Coastal zone management a strategy guide for AIA components

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

THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF
ARCHITECTS

STATE
COMPONENT
AFFAIRS

COASTAL- ZGN@
"FOR!14ATION CENTER

COASTAL ZONE
RAA NAGEMENT:
KF FRATEGY GUIDE
5627
.S5
1978 1 AIA COMPONENTS

THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF
ARCHITECTS

STATE
COMPONENT
AFFAIRS

COASTAL ZONE
INFOR'MiATION CENTER

COASTAL ZONE
o MANAGEMENT:
lU A STRATEGY GUIDE
FOR AIA COMPONENTS

'TER

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT:
A Strategy Guide
for AIA Components

Property of CSC Library

U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-24 13

The American Institute of Architects
1735 New York Avenue,NW
Washington, D.C. 20006

December, 1978

C6
14N
Ll @k@ 9=0

"Coastal Zone Management: Balancing and Protection" and "Coastal Zone
Management: A Strategy Guide for AJA -Components" were written by Jane
A. Silverman and are based on the work of the AIA Regional Development
and Natural Resources Committee. The publications were produced by the
AIA Component Affairs and the Practice and Design Departments in conjunction
with the Office of Coastal Zone Management.

For assistance on legislative and/or regulatory activities, or for additional
copies of this publication, contact State Component Affairs, Component Affairs
Department, The American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, N. W. ,
Washington, D. C., 20006, (202) 785-7386.

Preparation of this publication was partially funded by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S.
Department of Commerce. The opinions and views contained in this document
are those of the author and publisher and do not necessarily reflect official
policy of the U. S. Government.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

OVERVIEW I: THE COAST AND ITS USES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

OVERVIEW II: THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT ... . . . . . . 5

OVERVIEW III: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Requirements of CZMA for Public Participation . . . . 9
2. Getting Architects Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROCESS . . . . . . . . . 13
A. Initial Process 0 0 . 0 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Refinement of th e Management Plan . . o o . . o . 15

1. Establishment of Coastal Zone Boundaries o . . 15
2. Permissible Uses. . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Areas of Particular Concern . o . . o . o 19
4. Areas for Preservation of Restoration 21
5. Priority Uses . . . o o o . o . o 22
6o State Authority and Organization . . . . . 24
7. Access to Public Coastal Areas. o . . . . . 27
8. Erosion Mitigation . . . . . . . o 29
9. Energy Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Co The Implementation Stage . . o o . . o. o o . o . o 33

lo The Intergovernmental Structure: . o . o. . 33

a. Federal Consistency . . . . . 33
b. The National Interest and Coordination . . . . . . . 35

2. Coastal Energy Impact Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3. Emerging Issues in Coastal Zone Management . . . . . . 41

a. Hazard Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
b. Urban Waterfronts . . * * ' * * 43
c. Enhancing the Visual Resourcoe of1he Coas; . . . . 45

CONTENTS (Cont.)

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

APPENDIX I: AIA POLICY ON THE COAST

APPENDIX II: STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

APPENDIX IIJI: MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ON
COASTA L ZONE MANAGEMENT

APPENDIX IV: FURTHER READING ON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) has as its objectives both
environmental protection and economic growth. Under the law, which was
passed by Congress in 1972 and amended in 1976, state and local
governments are provided with loans and grants for planning, management
and preservation, as well as incentives for increased coordination with
the federal government. Congress intended the coastal zone management
program to be a partnership process, carried out with a high degree of
cooperation between federal, state and local officials, as well as the
public.

The theme of balance -- both in the uses of the coast and the process for
determining those uses -- is the hallmark of the Act. Our shores are
subject to many valid and competing uses -- recreational development,
ports, estuarine sanctuaries, and industry. The coast is also a fragile
and finite resource, one which can be wasted or used wisely. Decisions
about the coast are so important that they should be made by as broad a
spectrum of the public as possible. What happens on the shore affects all
of us and we should all have a say in the future of the coast.

The design "public" ccm make an especially valuable contribution to
sensitive and balanced use of the coast through active involvement at
various levels of coastal zone management and through exemplary design
proposals. This publication describes the coastal zone management
process and outlines a strategy for participation in it by architects,
acting both through their state components and as individuals. The
thrust of this booklet is on the planning and management process under
CZMA -- some of the key issues raised by the law and ways that architects
can help in their resolution. (Note: A companion publication describes
the law and various coastal uses for a wider audience.)

OVERVIEW I: THE COAST AND ITS USES

The American coastline (which includes the Great Lakes) contains America's
seven largest cities, 53 percent of the population and 90 percent of the popula-
tion growth. By the end of the century, according to some estimates, two
hundred million people will live along the coast. Among the most important
coastal activities are:

Recreation - The average American spends ten days a year on t1he coast ,
much of it in recreational activity and these demands are expected to increase.
Recreational uses of the coast have important social and economic benefits.
In New Jersey, for example, recreation and tourism are the largest coastal
industries and generate about $3 billion annually in goods and services. The
1976 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act specifically call for a
beach access planning process as part of state CZM plans, and water-related
recreational development is given high priority under the CZM program.

Harvestin - Both onshore and off, coastal areas are highly productive
sources. The commerical fishery harvest is already estimated to be $900 million
(1973 dollars) and is expected to grow to as much as $4 billion by the end of the
century. Coastal shore regions are often the source of rich delta soil and their
welcoming climate supports highly productive agricultural land.

Industry - Roughly 50 percent of all manufacturing jobs in the United
States are located along the coast. Manufacturing and industry are drawn to
the shore by port facilities and abundant water supply, among other reasons.
Power plants and mineral extraction are two especially prominent industrial users.

Offshore Energy Exploration - In 1975, the federal government announced
its plans to lease 10 million Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) acres, as much as had
been leased in the entire previous 20 years. Offshore oil and gas exploration,
as well as increased deep seabed mining, will generate considerable onshore
development. This includes oil rig construction and other support facilities,
pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, ports and transportation systems,
not to mention the ancillary growth -- housing, shops and services -- for an
expanded population base. One of the major challenges of coastal planning is
to ensure that energy development occurs in an orderly and environmentally
responsible manner.

All of these diverse coastal activities must be viewed against the backdrop of
the natural environment of the shore. The coast is a unique resource of extra-
ordinary natural value. Increasing demands are being placed on this finite and
environmentally sensitive natural system. Certain coastal areals are especially
valuable and vulnerable:

Estuaries - These are waters at the mouth of coastal streams and rivers,
where fresh and sea water mingle, creating a nutrient rich spawning ground for
marine life. Estuaries are being threatened by dredging and pollution.

Wetlands - These are critical areas that fall between the mean low tide
mark and the early high storm mark. They include marshes and southern man-
grove forests. Wetlands help control the flow of runoff and are valuable breeding
grounds for fish and wildlife. Wetlands are highly susceptible to damage from
dredging and development.

Dunes, beaches and barrier islands - The coastal system of dunes,
beaches and barrier islands are our first defense against storms, winds and
waves. Dunes and beaches are held in place by tough rooted plants. Develop-
ment has altered the beach/dune plant matrix and resulted in erosion and
increased hazards from flooding in many coastal areas. Develo- ment on barrier
P
islands, small inlets off the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, has weakened much of the
dune system which is our frontline against severe storms.

OVERVIEW II: THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

The Coastal Zone Management Act is administered by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, (OCZM), a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. The Act provides
grants and other financial aids for planning, management and conservation
of coastal lands, as well as an important nonfinancial incentive -- the
federal consistency provision -- which requires that all federal activities
be consistent with approved state coastal zone management plans to the
maximum extent possible. The 1976 amendments to the law created the
Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) to help states and local governments
deal with some of the onshore impacts of offshore energy programs.

Thirty-five states and territories (including those bordering the Great Lakes)
are eligible to participate in the program grants under Section 305 of the Act.
Thirteen states -- Washington, Oregon, California, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Maryland,
Maine, New Jersey, Wisconsin -- are receiving grants for implementation of
their coastal zone management plans. Up to 10 more programs are expected
to be submitted for review during FY 1979. Actual appropriation of funds for
Coastal Zone Management has not matched the funding levels authorized
by the Congress. As of the end of FY 78 (Sept. 30', 1978) OCZM has issued
grants, for all purposes, of $ 187.2 million. Listed below are authorized
funds as described in the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended.

Program Development Grants. Section 305 of the law (as amended in
1976) provides federal/state matchin"g grants for preparation of coastal zone
management programs. The federal share can be as much as 80% of the
cost of preparation, and states are eligible for up to four annual grants.
Congress has authorized $ 20 million annually for fiscal years 1977-79 for
this purpose. Grants are awarded to states on the basis of a complex
formula which takes into account the length of the state's shoreline, the
population living in coastal counties, and specific coastal problems of a
given state.

Preliminary Approval Grants. The 1976 amendments to the Coastal
Zone Management Act create a "halfway" step between preparation of the
coastal plan and the management process. This interim approval provides
funds to states to carry out certain portions of the management program
before final approval of the management plan is received from OCZM. As an
example, such grants will be awarded to states which have completed the

basic design of their management program but are awaiting the passage of
required state legislation or are completing necessary interagency
agreements.

Administrative Grants. Section 306 provides administrative grants to
states to carry out federally approved coastal zone management plans. The
1976 amendments increased the authorization under Section 306 from $ 30
million to $ 50 million annually for fiscal years 1977 - 1980. The federal
share is now 80 percent and grants are awarded to states on the basis of
the extent and nature of the shoreline, particular coastal problems,
population, and the areas covered by the state plan.

Estuarine -Sanctuary Protection. Section 315 (1) of thE! CZMA as
amended provides 50 percent federal matching grants for the acquisition of
estuarine sancturies both for conservation and for use as laboratories for
education and research. Five sanctuaries have been established with two
proposals currently under consideration. Six million dollars has been
authorized by Congress through fiscal year 1977.

The law also provides grants for interstate planning; reasearch, technical
assistance and training; and acquisition of land for public access to beaches
and other coastal areas of special value. Funds for these three programs
have not been appropriated, however.

The Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) was created by Section 308 of the
1976 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Funding under the
program enables communities to plan ahead for the services and facilities
they may need to accommodate growth induced by energy development. It
also provides assistance to help communities assume the fiscal burdens
brought on by growth by allowing the federal government to act as a lender
of last resort.

There are five basic forms of CEIP assistance:

1). Planning grants, on an 80% federal matching share available to
states and local governments to help prepare for "any economic, social or
environmental consequence" cau@@ed by "new or expanded, energy facilities."

2) Public facility grants, grants are available to coastal communities

impacted by Outer Continental Shelf energy activity. These grants may be
used for a broad range of public facilities.

3) Credit assistance, available to communities in the form of direct
loans or guarantees of loans and bonds. This can help communities provide
needed facilities before the anticipated increase of their tax base is able
to support repayment of securities. Repayment assistance is provided under
CEIP to communities who fail to meet their credit obligations because the
tax base increase did not materialize as expected. This protects communities
from experiencing a net fiscal loss because of OCS activity.

4) Environmental grants, to be used to alleviate unavoidable losses
of valuable environmental or recreational resources due to coastal energy
development.

5) OSC administrative grants to be used by states to administer
their responsibilities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

These programs are funded from three interlocking sources, which together
will provide $ 2.1 billion over a ten year period:

The Coastal Energy Impact Fund 'currently authorized at $ 800 million
over ten years. The fund will be used for planning assistance, credit assist-
ance and repayment assistance when a borrowing government cannot meet its
obligations. A formula based on the estimated impacts from energy develop-
ment in a given year determines the allotment of Fund moneys to each state.

Formula Gr nt s, authorized at $130 million per year through 1988. The
formula grants may be used to redress losses of valuable environmental or
recreational resources, and to plan and develop public facilities and services
which are directly required as a result of OCS activity. Allotments of formula
grants to each state are based on OCS activity in the past year, as deter-
mined by three measures.

OCS Administrative Grants, authorized at $ 5 million per year through
1983. These grants are available to coastal states found by the Secretary of
Commerce to be affected (or likely to be affected) by OCS energy activity.

OVERVIEW III: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

One of the major themes of the Coastal Zone Management Act is that the
public should be brought into the process at every possible juncture. There
are many "publics" -- private citizens, public interest groups, property
owners, industry representatives and professional societies. And there
are many ways of participating -- technical assistance, advocacy,
representation on advisory committees, presence at public meetings.

The Coastal Zone Management Act cites several points where "official"
public input must be solicited. Most of these decision points occur during
the planning stages of state programs or at the point when key proposals,
such as those under CEIP, will be submitted. Citizen participation during
these stages is very important for it can help insure that the outlines of a
coastal zone management program meet the needs of the public. But the real
substance of coastal zone management occurs in the implementation of the
plans. Here the opportunities for citizen participation are less formal, but
no less important. During the management stage, architects and others must
insure that the opportunities for citizen participation are adequate. The
demands on the coast are constantly changing, and the plan must be fluid
and dynamic to meet changing needs. Furthermore, those who implement
the plan also change as state administrations are voted in and out of office.
Only a watchful public can really insure that the needs of coastal users are
met by the coastal zone management plan.

This section provides an overview of citizen participation under the law and
some general ways that architects in particular can be involved in coastal
zone management and planning. The next section explains the coastal zone
management process in greater detail and outlines specific steps that can
be taken by the design public at each juncture of the process.

Requirements of CZMA for Public Participat ion

In the opening to the CZMA, Congress declared that it is national policy
to encourage the particiaption of the public, of Federal, state and local
governments and regional agencies in the development of coastal zone
management programs. . . " Section 306 of the law requires that the state hold
public hearings in the development of the management program as a require-
ment for program approval. In its regulations for program development grants,
the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) notes that "public partici-
pation is an essential element of development and administration of a coastal
management program... Participating states, therefore, should seek to obtain

extensive public participation in the development and administration of a
coastal management program. "

The regulations require that states hold at least two public hearings, at least
one of which will deal with the total coastal management pnDgram; that states
provide a minimum of 30 days notice of hearings; and that the state agency
make available at the time of public notice, all agency materials pertinent to
the hearings.

These regulations also point out that "formal public" hearings may not provide@
an adequate opportunity for information exchange and recommend various
ways of getting the public involved, including citizen participation in the
development of goals and objectives, establishment of citizen advisory
committees, and establishment of processes to review elements of the
management programs by selected citizen groups and the general public.

Another opportunity for "official" comment on the states coastal zone
management plan is through review of the environmental impact statement
prepared by the federal government prior to state management plan approval.
An EIS, which is required under the National Environmental Policy Act as
part of the federal review of each completed state coastal zone management
program, must provide a 45 day comment period during which citizens,
public groups and government officials can make their VOiCes heard on the
management plan. Citizen opposition to a coastal zone management plan
will not itself stop approval, but the federal government is required to consider
all comments on the EIS Often well thought out and reasoned criticism by
public reviewers could lead to modifications which can strengthen the plan.

Getting Architects Involved

How can these legal requirements and suggestions be translated into real life
activity by architects? There are several ways, some formal, such as serving
on state advisory commissions, and some less official, such as working behind
the scenes to forge coalitions on a particular issue affecting the coast.
Following is a brief summary of some of the most important ways that architects
can get involved in coastal zone management.

Serving on Citizen AdvisoEZ Committees. There is :no reason why
design professionals have to be appointed to a state's citizen advisory
committee. The only way to insure that design interests are represented

on such groups is to lobby hard for appointment of architects or other design
professionals. In Georgia, for example, architects have served on the
state advisory committee and played an important role in fashioning that
state's program.

Technical Assistance. State coastal zone management staff will often
seek outside technical assistance. Preservation of historic and aesthetic
resources along the shore, designation of appropriate uses, and hazard
mitigation methods are just a few of the broad areas where design talent could
be useful. Architects should make themselves available for such technical
assistance on both a paid and volunteer basis. The Rice Center for Community
Design and Research is Houston, Texas, for example, has used the skills of
design professionals extensively to make a comprehensive analysis of
environmental and economic development issues confronting the Texas Gulf
Coast.

Speaking Out on Issues. State components of the AIA offer an excellent
structure for speaking out on important issues of coastal zone management,
A public statement from an AIA chapter can have wide influence among officials
and the public more generally and serve as convincing evidence that architects
care about the future of the coast.@ The Virginia Society of the American
Institute of Architects has developed a specific position statement on Coastal
Zone Land Use and the Use of the Continental Shelf.

Coalition Building and Lobbying. Much of the most effective public
participation in coastal zone management is going to be informal and behind
the scenes. The first step is to get to know who the important people in the
state and local government are with respect to coastal zone management. -
This does not only mean the staff of the state coastal,agency (a list of these
agencies, with addresses and telephones is included As an appendix to this
report), but also the key elected officials in the legislature and local
governments, and others in state government with an interest in the program.,
The next step is to identify those groups outside of government with which
architects might share interests with regard to coastal issues. A list of
such organizations might include environmental groups, such as the state
chapter of the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation or the National
Audubon Society; business organizations such as the state Homebuilder
Association or the Chamber of Commerce; industry groups, especially those
involved in energy production, extraction industries, chemical industries or

refining and agriculture; government watch dog groups, such as the League
of Women Voters; state and local historic preservation associations; sports-
man groups, such as fishing and boating associations; and local home-
owner and community associations. Not all of these groups are going to
share the views of the design profession on every coastal Issue, but there
are opportunities for forging alliances with many of these organizations on
certain issues. A coalition of organizations is more effective than such
groups acting alone. It can pool resources to get information, bring out
strong representation at public meetings, and generate well-organized,
immediate response through newspaper coverage and phone calls to key state
officials. Architects are in an excellent position to serve as a catalyst for
such well organized and effective citizen involvement. They can appeal to
many groups which care about the coast through their twin Interests in
development and preservation.

Design Examples Probably the most effective public participation
by an architect is through his own work. There is no better statement of
sound coastal zone management practices than an example of what to build
and where (or where not) to build. Virtually every design proposal in
coastal areas is touched at some point by an architect's pen. Special design
challenges are posed by marinas, second home developments and urban
waterfronts. It is difficult and perhaps not even desirable to write good
design into law or regulation. But architects can and already have been
leaders in good design along the coast through high quality plans and
buildings. For example, on Botany Bay Island, a subtropical barrier island
off the coast of South Carolina, the design team drew up a careful plan for
sensitive use of this fragile site, one which would protect the unique function
of barrier islands.

THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROCESS

A. Initial Process-

The initial place for effective public participation in coastal zone manage-
ment is at the beginning of the planning process.

In order to be eligible for Section 305 program development grants, states
must provide the following to OCZM:

a summary of past and cur-rent activities in coastal zone management.

a ranking of major coastal-related problems and issues, as well as
identification of goals and objectives of the management program.

the governor's designation of a lead agency for coastal zone manage-
ment as well as a listing of all the agencies in the state with an
involvement in coastal zone management.

a work program for preparation of the management program. This
includes identification of existing sources of information, methods
of public participation, mechanism for intergovernmental cooperation,
approximate boundaries of the coastal zone, and mechanisms to
coordinate with federal lands excluded from the coastal jurisdiction of
the state.

an annual work program including manpower requirements, scheduling
and costs.

identif ication of other federal, state or local activity with a significant
impact on the coastal zone and ways to achieve, coordination and
cooperation with these entities.

States are eligible for grants under Section 305 for up to four years. Each
year of the planning process should result in a refinement of the state plan
in terms of setting priorities for coastal uses, establishing the precise
boundaries of the coastal zone, setting up the key legislative and
adminstrative mechanisms for management, and revising the plan in light
of new developments and problems, such as Outer Continental Shelf
exploration.

Most states are well into their second and third years of program
13

development and consequently many of the important initial planning
decisions have already been made. However, it is important to review
these early program development elements since, in some states, changes
have been or are being made in these basic elements as the program
matures.

1. Key issues of this stage:

The work in the early stages of coastal zone management planning sets
the stage for the final refinement of the plan. There are three especially
important jobs carried out during this initial phase:

Inventory of coastal resources. The inventory inclu des not only
ecological resources, but also demographic, economic and social
data. The inventory of coastal resources forms the basis for
establishing permitted uses on the coast as well as designated
areas of special concern.

Designation of a lead agency. During this phase the governor must
designate a lead agencyfor carrying out the coastal zone management
program and begin the work of generating the legislative and
organizational framework for managing the coastal zone. The
official structure of the state program may be temporary, awaiting
the passage of a comprehensive state law. But it also can provide
a foretaste of the seriousness of coastal officials in carrying out
their program.

Establishment of goals and problems. The early stages of planning
are marked by a preliminary ranking of major coastal-related problems,
as well as the setting of objectives for the management program.
This is obviously tied in closely to the inventory of coastal resources.
Together they form the basis for most of the key state management
decisions on the coast.

2. Architect Involvement:

Identify the lead players and key groups outside of government involved
in coastal zone management. Begin working closely with them.

Get appointed to citizen advisory boards.
14

Develop clear positions on coastal zone management at the state
component level.

Identify areas where architects can provide technical assistance.

Make sure that aesthetic resources (e.g. , special views, historic
buildings) are included in the inventory.

Lobby for inclusion of design protection goals in the statement of
objectives.

Make sure that the lead agency is taking the lead and that it has
adequate staff and finances. Work with other groups to lobby for
a strong state institutional and legislative structure for coastal
zone management.

There is also an important official decision point which occurs at the early
planning stage. OCZM requires that states submit an annual work program
which includes plans for the coming year, an evaluation of the past year's
activity, and the budget (funding and manpower) to carry out the current year's
activities. This work program is available to the public and can be obtained
fromthe state agency of OCZM. Furthermore, these work programs are subject
to the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95,
which mandates review and comment by all interested public and private parties
through regional clearinghouses. Thus, each year, members of the public and
architects in particular are in a position to review their state's progress in
coastal zone management and help structure the following year's program.

B. Refinement of the Management Plan

The culmination of the Section 305 process is the acceptance by the federal
government of the state's coastal zone management plan. Third and fourth
year planning efforts, the point where most coastal states are in the
planning process, are normally times for a refinement of the work program
to meet the major requirements for approval of the state's coastal zone
management plan. These major requirements, the issues raised by them
and architect's role in meeting them are discussed below.

1. Establishment of Coastal Zone Boundaries. The Coastal Zone
Management Act defines the coastal zone in general terms, as

"the coastal waters (including the waters therein and thereunder)
and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and
thereunder) strongly influenced by each other and in proximity
to the shorelines of the several coastal states and. . includes
transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and
beaches." The boundary extends three miles on the seaward side;
on the inland side, the boundary is to be fixed "to the extent
necessary to control shorelands, the uses of which have a direct
and significant impact on the coastal waters." Bodies of water,
such as sounds, bays, ponds and estuaries "which contain a
measurable quantity or percentage of sea water" are also to be
designated as part of the coastal zone.

a. Major Issues. The designation of coastal boundaries is obvious-
ly a critical first step in drawing up the state's management
program.

Each state will define its coastal boundary differently depending
on the diverse natural, institutional and legal characteristics.
The regulations for development of the management program
recommendthat states delineate a planning area which is larger
than but encompa 'sses, the area ultimately identified as the
coastal zone. "Specific coastal zone programing," the regulations
say, "must take into account current developmental, political and
administrative realities, as well as biophysical processes, that
may be external to the restricted zone eventually selected for
direct management control." The regulations also encourage
states to take into account other federal and state water and
land resource management programs, such as surface extraction
controls, flood plain designations, and 208 areawide waste
water planning jurisdictions. Finally, exluded from state coastal
zone designations are lands which are owned by or held in trust
by the Federal government.

The setting of a state coastal zone boundary is a complex matter.
The Michigan Coastal Management Program cites the following
questions which are explored: "How far inland do land and water
activities have direct and significant impact upon one another?
What should bethe geographic limits of program attention in terms
of existing laws and public sentiments? And what constitutes a
16

practical, easily identifiable boundary for such an area?,,
Special care chould be set in determining transitional areas or
what the Virginia coastal plan calls the "Boundaries at the
Edges." In Virginia, the plan notes, "The primary purpose for
which state management jurisdiction extends into transitional
areas above mean low water is for the protection of tidal wet-
lands," which are under the jurisdiction of a related state
program, The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972. In other coastal
areas, development may proliferate just over the area regulated.
States should take care to set buffer areas so that such growth
will not have a negative impact on the coastal zone.

States define their boundaries in various ways. Some delineate
their management areas by geographic features (e.g. bluffs).
Others use manmade features (e.g. a highway). Still a third
option is to designate coastal management areas to conform with
jurisdictional lines (e.g. county boundaries). Some states (e.g.
North Carolina) also designate a two-tiered boundary, in which reg
regulation is intense along a narrow strip designated for special
protection and less intense in other, less critical areas.

b. Architect Involvement.

Offer technical assistance in assembling data to define
boundaries. Offer special assistance in identifying relevant
design-related data (e.g. views).
Work closely with other interest groups and state officials to
insure that boundaries are set not solely along narrow environ-
mental or jurisdictional grounds, but, that political, develop-
mental, economic and demographic data are also included.

2. Permissible Uses. Section 305 M (2) of the Act requires that the
coastal zone management program include a "definition of what shall
constitute permissible land uses and water uses within the coastal
zone whichhave a direct and significant impact on the coastal
waters." The regulations for coastal zone management program
development grants note that the first step in defining permissible
uses is to develop criteria for potential impacts -- both good and
bad -- from the various uses of the shore. Some uses will have
virtually no (or no negative impact) and will be exempted altogether.

Others may be inconsistent with state objectives and thus subject
to more strict scrutiny, or in the extreme case, prohibited. In
this last instance, the state management plan must-include its
reasons for excluding a use from the coastal area.

a. Major Issues. Delineating the permissible uses of a coastal
area is really another aspect of "boundary" --- a use limit,
rather than a territorial limit. The regulations point out that
some of the factors involved in assessing im.pact and hence,
use, include "location, magnitude, the nature of an impact
upon existing or manmade environments, economic, commerical,
and other 'triggering' impacts, and land and water uses of
regional benefit." The definition and regulation of permissible
uses can determine the shpae of the coastline for years to
come. For example, California has lost an estimated one out
of twelve acres of cropland in its coastal zone in the 1960's
alone, much of it to residential development. If the state
has an interest in maintaining agriculture as a coastal industry,
it can use its CZM program to help direct residential growth
away from prime farmland to areas where development is more
compatible with state and local desires. Similarly, growth
inducing public works projects, such as sewage treatment
facilities and highways, can be guided by a CZM plan to
serve areas where development and growth are desired. The
Massachusetts C ZM plan lists several policies to direct
growth within the management area and to target financial
support to areas where growth is already occuring. One of the
policies in the Massachusetts plan encourages the adoption
of local zoning and regulatory controls which promote clustering
of new development to reduce wasteful land use patterns on
valuable coastal land. States differ in their approaches to
setting permitted uses and some have adopted quite sophisticated
sets of criteria. The Interim Land Use and Density Guidelines
for the Coastal Area of New Jersey, for example, set performance
criteria for specific project types, and then measures such
proposals against land and water features of the coastal zone
classified by Preservation, Conservation and Development .
Categories. For example, interceptor sewers are discouraged
in areas where no development presently exists or is scheduled.

b Architect Involvement

--Monitor the process of determining permissible uses closely
to insure that the use classifications of the state CZM
program are inclusive and fair.
--Offer technical assistance to help determine use classifications,
especially in those areas where development and c,)nstruction
are involved.

3. Areas of Particular Concern (APCS). The Act requires that the
management program include "an inventory and designation of
areas of particular concern within the coastal zone. 11 The regula-
tions for Coastal Zone Program Management Development Grants
list the following types of areas which might be considered under
these requirements:

--areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural
habitat, physical feature, historical significance
value, and scenic importance.

--areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat
for living resources, including fish, wildlife, and the various
trophic levels in the food web critical to their well-being.

--areas where developments and facilities are dependent upon
the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters.

--areas of unique geologic or topographic significance to
industrial or commerical development.

--areas of significant hazard if developed, due to storms,
slides, floods, erosion, settlement, and

areas needed to protect, maintain or replenish coastal lands
or resources, including such areas as coastal flood plains,
aquifer recharge areas, sand dunes, coral and other reefs,
beaches, offshore sand deposits, and mangrove stands.

a Ma .or Issues - The starting point for the designation of areas
of particular concern (APC) is the resource inventory discussed
earlier in this paper. While many of the critical areas for
coastal control will be "fragile" in the environmental sense,
the definition of areas of concern clearly must go beyond these
narrow, though vital, bounds. The regulations note that "Such
areas are likely to encompass not only the more often citcd
areas of significant natural value of importance, but also
"(a) transitional or intensely developed areas where reclama-
tion, restoration, public access and other actions are
especially needed, and (b) those areas especially suited for
intensive development. In addition, immediacy of need should
be a major consideration in determining particular concern...

Many state coastal plans recognize this broad definition of
areas of particular concern and fashion their management
programs to meet such needs. Michigan, for example, designates
Areas of Particular concern according to their character as:
Areas of Natural hazard to development (e.g. erosion and flood
prone areas); areas sensitive to alteration of disturbance (e.g.
coastal lakes and urban areas); and areas of natural economic
potential (e.g. prime industrial sites or agricultural land).
The Michigan APCs are drawn from two sources -- those identified
by state legislation and those nominated by the public.

Several state coastal zone management plans make provisions for
reviewing and preserving special historic sites. Policy 12 of the
Massachusetts plan is illustrative: "Review proposed developments
in or near designated or register historic districts or sites to ensure
that federal, state and private actions requiring a state permit
respect their preservation intent and minimize potential adverse
impacts. " Several state and local requirements as well as the
federal consistency clause discussed later help lend enforceability
to this policy in the state.

b. Architect Involvement

--Monitor the preparation of the inventory of coastal resources
carefully during the planning stage because this is the basis
for the designation of APCs.
20

--Offer technical assistance in assembling data for determining
APCs especially when design factors are critical (e.g. areas
of scenic beauty, historic sites, buffer zones).

--Monitor the method and criteria for selecting APCs to insure
that environmental developmental, socio-economic and
aesthetic needs are met.

4. Areas for Preservation or Restoration. Section 306 (c) (9) of the Act
requires that the management program "make provision for procedures
whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of
preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational,
ecological or esthetic values." While some states view this
provision as an extension of the APC requirements, designation
of areas for preservation and restoration usually involves sub-
stantially more intense regulation and control.

a. Major Issues. As in the APC designation process, the starting
point for identifying areas of preservation or restoration is the
resource inventory discussed earlier in this paper. States must
identify the process and criteria they use for designation of
such areas and they must explain how areas of preservation
and restoration are to be distinguished from other APCs.
Michigan is an excellent example of a state that has developed
a special category for areas of restoration and preservation:
"a special category made up of the highest priority areas of all
kinds, especially those needing immediate management attention
for acquisition, preservation or restoration. " The Michigan
program requires that such areas be of.statewide or regional
importance and exhibit the following characteristics:

--high aesthetic, recreational, ecological value.

--high quality physical or functional characteristics.

--unique characteristics which are uncommon and occur in
very limited areas of the shoreland.

--threat of irreversible harm and urgent need for management
action.

--problems or opportunities in the area beyond the financial
or regulatory capability of local units of government.

b. Architect Involvement

--Offer technical assistance in assembling data for these
high priority areas of preservation and restoration.

--Make sure that features of special aesthetic or cultural
value are considered for such special protection under state
programs and help identify these sites.

5. Priority Uses. Section 305 (b) (5) of the Act requires that state
management plans include "broad guidelines on priorities of uses
in particular areas, including specifically those uses of lowest
priority . " According to OCZM regulations, priority uses are meant
to serve three purposes:

1) provide a basis for management in peographic areas of
particular concern

2) provide the state and local government, areawide and regional
agencies, and citizens with a common reference point for
resolving conflicts; and

3) articulate the nature of the state's interest, whether it is
preservation, conservation and/or development in geographic
areas of particular concern.

Along with the permissible use requirement discussed earlier,
these guidelines serve as the focal point for regulating land and
water uses and should be the basis for resolving most disputes.
Obviously, the setting of priorities depends on the specific coastal
issues of the state.

a . Major Issues. Setting priorities for use of the coastal zone
is where the state program is directly confronted with balancing
competing environmental and economic needs for use of the
shore. One principle, endorsed by OCZM, is to encourage

those uses which are clearly water-dependent while placing
lower down on the scale those activities which could just as
easily occur inland. Thus, ports, fishing industry facilities,
marinas, water oriented recreation, and certain types of energy
facilities are all water dependent and should be considered
for higher priority designation in a state plan.

Policy 17 of the Massachusetts Coastal Plan provides an
example of some of the considerations in setting coastal
priorities: "Encourage maritime commerce and related develop-
ment in port areas. Prohibit pre-emptions of present and
proposed maritime dependent industrial uses. Permit non-
maritime dependent industrial uses which do not represent an
irreversible commitment of sites and which do not pre-empt
foreseeable maritime -dependent indistrial uses."

As important as setting the uses, is the establishment of
performance criteria, a technique used by some (e.g. New
Jersey) but not all states. This can insure that facilities
which may be high on the hierarchy -- such as a power plant
will be designed and constructed in such a way as to mitigate
adverse impacts and preserve other coastal objectives.

b. Architect Involvement

--Work closely with other state and local groups to insure
that the needs of coastal users are considered in drawing
up the priorities and that there is a balance between
environmental protection and development.

--Encourage your state plan to assign high priority to water
dependent development, such as marinas and fisheries.

--If your state is implementing performance standards, make
sure that they are fair and accomplish the management
objectives of the plan. Help your state develop performance
standards for hazard mitigation and preservation or visual,
aesthetic and natural resources, two areas where architects
can provide particular expertise.

6. State Authority and Organization. The Coastal Zone Management
Act requires that the management program include ". . an identifi-
cation of the means by which the State proposes to exert control
over the land uses and water usses ... including a listing of relevant
constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, and. judicial decisions.'
Elsewhere in the Act, the management program is required to include
" . . a description of the organizational structure proposed to
implement such management program, including the responsibilities
and interrelationships of local, areawide, state, regional and inter-
state agencies in the management process." The regulations for
Coastal Zone Management Program Development require that the
management program provide for one or a combination of the follow-
ihg three techniques for control of land and water uses in the
coastal zone:

--State establishment of criteria and standards for local implementa-
tion, subject to administrative review and enforcement of compliance.

--Direct state land and water use planning and regulation.

--State administrative review for consistency with the management
program of all development plans, projects, or land and water
use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto,
proposed by any state or local authority or private developer,
with power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an
opportunity for hearings.

a. Major Issues. The establishment of state authority and
organization of coastal zone management is one of the most
important aspects of the management program. Clearly, the
designation of permissible and priority uses and the identi-
fication of APC can be of little use without some means of
enforcement. OCZM takes an especially critical look at the
implementation mechanisms.

The CZM regulations note that "a fundamental purpose" of the
legislation is "to broaden the perspective by which decisions
affecting the coastal zone are made to incorporate a statewide
view. " But, while ultimate authority for managing the program

rests with the state, the regulations make equally clear that
coastal zone management is to be a partnership effort --
including local and regional governments. The Act requires
that: "local governments and other interested public and
private parties must have an opportunity for full participation
in the development of the program; the State has cooperated
with local, areawide, and interstate plans; and the D-Li-ate has
established an effective mechanism for continuing consultation
and coordination with local governments and other unites to
insure their full participation in carrying out the management
program. " In reviewing state authority to carry out the manage-
ment program, the regulations recommend that planners
address: (a) whether the existing powers and authorities of
state government are sufficient; (b) the new ones that would
be needed; and (c) whether a shared State-local or State-
regional consolidated regulatory system should be established.
In particular, state government should have the authority to
acquire land for public use when necessary, impose performance
standards to implement priority uses and APC provisions,
institute shoreline zoning to protect critical areas, and
control the placement of key facilities, such as power plants.

States have handled the issue of authority in various ways,
with two general patterns emerging. One of the legislative
approach in which major new enforcement authorities have
been enacted by the state legislature. Approximately one-
third of the states in the program have taken this approach.
In 1976, the California legislature, for example, enacted the
California Coastal Act, supplemented by laws establishing a
State Coastal Conservancy and a Coastal Parklands Acquisitions
Bond Act. The 1976 law creates a state Coastal Commission
which certifies local land use plans and regulations in coastal
areas. In many ways, the Calfironia law, one of the most
comprehensive state coastal laws in the nation, is a state's
mini-version of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

In the more typical approach states implement their coastal
zone program through a "network" of existing authorities and
agencies. Typically, the lead agency will execute a memo-

randum of understanding with other relevant state, local and
regional agencies to establish lines of responsibility in
implementing the program. Massachusetts has taken this
approach.

The ','network" form can create problems over jurisdiction and
lines of authority and is, in the -view of some observers, a
less strong approach. But i n many case-s it will he the only
possible mechanism politically. And- in some cases, such as
Massachusetts, existing state laws are already as stronger
than new authorities which would be enacted.

There are several approaches which a state can take to establish
an organizational structure. The CZM regulations require that
the lead agency have: "(a) authority to monitor the activities
of all State, local, areawide/regional or other entities in the
coastal zone and (b) appropriate access to the Governor." -
Some states (e.g. New Jersey and Connecticut) have established
11 super-agencies " which carry out all facets of the coastal
zone management program, as well as other environmental
programs in the state. A few states have established a
special agency solely for the purpose of administering the
coa,;tal zone management program. For example, South
Carolina has created the Coastal Zone Planning and Management
Council. The predominant pattern, however, has been to create
a less comprehensive organizational structure, often vested in
the State Planning Office. Some states, such as Wisconsin,
have proposed a statewide council with overall coordinating
functions to oversee the program. While such agencies usually
lack implementation authority, they help give the program
visibility and prestige vis-a-vis the rest of the state government.

b. Architect Involvement

--Become actively involved in the political process to insure
that the state program is as effective as possible. Remember
that the definition of "effectiveness" depends very much on
the political environment and the particular coastal issues
of a given state.

--Rally political allies and lobby both in the legislature and
in state agencies for strong state authority and organization.
Pay particularly close attention to budget and staff; access
to the governor; existing and proposed state laws to implement
the program; and the type of agency designated to administer
the program.

--Monitor the legislative calendar so that your presence can
be felt when there are key appropriation and legislative
decisions. If legislation is not adequate, then work to get
better laws passed.

--Review all proposed regulations issued by the state CZM
agency to make sure that they are effective and fair. Comment
on all proposed regulations so that state officials know that
AIA members have a concern with coastal matters.

--Make sure that the state CZM agency has developed an
adequate framework for decision making and public participa-
tion.

--Make sure that the CZM agency is working with other state,
federal and local officials with responsibility for coastal
activities. Be a catalyst to bring these officials together.

--If the state adopts a management framework where sub-
stantial decision making is delegated to local and regional
government see that there is adequate authority at the
state level to insure that statewide interests in the coastal
zone are addressed. If the program is such that the
majority of the decisions are made by the state agency, be
similarly concerned that local needs are addressed.

7. Access to Public Coastal Areas. Section 305 (b) (7) of the 1976
amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that
the management program include "a definition of the terms 'beach'
and a planning process for the protection of, and access to, public
beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental recreational,
historical, esthetic, ecological or cultural value." The regulations

for program development grants emphasize that access is to be
defined in both physical and visual terms.

a. MaLor Issues. The issue of access to public coastal areas
is closely tied to the designation of Areas of Particular Concern
(APC) discussed earlier and the protection or acquisition of
public rights to coastal lands should be construed in a
similarly broad fashion, according to the regulations. Never-
theless the intent of the public access provision in the 1976
amendments is to increase the supply of coastal areas for
water-oriented recreation activities. A recent publication by
the Office of Coastal Zone Management points out that shore-
line is a scarce commodity and is being further reduced almost
daily by numerous factors. This has serious ramifications for
recreation one of the primary and best suited uses for coastal
lands. Several state plans address this problem directly.
Policy 21 of the Massachusetts plan is to: "Improve public
access to coastal recreation facilities and alleviate auto
traffic and parking problems through improvements in public
transportation" and Policy 26 reads: "Acquire and develop new
public areas and facilities for coastal recreational activities.
Give highest priority to new acquisitions in regions of high
need and where site availability is now limited. Assure that
both transportation access and the recr,eational facility is
compatible with social and environmental characteristics of
the surrounding community (ie s).

The coastal zone management regulations emphasize that
while access should primarily be defined in physical terms,
it also should be interpreted in "visual" terms: Visual access
may involve, but need not be limited to, viewpoints, setback
lines, building height restrictions and light requirements,"
according to the regulations. Visual access is an especially
important problem along highly urbanized arE!as of the coast.
In Orange and Los Angeles Counties along the southern
California coast, for example, roughly 20 miles of the 110
mile coastline have views blocked totally by structures.

In developing coastal access policies, states should take
into account existing facilities and sites, anticipated demand
of future use of such sites, and the capability of existing
areas to support increased access. The definition of beach
should be closely tied to the analysis of access and protection
needs and should include special features such as location,
fragility, origin and composition. Finally, any analysis of
coastal access should review ownership of beachland and
make provisions for public acquisition of especially threatened
or valued shoreland.

b. Architect Involvement

--Offer technical assistance to state officials in analyzing
coastal access problems. Make sure that the definition of
"access" includes not only physical but visual access.

--Propose innovative design examples that increase both
physical and visual access to coastal areas.

--Make sure that state plans include special consideration
for public access in urbanized coastal areas.

--Help identify coastal areas which should be identified as
Areas of Particular Concern (APCs) in terms of shorefront
access planning.

8. Erosion Mitigation. The 1976 amendments to the Coastal Zone
Management Act add a new requirement that the management program
include a planning process for ,(a) assessing the effects of shore-
line erosion (however caused), and (b) studying and evaluating ways
to control, or lessen the impact of, such erosion, and to restore
areas adversely affected by such erosion." In looking at erosion
problems, the regulations for program development plans emphasize
that states must consider the cause of the problem (manmade or
natural), existing and proposed state policies to deal with the
problem, and the most appropriate methods of regulation.

a Major Issues. Erosion is a serious coastal problem and its
causes are diverse. Some are the result of construction and
some are the result of natural processes. The OCZM regula-
tions emphasize that states will want to consider both physical
(e.g. rebuilding of worn away portions of the coastline) and
regulatory (e.g. land use or zoning controls) solutions to the
erosion problem. There are also instances where a policy of
noncontrol will be most appropriate, such as on barrier islands
where there is a substantial amount of erosion caused by
natural forces. The Michigan Coastal Zone 2VIanagement plan,
for example, includes a combination of structural and non-
structural controls for erosion control on Sites designated as
"areas of natural hazard to development. " I

The erosion control section of state management plans is
closely related to Areas of Particular Concern and use restrict-
ions. State efforts at erosion control should be part of a larger
strategy at hazard mitigation and should be related to other
state and federal programs, especially those designed to
control development in the flood plain.

b. Architect Involvement

--Work with state officials to identify erosion prone areas
which should be designated as APCs.

--Help determine the most effective sorts of measures
physical, regulatory, or none at all to help solve erosion
problems.

--If the state program includes performance criteri a, assist
in establishing special design considerations for building in
high rish erosion areas.

--Develop special design prototypes for construction and site
planning in erosion prone areas. Help publicize particularly
noteworthy designs.

--Make sure that state and local officials are working with
other governmental (e.g. federal) agencies with an involve-
ment in erosion control. Serve as a catalyst for bringing
such groups together.

9. Energy Facilities. The third new requirement for management plans
in the 1976 amendments requires 11 ... a planning process for energy
facilities likely to locate in, or which may significantly affect the
coastal zone, including but not limited to, a process for anticipating
and managing the impacts from such facilities." According to the
regulations for CZM program development grants, this process must
include: (1)'an identification of facilities likely to locate in or
signficantly affect the coastal zone; (2) a procedure for assessing
the suitability of such sites; (3) a discussion of state policies to
manage energy facilities and their impacts; (4) a mechanism for
coordinating state coastal policies for energy facility siting with
other relevant federal, state, local and regional programs; and
(5) an identification of legal and other techniques which can be
used to meet management needs.

a. Major Issues. The problem of energy facility planning touches
on all the major themes of the coastal zone management program.
As the regulations observe, "Essentially a balancing of national
interests between resource preservation and conservation, on
the one hand, and energy needs, on the other hand, must be
achieved in order to avoid arbitrary exclusions or restructions
of either interest." The regulations recommend one of three
possible approaches: (1) designation of specific sites in or
near the coastal zone for particular types of energy facilities;
(2) development of performance standards that certain types
of facilities would have to meet irrespective of their location;
or (3) adoption of performance standards for permitted facilities
with exclusion of specific types of facilities in selected coastal
locations. The choice of technique depends on the particular
coastal problems of a given state as well as the type of facility
likely to locate on or near the shore. Energy development is one
of the major issues confronting coastal zone management and is
discussed in more detail in a later section on the Coastal Energy
Impact Program.

b Architect Involvement

--Make sure that there is a balancing of environmental and
developmental objectives in siting decisions of energy
facilities. This is an area where these twin objectives of
the Act are often brought into sharp conflict.

--Carefully oversee proposed siting decisions to make sure
that all the options and impacts have been considered.

--Offer technical assistance in drawing up site plans.

C The Implementation Stage

The real test of whether coastal zone management will be effective or not
comes with the implementation of the plans themselves. At the point when
OCZM approves a state's management program, the plan ceases to be on
paper. It must be judged by its effectiveness.

The aspects of coastal zone management that we have discussed so far
have been concerned with process. During the implementation stage we
are concerned with substance. An OCZM official put it succinctly:
"Section 306 is where it counts and where the action is going to be. This
is where we'll make or break the program.

The law requires states to reevaluate their plans each year before the next
section 306 management grant will be approved. Each year's application
is subject to the A-95 review and comment process cited earlier. This is
an excellent opportunity for the public to "review" and "comment" on the
plan as well. For the most part, however, there are less formal opportu-
nities for public involvement during the implementation stage than in the
planning stages of the program. This makes it all the more important
for architects and others to monitor closely how the program is operating
and to press for ample opportunities for public discussion and public
input to ensure that the management plan meets the state's emerging
coastal needs.

The remainder of this section outlines the major areas of the law -- inter-
governmental relations and CEIP -- which are critical during the implementa-
tion stage. It also discusses some of the emerging issues such as hazard
control and coastal uses in urban areas which will, achieve greater importance
as states move beyond planning into true coastal zone management.

1. The Intergovernmental Structure: Federal Consistency, the National
Interest and Coordination

a. Federal Consistency. One of the most powerful incentives in the
Coastal Zone Management Program is the "federal consistency
provision" contained in Section 307. Section 307 (c) (1) of the law
states that "Each federal agency conducting or supporting activities
directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those
activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable,

consistent with approved state management programs. 11 Subpara-
graphs (2) and (3) of this section make similar requirements for
federal development projects and federal licenses and permits
respectively. The 1976 amendments to the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act extend the federal consistency requirements to include
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy exploration, development
and production. Specifically, federal agencies must "provide
State agencies with consistency determinations for all Federal
activities significantly affecting the coastal zone ... at the
earliest practicable time in the planning or reassessment of the
activity," according to the regulations for federal cons istency.

The federal consistency requirement is a major test of the effective-
ness of the cooperative intergovernmental structure on which much
of the CZM program is based. This provision of the law provides
unprecedented state oversight over federal programs , although it
is not a blank check by any means. For one thing, the Act states
that "The Secretary shall not approve the management program
submitted by a State pursuant to Section 306 unless the views of
Federal agencies principally affected by such programs have been
adequately considered."

In addition, states do not have an absolute veto over federal actions
which may be inconsistent with state plans. For example, federal
actions necessary to fulfill national security goals will be given
priority over state coastal zone management plans.. Whenever there
is a dispute under the federal consistency provisions of the Act,
the federal agency and the state officials responsible for coastal
zone management are directed to make every@ effort to mediate the
dispute. The final arbiter in irreconcilable differences is the
Secretary of Commerce and the Executive Office of the President
(Office of Management and Budget).

The regulations for Federal Consistency go to the core of the
challenges in this provision when they say: "Coordination implies
a high degree of cooperation and consultation among agencies , as
well as a mutual willingness on the part of the participants to
accommodate their activities to the needs of others in order to
carry out the public Interest. Perceptions of the public good will

differ and it is recognized that not all real or potential conflicts
can be resloved by this process. . . "

b. National and Regional Interest. Closely related to the consistency
requiremnet is the provision in the Act that state plans provide for
"adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the
siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other
than local in nature. (See Coastal Zone Management Approval Regulations,
Federal Regis er, Vol. 42, No. 167, 43572.)

This provision exemplified the "cooperative" intergovernmental
theme of the Act. The final regulations for Program Administrative
Grants emphasize that "the requirement should not be construed as
compelling the States to propose a program which accommodates
certain types of facilities, but to assure that such national concerns
are included at an early stage in the State's planning activities and
that such facilities not be arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably
restricted in the management program without good and sufficient
reasons. " In fulfilling the national interest provisions , state
management programs "should make reference to the views of
cognizant Federal agencies as to how these national needs may be
met in the coastal zone of that particular State." The regulations
emphasize that "No separate national interest 'test' need be
applied and submitted other than evidence that the listed national
interest facilities have been considered in a manner similar to all
other uses and that appropriate consultation with the Federal
agencies listed has been conducted. "

The Act also requires that the management program include a method
of "assuring that local land and water use regluations within the
coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water
uses of regional (intra-state) benefit. " States and local govern-
ments must also consider the needs of neighboring state coastal
regions. The importance of this type of interstate consultation,
the regulations point out, "cannot be over emphasized for it offers
the State the opportunity of resolving significant national problems
on a regional scale without Federal intervention.

c Coordination. Section 307 is subtitled "Interagency Coordination
and Cooperation," and while the federal consistency requirement
contained in this section has received the most attention, the
coordination of the federal coastal zone management program with
other federal programs is beginning to take place and deserves
encouragement. OCZM has executed interagency agreements with
the Environmental Protection Agency and HUD for cooperation under
the Section 208 Areawide Water Pollution Planning program and the
Section 701 comprehensive planning program respectively. Twin
executive orders issued by President Carter in May 1977 (EO 11988
on flood plains and EO 11990 on wetlands) require stricter controls
by federal agencies over activities in both types of critical area,
especially under HUD's Flood Insurance Program. This could have
major implications for hazard mitigation in coastal. areas. An
interagency agreement between OCZM and the Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service in the Department of the Interior holds promise
for urban coastal zone management.

State programs must also include provisions for meeting the require-
ments under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
and the Clean Air Act, as amended. Permitted uses for development
of industrial and residential complexes as well as new growth fueled
by energy exploration must be monitored closely by coastal planners
to ensure that they do not hamper attainment of national air and
water goals. OCZM clearly means for coordination to go beyond
cooperation with federal and state agencies. "One of the critical
aspects of the development of State coastal zone management
programs" the regulations say "will be the ability of the State to
deal fully with the network of public, quasi-public and private
bodies which can assist in the development process and which may
be significantly impacted by the implementation of the program. " I
The regulations include extensive provisions for consultation with
private interests, such as AIA components, as well as coordination
in the state.

d. Architect Involvement

--Make sure that state officials consult with all the important actors
on the coastal scene -- other federal agencies , other agencies in

your own state and neighboring states , local government officials
and private groups and individuals. Such communication is a
prerequisite for successful intergovernmental cooperation.

--Monitor federal activities in the coastal zone and make sure that
other state agencies with programs in coastal areas (e.g. the
State Department of Transportation) cooperate with the coastal
agency staff when federal programs are involved.

--Help state officials define the impact of facilities of "national
interest" and develop criteria for fair consideration of such
facilities within state coastal zone management areas.

--Identify waysthat OCZM cooperative agreements with other
federal agencies can benefit your particular state. Bring to-
gether officials at the state and federal level to discuss the
relevance of such agreements for your state. A Michigan Great
Lakes community, for example, commissioned a comprehensive
design plan for their urban waterfront under their CZM program.
Funding for the construction of the plan came from the Depart-
ment of the Interior through the Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service. Architects can help identify many such
resources to implement specific portions of state CZM plans.

2. Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP)

The most signficant of the 1976 amendments to the Coastal Zone
Management Act was the addition of Section 308, which creates the
Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP). CEIP, which was described
earlier in this report, provides funds for planning, public facilities
and repayment assistance, as well as grants for alleviating "unavoid-
able" loss or environmental resources from energy development in
coastal areas. The funding sources are the $800 million Coastal
Energy Impact Fund $1.3 billion in formula grants to specifically help
states mitigate the onshore impacts of our Continental Shelf (OCS)
activity and $25 million for state OCS administrative responsibilites.
To be eligible for CEIP, states must either be participating in the
coastal zone management program or be developing a program independ-
ently that meets the requirements of the federal program.

A major objective of the CEIP program is to strike a balance between two
competing national goals: development of domestic energy resources
and increased energy self-sufficiency; and protection and management
of the Nation's coasts "in a manner consistent with the coastal zone
management programs and objectives of the individual States over both
the short and long term . " . I
Planning grants under CEIP can be used for a broad range of purposes
including: The study of and planning for the economic, social or
environmental consequences of energy facilities; cost-benefit analyses
and other comparisions of alternate energy facility proposals; risk
management studies; development of strategies for the public acquisition
of land or enforcement of other land use controls; and definition of
strategies for protecting recreational or environmental resources, among
other things. The territory of Guam, for example, has submitted a
proposal to use CEIP planning funds for compilation, summary and
distribution of data for use by Guam planners; development of mechanisms
for public, private and governmental agency input and review of energy
determination; analysis of project effects and impact of conventional
energy development over the next 10-20 years; assessment of the effects
and impact of alternative sources of energy proposed for Guam; and
review and analysis of superport proposals for Guam.

Formula grants can be used for public facilities and services related to
education, environmental protection, government administration, health
care, public safety, recreation, transportation and public utilities . The
need for these facilities must be directly related to OCIS activity. La
Fourche Parish in Louisiana submitted a CEIP proposal for purchase of
hospital equipment for a health facility whose patients are predominately
the employees or families of employees working for energy or related
industries in the Gulf of Mexico. Another provision of CEIP would help
a community such as LaFourche Parish repay a CEIP loan for expansion
or construction of a facility, such as a hospital if the increase to the
community's tax base did not materialize as expected from coastal
energy activity.

All of these types of CEIP assistance are aimed at mitigating economic
and social impacts of energy activity. Formula Grant funds are also used

to address the problem of environmental or recreational losses as a
result of energy development. The CEIP regulations define "unavoid-
able" as:

that part of damage to or loss of an environmental or
recreational resource resulting from coastal energy
activity or from the public facilities associated there-
with that either:

(1) cannot be attributed to any identifiable person or
persons; or

(2) cannot be prevented, reduced, or ameliorated by
assessment of the loss against an identifiable person
or persons through the reasonable implementation or
enforcement of the existing regulatory authDrity of
the State or of any political subdivision of the State
and

(3) cannot be paid for with funds that are available
from any other Federal program.

Such grarL's can be used to acquire beachfront, enforce environmental
standards on energy facilities, and develop controls to reduce "unavoid-
able" losses. St. Bernard Parish in Louisiana received a grant under
this section of CEIP to construct a freshwater diversion structure to
prevent further deterioration of wetlands from saltwater intrusion as a
result of previous dredging and construction of oil and gas pipelines.

OCZM requires that decision making for the use of CEIP funds be shared
by local and state officials. OCZM allocates the funds to the states
according to a set of complex formulas, based on population, need and
OCS development, among other things. Each state. must develop an
allocation process which includes the following e lements:

--participation of state agencies and local govern-
ments in establishing the allocation process.

--a "needs priority method."

--a project evaluation and selection method.

In addition to distributing funds to local governments for CEIP projects,
states can also sponsor projects of their own. The state's process for
ranking projects and distributing funds will be reviewed by OCZM before
any funds are released under CEIP. Local governments can appeal first
to the state CZM agency and then to OCZM if they feel the state did not
follow its distribution process fairly. OCZM will only consider appeals
about the process itself, however, not the amount of assistance provided.
States with larger allocations must also have programs for public informa-
tion about the CEIP program.

a. Major Issues. Offshore energy exploration has both positive and
negative ramifications for coastal communities. Experience in
Scotland and Louisiana suggests that sound planning in advance
of offshore drilling can help mitigate the most serious negative
impacts. Such early preparedness is one of the main thrusts of
CEIP.

Communities must be prepared to plan for facilities legitimately
needed to accommodate energy exploration and to say "no" to
facilities which might just as well be located elsewhere, for
example, storage or refining installations should more appropriately
be located inland.

While much of the CEIP money will be used in developed areas, a
large preponderance of OCS activity is taking place! off the coast
of rural communities. The introduction of rapid development and
demand for services caused by oil and gas exploration may impose
a burden that such areas are in no way able to handle without care-
ful advance preparation. Urban areas, too, will be affected by off
coast energy development, often taxing already overloaded services
or harming precious coastal amenities. Citizens in Jersey City,
New Jersey, for example, rallied to oppose the construction of a
deepwater terminal because they did not want their water front area
permanently converted to industrial use.

Another important issue which must be faced by coastal planners is
the impact of energy development after the oil and gas fields are
depleted. The boom from OCS activity is of finite duration. Growth
patterns which emergy during the exploration and development stages
will have to be flexible enough to accommodate and readjust to
community needs once the boom has abated.

b. Architect Involvement

--Become actively involved at the local level in helping communities
set priorities for CEIP use.

--Monitor the state distribution process to insure that funds are
distributed fairly and rationally.

--Help your local government (or when appropriate state agency)
prepare the assessment date for CEIP proposals. If OCZM
determines the potential impacts to be significant, then an
environmental impact statement must be prepared. This affords
a further opportunity for public review of the proposal.

--Monitor the A-95 review process to make sure that all the relevant
publics have taken advantage of their opportunity to comment on
CEIP proposals.

--Provide technical assistance on preparation of site plans and
design proposals for related services, such as housing develop-
ments and shopping center. New residential areas might best
be planned in a cluster design. Propose some prototype design
examples to your community.

3. Emerging Issues in Coastal Zone Management

There are many challenges ahead as more states enter the implementation
phase of coastal zone management.

Among the most important of these for AIA members are hazard manage-
ment and erosion control, urban coastal uses and preserving the important
visual and aesthetic qualities of the coast through advocacy of better
design. These issues are discussed below.

a Hazard Management. There are many natural hazards which threaten
the coast --hurricanes, floods, erosion, landslides, earthquakes,
land subsidence, and in some areas tsunami and volcanic eruptions.
More than six million people now live in hurricane prone locations
along the coast and these areas are growing at a rate of three to
four percent above the national average. About one-third of the nation's
shoreline (excluding Alaska) is subject to "significant erosion@'
and the erosion problem is considered "critical" along, 2,700
miles of the coast, according to the United States Corps of Engineers.
Property damage from erosion amounts to $300 million a year, accord-
ing to some estimates.

Coastal areas have natural defenses against many of these threats.
Barrier island and dunes, for example, form a front line against
severe ocean storms. Erosion, too, can be a necessary natural
process, for some parts of the shore. Construction in coastal areas
often tampers with these natural bulwarks or processes making the
coast dangerously hazard prone. While the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act focuses specifically on the problem of erosion, attention
to other coastal hazards is left to the discretion of state coastal
plans.

Most states do include some measure of hazard mitigation in their
plans. The Michigan management plan,for example, regulates
development in flood plains and erosion prone areas. Most states
have adopted statutes related to hazard control, especially erosiont
but, as a recent OCZM report observes, "no state has thus far
explored and tested the whole range of legislative and administrative
measures available for managing hazards along its coast. 11

There is much work also to be done at the federal level, although
the basic framework for hazard control is beginning to emergy. Under
the Coastal Zone Management Act, states must carry out a planning
and management process for coastal areas, including the designation
of permissible and priority uses, areas of particular concern, as
well as specific erosion control measures. The National Flood
Insurance Administration within HUD, provides minimum management
standards for areas subject to flooding and erosion. While the CZM
program works through the states, the NFIP deals with 1 ocal

communities directly by providing flood insurance to structures in
communities which have met the flood plain management provision
of the program. Needless to say, a substantial number of 16,000
flood prone communities in the NFIP are in coastal areas. Finally,
Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 require federal agencies to carry
out wise use of flood plains and wetlands respectively as a result
of federal programs and actions.

There is currently little explicit relationship between these programs,
but AIA members could lobby at both the federal and state level to
gain greater cooperation between local flood plain management efforts
and state coastal management. Architects can also monitor their
state coastal program to make sure that hazard mitigation is one of
the factors considered when APCs and priority uses are designated
in the state coastal region.

As much as anything else, however, architects can use the moral
suasion of good design and the knowledge of where and where not
to build in hazard prone areas. Architects can help states develop
design considerations for construction in high risk erosion and
other hazard areas and beyond this, set the best example possible,
through their own building and siting plans.

b. Urban Waterfronts. While much attention in coastal zone manage-
ment is focused on natural areas and fragile lands, a large portion
of our coast is not beachfront at all -- it is urban waterfront. In
a different way, the urban waterfront is also a threatened part of
our coast. It is also a portion of our shore that offers marvelous
opportunities both for urban revitalization and for providing recreational
access to city residents. Too often these are missed opportunities.

Cities are beginning to take pride in their waterfronts and are
realizing that they are a vital resource in the urban fabric -- one
that attracts new residents and tourists and enhances the tax base.
Philadelphia and Baltimore have turned their harbor areas into
thriving city neighborhoods. One of San Francisco's most important
tourist attractions is Fisherman's Wharf. on a smaller scale, St.
Ignace, Michigan has developed a public promenade along its
waterfront and Kenosha Wisconsin has improved beach access.

There is no explicit reference in the Coastal Zone Management Act
to specific planning considerations for urban areas, and, while many
aspects of state coastal zone plans touch on urban coasts , very few
have afticulated specific policies in this area.

Architects have to look beyond the bounds of the CZ1\A program for
many of the most promising resources for urban coastal development.
The Community Development Block Grant program of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development is an excellent source of funds
for getting many urban coastal designs built. Bridgeport, Connecticut
has used such funds for extensive redevelopment along its waterfront.
Another promising source is the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service (HCRS) within the Department of the Interior . OCZM has a
memorandum of understanding with HCRS to support matching grants
for access to publicly held areas along the coast. HCRS funds are
especially targeted toward expanding urban coastal recreational
opportunities. Local zoning, land use, and tax incentives can also
spur urban coastal development.

The local master plan could designate land for uses appropriate for
water related development. Architects could also help local
communities identify historic properties , many of which are located
along the i,7aterfront. When appropriate, cities could designate such
areas as historic districts and identify sites and areas for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places. This opens up oppor--
tunities for, federal rehabilitation loans and grants f or historic
structures , and can be the starting point for more general neighbor-
hood revitalization along the waterfront. The Massachusetts CZM
plan includes a policy to promote historic preservation in coastal
areas: "Review developments proposed near designated or registered
historic districts or sites to insure that Federal and State actions and
private actions requiring a State permit respect their, preservation
intent and minimize potential adverse impacts. Encourage use of
local zoning, land use controls and tax incentives to improve visual
access and the compatibility of proposed development with existing
community character. " I

Finally, architects can look to themselves to be the leaders for
designs of excellence in urban areas.

One such example is "Portobello" a mixed-use complex built on a
28.2 acre site owned by the Santa Fe Railroad on the Oakland water-
front. Phase I of the complex includes 2 00 apartment units , 2 0, 000
square feet of office space and 8,000 square feet of retail space,
a 50-berth marina, and 350 parking spaces. Its treatment of the
waterfront is especially noteworthy and includes decking over the
water and landscaped banks. A system of pedestrian walkways and
bike paths will link the complex with two nearby parks. As required
by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a 100-foot
strip of property has been dedicated as permanent open space, making
the entire waterfront open to the public.

Another noteworthy project is Camden Harbor, a 17 acre urban park
along the Camden, New Jersey waterfront. The objective of the plan
is to create a major urban recreational space against the backdrop
of the Philadelphia Skyline with the hope that it will serve as a
catalyst for further redevelopment on either side. The first stage
will include a promenade, a riverfront stage, and a Ferry and Rail-
road Museum. The second phase will include a 50-150 slip marina
and harbor for public use, a 1,300 seat restaurant overlooking the
harbor and a 560-space parking facility. A lighthouse will serve
as the focal point for visitors.

c. Enhancing the Visual Resource of the Coast. One of the reasons the
coast holds a lure is because of its visual and aesthetic value.
Defining visual quality is difficult but it is clearly an important role
for the design professional. Some of the more obvious aesthetic
resources will be the natural views -- of offshore islands, of dunes ,
and of inlets -- which characterize the shore. Many coastal areas
are also the location of important historical sites and more current
man made aesthetic resources, such as recreational development
and marinas, can add to our aesthetic appreciation of the shore.
A special challenge to the visual resources of the shore is posed by
urban coastal development.

While the Coastal Zone Management Act recognizes the importance
of the visual assets of the coast, most coastal planning and manage-
ment efforts have made only the most preliminary efforts at preserving
and enhancing the aesthetic quality of the coast.

The Act and its regulations do not make design factors an explicit
requirement in coastal zone management plans , nor do most state
plans include requirements for explicit design considerations. The
Massachusetts management plan is noteworthy and unusual in
including a policy to "encourage incoporation of visual concern into
the early states of the planning and design of all facilities proposed
for siting in the coastal zone.

Good design of coastal development is an excellent: example of
where the two seemingly contradictory objectives of development
and preservation can both be met. Throughout this report we have
made a major contribution to better design along the coast by
encouraging environmentally sensitive development. Architects
in short, are in an excellent position to advance the primary goals
of the Coastal Zone Management Act through what they do best
design.

CONCLUSION

Coastal Zone Managemerit is a complex program, but one which is critically
important to the architectural profession. The outcome of coastal zone manage-
ment can determine the future of design and building, and the circumstances
under which it will take place, for years to come in coastal areas.

In their position paper on coastal zone management, the Virginia Society of
the AIA said:

The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program
has broad implications with respect to future statewide
land use policy development. Such issues as the
extent of property rights , the role of various levels
of government and citizens in land-use decisions,
and the balance between economics versus ecological
considerations are being tested by the coastal program
proces s .

AIA components can and should become involved in coastal zone management.
Through the opportunities for public participation discussed in this paper, and
their advocacy of better design, architects can play an important and positive
role in the future of our coasts.

APPENDIX I AIA POLICY ON THE COAST

The American Institute of Architects -has issued several policy statements which
deal with coastal issues, both directly and indirectly. A 1975 policy statement
by the AIA asserts -

The coastal zone of the TInited States is one of our greatest
resources , capable of providing food, energy and many
economic and environmental benefits; it is also the scene
of our major resource-use conflicts. In this area are
concentrated the majority of man's activities, his
habitation, industry, recreation and wastes . The
Coastal Zone Management Act provides ways and means
for saving this priceless area of the United States ...

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act encourages
states , through grants and other incentives , to develop
and implement management programs for the wise use
of coastal land and water resources. While under-
scoring the importance of public local, regional and
federal participation, the act clearly places the planning
and management responsibilities squarely at the state
level...

The AIA through its local chapters should take an active
part in encouraging local municipalities , counties, etc.
to assist wherever possible', so that the maximum benefits
can be achieved for their area during the research and
management program. There most certainly will be a
confrontation occuring during the implementations of
this act, but an interested local chapter can help to
implement this extremely necessary environmental safe-
guard. The coastal zone should be for the benefit of all
citizens, not just for those seeking a quick profit...

Most states have enthusiastically accepted this program
even though it took two years to get minimum funding from
the Federal Administration, but now that it has started an
active part by local AIA components will help to insure
the proper protection of the coastal zone. . .

Other AIA policy statements also have relevance for coastal zone mangement.
Among the most important are the following-

A conservation strategy should be (1) designed to identify
and protect (a) fragile and/or unique natural areas or
topographical features (b) historical areas and building ...

A conservation strategy should be designed (4) similarly,
to conserve the land itself, an irreplaceable raw material,
by establishing a more rational system of design and
development...
Structure for a National Growth Policy, December 1973,

State governments should participate more directly in
planning and regulating the use of land, especially in
areas defined as 'critical' . . . I

Environmental controls and design standards should be
strengthened ...
A Plan for Urban Growth: Report of the National Policy
Task Force, January 1972

We believe that environmental considerations must be
integrated into planning and design processes ...

We urge that research, analysis, planning and design
efforts of interdisciplinary teams begin at the formulative
stage and continue in such a way as to make a maximum
contribution to orderly, creative processes of environ.-
mental design and public decision making ...
AIA Policy in Regard to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) January 1974

APPENDIX II: COASTAL STATE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM
PROGRAM MANAGERS AGENCY DESIGNATIONS

Alabama Alabama

Dr. Bruce Trickey R.C. "Red" Bamberg
Executive Director State Planning Director
Coastal Area Board Alabama Development Office
General Delivery State Capitol
Daphne, AL 36526 Montgomery, AL 36130
205/626-1880 205/832-6960

Contact:
Bruce Trickey

Alaska Alaska

Murray Walsh Ms. Lee McAnerney, Commissioner
Policy Develop. & Plan. Division Dept. of Comm. & Regional Affairs
Office of the Governor Pouch B, Room 213, Community Bldg.
Pouch AP Juneau, AK 99811
Juneau, AK 99801 907/465-4700
(via Seattle Op. 8-399-0150)
907/465-3474 Contact:
Doug Griffin, CEIP Coordinator
907/465-3918

California- California

Michael L. Fischer, Exec. Dir. Michael L. Fischer, Exec. Dir.
California Coastal Commission California Coastal Commission
631 Howard St. , 4th Floor 631 Howard St. 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco, CA 94105
415/391-6800
Contact:
Kevin Smith, CEIP Manager
same address as Fischer's

A-1

Contact, cont.
Ms. Carla Walecka
Office of Planning & Research
Governor's Office
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916/445-1114

Connecticut Connecticut

Art Rocque, Director Anthony V. Milano, Secretary
Coastal Area Mgmt. Program Office of Policy & Mgmt.
Dept. of Environmental Protection State Capitol - Room 308
71 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT 06115
Hartford, CT 06115 203/566-5294
203/566-7404
Contact:
Tom Fitzpatrick
Undersecretary for Planning
340 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 0611.5
203/566-4298

Delaware Delaware

DavidA. Hugg, III - Prog. Manager David A. Hugg,III -- Program Manager
Coastal Mgmt. Program State Planning Office
Office of Mgmt. , Budget & Planning Thomas Collins Bldg.
James Townsend Building 530 South Dupont Highway
Dover, DE 19901 Dover, DE 19901
302/678-4271 302/678-4271

Contact:
John Sherman
302/678-4271

A-2

Florida Florida

Dr. Ted LaRoe Wallace W. Henderson
Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning Assistant Secretary
Dept. of Environmental Regulation Dept. of Administration
Twin Towers Office Bldg. Room 530, Carlton Bldg.
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32304
Tallahassee, FL 32301 904/488-9290
9 04/4 88-8614 Contact:
Robert Weiss
Division of State Planning
(Director's Office)
Room 335, Carlton Bldg.
Tallahassee, FL 32304
904/4 88-1115

Wayne Voigt
904/4 88-1115

Georgia Georgia

Bob Reimold Gordan Carruth
Coastal Resources Program Planning Division
Dept. of Natural Resources Office of Planning & Budget
1200 Glynn Ave. 270 Washington St., S.W.
Brunswick, GA 31520 Room 613
912/264-4 771 Atlanta, GA 30334
4 04/65 6-3 919 -

Guam Guam

Robin Grove David Bonvourloir
Bureau of Planning Bureau of Planning
Government of Guam Government of Guam
P.O. Box 2950 P.O. Box 2950
Agana, Guam 96910 Agana, Guam 95910
(via Overseas Operator)
477-9502

A-3

Hawaii Hawaii

Dick Poirier Dick Poirier
Dept. of Planning & Economic Dev. Dept. of Planning & Economic Dev.
P.O. Box 2359 P.O. Box 2359
Honolulu, HI 96804 Honolulu, HI 96804
(via S.F. Op. 8-556-0220) 808/548-4609
808/548-4609

Illinois Illinois

Donna Christman Donna Christman
IL Coastal Zone Mgmt. Program 300 N. State St. , Room 1010
300 N. State St. , Room 1010 Chicago, IL 60610
Chicago, IL 60610 312/793-312 6
312/793-312 6

Indiana Indiana

Roland Mross - Director Roland Mross - Director
State Planning Services Agency State Planning Services Agency
143 W. Market St. , Harrison Bldg. 143 W. Market St. , Harrison Bldg.
Indianapolis, IN 42604 Indianapolis, IN 42EI04
317/633-4346 317/633-4346

Contact:
Russ Miller
317/633-4346

Louisiana Louisiana

Paul Templet George Fischer, Secretary
Coastal Resources Program Dept. of Trans. & DeV.
Dept. of Trans. & Dev. P.O. Box 4486
P.O. Box 44245, Capitol Station Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Baton Rouge, 1A 70804 504/389-2931
504/923-0765
Contact:
John E. Evanco
504/389-5425

A-4

Maine Maine

Esther Lacognata Alec Giffen
State Planning Office State Planning Office
Resource Planning Division Resource Planning Division
189 State St. 189 State St.
Augusta, ME 04333 Augusta, ME 04333
2 07/289-3155 2 07/2 89-3155

Contact:
Charles S. Colgau
207/289-3261

Northern Mariana Islands Mariana Islands

Martha McCart Pedro Tenorio
Office of Planning & Budget Affairs Office of Transition Studies & Plan.
Executive Office of the Governor P. 0. Box 9
Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950 Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950
(via Overseas Operator)
9457

Massachusetts Massachusetts

Eric Van Loon, Director Eric Van Loon, Director
Program Manager Coastal Zone Mgmt. Program
Executive Office of Env. Affairs Exec. Office of Env. Affairs
100 Cambridge St. 100 Cambridge St.
Boston,MA 02202 Boston, MA 02202
617/72 7-9530 617/72 7-9530

C onta ct:
Priscilla Newbury
617/72 7-953 0

A-5

Maryland Maryland

Suzanne Bayley Suzanne Bayley
Dept. of Natural Resources Dept. of Natural Resources
Energy & Coastal Zone Adm. Energy & Coastal Zone Adm.
Tawes State Office Bldg. Tawes State Office Bldg.
Annapolis, MD 21401 Annapolis, MD 21401
3 01/2 69-3382 3 01/269-3382

Contact:
Margaret R. Johnston
301/2 69-3382

Michigan Michigan

Chris Shafer Eugene B. Hedges, Director
Coastal Zone Mgmt. Program Energy Administration
Dept. of Natural Resources Dept. of Commerce
Division of Land Use Programs P.O. Box 30004
Stephens T. Mason Bldg. Lansing, MI 48909
Lansing, MI 48926 517/374-9090
517/373-1950
Contact:
John Trieloff
517/374-909 0
Minnesota
Roger Williams Minnesota
State Planning Agency Roger Williams
Capitol Square Bldg. State Planning Agency
550 Cedar St. , Room 100 Capitol Square Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55155 550 Cedar St. , Room 100
612/296-2633 St. Paul, MN 55155
612/296-2 884

A-6

Mississipp Mississipp

Jerry Mitchell J.E. Thomas
MS Marine Resources Council Executive Director
P.O. Drawer 959 MS Marine Resources Council
Long Beach, MS 39560 P.O. Drawer 959
601/864-4 602 Long Beach, MS 39560
601/864-4602

Contact:
Tim Wilson
601/863-04 00

Victor Frankiewicz
601/864-0261

Bill Cox

North Carolina North Carolina

Ken Stewart Dave Adams, Assistant Secretary
Dept. of Natural & Economic Res. Dept. of Natural & Economic Res.
Box 27687 Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611 Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-2293 919/829-4984

Contact:
Archie Beal
919/733-4918

A-7

New Jersey New Jersey

David Kinsey, Chief Joel R. Jacobson, Commissioner
Office of Coastal Zone Mgmt. NJ Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Environmental Protection 101 Commerce St.
P.O. Box 1889 Newark, NJ 07102
Trenton, NJ 08625 2 01/64 8-3410
609/292-8262
Contact:
Edward Linky

Phyllis Salvato-COle
2 01/64 8-343 0

New Hampshire New Hampshir

Larry Goss Larry Goss
Division of Regional Planning Division of Regional Planning
Office of Comprehensive Planning Office of Comprehensive Planning
26 Pleasant St. 26 Pleasant St.
Concord, NH 03301 Concord, NH 03301
603/2 71-215 5 603/2 71-215 5

Contact:
Mark Chittam
603/2 71-215 5

New York New York

Robert Hansen Robert Hansen
Coastal Mgmt. Unit Coastal Mgmt. Unit
Dept. of State Dept. of State
162 Washington Ave. 162 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12231 Albany, NY 12231
518/474-8834 518/4 74- 7210

Contact:
David E. Buerle
518/474-8834

A-8

Ohio Ohio

Bruce McPherson Robert S. Ryan, Director
Dept. of Natural Resources Ohio Dept. of Energy
Division of Water 30 E. Broad St. , 25th Floor
19 3 0 Belcher Dr., Fountain Square Columbus, OH 43215
Columbus, OH 43224
614/466-655 7 Contact:
David Zimmer
614/4 66-6715

Seavery Knight
614/4 66-6797

Peter Kochman
614/466-679 7

Oregon Oregon

Nancy Tuor Jim Ross
Land Conservation & Dev. Comm. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm.
1175 Court St., N.E. 1175 Court St., N. E.
Salem, OR 97310 Salem, OR 97310
503/378-4928 503/378-4926

Contact:
Neal L. Coenen

Jon Christ-ens.on
503/378-4926

Pennsylvani Pennsylvania

George E. Fogg, Chief A.L. Hydeman, Jr., Secretary
Division of Outdoor Recreation Penna. Dept. of Community Affairs
Dept. of Environmental Resources 216 S. Office Bldg.
Third & Reily Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120
P.O. Box 1467
Harrisburg, PA 17120
717/7 87-6674

A-9

Puerto Rico Puerto Rico

Frank A. Molther F. Sottero Harrington, Secretary
Dept. of Natural Resources Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 5887 P.O. Box 5887
Puerto de Tierra, Puerto Rico 00906 Puerta de Tierra, Puerto Rico 00906
809/724-8774 809/724-'8774

Frank Castellon
Office of Energy
P.O. Box 41089
Minillas Governmental Center
Santurce, Puerto Ricci 00940

Contact:
Luisa D. Cerar
202/232-6000

Carmen Farre
Office of Energy

Rhode Island Rhode Island

Dan Varin Dante Ionata, Director
Statewide Planning Program Mgmt. & Capability
Dept. of Administration Governor's Energy Office
265 Melrose St. 80 Dean St.
Providence, RI 02907 Providence , RI 02903
4 01/2 77-2 65 6 4 01/2 77-33-74

Contact:
Lee Whitaker/Roger Buck
State Energy Office
80 Dean St.
Providence, RI 02903
401/2 77-2 65 6

A-10

South Carolina South Carolina

Wayne Beam Mr. Joe Wickel, Director
Wildlife & Marine Resources Dept. Office of Community Dev.
1116 Bankers Trust Tower Edgar A. Brown Bldg.
Columbia, SC 29201 1205 Pendleton St.
803/758-8442 Columbia, SC 29201

Contact:
Ms. Ann C. Baker
Energy Impact Coordinator
Suite 205 - 4 Carriage Lane
Charleston, SC 29407
803/556-4070

Texas Texas

Ron Jones, Director Roy Hogan, Assistant Director
Texas Coastal Mgmt. Program Budget & Planning Office
General Land Office Office of the Governor
1700 N. Congress Ave. 411 W. 13th St.
Austin, TX 79711 Austin, TX 78701
512/472-7765 512/4 75-242 7

Contact:
John Gosdin
512/4 75- 2411

Virginia Virginia

Don W. Budlong Don W. Budlong
Office of Commerce & Resources Office of Commerce & Resources
5th Floor, Ninth St. Office Bldg. 5th Floor, Ninth St. Office Bldg.
Richmond, VA 23219 Richmond, VA 23219
804/786-7652 804/786-7652

Contact:
Larry Minock
804/786-7652

A-11

Virgin Islands Virgin Islands

Darlan Brin Darlan Brin
Virgin Islands Planning Office Virgin Islands Planning Office
P.O. Box 2606 P.O. Box 2606
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas
U.S. Virgin Islands 00801 U.S. Virgin Islands 00801
809/774-7859 809/774-172 6

Washington Washington

Rod Mack Rod Mack
Dept. of Ecology Dept. of Ecology
State of Washington State of Washington
Olympia, WA 98504 Olympia, WA 98504
206/753-6879 206/753-6879

Contact:
Mike Hambra
206/753-6886

Wisconsin Wisconsin

Al Miller Ms. Victoria Potter, Director
Office of State Planning & Energy Office of State Planning & Energy
One West Wilson St., B-130 One West Wilson St., B-130
Madison, WI 53702 Madison, WI 53702
608/266-3687 608/266-3682

Contact:
Ms. Theresa Danovich
Office of State Planning & Energy
One West Wilson St., Room 201
Madison, WI 53702
608/266-8022

Helen Ledin
608/266-6741

A-12

BCDC

Mike Wilmar
Bay Conservation & Dev. Comm.
30 Van Ness Ave. , Room 2011
San Francisco, CA 94102
415/557-3686

Also send state mailings to:

Jerry Kota s
Great Lakes Basin Comm.
P.O. Box 999
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
313/769-7431

Cornelia Potter
New England River Basin Comm.
53 State St.
Boston,MA 02109
617/223-6244

A-13

APPENDIX III MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGU LATIONS ON COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT

Statutes:

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583, 16 USC 1451)

The Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 (PL 94-370, 16 USC 1451)

Related statutes of importance:

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321)
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 USC 1251)
The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 USC 4001)
The Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 USC 1857)
The Marine, Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 USC
1431 and 33 USC 1401)
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470)
The Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 USC 1501)

Regulations:

Coastal Zone Management Development Grants (15 CFR 920)
Coastal Zone Management Program Administrative Grants (15 CFR 923)
Coastal Zone Management Program Approval Regulations (proposed)
(Federal Register, vol. 42, no. 167, August 29, 1977, 42552 et seq.)
Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs (15 CFR 930)
Coastal Energy Impact Program (interim-final regulations) (Federal Register,
vol. 42, no. 3, January 5, 1977, 1164 et seq.)
Coastal Zone Management Interstate Grants (15 CFR 932)
Marine Sanctuaries (15 CFR 922)
Monitor Marine Sanctuaries (15 CFR 924)
Estuarine Sanctuaries (proposed rule) F, Federal Register, vol. 42, no 175,
September 9, 1977, 45523 et seq ')
Outer Continential Shelf Development Grants, Coastal Zone Management
Program, (interim regulations) (Federal Register, vol. 40, no. 104,
May 29, 1975, 23275 et seq.)

APPENDIX IV FURTHER READING ON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

Further Reading on Coastal Zone Management

Conservation Foundation Letter, "The Coast is Not Clear for Energy Planning"
(February 1977) and "The Coasts are Awash with Disputes" (March 1977)
available from the Conservation Foundation, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW, Washington, D.C. 20036

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Natural Hazard Management in Coastal Areas, Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment (Washington, D.C. , November 1976)

Ditton, Robert B. and Stephens, Mark, Coastal Recreation: A Handbook for
Planners and Managers, Office of Coastal Zone Management (Washington,
D.C. , January 1976)

League of Women Voters Current Focus, "Coastal Zone Management Program"
(Pub. #572); "Energy and Our Coasts: The 1976 CZM Amendments" , (Pub #699);
"The Onshore Impact of Offshore Oil" , (Publ #661); all available from: League
of Women Voters of the United States, 1730 M Street, NW, Washington,
D.C. 20036

Roy Mann Associates, Inc. , "Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone" ,
Office of Coastal Zone Management, (Washington, D.C. , July 1976)

Natural Resources Defense Council, Who's Minding the Shore?: A Citizens'
Guide to Coastal Management, Office of Coastal Zone Management,
Washington, D.C. 1976)

Platt, Rutherford H. , "Coastal Hazards and National Policy: A jury-Rig
Approach" , journal of the American Institute of Planners , (April, 1978)

Simon, Anne W., The Thin Edge: Coast and Man in Crisis, Harper and Row,
(New York, 1978)

The Urban Land Institute, "The Economic Benefits of Coastal Zone Management:
An Overview", Office of Coastal Zone Management (Washington, D.C. ,
March 1976)

Urban Land Institute, Environmental Comment, "Coastal Zone 'Management"
(November 1976-entire issue); "OCS Development and its Onshore Impact"
(February 1978-entire issue). Available from: ULI-the Urban Land Institute,
1200 18th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036)

DATE DUE

GAYLORDINO. 2333 PRINTED IN USA

3 6 368 14105 8877