway for Green Bay, a walkway and viewing area at Sturgeon Bay, a coastal trail and
                    visitor center for the Village of Ephraim, and a floating dock at the Kewaunee Marina.



                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Peogram                                                     163







                            Summaries of Individual State and Territory Programs

                                     Promotine Urban Waterfront Development
                                       CZM funds were used to plan and construct a 150-slip marina and waterfront park on aban-
                                     doned land in the City of Kewaunee. The development of this waterfront site catalyzed significant
                                     private investment, in addition to attracting over 100,000 tourists -annually.

                                     Inroving Government Operations
                                     . The WCMP played a key role in the passage of the great Lakes Charter, the Wisconsin Water
                                     Diversion Act, and revisions to the State policies and regulations:on dredged material disposal and
                                     wetlands.
                                     . The WCMP is evaluating the accuracy and completeness of the -permit data received from the
                                     Corps and others to be filed into a WCMP permit database. The WCMP will make recommenda-
                                     tions accordingly to improve the quality of this database.

                                     Mitigating Coastal Storm Damage and Coastal Hazards
                                     . The WCMP provides a:ssistance to local governments to improve their land use management
                                     practices in erosion prone areas. The WCMP provided recommendations for land use control to
                                     prevent damage to future development, and to improve existing development through structural
                                     and nonstructural means.
                                     . A Coastal Hazards Information Database was assembled by the coastal Regional Planning
                                     Commissions. The database contains a bibliography on various aspects of coastal hazanl manage-
                                     inent. The WCMP is in the process of updating this database.
                                     .' The DNR developed the Floodplain and Shoreland Management Guidebook to provide an
                                     overview of state mandated zoning requirements and to assist local'zoning officials and the DNR
                                     staff concerning zoning programs.



































                            164                                                                                 NCR17W-91-003







                                                                                                                                        Chapter Eight

                        Nonparticipating States






                           Georgia                                                        Illinois













                           Coastal GNP (1985): $3.1 Billion (3.3% of state total)         Coastal GNP (1985): $85.5 Billion (39% of state total)
                           Coastal Population (1985):376AOO (6.3% state total)            Coastal Population (1985): 5,763,500
                           Shoreline Mileage: 2,344 miles                                 (50.0% state total)
                           National Estuarine Research Reserves: (5,905 acres)            Shoreline Mileage: 63 rniles

                           Indiana                                                        Minnesota















                           Coastal GNP (1985): $5.6 Billion (6.4% of state total)         Coastal GNP (1985): $2.8 Billion (3.6% of stato total)
                           Coastal Population (1985):726,300 (13.2% state total)          Coastal Population (1985):217,700 (5.2% state total)
                           Shoreline Mileage: 45 tydles                                   Shoreline Mileage: 189 miles

                           Ohio.                                                          Texas











                           Coastal GNP (1985): $31.3 Billion
                            (16.6% of state total)
                           Coastal Population (1985): 1-1796.000 (26% state total)
                           Shoreline Mileage: 312 miles                                   Coastal GNP (1985): $61.1 Billion (27.7% state total)
                           National Estuarine Research Reserves:                          Coastal Populaticni (1985): 4,438,000 (27.1 % state total)
                            Old Woman Creek (543 acres)                                   Shoreline Mileage: 3,359 miles




                        Evaluation ofthe National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                                            165







                                                                                                                   Chapter Nine

                    INTRODUCTION


                           This chapter addresses two questions of importance to coastal zone planners and policy-
                    makers: what is the economic value ofthe coastal zone? and, what is the relationship between
                    spending on coastal zone management activities and the economic value of the coastal zone? The
                    first of these questions is addressed in Section A that follows, and the second, in Section B.

                    A. THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE COASTAL ZONE


                           Proponents of coastal zone protection legislation typically claim that special action is needed
                    to preserve the "value" of the coastal zone. Yet, only a few researchers have attempted to quantify
                    that "value." That quantification is necessary to establish a baseline for fiirther benefit-cost
                    analysis of coastal protection activities.

                           This section provides a methodology for estimating the economic value of the coastal zone.
                    That methodology is used to construct estimates of "GNP-originating" in the coastal zone, in
                    aggregate, and as a percent of individual coastal states' and national Gross National Product
                    (GNP). The results are quite dramatic: in 1985, GNP-originating in the coastal zone totalled
                    approximately $1.5 trillion, or some 31 percent of U.S. GNP. These figures are sensitive to the
                    way the coastal zone and coastal value are defined.

                           The section is divided into four subsections. Section A-I presents the definitions of "coastal
                    zone" and "coastal value." Section A-2 reviews some of the earlier work on the topic. Section A-3
                    explains how the methodology used for this report differs from those earlier studies and presents
                    estimates for 2 years (1978 and 1985), for 30 states and three territories. Finally, Section A-4
                    contains a summary and implications for policy.


                    A- I The Coastal Zone and Coastal Zone Value


                    A-1.1 TheCoastalZone


                           The coastal zone is defined as the 413 counties in 30 states and five territories that are either
                    adjacent to or within 50 miles of the oceans, bays or Great Lakes, or lie within an estuarine
                    region.1 T'his designation of coastal zone counties is strictly objective, based on the coastal/
                    estuarine proximity criterion and an examination of detailed maps. All but 24 of the coastal zone
                    counties are also within the coastal zone, as defined by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
                    Management (OCRM). All but 10 of the coastal counties are within the coastal zones defined by
                    their respective states. Appendix Table A I contains a complete list of the counties that have been
                    designated.

                           An entire county was included in the coastal zone if it is adjacent to an ocean, bay, or Great
                    Lake. Those parts of non-adjacent counties that lie within a 50 mile radius of the coast were also
                    included in the coastal zone. In addition, all parts of the five U.S. territories (American Samoa,
                    Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) were included.


                    A-L.2 Coastal Zone Value


                           The value of the economic activity and natural resources found along the 95,000 miles in the
                    U.S. bordering the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, estuaries, the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes,
                    has two components: the current market value of all goods and services that are produced directly
                    and indirectly from coastal resources and coast-related activities (which is equivalent to the gross
                    national product-originating in the coastal zone, or "coastal GNP" for short), and, the intangible
                    value of recreation and other activities and resources that people eqioy, but for which they do not


                    The Economics of Coastal Zone Management                                                                       167







                                       The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                       pay directly (termed "nonmarket" values). Sections A-2 and A-3 discuss these more fully.


                                       A-2 Literature


                                             Economists have attempted to measure both the market and nonmarket value of coastal
                                       resources and coast-related activity. A representative sample of that literature is reviewed here,
                                       with a discussion of its limitations.


                                       A-2.1 Measuring the Market Value of the Coast

                                             The earliest studies of coastal value, in the 1960s and early 1970s, added up.the market
                                       value of the goods and services produced by coast-related industries. Gosselink, Odum and Pope
                                       (1974) claimed that those studies understated the true value of the coastal environment. Those
                                       authors proceeded, instead, to.convert the "total embodied energy of the environment" including
                                       solar energy and human-made fuel based systems, to dollar equivalents. Using that approach, they
                                       estimated unaltered wetlands to be worth $82,000 per acre. Shabman and Batie (1978), among
                                       others, criticized Gosselink, Odum and Pope's technique because [it] "failed to recognize the
                                       nature of the process by which economic values are determined and made an illegitimate marriage
                                       of the,principles of systems ecology and economic theory." If the-Gosselink, Odurn. and Pope
                                       estimate was correct, total coastal wetland value would have been approximately $715 billion in
                                       1974.2. Total coastal value would have been even higher.

                                             Other published studies from the 1970s (for example, Urban Land Institute (1976) and'U.S.
                                       Department of Commerce (1974)) continued to base "value" on the jobs and payroll created in
                                       industries that require proximity tothe coast. Those "coast-dependent" industries included
                                       .commercig1rand,,
                                                    ,,_ _ I
                                                         pqo fisheries, coastal recreation and tourism, mineral extraction, and ports.

                                             Even this limited definition generates large coastalvalues. For example, fishing contributed
                                       more than $30 billion to the U.S. economy in 1987, and recreation and tourism added more than
                                       $8 billion to the economy.3 In addition, more than 12 percent of U.S. oil production, and 25
                                       percent ofi)Atural gas production, took place in coastal counties in 1987, accounting@for at least
                                       $20 billion more in value.4

                                             More recent studies, by Pontecorvo (1988) and Pontecorvo, et al. (1980), expand the
                                       definition of "coast-dependent," and consequently provide higher estimates of coastal value.
                                       Those studies focus on the entire "ocean sector" rather than on selected industries. Pontecorvo's
                                       liocean sector product" equals

                                       the value added by those establishments within 66 GPOJGross Product Originating] seetors...that
                                       ,either utilize an ocean resource in the production process or exist because the demand for the
                                       establishments' final output is due to some attribute of the ocean sector. (PontecorvQ, 1988, p. 9)

                                       His,qstimate of "ocean sector originating" for 1987 was $109 billion, or 2.6 percent of GNP.

                                       A-2.2 Measming the Non-Market Value of the Coast

                                             Economic analyses, like those summarized above, use the price paid for a product, or the
                                       slim of input prices, as measures of its value. Unfortunately, not all economic resources or
                                       commodities carry a market@determined price. Consider, for example, the preservation of endan-
                                       gered species and scenic beauty. The importance, or worth of these goods cannotbe denied. Yet,
                                       one cannot ascertain easily the value of these goods in dollar terms.5 But those values are needed
                                       in order to decidewhether giving tip some amount of clean water (for example) for some quantity
                                       of a marketed good is beneficial or wasteful. Much of economics, therefore, concerns the


                              168                                                                                         NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                      Chapter Nine

                     development and use of methods to determine the value placed on nomnarketed commodities by
                     the consuming public..

                           Economists, including those studying the coastal zone, have identified five basic techniques
                     to determine the value of nomnarketed commodities: 1) travel cost methods, 2) alternative source
                     costs methods, 3) consumer and producer surplus methods, 4) survey or contingent value methods,
                     and 5) hedonic price methods.6

                           Travel cost methods have been used to value coastal resources such as beaches and fishing
                     and hunting grgunds. The central assumption is that the value a marginal individual places on
                     these opportunities can be approximated by the costs he incurs to travel to that location-specific
                     activity. Raphael and Jaworski (1979) use this approach, for example, to estimate the value of
                     fish, wildlife and recreation in Michigan's coastal wetlands to be $489.69 per acre, or $5 1.8
                     million.


                           Alternative source cost methods could be used to value wetlands' contribution to flood
                     control and pollution abatement. That value is approximated by the cost of reducing flood danger
                     or pollution by the least expensive alternative technology. For example, if a particular wetland
                     area serves to reduce the probability of a flood in a given place by 10 percent, and the alternative
                     way  to achieve that outcome is to build a $ 10 million levee, the value of the wetlands is assumed
                     to be $ 10 million (see Shabman and Batie, 1982).

                           Consumer spM)Ius methods equate value with the welfare enjoyed by the buyer due to his
                     ability to obtain the good (or coastal amenity) for a price less than he would have been willing to
                     pay. Similarly, producer s=lus methods equate value with the welfare to sellers from receiving
                     more in payment for a good or resource than he would have been willing to accept.

                           Both Lynne, Conroy and Prochaska (1981) and Freeman (1988) use these approaches to
                     place value on wetlands. Lynne, Conroy and Prochaska relate crab yield in salt-marshes to
                     fishermen's effort and biological variables such as biomass, biotic potential, and acreage. The
                     authors recognize explicitly that the important policy variable is the value of the last (marginal)
                     acre of marshlands in use. If the additional value produced by that acre of wetlands is less than it
                     would be in some other use, then economic efficiency requires that the acre be given over to         that
                     alternative use; if it is not, then the acre should remain as wetlands. The authors find that the
                     value of the marginal acre of wetlands, in terms of blue crab production in Florida, is about $3.00.
                     Note the dramatic difference between this and the $82,000 per acre estimate by Gosselink, Odum
                     and Pope (1974).7

                           The paper by Freeman points out the importance of the assumptions in performing analyses
                     like that of Lynne, Conroy and Prochaska. His specific concern is the organization of the market
                     for the resource being valued. For example, the usual assumption that markets are perfectly
                     competitive is made implicitly by Lynne, Conroy and Prochaska. Perfect competition means the
                     price one pays for the use of the last unit of input is equal to the value of the additional output
                     produced using that input. But for a resource such as wetlands, or fishing beds, such an assump-
                     tion- is often not valid. Coastal wetlands are a "common property resource," meaning that no
                     individual economic actor owns the right of exclusive use. In such a case, the resource is used
                     more than if it were exchanged in the marketplace. Freeman's point is that the presence of this
                     common property resource problem in conjunction with the assumption to the contrary, perfect
                     competition, leads to incorrect valuation of the nontraded commodity. If, however, regulations
                     exist which (one assumes) lead to the efficient use of the nonmarketed resource, then the valuation
                     is done correctly.




                     Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Progi-am                                                      169







                                       The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                              Freeman also shows that the value of additional wetlands may rise or fall as the quantity of
                                       wetlands is reduced, depending on the responsiveness of the demand for the finaf good to changes
                                       in price. Consequently, the value of additional wetlands depends upon the value people place on
                                       the additional goods produced on the wetlands. If people place very low value on the additional
                                       crabs caught as a result of increasing wetlands, then the value of increasing wetlands is low. If, on
                                       the other hand, people place a very high value on the extra shellfish then the value of increased
                                       wetlands is high.

                                              The contingent valuation method is a survey-based approach to valuation. Individuals are
                                       asked to state their xiillingness-to-pay for some amenity. Lindsey and Tupper (1989), Silberman
                                       and Klock (1988), and Bell and Leeworthy (1986) have used this method to ascertain beach-goers'
                                       willingness-to-pay for the "beach experience," to use the beach for a day, and, to have the beach
                                       restored to some uneroded or unlittered condition, respectively. The different values the authors
                                       obtain come, in part, from the different wording in their questions.

                                              The study by Lindsey and Tupper is the least sophisticated of the three in that it simply uses
                                       respondents' answers to their questions to compare mean willingness-to-pay for a variety of
                                       subgroups of the sample. For example, they compare the average willingness-to-pay at different
                                       beaches, the average willingness-to-pay of local residents to that of visitors, and the willingness-
                                       to-pay of property owners to nonproperty owners. Lindsey and Tupper found the mean willing-
                                       ness-to-pay for the beach experience to be $47. Both Bell and Leeworthy, and Silberman and
                                       Klock, use the respondents' answers to estimate a willingness-to-pay function, Silberman and
                                       Klock alone take account of potential biases in the contingent valuation method. Nonetheless,
                                       both studies find mean willingness-to-pay in the same range, $1-$5, or less than one-tenth the
                                       Lindsey and Tupper estimate. 8

                                              The final method discussed here is the hedonic price techW(Lue. Essentially, the method
                                       assumes that the total price one pays for real property and improvements depends upon the
                                       characteristics of the property and of the surrounding area. The price is assumed to vary with
                                       changes in the characteristics of the property, and one can determine the value of a unit of some
                                       characteristic by observing the prices paid for two properties whose only difference is the amount
                                       of some attribute. For example, two houses identical except for the number of bedrooms will sell
                                       for different prices. The difference in the prices is the value of the additional bedroom(s).

                                              Elizabeth Wilman (1981) used the hedonic method to estimate the recreational value of
                                       beaches. She hypothesized that the rent paid for a summer cottage and the number and duration of
                                       rentals by an individual will depend on the distance to, and the quality of, nearby beaches. Data
                                       limitations forced Wilman to characterize each cottage by its number of rooms, the existence of a
                                       telephone, distance to the nearest beach, distance to the nearest urban area,and whether or not
                                       debris was found on the beach. All of Wilman's explanatory variables except distance to an urban
                                       area were significantly different from zero with the correct sign. That is, greater distance to the
                                       beach and presence of trash on the beach imply a lower rental price for the cottage, whereas more
                                       rooms and the presence of a telephone result in a higher price for the cottage.

                                              Anderson and Edwards (1986) performed an hedonic price analysis that related the value of
                                       a house and its lot to characteristics of the house, such as square footage, number of bathrooms,
                                       and age, the size of the lot, and the following coastal zone characteristics: distance to a salt pond
                                       or the ocean, frontage on a salt pond or ocean, the presence of a view of the pond or ocean from
                                       the property. Each of these characteristics were significantly different from zero with the correct
                                       sign in the regressions, indicating that proximity to, and a view of, the ocean or pond add value to
                                       theproperty. The regression results suggest that afoot of water frontage was valued between $11
                                       and $102, and that a view of the water ranged in value from $4275 to $20,000. The broad range of
                                       values for a foot of frontage or of a view is a result of cross-relationships. So, a property with


                              170                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                      Chapter Nine

                     more bathrooms and a larger lot than its neighbor, for example, will also be associated with a
                     higher value for a foot of waterfront or a view of the ocean.

                           Two further examples of the hedonic technique are by Brown and Pollakowski (1977) and
                     Terich and Gabriel (1987). Brown and Pollakowski estimate the value of 1) proximity to a body
                     of water, and 2) the size of the setback from the water, for residences around three lakes within the
                     Seattle city limits. Terich and Gabriel estimate the effect of coastal erosion on the value of nearby
                     property, in Washington state. Despite considerable differences in technical detail, both find that
                     greater distance from the water reduced the value of property. Brown and Pollakowski also find
                     that the greater the setback, the higher the value of property.9

                     A-2.3 Summary of the Literature

                           Economists have measured coastal value in different ways: by focusing on market and
                     nonmarket values, and by estimating the importance of the coast for the nation as a whole and for
                     specific places and types of activities or coastal resources.

                           The studies that have been reviewed provide different estimates for the economic value of
                     the coast, or its components. These are reviewed in Table A-1.





                                                    Table A-1 Estimates of Coastal "Value"


                       Methodology suggested by:                  Estimate               Year;scope

                       Gosselink, Odurn and Pope (1974)            $715 bil       1974; all coastal wetlands

                       Urban Land Institute (1976)                 $58 bil        1987; fishing, recreation and tourism,
                       U.S. Dept of Commerce (1974                                )off-shore and related oil and gas

                       Pontecorvo (1988)                           $109 bil       1987; "ocean sector-originating"

                       Raphael and Jaworski (1979)                 $5 1.8 mil     1978; fish, wildlife and recreation in
                                                                                  Michigan's coastal wetlands

                       Lynne, Conroy and Prochaska (1981)          $3/acre        Florida wetlands based on blue crab
                                                                                  production

                       Lindsey and Tupper (1989)                   $47            mean willingness-to-pay for a one-time
                                                                                  beach experience

                       Bell and Leeworthy (1986)                   $1-5           willingness-to-pay for one-time beach
                       Silberman and Klock (1988)                                 use or to have beach restored

                       Anderson and Edwards (1986)                 $11-102        value of a foot of water frontage
                                                                                  (additional rent)

                       Anderson and Edwards (1986)                 $4,275-        asset value of a view
                                                                   20,000




                     Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Alanagement Program                                                     171







                                        The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                        These estimates have one common interpretation: regardless of how one measures coastal value, it
                                        is sizable. Looking at current market values of goods and services produced by just three coast-
                                        related industrial sectors, the value was $5 8 billion in 1987. When the list of sectors is expanded
                                        to some 60 industries, the estimate of coastal value doubles. When coastal value is measured in
                                        terms of the market value of the embodied energy at the coast, rather than in terms of standard
                                        transactions, the value is still higher. As high as these figures are, they.stillmay understate the fall
                                        value of the coast since they exclude the consumer surplus that is created by people's willingness-
                                        to-pay for beach access, coastal proximity, and coastal views in excess to what they are actually
                                        charged.


                                        A-3 Estimates


                                              This section provides estimates of the economic value of the coast. An approach similar to
                                        Pontecorvo (1980, 1988) was adopted. The travel cost, alternative source cost, consumer and
                                        producer surplus, contingent valuation, or hedonic price methods described above, were not
                                        employed because the task at hand was to generate a national estimate for all coastal activities and
                                        resources. The nomnarket based techniques require data from particular places for particular
                                        components of the coastal zone. Conceptually, those micro-estimates could be aggregated into a
                                        national total, but the data needs to do that are unrealistic. In short, to use those approaches for
                                        our purposes would require us to conduct thousands of data-intensive studies.

                                              The approach used by Pontecorvo (1988) and Pontecorvo, et al. (1980), sacrifices the rich
                                        detail of the micro-based studies, but achieves the broad coverage most useful for national policy-
                                        making purposes. Moreover, Pontecorvo's approach is well-placed within an economics literature
                                        on -national income accounting." 10

                                              Pontecorvo's approach was not ftilly adopted because his definition of "ocean sector" was
                                        judged to be too narrow. "Coastal zone" activities include more than those endeavors that relate
                                        directly to the ocean.

                                              Three types of economic activities were identified that create value in the coastal zone: 1)
                                        economic activities, located in the coastal zone, that are locationally dependent on coastal re-
                                        sources, specifically, the ocean, bays, great lakes, and estuaries, and their contents; 2) economic
                                        activities that use the ocean, bays, great lakes and estuaries, and their contents, in the production
                                        process, or that produce intermediate inputs for coast-related activities, but are not necessarily in
                                        the coastal zone, and 3) economic activities, not included in (1), that are located in the coastal zone
                                        and provide service to residents and visitors to the coastal zone.

                                              The first set of activities (coast-dependent) includes, for example, fisheries, yacht clubs, off-
                                        ,shore energy production, beach-related recreation, marine research, and ocean transport and
                                        shipping. These can only be performed in the coastal zone.

                                              The second set of activities (comt-linked) includes, for instance, fish processing and
                                        packing, and the production of fishing and other equipment used in the ocean, bay, or estuary.
                                        These do not have to be located within the coastal zone, but are likely to be nearby. They would
                                        not exist if there were no coastal zone.


                                              The third set of activities (coastal services) includes real estate, wholesale and retail
                                        operations, non-ocean-related recreation, and business and professional services. The viability of
                                        these depends on the size and income of the coastal population and the Success of other coast-
                                        related economic activity. In economic teryns, the study included these to capture some of the
                                        multiplier effects of coast-dependent activities. They create additional income that is likely to stay
                                        in the coastal zone.



                               172                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                      Chapter Nine


                            The sum of the value produced by these three types of activities can be considered to be the
                      gross economic value of the coastal zone. That is not meant to suggest that U.S. GNP would be
                      lower by the full amount of the total. Clearly, if there were no coast, people would go elsewhere
                      in the U.S. for recreation, for example, to lakes and mountain areas. The level of economic
                      activity would be higher in those places than it is now, then. However, a change in the venue for
                      recreation from a person's first-best, utility-maximizing choice (the beach), to his/her second-best
                      choice (lakes or mountains), entails a loss in welfare. Moreover, some activities--especially those
                      that are coast-dependent and coast-linked --do not have substitutes elsewhere in the U.S. And, it
                      is likely that some tourists would not substitute other forms of recreation for coastal recreation. If
                      no coastal areas were available in the U.S., or the quality of coastal areas deteriorated, that group
                      is likely to spend their dollars in foreign coastal locations. That happens in Europe, where
                      German, Austrian, Dutch, Swiss and others without access to domestic coastal areas vacation in
                      Italy, southern France, Greece, and Spain.

                            One could define the economic value of the coastal zone even more       broadly than has been
                      done above, as the sum of all economic activity in the coastal zone (including exporting industries
                      that do not use coastal resources), plus what was called coast-linked economic activity above.
                      This definition is based on geographic location as well as on the characteristics of industries. This
                      alternative is included in the analysis for comparison purposes.

                            Whatever the definition of coastal zone value, it is interpreted to be the "value at risk."
                      Some of that value could be moved- inland if the coast were threatened or degraded, but even then,
                      there would be considerable transaction costs and leakage.

                            The raw measures of "economic activity" that were used are employment and payroll (P),
                      largely because of data availability. GNP was assumed to be a relatively space-invariant multiple
                      of those variables in order to approximate GNP-originating. Thus, if PUS/GNPUS            constant, then
                      GNPCZ = PCZ/constant. I I

                            Industries were classified into coast-dependent, coast-linked, and coastal service activities
                      based on information provided in the Census Bureau's SIC Classification Manual. In some cases
                      employment and payroll amounts were available at the 3-digit level only. In those instances the
                      employment or payroll value was multiplied by the proportion of "qualifying" 4-digit industries to
                      3-digit industries. The list of industries included in coast-dependent, coast-linked, and coastal
                      service activities is in Appendix Table A2.

                            In 1985, 779,000 workers were employed in coast-dependent activities (requiring proximity
                      to the coast), with a payroll of approximately $15.8 billion. Another 239,000 workers were
                      employed in coast-dependent economic activities (backward- and forward-linked businesses not
                      necessarily in the coastal zone), with a payroll of $4.59 billion. The coastal service activities
                      (located in the coastal zone, providing services to residents and visitors) is the largest of the three
                      categories, with 27.3 million workers and $459.5 billion in payroll.

                            These employment and payroll totals have increased since 1978. In 1978, 445,500 workers
                      were employed in coast-dependent activities, 174,600 in coast-linked activities, and 21,390,000
                      workers in coastal service activities. 1978 GNP-originating was $15.05 billion, $7.46 billion and
                      $597.7 billion for each of the activity types. The largest increases have been in coast-dependent
                      and coast-linked activities.


                            Table A-2 shows these employment and payroll figures, as well as the "coastal GNP"
                      originating from each of the activity types. The suni of "GNP-originating" for coastdependent
                      and coast-linked activities is $54.17'billion, or approximately 1.1 percent of the U.S. total.
                      Pontecorvo's definition of "ocean sector" is roughly similar to the sum of coast-dependent plus

                      Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                     173







                                         The Economics of Coastal Zone Management


                                         coast-linked activities. He estimates that 2.6 percent of U.S. economic activity originates in the
                                         ocean sector, which is the same order of magnitude as the estimate presented above (Pontecorvo,
                                         1988, p. 7).

                                                When the economic value of the coastal zone is defined to originate from all activity in
                                         coastal counties, it is higher than the figures shown in Table A-2. In 1985, 37.7 million workers
                                         were employed in coastal counties, or 46.4 percent of the U.S. total. That represented $747 billion
                                         in payroll. Coastal cotmties accounted for almost $2 trillion in GNP in 1985, or 49.4 percent of
                                         the U.S. total. (These percentages correspond to the population share of coastal counties, as they.
                                         have been defined.)

                                                The most inclusive definition of coastal zone-related economic activity is the sum of all
                                         activity within coastal counties and coast-linked economic activity.12 By that definition, the
                                         coastal zone accounted for approximately 38 nidlhon jobs and $752 billion in payroll. These
                                         estimates are only slightly higher than those from the definition used in the preceding paragraph.




                                                                                          Table A-2
                                                     Employment, Payroll and GNP-Originating in Coastal Zone, 1985 and 1978


                                                                                             1985
                                                                              coast-                 coast-               coastal
                                                                           depg                      linked               services

                                                Employment                    779,000                239,000              27,304,700
                                                Payroll                       $15.8 bit              $4.59 bit            $459.5 bil
                                                GNP-originating               $42 bit                ;$12.17 bit          1.27 tril
                                                Percent of U.S. GNP           1.05                   0.034                30.36


                                                                                             1978


                                                Employment                    445,500                174,600              21,390,000
                                                Payroll                       $6 bit                 $2.98 bit            $238.4 bit
                                                GNP-originating               $15.05 bit             $7.46 bit            $597.7 bit
                                                Percent of U.S. GNP           0.7                    0.035                28.36


                                             Note: GNP-originafing is based on payroll. 'The values using employment are similar.



                                                The Appendix contains four tables that show the breakdown of coast-related employment
                                         and payroll, by state, for 1985 and 1978 (Tables A3 to A6). The last column in each of the tables
                                         indicates how much of each staWs total economic activity occurs in the state's coastal counties.
                                         The percentages depend on the states' particular geography, the definition of coastal zone that is
                                         employed, and whether employment or payroll was used. Using the preferred definition of coastal
                                         zone value (coast-dependent, coast-linked, plus coastal service activities), and payroll, one can see
                                         that nine of the 30 coastal states depend on coastal counties for at least half their GNP. Seventeen
                                         states have at least one-third of their economic activity originating in coastal counties. These
                                         patterns are shown graphically in the Appendix maps. States are aggregated into geographic
                                         regions or subregions and ranges are shown for the -coast contribution to GNP."'





                               174                                                                                              NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                   Chapter Nine

                    A-4 Summary and IMlications for Policy

                          This section contains estimates of the economic value of the coastal zone that is "at risk."
                    Economic "value" can be defined in any number of ways. Here, a macro-economic definition was
                    used that is related to the value of goods and services generated in the U.S. that may not otherwise
                    have been produced if there were no coastal zone. Conceptually, this is consistent with one
                    widely-cited recent study, but goes further than that earlier work by including economic activity
                    from coast-based services. The number ofjobs and amount of payroll created by coast-related
                    economic activity was shown, and "GNP-originating" was approximated in absolute terms and
                    relative to total state and national GNP.


                          The estimates that are presented indicate that the coastal zone is a key economic sector that
                    contributes more than 30 percent of the national GNP. Most of this value comes from the service
                    sector, but even without that type of economic activity, the coastal zone accounted for some $55
                    billion in 1985. The estimates demonstrate, as well, that the coastal zone has become more
                    important over time, growing from 30.1 percent of GNP in 1978 to 31.4 percent in 1985. Finally,
                    the estimates suggest that the coastal zone is critical to the economies of many coastal states and
                    federal territories.


                          States and territories are reported to have received $33.4 million from the federal govern-
                    ment under the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1988-. Those grants have been used to manage-
                    almost 4000 times their value in economic output, using the preferred measure of "coastal GNP."
                    Even when the states' required matches are4ncluded, the ratio of CZMA spending to coastal GNP
                    is almost 1:2000. Given the fragility of the coastal environment and its considerable importance to
                    the U.S. economy, those ratios seem quite favorable. Section B of this volume explores more fully
                    the relationship between CZMA spending and coastal GNP.

                    B. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CZM SPENDING AND COASTAL GNP


                          In Section A, data on employment and payrolls in three types of coast-related activities were
                    used to estimate what was defined as "coastal GNP." This section attempts to establish a relation-
                    ship between Section 306 spending and the growth of coastal GNP.

                          There is little precedent in the literature for relating CZM spending and economic outcomes
                    in the coastal zone, despite the fact that a firm conceptual basis exists for such a relationship. The
                    dearth of empirical work is likely a consequence of some knotty practical problems.

                          Section B-1 provides the conceptual framework for the work that follows. Section B-2
                    contains a review of the relevant literature. Section B-3 describes the research design and reports
                    the results. Section B-4 discusses an alternative approach that could have been used to relate
                    CZM spending and coastal GNP, if appropriate data were available. Finally, Section B75 summa-
                    rizes the key points from this section and discusses their policy implications.

                    B-I Conceptual Basis

                          The CZMA is not expressly intended to enhance the economy of the coastal zone. Rather, its
                    stated goal is "to preserve, protect, develop and where possible to restore or enhance the resources
                    of the nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations."13 These goals have been
                    pursued by states through six types of activities: the provision of public beach access, the protec-
                    tion of natural resources, the development of natural resources, the mitigation of hazards, the
                    development of ports and marinas, and the redevelopment of urban waterfronts. 14



                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   175







                                       The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                              Improvements in beach access, resource development and protection, hazards reduction, port
                                       and marina development and urban waterfront development, all can be converted to economic
                                       benefits, or "welfare," in several ways. Conceptually, the question is this: how do, those activities
                                       enhance the "value " ofthe coast? To the extent that they make coastal counties-more desirable
                                       locations for coast-dependent and coastal service activities, they will be related to increases in
                                       economic activity on the coast, and to higher coastal GNP.


                                       B-2 Relevant Literature


                                              None of the literature that was reviewed attempts to relate CZMA spending to property
                                       values. Some explanations for that are provided in Section B-4. Moreover, no studies were found
                                       that relate spending on CZMA activities to any economic outcome directly, or even attempt to
                                       infer the effect.


                                              Two articles summarized in Section A can be used to illustrate the possibility of inferring
                                       the effect of CZMA activities on economic outcomes. First, the Lynne, Conroy and Prochaska
                                       (1981) study attached a value of $3.00 per acre to wetlands in Florida, in terms of blue crab
                                       production. If the number of wetland acres purchased by Florida with CZMA funds were known,
                                       it would be straightforward to estimate the benefits of the CZMA for the blue crab fishing indus-
                                       try. Further, input-output analysis could be used to trace the effect of that wetland purchase on
                                       related economic sectors. As another example, consider Bell and Leeworthy's (1986) estimate of
                                       $1.00-$4.88 for the value of a beach-day,to a visitor to the beach. If there were independent
                                       information on the number of beach-goers that were allowed access to the beach for the first time
                                       as a result of CZMA spending, the resulting welfare gain could be calculated.

                                              No studies of this type exist, for two reasons: 1) until now, a centralized and systematic
                                       national database on CZMA spending patterns did not exist, and 2) the "independent information"
                                       referred to above is either unavailable or suspect, casting the accuracy of inferred effects in doubt.

                                              Several of the studies reviewed in Section A relate hypothetical or general policy actions
                                       (not specifically CZMA-related actions) to economic value. For example, Freeman (1988) found
                                       that the optimal regulation of (Gulf coast blue crab) fisheries would raise welfare by between $1
                                       and $1.5 million.15 That indicates by how much we are made worse-off by open-access fishing
                                       rather than optimal use of the fishing areas. It suggests that an important regulatory function of
                                       the CZMA may be to limit the use of common property coastal resources.

                                              A second study that was reviewed, by Anderson and Edwards (1986), used the contingent
                                       valuation method to estimate the value of changes in water quality from any number of public
                                       policies. For an improvement from boatable to swimmable water, respondents stated willingness
                                       to pay ranging from $1 to $2,000, with a mean response of $87.

                                              Anderson and Edwards (1986) also evaluated the down-zoning of properties in the salt
                                       ponds region of Rhode Island. Such down-zoning is often part of a state's CZM plan. They found
                                       that down-zoning would provide a net present value of benefits of approximately $3.1 million.
                                       These figures are not without qualifications. Different functional forms for the regressions or
                                       inappropriate assumptions about how the down-zoning will be implemented would alter the
                                       benefit calculation, perhaps substantially.

                                              Finally, Brown and Pollakowski (1977) used an hedonic model to estimate the value of
                                       setbacks from the water for residences around three lakes within the Seattle city limits. They
                                       found that the greater the setback@ the higher the value of property fronting on the water. The
                                       reason for this is that there is more open space around the property in question; that is, the effect of
                                       urban congestion is reduced for these properties. Setbacks also are often part of CZM plans.


                              176                                                                                          NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                             Chapter Nine

                         This latter group of studies is interesting, but of limited use for the purpose of this study.
                   First, they do not focus closely enough on CZMA activities. Second, they do not provide a
                   national perspective, but rather, a setof disaggregated context-specific estimates.

                   B-3 Research Design and Result

                         Table B-3 motivates the formal statistical tests that are reported in this section. That table
                   ranks the states participating in the CZM program according to different measures of coastal GNP
                   change from 1978 to 1985, and real spending on CZMA activities (Section 306) from 1982 to
                   1995. The first column reports the absolute change in coastal GNP in billions of 1982 dollars.

                         The third column is the percentage change in coastal GNP between 1978 and 1985. The last
                   two columns report changes in coastal GNP on an average annual basis.Note that the top five
                   states in terms of growth received an average of $8.8 million in CZM spending, whereas the
                   bottom five states received only $2.8 million, on average. Additionally, only one state ranked in
                   the top five in coastal GNP growth received less in CZM funding than any state ranked in the
                   bottom five. Nonparticipatmig states have average. growth ($4.97 billion), more like the low CZM
                   recipient states ($.12 billion) than like the high CZM recipient states ($42.42 billion); and no
                   nonparticipating state had greater growth than any of the five states with the fastest growth. Table
                   B-3 also shows that both total and annual average growth rates were higher for the top five states
                   than for the bottom five, and the non-participants. 16

                         Tables B-4 and B-5 report results of two types of correlation tests-simple Pearson correla-
                   tions and Spearman's rank-order correlations. In Table B4 the CZM spending data from column
                   two of Table B-3 are correlated with the change in coastal GNP data from the first column of
                   Table B-3. In Table B-5 the data in column three of Table B-3 are used instead of the data in
                   column one from that table. In both tables five measures of output change are employed. The first
                   three are the components of coastal GNP (based on payroll data), discussed at length in Section A.
                   The fourth output measure is total coastal GNP, also based on payroll data (that is, the sum of the
                   data used for columns one through three). The fifth measure is a broader definition of coastal
                   GNP which includes all economic activity in coastal counties. This range of definitions is used to
                   ensure the robustness of the results.17 All correlation coefficients are calculated using data from
                   participating states alone.

                         Four of the five Pearson coefficients in Table B-4 are positive and statistically significant at
                   a P value of 0.05 (the exception is coast-linked GNP, which is positive but not significant). The
                   values of the significant coefficients range from 0.5017 to 0.575. Three of the five rank-order
                   correlations reported in Table B-4 are statistically significant, ranging in value from 0.4338 to
                   0.4901.


                         The results in Table B-5 are uniformly different. There, none of the coefficients is signifi-
                   cant at P--0.05.18


                         The question that arises following an examination of Tables 1114 and 111-5 is: why do states
                   with large absolute increases in coastal GNP also have large total CZH spending, while states
                   with large percentage increases in-coastal GNP do not (and vice-versa)? The answer lies partly in
                   the law of small base numbers and partly in the formula by which federal funds are allocated. The
                   law of small base numbers implies that small states tend to have high growth rates and large states
                   tend to have slow growth rates, all else equal. The fact that large states appear to experience large
                   total CZM spending would seem to imply that they have an advantage in obtaining funding over
                   their smaller counterparts partly because the formula for CZM allocations uses population. To
                   account for that fact, population should be a control variable in the regression analysis.



                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                              177







                                            The Economics of Coastal Zone Management




                                                                Table B-3 Changes in@Coastal GNP and-Total CZM Spending

                                                                                                                                AVERAGE AVG ANNUAL
                                                                       CHANGE IN REAL CZM                      PERCENT           ANNUAL           PERCENT
                                                                        COASTAL            SPENDING           CHANGEIN          CHANGE-IN         CHANGEIN
                                                                             GNP             1982-85           COASTAL          COASTAL           COASTAL
                                                                         $B 1982             TOTAL                GNP                GNP            GNP


                                               CALIFORNIA                    75.83           7441733                41.78            10.83          5.97
                                               NEW YORK                      58.69           11495533               39.42            8.38           5.63
                                               FLORIDA                       31.52           9741115                55.34            4.50           7.91
                                               NEW JERSEY                    23.07           11852102               47.32            3.30           6.76
                                               MASSACHUSETTS                 22.97           3415294                56.34            3.28           8.05


                                               AVERAGE                       2.42            8789156                48.04            -6.06          6.86


                                               CONNECTICUT                   7.88            2995482                51.69            .1.1  `3       7.38
                                               PENNSYLVANIA                  6.30            2987297                23.91            0.90           3.42
                                               WASHINGTON                    3.31            4633961                13.24            0.47           1.89
                                               LOUISIANA                     3.17            5431040                15.38            0.45           2.20
                                               MICHIGAN                      2.57              594502               7.78             0.37,          1.11
                                               HAWAII                        2.30            2199707                28.24            0.33           4.03
                                               DELAWARE                      1.84            2489671                41.37            0.26           5.91
                                               S.CAROLINA                    1.77            5287512                53.35            0.25           7.62
                                               R140DE ISLAND                 1.66            2284465                25.56            0.24           3.65
                                               ALASKA                        1.63            10620566               44.38            .0.2-3         6.34
                                               MARYLAND                      1.52            6426590                6.97             0.22           1.00
                                               WISWNSIN                      1.15            3620111                7.33             0.16           1.05
                                               N. CAROLINA                   0.68            4466936                27.28            0.10           3.90
                                               ALABAMA                       0.62            1517070                21.47            0.09           3 .07
                                               NEW HAMPSHIRE                 0.35            3207561                23.42            0.05           3.35
                                               MISSISSIPPI                   0.11            2290427                .8.19            0.02           1.17
                                               MAINE                         -0.17           3641904                -3.54            -0.02        -0.51
                                               OREGON                        -0.31           3222699                -2.59            -0.04        -0.37


                                               AVERAGE                       0.12            2775932                9.39             0.02           1.34


                                               NON-PARTICIPATING STATES


                                               TEXAS                         13.56                                  32.62            1.94           4.66
                                               VIRGINIA                      10.73                                  57.54            1.53           8.22
                                               ILLINOIS                      8.64                                   12.63            1.23           1.80
                                               OHIO                          1.28                                   4.77             0.18           0.68
                                               MINNESOTA                     0.65                                   34.78            0.09           4.97
                                               GEORGIA                       0.58                                   25.87            0.08           3.70
                                               INDIANA                       -0.66                                 -11.62            -0.09        -1.66


                                               AVERAGE                       4.97                                   22.37            0.71           3.20





                                  178                                                                                                     NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                       Chapter Nine




                                                                      Table B-4
                                 Correlations between Absolute Real Output Change and CZM Expenditures

                                                   COMPONENTS OF GNP-1
                                             Coast-           Coast-           Coastal            TOTAL
                                           deMndent           linked           services            GNP-1            GNP-2

                        PEARSON              0.5294           0.3408              0.575            0.5733           0.5017
                        P VALUE              0.0094           0.1116            0.0041             0.0042           0.0147



                        SPEARMAN             0.4901           0.3824            0.3577             0.4546           0.4338
                        P VALUE              0.0176           0.0717            0.0938             0.0293           0.0386


                     NOTE: GNP- 1 is coastal GNP based on payroll data. GNP-2 is GNP-originating in all activities in coastal
                     counties.








                                                                      Table B-5
                               Correlations between Percentage Change in Real Output and CZM Expenditures



                                                   COMPONENTS OF GNP- I
                                             Coast-           Coast-           Coastal            TOTAL
                                           deWndent           linked           service             GNP-1            GNP-2



                        PEARSON              0.3914           0.3868            0.3979               0.404          0.3973
                        P VALUE              0.0648           0.0683            0.0601             0.0559           0.0605


                        SPEARMAN             0.2974           0.3409            0.2095             0.2095           0.2994
                        PVALUE               0.1681           0.1114            0.3374             0.3374           0.1652


                     NOTE: GNP- I is coastal GNP based on payroll data. GNP-2 is GNP-originating in all activities in coastal
                     counties.








                            In addition to running correlations, a series of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions were
                     estimated, with average annual growth in coastal GNP as the dependent variable. These regres-
                     sions relate the measure of output to the level of real CZM spending averaged over the years for
                     which data are available, population, and a series of dummy (or indicator) variables. The dummy
                     variables identify the region of the country in which the state is located and whether or not the
                     state was a participant in the program. 19 Results from these regressions are generally consistent
                     with the simple correlation analysis reported above.


                     Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                       179







                                     The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                           The fulfregression results are presented in Appendix Tables A7 to Al 1. The Appendix also
                                     contains a table of variable names, a table of descriptive statistics from the model, and an account-
                                     ing of dummy variables.

                                           Three basic conclusions come out of the regression analysis. First, CZM program expendi-
                                     tures are never both statistically significant and negatively related to the growth in coastal GNP.
                                     This implies, at least, that CZM spending does not have deleterious effects on state economies. In
                                     fact, under many specifications, CZM spending is statistically significant and positively related to
                                     coastal output growth.

                                          . The second general conclusion that can be drawn from the regression analysis is that the
                                     control variable for population affects the magnitude of the coefficient of CZM spending, and
                                     sometimes the significance. However, the policy variable still appears positive and significant in
                                     most models.20


                                           The third general conclusion is that the dummy variables do not play a significant role in
                                     explaining the economic growth of the coastal zone. The participation dummy is never significant
                                     by itself, and it is individually significant in the presence of the regional dummies in only one of
                                     the models: for coast-linked activity without AVGPOP. All the dummies are jointly significant
                                     only in the case of coast-linked activity. In other words, the null hypothesis that all the dummy
                                     coefficients are zero can be rejected only for the case of coast-linked activity. This result suggests
                                     that coast-dependent activity, coastal services, and aggregations of the three components of
                                     coastal GNP all grow at a similar rate regardless of the region or of participation in the CZM
                                     program. It also suggests that the regions are not growing in the same way with respect to coast-
                                     linked activity.21

                                           The fact that there is not a significant relationship between CZM spending and coast-linked
                                     GNP should not be surprising. Recall that coast-linked activities are those that use products from
                                     coast-dependent industries in their production processes, or produce intermediate inputs for coast-
                                     dependent businesses. Much of the, coast-linked activity is located in noncoastal counties. Since
                                     CZM spending is concentrated in coastal counties, its stimulative effect cannot be expected to be
                                     felt where most of the coast-linked activity takes place. There are input-output relationships
                                     between coast-dependent and coast-linked businesses, but those apparently are not strong enough
                                     to transmit the effect of CZM spending that is felt by the coast-dependent activities.

                                           Table B-6 summarizes the coefficient estimates for the CZM spending variable. The values
                                     in the first three rows of the table indicate the degree to which a one dollar increase in CZM
                                     spending is associated with increases in coastal payroll. The last two rows show the relationship
                                     between changes in CZM spending and alternative measures of coastal GNP. Models 3 and 4
                                     correspond with the regressions using a population control variable..

                                           These results indicate that a dollar of CZMA spending from federal government sources is
                                     associated with more than an $11 increase in payroll deriving from coast-dependent activity (or,
                                     approximately $30 in GNP), and at least a $262 increase in payroll due to coastal services (or
                                     some $700 in GNP). At the same time, CZM spending is shown to have little statistical associa-
                                     tion with coast-linked economic activity.22 For all sectors aggregated together (GNPI), a dollar of
                                     CZMA spending from federal sources is related to at least an $822 increase in coastal GNP.









                            180                                                                                    Wt-WI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                 Chapter Nine



                                                                  Table B-6
                               Dollar Increase in Coastal Output Associated with a Dollar of CZM Spending


                                                         AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH
                                      Model I      Model 2    . Model 3      Model 4       Model 5       Model 6
                     Coast-dependent      25.70        36.50              31.9031.90           16.03        11.65
                     Coast-linked        1.220          1.40        1.47          1.47           0.96        0.61
                     Coastal services       482          650         551           5511          339          262
                     GNPI                 1527         2092         1782          1782          1052          822
                     GNP2                 1911         2605        2239          2240           1236          755



                     NOTE: GNP1 is coastal GNP based on payroll data. GNP2 is GNP-originating in all activities in coastal
                     counties. Values above the dotted line are dollars of payroll, and below the line are dollars of GNP.





                           The values in Table B-6 must be interpreted with some care. They do not indicate the
                     amount of economic activity induced by CZMA spending, for two reasons. First, the regression
                     models developed here are too crude to be used to test causality. The significant statistical
                     relationships that are shown. to exist between CZMA spending and economic activity are consis-
                     tent with the view that coastal protection enhances demand for coast-related goods and services,
                     and hence, the value of the ocean sector. But to conclude with certainty that a one-way relation-
                     ship exists would require a more completely-specified model and finer data than are available.23
                     Second, the federal CZM program leverages other spending on coastal protection, from states and
                     local governments. The coefficients estimated in a model that included this other spendin  g would
                     be lower than what has been estimated using federal outlays alone.

                           The failure to account for state-local coastal spending does not invalidate what has been
                     done in this study. To a large degree, state spending is a fixed percentage of federal spending,
                     because states are required to "match" each $0.80 in federal monies with an additional $0.20.
                     Thus, it is straightforward to rescale the coefficient estimates in Appendix Tables A7 to A I I to
                     account for the match. The bias of our estimates would not increase. The estimates were not
                     rescaled because the principal concern in this report is with the relationship between federal
                     spending and economic outcomes. Local supplements to federal-state CZMA funds are not
                     necessarily in proportion to federal outlays, and therefore, could change the properties of the
                     estimators if included in the analysis. Unfortunately, data on local supplements were not avail-
                     able.


                           Finally, critics might argue that models such as the one used here simply show the relation-
                     ship between state population and coastal GNP growth, because population is included in the
                     Section 306 allocation formula. That is not a problem for two reasons. First, a reasonable proxy
                     for coastal area population is used in Models 5 and 6.24 Second, states do not necessarily receive
                     the amount of 306 funds to which they are entitled. States do not apply for all the funds that are
                     available, and sometimes tam back unused amounts.25


                     B-4 AN ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN FOR MEASURING THE
                           EFFECT OF CZMA SPENDING ON THE COASTAL ECONOMY


                           Rather than relating CZM spending and coastal GNP as we did in the previous section, we
                     could simply ask how much more people were willing to pay to live, work, or recreate on the coast

                     Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program







                                        The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                        as a- result of CZMA-induced improvements. Stated in this way, a good "dependent" or outcome
                                        variable would be property values, since, under normal economic assumptions, they reflect
                                        changes in demand for property near the coast relative to supply.

                                              This section describes the assumptions and methodology for measuring benefits using
                                        changes in property values." However, because adequate data are not yet available at ihe'national
                                        level, a full analysis using this approach is not presented.

                                        B-4.1 PLoj2erty values as a measure of economic welfare

                                              The economic theory of capitalization forms the basis for using property values as a measure
                                        of the benefits of public policy or the value of environmental amenities. This section explains the
                                        intuition behind the theory of capitalization. It shows how changes in policy in a given region, or
                                        differences in policy across regions, will show up as differences in property values. The magni-
                                        tude of the difference in property values is, all other things equal, the value of the policy differ-
                                        ence.


                                              Fundamentally, the theory of capitalization is a means of explaining how the willingness to
                                        pay of the purchaser is altered by events beyond her/his control. For example, if people found out
                                        that an apple a day really did make them healthier, they would likely be willing to pay more for
                                        apples'than previously. On the other hand, someone who has lost his/her driver's license is not
                                        likely to be willing to pay as much for an automobile as when s/he was allowed to drive.

                                              Consider now the case of a resid6nce. People purchase a house based on the value of the
                                        services the house will provide. A house with more space, a larger lot, more bedrooms and
                                        bathrooms, a finished basement and so on, provides more services than Ef house with fewer of
                                        those attributes. Therefore, one should expect the larger house to sell for a higher price. On the
                                        other hand, two identical houses in different communities may not sell for the same price. One
                                        community may have better schools, a lower crime rate, lower taxes and better access to shopping
                                        and workplaces than the other. If people value those community characteristics, then it is rea:son-
                                        able to expect that houses in such a community would sell for more than identical properties in the
                                        alternative area.


                                              Finally, suppose that no person in either community is willing to pay the necessary price to
                                        live in the alternative. People in the high.public service-low tax commimityare unwilling to give
                                        tip the services they get in order to pay less for an otherwise identical house, and people in the low
                                        public service town are unwilling to pay more for a house to get a greater quantity of public
                                        services. After an increase in the public services in the high public service community, some
                                        people from the low service community may find it beneficial to purchase a house in the high
                                        service community. But people in the high service community are no longer willing to sell for the
                                        same price as before the level of services changed, for they too value the increase in services.
                                        Therefore, for houses to change hands, the buyers must pay a higher price than previously to
                                        induce the current occupants to sell. The rise in the price of the houses in the high service commu-
                                        nity reflects the benefits of the increased public services in that town. This change in price is the
                                        capitalization of the benefits into the value of the property.

                                              The benefits of the CZMA are distributed unevenly across counties within states and among
                                        the states. The logic of the previous paragraph suggests that a comparison of property values
                                        across counties participating in the program ought to show how the program benefits those areas.
                                        It is this reasoning which supports the use of property values as a measure ofCZMA-induced
                                        benefits.





                               182                                                                                           NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                    Chapter Nine

                           It is important to remember that the explanation given above hinges on having information
                     on specific properties. Of course, if the program raises the value of some properties in a county,
                     all other things constant, it must raise the average property value in the county. Some work has
                     used aggregate data successfully, for census tracts or townships, to estimate the effect of. public
                     policies or environmental amenities on property values. However, if the rise occurs on only a
                     small proportion of the houses within the county, then the effects of the program on the average
                     property value may be too small to show up. Moreover, other attributes of the houses must be
                     accounted for in both the individual and the average property value analyses. The effect of an
                     additional square foot of space in a given house is. more likely to carry information than is the
                     effect of an increase by one of the average square footage in the community. Hence, the aggrega-
                     tion of the data necessary to carry out the analysis may obscure important information.

                           Two further caveats are necessary. First, the intuition described above does not suggest
                     when the capitalization of benefits will occur. In particular, it may be that the announcement of
                     the policy change sets off the movement in the property values, or it might be that property values
                     do not respond until the policy produces tangible results. It may also be the case that discussion of
                     a possible policy change leads people to alter behavior, and hence affects property values prior to
                     the adoption of any policy. Therefore, by looking at the property values after the expenditures
                     have been made may be like closing the barn door after the cows are out; all the effects of the
                     policy on property values may already have occurred prior to the expenditure of any funds. The
                     second additional warning that must be given concerns the possibility -that the policy effects do not
                     accrue entirely to property values. For example, it may be that cleaning up the beaches along some
                     stretch of coast does not raise the possible selling price of the ocean front property, but rather
                     shortens the time that any piece of land is on the market before it sells. If such is the case,
                     property values will not reflect the benefits of the policy change.

                     B-4.2 Modelling the relationship between QZMA ï¿½Wnding and property values

                           The effect of CZMA spending on property values can be modelled using the hedonic pricing
                     approach (Rosen, 1974, and Section A, above). The hedonic model is one of economic equilib-
                     rium in the market for some highly differentiated commodity. Houses, for example, are not all
                     alike. Each house has its own set of attributes (e.g., square footage, the number of bathrooms and
                     bedrooms, and the presence of a fireplace). Tlie attributes of a house, however, need not be
                     restricted to these obvious possibilities. Rather, as was argued above, they also can include
                     environmental amenities, such as proximity to a body of water, or local public policies whose
                     benefits accrue to residents of a restricted geographic or political area.

                           The price of the house is determined by the interaction of sellers and buyers in the market
                     place, and hence, reflects characteristics of both. In particular, the costs of producing the at-
                     tributes of the house and the tastes and incomes of the buyers are combined in the market price.
                     Formally, the hedonic price model attempts to extract from the market price the implicit price for
                     each of the attributes of the house. In other words, since houses are not standard, the hedonic
                     method attempts to determine the value of a unit of each of the house's attributes.

                           For each property the price and characteristics are known and related in the following way:

                                                                     P = F(Z)

                     where P is the price, Z is a vector whose elements are the attributes of the house, including any
                     environmental amenities and the public service-tax package associated with it, and F is the
                     relationship. Differentiating F(Z) with respect to the ith element of Z results in the marginal
                     implicit price of that characteristic. Hence, if Zi is the number of bedrooms in the house, then
                     d P/dZi =_ the implicit price of an additional bedroom. If Zi is the distance in feet from the shore to


                     Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                    183







                                      The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                      the house, for a waterfront property, then the derivative is the implicit price@ of an additional foot
                                      of setback.


                                            A regression model can be used to determine the size and sign of the derivatives Ph;@Zi. The
                                      general formulation written above suggests, however, that the form of the relationship is arbitrary
                                      or unknown. Much economic literature has been devoted to determining theoretically and
                                      empirically the appropriate form of the regression equation. A linear regression equation, for
                                      example, forces on the estimation the restrictions that 1) the implicit price of anattribute does not
                                      depend on the other characteristics of the property, and 2) the price of an attribute must be
                                      constant with respect to changes in the quantity of the attribute. The first restriction causes, for
                                      example, one to value a swimming pool the same whether or not one has ocean front property, or
                                      whether or not one has easy and cheap access to public swimming pools. The second restriction
                                      forces the value of an additional bedroom to be the same in a two bedroom house as in a five
                                      bedroom house. While both conditions may be true, it is better to let the data so indicate than to
                                      force the data to fit into a wrong relationship. Freeman (1979) discusses several functional forms
                                      and their implications from a theoretical standpoint. Cropper, Deck, and McConnell (1988), on
                                      the other hand, perform simulations on various functional forms to test their empirical properties.
                                      The simulations suggest that linear regressions perform best in estimating the implicit prices when
                                      proxy variables are necessary or the true set of regressors is unknown.

                                            As was done by Cropper, Deck, and McConnell (1988), the linear regression model could
                                      have been used to explore the relationship between average property values and the-expenditures
                                      ma .de for coastal management purposes, specifically, as allowed under Section 306 of the CZMA.
                                      Additional steps then could have been taken to address several potential technical criticisms of the
                                      analysis which are not discussed above, including the possible simultaneity of property values
                                      with several of the regressors and heteroskedasticity of the error terms.As described above, the
                                      model is designed to ascertain the size and direction of the relationship between a group of
                                      explanatory variables, a list of which appears below, and the average property value in a county.
                                      Formally, the model is:

                                                             APV=f(CZM, INC, LPS, CRIME, TAXCAP, DENS)


                                      where APV is the av'erage property value in the county, CZM is coastal zone management
                                      expenditures in the county, INC is the median income, LPS is expenditure on other local public
                                      services such as schools, and police and fire protection, CRIME is the county-wide crime rate,
                                      TAXCAP is taxes per capita paid to the county, and DENS is the population density. The ex-
                                      pected signs of the relationship are indicated below the explanatory variables. In words, the greater
                                      the expenditures on CZM activities, the greater the median income, the greater the expenditure on
                                      other public goods, the lower the crime rate, the lower the taxes per capita, and the greater the
                                      population density of the county, the higher the average residential property value in the county.

                                            The equation to be estimated using this approach is:

                                                                                                                       6
                                       APV = ao + a,CZM + ot,)INC + 0(3LPS + a4CRIME + U5TAXCAP + U615ENS + Y, PiDi + p
                                                                                                                      i=1


                                      where the Di are dummy variables which take on a value of one if the county is in region i and
                                      take on a value of zero otherwise, and p is an independent and identically distributed random
                                      disturbance term with mean zero.





                              184                                                                                    NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                    Chapter Nine

                     B-4.3 Practical limitations to this alternative W roach
                            - I                                       -P -

                           Two problems made the preferred method for relating CZMA spending to economic benefits
                     infeasible. First, data on county property values are available for only a small number of states,
                     and those data are not generally comparable across states. Moreover, much of the data that are
                     available are from nonparticipating states.

                           Second, as already noted, the degree of aggregation is too great. Consequently, when test
                     regressions similar in form to the equation above were run, weak results were obtained. Variables
                     that ordinarily are found to play a significant role in the determination of property values show up
                     as statistically insignificant or, worse, significant but with the wrong sign. Some of this difficulty
                     may stem from the shortcomings of the linear model alluded to above, but the small number of
                     observations and the number of variables available restrict the ability to address these issues.

                           As a result of the data problems, the alternative approach described in Section B-2 was
                     employed to relate CZM expenditures and program benefits. That approach is more tractable, but
                     less satisfying theoretically.

                     B-5 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY


                           The purpose of this-section was to relate formally program spending on CZM-related
                     activities, specifically in the seven national interest areas contained in the Act, to changes in
                     coastal GNP. The review of the literature and original statistical work both indicated that a strong
                     relationship exists.

                           First, the existing literature does not address the relationship between CZM spending and
                     coastal GNP directly. However, several studies relate coastal regulatory activities that may be
                     supported by CZM program funds with gains in economic welfare. For example, Freeman (1988)
                     found that optimal regulation of fisheries would raise blue crab yields by $1-$1.5 million in the
                     Gulf of Mexico; Anderson and Edwards (1986) found that individuals would realize $87 in
                     benefits, on average, by improvements that would make boatable water swimmable, and that the
                     down-zoning of properties in the salt ponds region of Rhode Island would create a welfare gain of
                     approximately $3.1 million.

                           Correlations were performed and OLS regressions were rim that used absolute and relative
                     changes in coastal GNP, in total and by activity type, and CZM expenditures. Absolute real output
                     change and CZM spending were found to be correlated positively for each of the components of
                     coastal GNP. For most specifications of the OLS model, a dollar increase of CZM spending also
                     was found to be associated with greater than a dollar increase in coastal output, particularly from
                     coast-depend,ent and coastal service activities. The magnitude of the association, moreover, is
                     sizable for all definitions of coastal GNP except coast-linked.

                           Admittedly, the evidence is sketchy and the original statistical tests are somewhat crude.
                     But, at least circumstantially, there is compelling evidence that CZMA monies have been well
                     spent in a benefit-cost sense. These results suggest that if the level of CZM spending were
                     reduced, the level of coastal (and, hence, national) GNP would fall, as well.









                     Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                   185







                            The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                      ENDNOTES

                                      IThe 50-mile radius is also used by federal agencies in defining coastal counties. Land within this
                                      radius can be expected to have land uses that relate to the coast. Admittedly, there is no specific
                                      basis for choosing 50 miles, as opposed to 30 or 60 miles, or some other distance.

                                      2This figure is based on an estimate of 8.5 million acres of coastal wetlands in the mid-:1970s by
                                      Gosselink and Baumann (1980), as reported in U.S. Department of the Interior (1984), p. 36.

                                      3U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufacturers, 1987 (Washing-
                                      ton D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

                                      4U.S. Department of the Interior (1984). The $20 billion estimate from oil and gas production
                                      comes from 1983 estimates of the value of oil and gas production in U.S. Department of Com-
                                      merce (1984).

                                      5Money values are used because they are easily compared. For example, suppose one has a choice
                                      between growing and selling a bushel of apples and a bushel of oranges. Which top choose is
                                      impossible to say without knowing prices of oranges, apples, and the inputs used in their produc-
                                      tion.

                                      6We do not explain these methods here, except in passing. Leonard Shabman and Sandra Batic
                                      (1978, 1980, 1982) describe the techniques in intuitive terms in articles that are geared toward
                                      individuals interested in coastal management issues. More detailed treatments can be found in
                                      economics textbooks on applied welfare analysis or environmental economics (for example,
                                      Freeman, 1979, and Just, Heuth, and Schmitz, 1982).

                                      7Before any wetlands can be converted to other uses, however, one must determine the value of
                                      the marginal acre of wetlands in all its functions. Clearly, the same acre that produces #3 of
                                      additional blue crab value produces value in other fish production, as a wildlife habitat, as a
                                      pollution control mechanism, for recreation, and for other purposes.

                                      8A disturbing aspect of the Silberman and Klock study is that variables included in the regression
                                      analysis to control for various potential biases from the contingent valuation method explain a
                                      large fraction of the variation in the willingness-to-pay. Bell and Leeworthy do not make such
                                      corrections. Unfortunately, the equations reported are sufficiently different as to make coefficient
                                      comparisons impossible; that is, they have no identical variables, and only one, an index of beach
                                      quality, is even remotely similar.

                                      9The four papers cited here are not isolated cases in which the hedonic method has been used.
                                      Rather, the technique is used widely in the literature on environmental externalities and public
                                      goods, as well as in the labor literature on the structure of wages. Freeman (1979) contains a
                                      review of several early studies which employ the hedonic method in the analysis of air and water
                                      pollution.

                                      1 Olt is important to note an important limitation of this approach, as well: GNP is but one of
                                      several measures of economic welfare. There are other, social indicators of welfare, and values
                                      that do not occur in the marketplace, that are not captured by GNP. In addition, we could argue
                                      from a strict environmental perspective that an increase in economic activity, as measured by
                                      GNP, has a negative long-run effect on environmental quality at the coast, which may or may not
                                      result in lower coastal GNP.





                             186                                                                                    NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                             Chapter Nine

                   IlSeePontecorvo,etal.(1980). On the factor input side of the GNP equation,
                                                     GNP = Si(Pi + 7ri + Xi + + Do
                   where i is the relevant industry, P = payroll, 7r = profits, r = interest payments, Xindirect
                   business taxes, and D = total capital consumption allowance.

                   12T'hese estimates are biased upwards due to some double counting. We did not have enough data
                   to separate coast-linked activities into those occurring outside vs inside coastal counties. We feel
                   certain, however, that most of the coast-linked activity is in noncoastal counties, so the bias should
                   not be large.

                   13Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (86 Stat, 1280, 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464).

                   14These, plus government relations, are the seven national interest areas that are specified in the
                   CZMA.

                   15Freeman suggests that producers would gain at the expense of consumers, but that the net gain
                   to society would be positive.

                   16Note, however, that several states in the middle range and in the nonparticipating group have
                   faster growth rates than individual states in the top five. This suggests that correlations between
                   CZM spending and dollar growth are likely to be stronger than correlations between CZM
                   spending and growth rates.

                   171f results are "robust" they are not particularly sensitive to the coastal GNP definition that is
                   used.

                   18The inference in note 16 that the correlation would be weaker between CZM spending and the
                   percentage change in output than that between spending and the dollar change in output has been
                   bome out by the formal statistical tests.

                   19Note that participation is a choice variable of the states and hence is endogenous. If the choice
                   to participate is correlated with the OLS regression error, then the coefficients are biased and
                   inconsistent. Formally correct methods require that one used an instrumental variables technique
                   to remove any such correlation. Such a method was not employed due to the lack of data to serve
                   as instruments in estimating the participation decision.

                   200ther models, not reported here, were run that included other state and local government
                   spending as explanatory variables. We conclude from those models that CZM spending has the
                   same effect on state economies as any other state government spending. Note that in those
                   regressions in which CZM s;pending and local spending both appear, CZM spending is never
                   statistically significant. However, in those equations in which CZM spending appears but local
                   spending does not, CZM spending is significant.

                   21We do not believe that multicollinearity is a serious problem in our models 5 and 6. Almost all
                   multivariate models have some collinearity among the explanatory variables. The textbook
                   question is whether that multicollinearity is a problein insofar as it leads to instability in the
                   coefficient estimates, or inflates the coefficient of determination when none of the individual
                   variables is statistically significant.

                   For model 5, the answer is easy because there are only two explanatory variables (plus an inter-
                   cept). Therefore, we can use the correlation coefficient between those variables as an indicator of
                   collinearity. Of course, we did that and found that coefficient to have a value of 0.22, with a p-
                   value of 0.24, indicating that the correlation is not significant. Even if the bi-variate correlation


                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                187







                              The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                        were higher, we would not be particularly concerned since the variables are shown to be individu-
                                        ally significant in the tables of results.

                                        Model 6 has more than two explanatory variables, so it is a bit more difficult to conclude whether
                                        multicollinearity is a problem. We could conduct a series of tests, but in ourjudgment they are not
                                        necessary. (Judgment is important here; G.S. Maddala, Econometrics (New York; McGraw Hill,
                                        1977) p. 186, says: "in summary, there are only some rough rules of thumb by which we can judge
                                        whether multicollineatity is serious or not. One has to use one's judgment in any particular
                                        problem.") First, the fact that significant correlation was not found in model 5 is informative.
                                        Second, as in model 5, the coefficients on the population variable in all runs of model 6 are
                                        significant, indicating that multicollinearity (if it exists) is not biasing our interpretation of the
                                        results. Third, there is really no reason to suspect sizable multicollinearity to begin with. One
                                        reason we used state population rather than coastal county population was to avoid unnecessary
                                        multicollinearity in the first place, considering the fact that our CZM variable was affected by
                                        coastal county population. And, as we state in the text, there is a difference between what a state
                                        is supposed to receive in CZM monies and what it actually gets and spends.

                                        The increase in the adjusted R-squared statistic when population is added as an explanatory
                                        variable does not necessarily indicate multicollinearity. The addition of a new right-hand side
                                        variable increases the coefficient of determination because we are able to explain more of the
                                        previously unexplained variation in the dependent variable. We lose one degree of freedom by the
                                        addition of a population variable, but gain a lot of explanatory power.

                                        22Bear in mind that for coast-linked activities, the CZM variable was not significantly different
                                        from zero. However, using the estimated coefficient produces the increase in coast-linked activity
                                        present in the table. A closer examination of Appendix Table Ag containing the full regression
                                        results for coast-linked activity provides further insights. The third column of Table A8 presents
                                        the coefficients from the regression of average annual growth in coast-linked activity   with average
                                        CZM expenditure and the dummy variables (not controlling for population). The fourth column
                                        replaces the Pacific dummy with the multiple region dummy. In both of these cases, one can
                                        reject the null hypothesis that the dummy variables jointly have no effect on the growth in coastal
                                        activity. Note that the coefficient on average CZM expenditures is significant and positive while
                                        the coefficient on the participation dummy is significant and negative. This suggests that each
                                        dollar of CZM spending is associated with increased growth in coast-linked activity, but that
                                        participation in the program reduces growth of coast-linked activity. Evaluating at -the sample
                                        means, the net effect of participation and spending for CZM programs is negative; the reduction in
                                        coast-linked activity is $1.1678 million in average growth, or $11.178 million in total growth. If
                                        this result is valid, the CZM program could be criticized for reducing growth in comt-link    ,ed
                                        activities. We should note, however, that when state population is controlled for,.the PART
                                        coefficient loses its significance. Similarly, neither participation nor the other dummy variables
                                        are statistically significant in any other regressions. Moreover, when all coastal activity is
                                        aggregated into GNPI and GNP 2 in Tables A-10 and A- 11, the reduction in coast-linked activity
                                        is swamped by the increase in coast-dependent and coastal service activity. -In other words, there
                                        is associated with CZM spending a social net gain though there is also some general equilibrium
                                        redistribution of income.

                                        23For example, it may also be true-at least in the long-run-that faster GNP growth induces
                                        more spending on coastal protection, not only because federal CZMA funds are disbursed accord-
                                        ing to a formula that includes population, but also because policy-makers may perceive there to be
                                        more "at risk."

                                        24State populationis used in the regressions, but that is highly correlated with -coastal area
                                        population. We used state population rathenthan coastal county population for several reasons.


                               188                                                                                         NCRI- 14,41-003






                                                                                                                Chapter Nine

                    The first relates to our concern that we would get multicollinearity if we used coastal population as
                    an explanatory variable along with CZM spending, which also is affected by coastal population,
                    by formula. In addition, we wanted to control not only for the population component of the
                    CZMA formula, but also for scale factors that depend on state population, since the state offices of
                    CZM apply for the funds (we discuss this in the text). Finally, there is a high correlation between
                    state and coastal zone population, so the magnitude and significance of our estimated coefficients
                    probably would be similar if we had used coastal population.

                    25This statement is based on observations of state CZM managers who were interviewed for this
                    project. We did not collect data on tumbacks ourselves.



                    REFERENCES


                    Anderson, G. D.; Edwards, S.F. Protecting Rhode Island's Salt Ponds: An Economic Assessment
                    of Downzoning. Coastal Zone Management Journal 14:67-9 1; 1986.

                    Bell, F.W.; Leeworthy, V.R. An Economic Analysis of the Importance of Saltwater Beaches in
                    Florida. Report Number 82. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Sea Grant College. 1986.

                    Brown, G.E., Jr.; Pollakowski, H.O. Economic Valuation of Shoreline. Review of Economics
                    and Statistics 59(3):272-278; 1977.

                    Cropper, M; Deck, L.; McConnell, K.E. On the Choice of Functional Form for Hedonic Price
                    Functions. Review of Economics and Statistics: 668-675; 1988.

                    Freeman, A.M. The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice. Baltimore,
                    Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1979.

                    Freeman, A.M. Valuing Environmental Resources Under Alternative Management Regimes.
                    Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper QE89-04; 1988.

                    Gosselink, J.G.; Baumann, R.H. Wetland Inventories: Wetland Loss Along the U.S. Coast. Z.
                    Geomorph N.F. Suppl. Bd. 34:173-187; 1980.

                    Gosselink, J.G.; Odum, E.P.; Pope, R.M. The Value of the Tidal Marsh, Publication LSU-SG-74-
                    03. Baton Rouge, LA. Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University; 1974.

                    Just, R.E.; Hueth, D.L.; Schmitz, A. Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy. Englewood
                    Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1982.


                    Lindsey, B.E.; Tupper, H.C. Demand for Beach Protection and Use in Maine and New Hamp-
                    shire: A Contingent Valuation Approach. Proceedings of Coastal Zone '89; 1989.

                    Lynne, G.D.; Conroy, P.; Prochaska, F.J. Economic Valuation of Marsh Areas for Marine
                    Production Processes. J. Environmental Economics and Management 8(175-186); 198 1.

                    Maddala, G. S. Econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1977.


                    Pontecorvo, G.M. Contribution of the Ocean Sector to the United States Economy: Estimated
                    Values for 1987 - A Technical Note. MTS Journal 23(2):7-14; 1988.




                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                  189







                    The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                          Pontecorvo, G.M., et al. Contribution of the Ocean Sector to the U.S. Economy. Science 30; May
                          1980.


                          Raphael, C.N.; Jaworski, E. Economic Value of Fish, Wildlife and Recreation in Michigan's
                          Coastal Wetlands. Coastal Zone Management Journal 5:181-194; 1979.

                          Rosen, S. Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition.
                          Journal of Political Economy 82:34-55; 1974.

                          Shabman, L.A.; Batie, S.S. Economic Valuation of Natural Coastal Wetlands: A- Critique.
                          Coastal Zone Management Journal 4(3):231-247; 1978.

                          Shabman, L.A.; Batie, S.S. Estimating the Economic Value of Coastal Wetlands: Conceptual
                          Issues and Research Needs. Estuarine Perspectives: 3 -15; 1980.

                          Shabman, L.A.; Batie, S.S. Estimating the Economic Value of Wetlands: Principles, Methods,
                          and Limitations. Coastal Zone Management Journal 10(3):255-278; 1982.

                          Silberman, J.; Klock, M. The Recreation Benefits of Beach Renourishment. Ocean and Shoreline
                          Management 11:73-90; 1988.

                          Terich, T.A.; Gabriel, A.D. The-Effect of Erosion on Coastal Property Values. Proceedings of
                          CoastalZone'87. 1987.


                          U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures, 1987. Washing-
                          ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1989.

                          U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Mineral Industries, 1984.
                          Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1984.

                          U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. SIC Classification Manual. Washington,
                          D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1986.

                          U.S. Department of Commerce. The Economic Value of Ocean Resources to the United States.
                          Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1974.

                          U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetlands of the United States: Current
                          Status and Recent Trends. (National Wetlands Inventory.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
                          'Printing Office. March 1984.

                          Urban Land Institute, Research Division. The Economic Benefits of Coastal Zone Management:
                          An Overview. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute. March 1976.

                          Wilman, E.A.'Hedonic Prices and Beach Recreational Values. Advances in Applied
                          Microeconomics 1:77-103; 1981.











                    190                                                            NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                        Chapter Nine

                                          APPENDIX


                                 TABLE Al. COUNTY LIST





                         FIPSCODE         COUNTY
                                   STATE                POP85    ADJACENT

                         ..................................
                         01003       AL   Baldwin           89.9      y
                         01097       AL   Mobile           374.7      y
                         02010       AK   Aleutian           @7.2     y
                         02020       AK   Anchorage        232.3      y
                         02050       AK   Bethel            11.9      y
                         02060       AK   Bristal B          1.2      y
                         02070       AR   Dillingha          5.3      y
                         02100       AK   Haines             1.7      y
                         02110       AK   Juneau            24.9      y
                         02122       AK   Kenai Pen         41.3      y
                         02140       AK   Kobuk              5-5      y
                         02150       AK   Kodiak Is         13.7      y
                         02180       AR   Nome               7.3      y
                         02185       AK   North Slo          4.8      y
                         02201       AK   Prince of          4.8      y
                         02220       AR   Sitka              7.7      y
                         02231       AK   Skagway            3.4      y
                         02261       AR   Valdez-co          8.6      y
                         02270       AR   Wade Hamp          4.7      y
                         02280       AK   Wrangell-          6.3      y
                         06001       CA   Alameda        1194.9       y
                         06013       CA   Contra co        715.2      y
                         .06015      CA   Del Norte         18.7      y
                         06023       CA   Humboldt         111.9      y
                         06037       CA   Los Angel      8130.8       y
                         06041       CA   Marin            224.9      y
                         06045       CA   Mendocino         73.2      y
                         06053       CA   Monterey         320.0      y
                         06055       CA   Napa             103.3      30
                         06059       CA   Orange         2127.0       y
                         06067-      CA   Sacrament        890.0      y
                         06073       CA   San Diago      2201.3       y
                         06075       CA   San Frans        730.3      y
                         06077       CA   San Joagu        416.0      y
                         06079       CA   San Luis         188.1      y
                         06081       CA   San Mateo        615.3      y
                         06083       CA   Santa Bar        331.2      y
                         06085       CA   Santa Cla      1397.4       y
                         06087       CA   Santa Cru        212.8      y





            Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program           191







                 The Economics of Coastal Zone Management






                           FIPSCODE        COUNTY
                                    STATE               POP85    ADJACENT

                           ............................................
                           06095       CA  Solano         274.6      y
                           06097       CA  Sonoma         334.1      y
                           06111       CA  Ventura        600.7      y
                           09001       CT  Fairfield      820.3
                           09007       CT  Middlesex      134.9      y
                           09009       CT  New Haven      773.2      y*
                           09011       CT  New Londo      245.5      y
                           10001       DE  Kent           103.0      y
                           10003       DE  New Castl      412.4      y
                           10005       DE  Sussex         106.7      y
                           12005       FL  Bay            114.6      y
                           12009       FL  Brevard        @347.6     y
                           12011       FL  Broward        1120.2     y
                           12013       FL  Pinellas         9.7
                           12015       FL  Charlotte       79.5      y
                           12017       FL  Citrus          77.5      y
                           12019       FL  Clay            87.6     30
                           12021       FL  Colier         117.1      y
                           12025       FL  Dade           1744.5     y
                           12027       FL  De Soto         21.4      y
                           12029       FL  Dixie            9.3      y
                           12031       FL  Duval          630.1      y
                           12033       FL  Escambia       262.9      y
                           12035       FL  Flagler         16.9      y
                           12037       FL  Franklin         8.3      y
                           12045       FL  Gulf            11.8      y
                           12053       FL  Hernando        74.8      y
                           12057       FL  Hillsboro      754.7      y
                           12061       FL  India Riv       77.7      y
                           12065       FL  Jefferson       11.6      y
                           12067       FL  Lafayette        4.5     30
                           12071       FL  Lee            266.8      y
                           12073       FL  Leon           169.8     30
                           12075       FL  Levy            24.2      y
                           12077       FL  Liberty          4.5     30
                           12081       FL  Manatee        174.6      y
                           .12085      FL  Martin          82.9      y
                           12087       FL  Monroe          71.1      y
                           12089       FL  Nassau          39.8      y
                           12091       FL  Okaloosa       135.1      y
                           12099       FL  Palm beac      724.3      y
                           12101       FL  Pasco          237.2      y
                           12103       FL  Pinellas       815.1      y
                           12107       FL  Putman          58.7     8-0
                           12109       FL  St Johns        67.9      y



                                                                      NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                  Chapter Nine





                        FIPSCODE        COUNTY
                                  STATE              POP85    ADJACENT

                        ..................
                        12111       FL  St. Luici       115.7     y
                        12113       FL  Santa Ros        65.3     y
                        12115       FL  Sarasota        243.5     'y
                        12123       FL  Taylor           18.2     y
                        12127       FL  Volusia         310.8     y
                        12129       FL  Wakulia          13.1     y
                        12131       FL  Walton           25.9     y
                        13029       GA  Bryan            12.3     y
                        13039       GA  Camden           17.9     y
                        13051       GA  Chat ham        215.7     y
                        13103       GA  Effingham        21.3    30
                        13127       GA  Glynn            59.1     y
                        13179       GA  Liberty          42.1     y
                        13191       GA  McIntosh           8.0    y
                        15001       HA  Hawaii          109.5     y
                        15003       HA  Honolulu        811.1     y
                        15007       HA  Kauai            45.4     y
                        15009       HA  Maui             87.5     y
                        17031       IL  Cook            5294.9    y
                        17097       IL  Lake            468.6     y
                        18089       IN  Lake            496.9'    y
                        18091       IN  Laporte         106.5     y
                        18127       IN  Porter          122.9     y
                        22001       LA  Acadia          759.6     y
                        22005       LA  Ascension        58.0    30
                        22007       LA  Assumptio        23.5     Y.
                        22019       LA  Calcasieu       174.3    30
                        22023       LA  Cameron            9.9    y
                        22033       LA  E. Baton        392.3    30
                        22045       LA  Iberia           68.6     y
                        22047       LA  Iberville        33.4    30
                        22051       LA  Jefferson       478.5     y
                        22053       LA  Jeferson         33.3    30
                        22057       LA  Lafourche        87.5     y
                        22063       LA  Livingsto        71.6    30
                        22071       LA  Orleans         559.0     y
                        22075       LA  Plaquemin        26.6     y
                        22087       LA  St.  Berna       68.3     y
                        22089       LA  St.  Charl       42.7     y
                        22093       LA  St.  James       22.4-    y
                        22095       LA  St.  John        40.5     y
                        22099       LA  St.  Matin       45.6     y
                        22101       LA  St.  Mary        64.7     y
                        22103       LA  St.Tamman       140.8     y



           Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone, Management Progmin     193







                   The Economics of Coastal Zone Manapment






                               FIPSCODE          COUNTY
                                       .  STATE                 POP85     ADJACENT

                               ............................................
                               22105        LA   Tangipaho          91.0,      y
                               22109        LA   Terrebonn         101.6       y
                               22113        LA   Vermilion          53.2
                               22121        LA   W. Baton           20.9       30
                               23005        ME   Cumberlan         226.4       y
                               23009        ME   Hancock            43.6       y
                               23011        ME   Kennebec             112      y
                               23013        ME   Knox               34.8       y
                               23015        ME   Lincoln-           27.9       y
                               23019        ME   Penobscot         138.2       y
                               23023        ME   Sagadahoc          30.9       y
                               23027        ME   Waldo              29.8       y
                               23029        ME   Washingto          34.0       y
                               23031        ME   York              154.8       y
                               24003        MD   Anne arun         397.8       y
                               24005        MD   Baltimore         665.1       y
                               24009        MD   Calvert            41.5       y
                               24011        MD   Caroline           23.9       30
                               24015        MD   Cecil              65.6       y
                               24017        MD   Charles            85.5       y
                               24019        MD   Dochester          29.8       y
                               24025        MD   Harford           153.3       y
                               24029        MD   Kent               16.8       y
                               24033        MD   Prince Ge         681.4       y
                               24035        MD   Queen Ann          28.7       y
                               24037        MD   St. Mary'          65.7       y
                               24039        MD   Somerset           19.1       y
                               24041        MD   Talbot             26.9       y,
                               24045        MD   Wicomico           68.2       y
                               24047        MD   Worcester          35.1       y
                               24510        MD   Baltimore         755.5       y
                               25001        MA   Barnstabl         165.4       y
                               25005        MA   Bristol           480.5       y
                               25007        MA   Dukes              10.6       y
                               25009        MA   Essex             648.5       y
                               25017        MA   Middlesex'        1373.7      y
                               25019        IMA  Nantucket             6.0     y,
                               25021        MA   Norfolk           602.2       y
                               25023:       MA   Plymouth          418,.7      y
                               25025        MA   Suffolk           668.0       y
                               26001        MI   Alcona             10.1       y
                               2@6003       MI   Alger                 8.8     y
                               2-6005       MI   Allegan            85.2
                               26007        MI   Alpena             30.9



                   194                                                           NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                  Chapter Nine






                             FIPSCODE            COUNTY
                                         STATE                   POP85     ADJACENT

                             ........................................
                             26009         MI    Antrim              16.8         Y'
                             26011         MI    Arenac              15.0         y
                             26013         MI    Baraga               8.-2        y
                             26017         MI    Bay                115.0         y
                             26019         MI    Benzia              11.'2        y
                             26021         MI    Berrien            162.7         y
                             26029         MI    Charlevoi           19.7         y
                             26031         MI    Cheboygan           20.7         y
                             26033         MI    Chippewa            29.1         y
                             26041         MI    Delta               38.6         y
                             26047         MI    Emmet               23.7         y
                             26053         MI    Gogebic             18.8'        y
                             26055         MI    Grand tra           5,8.1        y
                             26061         MI    Houghton            36-.9        y
                             @6063         MI    Huron               36.4         y
                             26069         MI    Iosco               30.0         y
                             26083         MI    Keweenaw             2.1         y
                             26089         M!    Leelanau            14.6         y
                             26095         MI    Luce                 5.8         y
                             26097         MI    Mackinac            10.2         y
                             26099         MI    Macomb             693.2         y
                             26101         MI    Manistee            .22.2        y
                             26103         MI    Marqyette           71.4         y
                             26105         MI    Mason               26.2         y
                             26109         MI    Menominee           25.8         y
                             26115         MI    Monrroe            130.8         y
                             26121         MI    Muskegon           156.9         y
                             26127         MI    Oceana              22.6         y
                             26131         MI    Ontonagon            9.1         y
                             26139         MI    Ottawa             167.1         y
                             26141         MI    Presque i           13.9         y
                             26145         MI    Saginaw            217.4        30
                             26147         MI    St. Clair          138.5         y
                             26151         MI    Sanilac             39.8         y
                             26153         MI    Schoolcra            8.3         y
                             26157         MI    Tuscola             55.2         y
                             26159         MI    Van Buren           66.4         y
                             26163         MI    Wayne             2177.8         y
                             27031         MN    Cook                 4.1         y
                             27075         MN    lake                11.6         y
                             27137*        MN    St. Louis          202.0         y
                             28045         MS    Hancock             30.6         y
                             28047         MS    Harrison           170.5         y
                             2.8059        MS    Jackson            126-.8        y



              Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                     195







                The Economics of Coastal Zone Management







                          FIPSCODE        COUNTY
                                    STATE              POP85    ADJACENT

                          ..........................
                          33015       NH  Rockingha      212.7      y
                          33017       NH  Strafford       94.0      y
                          34001       NJ  Atlantic       203.4      y
                          34003       NJ  Bergen         839.9      y
                          34005       NJ  Burlingto      379.8      y
                          34007       NJ  Camden         487.2      y
                          34009       NJ  Cape may        90.3      y
                          34011       NJ  'Cumberlan     134.8      y
                          34013       NJ  Essex          843.9      y
                          34015       NJ  Glouceste      208.4      y
                          34017       NJ  Hudson         [email protected]     y
                          34021       NJ  Mercer            340     y
                          34023       NJ  Middlesex      626.8      y
                          34025       NJ  Monmouth       531.9      y
                          34029       NJ  Ocean          380.8      y
                          34033       NJ  Salem           65.4      y
                          34039       NJ  Union          505.8      y
                          36001       NY  Albany         283.4      y
                          36005       NY  Bronx         1190.6      y
                          36011.      NY  Cayuga          79.4      y
                          36013       NY  Chautauqu      143.7      y
                          36021       NY  Columbia        60.7      y
                          36027       NY  Dutchess       254.3      y
                          36029       NY  Erie           968.1      y
                          36039       NY  Greene          42.1      y
                          36045       NY  Jefferson       88.7      y
                          36047       NY  Kings         2291.1      y
                          36055       NY  Monroe         701.0      y
                          36059       NY  Nassau        1324.3      y
                          36061       NY  New york      1477.7      y
                          36063       NY  Niagara        216.8      y
                          36071       NY  Orange         276.0      30
                          36073       NY  Orleans         38.7      y
                          36075       NY  Oswego         118.6      y
                          36079       NY  Putnam          80.5      y
                          36081       NY  Queens        1930.8      y
                          36083       NY  Rensselae      151.7      y
                          3,6085      NY   -Richmond     370.7      y
                          36087       NY  Rockland       264.5      30
                          36089       NY  St. Lawre      112.7      y
                          36103       NY  Suffolk       1305.3      y
                          36111       NY  Ulster         162.8      y
                          36117       NY  Wayne.          86.6      y
                          36119       NY  Westchest      866.3      y


                 196                                                  N(_'RI-",41-003






                                                                      Chapter Nine






                           FIPSCODE         COUNTY
                                     STATE               POP85     ADJACENT

                           ............................................
                           37013       NC   Beauford         43.3      y
                           37015       NC   Bertie           21.4      y
                           37019       NC   Brunswick        45.6      y
                           37029       NC   Camden            5.8      y
                           37031       NC   Carteret         48.8      y
                           37041       NC   Chowan           13.2      y
                           37049       NC   Craven           79.4      y
                           37053       NC   Currituck        12.9      y
                           37055       NC   Dare             17.3      y
                           37073       NC   Gates             9.4      y
                           37091       NC   Hertford         23.9      y
                           37095       NC   Hyde              6.0      y
                           37129       NC   New Hanov       112.3      y-
                           37-133      NC   Onslow          -122.7     y
                           37137       NC   Pamlico          11.0      y
                           37139       NC   Pasquotan        29.4      y
                           37141       NC   Pender           24.4      y
                           37143       NC   Perquiman        10.3      y
                           37177       NC   Tyrrell           4.1      y
                           37187       NC   Washingto        14.6      y
                           39007       OH   Ashtabula       101.5      y
                           39035       OH   Cuyahoga        1453.9     y
                           39043       OH   Erie             77.4      y
                           39085       OH   Lake            212.5      y
                           39093       OH   Lorain          270.3      y
                           39095       OH   Lucas           462.6      y
                           39103       OH   Medina          115.9     30
                           39123       OH   Ottawa           39.8      y
                           39143       OH   Sandisky         62.1      y
                           41007       OR   tlatsop          32.7      y
                           41009       OR   Columbia         36.8      y
                           41011       OR   Coos             60.6      y
                           41015       OR   Curry            16.7      y
                           41019       OR   Douglas          93.1      y
                           41039       OR   Lane            263.9      y
                           41041       OR   Lincoln          36.6      y
                           41051       OR   Multnomah       563.9     30
                           41057       OR   Tilamook         21.3      y
                           42017       PA   Bucks             522      y
                           42045       PA   Delaware        555.7     30
                           42049       PA   Erie            278.8      y
                           42101       PA   Philasnel       1647.6    30
                           44001       RI   Bristol          47.3      y
                           44003       RI   Kent            157.9      y



             Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program         197







                   The Economics of Coastal Zone Management







                                FIPSCODE          COUNTY
                                           STATE                 POP.85    ADJACENT

                                ............................................
                                4400,5       RI   Newprot            84.1       y
                                44007        RI   Providenc         '578.7      y
                                44009        RI   Washingto          98.8"      y
                                45013        SC   Beaufort           80.4       y
                                45015        SC   Berkeley          118.3       y
                                45019        SC   Charlesto         285.8       y
                                45029        SC   Colleton          .34.1       y
                                45035        8C   Dorcheste          72.9      30
                                45043        SC   Georgetow          46.2       y
                                45051        SC   Horry             126.5       y
                                45053        SC   Jasper             14-.9      y
                                45089        SC   Williamsb          38.6      '30
                                48007        TX   Aransas            17.6       y
                                48039        TX   Braxoria          187.1       y
                                48057        TX   Calhoun            21.6       y
                                48061        TX   Cameron           252.0       y
                                48071        TX   Chambers           19.6       y
                                48167        TX   Galveston         213.8       y
                                48201        TX   Harris            2784.0      y
                                48239        TX   Jackson            13.5       y
                                48245        TX   Jefferson         253.3       y
                                48261        TX   Kenedy              0.6       y
                                48273        TX   Kleberg            34.4       y
                                48291        TX   Liberty            54.0      30
                                48321        TX   Hatagorda          40.3       y
                                48355        TX   Nueces            298.6       y
                                48361        TX   Orange             83.6       y
                                48391        TX   Refogio             8.6       y
                                48409.       TX   San Partr          61.2       y
                                48469        TX   Victoria           75.3       y
                                48489        TX   Willacy            18.9       y
                                51001        VA   Acdomack           31.2       y
                                51033        VA   Caroline           18.8      30
                                51036        VA   Charles C           6.5       y
                                51041        VA   Chester F         164.6       y
                                51057        VA   Essex               8.9       y
                                51059        VA   Fairfax           710.5       y
                                51073        VA   Glouceste          26.4       y
                                51087        VA   Henrico           194.1      30
                                51093        VA   Isle of w          23.7       y
                                51095        VA   James Cit          26.6       y
                                51097        VA   King and            6.2       y
                                51099        VA   King Geor          11.5.      y
                                51101        VA   King Will          10.0       y



                    198                                                          NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                  Chapter Nine






                        FIPSCODE        COUNTY
                                  STATE              POP85    ADJACENT

                        ............................................
                        51103       VA  Lancaster        10.9     y
                        51115       VA  Mathew            8.6     y
                        51119       VA  Middlesex         8.5     y
                        51127       VA  New Kent         10.1     y
                        51131       VA  Norhtampt        14.2     y
                        51133       VA  Northumbe        10.0     y
                        51149       VA  Prince Ge        26.2     y
                        51153       VA  Prince wi       175.4     y
                        51159       VA  Richmond          7.0     y
                        51177       VA  Spotsylva        34.4     y
                        51179       VA  Stafford         49.0     y
                        51181       VA  Surry             6.2     y
                        51193       VA  Westmorel        14.3     y
                        511997      -VA Yrok             40' 4    y
                        51550       VA  Chesapeak       130.5     y
                        51650       VA  Hampton         125.3     y
                        51670       VA  Hopewell         24.1     y
                        51700       VA  Newport N       157.7     y
                        51710       VA  Norfolk         274.8     y
                        51730       VA  Petersbur        39.8     y
                        51740       VA  Portsmout       110.5     y
                        51760       VA  Richmond        217.7     y
                        51800       VA  Suffolk          50.2     y
                        51810       VA  Virginia        318.3     y
                        53009       WA  Clallam          52.8     y
                        53011       WA  Clark           211.3     y
                        53015       WA  Cowlitz          79.3     y
                        53027       WA  Grays Har        63.0     y
                        53029       WA  Island           48.6     y
                        53031       WA  Jefferson        17.8     y
                        53033       WA  King            1348.5    y
                        53035       WA  Kitsap          167.0     y
                        53045       WA  Mason            35.3     y
                        53049       WA  Pacific          17.5     y
                        53053       WA  Pierce          525.8     y
                        53055       WA  San juan          8.9     y
                        53057       WA  Skagit           68.6     y
                        53061       WA  Snohomish       388.8     y
                        53067       WA  Thurston        141.9     y
                        53069       WA  Wahkiakum         3.6     y
                        53073       WA  Whatcom         112.7     y
                        55003       WI  Ashland          16.9     y
                        55007       WI  Bayfield         14.3     y
                        55009       WI  Brown           185.1     y



            Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Ptogram     199







                ,The Economics of Coastal Zone Management







                          FIPSCODE        COUNTY
                                    STATE              POP85    ADJACENT

                          ............................................
                          55029       WI  Door            26.2      y
                          55031       WI  Douglas         42.2      y
                          55051       WI  Iron              6.2     ."y
                                      WI  Kenosha        121.1      y
                          55061       WI  Kewaunee        20.0      y
                          55071       WI  Manitowoc       82.6      y
                          55075       WI  Marinette       41.0      y
                          55079       WI  Milwaukee      937.5      y
                          55083       WI  Oconto          30.0      y
                          55089       WI  Ozaukee         68.4      y
                          55101       WI  Racine         171.6      y
                          55117       WI  Sheboygan      ld2.7      y
                          TERRY           P. Rico         3293      y
                          TERRY           Guam              124     y
                          TERRY           Virgin is         109     y
                          TERYY           N. Marian       19.6      Y
                          TERRY           Am. Samoa       37.1      y


































                                                                     NCRI-W-91-003
                 Mo






                                                                                                               Chapter Nine

                                                                 TABLE A2
                                      INDUSTRY-COMPOSITION OF ACTIVITY TYPES





                    sic                                                                        PARTIAL    % estimated    *data
                         SECTOR DIFINITION                                            SUBSECT         % by               sources
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1. Coast-depgndent


                    0273 animal aquaculture                                                1     y    80 guess by sic
                    0279 animal specialties, nec(alligator)                                I     y    15  g
                    091  commercial fishing                                                1     n                       fish stat(3)
                    092  fish hatcheries and preserve&                                     I     n                       fish stat
                    2048 prepared feeds(fish foods, oyster shell,etc)                      1     y    10  shipment value asm(4)
                    2077 animal and marine fats and oils                                   I     y    20  s              asm
                    2091 canned and cured seafoods                                         1     n                       asm
                    2092 fresh or frozen pachaged fish                                     I     n                       asm
                    2819 industrial inorganic chemicals,nec(salt cake)                     I     y     2  s              asm
                    2833 medic chemicals/botanical prodts(fish liver oils,agar-ag          I     y     2  s              asm
                    2843 surface active agents,etc(cod oil,sulfonated, ect.)               I     y     5  s              asm
                    2899 chemicals/chemical preparation,nec(salt)                          1     y     6  s              asm
                    373  ship and boat building and repairing                              I     n                       asm
                    3799 transportation equipment,nec(boat trialers)                       1     y    15  g              asm
                    442  deep sea domestic transportation of freight                       1,    n
                    443  freight transportation on great lakes                             1     n
                    446  water transportation services                                     1     n
                    448  water transportation of passengers                                I     n
                    449  services incidental to water transportation                       1     n
                    79   amusement and recreation services*                                1     y
                    84   museums, botanical, zoological gardens*                           I     y

                    2..Coast-linked


                    221  weaving mills, cotton(nets, sailcloth,etc)                        2     y     3  s              asm
                    2298 cordage and twine(fishnets,lines, seines, ect.)                   2     y     5  g              asm
                    2329 men's and boy's clothing.nec(bathing suit, swimsuits)             2     y    10  s              asm
                    2339 women's, misses'outwear.nec(bathing suits, swimsuits)             2     y    10  s              asm
                    2369 girls'. childern's and infants' outwear,nec(bath)                 2     y     3  g              asm
                    2394 canvas and related products(sails)                                2     y    10  s              asm
                    2599 furniture and fixtures,nec(ship furniture)                        2     y     5  g              asm
                    285  paints,vanishes,lacquers,enamela(marine paints,etc.)              2     y     5  g              asm
                    3357 drawing and insulating of nonferrous wire(shipboard cabl          2     y     5  g              asm
                    3362 brass, bronze, copper foundries(propellers, ship, screw)          2     y     5  g              asm
                    3429 hardware,nec(marine hardware)                                     2     y     2  a              asm
                    3441 fabricated structural metal(ship sections)                        2     y    15  s              asm
                    3443 fabricated plate work ( buoys etc.)                               2     y    10  a              asm
                    3448 prefabricated metal buildings and component(docks)                2     y    15  g              asm
                    3462 iron and steel forgings(anchors etc.)                             2     y     5  g              asm
                    3483 ammunition(fin assembles, fuses, etc.)                            2     y     3  g              asm
                    3489 ordance and accessory,nec(antisubmarine projectors, etc)          2     y     5  g              asm
                    3496 miscellaneous fabricated wire(antisubmarine/torpedo net)          2     y     5  g              asm
                    3499 fabricated metal products,nec(aquarium acsories,etc)              2     y     2  9              asm
                    3519 internal combustion eng.,nec(marine engine, etc)                  2     y    30  a              asm
                    3531 construction machinery(shipcranes/derricks, winches)              2     y     5  g              asm
                    3536 overhead traveling hoists(boat hoists)                            2     y    10  g              asm
                    3537 industrial trucks, tractors(boat cradles,docks,etc)               2     y     5  s              asm
                    3551 food product machine(shell/fish processing machinery)             2     y     2  s              asm
                    3561 pumps and pumping mach/equipment(hydroject marine engine          2     y     7  s              asm
                    3622 industrial controls(marine and navy auxiliary)                    2     y     5  g              asm
                    3647 vehicular lighting equipment(boat and ship lighting fix           2     y    10.5               asm
                    3662 radio/TV communication equipment(marine radio communicat          2     y     5  a              asm
                    381  ingeering and scientific instruments                              2     y    45  a              asm
                    3949 sporting and athletic goods,nec(fishing tackle,aloat,etc          2     y     7  a              asm
                    3999 manufacture indus,nec(beach umbrellas, etc)                       2     y     2  a              asm
                    82   educational service*                                              2     y     5  g              cbp(6)









                    Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                 201







                           The Economics of Coastal Zone Management


                     3. Coastal services


                     078  landscape and hortcultural services                             3      n
                     131  crude oil and natural gas extraction                            3      n                       cbp
                     138  oil and gas field services                                      3      n                       cbp
                     1442 construction sand and gravel                                    3      y                       cbp
                     1446 industrial sand                                                 3      Y                       cbp
                     1479 chemical and fertilizer mining.nec. (salt mining etc.)          3      y                       cbp
                     15   general constractors and operative builders                     3      n                       cbp
                     16   heavy construction contractors                                  3      n                       cbp
                     17   special trade contractors                                       3      n                       cbp
                     271  newspaper, publishing/printing                                  3      n                       cbp,
                     41   local and interurban passenger   transit                        3      n                       cbp
                     42   trucking and warehousing                                        3      n                       cbp
                     47   transprotation services                                         3      n                       cbp
                     48   communications                                                  3      n                       cbp
                     49   electric, gas and sanitary services                             3      n                       cbp
                     50   wholesale trade-durable goods                                   3      n                       cbp
                     51   wholesale trade-nondurable goods                                3      n                       cbp
                     52   retail-building materials, hardware                             3      n                       cbp
                     53   ret@sil-general merchandise stores                              3      n                       cbp
                     54   food stores                                                     3      n                       cbp
                     55   automobile dealers and gasline services                         3      n                       cbp
                     56   apparel and accessory stores                                    3      n                       cbp
                     57   home furniture, furnishing equipment                            3      n                       cbp
                     58   eating and drinking places                                      3      n                       cbp
                     59   retail-miscelaneous                                             3      n                       cbp
                     60   depository institutions                                         3      n                       cbp
                     61   nondepository credit institutions                               3      n                       cbp
                     62   security and commodity brookers, dealers, exchanges, ser        3      n                       cbp
                     63   insurance carries                                               3      n                       cbp
                     64   insurance agents, brokers and services                          3      n                       cbp
                     65   real estate                                                     3      n                       cbp
                     67   holding and other  investment offices                           3      n                       cbp
                     70   hotels, rooming housing and other lodging places                3      n                       cbp
                     72   personal services                                               3      n                       cbp
                     73   business services                                               3      n                       cbp
                     75   automotive repair  services                                     3      n                       cbp
                     76   miscelaneous repair services                                    3      n                       cbp
                     782  motion picture distribution and allied services                 3      n                       cbp
                     783  motion pictures theaters                                        3      n                       cbp
                     784  video tape rental                                               3      n                       cbp
                     79   amusement and recreational services*                            3      n                       cbp
                     80   health services                                                 3      n                       cbp
                     81   legal services                                                  3      n                       cbp
                     82   educational services*                                           3      n                       cbp
                     83   social services                                                 3      n                       cbp
                     84   museums, botanical, zoological gardens*                         3      n                       cbp
                     86   membership organizations                                        3      n                       cbp
                     89   miscelaneous services                                           3,     n                       cbp


                     4. Located in Coastal Zone. all else: Total for Subsector 3.




                       This industry is allocated to two subsectors, Data for it will be collected at twolevels, county and
                             nation.


                     1. in some cases 5-7 digit sic data will be available. In others, we will have to adjust 4-digit data using
                             estimats of the ratio between relevant 5-7 digit sectors and 4-digit totals.


                     2. For the activities,classified in subsector 1 and 2, national level data will be collected. For subsectdr
                             3, county level data will be collected.

                     3. 'fish stat': fishery statistics of the United States.

                     4. 'asm': Annual Survey of Manufacture, which has data on value added by manufacturing' payroll, and
                             employment for most four digit level sectors.

                     5. 'stat abst': Statistical Abstract, published annually.

                     6. "cbp': County Business Pattern, which has data on employment and payroll for up to Bour digit industries.
                             for county, if applicable. But it does not take intol.account public enterprises,




                             2(r2                                                                                     NCRI-W-91-003















                                     EMPLOYMENT (THOUSAND) AND GNP ($BILLION) 1978
                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    NO. OF                         SUBSECTORS        COASTAL ALL           COASTAL     STATE      STATE     STATE      PERCENT OF
                                                    COUNTIES               .......................   COUNTIES COUNTIES GENERATED COASTAL COASTAL COASTAL CONTRIBUTION
                                     STATE                   POPULATION       1       2        3     ALL                    TOTAL      EMPL       GNP**    GNP***      OF COAST
                                                                                                     ACTIVITIES             (5+7)       (4+5+6)
                                                     ............................................................................................................
                                           1           2           3          4       5        6          7          9            10       11       12         13              14
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ALABAMA               2     4347.0       1.7     3.1      84.4      121.8      1029.0        124.9    89.1        2.7        3.7    8.7%- 12.1%
                                     ALASKA               18     2207.0       1.1     0.3      61.7       78.6      105.6         78.9     63.1        1.9        2.4   59.7%- 74,7%
                                     CALIFORNIA           22    187093.0    89.1    21.9     4344.7     6477.8      7380.6    6499.7     4455.7     133.6      194.9    60.4%- 88.1%            C)
                                     CONNECTICUT           4    19291.0       9.6     3.4     403.8      694.5      1152.4        697.9  416.8        12.5       20.9   36.2%- 60.6%            >
                                     DELAWARE              3     5982.0       2.8     0.6     125.4      200.8      200.8         201.4  128.8         3.9        6.0   64.1%-100.3%
                                     FLORIDA              42    74609.0     32.7      7.7    1726.8     2373.5      2609.8    2381.2     1767.2       53.0       71.4   67.7%- 91.2%
                                     GEORGIA               7     3320.0       1.3     4.8      64.8       91.5      1620.4        96.3     70.9        2.1        2.9    4.4%-    5.9%          >
                                     HAWAII                4     8629.0       3.9     0.8     237.0      281.8      281.8.        282.6  241.7         7.2        8.5   85.8%-100.3%
                                     ILLINOIS              2    57748.0     33.2    12.2     1509.5     2415.6      -4127.2   2427.8     1555.0       46.6       72.8   37.7%-  58.8%           C)
                                     INDIANA               3     7526.0       3.6     5.3     136.7      259.9      1798.9        265.2  145.6         4.4        8.0    8.1%-  14.7%           z
                                     LOUISIANA            25    25023.0     10.7      3.5     581.8      779.5      1169.1        783.0  596.0        17.9       23.5   51.0%-  67.0%
                                     MAINE                10     7857.0       3.0     0.9     144.8      220.4      308.0         221.3  148.7         4.5        6.6   48.3%-  71.9%
                                     MARYLAND             17    30960.0     11.6      3.5     609.2      842.7      1187.9        846.2  624.3        18.7       25.4   52.6%-  71.2%
                                     MASS                  9    43015.0     22.3      6.2    1094.9     1620.9      2104.8    1627.1     1123.4       33.7
                                                                                                                                                                 48.8   53.4%-  77.3%               >
                                     MICHIGAN             42    50512.0     21.4      8.7     837.1     1555.8      2921.6    1564.5     867.2        26.0       46.9   29.7%-  53.5%               tz
              Z                      MINESSODA             3     2369.0       1.0     4.1      46.9       71.1      1383.4        75.2     52.0        1.6        2.3    3.8%-     5.4%
                                     MISSISSIPPI           3     2967.0       1.1     1.8      45.1       80.1      602.3         81.9     48.0        1.4        2.5    8.0%-  13.6%
                                     NEW HAMPSHIRE         2     2668.0       1.0     0.9      44.4       71.4      289.6         72.3     46.2        1.4
                                                                                                                                                                  2.2   16.0%-  25.0%               >
                                     NEW JERSEY           15    60245.0     26.1      7.1    1221.4     1900.7      2389.7    1907.8     1254.6       37.6       57.2   52.5%-  79.8%               w
                                     NEW YORK             27    148301.0    68.6    17.1     3443.2     4989.5      5770.1    5006.6     3529.0     105.8      150.1    61.2%-  86.8%
                                     N. CAROLINA          20     [email protected]       1.6     5.5      77.1      117.3      1860.5        122.8    84.2        2.5        3.7    4.5%-    6.6%
                                     OHIO                  9    28888.0     15.4    10.9      663.5     1118.1      3676.5    1129.0     689.8        20.7       33.9   18.8%-  30.7%
                                     OREGON                9    10989.0       5.9     2.4     308.7      430.2      798.5         432.6  317.0         9.5       13.0   39.7%-  54.2%           tz
                                     PENNSYLVINIA          4    30347.0     14.1    11.6      681.3     1024.2      3922.5    1035.8     707.0        21.2       31.1   18.0%-  26.4%           >
                                     RHODE ISLAND          5     9572.0       4.5     1.0     186.9      329.2      329.2         330.2  192.4         5.8        9.9   58.4%-100.3%            co)
              lzi
                                     S.CAROLINA            9     7039.0       2.2     2.7     112.1      158.9      911.5         161.6  117.0         3.5        4.8   12.8%- 17.7%
                                     TEXAS                19    37061.0     19.3    13.1     1018.7     1404.4      4400.5    1417.5     1051.1       31.5       42.5   23.9%-  32.2%
                                                                                                                                                                                                P
                                     VIRGINIA             37    18494.0       9.9     4.3     534.1      721.6      1463.2        725.9  548.4        16.4       21.8   37.5%-  49.6%
                                     WASHINGTON           17    28517.0     12.1      3.4     608.9      879.3      1149.2        882.7  624.4        18.7       26.5   54.3%-  76.8%
                                     WISCONSIN            15    18804.0     10.3      4.6     435.0      745.7      1557.2        750.3  449.9        13.5       22.5   28.9%-  48.2%
                                     PUERTO RICO                    3122      8.2     0.9     289.7      298.8      298.8         298.8  -298.8        9.0        9.0  100.0%-100.0%            00
                                     GUAM                          101.5                       10.7       10.7        10.7        10.7,    10.7        0.3        0.3  100.0%-100.0%
                                     VIRGIN ISLAND                  88.4                       15.8       15.8        15.8        15.8     15.8        0.5        0.5  100.0%-100.0%
                                     N. MARIANA                     15.8
                                     AMERICAN SAMOA                 31.2

                                     .............  I ...........................................................................................................
                                     us                  404 943663.9      445.5 174.6 21390.0 32382.2 58827.1               32556.8 22010.1        659.8      976.0


                                     US SUBSECTORS' TOTAL       22010.1                   US COASTAL GNP**          660.0
                                     US ALL ACTIVITIES          70289.2                   COAST GNP MODIF***        976.2                                                                                  fD
                                     US GNP($BILLION)            2107.6                   % CONTR OF COAST 31.3-46.3****@

                                                                CALCULATION NOT DEFINED FOR BLANK PLACES
                                     "COASTAL GNP = (SUBSETORS 1+2+3) x (US GNP) / (US ALL ACTIVITIES)
                                     **GNP MODIFIED = (COAST GENERATED) x (US GNP) / (US ALL ACITIVIES)
                                     ****THE BOTTOM OF RANGE     IS FROM US COASTAL GNP, THE TOP IS FROM COASTAL GNP MODIFIED
















                                EMPLOYMENT (THOUSAND) AND GNP ($BILLION),1985
                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                 ------------------------------
                                               NO. OF                         SUBSECTORS       COASTAL ALL          COASTAL     STATE      STATE     STATE     PERCENT 0   F
                                               COUNTIES               ---*       ....... """   COUNTIES COUNTIES GENERATED COASTAL COASTAL COASTAL CONTRIBUTION
                                STATE                    POPULATION      1       2        3    ALL                   TOTAL      EMPL       GNPW*    GNP***     OF COAST
                                                                                               ACTIVITIES             (5+7)      (4+5+6)                       TO STATE
                                                            ..................................................................................................
                                       1           2         3           4       .5       6          7         9          10        11        12        13             14                           m
                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                           C
                                ALABAMA               2      464.6       2.7     3.9     102.9     130.4      1126.3      134.4    109.5        5.4       6.6    9.7%- 11.9%
                                  LASKA              18      392.6       2.4     0.5      98.9     116.6      149.6       117.1    101.8        5.0       5.8   68.0%-   78.3%
                                CALIFORNIA           22     21211.7    169.6     32.8    5660.4   8201.6      9368.8    8234.4   5862.8       289.8     407.1   62.6%-   87.9%
                                CONNECTICUT           4     1973.9     17.3      4.8     550.6     838.6      1378.0      843.4    572.7      28.3       41.7   41.6%-   61.2%
                                DELAWARE              3      622.1       5.1     0.9     166.6     246.8      247.0       247.7    172.5        8.5      12.2   69.9%-100.3%
                                FLORIDA              42     9246.8     63.4      13.1    2532.5   3064.9      3734.8    3078.0   2609.0       129.0     152.2   69.9%- 82.4%
                                GEORGIA               7      376.4       2.3     7.3      84.0     112.5      2086.3      119.8     93.6        4.6       5.9    4.5%-     5.7%
                                HAWAII                4     1053.5       6.8     1.2     289..0    327.3      328.4       328.4    296.9      14.7       16.2   90.4%-100,0%
                                ILLINOIS              2     5763.5     48.4      14.3    1659.1   2342.8      4088.0    2357.1   1721.9       85.1      116.5   42.1%-   57.7@           C
                                INDIANA               3      726.3       4.4     6.3     132.1     212.7      1804.8      219.0    142.8        7.1      10.8    7.9%-   12.1%
                                LOUISIANA            25     3467.8     17.2      4.5     653.3     829.8      1272.6      834.3    674.9      33.4       41.2   53.0%-   65.6%
                                MAINE                10      831.9       3.8     1.2     132.2     183.7      355.6       184.9    137.3        6.8       9.1   38.6%-   52.0%
                                MARYLAND             17     3159.9     21.7      5.3     768.5    1048.1      1507.3    1053.4     795.4      39.3       52.1   52.8%-   69.9%
                                MASS                  9     4373.6     43.4      9.2     1501.1   2099.6      2636.1    2108.8   1553.8       76.8      104.3   58.9%-   @0.0%
                                MICHIGAN             42     4851.2     29.9      10.4    916.1    1445.6      2953.6    1456.0     956.3      47.3       72.0   32.4%-   49.3%
                                MINESSODA             3      217.7       1.2     5.5      35.6       59.4     1571.5      64.9      42.3        2.1       3.2    2.7%-     4.1%
                                MISSISSIPPI           3      327.9       1.6     2.2      51.7       77.4     635.9       79.6      55.6        2.7       3.9    8.7%-   12.5%
                                NEW HAMPSHIRE         2      306.7       2.0     1.4      73.4       96.3     390.4       97.7      76.7        3.8       4.8   19.7%-   25.0%
                                NEW JERSEY           15     5972.8     47.8      10.1    1648.0   2311.8      2886.2    2321.9   1705.9       84.3      114.8   59.1%-   80.4%
                                NEW YORK             27     14887.1    116.8     22.8    4187.4   5648.0      6505.0    5670.8   4326.9       213.9     280.3   66.5%-   87.2%                      fD
                                N. CAROLINA          20      655.8       3.3     7.8     113.6     161.9      2220.0      169.7    124.7        6.2       8.4    5.6%-     7.6%
                                OHIO                  9     2796.0     22.2      12.9    733.7    1074.6      3677.0    1087.5     768.8      38.0       53.8   20.9%-   29.6%
                                OREGON                9     1125.6       8.6     2.9     320.6     417.5      830.5       420.4    332.1      16.4       20.8   40.0%-   @0.6%
                                PENNSYLVINIA          4     3004.1     21.7      14.3    788.8    1049.5      4066.3    1063.7     824.8      40.8       52.6   20.3%-   26.2%
                                RHODE ISLAND          5      966.8       7.6     1.3     239.8     366.3      367.6       367.6    248.7      12.3       18.2   67.6%-100.0%
                                S.CAROLINA            9      817.7       4.4     3.7     169.5     214.5      1047.5      218.1    177.6        8.8      10.8   17.0%- 20.8%
                                TEiAS                19     4438.0     34.3      19.7    1268.2   1661.0      5625.1    1680.7   1322.3       65.4       83.1   23.5%- 29.9%
                                VIRGINIA             37     3103.1     24.4      6.5     782.3    1177.8      1858.7    1184.3     813.2      40.2       58.6   43.7%-   63.7%
                                WASHINGTON           17     3291.4     19.8      4.7     707.2     958.6      1336.7      963.3    731.7      36.2       47.6   54.7%-   72.1%
                                WISCONSIN            15     1865.8     14.9      5.7     480.3     721.2      1624.7      726.9    500.9      24.8       35.9   30.8%-   44.7%
                                PUERTO RICO                    3293    18.2      1.5     422.3       442         442        442       442     21.9       21.9  100.0%-100.0%
                                GUAM                             124                      12.9       12.9       12.9      12.9      12.9        0.6       0.6  100.0%-100.0%
                                VIRGIN ISLAND                    109                      22.2       22.2       22.2      22.2      22.2        1.1       1.1  100.0%-100.0%
                                N. MARIANA                     19.6
                                AMERICAN SAMOA                 37.1

                                ................................................................................................                  ..........................
                                us                   404    105875 779.Q 238.9 27304.7 37673.9 68157.4                 j7912.8 Z8322.6      14 ;2                                       00
                                                                                                                                                        1850.6


                                US SUBSECTORS' TOTAL 28322.55                        US COASTAL GNP**         1400.2
                                US ALL ACTIVITIES           81119.3                  GNP MODIF***             1874.3
                                US CNP($BILLION)            4010.3                   % CONTR OF COAST      34.3-46.1""

                                   ...................
                                  ATA NOT AVAILABLE OR CALCULATION NOT DEFINED FOR BLANK PLACES
                                **COASTAL GNP      (SUBSETORS 1+2+3) x (US GNP)          (US ALL ACTIVITIES)
            @6                  **GNP MODIFIED      (COAST GENERATED) x (US GNP)         (US ALL ACITIVIES)
            4z                  ****THE BOTTOM OF RANGE IS FROM US COASTAL GNP, THE TOP IS FROM COASTAL GNP MODIFIED
            tAj







                                                                                                                     ChapterNine

                                                                     TABLE A5
                                                COASTAL GNP, PAYROLL-BASED, 1978



                     PAYROLL(MILLION DOLLARS) AND GNP (BILLION DOLLARS) 1978
                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    SUBSECTORS             COASTAL      STATE         COASTAL    STATE      STATE      STATE
                                                                 .......... COUNTIES    TOTAL         GENERATED COASTAL COASTAL COASTAL
                     STATE        NO. OF                                   ALL          (ALL          TOTAL       PAY       GNP**     GNP***
                                  COUNTI      1         2           3      ACTIVITIES   COUNTIES)     (6+4)      (3+4+5)

                     ...........................................................................................................
                          1           2       3         4           5            6           7             8          9         9         10
                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     ALABAMA           2      18.6      44.8        766.1       1261.4      10751.4      1306.2      829.5       2.1        3.3
                     ALASKA           18      21.1       8.2       1026.2       1434.1       1975.7      1442.3     1055.5       2.6        3.6
                     CALIFORNIA       22    1244.6     393.7      50627.9     84605.7       94499.8     84999.4   52266.2       131.0     213.1
                     CONNECTICUT       4     129.2      60.7       4198.4       8781.4      14565.5      8842.1     4388.3      11.0       22.2
                     DELAWARE          3      40.1      11.4       1231.6       2727.8       2727.8      2739.2     1283.1       3.2        6.9
                     FLORIDA          41     348.0     108.0      15950.6     23658.8       25911.6     23766.8   16406.6       41.1       59.6
                     GEORGIA           7      13.2      71.2        565.4        895.1      17085.1        966.3     649.8       1.6        2.4
                     HAWAII            4      43.6      12.3       2287.9       2961.1       2961.1      2973.4     2343.8       5.9        7.5
                     ILLINOIS          2     491.0     226.7      18986.9     33378.7       54419.7     33605.4   19704.7       49.4       84.2
                     INDIANA           3      58.3      93.9       1481.5       3965.2      22547.1      4059.1     1633.8       4.1       10.2
                     LOUISIANA        25     130.5      54.9       5761.2       8873.7      13181.5      8928.6     5946.7      14.9       22.4
                     MAINE            10      32.4      12.5       1307.1       2199.4       3004.2      2211.9     1352.0       3.4        5.5
                     MARYLAND         17     143.4      58.0       6077.2       9745.2      13915.0      9803.2     6278.5      15.7       24.6
                     MASS              9     279.1     100.8      11360.7     18974.9       24193.0     19075.7   11740.6       29.4       47.8
                     MICHIGAN         42     346.0     178.8       8998.6     23519.3       42910.2-    23698.1     9523.4      23.9       59.4
                     MINESSODA         3      12.6      66.8        459.8        859.5      16027.0        926.3     539.2       1.4        2.3
                     MISSISSIPPI       3      11.9      23.1        357.8        807.8       5534.0        830.9     392.7       1.0        2.1
                     NEW HAMPSHIR      2      10.3      12.3        408.9        698.0       2960.9        710.3     431.5       1.1        1.8
                     NEW JERSEY       15     362.0     128.9      13549.5     24607.3       30924.5     24736.2   14040.3       35.2       62.0
                     NEW YORK         27     967.0     319.5      41593.6     65733.0       76684.4     66052.5   42880.1       107.5     165.6
                     N. CAROLINA      20      14.9      77.2        627.8       1012.9      18517.0      1090.1      719.9       1.8        2.7
                     OHIO              9     227.5     206.1       7322.5     15467.4       48023.7     15667.5     7750.1      19.4       39.3
                     OREGON            9      77.3      39.0       3370.7       5258.0       9349.2      5297.0     3487.0       8.7       13.3
                     PENNSYLVINIA      4     183.7     197.7       7209.8     12487.6       47437.4     12685.3     7591.2      19.0       31.8
                     RHODE ISLAND      5      50.2      14.2       1807.9       3414.4       3414.4      3428.6     1872.4       4.7        8.6
                     S.CAROLINA        9      20.6      37.8        895.4       1402.6       9076.6      1440.4      953.9       2.4        3.6
                     TEXAS            19     266.1     210.7      11491.2     18091.0       50572.8     18301.7   11968.0       30.0       45.9
                     VIRGINIA         40     114.1      64.7       5192.7       7759.7      115517.0     7824.4     5371.5      13.5       19.6
                     WASHINGTON       15     172.4      61.7       6955.2     11718.1       14815.3     11779.8     7189.3      18.0       29.5
                     WISCONSIN        15     137.2      76.0       4303.4       9327.1      18241.7      9403.1     4516.6      11.3       23.6
                     PUERTO RICO              93.0       8.9       2031.7       2133.6       2133.6      2133.6     2133.6       5.3        5.3
                     GUAM                                            81.1          81.1          81.1      81.1        81.1      0.2        0.2
                     VIRGIN ISLAND                                  136.2        136.2          136.2      136.2     136.2       0.3        0.3
                     N. MARIANA
                     AMERICAN SAMOA

                     ...........................................................................................................
                     UNITFD STATE 404       6001.5     2975.4    238422.5     407977.1     714095.5 410952.5 247456.9           774.6    1030.2


                     US ALL ACTIVITIES       840.7            COASTAL GNP**                     620.2
                     us GNP                 2107.6            C GNP MODIFIED***              1030.2
                                                              % CONTR OF COAST          29.2--48.6****


                     *DATA NOT AVAILABLE    OR CALCULATION NOT DEFINED FOR BLANK PLACES
                     "COASTAL GNP = (SUBSETORS 1+2+3) x (US GNP) / (US ALL ACTIVITIES)

















                     Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                        205







                               The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                                                                      TABLE A6
                                                                COASTAL GNP, PAYROLL-BASED, 1985




                            PAYROLL(MILLION DOLLARS) AND GNP (BILLION DOLLARS),1985
                            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            SUBSECTORS              COASTAL     STATE         COASTAL    STATE       STATE     STATE
                                                   .............................    COUNTIES TOTAL            GENERATED COASTAL COASTAL COASTAL
                            STATE         NO. OF                                    ALL          (ALL         TOTAL      PAY         GNP**    GNP***
                                          COUNTI      1           2          3      ACTIVITIESCOUNTIES)       (6+4)      (3+4+5)

                            ...........................................................................................................
                                   1          2       3           4          5          6            7             8          9         10         11
                            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            ALABAMA             2     44.3        64.9      1354.7     2086.4        18245.3     2151.2     1463.8        3.9       5.7
                            ALASKA            18      66.9        14.7      2132.5     3156.0        4141.5      3170.7     2214.1        5.9       8.4
                            CALIFORNIA'       22    3653.6      684.3     103329.2    172251.9     192416.2     172936.3 107667.0       285.4      458.3
                            CONNECTICUT         4    379.6      101.7       9190.1    17895.1        28592.6    17996.8     9671.3       25.6      47.7
                            DELAWARE            3    107.6        18.1      2509.6     5074.1        5076.6      5092.2     2635.3        7.0      13.5
                            FLORIDA           41    1045.9      212.1     35769.4     49308.1        59630.3    49520.1   37027.3        98.1      131.2
                            GEORGIA             7     37.3      128.5       1022.4     1760.5        36136.7     1889.0     1188.3        3.1       5.0
                            HAWAII              4    110.8        18.6      4237.7     5222.3        5224.0      5240.8     4367.1       11.6      13.9
                            ILLINOIS            2   1077.3      294.3     30872.0     50790.0        82759.8    51084.3   32243.6        85.5      135.4
                            INDIANA             3     92.0      117.1       1888.7     4335.3        32921.2     4452.4     2097.8        5.6      11.8
                            LOUISIANA         25     309.2        78.5      9580.6    14578.2        22078.9@   14656.7     9968.3       26.4      38.8
                            MAINE             10      50.4        19.6      1824.6     2374.4        5520.7      2394.1     1894.6        5.0       6.3
                            MARYLAND          17     356.7        96.8      9304.2    16815.5        27227.3    16912.3     9757.7       25.9      44.8
                            MASS                9    870.2      177.9     25619.7     41027.9        50008.5    41205.7   26667.8        70.7      109.2
                            MICHIGAN          42     665.8      226.8     14020.1     31388.3        63783.0    31615.2   14912.7        39.5      83.8
                            MINESSODA           3     12.0      102.9        941.0      564.6        28940.1       667.5    1055.9        2.8       1.8
                            MISSISSIPPI         3     26.4        32.7       558.2     1246.8        9188.4      1279.5      617.3        1.6       3.4
                            NEW HAMPSHIRE       2     25.4        23.7       724.6     1198.7        6660.6      1222.4      773.7        2.1       3.2
                            NEW JERSEY        15     989.9      209.6     28852.1     46668.5        58927.0    46878.1   30051.5        79.6      124.2
                            NEW YORK          27    2639.3      494.1     83725.7     124432.3     138937.6     124926.5  86859.2       230.2      331.1
                            N. CAROLINA       20      45.9      125.8       1159.4     2164.8        35374.0     2290.6     1331.1        3.5       6.1
                            OHIO                9    464.3      252.5     11080.1     21890.1        71007.8    22142,6   11796.9        31.3      58.7
                            OREGON              9    158.4        50.6      4725.9     7466.8        14239.5     7517.5     4935.0       13.1      19.9
                            PENNSYLVINIA        4    434.2      262.9     12968.6     20471.9        73921.9    20734.8   13665.8        36.2      55.0
                            RHODE ISLAND        5    126.0        21.1      3268.6     5940.9        5942.5      5962.0     3415.7        9.1      15.8
                            S.CAROLINA          9     63.4        57.8      2004.1     2986.9        16240.5     3044.6     2125.2        5.6       8.1
                            TEXAS             19     743.9      377.8     21938-.8    35072.7      106227.9     35450.5   23060.5        61.1      94.0
                            VIRGINIA          40     449.9      114.6     11729.8     21209.6        32233.0    21324,3   12294.4        32.6      56.5
                            WASHINGTON        15     396.0        89.6    11342.8     18668.6        25196.4    18758.3   11828.4        31.3      49.7
                            WISCONSIN         15     288.3      101.1       6653.4    13592.6        28436.7    13693.8     7042.9       18.7      36.3
                            PUERTO RICO              207.0        17.4      4656.2     4880.6        4880.6      4880.6     4880.6       12.9      12.9
                            GUAM                                             150.9      150.9         150.9        150.9     150.9        0.4       0.4
                            VIRGIN ISLAND                                    338.8      338.8         338.8        338.8     338.8        0.9       0.9
                            N. MARIANA
                            AMERICAN SAMOA

                                   ..............................................................             ;......................................
                            UNITED STATES 404, 15844.5          4590-1   459474.5 747010.1        1290606.8 751600.2 480000.5          1271.9     1992.0


                            US ALL.ACTIVITIES       1513.1                          COASTAL GNP**                1271.9
                            us GNP                  4020.3                          C GNP MODIFIED***            1992.0
                                                                                    % CONTR OF COAST          32.1--49.3****

                            .............
                            *DATA NOT AVAILABLE OR CALCULATION NOT DEFINED          FOR BLANK PLACES
                            "COASTAL GNP = (SUBSETORS 1+2+3) x (US GNP) /           (US ALL ACTIVITIES)




















                               206                                                                                             NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                                     Chapter Nine

                                                                           TABLE A7
                           REGRESSION RESULTS: AVERAGE GROWTH IN COASTAL OUTPUT







                                                                              COAST-DEPENDENT


                                                    Model I            .del 2            Model 3           Model 4         Model 5                Model 6

                           CONSTANT                     3.19              19.5           -14.77            55.23            -29.175               -24.56

                                                     (11.93)           (15.96)           (34.57)           (30.63)            (7.03)              (14.16)
                           AVGCZM                  2.57e-05          3.65e-05         3.19e-05         3.19e-05 'i         1.60e-05           0.000012
                                                (9.1 -1            (1.16e-05)       (1.34e-05)        (1.34e-05)         (438e-06)            (5.8e-06)
                           AVGPOP                                                                                          6.35e-03               0.00732

                                                                                                                         (7.00e-04)           (7.le-04)

                           PART                                        -35.05            -48-84            -48.84                                 1.46
                                                                       (23.41)           (27.52).-1        (27.52) 1                              (12.26)
                                            ---------- ------------------------------------------
                           NAT                                                           61-24             -8.76                                  16.89

                                                                                         (38.32)           (27.53)                                (16.24)
                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           SAT                                                           20.07             -49.93                                 -18.05

                                                                                         (37.74)           (31.66)                                (15.86)

                           MIDAT                                                         35.81             -34.19                                 -3.19

                                                                                         (37.98)           (28.8)                                 (15.97)
                                            - - -------- - - - ----- -------------------------- - ----------------                   4
                           LAKES                                                         34.82             -35.18                                 -24.24

                                                                                         (31.8)            (30.49)                                (14.2)
                                            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           GULF                                                          44.74             -25.26                                 -16.67

                                                                                         (36.42)           (29.79)                                (16.03)
                                                                           ---------- - -------------------------------- - --
                           PAC                                                           69.99                                                    5.73
                                                                                  ____(43.99)                                                     (19.03)
                                            ---------------------------                  --- - ---------------------------------- -------
                           MULT                                                                            69.99

                                                                                                           (43.99)
                           ADJ R2                     0.1897           0.2241            0.1687            0.1687             0.7916              0.8613
                                                            - ------ - ------------------------------------------------------------
                           ESS                        52165             48164            40138             40138              12934               6379

                           NULL HYPOTHESIS DUMMIES = 0:                F = 0.898924

                           Standard error is reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate.










                       Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                                      207







                                 The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                                                                                TABLE A8
                                                REGRESSION RESULTS: AVERAGE GROW'TH IN COASTAL OUTPUT






                                                                                         COAST-LINKED


                                                             Model 1    1     Model 2'1         Model 3    1       Model 4    1      Model 5    1     Model 6

                                    CONSTANT                    -1.12           -0.86                0.27                3.6           -2.011
                                                               (0.996)     ____(1.38)_:                                (1.95)           (1.13)           11.79)
                                                                                                   ------------ -----------------
                                    AVGCZM                   1.22e-06         1,40e-06         1.47e-06           1.47e-06         9.60e-07 j        6.12e-07

                                                            (7.70e-07)      (1.00e-06)       (8.60e-07)         (8.60e-07)        (7.70e-07)       (7.40e-07)
                                                      ---               -----------------------------------------------------
                                    AVGPOP                                                                                    'i    1.74e-04         3.10e-04

                                                                                                                                  (1.13e-04)       (9.01e-05)
                                                                  - ---------------------------------------------------
                                    PART                                        -0.56             -3.95                -3.95                             -1.82
                                                                            .... (2.03)_   ...... (1.75)               (1.75)                            (1.55)
                                                                                ----- -           ------------ - ---------------------------
                                    NAT                                                              151               0.17                                1.63

                                                                                                                                                         (2.06)
                                                                                                  (2.44)               (1.76)
                                                      -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SAT                                                              2.41              -0.92                             0.796

                                                                                                  (2.41)               (2.02)                            (2.@01)
                                                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MfDAT                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                     1.78              -1.56                             0.123

                                                                                                  (2.42)               (1.84)                            (2-02)
                                                      -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    LAKES                                                         -3.85                -7.19                             -6.35

                                                                                                  (2.03)               (1.94)                             (1.8)
                                                      L-------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    GULF                                                             3.28              -0.06                             0.673

                                                                                                  (2.32)               (1.9)                             (2.03)
                                                      -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    'PAC                                                             3.34                                                  0.61

                                                                                                  (2.81)                                                 (2.41)
                                                      - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MULT                                                                               3.34

                                                                                                                       (2.81)
                                    ADJ R'                     0.0505           0.0181            0.4313             0.4313            0.0951            0.6251
                            - - ---------------       I-----------------------------------------------------                   ------- - ----------------
                                      SS                           364              362               163               163               334               102

                                    NULL HYPOTHESIS DUMMIES = 0: F = 3,699387

                                    Standard error is reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate.








                                   208                                                                                                        NCRI- W-91-003






                                                                                                                                    Chapter Nine

                                                                           TABLE A9
                           REGRESSION RESULTS: AVERAGE GROWTH IN COASTAL OUTPUT







                                                                                COASTAL SERVICES


                                                  Model 1   1      Model 2    1       Model 3  1         Model 4  1       Model 5    1        Model 6
                           CONSTANT                -75.92   1        176.37   1       -538.06            740.33               -555            -677.28

                                                  (187.48)         (249.72)           (523.45)           (463.79)         (125,89)            (272.54)

                           AVGCZM                4.82e-04         6.50e-04          5.5le-04           5.5le-.04          3.39e-04            2.62e-04

                                               (1.44e--04)       (1.8le-04)       (2.03e-04)         (2.03e-04)         (8.57C-05)         (1.12e-04)

                         I AVGPOP                                                                                         9.39e-02            1.04e-01

                                                                                                                        (1.25e-02)         (1.40e-02)

                           TART                                     -542.35           -817.99            817.99                               -102.15

                                                                   (366.13)           (416.63)           (416.63)                             (236.02)
                                            ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------
                           NAT                                                        1294.72              16.33                              663.69

                                                                                      (580.15)           (416.77)                             (312.6)
                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           SAT                                                        632.75             -645-64                                  90.2

                                                                                      (571.35)           (479.31)                             (305.26)
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            I                 I                                                      i
                           MIDAT                                                      774.51             -503.88                              219.55

                                                                                      (574.95)           (436.01)                             (307.47)
                                            -------- - ------- - - ---- - ---- - ------------------------ - ---- - --------------
                           LAKES                                                      656.56             -621.83                              -183.75

                                                                                                         (461.61)                             (273.4)
                                                                                      (481.38)
                                           L----- - ------   ----------------------- - --------------------------------------
                           GULF                                                       967.51             -310.88                                  93.6

                                                                                      (551.4)            (451.13)                             (308.64)
                                            ------------ ------ -
                                                                                                                                                363.9
                           PAC                                                        1278.39

                                                                                                                                              (366.31)
                                                                                      (666.05)
                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         1278.39
                           MULT

                                                                                                         (666.05)
                                                                                                                                     F-
                           ADJ                      0.2607           0.2909   1,      0.2884             0.2884   1         0.7503              0.808
                                            ------------ ---------- -------------------              --------------------- - --------------
                           ESS                   12743883         11786059            9200008            9200008          4150127             2364531

                           NULL HYPOTHESIS DUMMIES = 0:                        F = 1.15561

                           Standard error is reported in parentheses below each oDefficient estimate.









                        Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                                     209







                               The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                                                                       TABLE A 10
                                            REGRESSION RESULTS: AVERAGE GROWTH IN COASTAL OUTPUT




                                                                                         GNP2


                                                      Model 1           Model 2          Model 3           Model 4          Model 5              Model 6


                               CONSTANT                  -0.14              0.71             -1.57               2.5           -1.73             -2.04
                                                         (0.61)           (0.81)             (1.7)    _____(1.51)           (0.3861)             (0.831)
                                                 -----          ------------- -------------                  -------------------------
                               AVGCZM                1.53e-06          2.09e-06         1.78e-06-         1.78e-06          1.05e-06        .8.22e-07
                                                   (:4.70e-07)       (5-.90e-07)      (6.60e-07)        (6.60e-07)      _(2.60e-07)        (3.40e-07)
                                                                ------------------------------------ - ----
                               AVGPOP                                                                                      3.13e-04          3.46e-04

                                                                                                                                           (4.17e-05)
                                                 ...........      .....................................                   @185e-05)   -------------
                               PART                                        -1.82             -2.64           -2'.64                              -0.266
                                                                          (1.19)             (1-36).  _____(1.36)                                0.72)
                                                 ------------------------------------                        --------------------
                               NAT                                                           4.02            -0.05                                 1.93

                                                                                             (1.89)          (1.36).                             (0.953)
                                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------
                               SAT                                                           1.86            -2.21                               0.062

                                                                                             (1.86)          (1.56)                              (0.931)
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------                               ---------
                                                                                             2.38             -1.7                               0.535
                               MIDAT

                                                                                             (1.87)          (1.42)                              (0.937)
                                                 ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             2.18             -1.9                               -0.61
                               LAKES

                                                                                             (1.57)           (1.5)                              (0.833)
                                                 -----------       -----------       -----------------------------------
                               GULF                                                          3.03            -1.05                               0.123

                                                                                             (1.79)          (1.47)                              (0.941)
                                                 ------------------------------------------------------------
                               PAC                                                           4.08                                                  1.04

                                                                                             (2.17)                                              (1.12)
                                             - -----------------          -------------------------------------                   ----------------
                               MULT                                                                           4.08

                                                                                                             (2.17)

                               ADJ R  2                 0.2507            0.2855             0.276           0.276            0.7743             0.8285
                                                                         --------------------------------------------------------
                               ESS                          134              124                97                97               39                22


                               NULL HYPOTTIESIS DUMMIES = 0: F                      1.14433

                               Standard error is reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate.




                               210                                                                                                NCRI-W-91-003







                                                                                                                           Chapter Nine

                                                                     TABLE At I
                          REGRESSION RESULTS: AVERAGE GROWTH IN COASTAL OUTPUT



                                                                               GNP3


                                          Model 1           Model 2          Model 3           Model 4          Model 5           Model 6

                   CONSTANT                 -0-12               0.92               4 6              4.31           -2.39            -2.18

                                             (0-91)            (1.23)             (2.63)          (2.33)          (0.647)           (1.28)
                                                    - --------------------------------------------------
                   AVGCZM               1.9le-06           2.6le-06         2.24e-06          2.24e-06         1.24e-06          7.55e-07

                                       (7.00e-07)         (8.90e-07)       (1.02e-06)        (1.02e-06)      (4.40e-07)        (5.30e-07)
                                                    + --7   ---------------------------------------------
                   AVGPOP                                                                                      4.44e-04          5.35e-04
                                                                                                            _(6.45e-05)        (6.44e-05)
                                     --------------------------------------------                    ---- ----------------------
                   PART                                        -2.24              -3.85           -3.85                             -0.17

                                                                .(1.8)            (2.1)             (2.1)                           (1.11)
                                     ------------------------ --------------------------------                             +
                   NAT                                                            5.21            -0.57                                1.96

                                                                                  (2.92)            (2.1)                           (1.47)
                                 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                   SAT                                                            2.14            -3.63                             -0.644
                                                                                  @2.87)          (2.41)                            (1.44)
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                   MIDAT                                                          3.35            -2.42                             0.501
                                                                                  (2.81!@:        (2.19)                            (1.45)
                                     --------------------------------                  +          ------------------------------
                   LAKES                                                          1.85            -3.92                             -2.46

                                                                                  (2.42)          (2-32)                            (1.29)
                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------                              7
                                                                                  3.75            -2.02                             -0.738
                   GULF

                                                                                  (2.77)          (2.27)                            (1.45)
                                     ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
                   PAC                                                            5.77                                                 1.08

                                                                                                                                    (1.72)
                                                                                  (3.35)
                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------
                   MULT                                                                             5.77

                                                                                                  (3.35)

                          2
                   ADJ R                   0.1823              0.198           0.1586   1        0.1586   1       0.6923            0.8012
                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              302 1
                   ESS                                           285              232               232               109                52

                   NULL HYPOTHESIS DUMMIES = 0: F = 0.905172

                   Standard error is reported in parentheses below each coefficent estimate.




                     'Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                                            211







                            The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                                                               TABLE A 12
                                             DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS




                                                             CZM-SPENDING AND CHANGE IN COASTAL OUTPUT


                                                          DEPENDENTa LINXEDa SERVICESa GNP2b         GNP3b     CZM-SRENDa
                                                         ------------------------------------------------------------
                                               MEAN           215.85       2.46      3214     10.8       13.9     5081012


                                               MEDIAN           69.94      0.36   557.17      1-84       2.57     3641904


                                               STD. DEV.      376.29      22.37      6162     19.9     28.33      3117321
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               a measured in millions of 1982
                                               b Measured in billions of 1982
















                                                                               TABLE A 13
                                                          PERCENT CHANGE IN COASTAL OUTPUT



                                                                   DEPENDENT    LINKED SERVICES      GNP2      GNP3
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------
                                                         MEAN            0.6631   0.0184    0.1989   0.2755     0.217


                                                         MEDIAN          0.6333   0.0068     0.177   0.2556    0.19,69


                                                         STD. DEV.       0.2762   0.1229      0.18   0.1902    0.2004
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------



























                            212                                                                                     NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                          Chapter Nine

                                                    TABLE A 14
                                            VARIABLE DEFINITIONS


                        AVGCZM - Average annual expenditures from Section 306 of the
                        CZMA, 1982-85

                        PART - Dummy variable equal to 1 if the state participates in the
                        CZMA and equal to zero otherwise

                        NAT - Dummy variable equal to I if the state is in the North Atlantic
                        and equal to zero otherwise

                        SAT - Dummy variable equal to I if the state is in the South Atlantic
                        and equal to zero otherwise

                        MIDAT - Dummy variable equal to I if the state is in,the Middle
                        Atlantic and equal to zero otherwise

                        GULF - Dummy variable equal to I if the state is on the Gulf Coast
                        and equal to zero otherwise

                        LAKES - Dummy variable equal to I if the state is on the Great
                        Lakes and equal to zero otherwise

                        PAC - Dummy variable equal to I if the state is on the Pacific Coast
                        and equal to zero otherwise

                        MULT - Dummy variable equal to I if the state is on two or more
                        coasts and equal to zero otherwise

                        AVGPOP - Average state population, 1977-85

















                Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                             213







                The Economics of Coastal Zone Management

                                             TABLE A 15
                                     REGIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS




                                     PART  NAT  SAT MIDAT GULF LAKES PAC  MULT

                    ALABAMA            1    0    0    0      1    b    0    0
                    ALASKA             1    0    0    0      0    0    1    0
                    CALIFORNIA         1    0    0    0      0    0    1    0
                    CONNECTICUT        1    1    0    0      0    0    0    0
                    DELAWARE           1    0    0    1      0    0    0    0
                    FLORIDA            1    0    1    0      1    0    0    1
                    GEORGIA            0    0    1    0      0    0    0    0
                    HAWAII             1    0    0    0      0    0    1    0
                    ILLINOIS           0    0    0    0      0    1    0    0
                    INDIANA            0    0    0    0      0    1    0    0
                    LOUISIANA          1    0    0    0      1    0    0    0
                    MAINE              1    1    0    0      0    0    0    0
                    MARYLAND           1    0    0    1      0    0    0    0
                    MASSACHUSSETTS     1    1    0    0      0    0    0    0
                    MICHIGAN           1    0    0    0      0    1    0    0
                    MINNESOTA          0    0    0    0      0    1    0    0
                    MISSISSIPPI        1    0    0    0      1    0    0    0
                    NEW HAMPSHIRE      1    1    0    0      0    0    0    0
                   ,NEW JERSEY         1    0    0    1      0    0    0    0
                    NEW YORK           1    1    0    0      0    1    0    1
                    NORTH CAROLINA     1    0    1    0      0    0    0    0
                    OHIO               0    0    0    0      0    1    0    0
                    OREGON             1    0    0    0      0    0    1    0
                    PENNSYLVANIA       1    0    0    1      0    1    0    1
                    RHODE ISLAND       1    1    0    0      0    0    0    0
                    SOUTH CAROLINA     1    0    1    0      0    0    0    0
                    TEXAS              0    0    0    0      1    0    0    0
                    VIRGINIA           0    0    0    1      0    0    0    0
                    WASHINGTON         1    0    0    0      0    0    1    0
                    WISCONSIN          1    0    0    0      0    1    0    0

                    TOTAL             23    6    4    5      5    8    5    3


















                214                                                NCRI-W-91-003






                                                                                                           Chapter Nine

                                                            TABLE A 16
                                      MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR
                                    INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLESa





                                  INDEPENDENT VARIABLES


                                                                         MEAN        STD. DEV.


                                      CzM                               3895443         3485629
                                      AVGCZM                              973861          871407
                                      PART                                   0.77           0.43
                                      NAT                                    0.20           0.41
                                      SAT                                    0.13           0.35
                                      MIDAT                                  0.17           0.38
                                      GULF                                   0.17           0.38
                                      LAKES                                  0.27           0.45
                                      PAC                                 -0..17           -0.38
                                      MULT                                   0.10           0.31


                                  DEPENDENT VARIABLES


                                      SECTOR 1                            197.34           335.6
                                      AVGSECT1                             28.19           47.95
                                      SECTOR 2                               0.47          25.88
                                      AVGSECT2                               0.07              3.7
                                      SECTOR 3                               2752           5492
                                      AVGSECT3                             393.2           784.6
                                      GNP2                                   9.44          17.72
                                      AVGGNP2                                1.35           2.53
                                      GNP3                                 12.15           25.41
                                      AVGGNP3                                1.74           3.63

                                -----------------------------------------
                               a Calculations use all states eligible to participate in the CZM program.



















                   Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program                                             215








                            61kadon No. NCRI-W-91-003













                                                                                                                                                           7-4


















                                                                                                                             41




         log"

















                                                                            d
















                                                                                                                                    3 6668 14109 11            4