Proceedings of the conference on organizing and managing the coastal zone June 13-14, 1973, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland

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

f@ 7'

P(oceedings of

The Confefence on

0(ganizing and Managing

The Coastal Zone

Property of CSC Library

PROCEEDINGS OF

THE CONFERENCE ON ORGANIZING AND MANAGING

THE COASTAL ZONE

June 13 - 14, 1973

U.S. Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 292405-2413

Published by Council of State Governments, Office of State-Federal Relations
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036

The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent official
policies of the representative organizations.

FORWARD

The National Conference on organizing and Managing the Coastal Zone
was held on June 13-14, 1973 at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis,
Maryland. It was a truly intergovernmental and interagency effort,
symbolizing the complex relationships that exist in and make up the
nation's coastal areas.

The Conference was inspired by the enactment of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, a new federal law designed to aid the States
and their local governments in managing the priceless yet limited
resources and heritage of our vast but fragile and threatened shoreline.

The program included descriptions of exisitng and proposed Coastal
Zone Management activities at the State and local levels of government
as well as those being carried out by other public and private institu-
tions. The agenda included as well a description of federal agency
activities relating to coastal resources which might serve to assist
State and local government efforts.

If we are to succeed in what has now become a national effort to
protect our shoreline areas while providing for the wise and necessary
development of coastal ports and resources, we must achieve the highest
level of cooperation among the levels of government and between their
agencies.

This Conference was a step in that direction. It is hoped these
proceedings will serve to continue the exchange of information and
cooperation experienced at the Conference.

Whatever achievements result from the Conference are due to the
outstanding contributions of the participants and the cooperation of
all the sponsoring agencies. We deeply appreciate their efforts.

R. Deane Conrad Robert W. Knecht
Special Assistant Director, office of Coastal
Council of State Governments Environment
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

SPONSORS

Council of State Governments

Coastal States.Organization

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Science Foundation

STEERING COMMITTEE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Mr. Robert W, Knecht, Chairman

Council of State Governments
Mr. R. Deane Conrad

Coastal States Organization
Capt. Thomas H. Suddath

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Norman Berg

Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Scott Shotwell

U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Mr. James Selvaggi

U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Lance Marston

National Science Foundation
Dr. Richard Kolf

CONFERENCE STAFF

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration - Coastal Zone
Management Task Force
Mr. Robert W. Knecht, Chairman
Mr. Richard Gardner
Mr. John Granger
Mr. Campbell Killifer
Ms. Judy Penna
Ms. Michele Tetley,
Conference Coordinator
Mr. A.V. Siciliano

Council of State Governments
Mr. R. Deane Conrad, Project Director
Ms. Doreen Patricia Doyle, Editor
Ms. Marian E. Cavanagh, Editor
Ms. Mollie Zahn

Coastal States Organization

Capt. Thomas Suddath, Editor

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SESSION I Intergovernmental Aspects of Coastal Zone Management

Salutation: Mr. R.W. Knecht, National Oceanic and 3
Atmospheric Administration

Remarks : Captain Thomas H. Suddath, Coastal States 5
Organization

Welcome : Vice-Admiral William Mack, Superintendent, 7
U.S. Naval Academy

Setting the Perspective - 9
Mr. R.W. Knecht, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Remarks Mr. R. Deane Conrad, Council of State 19
Governments

Session Moderator: Mr. William F. James, Maryland
State Senate

Defining the National Interest in the Coastal Zone - 21
Mr. J. Herbert Hollomon, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology

Local Government Involvement in the Coastal Zone - 31
Mr. Arthur Mendonsa, City of Savannah, Georgia

The State Role in Coastal Zone Management - 41
Mr. James M. Dolliver, State of Washington

Remarks Mr. R.W. Knecht, National Oceanic and 63
Atmospheric Administration

LUNCHEON SPEAKER: Mr. Howard Pollock, National Oceanic and 65
Atmospheric Administration

SESSION II - Coastal Zone Management Process

Session Moderator: Mr. Richard Gardner, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Remarks - 79
Mr. Richard Gardner

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)

SESSION II Coastal Zone Management Process (cont'd.)

Inventory and Classification of the Physical Characteristics - 81
Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., Virginia Institute of Marine
Science

Panel Discussion; Mr. Bruce Johnson, Florida Coastal 93
Coordinating Council
Mr. Howard Bissell, Jones & Stokes
and
Dr. Hargis

Identification of Priorities, Concerns, and Conflicts - 99
Mr. Joseph Bodovitz, California Coastal Conservation
Commission

Panel Discussion; Mr. David R. Keifer, Delaware State 113
Planning Office
Mr. Aaron R. "Babel' Schwartz, Texas
State Senate
and
Mr. Bodovitz

Mechanism and Structure for Coastal Land and Water Use 129
Controls -
Mr. Daniel W. Varin, Rhode Island Statewide Planning
Program

Panel Discussion: Dr. James Timmerman, South Carolina 141
Marine Resources Division
Mr. William D. Marks, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources
and
Mr. Varin

SESSION III Uses of the Coastal Zone

Session Moderator: Dr. Philip Johnson, National Science
Foundation

Remarks - 151
Dr. Philip Johnson

Conservation and Living Resources

Dr. John Clark, Conservation Foundation 155
Dr. Lyle S. St. Amant, Louisiana Wildlife and 161
Fisheries Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)

SESSION III Uses of the Coastal Zone (cont'd.)

Commercial Uses: Ports, Shipping, Power, and Land
Development -

Mr. Joseph L. Stanton,-Maryland Port Administration 175
Mr. Peter M. Stern, Northeast Utilities 191
Mr. Charles Fraser, Sea Pines Plantation 199

Recreation in the Coastal Zone

Mr. Roland C. Clement, National Audubon Society 209
Mr. John S. Gottschalk, International Association 213
of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners

Remarks Dr. Philip Johnson, National Science 225
Foundation

SESSION IV Needs and Resources

Session Moderator: Mr. Lance Marston, Department of
the Interior

Remarks - 229
Mr. Lance Marston

How Do States View Their Needs? - 235
Dr. Shelley Mark, Hawaii Department of Planning and
Economic Development

Relevant Federal Programs and Resources -

Dr. Frank Carlson, Department of the Interior 247
Mr. Thomas Buchanan, Department of the Interior 251
Mr. William Johnson, Department of Agriculture 255
Dr. Walter Groszyk, Environmental Protection Agency 263
Mr. Kenneth H. Murdock, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 269
Dr. Richard Kolf, National Science Foundation 279
Mr. Robert Paul, Department of Housing and Urban 285
Development
Mr. Robert Wildman, Department of Commerce 291

Remarks Mr. Lance Marston, Department of 299
the Interior

Where Do We Go From Here? - 301
Mr. R.W. Knecht, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)

APPENDIX A - Alphabetical Index to Speakers and Additional 307
Biographical Material

APPENDIX B - Conference Registrants 311

APPENDIX C - List of Publications Available to Participants 327

Wednesday, June 13, 1973

Morning

SESSION I

Intergovernmental Aspects of

Coastal Zone Management

INTRODUCTION TO MORNING SESSION
Mr. Robert W. Knecht, Coastal Zone Management Task Force,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

I'd like to welcome you to our Coastal Zone Management Conference. I'm

Bob Knecht, the Director of the NOAA Coastal Zone Management Task Force. It is

my pleasure to begin the program by introducing Thomas Suddath, the Secretary-

Treasurer of the Coastal States Organization, who will introduce our host.

INTRODUCTION OF VICE-ADMIRAL WILLIAM MACK
Captain Thomas Suddath (U.S.N., Ret.), Secretary-Treasurer,
Coastal States Organization

It is my pleasure to introduce Vice Admiral William Mack, the Superinten-

dent of the Naval Academy. Vice-Admiral Mack graduated from the Naval Academy

in 1937. He and I have been friends and sailors on destroyers for years and

years. Admiral Mack has had distinguished duty at sea, and in Washington at

the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Department of Defense, in the Office of Chief

of Naval Operations. His last tour of duty, before assuming this very respon-

sible position as Superintendent at the Naval Academy, was as Commander of the

Seventh Fleet, Yankee Station, Gulf of Tonkin. Vice-Admiral Mack, our gracious

host.

WELCOME
Vice-Admiral William Mack, Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be associated

with a positive aspect of coastal conservation after spending a year tearing

up about 1,000 miles of coastline of Viet Nam.

I had a chance to look at your agenda, and the Act of Congress which you

are studying and hope to implement; to me it is certainly a very complicated

process, and one which I'm sure will take all of your time, effort, and energy

here. So I'm going to be very brief and give you all the time you can to work

on this very worthy project.

I hope you will have a chance to see what we at the Naval Academy are doing

to beautify our little section of coastline here; it is a beautiful campus now.

The building behind you as you sit will be finished in a little over a year; it

will be Rickover Hall. It will have in it laboratories and areas for the studies

of science, which will contribute to what you are doing. We do have here, as you

know, several majors and courses which contribute to studies which approach what

you are doing, and we are extremely sympathetic with the organizational problems

you have and the problems you will have in the future.

Again, on behalf of all of-us here, we welcome you and your endeavors, and

we hope that you have time between your seminars and lectures to wander about

the Naval Academy a little bit to see it for what it is. Of course, right now

most of the Midshipmen are absent, but I think you'll get a good idea what the

physical plan is all about in the time that you have to do the looking around.

We'll try to do the best we can to have good weather for you, starting about now

and going through tomorrow. After tomorrow night you're on your own, weatherwise.

Thank you so much for coming and joining us, and we hope you have a very

pleasant and productive Conference. Our welcome mat is out to you. Good luck.

SETTING THE PERSPECTIVE
Mr. Robert W. Knecht

We are very pleased with the attendance at the Conference. The advance

registration indicated that people would be present from each of the coastal

States, including the Great Lakes and the territories, with the exception of

one State, Indiana, and one territory, Guam. Otherwise all 34 coastal States

and territories are represented at the Conference. We are, of course, pleased

with this kind of turnout. Obviously, the Conference is timely; we hope it can

be worthwhile as well.

Just a few words of background about how the Conference originated. The

idea first developed during an Executive Committee Meeting of the Coastal States

Organization last November. It was proposed that the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) hold such a Conference jointly with the

Coastal States Organization. Later the idea expanded to include the Council

of State Governments, and their sponsorship and support has been very im-

portant. Finally, it has evolved into a Conference with multiple sponsorship

and with financial support from the Department of the Interior, the Department

of Commerce, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Agriculture,

and the Environmental Protection Agency. We're pleased with that broad base

of interest and support.

What I would like to do briefly in this initial part of the perspective-

setting is to touch upon the goals of the Conference as we on the Conference

Steering Committee visualized them and to discuss the mechanics of the meeting

designed to reach those goals.

As we see it, the principle purpose of the Conference is to use the

coastal zone management program as a case study, if you will, of a new set of

intergovernmental and private/public relationships which are a part of a

new and still evolving land and water use ethic. It is not our intent to

focus simply on the coastal zone management part of the problem per se, but

to use it as an example of the movement, the thrust, into a different way

of viewing land and water use and the related intergovernmental and private/

public relationships in this country today.

The coastal zone management problem, it seems to me, is an appropriate

one to use in this case study for a couple of reasons. First, the Federal

legislation with regard to coastal zone management has actually passed and

is on the books, so it's no longer conjecture as to the shape and the con-

tent of the legislation -- it exists. But perhaps more importantly, the

need for rational coastal zone planning and management programs, I think, is

clearly apparent. The land and water use problems of the coastal zone are the

most pressing and the most well-perceived problems that exist in the land use

area. The most urgent problems are in the coastal zone, as well as having the

legislation there to begin to move forward.

It could be asked whether this Conference is premature or not. In fact,

as most of you know, there has yet to be appropriated grant funding assistance

to States under this new Federal program. And with no grant money in hand,

what can be done? We feel that the Conference is timely for a couple of reasons.

First, the prospect of grant funding to States in Fiscal Year 1974, that begins

July 1, we think is quite good. I'll come back to that point in a minute. And

secondly, even if grant money was further delayed, a number of States have

indicated a desire, and, in fact, are moving forward to develop coastal zone

management programs consistent with the Federal Act, in order to avail them.-

selves of the advantages that accrue to a State if it has a Federally approved

coastal zone management program consistent with the Act. And lastly, much

of the philosophy and the approach embodied in the Coastal Zone Management

Act, as passed last October, is also carried over in the pending land use

legislation. Hence it's useful to look at the Coastal Zone Management Act

and how this program is evolving as a forerunner of the land use legislation

and the national land use programs it will create.

I think here I would like to insert just a few words on the Coastal Zone

Management Act, in case there are some of you who may not have kept up with the

details, so that we all start with a common base of information.

The Act was passed in October 1972 -- the Coastal Zone Management Act of

1972. It is a Federal program to encourage the States to develop a rational

coastal zone management program. The Federal Act has two kinds of incentives

built in -- financial incentive is authorized through a grants program -- but

the more important incentive might well be the fact that States, if they take

the time and trouble to develop management prograir-s consistent with Federal

guidelines, will have additional leverage with regard to Federal activities that

might affect their coastal zone, those Federal activities having to be consistent

with the approved State management program.

There are really four key aspects to the coastal zone management legislation

as I see it. First, it is voluntary -- there are no sanctions involved. There

are only carrots -- there's no stick, so to speak. Second, it speaks to "process"

and not "substance". It sets up Federal requirements with regard to the processes

that have to be addressed in a State's management program, but it does not

try to second-guess the State with regard to specific land and water use decisions.

Third, it is primarily a coastal waters management program, and refers only to

the shorelands to the extent that the use of the shorelands affects the coastal

waters. Fourth, it recognizes the importance of both economic develop-

ment as well as conservation-oriented uses. So it's a balanced approach to

management, and not solely an environmental measure.

The responsibility to administer this program went to the Department of

Commerce, and was subsequently handed to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, and on to our task force, the NOAA Coastal Zone Management Task

Force, which I head. We've been planning for the implementation of the Act

since we set up the Task Force in November, several weeks after the passage of

the legislation.

A word or two on progress to date. We first developed the Federal guide-

lines for Section 305 of the Act, which is the Section which authorizes grants

to States to begin the planning process that will lead to Federally approvable

management programs. Those guidelines have been in development over the last

three or four months and they are due to be published in the F-aderal Registar

today (June 13). Reprints of that publication will be available this after-

noon here at the Conference.

We begin work next month on the second set of guidelines which we feel are

needed. These will be the guidelines which will describe the process by which

the Federal Government will receive and approve State management programs under

the terms of the Act. These guidelines will discuss the criteria, evaluatIDn

steps, the kind of Federal review including the way other agencies will be

brought into the process.

Just a word or two on the funding situation before I go on. I mentioned

that I felt confident that one way or another there will be grant assistance

available to States in FY 1974 -- that is, beginning July 1. The exact'timing

and the exact route by which this funding is to become available is,

unfortunately, not yet clear. The Administration's position is that

it is appropriate to wait until the land use legislation has passed the

Congress and is, in effect, on the books before granting funds to States

under the Coastal Zone Management Program, because of the close relationshil

of these two programs.

With regard to the status of the land use bill, many of you are aware

that the Senate side of the Congress has been debating a Senate bill,

S. 268, Jackson's bill, and that it has been reported out of the Committee,

with certain amendments attached which would have the effect of allowing

two separate but coordinated programs. Of course, no one knows what the

House side will do, or the Administration if such a measure comes to the

President in that f orm. In any event, if this approach does prevail,. then

funding would be available in parallel with the land use funding,.which is

called for in FY-74. If this approach does not prevail, and the land use

legislation is held up in the Congress for one reason or another, then

the Administration might well decide to go ahead and request funding for the

Coastal Zone program as the only existing land use program at that time.

Finally, one other development that I think is related indirectly to the

prospect of funding has to do with the fact that there has been concern in

the Administration that if the two programs developed totally independently in

two different departments of the Federal Government, this might cause problems

of coordination. However, we have heard unofficially -- newspaper reports and

other reports this week -- that the President's latest plan for the creation of

a Department of Natural Resources, or Department of Energy and Natural

Resources, might well be announced before this Conference is over -- within

the next 48 hours. If that plan fares better in the Congress than the earlier

plans, it could be one more step toward setting aside concerns of oper-

ating programs out of two different departments. Under all the proposals for

a Federal DNR, the part of the Department of the Interior that would house

the land use program and NOAA would be under the same roof, in the new Depart-

ment.

So much for that. I would now like to turn briefly to the structure of

the Conference, and some of the arrangements. We have attempted to structure

the Conference to speak to the major aspects of the coastal zone management

problem as we see it. The first of these is the intergovernmental aspect,

the respective roles of local government and State government in coastal

zone management. Is there a national interest in the coastal zone? What is

it, how is it defined, and administratively, how do we ensure that it is met

in the aggregate of 30 State coastal zone management programs? These are problems

of fundamental importance. There are those who say that the most crucial

aspect in coastal zone management or land use management is the change in the

nature of traditional intergovernmental relationships. The first Session,

to begin as soon as I conclude, will be chaired by Senator James, who is

the President of the Maryland State Senate, and who has been very active in

this field.

The second Session, this afternoon, will be devoted to a discussion of'

three of the important processes in the coastal zone management planning and

program effort. This Session will be chaired by Dick Gardner, Deputy Director

of our Task Force within NOAA. Some of the major.uses of the coastal zone

will be reviewed in Session III tomorrow morning, chaired by Philip Johnson,

Director of the Division of Environmental Systems and Resources, which is one

of the four major components of the RANN Program -- Research Applied to

National Needs -- in NSF. In Session III, we have asked representatives of

each of the coastal zone to indicate the kinds of information that they feel

that State and local coastal zone managers ought to have as they develop

plans to manage their coastal zone. In Session IV, having heard something

of the process of the processes of coastal zone management and of the data

requirements and informational requirements of the principle uses, we've

asked Shelley Mark of Hawaii to sum up the States' view of their needs for

information and assistance that might be available from the Federal Govern-

ment. We want to hear what the States have to say with regard to their view

of their needs. And finally, we have representatives of seven Federal agencies

that represent the sponsoring organizations, to indicate the kinds of assistance

that can be provided -- the mechanics, what can be done, what-can't be done,

where the resource limitations might be, etc. Session IV will be chaired

by Lance Marston, who heads up the Department of the Interior's Office of

Land Use and Water Planning, the office that is gearing up to handle the

Land Use Program at the Federal level.

In the packets that were handed to you at the Registration Desk, we have

tried to provide a good base of technical information to begin our discussions.

The packet, in case you haven't had a chance to look at it, contains the program

and a list of advance registrants. It has a copy of the Coastal Zone Management

Act passed last October; a copy of the final version of the Senate Committee's

version of the Land Use Bill (that's Senate Bill 268) is there; a summary

of legislation passed at the Federal level or introduced at the Federal

level over the last two sessions of Congress that speak to the question of

coastal and marine-related problems; a blue book, 1/4" thick or so, which

sums up our view of where coastal States now stand with regard to their in-

dividual coastal zone management programs. I hope you will find this sum-

summary useful -- we tried to make it as concise as possible -- about a

page-and-a-half per coastal State, reviewing the status in each State, as

viewed by our office. Each State has reviewed the brief, so they should be

free of error, although they may be incomplete, in some cases, for lack of

space and because of our effort to be concise. We would be happy for any

additional comments you might have on this report.

The bulk of the material in the packet was provided by the seven Federal

agencies that are part of the sponsorship of the Conference. The material

indicates how each agency perceives its coastal zone mission and its ability to

support efforts at the State level in the coastal zone planning and management

area. The information is somewhat diverse, and in various forms, but we hope

you find that useful. I would urge that you try to look at it, to prepare for

Session IV tomorrow, in case you have questions about any of the information

that can be provided by the Federal agencies. Session IV is the time to get

questions answered, to get amplification on areas that are important to you,

or are unclear.

I would like to call your attention to the document which describes a

possible new Federal publication that has been under discussion. We would be

bringing together, in a more organized fashion, the technical assistance avail-

able from the Federal government for coastal zone managers. We would index

the guide in such a.way as to highlight the important problems that States

face as they gear up to do the coastal zone planning and management task:

the definition of the coastal zone; the question of the types of land and

water use controls to use, and so on. We would like your reactions as to

whether or not this is a useful enterprise or recommended changes in the

format.

We know that there is a lot of information and experience that indi-

vidual States have acquired that could usefully be shared with other States.

What we would like to do is to invite our State participants who might have

brought sample publications with them to display them on a table we have

set up for this purpose in the lobby in the Registration area.

Most of you may have picked up a blue cover document, the Coastal

Zone Management Institute Questionnaire. It has a blue cover and contains

a list of questions. This is an effort to try to get a better feel for how

States view their needs for guidance under the terms of the new Coastal

Zone Management Act. Our office has entered into a contract with a group

called the Coastal Zone Management Institute, to provide some resource

documents that we will make available to States as they interpret our guide-,

lines and the Act, and attempt to respond to the Federal legislation. The

purpose of the questionnaire is to give the Coastal Zone Management Institute

a feeling for what your priority problems are and what your needs are with

regard to technical information. The kind of information they are going to

be assembling will be based primarily on what certain States are already

doing in coastal zone management. For example, on the problem of defining the

coastal zone, they will bring together all the various experience that has

developed in the coastal States regarding the problem -- the pros and cons

of tidal definitions, vegetation definitions, definition based on political

subdivision lines, etc. We would appreciate your quidance by filling out

the questionnaire and leaving it in the place designated, also in the

Registration area.

At this point, I would like to turn the program over to Deane Conrad,

Special Assistant at the Council of State Governments, who has worked with

us on the Conference from the beginning, to introduce our first session

Chairman.

INTRODUCTION OF SENATOR WILLIAM JAMES
Mr. R. Deane Conrad, Special Assistant,
Council of State Governments

While the Superintendent of the Naval Academy was welcoming us here to this

august assemblage, I recollected with some degree of horror that I forgot to

shine my shoes this morning. I hope they didn't notice that. Before I stroll

about the campus as he suggested, I think I'll rectify that problem.

This first Session of the Annapolis Conference on Organizing and Managing

the Coastal Zone is most aptly entitled, "Intergovernmental Aspects of Coastal

Zone Management." I think the subject exemplifies the intergovernmental char-

acter of our system of government. I need remind no one here that the Consti-

tution invested the Federal level of government with enumerated powers, limited

powers, while the States, the custodians of all residual powers, those powers

which bear most directly with individual powers - power of the police, power to

zone, limit use of property. By the way, I feel in very safe water discussing

the Constitution, with Senator Ervin preoccupied with other matters in Washing-

ton at the moment. No Constitutional lawyers were allowed in this meeting, only

sea lawyers; and I number myself among them.

There is a delicate balancing of optimal freedom and choice for the indi-

vidual against the interest of the commonweal that is the grandeur of the

Federal system. The Council of State Governments, which I serve, is dedicated

by its charter to maintain and enhance that balance. Nowhere is that of greater

moment than in the coastal area, which is the subject we'll be discussing here

today.

If the Council of State Governments, playing its role, succeeds in its

balancing mission, I submit that the presence of all of you here today is one

measure of achievement that will be largely through the work of outstanding men,

leaders such as he who will be presiding over this morning's session. Not ortly

is he the President of the Maryland Senate, a leader in his own State, but hE!'S

served all the States, and therefore the Nation and the Federal system of govern-

ment, through his leadership within the Council of State Governments. In the

States we have some 7,563 State legislators. I promise you that they are no

more docile than the 535 residing in Washington who make our lives at times a

little more interesting than we'd care to have them. Even attempting to lead

such a crew is a heroic deed; our Chairman has done this with distinction. 71m

quite proud to introduce Senator William James.

DEFINING THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN THE COASTAL ZONE
Dr. J. Herbert Hollomon
Director, Center for Policy Alternatives,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Good morning. I should like first to discuss with you what I believe to

be the fundamental origins of the problems that are associated with land and

coastal zone use, to describe what I think to be a major change in the nature

of the problems that face the country with respect to its future both economic

and social growth, and how they reflect themselves into what I consider to be

the dilemma that faces the problem of the management of the coastal zone and

the management of land. In particular, I should like to describe briefly the

characteristics that I think generate the interest, both political, economic,

and social, in the problems associated with the use of land and the coastal

zone resource.

Basically, we have come to a position in our country where our natural re-

sources, whether they be fuels, minerals, or land, or if they be the atmosphere

itself, are no longer freely abundant, and they cannot be used without serious

consideration of future consequence. We are in a situation where it is self-

evident that the basic assumptions, both economic and political, which led to

the substantial growth of the economy and wealth of our country have now to be

modified in order to deal with the growing shortages and the growing conflict

between the uses of natural resources.

You already heard this morning that it is very likely there will be an

Administration proposal for the management of the energy and natural resources

of the United States. In essence, this political act recognizes the fact that

there is inherent in the problem of resource use a significant national interest.

By national interest, I mean an.interest which stands above, transcends, if you

will, the conflicting local interests, or the conflicting private interests.

The mere fact that one would propose in this country a coordination and an over-

sight of the use of the natural and mineral resources is in fact the recognition

that somehow or another local interests, the private sector, the willingness to
allow private tranLctions to determine consequences, is no longer generally

acceptable.

Yesterday in Boston the voltage was decreased in the power sector deliVETY

of electric power by 6 1/2 volts, not as a result of the shortage of electric

power in Massachusetts, but as the result of a shortage of electric power in New

York City and in New Jersey. The system of delivering power in the northeastern

part of the United States is now not only interconnected and shared, but it is

also interconnected and shared with the power generation network of the south-

eastern part of Canada. The point I should like to make is that the industrial/

economic sector of the U.S. economy is deeply interconnected. The characteris-

tics of the society which we now live in are these - the state of our industrial

and economic development is:

1. Highly concentrated

2. Deeply interconnected

What happens with respect to the sale of agricultural products to the Soviet

Union substantially affects the prices of feed stocks for cattle, which substan-

tially affects the prices of beef at the consumer market, all of which is re--

flected in what everyone in the United States has to do in order to provide

what they consider to be an adequate diet. By 1980-1985, it is estimated var-

iously that we will have to import on the order of $10-$30 billion worth of

fuel stocks for the continuation of even a modest growth of the use of energy

in the United States. We either import that fuel or we suffer substantial in-

creases in energy costs, which will affect all the products we buy, and the way

in which we live. The estimate that such large imports are necessary not only

affects the price of fuel, it makes us dependent upon foreign fuel resources;

it affects the relative value of the dollar, in the sense that we may not be

able to export sufficiently in order to carry forth the necessary transport

payments to pay for the fuel; and it clearly will affect, for example, such

simple-minded things as to whether or not I have to pay more for a vacation

in Europe, or in Asia, or even for that matter in South America or the Carib-

bean. The value of the dollar, the net balance of paym*nts, depends in Dart

upon practices which affect the conservation of energy, the delivery of fuel,

and the cost of energy to every region of the United States. We are:

1. A highly interconnected industrial society;

2. Extraordinarily rich - we are the richest country of the

world, and that mere richness allows a freedom of choice

of the individual, for example, for such matters as second

homes and recreation sites, which is really not pos6ible

in any except one or two other countries in the world;

3. We have exploited most of the higher grade natural re-

sources of our society. We are now beginning to recog-

nize either that we will have to import high-grade

minerals; or that we will have to recycle secondary

sources; or that we will have to search for minerals

in places which were in the past much move costly; or

we will have to conserve the general natural resources

by less use, or more conservative use.

Furthermore, we continue to grow as a society. While the birth rate is

now changed to be only slightly above the replac*ment rate, the present distri-

bution of people of various ages indicates that our population will continue to

grow, and grow substantially, for at least the next 30 years. And still, all

of these factors require, for example, that when land, air, water, sea or mineral

resources are used, that the consequence of the use of those resources flows.

more broadly than to the individual buyer, the individual seller, or to the

private interest.

We have depended mostly in our country not entirely, but mostly - for

market-place decisions and local restrictions of resource use to set the national

interest. We in fact believed, although not entirely, that what was good for

General Motors was in fact generally good for the United States. What we really

believed was the 'Collective market decisions would appropriately allocate the

sources. What we now are beginning to recognize is that the appropriations at

the market place, the transactions at the market place, while, in many cases,

making it Possible to make local decisions outside of a planning process, that

there are indirect effects which are not taken into account in the market de-

cisions - for example, pollution effects, atmospheric and water pollution effects

because they are not included in the calculus of the transfer payment, or that

there are long-range effects on the society which the economists would say -that

the social return on investment is different from the private return on investment.

I'll put in in another way. The viewpoint of a society, whether it be a

State or the Federal Government, is of longer range and of longer consideration

than would be the viewpoint of a private individual or a private corporation

making transactions at the market place.

The passage of the Environmental Protection Act, the considerations for the

control of pollution from automobiles, the Traffic Safety Act, the present con-

siderations for new programs for leading to the technical development of conser-

vation processes for minerals, the demand of the public for products which will

last longer and require less service, the Coastal Zone Act, are in my view all

examples of the fundamental change in character of the economic, industrial and

social decision-making process that will be required in this country for its

immediate and long-range future.

The issue is the following: How does one limit the private use of the re-

source in such a way as to appropriately balance his loss of value with the more

collective values that derive from the use of the vehicle, and the adverse conse-

quences that derive therefrom? On the one hand, the consequences are collective;

i.e., flowing to the region that is Los Angeles, which has a collective negative

consequence of the pollution. On the other hand, the private benefit is individ-

ualized. What the' economist would say is that we should learn how to internalize;

that is, to make in the process of buying the car as much of the external costs as

are possible, so that the market place would in fact include, in its calculus of

transfer payments, the appropriate consideration of the external social costs.

But even that requires a decision as to how valuable we think cleaner air is, and

how we set the level of the internalized external cost.

The point I'm trying to make in this complicated analogy is that the problem

resolved is equivalent to the simplistic problem of the tragedy of the commons, a

story which was written up apocryphally in Science Magazine six or seven years ago.

In northern Scotland, the general rule is that sheepherders can use the common

grazing ground freely. Since there were a number of sheepherders in this community,

each of them saw to his private benefit that it would be beneficial to increase the

size of thier sheep herds in order to exploit more of the common grazing ground.

Each of the individual sheepherders acted in a way to increase the size of his herd,

and the consequence was the destruction of the common grazing ground. The essential

problem that we face is how do we prevent the exploitation of our land, or our

coastal zone resources, by individual transactions which of and by themselves may

be beneficial to those between whom the transaction has taken place, and preserve

the common grazing ground - in this case, the common coastal resource.

It seems to me that that is the essential problem. Furthermore, we're not

very skilled in this problem. We haven't had, until relatively recently - three

or four decades - substantial reason to be concerned with collective consequence,

except in a few instances, because our land, our coastal resources, our mineral

resources, and our atmosphere were so abundant. Secondly, it was only during

the last 30 years that the major migration of people to the cities - the largest

migration, by the way, in the history of the world, and predominantly to cities

along the coast - took place.. Between 1945 and 1965, 22 million people left

rural America and went to the cities of the United States. They were the dis-

placed workers due to the great agricultural revolution that was taking place

during that time, and most of those people migrated to cities and urban areas

which were located near the seacoasts and near the Great Lakes. The great growth

of concentration in the cities has been taking place for a very long time in our

history, but has accelerated during the last 30 years or so.

I pose to you as I believe it is reasonable to be posed that the coastal

zone legislation in any future land use legislation develop a process by which

the decisions with respect to private transactions can be modified, controlled,

and have introduced into them the general problem of the social, regional, State-

wide, and national consequences. The set of the coastal zone legislation has

already been pointed out to you; the primary decision process flowing from the

Federal Government flows to the States, and obviously the primary decision

process in the States will have to flow to local constituencies. The primary

consequences of any act having to do with the use of land is its immediate

surrounding consequence. Secondly, it affects the resources of the State itself

or of the region. Thirdly, it affects the general national interests.

I should like to say a few words about the national interests. There are

several. One has to do with the general consideration that welve had in this

country for a very long time, and that is that we have never established boun-

daries between States that prohibit the flow of people, monetary values, or

goods. As a consequence, one of the substantial characteristics of the United

States, though we've had a Republic, is that the development of a region and.

the opportunities for personal development largely depend upon our ability to

move. The use of recreational resources, of land resources and water resources,

is clearly not only.for the local benefit of those who happen to reside in that

place.

Secondly, it is frequent that when one local region acts to modify the use

of land or of resources, the consequences flow to adjacent regions. It's very

clear, for example, that the establishment of a new refinery may have environ-

mental consequences downwind, which downwind consequences flow to a region

other than that one which allows the placement of the refinery at a fixed place.

So that there are, in the first instance, reasons to believe that the general

recreational land and water use is in some sense preserved for the public gen-

erally, wherever that public lives; and secondly there are indirect secondary

consequences of decisions having to do with the use of land and water that flows

to local regions surrounding the place that makes the decision.

But there are even greater national interests. I'll refer to several. As

I have already indicated, this entire country will likely depend in a major and

significant way on the import of fuels from outside the United States. It will

largely require deep water ports. The placement of deep water ports in a par-

ticular region of the country obviously depends in part upon local decisions

having to do with the local consequences of deep water ports to the use of land

and water resources to that local region. The supply of fuel to the nation as

a whole is affected. The price of fuel will be determined by the degree to

which the transportation costs are affected by the particular location of the

ports and the degree of access and the restrictions placed on the use of the

port. I've already indicated that the location of power plants along the coastal

waters, or off the coasts, will be a consideration in not only the supply of

power to the local region, but since in most of the regions of the United States

the power complex is now interconnecting, the power supply to adjacent regions

and the cost of power for industrial/economic development will be affected, and

therefore the national interest comes into play.

There are more subtle aspects of the national interests. This has to do,

for example, with, I think, some mistakes in arithmetic.

Frequently an industrial operation, for example, is encouraged to locate

in a particular region. The particular region views the cost and benefits of

that location in terms of what it will do to the welfare of its local citizens

without considering what will happen elsewhere as a consequence of the displace-

ments which occur due to the change in industrial location, or the change in

recreational or other uses of land or water in a particular region.

The economy of the United States is interconnected, and more frequently

than not when making calculations on economic costs and benefits of location of

plant, the use of land for particular resource purposes such as the development

of housing, little consideration is given to the external costs of the displace-

ments which occur elsewhere as a result of those economic considerations. It

seems to me that in any management of resources it is incumbent upon those w@ho

manage and who establish the process that not only shall considerations be given

to the local effects and externalities, but information must be provided as -to

the consequence to the country generally as a result of the decision, in order

to change, modify, or control the use of natural resources. It is not just 'the

regions of the country that are strip mining that are affected by strip mining

practices and the control of the land, but the cost of coal to the whole country

is affected by either restrictions to or insistence or allowing strip mining

to take place without reclamation. The land, the coastal zone, and the decisions

that have to be made are clearly mostly local. They must be made in context,

however, with the consequence to the State, to the region, and to the indirect

consequences that flow to the nation generally. The private use will involve

such matters as agricultural use, fishing use, recreational use and the like.

The public matters affect such things as wildlife, historical position, protec-

tion of the land; and the environmental consequences will not only mean the

environmental consequences to the air and water pollution, but to the environ-

mental consequence which I would consider mostly overlooked, which is the

general economic well-being of the region and of the country itself.

The recent Rockefeller Report, it seems to me, states the issue in an

explicit way - that we have believed thaT the use of land in the past, the

ownership of land, and the land itself, allowed certain social use of that land,

to be determined by its ownership. The Rockefeller Panel essentially says that

the use of the land, and of the coastal zone, flows from the society, and

therefore establishes the decision conflict: How much of the use of the land

and the coastal resource flows from its ownership; who should own; how much

should be kept in the public ownership; and how much of the use of the land and

the coastal zone and the lands of the coastal zone flow from the society itself?

I should like to make a few comments on things that are in the general

economic interest not generally considered and taken into account. These have

to do with such indirect effects as freight rates; depreciation processes;

allowances for tax rebates; special consideration for tax forgiveness; and in

fact the entire matter of the processes of property taxes and how those property

taxes either encourage or discourage maintenance of recreational lands or en-

courage or discourage the improvement of the lands. Clearly what is needed is

first the development of the State capability to provide a decision-making

process.

The second thing which seems to me to be clear is to establish a mechanism

by which the conflicts between the decisions of the States with respect to the

coastal zone are at least brought into view.

The third is to generate a.mechanism largely yet untried and not very well

developed, by which local political bodies and State bodies are caused to take

into account as best they know how what the impact of their decisions are at@

distances far from their own localities, and which calculate either qualitatively

or quantitatively what the'consequences are to the national, economic, and social

welfare.

We seek, it seems to me, a way of deciding such that the decisions can be

arrived at in an orderly way by a due process; but which ensure that the values

which I hold as a citizen of the United States, of a State,' of a local region,

and a private citizen, are all taken into account, and the conflict fairly

resolved. The process of managing natural resources, the managing of the environ-

ment or controlling its use, is a process by which conflicting interests are

clearly of necessity introduced; and the management plan must include ways to

resolve the conflict with the least possible control from the center.

Thank you very much.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE
Mr. Arthur Mendonsa, City Manager, Savannah, Georgia

This is a unique experience, speaking to a darkened audience. There may

be certain advantages to this. As was pointed out, my background is both plan-

ning and city management. I must confess that I did not plan very well for

this trip to Annapolis. I have a son who will be a Senior at the Academy next

year; he came home Saturday and I came up here Tuesday.

I feel like I'm in the presence of the enemy here, because most of you are

State government, and I think that I am the sole local government voice repre-

sented at this meeting.

I want to talk about some of the concerns that local government has about

the Coastal Zone Management Act, and certainly we will agree that, as a start

maybe I should say the good news first - there is a problem. As the Act has

pointed out, the coastal zones are rich in a variety of natural, commercial,

recreational, industrial, and aesthetic resources of immediate and potential

value to the present and future well-being of the nation. But the enjoyment

and benefits obtained from these resources are being jeopardized by haphazard

land use development; by indiscriminate dumping of solid and liquid waste into

the coastal streams and marshes; and by uncontrolled land filling of the marsh

areas; as well as by other indignities. And certainly each level of government,

including local government, is concerned about the problems; each regulation

controls activities within the coastal area. Unfortunately, however, no one

level has overall control of the problem, and as a consequence, the management

of the use and development of the resources within the coastal areas is frag-

mented and uncoordinated, and certainly very often ineffective.

We can all agree that this situation cannot continue; and, in an effort to

deal with the problem on a more rational basis, Congress has enacted the Coastal

Zone Management Act. Through this Act, Congress is offering financial induce-

ments to the States, accruing mechanisms through which the fragmented management

of the coastal areas within their jurisdictions can be eliminated.

Although under the provisions of the Act the States are responsible for

developing and administering coastal zone management programs, they may, if

they wish, delegate responsibility for developing and administering a management

program to a local or a regional agency. However, as we understand the Act, this

delegation will not relieve them of the responsibility for ensuring that the pro-

gram is conducted properly. Certainly we in local government cannot fault the

Act for assigning the States responsibility for conducting and administering

coastal zone management programs. The coastal zone of the State, as it does in

our State, may extend through the jurisdictions of several local governments,

and in some cases is a boundary with another State. This, as I said, is true

in our State. Moreover, the resources of the coastal zones are clearly of more

than local benefit and concern; and given these conditions, we can agree that

it is essential that a unit of government with more than local interest has

ultimate responsibility for the coastal zone management programs. We agree also

that the States are the logical choice.

Having conceded this, we at the local government level are nevertheless

concerned about this arrangement. Our first concern is that the Act is permis-

sive rather than mandatory; States have the option of coming under the Act or

staying out. To induce States to develop management programs, the Act authorizes

grants to pay up to two-thirds of the cost of developing such programs, and two-

thirds of the cost of administering these programs. If a State does not choose

to come under the provisions of the Act, and this is what concerns us, the Act

offers no financial inducements to local governments in a coastal area to develop

a program of coastal zone management. In consequence, if a State does not choose

to develop a program, then insofar as the Act is concerned, that ends the matter.

Local governments wishing to do something about the problems collectively or

individually in a coastal area must do so at their own expense.

To us, at least, this feature of the Act is inconsistent with the finding

of Congress that it is the national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and

where possible,to restore or enhance the resources of the nationts coastal zone

for this and succeeding generations. It is also inconsistent with another find-

ing of Congress, which states that it is the national policy to encourage the

participation of the public, of Federal, State, and special interests here at

local governments, and of regional agencies in the development of coastal zone

national programs. But as the Act is written, it encourages local governments

to participate only if their States participate, and even then their participa-

tion is at the option of the State.

A second concern on the part of local governments who have been actively

engaged in land use planning and control for many years is the lack of experience

on the part of States in land use planning and controls. Now there are a few

States which do have State land use planning programs; however, most do not, and

historically as you all know, responsibility for land use planning and control

has been delegated by the States to local governments. Certainly most of the

law and the legal precedents in land use planning have been generated-by local

government activities. In addition, advances which have been made in developing

more effective tools and methods for land use planning have occurred at the local

level, rather than at the State level. But these are facts which are all but

ignored by the Act.

I think local governments have reason for concern about the lack of exper-

ience in land use planning at the State level. Lacking any real expertise in

the field, and having no real knowledge of the local impacts of various land use

programs, States, under their coastal zone management programs, can burden local

communities with needless costs; can greatly increase the cost of development

activities; and can impose costly and time-consuming delays in development within

the coastal areas.

A third concern is the possible impact of the State-imposed coastal zone

management programs on the economies of local communities. State-imposed pro-

grams can remove property from the tax rolls, and impose standards so restrictive

that economical building development is prevented or discouraged, and in other

ways can impact on the economies of local communities. Provisions are not in

the Act, but certainly they are needed, which will assure that local communities

will be compensated in the case of detrimental economic impacts as a result of

these programs.

A fourth concern is the meaning of some of the terms that are used in the

Act; and our greatest concern is the phrase in the definition of coastal zone,

which reads as follows:

"The zone extends inland from the shoreline only to the extent
necessary to control shorelines, the use of which have a direct
and significant impact on the coastat waters."

This description is general enough to permit States to encompass entire

counties, including the cities within those counties, within the boundaries of

their coastal zones. If the coastal zone is so defined, then local governments

included in the zone may very well find their own land planning and development

controls supplanted by State land planning and development controls. To prevent

this, the Federal guidelines should establish criteria for defining exactly what

constitutes direct and significant impact on coastal waters. I'm sure that this

will not be an easy assignment, but certainly, from the standpoint of local gov-

ernment, is a necessary assignment.

A related concern is the absence of guidelines for distinguishing between

those things within the coastal areas which are matters of State and national

interest, and those which are of purely local interest. Certainly guidance is

needed in this area. Without it, very serious conflicts can arise. Those matters

which are related to State and national interests certainly should be subject to

State and Federal review; but those matters of purely local interest should be

left in the hands of local government, where such matters can be handled by people

familiar with local conditions and needs. A program that is directed to planning,

developing, and enhancing resources in the coastal zones which are of more than

local benefit is one thing; but a program that uses this worthy objective as an

excuse to control all aspects of development in a local community, whether or not

this development has more than local impact, is something else. Certainly this

is something that must not happen.

A further concern relates to the meaning of the term "full participation."

Under this Act, a State's management plan must be developed with the opportunity

"for full participation" by local governments. But we suspect that the "full par-

ticipation" will mean an opportunity to be heard at a public hearing - certainly

this is the traditional device for obtaining participation. But participation

by means of a public hearing does not ensure local governments will be able to

influence the policies and procedures established for the coastal zone management

programs which will affect them. Unless there is a mechanism to ensure local

governments the power to influence policies and procedures, they can be denied

full participation in the development of their State's coastal zone management

program, and, in this situation, full participation becomes an iffy concept.

A fi-fth area of concern is the duplication of effort which can result under

the provisions of the Act. Local governments have the procedures, the administra-

tive staff, and the expertise to develop and administer a coastal zone management

program. Under these circumstances, the State should proceed cautiously in dup-

licating this capability. Rather than duplicate it, States should establish

standards and guidelines for developing and administering a coastal zone manage-

ment program, and then let the local governments develop and carry out these

programs.

A sixth area of concern is over the cost which can be imposed on local

governments by States' coastal zone management program. State governments are

not always concerned about the cost impacts of their actions on local communi-

ties. Too often they have imposed standards or requirements which burden local

communities with additional operating costs. Unfortunately, all too often they

fail to provide financial assistance to help defray these costs. A coastal zone

management program which places costs on local governments without providing

financial assistance and support will he especially burdensome, because these

costs in many instances will be added to secure a State or a national benefit.

Certainly equity dictates that in such instances all of those benefitting should

share in this cost.

The concerns which I have li sted from the standpoint of local government

are very real. Past experience has taught us to be on our guard when States

decide to step into an area which has previously been a local responsibility.

More often than not, local governments are hard pressed to identify the bene-

fits which result from this arrangement, and instead they found that the

arrangement burdens them with additional cost and poses procedures which cause

lengthy and inconvenient delays in carrying out local programs. Certainly this

does not have to happen under the coastal zone management program; to ensure

that it does not, we propose that the States stay out of the day-to-day busi-

ness of planning and administering their coastal zone management programs, and

instead turn this responsibility over to local governments. However, to make

certain that the programs are consistent with both State and national policies

and objectives, we propose that the States monitor the development and adminis-

tration of the programs within their jurisdiction. Moreover, to provide the

necessary guidance to local governments in developing and managing a State's

coastal zone program, each State should establish guidelines covering the

following items:

1. The goals and objectives to which the program should be directed,

and these goals should be spelled out in more specific terms than

is the usual case.

2. The contents that should be included in the program which is

developed.

3. The criteria for measuring or evaluating the impact of shore-

line development on coastal waters.

4. The criteria by which those matters of State and national

interest can be determined or identified.

5. The performance standards. This is essential, and those-of

you who are in planning and have been in planning know that

over the years we have attempted to try to identify perform-

ance standards for land use development - I might add, with-

out too much success. But nevertheless, we need to have

performance standards established for land use development

within the coastal areas.

6. The quality standards to be achieved and maintained for the

ecological and environmental systems, and resource systems

if you will, within the coastal areas.

In addition, States should establish a mechanism for hearing

and acting on appeals from the actions of local government a

sound responsibility for managing a State's program.

To ensure that there will be an opportunity for full par-

ticipation by local governments, and the development of

the policies and guidelines for the States' coastal zone

management program, we will also propose that each State

establish an advisory board on coastal zone management, and

we recommend that this board be composed of representatives

from local governments in the coastal areas in the State,

representatives from a State's environmental and resource

agencies, and representatives from private groups and

industries, and citizens interested in coastal zone manage-

ment. This board, however, should contain a sufficient

number of representatives from local government, to ensure

that they will be listened to and heard in the deliberation.

Permitting local governments to be responsible for the day-to-day planning

and administration of a State's coastal zone management program can be justified

on a number of grounds. First of all, the majority of the decisions relating to

the use and development of the coastal zones will relate to matters of purely

local concern. Certainly these are decisions which should be made at the local

level. Under the structure which we proposed, the local governments will decide

initially on all matters relating to the use and development of the coastal zOnes,

even those which have State-wide or nation-wide impacts. This arrangement would

certainly eliminate the need for establishing administrative systems at the State

level which duplicate existing local government administrative systems.

Second, policies and standards determined by a higher level of government

with implementation by lower level of government are becoming increasingly popu-

lar at both the Federal and State level. There is good reason for this; in most

instances the government which is closest to the problem to which the programs

are directed is more familiar with the details of the problem, and thus better

able to draft workable programs than those who are removed from the problem.

Third, the closer the administrative unit is to the matters of concern,

the more convenient it is for those who are subject to the administrative regu-

lations in any program, whether it be the coastal zone management program, or

something else; it is important to administer the program in a way that will not

increase development costs unnecessarily and will not introduce time-consuming

and inefficient, bureaucratic procedures.

I think we can sum up the feeling that we sometimes have in local govern-

ment, in the relationships to State governments, in the little story about the

hippopotamus that fell in love with the butterfly. The hippopotamus was very

much concerned about this problem, and he started looking for someone who could

help him deal with it, and he finally went to the wise old owl.

The wise old owl considered the problem a minute and said, "It's very

simple; all you have to do is turn into a butterfly."

The hippopotamus ran off very happy, until suddenly the light dawned. He

went back to see the owl, and he said, "How do I turn into a butterfly?"

And the owl thought for a minute, and he said, "Now listen, Herman, I make

policy, I don't execute it."

Sometimes local government is like the hippopotamus, and the State is that

wise old owl.

Thank you very much.

THE STATE ROLE IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
Mr. James M. Dolliver, Assistant to the Governor
State of Washington

I want to thank at the outset those who arranged this Conference for bring-

ing us to Annapolis. This is really the first time I've been here, and perhaps

the first time for most of you. I must say, Senator, you have a gorgeous city

here; last night I came into town, as perhaps some of you did, and wandered

around. Among the other sights, including the historical buildings, there were

a number of gentlemen, including myself, necktied and coated, with a rather hot

look on their face. I welcome all of you to the Conference - I suspect that's

who you were. The mode of dress doesn't seem to be quite that formal around here,

in my observation.

I am going to be both parochial and political in my comments today; I apol-

ogize for neither one of these. Parochial, because I am well aware that once

you get 20 miles east of Spokane, there is no such thing as Washington State,

there's only Washington D.C. But I suspect that parochialism is not ill-founded,

because I think the State of Washington has done an outstanding job in this matter

of coastal zone protection. Furthermore, we have those two great leaders of the

United States Senate, Warren Magnuson, who was the author of the Federal Coastal

Zone Act, and Henry Jackson, the Chairman of the Senate Interior Committee, who

is the author of the hopefully soon-to-be-passed Land Use Management Act; so I

think parochialism is not out of line.

Political, because it seems to me that politics is the heart of what you can

or can't do in this matter of coastal zone management; and until we talk about

the politics of it and what can and cantt be done, and what has been done, and

what maybe will get done and how it's going to happen, we're really not coming

to grips with the problem.

Mr. Knecht, in his opening observations, talked about setting the perspec-

tive. I would like, and it's a little tough to fight hippopotami and butterflies,

but I'm going to take a chance at it anyway, to talk that kind of thing. I'm

going to try to talk about how really things are not, perhaps, how we would -wish

they should be. To do that I would use by way of an illustration a story regard-

ing an individual whom some of you may have heard of, at least those of you from

the southeastern United States, one Claude R. Kirk, Jr. We in the State of

Washington recall him fondly as the first Republican Governor of the State of

Florida since Reconstruction. We are also mindful, given his record, that he

may be the last Republican Governor of that.State before the Second Coming.

In any event, the.story I've heard was told by the then-Lieutenant Governor

of the State, Bob Claude, so I assume it's a true story. It concerns the time a

number of years ago when he and his friend were going to college. It was their

last year, and as usually is the case, those of you who have been in that estate

can recall, you try to find other things to do rather than an excessively heavy

academic schedule. Claude was no exception to the rule, and looked around through

the catalog. Finally he came upon an ideal course; it was a course given by one

man for 40 years with but one examination and but a single question asked on the

examination. It was a course in Religion, and the question was: "Describe the

Journeys of the Apostle Paul." The fraternity files were replete with informa-,

tion on this subject; in case of dire emergency one could go to the original.

source references and find out about it, so they signed up.

Things proceeded along, and Claude and his friend did not show up in class;

they did whatever one does in the final semester with nothing much else to do,

lollygagged around. Finally, the day of reckoning came; and they marched in,

sat down, opened their blue books, pen and pencil poised in hand. Down the

center aisle tottered the Professor, turned to the blackboard, raised chalk in

hand, and wrote across the blackboard not "Describe the Journeys of the Apostle

Paul," but rather, "Give a critical analysis of the Sermon on the Mount." A

substantial silence reigned in the class. The friend, as he tells the story,

simply put down his name, rank, and serial number, waited a few moments so he

could he at least partly graceful, handed in his book, and stopped to pick up

Kirk on the way out. Kirk was furiously writing away. He came back in about

20 minutes, and he was still writing away as if his life depended on it. Three

hours later, in order to close the thing down, they had to take the book away

from him and get him out of there.

Several days later the grades were posted. They went to the bulletin board,

and coming down the list, Kirk's friend - F, Incomplete. They came down a little

further, Claude R. Kirk, Jr. - At.

The friend turned to Claude and said, "My goodness," or words to that effect,

"How did you manage to get an A+ in that course? You had hardly heard of the

Sermon on the Mount, much less give a critical analysis of it."

And Kirk said, "Well, it was very easy. I simply did it like this. I

wrote in my book, 'Let those who will, criticize the works of Our Lord. As for

myself, I prefer to write about the Journeys of the Apostle Paul."

This is one of the continuing problems in human existence; and it has cer-

tainly been a problem, I suspect, in this whole difficult matter of seacoast

management, shoreline protection, coastal zone - I'll probably use all three of

these terms interchangeably. I think it might be appropriate,.and I warn you

I'm going to be talking much about the State of Washington, because I'm familiar

with it. Not that I think it is a model for the rest of the country, but because

I think the issues which we had to face and confront, many of which are now

behind us, may be useful to some of you in what you have to do.

Briefly, let me just tell you how we got there. Some of you have heard me

go into this extensively in previous meetings, so I'll be very brief on that.

We got there partially because we wanted to, partially because we were forced

into it. In 1967, the Legislature of the State (Washington) passed an Act which

took all of the coastline between mean high and mean low tide from Cape Disap-

pointment (that's on the Columbia River) to Cape Platter, in the northwest cor-

ner of the State. They took it out of the jurisdiction of the Department of:

Natural Resources, which is primarily an agency which is exploiting resources,

and I use the word "exploiting" in the best sense of the term, and turned this

over to the State Parks Department - in other words, turned it from economic

use, or "exploitative" use, into recreational use. That was done in 1967, and

this has worked fairly well. The only problem we really have is the insistence

on the part of some people that the beaches (and they're wide, sandy, and long)

ought to be superhighways forcars rather than for people to walk up and down.

That issue is still causing some dissension, but aside from that, it's worked

fairly well in using it as a recreational area.

In 1969, legislation was prepared for introduction into the 1970 Special

Session of the Washington State Legislature for a comprehensive Seacoast Manage-

ment Act. Nobody thought that it was going to get anywhere; but it seemed at

the time like a pretty good idea, both by the Governor, and a number of legisla-

tors and private citizens. Nothing would have happened, in my judgement, per-

haps even up to now, except for an action taken on December 4, 1969, by the

Supreme Court of the State of Washington, in what has got to be considered not

only a landmark case in the State of Washington, but I suspect a landmark case

in the United States in the whole matter of coastal zone usage. It was the case

of Wilbur vs. Gallagher, in which the State of Washington decided, in its infinite

wisdom, by a six to three vote, that any water - whether it was tidal watE!r or

whether it was simply water on the surface - a navigable body of water belonged

to the people of the State of Washington. The impact of this was that any kind

of construction of any sort on tidal estuaries, on tidal waters, would simply

be brought to a screeching halt. At that time there was no device, and the

Supreme Court said that the Legislature could think up some device for public

use or private use of these properties, but up to that time there was no device

for doing it, so everything did come to a halt. It became quite apparent, both

to the Legislature and to the citizenry at large - it took a little longer for

the business community to figure this uut, but eventually they did - that some

kind of legislation in the area of seacoast management or coastal zone protec-

tion simply had to be passed, not only to protect this for recreational, eco-

logical, or wilderness purposes, but more importantly, to allow any kind of

exploitation at all. For in the Wilbur vs. Gallagher decision, as I say, every-

thing came to a halt; nobody was giving any title insurance any more. And so

something had to be done.

The matter came up in the 1970 session. All sorts of fun happened then.

A bill got through the House twice, got to the Senate and got killed. In 1970,

the Washington Environmental Council proposed an initiative - we are one of the

States that has the initiative process - for the 1971 session of the Legislature.

The 1971 session, feeling that the initiative was not quite the way they wanted

to go, passed their own Seacoast Management Act, which in 1972 went to the

people, and it was decided in 1972 that Initiative 43-B, the Act passed by the

Legislature, was the one which the people preferred. It had, however, gone into

effect in June 1971; so for about 2 years the State of Washington has had a

comprehensive Seacoast Management Act.

What are the issues? It seems to me that there are four, as far as State

and local relationships are concerned. Mr. Mendonsa may ba somewhat surprised

in my remarks, but I find very little in what he said that we in the State of

Washington would disagree with. As a matter of fact, it sounded very much as

if you could have written some of the provisions that went into our Seacoast

Management Act. We really don't quarrel too much with the kind of local par-

ticipation about which he talked. But it seems to me the four issues are:

1. Who is going to do it?

2. What are they going to do?

3. How are they going to do it?

4. Where - and by where I mean when you get done with the process - where

"does it go from there? Who has any further decision-making author@'ty?

As far as the "who" is concerned, we had the quarrel and the struggle, if

you will, in the State of Washington as to whether it ought to be entirely under

the jurisdiction of the State, which was the proposal of the private group which

proposed the initiative; or whether there ought to be a shared responsibility,

which was the proposal of those who had the responsibility for getting the Act

through the Legislature. I think it would be instructive for me to read the

provision from the Washington Seacoast Management Act, which I think spells out

better than I could tell you exactly what this relationship is intended to be

and how the Legislature felt the two jurisdictions ought to work together. In

referring to ths Act, it says:

"This Chapter establishes a cooperative program of shoreline
management between local government and the State. Local
government shalt have the primary responsibility for initiating
and administering the regulatory program of this Chapter. The
department shall act primarily in a supportive and review
capacity, with primary emphasis an ensuring compliance with
the policy and provisions of this Chapter."

That simply lays out the general policy. The rest of the Act goes into some

details to implement it. It seems to me that there are some real and substantial

reasons why local government ought to have this kind of involvement. In the first

place, it represents a resource. Many times we at the State level have some harsh

things to say about local government; but it's usually when we're trying to get

something, and we use them as 4 whipping boy. The fact of the matter is that

it has been my experience that much of the available resource to get things done

in any State jurisdiction lies at the local level; and it was the feeling of the

Legislature and of the Governor that we would be foolish simply to cast this re-

source aside and say, no,,we're going to do everything in-house, at the State

level. Secondly, they were to be part of a process - I will not quote the late

protean President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, in full, but you'll re-

call the story that held rather have them inside the tent than outside the tent;

and we'd rather have them inside than oqtside the tent too. We would like to

have local government part of the process. It was the feeling of the Legislature

and of the Governor that it was foolish to totally exclude them from the process,

because all you're doing is buying trouble. At some point in time they're going

to get you, and you might just as well have them involved in it, so that in

their part of it they're just as guilty as you are, and when it's finally done,

it represents a joint process.

Another side issue in this matter of local participation was who ought to

do it at the local level. Those who proposed the initiative had a certain amount

of rhetoric about local participation, but it was all on the basis of volunteer

ad hoc groups that ought to be involved in the planning process with the State.

We said no, that it shouldn't be ad hoc citizen groups, which are sort of iffy

things to begin with, but ought to be the official units of government, the

elected officials, be they at the city level, the county level, or the regional

level. And that was the decision that was made - that we ought to be dealing

with elected officials, people who are elected at the local level,.rather than

simply setting up some ad hoc bodies which would serve in a somewhat advisory

capacity. So that was the decision which was made - that local government ought

to be part of the action; and.as a matter of fact, as you observe from my read-

ing from the section of the Act, they are not only part of the action, they are

an extremely important part.

Secondly, the decision had to be made as to what you were going to include

in it. Washington is a coastal State that has Puget Sound; we have a wide col-

lection of estuaries, seacoasts, large rivers, large lakes. I suppose we are a

case history in our State of the various kinds of coastal or water locations

that you can have. It not only became a question of what, in the sense of what

you're going to include and who's going to have the say as to who does t1j.-le de-

cision making, but how much - how much of the water of the State do you include

in it? We came across a very interesting device, one which I think might well

be a model for other States. We have two kinds of shorelines which are -rotected
P

in Washington. One is simply shorelines generally. This is described as all.

the water areas and all the wetlands. The wetlands is a term of ours which

generally means estuaries, marshes, etc., and that anything 200 feet back from

the line of high water, which gives us a buffer zone of 200 feet back from the

water, either on salt water or fresh water. Secondly, the shorelines in the

State include any stream which has over 20 cubic feet per second flow, and arty

lake which is over 20 acres. It's quite comprehensive.

However, it was the feeling of many people that there were certain segME!nts

of the shorelines of the State of Washington, and I'm sure this is true in every

other jurisdiction, that required some kind of special treatment, that were a

little beyond the ordinary, and as a matter of fact would be considered as shore-

lines of State-wide significance. The Act makes quite clear that the shorel.ines

of State-wide significance are generally going to be those which are not-, subject

to economic exploitation. It doesntt come right out and say it in quite those

terms, but the meaning of the Statute is quite clear. There are sections of the

shorelines in the State of Washington that get special treatment. I can describe

them briefly for you, the entire salt water seacoast up to the mouth of Puget

Sound; all salt waters of the State beyond the line of extreme low tide; all of

Wood Canal; and a number of very prominent estuaries from the north to the s,:,uth

in the Puget Sound area; plus all large streams and all lakes of over 1,000

acres. These are the shorelines of State-wide significance, and the State has

a much more important part to play in the determining process as to what use

shall be made of these particular areas than it does with the shorelines them-

selves. The totality of these shorelines, both shorelines and shorelines of

State-wide significance, are known as the shorelines of the State.

That's the next problem we have - how do you administer all this; what's

the process that you go through; how do you issue the permits to allow people

to do something on these particular shorelines of a State? I think, in many

ways, that the most important part of the Seacoast Management Act, or the Shore-

line Protection Act of 1971, is the process which it sets up, first, to deter-

mine what the land use plan shall be for these particular bodies of water and

the adjacent lands, and secondly, what the system shall be for the issuance of

permits to various individuals or persons, corporations, for the use or exploi-

tation of these lands.

Let me just go through this process, because I think it will show better

than any other method as to how the local jurisdictions are involved in the

process; and I repeat again, the process, it seems to me, is the important char-

acteristic of this Act.

The first thing that was required was for the Department of Ecology, which,

in a sense, is an umbrella agency in our State in environmental affairs, to

issue their guidelines. This was done as of June of last year. This is what it

looks like. These are guidelines which have been proposed by the State, and

which have been adopted. In the Statute, it makes quite clear that this propose

and adoption process is a give-and-take, a negotiating process if you will. It

took them a year to do it; and it took this length of time because of the re-

strictions built into the Statute requiring an input from the local communities;

requiring the State government to respond to it; requiring a final hearing; and

then finally authorizing the adoption. I cannot emphasize enough my belief that

this kind of a process in setting up guidelines in dealing with local governments

is absolutely imperative. Because now that it has been done, I think by and

large the local units of government accept willingly the guidelines as they have

been proposed and as they have been put into effect by the State of-Washington.

But I am quite confident that this would not have been the case if this rather

complex process had not been initiated by the Legislature so that the local com-

munities felt that they had an imput all the way along in this first movement in

our shoreline management.

Secondly, the ball bounces back into the local community. Local communities

are required-to have a full inventory of all of the shorelines in their areas,

both the shorelines themselves and shorelines of State-wide significance. Then

they are required to come up with a so-called master program - that is a terin of

ours, it really means a comprehensive land use plan. Just to go aside -5nto poli-

tics for a minute, in our State some people think zoning is still a Communist plot.

Land use, at least at that time, was not quite in the good odor it is now, so

the term "master program" was decided upon. It's a little high-flown, but it

seemed to get the job done, and you might, if you have political problems, grab

onto that particular term. Don't let them find out that we've done it. But

11master program" is what it is - it's really a comprehensive land use plan which

is required, and in the Statute there are set out a number of criteria for the

development of these master programs. I won't bore you by going through them,

but they are quite comprehensive, they are quite specific; some of them are not

really mandatory. The phrase, "to the extent feasible," is used; but all of: them,

it seems to me, are things which any local government which has any sense at all

is going to adopt in coming up with its management program.

The third point is what do you do when you get thellmaster programs"',>

Everything goes back to the State at that point. Again, we have the distinction

between the shorelines themselves and the shorelines of State-wide significance.

The Department of Ecology is required to adopt the individual "master programs"

as they come in; and they can come in either from county governments or from

local units of government, cities, or from regional units of government. One

of the things that I think is important in our Act is that we have the provision

allowing the Director of the Department to form regional units to take care of

particular problems.

As an example, Lake Washington lies immediately to the east of the city of

Seattle. It's a large lake about 20 miles long; it has 11 jurisdictions surround-

ing it. It would he folly to have all 11 jurisdictions try to come up with com-

prehensive master programs; and so we have, and it was just announced a few days

ago, a regional agency, which will come up with a regional program for Lake Wash-

ington. Of course, Lake Washington, because of its size - over 1,000 acres is

shoreline of State-wide significance.

When the master programs come in, they are subject to further public hear-

ings; and the public hearings must be in the county or in the local jurisdiction

where the property is located. Another important thing - don't have everything

in the State capital or in the largest city. Go out in the field where the

people are. It may be a little tougher, but in the long run it's going to be

much more productive in finally getting the job done.

The Department of Ecology has an absolute option to override and substitute

its own judgement in the cases of shorelines of State-wide significance. The

State will prevail in these areas of State public interests. So far as these

ordinary shorelines are concerned, the Statute, I must say, is a little vague.

There are some who say the State still has an overriding influence. More prop-

erly, I think, it is able to negotiate with local units of government until a.

meeting of the minds is finally arrived at.

It is the requirement of the Statute that the Department and local govern-

ments must encourage public participation to the greatest feasible extent. In

our State, half of the counties have some kind of citizens' group, running any-

where from 25 to 50 people, who are involved in the planning process; about 195

to 40 of the cities in the State have similar citizens' groups that are worki-ng

with them in planning a master program.

Another provision which is of importance, and I would suggest that perhaps

the State is somewhat ahead of the Federal Government at this point, is that we

are providing money to open units of government - surprisingly enough, you in

the local units of government might say - to get the job done. Some of this is

State money; much of it is HUD money coming under 701 grants. We made FL decision

two years ago that the next HUD grants coming through to our departments would

be going to the Department of Ecology for distribution to local units of govern-

ment. We have found this is essential; if you don't find out ways to give tliem

planning money, they're simply not going to get the job done. As it stands,

every county in the State, with the exception of one, a somewhat benighted county

in the southeastern corner of the State, has determined that they will construct

their own master programs. But I would guess that probably half of them wouldn't

have been able to do it without some kind of funding coming in from the State of

Washington.

How long does this whole process take? If we took everything out -to the

end point, we would get it done about the 15th of June 1974; that's a 3--year

program - we started about the 15th of June 1971, out to the 15th of Jul.-le 1974.

When we have the whole package done, a "State Master Seacoast Land Use 'Planning

Program" will be in effect,

How do you implement it? What do you do? The important thing, of course,

is how do you allow people to do something out on these pieces of property now

that you've got the bill into effect, now that you have the master programs in

effect? In the first place, we put some limitations on it. We said that the

only people who need to get permits are those who are involved in a "substantial

development." Now, again, I won't bore you with what a "substantial development"

means; I would have to say the threshold is fairly low, however, as between "un-

substantial" and "substantial" development. The effort was made by the Legislature

to see to it that individual home owners generally could escape this threshold

and wouldn't have to be brought under it. But for that exemption, the threshold

is fairly low, and most projects are going to have to have some kind of a permit.

Between now and the final adoption of the master programs, all permits are issued

locally. There are no State permits; everything is issued locally. They are

issued locally, they are administered locally, and they are enforced locally.

Between now and the middle of June of next year, the guidelines for the issuing

of permits have got to be consistent with the language of the Statute; they have

to be consistent with the State guidelines; they have to be consistent with any

ideas anyone might have as to what the master program might be. Subsequent to

that date, of course, all permits must be consistent with the master program.

Finally, in this particular area, there is a provision in the Statute for

a constant monitoring, updating, and bringing the master programs so they are

current with present conditions.

Finally, who enforces it? What happens when you've got a disagreement?

I suppose that all of the issues that business and industry were nervous about -

the matter of enforcement or the matter of where the clout lies - was the one

they were most concerned with. Who was going to make the initial decision?

Obviously this whole thing will go into the courts at some time, but who's going

to make the initial decision as to the validity of the permit? The State of

Washington stands on the same basis as any other citizen as far as the permits

are concerned. They are all issued by local government; we stand in no posi--

tion of priority. The State comes in like any other citizen if it wishes to

object to the issuance of a permit. That's the first thing.

Secondly, any person, I repeat any person - there is no definition as to

whether you have to be a party of interest at least in the Statute, and so far

there has been no interpretation of that phrase - but any person may chELllenge

the issuance of a permit; they may challenge the granting of it, the denying of

it, the rescinding of it; at any point up and down the line anybody can go irl

and raise a challenge.

Where does it go? It goes to something called a Shorelines Hearing Board.

Let me discourse on that a minute, because this is something that also Eiroused

a great deal of controversy in our State. The standard procedure when you have

an'administering agency is for it to be prosecutor, judge, and jury all at the same

time, then to have the whole thing somehow get into the courts. We in -the State

of Washington, and perhaps other States run into this same kind of problem, the

State Supreme Court has quite clearly said that this kind of procedure :is no

longer going to be valid, and that some kind of quasi-judicial or quasi.-admin-

istrative board outside of the administering agency had to be involved in

making the first decision. You could not have the decision made by the admin-

istrative agency itself and then immediately go to court, or you were going to

encounter rather grave constitutional problems.

Partially to allay that, and partially because of the politics of the situ-

ation, we did set up something called the Shorelines Hearing Board. Again, it

involves a substantial degree of both State and local participation. Three

members were appointed by the Governor of the State; no restrictions except no

more than two can be of any one political party. The Association of Washington

Cities and the Association of Washington County Commissioners each has one mem-

ber, and this can be a movable member on the Board; and finally the Commissioner

of Public Lands, who is, as I indicated a moment ago, the head of the agency

which is the chief exploitative agency in the field of land use, he or his des-

ignee sits as a member on this Board. It requires a two-thirds decision to

have anything happen; you've got to have four members going one way or the

other for anything to happen on the Shorelines Hearing Board. I think the jury

is still out as to how effective this is going to be; we've had a number of

appeals go to the Shorelines Board. I think, by and large, the experience has

been satisfactory. I emphasize again that the body which makes the original

decision is local government; secondly, anybody can bring an appeal; thirdly,

the Department of Ecology or the Attorney General is entitled to extraordinary

appeal; and finally, local government can appeal for any order of any kind made

by the State under its guidelines or anything else that the State proposes to do.

Finally in this area, there are both civil and criminal penalties. Again,

these were a point of considerable argument. The criminal penalties are not

severe, but the feeling was they ought to be in there, and there are misdemeanor

penalties in the Statute. There are also substantial civil penalties which show

up in the Statute.

That's a quick run-through of what we have in our State. I don't by any

means suggest that it is potentially the best in the country; but I think it

provides a model for what can be done, provides a model for what is being done,

and I think it provides a particularly good model for showing how this very dif-

ficult problem of State and local relationships in a political context can be

worked out. We've had two years of experience; and I would say by all standards

that things worked exceptionally well.

was asked by Bob Knecht to make a couple of comments on.hQw sQmew'ie from

the State level viewed the Federal role. I think there are four items -that I

would discuss, very briefly, and not necessarily in order of precedence.

First, I think the Federal Government is always a great source to get some

money. Just as the States in our case have given money to local units of gov-

ernment, so I think it's important that the Federal Government provide some

funds, particularly for planning, perhaps to a lesser extent for management.

We in our State at least aren't nearly as keen as the Statute appears to be in

the need of funds for managing the program. This is not waving any banner of

States' rights; it just simply is a matter of priorities. It doesn't seem to

me that the States need all that money to run their programs. I'm inclined to

think that we need money to plan them; but frankly I'm a little concerned about

the money to manage.

Secondly, technical assistance. Again, in our State/local experience, we

have found that this is one of the things that local governments want more -than

anything else, to have some technical assistance from the State level. One

thing that it seems to me might be considered by NOAA and those who are managing

the Coastal Zone Act is the need in some States, and I use the States of Oregon

and Washington particularly, to provide for inter-State cooperation. We have it

in our local Statute - providing for local government cooperation - on the West

Coast, at least. The Columbia River Estuarv and Basin is probably the only place

where you really need some inter-State cooperation, and it seems to me devices

ought to be worked out by Federal officials to allow for cooperative methods in

these two States, and perhaps certainly in other States along the Great Lakes

and other waterwavs bn the Eastern Gulf States.

Thirdly, I would not object to Federal guidelines. We think State guidelines

are important, and I think the importance of Federal guidelines in this area has

the same kind of importance it has in the field of air pollution and water pollu-

tion. In our State, which has high standards, we don't want to be knocked down

in air pollution and water pollution by some other State that has lower standards

because there are no guidelines. I think there is some importance that there be

some broad Federal guidelines so that everybody is operating from the same base

level. Some may want to be.better than others; but I think it is important that

there are some guidelines which are nationwide, so that nobody can take a partic-

ular economic advantage over the other.

Finally, in the matter of permits, as I indicated, the entire permitting

authority in Washington has gone to local government. Maybe we're taking a

chance; I don't think so. I think it's going to work out. I would hope the

Federal Government would continue to have the same confidence in the ability

of State governments to do a good job in the permit granting that we in our

State have with local governments. I think it would be tragic if the kind of

fight that went on with the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 vis-a-vis the

permit-granting authority of the States managed to work its way into the permit-

granting authority either on land use management or on coastal zone management.

It's to my way of thinking an opportunity for the Federal Government, and I

think the Act as it stands now is a good one, to show the kind of sensitivity

toward the role of the States in this area as at least in Washington, and I

would presume in other States, the State has shown toward the viability of local

units of government.

I'll close with another story. You've now had, Mr. Chairman, the Feds, the

States, and the locals up here in front of you. I'm not sure that our observa-

tions are all that different; but it does point up the problems that each one

of us has in perceptions of common factual matters. A story that to me illus-

trates this more clearly than any other is one which I've told many times, but

I think is worth telling again. It was told originally by a small group of

individuals in the United States, highly skilled at sort of the more abs-tract

issues of social philosophy and perhaps even theology. You're acquainted with

them, I'm confident, because they appear in dail newspapers under the guise
y

and credit line of "Peanuts."

Several years ago there was this'scene: A little hill, and lying flat on

their backs gazing heavenward were Lucy, Linus, and Charlie Brown; and the con-

versation proceeded somewhat along these lines: Lucy said, "You know, if vou

look at the clouds vou can see all sorts of interesting things. Tell me, Unus,

what do you see in the clouds?"

Whereupon Linus promptiv answered, "Well, that cloud over there looks like

a map of British Honduras in the Caribbean; and over there I think I SE!e the

profile of the famous sculptor and portrait painter, Thomas Eakins; and out

there it looks like the stoning of St. Stephen, and yes, off to the East I -think

I see the Apostle Paul."

"Well," Lucy said, "That's very fine, Linus. Tell me, Charlie Brown, what

do you see in the clouds?"

Whereupon, after what I am confident was a rather inordinate pause, he

said, "Well, I was going to say I-saw a horsie and a duckie, but I've changed

mv mind."

Senator James: I have certainlv enjoyed these presentations. I wou ld likE! to

inquire whether any member here would like to submit a question to our last

speaker, Mr. Dolliver?

Question: As Z understand it, when the initiative went before the
Legislature, the Executive Branch and the Legislature itself had
apprehension about the flak that might come from the industrial
sector. I understand now that you've been in business for two years
that the industrial sector is giving you no trouble at all. Wou2,d
you corment on that? .

Answer: Well, maybe "no trouble at all" is a little broad; but you learn to

live with things after a while, and I think the key problems that the indus-

trialists - and we had an opportunity to talk with a good many of them during

the summer of 1970 - the chief problems they had were sort of the problems

I've listed in my general remarks: the Problem of local as against State

control; the problem of what the process was, particularly the appeals process.

I think it's a fair comment that industrialists probably are less apprehensive

now than they were. Now there are some potentialities which I might mention

on this, and I neglected to mention a moment ago in my remarks, which I think

have us heading, if not towards a collision course, at least towards some

ticklish situations. Any reading, in my judgement, of the Act says quite

clearly that the Department of Ecology has the authority, because of its power

beyond the line of extreme low tide, to become the agency which is going to

determine the location of any superDorts in Puget Sound. Somebody earlier in

the day mentioned the superport problem. The Department of Ecology is going

to have a hand in that, and one of these days - I'm not sure that this is

generally understood by some of the business and commercial interests in the

State - they're going to find out about it, and I think there may be some tense

moments. But I think by and large the appeals process has worked fairly well.

There are some tensions with the highway people; they were trying to build

another bridge across Lake Washington, and the highway men are a little mad,

but I think that'll be worked out. It's more the Federal Courts than the State

of Washington that's involved in it. Generally, I think the system has worked

well.
Question: Has there been a measuraKe impact on property va4ues
or property taxes?

Answer: I would say not. Our property values are going up like everyone elsels.

because of the scarcity of land. People are moving out to recreational areas.

I think it's more due to that than to this particular Act. As far as taxes are

concerned, again, I think it's not so much due to the Act as simply due to the

fact that recreational land is scarce. I think one of the things we had in our

State that perhaps some of the Eastern States may not have, was some time, It's

kind of a race in our State between the rape of the land and the prevention of

the rape, quite literally, HoDefuliv, we're going to get there first. We 1-lad

enough time to do it, so I think the impact of seacoast management upon coastal

land values has really been minimal.
Question You spoke about the participation of local units of
government in preparing the master programs. But before that,
you said that in preparing the guidelines, they had heavy in-
volvement from the Local units at all levels. How did you
attain that involvement in the preparation of the guidelines?

Answer: Much of it was simply notification, going through local units. The

State had the initial responsibility for preparing the draft guidelines, which

it accepted, which it did. At that point in time, the guidelines all had to

go out to the local units of government. They had 60 days to come in with a

response, and many of them did respond. At that point in time the Department

had 120 days in which they reviewed it and either accepted it or rejected it.

Next, they had to have public hearings on it, within another 60-day period.

They had to have public hearings in Olympia; and in Spokane, notice had to be

published in the paper; and finally, after the hearings, the Department had

another 90 days in which they could meditate on it. It's my understanding,, and

I do not work in the Department of Ecology, that the input from local units of

government was good. The citizen interest was high as I mentioned.- about half

the counties have citizens' committees working. About 40 cities have citizens'

committees. Public notice, plus requirements of exchange, plus requirements on

the location of hearings were things that are mandated in the Statute to get this.

Question: Two questions, one to you-, Mr. Do4Ziver, the other to
Mr. Mendonsa: The first one, what is the relationship of the
permitting system to the Federal agencies? The second question
to AIr. Mendonsa, is one brought on by your description of a
separate regional group for Lake Washington. Zt deals with the
existing and one-time 4ooked-after State ov multi-county regional
planning group. Are they duplicative, or do we see a decline in
the influence or even the existence in those muZti-county regional
agencies current4y?

Answer from Mr. Dolliver: On the first auestion, I suppose the impact this

Statute is going to have on various Federal agencies, we think it does. Now

whether thev will chose to be amenable to it is another matter. In our opinion,

just as in any other kind of environmental qualitv program, we're inclined to

think that Federal agencies which have shoreline Droperty ought to be amenable

to it. I would have to say, just kind of reviewing in my mind the agencies

which are on the Coast, not many of them. Remember that the Naval Shipyard

would be the primary one. I would have to say in all honesty that I don't know

how that is going to work out, but it would be our opinion that they should he

amenable to the local process. I would also have to say, given the importance

of these installations in the local community, that I have nothing but confi-

dence that in the master plans as they finallV come up, that no one is going to

suggest that there be no Naval Shipyard in Bremerton. Quite the contrary, that

would be one of the permitted uses.

Insofar as a conflict between other planning groups and this one, I'm

not sure that I'm competent to give you more than just a rather vague answer.

I don't think so; but I couldn't do better than that for you. We've had a

number on Lake Washington itself; we've had a number of planning groups. For

example, we have Seattle Metro, which is essentiallv sewage control, which,

beginning in 1957, reallv did clean up the Lake. This is another program that

we had. It seems to me that there is not necessarilv a conflict between the

broad general Dlanning grants on the one hand and the specific planning grant,

the kind of thing we're talking about here. Now maybe Mr. Mendonsa has some

other comments to make on a possibie conflictz but it1s mv impression that

we're not in conflict, but in cooDeration.

Answer from Mr. Mendonsa: I'd onlv make this comment, and I can onlv speak

from Georgia's eXDerience. Our regional commitments are not organized under

the "one-man, one-vote" system. That's the best way I can describe it. I

think that in something as imDortant as this, the large metropolitan community

such as Savannah, we have to be an agency in which they would have a voice in

proportion to the population they serve. There could be a serious conflict.

REMARKS AT END OF FIRST MORNING SESSIOX
Mr. Robert W. Knecht

Unfortunatelv, the time has come where we, I think, have to call a close

to the morning; but some of these same issues will be discussed this afternoon,

when we discuss the process, and the questions should then be raised, as

appropriate.

I'd like to thank Senator James very much for coming and presiding this

morning, and to our speakers for a very interesting series of presentations.,

LUNCHEON ADDRESS - WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1973
Mr. Howard Pollock, Deputy Administrator,
Nativnal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

First I'd like to say, ladies and gentlemen, that I'm just delighted to be

here; I'm really sorry that I can't be here for the entire meeting. I was very

much impressed with the quality of the program this morning, with the great

number of you who have attended. It's a real thrill for me, as I know it is

for Bob and for his staff, for many of you, to see a meeting of this nature go

on and be as successful in its inception as this one promises to be.

It's a real thrill, also, to see so many old and good friends and acquaint-

ances here - I guess it's really difficult even to begin to put a satisfactory

salutation on this talk. Herb Hollomon had to leave, I understand, because he

had other commitments; but he's a really great guy, formerly from the Department

of Commerce, and is now up at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I

understand Bill Hargis is here, although I haven't had a chance to see him. Bill,

as you know, is the Director of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. I

understand you're going to have the pleasure of speaking with him this afternoon.

My good friend John Gottschalk, of the International Association of Game, Fish,

and Conservation Commission, was formerly one of our strong hands at NOAA. And

of course, Bob Knecht, who is heading up our very important coastal zone effort

at NOAA, and many, many more from across the country.

I guess I should open up by saying that I feel very much at home here. It's

a special pleasure to welcome many of you State officials here. A number of my

good friends I've run into from time to time, and I'm more than delighted to be

here to share with you some of our approaches to coastal zone management.

As an Alaskan, I've been very close to many of the problems of the coastal

zone, both generally, and with respect to the particular problems that we have

in our State of Alaska. As you doubtless know, Alaska has the longest shore-

line of any of the States - 34,000 miles or so, on both the Pacific and Arctic

Oceans, and on the Bering Sea. It's the longest shoreline of any of the States

in the Union. The longest shoreline, incidentally, on the Great Lakes is that

of the State of Michigan, whose 1,660 miles fronts on every one of the Great

Lakes except Ontario. New York is the only State with the unique situation of

having both a salt water and a fresh water coast, with the Atlantic on one side

and Lake Ontario on the other. Florida's 1,350-mile coastline looks out over

both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. And some of you are here froutHawaii,

the only State completely surrounded by salt water, though of course some of our

territories share this characteristic also.

Incidentally, I would like to make a special note of those of you who have

come from so far to attend this conference. As near as I can guesstimate, we're

covering something between 7-8,000 miles in spread, and I think that's pretty

wonderful for the coastal zone. We've got people all the way from American

Samoa, from Hawaii on the one side, Alaska in the north, all the way over to the

Virgin Islands. I understand someone from Puerto Rico was supposed to lie here.

Aqywav, welcome. We're really happy and proud to see vou.

In my remarks, I'd like to touch brieflV on what I visualize to be three

aspects of the coastal zone: Its nature, some of its important charaCtEXiStiCS,

and then what these characteristics really mean with respect to developing and

manaRing the coast. I think perhaps the most significant aspect of the coastal

zone is that, in fact, it is a boundary or interface between two vastly different

entities the land and the sea. As such, it has the typical properties of an

interface it is a region of transition, it is a region of contrast, of conflict,

between different natural resources or forces. It is a dvnamic and changeable,

sometimes very turbulent area, depending upon how well the balance of forces in

Nature is maintained, and also dependent upon the degrees of pressure that are

put upon that interface.

It's typical of.an interface that there is often a delicate equilibrium

which has to be maintained, and oftentimes is maintained for quite a long period

of time. And then suddenly it can be overturned as a result of extraordinary

outside forces, whereupon a new equilibrium seeks to become established. Inter-

faces are often highly productive areas, owing to the interactions across the

boundaries.

In effect, we might look upon the coastal zone as being subjected to a kind

of dual wave action, if you please, with the surf rolling in from the seaward

side and successive waves of population coming to the sea from the landward side.

The -erosive effects of human activity, I think you all readily understand, can

be every bit as real as the effects of the great waves of the sea. Conversely,

if guided carefully, it is my belief that the human effects can be as beneficial

as are the actions of the waves of the sea in depositing the right kinds of sed-

iment, if vou please, to fill the beaches and provide a rhythm by which the total

organism can live and thrive and survive. The very rubric "coastal zone" limits

and defines the subject to the land and the water as they meet along a single

line. Most of the uses of the coastal zone require close proximity to that line,

of course.

It's also the nature of the coastal zone that some uses are compatible with

others, while someuses may really indeed require exclusivity. Recreational

uses rely on the restless beauty of the sea and the shore, expanses of sand and

of relatively unperturbed water for swimming or fishing or boating, or like rec-

reational activities.

On the other hand, commercial and industrial activities, these kinds of uses,

depend upon the coastal zone for heavy transport, for water as a coolant, and

hopefully to a decreasing extent, for a means to transport waste. The fisheries,

on the other hand, depend upon the coastal zone as a very fertile source for

their harvest, from the interactions of the upland fresh water with the salt

water of the sea and the estuaries. Of course there are competing uses, and

oftentimes real paradoxes which stem from natural forces which are sometimes

not too apparent. I think in the Great Lakes we have a situation where this

takes place. We have the situation where sometimes the high water levels mean,

on the one hand, more electric power or even a greater load capacit.V for the

shipping activities, and, on the other hand, we have the problem then in the

same area of the increased erosion and property damage which affects individuals

and municipalities and industrv. I find this in a number of areas.' When we

were working a few years ago in weather modification, we found that if we tried

to get some slow generators in one area we created problems for others. When

we tried to disperse snow, the skiers got angrv with us, -and other people were

very happy.

I think that we have the same kind of situation in the coastal zone. No

matter what we really try to do, we're going to run into conflicting forces of

industry, of recreation, of people in business, people who want one kind of

thing, people who want another. I guess we're really talking about a very d,V-

namic area; and there are very many dynamic aspects of the coastal zone, stem-

ming from its nature as the interface I talked about before between the restless

ocean and the relatively stable land. It's right in this area which we can talk

about now, which we are talking about, which we're concerned about really where

we find the opportunities Provided as well as the conflicts. I frequentlV like

to talk, when someone talks about one situation, of turning the pancake over and

looking at the other side; and I've never yet ever seen a pancake that looked

identically the same on both sides. So one of the jobs that we have to do is to

look at both sides of the pancake. Then we will see the conflicts as well as

the opportunities and try to resolve them.

I think that a given stretch of coast, in one measure, can't provide us

with succor on the one hand and serve as a sewer for us on the other. We know

that wetve got a problem; we've got to resolve properly this kind of thing.

As the conflicts grow, increased management of the coastal zone and its resour-

ces becomes more and more important and necessary.

What, then, are the characteristics of the U.S. coastal zone that we're

meeting about? I've already alluded briefly to some of them, to the diverse

nature of the coast. The United States is very generously endowed with an

exceptionally long coastline as nations go; and it can be thought of in three

categories or parts. We have some roughly 88,000 miles of continental marine

shoreline;something like 5,200 miles of fresh water shoreline on the Great

Lakes; and about 2,100 miles of island shoreline, including Hawaii and all of

our territories.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the coastlines that we have

are in a constant state of flux; but the time scale of changes is markedly dif-

ferent from place to place. As a result, we can't get one uniform plan or rule

that's going to apply everywhere and work well. As you know very well, the

shoreline is eroding on a scale of inches per millennia along the rocky coast

of Maine. You just don't see a lot of change. Elsewhere - for example, along

the Jersey shores and parts of our Gulf States - the area is of much softer

stuff, and erosion is swifter, apparent sometimes even from month to month.

On the North Carolina Outer Banks, the shoreline is advancing rather than re-

treating, except that, as you very well know, a major natural phenomenon such

as hurricanes can wipe out overnight a sandbar that might have been in construc-

tion by Nature over the centuries. Conversely, sometimes those major natural

phenomena can construct sandbars in the process of destroying the ones that

took so long to be made. So whether on a time scale of millennia or minutes,

the coast is in a state of flux.

'The most important characteristic of the coast, then, is change. Whether

it be in the position of the beach, or the size or health of a particular fish-

ery, natural forces are changing the coast continually. Man-made changE@, Of

course, is taking place, and man-made change - sometimes most unfortunately

with an indifference to the amount of degradation that takes place. Sometimes

the dumping activities will wipe out shellfisheries; and I guess the really

terrible part about it is that oftentimes people don't even realize the kind of

damage they are doing. Other times, man does realize it, burdens himself with

the worry, but doesn't make the change. So man may find that the changes that

he's made will cause a certain characteristic which may in fact destroy the 'very

thing he's trying to protect. For example - and many of. us know this f-vom a

first-hand experience - the coastal development in many places has carved canals

and has in fact filled in creative solid land out of wetland so the homeowners

who want to be on the water can have their fishing boats, their piers, their

facilities for the boats to tie up right at the dock. They have built these

little canals and what they have done in effect is destroy the estuary, so that

too late came the discovery, in many cases, that in doing the very thing that

the man was trying to protect and resolve, he actually destroyed the spawning

area of the fish that he wanted to have around and be able to catch, and the

areas that he wanted preserved for natural wildlife.

Incidentally, some seven out of the ten most valuable commercial fisheries

species spend all or part of their lives in the estuarian waters - the coastal

zone, if you please. At least 80% of the other commercially important species

spend at least some portion of their lives.in the estuaries. Hence, if man is

to be at one with his.coastal environment, I think the answer is relatively

simple - he's got to learn to live with Nature. If he builds an expensive,

permanent structure too close to the beach, it's pretty obvious that he's

asking for trouble, and he's asking for far more expense. If he tries to sta-

bilize a beach that Nature is determined to change, he's bound to fail.

I've mentioned some of the natural characteristics of the coastal zone,

and some of the ways that man impinges upon it, but I should also like to

mantion the man-made or social characteristics of the coastal zone. I guess

the principle item in this respect, the one from which all others flow, is the

great population wave that presses down upon the coastline from the interior

the land wave that I alluded to earlier.

It's interesting, from an historical prospect, to note that this represents

a reverse of the historical trend in this country when the early descendants of

the first settlers that we had pushed steadily inland away from the oceans, from

the coastal settlements, to develop new frontiers within the interior. However,

once the bulk of the nation had settled and every prairie and hillside had a

farm or a villaAe, the call of commerce or later, the call of recreation, began

to draw people back to the sea. In the last quarter of a century, within the

lifetimes of each and every one of us here, pressures on shoreline space have

increased dramatically. This pattern isn't going to stop; it's going to con-

tinue. The pressures will continue to grow. The general shift of population

from rural areas to the cities, I think, in great measure has contributed to

this pattern.

Incidentally, the nation's seven largest metropolitan areas are on the sea-

coast or the Great Lakes. In the early 19th Century, the State of Maine saw its

streams and its rivers being used to transport waste material out to the sea,

filling them with what we now have. come to term pollution. Well, the times have

really changed. You know, if you look back at history, in those days, the prag-

matic businessman took a different view of the matter than the people are taking

today. Thank goodness they have changed. If we look back just a few years ago,

in 1865, Governor Samuel Coney of Maine said in a speech:

"The mires and manufactuaries upon our rivers and streams, though
they have banished the former denizens of these uuters., furnish a
compensation immeasurable as compared with aZZ of the fish that
have ever floated in their boacm."

A century later, in 1967, an anguished Maine waterman cried out al: a con-

ference on pollution at the Bay, out of pure frustration:

"We've lost a million dollars worth of scallops, we've Zost our
recreation, we've lost everything due to pollution. Why, for God's
sake_, can't we clean up this mess? When I go out to the end of my
wharf and I Zook over and see chicken feathers and I see entraiZs
go by, I damn you up and down, and I say why-, why., why?"

This is characteristic of some of the uses of the coastal zone, as I've

pointed out - that they exclude other uses. Difficult decisions have to be

made. If planning bodies don't make them, then de facto action by indi".viduals

certainly will ensue. All of which brings us up to the third item on r,,iy agenda

today; and that is, what does all this say about how we, as a nation, go about

developing and managing our coastal zone - not just for today, but for tomorrow,

for the future?

To start with, it says that the very diversity of our coastal areas means

that planning and programs will have to differ from State to State, from re.gion

to region. In some areas, patterns of development or of non-development if you

please, are already well established. In other areas, there is a transition.

In still others, there is great uncertainty, because local people don't knold

which way to go. It's pretty obvious that in many areas there is conflict or

potential conflict.

The several States are different not only in coastal geology, but also in

their social organization, their economic bases, and their needs and their aspi-

rations. I think we are rich in this diversity; it is not a problem. I think

it's something we can use as an asset. What I am saying to you, my good friends,

is that development and management is going*to be primarily a job for the States

not for the Federal Government. The Stratton Commission said that this is the

way it ought to be; we happen to very much agree. The Stratton Commission said

that this is the way we ought to travel, and since that time, legislation has

made a national policy of this. I think the facts dictate that it's the only

sensible approach there is.

Do we need some Federal guidelines? Yes, indeed we do. I believe that the

Federal guidelines have to be broad and they have to be flexible. Why? To per-

mit the differing States to have their different approaches. It's our intention

that these guidelines be evolved in this manner-, and the range of values and of

potential usespeans that a wide variety of different interests need to be heard

from and brought into the public deliberations and the decision-making process.

The dynamic nature of both the coastland and the population means that much better

information needs to be gathered on the processes that contribute to this dynamism,

and on the directions that it's likely to take.

How then do you, or do we, begin to grapple with the difficult decisions

that will have to be made concerning the coastal zone? It seems to me that

there are at least five steps to this:

1. You have to know what you've got. You can't manage something that

you don't understand and of which you have not determined the param-

eters. This means an inventory of the resources, an analysis of your

zone in terms of present uses, of present resources, present legisla-

tion, etc. Where are we now?

2. You have to evaluate your various options, which may mean making

educated guesses at one stage or another as to the various needs,

and seeking ways to meet or to ameliorate them. These options ouRht

to be defined in terms of environmental, economic, and social costs

and benefits.

3. Against this factual background, you should give people the opportunity

to express their needs and their desires. We don't have all the wisdom

that's needed in the coastal zone concept in this room; and wel 11 never

be able to put it in one room. We need to hear from the public. We

need public hearings and reports and publicity. Whatever funds are

appropriate for your particular locality should be utilized. Citizen

groups and commercial interests and community organizations - all of

them - ought to be afforded the opportunity to participate in the

process.

4. An expression of public policy by the appropriate governmental body.

By and large, I don't mean the Federal Government when I'm saying this.

I mean that this is going to mean action by the State Legislatures and

by the Governors, by the Commissioners or Secretaries of the appropriate

State Departments to provide the legal and the administrative under-

pinnings.

5. Your State must develop a management program to achieve the-12211 that

have been developed to implement the decisions that have been made.

Most of you have, at least, begun this process, and some States are

already well along in their planning for rational management of the

coastal zone. The experience of these States, I think, would perhaps

be of assistance to the rest of the States that are not yet so far

advanced, both in the procedures undertaken to formulate these plans,

and in the results - incidentally, both positive and negative - the

different aspects of their plans are achieving.

As I see it from the Federal level, I never think of myself as a Federal

bureaucrat, because I know I'm not going to stay in that kind of job the rest

of my life. I happen to be, in the sense that we're talking about the coastal

zone, a very strong State's Righter; and I hope I always will be. I think that

our job is to help you with the process; and I think that's the basic reason

for this Conference.

I think the bulk of the work is going to lie with you. We want to do every-

thing we can to help you. We want to give you every kind of informa. tion we can.

We want te give you the broad formulation within which you can work to comply

with the Federal statutes and standards. The rest of it is going to be with

you; and I'm going to close now by saying "good luck." It's really great to

be here with you, and God love you and keep you.

Wednesday, June 13, 1973

Afternoon

SESSION II

Coastal Zone Manaizement Process

INTRODUCTION TO AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. Richard Gardner, Administrative Assistant
Coastal Zone Management Task Force
National Oceanid and Atmospheric Administration

There are three major groupings of activities in developing a coastal zone

management program. These are, first of all, inventory and classification; that

is, an inventory and classification of the physical characteristics, both natu-

ral and man-made, in the coastal area. The second deals with those places and

activities within the coastal area which demand special treatment on a priority

basis because of the inherent nature of those characteristics, or because of

the conflicts and pressures upon the use of coastal resources. Third, a descrip-

tion of the means by which States may go about resolving the conflicts, and pro-

viding a policy framework for future use decisions.

With this in mind, we've chosen to divide up the afternoon into three ses-

sions - the three sessions you see on your program. Each of these sessions will

have a principle presentation, followed by a discussion by two panelists whom

we have asked to react in light of their own personal experience. We want to

be informal, however, and it is our hope that the speakers and the panelists

will speak provocatively, to the point, where the conferees assembled here will

be active participants. If you disagree with what's being said, or you feel

you have something to add, an amendment to make, please speak up, loud and clear.

I hope that in this way the major issues and the various elements in developing

a coastal zone management program can be surfaced.

INVENTORY AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science

It's a pleasure to be here and see so many of the people who have been

involved in putting the phrase "coastal zone" into the common-day jargon. You

hear the phrase so much, you wonder whether it really means that much; whether

the people using it are really convinced, or just giving lip service to a pass-

ing fad. Unless we receive some Federal support pretty soon, it might take on

some of the attributes of a passing fad. No, that's not really true. And I

can't say that I'm not well-paid, either, Mr. Chairman. The Commonwealth of

Virginia has done very well by me, and I have to say that, because some of the

strongest supporters of the coastal zone activities in Virginia are in the

audience, though it's the honest truth. Now that's provocative. Not many States

to date have formulated - legislated - specific, explicit, inclusive coastal

zone legislation, but most of them have been involved in different aspects of

coastal zone management for some time.

Therefore, coastal zone management is not a new thing for the States. I

hesitate to add to the blizzard of words and paper that have been generated

around the coastal zone, but I think we have made progress, and hopefully this

conference will add to that. I do hope devoutly, however, that in the very near

future we'll be able to replace words, meetings, and papers with solid and well-

supported national action. The States very much need Federal assistance.

My charge for this afternoon has been to develop the thesis of the need,

and.evaluation of the need for inventorying and classifying the various aspects

of the coastal zone, specifically the physical aspects. Thatts a typical charge,

because being primarily a biologist, I can speak with great authority on the

physical aspects. I'm supposed to devote some attention to the development of

an assessment of the kinds of information that a State coastal zone manager

should cover as he approaches the problem of classifying the physical aspects

of his coastal zone. I will also discuss what is needed in order to comply

with the guidelines you have before you, and the different problems confronting

coastal zone managers in the United States.

In looking over the coastal zone and making an inventory of the problems;

we face, I find a considerable number of a common generic nature. Some of the

problems are quite common, no matter where you are. Therefore, it is not

necessary to consider too much that aspect. Hawaii will have to contend with

the same kinds of problems that Virginia does, that the Virgin Islands does,

but they will be different only in detail and timing.

Therefore, what I want to do is to use the central Atlantic area, Virginia,

as an example of some of these things I believe coastal zone managers will have

to deal with. I also want to dwell specifically upon the role that I think

research and development has in coastal zone management - coastal zone labora-

tories, if you will. There is no doubt that inventorying and clasSifiCELtion

is a major activity and needs to be performed, and that different States, will

develop mechanisms to accomplish decision making, on the one hand, and the

gathering and assessment of technical information on the other. There is alidays

considerable semantic argument over which is the most suitable.

I tend to feel that the science and technological aspect of the program

should provide a one-stop service to the coastal zone manager. That is, the

technicians, the scientists, should gather the information, the data about the

environment, should assess it, should provide recommendations for decisions to

the managers. The only thing that's really important is that all of the steps

that are necessary in gathering data, in evaluating data, and developing recom-

mendations be available in the system. It doesn't make any difference 'Whether

the managers do this job in their own agancies or the scientists and technicians

do it in their agency. In Virginia, I prefer to think that we at VIMS, which

is the coastal zone laboratory in Virginia, both by law and by Executive decree,

will be able to provide one-stop service to the managers.

Part of this service that is required is to develop an inventory of the

environments, the resources, the uses, the users, the problems and progress

that has taken place in the coastal zone management program or in the coastal

zone. I conceive that the interaction between management.and science, the

overall program, as a sort of dynamic thing, a dynamic organization. It is my

feeling that the organization is more important than the development of a model,

though the development of models has to be undertaken in order to develop plans

for organization. There apparently are those who feel that if we develop an

understanding of the political situation, the social situation, and of the

natural situation - economics - that you can develop a large model, put it in

a computer, and punch buttons. You don't have to worry, therefore, with details

once you've achieved that happy nirvana. I don't think it will occur, to tell

you the truth; and I think the most important thing that I can get across, if

indeed it needs to be gotten across, is that organization is the most important

thing. It doesn't really matter what form the organization has, as long as all

the components are there and working together. Within the organization there

has to be management components on the one hand, and technical advisory service

components on the other; and there has to be a dynamic interaction between the

two. The managers have to assist in the development of the research, engineering

service programs, and the scientists and technicians have to assist the managers

in development of their plans and in day-to-day decisions - within limits.

Research and development in this sense is in a service or advisory role,

and I do not conceive of the coastal zone management program as a vehicle for

developing more and bigger science, but as a vehicle for developing more relevant

science and technical service activity. There should be other vehicles for

developing basic research activities. Coastal zone management is not one of

them, though a considerable amount of basic research needs to be done. A

series of papers developed over the last couple of years concerned my philoso-
phy of the roles of management and of research and development in the ccasItal

zone program, and they are available to you.

Another aspect that is most important in the system that*1 have not: yet

mentioned, is the need for effective.evaluation of data, analysis of the data,

about the environment, about uses and resources, and more specifically communi-

cations - communications of clear recommendations in timely fashion to the

managers. I want to address that phase a little bit later; that is, the role

of communications, the need for communications.

At the Institute, we have attempted to modify a system used by military

operations for some time - the War Room approach to analysis and prognosis of

problems. We call it MERRMS - the "Marine Environment Resource and Research

Management System." The role of inventory and classification in coastal zone

management seems to be difficult to sell. At least, it is difficult to sustain;

and it's difficult to understand why we're having such a tough time, because any

businessman knows that unless you have a total and living inventory of the re-

sources that you have to sell, or to manage, you can't do a very good job of'

managing. In order to inventory, you must have some classification scheme; and

it is difficult to understand why it is so difficult to sell this idea to State

funding agencies, to Federal funding agencies - the need for continuous inven-

tory and classification. You can get money to start, but sometimes it's darn

difficult after the first two or three years to get money to continue. There

may be some reasons for this.

.In the first place, the area we're dealing with is very large, very d3niamic,

and very complex. Howard Pollock made that very clear, and repeated numerous

other statements as to the dynamic nature and the complexity of the coastal zone,

the environments, the political system, the social system, and the economic de-

.mand. Therefore, in order to get a good grasp of inventory and classification,

it takes tremendous effort; and not many programs are willing to put forth that

effort.

In the Chesapeake Bay there has been considerable activity in studying prob-

lems relating to the management of the resources and environments of the system.

There must be a 10-foot shelf of studies by now; and yet we have not to date

gotten the problem of inventory classification under control. There must have

been $10 million expended in this activity thus far. Part of it was due to the

inherent magnitude of the task; part of it is due to the fragmented nature of the

approach, and the fact that we haven't been able to develop a sustained effort

and keep it going. I can give you some examples of the complexity of the coastal

zone of the Chesapeake Bay by citing my own State, Virginia. We have 33 counties;

we have upwards of 10 cities, which in Virginia are equivalent to counties in

their governmental responsibilities. Most of the people in Virginia live in the

coastal zone; most of the industry is there. We have over 5,000 statute miles

of shoreline. Howard Pollock's measurements were obtained in a different way

than ours; we measure our shoreline by the statute mile, because that's the way

it's sold. When you buy shoreline, you buy it by the running foot, and so you

have to know what you have in detail.

I've already indicated that you have a politically complex area - 33 coun-

ties, somewhere around 10 cities, numerous towns, river basins, then the inter-

state nature presents problems in various kinds of regulatory commissions that

have been established. We've got a complex area politically. Each one of these

entities needs advice; each county needs detailed advice as to the nature of

its shoreline, the resources available to it, the environments that are there

that need to be dealt with, and the problems that are there. To develop a

detailed inventory of 33 counties is a massive job. Wetve been working now

for several years on a county-by-county basis, and we have only about 3 complete,

but it's still necessary. They need help. They need detailed information. I

believe, therefore, it has been difficult to get financial support because of

the magnitude of the job, to get adequate programs started; and it has certainly

been difficult to keep it going once you get it started. Inventorying is a kind

of an unglamorousactivity. As a matter of fact, that's one reason why many

scientists and technicians don't like it; it's one reason why many of them have

been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the system - after the funds have dried

up elsewhere.

Many institutions and scientists do not like inventory and classification -

and I don't blame them. On the other hand, it is a necessary thing. There is

one other aspect, and that is that often the long-term activities, like inventory

and classification, which have to go along, year after year, have to be updated

frequently in order to be useful, give way under the pressure of time, or under

the pressures of the moment, agencies of pressure, like Hurricane Agnes, fire-

fighting, fish kills, and that sort of thing.

It's easy to shunt inventory and classification aside to respond to these

pressures, but we must appreciate the need for inventory and classification,, and

getting the program under way, and must persist. One of the things that you have

to have to be an advisor to a State, to a locality, to a national government-, is

persistence. Quite frequently, even with clear reason for accepting a recommen-

dation, it will not be done. They will try everything else and then come back

and ask what it was you said. So you must be persistent.

I want to indicate again that in order to be useful in coastal zone manage-

ment, your inventory has to be dynamic, detailed, comprehensive, and recent.

All the media have to he used - media for gathering data, for storage of data,

for analyzing data, for developing recommendations - the.media must be used in

order for our work to be of use to the managers. Your classifications must be

meaningful, useful, and recent. You can't expect to develop a classification

in the early stages of your efforts, like classifications of wetlands - numer-

ical evaluation systems, high wetland, low wetland, fresh water marsh, that

sort of thing - which will persist, because these things frequently need revis-

ion. You frequently find that you started out with the wrong classification,

or that your classification is no longer useful. And again, your communications

with the managers have to be continuous, you have to interact effectively with

them. The managers have to appreciate what you're doing, what your problems

are; and they have to be willing to use your recommendations. If they are not,

then all the recommendations you can make won't be of any value. There has to

be close rapport between the advisory group, the classifying and inventorying

group, the technical group, and the managers. Among the managers, of course,

at the State level, are `Lncluded the Legislature, the General Assemblies, the

Executive Offices - the Governor - and then the regular Executive Offices below

him, the Attorney General, the judicial system. These people all contribute to

the development of management programs to decision making. You have to be pre-

pared to interact with all of them.

One of the problems in being an advisor is that sometimes you have to reckon

with the fact that your advice won't be taken. Advisors who interfere are some-

times not very well treated.

The inventory and classification have to cover these things:

1. Environments - types of environments, habitats, etc.

2. Resources - that is, exploitable resources - minerals, water, water

characteristics, fishery resources, natural phenomena that are

related to these environments and resources, capabilities and require-

ments. The physiological tolerance limits of organisms, for example,

would be considered a necessary thing to inventory. I'm sure 'that

the people who are going to speak about the biological resources will

include that.

3. You have to include uses, actual and potential uses, in your classifi-

cation. You have to have an evaluation of the inclusion of the public

desires and actions that relate to the environment and resources of

the private desires and actions. Inventory individual property owners;

they are players in the game.

4. The inventory and classification have to be useful in the establishment

of baselines, baseline studies, criteria, standards, and guidelines.

They have to be useful in siting, site engineering - ecological engi-

neering, if you will - and in the development of operational plans for

your industrial plant, for example, because not only does constructi on

and the nature of construction of a plant, an industry, affect rescurces

and environments, but the method of operation affects them too.

5. Your inventory has to be up to date in its inclusion of use allocations;

that is, whether or not a shoreline has been dedicated to one use, and

to the quite specific nature of the uses, even sometimes on a foot-by-

foot basis. Many of the permits that are sought in our system in Vir-

ginia cover 50 feet of the shoreline. It's a relatively small area.,

but each one has to be attended to.

6. The introduction of man. By the way, I view land use as merely an

adjunct of coastal zone - I'm biased; but I think it's going to be a

mistake politically to tie coastal zone management, which is "hot,"

to land use, which may not yet be "hot." Therefore, I recommend that

we develop clear-cut coastal zone management programs, including land

use, wherever it's necessary. It's a good starting point; people are

ready to buy it. It's a good leverage point. Unfortunately, most land

use planners are not marine-oriented; and what we need to do is to

train some marine-oriented land use planners. There's no question in

my mind that land use planning is a necessity; and I am not denying

or denigrating land use planners. But this is a marine game - at least

the one I'm selling is. I can take a series of water quality criter

wetland activities, wetland permit systems, shoreline permit systems

and manage the land. It can work the other way around. But it is a

multiple activity. Therefore, I recommend less emphasis on land use,

and more emphasis on coastal zone to you. I see some of my colleagues

falling into the trap, considering themselves land use planners.

Okay, is that provocative enough? After you have gotten all this material

in your inventory, and you have classified it, there is one aspect that is neces-

sary, and it's repetitious. You have to get the information which you have

gathered together - salinity, temperature, oxygen, water withdrawals, flows,

and all that sort of thing. You have to bring the experts together with the

information. You have to be able to interact semi-analyzed, semi-digested,

digested data, and historical records. You have to be able to analyze what is

known in relation to the problem. This is much like a doctor-patient relation-

ship; you have a problem, you go to see the doctor. If he can't handle it with

a quick visit, then he sends you to a specialist. Or, if the problem is pretty

vague, he may call a whole bunch of them in and they look you over and prescribe.

Okay, that's the kind of a game we're playing.

It is important, therefore, to be able to bring the data together, the ex-

perts who can make the judgements together, in order to make the diagnosis, in

order to make the recommendations which then have to go in a timely an(@ effective

fashion to the decision makers. That should be an important part, an integrated

part, of everyone's program.

Question I imagine you can achieve Land use control by controll.Ling
the use of the water. Have you ever written that up in a palatable
form?

Answer: It's difficult to develop anything in a true palatable form. The answer

is no. I guess it's been said from time to time by me, as well as othE!r people,

that it is possible to develop various strategies of management and USE@ various

tactics. It's been said before - I have said it before, but not in a @.etailed

way.

Questio : How do you see the management alternatives to involve
the technical, physical, general biological science?

Answer: I actually see the physical, chemical and geological sciences, the tech-

nicians, involved in helping to narrow the possibilities of choices. I think it

is not enough - now this is one reason why I think we have to be careful, how-

ever - we have to be careful not to presume the prerogatives, not of the legis-

lative, of the executive agencies. But on the other hand, it is clear that

frequently they want guidance in limiting possibilities, and you should. give it

to them. I don't conceive of the role of the scientist and technician as being

merely data gatherers and presenters of data without evaluation and without

recommendation. What I do see is an activity in which, after we have done the

diagnosis, you make your recommendations, acknowledge the limitations. For

example, if you have not considered the political factors (and usually that"s

not our role, usually we're happy to stay away from it, because thatts something

that the legislators do much better), or some of the sociological phencmena

which other agencies do (stenographic, State planning of community affairs can

be other people). On the other hand, it is not enough to lay out unevaluated

information without clear recommendations. I conceive of the role as making

recormnendations, acknowledging limitations, but at the same time giving priori-

ties based upon the limitations.
Quest : Let me extend for a moment your discussion about Land use
pZann,@ng, as separate from coastal zone management. z don't really
see how you can divorce the two, for two reasons. From a practicable
prime ecological point of view., I don't see how you can possibly sep-
arate watershed studies and coastal zone management. And secondly,
somewhere along the line in the sequence of events that will take
place, the National Environmental Policy Act., or the state equivaZents.
will come into play. I don't know when. Now if indeed the Section
Z02c Environmental Impact Statement is supposed to be the main docu-
ment, if you divorce coastal zone management from land use, then it Zd
seems to me you are foreclosing on important alternatives that shou
be considered for industry, commerce, and the rest of these.

Answer: I a3ree, and I should not imply that I think you ought to divorce them.

I did attempt to indicate that I think they're separable along certain lines for

emphasis. You do have to make some separation somewhere. You can't organize

government into one massive governmental system, which will cover all of the

different phenomena that the government would possess. What I'm saying is that

I believe it's possible to develop a coastal zone management program which has

certain characteristics of its own, which involves land use on the one hand and

water use on the other hand. But I believe that as long as you do have to have

these separations, the best method is to develop a coastal zone management pro-

gram in a compatible way with your upland management program. I think land

use has to be involved; and it's merely a separation of convenience, and not a

reality. But what I'm trying to do, in my own papal way, is to sway the system

away from too great an involvement with land use, which I think is going to

take some time to come along. I think there are enough separate and unique

characteristics, or at least unusual characteristics of the coastal zone, to

allow emphasis on the coastal zone much like the National Legislation Act pro-

vided with the adjustments between Senator Jackson and Senator Hollings and

the different groups. T would like to see it develop along those lines.. I

think we can move coastal zone management along and be ready and interface

with land use as it comes along too. There is some argument on that.

Question This may be very elementary, but do you envision that: each
one of these inventories would be similar to each $tate?

Answer: No, that's not an essential part of the system. I believe that the

classification scheme has to suit the management system that is developed. I

do believe, however, that as things come along, there will be a certain common-

ality of classification schemes throughout the country.

PANEL DISCUSSION
Mr. Bruce Johnson, Coordinator, Florida Coastal Coordinating Council
Mr. Harold Bissell, Consultant, Jones & Stokes Assoc., Inc.
and
Dr. Hargis

Mr. Johnson: First of all, let me comment about his organizational statement.

He said the organization is more important probably than creating laws or gathar-

ing the data. I agree with him on that; but I would like to point out that Bill

is in an ideal situation there. He wears so many hats that he can put on his VIMS

Director hat and go talk to the Governor of Virginia and work out the State prob-

lems; then he can put on his academic hat and go up and have lunch with Bob Abel

(Director, Sea Grant Program, NOAA) and walk off with a big grant; and he's got

simplified all these problems that the rest of us have, because he gets so many

paychecks and does such a good job in so many places. So I'm very envious, con-

sidering the problems I have, of his centralized situation in the State structure.

I don't agree wholeheartedly with Bill on the question on land use. I think

it's taking the easy way out to just separate it as land -and water. I think if

coastal management really turns into something, we're going to have to develop

some amphibious people; and I think Sea Grant can help them in training people.

I think they can be programmed to come out with the background you'd like to

have. These people do exist; we've got a handful of them in Florida. Of course,

I only had a handful of positions to fill, so it wasn't too big a problem. But

they do exist; sometimes it's an accident in their background that they switch

from one field to another. But I really do think we've got to develop a capa-

bility of dealing with these interrelated problems.

I'll mention one just as an example: how the coastal zones influence the

adjacent land which is a hurricane flood zone. That's a marine-oriented problem

that impinges upon the land; and I think very definitely that marine scientists

should be involved in land use planning reactions to that problem. Thatts just

one example, but it's really an intricate series of problems; and I think we've

got to bite the bullet and take them both on at the same time.

Bill, I wanted to ask you: organizationally speaking, youtve mentioned

interfacing with the State managers, you identified a number - the Attorney

General, the legislative people, probably the State Planner. Is there one

identified person that you interface with primarily all of the time, and the

others part of the time?

Dr. Hargis: No. First of all, Virginia has always been a very frugal State

very careful. They do double duty. The second thing is that there are a num-

ber of State agencies that are involved, as in most States, as in Florida,

that are involved in the management resources and the environments of the ccastal

zone. Under the law, VIMS is empowered, obliged, to work with all of them. I

don't see that in Virginia there will ever he a situation where we deal with. only

one agency in this. You have to separate sometime, and I don't believe that:

reorganization is going to pull everything together, or reduce the numbers of

units involved anyhow - the Health Department, for example, the Water Control

Board. So we deal with all of them, and that's part of the job. There are

people who regularly attend the various hearings, meetings from our shop in

Water Control Board and Marine Resources Commission. Perhaps the biggest factor

in terms of marine resources themselves in Virginia is the Virginia Marine

Resources Commission.

Mr. Johnson: Let me ask you one more fast question, and then I'll turn it to

Hal. Along this same line, we heard from Mr. Mendonsa this morning, and thE!

more you get into coastal management, the more you realize how important it is

to interface with these people in the local communities and the counties. When

you develop certain scientific facts that are derived from your inventory, 6o

you leave it to the State apparatus to filter that down to the locals, or do you

interface directly with the local people and explain the significance, etc., and

work with their planners? How do you handle that problem?

Dr. Hargis: We do work with the local governmental entities where time and per-

sonnel permit. Specifically the Wetlands Act, which was passed in Virginia in

1972 and is a major segment of the developing coastal zone program, calls for

the Institute to provide consulting services to the local wetlands boards, which

are essentially established by a county. So we have several people who work with

the local wetlands boards.

Mr. Bissell: I have a couple of comments that will relate to some of my earlier

problems in California. I think they are real problems. One of the things - we

talk about taking an inventory; the problem always comes up, as you've indicated

as to what area is included in which you take this inventory. The issue of the

inventory, whether it's to be just in the planning area, or whether it's to be

in a management area, etc., we can't get away from it. The biggest problem we've

found here in getting information is if you start from scratch it's not too bad.

But if you star t by accumulating data from other sources, such as from State

agencies, counties, districts, Federals, whatever, none of this data has ever

been gathered on the basis of any of the current concepts of what the coastal

zone is; and you're left up the creek. I would like to really make a strong

recommendation that it's not too late at any time to start this, that any entity

in the process of accumulating data should devise some sort of a key, a symbol,

a code of some kind, that could key it back to the coastal zone authority in

terms of its definition of the coastal zone. I would go so far as to suggest

that the U.S. Bureau of Census might even be approached on this basis, instead

of doing it on the present census tracks, etc., to actually get a coastal zone

census that would correspond with acommonly accepted definition, Federal, State,

or even vary with the State as to the area in which information is needed. That

brings me a little bit into a comment on your statement about land use as it

relates to coastal zone management.

I partially agree with you on this; but I do feel that, on the basis of my

own experience, all the problems in the coastal zone had to do with land use, in

terms of priority. Things are so much overshadowed - any biological problems,

etc., were so much overshadowed by land use problems that literally support for

some of these other studies couldn't be obtained. I would say that in terms of

priorities, the land use must be approached first; and if in terms of policy land

use is looked at in terms of its dependency upon coastal zone resources, I think

they can be merged together very nicely. I'd like to stress that again that, on

the long term, I contend that land uses which are dependent on the coastal zcne

should get the priority, and on that basis could very well set the pace.

Dr. Hargis: I would like to stress this again. Land use is important, and I

would view that an essential part in any comprehensive coastal zone management

program should be some control over land use. As a matter of fact, it is a sig-

nificant part. On the other hand, what I would like to see is a mixture of

water use, land use, resource use, all used together. My assessment at the pres-

ent time is that it's going to be easier because of the pressures in most coastal

States, to sell coastal zone legislation with land use involved, and provisions

for compatibility with a total land use development later, than it is going to

be to sell total land use. Many States are willing to reckon with the fact, and

the people are willing to reckon with the fact that the coastal zone is in trouble,

but they are not yet ready to go to a total land use concept for the whole States.

This has been true in Maryland, I think, recently, and in the early negotiations

in Virginia, and at the national level, in fact. Coastal zone passed last year

land use didn't pass last year. We don't know what's going to happen this year.

Coastal zone is obviously more publicly self-selling at the present time.

Mr. Gardner: Are there any other questions that were held from before that you

would like to address to Dr. Hargis, or to any of the panelists?

Quation 6&om the Audience: D&. Ha,%giz, do you aU u.6e any computeA
PtLoqAam?

Answer from Dr. Hargis: Yes we do. The MERRMS Program uses a mixture of tech-

niques, and we are hoping to be able to put it on line with a 370 115 Information

System, so we can get real time data, real time analysis, from the computer, as

well as the other media that we use. MERRMS is a concept that we have developed

at the Institute, an information management system, a diagnosis system, which as

I say integrates semi-digested and digested data. We've been making environ-

mental impact statements for a long time. I've found on analysis that we use -

and we have a lot of holes in the data that we're using - but we use quite fre-

quently less than 40% of the information that's available. The problem is to

get it together in a useful form. That's the function of an information system

like MERRMS. MERRMS was supported by Rand, and hopefully will continue to be

supported by Rand. MERRMS, as I said, is the Marine Environment Resource and

Research Management System, a data handling system, an analysis system. An im-

portant element, in addition to the data, the ability to handle the data in var-

ious stages, is the ability to bring experts - a multi-disciplinary team of

diagnosticians - together to confront the data and the problem and to make rec-

ommendations. We're not ready to eliminate experts from the system.

IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITIES, CONCERNS, AND CONFLICTS
Mr. Joseph Bodovitz, Executive Director
California Coastal Conservation Commission

I do have a speech I wrote for this occasion, but I wrote it in San Fran-

cisco, where the temperature was 600, and it is too hot here to read it. So I

will only refer to it from time to time. The thing I will try to stress is that

what we are involved in is not a known technical project - it is something new

and exciting.

I was somewhat overwhelmed by the Scriptural references this morning; so

what I did over the coffee break was think that it might be a good idea to write

down Ten Commandments for coastal zone planning. Unfortunately, I couldn't think

of ten; but I did get to seven, and I'll read them in a moment.

Let me mention a bit about the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commis-

sion. This was created by an initiative measure on the ballot last November in

California. Much of what I'm going to be talking about has to do with the effects

of people on the coastal zone; and I think it's worth pointing out that after

three years of debate in the State Legislature, in which there was strong inter-

est in coastal zone legislation, and in which even the weakest bills were bottled

up in committees, a group of environmentally-oriented people got the thousands of

signatures that were necessary to put an initiative measure on the ballot; and at

the election, it was passed by something like 55% in favor, to 45% against. I'll

go into a little bit of detail in a few minutes about why that was passed and what

it meant.

The result of the initiative was to set up six regional coastline commis-

sions, each having jurisdiction over one or more counties, and a single State-

wide commission. The commissions are temporary; they expire in 1976 after sub-

mitting their recommendations to the Legislature in that year. They have two

100

primary responsibilities - planning and permit control. This, I think, is a

subject not particularly touched on otherwise today. Under the California

Coastal Zone Initiative, anyone who wishes to develop - and "develop" is pretty

broadly defined - in a permit area that includes the State's 3-mile jurisdiction

at sea, and also the thousand-yard strip of land inland, must obtain a permit

from the commission. The decisions of the regional commissions may be appealed

to the State Commission; and let me assure you this is a lively project. It's

so lively, in fact, that I have to go back home tonight and get ready for a

meeting next week.

Let me dwell for a second, however, on the permit aspect of the thing. It

seems to me that one very effective way to insure effective planning for the

coastal zone - and I recognize this may not be applicable everywhere - is some

kind of regulatory mechanism. For several reasons: One, obviously, is it keeps

the terrain from being radically changed before the plan can be completEd; and

this is no small matter. The second point that I would like to stress is that

the varied controversies over issues in the coastal zone help make the planning

not an ivory tower exercise. But the very people who must pass upon permit de-

cisions quickly become aware of the issues in the coastal zone, and the decisions

they must make on permit applications. There are some very detailed criteria for

granting or denying permits under the law. However, the mere process of the pub-

lic hearings and the controversy on the permit matters, I think, is enormously

important to the effectiveness and success of the planning.

Finally, just one more point. There are, in all, some 84 people oil the dif-

ferent regional and State commissions; and about half of these are chosen from

local government. Therefore, in California, at least, some of the controversy

that was discussed this morning has been resolved by having elected officials

sitting in county governments sit on the commissions set up under State statutes.

I'll be glad to explain that in more detail if anybody is interested.

101

About half the members are locally elected city councilmen and county super-

visors, and the other half are public representatives appointed one-third by the

Governor, one-third by the State Senate Rules Committee, and one-third by the

Speaker of the State Assembly.

The regional commissions have two primary responsibilities: to plan for the

future of the California coastal zone, and to regulate development during the

planning period by a permit system, so that piecemeal development can be controlled.

The permit area includes the three miles at sea to a line a thousand yards inland

from the line of mean high tide. Within this area, all development requires a

permit from the appropriate regional commission and a permit decision can be ap-

pealed to the State commission. Ordinarily, a majority vote of a commission is

needed to issue a permit, but a two-thirds vote is required for developments that

would dredge or fill marshes or bays; would reduce the size of a beach or other

public recreational area; restrict public access to the ocean; significantly im-

pair the view of the water from the nearest State highway; would harm the water

quality; or would adversely affect open water or agricultural areas. Some sort

of regulatory mechanism is necessary to keep the terrain from being changed, and

this permit aspect is a very effective way to insure coastal zone planning.

Let me just take a couple of minutes now with some thoughts about planning

for the coastal zone. The first of my Commandments - I was asked to be provoca-

tive, and I think there's a thin line between being provocative and just plain

nasty, so some of these may be more in the second category than in the first, but

I'll leave that for you to decide - my first Commandment would be: Thou Shalt

Not Use Jargon Words Like "Interface," (let's talk in English) Nor Waste Our Time

by Arguing About Whether the Land or the Water is the Most Important Part of the

Coastal Zone - which is roughly like arguing whether men or women are more impor-

tant. I think they're both there; the problem is the impact of the land on the

102

water and vice versa; and I really doubt that we're [email protected] to, get.anywhere spend-

ing our time trying to decide which comes first.

My second Commandment, which is really, I think, directed to all of' us:

Thou Shalt Not Make Coastal Zone Planning into Another HUD 701 Program. For

those of you who do not know what the HUD 701 Program is, that's generally known

as "The Planning Consultantts Welfare." When I first got into coastal Zone plan-

ning, I remember there was great concern that Federal efforts in the coastal zone

field would become a wet NASA, whatever that was. I think there's much more

danger of it turning into a soggy 701. A corollary of this is, and this is lqith-

out benefit of having read the guidelines: Thou Shalt Not Prescribe So Much

Paperwork and Rigidity That It Takes $10,000 in Staff Time to Apply for a $5,000

Grant. I assume the guidelines do not do that.

My third tentative Commandment is: Thou Shalt Be Reasonably Skeptical of

Experts, and Not Afraid to Use Thy Common Sense and Make Decisions. Let- me give

you three examples, very briefly.

I think the issue of superports is going to affect all of us in coastal zone

planning for a long time. All of you know what a superport is, I gather. That's

a place where you park a big tanker one inch outside the limits of State juris-

diction.

. The second area in which we're all going to have trouble making up our :minds

is the energy situation. To gi ve you just one example, last week in the daily

newspapers that I read, there was a large ad in which the president of -a large

oil company said it was too bad that environmental restrictions on oil exploration

would have to go because of the energy crisis. On the front page of the same

paper was a report of a number of State officials asking the Justice Department

to investigate the energy crisis on the grounds it was collusion among the large

oil companies to drive out the independents. I guess it's which expert on which

page of the paper you believe.

103

A third area, I think, where expertise is going to be a problem in coastal

zone planning - at least in the near future - is the relative degree of safety

of atomic power plants. I guess this is provocative; at least in that area you

can find lots of experts who think that they're safe, but nobody's exactly sure

what to do with the atomic waste, and some other experts who think they're not

safe, particularly if theyfre too close to an earthquake fault. So there are

going to be some really difficult decisions to make in these areas.

A fourth Commandment is: Thou Shalt Not Bamboozle the Public, Nor Hide Thy

Plans Behind a Legal Requirement That the Public Does Not Have to See Them Until

the Public Hearing at the End of the Process. Much of what has been wrong, it

seems to me, with 701 and other kinds of land use planning and water use plan-

ning recently is that they tend to be done by experts on the assumption that

the issues are so complicated the public won't understand them, and can't under-

stand them. What happens is, the experts retreat to the modern-day equivalent

of an ivory tower, spend a couple of years doing whatever experts do in ivor y

towers, and at the end release their product. The end product is generally a

thousand-page summary, accompanied by a stack this high of back-up supplementary

material. What happens next is the public hearing; and the first ten people at

the public hearing say they need more time because it's such a large and compli-

cated report; and the next ten people say they've already peeked inside and they

can't stand it, and they don't like it. Then the back-up material becomes the

reference material upon which the next planning effort begins.

Actually, this is somewhere between nastiness and provocativeness. But I

think it's also largely true. And therefore, I strongly urge that those of us

who are involved in coastal zone planning try a couple of different tacks, and

I'll explain those in a moment.

My next Commandment would be: Thou Shalt Recognize That the Only Thing

Certain in Coastal Zone Planning is Change. I think that's really going to be

104

at the heart of the matter. I recognize the need to inventory what's there now;

I recognize the need.to have as many facts and as much research as we can, But

I also think it's important to'recognize we're shooting at a moving target, If

I were to try to guess why so many people in California voted for the Coastal

Zone initiative - and I don't pretend to any psychiatric or psychological know-

ledge or analysis - I would say beyond question, it was the rapidity of change

in the coastal zone. And I would further say that if I were to recommend any

couple of books that people involved in coastal zone planning ought to read, one

of them would very definitely be Future Shock. If any of you haven't read Future

Shock, the point of it is the stresses, the disorientations that affect, be(,.ause

of the rapidity of change in our society. As I say, it applied to the coastal

zone, at least in California; and I don't begin to know why all the 4.@11 million

people who voted for this measure voted for it; but that's a lot of people who

were concerned about the coastal zone.

Again, I think the major element is change. All up and down our State, there

are places where you used to be able to go to the water's edge and have a picnic,

even if it was on somebody's property and not public. Now there's a motel -there.

Or a road that you used to be able to take, not very many years ago. Now you

can't see the water from that road. In many parts of Southern California, -the

change has been in the density of development. There were areas near the coast-

line where people with modest incomes lived in relatively dense areas of one and

two-story houses. All of a sudden, for reasons that I don't think anybody can

exactly figure out, a land boom resulted; builders bought the properties, tore

down the houses, and began putting up high-rise condominiums. It's not only that

the density of the area was changed without any provision for additional traffic

or transportation, thus very definitely increasing the feeling of crowd; but also

the social effect of that kind of a change. In these areas that I'm describing,

105

the ordinar guy could buy a flat or a house and live in close proximity to the
Y.

beach, but what's happened is, people of that sort have really been forced to

move; and their properties have been bought up. You just have an entirely dif-

ferent economic class of people. I'm not saying better or worse; I'm not posing

any moral judgements, but I am saying that the whole character of neighborhoods,

residential areas, in the coastal zone has changed rapidly. I think it's this

kind of disorientation and shock that is extremely upsetting to people. Not

only did the people of California vote for the Proposition 20 business, but in

almost every election held in the coastal community since Proposition 20 passed,

where coastal development has been an issue, environmental slates have won almost

unanimously. I think it's dangerous for anybody involved in this to think that

somehow the concern of people for these very valuable areas is a fluke, or that

it will simply disappear if everybody just sticks his head under the sand for a

bit longer.

A second book I would suggest on this same general subject, and as you can

tell, I think it's an extremely important thing, is a book called The Quiet

Revolution in Land Use Control. Some of you, I assume, already know it. This

is a book written by two Chicago lawyers, Fred Bosselman and David Callies, for

the Council on Environmental Quality in the President's office. The authors

state that they chose the word "revolution" advisedly. It's their contention

that there is in this country now a quiet revolution in land use control, that

there is rapid change, rapid development, in almost all the States, particularly

coastal States, of ways to regulate important, significant - whatever the word

is - natural areas. They point out that one of the big struggles - and I don't

think that this has been alluded to today, but it's an extremely important one -

is the rights of private owners versus the rights of the public. Somebody did

mention the Rockefeller Report this morning, which touches on the same thing.

106

The history of land and private ownership of land in this country really has

been that land is a commodity. People own it, can develop it, can use it to

make money, and that only minimal restrictions of public need, public safety,

public health, or whatever, will restrict the development of private property.

The environmentalists, in the last ten years - I think since the word e:C016jr

became known - have, I think, begun impressing upon us that land is not: only a

commodity to be bought, sold, and developed, but an extremely valuable resource

in which there appears even in private ownership a strong degree of public

interest. The authors of The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control point out

the problems we're going to have if we use either extreme, that the private use

and private development of land is an extremely important thing, an extremely

valuable part of our system of government, and not something to be discounted

lightly. Neither, on the other hand, are the public interests in land and land

development to be discarded lightly. We've got some very difficult decisions,

I think, ahead of us.

Another point is this. It's going to be very difficult, as I think sorne of

the other speakers have mentioned, for people primarily trained in the marine en-

vironment to get used to problems on land, and vice versa. I think thE! need here

is for people who can understand the relationship of both; and I just don't know

where you get people of that background. I think the need is less for specialists

now than for people with some kind of more comprehensive approach. ThE@ University

of California, for example, has started a program in which there are joint degrees

in urban planning and law, because there are such obvious relationships between

those two fields, and a need for people to understand both.

Along this line, Dr. William Nurenburg, of the Scripps Institution of Ocean-

ography in California, was quoted in an article I was reading on the plane coming

here last night as saying that what we're really going to find we wind up with in

107

this kind of a plan is something we might as well get used to calling 5-year

plans. What we're really going to do is try to figure out what we can do' in

the next 5 years, and what we're going to have to leave for 5 years after that,

and constantly adjust. This is a changing process. We're looking for certainty

because I think that's the way all of us are geared; and it just isn't going to

be there.

I think the frustrations we're going to face are enormous. I think that

for the most part we!re going to find ourselves trying to figure out which de-

cisions minimize the risk of irretrievable commitments of coastal resources,

which is kind of a flossy way of saying in cases where we really don't know, and

can't know all the consequences, but where decisions have to be made. I think

welre going to be casting about for ways to cut our losses, so to speak, to do

the thing that is the most easily correctible if we make a mistake, but will

give us the most options for the future.

I think the premium, in short, is going to be in trying to find ways that

do not foreclose the choices for the future. It's a very difficult business,

and again I don't know where anybody gets training in this kind of planning and

thinking, but I think it's kind of an intellectual or mental discipline here.

I think one of the things that makes this area so much fun and so lively is that

there isn't a book to follow; there isn't anybody's pattern that you can adapt

to your own needs. I'd be the last person in the world to say that what works

in one place ought to be taken completely and tried somewhere else. As I say,

I think the thing that's so exciting and challenging about this is that this is

an area in which we have an opportunity to benefit by the mistakes of other kinds

of planning programs, and use some ingenuity and inventiveness in what we're doing

with regard to the coastal zone.

My final Commandment would be this: Thou Shalt Recognize That Successful

Land and Water Use Planning (and I emphasize "successful," because this is much

108

too hard work to be done just as a drill or an exercise) Is (in my estimation)

About 10% Inspiration and 90% Education. I think any Ieffort in.coastal zone

planning that does not involve as mu ch of the public, interest groups, everybody,

as possible, is going to have difficulty succeeding. I would go so far as to

say any kind of planning for a major area where there are controversies and dif-

ficult decisions to be made is doomed to failure if the public does not: get in-

volved until a formal public hearing at the end of the process. Some of you may

know of examples where that kind of planning has been successful. By "successful,"

I really mean something that is popularly accepted and it results in &@CiSions

being made on the basis of the plan. As I said, there may be examples where the

ordinary kinds of planning have succeeded; but I don't know of any in my owrI

State, and I wo uld be skeptical of many anywhere else.

Therefore, I think that the approach of shutting the public out until -the

end of the process is really doomed to failure. I think it's very important that

planners be able to communicate with the public, and explain to the people 'What's

being done. I don't think there's really anything to be gained by hiding unpleas-

ant facts from people. I think the public wants to know what's going on, wants

to know areas in which the experts disagree. I think it's very hard for experts

to confess their lack of knowledge in certain areas. I guess all of us here are

experts to some extent in some area or we probably wouldn't be here. It's really

painfully difficult when the world is looking up to you as a great authority on

such-and-such, to have to say you don't know, or that your best guess is so-and-

so. Parenthetically, I also believe that it's extremely wrong to use research

needs as a basis for avoiding decisions. As somebody pointed out this morning,

the decisions get made on the basis of worse information than you might be able

to provide.

109

It seems to me that the job here is to explain to the public what the issues

are in coastal zone planning, one issue at a time - which I'll explain in a mo@-

ment - try to explain to people what we know about the issue and what we.don1t

know, and then make the best judgement we can at that point in time, recognizing

that change is probably going to indicate wetll have to review that standard at

a later time. This was the approach that we followed in the planning for San

Francisco Bay that began in 1965. We figured out in that case about 25 differ-

ent what we call elements - which isn't a great word, but it's what we used -

and they ranged from the environmental values of marshlands to the needs of

ports, to recreation, to aesthetics. I think the list of topics is pretty ob-

vious, or the general headings, anyhow. And in each case, what we tried to do

was present a report in simple language explaining what the situation was, what

the issues were, and then recommend two kinds of things:

1. findings that people could reasonably reach on the basis of the

information that was available;

2. policies that would guide the future.

I'll give you an easy example. In the findings on marshlands, it was dis-

covered that the marshlands were not only vital, but that the marshlands around

San Francisco Bay were essential to maintaining the Bay as a productive habitat

for fish and wildlife, and that much of the urban marshland had been destroyed

by past drilling and diking', and that if the remaining amounts weren't protected,

there was going to be severe damage to the Bay as a habitat for fish and wildlife.

The policies, then, that resulted from that study were that marshlands around the

Bay should not be filled or diked off in the future, except for those very few

purposes that might provide overwhelming public benefits. The second policy was

that all proposals to fill marshland or dike marshland, even for purposes pro-

viding important public benefits, should be carefully reviewed and evaluated to

make sure that the amount of filling allowed is the very minimum necessary.

110

Now you may say those are generalities, and that those things really don't

get you very far. But I would say that they are an enormous step forward if

there is no coherent set of policies that is any more specific than that. I

would say further that that kind of finding and policy allows continual refine-

ment as you have more and more knowledge.

I.mentioned this "one-element-at-a-timell business, and how a plann-ing ap-

proach was,first to take the general resource areas - fish and wildlife, import-

ance of marshlands, etc. - one set at a time. The result here is a comprehensive

plan, but not one that everyone has to digest all at once. The result of a 'year-

and-a-half or two years of this kind of a process is that everyone works at one

area, tries to reach some decisions, and then goes on to the next. You might

say this really is tunnel vision; and the important thing here is that everything

hangs together. If you deal with the subjects one at a time, the result will be

kind of myopia. I don't think it needs to work that way. Moreover, at the end

of the process, you obviously have an opportunity to go back and look at the

tentative decisions you've made and refine them. But I think the point here of

getting as much exposure to ideas over a period of time as short as possiblE! is

extremely important. You'll find the press, the news media, extremely helpful

in publicizing the things you're trying to talk about; and I think again in terms

that almost everybody can understand.

What I'm saying, in short, is that there's a great problem of semantics in

just what planning for the coastal zone means. Many people who have been involved

in planning would disagree. I suspect if we took a poll in this room right now

and asked everybody to write down what he thinks planning for thecoastFL1 zone is,

we'd be lucky if we got any two answers that were exactly the same. Everybody,

even in this room, would have somewhat varying ideas of what it involves. What

I'm suggesting, however, is that the first thing planning for the coastal zone

means is some decisions based on what we now know, that can lead to purchases

of property, new laws if new laws are needed at whatever levels of government.

What I've really been calling this, in short, is the need for a constitution

for the coastal zone.

113

PANEL DISCUSSION
Mr. David R. Keifer, Director, Delaware State Planning Office
Senator Aaron "Babel' Schwartz, Texas State Senate
and
Mr. Bodovitz

Senator Schwartz: As a le gislator, and probably the only one who is on this

program, I would address myself to the audience and to everybody concerned, as

to whether or not we ought to get on with the business of legislating and plan

at the same time. I'm afraid that I think you've readily admitted that the

California Proposition 20 is a copout, because the Legislature had sub-committeed

most of the important legislation in your State. I would say to you that we

brought with us today a compilation of the Texas Legislative Program - it will

be available in some small quantity - that you might want to look at. The rea-

son I brought it is to show that you can do this. Texas is as reactionary a

State as exists in the Union today. Vve been in politics ever since I was 20

years old, and I will guarantee you that statement is true.

We have, however, the most enlightened land commissioner in the whole United

States. He is elected on a State-wide basis; and he's here today. With his

cooperation, and with an education program to the Legislature, much has been done.

I'm simply going to read this. I don't intend to fillibuster, really. We passed

two bills last session that really take over the management and control of sub-

merged lands in our State, and give us the right to do what Proposition 20 is

telling California to plan for for the next three years. I will read you the

language, and you can compare it to Proposition 20:

Policy: "The surface estate in the coastal public lands of this
State constitutes an important and valuable asset dedicated to
@he permanent school fund and to all the people of Texas. It is
the declared policy of this State that such estate be managed
pursuant to the following policies:

(a) The natural resources of the surface estate in coastal
public lands shall be preserved. Such resources shall

114

be construed to include the natural aesthetic values of
those areas and the value of such areas in their natural
sta-ce for the protection and nurture of all types of
marine life and wildlife.

(b) Uses which the public at Large may enjoy and in which
they may participate shaZZ take priority over those uses
which are limited to fewer individuals.

(d) Unauthorized use of coastal public lands shall be
prevented.

I'll skip one.

(f) For the purposes of this Act., the surface estate and
coastal public land shall not be alienated, except
by the granting of ZeasehoZds and lessor interests
therein, and by exchange of coastal public lands
for Littoral property, as provided herein."

Mr. Bodovitz, I guess as a response to what you've said, why wouldn't it

be better for a group as intelligent as this to simply begin to educate -the

Legislature as to the public necessity to take the bull by the horns and to

grasp the public lands and protect them from the developers, so that the de-

velopers will quit selling something that doesn't belong to them?

Mr. Bodovitz: A very good question. I'd respond in a couple of ways. One

is - although I didn't point this out, and it's a big subject - the submerged

and tideland areas in California are subject to controls in other ways, -and

there are systems of water quality regulation, etc. Let me back up even one

step further. This is what I meant when I said a few minutes ago that I think

it's dangerous for any of us to try to prescribe one formula for everybody. I

think in most aspects each State-is in a somewhat different place; I think the

trouble, if it is trouble, in California, is that the history of environmental

protection and regulation has gone on over a number of years, but it's never been

put together. That is, we have separate air pollution controls and water

115

pollution controls, etc. So we have agencies doing very good work in limited

areas; and therefore, the kind of legislation that you're suggesting for Cal-

ifornia involves a great deal of comprehensive restructuring of government.

And that's the hardest kind of thing to sell, so I would agree with you. If

the situation is such that some legislation will really deal with the problem,

then by all means I think that's the way to go. The Proposition 20 Initiative

that was put on the ballot was essentially the same bill that was pending in

the Legislature: that is, the approach the environmentalists wanted to take

was that rather than have a controversy over each aspect of the resulting plan,

it would be better to set up a commission, a planning body, to take a limited

period of time to prepare a comprehensive plan for the coastal zone that would

be the basis of legislation.

To summarize, therefore, what I'm saying: if you can skip that step, great.

But the State of California has 1100 miles of coastline; it's extremely diverse;

the pressures of population growth, all kinds of development, are just enormous.

I think the consensus would be in the State that it's just impossible right now

to find the agreement necessary to pass legislation that would deal adequately

with all these problems.

My last point on this, and I didn't really stress this enough, is that

Proposition 20 commissions are temporary; they have a limited time period in

which to do the kind of planning I've been talking about; and the limited nature

is a very good discipline because hard decisions tend to get put off if you can

take another year to do it. It's interesting that the year 1976 is going to be

the year in which these matters are debated in the Legislature. The Proposition

20 commissions didn't solve the problem s of the coastal zone; it seems to me

that they set up a mechanism by which decisions and consensus can be arrived at.

Interestingly enough, 1976 is going to be the year of decision for the coastline

116

in California, and that obviously is the 200th anniversary of the.country, ir.

which I think a lot of other aspects of American life are going-to be looked at,

So I think it's really going to be an interesting approach, and I think an inter-

esting year of decision.

Mr. Keifer: I'd just like to make a few comments in light of our experience in

Delaware and our Coastal Zone Act. Our Act was adopted approximately two years

ago, and resulted from the work of an ad hoc committee appointed by the Governor.

That committee proposed a comprehensive package of legislation, including wet-

lands and substantial State government control of land development. Hovrever,, we

didn't have the pressure that California had for total land development control;

we were faced really with problems with superport and on-shore petrochemical

developments resulting from the superport. The result was that the Coastal Zone

Act really just speaks to industry and superports and all the references to resi-

dential, commercial, and other developments were dropped. On your Commandmei.,its -

amen, except for the unfortunate situation that HUD 701 is really the only resource

we've had so far to get money to do whatever coastal zone planning welve beeil able

to do.

Senator Schwartz: I'd like to jump in on another matter here. I might back up

and say we had to grab hold of the britches first of some legislation as far back

as-1959, and protect those from the developers before we could grab hold of our

own submerged lands. The next step is the difficult step, and that is -to grab

hold of some regulation of private land, of the literal owner. Now welve gone in

the back door in that re gard, and I'd like some response about that. We believe

that, in our regulation of the submerged land, and in our regulation of what you

can do on a public beach, and the definition of a public beach, that we can pre-

vent folks from adversely using the land in any way that would be contrary to the

best ultimate coastal zone management goals for the submerged areas, and the

117

waters, and for whatever else abuts the water. We can do that.because they've

.got to come by the General Land Office. They may be able to build anything they

want on the private land, but they've got to come by the General Land Office for

the permit to get to the water. In other words, our waters are sort of flat and

sandy, and they've. got to dig a canal to get into a subdivision. They've got to

get permission for that canal from the General Land Office; so in turn we're going

to regulate in some sense what they do.

I also want to throw this out to the audience. I don't trust local govern-

ment at all - period. The local governments that I've been concerned with as a

State Senator all belong to the local Chamber of Commerce, which belongs to the

biggest local industry. And that is unequivocally - see, I don't work for any-

body, and I'm just an elected public official. They've spent all the money they're

ever going to get together to beat me and haven't done it yet; but they haven't

given up. But I will tell you that if you let a city couiicilman decide the fate

of the coastal zone, you may as well go out there and pave it now.

My only other experience is that county commissioner's court is a little

worse sometimes and a little better sometimes; but by and large, the average is

bad. In the last session of the Legislature, I had to pass a law to prohibit

the city in which I live and in which I was born from giving permits to people

to excavate sand from the public beaches for sale. Now just figure that one out.

The city of Corpus Christi tried to obtain from our General Land Office one of

my prime natural areas in that city, because a developer has a development plan

for it. I tagged the bill in the last 48 hours of the session and killed it.

I simply say that developers don't have nearly as much influence in our

Legislature, I don't think, as they do at the local level. So therefore, I

think the State regulation is a little safer.

118

Mr. Keifer: In our experience, actually, I think the only reason we got: the

Coastal Zone Act passed in Delaware was the way particularly the county govern-

ments were acting in their land development plans with regard to industry and

the coastal zone. One oil company had achieved the rezoning for an oil refinery

in one of the most valuable wildlife marshes; and that was really the prime

impetus, in addition to deep water ports, in getting the Coastal Zone Act passed.

Senator Schwartz: Again, I want to repeat, and if anybody here disagrees, I'd

like them to do so, that to get around the business of legislation, as Delaware

has done, and as I hope Texas has begun, I don't think we've done the ultimate.

.1 would say that except for California and a limited number of other States,

there's a hell of a lot more to be done in legislating than there is in planning.

I'd say legislate first and plan later. You can spend your time much more

effectively educating Senators and Representatives than you can the public at

public hearings; because the public hearings are the developers. The people

don't show up at public hearings; you know that. The special interests show up

at publi c hearings. I've never been to a public hearing where the special in-

terests didn't show up in numbers tenfold as great as people. You've got to

look for the people, and most of those folks agree with you in the first place.

Is there anybody here who disagrees with me?

Comment from the Audience: Every conference I go to, sooner or later a legislator

gets up and says, "you've got to educate them." What you're not facing, in my

judgement, are the problems associated with most people who work for the State

governments or local governments - theytre tied to the Executive Branch. It's

a difficult proposition to walk across that aisle sometimes when the man YOU work

for, or the organization you work for, is not tied to the Legislative Branch.

Now it seems-to me that the Legislature then should appropriate money for itself

to get educated.

119

Reply from Senator Schwartz: I think while you're working for the Executive

Branch you ought to slip around and make speeches to people about educating the

Legislature to do that. There's a lobbying function inherent in your position,

and I'm just begging you to go about your business instead of spending too much

time planning for something that may not occur., or that may be too late unless

you get the Legislature to do something about it while you're alive. I would

also say to you that I agree with Mr. Hargis this morning - who didn't say it

quite this way, he said it better - but if you can separate land use planning

from coastal zone management, let me tell you that is good. The Texas Farm

Bureau shot me down in flames along with our land commissioner - and I'm still

burning - over a bill which would have just given us a kind of a land resource

committee. That was a nice way to say we were going to try to plan for land use

planning. The Farm Bureau found out that it was land use planning, because the

word was inadvertently used in the bill. I'll never make that mistake again,

and neither will the land commissioner.

I'm third in seniority in the Senate; I've been there too long. I've got

a great number of friends on that committee. There were eight persons present

on a nine-man committee; seven of them voted against me, and the Chairman didn't

vote. The Texas Farm Bureau was there - the public was representedat that hear-

ing. Just to give you that example, and that's why I say that if there is any-

body who disagrees with that, I'd be glad to argue with them. You might separate

these functions if you want to legislate about the coastal zone; then you must

grab hold of the things you can grab hold of, and legislate about them now. The

things the public is ready to accept must be legislated about now - the free public

beach access, the beaches themselves, the access to the beaches, the submerged

areas, the marshlands, the things that they can understand or be made to under-

stand and then all of the aesthetics can be planned for and protected in the

120

same way in the overall. I don't know how to accomplish that, except to tell

you to turn out to be better lobbyists.

Comment from the Audience: Your comment about land use planning versus coastal

zone management and the earlier discussions on the same topic leave me a little

bit disturbed, not so much in what you're saying, but perhaps the terminology

that's developed here, suggesting that land use planning is something different

from some of the problems in coastal zone management. Because whether you're

dealing with the resources on the coast or the resources inland, you are in

effect going through the same process, whether we're talking about land and

water use or resource land on the coast or resources inland.

Reply from Senator Schwartz: The difference is the hysteria that sets up in

people who own land and the farm Bureaus and the special interests who represent

those people to the Legislature. They've got a tremendous constituency that

understands that somebody's trying to tell them what to do with their land; and

they don't really believe that anybody has that right, and perhaps nobody has

that right without compensation. But on the other hand, everybody that I've:

talked to - even in the Legislature, if they believe in that inherent property

right - believes that the public beaches, for instance, that the lands abutting

the beaches, that the bays, that the places where they fish and recreate, and

that the marshes that provide the lifestream in the ecology to that coastal

area, does belong to the people. That is something that everybody nd-s-heep

persuaded about, and they do not frame that in their own mentality and in their

own prejudice as being land use planning. If it can be termed coastal zone

management, as it is, and treated differently, then we can plan the use of that

land and that water without incurring the prejudice of the people who are indeed

the landowners and who fear zoning of rural land - which is what the issue is

in Texas.

121

Comment from the Audience: I've heard that some time down the road, though, you

can bring it together. In Oregon, we've just been successful in drawing the Land

Use Commission State-wide. In 1971, we set up our Coastal Zone Conservation Com-

mission. We did that first, yes. We came back to the 1973 session and it passed,

and the two of them will come together. If you're going to keep them separate, it

may he you have to take them separately, but bring them together at some time,

because you are just building in unnecessary problems between two State agencies

that are unnecessary, when in reality you should just come up with just one.

Reply from Senator Schwartz: Let me hasten to add that I introduced all three

bills. The ones the environmentalists endorsed, I couldn't even get a committee

hearing on. The one that I got a committee hearing on, that I thought was going

to breeze through, got shot down in flames, as I've told you. The things that

passed are the Coastal Zone Management Bill, and the bill controlling the use of

lands by navigation district. Texas had a bill since 1931 that permitted navi-

gation districts to buy submerged land for $1 an acre. One little navigation

district bought 47,000 acres of land under that $1 an acre unequivocal right to

purchase submerged lands. The maximum use would be about 3,000 for that navi-

gation district; but ultimately they were going to resell it for development to

somebody. Another navigation district had purchased a whole coastline of Gal-

veston Bay on one side. We've stopped that. The Legislature understood that.

Now herets the shocker. Both of those bills passed on what we call the consent

calendar in the Senate and in the House. Local and uncontested bills - they

passed a bill changing the squirrel season. It can be done because legislators

understand the value of that particular commodity. You all are underestimating

your product. I think that, in spite of the California experience (because Cal-

ifornia is 100% Chamber of Commerce) wetre not ever going to be as smart as Dela-

ware; we're just not going to be able to regulate refining and pipelines and

122

things like that in Texas, because we've let it go too far. I wish we could, do

what Delaware did.

Mr. Keifer: In terms of public support, when the Coastal Zone Act was up fcr

debate in the General Assembly, we had popular support that just swamped the

Chamber of Commerce interests and the development interests. I think it was

probably the only reason we got it through. The oil companies, shippers, etc.5

lobbyied against any kind of control, both in the study stages and the legisla-

tive stage, but the cities and groups, and not just the usual environmental

groups, but all kinds - League of Women Voters and all these foJks - just turned

out en masse, and conducted a tremendous lobby and campaign that finally got the

thing through.

There is legislation up right now, both wetlands legislation and legislation

on another coastal zone act that would bring other land uses under it. That, to

date, hasn't received.the support that the initial legislation did; which gets

you back to the fact that you solve the problems in priority order. It doesn't

really matter what you call them; but you see a problem and you take it on; and

then when the next problem is really perceived, then you get action on it and

you get legislation on it.

Senator Schwartz: I think in this discussion, as we're talking about identifica-

tion of priorities, that's exactly right. That's really what everybody is shoot-

ing at. I just have this feeling that I always have when I'm with people who

are too intelligent, and who are not elected public officials - they go together

that the intelligence quotient is so high that they underestimate the product

they have to sell. They think it's only saleable to folks who are as smart as

they are. That's not true. Joe Bodovitz sold it to me; Paul Burka, my lawyer,

has written all this stuff. We created a Council on Coastal and Marine-Related

Affairs in the State that has as its member one of the members here - Dr. John

123

Calhoun, Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Texas A&M University, our Sea

Grant facility; people like that. I'm simply saying to you that this is a

saleable commodity.
Question from the Audience: Mr- Keifer, what effect has the second
report had on the legislation opinion in Delaware - you mentioned
that there are two pieces of Legislation now pending.

Answer from Mr. Keifer: There's one bill pending that's a standard wetlands bill.

It was part of the original package two years ago. It didn't pass then; it's up

for consideration now, and just may pass this session. The original early draft

of what is now the Coastal Zone Act included all land uses. In order to get it

passed, the only support that existed was opposition to superports, opposition

to refineries and related sorts of things. Control of other land uses went out

of the Act, and the Act that passed controlled only industry. There is a bill

out now that's a parallel to the existing Coastal Zone Act that would control

commercial, residential, etc., large-scale developments, which is primarily focused

on the Atlantic Beach resort areas. There were problems there; but there doesn't

seem to be the real support for that legislation that there was for the initial

legislation; in large part, I believe, because there isn't a general perception

of the problem in the resort areas yet. California has problems now; the real

problem in Delaware is probably two or three years down the road in terms of land

development pressures. And I think that's one of the reasons that the support

isn't there for this parallel Coastal Zone Management Act.

Question from the Audience: Well then-, if the DECA Report on deep
water facilities had no Tn-fZuence at all on future legislation or
legislative decisions, or executive decisions, why do it? Why lid
Delaware go ahead and spend the money to have the Report done if
they weren't going to be using the results of that to finally deter-
mine what their attitudes towards the placement of facilities were
going to be? You're telling me that the Legislation pending now is
legislation that you had and is now coming back again? it's my
understanding that the Report was dcne to try to get a handle on
the effects that deep water ports facilities would have.

124

Answer from Mr. Keifer: We've done several reports on the effects of deep water

port facilities. The results of some of those reports is that deep water port

facilities are prohibited, and that prohibition and the control of heavy industry

is not up for debate at this point in time. The Coastal Zone Act is passed..

Question from the Audience: Senator_, can you see any differences
in the alteration patterns?

Answer from Senator Schwartz: We have no effect yet on the Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Act or the Submerged Lands Act, whichever it might be referred to, and. the

Navigation District Act, because we just passed them. The Legislature adjourned

June 1. 1 think they're both probably 90-day bills, meaning they will. be E&fec-

tive September 1; but they're going to have very wide and very important effects.

I think, number one, the School Land Board of Texas will very strictly* regulate

the submerged land uses; and the law just almost prohibits any except the public

use, and at least the public benefit. Also, environmental impact statements are

required on several things.

I'd like to just touch on one other thing. We did fail in one bill that

the land commissioner suggested; and I compliment Florida on this, and I think

this is something again that's saleable, if you'll go out and sell it. That is,

the Florida constitutional amendment for $240 million to acquire crit1cal areas

and recreational areas. $40 million of it, I think, is recreational, and :?'200

million is critical area acquisition. We offered that bill in the Legislature,

and Texas just wasn't in the mood for another constitutional amendment, because

welre going to have a constitutional convention in 1974, beginning in January.

I would hope that we could pass a bond issue, a constitutional amendment for

$20, $30, $40, $50 million worth of critical area acquisition, and jUSt bu-y up

everything that we don't already exercise authority over. I think that's really

our next 200-year anniversary, if we're talking about 200 years from ].-low. It's

my judgement that there will be nothing left, even under the strictest kind of

125

regulation, because of political pressures, unless, in fact, many of the States

go ahead and acquire as much of the areas that they don1t now own as are avail-

able at 1975 prices. Thatts about as early as we could get it done.

Mr. Bodovitz: Could I just comment briefly on that. Id like to make clear, as

I hope it's obvious to you, that I think we're really all saying the same thing

here. I'm saying that the planning that Vve been talking about is the means of

selling, as the Senator's discussing. If people dontt need to be sold, then you

don't have to sell them. As some of these things are more complicated, the plan-

ning approach is the means by which you can do the selling. I'd like to comment

on another point. It seems to me that while most of the audience would probably

agree with the Senator's statements about local government, I have a theory that

this may be an area that's changing faster than any of us know. I think that

when you look at why things happen at different levels of government, it has a

lot to do with taxation and a lot of complicated things that take a little time

to look at. I think all of us maybe now tend to think of the Federal Government

as an enlightened source of ideas, funds, etc., because of people like Bob Knecht

and the coastal zone program. I would also remind everybody that it wasn't too

many years ago that everybody in this kind of business hated the Army Corps of

Engineers . Now the people in the Army Corps of Engineers make better environmental

statements than the Secretaries of the Interior - things really change before your

very eyes. I suspect if more and more responsibilities such as education and

welfare are shifted to State and Federal governments through reallocations of

responsibilities, there may be a whole change in local government. In our State

now, there are a number of cities and counties that consider themselves far more

environmentally concerned than the State and Federal governments, and they want

to be left alone. They see the State and Federal government not as their saviour,

but as their enemies at the moment. If you have somebody like Senator Schwartz

126

with power in your State Legislature, you're in good shape. If you don't you

may want to look at other levels.of government where you can accomplish some of

these things.

Mr. Keifer: I'd like to make one comment on the Senator's suggestion about land@

acquisition and appropriations for it, Since about 1964, through our State Capi-

tal Improvements Program, we had a viable land acquisition program, with monies

appropriated every year by the Department of Natural Resources to buy wetlards,

in addition to parklands. Since the passage of the Coastal Zone Act, and the

imminent passage of the wetland legislation, we now can't get appropriations to

buy land, because the legislators are saying, "You've got all these other devices,

we can save the taxpayer's money."

Senator Schwartz: They may be self-defeating unless you move fast enough for the

Legislature not to figure out what it's doing. Let me comment to you about strong

legislators. I think the way to achieve strength in the Legislature is to pick

some freshman members and stay with them for a long time; they'll get strong if

they have strong support. I think really that's the best educational process in

the Texas Legislature for our new members coming along. Like you say, it's

changing our local government scene in some places. I don't see that change, but

in the last election in Galveston - I must say this for my little island that I

was born on - we did throw out the last bunch of rascals. They had issued a per-

mit for gas well drilling for three wells within the city limits, which is three

miles out into the Gulf of Mexico. They issued three permits for a mile-and-a-

half off-shore gas wells. When the Department of the Interior suggested a minimum

of three miles on gas and five miles on oil, we had put on our ballot a proposition

to create a sanctuary around our island against oil and gas drilling outside the

three-mile limit, and it passed. The people did pass it, in the same process

eliminating a couple of the council members who had failed to heed the advice of

127

the public requesting that in the first place. Those wells could have been

drilled, incidentally, as slant drilling - it could have occurred from the

island off-shore without placing any wells out in front of the Galveston Beach

shore. Local government is just not enlightened; but the people are enlightened.

At election time local officials may change, but the permits are already there.

129

MECHANISM AND STRUCTURE FOR COASTAL LAND AND WATER USE.'CONTROLS
Mr' Daniel W. Varin, Chief,
Rhode Is!4nd.$tatewide Planning Program

The State Planning Office in Rhode Island, the agency that I work with, has

been studying the issues of mechanism and structure for land and water use control

for more than four years now, This has been a very intensive effort for most of

this time. During this periud, a Coastal Resources Management Council was created

through legislation, and a State Land Use Plan was prepared. We took the Senator

from Texas' advice; we passed the legislation creating the management agency for

the coastal area, and then attacked the planning problem. About three weeks ago,

the Coastal Resources Management Council adopted the first piece of the coastal

resources plan, a plan covering all the barrier beaches in the State. Essentially,

it places a moratorium on further construction on barrier beaches.

Despite all this intensive effort by several people on our staff, I am going

to resist the temptation to tell you all the valuable things that we learned

through this process, because if I did that, the meeting would be over in about

five minutes. To keep from leaving you with all that time on your hands, I've

decided.to mix together what we learned with some notions about where we have

to go in the immediate future. Unfortunately, the first tells very little about

the second. But from either standpoint, there's no doubt that the 34 coastal

States face very serious problems as they organize, or reorganize,.to manage

their coastal zones. Although the specific difficulties will vary from State

to State, reflecting local situations, at least three can 1)e Identified as common

problems, central to the entire issue at hand.

First, these States are entering a new field, with little or no relevant ex-

perience in comparable areas for guidance. The State's concern with the kinds

of regulation necessary to manage coastal resources has,been limited almost en-

130

tirely to adopting enabling legislation turning this function over to their local

governments. At that, most States avoided giving even this delegation any th,Qught@

by simply enacting some version of the standard Zoning Enabling Act published, by

one of the organizations hosting this conference: The U.S. Department of Commerce.

This was when Herbert Hoover was Secretary of Commerce, in 1921.

Second, the forms of State government, in far too many cases, do not present

an organizational framework which readily accepts new functions. Local governments

and other critics often charge that State governments were designed to be both

unresponsive and irresponsible. One need not entirely agree with these diatribes

to recognize that most State governments were organized to govern a society which

expected much less from all governments than it does today. Nor is it necessary

to join those who advocate the most simplistic, or "local home rule," approaches

to government, to realize that the State governments, as organizations, are norm-

ally slow, often clumsy, and occasionally unworkable. They are encrusted by

State-local functional and financial relationships which have grown in piecemeal

fashion over the past six decades. The imposition of any new activity on this

framework is bound to be traumatic.

Third, the States are not really being confronted with the single issue of

coastal zone management. If they act as though they were, they are bound to

create new organizations which cause more problems than they solve.

The issue is much more complex than devising mechanisms and structures J.-For

coastal land and water use controls, as difficult as that task is in itself.

The real challenge is to create mechanisms and structures for planning and regu-

lation of the State's total land area, for management of the cluality of all of

its water bodies, and for control of its coastal lands and waters.

Dealing with the issues of mechanism and structure on this broader basis,

multiplies the problems inherent in devising an organization and a method of

131

carrying out any single governmental function many times, but it is essential

that these issues be addressed in comprehensive terms. Continuation of the

traditional functional approach in which each of these subjects is considered

as a separate activity is, in my view, a guarantee of failure.

Federal legislation which was enacted in these fields in 1972, and the na-

tional land use policy bills now under consideration, aggravate the problems of

creating State organizations which can operate effectively. In addition to the

Coastal Zone Management Act, I would add the Water Quality Act amendments of

1972 as a co-villain. Although the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Water

Quality Management Act amendments of 1972 contain provisions which speak of

coordination,, they present many obstacles to the degree of integration of these

matters which must be achieved.

These Acts certainly contain positive and beneficial aspects. They per-

ceive problems and stimulate activity in areas which have long been neglected.

They recognize that State governments must take a leadership role if these areas

are to be dealt with effectively. They make expanded research possible on topics

in which there are still many unknowns. They will even fund the kind of inven-

tory work mentioned here today. The Water Quality Act amendments recognize, for

the first time in Federal legislation, that land use largely determines water

quality, and that efforts to deal with pollution must utilize this relationship.

This of course has always been known by everyone, except the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency, which is just now learning this fundamental truth, and the Corps

of Engineers and the Water Resources Council, which will probably never learn it.

Both Acts also provide a means of extending financial assistance to the States,

although no real money has yet been seen.

At the same time, these Acts present many obstacles to proper organization

and effective action. They designate different Federal agencies to administer

132

these functions, dividing, rather than uniting, parts of what must be a unified

program. They encourage parallel forms of organization at the State leyel,

furthering the confusion which surrounds State efforts,to create adequate policy

and regulatory mechanisms.

Even the chronology of Federal legislation and resulting actions has been

illogical. A State which responded to these as though they should be taken at

face value would, by now, find itself in several very peculiar positions. It

would be operating from the principle that the State was some sort of ful.-ictional

and political subdivision of its own coastline. It would be attempting -to abate

water pollution with woefully insufficient authority over, or even knowledge of,

the patterns of land utilization which cause pollution. The balkanized organiza-

tions created to carry out these programs would be unwieldy in themselves. They

would be unable to operate on a unified basis, and they would be institutional-

ized obstacles to future efforts to restructure these functions in a rational,

and effective way. I agree with the suggestion made earlier that if these things

have to start out being undertaken separately, they must be combined later; but

I think starting them out separately is perhaps the biggest obstacle to later

combining them.

Since national land use policy legislation has not yet been enacted, and,

in the case of the House of Representatives, is still being drafted, an oppor-

tunity to rationalize this situation is yet available.

A National Land Use Policy Act certainly can recognize that management of

coastal resources and water quality, as well as some of our more traditional

problems such as transportation and housing, must be treated as integral. parts

of an undivided whole. It can utilize land use policy as a unifying force and

as a means of overcoming both long-established fractionalization, and the more

recent abberations.

133

Some reorientation of past efforts in land use legislation is necessary if

this is to be accomplished. Certainly the obsession with "critical areas" which

characterized earlier bills will have to be moderated if we are to stop concen-

trating on parts, with the resulting inadequate consideration for the whole.

But the challenge to the States is essentially the same with or without a

National Land Use Policy Act, or with a good Act or a poor one. Mechanisms must

be invented and organizations must be structured which enable the States to deal

with a broad and expanding range of programs related to their lands and waters.

The approaches taken must emphasize fundamentals rather than symptoms. They

must be able to incorporate new program components as these emerge without de-

tracting from a unifying core.

The problems which the States will encounter as they attempt to devise ways

to meet this challenge generally fall into two broad categories. First, the

mechanisms of control must be selected. Second, the appropriate type of organi-

zation to operate these mechanisms, and the proper place in the governmental

structure for that organization must be determined.

The three different mechanisms listed in Section 306c of the Coastal Zone

Management Act of 1972 essentially cover the range of choices available. That

is, the States may establish criteria and standards for local implementation,

under State review and enforcement procedures; they may operate through admin-

istrative review of local plans, projects, and regulations for consistency with

State management programs; or they may engage in direct regulation..

The Coastal Zone Management Act, like other Federal legislation, does not

deal with organizational issues. The choices available, however, are limited to

perhaps four basic types, with variations on each: A departmental form, includ-

ing subdivisions of a department; a council or commission, an authority with some

degree of independence of other governmental operations, or some type of inter-

134

agency group. The location of this organization within the structure of govern-

ment is virtually unconstrained. Each State government can probably identify

several places within its own structure with some logic for placement of any of

the types of management agencies available.

The decisions which a State will make in responding to these two is-sues

depend on a vast array of factors which reflect the history and traditions of

each State, the way it is organized.to perform other functions, the SiZE@. Of

this activity compared with other activities already a part of the structure,

and many other, predominantly localized, concerns. But there are some common

issues and problems which can at least be identified.

There is no particularly rational order for either listing these concerns,

or for applying them in the decision-making process. They have an unfortunate

way of influencing the selection of both a management mechanism and a form of

organization to administer the mechanism. The choices made in either area tend

to limit the options available in the other. Their relative importance changes

rapidly with time. About three days is as long as one lasts in our effort to

get a coastal bill passed.

Although no enumeration of these factors can hope to be complete, some of

the more important should at least be noted here.

Certainly the issue of Executive responsibility versus broad participation

is basic. Many States are,.reorganizing to give their Governors more control,

through the appointive process. This is the only way that a Chief Executive

can be held responsible for the performance of the operating departments. Eut

matters such as coastal resources, water quality, and land use also seem to re-

quire the participation of many diverse interests and specialities. These can-

not be represented in a single department head. So these kinds of functions; are

often assigned to a board, commission, or council, which ostensibly represents

135

the more important interests concerned. For information, Rhode Island's 17-

member Coastal Resources Management Council includes members of the General

Assembly, two State department heads, and members selected from local govern-

mental agencies and the public.

The members of these agencies are typically appointed for staggered terms

which are longer than those of the elected official who appoints them, giving

them some independence. This is the case in the Rhode Island agency. Some

agencies also have a high degree of financial independence. The "authority"

form of organization, which connotes a maximum degree of freedom from the

11political" process, has fallen into some disfavor recently; however, the desire

to build more and more diverse interests into the management process has led to

more frequent use of councils and commissions for activities with much less per-

vasive scope than those we are talking about here.

Questions of local home rule versus recognition of area-wide concerns are

at least equally difficult. The authority to regulate the use of land and

water*areas has long been delegated to local governments by all but one or two

States. Local governments resist any redirection of this power back to the

State, even when they are not making use of it themselves. Those local units

which are involved in zoning, subdivision regulation, and other methods of reg-

ulating development generally do a good job of reflecting extremely localized

interests, while ignoring area-wide impacts of their actions and omissions.

Formulation of methods for local governments, special districts, and other units

to participate in land and water management programs, while at the same time

introducing extra-local considerations, will probably be the most difficult

organizational questions to resolve. I would agree with those prior speakers

who were reasonably unanimous in feeling that that leadership role had to be

lodged at the State level.

136

Governmental finances are a closely related problem. Local units across

the country continue to rely on property taxation as their major source of

revenue. External regulation which restricts exploitation of water bodies for

tax-paying economic development, or which encourages new industry to locate in

some communities and to avoid others, will be resisted by almost every community

which needs more money for education, police and fire protection, or any other

activity.

Formulating procedures for meaningful public participation in land use

policy, water quality management, and coastal zone regulation is still a fourth

significant problem area. The current and pending legislation in all these

fields mandates public participation, but avoids describing how to do it. This

is not so much a recognition of varying situations at the State level as a

simple acknowledgement of the fact that no one really knows how to do it.

It is, in many ways, the key problem. I have seen it done very well on a

short-term basis; and I've never seen it managed successfully on a continuing

basis.

As resource management procedures become more technically sophisticated,

and they must, citizens will become more disenchanted with their ability to

influence decisions. Most of those who are not independently wealthy will feel

that they do not have adequate time to even find out and keep up with what is

going on. At the same time, legislative bodies, in many cases, are beginning

to look askance at many public participation activities, feeling that their own

role as representatives of the public is being undercut.

Achieving coordination between the State, local, interstate, and Federal

levels in areas as complex as management of land and water areas will require

an equal amount of ingenuity. Part of this problem relates to the fact: thall

coordination between levels of interest must focus on specifics, not on general-

137

ities, but part of the problem is just plain mechanical. That is, finding

enough time to bring all the parties concerned in any subject together at suf-

ficiently frequent intervals, while still leaving some time for substantive

work.

Recent and prospective changes in methods of providing Federal financial

assistance to States and local governments introduce further complications.

The uncertainties surrounding shifts from categorical grants to general or

special revenue-sharing act as a brake on many actions, and particularly on

innovative moves in all of the programs related to water and land. In some

cases, regional organizations and local governments are reducing their capabil-

ities to deal with these topics, while the States and Federal agencies are de-

manding more attention to the same matters. An approach which combines more

deadlines with less money can hardly result in any real progress.

Revised financing procedures also reduce the effectiveness of many of the

management and coordinating procedures which have heen painfully developed over

recent years. The Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95, Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act, standardized family and business re-

location procedures, and Section 102 (2-c) of the National Environmental Policy

Act have been used very imaginatively, in some areas, to expand participation

in the decision-making process as it affects both land and water resources.

These requirements havt provided a means to force consideration of area-wide

concerns in many situations. Replacement of categorical grants with revenue-

sharing leaves a vacuum in this area which will not be easily filled.

This rather dreary litany certainly does not amount to a prescription for

selecting mechanisms and creating organizations for management of land and water

resources, but some principles do emerge from an examination of these problems

which should be considered as each State makes its own decisions in these matters.

138

First, a unified approach to State land use policy, water quality manage-

ment, and the coastal zone is essential at the State level. This does not r,eces-

sarily require that the entire activity be concentrated in a single organization,

but basic policy direction, at a minimum, must be centralized. There are no

techniques of coordination that will overcome the defects of attempting to manage

land and water resources through functional decentralization. I am sympathetic

with the view expressed earlier that everything can't be handled in the same or-

ganization; it has to be sub-divided some way.

Second, separate the planning, operating, and regulatory functions. The

planning component should be able to concentrate on policy issues and f:rame*ork

planning, unburdened by day-to-day operating problems. Operating agencies should

be specialists, concentrating on carrying out the programs for which they are re-

sponsible. The regulatory agency should be free to enforce necessary regulations,

unconstrained by any prior involvement in their formulation or pride of parenthood

in resource management programs.

Third, the specific mechanisms for managing land and water areas must be

carefully fitted to the situation as it exists in each State. Direct regulation

of land use, for example, is necessary and workable in Vermont, where only about

one-third of over 302 incorporated municipalities have adopted permanent local

land use controls. In Rhode Island, the reverse is true: of 39 cities and

towns, 37 have zoning ordinances and the other 2.have subdivision regulations.

In this situation, State regulation must be somewhat indirect. The appropriate

role for the State here might be to establish standards for development and to

oversee their implementation.

Fourth, meaningful relationships between State resources management organiza-

tions and other key participants must be built into the structure when it is estab-

lished. Effective management programs must be operated at the State level, but

139

they must be conducted in active cooperation with local governments, special

districts, interstate organizations, Federal agencies, and the public. All of

these contacts are too important to be left to good will or to chance. They

must be formally structured and avidly pursued.

Beyond these and a few other fundamentals, each S-tate must design the con-

trol measures and organization which best suit its own needs and limitations.

I fully expect that, when the dust finally settles, none of these will look or

act very much like any of the others.

Mr. Gardner: I was sitting here thinking that of the last three speakers, two

of them were from the two smallest geographical States, and the other was from

Texas. I wonder if there is really a different way of looking at this relation-

ship between land use planning and coastal zone planning, based upon the size of

the State and the relationship of the length of coastline to the area of the

State. Itd like to pose that question to you, Dan.

Answer from Mr. Varin: I doubt if the basic viewpoints are really that much dif-

ferent. I'd like to have a few more legislators like Senator Schwartz around

when I'm trying to sell the idea that the State has some responsibilities in over-

riding local decisions; but I think most of the differences are short-term, very

localized considerations, and that size is not really a determining factor. The

problems are essentially the same - State governments, despite the wide variation

in size, tend to be organized similarly, and certainly a State like Rhode Island,

with 424 miles of coastline and just over 1,000 square miles of land area, ought

to take as much interest in its coastal area as any others. Yet we find a lot

of difficulties in even getting recognition of the problem.

141

PANEL DISCUSSION
Dr. James Timmerman, Director, Marine Resources Division,
South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department
Mr. William D. Marks, Chief, Water Development Division,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
and
Mr. Varin

Dr. Timmerman: I'll tell you, the Senator from Texas being on the panel is a

real tough act to follow. The only thing I have to say is that I sure do like

those Southern politicians here. I think it would be good if we had some of

them revolving around Washington today. This and all the others have been most

interesting sessions.

Speaking of the talk that Daniel has given, I disagree on a couple of issues;

one of which is that I feel the States have some experience in land use manage-

ment. They might not know exactly what they are doing; but they do have some

experience, and I think perhaps now they are reaching the stage of doing more
comprehensive ana innovative planning in that area.

Another thing is that I would disagree somewhat with the philosophy that if

coastal zone management is not tied in to land use, it is doomed to fail. I cer-

tainly agree that the coastal zone management and land use management must be

very closely coordinated. In South Carolina, much of the land use problems are

also coastal problems; and I'd hate to see the management of the coastal areas

tied up and diluted in a program which may or may not empha ze this fragile

coastal area. In many cases, coastal zone management requires a different type,

and often more intensive-type data than that of land use, since it is such a

critical area; and as a result, some of the expertise that is more closely involved

with coastal activities is often a different group than what you would have in

the overall responsibility for land use. I'll have to agree with Bill Hargis

somewhat in his statement that we need first to have a good coastal zone manage-

142

ment program, because we can see the light there a little bit better than we can

in a total land use. We have to - in the State of South Carolina, at least

first learn to crawl and then to walk and run; and we're just barely crawling now.

I will just call to your attention the report that came out on June 7, 1973,

on the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act, in which the Senate in their

rationale tends to follow somewhat closely that of Bill Hargis. What I'm saying

is that I disagree somewhat in the philosophy, and I have a couple of questions

a little later on; but I want to pass the mike over to Bill (Marks).

Mr. Marks: I'm the one you've all been waiting for today, I guess - the last one

on the program. To give you the perspective, what's usually prefaced "'and the

Great Lakes" on most of the legislation, particularly the coastal management in

all the earlier bills, somebody would stick in "and the Great Lakes." I must

apologize for not being able to tell you the length of Michigan's coast, but no-

body's ever made it yet from one end to the other.

I think one of the problems that I sense here today, and through many of

these kinds of meetings, is a frustration at least on my part, of trying to put

the goals of coastal management together into a package that the public! perceives

is where we want to go. At least in our State, we've assembled enough of the

regulatory mechanisms that we can regulate most uses of the coast; but it's.the

obviously high-priority uses, like off-shore dredging, that have been tinder the

State authority for many years.

To get into more intensive management is a very difficult problem - to de-

cide how we're going to achieve the goals of coastal management, and actually

what these goals are. I certainly agree that land has been treated as a commodity

in the U.S. for many years; but it's a commodity that's very inherent in our

whole governmental structure. Many of the people who came to the U.S. originally

came in order to acquire land as a commodity, and the problem of tampering -with

land rights is a very difficult question. Once the initial priorities are taken

143

care of in coastal management, then the next stage is extremely difficult; and

that's about the point where we are.

I think I must agree with the majority of people here today that we'd better

try to do it in coastal management before we try it in land management. We have

some coastal management legislation on the books now, and quite an interest in

land regulation; but again the problem of deciding on what society's goals are

for land management is going to be exceedingly more complicated than it is on

deciding on what our goals on coastal management are; and I don't see that we

yet have developed a good mechanism to do that.

Mr. Timmerman: I have a question to ask - I think many people generally agree

to the importance of public participation in coastal zone management. Do you

see it, or do you have an effective public participation purpose within a land

use program; and if so, how do you go about it?

Mr. Varin: There was a very effective degree of public participation achieved

in the preparation of the management plan for barrier beaches; but it was very

compressed in time. I believe that it essentially took place over 5 or 6 weeks;

and th&t@,can be done in a compressed period of time, but not necessarily done in

the ocitue- ways\when you're extending something over a long period of time as you're

involved with an@X @onsiderations of State land use planning on the broader basis.

I think that everything that's been said about the public hearing method, and that it

is areally ineffective stab at public participation has certainly been borne out

by my own experience; and in State land use planning we've tried a few other tech-

niques. We are trying regional meetings; we're trying small area meetings; we're

trying to get at the public through special interest groups - as bad as that is,

it's one way to find the public. We're making what use we can of the news media.

I don't rea4y believe that all of these added together are really good enough.

I'd be glad to have someone tell me of all the better ways, because there have

got to be some.

144

Question from the_Audience: Given the fact that there may not be an
argument with trying to put everything together in a very rqtiona'7,
sense, do you think in the Land use UVislat@on, or co.stqZ manage-
ment, if we abandon things such as criticaZ areas, that there?s
enough perception of need on the part of the pubZ@c to be abZe to
pass Legislation? If we abandon the things that they seem to more
cLearly recognize, what chance do you think there is to accomplish
an overaZZ program?

Answer from Mr. Varin: I guess what you have to do is do what you can get away

with. Certainly the way to focus public interest is to point to the serious

problems, the visible problems. I don't think that those problems are neces-

sarily confined to the coastal area; but I know that they exist there. We have

a Coastal Zone Management Agency in existence; it's been in operation for over

two years. Itts operating a permit system, because it has the assistance of the

Coastal Resources Center of the University of Rhode Island. It's developing a

planning base, and we haven't made anywhere near that progress in land use plan-

ning generally. Perhaps the Water Quality Act amendments are a way of levering

into that situation. I certainly can't fault the view that you have to take a

practical approach and get what you can because that's just exactly what we did.
Question from the Audience: When you were tatking about the pZanning
and operating functions: Do you think it's absotutely necessary to
separate the pZanning and operating functions?

Answer from Mr. Varin: Yes, I do. Because when you conduct these two functions

in the same place with the same people, the day-to-day routine problems, putting

out the fires, taking care of the person who walks into the office when you cpen

in the morning, absorbs more and more of your time; and you spend less and less

of it on policy and basic planning issues. You try to do both of these, and one

or the other is bound to win out, I think, and virtually eliminate the other; and

I think in practically every case it's going to be the operating functions as

opposed to the policy and planning functions.
Question from the Audience: You don't think that there is a poseoibility
here to have a type of communication probZem or gap between the operat-ing

145

and planning aspect? Z know that in many cases where you have
support personnel such as the marine scientist, biologist., or
whatever_, that if it's completely separated you may have some-
what of a conmunication gap and people are going out in different
directions.

Answer from Mr. Varin: Yes, I think that is bound to occur. Unfortunately, it

depends mostly on the good will of the people involved to keep it from becoming

any more serious a problem than that. I think having the gap, though, is better

than losing one of the two functions.

Mr. Marks: Our experience, however, is that if the planning has been divorced

from the day-to-day operations, the planners then haven't developed the clien-

tele, for instance, in the Legislature, where the operating people will have to

deal every day, so that the operating agencies have had a lot better success in

getting their programs through the Legislature than a centralized planning

agency that never deals on day-to-day problems. It's that communication with

the Legislature that's so vital; and our planners just don't get it if they're

not involved in the day-to-day operations.

Mr. Varin: I know that happens in many cases - it's almost a built-in charac-

teristic of the local planning board which has operated under the philosophy

that it ought to be divorced from government entirely. I think the only way

you can avoid that is to develop this communications between the Executive and

the Legislature, develop the communications between the planning agency and the

Executive, and work through that channel.

Comment from the Audience: If I understand your presentation correctly, you're

getting down a geographical separation and also the functional categories like

water pollution. For a State like Rhode Island, a very small one, there may be

room for both.

Reply from Mr. Varin: Rhode Island is the smallest State that I've ever worked

in. But the bigger ones that I've worked in - I've never worked in the largest

146

tended to operate pretty much the same way. There is at least one techn."que

the we stumbled into by dumb luck in writing the Coastal Resources Management

Bill, which perhaps illustrates a way to divide and yet keep pieces in proper

relation to each other. This technique is going to cause us endless trouble

with the Federal Act, but thus far it seems to be working pretty well. lie

define the coastal area - the legislation does not use the word "zone" anywhere,

it'S a bad word - we wrote a coastal zone bill without using the word "zone."

It defines the coastal area and the jurisdiction of the Coastal Resources Man-

agement Council in several different ways. It defines it for study purposes;

it defines it for operating purposes; it defines it for permit-granting purposes.

It basically focuses for regulatory permit-granting purposes on that area which

starts at the mean high water mark and extends as far out as the State's juris-

diction.- which is also in dispute - but that's what the Act says. The Council's

jurisdiction over land is defined not by geography, not by a line on the ground,

but in terms of a list of uses which are important in managing coastal resources

no matter where they're located. We can only give them jurisdiction ove:c, those

uses within the State. We have examples of where the same uses are located on

a stream which flows into our coastal zone, but located outside the State, and

causes the same kind of problems. But that method of functional definition,

combined with the geographical definition, I think, will give us many prOblems

in the future, except for complying with the Coastal Zone Act of 1972.
Question from the Audience: Would you express some sentiments about
the State-wide land use controls in Rhode island, partially because
of the existence of pretty broad Local Land use programs? I'd Like
your observations on why your neighboring State of Connecticut, which
has basically the same problem with a great deal of highly organized
local planning, has not been similarly deterred from developing a
State-wide Land use planning program.

Answer from Mr. Varin: I don't think there's any real difference; and I think

our planning processes, as far as State land use planning and regulations are

147

concerned, are pretty close together. Each State issues its proposed land use

plan in the same month, for example. So there isn't a great deal of difference.

I'm not really pessimistic about the ability of the State to get into this Act.

I think it's going to be a very difficult job; but one that can be done as it

becomes more and more apparent that there are things which local governments are

good at, and things that they're poor at. Some of the things that they are poor

at become the State's responsibility as a result.

Question from the Audience: Is it only Newport that was able to
open up their coastline to at Least a permit to the public? Is
that a county activity there, or is that something the State has
been able to do?

Answer from Mr. Varin: I assume you're referring to the cliff walk? That is

just an ancient rite of passage which is better established in Newport than any-

where else because there is a physical pathway existing. The State constitution

can be interpreted as saying that right of passage over the waterfront applies

to the entire State. The State legislation is pretty clear on the fact that

local jurisdiction and property ownership is limited to the mean high water mark;

and that which is below that is available to the public; but there's also some

ground for claiming that the public has right of passage over shorefront areas

above the high water mark, based on a charter provision in the Charter of 1642,

I guess it was, pertaining to the right of fisheries, which was transferred to

the State's present constitution in the mid-1800's. The State has also inherited

about 150 rights-of-way to the shore, most of which were originally deeded to

give farmers access to the shoreline so they could collect seaweed for use as

fertilizer. Farmers don't use seaweed for fertilizer any more, and we don't have

very many farmers left; but the rights-of-way are still there, and we are figur-

ing out ways of using those to give access to the shore for other purposes. At

the same time, the adjoining landowners, the people who live next to these rights-

148

of-way, are trying to figure out ways to fence them off and make them look like

private property. so it's a continuing struggle.

Comment from the Audience: Newport is to be congratulated, because I'm a 12-

year resident of this State (Maryland), and the visitors are lucky to be on the

Academy grounds and be able to see the water. However, the high-rises are now

shading the beaches at about 2:00 p.m.

Reply from Mr. Varin: I think we probably have the same problem with shade when

we start to acquire some high-rises, but the issue was really settled in court

many years ago - I can't even tell you the approximate time - when the owners of

some of the mansions along the cliff walk attempted to fence it - to block it

with fences - and some people defeated that move in court. It has been brought

up again within the past 10 years and decided again the same way. So it: seems

to be pretty firmly established.

Thursday, June 14, 1973

Morning

SESSION III

Uses of the Coastal Zone

151

OPENING REMARKS
Dr. Philip Johnson, Division Director, ESR/RANN Program,
National Science Foundation

Welcome to Session III. I think we're all quite excited about yesterday's

program. We've all been to meetings where it wasn't quite so clear that our

organizing committee had done as good a job as they have with this one. At

least I'm enjoying it very much; and I hope that the pleasant day we're having

this morning won't distract you from our sessions.

There are a couple of comments I'd like to make. First of all, I'd like to

hold the introductions to a minimum. I was introduced in Chicago some months

ago, and after the man had finished reading my resume, some guy down here in the

front row said, "How can he ever hold a job, he's been in all these places so

many times." I'm not going to expose our speakers to that problem.

We began our sessions yesterday with the session devoted to intergovernmen-

tal problems, and particularly thinking about response to the national legisla-

tion. In the afternoon, our session attempted to deal with the issue of proces-

ses in the coastal zone. It reminds me of three points I'd like to very briefly

bring up to set the stage for this discussion of uses of the coastal zone.

. The first concern I have is very evident in all kinds of environmental prob-

lems. And it is that the boundaries of environmental sectors and those of

political jurisdictions do not satisfactorily coincide. We saw this thing

coming to the surface quite graphically in our thoughts and discussions about

the intergovernmental city vs. State vs. national level. In point of fact, the

management of common property resources presents in the coastal zone all the

land, the water, the air, and the residuals management issues. And the-issue

of boundaries of the coastal zone is in itself a legal issue; but in structuring

management plans, we would contend having this issue of political boundaries

vs. reasonable environmental boundaries to deal with.

152

My second concern is with the fascination in meeting the charge of the Act;

namely to make a plan. My concern is that the plan become our focus and there-

fore a substitute for action; and in our interest to take action, that -that may

unfortunately become a substitute for sufficient information as a basis for the

action. One of the reasons that the words "plan" and "planning" in this country

run into some difficulty is that we've seen all-too-many plans which were not a

basis for action, and we've seen perfectly sound plans we could not implement.

As Mr. Bodovitz from California brought to our attention yesterday, we are

dealing with change detection in the coastal zone, and he pointed out that to do

meaningful plans and meaningful action, the coastal zone will require on.our part

both inspiration and dedication, presumably with the broad spectrum totality,of

users concerned with the coastal zone. I would like to add to that that any,

plan must also be evaluated; and if we are not willing to read into this our, own

quality control, read into that process of meeting this Act an evaluation system,

we will not succeed.

Further, I would add another point - that I am quite convinced that as we

attempt to plan coastal zone management, more and more of the gaps in information,

more and more of the problems, will thereby be defined. Therefore, it seems: to

me we must be content with integrating that plan. If indeed we implement a plan,

if indeed we follow Mr. Schwartz's model out in Texas that we'd better get on

with the action that's amenable to the public today, then I think it follows that

not only must we have an evaluation in that process, but we must be prepared to

implement the plan and improve it as we go.

The third point that comes to my mind in thinking about yesterday's discus-

sion - I think it's perfectly clear that as we watch the melodrama unfc1ding on

the TV, we all have various thoughts; but if there's a lesson to be learned

that's applicable to coastal zone management, I think it ought to be, among

153

others, that we certainly live in a participatory democracy. We do not, for-

tunately, live in a regulated democracy - although some may be discovering

that to their sorrow. Therefore, this issue of planning and concocting State7

wide management plans - I think we cannot afford to get lost in whether the

lead or the control or the responsibility is vested at any particular level of

the political machinery. It's quite clear that as taxpayers we're also citizens

of local, regional, State, and national jurisdictions; we want to participate

in each of those, we pay taxes in each of those. Therefore, we must come up

with a process that is participatory and which recognizes these other concerns.

Today, then, as we begin to discuss uses of the coastal zone, our first

session before the coffee break is committed to conservation and the living re-

sources associated with the coastal zone.

155

CONSERVATION AND LIVING RESOURCES
Dr. John Clark, Senior Associate, Conservation Foundation

Good morning. I would like to clarify my identity in one way, and explain

that I am both an ecologist and an environmentalist. The two are different.

An ecologist is a student and, usually, an environmentalist is an advocate of

environmental protection. I will speak from both standpoints this morning.

I will try to provide a background of understanding the kind of information

needed for coastal zone management activities around the shores of this country,

and put this in some kin@ of national perspective. Many things will not apply

in one State but will in another. The conservation of living resources in the

coastal zone requires the preservation of the physical habitat, the entire life

support systems in which the chain of events flows unbroken from the flood plain

to the wetlands, bays, and into the ocean. The keeping of these complex ecosys-

tems intact and functioning will require extensive efforts on the part of each

of the coastal States. This raises the question: As a nation, are we committed

to the protection of these ecosystems as a fundamental basis of land use manage-

ment?

The answer might be found in the stated purposes of management legislation

that has already been passed. We found that four principal kinds of coastal

land use laws have been passed, dealing with comprehensive management, wetlands

protection, dredge and fill regulations, and siting of industry. We reviewed

the policy and management criteria of these laws and found that amo ng eighteen

States with significant Acts, the environmental purposes of the legislation were

as follows: protection of ecosystems, 15 States; protection of wildlife and

fisheries, 13 States; conservation of soil, 9 States; enhancement of aesthetics,

6 States; and protection of water resources, 5 States.

156

Other major purposes of coastal zone management laws were; control of

development, 12 States; promotion of commerce, 9 States; protection of life

and property., 8 States; development of resources, 7 States-, and provision for

public access, 5 States. Clearly, environmental protection has been a major,

purpose of existing legislation. Three conclusions can emerge:

1. This trend will probably continue and the comprehensive land

management plans implemented in the future will be founded

upon ecological principles;

2. It will be essential to minimize adverse environmental impacts;

in coastal development activities;

3. Coastal zone managers will have to hire a lot of ecologists.

There are several major tasks facing ecologists and environmental scientists

in the development of coastal zone management plans. Following the most popular

approaches to land use planning, at least five major aspects will have to be

included. The first is identification of resources. Ecologists will have to

assist in identifying the important living resources. They will have to describe

the habitats and life support systems in a way useful to planners and legislators.

They will draw skepticism when they give high value to tidal flats, swiUnplands,

marshes, and sandbars.

The second is inventory and evaluation. The ecological scientist will have

to do more than.identify the resources. He will have to evaluate their worth,

bit by bit. He will also be needed to evaluate the State and national interest

in local resources elements. For instance, he would know that the Hudson River

thirty to forty miles above New York City is the spawning and nur�ery area for

striped bass that provide a high proportion of the migratory stock of fish along

the Middle Atlantic and southern New England coasts. He would also know that the

157

Georgia marshes export productive nutrients out into the Atlantic Ocean and help

nourish sea life 30 to 40 miles offshore. He would know that the kelp beds off

the California coast serve as an important link in the lives of many coastal fish.

He would also know that even the smallest rivers of the Pacific Northwest contrib-

ute to the supply of salmon that are fished in the bays and sounds along the hun-

dreds of miles of ocean coast.

Third, designation of critical areas. The ecological scientist will assist

in defining critical environmental concern areas - those that should be completely

protected and set aside through purchase, zoning, etc. Only he will be able to

give an informed opinion as to which parts of the ecosystem are of superior im-

portance. He would undoubtedly designate marshes, dunes, mangrove swamps, breed-

ing areas, migration routes, certain beaches and cliffs, and other very important

areas. Where the shore has a steep or moderate slope, it may be desirable and

practical to designate the whole flood plain to the 100year flood height as an

area of critical concern. Scientific proof will have to be well established to

justify setting aside critical areas, especially where private rights and property

are seriously reduced.

The fourth aspect is the designation of conservation areas. In many States,

areas that are highly important to theprotection of the coastal aquatic ecosystem

will be established as conservation areas wherein limited development will be

permitted on a carefully controlled basis, so as to protect the quality of the

environment. Conservation areas would generally include all the immediate water-

shed, where surface or channelled flows bring pollutants into the estuaries and

shallow coastal waters, and where the ground water is in direct contact with

estuarine or coastal waters and allowing the pollutants to leach into coastal

waters, for example, or for the salt water to penetrate into the fresh water

table. Here the ecological data will have to be exceptionally strong, because

158

there will be selective permit issuance and rights of use which would be restricted.

Impact analysis @ in this pursuit, the ecological scientist will find his toughest

challenge. Assessing the environmental impact of a great variety of projects under

an endless variety of natural conditions will be a particularly difficult as,sign-

ment.

Since environmental protection is a major part of coastal zone manageMnt,

the effectiveness of management activities will depend upon the quality of environ-

mental data. Environmental impacts will have to be understood in the largest eco-

logical context. From the ecological viewpoint, the coastal zone can be divided

into four subzones as follows:

1. Upland

2. Flood zone

3. Inner-tidal

4. Sub-tidal

It will be necessary to use a somewhat more detailed breakdown for much of

the Atlantic and Gulf coasts where the land forms of the coast are more. complex.

The following are the basic units:

1. Upland

2. Flood zone

3. High wetlands

4. Low wetlands

5. Tidal flats

6. Submerged bottoms, grass and shellfish beds

7. Estuarine waters

8. Coastal waters

Even more definition will be needed for certain detailed aspects of planning

and ecological research. In general, the immediate edge, the intertidal area, is

the most productive part. To achieve its major purposes, coastal zone man4gement

159

will have to be planned so as to protect full ecosystems, not just bits and pieces.

To keep these ecosystems intact and functioning, the following four aspects must

be appreciated, studied, analyzed and balanced-for ecosystem preservation: habi-

tat quantity, habitat suitability, energy resources, energy flow.

To take a very simplified example of a marsh-estuarine system which is shown

to be healthy and in balance with the marsh supplying basic nutrients to the sys-

tem, the following greatly simplified guidelines might be set forth:

1. Habitat quantity. The acreage of the estuary should not be

reduced by filling it at the edges or by dumping spoil over

any of the submerged grass beds.

2. Habitat suitability The water quality should not be lowered

by any new adverse pollution load nor should the bottom become

covered with any deleterious sediments.

3. Energy resources. The nutrient supply from marshes to the

estuary should not be reduced by filling or removing any part

of the productive grass areas.

4. Energy flow. The flow of energy should not be reduced by

choking off circulation diverting the supply of fresh water

or cutting off tributary streams to the marshes.

To insure that the consequences of any action for which a.development permit

is requested, the ecologists will have to define the major elements of a complex

events cycle occurring in the estuary in order to predict any significant environ-

mental impacts of the proposed action. The event cycle shows that some human need

results in an enterprise and'that the enterprise consists of specific projects.

The projects are accomplished through a variety of activities and these lead to

certain environmental disturbances. These disturbances trigger off a reaction

series of ecological effects which lead to a certain recognizable environmental

160

impact which in turn affect the human condition in an adverse or beneficial

manner. A key aspect in coastal zone management will be the search for suit-

able alternative project designs and development activities that will minimize

the environmental impacts. In this there is another role for the ecologist

which will have him working closely with engineers, planners, economists, gov-

ernment officials and so forth. This is a strange and unaccustomed role for

him; that is,engaging in the arena where social decisions are made, or negotia-

ted compromise rather than scientific precision is the rule of the day. This

change is already causing confusion in the ecology business.

Before NEPA, ecologists were the unwelcome gadfly of developers now they

are becoming part of the project planning team.

161

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AS IT RELATES'TO LIVING*RESOURCES
Dr. Lyle S. St. Amant, Director,
Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission

I think I would like to make a few brief remarks before getting into this.

I noticed that in the papers yesterday, most of us did not identify the kind of

coastal zone we are talking about, and this causes one of the problems we run

into when we get into a discussion of coastal zone management. One of the first

things we should do is describe what we are talking about so we know what types

of plans would fit. I don't mean where the zone starts or stops. I mean the

differences that occur between a coastal zone where the land comes up to the sea,

where the intertidal zone is narrow and people move right up to the system, and

you find an urban area developing in the coastal zone, and where the area is flat,

shallow, actually hostile to most people, and many parts of it not easily accessible.

There's an area like that some thirty or forty miles wide and extending about

three hundred miles across Louisiana thatts open to public access; but people go

into it for a real purpose, not just for a boat ride or swimming or skiing. It

doesn't lend itself to that; but it is highly productive of mineral, oil, and gas -

and fishing. But it is very unstable. If the biological assessment is accurate,

it is the key to the entire fish production of the Northern Gulf.

There are a good many areas like this on the southern Atlantic coast, Florida,

the Everglades, and they represent a type of coastal zone quite different from

some of the things we have heard. I think that in order to understand the differ-

ences, we should look at these areas as they are. In managing a coastal zone of

this type, you almost have to turn to the resource productivity as a major key to

its health.

The first thing that was noted in the matter of environmental degradation

occurred in such areas as wet dredging, salt water intrusion, fresh water intru-

sion, degraded water quality and the like, reduced natural resource production

162

or living resource production. it was first noted in the commercial fisheries;

and it would be noted there more rapidly than in the recreational fisheries, be-

cause they have some statistical evidence of production. This is not a recent

thing; it was noted in Louisiana as early as 1954. It was brought up in the

Organization of Coastal States, and it was debated; and.we even have a Committee

on Estuarine Technology. This has been an active Committee for more than 15

years; so it's not anything new. It's only recently that certain catastrophic

accidents, particularly associated with oil production, have caused the develop-

ment of a high environmental interest.

In order to get involved in one of these types of zones, I think we should

look at some of the things that characterize them, and how they may be different

from other areas. First, they are generally very highly productive; but they-

are unstable, and they are subject to very rapid change, both in topography and

hydrography. One of the key things that you must determine about such zones is

the seasonal hydrographic environmental variations within such areas as a cycle.

Because they do cycle to the extent that it makes it very difficult to determine

any gradual change in the area that might be degrading or detrimental. For ex-

ample, in Louisiana this year, we have perhaps 40% of the entire coastal area.

subjected to flood waters. Salinity ranges have dropped to zero. This is a

natural phenomena; it doesn't happen very often. It's the first time.it's hap-

pened since 1950. But it is, and it does represent one extreme. This would

probably overshadow any type of activity that might occur in the coast; and if

you don' t understand the extreme, it's not going to be very easy to determine

whether or not you're really affecting the coast with certain changes.

Another thing about these types of coasts is that they generally support: a

high percentage of the off-shore fisheries. In the Gulf estuaries, we know that

about 90% of the fish are dependent upon these zones as nursery grounds and areas

163

where the young are protected and grow. The energy transfer in these areas

that has been brought ouT by John (Clark) is tremendous. In.Louisiana alone,

for example, we produced 1.2 billion pounds of-co=ercial fish year before last.

This does not include an untold amount that is caught from recreational fishing;

it does not include perhaps 500 million pounds of fish caught incidental to

shrimp trawling and thrown overboard into the system. If you add it up, you

come pretty close to 2 billion pounds of living protein - most of it which de-

velops and grows in about a 200-day period from mid-March until mid-November.

To understand this takes years; and it takes some pretty fancy footwork

with respect to ecology, zoology, and botany; and we need and will always need

a high level of this type of investigation. Unfortunately, such areas are

easily affected by man's activities in the zone itself; but they can also be

drastically affected by man's activities far away from the zone. Here is the

real question: How are you going to manage the coastal zone when somebody 150

or 200 miles up the river decides through his watershed project, land management

project, or whatever you want to call it, to cut your water off? These systems

cannot exist without the historic movement of water through them on the same

basis as they evolved. You can't tamper with the water coming into the system

any amount and expect the system to exist. A prime example is Toledo Bend Dam

on the Sabine River between Texas and Louisiana, which was constructed by the

two States. For the area in question, it is a major improvement in economic

development; but it played havoc with Sabine Lake and with the shrimp fishing

in Sabine Lake. This may be a good trade-off; but it wasn't taken into consid-

eration when the particular project was developed. This is the type of thing that

can happen far away from the zone, and some way or other needs to be connected

into coastal zone management, or we can lose some of these more dynamic areas.

It might interest you to know that in the South Atlantic and Gulf areas,

you get about 78% of the total annual catch of shellfish and crustacea in this

164

country. I don't have the figures on the fisheries for any particular region

to go with it; but it's obvious that managing this type.of area is goingto.be

much more complex, and it's not going to lend itself to urbanized planning or

urban planning or zoning in the amount that might be used in more stable coast-

lines. It's going to require high levels of ecological studies and ongaing

studies in order to make decisions.

Some of the more important factors that need to be considered in Such estu-

aries involve the annual flows of fresh waters into the system; the SiZE! and

characteristics of the productive zones; the maintenance of natural drainage

patterns when dredging and channeling occur; prevention of salt water and fresh

water intrusion. But even more important is change in the rates of water cycling.

This has been something that is not easily measured but causes the most damage,

because it is the extremes of change that affect the animals and plants, and not

1--he.mean. All too frequently, when you've got a straight channel through a

system that had a meandering system, you end up with a mean salinity about the

same across any given point. But if you study the day-to-day fluctuation of the

cycle, you'll find that it swings from almost fresh to almost salt; and you in

effect convert the area which is.normally not de-watered, and put it in-to an area

similar to some of the coastal areas that have two tides a day, where you run salt

water up to the land and back. When you do this, your productivity drops. It's

only the business of keeping water on the marshlands that makes for this produc-

tivity.

Man's activity within these estuarine areas will require significant dredging

and filling, because most of them are very shallow. This can drastically disrupt

and degrade production; so management of any such area will require considerable

amounts of information on the dynamics of such areas in relation to the living

resource productivity, and the effects both initially and accumulatively of man's

165

actions. It is only with detailed information along these lines that signifi-

cant management procedures can be developed.

Going into a little more detail - first, when you set up a manual planning

of this type of thing, you're going to run into one or two types of things.

You're going to have an area that's relatively clean and virgin and undisturbed,

and one which has already been disturbed by man. The one,that is undisturbed,

or still in its natural state, will be much easier to manage and plan for, be-

cause simply if you learn the dynamics of it, if you have the authority and the

backbone to make the decisions, you can design a system that will protect it.

If your governments will back you up, you can protect the thing. On the other

hand, there are many areas, like Louisiana, which were poorly controlled. The

multiple use went on long before some of us even tried to spell environment or

ecology. They've been producing oil in Louisiana since 1927, and offshore since

1937. We have 25,000 oil wells operating on this coast. We must have an untold

1,000 miles of pipeline. Some of them, particularly the gathering lines, nobody

knows where they are. They are not mapped. Yet, while the place has been de-

graded aesthetically - it has been damaged physically - this should also point

out that you cannot simply mark this off as a decrease in production. We have

no real evidence that with all this damage right now, the production of the area

has decreased significantly, with the exception of some of the animals, particu-

larly the oyster.

So you're going to have real problems when you get into an area that's al-

ready degraded. For example, in an old oil field, long in existence, there is

going to be no real way to get in there and change it or make new regulations.

The best you can hope for in this system is to keep it down to a minimum. The

next thing you want to try to do is develop the authority and the system and

the funding to take care of it when it's depleted; because when these areas

166

become depleted is when you are really going to have the problems in management,

If there is no more money coming out of the system, it will be left there to

rust and rot,.and really cause problems. Somewhere along the line., this type

of thing, the cost of this,needs to be integrated into the actual production

and the income from these fields. Some of the worst polluted areas in the

country are the old oil fields, where they are pumping 800, 1000, 2000 barrels

of salt water brine to get one barrel of oil. When you try to get them to

clean it up, what happens? They don't make any money. If you try to shut them

down, you can't do this, because they are hiring all the local people, and you

would put everybody out of work. If you think it's easy to manage this type of

thing, try it some time.

Another thing - we say we don't need the oil. This is ridiculous. Whether

or not we have a real or a fake energy shortage, I won't get into. But this

country lives off of energy, and lives off of oil. I don't care how beELUtifUl

a coastline you have; if somebody comes up and proves that there's a billion

barrels of oil under it, you're likely to end up with oil wells. And if you

don't believe it, you come to Louisiana. The Federal Government wants to live

off of it; the State government wants to live off of it; and the private land-

owners want to live off of it. And you think it's an insignificant thing? The

State and Federal Government have been fighting for 20 years in the courts to

find out where the line goes to see who is going to get the most oil. And I'm

not talking about half a mile; I'm talking about inches. This is how much money

we're talking about. So youtre not going to manage people very easily when the

dollars are there for them to pick up - they're going to want to get them.

When you get into high multiple-use coastand mineral-producing areas which

co-exist with high living resource productivity, you're going to run in-to eco-

nomic problems, and you.need careful economic evaluation, because there is going

167

to be a strong thrust to use the short-term economic gain. You need some real

economic muscle here to prove that the long-term value of these areas can prob-

ably be more significant than a short-term gain. This does not mean that you're

not going to exploit the depletable resources, but it does mean that you're

going to make them pay a price to do it in order to protect your renewable sys-

tems. If you don't, we could lose the whole works.

I think the toughest thing to deal with in managing - and I have attempted

to manage this coast for 25-30 years - is the little activities, the things that

are innocuous and appear to be of little consequence. A man comes in and he

wants to put a dock in; he wants to put in some bulkheading; or he wants to put

in a single oil well. This involves 1 1/2 - 2 acres of dredging. It's in a

marsh where you have millions of acres of the same kind of marsh out here, so

how can you very well prove that this one acre, or two, or five acres is really

going to degrade the whole system and ruin it permanently? You can't. If you

get into a system of managing or public hearings or any other logical system of

upgrading the land's economy and well-being, you're going to lose. What happens

is you end up by cutting a little bit of your finger off every day, and you

finally end up with the whole works gone.

Somewhere in this management program, we have to look at the accumulative

effects of multiple small breakdowns in this system. They have to be analyzed

properly, in time to give us enough lead time to make changes.

Yesterday we had several arguments going on about whether this type of work
should be done by one agency, or two or three, etc. I have some feelings on this'

too, so I might as well put my foot in my mouth and go with it. I think that I

would like to see at least three separate approaches to it, for two or three

reasons:

1. The type of research that is needed, the type of thinking;

168

2. Money, budgeting and manpower available in the system;

3. Existing systems that are already operating.

In planning for one of these unstable marshes, we do need plans, Emd some

very good ones. They should involve such things as studies of the dynamics of

discrete drainage systems within the basin. For example, Louisiana has six

separate drainage systems; each one should be handled separately. We should

know a lot about the normal hydrographic situation and water flow information.

We should have something in the way of vegetation and bottom-type maps,, so that

we know what we had before we started. We need some good information on the

nature and location of living resource productivity. In other words, what -types

of ecosystems or ecological zones within this system produce what, and how much,

and how do they work? What is the general dynamics of this? We need some in-

formation on the existence in density and location and effects of industrial

and mineral production throughout the area, and how it is affecting the natural

drainage system. We need good information on the economic base, the economic

needs, and the sociological relationships between the uses or the users in the

area. And if possible we need a listing or an establishment of priorities, of

safe use and needs in the area to be managed, including recommendations for

zoning and other types of controlled utilization of the coastal zone.

This type of work could be done on a contractual basis, or by unkversities

or research units, or by a State Planning Board. But these people will generally

have to go out to get the technical information in one of these unstable zones.

They are going to have to get the ecological information to build up their plans.

I suspect they are either going to have to contract it or hire the personnel.

Itts going to be costly either way; but since the plan itself probably will need

to be upgraded, most of the work will occur over a short period of time, and it

may be contracted out.

169

By contrast, the actual management of these areas, on a day-to-day basis,

is going to require ongoing data decision making. You have to know from one

day to the next what is happening in the areas; you have to have somebody with

technical qualifications, whom you can call and say, "I need this information

now, we have to make a decision today or tomorrow." We need continuing environ-

mental measurements of the water, and all the other systems involved in this

area. In this group, what you have to do is establish the normal annual varia-

tions of productivity of the important indexed species. If you don't know what

the normal variations are in productivity, then anybody can come in and say, "I

had a drop-off last year." The kind of thing I'm talking about when we had the

Chevron fire blow-out and the Shell fire blow-out. If we had happened to have

a poor shrimp year that year - and believe me the shrimp cycle can vary as much

as 30% - we would have been in one long-term legal battle trying to prove whether

or not it was the oil that killed the shrimp. Not many people around could even

have come up with an answer.

We were lucky; we happened to have the highest shrimp production on record;

so nobody could come out and say the oil wiped out the shrimp. This is the kind

of thing you have to be prepared to answer when you get into this. Otherwise,

you may end up in considerable problems. In order to know that, you have to know

what's out there each season and each year. Determination of the ecosystem dy-

namics and seasonal variations in environmental parameters which control living

resource production - this is mandatory, at least to the key species. You need

measurements of natural extremes in environmental cycling, such as I mentioned

about the river flooding and what have you. Because without this, you have no

way of knowing what happens under the extreme, and whether it's normal or not.

You need a considerable amount of information on dredging, silting, local acci-

dental pollutions, chronic pollution. But more importantly, you need something

170

on the recovery rates of these things. I haven't ever seen an area, except

ones you dug up and filled up or completely stacked up and took put of -the sys_

tem that didn't recover. If it's silted over, or it1s momentarily polluted, if

you have a fish kill or something, it generally goes through a succession and

returns somewhere near normal. We need to know something about these rates,

because this will enter into whether or not you're going to attempt to use the

area.

Of real importance is the indirect effects of activities. We've found that

water cycling changes rates in volume in indirect silting far away from the ac-

tivities - causes much more problem than the things that happen in the cycle.

The kinds of things that really get you are in an area like this they may put

a spoil bank that's temporary across the mouth of an inlet or a natural flow.

This in turn reduces the velocities two or three miles away. In the type of

coast we deal with, the turbidities are very high from wind action. If you get

turbidity from wind action, you slow down the velocity, you drop your silt load

here, yonder, and the other place. It's normal silting, it has nothing to do

with the activity. You can kill whole oyster beds in this manner. If you don't

have some idea how this operates, you can really get in trouble.

I think all of this type of work needs to be done on a daily basis; and

the best people to do it are in an agency in the State, whoever has authority

over the water bottoms and the water. In Louisiana, it happens to be the Wild-

life and Fisheries Commission by statutory authority. It might be some other

agency; but it's only the agency that has to deal with this on a daily basis and

has the personnel, manpower, and equipment to get the job done. If you try -to

hire it to get it done somewhere else, it just won't get done. Not at 'the rate

that it needs to be done, and not with the speed at which it needs to be done.

171

Finally, I think, we need a considerable amount of data-gathering and ob-

jective thinking and research that deals with the research and analysis of

accumulative effects of multiple actions in a system. This is something that

a think-tank or university might do. We need somebody to say when to cut off;

we need enough lead time to say to the oil industry, or any other industry,

"Look, you're approaching a point of degradation here where you have got to slow

down; you can only go so much farther, you'd better begin to change your systems;

you'd better look at how you're going to shut it down." I think it's the only

way we can do this; I think this is the kind of thing to be in a new area. If

you wanted to drill for oil on the East Coast, which has never been drilled, you

could set up a system in your leasing program which controls the amount of activ-

ity with an ongoing ecological study with it. After a certain length of time,

you could have an evaluation and extend it or cut if off. But you have to write

this into your leasing system and into your regulations before you go into it.

I think you need information concerning action putside of the coastal zone

what's upstream water use and management doing to you; what are the pollution

levels; what's the water quality from your river system; what are the land use

patterns upstream doing to your coastal zone? This needs some work; and it can

be best done, I think, at the university level, or some system like this. We

need some very important predictions, predictive economic studies, with respect

to short-term vs. long-term effects, socio-economic problems, and the like; and

the long-term research needed on chronic effects and accumulative effects of

pollution, such as oil and other chemicals. There is much work needed here,

particularly in the sub-lethal category. We don't really know what's happening

in this area.

I have a lot more I could talk about; but I think this is a good time to

stop. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them.

172

Question It seems to me in most discussions we talk primarily
about technical studies of the coastal zone areas. What are
the opportunities for enhancement., and equally important, what
are the possibilities of managing the research to enhance the
production?

Answer: We have some areas that I think you can get enhancement. For example,

we have some ideas in Louisiana about introduction of fresh waters to these

zones. We know that historically man has harnessed the river; and production

of a zone is really based on an annual flood-cycle type of thing. There is no

way to.go back and take the levees away and allow the flooding. What we have

proposed is a system introducing fresh water 'into these areas on.a controlled

basis. We believe that in certain areas we can get the extreme product:iVi.t3r

or multiple productivity in areas that have been degraded. Our problem here

is water quality. We can get the river water, we can get the money to open the

river, but the bacteria load in the river is so high that we can't use it in

shellfish areas. So it is a problem.

Another thing that can be done is probably where you do have projects that

must be made, a good ecological study of them, an engineering study, could give

some benefits. This is going to make the project more costly, and when you get

involved in it, you're going to have to start from the beginning to try to make

the maximum benefit out of the particular activity, but basically you find -that

the marine system is probably better left alone.

In other words, it gives you a high level of production activity as it is;

and one of the simplest things to do is keep it in gear as long as POSSible.

This is in contrast to what you want to do in land management. For this reason,

I like to keep them separate, because land management uphill and upstream really

means you want to control environmental change. You're telling the man where to

put an urban area, where to put a farm, where to put an industry, but -the land

will not support man without. this type of controlled environmental change. The

173

water will give you its maximum production without it. So upstream, water is

a commodity; you use it for irrigation; you use it for industry; for sewage

dilution; and a small amount for recreation if you can get your hands on it.

When you get into the coast, water is the thing you're dealing with; you want

it to remain like it is - I think this is probably why we get disturbed when

we try to separate coastal zone management and land use planning.

175

USES OF COASTAL ZONE
COMMERCIAL-USES - PORTS AND SHIPPING
Mr. Joseph L. Stanton, Maryland Port Administrator

Much as I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this Conference

on Organizing and Managing the Coastal Zone, I hasten to state that I do not

have the temerity to hold myself out as the spokesman for ports and shipping

of the United States. Seaports of the United States are numerous and while

all of them serve the basic function of providing a transfer point between land

and ocean transportation, these seaports differ widely in significant aspects.

The physical characteristics of the seaports of the United States reflect the

geography of our country. The volume of waterborne trade, the variety of com-

modities handled, the services provided and the types of port operations may

be substantially different from port to port. Nor is there any uniformity it

port administration and development. There are no uniform federal policies nor

regulations governing U.S. ports. Seaports may be municipally owned and con-

trolled; they may be enterprises of a county government in which a port may be

located. In some States, as in Maryland, ports are administered and developed

by the State. Several ports are bi-State organizations operating with the

approval of the Federal Government. There is little uniformity in port finan-

cing throughout the country. Port planning and development are independently

carried out by the local agencies. Coordination of seaport programs is non-

existent.

With this background, you will appreciate the difficulty in presenting sound

documented data applicable to all ports throughout our country. Necessarily,

therefore, my remarks must be somewhat parochial.

This is not to say that the ports of the United States do not have common

denominators. This they do,and to a surprising extent. Practically all U.S.

ports are closely allied to our private business enterprise system. Our ports

176

are highly competitive, each working @nd@vidually to garner the largest possible

share of ocean.commerce to its own gateW4y. Among port executives, this competi-

tive factor is a matter for thoughtful concern. That U.S. ports compete among

themselves for cargoes moving in world commerce is frequently greeted as a sur-

prising phenomena by port colleagues abroad, True, there is competition between

ports outside of the United States, but this competition is usually between

ports located in different countries. I know of very few instances abroad where

unrestricted competition exists between ports in the same nation.

It is interesting to note that @nterport competition in the United Kingdom

was the subject of an exhaustive study a few years ago,and one of the interesting

and significant findings was that such competition among British ports was not in

the common interest. It was held that the duplication of costly port facilities

without regard to national need constituted an unwarranted dissipation of finan-

cial resources. Today major port development projects in Britain require the

approval of a national board charged with determining the overall port needs of

the country.

The impracticality of such sweeping measures in the United States at this

time may be obvious to all of you, but there is little question in my mind that

the advantages of our highly competitive port situation in the United States is

considerably leavened by the duplication of costly waterfront facilities at ports

in close proximity to each other.

As a Maryland port executive, my area of chief concern is necessarily limited

to the objectives set forth in the statement of intent and the legislat1on estab-

lishing the Maryland Port Administration. These objectives can be stated in

simple terms: To protect and enhance the waterborne commerce of the ports of

Maryland. To carry out this mandate, it is obvious that we would concentrate on

the Port of Baltimore, where the bulk of such commerce is centered.

177

Here, I believe, I should digress for a moment to define ourmeaning of the

word 11port." The Port of Baltimore, in our terminology, is a m4jor.com lex for

the interchange of freight between waterborne and land carriers, and it is also

an industrial/commercial community, dependent upon water as well as land trans-

portation for its viability.

Recognizing the great importance of the port to a wide variety of private

enterprises, the question naturally arises as to the justification for a State

to establish and maintain a costly port administration when themonetary benefits

flow largely to private businesses. The answer in the case of the State of Mary-

land is found in the recent history of the Port of Baltimore. Until 1956, the

Port of Baltimore was largely controlled by the four railroads serving the port.

To a major extent, the railroads established the rates and practices of the port;

they constructed the piers, furnished the equipment and solicited the business

for the port. But as the fortunes of the railroads of the East declined, port

development at Baltimore suffered. Competing ports to the north and South had
established public port agencies to foster and protect their seaports. The rail-

roads, with limited capital resources, were unable to compete with these public

agencies,and Baltimorets importance as a major seaport declined.

The Maryland Legislature, responding to the urging of concerned citizens,

established a State-wide port agency, with adequate financing and powers to carry

out wide programs of port development and promotion. Motivating this highly

unusual action of the Maryland Legislature was the generally accepted statement

that the port was important to the economy of the State. How important was not

known until a highly professional, in-depth study was carried out by the Business

Administration Department of the University of Maryland in 1967-68. Based on

statistical data available for the calendar year of 1966, this study demonstrated

that:

178

1. The complex known as the Port of Baltimore had 4 total impact

on the economy of the St4te,Qf,MarylAnd in excess of $1,4 billion

annually, or approximately 15% of the gross State product;

2. That 4 total of 150,000 citizens of Maryland were employed in

jobs related to port activities;

3. That $40 million of local and State taxes were generated annually

from port operations.

Parenthetically, it might be pointed out that the intensive development.and

promotion program carried out in behalf of the Fort of Baltimore has resulted in

substantial cargo gains over the 1966 totals used in the University of MarylZMd's

study. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the economic impact of the Port on

this State's economy is substantially greater than the $1.4 billion registered in

1966.

The study further revealed that each ton of general cargo moving through the

Port of Baltimore left approximately $30 in the local economy while bulk cargo

passing through the port had an economic impact of $5 per ton. However, bulk

cargoes received and processed at Baltimore was worth $24 a ton.

The concern of interested citizens over the destinies of the Port of Balti-

more and the action of the Legislature in establishing a strong port agency

appear to be amply justified in view of the impact of port business on the over-

all economy of Maryland. Further, the strong competition among U.S. seaports

for this lucrative flow of cargo can be appreciated when the financial stakes

are weighed.

In a small State such as Maryland, the port complex just described must rank

as our principal economic asset, To protect the economy of the State and the

'well-being of the citizens, A constant program of modernization, new construction,

and trade development must be carried out if a significant segment of our economy

is to be maintained. The period of port neglect preceding 1956 is still fresh in

179

many minds, More than $100 million of public funds has been expended In the Past

15 years to overcQme-that neglectand.some $200 million more Is projected for

further development of the port during the next decade, Baltimore is a growing

port. Each year the number of shippers utilizing the port is Increasing. Im-

portant new cargo gains are being registered. The huge Investment of the State

is paying off, and Baltimore's favorable geographical location as a major port

most economically serving a vast area of the inland East and Midwest is being

realized. The Baltimore port program has gained substantial impetus and the

well-being of our citizens clearly indicates that this impetus must be maintained.

Does this imply that port development should go forward without regard to

the other very valid concerns of thoughtful citizens over the utilization of Ches-

apeake Bay as an important source of fin and shellfish, and for recreational uses?

Are the aesthetic values of the Bay to be destroyed in the name of commercial

progress? In essence, is port development to be carried out without concern for

the ecology of one of the great water areas of the nation?

The Maryland Port Administration responds with a definite "no" to each of

these questions. Developers, as our agency is, are not despoilers. We believe

that we are realists. Our planning and programs are designed for the betterment

of our fellow citizens. In view of the economic impact of this port on our economy,

our reasoning and our guiding policies must be somewhat pragmatic; but the futil-

ity of port development that would despoil the Bay is as obvious to us as to the

most ardent conservationist. A bustling port abutting on a dead sea is no more

appealing to us than a pristine bay surrounded by poverty-stricken citizens who

cannot afford to enjoy its beauties.

Thoughtful citizens must agree that neither alternative is inevitable. Planned

and controlled development In a small area of the Bay can go hand-and-hand with an

enhancement of the Chesapeake as a recreational center and an important source of

shell and fin fish.

180

At this point, I believe it is important to consider the coastal zone area

of concern to the agency I represent. The Port,Qf BaltipQre.is An inland p9pt,

Its geographical locationperm@ts the deepest natural inland penetration by

ocean shipping into the eastern United States, This inland location results in

the shortest rail and highway haul to the heavy industrial centers of the inland

East and Midwest, as well as to the great agricultural areas west of the Allegheny

Mountains. This shorter distance is reflected in lower costs for American goods

and crops moving in international trade, thus assisting American manufacturers

and farmers to compete in the world markets.

How important that ability to compete is becomes obvious when one reflects

on the precarious status-of the U.S. balance of trade, the weakening of our cur-

rency on the international money market, and resultant domestic inflation. The

need for a strong, positive international trade position for our country is Crit-

ical if an acceptable level of economic prosperity is to be maintained in the

United States. A modern, efficient port industry is a key factor in acl,-iieving

and maintaining a balanced posture for America in the international traile market.

The development program of the Maryland Port Administration is keyed to

achieving what we believe to be its rightful position in the port industry of

this country. We believe our planning is realistic, progressive, and in keeping

with the needs of our State and the nation. At this point in time, however, we

are experiencing increasing difficulties in obtaining Federal permits for essen-

tial new construction in the Fort of Baltimore.

It is not my intention at this time to recite the growing list of obStELCles

that we are encounterIng in our effort to carry out a carefully devised. master

plan of port development,

Reminding you again that Naryland is a small State, and that our financial

resources are limited, We have nevertheless been assured of adequate fVnding to

181

carry out our program, It is obvious that this cannot be realized unless a

cooperative attitude is exhibited by Federal agencies now restricting our work,

Without belaboring the point, it may be useful to illustrate what we consider

unduly restrictive measures to the furtherance of our port program. Recently

we found ourselves in the embarrassing position of having virtually completed

a $23 million expansion of our terminal for containerships, only to find that

the necessary approval for the disposal of dredged material in connection with

this project was being held up. Utilization of this costly project was delayed

nearly a year in an unproductive state, at a substantial financial loss to the

Maryland public. How the necessary spoil disposal permit was finally obtained

I will not reveal at this time, but I can assure you that it had little relation

to sound planning of our coastal zone.

Recently, we have been called upon to provide a master plan of development

of the Port of Baltimore in connection with a permit application for construction

of a new terminal on land purchased from the Federal Government for the stated

intention of just such construction. The master plan has been submitted, but

the necessary permits are still being withheld at this date. We are disturbed

by the fact that competitive ports of the North Atlantic range, and generally

throughout the country, are not being required to provide such extensive plan-

ning in connection with their terminal construction programs. We view this as

placing the Port of Baltimore at a competitive disadvantage, and I remind you

again that the seaport industry of the United States is highly competitive.

Further, we find it most difficult to reconcile the withholding of,Federal permits

with the policy announced by Dr.'John L. Hazard, Assistant Secretary for Policy,

Planning and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation, who,

speaking on behalf of President Nixon, called upon the port areas to expand their

facilities to meet the tremendously expanding trade of the United States.

182

We recognize that sound port planning is essential to the orderly develop-

ment of our coastal zones, and such planning has long received priority atten-

tion at the Fort of Baltimore. In fact, the Maryland Port Administration has

been repeatedly cited for the soundness and progressiveness of its overall pcrt

program. This important work is headed by Dr. Walter C. Boyer, Deputy Maryland

Port Administrator for Engineering and Operations, who is widely recognized as

an outstanding authority in this field,

In your consideration of the "Uses of the Coastal Zone," careful attention

should be given to the projected growth of international trade. The planning of

the Maryland Port Administration is carefully keyed into the most reliable pro-

jections that we have been able to obtain on expected future growth of world

commerce. The real impetus of foreign trade expansion began about 1949, and

there has been virtually no interruption since that date. This dramatic! growth

of world trade relates to both dry goods and petroleum. The 15-year period from

1950 to 1965 is illustrative of the increase in the exchange of goods among the

nations of the world. Total world seaborne trade in 1950 was 525 million metric

tons. By 1965, this trade had increased to 1640 million metric tons; and this

increasing flow is continuing today, with no indication of abatement.

While much of this increase in world seaborne trade can be attributed to

exploding world population, it must also be related to technological advances

in all parts of the world. In 1950 the estimated world population was 2 billion,

520 million people. Relating this to the international movement of dry cargo,

.12 tons of goods were shipped for each person. By 1967, the world population

was estimated at 3 billion, 420 million people; and the cargo moved per persDn

had increased to .24. Referring to the 1967 data of .24 tons of cargo moved per

person, it will be noted that this was far below the American.average of just

over one ton per person per year, Clearly, if the standards of living of the

183

developing countries approach the American level, and the growth of world popu-

lation continues, the demand on international shipping will continue to grow at

an exceedingly high rate, with resultant demands for port expansion to accommodate

this growth,

Referring to the United States alone, we find that our foreign trade in 1955,

both dry and liquid, totaled 242 million tons. By 1967, this volume had increased

to 416 million tons. Faced with depleting natural resources within the boundaries

of the United States, it is logical to assume continued growth Of international

trade.

The Port of Baltimore, situated in the North Atlantic range, ranks as one

of the world's great centers of international commerce. In 1971, the Dort handled

over 24.8-million tons of export-import cargo, or 13.1% of all the foreign tonnage

loaded and unloaded at the major American ports. Our most careful studies of

future trends of commodities handled and world conditions indicate substantial

growth for the Port of Baltimore in future years. Directly related to that growth

is further port development. An important future project must be mentioned at

this point:

Increasing the depths of the main shipping channels from Baltimore harbor to

the open ocean at the Capes from the existing 42 feet to 50 feet, as authorized

by the United States Congress. The impact of a project of this type oncoastal

zone planning deserves most careful consideration.

Again referring to the competitive aspect of the American port industry, it

should be noted that the Fort of Baltimore is currently expending over one-half

million dollars per year in soliciting commerce throughout the world. A network

of trade development offices has been established at key points in the United

States, in the United Kingdom, continental Europe, and in Japan. A new trade

development office will begin operation in Hong Kong on July 1, 1973. This cargo

184

solicitation relates directly to the physical development of the port'and t,-'Les

in with the overall objective of improving the economy of the State of Maryland.

In projecting future growth for the Port of Baltimore, consideratJon has

been given to past trends and to the most responsible projections avail-able.

The population of the United States, presently about 210 million, is expected

to increase to a minimum of 270 million by the year 2000, and conceivably as

high as 330 million. Related to Baltimore's maritime commerce, this would pro-

vide the impetus for at least a 30% increase in maritime traffic over the next

27 years. However, energy demands are increasing at such a rate as to make the

projected increase considerably larger. Overall, United States trade is expected

to increase 100% between 1970 and the year 2000. Our more conservative estimate

is that Baltimore's trade will increase on the order of about 80%. We see general

cargo increasing at a rate of about 50% through the end of this century. This

trend is consistent with our experience over the past 15 years. We believe that

this goal can be realistically achieved if the necessary modern port facilities

can be provided in reasonable consistency with demand. At this stage, we are

naturally concerned about the difficulties we are encountering in obtaining coop-

eration from Federal permit-issuing agencies; but in view of the compelling over-

all reasons for port expansion, we believe that realistic planning of coastal

zone usage will give full weight to the international trade picture.

We believe that it is important that the physical relationship of the Port

of Baltimore to the overall Bay be weighed carefully in future planning. The Port

of Baltimore provides a shoreline perimeter of 41.5 miles, encompassing a water

surface area of 18 square miles. It is the unanimous agreement of Maryland. offi-

cials that the highest order of use for this shoreline wlth@n the confines of the

Patapsco River is for port development,

185

Since the Chesapeake Bay has a perimeter of 4600 miles (3400 miles, inci-

dentally, In Maryland) and comprises 2200 square miles of surface area in the

Bay proper, the designation of 41 miles of perimeter as the St4tels maritime

workshop is exceedingly modest.

In concluding these brief remarks, it is desired to emphasize that the Mary-

land Port Administration, the State agency responsible for major development in

the Port of Baltimore, is eager and willing to cooperate fully with all regula-

tory agencies in bringing about orderly development of Chesapeake Bay, in keep-

ing with the best interests of the public.

Question: Is as much attention being given to increasing
Tf-ficiency of existing operations as to the capacity of
unloading as there is to the expansion of facilities?

Answer: Yes. I would say that probably that is the focal point of a great deal

of our attention now, because of changes in the handling of cargoes, both liquid

and solid. I think techniques have improved vastly. Facilities that were con-

sidered quite sufficient fifteen years ago are completely outdated.

Question: How are the ports on the upper East Coast handling
their waste disposal probZems?

Answer: That has received attention in the Maryland Legislature, and is also a

matter of concern to the U.S. Coast Guard. There are strict regulations against

any pumping of bilges or discharge of waste water within the confines of the Bay,

Further, the Maryland Fort Administration that I head is very much interested in

this, because one of the responsibilities is the cleaning up of our port, and I

think that responsibility, along with development and promotion of a port, belongs

in the same agency. I feel that we have probably the best knowledge of the ship-

ping in the Bay; we know the offenders. We have now good laboratory techniques

to identify an offender who pumps oil into the Bay. We can Identify the ship

from the oil we see, and we follow through with prosecution. This is the State

authority that is doing this.

186

Q.iest@on I think there is a tota4 disregard for this
particu4ar env@rormentqZ concern by the ohipe wh@ch come
out of the Houston 5hip ChanneZ through GaZveston Bay,
X think they wait to get into Galveston Bay to pump their
bilge. Z think the Coast Guard is as Lax in its enforce-
ment as an agency in government can be and stiU survive.
Do you get cooperation from the Coast Guard in that regard.,
or do you have your own enforcement, too?

Answer: We enforce through the United States courts; it's a Federal offense to

dump bilge water in the Bay. We depend mostly on the United States Coast Guard

for detection, although we do have our own people on the Bay, our work force,

constantly watching for oil spills or the dumping of debris. The U.S. Coast:

Guard does an overfly over all the areas of the port and Bay and radioes back

information. When we receive the information that there is an oil slick, we

immediately dispatch a surface craft to the area. We have strategically located

around the port styrofoam booms. We can find the oil slick; we then have what

we think is the most modern craft of its type to go in and clean up that oil

before it can disperse throughout the Bay waters or the harbor waters. Currently

we are doubling that equipment and putting it on a 7-day week. In the past:, my

budget just permitted 5 days of operation; but the Legislature has granted addi-

tional money so that this could be a 7-day-a-week operation. And of course,

when an oil slick has been detected and the clean-up process itself begins, we

continue it around the clock until it's cleaned up.

question: How do you hand4e reguZar sewage at the dock?
Does it ever fLood directZy into the channeZ?

Answer: At this time, there are no uniform restrictions on the sewage originating

on ships. This is very serious, but there is, as you probably know, a Federal

rule coming out now to the effect that they all must install holding tanks. All

the new ships now have holding tanks. I'm glad you brought that up, because itts

not only the commercial ship that is the offender here. If you happen to be in

Maryland over the weekend, you've probably noted that there were some 50,000

187

pleasure boats on the Bay last Weekend, Now 50,000 pleasure boats, with possibly

4 persons per boat, is a 200,000 population there. I know of very few pleasure

boats, even the most'elaborate, that provide any kind of holding tank for the

sewage and waste originating on those boats. This is a source of pollution that

certainly ought to be looked at.

Question: Are your dockside connections connected to the city sewer
TTn-e y
., or do you flush directly into the Ba , as we do in the city of
GaZveston?

Answer: Itm happy to tell you that from the time we went in, every facility we

have built goes directly into the city sewer system; and also the old facilities

that we took over, we immediately hooked up. Further, we issue permits for con-

struction, and we will not permit any construction that does not provide completely

satisfactory sanitation facilities.

Dr. Johnson: In our consideration of research in the Chesapeake Bay area, one of

our concerns was knowing what the priority of problems might be. We conducted

some surveys and some analyses with responsible officials in both Virginia and

Maryland and the Federal agencies. It's quite clear, however you try and cali-

brate the arithmetic, that,at least in this analysisthe sewage disposal problem

around the Bay is the single most important problem of the Bay as a whole. This

pleasure craft business is certainly a contributing factor.

Mr. Stanton: All of your modern planning among port executives calls for control

of the disposal of sewage by ships. I believe your people will tell you that the

Coast Guard is now in the process of enacting rules prohibiting the dumping of

sewage from ships in any waters, They will all have to have holding tanks. I

do think it's important, however, that the agency that has the commercial interest

of ships operating in its area should also have the responsibility of cleaning up,

because this gives you a very definite motive to see that the ships operate in a

clean and sanitary manner. I know that when we're spending a very substantial

188

amount of money on craft And crews to clean up the harbor, our interest is,

let's say, 4 little sharper in seeing that the ships obey the laws,

Dr. Johnson: This is a clear and important problem in a great many places, and

some of you who relate directly to port administration may wish to pursue this

with Mr. Stanton and benefit from his experience. It's my understanding that

the Navy has given some consideration to removing those old battleship hulks

from Pearl Harbor. After this many years, it's not at all obvious that removing

those wrecks would be a benefit to the environment or the reverse, since those

are now stabilized habitats.

Question: How are dredge spoiZs disposed of and sited, and are
there other port authorities on Chesapeake Bay?

Answer: At this time, the disposal of spoils, dredge materials, is the most cru-

cial and the most perplexing problem faced by the Port of Baltimore and by Mary-

land interests. The only other port district of significance would probably be

down at Hampton Roads, which is outside the State of Maryland, and I cannot speak

for that. We have proposed, and the Legislature here in Maryland has agreed, and

authorized a sum of.money for the construction of a large oil disposal area in

the area just north of Baltimore, just outside Baltimore Harbor, for the receipt

of spoils. This would create a large island. It's our contention that this

island would be a very useful public place for parks, picnicking, boats, etc. It

would provide a receptacle for dredge material for at least 20 years. Despite

the fact that this seems to have obvious advantages, a confined area that would

not permit spoils to be dissipated throughout the waters of the Bay, that it

would have the benefit of constructing land that we think would be recreationally

useful, we have received all types of opposition on that. The Legislature auth-

orized this spoil disposal area in 1969 - we still do not have it. And as a re-

sult, many of our big projects, major projects of great need, are being held up

189

because it cannot find a place to dispose of the dredge material. Therels been

a general edict against our disposing of it in the deep areas of the Bay as welve

done for over 100 years; and as a result we cannot get rid of it.

Question: Why not try Zand disposaZ?

Answer: There, too, you run into problems. If this material being dredged is

obnoxious, they dontt want it on shore either. The other fact is a very pragmatic

one, and that is that the constant disposing of spoil on shore can run from 10 to

20 times as much as it can in the water. Economically, you simply cannot afford

to do it. The cost of a project just goes through the roof and you have to set

it aside. The thing is not economically viable. So today, our biggest problem

is the disposal of spoil material. Our ultimate solution is the creation of this

large dike in this declined area. But here again, there are ecological objections.

You have aesthetic objections to the creation of such an island in the Bay, and

others I would say that are simply done by the product objectives.

PLANNING FOR THE COASTAL ZONE
WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE SITING REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES
Mr. Peter M.-Stern, Vice President for Regional & Enyirormantal Planning
Northeast Utilities - Hartford, Connecticut

1. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND POWER PLANT*SITING

Many coastal States have either passed and implemented or are drafting power

plant siting legislation. The State bodies created to administer the siting legis-

lation, in most cases, are directed to seek a balance between the mandate to mini-

mize the environmental impact of proposed facilities and the need to provide ade-

quate and reliable power at reasonable cost. Several laws now on the books provide

for a one-stop site approval mechanism, following full opportunity for public par-

ticipation and review by concerned governmental agencies. While specific permits

under clean air and clean water laws may still be required in many jurisdictions,

it is believed that the achievement of a "one-stop" siting mechanism at the State

level is in the best interest of all parties. The existence of such a mechanism

should simplify the "meshing" of future coastal zone management programs with the

planning process of the utilities and the regulatory activities of State siting

agencies.

In passing the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the Congress gave explicit

recognition to the need for power plant siting. This is reflected in Section 306

of the Act, the Committee Report on the House bill, and the Conference Report on

the Senate bill which eventually became the Act.

Thus to qualify for administration as well as for development grants, a State

must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Commerce that the manage-

ment program will be consistent with specific requirements of Section 306, including

the provision for

"adequate consideration of the nationaZ interest invoLved in
the siting of facitities necessary to meet requirements which
are other than tocal in naturelt

192

This provision of Section 306 of the Act found its genesis in the committee

Report No. 92-1049, accompanying House Bill H.R. 14146.. On page 18, it sets

forth the requirement:

"(8) that the program takes into consideration the
national interest involved in the siting of facili-
ties, such as power plants and transportation
faciZities., which may be necessary to meet require-
ments other than Local in nature." (Emphasis added)

In addition, there is the following wording:

"...To the extent that a State program does not
recognize these overall national interests, as
well as the specific national interest in the
aeneration and distribution of electric ener@qy
adequate transportation facilities, and other
public services, or is construed as conflicting
with any applicable statute, the Secretary may
not approve the State program until it is amended
to recognize those Federal rights, powers, and
interests." (Emphasis added)

Conference Report No. 92-1544, which accompanied Senate Bill S.3507, which

became the Act, contained the following language on page 14 with respect to the

same requirement:

11 ... In addition, the Conferees accepted the two
additional items required by the House in State
management programs., the first as to adequate
consideration for the national interests involved
in the siting of facilities representing regional
or national requirements, and the second relating
to inclusion of procedures whereby specific areas
may be set aside for certain Listed purposes. In
each case endorsing the rationale for those incZu-
sions as contained in House Report 924049.11 (Emphasis added)

2. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND STATE LAND USE PLANNING

Under proposed Federal land use policy legislation, each State will. be re-

quired to develop comprehensive land use plans with particular emphasis on areas

of critical environmental importance and facilities of regional or State-wide

significance. Coastal zone management and State@wide land use planning will

have to be carefully dove-tailed from the outset, in order to allow the util:L-

193

ties to introduce their future land requirements into the public planning process

with adequate allowance for facility expansion lead times.

I note in this connection I read a newsheet called "Land Use Planning Re-

ports," which comes out of Washington, and refers to developing legislative

process. In it I find quoted the Director of the Interior's Office of Land Use

and Water Planning, Mr. Marston - who is here - who stressed that separate coastal

zone management and land use planning programs operating under different sets of

guidelines and regulations, under different laws and different Federal departments

"would create a nightmarish situation." I can only endorse.this-statement from

the utility industry's point of view. Furthermore, I am concerned over the fact

that the Environmental Protection Agency, in carrying out its mandate to control

complex sources of air emissions is, in my humble opinion, rapidly moving to the

land use planning business itself, with its own rules and regulations, so as to

throw a third level of land use planning in the way of those who must do the

functional planning on their own.

In my emphasizing the adequate allowance for facility expansion lead times,

I would like to point out to future coastal zone managers that they should give

early recognition to power plant sites that are in the inventories of utilities

as they are reported, depending on what their jurisdictions are, and their ten-

year forecast to State agencies, and their forecast in their reports as part of

the reliability counsels to the Federal Power Commission. These inventories

must be reported in the various jurisdictions in various ways. They represent

the inventories that the utilities have, and they should be given early recogni-

tion, even though all of these sites inventory may never be used for technological

or environmental reasons. But it's important to give recognition to them, because

under the guidelines of NEPA, as implemented by either the Federal Power Commission

or the Atomic Energy Commission, as you know, the utilities are required in great

194

detail to submit evaluations about tentative sites When they propose a s-pec@fic

site for 4 license or a permit or a siting organization, So it's extremely i.m-

portant that these alternatives be recognized in the inventory and in the process

of management planning by the coastal zone managers, because otherwise the appli-

cant, the utility working under one set of guidelines, will have a problem justi-

fying that this inventory of sites is in another agency's management plan.

3. IMPORTANCE OF COASTAL ZONE TO MEET FUTURE SITING REQUIREMENTS

The Coastal Zone Act of 1972 and its implementation are of considerable im-

portance to the electric utility industry for a number of reasons. It is a fact

of life that many identified power plant sites that are capable of meeting system,

technical, logistic, and environmental requirements are located in coastal zones,

on estuaries, and on the Great Lakes. If a utility is precluded from using a

coastal site, alternative options are inland sites, where the,availability of

cooling water can be a serious problem, land use and otherwise. Furthermore,

certain inland locations will give rise to the need for extended transmission

corridors from the site to the load centers, which in many coastal States are

to be found in or near the coastal zone.

The Coastal Zone Act emphasizes that it is national policy to encourage

cooperation among.State and regional agencies, including the creation of agree-

ments, procedures, and joint action, particularly regarding environmental prob-

lems. I should like to recognize that in our geographical area, namely southern

New England, there is now a regional planning process surrounding a coastal zone

going on. This is, namely, the Long Island Sound Study of1the New England River

Basins Commission, in which that Commission, with its Federal and State partici-

pants, is trying to isolate both the environmental problem areas and the future

uses of the coastal zone as best it can; and it seems to me that in many ways in

our area, because of the Long Island Sound Study - a 3-year study well under way

195

future coastal zone managers are going to have to dove-ta@l their work with that

of the River Basins Commission. As utility planning is less and less capable of

being limited to the territory.of a single State, it is essential for coastal

zone management planning bodies to be regionally coordinated as well. The elec-

tric utility industry is becoming increasingly involved in regional planning

through regional power pools, and in coordination of planning on an even larger

geographical basis through the nine electric reliability councils, which cover

the whole country. It is to be hoped that coastal zone planners will make it a

practice to invite representatives of the utilities and their regional groupings

to discuss regional power planning procedures and processes.

4. CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the way it will

be implemented, are of great importance to the electric utility industry. It is

essential for future coastal zone managers to acquaint themselves with the indus-

try's long-term planning tools and with the technological alternatives that are

available for decision-making purposes, and of their environmental implications

within and beyond the coastal zone.

Finally, recognition should be given to the regulatory mechanisms within

which the utility industry now operates, and to the essentiality of working to-

wards reducing the regulatory lag, so that site planning and agency review can

be performed under less stringent time constraints than prevail today, and thus

give all parties concerned an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to

the planning process.

question What would you think about consolidating land use
and coastal zone planning in the Department of Cormerce?

Answer: I'm probably not the fellow to comment on that, since I'm not in govern-

ment myself at this time. I am concerned, since both programs are really programs

196

to funnel grants and to provide directives to the States. I am more concerned

as to how these separate programs at the Federal level are finally carried out

at the State level, Of course, I immediately then proceed from my own problems

in my own area, and at this point, I don't have the national overview. I'm

satisfied that these separately funded and separately directed programs at the

national level are reasonably well and centrally implemented at the State level,

whether it is in the land use planning agency at the State level, or thE@ coastal

zone management agency at the State level, or if the two are combined. If the

body that carries these out works closely with us in terms of our values, then

really I have no problem. I think my concern is that the States see the problem

of separate funding at the Federal level and do something about it.

Dr. Johnson: Do I understand your concern to be the effectiveness and -the number

of administrators that your utility industry would have to relate to, rather than

the label they may carry?

Answer: We are constantly trying to see to it that we work with capable people,

but with fewer people.

Question: A number of States now have a power plant siting
act. I wonder if you could address, from the utilities view-
point, which of these are most effective in addressing the
regulatory problems?

Answer: I'm probably not the best person to comment on this, because I am not

up to date on all of the States' power plant siting acts that have been passed

or implemented in the last two or three years. The process is moving so fast,

so many new laws are being passed, that I'm just not up to date. I know, for

example, that in Florida they passed a law recently; but unfortunately I haven't

even seen the law myself, so you'd have to ask someone who knows more. We have

the laws in a number of States that have been in effect long enough that you can

begin to see how they work. In most cases since State power plant sitings are

so recent, you really have to say that the experience is not as yet in to be able

to say what the problems with them are, etc.

197

Mr. Knecht: A brief comment on the earlier question - not with regard to Com-

merce taking over both programs, I think V11 leave that - but the question

about whether or not anything done at the Federal level will cause States to

fragment their response and develop separate administrative structures that

would not be helpful to the total process. The guidelines that we distributed

yesterday, which are now available for the first phase of the coastal zone man-

agement program, speak to this question and provide guidance to the States with

regard to their organizational response. I would urge you and all the other

industry people to look at these guidelines. If they are inadequate in that

respect, please comment and make suggestions. They have been drafted, though,

to be as flexible as possible to encourage States to take a comprehensive ap-

proach to the problem, and recognize all of its aspects. We want to try and

achieve that.

Dr. Johnson: We have been considering commercial uses in the coastal zone; and

we have taken up the issue of shipping and port administration; and we have

heard from the considerations that the utility industry poses. We have one more

question before we go then to Mr. Fraser and a consideration of second-home

development and other kinds of commercial recreation development.

Question: I was interested in the compatibility of the time frames
Thalt -are being used in planning groups. SpecifiaalZy, I refer to
planning and the general reluctance on the part of the State agen-
cies to really do any comprehensive planning beyond certain polit-
icaZ terms of office. How do you see the resolution of these
problems?

Answer: I will now give you a personal view, rather than an intuitive view, be-

cause the answer doesntt lend itself to any industry's response, at least in my
view, anyway. I feel that it's terribly urgent for the States to accelerate

the inventory and resource and land use planning process, and to include within

that all the facilities of critical importance, regional importance; because

until such time as the public agencies which either are our regulators or are

198

those who must professionally comment to our regulators on the kind of plannii.-Ig

proposals that we submit, you aren't going to have an equivalent in the quality

and thoroughness of the evaluation of the land use planning proposals and their

environmental implications. I would like to add to that one terribly important

point, from our point of view. In proposing new facilities in our industry, we

must document needs. There are many things that go into needs. One thing in

need is the growth, to pose the projected growth, in this time frame Of 10 YE!ars.

And as Mr. Bill Reilly of the Land Use Task Force of the Rockefeller Brother-,;

Fund said just a few weeks ago in presenting the Use of the Land Report, there

is a "new mood" in the country - a "new mood" towards slowing things dovrn. If

he's right, then that "new mood," that concern - if there is a concern - has to

be expressed in terms of publicly provided growth guidelines. I noticed just

the other day that the Governor of Illinois is about to approve a population

projection for the State of Illinois that is going to be a guideline fW all

State agencies in justifying their projects. At the present time, we make a

forecast of population which is going to be one of the many ingredients in fore-

casting demand for power, and everybody comes down on our head as to why we-made

the assumptions we did. We would like the responsible public officials to make

forecasts of the rate of growth for all purposes - highway planning, housing

planning, utility planning - so we can all agree on the demand ingredient that

is needed, and then proceed to the more important question of how to meet the

demands with environmentally compatible facilities,

199

COMMERCIAL USES OF THE COASTAL ZONE;
PORTS; SHTPPJNG@ POWER@ AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Charles Fraser, President, Sea Fines Plantation,
Hilton Head, South Carolina

It's been very pleasant listening to the multiplicity of views being ex-

pressed on coastal zone management, I've begun to turn down all requests that

I give a speech at a symposium being held at XYZ College on a one-day session

on "How Do We Use Our Land In America, and How Do We Handle All Our Land Use

Problems," because I'm sure that each of us here can expand on each one of the

presentations that have been made, and make it into a 3-week session.

What information is really needed to develop a rational and comprehensive

plan for the human settlements in the coastal zone? What are the policy issues

involved in these human settlements? What are the proper goals of government

agencies in regard to the human settlements? This month's Smithsonian Institute

Magazine provides the startling statistic to me that 50% of our population is

now concentrated in the coastal counties of the Atlantic, the Gulf, the Pacific,

and the Great Lakes. All of us are aware of the enormous natural pollution that

this concentration of population has brought about; and many of us are concerned

with the visual pollution - the billboards, hamburger stands, the junkyards, and

hundreds of other items that pollute the shoreline. Some of us are offended by

a cabin; others by a tent; others by a motor home; others by a mansion; and others

by a high rise. Take your pick as to what is pollution. Take your pick as to

what is bad growth. The fact of the matter is that when Americans take their

vacations, 70% of them, more or less, head for these same coastal areas.

It is not population growth, it is not a shorter work week, but increased

income of the middle class American that has crowded our shorelines. Those of

you who are familiar with the statistics of the change in the population mix by

income class in each of the last three censuses, after adjustment for inflation,

200

are startled by the figures, For example, the last fifteen years alone, the

market group to whom the Sea Pines Plantation At Hilton Read Island w4sdirected

has literally increased in number, after adjustment for inflation, 10 times'.

What is crowding the shoreline? I've only seen pictures of Coney Island, al:

which in a space no bigger than this on the beach there would be at least this

many people, and yet today at Sea Pines Plantation there would not be this many

people in four miles of shoreline, and there would be those who would consider

it crowded.

The United States Government owns some 20*miles of beach front along the

Georgia coastal islands, and I doubt that an audience as large as this of private

individual vacationers will visit all of those 20 miles during their entire sum-

mer;-and a proposal that this many people go camp on the beach at one of the

places might set off great waves of worry. What is our tolerance level of crowds?

We can stop the growth along the coast by various methods. We could set up, con-

.trol points around the Washington metropolitan area, establish machine gun points,

let the Mafia raffle off permits to leave town. Once a decade you can go to the

High Sierras; once a year you can go to the Maryland shore; once a month you can

go to a local lake. That won't work very well. We can add to our public parks;

but most public parks today are generated visits from their immediate area, be-

cause we are increasingly opposing motor homes, commercial campgrounds, and cer-

tainly motels in our public recreational areas.

That word "public" is a tricky one. We seem frequently to think "pub'Lic"

areas are those places owned by a government agency where large numbers of people

go; and'"privatell areas are those places not owned by a government agency 'Where

a very few people go. And this is correct in certain instances. For example,

once more using the Georgia coast. (I sometimes dare not talk about South

Carolina, because when I do, I get angry letters from people who think Myrtle

201

Beach is beautiful; and they point out that I am a Parks Commissioner for South

Carolina, and have been a Parks Recreation and Tourism Commissioner for South

Carolina, and when I say nasty things about any South Carolina development, itm

hot doing my duty wearing my "tourism" hat.) So Itll use the Georgia coast.

All of our companiest communities are outside of the Georgia coast - in Florida,

just below the Georgia coast, or South Carolina, just above it, and we're in

North Carolina planning a tent compound 11 miles across the border. The Saint

Catherines Island, a magnificent island,' Sapelo Island, a magnificent island -

miles and miles of beaches. Probably 10 people crowd them up; and probably 100

different people enjoy Saint Catherines in a year's time. Jekyll Island is en-

joyed probably by 5,000 different people every week; and yet when it is suggested

in Georgia that another island go to the Georgia Parks Department, there are loud

screams that no, we don't want another Jekyll, all crowded up with people.

There was an interesting dialogue that John Mac Phee wrote down when he

was writing a profile on David Brower and myself and a couple of other people in

The New Yorker, at which the instant reaction of David Brower, the former Execu-

tive Director of the Sierra Club, to the 20 miles of shoreline of Cumberland

Island, was that you could take 10% of that 20-mile long island and put a settle-

ment, a human settlement, for 20,000 people in 10% of it, and those 20,000 would

earn the right to privacy by how far down the beach from that 20-mile settlement

they were willing to walk. A person who wanted t-@oue privacy of three or four

acres for themselves could walk 12 miles and get it; a person who didn't want

much privacy could walk half a mile and share an area with a large number of

other people. An interesting concept. But it was horrifying to one of the par-

ticipants, who regards one person per mile along that shore as a dangerous thing.

So I predict that when the National Park Service begins to propose plans for

public use of Cumberland Island, long sought as a national seashore area, there

202

will be enormous pressures not to let many people use it. Let them go "'somewhere

else" - where is the "somewhere else"') At this moment in time, the safety valve

for the pressures of the population desiring the seacoast vacation is, in fact,

the uncontrolled, raw, boiling, and often ugly privately owned public beaches.

At the public beach of Myrtle Beach, every inch of which is privately owned, there

are today more people spending the night than are spending the night in our nation-

al parks. The National Park Service is only given funds by Congress to hirE@ 13,000

year-round employees. Disney World alone employs more than that. Congress., in

its wisdom, gives the National Park Service 35@ a day per person to lock after our

national parks and to provide a free interpretive experience Of Our grEat wildlife

and our great natural resources. I guess the Fish and Wildlife ServiCE! maybe gets

1@ a day per visitor.

Literally, we've got a weird problem, at which the public property (Blackbeard

Island, off the Georgia coast; Warsaw Island, off the Georgia coast; Cumberland

Island, off the Georgia coast) are ultra-private. You are not permitted to go

there, except under very special and highly regulated conditions, so that in fact

the number of people who go is a tiny fraction. The number of people who want to

go are measured in the millions. We restrict at our companies' places; Sea Pines

Plantation has most of its shoreline restricted to 2-story buildings. You can't

put many people within a qaurter of a mile of the shore in 2-story buildings. I

have enormous antagonism to anything above 6 stories - this is where I blow my

cool. A great dilemma here is that in setting up our regulations for -the coast,

in setting up our restrictions and what do we ask for, you can ask for those things

that will give you excellent reasons to be a secret anti-public visitor person.

There will hardly be a regulatory agency established by any State that will not

have several staffers who'think that one person on a beach is too many, unless

it's him and his girlfriend camping out. And he will find every possible reason

to say no, or to ask for more and more studies.

203

What is involved in some of these studies? I had some very interesting dia-

logue and discussions over an 18,xQnth period with the consulting firm of Wallace,

McCogg, Roberts and Todd, who are doing the planning study for six miles of Flo-

rida shoreline, a project of our company. I think that particular study is going

to wind up with enough honor awards and certificates of excellence to pay for the

walls of the Wallace-McCogg firm - they seem to get a new one every two weeks.

We watch in some wry amusement, because the human planning and the human studies

never got done. We studied the life of the snakes, the frogs, the very important

erosion problems up and down the coast; we studied all manner-of archeological

sites; we studied drainage and soils; we studied wind currents, and on and on and

on - the stacks are beautiful. The maps explaining that take some day-and-a-half

to go through, and most people are left in a daze, but we never got around to

really asking the question how many of the American people who want to go to the

shore for the next 20 years should this place be designed for? Should this be de-

signed for 5,000 a mile; 1,000 a mile; 50 a mile; 50,000 a mile - what is the re-

sponsible role of a private user or a State agency in allocating vacation time

along the shore?

If we don't permit growth in response to economic demands, then we force the

pricing mechanism to say to many, "You can't come," or the most sophisticated res-

ervation-makers to make their reservations two years in advance. If we let any

jackass that wants to take a natural community of 2-story houses such as exist on

many of our coastline areas which have water systems and sewage systems and road

systems designed for low density, and let him come in with a blockbuster and put

in a 25-story condominium that produces more cars, more sewage, and more water by

a 5-fold multiple than the entire community's prior development over a 40-year

period, you create real problems. You do, indeed, however, help absorb the number

of people who want to go to the coast.

204

These are the real @ssues@ in addition to the sc@entificblological, bctani-

cal, and geological issues, So I would suggest that in framing your approach to

use of the land behind the shore, that you ask such questions as, "How many resi-

dents, in terms of number, is that section of shoreline being planned for On a

year-round basis?" "How many transients are expected to spend the night there in

the peak in that area - 5, 10, 50 years ahead?" "What are the collateral recrea-

tional facilities to which land will be allocated as proposed allocation - tennis,

marinas, parks, green spaces, bank areas?" "What is the measurement of' the infra-

structure - the sewers, the restaurants, the water, the roads?"

If you establish that the role of the larger group is to deal with the ques-

tion of density of areas, and leave to the local administration the question as

to whether or not the buildings will be red or white, 6-story or 2-story;,, whether

motor homes will be permitted or not; they all use the same highway, the same

sewer, put the same load on the public facilities; but is appropriate and it is

proper that the issue of how many people and what sort of seasonality :`LS an area

being planned for. Because otherwise it is impossible for public agencies and

others to do that planning. You have to plan for traffic; you have to plan for

water; you have to plan for sewage; you have to plan for public services of a

wide area.

So it is utterly essential that those questions, as well as the questions of

botany, geology, limnology, be asked. It is very dangerous, also, to project

from simple past statistical curves, because they blow through the roof. I know

of one area that over a 10-year cycle grew at a rate of 7%; the next 5 years it

grew at a rate of 50%; the next year it grew at a rate of 80%. This sort of curve

line just defies all prior calculations. We are attempting to develop a computer

simulation which will take into account the total pulsing through our communities

of an additional hundred families coming in as vacationers. What is the pulse of

205

that hundred families as It ri.chochets through hospitals, restaurants@ roads,

recreational facilities, trash collection, maids, the policeman down the street?

Itts simple with us, because we're dealing with a narrow, finite environ-

ment that we can control more or lessi but once you hit the broader areas, where

you are trying to deal with a whole city, or a whole county, where there are

10,000 different conflicting private interests - some of those private interests

being your neighboring government agency - each one ready to sandbag you at every

opportunity, and often the private sector is guilty of ignorance and desire for

financial greed. The government sector is guilty of ignorance and desire for

power and authority.

The concentration of power brings simplicity - if you put all of the author-

ity to make all of the decisions in one State agency for all land use and coastal

use in your State, it would be a very simple thing. The man in charge could make

the decisions; he would be very pleased with the power which it gave him; he

would speak of the public good; he would speak of the need to respect the public

welfare; he would know what was good for the State. The Ports Commission can go

soak its head; he knows we don't need that - the environmentalists can go soak

their heads, they're just a bunch of noisy long-hairs; the Parks guy is just a

bureaucrat; and this one central man could act with genius, with brilliance, with

understanding. We've seen the end result of that type of structure in the past;

the history of the human race is loaded with the effects of that type of structure

power corrupts, and absolute power does certain things.

We don't even need to mention some of the more recent events of our nation

to pause to reflect on the concentration of power in the hands of honest- in the

sense that they dontt take bribes - public spirited people - in the sense that

they think they're carrying out the will of God. Popes have done it; Cardinals

have done it; staffers have done It in black Cadillacs. It is one of the most

excruciatingly difficult problems that we'll have to face as a nation.

206

I would suggest, though, that the simple solution of the Persian tyrant in

chopping off hands and heads, the simple solution of breaking in an office, the

simple solution of the instant mass moratorium (because you@ve suddenly realized

that all of the Government agencies have not done their job for the past 10 years,

and things are out of control, and you'll exercise executive, administrative and

legislative power to say to the people that you represent: "stop doing everything

that you're doing, and go in an icebox for 3 years while we try to sort things

out; stop building the power plants; stop building the ports; stop building the

schools; stop building the vacation parks.") - that the "instant moratorium!'solu-

tion, while it has the surface plausibility of responding to a clear and apparent

national security danger, is perhaps in the same level of abuse of power for

honorable intent in the interest of our nation that one can think of. It's an

immensely tough task; it should be approached with all of the wheels cranking

for the next 5 years, pulling together all the facts, making the regulations.

But don't seek a simple instant solution, either through an instant moratorium,

or instant ecology, or instant ports, or instant power.

Question: You drew a contrast between two islands along the
Georgia coast, Jekyll island, which apparently is used very
heavily, and Saint Catherines Island, which apparently is
used very sparsely. From what I can gather from the descrip-
tion, they're both public beaches?

Answer: Warsaw Island is a publicly owned beach; Blackbeard Island is a publicly

owned beach; Jekyll Island is a publicly owned beach. Saint Catherines Island

is privately owned, and not open to the public any more than the Federal Govern-

ment's Warsaw, Blackbeard, Cumberland, are open to the public. They are all, in

effect, and for all pragmatic purposes, closed to the public. Warsaw Island had

been designated on the city/county planning maps of Chatham County for 20 years

as a hoped-for acquisition for a country beach park. It had been owned for 100

years by a private family who did not want it to be a public park; but their taxes

207

were rising. So they sold it to the National Conservancy for $1 million, who

conveyed it to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Division of Sport Fisheries

and Wildlife, who agreed to keep guards there to protect this estate from in-

trusion for the next 40 years. So it is a very interesting private estate,

protected by Sport Fisheries, and the county didn't get its part. Many people

think this is absolutely great; because the forests there are beautiful, and

the citizens of Savannah and Chatham County are pretty crummy people anyway -

we dontt want to let them in. You can tell where my biases are in that situ-

ation, but it was a legitimate issue of public policy. Is this a county park,

a State park for 10,000 people on Saturday afternoon in the summer, or is it a

Sport Fisheries estate arrangement7

Question: Do you have any suggestions as to how you might
compromise this situation of getting a reasonabZe amount of
pubLic use without causing any environmentaZ detraction?

Answer: People destroy the environmental attraction for some other people, even

if they don't touch the environment. All of our studies show if the ecologists

are doing their job, that the wet beach covered by the daily tide is one of the

most undestroyable elements. The human body does not destroy that beach. And

yet 100 people in one patch of beach sends many people into orbit. If you sug-

gested to Sport Fisheries that 1,000 people should be permitted on the beach -

not on the sand dunes, on the wet beach - every Saturday afternoon, I'll bet

you would get a whole series of arguments as to why it cantt be done, why it

shouldntt be done. My own feeling is that in each coastal area we should des-

ignate areas for continuing wildlife; designate areas for intensive public park

development in our national seashore concept; designate other areas for controlled

private development whose densities are regulated.

209

RECREATION IN THE COASTAL ZONE - PART I
Mr. Roland C. Clement, Vice President, National Audubon Society

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

My talk, which I hope you'll read later, makes an attempt to show that it

was possible to be rational in planning our use of the coastal zone. I feel so

defensive about that possibility after this morning that I'm going to truncate

the whole thing and let you look at it later. Because at my age, it's much more

important to reclaim old friends like John Gottschalk than to make new ones. So

John and I have agreed to split the last 15 minutes - I'll take 7 1/2.

I think perhaps the crux of my 50 years of experience is that unless you

are extremely careful, the "givens" you accept will screw you every time. This

is the hell of.being a planner, because other people determine the "givens" for

you. Even so, I am considered an optimist in the environmental movement, because

I continue believing that if we work at it we can perhaps solve some of these

problems by bringing them together.

To give you one illustration of that possibility which is applicable here,

I want to tell you very quickly about what's happened to the wildlife conserva-

tion movement in the last 50 years, or even a bit more; because you may remember

and this, by the way, has to do with the commodity buyers - that distorts all of

our thinking whether in the coastal zone or elsewhere when it comes to the utili-

zation of natural environments.

In colonial America, wildlife was valued because it provided food and cloth-

ing; and then when we learned to substitute for natural products through commer-

cial production, we valued wildlife for the recreation or the sport it provided;

and we measured this in manhours of recreation provided or extracted from the

resource. This was still the case when I was in college some 30 years ago or so.

But at the North American Wildlife Conference which was held in Washington last

210

March, there came about a tremendous dividing line in philosophical outlook,

and it was fascinating that the two points of view were juxtaposed. A North

American Wildlife Policy, or Game Policy, was brought up to date by one group;

and in another room the same afternoon, a whole different group of young

sociologists analyzed what was really happening to the country, and they showed

that even the sportsman today is interested in multiple satisfactions when he

goes outdoors.

And now, therefore, we're moving from the commodity buyers of counting man-

hours of recreation to counting or trying to measure the quality of the -recrea-

tional opportunity we're providing. I'm optimistic, because at long last the

economists are catching up with some of these problems; and I want to introduce

you to a book published by Johns Hopkins University Press - a book called

Natural Environments - Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. This is

where you need to look for the new look in analyzing the significance of natural

environments from the viewpoint of contributing to the quality of life of the

public. One of the theses of this book is that the values of natural az.@enities

involved in the natural.environment - whether it's the coastal zone or something

else - these values are growing, because these resources are becoming scarce,

and because the well-being of the majority of the people is increasing. So that

as income increases, we value amenities more than ordinary production. That

means, therefore, that we must reserve the scarce resources if we're going to

make the best investment for the long run. This was mentioned this morning,

that the big probleih is to try to get the public, both individually and socially,

to accept the long-run point of view in looking at these investments that we're

making every time we plan and commit something.

The other side of the coin is that if you have any faith at all in technol-

ogy, technology will make every present application obsolete-in a very short

211

while. And since, therefore, the natural amenities are growing in value, and

technology makes obsolete the commercial and land use commitments welre making

at the present time, we have, therefore, the responsibility - if we're going to

be rational - to reserve as much as possible of the present-day environmental

natural amenities for the future. This is because they will provide satisfaction

longer than any other commitment you can make, and because the satisfactions

they will provide will grow in time.

So at the present time, let me sum up by suggesting that the conflicts over

the use of land, more particularly in the coastal zone, are functions of incompe-

tence, relative to the optimal use that we ought to be able to make. Of course,

this incompetence is the result of the general ignorance of the values inherent

in the coastal zone; a function of social inequities in our system; income dis-

parities, for example, that make a lot of people squat where they shouldn't be,

either for their own long-term benefit or for the social benefits involved.

So these are the things that we have to cope with. It's a big job; I think

we may be able to do it if we get together and struggle like hell. But most of

the things you've been talking about are impossible unless at the same time -

without declaring a 5-year moratorium, if you please - unless at the same time

we struggle to develop a master plan which will agree that we have reached satu-

ration in many respects in this country, population-wise, growth-wise, and in

other ways, and develop a plan that we can then adapt to. Because in the absence

of a master plan, if we continue growing from below, it will disrupt everything;

and we will simply be spinning our wheels and everything will be sacrificed bit

by bit. This is the result of 50 years of thinking, ladies and gentlemen. Now,

I turn you over to John Gottschalk.

213

RECREATION IN THE COASTAL ZONE - PART IT
Mr. John S. Gottschalk, Executive Vice President@
International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners

You know, it's bad enough to be the last speaker on the program; but you

really have a terrible handicap when you follow both Charlie Fraser and Roland

Clement. Roland has the facility of pulling together all of his years of exper-

ience and speaking in such a manner that it's a very easy thing to distill all

these ideas and get them out in a few words. I might try to do the same thing

if it were not for the fact that the preceding speaker, Charlie Fraser, made

some remarks that almost completely discombobulated me. I was the Director of

the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife when we accepted the gift of Warsaw

Island. It tempts me greatly to spend the rest of my time explaining or justi-

fying what we did.

So the only point I think I have to make in reference to this question of the

present management of Warsaw Island - I would make this comment, that Charlie had

one thing wrong. He said we were going to lock it up, in effect, and not try to

use it. The fact is that we had a plan for low-density utilization. We were

going to encourage people to come out there. We had plans for a ferry system that

would get several hundred people out there every day during the week, and several

thousand, hopefully, on the weekends. But Charlie was also right that there was

another "given" involved, and that was the ability of the Bureau of Sport

Fisheries and Wildlife to get the appropriations to carry out the job. I don't

know what the dollar expenditure per capita of visitor to the national wildlife

214

refuges is today, but when I was the Director several years ago, it was some-

what less than 10@ per person.

We didn't have very many facilities; we didn't have very many people look-

ing after them; and I think we were only taking care of about 15-16 mill-ion

people a year on the wildlife-refuges for recreational purposes. Which in my

estimation was a small fraction of those who could have been brought oul: to the

wildlife refuges and given a worthwhile recreational experience - which would

have helped them to understand man's relationship to the natural world, and in

great measure succeeded in achieving the ultimate objective of the wildlife

refuge system. Which is not necessarily to say wildlife for its own intrinsic

value, which is in my opinion a very valid objective by itself, but to utilize

the refuge system to enrich the lives of American citizens.

Any discussion of recreation plunges us immediately into a shadowy world

of pre- and misconceptions, questions with assumed answers, questions with no

answers, and a general feeling that while recreation is an indisputable fact of

life, it somehow ranks 5 everal levels of importance below the economic, social,

and psychic stimuli that motivate and power human activities. It is the purpose

of this paper to review recreation as a factor of prime importance in coastal

zone management, to suggest some considerations essential to effective coastal-

use planning, and to urge recognition of the dependence of coastal zone utili-

zation upon a sound ecological basis.

The rapid growth in man1s use and enjoyment of the coastal zone is now so

well known that it need scarcely be re-emphasized. Always important as a source

of seafoods and transportation, the use of the lands' edges has grown with mants

increasing affluence and mobility. As an indication of the magnitude of the use

for recreation, one has only to project one's vision a few miles to thE@ eastward,

where the State of Maryland is building its second Chesapeake Bay bridge. When

215

we first came to Washington 22 years ago,.the Bay could be crossed only by ferry,

and the Eastern Shore was a littleknown haven for watermen, vacationing diplo-

mats, sundry other gentry, and increasing numbers of beach addicts. Ferry waits

of ten hours or more were common on summer weekends. Two decades later, in

spite of the bridge and four-lane roads, we still have traffic and "bridge jams"

every weekend. Even with crossing capacity expanded from two to five lanes,

one suspects that in another five to ten years the same problems of congestion

will exist.

The kinds of recreational uses to Which man puts the continent's coasts are

well known. Sunbathing, picnicking, sight-seeing, fishing, boating, and nature

study comprise the list. Entertainment facilities built to satisfy the demands

of the resort patron may become an end in themselves. On a recent rainy weekend,

the newspapers reported as much activity at Maryland's Ocean City as would have

been expected had typical beach weather been forecast. Presumably, the night

life and "high" life are now significant attractions in themselves for the enter-

tainment or diversion-seeking visitor.

This phenomenon raises the first crop of unanswered questions: To what ex-

tent do people have a real dependence upon the seaside for recreation? What

tolerance do recreationists have for use density? Is it possible to substitute

the artificiality of the neon strip for an unspoiled beach? If so, why not put

such facilities somewhere other than on the immediate edge of the water?

Social workers and sociologists since early in the industrial revolution

have recognized that the more man becomes the victim of job monotony and economic

regimentation, the greater will be the social need for relaxing and satisfying

physical and psychological recreation. Accepting these conclusions seems reason-

able, but what relevance do they necessarily have to coastal zone problems? The

National Estuary Study completed in response to P.L. 90-454, identified the factors

216

which make the oceAnts edge a unique feature and 4ttr4ctiQn-to so many people,

The conclusion was that the estuarine portions of the coastal zone do Indeed

have special attractions to many people, There is no single common denomina-

tor, however, save possibly the vastness of the ocean and Its adjacent marshes

and bays. The enormity of these great expanses seems somehow to appeal. to man's

need for a time and a place for an expansion of the human spirit. Closed in as

the urban resident is for so much of his existence by the physical limitations

of his four walls of tenement or shop, and by the psychic limits of thE! teeming

city, the appeal of the "wide open spaces" of the seashore is not difficult to

understand.

At the conservation education center of Sir Peter Scott's Wildfowl Trust

in England, a sign proclaims that the self-destruction of the human species

will result from its three greatest dangers: world-wide pollution, overpopula-

tion, and boredom. The seashore with its manifold diversions, is an antidote

for boredom. That it is not necessarily a permanent remedy for all people will

be immediately evident when one observes the frenetic way in which so many seem

to be trying to force life's little everyday pleasures out of an experience at

the shore. There is something incongruous, if not actually ironic, in the sight

of a beach "home," a ten-by-ten-foot square of sand among thousands of others,

in which the family has merely transformed its weekend pleasures from -the urban

to the beach environment.

Despite the reality of what we see, the actual extent of public recreational

use and occupation of the coastal zone is not yet well known. General surveys

provide indices of participation in various kinds of recreation, and others help

define the significance of shore-based recreation In local situations,

As an example of the first, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has

conducted a sampling survey of hunter and angler participation and expenditures

217

each five years since 1955. The results of this series of surveys, shown in

Table I, indicate a very substantial growth in numbers of marine anglers, and

even more significant increase in the sums they expend.

These data have been widely used to support the need of the recreational

angler and his dependent industry for government programs of conservation and

protection of coastal ecosystems. Unfortunately, the survey is based on the

premise that expenditures constitute a realistic measure of worth. While it may

be accepted in the absence of better measures, the premise is not necessarily

true. But the question of worth, as distinct from priced values, is a most dif-

ficult determination, and is seldom attempted. In this field, economics is still

in a highly theoretical stage, particularly where public resources, e.g., an

estuarine ecosystem, need to be accurately evaluated. The explosive growth of

public concern over environmental deterioration has placed a high premium on the

development of acceptable concepts and techniques for dealing with these problems.

TABLE I
Anglers and Their Expenditures 1955-1970, in 1000's 1

No. of Percent Percent
Year Participants Increase Expenditures Increase

1955 4,557 - $ 488,939 -

1960 6,292 +38 626,191 +29

1965 8,305 +32 799,656 +29

1970 9,460 +14 1,244,705 +55

The recreational participation survey conducted by the Bureau of Outdoor

Recreation is but one of a number of surveys of outdoor recreation done by that

agency. Table TI shows the results of the 1970 survey, ranking the popularity

of various categories of outdoor recreation among participants 12 years of age

and older.
11970 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting, Res. Publ. 95
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

218

TABLE IT
Outdoor Recreation Participation, 1970 1

No. of
Participants Percent of
Activity (Thousands) POPulation

Picnicking 73,843 48
Swimming 67,746 44
Playing outdoor games, sports 51,547 33
Attending sports events, concert$ 53,956 35
Walking for pleasure 46,410 30

Fishing 44,089 28
Boating 37,596 24
Bicycling 28,837 19
Camping 30,885 20
Nature walks 26,906 17

Hunting 19,814 13
Horseback riding 13,484 9
Bird watching 6,813 4
Wildlife, bird photography 4,519 3
Other reported activities 9,778 6

No participation 38,823 25

Any national survey is of primary value in developing broad program and policy

guidelines, rather than serving as a detailed planning or management aid. From the

standpoint of the State or local public administrator, it is somewhat academic that

there were 1XI numbers of striped-bass fishermen, or bicyclists, or belly dancer

connoisseurs, for that matter, in the United States. His problem is how to equate

competing demands for a shrinking resource on a local basis. Usually lie is convinced,

if not overwhelmed, bythe assumed and projected economic benefits of -the consumptive

uses of the land, whether it be coastal zone or suburban farmland. We have found

in the fishery business that the cost of acquiring just the statistics of local

recreational fishing on a nation-wide basis, without counting the cost of the con-

ceptual economic research, has made the collection of raw statistics impossible.

From Table A, The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities, Preliminary
Report, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department of the Interior, 1970.

219

Conse(@uently, over the years, we have obtained relatively little data useful in

or applicable to local situations, We seem to be in much the same fix for other

similar statistics.

That is not to say that none exists; but unfortunately, it is scattered,

and has not been pulled together in a way that makes it generally available to

people who have to operate in the realm of the local planner. For example, little

more than a decade ago, Destin, Florida, was just a pleasant village on the Gulf

of Mexico. Now it is a sport fishing port close to the major currents which

bring marlins and sailfish in toward shore, and 65 percent of the total net in-

come is derived from the charter boat fishing industry. A study, now several

years old, reported that the population varies from about 2,500 people in winter

to 15,000 people during the four summer months. The fleet of vessels for hire

for offshore angling has a Coast Guard approved capacity of 1,735 people per day,

and revenue from passenger loads was more than $2.6 million in 1968 - more than

double the 1964 income. More recently, Bill Hart, under a contract with the

Coastal Plains Development Commission, has studied the economic significance of

recreational fishing in the vicinity of Morehead City, North Carolina. Two years

ago, the National Marine Fisheries Service completed an economic analysis of the

so-called "wet fish" fishery of San Pedro area. While not recreation-oriented,

it provides a perspective useful in total resource evaluation. The Sea Grant

program has proliferated a variety of studies relating to several uses of the

coastal zone, and the Coast Guard has published the results of at least one de-

tailed regional survey of boating, Several State fisheries departments have

conducted surveys of different fisheries, and the National Marine Fisheries Ser-

vice regularly collects, compiles, and publishes statistics on the U.S. commer-

cial fish catch. Although their data are summarized by State and region, and

totalled for the country as a whole, some information may be secured on a local

basis for the more important ports.

220

It would be presumptuous to suggest that these few illustrations accurately re-

flect the total informational.reseryoir dealing with recreation in the coastal

zone. There are doubtless surveys of other recreational uses, from sup-bathing

to bird watching, available for individual beaches, parks, wildlife refuges,

and the like. However, in no case that we know of has this information, or its

sources of availability, been brought together in a systematic manner that makes

it readily accessible to the local planner.

Thus, we have the second crop of questions: What are the characteristics

and dimensions of the recreational uses of the coastal zone by local, S"tate, and

regional categories? What techniques exist for the planner or the zoning official

to relate recreational needs to other alternative uses of the public resources

constituting the coastal zone? What techniques are available for comparing market

place prices with common property resources not so priced?

The absence of information vital to realistic comparisons of the value of the

various components and potential uses of the coastal zone has produced serious

problems. These may exist in the office of the zoning administration or local

planner. Frequently they move quickly into the public arena and become the

basis for intense struggles over what use shall prevail.
It is easy to understand how the industrial and economic life of the nation

early focused on our bays and estuaries as essential parts of the nation's trans-

portation system, both for goods and pollutants. As in so many other endeavors

of man, conflicts in this area did not become problems until sheer size foretold

that other uses might be jeopardized. An example, of course, is the port facili-

ties now being planned to accommodate the monster tankers of the latter part of

this decade. To avoid the problems suggested by these mammoth transports, it ap-

pears that serious consideration is being given to offshore unloading facilities.

Thus, conflicts with other uses on shore would be avoided or minimized., although

others may be created.
Many other current uses are alleged to have no such relatively available al.,

ternatives. It is generally folly to erect a summer resort on the COELStal plain

221

at some distance from the beach or bay. Certainly the characteristics of develop-

ment of both permanent and limited residency at any point on the extensive coast-

line of the United States are apple evidence of the profit of proximity to the

seashore. Residential developments grade in price downward in proportion to

distance from the beach.

In concentrating on the littoral edge of the sea or estuary, developments

of the type we normally envision - homes, resorts, and a variety of industrial

activities, run headlong into and conflict directly with the requirements of

most coastal zone recreation. "Development" reduces the capacity of the coastal

zone to support recreation. Total development leads only to one end: total

destruction. That statement may be subject to reservations, but they are reser-

vations of degree, not absolute effect. One squatter's cabin perched on a hum-

mock in a marsh destroys the productive capacity of the piece of wetland it sets

on. Alone in a marsh of any great magnitude, the single intrusion would have no

easily measurable effect; but thousands destroy a marsh and those parts of the

ecosystem associated with it.

Our "development" of the coastal zone has long since gone beyond the point

where we are concerned about isolated instances. We are looking at wholesale

invasion! We have extended ourselves into the coastal zone in a geometric pro-

gression. In so doing, whole chunks of the coastal zone have been and are being

occupied by dwellings, roads, parking lots, factories, dumping grounds, offices,

or whatever. The barely-treated effluent and trash of mobs of humanity reared

in a "throw-it-away" society foul the water and litter the beaches. The nauseous

odor of raw or lightly-treated sewage now drifts with the breezes over famous

beaches from Waikiki to Coney Island. "Red tides," a sure indication of deadly

pollution, kill fish and clams, undermine the economy of fishery-dependent com-

munities, and depress tourist business. Tawdry buildings and blatant billboards

mar the roads and streets in many a resort area.

222

To recapitulate: dredging, filling, and pollution reduce or destroy the

es tuarine ecosystems. The attractions of the natural wildlife, from ospreys

to bluefish to horeshoe crabs are diminished or destroyed. Follution fouls

water and'air with its stinking toxins. The landscape is defiled. These im-

pacts on the coastal zone are categorically catastrophic. In short, in all but

a handful of carefully "developed" areas, the impacts of gross development run

counter to the needs of outdoor recreation.

It is the fact that more and more people have come to understand this debil-

itating effect of "development" that has brought us to the point where rational

management of these areas has become a matter of high national policy. It also

explains why we are here at this meeting, exploring the problems involved in

establishing an acceptable management rationale. If we were discussing convert-

ing a forest to a cornfield, we might lament the disappearance of the native

vegetation. We would not, however, be facing the irreparable loss of the soil's

ability to regrow the forest. By contrast, when an estuary is dredged or filled,

its innate productivity is destroyed, usually forever. There is thus a. fundamen-

tal difference between the terrestrial and aquatic biospheres which has escaped

the understanding of many people.

If it appears that these remarks are excessively biased in favor of protec-

tion of the environment, be assured that "conservationists" are not opposed to

the enjoyment of the seashore or the cautious use of the coastal zone. It is

just that we do not believe in,indeed we reject, the concept that everyone has

to dwell on the water's edge. We believe it is much more logical and practical,

and economical in the long run, to keep "development" away from the beaches, the

tidal marshes, and the estuaries. To do so would open vast areas of the coastal

zone for public recreation. The service developments - homes, resorts., shopping

centers - can be placed inland at any distance necessary to protect the natural

223

environment. This does not m ean that trails, bathhouses, and similar facili-

ties - even parking lots in areas where mass transit is not feasible - could not

be built. Within limits, these developments can be non-destructive. Careful

planning of their location and size in relation to natural features such as for-

est, dune, and tide could give them attributes of a positive nature,

To many of us the alternative of taking immediate and drastic steps to curb

the unwise exploitation of the coastal zone is society's only legitimate option.

Any other course will eventually lead us to the point where, in the manner of

mankind throughout history, we will have destroyed that which we love. It need

not happen, but it will without an understanding that we cannot accomodate all

of man's relentless demands for the use of the coastal zone without irreparable

harm. At his Center on the River Severn, Peter Scott has hung another sign, this

one over a mirror. It says, "You are looking at the most dangerous and destruc-

tive animal the world has ever known."

This entire discussion points to the two most critical needs in coastal zone

management. One is the need to fill the voids in our information, knowledge, and

understanding of many facets of actual and potential coastal zone usage. Manage-

ment may be defined as a system for attaining identified goals through a series

of conscious decisions based on facts. Our storehouse of facts on human recrea-

tion is far from full. We need to expand our understanding of man's dependence on

various kinds and amounts of outdoor recreation; we need to measure the extent of

the contribution to this dependence of the various present and potential uses of

the coastal zone. Such measurement must be predicated on an economic evaluation

technology that reflects the worth of public non-market place resources.

The second is that while we wait for these facts, and the understanding that

they will bring, as well as a will-o-the-wisp Federal program to finance their

acquisition, we should apply a moratorium on further significant development in

224

the coastal zone. Several States have already come to this conclusion - Washing-

ton, California, and Delaware come immediately to mind. Most such developments,

from the economist's viewpoint, are liabilities in the long run. It is beyond

comprehension that we permit and even encourage construction on storm-prone

beaches only to have them "bailed out" by Federal disaster funds after tl.-ie storm

has struck. It would be far more sensible to take the same money in the begin-

ning and acquire title or use rights to these ephemeral areas in the name of the

public.

In doing so, we have not thrown away our options. We have left them open

for the future. We need to do our absolute best to build a protective system

that will keep intact, for future use and enjoyment, the priceless assets of the

coastal zone.

225

nMARKS AT END OF SECOND MORNING SE$SIQN
Dr. Philip Johnson

I think it's clear that our speakers have addressed a number of kinds of

uses in the coastal zone; they reinforced the view that we live in a pluralistic

society; that those different perceived needs are both individual and in some

cases institutionalized; and it's clear that the impact of those uses, or the

combinations of those uses, are in every sense of the word intensity-dependent.

And that is part of the dilemma we have in dealing with planning or management

documents.

Thursday, June 14, 1973

Afternoon

SESSION IV

Needs and Resources

229

INTRODUCTION TO AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. Lance Marston, Director, Office of Land Use and Water Planning,
Department of the Interior

An important point I'd like to make is that in my judgement the kind of high

technology control that we hear about today, thaVs being used and is being funded

excessively to come to grips with our environmental problem, is only a temporary

answer. I think most of you would realize that the long-term needs are going to

depend clearly upon better coastal zone and land use siting decisions. The dif-

ficulty we have, though, is that many of the institutions that are concerned with

planning and regulating our land use have such a strong growth ethic, motivated

by the need to grow, grow, grow, at any cost, which simply is not acceptable any

longer. It seems to me that we're going to have to find ways of weaving this

environmental ethic not only into our personal value system, but into the insti-

tutional mechanisms we have, and into the planning tools and the control and

allocating tools that we have come to accept as the best way to go.

The environmental strategy, in my judgement, that we're going to have to adopt

is going to depend largely upon much better land use and coastal zone management

practices. We're going to have to have these, particularly if we are genuine in

our need to develop an urban and rural growth approach, a national environmental

strategy; if we're going to come to grips with some very basic problems that we

have in energy - and we heard the very fine and comprehensive discussions this

morning about some of the problems we have in our power plant sitings. But to

get this environmental strategy thaVs built on something that's long-term, that's

really going to satisfy the needs, to establish a better sound or comprehensive

urban and rural growth strategy, and to really get on top of some of the fundamental

energy questions, is going to require basic reforms in the way we plan and manage

our natural resources.

.230

I think it's noteworthy that this recognition has come in any number of differ-

ent ways at the State level, We have only to look at the enormous progress that's

been made over the past few years in many States that have adopted coastal zone

management legislation, power plant siting legislation, mined area protection

legislation, and land use legislation. We have any number of people here today

who have pioneered in the efforts to get their States to begin to bite the bullet,

if you will. I see Phil Savage sitting back there, and his State is doing some

pioneering work in the coastal zone management program - Maine is doing some excit-

ing work in the land use field. Kes Cannon, in the back of the room, from Oregon

they're doing an awful lot of innovative, creative work, under the capable leader-

ship of their Governor, Governor McC all, whom we all know about.

I could go on and on and recite the number of actions that have been taken

at the State level. And one has to be comforted by the fact that at long last

the Federal Government is beginning to awaken and recognize that it has a major

responsibility in this area too. We have only to look at the recently-passed

Coastal Zone Management Program, which provides some more systematic, uniform

approaches to how we address the problems of planning and regulating uses of our

coastal zone. We have only to look at the number of proposed land use initiatives

the National Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act, which we are hopeful

will see the light of day in this session of Congress - the power plant siting

legislation, the mined area protection legislation, and any number of other pro-

posals that deal with the planning and allocation of our natural resources.

Bob Knecht and I have a number of things in common, one of which is we don't

have any money. Bob enjoys the unique position of having a program; at least

he's got legislation. We donIt even have that yet. But there's another thing

that we have in.common, and that's the recognition that we are dealing -with very

unconventional kinds of programs. We're dealing with programs that the Federal

231

Government basically has had very little experience with. We're dealing With pro-

grams that provide an enormously unique opportunity to the Federal Government to

begin to do some things in support not of its own view of what this country ought

to look like, but your view of what your State and what your local communities

ought to look like. All of this legislation sets up the State and local govern-

ments as the principle implementing agent. The challenge to Bob andme and a num-

ber of other people in this room who are from the Federal Government - Norm Berg

from the Department of Agriculture, Bob Paul from HUD, and other people - recog-

nize that indeed if these programs are to be successful, the Federal Government

has got to find better ways to deploy its resources - its enormous resources.

We have, as we look at this legislation and we look at this whole environmental

thrust, we look at new Federalism, with the Siates being called upon to do more

and more things - an enormous crisis and transition as I see it. The Federal

Government has got all the resources, but it's divesting itself of its past role.

The States now find themselves and the local governments with all the problems,

all the responsibilities, but a disproportionately small share of the resources.

The challenge to all of us here in the Federal Government is to find ways in which

we can deploy those unique resources that we have - and we do indeed have a tre-

mendous national resource in our Department - the Department of the Interior,

Agriculture, and other Departments have similar resources. Wetve got to find

better ways to organize and deploy these resources to be useful to you, and help-

ful to you,

That, of course, is one of the purpos es of this important milestone confer-

ence, and the purpose of this afternoon's session - to begin to look at the

question of what is the nature and extent of the technical and management needs

and requirements in trying to implement coastal zone and land use programs.

Once we have determined what these needs are, these requirements are, both from

232

a social, an economic, and a physical point of view - in other words, what are

the land carrying, environmental carrying requirements, technical needs, that

you have to properly assess the environment and land uses so that you can meet

the requirements of this national legislation - we have to ask ourselves what

is the most timely and cost-effective way to get the job done. Which is another

way, I suppose, of saying what is the division of labor between what the local

government ought to do, what the State government ought to do, and what: the Fed-

eral Government ought to do.

In other words, as an example, the Federal Government has done an awful lot

of pioneering work in the use of remote sensing. We now have an ERTZ satellite

program which has provided an enormously effective way of monitoring lZmd uses.

It's provided us with a very cost-effective and timely device for assessing how

we can better use our resources. Obviously, a State couldntt expect to marshall

the. resources needed to launch an ERTZ-A, or an ERTZ-1. Obviously a State and

local government couldn't together develop the capabilities or justify the expense

of sending up a Skylab, for example. The Federal Government can do th3's, and the

Federal Government should do this, but then you go down to the next layer in the

remote sensing. Should the Federal Government, for example, conduct the kind of

low altitude surveillance that's needed for natural resource and land planning

and coastal zone delineation work? In our judgement, the answer is probably not.

Industry would see itself as having an appropriate role here. The State

governments should be charged with using funds that the Federal Government pro-

vides to engage industry and the academic community in assisting in th.is kind

of role; but for the Federal Government to intrude in this sort of thing, it

seems to me, is totally inappropriate in this day and age when we are -trying to

return the responsibilities and the'resources to the States so that they can

indeed address the problems which they have, which are unique in many cases from

one State to the next.

233

The final question that I think we ought to be asking ourselves is how do

we organize and deploy the resources so that indeed they are responsive to your

needs? This afternoon, we are very fortunate to have a gentleman who is from

a State that has pioneered in the coastal zone and land use business - Hawaii.

We are indeed fortunate to have a gentleman who has set a high water mark, I

think, and has done some important pioneering work, state of the art kind of

work, in implementing State-wide land use legislation.

235

HOW DO STATES VIEW THEIR NEEDS?
Dr. Shelley Mark, Director
Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development.

Whoever arranged this panel perhaps may not have been an economist. I noted

on the panel that there's one person talking about the needs and at least seven

talking about the resources. Those of you who are indoctrinated in traditional

economics always look the other way, that there were unlimited needs, and that

the resources were extremely scarce. Nevertheless, with true Hawaiian hospital-

ity, I will promise to leave some of these resources for some of the other States.

Governor John Burns of Hawaii has made the observation that there's no spot

in our island State more than 29 miles away from the sea, as the mynah bird flies.

Indeed, every part of the State of Hawaii is a coastal zone. For almost no

physical development occurs in Hawaii which does not affect or is not affected

by our shoreline and ocean resources. Most urban development lies on the coastal

plains very near the shorelines, or on slopes which are drained by streams which

flow into the sea. The quality of Hawaii's coastal resources, its beaches, sea-

cliffs, and surf, has been a key factor in the State's development as a prime

tourist destination area. Tourism is one of the major industries supporting the

economy of the Islands. With this obvious interdependence of economic prosperity

and environmental quality, Hawaii has worked long and hard for protection and en-

hancement of its total environment, with emphasis on coastal areas.

Because of the State's small size, threats to Hawaii's environment in general,

and its coastal resources in particular, have been recognized and met in forth-

right fashion. Efforts in this area have included the nation's first State gen-

eral plan, issued in 1961, and revised in 1967, and currently in the process of

revision again. Both of these plans included approaches and recommendations for

the development and protection of Hawaii's coastal resources. In 1963, the State

236

merged its planning and economic development functions into one department. In

1964, this department conducted a major study, directed specifically at Hawaii's

shoreline resources. This study was a major factor in later legislative decis-

ions to include all shoreline areas of the State in the conservation district

under Hawaii's State Land Use Law, and to enact a new Shoreline Setback Law. A

Shoreline Setback Law mandated a State Land Use Commission to establish setbacks

along the Statets shorelines, setbacks of not less than 20 feet, and not more

than 40 feet inland from the upper reaches of the wash of normal waves. It fur-

ther empowered the Commission to establish rules and regulations governing the

use of such shoreline areas. Under this law, the counties, which are our main

local jurisdictions, are required to enforce these rules and regulations, and

permitted to establish setbacks of greater than 40 feet if desired.

Thus, the State of Hawaii has placed strong emphasis on a comprehensive, long-

range planning process, which recognizes the interrelationship of a vwniety of

needs, resources, interests, and pressures. A product of this planning process

is studies leading to action, and in many of the planning projects, the manage-

ment of coastal zone resources is of major importance. One of our products was

a publication called "Trails for Walking." This resulted in legislation which

would offer to Federal, State, county, and private agencies with overlapping or
@elated land ownership or jurisdiction a plan for joint administration of trail

systems, and particularly of interest in Hawaii, of shoreline trails. A corollary

legislative act is intended to assure public access to our beaches and shorelines.

Hawaii's efforts to improve the quality of its environment have focused on

its State Land Use Law. Recent attention has been drawn to this law by Fred Bos-

selman in his report on the "Quiet Revolution," and Mr. Bosselman gives Hawaii

some credit for having started this quiet revolution; although recent experience

in administering this law has been anything but quiet.

237

Having this planning and implementation too at the State level has kept

Hawaii's planning process in the forefront of contemporary State planning and

practice. As we will explain shortly, our State administration hopes to use a

revision of its basic land use planning and control system as a core of its

coastal zone management program. Hawaii's Land Use law was a direct outgrowth

of our first State general plan. It was passed in response to certain worrisome

environmental trends in the period just prior and subsequent to our attainment

of Statehood some 12-13 years ago. The State's usable lands are extremely

limited; our prime agricultural lands were facing pressures from urban sprawl.

Scattered developments and speculative subdivisions raised questions of public

costs vs. private benefit. The necessity to protect our shorelines and other

scenic assets, our forests, water, and other natural resources was clearly recog-

nized. Thus, our State Land Use law sought to preserve these prime agricultural

lands, to guide urban growth for more efficient use of public services and facil-

ities for permitting reasonable housing, commercial, and industrial expansion,

and to establish a system for prudent management of our environmental resources.

The Law provides for a State Land Use Commission, appointed by the Governor,

and confirmed by the Senate. The Commission is authorized to classify all pub-

lic and private lands in the State in one of four classifications: urban, rural,

agricultural, and conservation. It has power to establish specific boundaries

for each classification throughout the State, to revise these district boundaries

on the basis of a petition and hearings procedure, or a mandated, comprehensive

review every five years, and to prescribe general uses permitted in each district.

No changes in designated land,uses are permitted without going through these pro-

cedures. Detailed uses in the urban, rural, and agricultural districts are ad-

ministered and enforced by Hawaii's four county governments, and in the conser-

vation district by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources.

238

Thus, we've had a State Land Use law in effect for the last 11 years, and

a Land Use Commission which has functioned over approximately the last 9 years,

What have been their impact and effect on the growth of our community and the

quality of our environment? As in most public and controversial bodies of this

type, there have been opposing views and differing interpretations. At: the time

of the last mandated 5-year boundary review in 1969, the planning firm of Eck-

bodine, Austin, and Williams, of San Francisco, noted these positive MSUltS:

1. The State Commission has been stricter than the counties in approving

petitions for rezoning.

2. Scattered development, with one or two notable exceptions, had largely

been brought to an end.

3. Speculative subdivision of new lands beyond the need for new home sites

had been greatly reduced.

4. Prime agricultural and conservation lands had been protected f-rom urban-

ization.

Critics, however, have been concerned about continuing conversion of agricul-

tural lands - especially the more highly productive ones, into urban use. They

have been concerned about speculation, which has caused some land and housing

prices to rise, while other lands are being withheld from use. They've been

concerned about instances of lack of coordination between State and county de-

cisions - and between State zoning and State real property tax assessment prac-

tices. The jury may still be out; but it can be noted that the various attempts

over the past decade to have the law repealed have been roundly defeated, while

a number of key amendments strengthening the powers of the Commission have been

passed. As I mentioned previously, our experience has emphasized that: a State

land use control policy can only be effective as part of a comprehensive planning

program which embraces social, economic, environmental, administrative, and

financial aspects.

239

This planning has to be long-range - looking into the future - and re@uires

coordination and interaction of functional plans by governmental and private

agencies, in order that the community's total resources be used to meet the

needs of its citizens in optimal fashion. There is a strong need for comprehen-

sive planning at the State level, not only to examine and evaluate functional

plans, such as those in transportation, agriculture, recreation, education, but

also to provide new insights, new directions, new information, new programs, and

new methodologies for State government generally. Without the solid grounding

and a comprehensive planning process, the flexibility deemed desirable in land

use and coastal zone administration can easily slip off into an expedient ad

hocery.

The paucity of States' general plans, or a viable State comprehensive planning

process in our nation, however, indicates serious political obstacles, not only

to planning implementation, but also to the concept of centralized planning

itself. Small wonder that State planning agencies have been preoccupied with

a search for relevance, for organizational structures arise which may assure

their existence amidst ever-changing Federal guidelines and ever-restive local

jurisdictions. It.is seen that the end result of a State planning exercise has

been to place the State planner in the Governor's office, without either one

knowing exactly what he was supposed to be doing there - that is, the planner,

not the Governor. In Hawaii's case, a relatively strong centralized government

facilitated the passage of appropriate enabling legislation, and the working out

of administrative procedures necessary for the redistribution of traditional

zoning powers. In the general case, this redistribution should not be impossible,

since it is axiomatic that if a State can delegate its police power to regulate

private land use in the public interest, it can also exercise it.

Recently, our Department completed a 5-volume central Oahu planning study,

an analysis of future development trends, potentials, and pitfalls in the rich

240

agricultural central plain of our capital island of Oahu. As a result of this

work, we then undertook, in 1972, a review of our State Land Use law. On the

basis of the review, Dr. Daniel Mandelker, of the Washington University Law

School, an international authority on land use control, who is present in our

audience today, assisted us in drafting a revision of the Land Use law for sub-

mission to the 1973 Hawaii State Legislature. In addition to the need to correct

existing deficiencies, one of the key purposes in drafting the revised Land Use

law was to anticipate passage of the pending National Land Use Policy Act, and

the National Coastal Zone Management Act. A careful attempt was made to modify

Hawaii's system of State land use controls so that they might conform to the

expected methods of implementation requirements of these two measures, without

in any way losing the momentum the State had achieved in this field.

Our proposed revision,first,provides for general policy guidelines for land

use. They would be set by the Department of Planning and Economic Development,

and would guide the Land Use Commission in exercising its powers under the Act.

The revision then amends the existing provisions of the Land Use law relating

to classifications of land use districts. It confirms existing classifications,

and makes clear the policy of preserving the agricultural and other natural re-

sources of the State, consistent with the public interest, by introducing a com-

peting consideration of damage to such areas which would be measured and balanced

against the prior standard of need. In order to assure that owners of property

in agricultural districts would not bear tax burdens disproportionate to the

income potential of their land as classified, the proposed statute provides that

agricultural lands shall be assessed on the basis of the value of the lEmd in

agricultural use. Whenever any land which has been taxed for its agricultural

value is reclassified to an urban district, however, the Act provides for the

partial recapture of any property taxes which have been lost to the State because

the land has already been taxed at its agricultural value.

241

Parenthetically, a separate measure, similar in content to this proposal,

was enacted by the 1973 State Legislature, and signed into law by Governor Burns

in May, 1973.

Finally,for those areas of great concern to the State, the State Administration

is given authority in the proposed Land Use law revision to designate areas of

critical concern, and to assume direct control of development within these areas.

This technique for regulating land and water uses on a site-specific basis, is

the major thrust and the most controversial provision of our proposed revision.

As defined in our proposal, areas of critical State concern include areas having

significant agricultural and environmental value to the State, areas proposed

for new towns, or for urban renewal, or areas in which major governmental or pri-

vate development has been proposed, such as airport and harbor facilities, high-

way interchanges, or housing developments. Within these areas, the State could

exercise a ladder of powers, ranging from the setting of specific development

standards and the preparation of precise plans for the area to the pre-emption

of State and local codes and ordinances based upon a review of any plan, regula-

tion, or application which affects development in the area. As a method for

controlling land and water uses within the coastal zone, our critical areas tech-

nique is directly applicable to the treatment of particular areas of concern

within Hawaii's coastal zone, as a complement to the broad, the direct, the State-

wide regulatory functions we now exercise under our present State Land Use law.

In point of fact, we believe our critical areas technique is more suited to

the fine-grained ecology of coastal areas than the recently-enacted Florida

legislation and the American Law Institute proposals, both of which deal primarily

with appeals, and with State review of local zoning and similar regulations. This,

then, is a core regulatory machinery, around which we hope to build a unified land

use and environmental management system. Our review of NOAA's preliminary guide-

lines for administering the Coastal Zone Management Act has led us to conclude

242

that there are no serious conflicts between the approach we are proposing and

the requirements of the National Coastal Zone Management Act, Although Federal

requirements under the pending National Land Use Policy Act are still unknown,

we believe that our system would be compatible with that measure also.

One should not conclude from this account, however, that Hawaii is without

problems in dealing with its ever-changing land use, environmental, and coastal

zone concerns. The proposed revisions to Hawaii's Land Use law were a contro-

versial issue throughout the legislative session, and were finally defeated by

strong local government interests, which resisted any alteration in the status

quo alignment of county and State powers over land use and development. Even a

compromise, which would have made the State's role in areas of critical State

concern only advisory and not regulatory, did not gain acceptance by county gov-

ernments and their supporters. The proposed revisions remain under active legis-

lative consideration, however, and hopefully should be acted upon in the forth-

coming session.

The New Federalism, at least as it is applied in the management of our physical

environment, results in additional powers and responsibilities for the States,

sometimes at the expense of local governments. The Clean Air Act, the Water

Quality Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the pending National Land Use Policy

Act, all make State governments the focal point in planning, programming, and

regulation for environmental quality. If the move to strengthen State planning

and management powers at the expense of local prerogatives is strongly resisted

in Hawaii, as it has been, and Hawaii has had a history of centralized State gov-

ernment, an effective environmental and land use decision making at the State

level, then we can expect even more resistance in other States where there has

not been such a background of State government initiatives and involveME@nts.

243

What, then, are the needs of State governments within the context of the New

Federalism in general, and the implementation of the National Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Act in particular?

The first need, I believe, is for putting the Federal house in order. EPA,

Interior, HUD, Commerce - just to name a few - are all seeking to participate

in the land use game through the various programs which they administer. Unless

immediate attention is given to improving coordination among these programs, the

development of a unified approach to environmental management at the State level

will not be possible. Hawaii and several other coastal States, Itm sure, will

want to develop a coordinated management program, by melding the programs man-

dated in separate cases of Federal legislation to meet their special problems

and particular situations. In Hawaii's case, this program could be built around

a central regulatory or review mechanism for planning and controlling land use

and physical development in areas of critical State concern, this mechanism

which I have just described.

A second related need is for flexibility in the preparation and interpretation

of Federal guidelines to allow States to develop and implement their programs in

whatever way best to meet their particular needs. This flexibility should provide

an added incentive for States to participate in at least being an incremental

management program. The need for flexibility has been borne out in Hawaii's

attempt to revise its Land Use law, and solve its relatively simple interjurisdic-

tional problems. Consolidation and flexibility at the Federal level are the keys

to giving the States the opportunity to develop effective, comprehensive, and

coordinated environmental management programs.

Seemingly contradictory, but a corollary to the notion of flexibility, is the

need for the relevant Federal agencies to be firm with State Legislatures, county

commissions, and other groups, which would hinder the effectuation of a particular

management program. This type of formal or informal wrist-slapping may be neces-

244

sary, because of the absence of sanctions to enforce either participation or

compliance. It is doubtful that the mere presence of incentives or program

grants will be sufficient to ensure the types of institutional changes implied

in either the National Land Use or Coastal Zone Management Acts.

States in which Federal agencies are a major user of a coastal zone will also

expect NOAA to be a firm lobbyist or advocate for State interests and State

coastal zone guidelines with Federal coastal zone users, including the U.S. Armed

Services. Those States will also require research and technical assistance -

there is still a relative scarcity of knowledge of basic cause-and-effect rela-

tionships and processes in the coastal zone. Here, a clearing-house mechanism

for keeping States abreast of each other's activities and problems or the com-

missioning of national research proposals could be helpful. The research and

information needs referred to here are, of course, for applied materials. Re-

search must be related to management; we need studies, for example, which relate

water quality to land use controls, which delve into the possibility of develop-

ing control mechanisms for water areas similar to those for land uses. Implemen-

tation should always be stressed, for States do not need to be caught up in an

endless round of inventories, data collections, and studies for the sake of studies.

Really, a primary need of the States is for imaginative yet pragmatic admin-

istration and coordination of the Federal programs now directed at the environmental

quality issue by all levels of government. We need to build gradually EL new system

of intergovernmental cooperation; we do not know yet precisely how to do this.

There is the obvious roadblock created by the conflicts between powerful. local

interests and those seeking to impose rigid uniform frameworks from above. To

some extent, the new working relationships among State, local, and the national

government will.be decided by the interplay between the national administration

and the Congress.

245

While the debate goes on, and new legislation and guidelines are hammered out,

the States do have the opportunity to use this period of creative pause, to coin

a phrase, to solidify the character of their planning, and to develop their own

initiatives to come to grips with the forthcoming programs. The National Land

Use Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Water Quality Act, the Better

Communities Act, urge States to take the first steps for some in this direction.

The challenge to the States is whether or not they can build up their planning

capabilities and develop their planning processes in order to deal with their

most critical environmental management problems in a farsighted and comprehensive

manner. A mandate to the Federal Government is not simply to satisfy itself that

the States are doing this, but to coordinate its own divergent planning interests

and to set forth goals and guidelines that are appropriate to a true national

growth policy.

Nevertheless, the States now have at least the opportunity, with Federal

statutory and financial and technical support, to set their directions and to

delve into the bewildering complex of local jurisdictional problems that have

hampered rational environmental and land use decision making in the past. In

the past, State planning has been preoccupied with its search for relevance,

for systems, structures, and roles to ensure its continued existence. For the

future, State planning must start building substance within structure, and face

head-on the environmental issues people are concerned with, no matter how diffi-

cult the task, and unpromising the early returns.

Comment from the Audience: Seldom do you find such an abundance of truth as

in the words that Dr. Mark has said. Speaking for the State Planning Group in

New York State, I would like to say that we endorse fully the remarks that he

has presented, and I commend him very much for making them. He's been both

profound and provocative, has outlined some things that are at the same time

246

truisms, but yet they outline a course of action that has pervaded this whole

conference. They are practical and realistic, and I thank you for your remarks,

Dr. Mark.

Question: One of the issues that we constantly run into is the
issue of compensatory zon - whether or not you have to pay
for the potential Loss because you keep the farmer from sub-
dividing. may I ask you to respond to that first? Secondly,
has it been an issue in Hawaii3 and third, have you had any
evidence of Loss of land value because of your State-wide land
use planning?

Answer: Those are all good, tough questions. Yes, it is an issue. In Hawaii,

land values generally have been rising; there has been enough of it on -the market

to meet immediate urban needs so that there has not been those sorts of demands

for these types of compensation. I'm sure in other States it may be a different

sort of situation. I think it is a problem; my own feeling is that somehow as

planners and as representatives of the public interest, we've got to try to

educate the community at large in terms of the overall public interest overriding

whatever private losses may be suffered in the process. This is not an easy

chore, but I think this is our challenge.

Question: You have not been in court yet?

Answer: Not yet, no.

247

RELEVANT FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES - PART I
Dr, Frank Carlson, Office of Land Use & Water IPlanning
Department of the Interior

As I look out over this group, I'm appreciative of the fact that at least a

couple of the participants have exercised a little more informality in attire

than most of us here; and it should be in the tradition at least of Annapolis.

In years past, I've attended meetings of the AERS here in-Annapolis, where if

one came to the podium wearing a tie, he would probably be asked to leave. By

the way, if any of you in the audience who are from the Atlantic Coastal States

do not know what AERS stands for, that is exemplary of the kind of problem we

have in bridging the gap, perhaps, with technical information transformed into

usable information for managers. I dontt want to let the moment go by, since

Bob Knecht has overlooked it, to let you think that this guy standing up here

as background for most of the meeting is a sportsman. He is our hard-working

biologist of the National Marine Fisheries Service out there on the Outer Banks

of North Carolina in the middle of the winter freezing for the purpose of tag-

ging striped bass to get information on migration - so he is a member of AERS.

Oceanographers are members of AERS - the Atlantic Estuarine Research Society.

The point here is that Interior has approximately 70,000 employees scat-

tered across the country, and they are carrying out broad responsibilities that

have been given to the Department for the management of resources of national

interest. The activities that they cover are described in a brochure, which

is in your package. Itm not going to go into this, simply because there is a

lot of detail; you may want to study this at your leisure. What I wanted to

emphasize is that most of the assistance that the Department of the Interior

provides is in the form of information and advisory services.

248

At this point, we have limited types of grants programs which are largely

the Land and Water Conservation Fund, administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Rec-

reation - Federal Aid Program, Fish and Wildlife Restoration, also grar.ts to

States for development of water resources institutes. And because our organiza-

tions or agencies, among which these programs are divided, consist of E! major

bureaus and a like number of smaller offices with different regional and organi-

zational structures, we're suggesting.that if you have specific inquiries or wish

further information on the material contained herein, that you address these to

the Office of Land Use and Water Planning, the address of which is given on the

first page. The one exception is the Water Resources Institutes of the, States,

the addresses of which are given in the handout.

In addition to the information contained herein, the Interior Department,

within the past 8 months, has initiated a series of regional symposia on land use

planning, workshops on applications or remote sensing to land use planning, and

most recently, workshops on the utilization of remote sensing for the development

of a standardized approach to land use classification. Having reviewed. what In-

terior-does in this brochure, seeking further information may ultimately result

in your wanting to come in with a specific request for assistance. It is impor-

tant that a request for assistance be not just, "We want this;" because it would

be very difficult for an agency within the Department, or the Department as a

whole, to assess the magnitude of the need. And so these are some suggestions

for approaching the problem of requesting assistance.

First of all, we would want to see identified the purpose, objectives, and

scope of the request; the work plan for the utilization of assistance; the over-

all personnel and funding requirements, broken down into what commitment the

State is willing to make, and what it would require of the Interior Department;

and finally the alternatives if the Federal assistance were not-available. It's

249

just not enough to give It to the office; you have to recognize, as Vm sure

you all do, that we all have our programs that have been established through

the budget process; we all have these priorities to carry out the work that has

been previously authorized. And so to help us reorder our priorities, we need

a strong mandate from State and local governments in terms of what they need;

and this mandate really has to come through, perhaps, at three levels. It has

to come up through the organization, through the office through which you're

interfacing that has the specific program which you want; it should come in to

the Director of the agency from which you want the service; and it should come

also to the Secretary, because through that mechanism we get a better overall

picture of, in fact, the kinds of things that we should be doing to be responsive.

Rather than to go over a lot of details, I would like to come back to a

point that Shelley Mark made. We need to better integrate the kinds of research

management advisory capabilities that we have at Interior. We see increasing

need for multi-disciplinary approaches to problem solving. Certain of our agen-

cies have developed this approach for their own needs; we're increasingly trying

to do this to meet State needs, and therefore have instituted a program on an

experimental basis to attempt to get at the answers to the problems facing the

resource managers, decision makers, in a timely fashion and in language they

understand. For this, I am asking Tom Buchanan, who is the sub-district chief

of the Water Resources Commission of the U.S. Geological Survey with the Depart-

ment (based in Miami), to describe the program that the Department is involved

in in Florida.

251

RELEVANT FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES - PART II
Mr. Thomas J, Buchanan, Subdistrict Chief, U,S. Geolog,ical Survey,
Department of the Interior

The program that Frank just discussed, the experimental program, is called

the RALI Program - RALI stands for Resource and Land Information. The program

started back in October, and the Department recognized the problem that people

were having in obtaining data from the Department. This was really generated

by the environmental impact statements, where people had to go to numerous

offices within the Department to g0_t the data. So the prime purpose of the RALI

Program was to find a way of getting the Department of the Interior data to the

local people, the States, the counties, in a form and in a convenient manner,

and all in one location. This is a problem that is being handled at the Washing-

ton level, and they are doing a lot of work on this right now.

The second problem, and the second objective of RALI, was to look at the

data wetre collecting to see if we're collecting the proper kinds of data, in

the proper time frame, and in the proper manner. The third objective, and the

one I'm going to talk to you about this afternoon, is to take a look at areas

where the Department did have a great deal of environmental data, look at the

environmental problems in those areas, and apply the Department's data to the

environmental problems to show some of the alternatives or solutions. We were

not attempting to come up with recommendations in our demonstration areas. We

were attempting to show what alternatives are available to the State and local

people, and provide them enough information that they would have the basis of

environmental data to make decisions.

We selected four places in the country. One of the locations we selected

was South Florida. We selected South Florida because we want to work in a coastal

area; and there were many environmental problems in the coastal area of South

252

Florida. We selected a very small segment of the South Florida area - south

Dade county. The city of Miami is in Dade county, and we selected the area,

from the city of Miami south into the southern boundary of the county, We,

selected this area because there were many concerns to the Department - Ever-

glades National Park is there; the Biscayne National Monument is there; there

are many fish and wildlife problems; many recreational problems. When we got

into this area, we decided that we just couldn't select a coastal area; we had

to take a look at the upland area also, because what was happening in the up-

land area had a great effect on the coastal area.

The area we studied was from the center of the city of Miami on the north,

to Florida Bay on the south (a distance of approximately 30 miles); and from

Everglades National Park on the west, to Biscayne Bay, the Keys, and the Atlantic

Ocean on the east. This was a multi-disciplinary study, and we had the partici-

pation of every bureau within the Department that had any activity at all within

Florida. The lead agency in the RALI study was the Geological Survey -- we were

responsible for coordinating the study and getting the material together. The

basis of the report will be that we will be showing the data available, showing

the problems and the alternatives.

One of the things we've attempted to do in this report, and I want to empha-

size this again, is that we have attempted to show the people the types, of envi-

ronmental data the Department of the Interior has, show them some of the environ-

mental problems. We hope that we've touched on most of the environmental problems

in the study area, showing them the alternatives that are available, and giving

them, hopefully, enough information that they can apply economics and other

political and zoning considerations to these alternatives to make the decisions

that are necessary for the orderly development of the area.

253

Dr. Carlson: I think that this lends emphAsis-to the comments that John Clark

made this morning on the interrelationship of the resources, And how one action

in one area has a significant impact elsewhere. Therefore, going back to Bill

Hargis, you really have to start out with an inventory of the resources that

you've got, know what their capabilities are, and the limitations that those

different resources have for the kinds of activity you're dealing with.

I think the big question that is always coming across to planners and de-

cision makers is,if all of these things are interrelated so, to what extent

can we impact on them and still retain that resource, particularly if it'sa

living resource? I think you've seen in this case how, as John Clark again

pointed out, where the fringe is such a highly productive area that there are

ways of maintaining the productivity of that fringe and still carry on recrea-

tional pursuits that benefit by having that fringe and can be carried on without

destroying it.

With that, we conclude the Interior's presentation.

255

RELEVANT FEDERAL PRQGRAMS AND RESQURCES - PART III
Mr. William Johnson, DepuiTvAdminlstrator, Soil Conservation Service
Department of Agriculture

You may wonder why the Department of Agriculture is on this program, what

interest the Department has in the coastal zone. To clear up these questions, I

might remind you that USDA has the mission of assuring that the nation's food

and fiber production is sufficient both for domestic needs and for export. Lately,

we've all noticed that foreign sales of farm products are the best moneymakers we

have in the international market place. In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture

has the leadership role for rural development. Although 50% of our population

lives on or very near the coast, there are still extensive coastal zones that are

rural and are used primarily for farming, grazing, and forestry. Farmers and

ranchers-are the custodians of all the land that you people want to use for other

purposes.

The Department of Agriculture is another large group of agencies - some 21

of them all together - dealing with a great diversity of agriculturally related

problems and activities, but not exclusively agricultural, as we'll see. Services

supplied by the Department impact on all the people in this country, from those

who produce the food and fiber, and those who transport, grade, process, package,

and market these products, and to you, the consumer, who buys the products in the

supermarket or department store. Extensive programs of research and resource

data collection,and analysis are carried out in support of the Departmentts mis-

sions. At least nine of our agencies have products, services, and programs with

applications and implications to the coastal zone. During the next few minutes,

I shall try to give you an overview of the kinds of programs, products, and ser-

vices we can supply that will help you to evaluate your coastal zone resources;

to analyze the problems of resource use; and to deal with these environmental,

economic, and developmental questions in the coastal zone.

256

1 have tried to organize these remarks not by agency, but by major subjects,

starting with research and ending up with emergency programs. Two Agriculture

agencies, the Argicultural Research Service and the Economic Research SE!rvice,

are dedicated to research, both basic and applied, in food and fiber production,

agricultural engineering, pest control, human nutrition, wildlife food and habi-

tat, agricultural and natural resource economics, and soil and water conservation.

The Forest Service, in addition, carries out research to minimize erosion and

sedimentation, and reduce other forms of erosion on forest lands. In addition,

the Cooperative State Research Service provides research grants for bas3'c and

applied research at State universities and agricultural experiment statj'ons, and

schools of forestry. Just recently, CSRS gave something like $55,000 to the

University of Maryland to study oysters in Chesapeake Bay - a curious k1nd of

project that relates to water temperature and social conditions. I'm not sure

whether they're talking about social conditions of the oyster or human zsocial

conditions, but it's an example of one of the kinds of grants that clearly has

implications to coastal zone utilization.

A part of the ongoing research administered by these four agencies is directl-

applicable to the problems of the coastal zone. Opportunities exist for additional

research into these problems, as State and local interest grow in planning and

management. The Washington offices of these agencies - Agricultural Research Ser-

vice, Forest Service, Economics Research Service, and CSRS, the Cooperative State

Research Service, can supply information on data that is available on ongoing

research and on the channels for proposing new or additional research in coastal

zones. ARS and the Forest Service have regional and field offices which can help

in providing answers to your ques@tions about research. All these things are given

in the handout which you all got in your packet.

257

Next, I want to talk about a subject that is particularly of interest to

me, and to my agency resource data collection, analysis, and dissemination,

Many of the Department's agencies collect data on soil and water and related

resources, and on agricultural production as related to land use and other fac-

tors of economic importance. Five of the agencies have systematic programs for

collection of resource data and the analysis, publication and dissemination of

that data. My own agency, the Soil Conservation Service, has Federal leadership

for the National Cooperative Soil Survey, for the Conservation Needs Inventory,

and for the program of land inventory and monitoring, authorized under the Rural

Development Act of 1972. Like you, Lance, I have a program that isn't funded.

Like Bob, my land inventory monitoring program is offered, so we're sort of in

limbo right at the moment.

SCS also operates a snow survey and water supply forecast program in the

Western States, It carries out a river basin and watershed survey. As a part of

the land inventory and monitoring program, it identifies actively eroding areas,

prime sources of sediment, flood plains, and wetlands. All of this data is avail-

able for your use and for the use of local agencies of State government. Soil

surveys, as many of you know, are published in a standard series. I'm not going

to go into any great detail on soil surveys and how they are made; but they con-

stitute an inventory in considerable detail, usually at rather large scales, of

the soil resources of an area, commonly a full county area. We also include in

these publications interpretations of soil behavior under different uses, and with

different kinds of treatments, Free copies of these can be had from our Washing-

ton, State, and field offices, and from a variety of other sources.

Interim reports and special reports on soil resources can be had from our

local field offices, which serve as headquarters for the Soil Survey activity.

The Soil Conservation Service has an administrative office in each of the 50 States

258

and Puerto Rico, and it has more than 3,000 field offices well disseminated

throughout the country. At these field offices, we have engineers, conservation-

ists, soil scientists, and planning technicians who can Assist agencies of govern-

ment in, first of all, obtaining the data they need, in analyzing that data for

organization and management of coastal areas. These scientists and engineers

are parts of multi-disciplinary teams, well accustomed to working together with

State and local officials in solving resource problems, and in planning resource

use and management. Many of the other agencies of the Department have similar

kinds of planning expertise and data collecting. For example, the Economic Re-

search Service carries out a national program of economic research on agricultural

and natural resource problems, which they publish in a number of places. They

also maintain files of data by counties with information from the census of Agri-

culture and from other sources - data on land use, land ownership, income, and

crop and livestock production. ERS prepares reports on historical and projected

agricultural production and land use. Other sources of resource data in the

Department are the Forest Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the

Statistical Reporting Service. These provide data on vegetation, agricultural

production, and other forms of agricultural statistics. The best way to get data

from these agencies is through their Washington office, with the exception of the

Forest Service; and you have specific references to their regional and area

offices in your handout.

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service is an agency designed

to administer specified commodity and land use programs for production adjustment,

resource protection, and price and income stabilization. You may wonder what

that's got to do with the coastal zone. Well perhaps not so much directly; but

to carry out its mission, ASCS needs up-to-date air photo coverage, and it has

developed an enormous capability and expertise in this field. The imagery avail-

259

able is in large and intermediate scale, black and white, conventional photogra-

phy. The Salt Lake City Office of ASCS, which is in your directory, is the place

to make inquiries and to order this kind of photography,

On the subject of education, when you get ready to try to carry out some of

your programs in individual coastal counties, educational facilities will, of

course, be a necessity. The Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture

is our educational arm - it provides programs based on the needs of local envi-

ronments, cooperatively with the State land grant university. The Extension

Service carries on programs in many States on coastal zone activities. The Dir-

ector of Extensions at your State land grant university can provide a lot more

information on these programs and on the available educational and technical as-

sistance.

For some activities in the coastal zone, credit facilities are going to be

important. The Farmer's Home Administration manages multi-billion dollar loan

and grant programs for resource conservation and development, for recreational

facilities, community water and power facilities, and for farm operations. The

majority of these loans are related to production and farm facilities, and prob-

ably they have a limited application to your interests. But some of these loans

and grants are made for business operations that are not strictly farming, and

some of them definitely apply to the coastal zone, particularly those relating

to community water and power facilities.

Next in the field of conservation and environmental quality - SCS, Forest

Service, ASCS, manage programs of technical assistance and incentives to land

owners, operators, and developers for land and water management to control erosion

and improve environmental values; for land use planning, housing, recreation and

waste disposal, strip mine reclamation, protection of forests against fire, dis-

eases, insects, etc. Technical assistance is available in the form of printed

260

guidelines and on-site assistance from soil scientists, engineers, vegetative

specialists, planners, and other technicians.

The rural development program, about which we've heard a lot recently, in-

cludes a number of programs aimed at improving economic and environmental condi-

tions in rural areas. Many of these programs, of course,, relate to farms and

ranches; but there are others designed to improve community water and sewer facil-

ities and provide technical and financial assistance to rural areas. The agencies

primarily concerned are Extension, Farmer's Home, Soil Conservation Service, and

Forest Service.

Finally, under emergency programs, several agencies provide natural. disaster

relief and rehabilitation programs that function through State and county emergency

boards made up of representatives of USDA agencies. So when you get a hurricane,

a flood, or whatever, in the coastal zone, there are some opportunities for disaster

relief through Agriculture agencies.

I'd like to tell you, in the next 2-3 minutes, an example of how you get some

of this assistance. Most of what we have to offer comes free - there's no charge.

If we have the data, if we have the technical expertise available, it's ordinarily

available without charge. If we don't have it, and you want us to prov.-Lde it,

that may be a more difficult question. But let's take for example, how do you

get a soil survey of a coastal area from the Soil Conservation Service? If it

has been published in this form, all you have to do is ask for it and you'll get

it. If it has been surveyed but not yet published, or if field work is in progress

and has not yet been completed, then we can provide you with copies of field sheets,

along with descriptions, classification of soils, and interpretations of the soil

survey. At the very worst, you might have to pay a little bit for copies of the

field sheets, but it would be a very nominal charge. If no survey is available,

and none is scheduled, then your procedure is to approach our State conservation-

ist, the line officer, the administrative officer in charge of operations in your

261

State - and you can find his address in your handout he will tell you that

decisions about priorities for surveys are discussed at an annual meeting with

other cooperators of the Soil Survey, and that you will have an opportunity to

present your case, to ask for assistance in accelerating or initiating a survey

in an area of interest to you. Tf you can persuade the others that your priori-

ties are higher, then you will get your survey started and completed with all

possible haste. I might say in this connection that cost-sharing funds for this

kind of thing are sometimes acceptable; it depends. on what our ceiling limita-

tions might be. They've never been known to slow down a survey, and sometimes

they can help to accelerate it.

Supposing none of this is possible. We can still help you, because we have

small-scale soil maps of essentially every county in the United States; we have

descriptions and general interpretations of the soils, their behavior, to tell

you how they react to various kinds of uses and treatments. We can tell you, for

example, soils in the coastal zone that are salty; soils in the coastal zone that

are not salty; fresh water marshes vs. salt water marshes; the salt water marshes

we can tell you about those that are the kind called Cat Clays, that if they be-

come drained, if they should become dried out, someone tries to utilize them for

some sort of development, lower the water table, induce oxidation, and soil reac-

tion becomes so extremely acid that vegetation all dies, and you've literally got

a wasteland - we can tell you where these areas are. We can provide on-site

assistance in evaluating soil conditions, in interpreting available information,

advising on laboratory work that might need to be done, and help you to get that

laboratory work, so that no matter if there is literally nothing that is available

in a published form, we can still provide assistance. All you need to do is get

in touch with the State office of Soil Conservation in your State and make your

needs known.

263

RELEVANT FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES - PART IV
Dr. Walter Groszyk, Chief, Water Program Planning & Accomplishments Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency

I'm here today as a representative of an Agency that's getting a growing

negative reputation in that we always tell people what they can't do rather than

what they can. I'd like to maybe sweeten the negativism somewhat, and talk to

you about three grant programs that we have available to do planning nationwide,

but also planning in the coastal zone, and how that particular planning can inter-

face with some of the requirements we have under the Federal Water Pollution Con-

trol Act of 1972.

That particular Bill basically sets various enforcement, regulatory proced-

ures for achieving a certain water quality standard by 1983. That water quality

standard is that there shall be fishable water everywhere and swimable water

everywhere. Generally speaking in the coastal zone, we already have that sort of

standard, except in certain estuaries, as a promulgated standard by the States,

and it's not a matter of upgrading to that. But we have a situation, I think,

where as we go and do controls on inland waters, we will have pressure from in-

dustries, communities, etc., to promote development in the coastal zone, because

there is presumably some ability of the oceans, etc., to absorb the pollutants

that can be discharged there.

The three grant programs that we have - and we enclosed some copies of regu-

lations that are either interim or proposed for those programs - involve one at

the State level, one at a sort of super-w@egional level, and one at the local

level. Local level regulations aren't out yet; we're still thrashing them around

a bit, and we'll hopefully have those in the Federal Register within the next

month.

The State planning program is a requirement under the States' continuing pro-
cess that they develop basin plans for all waters in the country. This includes

264

all waters of the coastal zone. Generally speaking, these plans will involve

their particular organizational and administrative structure for controlling

pollution from all discharge points. The law specifies that every discharger,

whether it's community, industry, commercial establishment, vessel, etc., re-

quires a permit if he discharges any pollutant into the nation's waters in the

coastal zone. The State planning process that we have enunciated in these regu-

lations is basically a mechanism for getting the appropriate level of pollutant

reduction assessed against each individual discharger. We have provided for the

States in the State Control Agency Grant Program a portion of the $40 million

FY-74 grant to assist them in doing this. We expect this will be a continuing

effort on a yearly basis, and probably somewhere on the order of $15-25 million

per year Federal grant funds to the States for assisting them in this planning.

The second area that we have is an area-wide planning program which will be

done by generally an SMSA, but it's not restricted.to such. It's the first 100%

Federal planning grant ever issued by the Federal Government. We have $350 mil-

lion worth of contract grant authority for this. Contract. grant authority is

somewhat different from customary Federal authorization, appropriation, etc., in

that it is not subject to an appropriation by Congress. All Congress can do to

control it is to approve an appropriation to liquidate the amount of costs that

are on the contract. This particular area-wide planning will establish an area-

wide management agency which has very extensive regulatory powers. It includes

land use zoning, site location zoning (in that they can prohibit locat"lon of new

dischargers or community development, etc.), and itts very controversial.

The third area is local planning, which will be the first stage of the Gen-

eral Community Construction Grant Program. That has a 75% Federal grant, and

involves basically an assessment of what that community should do from the posi-

tion of growth, position of existing community development, to abate pollution

265

from the sewered population of that community, The amount of money that we fore-

see for this is probably in the neighborhood of several hundred million dollars

in grants. The Agency has some other programs related to the coastal zone. I

could summarize those for you before framing an issue involving coastal zone

development.

We have basically a companion piece of legislation called Ocean Dumping,

which is to regulate and control dumping of pollutants beyond the territorial

seas. The first series of criteria controlling that dumping has been published,

and that's also in the packet. These criteria will similarly be established for

discharges into the territorial sea. They are intended to be somewhat restrictive.

What we have is a situation developing where we have a technological threshold

which says no matter where the tide is located, or the discharge is located,

that the quality of the water is not to be considered in setting the basic pollu-

tant reduction that has to be assessed against them. We have ce rtain States

which have to engage in several hundred million dollars worth of municipal sew-

age treatment plant construction - basically because of this technological

threshold - and they are seeking to get some waivers. One of the things that we

have in this situation is that if we give that waiver to a community, we will

probably be confronted with having a similar request to waive from industries.

This will probably promote, or could promote if we granted the waivers, extensive

development or pressure for development in the coastal zone. I think you should

be aware of that.

We also have within the Agency some research activities conducted on the part

of the coastal area. We have to provide reports to Congress once every three

years on estuarine pollution. We did a report in.1970-71, and made that avail-

able; the next one will probably be provided around 1975. We also conduct a

series of research studies basically directed toward the development of water

266

quality criteria, transportation processes - how that particular pollutant moves

through the environment, and also threshold levels and parameters necessary to

support and protect indigenous species of wildlife. Basically, anti-degradation

provisions exist in the Water Bill, and some people would say that they exist

even more strongly than they do in the Clean Air Act. This basic provision is

very inhibitory to growth.

We have a situation, I think, that now with a certain ambient threshold level

being established and a certain ceiling - if you want to consider it that - being

written on permits for all these discharges in the country - and the first sets

of permits are going up now - is that those existing discharges forever more may

represent the ceiling as to the quantity and quality of the waste that they can

discharge. This has very controversial and very far-reaching implications, in

that if a community of 10,000 anticipates growing to a population of 40,000*, if

it receives a permit for a population of 10,000, it could not be expanded to re-

flect the increase in growth. So the community would be confronted with several

alternatives:

1. It could go to a high technology level and try to still achieve that

same permit ceiling.

2. It could provide for basically no growth, but just replacement: growth.

3. It could go to land disposal, such as is required in California - some

other alternative type of technology that doesn't result in discharge.

4. It could try and strike an equilibrium with some of its neighbors, and

they could trade off, so that Community A could have some growth, but

borrowing some of the capacity from Community B down the stream or next

on the coast.

These particular anti-degradation provisions, I think, will mostly affect

inland waters, because generally speaking we are rationing down - we just can't

267

increase in capacity - but within the coastal zone, there is the assimilative

capacity on the part of the oceans, and what we are confronted with again is,

perhaps, a major geographic and economic redistribution. If any of you have

any sort of feeling or ideas on this, I eagerly solicit your views - just send

them to me, please.

269

RELEVANT FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES - PART V
Mr. Kenneth H. Murdock, Office of the Chief of Engineers,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to have to start this off with an apology,

I'm afraid. I don't come with a package of grants - the Corps of Engineers is

not a granting agency. In fact, we're not even a.basic data-collecting agency.

I guess the common term for what agencies such as the Corps have is really an

action program. We get all of our money directly from the Congress, specific

appropriations out of Congress for management by the Corps for Corps-type pro-

grams. However, as some of you may know, we have programs that have a great

deal of relationship to the coastal zone.

Really, my concern here for the next few minutes will be to try to outline

some of the programs and activities that the Corps has that relate to the coastal

zone. Of course, the program of the Corps involves a broad range of responsibili-

ties that relate to protection, development, management of water and related land

resources. These responsibilities cover such things as comprehensive planning;

project implementation-type planning; design and construction, generally project-

oriented; and again the operation and maintenance of projects. We also support

this with research and regulatory programs in the navigable waters, both coastal

and inland. Basically, as I noted, the money that we receive from the Congress

is to be managed and spent by the Corps; we do not normally have a program that

will give money to States or to local governments for their management and their

use.

In our programs in the coastal zone, I concentrate primarily on the naviga-

tion authority; the beach and shore erosion protection enhancement area; coastal

flood protection and flood plain management services; water-based recreation; and

related fish and wildlife conservation enhancement. The problems that we face

270

today in using our natural resources to meet whatever needs happen to be generated

in the near future must he balanced, not only by popular demand, but by existing

legislation, with the need to protect and enhance environmental values, and to

reflect social values as well.

A few words about our organization. I'm not going to go into detail; in

fact, I didn't provide a detailed organization chart, because I really don't think

it relates very well to what we're trying to do here today. Our basic -program, of

course, is managed by the Office of the Chief of Engineers in Washington, by the

Director of Civil Works. We work through division offices. Nine of the eleven

Corps of Engineers divisions are in the coastal zone, of which there are approxi-

mately 20 operating offices. One of them is a division office, and the rest are

district offices. A district is where the work goes on; this is where 'we carry a

program out. I did provide a chart in the handout kit that shows the boundaries

of the districts. Someone who really wants to learn about what the Corps is doing.

in their area should go to the District Engineer.

Similarly, we have a series of research-type organizations that support our

field activities and then provide general information to the public, such as the

Coastal Engineering Research Center here in this area, which recently moved from

the District of Columbia down to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. We also have the Waterways

Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi; the Institute for Water Resources,

also recently moved to Fort Belvoir; the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab

at Hanover, New Hampshire; and even the Waterborne Commerce Statistics -Center,

which is down in New Orleans.

Along the lines of these research facilities, particularly the ones that do

basic research, either to support our program or someone elsels, such as the Coastal

Engineering Research Center, or the Cold Regions Lab, or the Waterways Experiment

Station - they do work on a reimbursable basis for a State and local government,

271

and many of these research labs have done this over the years. It's not their

primary mission, but they're happy if they can, in order to accomodate a program

of a State in specialized research that relates to the coastal zone. The Tech-

nical Director of CERC, incidentally, asked me to place in your handout kit his

summary of capabilities. The Coastal Engineering Research Center moved last

month to Fort Belvoir, Virginia,. and will be moving all of its facilities there

eventually. They will be able, however, to do anything that is outlined in that

technical publication.

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 307-C, the Federal agencies

have to carry out their activities in the coastal zone in a manner consistent with

the approved State management programs. At this point, I'd like to touch on some

of these programs in the coastal zone in relation, as much as I can, to the inter-

est of a State. The Corps Navigation Studies Programs relate to the improvement

of the coastal and Great Lakes waterways and harbors. We try to provide safe and

economical waterborne movement of commodities, commercial fishing, and recreational

boating, etc. These are individual studies funded by the Corps that work with the

detailed planning of a construction project specifically authorized by the Congress,

or to maintain an existing project, such as the approach channels to a portion of

the Port of Baltimore. As Mr. Stanton indicated yesterday, much of the development

of the port itself is by private interestor by State, or by Port Authority - some-

one other than Corps of Engineers.

As we in this country continue to face the prospect of limited or diminishing

raw materials, particularly those that come from domestic sources - and I might

note, as others have, that petroleum products head the list of those that are cur-

rently short - the need for deep water navigation facilities will become more acute.

During 1972 and this year, the Corps has been coordinating a series of studies of

deep seaport and harbor requirements for the North Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific

272

Coast. These studies investigate such items as off-shore alternative terminals,

giving particular attention to the very large crude oil carriers' taking of the

trade in a critical commodity due to the economic advantages of very large crude

carriers. There is not much question that they are coming; it's a question of

whether we can accomodate them in this country and capture the economic advan-

tages that they have.

These deep port studies identify the advantages and disadvantages of using

super-sized vessels in commercial trade; and we try to identify the deep water

ports sites, giving consideration to the environmental, social problems, and

impacts as well. It's not just an engineering study.

In cooperation with the States, other Federal agencies, the maritine industry,,

we try to pull together the engineering, physical, biological, etc., information

that will bear on a series of decisions that are going to be made about the use

of a superport. Of course, the final decisions are related to what we're going

to do in the way of importing of ore and crude petroleum. This is not a decision

for the Corps, wetre just providing information. However, the coastal States in

particular have a very significant stake in where deep water port facilities are

provided, if, in effect, a decision is made to develop them.

In another area, that of shore protection and restoration and enhancement of

shorelines, the Corps, in cooperation with, again, State and local intE!rests,

develops programs to halt erosion, restore or enhance shorelines for public recrea-

tion, park, and wildlife refuge uses. Federal participation in each insures stabi.-

lization projects, and primarily is justified by this recreational use by the

public. Under existing law, the Corps has authority from the Congress to provide

Federal participation in the cost of restoring and enhancing shorelines., with the

intent of minimizing the erosion caused by wind and tide-generated waves breaking

along these principle shorelines. The cost of protection and restoration is based

273

not on a fixed or flat formula in all cases, but on the type of shore ownership

use. Some of the discussion this morning about private vs. public use of shore-

line bears on the extent to which the Corps can share. In effect, if there is

no public benefit, Federal funds cannot be used; it's that simple. Our partici-

pation in the first cost of protecting shores owned by public agencies, non-Fed-

eral public agencies, can go up to about 50%, not counting the cost of the land.

However, these shorelands must be open to recreational use by all on equal

terms to get the 50% grant. Under special conditions of participation, beach

protection for a State or other publicly owned shore, park, and conservation area -

which is more than just a beach or recreation area - is eligible for Federal cost

sharing up to 70%, again excluding the land cost.

Related to this same area is our coastal port protection, where an economically

justified project, providing hurricane, tidal, or lake flood protection can, by

precedent, receive a Federal share up to 70% of the project cost. In this case,

the local government, State, or municipality is required to provide the land ease-

ment and rights-of-way; if they do not total 30%, they make up the difference in a

cash grant. But they must provide at least 30% of this project, provided it is

justified. These are, of course, all coastal zone projects.

Relating to the Great Lakes, recently we've had a series of damaging events -

storm-induced waves, waves set up combined with the very high lake levels that we

have now - have caused extensive shoreline erosion and flood problems. We have

made a number of special studies, and outlined some emergency actions intended to

protect life and property. Last December we started a program along theshores of

the Great Lakes which, where damage can be justified by investments, we will do

some limited work to protect the low-lying communities. However, the local com-

munities have to provide the necessary rights-of-way. There is no hope, however,

of protecting all of the lake-shore community; they are going to suffer damages

274

because of an abnormal series of events, because of the manner in which -the lake

flood plain has been occupied.

Which brings me to another program, which I think is one of the more valuable

that we have that the States can make a great deal of use of, and that is the Flood

Plain Management Services Program. This program provides technical and planning

assistance to the States that relates directly to the way in which flood waters

impact on lands on the flood plain. We have prepared in recent years roughly 700

formal flood plain information reports covering all or a portion of roughly 2,000

locations thathave a potential for flood loss. Looking at the impact of this

kind of a program, we find that about 600 areas, municipalities, regions, have

adopted ordinances that attempt to deal with the flood problem.

This Flood Plain Management Services Program offers the basis for non-struc-

tural - that is, non-traditional - types of solutions to existing or potential

flood problems which give the State or local official a weapon to use in dealing

with the problem at the local level. In effect, he is getting from the Corps

technical guidance, technical advice, on how to avoid the flood losses. We don't

spend a great deal of money in this area - about $9 V2 million in this f iscal

year - but this is double what it was five years ago; so the trend is in the right

direction, and the need is there. We cannot really meet the need to the extent

that the States place a demand on the Corps, but we're doing the best we can.

This assistance and guidance generally is provided to a State on request.

It also includes assistance in preparing flood plain regulations, includ--";ng such

items as flood plain zone assistance, subdivision regulations, building codes.

However, this is the State and local job to carry these out, not the Federal job.

Also, under the National Flood Insurance Program, the Corps assists in set-

ting the rate structure for the program of insuring against flood losses for those

established on the flood plain.

275

Another area is our regulatory programs that relate to navigable waters,

As, of course, most of you know, the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollu-

tion Control Act gave the Environmental Protection Agency what used to he called

the Refuse Act Permitting Program under Section 13 of the old 1899 River and

Harbor Act. Now all the Corps does is review these for their impact on naviga-

tion. However, we still retain, under other sections of that same 1899 Act, the

very important responsibility to regulate applications for permits for dredging,

dredge spoil disposal, filling, and construction in navigable waters - and"havi-

gable waters!'has been much more broadly defined by the new Act. In fact, the

whole series of recent pieces of legislation, beginning with NEPA - the National

Environmental Policy Act - and the 1972 coastal zone legislation, places a great

deal of stress on the environmental values and the public interest which is beyond

just the environmental values, before the Corps can issue a permit. When the

States have adopted their coastal zone management programs, and secured the approv-

al of the Secretary of Commerce, the Corps will be in a position to support the

States' certification required under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Related to that, and the problem Mr. Stanton mentioned this morning, is the

increasing concern for the disposal of dredge material, particularly from the pol-

luted harbors. The Corps now is authorized to make a nation-wide comprehensive

research study concerning the disposal of dredge material. We hope that the early

development of some reliable environmental data will assist in making some of the

sound judgements that are needed on the requirements for handling dredge material,

particularly to avoid extremely costly projects that may not be necessary in light

of greater environmental data and its sound use in making a judgement on the hand-

ling of dredge material. The States are required, or a locality is required to

assist the Corps in designating spoil disposal locations, and providing this loca-

tion; so this is an element of local cooperation that makes the State directly

276

responsible for the decision on where dredge material is to be disposed - whether

it's in a contained disposal area near the site, or must be hauled out beyond, as

California originally intended, the 100 fathom line. This would make the increase

in cost 10-20 times beyond what it has been in the past. They will have to look

in great detail at the environmental data, the social data, the economic data,

that relates to decisions such as these that must be made in conjunction with the

States.

The Corps Estuarine Studies Program covers, of course, the full range of pur-

poses that I have indicated. Detailed studies of major estuaries have included

the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Delaware Bay, Mobile Bay, and Galveston

Bay. We carried these studies out as team efforts with the involved States and

Federal agencies, with the idea of better understanding the dynamic processes

going on in these estuaries. This effort is supported by both the hydraulic or,

if you wish, physical model, and a series of mathematical models. Dr. Hargis

outlined some of the approaches that the Commonwealth of Virginia was using.

Taking this Chesapeake Bay area as a local case in point, the people in. this area

feel that this is a critically important estuarine resource to the area.. It is

a focal point of investigation, not only by the Commonwealth, but by the Corps

of Engineers, other Federal agencies, and the State of Maryland; and decisions

made here have a great deal of interest to the general public.

The Baltimore District Corps, where I indicated all the work is done, is in

the early stages of building a very large hydraulic model of the Bay. We expect

to see this model completed and verified approximately three years from now, per-

haps in the summer of 1976, and put to work in a joint Federal-State research

effort, to try to focus on the Bay's complex problems, to try to understand better

how the Bay operates. This site, incidentally, is just across the Chesapeake

from the Annapolis area at Mattapeake, Maryland. It will be convenieni-.Iy located

to those interested in research in the Bay area.

277

In the way of other programs that are relatively new, the Corps, a little

over two years ago, cooperating with the Environmental Protection Agency and

several State governments, initiated a pilot wastewater management planning

program. We began this program with five very large metropolitan areas that

directly impact on the coastal zone, Here we tried to identify and analyze, on

a regional basis, a range of alternative technologies for achieving a high qual-

ity treatment of wastewater. This is not just a processing of information and

data, but goes beyond this to the array of social, environmental, and economic

effects to the best that we can array these, so that the data is available to

the local governments for making a decision on what system they will decide to

implement. The Corps does not implement wastewater management systems; this is

a local responsibility under the 1972 Act, with grants by the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency.

We found and confirmed one thing, however, in this regional program in the

last year - that when you look at one urban-type problem you can't isolate that

from, others, and as a result we find as we raise solutions for, let's say, waste-

water management, solutions for a series of other types of problems - stone water

run-off, urban flood problems, etc. - become apparent. So, in effect, you must

approach this kind of study from a comprehensive basis, much as the Corps and

other agencies in the past have approached river basin studies - as comprehensive

efforts into disciplinary cooperatives. We have, in effect, redirected much of

our traditional survey programs with the idea of assisting these urban locations;

and this year we began what we're calling an Urban Studies Program, which focuses

principally on water resource management in an urban region,

Two things that I want to bring out in these urban studies is that the respon-

sibility for comprehensive urban planning remains with the locality - we're not

trying in any way to weaken this, but to provide additional information, additional

capabilities, to the urban locality that requests such a study, so that they can

278

make their decisions more in line with the existing information that is avail-

able. Also, we try to fill the vacuum where our authority permits, in planning

in an urban region - filling the vacuum in the water and related land resource

area in particular, but we're not going to duplicate somebody elsets program.

Essentially, the Corps - in the Urban Studies Program - will provide a

coordinated planning service for State and local governments, so that the plan-

ning complements local planning, and responds to what the people of that area

want. Again, the economic, the environmental, and the social impacts we're re-

quired by law to array in any of our decisions - any of the data that we analyze

that relates to decisions that must be implemented by other people.

In summary, the Corps has an active and diverse program under way in the

coastal zone. Over the past several years, we have increasingly redirected our

planning and research, in particular, toward activities to provide more of a

decision-making service to State and local governments. The national needs have,

over the years, changed; and the States' responsibilities for natural resource

management have grown; and they are going to continue to grow. I SUSPE@Ct that

this is the trend, and that there will be a Corps efforts to follow that trend.

We will be providing more of a planning research service as a part of our programs

to the States and to the local governments.

If you have a problem you believe relates to any of the programs that I have

just very briefly touched on, that the Corps is involved in, or to one of the re-

search offices, don't go to the Washington office, Don't come to our Director of

Civil Works. Go to the Division or the District Engineer, the man on the ground

in your area. He is in the best position to advise you on whether he can help you

or not; and if he can help you, what kind of application, or formal request, if

any, is needed to carry out A program. And he also can give you information or

the help you need in preparing any requests or any applicat@on5 that may be.needed.

279

RELEVANT FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES - PART VI
Dr. Richard Kolf, Program Manager, Environmental Systems & Resources Office
National Science Foundation

I think that one thing that should be clear very quickly is that the National

Science Foundation certainly stands in a different position here among the other

Federal agencies in the terms of your viewing us as a resource which you can use

to solve your immediate problems.

For these two days now, I think we have all been looking at the same set of

problems, with some different perspectives. To try to classify some of the moods

that I heard, there seems to be one trend that was along the line that-our prob-

lems are very urgent, we do know quite a few things right now - let's get on with

it - and another sort of group that was saying, on the other hand, that these

really are very complex problems we're talking about, and that if we're not care-

ful we will be doing irreversible harm.

I suppose that the National Science Foundation's perspective is more towards

this dilemma side of,the fence, although with the Research Applied to National

Needs programs, we are trying to mobilize research to do some good in the near

future. For those of you who don't know the National Science Foundation well,

it's a Federal agency which was formed in 1950, and its unique concern is to

foster scientific progress generally. This is done mainly through grants and con-

tracts in support of scientific research and research facilities. None of this

research is conducted in-house by our own staff; we don't have a mission in the

sense of any of these other agencies that are speaking with you this afternoon;

we do not have regional officeso We have only one office in Washington, D.C.

Several years ago, Congress directed NSF to search for ways to apply scien-

tific knowledge to help solve national problems. It was in response to that that

this new program area was formed, entitled "Research Applied to National Needs,"

280

or RANN. Within RANN, the Division of Environmental-Sy@temg and Resources, the

Division that I am in, and Phil Johnson, who was the Chairman this morn1Lng, is

the Division Director, operates a program we call the Regional Environmental Sys-

tems Program. This is the element which is most directly concerned with coastal

zone management, the one which would like to be helpful in this overall job of

organizing and managing the coastal zone.

Another trend in the conversations these past several days has beel.-I that

certainly, although there are characteristic problems in the coastal zone, the

various coastal areas are quite different. They are different because -the natu-

ral systems themselves are different - they are also different because -the socio-

economic pressures which they are feeling are.quite different also. For instance,

even though we can speak of oil in Louisiana or on the Alaska slope, certainly

the situation in the two areas is different.

There will, therefore, always be, we would expect, a spectrum of development

and management strategies which might be applied to the problems which occur. And

it is the major aim of our program area to enhance mants capability to select from

the spectrum of possible strategies. These strategies must be developed for spe-

cific environments, and within the context of the overall societal goals.

Many regional environmental problems arise from the conflict over alternate

uses of space, the utilization of certain resources, and the maximizing: of particu-

lar product yields. In this regard, resource managers are frequently unable to

project accurately and evaluate the consequences of possible alternate policies

affecting the environment.

The complexity of environmental management issues, we think, stems from multi-

ple uses of land, air, and water resources. I suppose that has been obvious to

most of those who have been speaking. Whereas many uses of a particular area may

be possible, some combination of these uses are incompatible, at least at high or

281

intense levels of activity. Further, the capacity of Various ecosystems to sustain

human activities is only partially understood. Compounding the environmental con-

straints to human activities are these varying human desires and values, as well

as the human experience of our present political institutions with regard to

handling these complex issues.

The complex environmental problems are characteristically intractable to a

fragmented, disciplinary study approach. This, I suppose, is the party line of

our Division. An interdisciplinary, or systems, approach, to such problems is,

therefore, often necessary. In addition, land use and resource management prob-@--

lems are essentially regional in nature; but their ultimate solution is complica-

ted by the fact that the decision structure tends to be at a local level. Envi-

ronments vary but tend to be geographically bounded, whereas government units are

politically bounded with overlapping jurisdictions. Therefore, it is desirable

to focus on regional problems and to link the research efforts to specific local

users of the results for concerted action.

It should be clear that NSF, through the RANN program, is seeking new levels

of understanding of environmental problems. Since complete ecological knowledge

is not a realistic hope yet, we believe the scientifically valid methods and cri-

teria must be developed in a timely fashion to aid decision makers accounting for

uncertainty and human preferences as well as possible, and yet flexible enough

that they can be readily modified as the knowledge base improves. We are, there-

fore, in the business of supporting research, but hope to build into each of our

projects a formal relationship between the researchers and the research user agen-

cies, which often will be the cognizant State agencies. In contrast, I might say,

we are not in a position to offer direct grants to States in support of their

planning needs,

282

Another contrast, and one which might be not so easily recognized, I sup-

pose, is that many of these problems might be approached from tpe standpoint

that Dr. Hargis was explaining the other day - that it is necessary to collect

data, to develop a good inventory, in continuing d4ta-taking systems, to have

a good information storage and retrieval system, and to have a base of scien-

tific help which can help you analyze those when you have an immediate problem.

This is not how we see our mission in attempting to seek new levels of under-

standing of the environmental problems. There are many other agencies that are

in the business of data collection for our particular missions.

This lists what we feel are some of the goals that we attach to ou-r projects,

and I'll try very quickly to tell you of the few projects that we have going.

They are relatively few, and most of them have been going for less than a year,

so we have no particular output to offer you at this point.

The projects more or less classify themselves this way: We have one in the

Chesapeake Bay which is tied very closely to the Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake

Bay study. We have another in the Delaware Bay. Both of these tend to be orien-

ted around the pollution problem. As Dr. Johnson mentioned already this morning,

our study of the various management agencies in the Chesapeake Bay area showed

fairly conclusively that the primary problem in most of the agencies' minds is.

the problem of domestic waste. Besides these two, we have another project in

the State of Texas, and we have Joe Mosely and Senator Schwartz here - both of

them are very closely attached to that project. I might add that each of these

projects has someone here who would back me up on the questions if you want to

approach them later. Bill Hargis and Garrett Power are attached to the Chesa-

peake Project; Joel Goodman is attached to the Delaware Project that we have.

The Texas Project, we think, is farther along the route to producing something

which may be meaningful and usable to some of the others of you. It is-, a two-year

283

project, going into its second year right now. The first year Was to produce an

environmental assessment, and the second year of the project, the team of the

University of Texas at Austin is attempting to develop a method for predicting

the effects of environmental policies; and they are working very closely with

the State in choosing the policies they will evaluate in their tests.

A fourth project that we have is at Oregon State University, and this one

is focused on dredging and spoil disposal. The objective is to develop and eval-

uate methods suitable for measuring and evaluating the ecological changes due to

estuarine dredging operations.

As I said, none of these projects is completed, none of them has an output

which I can offer you. We do intend to develop a very careful utilization plan,

which will as well as possible develop from each of these projects the transfer-

able parts, and to make them usable to other States that may have similar needs.

We do not have those utilization plans completed at this point.

I might say that what I intend, first of all, is, through our present con-

tacts with the Council of State Governments, to try to analyze the ways in which

the output might be best transferred to you, and to go from there. We have, in

other words, this base of the Council of State Governments, and also the Coastal

Zone Management Office, through which we will try to work. One of the values in

being here today is to get your ideas of how we might be useful, since our relation-

ship has to.be a little bit more remote and secondary than in the case of the other

agencies.

285

RELEVANT FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES - PART VII
Mr. Robert Paul, Director, National Growth Policy Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development

This is kind of a homecoming for me, because as some of you know, I wandered

out of a coastal State, namely California, in fish and game work*a few years ago

we were worried about wetlands and things. It's one of those occasions where you

wonder about some of those early discussions you had 10 years ago about how to

preserve a coastal wetland would ever turn into an organization that we have here

today, and the number of people that we have involved.

For those who may not be State Planning Officers, HUD is sort of an unknown

agency to many of you, I suspect. Wetve gotten a lot move recognition lately,

though, since the old Paul Newman movie is beginning to show up on the late show;

and one of my children is convinced that my real job is to go out and kill cows

and get hoof-and-mouth disease in the coastal plains of Texas, which I think is

a very appropriate setting for some of this group.

HUD is a different agency in contrast with our friends from the Corps, be-

cause we really don't do anything. We're frank to admit it; wetre the Department

of Housing and Urban Development, yet we build no houses, nor do we do any urban

development. Our mission in life, as we see it, is to react to the wishes of

others; and that's basically how our programs have evolved and what we do now.

This is not to say that we wouldn't appreciate all the help we can get from you

people to help us sell flood insurance policies, or in some cases to put some of

your more unscrupulous lot sellers in jail when the lots are really under four

feet of water. I understand land sales work is absorbing a tremendous amount of

time, and we hope to be in a position soon to ease some of your problems by shut-

ting down a few more of these real high-powered land sales that are going on around

some of the coastal zones of the country. In some of these areas, we get some

286

sense of satisfaction. In most cases, our job is strictly to react to somebody

else's application and supply the money that other people need to help do a job

and meet our particular goals and objectives.

Lately we've also played a very strange role for us, namely that outfit in

town called the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, has found us; and. every

time that a good new planning program comes along, like land use Or COELstal zone,

or they want to change another program, like EDA (Economic Development Adminis-

tration), there is a little line that shows up in the budget that sa s., "if you
y .

really want some money for planning, go over to HUD, they have a lot ol: it."

The distinctive part about this is that HUD doesn't really use many acronyms; we

use numbers - like 701, 235, and this tends to confuse people a lot. When you

just arbitrarily say to a good marine biologist, "now about the 701 program," he

gets this real blank look. In the meantime, the State Planning Office has al-

ready got their hand in our pocket and they've got the money anyway. I see a

split in the audience here between those people who have never heard of us, and

those like Shelley Mark and Phil Savage who have heard of us and have made good

use of us. And when Shelley listed the resources, he's really looking at only

one of those resources, because he's learned how to use us, and use us pretty

effectively. And we're awfully happy to have the chance to work with 1-lim on the

program they've developed.

The first thing I want to tell you is the traditional programs that some of

you have known from HUD have disappeared. We are in an interesting year of tran-

sition; as of the first of the year, we terminated a lot of our traditional cate-

gorical grant programs. These were the community development programs, the help

we used to be able to give when a town wanted to come in and buy a park, or buy

a piece of beach - we were in a position to, say, give them half the money for

it, under a grant program for open space, or to help a water system or a sewer

287

system, or even urban renewal. All of these programs are caught up in the Admin-

istration's policy thrust to go into revenue-sharing approach, and all,of this

has evolved into the Federal Communities Act, which was mentioned earlier, I think,

by Shelley. That's now in Congress, where we've taken all of our available grant

programs.) the hardware programs at least, and have proposed to put them into a

block grant basically to cities.

There is something of interest for you State people here, because for the

first time, a fair percentage, maybe 20% of this total block of money, which is

$2-3 billion per year, is going to go to States. And it's going to go to States

at the Governor's discretion to redistribute these funds to some extent as he

sees fit. This, as I say, is about 20% of the money, which will be channeled

through States for the Governor to use just as he sees fit; although there are

some restrictions on how much has to go into metropolitan areas. Basically, we

are a metropolitan area-oriented agency; in a sense, we complement the new Rural

Development Program in the Department of Agriculture.

So our new bill does provide that the major share of the money does go to

metropolitan areas and to big cities. What's left over is going to States; and

I can see opportunities, for instance,for some Governors, and some Governors

will use these monies to augment land acquisition programs, or they could use

them for many different purposes. In the planning side of the shop, where I am,

the same thing is happening. In the past, we've had HUD programs working directly

with big cities or metropolitan planning agencies where they would come to us with

an application, and we'd fund them directly - a two-thirds planning grant, a 701

Program. This, too, is probably going to change. It is going to change in about

the same fashion, except that rather than going to cities, this is going to be an

entirely State-run program. The long-range goal, at least as written in this

year's budget, is that all planning grants will go to Governor's for distribution

to all of the eligible recipients within the States.

288

Currently, there are five general recipients of planning.money: big citiesi

metropolitan agencies; area-wide planning agencies; local assistance for small

towns; and direct State planning programs, The smallest part of this money has

always gone into the direct StcIte planning programs in the past; although for

the last couple of years, the States have handled the distribution of funds for

local assistance and for non-metropolitan planning agencies-.

With all of these lumped into one sum and going to the State, I think that,

if our past experience with similar programs is typical, you'll see a rather sharp

and major buildup of the direct State planning activities. As I say, bEginning

next year, I don't have to tell you where our area offices are located, or our

regional offices are located; if you want to get some of our planning money, all

I can say is, get acquainted with your friendly Governor, because he is really

going to be the guy controlling the allocation of funds; and we are going to step

nicely out of the picture in all probability.

To implement this completely, of course, requires new legislation. This is

wrapped up in a bill which I had hoped to bring a copy of today, but OMB seems

to be having some clearance problems; so I really can't talk about it too much

yet - it's not in final form. This will be called, very novelly, the Responsive

Governments Act. We've been accused of having contests for titles to pUt on our

new bills, but this is one that was picked, believe me, outside of the Department.

As I say, the thrust of this will be a rather sharp increase in the total amount

of money available for what used to be called planning, and now is going to be

called more management than planning - use of the funds is quite unrestricted in

terms of being used for planning and management purposes, basically directed to

Governors. @n the next fiscal year, we'll be in a transition period; but we're

going to try to move under existing legislation as much as we can into this State

distribution system; so I hope that you're getting my message loud and clear.

289

Don't bother to call us, call your friendly Governor, if you really want to take

advantage of that little item in the budget that says, "if you're short of money,

come to HUD."

I rather liked Shelley Mark's phrase that it's time for a "creative pause."

I want to make sure that you don't equate this with another phrase like "benign

neglect" in referring to our program for next year. I assure

pause" is a fine phrase; we're in the middle of this now, we're reshaping our

programs quite rapidly, and quite along the lines that I think will be of more

direct benefit, particularly to coastal zone and land use planning.

In the material that was passed out, we suggested a couple of things that

you might not have thought of in terms of how you might use some of the HUD 701

money that you can lay your hands on next year. Our policy is very clear; as long

as there is planning and management, we don't care. I suggest that if you hadn't

thought about it, you could use HUD funds for studies to prepare the stage for

implementing coastal zone and land use policy legislation, or getting into direct

land use planning now, there are critical environmental areas, while waiting for

the Land Use Policy Act to pass. Of course, if the Governor so wishes, any funds

from HUD can be used for any part of your coastal zone planning program. I

stress again that if the Governor wants to use it this way, we think it's grand,

and there is no HUD policy to prevent it.

One thing that some States are beginning to use more of - and we would en-

courage, by the way - is the type of thing that Shelley mentioned that we think

is extremely crucial.. There would be no restriction on the use of HUD planning

701 money to begin to revise your own State laws, making studies of law revisions,

or organizational changes that you may need to better manage the land use and

coastal zone planning programs when they come along.

Again, I would like to reflect a little bit on the comment made by the State

of New York on Shelley Mark's presentation. His listing of what the States' needs

290

are, I think, is highly appropriate; and I would only say that from the Federal,

and particularly the Federal planning po@nt of view, I think we will be moving

in the same directions just as fast as we can, particularly this coordination of

Federal planning activities and Federal planning requirements. I think you'll

see some rather shapp moves within the next year to go into the single agency

handling more different types of planning. It's not too important to you, but

it's very important on the metropolitan and area-wide level; and we're absolutely

committed to getting the Federal house in order, as Shelley suggested as the

number one priority. And working with Bob and Lance and the rest of us, I think

we can really show you some improvements along this line within the next. year.

291

RELEVANT FEDERAL PROGRAM$ AND RESOURCES - PART -ILT-II
Mr. Robert Wildman, Senior Program Officer, National Sea Grant Program.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

I'm supposed to have about half an hour to describe Commerce's programs;

but I assure you I won@t take anything close to that. So with real apologies

to my colleagues in the Department, and particularly in NOAA, Itm just going to

skim over the highlights to identify some of the activities and programs which

may be of interest to the State and local governments.

In attempting to cover Commercets programs, I've tried to use the approach

of someone from outside the Federal Government by saying, "Okay, they've got

something that I want or may want; now how do I go about getting it?" So with

that in mind, looking at Commerce first - that is, other than NOAA - we have a

group under the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology which primarily

is involved in coordination of inter-agency programs, and particularly those in

the environmental area. At some point in time, you may find need to identify

some of the broader programs in Commerce, and want to go to that group.

There are a couple of other groups in Commerce which are heavily involved

in the information and data field which you might not think of looking to. One

is the National Technical Information Service, which was formerly known as the

Commerce Clearing House. NTIS has R&D reports from about 250 different agencies;

they number about 300,000 at the present time, and I think they add about 200

reports per week. So there is a monstrous repository. These reports are avail-

able individually, some of them are collected abstracts, which you can obtain;

and like all good Federal programs, they have their series of brochures which

describe these services and how you get them.

The other organization within Commerce which you shouldn't overlook is the

Social and Economics Statistics Administration. This Administration includes a

bureau well known to all of you - the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of

292

Economic Affairs. They are heavily involved in the collection, analysis, and

dissemination of economic and demographic statistics; and in addition, I under-

stand the Bureau of the Census does offer a special seminar for State and local

governments on how to use the various Federal statistics that they collect.

The fourth group within Commerce, outside of NOAA, that is heavily involved

in the coastal zone field is MARAD - the Maritime Administration. Most of you

are very familiar with MARAD; they are conducting work in the ports, port facil-

ities, and intermodal transportation systems fields; they are working on ship

pollution abatement. They are also involved in some special programs like the

liquefied natural gas transportation program, and like the Corps of Engineers

and the Department of Transportation, looking at offshore deep water terminals.

They have some special reports out - one as a result of a study by Soils Associ-

ates that was published last year; another that is put out by the MARAD staff

itself on the economics of deep water terminals. Both of these are quite new

reports. They also represent a good resource in terms of technical adv-,'Lce,

should you want to discuss any of your problems in that field with them,.

I'll turn now to NOAA, which has a significant activity, as you know, in

this field. Nearly every component of NOAA does something in the coastal zone

management area, all the way from the Administrator and the Associate Adminis-

trators and their staffs, down through each line component. Some of the con-

tacts by State governments may well be at these higher levels; but I think for

my remarks this afternoon, I will.limit them to the line components, where you'll

probably be most frequently involved with the staff there,

There are several things that the various NOAA groups do have in common.

First, that each staff has technical expertise in the' several fields for which

they have responsibility. These people are avallable for consultation on coastal

zone problems, with certain limitatlobs; and those aMe ones that will surprise

293

you A bit, I am sure that in nearly all instances where the assistance can be

provided with a few hours of discussion, there is going to be no,problem, How-

ever, should a large amount of staff time or actual data collection or analysis

or dissemination be involved which is not a part of an ongoing program, the

existing and probable future limitations on funds and manpower will probably

present some difficulties, Some re-programming of funds and diversion of per-

sonnel from assigned or approved projects could be required. However, this

should not discourage anyone from requesting information or assistance from the

appropriate NOAA component directly, or through the Office of Coastal Environment.

You'll notice in the handout that is in the packages that you received at

the start of the Conference that several of the NOAA components do have field or

regional offices to which you can turn to get a more local point of contact.

This is true of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Weather Ser-

vice, the Environmental Data Service, and the Sea Grant Program, through its

participating universities.

I will not discuss the activities of the NOAA groups, because they are well

discussed and described in this brochure. I will call your attention to certain

of these groups. If you are looking for information in a certain field, some of

them are more specialized than others. For instance, in the living resources

area, the obvious group to turn to would be the National Marine Fisheries Service.

They collect and maintain data on the abundance, location, and availability of all

kinds of commercial fishing and other living resource thought. They are involved

in management programs@; they have a significant State-Federal cooperative effort;

they do provide some aid to States that includes some work in the management field

through the Federal Aid Program, Public Law 88309. They are also involved in a

voluntary inspection program of seafood processing plants. They administer the

Marine Mammal Act of 1972, and like most agencies, are involved in water resource

problems.

294

If your interest at the time lies more with ocean boundaries, tidal, informa-

tion, currents, that sort of thing, then the group would be the National. Ocean

Survey in NOAA. They conduct continuing surveys in various locations around the

country to take information in fields such as geodesy, gravity, they do aeronau-

tical charting, hydrography, oceanography, everything in that area. ThE@y are

involved in delineating shorelines, and providing information on tides, currents,

etc. A series of current and recent studies are described in this brochure in

which the National Ocean Survey is involved.

One of the projects which you might be interested in that does involve NOS

is the cooperative effort with the State of Florida, and it's a program in which

they, are sharing the cost on a 50-50 basis. This project is one in which they

are attempting to identify and establish the mean high water marks for legal pur-

poses, and does involve the setting of tidal data plains, aerial photogTaphy, and

the making of maps. I understand they hope to end up with about 450 separate maps

which will cover the entire coastline of the State of Florida, and this program is

scheduled to last some five more years.

Another group in the general environmental field which does have some infor-

mation in coastline areas is the National Weather Service. Although they are

primarily atmospherically oriented, they collect a variety of information on the

oceans and attempt to use this to predict and warn of adverse weather conditions,

including floods, hurricanes, etc.

A rather highly specialized source of information in NOAA is the National

Environmental Satellite Service. NESS works with the NASA and Interior, groups,

and it does obtain data from operating environmental satellites.

The primary in-house research arm of NOAA, the Environmental Research Lab-

oratory, has labs in various places in the country, including Boulder, Seattle,

and Miami, and does a wide variety of research programs in things like physical

295

and geological oceanography, geophysics, air-sea interaction, collecting a lot

of information in this field. They do have a small satellite oceanography pro-

gram; they are managing a program which has grown from a very small Sea Grant

project a few years ago into a significant effort now - iVs called the NOMES

project - the New England Ocean Mining Environmental Study. This program is

intended to attempt to identify the environmental effects of sand and gravel

mining operations, and it is located in the waters off Massachusetts. The De-

partment of the Interior, the Corps of Engineers, EPA, the Coast Guard, the

State of Massachusetts, several universities, and a couple of private companies

are involved in this cooperative effort.

All of these NOAA groups, and many others, take an enormous amount of data.

Most of this data is to be found in the Environmental Data Service of NOAA, par-

ticularly in the National Oceanographic Data Center. Again, NODC has information

available to you for use of their services, both in putting data in and in taking

data out. This user's guide details everything you want to know about how you

use the service, and it's available from NODC.

Another part of EDS is the Environmental Science Information Center, which

is NOAA's librarian; but it also indexes, abstracts, and announces scientific

and technical publications. They also have a fine brochure. Most of these, in-

cidentally, have been out on the table; and if they are still there and you want

to take them, please do so.

One NOAA component which I can say without being suspected of being biased

that is really one of the key ones in the whole field of coastal zone management

is the Sea Grant Program. We have activities throughout the United States in

many different fields, but our greatest effort is in the support of programs

which provide information of use in coastal zone development, coastal zone man-

agement. We operated primarily through academic institutions, and have worked

296

in the coastal zone management field in about 20 States, Our research programs

really cover the waterfront - we've got work on law and economics; public policy

and management; applied oceanography of all kinds; living resource definition;

coastal and ocean engineering; ports and terminals; ecosystem analysis; environ-

mental modeling - all these kinds of things.

And in addition, we have the advisory service programs. TheMarine Advisory

Services started out as an element just as the Sea Grant Program; they have re-

cently been expanded so that it is NOAA-wide, and involves not only the academic

institutions that we support, but also the other NOAA components. There is an

existing Marine Advisory Service in 21 of the 30 coastal States; and -orelve either

held discussions or planned for an expansion of that to the other States. In

many of the States, it is directly linked, and in some it's a part of the cooper.-

ative or Agricultural Extension Service.

Some Sea Grant support has been provided to State and local governments,

primarily through cooperative programs with these academic institutions. But

in some instances - for instance a program we had for about 3 years with the

Nassau-Suffolk Bi-County Regional Planning Board on Long Island - we have sup-

ported local government directly in the planning efforts. Our grants are on a

cost-sharing basis; our funds cannot exceed two-thirds of the total cost of the

total project.

I have left to last one of the hosts for the Conference, the Office of Coast-

al Environment. It is the focal point in NOAA for the coordination of coastal

management programs. It involves two other sub-groups, including the Man Under-

sea Science and Technology Program, which does provide manned undersea support

for investigations in the coastal environments. This involves use of habitats,

submersibles, divers in some of the programs. The other very significant progrzim,

MESA, the Marine Ecosystems Analysis Program, is intended to provide a better

297

understanding of the marine environment andman's impact on it. This program

will consist of regional studies, and it is starting with the study of the New

York Bay area. MESA also administers the Marine Protection Research and Sanc-

tuaries Act of 1972, working with EPA and the Corps of Engineers.

Lastly, the Coastal Zone Management Task Force, which, as you know, admin-

isters the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and will provide grants for the

development of coastal zone management programs, administer those programs, and

then purchase and operate estuarine sanctuaries as natural field laboratories.

This last group is really, I guess, the one you turn to for assistance when all

else fails. Bob didn't authorize me to say that, but since he and the rest of

the group in OCE are close friends of mine, I'm just going to take a chance and

offer it anyway.

I think I would like to conclude by saying that in going through this exer-

cise of identifying what we have in Commerce, and in listening to the discussions
this afternoon, it appears to me that we could eaLly overwhelm State and local

governments with all kinds of information and data, which frankly wouldn't help

them a great deal. One of the key problems may well be in defining exactly what

you need and in what form, so that the Federal agencies can, in fact, be helpful

to you.

299

CJ40$TNG REMARKS
Mr, Marston

I think one of the important lessons we've learned from this day-and-a-half

is getting a better understanding of what it is that we think, or the dimensions

of this coastal zone problem, this land use problem, Surely, I think, the pre-

sentations that we've had this afternoon give you some sense of the dedication

of the Federal Government, and perhaps give you some sense of the overwhelming

resources and perhaps some of the discontinuities that exist between the Federal

resources and the needs of the State.

I think Shelley Mark, and other speakers, too, have captured the sense of

an undercurrent that I think many of us have sensed for some time now: that in-

deed we do need a new system for intergovernmental working relations, and that

includes both the technical and management assistance that the various agencies

that will have responsibility for administering the coastal zone program and the

land use program will have to bring to this task.

Obviously, there is just no question in my mind that the Land Use Bill is

going to require the collective talent of a whole lot of people, certainly beyond

the breadth of experience and the competence of one Department. The Department of

the Interior couldntt hope to do all that's called for in this legislation, any

more than I'm sure Bob would acknowledge just by the presence of these other Fed-

eral agencies, the coastal zone management is going to require the cooperative

effort of a lot of Federal, State, and local agencies. It's going to require

the collective efforts of industry and academia. And I think, surely, it's a

tribute to the kind of leadership that we've seen demonstrated here over the past

day-and-a-half that you see this recognition. I think this forum has provided a

good introduction and an easy exchange of some of the problems that we all face;

wetre all at the cutting edge, and wetre all going to have enormous responsibili-

ties in trying to provide some more rational approach to the planning and manage-

ment of our national and natural resources.

300

We need a-lot more work; and I fQr-one - and Pm sure Bob Knecht shares in

this - would welcome any thoughts you have in terms of how wem4y be able to bet-

ter identify what it is you think you need to do the kind of job that is being

pushed on you, and pushed on you quickly. Itm talking now to State and local

people principally. IVs important that we know, because we have the ul.-ifortunate

task -.or fortunate task, depending upon your perspective - of trying to get our

agencies to re-order priorities, to assist us in the implementation of -these im-

portant programs. In addition, we have the responsibility of developing a demand

rationale that can be used to sell new programs and to communicate to the Office

of Management and Budget and to,the Congress what you feel needs to be done. We

can't do that in a vacuum. The trouble in the past has generally been that we

have tried to do-it'in a vacuum; and as a result we've misrepresented the facts,

we have not provided the kind of services and the kind of products that indeed

are responsive to your needs.

So, in my judgement, this kind of a forum has been most helpful; but we need

an awful@lot more work. And of course, we need to avoid the costly duplication

that comes with new programs. The moment new money comes down the pipeline, every-

body casts around for the simple answers, the panaceas. We simply cannot afford

that any more - there are too many people who are checking, and properly so, to

make sure that we use our money-in the most cost-effective way.

I for one want to take this opportunity again to express my appreciation to

Bob Knecht and to all the others, and to our participants today, and to you, for

your attention and patience.

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. Knecht

My remarks will be short, since the hour is late and it's been a long

afternoon and a long day -- but I hope an interesting one.

I think the sense comes across clearly to all of us that the States

must continue and accelerate their efforts in the area of coastal zone plan-

ning and management. The time is short. Essential projects are being held

up, on the one hand, and other developments that will turn out to have been

ill-advised, are going ahead for lack of information on their full impact.

There is one statistic that drives the coastal zone management problem

home to me. In the case of land, at present there are 10 or 11 acres of land

for each citizen in the United States. Of course, this will decrease as the

population increases. But in the coastal areas, there is only 2 1/2 feet of

coastline per person at the present time. That's "shoulder to shoulder" along

the U.S. coast for our population. If you subtract Alaska's coastline and

population, it's not shoulder to shoulder, but stomach to stomach -- about

1 1/4 feet per person. Our coastline is a finite and very limited resource.

In any event, I would like to review a couple of the points that have

come home to me in the last couple of days. I think those of us that have

organized the Conference have been pleased with the response, with the attendance,

and with the interactions that have been taking place, both here within the

Conferencd room and during the informal parts of our meeting. Yesterday, when

we got into the question of land use vs. coastal zone and separate program

302

vs. an integrated program, important though sometimes divergent points of

view were expressed. Too seldom are the opponents and proponents of one or

another point of view in the same room to debate these issues. Often the

argument seems to occur in a vacuum. This kind of discussion promotes under-

standing and the eventual solution of the problem.

Another point that came across clearly was the strong feeling, mentioned

repeatedly of the importance of involving local governments in the process of

planning and management from the early stage, so the plans, the mode of oper-

ation, and the framework that develops at the State level will be one that they

had a part in forming. When the time comes to accept or reject a specific

proposal in the State legislature, it will be accepted and the prograra ready for

implementation only if the affected groups have been involved from the beginning.

I think this.will be especially true when it comes to the question of designating

areas of more than local concern, critical area designations, and areas of parti-

cular concern. That process surely will need to have local government and area-

wide entity involvement.

Several other points came up that I would like to speak to very 'briefly.

First, concerning the question of the kind of land and water use controls that

might be appropriate for a particular State as it decides on this aspect of its

coastal zone management program. In some States it seems clear that a combination

of bundling together of wetlands controls, beach controls, pollution controls,

and so on might be sufficient to constitute an effective coastal zone management

program. In other situations, broader land use controls may be the approach to

take. I don't think, necessarily, that one can make a flat statement as to any

_11correct" solution in all cases. Obviously, the approach has to be tailored to

the situation.

303

The other point that came out, it seemed to me, was the suggestion that

States ought to move now to try to legislate to meet some of the immediate

problems, based on what is known now. A coastal zone management program does

not necessarily involve one all-inclusive statute addressing all of the problems

and laying out a magnificent solution in a single stroke. It will undoubtedly

be an evolving process in most States; and important time should not be lost in

waiting for all of the answers and the ultimate solution.

Frank Carlson gave me some ideas that he felt moved to write down. He has

put them in the form of challenges to both the Federal people and the States

people. He feels that the challenge to the States -- the coastal States

particularly -- is to develop an inventory of the projects and programs that

they, the State people, would have us at the Federal level do in their areas

if they were ordering our priorities. In effect, it might involve looking at

what the Geological Survey is spending in California annually. I don't know

what it is -- lets say $50 million -- and ask how the State governments would

spend that money if it had full control over that particular Federal activity.

Clearly, some Federal activities now being performed in the States are being

done for national purposes. Others are performed in response to Federal per-

ception of State and local needs. We all believe that there ought to be more

effective State involvement in setting these priorities. We continue to ask

for your help on this.

Concerning the challenge to the Federal level, he suggests that we ought

to develop a better inter-agency mechanism for responding to State needs; and

he suggests providing a one-stop request service for States. To implement such

an idea is obviously a substantial undertaking; but I think it's useful for

us to be thinking about it.

I would like to touch on a couple of other specifics and then draw the

304

meeting to a close. What are we going to be doing at the Federal level

concerning the coastal zone management program in the next six months?

First, we hope to receive your comments on the guidelines that we

disseminated yesterday. As we mentioned, they are open for comment for the

next 60 days. We think the guidelines are important because they set a frame-

work and set the program in particular directions, and we want your comments

and suggestions. Six months from now will be too late with regard to the

shape and content of these initial guidelines; we need your ideas now.

Second, we're going to start the process of preparing the guidelines that

will describe the Federal approval process for State management programs.

These guidelines will be much more difficult to prepare than the first set.

The first set were more or less administrative in nature; but these get down to

the heart of the issue as to how the Federal Government should look at proposed

State management programs -- how do you get at the question of insuring that

a State has dealt with the matter of development of more than local.concern in

the proper way, has dealt with the matter of national interest adequately, etc.?

We especially will need your help in these guidelines. We would like your

suggestions as to how to approach the process -- how would you prepare this

set of guidelines if you had to do it? We feel that we have complete flexibility

with regard to approaching the problem, and we'd like creative suggestions. We'll

be beginning the process within the next month.

We also intend to begin work setting up the mechanics of the Grants: Program

under the Coastal Zone Management Act. As I mentioned yesterday in my opening

remarks, we're confident that one way or the other, that grant money will be

available to assist States to further their efforts in the development of

coastal zone management plans. We need to develop a grants processing system

for that purpose.

305

Repeating what I said yesterday, we would like to have your reaction

with regard to the desirability of preparing the Federal publication that

was described in the handout yesterday. As I mentioned, it would be called

"Guide to Federal Technical Assistance Programs in Coastal Zone Management".

Would it be useful? Should we spend time and effort on it or not? In a

sense, it would be an attempt to pull together what you've heard over the

last two hours in a somewhat more organized fashion. We would like to hear

from you.

While we continue to actively persue the implementation of the Coastal

Zone Management Act, I want to say that we intend to stay in close touch with

Lance Marston's land use program office. We think that it would be inap-

propriate to have our guidelines develop without coordination with or reference

to the evolving land use program. We intend to operate these programs in an

inter-related and closely coordinated way.

No conference ever ends without the mention of the next conference. We've

been thinking about that and I would like to share our ideas. We think that the

next step should be a series of regional meetings or conferences. We've been

prompted in thinking along these lines by some of our State contacts. In partic-

ular, there is a discussion going on now of a conference in the Great Lakes area

for late summer. Also, there has been some talk with regard to a conference in

the Gulf area some time in the next six months. I can imagine a series of

smaller conferences on a regional basis as the program moves forward. These

conferences would be the appropriate time to bring in local government officials

to a greater extent, to narrow the geographic focus to a particular region and

its problems. Someone mentioned that the educational problem was an important

one, and it surely is; these conferences would seem to be a good opportunity to

try to bring more people into the growing coastal zone management circle.

306

I want to give a very hearty thank-you to all of you for coming and for

participating, and for being such good donference-mates, so to speak, over

the last two days. We have found the discussions very useful from the stand-

point of our Task Force -- and the work that lies ahead.

307

APPENDIX A

Alphabetical Index to Speakers and Additional Biographical Material

BISSELL, Howard Environmental Scientist, Jones & Stokes Associ4tes@
Resource Consultants, SacramentoCa.liforn@ai formerly
employed by State of California, (See pp. 93 Session 11)

BODOVITZ, Joseph Executive Director, California Coastal Conservation
Commission, San Francisco, California (See pp. 99,
Session 11)

BUCHANAN, Thomas J. Subdistrict Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Miami,
Florida (See pp.251, Session IV)

CARLSON, Dr. Frank Office of Land Use & Water Planning, Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. (See pp.247, Session IV)

CLARK, Dr. John Senior Associate, Conservation Foundation, Washington,
D.C.; formerly employed by Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. (See pp.155, Session III)

CLEMENT, Roland C. Vice-President, National Audubon Society, Washington,
D.C.; also, Chairman, Advisory Committee, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; degrees in Biology and Botany from
Brown University and the Wildlife Management Program,
Cornell University (See pp.209, Session III)

CONRAD, R. Deane Special Assistant on Environmental Matters, Office of
State-Federal Relations, Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.; formerly City Planning, City of Chi-
cago; B.S. in Political Science, M.A. in Urban Planning,
Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois;Post-Graduate
studies at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
(See pp. 19, Session I)

DOLLIVER, James M. Administrative Assistant, Office of the Governor, State
of Washington, Olympia, Washington; formerly Adminis-
trative Assistant to Washington Congressman; A.B.A.,
Swarthmore College, LL.B., University of Washington
(See pp.41 , Session I)

FRASER, Charles Sea Pines Plantation Inc., Hilton Head, South Carolina;
formerly Member, President's Advisory Committee on Out-
door Recreation and Natural Beauty (President Lyndon B.
Johnson); formerly Member, President's Advisory Committee
on Environmental Quality (President Richard M. Nixon);
past Chairman, Institute of Environmental Design, National
Association of Home Builders; present Vice-Chairman,
National Recreation and Parks Association (See pp.199,
Session III)

GARDNER, Richard Deputy Director, Coastal Zone Management Task Force,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Depart-
ment of Commerce, Rockville, Maryland (See pp.79
Session II)

308

Alphabetical Index to Speakers and Additional Biographical Material (contld,.)

GOTTSCHALK, John Executive Vice-President, International Association of
Game Fish and Conservation Commissioners, Washington, D,C.;
formerly employed by Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior; also former Assistant to the
Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department
of the Interior (See pp.213, Session III)

GROSZYK, Dr. Walter Chief, Water Program Planning and Accomplishments Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (See
pp.263, Session IV)

HARGIS, Dr. William, Director, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Glou-
Jr. cester Point, Virginia; also, Chairman, Department of
Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Williams-
burg, Virginia; also, Professor of Marine Science,
University of Virginia; B.S. and M.S. from University
of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia; Ph.D., Florida State
University, Gainesville, Florida (See pp. 81, Session II)

HOLLOMAN, Dr. J. Director, Center of Policy Analysis, Massachusetts Insti-
Herbert tute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; formerly
Senior Manager, General Electric Company; formerly
Assistant Secretary of Commerce of Science and Technology,
Department of Commerce; formerly President, UTtiversity
of Oklahoma (See pp. 21, Session I)

JAMES, William, President, Maryland State Senate, Annapolis, Maryland
The Honorable (See pp. 20, Session I)

JOHNSON, Bruce Coordinator and Staff Director, Florida Coastal Coordi-
nating Council, Tallahassee, Florida; also, Member,
Governor's Task Force on Land Use; formerly Director,
Florida Commission on Marine Science and Technology;
M.S. in Geology, Southern Methodist University (See
pp. 93 , Session II)

JOHNSON, Dr. Philip Division Director, ESR/RANN Program, National"Science
Foundation, Washington, D.C. (See pp. 151, 225, Session III)

JOHNSON, William Deputy Administrator, Soil Conservation Service, Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. (See PP- 255,
Session IV)

KEIFER, David Director, Delaware State Planning Office, Dover, Delaware;
Graduate, Albright College and Temple University (See
PP. 113, Session II)

KNECHT, Robert W. Director, Coastal Zone Management Task Force, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
Commerce, Rockville, Maryland (See pp. 3,9, 63, 301, Sessions
I & IV)

309

Alphabetical Index to Speakers and Additional Biographical Material (cont'd.)

KOLF, Dr. Richard Program Manager, Environmental Systems and Resources
Office, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
(See pp. 279, Session IV)

MACK, Vice-Admiral Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland;
William formerly served in Office of Chief of Naval Operations,
Bureau of Naval Personnel, Department of Defense; Comman-
der, 7th Fleet, Yankee Station, Gulf of Tonkin; Graduate,
U.S. Naval Academy, 1937 (See pp. 7 , Session I)

MARK, Dr. Shelley M. Director, Department of Planning and Economic Develop-
ment, Office of the Governor, State of Hawaii, Honolulu,
Hawaii (See pp. 235 , Session IV)

MARKS, William Chief, Water Development Services, Department of Natural
Resources, State of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan; also,
Chairman, Governor's Interdepartmental Committee on
Water and Related Land Resources; and Alternate Commis-
sioner, Great Lakes Basin Commission; also, Vice-
Chairman, Coastal States Organization (See pp. 141
Session II)

MARSTON, Lance Director, Office of Land Use and Water Planning, Depart-
ment of the Interior, Washington, D.C. (See pp. 229,299
Session IV)

MENDONSA, Arthur City Manager, Savannah, Georgia; Member, American Insti-
tute of Planners; M.A. in City Planning, Georgia Insti-
tute of Technology (See pp. 31 , Session 1)

MURDOCK, Kenneth H. Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, D.C. (See pp. 269 , Session IV)

PAUL, Robert Director, National Growth Policy Division, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. (See
pp. 285 Session IV)

POLLOCK, Howard Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
(See pp, 65 , Luncheon Speaker)

SCHWARTZ, Aaron R. Chairman, Texas Coastal and Marine Council, State
("Babe") Senator, Austin, Texas; formerly Member, Texas House of
Representatives (See pp. 113 , Session II)

ST. AMANT, Dr. Lyle S. Director, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission,
New Orleans, Louisiana; also, Louisiana representative
to Coastal States Organization (See pp.161 - Session III)

310

Alphabetical Index to Speakers and Additional Biographical Material (conttd,)

STANTON, Joseph L. Administrator, Maryland Port Administration, Baltimore,
Maryland; also, Member, International Organization of
Port Commissioners; past President, American Port Auth-
ority Administrators; former journalist and public re-
lations representative for Baltimore and Ohio Railroad;
U.S. Coast Guard (See pp. 175 , Session III)

STERN, Peter Vice-President,, Regional Environmental Planning, Northeast
Utilities Company, Hartford, Connecticut; fOrME!rly em-
ployed in Tennessee Valley Authority; former consultant,
Arthur D. Little Co.; formerly with Conservation Foun-
dation (See pp. 191 Session III)

SUDDATH, Capt. Thomas Secretary-Treasurer, Coastal States Organization, Cohasset,
(U.S.N., Ret.) Massachusetts; Graduate, U.S. Naval Academy; Destroyer
Commander (See PP. 5 Session I)

TIMMERMAN, James Director, Division of Marine Resources, South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston,
South Carolina; President, Coastal States Organization;
former Chairman Department of Biology, The Citadel,
Charleston, South Carolina (See pp. 141 , Session II)

VARIN, Daniel Chief, Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, Proy@dence')
Rhode Island; Registered as Community Planner, State of
Michigan; formerly with Blair Associates, consultants,
Providence, Rhode Island; former Member, Detroit City
Planning Commission, Detroit, Michigan; Member, Detroit
Housing Commission (See pp. 129 , Session II)

WILDMAN, Robert Senior Program Officer, National Sea Grant Program,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Depart-
ment of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (See pp. 291
Session IV)

311

APPENDIX B

CONFERENCE ON ORGANIZING AND MANAGING THE COASTAL ZONE
U.S. Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland
June 13-14, 1973

CONFERENCE REGISTRANTS

ALABAMA AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. Luther W. Hyde Mr. Edgar S. Marcus
Alabama Development Office Chief, Planning Division
State Office Building Office of Economic Development and
Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Planning
(205) 269-7171 Government of American Samoa
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
Mr. Wayne Swingle 633-5155
Chief Biologist
Alabama Department of Conservation CALIFORNIA
and Natural Resources
Marine Resources Division
P.O. Box 188 Mr. J.E. Bennett
Dauphin Island, Alabama 36528 Director, Department of Navigation
(205) 861-2882 and Ocean Development
1416 Ninth Street
ALASKA Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-6281

Mr. P.T. Davis Mr. Harold Bissell
State Development Planner Jones & Stokes Assoc., Inc.
Governor's Office 455 Capitol Mall
Division of Planning & Research Suite 665
State of Alaska Sacramento, California 95814
Pouch AD (916) 444-5638
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 586-5387 Mr. Joseph Bodovitz
Executive Director
Dr. Y.R. Nayudu California Coastal Conservation
Director, Division of Marine and Commission
Coastal Zone Management 1540 Market Street, 2nd Floor
Department of Environmental San Francisco, California 94102
Conservation (415) 557-1001
Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Ronald B. Linsky
(907) 586-6721 x 004 Director, Sea Grant Program
University of Southern California
Mr. I. Lavell Wilson University Park
Alaska State Legislature Los Angeles, California 90007
Box 156 (213) 746-6068
Tok, Alaska 99880
(907) 883-2203

312

CALIFORNIA cont'd.

Mr. Paul Priolo Mr. David R. Keifer
Assemblyman Director, State Planning Office
State Capitol Thomas Collins Building
Sacramento, California 95814 Dover, Delaware 19901
(916) 445-8366 (302) 678-4271
CONNECTICUT Mr. John Sherman
Coastal Zone Planner
Mr. Whitney Beals State Planning Office
Deputy Director, Division of Water Thomas Collins Building
and Related Resources Dover, Delaware 19901
Department of Environmental Protection (302) 678-4271
State Office Building, Room 118 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
(203) 566-3740
Senator Phillip N. Costello Mr. Irwin Alperin
Chairman, Environmental Committee Atlantic States Marine
Durham Road Fisheries Commission
Madison, Connecticut 06443 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
(203) 566-5083 Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 387-5330
Mr. William H. Hofmeister FLORIDA
State Representative
213 Anderson Avenue
Milford, Connecticut 06460 Mr. Bruce Johnson
(203) 878-5202 Coordinator, Coastal Coordinating Council
Mr. Winthrop S. Smith 309 Magnolia Office Plaza
Tallahassee, Florida 323CII
State Senator (904) 488-8614
21 Green Street
Milford, Connecticut 06460 GEORGIA
(203) 874-2588

Mr. Richard Wagner Mr. Arthur Mendonsa
State Representative City Manager
81 Pattagansett Road P.O. Box 1027
Apartment 12 Savannah, Georgia 31402
Niantic, Connecticut 06333 (912) 233-9321
(203) 739-6911
DELAWARE Mr. Paul Pritchard
Governor's Office of Planning
and Budget
Mr. Joel Goodman Trinity-Washington Building
Director Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Coastal Zone Resource Planning (404) 656-3832
College of Marine Studies
307 Robinson Hall
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware 19711
(302) 738-2842

313

GEORGIA - cont'd.

Mr. John Rhinehart Dr. L.S. St. Amant
Governor's Office of Planning Director, Louisiana Wildlife and
and Budget Fisheries Commission
Trinity-Washington Building 400 Royal Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
(404) 656-3832 (504) 527-8420

HAWAII Mr. Paul Templet
Assistant Director
Coastal Marine Advisory Commission
Dr. Shelley M. Mark Louisiana State University
Director, Department of Planning and 52-60 Law Center
Economic Development Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
Executive Chambers (504) 389-2255
P.O. Box 2359
Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 MAINE
(808) 548-3033 or 548-4609

Mr. Richard Poirier Mr. Philip M. Savage
Department of Planning and Development State Planning Director
Executive Chambers State Planning Office
P.O. Box 2359 189 State Street
Honolulu,- Hawaii 96804 Augusta, Maine 04330
(808) 548-3033 or 548-4609 (207) 289-3261

ILLINOIS MARYLAND

Mr. Gregory Tichacek Mr. Anthony F. Abar
Illinois Department of Conservation Director, Program Planning and
614 State Office Building Evaluation
Springfield, Illinois 62706 Department of Natural Resources
(217) 525-3884 Tawes Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
LOUISIANA (301) 267-1261

Mr. Earl H. Bradley, Jr.
Mr. Marc J. Hershman Natural Resources Planner
52-60 Law Center Maryland Department of Natural
Louisiana State University Resources
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 Tawes State Office Building
(504) 389-2255 Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(301) 267-1261
Mr. Patrick W. Ryan
Executive Director, State Delegate C.A. Porter Hopkins
Planning Office House Republican Leader
P.O. Box 44425 Falls Road
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 Glyndon, Maryland 21071
(504) 389-2494 (301) 771-4368

314

MARYLAND.- cont'd.

Mr. William L. Jackson Dr. Bostwick Ketchum
Natural Resources Planner Associate Director
Maryland Department of Natural Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Resources Woods Hole, Massachusetts
Program, Planning & Evaluation (617) 548-1400 x 292
Section
Tawes State Office Building Ms. Judith Kildow
Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Assistant Professor
(301) 261-1261 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Senator William S. James (617) 253-1657
President Pro Tem of the Senate
State House Captain Thomas H. Suddath
Annapolis, Maryland 21404 Secretary/Treasurer
(301) 838-4686 Coastal States Organization
3 Spindrift Lane
Mr. Garrett Power Cohasset,, Massachusetts 02025
University of Maryland Law School (617) 383-9768
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, Maryland .21201 Mr. Richard Tatlock
(301)-528-7661 Department of Natural Resources
c/o Brownell
Mr. Joseph L. Stanton 100 Cambridge Street
Maryland Port Administrator Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Maryland Port Administration (617) 727-3174
19 South Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Mr. Irvin M. Waitsman
(301) 383-5730 New England River Basin Commission
55 Court Street
Mr. John Szymanski Boston, Massachusetts
Legislative Analyst (617) 223-6244
Environmental Matters Committee
Maryland House of Delegates MICHIGAN
16 Francis Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
(301) 267-5561 Dr. John M. Armstrong
Director
Mr. Robert F. Tribukait Coastal Zone and Shorelands
Natural Resource Planner Laboratory
Maryland Department of State 1101 North University Building
Planning University of Michigan
301 W. Preston Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 4:3104
Baltimore, Maryland 20201 (313) 763-1437
(301) 383-2465
Mr. Russell Davenport
MASSACHUSETTS Sea Grant Program
1101 North University Building
University of Michigan
Pr. J. Herbert Hollomon Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Center for Policy Alternatives (617) 888-1931
Building 39-551
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
(617) 734-4763

315

MICHIGAN - cont'd.

Mr. William D. Marks Mr. Charles A. Tucker
Chief, Water Development Division New Hampshire Office of
Department of Natural Resources Comprehensive Planning
Stevens T. Mason Building State House Annex
Lansing, Michigan 48926 Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(517) 373-1950 (603) 772-6913

MINNESOTA NEW JERSEY

Representative Walter Hanson Mr..Thomas M. O'Neill
Chairman, Environmental Committee Director
House of Representatives Division of Marine Services
1136 Hague Avenue Department of Environmental Protection
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 Labor & Industry Building
(612) 225-5418 Trenton, New Jersey
(609) 292-2795
Mr. Roger Williams
State Planning Agency NEW YORK
550 Cedar Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 296-3985 Dr. W. Mason Lawrence
Deputy Commissioner, Department of
MISSISSIPPI Environmental Conservation
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
Dr. James B. Rucker 50 Wolf Road
Executive Director, Mississippi Albany, New York 12201
Marine Resources Council (518) 457-5587
P.O. Box 497
Long Beach, Mississippi 39560 Mr. Paul Marr
(601) 864-4602 Project Director
Sea Grant Program
MISSOURI State University of New York
99 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12201
Mr. Daniel Mandelker (518) 474-6240
School of Law
Washington University Senator Bernard C. Smith
St. Louis, Missouri 63130 Standing Committee on Commerce
(314) 863-0100 x 4473 and Economic Development
State of New York
NEW HAMPSHIRE Albany, New York 12224
(518) AN1-8839

Representative Barbara Bowler Mr. Henry G. Williams, Jr.
Silver Lake Road Deputy Director
Lochmere, New Hampshire 03252 Office of Planning Services
(603) 524-2929 Executive Department
488 Broadway
Albany, New York 12207
(518) 474-7210

316

NORTH CAROLINA OREGON

Mr. Arthur W. Cooper Mr. Kessler R. Cannon
Assistant Secretary Assistant to the Governor for Natural
North Carolina Department of Resources
Natural & Economic Resources Office of the Governor
116 West Jones Street 240 Cottage Street, S.E.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Salem, Oregon 97310
(919) 829-4984 (503) 378-3109

Mr. James E. Harrington Ms. Holly Hall
Secretary Port Commissioner
North Carolina Department of P.O. Box 5421
Natural & Economic Resources Charleston, Oregon
Box 27867 (503) 269-1131
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919) 829-4984 PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. James Hinkley
Office of State Planning Mr. Terry T. Abrams
Department of Administration Executive Director, Conservation
116 West Jones Street Committee
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Pennsylvania State House of
(919) 829-4131 Representatives
Harrisburg, Pennsylvanja 17120
Mr. John Pittman (717) 787-6000
North Carolina Marine Sciences Council
410 Oberlin Road Mr. C.W. Hart, Jr.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Director of Consulting Programs
(919) 829-2290 Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia
Mr. Jim Shaw 19th and The Parkway
State Program Development Coordinator Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Office of State & Federal Relations (215) 564-3921
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Norman Kapko
(919) 829-4368 Hydrolic Engineer
Department of Environmental
OHIO Resources
P.O. Box 1467
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Mr. Gary Turner (717) 678-4271
Shoreland Management Section
Ohio Department of Natural RHODE ISLAND
Resources
Room 803, 65 South Front
Columbus, Ohio 43213 Mr. Stuart 0. Hale
(614) 469-4745 Acting Director
Coastal Resources Center
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island
(401) 792-6224

317

RHODE ISLAND - cont'd.

Mr. Daniel W. Varin Mr. Wilson Tison
Chief, Statewide Planning Program State Representative
Room 201 State House
265 Melrose Street Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Providence, Rhode Island 02907 (803) 758-1556
(401) 277-2656
TEXAS
SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. Robert Armstrong
Mr. Gene Boles Commissioner
Principal Planner for General Land Office
Environmental Policy State of Texas
office of the Governor Austin., Texas
Suite 304, Kittrell Center (512) 475-2071
Middleburg Office Mall
Charleston, South Carolina 29204 Mr. Paul Burka
(803) 758-3306 Staff Attorney
Coastal Zone Committee
Mr. Clair P. Guess Capitol Station
Executive Director Austin, Texas 78711
South Carolina Water Resources (512) 475-5881
Commission
2414 Bull Street Mr. John C. Calhoun, Jr.
Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Vice President for Academic Affairs
(803) 758-2514 Texas A&M
128 Teage Center
Dr. Eugene A. Laurent College Station, Texas 77843
Marine Resources Division (713) 845-4016
South Carolina Wildlife Resources
Department Mr. Joe Mosely
217 Ft. Johnson Road Texas Coastal Marine Council
Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Division of Planning and Coordination
(803) 795-6350 Executive Department
Box 2910
Mr. William J. Steele Austin, Texas 78767
Water Resources Planner (512) 976-3561
South Carolina Water Resources
Commission Mr. Wayne D. Oliver
2414 Bull Street Director of Environmental Planning
Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Texas General Land Office
(803) 758-2541 200 East 12th
Austin, Texas 78701
Mr. Jim Timmerman (512) 475-4610
Director, Marine Resources Division
South Carolina Wildlife Resources Mr. Aaron R. Schwartz
Department Texas State Senate
217 Ft. Johnson Road Capitol Building
Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Austin, Texas
(803) 795-6350 (512) 475-5881

318

VIRGIN ISLANDS

Mr. Leopold E. Benjamin Dr. Stanley Murphy
Administrative Assistant to the Governor Director of Sea Grant Program
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas Division of Marine Resources
U.S. Virgin Islands 00801 3716 Brooklyn
(809) 774-0001 x 207 University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195
Mr. Thomas R. Blake (206) 543-6600
Planning Director
Office of the Governor Mr. Alan Thompson
.P.O. Box 2606 State Representative
Charlotte Amalie 112 Pleasant Hill Lane
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 Kelso, Washington 98626
(809) 774-1730 (206) 753-7870
VI@GINIA Ms. Karen R. Vialle
Executive Assistant
Legislative Services
Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr. Office of Program Planning &
Director, Virginia Institute of Fiscal Management
Marine Science office of the Governor
Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 State of Washington OPP & FM
(703) 642-2111 House Office Building 102
Olympia, Washington 98504
Mr. Joseph A. Leafe (206) 763-5451
Virginia General Assembly
6162 Powhatan Avenue Mr. Marvin Vialle
Norfolk, Virginia Department of Ecology
(703) 423-2905 Olympia, Washington 98501
(206) 753-6894
Mr. Thomas R. McNamara
Senate of Virginia WISCONSIN
1235 Virginia National Bank Building
Richmond, Virginia
(703) 622-9670 Mr. Harry J. Schmidt
Director, Bureau of Planning and Budget
Mr. J.B. Pleasants Department of Administration
Assistant Marine Scientist One West Wilson Street, Room B-158
Virginia Institute of Marine Science Madison, Wisconsin 53702
Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 (608) 266-7008
(703) 642-2111

WASHINGTON

Mr. James M. Dolliver
Administrative Assistant to
the Governor
Office of the Governor
Legislative Building
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 753-6780

319

COUNCIL OF.STATE GOVERNMENTS

Mr. James Antoniono Mr. Bill Johnson
Field Representative Soil Conservation Service
Eastern Regional Office Department of Agriculture
Council of State Governments Independence Avenue between
36 West 44th Street 12th and 14th Streets, N.W.
Room 1414 Washington, D.C. 20250
New York, New York 10036 (202) 447-3905
(212) 687-0559
Mr. Warren Zitzmann
Mr. R. Deane Conrad Soil Conservation Service
Special Assistant Department of Agriculture
Office of State-Federal Relations Independence Avenue between
Council of State Governments 12th and 14th Streets, N.W.
1150 - 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20250
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 447-2406
(202) 785-5610
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S.
Mr. H. Milton Patton
Special Assistant
Council of State Governments Mr. Kenneth H. Murdock
Iron Works Pike U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lexington, Kentucky 40505 Office of the Chief of Engineers
(606) 252-2291 Forrestal Building
Washington, D.C. 20314
FEDERAL AGENCIES (202) 693-6358

AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF Mr. Alfred E. Robinson, Jr.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Baltimore District
Dr. Thomas K. Cowden P.O. Box 1715
Department of Agriculture Baltimore, Maryland 21203
Independence Avenue between (301) 962-2512
12th and 14th Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250 COAST GUARD, U.S.
(202) 447-2406 - See TRANSPORTATION, DEPT. OF

Soil Conservation Service COMMERCE, DEPARTMENT OF

Mr. Norman Berg Mr. Bruce R. Barrett
Associate Administrator Sanitary Engineer
Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Commerce
Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20230
Independence Avenue between (202) 967-3255
12th and 14th Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250 Dr. Sidney R. Galler
(202) 447-4525 Deputy Assistant for
Environmental Affairs
Department of Commerce
Room 3425
Washington, D.C. 20230
(202) 967-4335

320

COMMERCE, DEPARTMENT OF - cont'd.

Maritime Administration Dr. Howard S. Harris
Pacific Northwest Environmental
Coordinator
Mr. Ken Randall NOAA
Maritime Administration Seattle, Washington
Department of Commerce
14th and E Streets, N.W. Mr. Robert Hutton
Washington, D.C. 20235 National Marine Fisheries Service
(202) 967-3548 NOAA
Room 428
Mr. John Roche Page Building #2
Maritime Administration Washington, D.C. 20235
Department of Commerce (202) 343-2184
14th & E Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235 Mr. Fred Jenkins
(202) 987-4113 International Field Year on the
Great Lakes
Mr. Wallace Sansone NOAA
Maritime Administration Building #5, Room 727
Department of Commerce 6010 Executive Boulevard
14th & E Streets, N.W. Rockville, Maryland 20852
Washington, D.C. 20235 (301) 496-8221
(202) 967-5157
Mr. Robert Knecht
National Oceanic and CZM Task Force
Atmospheric Administration NOAA
Room 429,1ockwall Building
11400 Rockville Pike
Dr. Thomas S. Austin Rockville, Maryland 20852
NOAA (301) 496-8526
Environmental Data Service
Room 547, Page Building 2 Mr. Amor Lane
Washington, D.C. 20235 Chief, Non-Living Resources
(202) 343-6226 NOAA
Rockwall Building
Mr. John Baxter 11400 Rockville Pike
NOAA Rockville, Maryland 20852
11400 Rockville Pike (301) 496-8526
Rockwall Building
Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. R.L. Lehman
(301) 496-8526 Deputy Director
Office of Ecology and Environmental
Vice Admiral W.W. Behrens, Jr. Conservation
Assistant Deputy Administrator NOAA
NOAA Room 5813
Room 5807 U.S. Department of Commerce
Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230
Washington, D.C. 20230 (202) 967-5181
(202) 967-5444

321

COMMERCE, DEPARTMENT OF - cont'd. DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF

National Oceanic and Mr. Channing M. Zucker
Atmospheric Administration Vice Chairman
ACSM Interdivisional Committee on
Marine Surveying & Mapping
Mr. Tom Nelson Defense Mapping Agency -
Office of the General Counsel Hydrographic Center
NOAA Washington, D.C. 20390
11400 Rockville Pike (202) 763-1390
Rockwall Building
Rockville, Maryland 20852 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(301) 496-8526 AGENCY, U.S.

Mr. Howard Pollock
Deputy Administrator Mr. William S. Davis
NOAA Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20230 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mr. Allen Powell (202) 426-2730
NOAA
Rockwall Building Dr. Walter S. Groszyk
Rockville, Maryland 20852 Chief, Water Program Planning &
(301) 496-8204 Accomplishment Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Ms. Michele Tetley 815 East Tower
CZM Task Force 401 M Street, S.W.
NOAA Washington, D.C. 20460
Information Officer (202) 795-7000
Rockwall Building
11400 Rockville Pike Mr. William C. Lawrence
Rockville, Maryland 20852 Program/Planning Analyst
(301) 496-8526 Envitonmental Protection Agency
1129-B West Tower
Mr. Joseph R. Vadus 401 M Street, S.W.
Manager, Undersea Technology Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Coastal Environment (202) 755-0447
NOAA
11400 Rockville Pike Mr. Carlisle Pemberton
Rockville, Maryland 20852 Great Lakes Coordinator
(301) 496-8391 Region 5
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Robert Wildman 1 North Wacker Drive
National Sea Grant Program Chicago, Illinois 60606
NOAA (312) 353-5098
6010 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20852 GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
(301) 967-4562

Mr. Jacob Glick
General Accounting Office
Room 214, WSC Building #1
6001 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 496-8692

322

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF Bureau of Land Management

Mr. Gregory K. Alex Dr. Frank Monastero
Urban Planner oceanographer
Department of Housing and Bureau of Land Management
Urban Development Department of the Interior
451 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20240
Washington, D.C. 20024 (202) 343-6265
(202) 755-6164
Mr. John Sprague
INTERIOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE Chief, Division of Marine Minerals
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
Mr. William Bettenberg Washington, D.C. 20240
Program Analysis. Officer (202) 343-8725
Office of Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Sport Fisheries
Program Development and Budget & Wildlife
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-2151 Mr. E.U. Curtis Bohlen
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Dr. Frank Carlson Fish and Wildlife and Parks
Office of Land Use & Water Planning Department of the Interior
DepartmO_nt of the-Interior Washington, D.C. 20240
C between 18th & 19th Streets, N.W. (202) 343-4678
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-8058 U.S. Geological Survey

Mr. Lance Marston
Director, Office of Land Use Mr. Thomas J. Buchanan
and Water Planning subdistrict Chief
Department of'the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
C between 18th & 19th Streets, N.W. 901 S. Miami Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20240 Miami, Florida 33130
(20.2) 343-8058 (305) 350-5382

Mr. Michael Rudd Mr. Robert: Schoen
Staff Assistant Research Hydrologist
Office of Land Use & Water Planning Office of Assistant Chief for
Department of the Interior Research and Technical Coordination
18th & C Streets, N.W. Water Resources Division
Washington, D.C. 20240 U.S. Geological Survey
(202) 343-8059 Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Mr. Peter Rutledge (202) 343-5571
Mining Engineer
Office of Assistant Secretary NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
for Energy and Minerals
Department of the Interior Dr. Philip Johnson
C between 18th & 19th Streets, N.W. National Science Foundation,
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-4368 ESR/RANN
1800 G Street, N.W., Room 414
Washington, D.C. 20550
(202) 632-4325

323

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION - cont'd.

Dr. Richard Kolf Ms. Julie Bingham
National Science Foundation National League of Cities
1800 G Street, N.W. 1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20550 Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 632-4356 (202) 293-7136

MX. David Richtmann Mr. Peter Borrelli
National Science Foundation Sierra Club
1800 G Street, N.W., Room 537 324 C Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20550 Washington, D.C. 20003
(202) 632-5924 (202) 547-1144

STATE, DEPARTMENT OF Dr. John Clark
Conservation Foundation
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Mr. Abram E. Manell Washington, D.C. 20036
Staff Consultant to the (202) 265-8882
Department of State
824 New Hampshire Avenue Mr. Roland C. Clement
Washington, D.C. 20008 Vice President
(202) 915-1061 National Audubon Society
950 Third Avenue
TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF New York, New York 10022
(212) 832-3200

Coast Guard, U.S. Mr. John S. Gottschalk
Executive Vice President
International Association of Game,
Ensign Terrell Salmon Fish and Conservation Commissioners
Marine Environmental Research 1709 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 301
Division Washington, D.C. 20006
U.S. Coast Guard (202) 872-8866
400 - 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590 Mr. Jerald V. Halvorsen
(202) 426-9573 Environmental Projects Manager
Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL, U.S. 475 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10016
(212) 725-8300
Mr. Albert Spector
Water Resources Council Mr. John Harper
2120 L Street, N.W. National Association of Electric
Washington, D.C. 20426 Companies
(202) 254-6453 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
ASSOCIATIONS (202) 223-3460

Mr. John H. Jorgensen
Ms. Carol Bickley Committee Executive
Senior Associate National Security Industrial Organization
National Recreation & Union Trust Building
Parks Association 15th & H Streets, N.W.
1601 North Kent Street Washington, D.C. 20005
Arlington, Virginia 22209 (202) 393-3620
(703) 525-0606 x 234

324

ASSOCIATIONS - cont'd.

Mr. R.A. Mattila Mr. Charles Fraser
American Association of Port Sea Pines Plantation
Authorities Box 5608
1612 K Street, N.W. Hilton Head Island
Washington, D.C. 20006 South Carolina 29220
(202) 638-6262 (803) 785-3333

Mr. Dick Rigby Mr. William J. Hart
Director Vice President
Marine Technology Society Coastal Zone Resources Ccrporation
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 412 4009-Oleander Drive
Washington, D.C. 20036 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
(202) 659-3251 (919) 799-4470

Mr. Carl R. Sullivan Mr. Tom Hines
Sport Fishing Institute Sea Pines Company
608 - 13th Street, N.W. 126 W. Bay
Washington, D.C. 20005 Savannah, Georgia
(202) 737-0668 (912) 232-6451

Mr. David R. Toll Mr. William Whitfield Morrow
Acting Director Sea Pines Company
National Association of Electric Box 5608
Companies Hilton Head Island,
Suite 1010 South Carolina 29220
1140 Connecticut Avenue (803) 785-3333
Washington, D.C. 20038
(202) 223-3460 Mr. Peter Stern
Vice President
Mr. Alan A. Wheeler Northeast Utilities
Vice President of Education & P.O. Box 270
Publication Hartford, Connecticut 06101
American Land Development Association (203) 666-6911
1000 - 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 CONGRESS, U.S.
(202) 659-4582

INDUSTRY Mr. John Hussey
Counsel
Sub-Committee on Oceans and
Mr. Alex Beard Atmosphere
Sea Pines Company Room 5205
Box 5608 New Senate Office Building
Hilton Head island Washington, D.C. 20510
South Carolina 29220 (202) 225-9345
(803) 785-3333
Ms. Kay McKeough
Ms. Jill Leslie Drell Fellow
Potomac Electric Power Company Senate Commerce Committee
10th & E Streets, N.W. U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
(202) 872-2369 (202) 225-9346

325

PRESS

Mr. Larry Booda Ms. Marian E. Cavanagh
Editor Staff Assistant
Undersea Technology Coastal Zone Management Conference
Compass Publications, Inc. Council of State Governments
1117 N. 19th Street, Suite 1000 1150 - 17th Street, N.W.
Arlington, Virginia 22209 Washington, D.C.. 20036
(703) 524-3136 (202) 785-5610

Ms. Jane O'Brien Ms. Mollie Zahn
Environment Reporter Secretary
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Coastal Zone Management Conference
1231 - 25th Street, N.W. Council of State Governments
Washington, D.C. 20037 1150 - 17th Street, N.W.
(202) 223-3500 x 368 Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 785-5610
Mr. Roland Paine
Washington Science Center #5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Public Affairs Administration
NOAA
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 496-8526 Mr. Robert Knecht
Director
Ms. Lucy Sloan Office of Coastal Environment
Nautilus Press CZM Task Force
38 Green Street Rockwall Building
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 11400 Rockville Pike
(617) 868-9654 Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 496-8526
Mr. Steve Suloway
Land Use Planning Reports Mr. Richard Gardner
2814 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Deputy
Washington, D.C. 20007 CZM Task Force
Rockwall Building
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 11400 Rockville Pike
CONFERENCE STAFF Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 496-8526

Council of State Governments Ms. Michele Tetley
Conference Coordinator
CZM Task Force
Captain Thomas H. Suddath Rockwall Building
Project Director 11400 Rockville Pike
Coastal Zone Management Conference Rockville, Maryland 20852
Council of State Governments (301) 496-8526
1150 - 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Ms. Judy Penna
(202) 785-5610 State Programs Coordinator
CZM Task Force
Ms. Doreen P. Doyle Rockwall Building
Assistant Project Director 11400 Rockville Pike
Coastal Zone Management Conference Rockville, Maryland 20852
Council of State Governments (301) 496-8526
1150 - 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 785-5610

326

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STAFF - cont'd.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Mr. A.V. Siciliano
Special Assistant
CZM Task Force
Rockwall Building
11400 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 496-8526

Mr. John Granger
CZM Task Force
Rockwall Building
11400 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 496-8526

Mr. Campbell Killefer
CZM Task Force
Rockwall Building
11400 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 496-8526

327

APPENDIX C

PUBLICATIONS

NAME OBTAINABLE FROM
1. "Description and Analysis of the Sea Grant Program
Coastal Zone and Shoreland Manage- University of Michigan
ment Programs in the U.S." 1101 North University Bldg.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Earl H. Bradley and Dr. John H. MICHU-SG-71-214
Armstrong (1971)

2. "The Dimensions of Coastal Zone (Same as above)
Management." Proceedings of the MICHU-SG-72-302
Annual Meeting of the Council of
State Governments, Seattle,
'Aashinqton, July 1971

Edited by John M. Armstronq and
Thomas H. Suddath

3. "The Structure of Management and
Planninq for the Coastal Zone" (same as above)

4. "Integrity of the Chesapeake Ray" Robert F. Tribukait
National Resource Planner
Chesapeake Bay Interagency Room 103
Planning Commission 301 West Preston St.
Raltimore, Md. 21201

5. "Coastal Zone Management in Florida Coastal Coordinating Council
1971." 309 Magnolia Office Plaza
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Florida Coastal Coordinating Council

6. "Local Coastal Zone Management: (Same as above)
A Handbook"

Florida Coastal Coordinating Council

7. "Planninq Inventory - Florida's (same as above)
Coastal Area - Volume 1: Countries
and Cities''

Florida Coastal Coordinatinn Council

8. "Clearwater Coastal Zone Manaqement (same as above)
Plan"

Florida Coastal Coordinatinq Council

9. "Proposed/A Plan of Conservation and Connecticut Office of State
Development for Connecticut" Planninn
Dept. of Finance and Control
Conn. Office of State Planninq 140 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06115

328

PUBLICATIONS - page 2

NAME n9TATMARLE FROM:

10. "Environmental Impact Analysis/ Sea Grant Program
Philosophy and Methods - Proceedings 1225 West Dayton Street
of the Conference on Environmental University of Oisconsin
Impact Analysis, Januarv 1972 Madison, Wisconsin 53706
11. "Institutions and the Generation (Same as above)
of Purnose" Whose Environment Report #2
Gets Managed and for 14hat

John S. Steinhart
12. "Multi-Use Problems in the Great (same as above)
Lakes", based on a symnosium, WIS-SG-72-107
The Great Lakes - Sink? or Swim?
October 1970

13. "Port Expansion in the Puget Sound Division of Marine Resources
Region 1970-2000" University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195
Division of Marine Resources WSG-MP-72-1

14. "Bibliography of Literature - (Same as above)
Puget Sound Marine Environment" 1-ISG-71-6

Eugene E. Collias (1971)

15. "Index to Ph'ysical and Chemical (Same as above)
Oceanographic Data of Puget Sound
and Its Approaches" 1932-66

Euqene E. Col I i as

16. "Guidelines for Marine Resource The Center for the 1:-7nvironment
Planning and Policy on Long Island" and Man, Inc.
275 Windsor Street
Prepared for the Marine Resource Hartford, Conn. 0612n
Council, Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board

17. "State of the Art for Selected (Same as above)
Marine Resource Problems on Long
Island"

Prepared for the Marine Resources
Council

18. "Economic Factors in the Development Sea Grant Office
of the Coastal Zone" Massachusetts Institute of
Technoloqy
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
MIT-SG-71-1

329

PUBLICATIONS - pace 3

NAME AVAILABLE FROM:

19. "Power, Pollution and Public Sea Grant Office
Policy" Issues in Electric Massachusetts Institute of
Power Production, Shoreline Technology
Recreation, and Air and Water Cambridge, Mass. 02139
Pollution Facinq New England (Report #24)
and the Nation

20. "California Coastal Zone Conser- Sea Grant Office
vation Act/Interim Permit Control University of Southern Calif.
Legal and Procedural Time Factors" Los Angeles, Calif. 90007
USC-SG-ASI-73

21. "Procedures and Programs to Assist (Same as above)
in the Environmental Impact (ISC-SG-AS2-73
Statement Process"

Jens C. Sorensen and Mitchell L.
Moss (1973)

22. "Marina Del Re.y StudY/The Development (Same as above)
of the Marina" USC-I@G-5-72

Georne P. Schultz

23. "Costs and Benefits of the Abatement Sea Grant nffice
of Pollution of Biscayne Bay, University of Miami
Miami, Florida" Coral Gables, Florida
MSG-2-35147
Ruth M. Samnedro (1972)

24. "The Lakefront Plan of Chicago" City of Chicago
Dept. of Development
Chicago Plan Commission and Planning
Chica o Park District (1972) Room 100, City Hall
q
Chicaqo, Illinois

25. "Second National Symposium on @tate Council of State Governments
Environmental Legislation Pronram" Iron "orks Pike
April 9-12,1973 Lexinqton, Kentucky 40505

Honorable William J. Lantinq

26. "Rosters of Leoislative Officers and (same as above)
Leaders - Chairmen of Selected Committees February 1973 RM-502
and Clerks and Secretaries - 1973"

27. "Publications Price List - Jan. 1973" (@amp as above)

28. "Power to the @tates - Mobilizino (same as above)
Public Technolorly" (Report and RM-485
Supporting Analvses)

330

PUBLICATIONS - page 4

INAME ORTAINARLE FRrH

29. "National Legislative Conference Council of State Governments
Traininq Proqram - 1973" Iron Morks Pike
Lexinnton, Kentucky 40505

319. "Selected Riblioqraphv on State (Same as above)
Government 1959-1972" RM-492

31. "State Administrative Officials" (same as above)
Classified by Functions - 1971 Supplement TI

32. "State Elective Officials and the (Same as above)
Legislatures" - 1973 Sunplement I

33. "A Framework for Planning in State (Same as above)
Government"

Alan Wal ter Steiss

34. "Environmental Quality and State (same as above)
Government" RR-21

35. "Structure and Management of the (Same as above)
Council of State Governments" RM-470

36. "State Government" - Snecial Issue (Same as above)
on Rtvenue Sharinq - Winter 1973
Volume XLVI - Number 1

Robert H. @-Ieher - Editor
Ralph J. Marcelli - Associate Editor

37. "The States' Role in Land Resource (Same as above)
Management" RM-474
38. "To Imnrove Cooneration Among the States" (same as above)
Report of the Committee on Strengthening RR-4
Interstate Cooneration Commissions (1962)
39. 1973 Suggested State Leqislation" (same as above)
Volume XXXII

40. "The Integration of Planning and (Same as above)
Budgeting in the States" RM-434
Report of the National Governors'
Conference Committee on Executive
Management and Fiscal Affairs
Advisory Task Force

331

PUBLICATIONS - page 5

NAME AVAILARLE FROM:

41. "National Symposium on State Council of State Governments
Environmental Leqislation - Iron !-Iorks Pike
Summary Report" March 15-18, Lexinaton, Kentucky 40505
1972

42. "The States' Role in Land (same as above)
Resource Management - Supplement RM-474

Richard G. RuBino and
William R. Wagner

43. Roster of Legislative Service (same as above)
Agencies RM-489

44. "Federally-Sponsored Multijuris- (same as above)
dictional Planning and Policy
Development Organizations"
A Major Policy and Action-Oriented
Study for the Office of Management
and Budget

45. "Strategies for Natural Resource New England River Basins Comm.
Decision-Maki,nq" Sept. 14, 1972 Technical Services
(revised Dec. 6, 1972)

CO"Arl @11 I vlwlf@,
AlyCl9lb-ld'.21, C4111'11@ (Z

3 6668 00001 9408
I