Final environmental impact statement, proposed coastal management program for the State of North Carolina

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

State of North Carolina
Coastal Management
Program and E O f
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management

.....
", :" "'!. :"'. . .' : .... .....

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

PROPOSED

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

FOR

* ~~~~~~~~~THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared by:

Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Department of Commerce
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

and

North Carolina Coastal Management
Program
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Archdale State Office Building
Raleigh, North Carolina

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Part I INTRODUCTION

NOTE TO READERS ......................... 1

SUMMARY: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT .......... 2

A. Description of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Program ................... 50
B. Cross Reference of Program Requirements, North
Carolin Program Document and Draft Environmental
Statement .................... 51
C. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Requirements ...................... 52
D. Program Summary of North Carolina's Coastal
Management Program ................... 53
E. Effects of Federal Approval on the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program ............... 59

Part II THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL PLAN ............... 61

CHAPTER ONE GENESIS OF COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ....... 63

Introduction ....................... 63
Enactment of the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act ..................... 64
The Coastal Resources Commission ............. 67
The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act ......... 67

CHAPTER TWO PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - AN HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE ................. 69

Introduction ....................... 69
The Planning Phase .................... 70
Preparation and Adoption of Local
Land Use Plans ................... 70
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) ........ 73
Preparation of the State Coastal Plan ........ 80

The Implementation Phase ................. 83
Implementation of Land Use Plans ...... . . 83
Permit Letting in AECs ................ 84
Permit Coordination .................. 86

iii

Public Participation/Intergovernmental
Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Public Information/Participation. . . . . . . . . .... 86
Additional Roles of Local Governments . . . . . . . ... 90
The Role of Regional Organizations. . . . . . . . . ... 90
Public Hearings ................... .. 91
Coordination with Other Planning
Programs and Activities ................ 99
State and Federal Agency
Involvement and Consultation. . . . . . . . . . .... 101
Summary ......................... 104

CHAPTER THREE THE FOCUS OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
IN NORTH CAROLINA. . . . . . . . . . . .... 105

Findings Concerning the Need for Coastal
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Specific Issues and Problems Concerning
Coastal Management in North Carolina . . . . . . . . .... 106

Growth Management Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 107
Key Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108
Conflicting Uses of Land. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 108
Residential and Second Home
Development in the Coastal Area . . ... . . . . . .. 108

Coastal Industry Issues ... . . . . . . . . . . ..... 109
Fishing and Seafood . . ................. 110
Agriculture and Forestry. . . . . . . . . . . ...... 111
Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 113
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 114

Transportation Issues ................... . 115
Highways, Roads, and Related Facilities . . . . . . ... 115
Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 116
Navigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Tourism and Recreational Resource Issues. . . . . . . . ... 118
Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 118
Tourism .................. . . . . . . . 119
Unique Cultural and Natural Resources . . . . . . . ... 120
Beach Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 120

Energy Issues ........................ 121
Energy Generating Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . .... 121
Petroleum Refineries. . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 122
Outer Continental Shelf ................ . 123

Environmental Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 124
Waste Disposal and Water Supplies . . . . . . . . .... 124
Development in Coastal Hazard Areas . . . . . . . .... 125
Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Dredging and Spoil Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . .... 127
Coastal Wetlands Preservation. . . . . . . . . . . .... 128
Protection of Unique Coastal
Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 129

Institutional Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 130
Public Participation .................. . 130
Local and State Government Cooperation . . . . . . . .. 131
Federal Consistency and National
Interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 131
Uses of Regional Benefit ................ . 132
State Agency Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 132
Permit Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 132

State Policies Concerning Coastal Management
in North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 133
General Goals, Objectives, and Policies. . . . . . . . . ... 133
Protection of the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . .... 133
Coastal Resource Management and
Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Policies Concerning Specific Issues
and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Growth Management Policies ................ 136
Key Facilities Policies . . . . . . . . . . . .. 137
Conflicting Uses of Land Residential,
Commercial, and Second Home Development ....... 138

Coastal Industry Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Fishing and Seafood . . . . . . . . . . ... 138
Agriculture and Forestry . . . . . . . . . . ... 140
Mining .................... 142
Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 143

Transportation Policies . . . . . . . . . . . .. 144
Highways ...................... 144
Ports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 146

Recreational and Tourism Resource Policies . . . . . . . . 147
Recreation ..................... 147
Tourism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 148
Unique Cultural and Natural Resources. . . . . . . . . 149
Beach Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 149

Energy Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Energy Generating Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 150
Petroleum Refineries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Outer Continental Shelf. . . . . . . . . . . . ... 151

Environmental Policies .................. 152
Water and Air. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Water Supplies and Waste Disposal . . . . . ... 153

Development in Coastal Hazard Areas. .........154
Drainage. ......................155
Dredging and Spoil Disposal. .............156
Wetlands Preservation. ................157
Protection of Unique Coastal
Environments. ...................159

Institutional Arrangements Policies. ...........160

Public Participation. ................160
Local and State Government
Cooperation. ....................160
Federal Consistency and
National Interests. ................161
Uses of Regional Benefit. ..............161
State Agency Consistency. ..............161
Permit Coordination. .................162

CHAPTER FOUR COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES. .............165

Direct and Significant Impact - Definition
of the Coastal Zone. ....................165
Coastal Management Within Areas of
Environmental Concern - The First Tier...........165
Management of Areas Outside AECs - The Second Tier. ....166

Boundaries. ........................168
Definition. .....................168
Alternative Definitions of the
Coastal Area Considered. ..............170
Interstate Legislation. ...............171
South Carolina. ................ . 171
Virginia. ....................172
Excluded Federal Lands. ...............172

CHAPTER FIVE AUTHORITIES FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT. ........173

Introduction - The Two-Tier Approach
and the Major Provisions of CAMA. ......173

The First Tier - Management of AECs. .............174
Introduction. .......................174
AEC Concept. .......................174
Relationship to Coastal Zone
Boundaries. ....................174
Advantages of AECs as a Resource
Management Tool. ..................174
Alternatives Available in Selecting
and Designating AECs. ...............174
Alternatives Considered. ...............177
Relationship of AEC Standards to
Priority of Uses. .................177

Areas of Environmental Concern -
Descriptions, Significance, and
Priority of Uses. ....................178

Estuarine System. ..................178

Significance of the System's
Approaches in Estuaries. ............178
AECs Within the Estuarine System. ........178
AEC Coastal Wetlands. ..............179
AEC Estuarine Waters. ..............179
AEC Public Trust Areas. .............180
AEC Estuarine Shorelines. ............180

Ocean Hazard Areas. ................. 183
AEC Ocean Beaches. ................183
AEC Frontal Dunes. ................184
AEC Inlet Lands. .................184
AEC Ocean Erodible Areas . ............185

Public Water Supplies. ................185

AEC Small Surface Water Supply
Watersheds. ..................185
AEC Public Water Supply Well
Fields. ....................191

Fragile Coastal Natural Resource Areas. ........191
Nomination of Sites. ,ut............191
AEC Coastal Areas that Susain
Remnant Species. ................195
AEC Coastal Complex Natural Areas. ........196
AEC Unique Coastal Geologic
Formations. ..................197

AEC Permitting. ......................198

The Major Development Permit Process. ........198
The Minor Development Permit Process. ........200
Monitoring and Conflict Resolution. .........201

The Second Tier - Management Outside of ABCs. .......202

Direct State Regulation of
Critical Activities ..................204

Description of Authorities. ...........204
Breadth of Authorities. .............204

Permissible Uses and Uses
Subject to Management. ...........206

is ~~~Scope of Authorities. ..............207

vii

Networking of Authorities. ..........208
CRC Policy-Making Authority
Concerning State Agencies'
Acquisition, Use and Dis-
position of Coastal Lands. .......208
The Executive order. ...........210

CRC Guidelines and Local Planning. ........220
Enforcement of Local Plans. .........222

C HAP TER SIX PROCESSES FOR ONGOING MANAGEMENT. .........225

Introduction. .........................225

Policy Development. ......................225
Amendment of the State Guidelines -
An Authority and Forum for Policy
Expression. .......................225
A Process for Coastal Policy Development. .........226

Land Use Planning. ......................227
Updating and Implementing Local Plans. ..........227
Land Use Plan Amendment. .................228

Coordination with Federal and State Programs. .........230
Federal Consistency. ...................230
State Consistency. ....................240
National Interest. ....................240
Continuing Consultation. .................246
Uses of Regional Benefit. .................247

Areas of Particular Concern. .................249
Introduction. .......................249
AEC Amendment Process. ..................250
Areas for Preservation and Restoration. ..........250

Research and Education. ....................254
Introduction. .......................254
Research and Technical Assistance Role
of Coastal Management (CM) Agency. ...........254
Research Sponsorship. ...................255
Coordination. .......................255
Program and Policy Development. ..............255

GLOSSARY. ............................258

Part III ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CHAPTER ONE DESCRIPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED. ..............266

viii

A. The Coastal Environment and Its
Boundaries. .......................266
B. Socto-Economic Setting. ..................267
C. Institutional Setting. ..................268

CHAPTER TWO PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. ...........270

Note: This contains the section on the
Relationship of the Proposed Action
to Land Use Plans, Policies, and
Controls for the Affected Areas. ............270

A. Regulation. ........................270
B. Policy Development and Implementation. ..........271
C. Consistency and Coordination. ...............274
D. Research and Inventory. ..................275

CHAPTER THREE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED
ACTION. ....................277

A. Introduction. .......................277
B. Federal Alternatives. ...................279

CHAPTER FOUR PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
THE PROGRAM WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED. ......286

CHAPTER FIVE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL
SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. ...........288

C HAP TER SIX IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT
WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED
ACTION, SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED. ........289

CHAPTER SEVEN CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
WITH OTHERS. ..................290

A. Past Involvement. .....................290
B. Direct Participation. ...................290
C. Future Coordination. ...................291

VOLUME II APPENDICES

APPENDIX A COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT, AS AMENDED .1.......

APPENDIX B STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL PLANNING. ..............31

STATE GUIDELINES FOR AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN. ......87

COASTAL COUNTY AEC MAPS. ....................127

APPENDIX C OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES. ....................129

APPENDIX D INTERGOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT/FEDERAL CONSULTATION/
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. .....................224

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA PLAN. ......................353

LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER'S TRAINING COURSE AGENDA. .........498

APPENDIX E EXCLUDWD FEDERAL LANDS. ....................502

APPENDIX F CRITERIA FOR LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT PLANS. .......................511

LISTS OF CHARTS:

Chart I Process for Developing Local Land Use Plans. ........74
Chart 2 Designating Areas of Environmental Concern
and Permit Letting. .....................81
Chart 3 Process for Developing an Implementation and
Enforcement Plan. ......................85
Chart 4 Permits for Developments within AECs. ............203
Chart 5 North Carolina Authorities Applicable to Critical
Use . ..................209
Chart 6 Major Commissions Affecting' Environ'mental
Quality in North Carolina. .................217
Chart 7 Permits to be Received by the North Carolina
Coastal Resources Commission. ................219

LIST OF FIGURES:

Figure I Coastal Zone. .......................164
Figure 2 First Tier - Areas of Environmental Concern. ........167
Figure 3 Abstract Map of Areas of Environmental Concern,
the Estuarine System and Ocean Hazard Areas. ........181
Figure 4 Areas of Environmental Concern-Estuarine System. ......182
Figure 5 Areas of Environmental Concern - Ocean Hazard Areas,
AEC - Ocean Beach. .....................186

Figure 6 Areas of Environmental Concern - Ocean Hazard Areas,
AEC - Frontal Dune ..................... 187
Figure 7 Areas of Environmental Concern - Ocean Hazard Areas,
AEC - Inlet Lands ......... 188
Figure 8 Areas of Environmental Concern - Ocean Hazard Areas,
AEC - Ocean Erodible Area ................ 189
Figure 9 Areas of Environmental Concern - Ocean Hazard Areas,
AEC - Significance of Ocean Erodible Area ......... 190
Figure 10 Areas of Environmental Concern - Public Water Supplies,
AEC - Small Surface Watersheds ............... 192
Figure 11 Areas of Environmental Concern - Public Water Supplies,
AEC - Public Water Supply Well Field ............ 193

ADDENDUM

APPENDIX B .1............................ I

APPENDIX D .............................. 5

APPENDIX E .............................. 58

APPENDIX F .............................. 65

NOTE TO READERS

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 mandates
that an environmental impact statement be prepared as part of the
review and approval process of major actions by Federal government
agencies which significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. It is the general policy of the Federal Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) to issue a combined final environ-
mental impact statement and program document.

Part I of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was
prepared by the Office of Coastal Zone Management. Included in
this section is a summary of North Carolina's Management Program
which State officials have accepted as an accurate summary of the
elements of the program that relate to the approval criteria in
the CZMA. Part II of the DEIS is a description of the State's
Coastal Management Program and was prepared by the State of North
Carolina. Part III fulfills the NEPA requirements for a DEIS and
was prepared by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, with some
assistance from the State of North Carolina.

The Federal action contemplated is approval of the North
Carolina Coastal Plan under Section 306 of the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended. An immediate
effect of approval is the qualification of the State for Federal
matching funds for use in administering the program. In addition,
the CZMA stipulates that Federal activities affecting the coastal
zone shall be, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with
an approved State management program.

For purposes of reviewing this proposed action, the key
questions are:

- whether the North Carolina program is consistent with
the objectives and policies of the national legislation;

- whether the award of Federal funds under Section 306 of
the Federal Act wil help North Carolina to meet those
objectives;

- whether the State management authorities are adequate to
implement the State program, and

- whether there will be a net environmental gain as a
result of program approval and implementation.

OCZM has made a preliminary assessment that the answers to
these questions are affirmative. OCZM wants the widest possible
circulation of this document to all interested agencies and
parties in order to receive the fullest expression of opinion on'
these questions. OCZM thanks those participating in the review of
the North Carolina Program and this final environmental impact
* ~~~~~statement.

SUMMARY i

( ) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(X Final Environmental Impact Statement

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, Office of Coastal Zone Management. For additional in-
formation about this proposed action or this statement, please
contact:

John Phillips Marion Cox
Regional Manager Assistant Regional Manager
South Atlantic Region South Atlantic Region

NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235
Phone: (202) 254-7494

Written comments should be addressed to:

Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Attention: John Phillips
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. (Room 330)
Washington, D.C. 20235

1. Type of Action

Proposed Federal approval of the North Carolina Coastal Plan

(X Administrative ()Legislative

2. Brief Description of Action

It is proposed that the Assistant Administrator approve the
Coastal Plan of the State of North Carolina pursuant to P.L.
92-583. Approval would permit implementation grants to be
awarded to the State, and require that Federal actions be
consistent with the program.

3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental
Effects

Approval and implementation of the program will allow the
State to better coordinate and more effectively implement
existing State authorities for management of its coastal
zone. The State will condition, restrict, or prohibit land
and water uses in some parts of the North Carolina coast,
while encouraging development in other parts. The impacts of
the North Carolina Coastal Plan will be generally beneficial,
although there may be some adverse, short-term economic
impacts on coastal users, and the program will entail irre-
versible commitment of some coastal resources. The North

Carolina Coastal Plan will produce positive and negative
impacts.

4. Alternatives Considered:

All alternatives would involve a decision by the Assistant
Administrator for Coastal Zone Management to delay or deny
approval of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Delay or denial of approval of the Program would most pro-
bably occur under the following conditions:

(1) If the areas subject to intensive management, called
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs), are not geo-
graphically broad enough.

(2) If the State's ability to insure State agency compliance
with coastal policies in areas outside of AECs is insuf-
ficient.

(3) If local governments are not obligated to enforce the
State-approved local land use plans.

5. List of all Federal, State, and local agencies and other
parties from which comments have been requested:

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of the Navy
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Air Force
Department of Energy
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of Housing and 'Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Economic Development Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
Marine Mammal Commission
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
U.S. Coast Guard

State and Regional Agencies and Local Governments
in North Carolina

* ~~~~~Chairman of the 20 Coastal County Commissions

Coastal Area Mayors of Cities and Towns involved in planning
and implementation under the N.C. Coastal Management
Program
Coastal City Managers
Coastal County Managers
Coastal County Economic Development Commissions
Coastal Councils of Government
Coastal Plains Regional Commission
Coastal Representatives to the State Legislature
Coastal Resources Advisory Council Members
Coastal Resources Commission Members
Coastal Soil and Water Conservation Commissions
Department of Administration
Chairman of Marine Science Council
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
Office of Marine Affairs
Office of Policy Development
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Chairman of Economic Development Commission
North Carolina State Ports Authority
North Carolina Utilities Commission
Department of Cultural Resources
Department of Human Resources
Department of Insurance
Department of Labor
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Assistant Secretary for Community Development
Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources
Division of Community Assistance
Division of Earth Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Land Policy Council
Office of Plans and Programs
Wildlife Resources Commission
Department of Transportation
North Carolina Secretary of State
North Carolina State University
Agricultural Extension Service
Sea Grant Program

State and Local Interest Groups

Association of County Commissioners
Audibon Society
Bath Historical Society
Cape Fear Technical Institute
Carolina Coastal Club
Carolina Power & Light Company
Carteret County Environmental Resources Commission
Carteret County Wildlife Club

Carteret Technical Institute
Coastal Carolina Community College
Coastal Chambers of Commerce
Coastal Plains Center for Marine Resources
College of the Albemarle
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Craven Community College
Duke University School of Environmental Management
Dunes of Dare Garden Club
East Carolina University School of Geology
Holden Beach Homeowners Association
Institute of Marine Sciences
League of Women Voters of North Carolina
Lower Cape Fear Historical Society
Marine Resources Center
Bogue Banks
Fort Fisher
Manteo
New Hanover Clean Water Association
North Carolina Farm Bureau
North Carolina Home Builders Association
Nortih Carolina Institute of Government
North Carolina League of Municipalities
North Carolina Petroleum Council
North Carolina Realtors Association
North Carolina State Grange
Pamlico - Beach Preservation Foundation
Pamlico Technical Institute
People to Preserve Jockey's Ridge, Inc.
Research Triangle Institute
Sierra Club: Cypress Group, Cape Fear Group, Research
Triangle Group
Southern Shores Civic Association
Texas Gulf, Inc.
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Planning
School
University of North Carolina - Wilmington School of Marine
Sciences
Water Resources Research Institute
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Weyerhaeuser Company

National Interest Groups

A.M.E.R.I.C.A.N.
AFL- CI0
American Association of Port Authorities
American Bar Association
American Bureau of Shipping
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Fisheries Society
American Forest Institute
American Gas Association

American Hotel and Motor Association
American Industrial Development Council0
American Institute of Architects
American Institute of Merchant Shipping
American Institute of Planners
American Littoral So'ciety
American Mining Congress
American Oceanic Organization
American Petroleum Institute
American Shore & Beach Preservation Associaton
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc.
American Society of Planning Officials
American Water Resources Association
American Waterways Operators
AMOCO
Ashland Oil, Inc.
Associated General Contractors of America
Association of Oil Pipe Lines
Atlantic Richfield Company
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Atomic Industrial Forum
Barrier Islands Coalition
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Natural Areas
Center for Urban Affairs
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.
Chevron, USA, Inc.
Cities Service Company
Coastal States Organization
Conservation Foundation
Continental Oil Company
Council of State Planning Agencies
The Cousteau Society
Earth Metabolic Design Lab., Inc.
Edison Electric Institute
El Paso Natural Gas Company
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Policy Center
EXXON Company, U.S.A.
Friends of the Earth
Getty Oil Company
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Great Lakes Tomorrow
Gulf Energy and Minerals, U. S.A!
Gulf Oil Company
Gulf Oil Corporation
Gulf Refining Company
Gulf South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation
Independent Petroleum Association of America
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of
America0

Institute for the Human Environment
Institute for Marine Studies
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Izaak Walton League
Lake Michigan Federation
League of Conservation Voters
League of Women Voters Education Fund
Marathon Oil Company
Marine Technology Society
Massachusetts Petroleum Council
Mobil Exploration & Producing, Inc.
Mobil Oil Corporation
Murphy Oil Company
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Counties
National Association of Dredging Contractors
National Association of Electric Companies
National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of Realtors
National Association of Regional Councils
Natidnal Association of State Boating Law Administrators
National Association of State Park Directors
National Audubon Society
National Boating Federation
National Canners Association
National Coalition for Marine Conservation
National Commission on Marine Policy
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Environmental Development Association
National Farmers Union
National Federation of Fishermen
National Fisheries Institute
National Forest Products Association
National Governors Association
National League of Cities
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Petroleum Council
National Petroleum Refiners Association
National Realty Commission
National Recreation and Park Association
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
National Science Teachers Association
National Shrimp Congress
National Society of Professional Engineers
National Wildlife Federation
National Waterways Conference
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Naturel Conservancy
Nautilus Press
New England River Basin Commission
* ~~~~~~North Atlantic Ports Association

Outboard Marine Corporation
Resources for the Future
Rice University Center for Community Design and Development
Shell Oil Company
Shellfish Institute of North America
Shipbuilders Council of America
Sierra Club
Skelly Oil Company
Society of Industrial Realtors
Society of Real Estate Appraisers
Soil Conservation Society of America
Southern California Gas Company
Sport Fishing Institute
Standard Oil Company of California
Standard Oil Company of Ohio
Sun Company, Inc.
Tenneco Oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
U.S. Power Squadrons
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Water Pollution Control Federation
Water Transport Association
Western Oil and Gas Association
Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Society
World Dredging Association

6. This Final Environmental Impact Statement will be filed with
the Environmental Protection Agency during the month of
August 1978. Public comments should be submitted to the
Office of Coastal Zone Management within 30 days after this
document is delivered to the Environmental Protection Agency.
DEIS Comments/Responses

Editorial Changes: Editorial corrections have been incor-
porated into the program document and have not been individually
addressed in the comment and response columns. Where suggested
editorial changes are themselves incorrect, no response has been
recorded.

All written comments received have been reproduced in their
entirety in an attachment to the document. The following comments
represent only a summary of the major substantive points raised
.concerning the State's program. The responses to each comment
represent a complete and full statement of OCZM's position on the
particular point raised.

Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture
Soil conservation Service Soil Conservation Service
"Davis) ( 5/18/78) (Davis) (5/18/78)

Comments Responses

1. The State policy regarding forest lands 1. No response necessary.
satisfies our major concern of keeping forestry
a viable sector of the economy and providing for
nontimber values to the public 'pages 104, 105,
and 220).

2. The physical description of the Areas of 2. Please refer to "description of
Environmental Concern ',AEC) is well done. environment affected" in Part III,
A description of the second tier portion of the Chapter One of the FEIS.
management zone would also be very useful.

3. Pages 69-71, Agriculture and Forestry. Most 3. Please note changes to the text of
of this discussion is about agriculture. We sug- the program document on those pages
gest including information about the role of for- specified in your comment.
estry in the economy as was done for agriculture
in the second paragraph. The Division of Forest
Resources, Department of Natural Resources, and
Economic Resources should have appropriate
material.

4. Chapter 4. A two-tier system is developed to 4. The AEC designation process as well
manage desired levels of control: First Tier--AEC; as the priority of use listing are the
and Second Tier--significant impacts outside the result of a long and detailed rdsearch
ABC. In our opinion, AEC's criteria are not strin- and subsequent public hearing process
gent enough and priority of use is not restrictive throughout the State. North Carolina
enough. feels that the criteria for designation
of ABCs best meet the needs of their
State and their public hearings confirm
this. OCZM believes that both the cri-
teria for designation and the priority
of use within these areas fully meet the
requirements of the FCZMA. Also please
refer to response #2 under the Depart-
ment of Interior comment section.

5. Page 151, Inlet Lands. Figure 7 shows lands 5. The predictability of erosion rates in
that have eroded during the past 25 years or that inlet areas is so difficult that longer
are predicted to erode in the future ( implied 25 range projection would not be useful.
years). We suggest that 25 years is a very short Revisions are being made, however, to these
time; consideration should be given to including 25-year predictions. Please see p.184. for
a larger area. We question the advisability of any revisions regarding priority of use for
priority "to major public facilities." planning and management purposes in "Inlet
Lands".
6. Page 157, Ocean Erodible Areas. How does the
landward distance of probable erosion resulting 6. Landward distance of probable erosion
from a storm surge of a 25-year frequency compare rates does not correspond with FIA flood pro-
with Federal Insurance Administration's 100-year jections. They are two different subjects that
frequency regulation? Since these lands are are not comparable. North Carolina feels that
extremely dynamic, should structures ever be the State has a responsibility to limit public
considered in these hazardous areas? investment in these areas and that their
responsibility regarding private development
is limited to public education and information
regarding potential risks.

Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service Soil Conservation Service
(Davis) ( 5/18/78) Davis) 'l 5/18/78)

Comments Responses

7. Page 144, Coastal Wetlands. Perhaps word 7. North Carolina recognizes the con-
selection makes possible uses seem less re- cerns expressed by this comment. While
strictive than we think desirable. The items these Items will continue to be listed
listed under lowest priority should he as uses of lowest priority, the State
allowed only in very rare instances. (404 expects that such usef a) of coastal
permits already do this on coastal wetlands.) wetlands will rarely, if ever, occur.

8. Page 150, Ocean Beaches. It is difficult B . Neither CAMA nor FCZMA requires an
to imagine granting permits for any construction outright prohibition of such structures
of permanent or substantial structures (other on ocean beaches; however, North Carolina
than fishing pier, marina, etc.) on ocean considers use of ocean beaches for such
beaches.* construction highly improbable.

9. Page 158, Public Water Supply Well Fields. 9. North Carolina considers ground-water
Clarify how there would be a "significant loss (quantity and quality) to be a significant
of public resources." Would the aquifer be public resource and leaving this resource
lost by depletion, salt water intrusion, or unprotected would most likely result in
some other way? degradation of water quality.

10. Page 168, The Application. "The standards 10. This statement was poorly written
for AEC's are rather general" gives reason and does not convey the meaning intended,
for concern. which is to explain our intent to use, for
the CAIMA application, a relatively simple
application form that is presently also
used for several other permits in coastal
North Carolina. This approach will furthe r
permit coordination and simplification for
coastal citizens and should in no way effect
our ability to ultimately gather adequate
information for a decision as each project
demands. Please note changes to the text
on the page specified in your comment.

Department of the Army Department of the Army
(Wilson) ( 5/26/78) (Wilson) ( 5126/78)

Comments Responses

1. The North Carolina Coastal Management 1. OCZM recognized some confusion might
Program appears to suffer from many of the have existed in the original program docu-
ptoblems common to networking. The policies, ment and the Program Summary was written
authorities and general management strategy to more clearly explain the management
are difficult to comprehend and are likely concept. Please refer to this Program
to be difficult to implement. Many aspects Summary in Part I, Section D of the FEIS.
of the program are discussed in the context OCZM believes this fully explains linkages
of the state program, but fall short, leaving between the State and Federal program as
the linkages to the Federal program and re- well.
quirements vague or confusing.

2. Permits. 2. a. The State Department of Natural
a. P. 167. The program states that the Resources and Community Development will act
AEC permit authority will be shared by the as the single designated State agency pursuant
CRC and locals. However, if these permits to our regulations. In addition, any local per-
are intended to be synonymous with consist- mitting in AECs is reviewed for consistency by
ency certifications, 15 CFR 930.18 states the State.
that a single state agency must be designated
to receive and act on consistency determina-
tions.

b. P. 173. Chart 4. The permit flow b. This comment does not reflect a full
sheet should be revised to indicate how it understanding of this flow chart. This flow
interfaces with Federal permits. The pur- chart is intended to summarize the procedure
pose of this coastal management program is to for getting a CAMiA permit only. From this,
implement the federal coastal zone management Federal agencies and applicants are informed as
act. It is therefore essential to link the to how they can participate in the permitting
established state mechanisms to Federal pro- process. The Consistency Section is intended
cedures.* to more fully describe how the State level and
Federal permitting systems interface. Please
note revisions to the Consistency Section.

3. Consistency. 3. a. Please note all revisions made to the
a. Consistency requirements and respon- Federal Consistency Section of Part II,
sibilities are not described with sufficient Chapter 6, FEIS.
specificity. The procedures and requirements
for development projects and activities
differ considerably from the requirements per-
taining to licenses and permits. These should
be separately addressed in the program according
to the statutory requirements of CZMIA, Section
307 and the regulations developed pursuant to
that section.

b. P. 212. The program states "The state b. Refer to comment response #Z a) above
contact point for applicants may be the Office "Department of Army).
of Coastal Management, DNRCD, if parallel state
permits do not exist or it may parallel the
subject Federal permit." We refer to 15 CFR
930.18(a) requiring the designation of a single
agency for receiving and reviewing consistency
certifications. This must be accomplished prior
to program approval.

Department of the Army Department of the Army
(Wilson) (5/26/78) (Wilson) (5/26178)

Comments Responses

c. P. 213. In the case of Federal develop- c. Please refer to the revised Consistency
ment projects or activities, the Federal agency Section.
makes the final determination. In cases of
assistance programs or licenses and permits, the
State has final authority. The discussion of con-
flict resolution does not distinguish between
these requirements.

4. National Interest. It is not clear from the 4. National Interest
program document that national interest has been
or will be adequately considered.

a. Local land use plans - These plans
should eventually address perceived needs of a. We agree. These plans should be updated
local interests for Federal navigation, flood to reflect these interests during the "Local
control and hurricane and beach erosion con- Planning Guideline" review as mandated by CAMA.
trol projects. To date, local land use plans The Department of the Army should take an active
do not address existing Federal projects and role in the "Guideline" review and modification
their need for maintenance. Therefore, during process to assure that your interests are in-
the land use plan update and amendment process, corporated in these guidelines for land use plan
local planning agencies should be encouraged to preparation.
include an evaluation of Federal projects for
which they or the State are local sponsors, as
well as to consider future needs in these areas.

b. AECs. North Carolina has developed the b. OCZM believes that the State program has
AEC in response to the CZMA element--areas of dealt adequately with economic development needs
particular concern. However, these special through other aspects of the program including
management areas have been developed from a the National Interest section in which Ports,
strictly environmental perspective to the detri- Transportation and Navigation are listed as
ment of economic development needs. In cate- national interest activities. The State need not
gories where facility development would be develop an AEC category for facility development
appropriate, construction is considered a in order to meet our requirements. Note NRDC
secondary, never a primary, purpose. This response 09.
imbalance is of concern as it relates to the
national interest area of transporation, ports
and navigation. We strongly recommend that port
and related economic development zones be con-
sidered for inclusion in the coastal management
program.

5. Second Tier Management (p. 174-175). Second 5. Consistency is based on enforceable state
tier management encompasses two approaches: direct policies; local land use plans will apply to
state regulation and local land use plans. The critical uses and to Federal agency public in-
document states that it will be a local responsi- vestment decisions. See revised consistency
bility to flesh out the framework and implement discussion in Part II, Chapter 6 of the FEIS.
the plan. However, the CRC does not have the
authority to require local governments to imple-
ment local plans. Therefore, no basis exists for
requiring Federal consistency with these same
programs. The Corps will make consistency deter-
minations on the basis of enforceable state guide-
lines, only.

Department of the Army Department of the Army
(Wilson) ( 5/26178) (Wilson) ( 5/26/78)

Comments Responses

6. Amendments (p. 226-227). The AEC amend- 6. We agree that modifications of the pro-
ment process appears to be incomplete. It gram affecting Federal consistency will be
should be noted that all significant program in conformance with Rules and Regulations.
modifications including added or modified However, it should be noted that the official
policies, significantly different environ- comment period on interim final rules and
mental impacts or significantly different regulations is being held open until August
intergovernmental relations will require 31, 1978.
full amendment procedure as per S. 930.81.
Any modifications affecting consistency will
be in this category.

7. Coordination. We commend the State of 7. No comment necessary.
North Carolina on its coordination efforts.
Excellent rapport has been maintained between
the state and our field representatives.

8. Additional comments: 8. (a) This discussion in no way limits
a.. Page 89, Dredging and Spoil Disposal: the State's authority to control "filling"
Considerations of "fill" in estuarine areas from any source of the estuarine bottoms
should not be confined to dredged materials or coastal wetlands. Rather, "dredging
discharge. Considerations of "fill" activities and spoil disposal" Is discussed here as an
should be more inclusive of filling, per se, activity of particular interest and concern
and not peculiar only to discharge of dredged in North Carolina. Filling from other sources
materials. is also controlled by the State.

b. Page 141, (v) Emergency maintenance l b) The Coastal Resources Commission has
or repairs: The parameters of judgement used clarified by regulation ( 15 NCAC 70 .0206)
to determine what constitutes an "emergency" what should be considered an "emergency"' for
should be included. If not, the authority the purpose of defining emergency maintenance
for such determination should be cited. and repairs which are not considered develop-
ment and which, therefore, do not require a
CA14A permit. This definition was not con-
sidered necessary for inclusion in the Draft
EIS, but has now been added to the Glossary
in the Final EIS.

c. Page 145, Description: The definition ( c) The separation between inland waters
of "coastal fishing waters" or "inland fishing and fishing waters is established through
waters" should be either presented or referenced agreement between the North Carolina Wildlife
inasmuch as they are definitive to AEC Estuarine Resources Commission and the Marine Fisheries
Waters.* Commission. This line is represented on the
maps contained in Appendix B.

d. Page 150, AEC Ocean Beaches Description. ',d) Please refer to the definition of
The definition as stated defines where ocean Ocean Beach as contained in the ABC guidelines,
beaches are located, not what they are. The Appendix B. Further information will be con-
definition should be expanded or restated. tained in the Beach Access planning element to
be submitted to OCZM by October 1, 1978.

e. On page 161, it appears that non-intensive (e) Please note a further definition con-
recreational use is intended under the highest cerning priority of use on p. 19 1.
priority of use for public water supply well
fields. This should be clarified since a dis-
tinction between "recreational" and "non-intensive
recreational" use has not been made in describing
priority of uses under other AEC classifications.

Clean Water Association of Coastal N.C., Inc. Clean Water Association of Coastal N.C., Inc.
(Depland) (9/77) (Depland) (9/78)

Comments Responses

1. The CRC was too timid in designating AEC. 1. Please refer to response #4 under USDA
comment section. Also please refer to
response #2 under the Department of
Interior comment section; and response #6
under NRDC comment section.

2. Too much permit letting control was 2. A major focus of CAMA was to allow local
delegated to locals. governments the opportunity (under State-level
authority and guidance) to exercise their full
authority in dealing with problems of a local
nature. The State has full authority for
dealing with resources considered to be of
State-level concern. Please refer to Part II,
Chapter 5 (p. 172 of the DEIS) regarding local
permit over-ride procedures by the State.

U.S. Coast Guard 15 U.S. Coast Guard
(Phelps) ( 5/10/78) (Phelps) ( 5110/78

Comments Response

A cleaner definition is needed of what national The last paragraph on p. 216 (DEIS) and the
defense efforts are considered to be in the text at the bottom of p. 220-221 (DEIS) should
inational interest. Such a definition should clarify for you which activities North Carolina
include reference to the Coast Guard and its considers to be matters of national interest.
responsibilities. North Carolina has listed "national defense" as
one matter of "national interest". Specific
re:ference has now made to Coast Guard activities
as an example of a national defense agency.

16
Dunes of Dare Garden Club Dunes of Dare Garden Club
(Willett) ( 513/78) (Willett) (5/3/78)

Comments Responses

1. The Dunes of Dare Garden Club has reviewed the 1. No comment necessary.
State of North Carolina Coastal Management Pro-
gram and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and supports approval of the plan by the Office
of Coastal Zone Management. This is in accord-
ance with our consistent support of the North
Carolina Coastal Area Management Act.

2. On June 16, a year ago, we addressed a letter to 2. There are no current plans for this highway
your office expressing our concern over repeated to be built. However, a project of this nature
proposals to construct a North-South highway, would indeed be reviewed with these policies in
originating in the Currituck Banks and extending mind.
through the entire area. Particular attention
has been given Transportation Policies of the
Plan, page 107-108. Paragraphs 2 and 4. We
strongly urge that these policies be considered
to prevent construction of this highway.

1 7

Department of Energy Department of Energy
(Langenkamp) ( 5/16178) (Langenkamp) C 5/16/78)

Comments Responses

1. The Department of Energy has reviewed the 1. No comment necessary.
North Carolina Coastal Management Program and
Diaft Environmental Impact Statement. We con-
cur in your proposed administrative action to
grant Federal approval to this program, subject
to the exceptions granted by Section 305(b) of
the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

2. The North Carolina CZM program indicates 2. The handbook mentioned in the plan was not
intent for the State to prepare a handbook con- designed to fully describe all energy regula-
taining a permit system description. Energy tory programs. Rather, this handbook will
facility siting regulatory requirements should focus on permit procedures. The State will
be explicitly detailed in this handbook regard- submit, by October 1, 1978, a planning process
ing each agency's responsibilities, authorities, for energy facility siting in fulfillment of
and administrative procedures for permit issuance. Section 305(b)(8). This information, along
We believe the handbook should include a descrip- with information on conflict resolution con-
tion of procedures for resolution of potential tained in the Federal Consistency section of
conflicts arising from the permitting process. the document, should clarify any concerns you
have.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Shuster) ( 5/18/78) ( Shuster) (5/18/78)

Comments Responses

1. The relationship between uses and authorities 1. Please refer to the Program Summary
remains unclear, particularly with reference to contained in the DEIS. Also refer to
how "networking" of State authorities outside of response #1 of the Department of Army
AECs will be accomplished. comment section; also response #3 of
the Department of Interior comment
section.

2. Gas facilities (present and future) need to 2. Gas facilities are considered "develop-
be given greater attention in the FEIS and more ment" except as regulated by other state
clearly defined as to whether they would be agencies under existing state authority.
considered "development". Please refer to the Energy Facility Siting
Planning Process for more complete informa-
tion on gas facilities.

3. Federal consistency procedures are unclear as 3. Please refer to the revised Federal
well as the basis on which consistency determina- Consistency section in the program document
tions will be made. and, in particular, the discussion under
"Criteria for Fedederal Consistency"

4. The method described for protection of energy 4. Please refer to response #9 in NRDC
facilities as "uses of regional benefit" appears comment section. North Carolina anticipates
inadequate. using the "key facility designation process"
as a method of State override where necessary.

5. Environmental Impact Statement (HIS) 5. Paragraph one on p. 262 Is not posed as
The brief EIS makes two assumptions about coastal an argument for affirmative siting. Simi-
energy facility siting which seem contrary to the larly, it is not the intent of this para-
policies of the Coastal Zone Management Act of graph to argue that meeting National Interest
1972. Specifically, page 262 implies that the and URB requirements will assure that pro-
National Interest and Uses of Regional Benefit vision is made for the siting of energy
sections of the Act may facilitate development facilities in the coastal zone. We believe
"which might otherwise be excluded from the coastal this paragraph should remain to help address
area." in contrast OCZM stated in the program the intent of Chapter IV of the North Carolina
approval regulations, published March 1, 1978, DEIS.
that "'adequate consideration' . . . is not
synonymous with assuring that provision be made to
assure the siting of energy facilities . . . .
OCZM also frequently points out that subsection
3O6(e)( 2) prohibits only unreasonable restrictions
or exclusions. On this basis, we recommend that
the first paragraph on page 262 be deleted.

Department of Interior Department of Interior
Miereotto) (5/26/78) (Miereotto) (5/26/78)

Comments Responses

We find that the NCCP has the potential to be an No response necessary.
excellent program. The passage and implementation
of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and the
promulgation of accompanying State regulations have
been commendable developments in the national
coastal management effort and clearly set a precedent
for sound coastal management. Under CAMA, the State
has designated a continuous coastal strip as an Area
of Environmental Concern (AEC) and has designated
other important coastal resource areas as AEC's.
We believe that the CAMA permit process used in
AEC's will provide effective, focused State manage-
ment for many of North Carolina's critical coastal
resources. Generally, the State policies for these
AEC's and for the balance of the coastal zone are
quite satisfactory and appear to adequately address
those resource issues of interest to the Department.
We are also pleased to see the establishment of a
State Policy Task Force designed to address future
coastal issues in a coordinated and comprehensive
manner.

1. A major issue of concern to the Department is 1. The Interior Department illustrates its con-
the relationship between the North Carolina cerns on this point by hypothesizing a state well
Governor's Executive Order and the "networked" State permit act under which the agency must grant a
authorities that will be used to regulate critical permit if a limited number of narrowly drawn
uses in non-AEC areas. Where the statute creating criteria are satisfied. The main problem illus-
a regulatory program contains broad and general trated by this hypothetical is not that of
standards and criteria, the administering State specific criteria, but that of compelled agency
agency will probably have sufficient discretion to action whenever certain criteria, however general
make decisions consisent with the Executive Order. or specific they may be, are met.
However, where an agency's discretion is limited
and its mandate narrow, it may not have the ability After reviewing Appendix C of the program docu-
to follow the Executive Order requirements. Accord- ment in response to the Interior Department's
ingly, we recommend that, prior to the issuance comment, OCZM has found two situations similar to
of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), that of the hypothetical well permit act. The
the State undertake and complete an analysis of these first of these concerns the grant of easements
networked authorities to determine if they contain to fill in navigable waters, described on page
standards and criteria broad enough to permit State 200 of Appendix C; the second concerns the pes-
agencies to make decisions based upon the mandate ticide registration statutes described on page
contained in the Executive Order. In each case the 204. In each case, an easement or registration
determination should be accompanied by a concurring must apparently be granted by a state agency if
statement from the agency administering the statute certain criteria are met, notwithstanding the
or by a concurring opinion from the agency admini- provisions of local programs or the local plann-
stering the statute or by a concurring opinion from ing guidelines. OCZM does not consider the
the State Attorney General. If any law is found existence of these statutes to be a serious
to be unsuitable for networking as a result of this threat to implementation of the program. A
analysis, North Carolina should develop an approach state permit to fill in Ravigable waters will
to remedy the inadequacy. generally not be sufficient to allow filling to
commence in the absence of a Corps of Engineers
permit; and the filling will in most circum-
stances not be economically profitable unless
a state permit to fill in estuarine waters,
marshes, and tidelands can also be obtained.
The permitting agency has wide discretion in
the issuance of permits of the latter type, as

Department of Interior Department of Interior
(Miereotto) C5/26/78) (Miereotto) ( 5/26/78)

Comments Responses

outlined on pages 181-182 of Appendix C.

Because agricultural activities are controlled
by the program primarily through the CAMA, dredge
and fill and erosion control permits, it may
be that pesticide registration will take place
notwithstanding the provisions of local plans
or the local planning guidelines. It should
be noted, however, on page 204 of Appendix C,
that the potential environmental effects of
pesticides submitted for registration are
subject to broad review before registration
is compelled under the statutory provisions.

There are, in addition, three areas in which
the ability of state agencies to comply with
the local plans and guidelines may be limited
by specific statutory and regulatory criteria
that are argueably intended to be the exclusive
basis for agency action. These are the control
of water discharges, described on pages 167-
168 of Appendix C; air pollution abatement,
described on pages 174-175; and the establish-
ment of public water supply systems, described
on pages 215-217. OCZM believes that, in most
Instances, uses having potential effects that
would violate the programs and that cannot be
controlled under the three statutory schemes
just listed will be subject to other regula-
tory statutes allowing such control.

Apart from these five instances, OCZM considers
the standards for agency action described in
Appendix C to be sufficiently broad and open-
ended that they will not pose obstacles to
full implementation of the local plans and
guidelines in the areas outside ABCs under the
executive order. Because the wide range of
circumstances in which these standards will be
applied is largely open to conjecture, however,
OCZM does not believe that certification by
each state agency that its standards for action
will not present compliance with the program
would justify the expense and delay that such
certification would entail.
2. Another major concern of the Department 2. High marsh is included in the definition of the
is that the designation of AEC's under CAIIA has coastal wetlands AEC which is found on page 93 of
been limited and, as a result, important coastal Appendix B, and submerged aquatic grasses are
resources including high marsh, freshwater wet- covererd by the definition of Public Trust AECs
lands, wooded swamps, submerged aquatic grassbeds (Appendix B., p. 96) and by the estuarine waters
and entire coastal barrier islands have not been definition (~Appendix B, p. 94).
afforded this special State regulatory protection.
We believe that additional AEC designations are Although freshwater wetlands are covered in part
warranted and, accordingly, we will work with by the coastal wetlands AEC designation, most of
the State during program implementation to make the freshwater wetlands and wooded swamps are not
additional AEC nominations and provide informa- subject to CAMA permitting. Only a part of the
tion useful for their evaluation. barrier island system is within designated ABCs,

but this part forms a buffer around the island's

Department of Interior Department of Interior
(Miereotto) (5/26/78) (Miereotto) (5/26/78)

Comments Responses

We recommend that the definition of the "coastal edges which controls the potentially most damaging
wetlands" AEC be broadened to include high uses to the islands. AEC categories pertaining to
marsh wetlands and coastal wooded swamps and barrier islands include beaches, primary dunes,
that all coastal freshwater wetlands, and sub- inlet lands, ocean hazard areas, and public water
merged aquatic grassbeds be given protective supply well fields. Together these categories
AEC status. Entire barrier islands should represent strict control over the most environ-
also be afforded additional AEC regulatory mentally sensitive positions of the islands. Out-
protection. side of AECs, the critical uses listed in Chapter
III of Part II of the FEIS which could have severe
The Department is also concerned about certain impacts on the islands, are controlled by State
activity exemptions in AEC's including: authority with permit decisions required to be made
(1) roadway maintenance; (2) utility repair, in accord with coastal policies, found in Chapter
maintenance, and upgrading; (3) the construction III, Part II, Coastal Guidelines ' found in Appendix
of facilities for the development, generation B) and with the local land use plans.
and transmission of energy; and (4) large
agricultural operations (appendix A, pages 4-6). The North Carolina Program recognizes that barrier
islands, freshwater wetlands and wooded swamps are
We are concerned that North Carolina's coastal valuable natural resources. Future designation of
waters are inadequately protected from the effects AECs to cover some of the barrier islands and fresh-
of agricultural runoff. We believe that any water wetlands and wooded swamps will be considered
drainage canals proposed for construction in an by the CRC and the suggestion that Interior work
Area of Environmental Concern should be regulated closely with the State in this regard to make
by CAMA permit even if no part of the ditching additional nominations and provide information use-
would take place in the wetlands. ful for their evaluation is much appreciated.

Concerning those activities that are exempt from
AEC permitting; roadway maintenance, and utility
repair, maintenance and upgrading will occur within
existing rights of way with limited impact on coastal
resources. Facilities of this type must be repaired
quickly as any time-consuming permit requirement
would be extremely burdensome. Agricultural and
forestry operations are exempted from AEC permitting
but by their very nature do not generally occur in
AECs. These activities occurring near but outside
of AECs do have impacts upon the AECs.

These activities occurring near but outside of AECs
do have impacts upon the AECs. These impacts will
be controlled by CAMA permits and by the State Dredge
and Fill Law which require that any ditching in
coastal wetlands comply with the associated AEC
guidelines and with Dredge and Fill guidelines. As
some ditching is critical for the viability of these
activities this control will mitigate direct and
significant impacts on coastal waters. In permitting
ditches, both the impact of ditch excavation on the
estuary as well as the effects of the additional
flow into the estuarine system will be considered.
"See the response to NRDC comment #6.)

Facilities for the generation and transmission of
energy are only exempted from CAMA when other laws
apply. The Public Utilities Commission and DNRCD's
Environmental Management Division have various
authorities but do not have control over the aspects
of siting "that are regulated by" AEC guidelines.
(See the discussion under NRCD comments #5.)

Department of Interior Department of Interior
(Miereotto) (5/26/78) (Miereotto) (5/26/78)

Comments Responses

It is our understanding, however, after reviewing Consistency is based on enforceable state policies;
the DEIS and discussing the program with appro- local land use plans will apply to critical uses
pliate officials of the Office of Coastal Zone and to Federal agency public investment decisions.
Management, that no local ordinances are required See revised consistency discussion in Part II,
to be developed as a result of the formulation Chapter 6 of the FEIS.
of the North Carolina program. These plans will
not be uniformly enforceable on all governmental
entities and private parties. Specifically, we
understand that they are not relevant for Federal
consistency purposes and that consistency deter-
mination must be made solely on the basis of State
coastal policies. Furthermore, we view these
local plans as "enhancement" in nature for pur-
poses of meeting the requirements of the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), but
understand that State agencies must be consis-
tent with them to the extent that they do not
conflict with State guidelines.

3. Finally, we wish to emphasize our concerns re- 3. At the present time, the Coastal Zone Program
garding the monitoring of State agency actions for receives copies of and has an opportunity to comment
compliance with the Executive Order. The process on all State permit applications prepared for the
for monitoring regulatory, proprietary and financial coastal area. During the Program implementation,
assistance activities of State agencies should be the Coastal Management staff will be notified of
explained in detail. Equally important is a des- proposed State regulatory, proprietary and financial
cription of the procedure that will be followed assistance activities to take place in the twenty
when the coastal management staff or the Coastal coastal county area. In most cases, this notification
Resources Commission detects an agency action will be accomplished through the A-95 process, but
which is inconsistent with a coastal policy. in situations where A-95 does not apply, specific
This description should explain how and within agreements will be developed between DNRCD and other
what timeframe a conflict will be presented to agencies to ensure that the Coastal Program is
the Secretary or the Governor for resolution, notified of all relevant State actions.

State actions, including regulatory decisions, would
normally be reviewed within a 30-day period. When
the Coastal Program staff detects that an agency
action is inconsistent with Coastal policies, guide-
lines or with the local land use plans, the Secretary
of DNRCD will be notified. If the Secretary concurs
with the opinion of the Coastal staff, based on
his review of Coastal policy, he will bring the
conflict to the Governor's attention at the weekly
cabinet meeting for resolution. The Governor has
specifically recognized that the Coastal Program
policies are an expression of State policy and will
determine if the proposed action is consistent with
Coastal policies. In these situations, the Governor
will appoint a member of his staff to initiate medi-
ation between the Coastal Program and the other State
agency. If the action is found to be inconsistent,
the Governor will notify the relevant cabinet
official to change the action to ensure compliance
with Coastal policies. Any disagreements within
DNRCD would be handled in a similar manner with
the Secretary determining whether an action is con-
sistent with Coastal Policies.

Department of Interior Department of Interior
(Miereotto) ( 5/26/78) (Miereotto) (5/26/78)

Comments Responses

4. Coastal policies 4, Your request is reflected in Part II, Chapter
It would be beneficial to Federal agencies and 6 of the FEIS.
to the public if the final NCCP mentioned that
incorporation of future coastal policies would
occur through the amendment or refinement pro-
cess, in accordance with the Department of
Commerce regulations, 15 CFR Part 923, sections
923.81.

Comments on specific policies are as follows:

a. Residential, Commercial and Second Home a. The CRC is working closely with local govern-
Development ments to ensure that local plans contain policies
The State policy for these uses should be ex- related to coastal floodplains.
panded to include appropriate land uses for
Icoastal flood plains''.

b. Mining b. If requests for mining related permits can-
The State policy should make explicit that there not meet AEC guidelines or other environmental
may be instances where mining will not be per- controls, they will not be permitted. Future mining
mitted or where mining plans may need to be extraction areas are unknown at this time. The
modified to accommodate the State's environmental economic importance of mining has been mentioned
coastal policies. At the same time, the State in Part II, Chapter 3 of the FEIS. It should be
should add a mining policy to identify mining or pointed out that sand and gravel and clay mining
extraction areas for future development and use. also contribute to the economy.

C. Highways c. Highway construction in "estuarine shore-
Highway construction in AEC "estuarine shoreline" lines" will be discouraged. This use is not listed
areas should be strongly discouraged by the NCCP. as either a first or a second priority. ',See page
100 of Appendix B.)

d. Energy Generating Facilities d. These policies will be included in the
The State should develop and present a clear set 3O5(bX8) planning element to be submitted prior
of policies concerning energy generation, facility to October 1, 1978.
site selection and environmental protection.

e. Drainage and Coastal Wetlands e. This is an important problem in North
To further the State's role in marshland protection Carolina coastal areas. Interior's interest is
and management, we recommend that the State under- appreciated and North Carolina intends to work
take a 306 work task to: ( 1) study the effects of closely with Interior to ensure that this problem
wetland drainage and ditching for insect vector is addressed under the 306 implementation phase of
control; (2) study the "Open Marsh Water Manage- the program. (,See'response #2 to Ray M. Spencer
ment" technique for mosquito control; and (3) & Son comment section.)
develop and environmentally sound policy for
such activities. We will be glad to assist the
State in defining the scope and intent of these
studies.

f. Hydrology f. North Carolina will consider the needs of
The State should consider how best to provide further protection of bodies of fresh water near
protection to bodies of fresh water near the the coast during 306 implementation and would like
coast which often mark the zone of coastal to work closely with Interior to determine if further
ground water discharge. This may be an appro- AEC designations are warranted.
priate resource for AEC designation.

Department of Interior Department of Interior
(Miereotto) (5/26/78) (Miereotto) (5/26/78)

Comments Responses

With reference to estuaries, these areas need Please refer to response 7 c) of the Army COE comment
further definition beyond the general definition section.
incorporated from CAMA p. 94, Appendix B) to
describe water areas included as "AEC Estuarine
Waters" (pp. 145-147).

The reference to the public well field areas as Defined "Critical Uses" are subject to management
AEC's (p. 158 and figure 11) leaves the remainder as outlined in Part II, Chapters 3 and 5 of the
of the aquifer free of CAMA regulation. "Critical FEIS. As entire aquifers are not regulated by AEC
uses" which impact the aquifers within the permits, additional nominations will be considered
coastal boundaries must be subject to State in the future.
regulation.

g. Ground-water Recharge Areas g. This is not perceived to be a problem at
P. 29, para. 2 and p. 139, numbered item 3. The the present time. DNRCD's Division of Health Services
AEC concept in CAMA appears to call for adequate was consulted on the designation of these AECs and
protection of ground-water qualities in areas concurred with these selections. Ground water pollution
important to water supplies. However, as applied may be a problem in the future and if this proves
in practice only two or three shallow well fields to be the case, more well fields can be designated
appear to have been designated as AEC Public Water by the CRC as AECs. State control over critical uses
Supply Well Fields. We note that ground-water also controls potential impacts.
pollution is a serious problem in the coastal
areas \pp. 85-86) and, therefore, believe that the
State must explicitly state how it intends to pro-
tect aquifers not currently designated as AEC's.

h. Historic and Cultural Resources h. At a meeting on June 15, 1978, DOI and OCZM
The Department believes that the NCCP does not agreed to work together to develop additional guid-
adequately "address the problem of how to support ance as to how CZMPs can incorporate the requirements
a comprehensive program for identification and of Section 106 into management programs during pro-
preservation of valuable cultural resources in the gram implementation. OCZM will provide North
coastal area" (page 80). Carolina with the necessary guidance as it becomes
available.
Procedures on how the NCCP will support a compre-
hensive program for identification and preserva- OCZM is not obligated to require North Carolina to
tion of cultural resources in the coastal zone survey historic buildings, structures, etc., which
should be outlined rather than merely stating that meet the criteria or inclusion into such identifi-
there is a need for such a program. cation and inventory procedures as the National
Register of Historic Places.
We recommend that the Coastal Resources Commission
consider including properties determined eligible However during earlier stages of program develop-
for inclusion in the NRHP under criteria for selec- ment, North Carolina had given a certain critical
tion of AECs (page 30). areas designation to cultural, historic, etc.,
locations within the coastal zone. The State
Because the Coastal Zone Management program is a Department of Cultural Resources suggested that the
Federally subsidized program, it is subject to the coastal program would probably be best advised not
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as to so designate such places because the current
amended (NHPA), and Executive Order 11593. We National Historic Register designation process
note that this comment was not addressed in the imposes no regulation on such properties and that
summary of the Department of the Interior comments coastal program designation might prohibit further
on the draft (CMP) pages 347349, Appendix D). designation because of fear of unnecessary regulation
Pursuant to both the NHPA and Executive Order 11593, and removal of properties. Participation in this
the effects of Federally assisted projects on Federal National Historic Register process has been
historic and cultural properties that are listed voluntary to date and the Department of Cultural
in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP must be Resources suggested that adding a regulatory
evaluated in consultation with the SHPO and the aspect to this program would not be beneficial.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Department of Interior Department of Interior
(Miereotto) (5/26/78) (Miereotto) (I5/26/78)

Comments Responses

i. Recreation and Beach Access i. The problems associated with public
While the North Carolina program generally beach access will be addressed in the 30X b)
addresses the need to provide park and recrea- C 7) planning element to be submitted to
tional opportunities in the coastal zone, in- OCZM for approval prior to October 1, 1978.
adequate attention is given to the many problems
associated with public beach access.

5. National Interest 5. No comment necessary
The Department believes that the national interest
section of the NCCP is commendable as it specifi-
cally addresses the need to balance conflicting
uses involving the various national interests.
We are especially pleased to see that the program
addresses endangered flora and fauna and believe
it will aid in promoting their conservation and
protection. Also, there are provisions in the
plan for the future designation of coastal areas
which sustain threatened and endangered species
as AEC's.

The NCCP must contain criteria sufficient to insure
compliance with the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act so that approval of the NCCP by the
Department of Commerce satisfies its obligation
under Section 7.

In regard to the national interest in transportation, North Carolina's program has an AEC nomination
ports and navigation, the program states: "These category for "areas that sustain remnant species".
facilities serve a national economic need among In addition, under DNRCD there is the Wildlife
others and nothing in our management plan will Resources Commission which administers the
arbitrarily restrict or unnecessarily interfere with Endangered Species Act for North Carolina and this
these important activities."t (Pg. 217 - emphasis commission is closely tied together through DNRCD
added). We believe this section should be modified and the Executive Order to this program. This
to note that these activities must be balanced with Commission has signed a cooperative agreement
their potential environmental impacts and their with Fish and Wildlife to ensure proper implemen-
consistency with the prga's coastal policies. tation of Section 6( c) of the Endangered Species
Act.

OCZM believes that the balance between the national
interest in transportation, ports and navigation
activities and environmental impacts and consis-
tency with coastal policies is implicit. There is
also a national interest (as articulated in the
North Carolina DEIS) in preservation of the environ-
ment and this balancing of development pressures
versus environmental protection is clearly articu-
lated throughout the program document.

Department of Interior Department of Interior
(Miereotto) (5/26/78) (Miereotto) (5/26/78)

Comments Responses

6. Federal Consistency 6. Please refer to the revised Federal consistency
Our review of the proposed Federal consistency process section in Part II, Chapter 6. Also refer to re-
for Federal activities and development projects signi- ponse 2 a) of the Department of the Army comments.
ficantly affecting the coastal zone indicates that the
draft program does not clearly identify to what State
agency Federal consistency determinations should be
submitted (pg. 211). The final program should specify
the State agency responsible for receiving and re-
viewing the proposed Federal consistency determina-
nations.

7. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7. OCZM believes that the environmental impact
While the draft environmental impact statement statement developed for the North Carolina Coastal
(DEIS) is concise and no significant adverse Management Program adequately addresses the antic-
environmental impact would appear to result from ipated impacts of this program. Additional infor-
Federal approval of the State program, the brief mation on coastal zone flora and fauna can be
25-page DEIS does not provide an adequate evaluation obtained from regional offices of relevant federal
of environmental impacts of the proposed action to agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife). OCZM does
support this conclusion. Impacts are commonly not believe a more thorough analysis of coastal
expressed in terms that are excessively general and zone flora and fauna is appropriate in this docu-
abstract. For example, the needs, purposes and ment. Very detailed information and research was
objectives of policies are commonly given in lieu relied upon in developing coastal policies for
of an evaluation of the environmental impact of the coastal zone as defined. North Carolina will
policy implementation. Also, more detailed descrip- help any interested parties in obtaining more com-
tion of the coastal zone flora and fauna, with plete information, where necessary.
emphasis on key economic and ecological indicator
species and their habitat should be included. This,
in turn, would allow for a more comprehensive
evaluation of the impacts of the proposed action.

8. On page 105 item 6, It is declared that State 8. The State is presently undertaking a program to
policy supports drainage in the coastal zone as encourage countywide drainage planning that should
an aid to development. We understand that in alleviate many of the negative environmental
North Carolina the practice has been to connect effects of drainage. Through an overall drainage
drainage ditches to the nearest natural stream plan specific sites for connecting canals to the
or estuarine bay which may cause adverse effects sounds can be selected that minimize the negative
on estuaries. Given that "Estuarine Shorelines" effects of drainage. In addition it allows the
are designated as AECs, the State should address State to select the best alternative network
how existing drainage connection practices will configuration that minimizes the number of con-
be changed to avoid these adverse effects. nections to open water.

9. On page 141, items vii and viii refer to activ- 9. The CAMA's lack of explicit standards for the
ities that have been "grandfathered" into CAMA. "grandfathering" is common in statutes. Speci-
The language related to the initiation and ficity will be added in the next year by adoption
completion of a development and language related of rules and regulations of the Coastal Resources
to what constitutes approval or recording of Commission.
utilities, roads or related facilities is vague.
These terms should be clarified in the document.

League of Women Voters League of Women Voters
of New Hanover County of New Hanover County
Wilmington, N.C. 28401 Wilmington, N.C. 28401
(Jordan) ( 5/3/78) (Jordan) ( 5/3/78)

Comments Responses

1. The League of Women Voters of New Hanover County 1. No response necessary.
(a coastal county) commend the State of North
Carolina for its implementation of the Coastal Area
Management Act. We believe in years to come this
Plan will protect coastal life and resources in their
delicate balance without sacrificing economic
development which is also needed.

2. Our concern comes with the implementation of 2. While Local ordinances are not currently
CAMA; more specifically the enforcement of the Land required to be consistent with adopted local
Use Plans, which each coastal county was required LUPs, the State has committed itself to pro-
to draw up. These are beautiful documents, but viding technical and financial assistance to
how many counties have adopted new ordinances in localities so that they can revise their or-
compliance with their Land Use Plan? In other words, dinances to come in line with adopted plans.
made them legally binding and enforceable.

28
Natural Resources Defense Council Natural Resources Defense Council
(Curry) ( 5128/78) .Curry) , 5/28/78)

Comments Responses

Listed below are the major areas in which, in the
opinion of the commentators, the North Carolina
Program is deficient in complying with the Coastal
Zone Management Act and the applicable regulations:

1. The program fails to clearly substantiate that 1. The Program did fail to clearly differentiate
there are sufficient policies of an enforceable between enforceable and advisory policies. Pro-
nature to provide comprehensive control within the gram aproval will be based solely on those
coastal zone. The distinction between enforceable policies that are enforceable.
policies and those which are of an advisory or
enhancement nature should be clarified. The policies of the Land Policy Council are
examples of advisory policies and have not been
considered in assessing the approvability of the
North Carolina Program. Part II, Chapter Three,
of the FEIS has been changed to clearly reflect
that the Land Policy Council's policies are pre-
sently of an advisory or enhancement nature.

2. Certain of the AEC guidelines, especially 2. The AEC guidelines provide the decision-
those for estuarine systems and fragile coastal maker with a clear and specific set of criteria
natural resource areas, are not specific enough to on which to base permit decisions. Guidelines
provide clear direction and predictability for for the estuarine system do allow some flexi-
decision making in the management program. bility in permitting to ensure that water
dependent uses can be accommodated in the
coastal area. These guidelines are contained
on pages 92-101 of the Appendices, and give
highest priority to the protection and coordi-
nated management of the estuarine system. Each
particular category of AEC within this system
has its own management objective and set of
priorities. The coastal wetlands ARC has pro-
tection of coastal wetlands as a management
objective with highest priority of use for wet-
lands conservation and second priority use given
to water dependent activities. A wide range of
unacceptable uses is also listed.

The Estuarine Waters and Estuarine Shore-
lines ARCs have specific management objectives
and priorities of use which are compatible with
the goal of protecting the estuarine system, and
the Public Trust Areas have a management objec-
tive and specific use standards of sufficient
detail to provide for predictable decisions.

The Fragile Coastal Natural Resource Areas
guidelines, which can be found on pages 110-115
of the Appendices, outline the designation pro-
cess for the natural area categories and the
management objectives and use standards for each.
As these sites will be nominated in the future
and as the sites will have varying characteristics,
a lower level of policy specificity for permit
decisions is required. The CRC will develop
specific policies for each site that is desig-
nated in accord with management objectives and
use standards.

Natural Resources Defense Council Natural Resources Defense Council
(Curry) (5/28/78 (Curry) (5/28/78)

Comments Responses

3. The program does not clearly demonstrate 3. The matrix found in Part 1I, Chapter 5,
that the networking of existing authori- clearly outlines that the Program has control over
ties is sufficiently broad to implement a broad range of activities. This authorities
oastal policies and control critical uses. matrix delineates the regulatory control that State
agencies have over critical uses but does not tie
The importance of showing that the individual in with the State Guidelines and the local land
authorities have been tied "into a compre- use plans. As discussed in Part II, Chapter 5
hensive framework that addresses more than the of the FEIS, State agency decision-making must be
individual responsibilities of each agency" is made in accord with the policies contained in
especially important in the North Carolina Chapter 1II, Part II (which are contained in law)
program, because many of the State policies as well as with the State Guidelines and the local
were drawn from the language of existing land use plans. State agencies are required by an
statutory authorities. executive order to adhere to the Guidelines and
to the local land use plans.

4. The North Carolina Program will control all known
direct and significant impacts resulting from agri-
4. The exemption of most agricultural and silva- cultural and silvacultural activities in the coastal
cultural activities from the AEC permitting area. The most important of these impacts are
requirements prevents the program from being associated with the construction of ditches for the
able to control all significant land and water purpose of draining agricultural and forest land.
uses within the coastal zone and within AECs These ditches will necessarily open into estuarine
in particular. coastal wetlands and will require a CAMA permit.
As spelled out in policy (6) found in Chapter 3,
Part II of the FEIS, such ditches are "acceptable
only where there will be no significant adverse
effect on... .wildlife or fisheries, or on other
valid aspects of the public health, safety, and
welfare as determined by the CRC or the State of
North Carolina."

In its permitting of these ditches, both the
impacts of the excavation as well as the effects
of this additional flow into the estuarine system
will be considered.

A second control is the North Carolina Pesticide
law which regulates the use and application of
pesticides according to State and Federal standards.

There are certain impacts that are not fully
controlled by the Program. These include the
adverse effects associated with surface water
runoff, flow of suspended solids and fertilizers
and nutrient flow. At present the extent and
severity of these impacts are unknown, but better
information should be forthcoming from the 208
program. The Coastal Program will coordinate with
the Section 208 planning process and will incor-
porate appropriate best management practices for
non-point source pollution when the 208 plans are
complete.

~30

Natural Resources Defense Council Natural Resources Defense Council
(curry) C5/28/78) Curry) (5/28/78)

Comments Responses

5. The program does not clearly state that an 5. CAMA exempts from the definition of
energy facility proposed for siting within development energy facilities "to the extent
an AEC would be bound to obtain an AEC permit. that such activities are regulated by other
law or by... .the State Utilities Commission".
The Utilities Commission is responsible for
establishing the need for electric generating
facilities and issuance of a certificate of
public convenience prior to construction.
DNRCD's Environmental Management Division is
responsible for ensuring air and water quality
permits for such facilities. Various aspects
of the siting of such facilities are not con-
trolled by laws other than CAMA and thus would
be controlled by the AEC permitting process.

6. The number and type of AEC categories does not 6. There are certain critical areas which
include all fragile areas within the coastal zone NRDC believes are not included in the AEC
that should be designated as Geographic Areas of designation; examples mentioned were barrier
Particular Concern. islands, submerged aquatic grasslands, marshes,
mudflata and secondary dunes. All salt marsh
The commentators believe that there are a number is included under the coastal Wetlands AEC
of generic categories of areas in the North category which defines coastal wetlands as
Carolina coastal zone which cannot be appropri- "any salt marsh or other marsh subject to
ately managed except as ABCs. Examples of such regular or occasional flooding by tides,
areas include barrier islands, submerged aquatic including wind tides" and also lists plant
grasslands, marshes, mudflats, and secondary species common to both high and low marsh
dunes.* areas. Mudflata are covered under the Public
Trust AEC which is defined, in part, as "all
natural bodies of water subject to measurable
lunar tides and lands thereunder to the mean
high water mark". Aquatic grasses are
encompassed within an AEC under the same
Public Trust definition as well as by the
definition of estuarine waters. Secondary
dunes are not specifically included within an
AEC but are included in many instances under
the definition of the Ocean Hazard ABCs in
the Inlet Land and -Ocean erodible categories.
Inlet lands, which migrate extensively, include
primary and, in many instances, secondary dunes
'refer to p. 104 of Appendix B) and ocean
erodible areas which are measured from the
frontal toe of the primary dune and would
frequently include a row of secondary dunes as
well as the primary dune line jsee pp. 104 and
105 of Appendix B). Inclusion within AECs of
remaining secondary dunes relates to the ques-
tion of whether the entire barrier island
system should be designated as an AEC. Such
designation appears unnecessary as barrier
islands are protected from adverse environ-
mental impacts in the following ways:

a. AEC designation represents strict
environmental control over those portions of
the islands which are most susceptible to
negative impacts "beaches, primary dunes,
ocean erodible areas, inlet lands and public-

Natural Resources Defense Council Natural Resources Defense Council
(Curry) (5/28/78) (Curry) (5/28/78)

Comments Responses

water supply areas). These designations
were determined after extensive public
hearings and debates as well as indepth
scientific research.

b. North Carolina originally intended
to submit a CZM Program based entirely on
AEC designations. The exclusion of entire
barrier islands was a primary reason why
OCZM decided that a larger coastal area had
to subject to the management program. The
management area outside of AECs includes
the entire non-Federally owned portion of the
barrier island system and was designed to en-
sure that potentially damaging uses are
adequately managed. Certain types of development
are expected to continue on the barrier islands.

7. The program fails to clearly state in 7. The North Carolina Program presently has
what manner permit applicants and other an adequate mechanism for public notification
interested individuals will be notified of changes in coastal policy or the develop-
of coastal policy, guidelines and ment of new policy through the CRCs policy
regulations. development process. Policy changes of this
type will include updating and implementing
local plans, land use plan amendments and
changes in AEC guidelines. The policy
development process is subject to public
hearings and will include extensive public
participation.

The program is now meeting with State and Federal
-permitting agencies in order to develop agreements
between the agencies and the Office of Coastal
Management concerning consistency agreements.
In these meetings discussions will include pro-
cedures for notifying applicants of the addition-
al criteria that must be considered in permit
decisions. This process will be completed prior
to the approval of the management program.

8. The program does not clearly indicate that 8. During the first few years of program
a procedure for defining "permissible land and development, an indepth inventory and analysis
water uses within the coastal zone which have of coastal resources was conducted to deter-
a direct and significant impact on coastal mine those uses which should be subject to
waters" has been developed and applied pursuant management because of their potential for
to 305(b)(2). direct and significant inpact on coastal waters.
Those geographic areas that were susceptible
to negative impacts were designated as AECs
while those major uses, outside AECs which
could have significant impacts, were designated
as critical uses to be managed by the Program.
(Refer to past studies, publications, etc.)

Natural Resources Defense Council Natural Resources Defense Council
(Curry) (5/28/78) ( Curry) ( 5/28/78)

Comments Responses

9. The State's use of the "Key Facilities" 9. CAMA Section 1l3 b)(7) authorizes the
category of ABC to satisfy the "uses of designation as AECs of "/a/reas which are
regional benefit" requirement ( CZMA or may be impacted by key facilities."
Subsection 306(e)(2)) conflicts with the Under CAMA Section 103(6), the term "key
conservation thrust of CAMA. facilities" means:

The commentators believe that the final US (a) public facilities on non-Federal
should contain a clarification of this land determined by the CRC to tend to induce
position indicating that the CRC will desig- development and urbanization of more than
nate "Key Facility" AECs in response to a local impact " including, but not limited to,
proposal for such a facility, rather than in major airports, major highway interchanges,
hopes of attracting such a facility to an major frontage streets and highways of State
area. *concern, and major recreational lands and
facilities); and

(b) major facilities on non-Federal land
for the development, generation, and trans-
mission of energy.

The term includes the sites of such facili-
ties and of major improvement and access
features of such facilities. North Carolina
contends that, if local governments were to
exclude a key facility from the coastal area
unreasonably, the CRC could designate an
appropriate site as a key facility ARC under
CAMA Section 113 b)(7), and could thereupon
issue guidelines that would ensure the
siting of the facility in that AEC consistent
with the requirements of CAMA and other
applicable law. NRDC objects to this pro-
posed use of the AEC designation procedure,
at least to the extent that it would facili-
tate the siting of energy facilities in the
coastal area. It bases its objections upon
(a) the alleged "overall conservation thrust"
of CAMA; and (Ib) the argument that the term
"areas of environmental concern" implies that
AEC designations may not be made for purposes
other than protection of the environment.
For the reasons discussed below, it is
apparent that CAMA nevertheless may impose
severe constraints on the use of AEC designa-
tion as a method of energy facility siting.

The argument that the "overall conservation
thrust" of CAMA prevents its use to facili-
tate major development in the coastal area that
would otherwise be unreasonably excluded is
refuted by a review of the coastal area
management system goals set forth in CAMA
Section 102(b).

33
Natural Resources Defense Council
(Curry) (.5/28/78)

Responses

Goal (2), for example, is

"To insure that the development or preser-
vation of the land and water resources of
the coastal area proceeds in a manner con-
sistent with the capability of the land or
water for development, use, or preservation
based on ecological con~s-iderations... u

(Emphasis Added.)

Goal (3) is

"To insure the orderly and balanced use and
preservation of our coastal resources on
behalf of the people of North Carolina and
the nation....'t

'Emphasis Added.)

Goal (4) envisions the establishment of "policies,
guidelines and standards for:

a. - management of transitional or intensely
developed areas and areas especially suited
to intensive use and development, as well as
areas of significant natural value;

b. The economic development of the coastal
area including but not limited to construc-
tion, location and design of industries, port
facilities, commercial establishments and
other developments;

d. Transportation and circulation patterns
for the coastal area including major thorough-
fares, transportation routes, navigation
channels and harbors, and other public
utilities and facilities...."

(Emphasis Added.)

These goals indicate plainly that CAMA was intended
to expedite certain types of major facility
development, and that its orientation toward
environmental preservation, discussed in more detail
below, does not prevent its use in the siting of
such facilities in the coastal area. The argument
can be made however that, while some activities
under CAMA may facilitate the siting of major
developments, the designation of key facility AECs
is not one of these activities because such desig-
inationa must be motivated predominantly, even
exclusively, by "environmental" (in the sense of
"preservationist") concerns. This is the second
basis for NRDC's objections to North Carolina's
proposed use of this procedure.

Natural Resources Defense Council
curry) 115/28/78)

Responses

Our belief that NRDC's position is in error
is manifested by the inclusion of "renewable
resource areas," particularly "prime forestry
land ," as one of the seven categories of AEC
authorized by CAMA Section 113. The primary
motivation for the designation of ABCs of this
type would plainly be their prospective eco-
nomic exploitation.

Even in the absence of this clear evidence,
the implications of the term "areas of
environmental concern"~ are vague enough that
it is probably well within North Carolina's
administrative discretion to reject NRDC's
argument that AEC designations must have a
preservationist motivation. In the apparent
absence of legislative history on the point,
North Carolina can make sound arguments that
the primary impetus for designation of an
AEC may be a motive other than environmental
preservation, such as the need for a coastal
energy facility, provided that the guide-
lines for- land and water use within the AEC
give sufficient weight to environmentally
preservationist considerations. The CRC
must determine what, under CAMA, this
"sufficient weight" is, its ability to use
AEC designation as a device for assuring
'reasonable'' siting of major facilities in
the coastal area.

As was noted above, CAMA actually seems to
have been intended to encourage reasonable
development in the coastal area. Certain
provisions of CAMA seem to require, however,
that environmental considerations be accorded
special significance in the determination of
what development is "reasonable," and that
the environmental harm caused by development
that does take place be minimized.

The legislative findings of CAMA Section 102(,a)
state that

'~i)n the implementation of the coastal
area management plan, the public's oppor-
tunity to enjoy the physical, esthetic,
cultural, and recreational qualities of
the natural shorelines of the State shall
be preserved to the greatest extent
feasible...,

and that

"land resources shall be managed in order
to guide growth and development and to
minimize damage to the natural environ-
ment....
(Emphasis added.)

Natural Resources Defense Council Natural Resources Defense Council
(Curry) (5/28/78) (Curry) ( 5/28/78)

Comments Responses

In addition, Goal (2) of CAMA Section 10Z b)
provides that the development or preservation of
coastal land and water resources should be "based
on ecological considerations."

While these provisions would seem to be applicable
to all activities in the coastal area, compliance
with them would be especially important in the
designation of and adoption of guidelines for AECs.
It is likely that, in designating key facility
AECs to facilitate the siting of development that
would otherwise be excluded from the coastal area,
the CRC would have to 'a) give substantial weight
to environmental preservation factors in deter-
mining whether exclusion of the development from
the coastal area is unreasonable; ( b) select the
site that is least environmentally harmful; and
(c) impose conditions that would minimize the
environmental damage to be caused by the develop-
ment.

10. On pages 31-38 of its comments, NRDC contends
that the North Carolina program document does not
demonstrate:
10. With regard to the Executive Order, and the
networking of authorities, the program does not a. that Executive Order #15 is binding on
demonstrate that: "independent" agencies and boards;

a. The Order is binding on independent b. that the Governor has legal authority to
agencies and boards. issue an Executive Order to make coastal policy
binding upon existing agencies and permitting
b. The Order gives adequate legal recourse programs; and
to those individuals or groups seeking to insure
enforcement of the Executive Order. c. that interested members of the public will
be able to secure judicial enforcement of the
c. The Governor has clear legal authority Executive Order.
to issue an Order which purports to make doastal
policy binding upon existing agencies and per- Because there are no applicable North Carolina
mitting programs. precedents, the analysis of the legal authority
underlying Executive Order #15 presented ii the
The commentators believe it is essential that the program document relies almost exclusively upon
Office of Coastal Zone Management pursuant to 15 CFR. analogies to the law governing executive orders
923.41(b) (1) request that the North Carolina DNRCD of the President of the United States. The justi-
seek an Attorney General's opinion with regard to fication for this is that the constitutional
the following issues and that the Attorney General's language upon which the North Carolina Governor's
opinion with regard to the following issues and authority to issue executive orders is based is
that the Attorney General's opinion be incorporated practically identical to the language of the United
in the final EIS: States Constitution vesting "the Executive power"
in the President and charging him with authority
a. Whether the Governor possesses sufficient "to see that the laws are faithfully executed."
authority to issue an Executive Order which To the extent that the courts of North Carolina
makes coastal policy binding upon existing have not adopted this analogy in past opinions,
state agencies, boards, commissions, and there is unavoidable uncertainty about
permitting authorities.

36
Natural Resources Defense Council
Natural Resources Defense Council (~Curry) ( 5/28/78)
Curry) ( 5/28/78)
Responses
Comments
the status of Executive Order #15 under North
b. Whether the Governor can make portions of Carolina law. While an opinion of the North
coastal policy which are otherwise not Carolina Attorney General might illuminate this
legally binding, binding upon the entities matter to a limited extent, the complete absence
listed in C 1) above. of applicable North Carolina precedents would
restrict the usefulness of such an opinion, pre-
c. The extent to which Executive Order 15 is venting the lack of it from being a serious short-
in conflict with existing state law. coming of the program, particularly in view of
the Governor's adoption of the legal analysis
contained in the program document.

Accepting the Federal analogy embodied in the North
Carolina legal analysis, OCZM believes that the
Governor does have sufficient inherent executive
authority to issue Executive Order #15 and to
bind through it all North Carolina agencies per-
forming executive functions, even those that are
popularly referred to as "independent" agencies.
For the reasons set forth in the response to
comments of the Department of the Interior, OCZM
does not believe that the existing statutory
authorities of North Carolina agencies are so
narrow as to prevent compliance with and imple-
mentation of the coastal guidelines under the
Executive Order. Based on the discussion of this
point that has been inserted into the revised
version of the North Carolina analysis, OCZM also
believes that the Executive Order does not violate
the intent underlying CAMA.

The Governor's authority to dismiss state
officials "for cause" reinforces, but is not an
esential basis for, the inherent executive author-
ity that underlies Executive Order #15. This power
to dismiss provides a potential mechanism for
enforcement of the Order's provisions.

Because North Carolina relies upon a Federal legal
analogy in support of Executive Order #15, that
Order would seem to be judicially enforceable by
interested members of the public to the same extent
as are Federal executive orders, as suggested by
NRDC on pages 35 and 37 of its comments. A statement
to this effect is included in the revised legal
analysis.

North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation
(Sledge) ( (//7)Sledge) ( 5/1/78)

Comments Responses

1. Farmers must be assured that drainage 1. Please refer to the NRDC comments for a
ditches can be maintained and new ditches dug contradictory position. Also, please refer
where absolutely necessary. to OCZM's response to this issue of drainage
ditches as contained in the NRDC section.

2. Enforcement of Local Plans 2. Provisions of the CAMA require that local
The Coastal Program says water and land uses LUPs be developed by local governments pur-
outside the Areas of Environmental Concern, suant to State guidelines. These local LUPs
including rural/agricultural lands, must be are subsequently approved by the CRC. If
consistent with state policies affecting those localities do not developo their own LUPs,
lands and waters. In the Program, the impres- the CRC is empowered to develop and adopt
sion is that the Coastal Resources Commission plans for the localities. The CRC was
is given the authority to require local plans established by CARA and is a policy-making
to be consistent with state guidelines and group with broad authority over State coastal
Coastal Resource Commission policies. The actions and policies. However, CANA emphasizes
Program does state that the Commission has the role of local governments in coastal plann-
statutory authority to review local ordinances ing. The establishment of the CRC is not
and make recommendations for consistency, but intended to take away the rights of local
the impression that the CRC is anything more governments in expressing citizen concerns.
than an advisory group is dangerous to the
rights of the local governments in expressing
the citizen's desires and concerns.

3. Growth Management Policies 3. Policies established by the Land Policy
In the Program, there are many references to Council and referenced in the State's Coastal
policies established by the Land Policy Council. Management Program will be used as advisory
We can find no statutory mandate to allow or enhancement policies only. Refer to
implementation of the Land Policy Council's response #1 of NRDC comment section.
recommendations.

North Carolina Petroleum Council North Carolina Petroleum Council
(Weatherspoon) (5/11/78) (Weatherspoon) (5/11/78)

Comments Responses

1. The North Carolina Petroleum Council con- I. No response necessary.
curs generally with the State of North Carolina
Coastal Management Program as a system suitable
to manage conservation and development of the
State's coastal resources. The Management
Program is built around the multiple compatible
use concept so as to allow any compatible
development which can meet stated policies,
guidelines, and standards. We have studied
the guidelines, and as we understand them,
they would not prohibit reasonable and environ-
mentally conscious petroleum-related operations
where needed - even in Areas of Environmental
Concern. The need to allow activity of
interest to the nation and regions outside
North Carolina's coastal zone is one of the
goals of the State's Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) and this goal is articulated in the
Management Program.

Thur., as we see North Carolina's Management
Program from the position of an industry inter-
ested in the balanced use of caostal resources
(but also interested in supplying energy re-
sources so vital to our national well-being),
the Management Program contains those basic
structural members necessary to make it a I
workable system.

*The following comments were contained in an
unreferenced (seroxed) attachment, which
appears to bear no reference to the letter
supplied by the North Carolina Petroleum
Council dated May 11, 1978. They appear to be
comments related to litigation by the A.P.I.
in other States; however, in compliance with
NEPA, we are responding fully to these comments.

2. The Coastal Management Program Must Be Ex- 2.
plicitly Defined.
The statutory definition of the management
program is left in broad terms and is not speci-
fic enough to satisfy the intent of the federal
CZNA or the NOAA interim final regulations.

To be specific, we believe the description Refer to Appendix C, pages 129-223, which
of the management program should itemize by should address points (1) thru ( 3).
name and number:
1) Each State law which, in its entirety,
is part of the program.
(2) Each provision of a State law not in-
cluded in (1) above which is part of
the program.
3) Each specific State rule, regulation,
policy, standard, order, guideline or
other directive, which is part of the
program.

North Carolina Petroleum Council North Carolina Petroleum Council
(Weatherspoon) (5/11/78) (Weatherspoon) (5/11/78)

Comments Responses

4) Each local land use plan, ordinance, See the Consistency section of the FEIS, Part II,
city or county code, or other res- Chapter 6.
triction which is part of the program.
(5) Any other document, executive order, or The only applicable executive order can be found
descriptive material which is legally in Part II, Chapter 5 of the FEIS.
a part of the program.

3. Executive Order No. 15 does not meet the 3. See letter from Governor Hunt which is inserted
requirement that the Management Program be in the FEIS.
duly adopted by the State as required by the
FCZMA, Section 306( c)( 1).

Finally, we call attention to the fact With proper implementation of the Program under
that CAMA expires on June 30, 1981. Unless 306, the North Carolina Program staff has high
CAMA is extended, the central core of the hopes that CAMA will be extended.
Management Program will fall. This matter
must be acknowledged and properly handled.

4. The Coastal Management Program Must Be 4.
Strengthened on the Required Consideration
and Accommodation of National Interests.

o First, there is a provision of State Please refer to the revised Consistency section,
law which should be clarified. In a pro- Part II, Chapter 6 of the FEIS.
vision called "Coordination with the federal
government," the CAMA says:

"Where federal or interstate agency plans,
activities, or procedures conflict with
State policies, all reasonable steps
shall be taken by the State to preserve
the integrity of its policies."

(CAMA, Section 113A-127).

o Next, there should be an expression of Refer to goal #3 in CAMA, page 3 of the Appendices.
the national interest concept in the Guide-
lines for Areas of Environmental Concern.

o Next, it is unclear whether the local The State approved the LUPs based on the Land Use
land use plans have, in accordance with the Planning Guidelines. North Carolina believes that
State Guidelines for Local Planning of Title the LUPs do reflect a national interest in coastal
15, Chapter 7B, Section .0103, actually pro- resources. These plans will be refined over a
vided for interests greater than those of the period of time in close consultation with federal
local area. agencies to further reflect the national interest.

o Finally, the method of determining just The State looked at the rules and regulations of
what the "national interests" are should be CZMA and worked with OCZM in development of the
described in the program. Include in the National Interest. In addition, the State re-
Management Program the description of "a pro- quested all Federal agencies to define 'National
cess for continued consideration of identified Interest'. These definitions were utilized in
national interests... determining what North Carolina has identified as
National interests. The State also looked at
all Federal facilities located on the coast in
determining 'national interests'.

The State has provided for continued considera-
tion of the national interest thru both their
program policies and statutory and administrative

North Carolina Petroleum Council North Carolina Petroleum Council
(Weatherspoon) (5/11/78) (Weatherspoon) (5/11/78)

Comments Responses

mandates. Similarly, the communication network set
up with Federal agencies for continued coordina-
tion will serve as a mechanism for continued con-
sideration of 'national interests'.

5. We recommend the following steps be taken to 5.
improve the consistency procedures and make the
program more closely comply with the require-
ments for program approval:

(1) Clarify the role of local land use plans This comment is addressed in the revised Con--
in consistency determination. Limit their effect sistency section of the FEIS. See Part III,
only to the extent essential to the accomplish- Chapter 6.
ment of program objectives.

(2) Include a provision for public notice of Please refer to the revised Federal Consistency
consistency certifications with proper allowance section for notification and review procedures
for hearings when appropriate. that will be followed.

State of North Carolina State of North Carolina
Dept. of Cultural Resources Department of Cultural Resources
(Edmunds) (5/1/78) (Edmunds) (5/1/78)

Comments Responses

1. Statement of issues and policies needs 1. Please refer to response #4h of the Department
to be expanded considerably. In particular, of Interior Comments. In addition, certain Ian-
further attention should be given "cultural guage in CAMA makes direct reference to protection
resources" and how they should be managed. of cultural resources and that protection of cul-
tural resources must be addressed in all local
LUPs so as to be in accord with State guidelines.

2. Please refer to response #4(h) of Department
of Interior comment section.
2. Ongoing management processes of the
Coastal Management Program should include
a mechanism by which cultural resources
are an integral part of the Program.
3. North Carolina determined to discuss cultural/
historic issues under Recreation and Tourism
3. Cultural Resources should not be con- because the linkage seemed to be strongest. The
sidered solely under Tourism and Recrea- State in no way intends this to diminish the impor-
tion Resource Issues. tance of this category of activities by placing
its discussion under Recreation/Tourism. While the
issues relating to cultural/ historic resources
may be broader than one particular AEC category,
,Kie State thinks it is most appropriate here.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(Ryan) (5/4/78) (Ryan) (~5/4/78)

Comments Responses

1. We note on page 113 that State energy 1. No comment necessary.
policy fosters "a statewide planning and
coordinating program to promote continued
growth of economical public utility services
and to cooperate with other States and with
the Federal government in promoting and co-
ordinating interstate and intrastate public
utility services." We find in this state-
ment an appropriate recognition of regional
interests. On page 223, major energy trans-
mission or generating facilities are clearly
identified as uses that produce regional
benefit. The plan on page 217 also appro-
priately recognizes that energy transmission
and generation facilities are national
interest concerns.

2. The plan does not contain a planning pro- 2. We will notify North Carolina that you would
cess for energy facilities as required by like to review official draft work on Section
section 305(bX'8) of the Coastal Zone Manage- 305(b)(8) prior to approval.
ment Act. We understand from an April 10
communication from Mr. Stewart that this de-
ficiency will be satisfied before the statu-
tory deadline of October 1, 1978. It is our
understanding that CZMA permits approval of
the plan without the detailing of this energy
planning process. lie will be very interested
in reviewing this supplement and would be
happy to comment on it before it is formally
published.

Ray M. Spencer & Son, Farms Ray M. Spencer & Son, Farms
Scranton, N.C. (5/20/78) Scranton, N.C. (5/20/78)

Comments Responses

1. I take issue with the statement at the 1. Water quality data gathererd by the State
bottom of Page 70 "Runoff from agricultural indicates that agricultural ditches contribute
ditches MAY HAVE high levels of sediment and significantly to the levels of sediment entering
chemicals associated with herbicides, pesti- the coastal waters. Recent studies of nutrients
cides and fertilizer." Before such a MAY HAVE in Albemarle Sound indicate that agricultural
statement is made, the chemicals, herbicides ditches contribute significant levels of nitrogen
and fertilizer should be identified and the and other chemicals associated with fertilizer to
impact of these sediments and chemicals on the waters of that area. Additional information
marine life should be documented and provable can be obtained from DNRCD. (Water Resources
statements. It is a known fact many species Research Institute Report #127 Water Quality In
of fish migrate to the agricultural drainage The North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams and
canals to spawn. Effects of Channelization; Fertilizers and Water
Quality in North Carolina Coastal Plain, Gillian,
Weed, Gambrell, WRRI, Research Special #74; Data
Report #1 Water Quality Ramifications of Con-
verting Forests to Intensive Agriculture, Barber
and Kirby-Smith, 1975 WRRI and Sea Grant.)

2. Mosguito Control is apparently not a 2. Mosquito control is of concern to North
concern to CAMA, it is not mentioned in the Carolina. North Carolina does realize the impact
program. This is the number one budget this problem has on both tourism and quality of
figure in the tourist areas of Hyde County. life in the coastal zone. The State's program
Tourism and mosquitoes do not mix --- the will look at this more closely as the document
citizenship must endure and tolerate great and program continue to be refined. Any specific
hordes of mosquitoes during warm, wet seasons. suggestions you may have should be directed to
When you realize that public funds are expended DNRCD so that they can accommodate any of these.
to protect coastal areas and yet no mention is
made of the health of the coastal residents,
there is a lack of PLANNING.

Onslow County, North Carolina Onslow County, North Carolina
(4/24/78) ( 4/24/78)

Comments Responses

1. Our chief concern is that the State of 1. This issue has been brought to the
North Carolina is not considering its own attention of CRC and the Staff Is working
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) in the on this now. However, it would appear
distribution of the $116.5 million raised by that the number of participants on the
the Clean Wataer Bond Referendum. The "higher priority" list are proportionally
coastal areas of this State have always had higher in the coast than any where else in
water and sewarage difficulty due to a high the State.
water table, and this problem will only
become more critical as inadequate systems The criteria for this priority listing are
are required to pump more water and handle very comprehensive and not based solely on
more human waste. Since the State is con- water quality's relationship to recreation
vinced of the importance of coastal tourism and tourism. Other criteria include popula-
and recreation to the economy and since these tion, effect of water quality on other indus-
activities can only be promoted in a clean try, etc. This issue will be addressed more
environment, it is imperative that the coast completely by the CRC in the very near future.
be given primary consideration for the dis-
tribution of these monies. This issue was
brought to the attention of the Economic
Development Task Force of the Coastal Re-
sources Commission (CRC) at the meeting of
February 23. 1978. No action was taken and
none has been forthcoming.

2. The North Carolina coastal management pro- 2. North Carolina agrees fully and they feel
gram must address the problem of how to mini- this program is designed to ensure that ade-
mize the impacts of waste pollution on coastal quate waste treatment facilities are available.
waters by supporting development of environ- This program is encouraging local coastal par-0
mentally sound waste treatment systems and ticipation in "201" programs. The AEC permit
guiding new development to areas which are program is addressing the impacts of conven-
served by such systems or which are suitable tional septic tanks on coastal waters.
for septic tanks.

45
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency (Dickerson) 6/14/78)
(Dickerson) (6114/78)
Responses
Comments
1. It should be noted that all Federal air
1. EPA does not believe the program con- and water quality standards are inherently
sistently provides for incorporation of both a part of State coastal management programs
air and water considerations. We believe pursuant to the rules and regulations of
this derives in part from using the Coastal the FCZMA of 1972. North Carolina considers
Area Management Act 11CAMA) which focuses maintenance of air and water standards of
almost exclusively on land and water rather prime concern throughout the State and their
than air, land and water. Specifically, we coastal Issues and policies statements do
find a discussion of air quality consider- not reflect an undue emphasis on problems
ations lacking in essentially all the issues associated with air quality within the
and policies on growth management, coastal coastal zone because the problem is not
industry, transportation, energy and environ- considered to be necessarily greater here.
ment (pp. 69-92, 100-120). We also note that
the North Carolina Administrative Code for
development standards applicable to all Areas
of Environmental Concern (AECs) does not con-
tain a section prohibiting pollution of air.
(Appendix B, p. 116)
The standards and requirements of FWPCA
EPA would appreciate clarification as to how and CAA are an inherent part of the NCCMPI.
the North Carolina coastal program incorpor- The AEC permit standards do not specify
ates "all standards and requirements of the these CMA requirements as they are specifi-
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) cally mentioned in the FCZMA and are an in-
and Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended into our herent part of these AEC standards. The
management program"~ (p. 215) and excludes State intends to base all its decisions on
CAA requirements from the AEC permit Federal air and water quality standards in
standards? addition to stated coastal goals and poli-
cies. This will include development pro-
EPA does not believe these basic exclusions posed for AECs.
reflect the statutory intent of Section 307( f)
of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
2. Please note editorial changes to the
2. EPA recommends that the section of the document.
plan concerning "Institutional Arrangements
Policies--Federal Consistency and National
Interest" (.Chapter 3, p. 122) emphasize that
the national interests involved in planning
and siting facilities cannot be balanced
against the national interests in attainment
and maintenance of air and water quality
standards. A statement similar to the one
in Chapter 6, "C w)hen national interests are
clearly paramont ( sic) as in the case of ...
the protection of water and air quality, then
the balancing of natural (sic) interests is
unnecessary," (pp. 215-216), should be added.
3. The North Carolina program does recognize
3. EPA recommends that the Coastal Management that such direct and indirect impacts might
Program (CLIP) more clearly recognize that both exist and through the program's incorporation
the location and type of facilities within the of Federal air and water quality standards
coastal zone can have various direct ( through meets the requirements of the FCZMA in this
their emissions) and indirect ' through emissions respect. The Executive Order requires close
from induced secondary developments) effects an coordination between the CMP and the SIP.
coastal air quality. We believe that more
specific information and procedures for coordi-
nating the CMP and state implementation plan
(SIP) are necessary.

Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency
(Dickerson) 'I6/14/78) Dickerson) ',6/14/78)

Comments Responses

4. EPA recommends that the policies concerning 4. This kind of consideration regarding
"Residential, Commercial, and Second Rome "fair quality" is inherent in the program.
Development" (p. 102) emphasize that local and In a situation where a LUF encourages
state agencies should not encourage moderate growth which might hinder full attainment
or high density growth in "transition" areas or maintenance of air quality standards,
where such growth would hinder the attainment the State policy (i.e., State air quality
or maintenance of air quality standards. standards) would prevail.

5. EPA finds that while the AEC identification 5. The CRC will be very pleased to work with EPA
procedure discussed in the plan " pp. 28-30) in developing future AEC designation cate-
provides for designation of renewable resource gories. Please refer to the following
areas, such areas where a "generalized condition responses: #6-NRDC, #2-DOI.
of ... .air pollution exists" or "areas with a
significant potential for air inversions," as
AECs, this category does not seem to have been
included as a final AEC category. EPA suggests
that certain coastal areas of exceptional air
quality deserve AEC protection. The Coastal
Resources Commission (,CRC) should also seriously
investigate designating areas presently not
meeting air quality (or water quality) standards
as areas for preservation or restoration or as
ABCs to assist DEM in ensuring that the standards
are maintained.

EPA also requests that air pollution considera- Please refer to response #4 above.
tions be included as one of the "Development
Standards Applicable to all ABCs" (Appendix
B, p. 116).

6. EPA urges that Appendix D (p. 248) be modi- 6. Please note that the appendices should
fied to state that coastal planning activities read "point and non-point sources". Please
must be coordinated with 208 planning for both refer to response #4 of the NRIJC comment
point and nonpoint sources. In addition, EPA section.
recommends that the policies for agriculture
and forestry (pp. 104-105) describe in more
detail the process for incorporating "appropriate
best management practices for non-point source
pollutants developed through the Section 208
planning process" into the plan. This is par-
ticularly significant in light of the current
exemption of agricultural and silvicultural
activities from the AEC permit process. We
also urge that the coastal policies for
activities other than agriculture and forestry
also discuss their relationship to ongoing 208
planning activities in North Carolina which-are
listed in the Appendix (pp. 248-249).

7. We recommend that water and waste treatment 7. The list, as stated, is not exclusive;
facilities be listed in Chapter 3 (p. 65, 101) rather, the list will be refined and extended.
as an example of a "key facility" which can North Carolina agrees that the examples you
strongly influence development patterns. raise are potential key facility designations.

8. The Waste Disposal Policy( (p. 116, #7) for B. We agree.
sewage systems should not encourage regional

Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency
Dickerson) C~ 6114/78) C Dickerson) ( 6/14/78)

Comments Responses

sewage systems if more cost effective and
equally environmentally beneficial package
plants or innovate on-site technologies
are available.

9. The dredge and spoil and wetlands policies 9. The State's permitting system is designed to
(pp. 118-120) need to be altered to reflect the meet the needs of North Carolina and while the
404(.bX 1) guidelines ( 40 CFR Part 230) and the regulations may not be identical in all instances,
Corps of Engineers regulations (33 CFR Part 323 North Carolina does believe that their dredge and
et. seq.) for issuance of 404 permits. spoil and wetlands policies are an adequate re-
reflection of both 404 and COE regulations.

10. EPA believes the State consistency pro- 10. Reference #5 above. In addition, it is
visions violate the Federal consistency regu- State coastal policy that air andv*ater quality
lations by circumventing the basic assumptions standards be met prior to a consistency deter-
of the Federal consistency regulations that an mination being made.
activity cannot be allowed if it violates air
or water quality requirements pursuant to
Section 307(f) . Thus a test for consistency
must include an affirmative decision that air
and water requirements will not be violated.
Due to the lack of air quality considerations
mentioned earlier, the elements North Carolina
has chosen to use--ABC standards, local land
use plans, and State Guidelines (p. 205)-- do
not permit such an affirmative decision.

11. EPA believes the exemption of agricultural 11. Please refer to response #4 and #5 of the
and forestry activities, energy facilities NRDC comment section. Also Interior comment #2.
regulated by the State Utilities Commission,
and certain other activities from AEC provisions
raises serious questions about the effectiveness
of the AEC concept to enforce the coastal
policies for the critical resources in North
Carolina's first tier.

12. EPA is also concerned that activities 12. Please refer to response #1 of the NRDC comment
outside of, but directly affecting designated section and response #4 and #6 of the NRDC
ABCs, cannot be effectively regulated by the CRC. comment section.
If such "affecting" developments cannot be con-
trolled, then the added protection provided by
ABCs may prove less than adequate. EPA urges that
the CMP develop legally enforceable policies and
procedures for ensuring AEC protection from outside
activites.

13. We are particularly concerned that the per- 13. The State has an overview authority over all
mitting of numerous "minor" developments may have minor development permitting in ABCs and has an
serious cumulative impacts upon coastal resources. Executive Order which binds all State agencies to
Even small scale growth, such as a series of coastal goals and policies in areas outside ABCs.
individual septic tank systems, can have signifi- We feel that this overview capacity coupled with
cant impacts on critical coastal resources such the Executive Order provides the necessary control
as aquifers. Procedures by which the local for managing cumulative impacts from development
development officers will consider these impacts activity.
should be discussed. Again, in this instance,
the limited advisory role of the CRC in areas
outside the ABCs casts doubts on the overall
effectiveness of the CMP.

Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency
(Dickerson) C 6/14178) (Dickerson) C 6/14/78)

Comments Responses

14. EPA recommends that further consideration 14. North Carolina has determined that adequate
be given to designating all of the Outer Banks protection has been afforded to the Outer Banks
anid the barrier island system, not excluded as and Barrier Islands through protection afforded
Federal Lands from the coastal zone (Isee each of the ABC categories. This office also
Appendix E), as AFCs or in some manner develop- believes the necessary management authorities exist
ing policies ensuring their special protection. for adequate protection of the Barrier Islands.
This protection would be in addition to that Please also refer to response #2 in the DOI comment
provided in AEC ocean beaches, frontal dunes, section; NRDC comment #6.
ocean erodible areas, estuarine shorelines,
inlet lands, and estuarine/public trust waters.

15. EPA recommends that utility corridors, 15. The State will take this as an advisory
such as those for power lines and gas pipe- position until such time as critical use lists are
lines, be added to the critical uses list. updated. Full consideration will be given for such
designation at that time. In addition, there is
currently some State regulation on gas pipelines
and power lines through other State agencies which
are bound by the Executive Order.

PART I

INTRODUCT ION

A. DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA)

In response to the intense pressures upon, and because of the
importance of the coastal zone of the United States, Congress
passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583) which
was signed into law on October 27, 1972. The Act authorized
a Federal grant-in-aid program to be administered by the
Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsi-
bility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion's (NOAA) Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). In
July of 1976, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was
substantially amended (P.L. 94-370). The Act and 1976 amend-
ments affirm a national interest in the effective protection
and development of the coastal zone by providing assistance
and encouragement to coastal states to develop and implement
rational programs for managing their coastal zones.

Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of the CZMA
provide the necessary direction for developing these state
programs. Besides the financial assistance incentive for
state participation, CZMA stipulates that Federal activities
affecting the coastal zone shall be, to the maximum extent
practicable, consistent with approved state management pro-
grams (the Federal Consistency requirement, Section 307(c)(1)
and (2)). Section 307 further provides for mediation by the
Secretary of Commerce when serious disagreement arises
between a Federal agency and a State with respect to the
administration of a State's program and shall require public
hearings in concerned localities.

Section 308 establishes a coastal energy impact assistance
program consisting of:

- Annual formula grants (100% Federal share) to coastal
states, based upon specific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
energy activity criteria (Section 308 (b)).

- Planning grants (80% Federal share) to study and plan for
economic, social, and environmental consequences resulting
from new or expanded coastal energy facilities (Section
308(c)).

- Loans or bond guarantees to states and local governments
for improved public facilities and services required as a
result of new or expanded coastal energy activity (Sections
308(d)(1) and (2)).

- Grants to coastal states or local governments if they are
unable to meet obligations under a loan or guarantee because
the energy activity and associated employment and population
do not generate sufficient tax revenues (Section 308(d)(3)).

- Grants to coastal states if such states' coastal zones
suffer any unavoidable loss of valuable environmental or

recreational resources which results from coastal energy
activity (Section 308(b) and (d)(4)).

Section 309 allows the Secretary to make grants (90% Federal
share) to states to coordinate, study, plan, and implement
interstate coastal management programs.

Section 310 allows the Secretary to conduct a program of
research, study, and training to support state management
programs. The Secretary may also make grants (80% Federal
share) to states to carry out research studies and training
required to support their programs.

Section 315 authorizes grants (50% Federal share) to states
to acquire lands for access to beaches and other public
coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical,
aesthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and for the pre-
servation of islands, in addition to the estuarine sanctuary
program to preserve a representative series of undisturbed
estuarine areas for long-term scientific and educational
purposes.

B. OCZM REQUIREMENTS FOR SECTION 306 PROGRAM APPROVAL

The table below indicates which chapters of the North
Carolina Program Submission describe how the State's program
meets the specific requirements of Section 306 of the CZMA.

OCZM Requirements North Carolina Coastal
15 CFR Part 923, Section: Management Program

.4(b) Problems, Issues and Program Summary, 50-60, 105-163
Objectives
.5 Environmental Impact Part III, 265-292
Assessment
.11 Boundaries 165-172
.12 Land and Water Uses to
be Managed 173-224
.13 Areas of Particular Concern 249-254
.14 Guidelines on Priority of Uses 177-197
.15 National Interest in the
Siting of Facilities 121-124, 131-132, 150-152, 240-246
.16 Area Designation for Preser-
vation and Restoration 250-254
.17 Local Regulations ad Use of
Regional Benefit 132, 225-229, 247-249, 253-254
.18 Shorefront Access Planning Not Required at this Time.
.19 Energy Facility Planning Not Required at this Time.
.20 Shoreline Erosion Not Required at this Time.

OCZM Requirements North Carolina Coastal
15 CFR Part 923, Section Management Program

.31 Means of Exerting State Program Summary, 53-59,198- 24,
Control Over Land and Appendices A,B,C.
Water Uses
.32 Organizational Structure
to Implement the Manage-
ment Program 67-68,217,268-269,271-273
.33 Designation of Single
Agency 67-68
.34 Authorities to Administer 198-224, Appendices, A,B,C.
Land and Water Use, Control
Development and Resolve
Conflicts
.35 Authorities for Property Acquisition Appendix C., 247-249
.36 Techniques for Control of Program Summary, 50-59,198-224
Land and Water Uses Apendices A,B,C.
.41 Full Participation by
Relevant Bodies in
Adoption of Management
Program 61-104; Appendix D.
.42 Consultation and Coor-
dination with Other
Planning Efforts 99-101,130,132-133,246-256
.51 Public Hearings 91-99 Appendix D.
.52 Gubernatorial Review Executive Order, 210,216,
and Approval Governor's Letter
.54 Applicability of Air and 152-154 Appendix C.
Water Pollution Control
Requirements

C. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 REQUIREMENTS

On January 1, 1970, the President signed into law the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which required each
Federal agency to prepare a statement of environmental impact
in advance of each major action that may significantly affect
the quality of the human environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) must assess potential environmental
impacts of such action.

To comply with NEPA's requirement of preparing an EIS, OCZM
has combined the State's coastal management program (Federal
approval of which is the proposed action) with a discussion
of the environmental impacts. The CZMA is based upon the
premise that the environmental aspects of the coastal man-
agement program should receive significant consideration in
the development of State programs. Therefore, as you read
this EIS, you should be aware that the State coastal manage-
ment program is the core document included in its entirety,
supplemented by the requirements of NEPA, Section 102(2)(c).

For the reviewers who are familiar with the NEPA requirements
for the content of an EIS, the index to follow will provide0

TABLE 2

Description of the proposed action..........Part II, 61-263

Description of the environment affected .......265

Relationship of the proposed action to land use
plans, policies, and controls for the affected
area.........................270

Probable impact of the proposed action on
the environment ...................270

Alternatives to the proposed action .........277

Probable adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided ..................286

Relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity ...............288

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources that would be involved in the
proposed action should it be implemented ......289

Consultation and Coordination with Others......290

D. PROGRAM SUMMARY OF NORTH CAROLINA'S COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM

The passage of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
(CAI4A) during the 1974 Session of the General Assembly demon-
strated the State's strong and continued interest in protect-
ing its coastal resources. It marked the beginning of an
attempt to institute an integrated system of land and water
management using a variety of management tools at all levels
and departments of government.

The policy formulation contained in CANA, although influenced
by the national awareness of environmental issues, was moti-
vated primarily by State issues and concerns, and proceeded
largely independent of Federal coastal management efforts.

The CANA has survived a court challenge testing its constitu-
tionality and several legislative attempts to repeal or
weaken it. However in addition to CAMA, the State of North
Carolina has established a mechanism to ensure that all
coastal-related issues are addressed by the State in a

coordinated fashion. The Executive Order which creates such
a coordinating mechanism was obtained in response to OCZM
requests. It is further evidence of the strong commitment in
North Carolina to a wise use of coastal resources.

Program Framework

North Carolina's Coastal Manaement Program consists of: (1)
the resource management laws reaulations and standards des-
cribedin A ndi (2) State olicies concerning coastal
management established by statutes or by authority of
statutes as set out l perThree- ( the Govern'or's
ExecutTi*-ve Oerh umber 15; and'-4) the Coastal Area Manaee-
ment Act which serves to ~rov~u a cohesive bond with
existing statutes to Provide a broad svstem of coastal man-
agaement complete with its guidelines, regulations_ stan-
dards, proced~ures, and Coca u se plans-. The above
stated elements are incorporated and described in the "North
Carolina Coastal Program Document" which allows for amendment
through proper channels thereby assuring a program that will
continue to be relevant to the needs of the coastal area.

North Carolina's objective in developing a coastal management
program is to establish a comprehensive coordinated approach
for the protection, preservation, and orderly development of
the State's coastal resources. In large measure, the manage-
ment program is based on the legislative authorities con-
tained in the CAMA which establishes the Coastal Resources
Cowmission _(CRC as a regional resource management bony. The
key features of the CAMA are: (1) CRC involvement in all
decisions invoving developmentin critical coastal resources
areas "called areas of environmen-ta T-oncern T1a'2)
devel o elocal governlments of l and use under CRC
policy direction and subject to final apprva.

In addition to CAMA, other North Carolina statutes and regu-
lations will be relied upon to ensure a comprehensive man-
agement program; these authorities will be coordinated
through an Executive Order signed by the Governor. Finally,
locaJ_.develgJ land u e lans will be available to aid the
State in understanding local desires forwth and
development. To the extent that these land use plans are not
inconsistent with state policy, they will be used to guide
State decision-making.

North Carolina's program involves a relatively large coastal
area consisting of 20 coastal counties. Within this area, a
two-tiered approach was chosen for management purposes. The
first tier consists of critical resource areas, designated as
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs), in which most signi-
ficant land and water uses are regulated by permit. The
second tier consists of the area within the coastal counties
but outside the Areas of Environmental Concern. In this

second tier, the program calls for management of certain uses
by coordinating existing state authorities; additionally, the
State will be guided by policies contained in state-approved
land use plans which have been prepared by the local govern-
ments under CAMA uidelines entitled "State Guidelines".
These Guidelines consist of two sections. One section con-
tainsuidelines and criteria for development within AECs;
the other section contains general guidelines for development
of land use plans throughout the entire coastal area.

Management in the First Tier - AhCs

The AECs include near shore and estuarine waters, saltwater
wet lands, beaches and primary dunes and certain other areas
which together represent a narrow band, or buffer zone,
around coastal waters, where regulation of nearly all uses
will occur. These areas encompass the State's most important
coastal resources where direct and significant impacts are
most likely.

AEC Permit Addministration

Nearly all development activities in the AECs are regu-
lated by permit. The authority for administering the CAMA
permit program in AECs is shared between the CRC and local
government units within the coastal area. The CRC will
process applications for major development permits and
appeals of local decisions concerning minor development
application. Once the CRC has approved a local implementa-
tion and enforcement plan, a local government may process
applications for minor development permits in AECs. The
local decision, however, is subject to appeal to the CRC.

AEC Permit Criteria

CAMA directs the CRC and local governments to deny
permits in AECs where development would be inconsistent with
the State Guidelines for AECs or with local land use plans.
The State Guidelines for AECs, which were developed by the
CRC and adopted by rule, contain specific and detailed per-
mitting criteria. According to CAMA, all sections of the
local land use plans dealing with AECs and all local ordin-
ances and regulations within AECs must be consistent with the
State Guidelines for AECs. All local land use plans have
been certified as being consistent with the State Guidelines.
Thus, in theory, there should be no inconsistencies between
the AEC portion of local land use plans and the State Guide-
lines for AECs. Subsequent to the 1976 certification,
however, the State Guidelines for AECs were revised.
However, since the AEC section of LUPs were based on proposed
or potential AECs and not on established AECs (the CRC desig-
nated AECs and adopted guidelines after the local plans were
certified), a certified local land use plan may be incon-
sistent with the final Guidelines for AECs. For this reason

the CRC will soon complete a second review of the local land
use plans to insure that they are consistent with the revised
Guidelines for AECs. In the interim, if a case arises where
the local land use plan is inconsistent with the State Guide-
lines for AECs, the State Guidelines will control and the
criteria identified therein will be used to determine whether
or not the AEC permit should be issued.

Management in the Second Tier

In the coastal areas outside AECs, the program calls for a
more limited state role. The state will v _e
decision-makin in non-AEC areas onl where uses and
activities which have a Doten"al for directlv and signi-
ficantlv affecting coastal resources are beine Dropos.
(Such uses and activities are referred to in the program
document as "Critical Uses".) Statutes and regulations which
are already in force in North Carolina provide the state with
the authority to make decisions regarding these critical
uses.

Understanding How Critical Uses are Regulated

In order to aid the reader in understanding the nature
and degree of state involvement in citing decisions regarding
critical uses, the program document contains a matrix which
identifies the state authorities that are applicable to each
use and a discussion of the criteria and standards related to
each authority. To facilitate use of this information and to
demonstrate the relationship between the issues, the
policies, the matrix, and the criteria and standards, the
following example is proposed.

Assume that one is interested in the mangement programs'
treatment of petroleum refineries. To determine the issues
developed by the State of North Carolina relative to refin-
eries, the reader would turn to the discussion in Chapter 3
on Energy, Issues (page ). Next, the reader would probably
wish to examine the policies of the state regarding these
facilities; these can be found in the section of Chapter 3
which sets forth State energy policies. The next step would
be to refer to the discussion of those authorities that will
be used to enforce the policies. If the proposed location of
a petroleum refinery is in an AEC, it would require a CRC
major development permit in addition to other applicable
State permits. In this case all the criteria set forth in
the State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern
(Appendix B) would be relevant. If the refinery was proposed
for an area outside an AEC, it would fall into the category
of a "critical use" subject to State management. One would
rely on the matrix to identify the authorities which regulate
the various activities associated with an oil refinery.
Finally, to determine the criteria and standards used to make
decisions under each of these authorities, one may use the
discussion in Appendix C.

Thus by going from the issue and policy statements in
Chapter 3 to the Matrix and then to the criteria and
standards of Appendix F, one can determine the State's per-
ception of the issues and problems associated with Petroleum
Refineries, the state's policies regarding such facilities,
the laws and regulations that will be relied upon by the
State to regulate refineries, and, finally, the standards and
criteria that will be used to make decisions with respect to
each law and regulation.

Role of the Executive Order

To ensure that the pre-existing statutes, and regula-
tions controlling critical uses are exercised in accordance
with coastal goals and policies, the Governor of North
Carolina has issued an Executive Order which requires State
Agency consistency with the goals and policies stated in the
Coastal Management Program, with the State Guidelines promul-
gated pursuant to CAMA, and with the local land use plans.
An example of how the Executive Order integrates existing
regulation of critical uses with the local land use plans may
be helpful. Assume that an applicant applies to the Environ-
mental Management Commission (EMC) for a permit to construct
a well with a design capacity of more than 100,000 gallons
per day as required by the North Carolina Well Construction
Act (N.C.G.S. ). The well is necessary to provide
water to a large apartment complex (a critical use) planned
for construction in a coastal area outside an AEC. The
Executive Order mandates the EMC, in determining whether to
issue a permit, to review and make its decision consistent to
the maximum extent possible, with:

(1) the State Guidelines for Land Use Planning and the
State Guidelines for AECs promulgated pursuant to
CAMA;

(2) the coastal policies articulated in Chapter 3 of
the "North Carolina Coastal Plan" and;

(3) local land use plans.

Accordingly, in determining whether to issue the permit,
the following EMC actions are necessary.

EMC Review of State Guidelines

As lon as the activity is not proposed for an AEC, it
is li that the State Guidelines for -and UsePlanninR
ZLUP) wilnot be very important in the EMC decision-makin
process since thev manl contain uaance for local ~overn-
mentsreaara how the Dla ns should be designed and deve-
oped.

EMC Review of Coastal Policies

The EMC must determine whether the proposed apartment
complex would be inconsistent with any of the coastal
policies listed in Chapter 3 of "The North Carolina Coastal
Plan." If it would be inconsistent, and if the CRC has the
flexibility under the North Carolina Well Construction Act
and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, the
Executive Order requires that the EMC deny or condition the
permit in such a way that the coastal policies are not
violated.

EMC Review of the Local Land Use Plan

The EMC must also consider the contents of the local
land use plan during its permit deliberations. In parti-
cular, the EMC must look at (1) any specific policies
regarding apartment development that the land use plan may
contain, and (2) the land use classification for the site in
question. First, assume that the land has been classified by
the local government as "transitional" and that the local
government wishes to accommodate moderate to high density
development in the area. In this situation, the EMC should
issue the permit unless its own policies and/or criteria for
well construction are violated or unless some of the policies
of the "North Carolina Coastal Plan" would be violated by
construction of the well. Conversely, assume that the land
has been classified by the local government as "rural" which
reflects the local government's wish to preserve the site for
agriculture and forestry activities. This local desire must
be considered by the EMC and, provided sufficient discretion
exists under the Well Construction Act, the ERC should deny
the permit for the well.

Obviously there will be differences in the amount of
discretion that the state agency making a permit decision
regarding a critical use may exercise. In most instances,
however, statutes and rules and regulations are drawn broadly
and the administering agency will have adequate discretion to
take the state coastal and local land use plans into consid-
eration.

Decisions of Local Concern

The State will not play a regulatory role in
decision-making in non-AEC coastal areas where "critical
uses" are not involved. Such decisions are of local concern
only and should be decided by the local governments. In
these situations, the local land use plans should be of
primary importance. It is hoped that local governments will
make land use decisions consistent with these plans (although
they are not required to do so). Federal and State agencies
will comply with the plans to the greatest extent possible
and will use them as a guide for public investment decisions
and financial assistance activities.

Planning

North Carolina wishes to stimulate, encourage, and support local
planning as an essential element of wise resource management.
Local identification and understanding of the problems associated
with land use and growth management through planning is a pre-
requisite to avoiding environmental degradation while achieving
economic growth and development. The fifty-two local land use
plans thus far developed by cities and counties serve as a clear
expression of local sentiment and desires. As they are revised so
as to be consistent with the Final State Guidelines for AECs and
refined so as to contain more detail, they will become increas-
ingly important. This will be accomplished over a period of time
as local conditions change, as State Guidelines are modified to
require greater specificity, and as local planning experience and
acceptance is gained.

E. EFFECTS OF FEDERAL APPROVAL ON THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL
MANAGEMENT ~PROGRAM

The State's CANA focuses heavily on local planning and imple-
mentation of State Guidelines. The State's permitting
process will play a major role in implementaton of CAMiA's
goals and objectives for growth and development in the
coastal area.

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program strengthens the
State's program by ensuring a more coordinated and compre-
hensive system of managing coastal resources. To gain
approval under the Federal program, the State was required to
develop specific policies to effect sound coastal management
and to ensure that relevant state agency decisions were made
in accord with these policies. The end result should be a
much broader based decision-making process with consideration
of all aspects of a problem rather than a single aspect as is
now often the case.

The Federal Act provides several key planning and inter-
governmental coordination elements which make the Federal
program unique and different from the State CANA. The most
significant anticipated changes will be:

Increase Federal funding assistance available to
State and local governments to promote and imple-
ment sound coastal management.

More comprehensive tehnical assistance available to
local governments.

An improved State permitting program through better
permit coordination, more enforcement personnel,
better training procedures, and more technical
support to localities.

* Greater enforcement of those State laws currently
in effect in the coastal areas.

* The State would be required to consider the
national interest in the siting of facilities on
the North Carolina coast.

* Federal activities affecting the coastal area would
be required to be consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the North Carolina coastal
program.

* Consideration and planning for shorefront access,
shoreline erosion, and OCS development.

In all the Federal Act is an effective complement to the North
Carolina Act that provides incentives and a national direction
that cannot be provided by the State Act alone. The Federal Act
will facilitate a coordinated approach to coastal management
decisions and resource planning.

PART TII

THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL PLAN

Prepared by:
North Carolina Coastal Management
Program
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Development
Archdale Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Kenneth D. Stewart, Director

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RALEIGH 27611
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
~July 13, 1978

Dear Mr. Knecht:

On behalf of the State of North Carolina, I am pleased to transmit
the Coastal Zone Management Program in fulfillment of Section 306
requirements of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
This program represents four years of diligent efforts by coastal
citizens and local, state, and federal agencies to identify and
formulate a balanced approach to managing our precious coastal
resources.

I believe that this program adequately describes and addresses the
important coastal issues in North Carolina and that the document
fully satisfies the requirements of Section 306 of the Federal Act.

As Governor, I am very proud that North Carolina is the first southern
state to submit a comprehensive coastal management program for approval.
I am equally proud and excited that the principal forces in program
development have come from coastal citizen involvement through parti-
cipation on the Coastal Resources Commission, the Advisory Council,
local government units, and local planning boards.

This program should be viewed as North Carolina's policy for managing
its resources in the coastal area. In addition, the Secretary of
Natural Resources and Community Development has been asked to continue
to receive and administer implementation grants and to conduct the
state program in a coordinated fashion with all appropriate local, state,
and federal agencies.

Please be assured that the state agencies that are networked together
to form our comprehensive coastal program are appropriately organized
and possess the necessary authority to fully implement this important
program.

I trust that you will find North Carolina's program satisfactory as
described and that we can look forward to a continued close and
cooperative working relationship with the Office of Coastal Zone
Management as we implement our program.

Mr. Robert W. Knecht
July 13, 1978
Page Two

My warmest personal regards.

Mr. Robert W. Knecht
Associate Administrator for
Coastal Zone Management
NOAA - U. S. Department of Commerce
3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W.
Page Building #1
Washington, D. C. 20235

* (~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~(I~~~~~~L~~~~~h~~~~~ ~NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

LiL�I111Z~~~~~~~~~~I7'7~~~~~~ Section I. All State agencies shall take account of and be con-

JAMES B. HUNT, JR. sistent to the maximum extent possible with the coastal policies, guide-
GOVERNOR ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lines and standards contained in the State guidelines, with the local

EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 15 land use plans developed under the mandate of The Coastal Area Management

Act, and with the North Carolina Coastal Plan prepared under the Federal

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in passing the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in all regulatory programs, use

Coastal Area Management Act, has expressed its desire for a comprehensive,a n d ipstoofttewedldfnaclassaceorubc

coordinated management system for the protection and orderly development facilities, and encouragement and location of major public and private

of the coastal area; and, growth-inducing facilities.

WHEREAS, the stated goals of the Coastal Area Management Act are: Section 2. The Secretary of Natural Resources and Community

(1) To preserve and manage the natural ecological conditions Development and the Coastal Resources Commission shall ensure the oppor-

of the estuarine system, the barrier dune system, and the beaches, tunity for full participation by affected State agencies in the develop-

so as to safeguard and perpetuate their natural productivity and ment of policies and guidelines for the coastal area prior to their

their biological, economic and aesthetic values; adoption.

(2) To insure that the development or preservation of the Section 3. All conflicts arising from the implementation of this

land ad wate resorces o the oastalarea poceed in a annerorder within the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development

consisent wih thecapabiity o the lnd andwaterfor deelop-shall be resolved by the Secretary of that Department, and all conflicts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~vrconsistency witwee the caadmilistyrn cofsthelmandagmnd waterncydeelp
ment, use, or preservation based on ecological considerations; oe ossec ewe h diitrn osa aaeetaec

(3) To insure the orderly and balanced use and preservation (Department of Natural Resources and Community Development) and another

of our coastal resources on behalf of the people of North Carolina department of State government shall be resolved by the Governor.

and the nation; Section 4. This Executive Order shall be effective immediately.

(4) To establish policies, guidelines and standards for: Done in Raleigh, North Carolina, this the 27th day of October,

(i) Protection, preservation, and conservation of 1977.

natural resources, including, but not limited to,

water use, scenic vistas, and fish and wildlife;

and management of transitional or intensely developed ORO OfCAROLI1&A
areas and areas especially suited to intensive use or

development, as well as areas of significant natural

value;

(ii) The economic development of the coastal area, SA

including, but not limited to, conservation, location

CHAPTER ONE GENESIS OF COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT

Introduction

From the earliest days of discovery and settlement by
European colonists, North Carolina's growth and development have
been intimately tied to the coastal region. The first European
settlement in North America was located on one of North Carolina's
coastal islands. Throughout the colonial and revolutionary
periods, the State's center of population was located near the
coast. The coastal sounds and rivers served as ports of entry and
major routes of commerce. During the late 1800's and early 1900's
the coastal area, isolated from the slow industrial and agricul-
tural growth of the inner coastal plain and piedmont, continued to
support fishing and water-based commerce. As a result of the
general national growth and prosperity that followed the second
World War, tourism and recreation joined agriculture, forestry,
and fishing as the major economic activities in the coastal
region. In recent years, several small limited areas of heavy
industry have developed on the coast.

('.\lS I -;LE.R iATII.IOT RESIST THE LANDING OF STAMPS AT BRUNSWICK

North Carolinians have long had a special concern for the
coast and for the proper management of its resources. The State's
deep roots are in its coastal area. Because of low population
levels and the virtual absence of industry in the area prior to
the 1950's, little need was perceived for any special legislation
to deal with regional problems. The principal concern of the
coastal region was to achieve some degree of economic growth so
that its residents could attain the standards of living enjoyed by
the residents of other regions of the State. This concern with
economic growth, to a large extent, still today prevades the
thinking of local governments in the coastal region. However,
rapid increases in tourism, second home development and new
industry during the 1960's created pressures on coastal marshland,
estuarine water and fisheries populations and led to a growing
realization that, without management, those resources might be
jeopardized or destroyed. North Carolina's Coastal Area Manage-
ment Act (CANA), (Article 7, G. S. 113A) represents the culmina-
tion of 10 years of effort to develop a management system that
would protect the State's coastal resources and yet permit their
wise and orderly development. A copy of the CANA, as amended, is
attached as Appendix A.

North Carolina and the nation followed nearly parallel
courses in developing their respective coastal management pro-
grams. Events at the state level reflect the slowly evolving
national awareness of environmental issues in general and the
special values and management problems associated with the
nation's coastal zone. However, the policy formulation contained
in CAMA, although influenced by national events, was motivated
primarily by state issues and concerns, and proceeded largely
independent of federal efforts. Although there was an awareness
that federal legislation with sanctions for failure to comply
might be passed, this concern never became a dominant issue in
efforts to formulate a state program. Also, the existence of
federal requirements for coastal zone management, although cer-
tainly a strong motivating force, never became the sole reason for
developing a state program.

Enactment of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act

The history of CAMA portrays the development in North
Carolina of public awareness of the need to protect coastal
resources and the development of a legislative (political)
response to this need.

Although there was an almost inherent relationship between
inhabitants of the coast and the natural systems of the region,
there was not general understanding that the economic and social
well-being of the coastal region and of its citizens depended upon
the protection and proper management of these systems. For
example, ever since the mid-1800's it has been state policy that
state nonnavigable wetlands should be "reclaimed" and put to
"productive" use. Such lands were, in fact, frequently sold in
fee by the State with the proceeds going to the literary fund of

the State Department of Public Instruction. Passage of the State
Lands Act (G.S. 146) in 1959 began a shift away from this policy
limiting the conveyance of stateowned wetlands and declaring that
the State's submerged lands should be preserved for the use of the
people. In addition, several major conservation battles during
the 1960's over preservation or development of coastal properties,
most notably concerning Bald Head Island in Brunswick County and
several disputes with the Corps of Engineers regarding spoil
disposal on marshlands, signaled a growing awareness of the value
of North Carolina's coastal area and of the need for new
strategies for its management.

As is frequently the case, legislative action lagged behind
public concern. In 1965, an ownership registration statute (G.S.
113-205 to 206) was passed requiring persons claiming ownership to
bottoms under navigable waters to register their claims. The 1969
General Assembly enacted several pieces of legislation that
provided the first real measure of state protection of its coastal
zone. A dredge and fill act (G.S. 113-229) administered by the
Department of Conservation and Development now administered by the
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD),
provided protection for coastal marshes against destructive
dredging, filling and other modifications. Amendments to Article
3, Chapter 104B of the General Statutes strengthened the State's
sand dune protection statutes and provided local governments of
the counties bordering the Atlantic Ocean with the power to
protect sand dunes against destruction. Both of these pieces of
legislation were strengthened in 1971 and a wetlands protection
statute (G.S.113-230) was added providing machinery for protection
of coastal wetlands. In addition, a State Environmental Policy
Act (Article 1, G.S. 113A) was passed in 1971, and in 1972 the
voters approved an "environmental bill of rights" that provides
constitutional protection (N.C. Const. art. XIV, Section 5) for
coastal wetlands and shorelands.

The birth of CAMA can be traced directly to the 1969 General
Assembly. After enacting the dredge and fill law, the General
Assembly directed the Commissioner of Commercial and Sports
Fisheries in the Department of Conservation and Development to
make a longterm study "with a view to the preparation of a
comprehensive and enforceable plan for the conservation of the
resources of the estuaries, the development of their shorelines,
and the use of the coastal zone of North Carolina" (Ch. 1164, 1969
Session Laws). A report on this study was to be submitted to the
Governor by November 1, 1973. Although consideration was given to
preparation of legislation in the spring of 1971, the actual
drafting of legislation began in December, 1971, when the Commis-
sioner of Commercial and Sports Fisheries established a "Compre-
hensive Estuarine Plan Blue Ribbon Committee" composed of 25
members, including lawyers, academicians, state and local govern-
ment officials, engineers and industry representatives.

Working through 1972, and with substantial input from the
Interagency Committee on the Environment and the Marine Science

Council, the Committee prepared at least four major drafts of pro-
posed legislation. Early versions vested major powers in state
agencies and had wideranging permit and regulatory authorities.
These were refined to provide for more local participation, but
the final version of the bill introduced into the General Assembly
on March 27, 1973, still was heavily oriented toward state initia-
tives. A public hearing held during the spring of 1973 revealed
opposition to the bill, chiefly from local government interests
who were concerned about their role under the bill. Thus, the
bill was held over for action until 1974. Subsequent hearings
during the summer of 1973 and visits to Florida, Maine, and
Vermont helped to refine the bill. The five hearings held on the
coast were particularly helpful, as they brought forth an impres-
sive number of specific suggestions for refinements. The most
tangible point made at these hearings was the strong expression by
local governments that they desired greater involvement in the
program. There was a virtually unanimous feeling that local
government should play a major role in the planning process --
that it should have some say in the selection of thestate-level
board responsible for supervision of the program.

Based on this information, the 1973 bill was substantially
rewritten and introduced at the beginning of the 1974 legislative
session. After almost endless hearings, committee meetings,
proposed amendments, and hours of floor debate, the bill was
ratified on April 12, 1974, one day before the end of the session.
Despite the intensity of debate, the final version of the bill was
basically similar to that which was introduced earlier in the
session. The major changes involved the composition of the
Coastal Resources Commission, providing greater input from local
government, and tightening criteria for identification of areas of
environmental concern and for denying permits. Most amendments
were designed to moderate or refine the bill. Many were frankly
tactical and designed to damage or delay the bill.

The Coastal Resources Commission

The General Assembly established within the Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development the Coastal Resources
Commission (G.S. 113A-104). The Commission is composed of 15 mem-
bers that represent certain prescribed coastal interests (G.S.
113A-104 (b)). Commercial fishing, wildlife or sports fishing,
marine ecology, coastal agriculture, coastal forestry, coastal
land development, marine related business, engineering, state or
national conservation organizations, financing of coastal land
development and local governments are all represented by at least
one member of the Commission. This broad mix of interests and
concerns provides the proper perspective for the comprehensive
policy making tasks that the Commission has accepted.

The General Assembly recognized the need for a strongly
coordinated influence to effectively implement an encompassing
resource management program. The Commission was therefore given a
major task implementing coastal area management primarily through
the coordination of governmental policies and actions. The
Coastal Area Management Act specified that the Commission would
serve as a policy making body with various responsibilities for
the administration of the Act -- most notably the development and
adoption of guidelines for local planning, the designation and
regulation of areas of environmental concern and the development
of specific policy necessary to guide the orderly growth and
* ~~~~development of the coastal area.

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

The State of North Carolina having passed its own compre-
hensive coastal management legislation also recognized the impor-
tance of participation in the voluntary federal program for
coastal management. In addition to providing the major source of
funds for program development and implementation, the federal
program offered numerous incentives and opportunities that the
State could not enjoy outside of participation in the FCZMA.
Among these opportunities are: federal agency consistency,
specific planning, research, and acquisition funds. North
Carolina realized as well that only through a coordinated
cooperative effort by all states could a management program for a
shared resource, such as coastal waters, be achieved.

Consequently, by letter dated May 31, 1974, the governor
designated the Secretary of the Department of Natural and Economic
Resources, (now DNRCD) to plan and manage the state's coastal
management efforts. Under this direction from the governor and
under the authority vested in the Secretary through CANA, the
Department of Natural resources and Community Development under-
took the development of the separate but closely related require-
ments of the state and federal coastal laws.

Though very closely related, the two laws have some differ-
ences in emphasis, terminology and applicability to North

Carolina's situation. Two key differences are the State CAMA's
greater emphasis on local land use planning to deal with many
coastal problems and the related issue of boundary size and the
impact on coastal waters. This boundary issue is important to
North Carolina because the General Assembly felt that land use
planning for entire counties rather than a narrow coastal strip
within those counties is an appropriate way to address many state
coastal problems. The designation of our 20 county area as the
coastal boundary under the federal requirements consequently
raises the problem of the necessity for and degree of coordinated
state control in upland areas that do not have a critical impact
on coastal waters.

CHAPTER TWO PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - - A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Introduction

The North Carolina Coastal Management Program has two major
phases. Both phases involve an integration of (1) the requirements
and authorities of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) with
existing state programs and authorities and (2) the requirements
of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (FCZMA). Phase
I of the program is the planning phase. Phase II of the program
is the implementation phase.

The first phase of the program -- planning -- involved three
elements. The first element is land use planning required by the
CAMA. Each of the 20 designated coastal counties and the munici-
palities in the coastal area were given the opportunity to prepare
land use plans. This element of work is virtually complete
although much remains to be done to achieve the degree of speci-
ficity necessary to guide public and private uses of land and
water resources, as well as to provide the framework necessary for
state and federal decisionmaking related to regulatory programs,
research needs, and public investment of funds.

The second element, conducted primarily on the state level
but with the participation of the public and all levels 'of
government, involves the designation for special management of
areas of environmental concern. The CAMA specified that there
would be a two-step process to arrive at the designations. The
first step was referred to as designation of interim areas of
environmental concern (IAEC's); followed by the second step --
final designation of areas of environmental concern (AECs) and
adoption of appropriate use standards for each AEC category.

The third element of Phase I is the preparation of the State
Coastal Plan required by North Carolina's participation in the
federal coastal management program. The adoption and approval of
this document will represent North Carolina's coastal goals and
policies and explain its program of management.

Phase II of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management
Program is the implementation phase. Key features of this phase
are (1) the permit program established in areas of environmental
concern, (2) the local implementation of the land use plans, and
(3) the various procedures for coordinating this comprehensive
coastal program among the various federal, state, and local
government agencies.

Throughout the process of program development there has
existed a guiding goal to involve citizens, special interest
Is ~~~groups, and all levels of government as totally as possible. From

the development and approval of local land use plans to the
adoption of each rule and regulation, a maximum effort has been
directed toward public participation and intergovernmental
involvement.

The Planning Phase

The planning phase of the program was initiated under the
requirements of the CAMA and has been underway since July 1, 1974.
The three major elements of the planning phase will be discussed
here.

Preparation and Adoption of Local
Land Use Plans

Each county in the coastal area must have a land use plan
that describes future desired land use patterns for the area under
its legal jurisdiction (excluding, of course, federally-held
lands). CAMA requires that each land use plan be consistent with
the State Guidelines that have been adopted by the Coastal
Resources Commission (CRC) (G.S. 113A-107 and 108).

The State Guidelines (Appendix B) require that the land use
plans contain statements of local land use objectives, policies,
and standards. They are also to contain supporting data and a
classification of land within the county. The CRC's planning
guidelines define a number of subject areas to be treated in all
local plans:

(1) Development of goals, objectives, policies, and
standards for the community's growth;

(2) Data regarding population and economic trends and
factors; Identification of areas which represent
valuable resources, environmentally sensitive areas,
and areas which are culturally valuable;

7 1

(3) A land classification plan reflecting the desired
* ~~~~~~short-term urbanization patterns for new development;

(4) Recommended interim areas of environmental concern and
applicable development standards. (These recommended
AEC categories were intended only to provide guidance
to localities in local planning. They have since been
replaced by a narrower list of AECs which were
officially designated by the CRC. This list of
officially designated AECs is found in Appendix B,
Subchapter 71.)

In addition to specifying the proper format and information
for the local plans, the Commission dictated in the Guidelines
that a synopsis or summary of the plans be provided to all coastal
residents. The synopsis was to be a condensation of the plan in
non-technical language for broad public dissemination. The CRC
directed that extensive attention be given to the development and
distribution of the synopsis in an attempt to thoroughly inform
local citizens about their local government plan and to expand
their involvement in the planning process. The Department of
Natural and Economic Resources (DNIER, now Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development) was responsible for printing
a large enough supply of each synopsis for distribution to every
household in each planning jurisdiction.

The planning process actively began at the local level in
January of 1975 when planning grants funded under North Carolina's
OCZM Program Development Grant were announced and contracts
executed to provide funds to participating local governments.
Localities were given a variety of options for securing
professional support for the preparation of their plans. Most
elected either to have their planning done by in-house staff in
their own local planning departments, by planners in the
multi-county planning regions, by private consulting firms, or by
field office personnel of DNRCD's Local Planning and Management
Services Section.

The General Assembly originally provided that the local land
use plans be submitted by November 23, 1975. This deadline was
extended six months through a subsequent amendment to the CAMA. The
Coastal Resources Commission decided to use this extension to have
drafts of the local land use plans submitted on the original
submission date in order to improve the product. Review of these
drafts by state and federal agencies as well as the CRC was
organized in order to provide further guidance for local
governments in developing acceptable land-use plans.

Detailed review criteria were extracted from the Planning
Guidelines to define the content of the plans and synopses. A
review schedule designed to complete the plan review during late
November and early December, 1975, was developed by the Department
is ~~~of Natural and Economic Resources. Then arrangements were made

for the participation of a technical review team from approxi-
mately 23 state offices, divisions, and sections.

The review team was truly an inter-disciplinary task force,
including expertise in community planning, economics and economic

development, demography, water quality, recreation, geology,
soils, wildlife, forestry, shellfishing, waste disposal, water
resources planning, agriculture, transportation, marine fisheries,
historic perservation and public participation. Representatives
from the North Carolina League of Municipalities and the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners also participated in
the reviews.

At its November 1975 meeting, the CRC Executive Committee
directed the reviewers to conduct a rigorous technical examination
of the land use plans paying particular attention to content
inadequacies, plans which were not in conformity with other plans,
and to considerations relating to the state and national interest.
The review team was given a briefing on the review procedure and
schedule and on the arrangements for subject area responsibility
for each of the reviewers. Reviewers were instructed to examine
the plans and synopses, to evaluate them on selected criteria
related to their particular field of competence, to assess the
contents as adequate, conditionally adequate, or not adequate, and
to make comments as appropriate. Selected reviewers were also
requested to examine local plan recommendations for designation of
IAECs.

Local governments submitted initial drafts of their plans
and synopses on or shortly after November 23, 1975. As technical
reviews were completed, copies of the reviewer's comments were
collected and discussed in conferences with the professional
planners who were responsible for the plans. Summaries of the
review comments and conferences were prepared by CRC staff
representatives and discussed in detail with one of three commit-
tees of the CRC at its December meeting. These three committees
were composed of members both of the CRC and the Advisory Council.
Following Commission review of the plans and of the staff comments
on the plans, specific comments on each plan and general overview
remarks dealing with deficiencies found generally among all plans
were prepared and sent to the local governments.

A number of inadequacies in the synopses were identif ied
during the course of the December meeting, and subsequently,
communities were asked to resubmit drafts of the synopses for
review on March 31, 1976. After that time additional suggestions
for synopsis preparation and staff sessions with local planners
provided further guidance for synopsis development. Synopses were
reviewed by the Commission in early April 1976, and review com-
ments were transmitted to local governments in mid-April.

Federal agencies were offered an opportunity to review the
draft local plans. On Friday, November 21, 1975, a meeting was
held in Raleigh, attended by representatives of many federal
agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, and by state agency personnel. Topics discussed were
CANA, the North -Carolina coastal zone management plan, and their
relationship to one another. At that time an invitation was
extended to federal agencies to participate in the review process.
Representatives of a number of federal agencies did review and
make comments on individual local land use plan drafts simulta-
neously with state reviewers.

Final plans were received for review and approval from 50 of
the 52 participating counties and municipalities on May 21, 1976.
One county and one municipality refused to adopt their locally
prepared plans. As required by statute, the Commission began to
prepare the last county's plans. Fifty plans were reviewed by the
state government review team and by a number of federal agencies
during late May and early June. The CRC, at its June meeting,
studied review team comments and evaluated the plans using the
requirements of the CAMA, the State Guidelines and the "Generally
Applicable Standards of Review." All 50 plans were judged to be
acceptable or acceptable with conditions for correction. Several
plans were returned to local governments with certain suggestions
for minor changes to improve them. All 50 of the local plans
submitted have now been approved by the Commission. The last
county plan was completed and approved by the Coastal Resources
Commission in January of 1978. Chart I summarizes the steps
involved in the lands use planning procedure established by the
CANIA.

Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs)

The 1974 General Assembly, in attempting to provide the CRC
with adequate "tools" to accomplish the ambitious goals of the
CAMA, realized that local land use planning encouraged by the Act
had to be synchronized with a coordinated program of critical
areas protection administered at a higher level of government.
Consequently, broad powers for critical areas regulation were
entrusted to the CRC.

The CRC's powers with regard to regulation of areas of
environmental concern include:

CHART 1. PROCESS FOR DEVE.LOPING LOCAL LAND USE PLANS

County or City 'idicates whether
it will prepare its own land use
plan (within 120 days of the
effective date of Act).

Local governient decides not Local government decides
to prepare a plan or does Ito prepare its owa pian.
not file a notice of intent
with CRC.

Local government
prepa.es plani.

1 I
Local govern-nent
Iholds public hearings.

Local government
falls to adopt a
ICRC prepares plan. plan within 480 (
-days after adop-
tion of state
guidelines.

CRC holds a Local government
publ'c hearingai ladopts plan within
480 days after
adoption of
'state guidelines.

CR' reviews and
approves pla'.

CRC reviews plan
within 45 days of
receipt.

CR' imp ses plan on
local government until
such time that local
government develops
its own plan that is CRC specifies
acceptable to CRC. ICRC approves plan.| changes that
must be made.

(1) the ability to designate geographic areas of the 20
counties as areas of environmental concern consistent with the
identification criteria contained in G.S. 113A-113(b);

(2) the power to recommend the purchase of areas of envir-
onmental concern under the State's condemnation provisions (G.S.
113A-124(c) (2));

(3) the authority to designate geographic areas of the
coast as interim areas of environmental concern and to require
developers to notify the CRC of their intentions to develop within
the area 60 days prior to the action (G.S. 113A-114). (The IAEC
designation process precedes designation of AECs and was designed
to educate the coastal citizens, governmental agencies and the CRC
regarding the implications of the final AEC program.)

(4) the ability to review and revise designated areas of
environmental concern periodically so that the regulatory program
contains a flexibility uncharacteristic of the majority of
existing governmental regulations (G.S 113-115(c)):

(5) the responsibility to administer a major development
permit for development in areas of environmental concern (G.S.
113A-118); and

(6) numerous additional powers and duties given the
Secretary of Natural and Economic Resources and the CRC in order
to achieve effective protection of areas of environmental concern
(G.S. 113A-124).

Each aspect of the CRC's powers in areas of environmental
concern is being amalgamated into an overall program that promises
for the first time coordinated comprehensive management of
critical coastal resources. The effects desired from this manage-
ment scheme include preservation, conservation, and wise develop-
ment of the environment of the coastal area; an increased aware-
ness of the reasons for land use regulation by the citizens; a
more responsive and responsible government; a coordinated approach
to critical areas management that recognizes and can deal with
trade-offs; and the establishment of the proper local/regional/
state and federal prerogatives.

The Process of AEC Designation

The CRC, having been provided with specific powers, duties,
and directions by the CANA, pursued a program capable of
satisfying the goals of the legislation. The process included the
formulation of descriptions of proposed areas of environmental
concern in the State Guidelines; the designation of interim areas
of environmental concern; the final designation of areas of
environmental concern; and the development of appropriate policies
and standards for each area of environmental concern. The details
of the process are described in the following section of this
chapter.

AEC Identification Criteria

Both general and precise identification criteria were
contained in the Art (G.S. 113A-113(b)) to give guidance to the
Commission in selecting areas for special management or areas of
environmental concern. The general criteria were derived from the
Model Land Development Code of the American Law Institute and the
National Land Use Bill. Usually included as sub-items of these
broad identification criteria are precise descriptions of possible
areas of environmental concern. The criteria were structured in
this manner in order to minimize the possibility of legal attacks
on the basis of the legislative delegation of authority.

The following describes the identification criteria as found
in the Act and utilized by the CRC in its areas of environmental
concern designation process:

"The Commission may designate as areas of environmental
concern any one or more of the following, singly or in
combination:

Coastal wetlands as defined in G.S. 113-230(a);

Estuarine waters as defined in G.S. 113-229(n) (2),
that is, all the water of the Atlantic Ocean within the
boundary of North Carolina and all the waters of the bays,
sounds, rivers, and tributaries thereto seaward of the
dividing line between coastal fishing waters and inland
fishing waters, as set forth in an agreement adopted by the
Wildlife Resources Commission and the Department of
Conservation and Development filed with the Secretary of
State, entitled 'Boundary Lines, North Carolina Commercial
Fishing Inland Fishing Waters, Revised to March 1, 1965':

Renewable resource areas where uncontrolled or
incompatible development which results in the loss of
reduction of continued long-range productivity could
jeopardize future water, food, or fiber requirements of more
than local concern, which may include:

Watersheds or aquifers that are present sources of
public water supply, *as identified by the North
Carolina Board of Health or Board of Water and Air
Resources, or that are classified for water supply use
pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1;

Capacity use areas that have been declared by the
Board of Water and Air Resources pursuant to G.S.
143-215.13(c) and areas wherein said Board (pursuant to
G.S. 143-215.3(d) or G.S. 143-215.3(a)(8) has
determined that a generalized condition of water
depletion or water or air pollution exists;

Prime forestry land (sites capable of producing 85
cubic feet per acre-year, or more, of marketable
is ~~~~~~timber), as identified by the North Carolina Forest
Service.

Fragile or historic areas, and other areas containing
environmental or natural resources of more than local signi-
ficance, where uncontrolled or incompatible development
could result in major or irreversible damage to important
historic, cultural, scientific or scenic values or natural
systems, which may include:

Existing national or State parks or forests,
wilderness areas, the State Nature and Historic Pre-
serve, or public recreation areas; existing sites that
have been acquired for any of the same, as identified
by the Secretary of Natural and Economic Resources, and
proposed sites for any of the same, as identified by
the Secretary of Natural and Economic Resources pro-
vided that the proposed site has been formally
designated for acquisition by the governmental agency
having jurisdiction;

Present sections of the natural and scenic rivers
system;

Stream segments that have been classified for
scientific or research uses by the Board of Water and
Air Resources, or that are proposed to be so classified
in a proceeding that is pending before said Board
pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1 at the time of the designa-
tion of the area of environmental concern;

Existing wildlife refuges, preserves and manage-
ment areas, and proposed sites for the same, as iden-
tified by the Wildlife Resources Commission, provided
that the proposed site has been formally designated for
acquisition (as hereinafter defined) or for inclusion
in a cooperative agreement by the governmental agency
having jurisdiction;

Complex natural areas surrounded by modified
landscapes that do not drastically alter the landscape,
such as virgin forest stands within a commercially
managed forest, or bogs in an urban complex;

Areas that sustain remnant species or aberrations
in the landscape produced by natural forces, such as
rare and endangered botanical or animal species;
Areas containing unique geological formations, as
identified by the State Geologist; and

Historic places that are listed, or have been
Is approved for listing by the North Carolina Historical

Commission, in the National Register of Historic Places
pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966; historical, archeological, and other places and
properties owned, managed or assisted by the State of
North Carolina pursuant to G.S. Chapter 121; and
properties or areas that are or may be designated by
the Secretary of the Interior as Registered Natural
Landmarks or as National Historic Landmarks;

Areas such as waterways and lands under or flowed by
tidal waters or navigable waters, to which the public may
have rights of access or public trust rights, and areas
which the State of North Carolina may be authorized to
preserve, conserve, or protect under Article XIV, Section 5
of the North Carolina Constitution;

Natural hazard areas where uncontrolled or incompatible
development could unreasonably endanger life or property,
and other areas especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding,
or other adverse effects of sand, wind and water, which may
include:

Sand dunes along the Outer Banks;

Ocean and estuarine beaches and shorelines;

Floodways and flood plains;

Areas where geologic and soil conditions are such
that there is a substantial possiblity of excessive
erosion or seismic activity, as identified by the State
Geologist;

Areas with a significant potential for air
inversions, as identified by the Board of Water and Air
Resources;

Areas which are or may be impacted by key facilities."
(G.S. 113A-113(b))

Application of AEC Criteria

Criteria for the selection of AECs having been provided by
the legislature, the CRC embarked upon a lengthy process culmin-
ating in AEC designation. The intermediate steps leading to
designation were to a great extent dictated by the provisions of
the CAtIA (G.S. 113A-115). The first such step was the adoption of
State Guidelines by the CRC. These guidelines included a compre-
hensive list of proposed AEC categories as well as policy objec-
tives and appropriate uses for each. Developed pursuant to G.S.
113A-107, Chapter III of the original State Guidelines represented
an attempt to include all the categories of ABCs possible. From
this initial grouping it was believed that a process of elimina-
tion could proceed that would finally result in the most critical0

areas being selected. Also, local land use planning occurring
prior to final AEC selection could use this comprehensive descrip-
tion of possible AECs in considering the nature of development
appropriate within various types of AECs.

Adoption of the State Guidelines on January 27, 1975 was
followed by the submittal of the recommendations of the Secretary
of the Department of Natural and Economic Resources relative to
the designation of interim areas of environmental concern on
February 7, 1975, pursuant to G.S. 113A-114(a)(b). The recommen-
dations contained in the Secretary's document were based upon the
suggestions of a task force of various state agency representa-
tives and resource managers familiar with coastal problems. The
Secretary's recommendations slightly modified the task force's
proposals, however, in light of the responses gathered at public
hearings held in six coastal cities during September of 1974. The
addition of public trust areas as a suggested IAEC category was
the major modification of the original task force's proposal.
Full transcripts of each hearing were attached to the Secretary's
document in order that the CRC could consider simultaneously both
the technical judgements of the experienced resource managers and
the responses of the coastal citizens to these suggestions prior
to designating interim areas of environmental concern.

It was obvious from the responses of the coastal citizens at
these public hearings and from the reactions of the Coastal
Resources Commission on presentation of the IAEC proposals that
some of the Secretary's recommendations were unacceptable. It was
the Commission' s decision that the staff should revise the
Secretary's suggestions to reflect the concerns of the coastal
citizens at the public hearing while the major energy of the
Commission would be channeled into the process of completing the
local land use planning phase of the program.

IAEC Designation

While the Commission proceeded with the development of local
land use plans, a portion of the Commission staff continued to
refine the AEC categories contained in the Guidelines and the
Secretary's document. The Commissioners throughout this period
expressed serious disagreement with the Secretary's proposal to
designate the entire Outer Banks as an IAEC and also emphasized
that coordination of existing permits was one of the major
objectives of the CRC.

The staff developed in the early spring of 1976 a collection
of IAECs along with their technical definitions that satisfied
both the Commission and the technical personnel of state govern
ment. These suggestions were brought before the coastal citizens
at a public hearing held in May of 1976. Subsequently, on May 20,
1976, IAECs were designated by the CRC and the provisions associ-
ated with their designation went into effect on August 1, 1976
(G.S. 113A-114(e)).

AEC Designation

Having accomplished the designation of IAECs and the
completion of the land use plans, the CRC doubled its efforts to
formulate technical information to serve as the basis for AEC
designation and land use standards development. The IAEC notices
received during this period provided information on the typical
development types occurring in the candidate AECs and the volume
of permits likely to be involved in the final AEC program. Both
data items were important in assessing the desired form of land
use standards and the administrative arrangements needed for AEC
permit letting.

The staff increased their efforts at coordination of avail-
able expertise in each of the categories of AECs. Numerous con-
tacts with governmental agencies and individuals within the
university system assisted in the preparation of the final form of
AECs. Legal as well as technical analysis of the material to be
recommended to the CRC was critical since the adopted AEC descrip-
tion and use standards will serve as the basis for a permit
program.

Following the submittal of staff recommendations to the CRC
in January of 1977, the Commission proposed amendments to the
existing State Guidelines that reflected the results of the
staff's intensive study of land uses affecting coastal waters.
These proposed amendments to Chapter III of the State Guidelines
(see Appendix B) refined the original AEC material and added
greater specificity to the allowable uses within each AEC.

During February and March of 1977 the Commission, Coastal
Advisory Council, and staff visited the local government units to
discuss the proposed AECs and their specific location and effect
on each respective local government jurisdiction. After an
analysis of the comments received from these meetings, and from
comments received from state and federal agencies, the Commission
refined the AEC's and appropriate use standards and submitted
their proposals to public hearing in each of the 20 coastal
counties. On June 22nd the Commission designated 13 categories of
Areas of Environmental Concern and adopted the standards for
development in each category. (See Chart 2, Chapter Five and
Appendix B).

Preparation of the State Coastal Plan

From the very beginning, the work done under the CAM4A
mandate served to address the requirements of the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972. The extensive local government role
in program development and the emphasis of the Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development and the Coastal
Resources Commission on public participation was coupled with
federal requirements for full federal agency participation.

CHART 2.
DESIGNATING AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND PERMIT LETTING

Secretary DNRCD proposes Interim
Areas of Environmental Concern (IAEC)

I,
DNRCD holds hearings on IAEC designations
in six locations within the coastal zone.
�1.
Local government prepares Local governments Secretary of DNRCD
land use plans which may prepare maps makes recommendation
describe proposed AECs delineating boun- to CRC.
and indicate appropriate daries of proposed
development for AECs as guidance
proposed AECs. * in CRC in IAEC
designation.

ICRC designates Interim Areas of Environmental Concern (IAECs)I

CRC holds six public CRC considers Person proposing
hearings on IAEC available evidence to undertake con-
designations in six as to what struction in IAEC
locations within the should be desig- gives CRC 60 da
coastal zone (may if nated as an AEC. advanced notice.
revisions of original
designations desired).

Secretary & CRC hold public hearings
in each county (20) where AEC
designation is being considered.

CRC designates Areas At least biennially
of Environmental Concern CRC reviews AECs
deletion & additional
II ~ designation. (same
major minor process as above)

4 ,
CRC.issues permits for Local government decides whether it
major development and wants to be a permit letting agency
minor development if for minor development in AECs and
Commission determines prepares an implementation and
that local government enforcement plan for AECs.
has failed to adequately
administer its plan.

Secretary of DNRCD issues
permits for minor develop-
Local g'vernment ment if local government
*This step was added tissues permits for decides not to be a
by the guidelines Iminor developrent. permit letting agency.
not in CAMA.

Much of the early attention to specific FCZMA requirements
was through informal direct communication with the Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) staff. OCZM was given advance
notice of proposed action and provided copies of all proposed
rules and regulations under consideration. The first written
document that served as a focal point for future development of
the State Coastal Plan was prepared by the staff and submitted to
OCZM for review in the fall of 1976. This document, referred to
as a "~Talking Paper'" served to guide activities relative to
meeting the federal requirements. One major decision reached from
the "Talking Paper" analysis by OCZM was that North Carolina
should designate the full 20-county area as its coastal zone
boundary for management purposes.

After serveral meetings and correspondence with OCZM, North
Carolina, proceeded with the development of the first draft of the
State Coastal Plan. This document was prepared and submitted to
OCZM, the CRC, and Advisory Council and to all affected state and
federal agencies for review in April, 1977. Departmental staff
followed up with the state and federal agencies by direct
consultation or through telephone conversation (See Appendix D).
The final public hearing draft was prepared as a result of this
agency's consultaton and comments. On November I and 2, 1977, the
North Carolina Management Staff held a pre-threshold review of the
final (public hearing) draft wth staff from the federal Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). OCZM comments received at this
time were considered and additions were made to the text to
reflect these comments prior to printing and circulation.

The public hearing draft was distributed, beginning on
November 29, 1977, to OCZM, the North Carolina Coastal Resources
Commission, the Coastal Resources Advisory Council, county and
municipal officials of the 20-county coastal area, regional
governments, affected state and federal agencies, the Raleigh and
seven field offices of the N. C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, several special interest groups which
had shown particular interest in the Coastal Management Program,
and the press.

Next, notices of a public hearing on the final draft of the
plan were sent to eleven major newspapers covering North Carolina.
Four of these papers covered the coastal area. Notice was
included in the Coastal Management Program newsletter which is
received by over 1000 persons. Also, a press release announcing
the public hearing was sent to over 60 coastal media representa-
tives.

The public hearing on the final draft of the plan was held
on December 13, 1977, in Morehead City, North Carolina. (See the
transcript of this hearing and letters of comment received on the
final draft from state and federal agencies.) These comments were
addressed or considered in preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement.

The Implementation Phase

The implementation phase of the state program began in
earnest on the "permit changeover date"t (G.S. 113A-125(a)) as
designated by the Secretary of DNRCD on March 1, 1978. Implemen-
tation will involve a restructuring of the administration of
DNRCD's regulatory authority, as it applies in the coastal area,
so as to provide for better coordination of the regulatory effort.
This machinery will be used to implement a permit program,
involving both local and state government, regulating development
in AECs. This program is based on the authority contained in Part
4 of the CAMA and other existing state and local authorities. In
addition, the Commission will assist local governments, upon
request, in developing programs for implementation of land use
plans outside AECs.

Implementation of Land Use Plans

The CAMA properly relies primarily upon local initiatives in
enforcing their land use plans. The Commission is given the
responsibility of reviewing local ordinances and regulations for
consistency with the land use plans. If the regulations affect
land uses outside AECs and are inconsistent with the land use
plans, the CRC shall transmit recommendations for modifications to
the local government. If, on the other hand, the regulations
affect activities within AECs and are inconsistent with the land
use plans, the Commission will take steps to ensure consistency
(G.S. 113A-111). This ordinance consistency review process is
presently underway.

Local governments are expected to develop strategies that
will lead to implementation of land use plans. North Carolina
local governments are authorized (G.S. 105-277.4) to tax agricul-
tural, horticultural and forest land at its present use value
rather than at a higher rate based upon surrounding land uses.
Furthermore, the difference between the two values is carried as a
lien upon the property and such difference together with interest
must be made for the immediately preceding five years if the pro-
perty is sold to anyone other than an immediate family member.
'Use of such differential taxation is a tool whereby local govern-
ments can provide enticements to property owners to retain agri-
cultural and forest land lying within lands classified as "rural"
or "conservation" in a use compatible with such classification.

Although development of zoning regulations is not required
under CAMA, many local governments have begun to develop county-
wide zoning programs. DNRCD is providing financial and technical
assistance to local government as support for such an initiative.
In addition, a number of local governments are developing capital
investment plans for their jurisdictions. Such plans are, of
course, an important method for guiding local growth and imple-
menting local land use plans. DNRCD and the Commission will also
provide assistance to aid these efforts when they are plainly
aimed at implementing the local land use plans.

Finally, state agencies can play a major role in imple-
menting local plans through a coordinated exercise of their
investment and construction programs and regulatory powers
throughout the coastal counties. The permit coordination
machinery established in DNRCD and required by CAMA will provide a
means to ensure that as many as possible of these sorts of
decisions will be consistent with local plans and will aid in
their implementation. The federal consistency provisions and the
State Executive Order will insure that agencies making public
investment decisions consider the local land use plans.

Permit-Letting in AECs

The enforcement of standards within AECs is a joint respon-
sibility between local government and the State. The Coastal Area
Management Act (Appendix A) in section 113A-103 and 113A-118
explains the scope of the permit program and defines the
respective local-state responsibilities for permitting in AECs.
The Coastal Resources Commission adopted "Criteria for Local
Implementation and Enforcement Programs" for the local administra-
tion of minor development permits. These I and E criteria were
then used by those local government units that had filed a letter
of intent to become minor development permit agencies in the
development of local I and E programs. Almost all local
government units elected to develop an I and E program and assume
their own minor development permit issuance authority. The
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development will
issue minor development permits in those jurisdictions not covered
by an approved I and E program. Each locally developed program
was adopted by local government after public hearing and submitted
to the Coastal Resource Commission for review and final approval.
(See Chart 3.)

Appeal from the minor development permit process and the
issuance of major development permits will be handled by the
Coastal Resources Commission (See Appendix A). Details of the
permit system can be found in Chapter Five.

The Coastal Resources Commission provided training for
local AEC permit officers and their field coordinators in January
and February of 1978. Permit officers studied the responsibility
of the permit officer, AEC standards, coastal management legisla-
tion and programs, and the materials and procedures used in
issuing minor development permits. The course was sponsored by
the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development in
cooperation with the Institute of Government, UNC-Chapel Hill.
Staff from the Institute, N. C. State University, the Coastal
Management Program, and the Division of Marine Fisheries shared in
the instruction of the training course. The training course will
be required of permit officers handling minor development permits
in areas of environmental concern prior to local governments
beginning issuing AEC minor development permits. See a copy of
the training course agenda in Appendix D.

CHART 3.

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT PLAN

County or city indicates whether it will act
as a permit letting authority (within two
years of the effective date of the Act).

Local government decides oDNRCD and CRC prepare criteria
not to act as permit < for preparation of I&E plans.
letting authority. I<

Ib rLocal government prepares
Secretary of DNRCD issues implementation and
permits for minor develop- enforcement plan.
ments until such time as 1
the local government devel- Public hearings.
ops an I&E plan that is
acceptable to CRC.
Local government shall adopt
I&E plan within 36 months
after effective date of Act.

CRC reviews plans within
45 days of receipt.

CRC approves plan and CRC specifies changes
local goverment issues J that must be made.
minor development permits.

CRC reviews l&E
Iplan administration.

Notice to local govern-| Acceptable I&E
iment of deficiencies. I administration.

Local government has 90 days
Ito take corrective action.

Local government does not Local government Local government
take corrective action. l takes corrective i continues permit
action. letting authority.

ICRC assumes enforcement.

Permit Coordination

The CAM4A (113A-125) states that "the Commission shall
conduct continuing studies addressed to developing a better
coordinated and more unified system of environmental and land use
permits in the coastal area, and shall report its recommendations
thereon from time to time to the General Assembly. . *'" The
Commission and the Department undertook a study of the existing
permit system that included an analysis of state permit programs;
consultations with state administrating agencies; and public
meetings to gain insight from individuals that had had past
experience dealing with the permit system. Several reports were
prepared with progressing specificity, and in March of 1977, a
report with recommendations for permit coordination was adopted
and submitted to the General Assembly. The Coastal Resources
Commission and the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development have recognized the importance of permit coordination
and the simplification of both the existing permit program and the
new AEC permit as a top priority in the development of the Coastal
Area Management Program.

Public Participation/Intergovernmental Involvement

Public participation and intergovernmental involvement in
the State's coastal zone management program are closely related
since the primary purpose of both in the program is to ensure the
full participation of "relevant federal agencies, state agencies,
local governments, regional organizations, port authorities and
other interested parties, public and private.. .", as required in
Section 303(d) of the FCZMA. Section 303(d) also declares it
national policy to encourage the participation of the public, of
federal, state and local governments, and of regional agencies in
the development of coastal zone management programs. Federal
consultation and public hearings are specifically required in the
FCZMA (Sections 307(b) and 308, respectively) in order "to assure
that the state, in developing its management program, is aware of
the full array of interests represented by such organizations,
that opportunity for participation was provided, and that adequate
consultation and cooperation with such bodies has taken place and
will continue in the future." (15 CFR 923.30) The purpose of
this section, therefore, is to describe the manner in which the
State has dealt "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" as required in 15 CFR 923.30 of the FCZMA.

Public Information/Participation

Public participation, as called for in the State Guidelines,
(see Appendix B) was to be the very foundation of the planning
process. It was not designed simply to provide token compliance
with requirements of a federal contract, but was instead to be a
planning process in itself, and one apparently unique to North
Carolina's coastal zone management program. The basic goal was to
extend the decision-making process in land use planning beyond the

small number of professional planners, government technicians and
officials who were usually involved. Because the 15-member CRC
consists largely of persons nominated by local governments, and
because the 47-member Advisory Council is primarily composed of
representatives of county and municipal government, these bodies,
given statutory supervision over the program, were in a unique
position to bridge the gap between local and state government.
Through their local orientation, they were able to create an
atmosphere of trust with coastal residents that the traditional
state agency can rarely attain.

From the beginning, the public participation program was
built on the belief that a fresh approach was absolutely necessary
if tokenism was to be overcome. Old planning concepts have never
really satisfied the people, because they did not really include
them. That is why so many past land use plans have never really
been implemented. There is a widely held theory that the only way
one really gets public participation is to do something to
somebody -- make him mad enough -- and then he will participate.
That theory likely applies to land use planning, but there are
also other ways. North Carolina's emphasis was on an effort to
let the people make their own plans. The professional planner was
to be used as a technician,
a data collector and an advi-
sor. Local citizens were to
answer the basic questions
concerning future goals. What
should their county or city
be like in the future? What '
do they like :bout the area
as it is now? What don't
they like and feel should be
changed? What do they lack
and feel they need in the
future? It was North Carolina s
feeling that once people know
that these are their decisions
to make, they will want to parti-
cipate. It was hoped that some
of them would even get excited about it.

Public participation in the coastal area management program
was based on local governments generating grass roots participa-
tion in the planning process. The joint state-local effort was to
be handled independently by each county and municipality with each
choosing the particular style it would use to bring the maximum
number of citizens into the process. In general, however, each
planning effort involved three major elements - notification of
the planning process, planning activities, and public hearings.

Notification

In order to involve interested parties in the planning
process, the interested parties had first to be notified of the

program's existence. An extensive "Handbook on Public Partici-
pation", was developed outlining numerous proven methods to
involve large numbers of citizens in this kind of project. Copies
were made available to everyone in the coastal area who had an
interest in CAMA. A general outline brochure of the CAI4A received
mass distribution.

The following list of activities covers the major outputs of
the notification effort as required in 15 CFR 923.31:

(1) Publication of a bi-monthly newsletter, "The
Coastline", featuring an update on "where we are now", was mailed
to 10,000 coastal homes. When one considers that the population
of the entire coastal area is 500,000, it is evident that this
constitutes good exposure.

(2) A "Coastline" card giving citizens a toll-free hotline
telephone number for questions and suggestions on CAJIA received
mass distribution throughout the coast. Large posters giving this
same number and pertinent local information were made available
and placed in store windows, motels, and other appropriate places.

(3) A "Summary" to the State Guidelines for Local Planning
established by the CRC was made available to all citizens wanting
copies.

(4) The Public Participation Director, with a Commission
member, visited every radio and television station and newspaper
in coastal North Carolina. Thus, a network was set up for regular
feedback of information from a Commission member to local media.
This step accomplished a great deal in informing the public.
Coastal North Carolina is basically rural, with a few large
newspapers. These small newspapers are usually read from cover to
cover. The program has thus enjoyed excellent media coverage.
News media know CRC members and expect regular calls from them on
coastal area management.

(5) CRC members and staff have appeared regularly on public
service programs carried by coastal television stations. In
April, 1975, coastal stations received the first batch of a number
of public service announcements made possible through a grant from
the Coastal Plains Regional Commission urging involvement in the
planning process. These spots featured local residents talking
about coastal problems. Radio stations were also provided with
the audio part of these spots.

(6) Newspapers have run a series of articles addressed to
the people of the coast from their local CRC members explaining
the CANA process in simple terms and asking for help and involve-
ment. These articles were followed up by other letters to the
editors. Local planners, citizens, and officials were urged to
submit articles on their own for publication.

(7) A Commission member and a staff person visited each
county in an attempt to iron out any problems concerning CAIIA with
local county commissioners and citizens groups.

(8) A 20-minute slide-tape summary of the CAJIA program was
developed by DNER staff and made available to anyone along the
coast wanting to use it as a tool in further developing an
understanding of the program. Ten copies were spread about the
coastal area.

(9) A speakers' bureau offered Commission members, Advisory
Council members, and staff experts to speak to any group
requesting a presentation. Presidents of every club and
organization in coastal North Carolina were advised of this
service and response has been excellent.

(10) A hotline directly to the coastal staff in Raleigh has
been in operation since inception of the program and is used
heavily by Commission members, Advisory Council members, and
others involved with the CAHA program.

(11) All the materials published for the program were made
available to each library in the coastal area and most of them
displayed CAMA materials.

(12) A program to get CAt4A information into the school
system was undertaken. In some areas, questionnaires were
provided to parents through school age children and special pre-
sentations on coastal management were made in the classroom.

(13) Workshops seeking to work out solutions to hard
coastal questions have been conducted and more are anticipated in
the future.

The CAMA program has enjoyed a wide degree of support from
other agencies. Special mention should be given to the North
Carolina State University Agricultural Extension Service which did
much of the in-depth and grass roots work, such as providing a
slide presentation on CANA, informing agents on CAMA activities
and distributing information through county agents. The Sea Grant
Program at the University of North Carolina added much needed
assistance through newsletters and background leaflets. A film on
CAM~A was developed through the Sea Grant Program. The Coastal
Plains Regional Commission provided two grants that enhanced the
program in essential ways. The Division of Continuing Education
at East Carolina 'University and the Soil Conservation Service have
been very generous in allowing staff personnel to carry on support
programs that were vital to the public participation effort.

Public Planning Activities

Most counties or towns handled public participation in the
following general way. The county commissioners, with ultimate
0 ~ ~~~responsibility for drawing up the plan and submitting it to the

CRC, usually gave the responsibility for public participation to
the planning board, which in many communities was created in
response to the coastal management program. Generally, most areas
used questionnaires distributed through the mail, delivered by Boy
Scouts and other groups, or carried to households by a neighbor
interested in CAMA. The number of returns varied greatly, usually
depending on the degree of public information generated about CAMA
before the questionnaire was sent out. Public meetings were held,
usually with the planner in charge, to solicit additional comments
beyond those which could be gathered from a questionnaire. The
number of meetings, and the response of the people varied from
very poor to excellent.

Additional Roles of Local Governments

In addition to generating grass roots involvement in the
planning program, local governments served as the spokesmen for
the citizens in their respective jurisdictions in meetings with
the CRC and DNER personnel and in submitting the plans which
incorporated public views. For example, officials of local
governments were invited to meet with the Commission at its March
1976 session to discuss areas of mutual concern in the development
of the program. This meeting focused attention on several issues
(e.g., spectic tank pollution) and resulted in a beneficial
exchange of ideas between the large numbers of local government
officials that were in attendance and the CRC.

Local governments served as spokesmen through their plans.
A major concern to citizens and governmental bodies alike in the
coastal area was the designation of AECs, their extent and the
policies concerning them. The tendency evidenced in the draft
land use plans was to define more extensive IAEC areas than were
defined in the Guidelines' minimum standards, and the local
recommendations reflected both an understanding of the environ-
mentally sensitive character of the coastal region and a desire to
make sure that effective protection measures were established.
Several plans recommended more IAEC types than were required, and
several included more sophisticated refinements of the minimum
standards.

The Role of Regional Organizations

North Carolina's multi-county regional planning organiza-
tions (referred to as Councils of Government or Lead Regional
Organizations, or LROs) have chiefly been involved in three
aspects of the coastal zone program. First, because they are
expected to play important roles in the developing of statewide
land policy programs, the LROs were involved in the development of
the program's planning guidelines. Second, LROs provided planning
services in the form of facilities and support staff for a number
of the local planning programs. Third, through membership on the
Commission's Advisory Council, the mailing list, and a variety of
other means, the LROs consistently participated in the on-going
activities of the program.

Representatives from the multi-county regional planning
organizations which serve the coastal area also met with the CRC
at its March 1976 session to discuss progress of the program,
problems encountered, and review the status of 208 water quality
planning designations in the coastal area. Regional representa-
tives were queried about the acceptance of the coastal planning
program in their areas, and it was suggested that member govern-
ments would more readily accept programs such as CAMA if a longer
plan development period were established.

Public Hearings

In addition to the extensive and innovative public partici-
pation program that is an integral part of North Carolina's
coastal management program, numerous public hearings have been
held, as required in Section 306(c)(3) and Section 308 of the
FCZMA, both prior to and after the passage of CAMA.

Prior to passage of CAMA, public hearings were held in both
1973, while the Act was being drafted, and in 1974 during debates
on the Act. Major hearings were:

(1) One hearing during the 1973 legislative session;

(2) Six hearings in Wilmington, Jacksonville, Morehead
City, Washington, Manteo and Elizabeth City during the summer of
1973. Testimony at these hearings centered on the need for
coastal zone management legislation and on strengths and
weaknesses of the version of the legislation extant at that time.
As indicated earlier, it was at these hearings that the need for
strong local government input was made clear. This input led
directly to the heavy local government emphasis of CANA.

(3) One formal hearing and a large number of House and
Senate committee hearings during the 1974 legislative session when
CAI4A was debated and ultimately passed.

CAMA itself requires a large number of public hearings.
Most of these have already been held and others will be held as
future requirements of the program unfold. The following
describes public hearings held as of June 30, 1977.

(1) CAIIA (G.S. 113A-114(b)) requires a one-day public
hearing by the Secretary of DNER or his designee on proposed IAECs
in six specific locations in the coastal area. G.S. 113A-114(c)
requires the same procedure for any revision of IAECs except that
the location of the hearing will be the county in which lands
affected are located.

-Specific provisions:

- shall begin with a description of proposed IAECs;
- notice shall be given not less than seven days
S ~ ~~~~~~before hearing; shall state date, time, place,
subject and action to be taken;

- notice must be published one time in newspaper of
general circulation in counties affected seven
days before the hearing;
- persons desiring to be heard shall give written
notice; anyone who so desires can file a written
statement within five days after hearing;
- record of each hearing shall be presented to the
CRC with description of IAECs proposed by the
Secretary

- Documentation:

Six public hearings were held as follows:
August 29, 1974 - Wilmington
August 30, 1974 - Jacksonville
September 5, 1974 - Morehead City
September 6, 1974 - Washington
September 12, 1974 - Manteo
September 13, 1974 - Elizabeth City

- Notice of Hearings:

Notices of hearings in every instance were mailed to
the CAMA mailing list composed of local government
officials in the 20 coastal counties, county commis-
sioners, mayors, city and county managers and
attorneys, clerks of court, and news media.

(2) G.S. 113A-125(d) requires one public hearing concerning
recommendations of the CRC to the 1975 North Carolina General
Assembly on developing a better coordinated and more unified
system of environmental and land use permits in the coastal area:

- No specific provisions for this public hearing are
mandated by the Act.

- Documentation:

A public hearing was held on March 18, 1975 after
notice of hearing dated March 10, 1975 to the CANA
mailing list. No formal presentations were made at
this hearing. However, documentation of the hearing is
included in the minutes of the CRC meeting of March 18,
1975.

(3) G.S. 113A-110(e) requires a public hearing prior to the
adoption or subsequent amendment of a land use plan by the body
charged with its preparation and adoption:

-Specific provisions:

- notice shall be given not less than 30 days before
the hearing

notice shall state date, time, place, subject and
proposed action
notice shall be published at least once in
newspaper of general circulation in the county

- Documentation:

Each of the 50 local government entities preparing and
submitting land use plans complied with these require-
ments prior to adopting and submitting their plans.
Substantiation of these hearings is contained in each
respective land use plan. The Coastal Resources
Commission held a public hearing on the county plan it
was required to prepare in Beaufort, North Carolina on
January 12, 1978.

(4) G.S. 113A-115 requires a public hearing in each county
before AECs are designated.

- Specific provisions:

- notice shall be given not less than 30 days before
date of hearing and shall state date, time, place,
subject and action to be taken
- notice must state that a copy of the description
of proposed AECs is available for inspection at
the county courthouse
- notice shall be published at least once in one
newspaper of general circulation in the
county/counties affected 30 days prior to date of
hearing
- persons desiring to be heard shall give written
notice; anyone who so desires can file a written
statement within 30 days after hearing
- CRC shall adopt final action after completion of
the above process and shall file a certified copy
with Secretary of State and board of commissioners
of each county.

- Documentation

Twenty public hearings were held as follows:

April 26, 1977 - Manteo, NC (Dare County)
April 27, 1977 - Currituck, NC (Currituck County)
May 3, 1977 - Camden, NC (Camden County)
May 3, 1977 - Elizabeth City, NC (Pasquotank
County)
May 4, 1977 - Gatesville, NC (Gates County)
May 4, 1977 - Hertford, NC (Perquimans County)
May 4, 1977 - Southport, NC (Brunswick County)
May 4, 1977 - Wilmington, NC (New Hanover County)
May 5, 1977 - Burgaw, NC (Pender County)

May 5, 1977 - Jacksonville, NC (Onslow County)
May 10, 1977 - Edenton, NC (Chowan County)
May 10, 1977 - Winton, NC (Hertford County)
May 11, 1977 - Windsor, NC (Bertie County)
May 11, 1977 - Columbia, NC (Tyrrell County)
May 11, 1977 - Beaufort, NC (Carteret County)
May 11, 1977 - Bayboro, NC (Pamlico County)
May 12, 1977 - New Bern, NC (Craven County)
May 12, 1977 - Swan Quarter, NC (Hyde County)
May 18, 1977 - Washington, NC (Beaufort County)
May 18, 1977 - Plymouth, NC (Washington County)

- Notice of Hearings:

A Notice of Hearings with a complete schedule covering
all of the 20 hearings was mailed to the entire CAMA
mailing list.

(5) G.S. 113A-117(b) requires a public hearing by the local
governing body before adoption of a local implementation and
enforcement program.

- Specific provisions:

- notice shall be given not less than 15 days before
the date of the hearing, and shall state date,
time, place, subject and action to be taken
- notice shall state that copies of the proposed
program are available for inspection at the county
courthouse
- notice shall be published at least once in one
newspaper of general circulation in the county 15
days before date of hearing.

- Documentation:

Local implementation and enforcement programs or
letters of transmittal submitted by 41 local govern-
ments contain statements of local I and E program
hearings held.

In the future, public hearings on actions relating to
issuance or denial of permits for minor development are allowed
and are mandatory in the case of major developments (G.S.
113A-122). In the case of permit application for minor develop-
ment, notice must be provided to the public at least seven days
before the final decision, and comments will be received for a
period not to exceed 15 days after notice is published. Persons
directly affected by such decision are allowed 20 days in which to
request a hearing before the Commission. Hearings on applications
for major development permits require 30 days notice.

In addition to the public hearings required by CAMA, the
coastal management program is subject to the requirements of the

North Carolina Administrative Procedures Act (NC APA). The APA
is ~~~which became effective February 1, 1976, regulates procedures for
rulemaking, licensing, and holding of contested hearings, and
requires the filing and publication of all rules, regulations,
standards, and ordinances adopted by any state agency or other
body falling under its jurisdiction. The requirements of the APA
supplement, but do not replace, those or other extant legislation
such as CANA. The APA requires that before the adoption, amend-
ment or repeal of any rules, the CRC shall give notice of public
hearing and offer any person an opportunity to present data,
views, and arguments. The notice shall be given within the time
prescribed by any applicable statute, or if none applies, then at
,least 10 days before the public hearing and at least 20 days
before the adoption, amendment or repeal of the rule. The notice
shall:

- include reference to the statutory authority under
which action is proposed;

- include time and place of the public hearing and a
statement of the manner in which data, views, and
arguments may be submitted either at the hearing or at
other times;

- include statement of the terms or substance of the
proposed rule or a description of the subjects and
issues involved, and the proposed effective date of the
rule;
- be sent to the Attorney General and all persons who
have requested in writing in advance notice of proposed
action which may affect them;

- be published as prescribed in applicable statute, or if
none applies, the notice shall be published in a manner
selected by the agency as best calculated to give
notice to persons likely to be affected by the proposed
rule. If the persons likely to be affected are
unorganized or diffuse in character or location, then
the CRC shall publish the notice as a display adver-
tisement in at least three newspapers of general circu-
lation in different parts of the State.

- the CRC, following any public hearing held under APA
shall consider fully all written and oral submissions.
Upon adoption of a rule, the CRC, if requested to do so
by an interested person either prior to adoption of the
rule or within 30 days thereafter, shall issue a
concise statement of the principal reasons for and
against its adoption, incorporating therein its reasons
for overruling the consideration urged against its
adoption.

As of June 30, 1978, the following public hearings have been
held to meet relevant requirements of APA:

(1) Public hearing on "Draft Criteria for Local Implemen-
tation and Enforcement Programs"

- Documentation

A public hearing was held at Wrightsville Beach on
February 18, 1976. Notice of the hearing was sent to
the entire CAMA mailing list. Copies of the draft
document were mailed to local government officials in
the coastal area and available at DNER field offices in
Wilmington and Washington.

(2) Public hearing on the designation of IAECs and "Rules
and Regulations for the Implementation of the Notice Requirement"

- Documentation

This public hearing was held May 10, 1976 in New Bern.
Notice was sent to the entire CAMA mailing list and
copies of the draft document were mailed to local
government officials and made available in DNER field
offices.

(3) Public hearing on "Draft Rules and Regulations Relating
to Generally Applicable Grant Criteria and Procedures for Local
Implementation and Enforcement Programs.

- Documentation

A public hearing was held in New Bern, North Carolina
on June 21, 1977, at 10:00 a.m. Notice of the hearing
was given to the entire CAM4A mailing list and
advertised1 in six major newspapers located geograph-
ically throughout the coastal area. A transcript of
the hearing was not prepared since no formal comments
were received. Documentation of the hearing is
included in the minutes of the June 21-22, 1977, CRC
meeting.

(4) Public hearing on a Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment
Process

-Documentation

On August 3, 1977, a public hearing was held in
connection with a regularly scheduled CRC meeting in
Wilmington, North Carolina. Notice of the hearing was
given to the CAMA mailing list and advertised in six
major coastal newspapers. No formal comments were
received. Documentation of the hearing is included in
the minutes of the August 3-4, 1977, CRC meeting.

(5) Public hearing on guideline change for AECs

- Documentation

Between April 28th and May 18, 1977, 20 public hearings
were held pursuant to the provisions of CAMA (G.S.
113A-115). Notice and schedule of these hearings was
given to the CAMA mailing list and advertised in six
major coastal papers. Comments received were included
in the minutes of CRC meetings held in May and June of
1977.

(6) Public hearing on the adoption of Major Permit Pro-
cedures and Exemptions.

- Documentation

A public hearing was held in Atlantic Beach, North
Carolina, on January 12, 1977 at 10:00 a.m. Notice of
the hearing was given to the entire CAMA mailing list
and advertised in six major newspapers located through-
out the coastal area. A transcript of the hearing was
not prepared because no formal comments were received.
Documentation of the hearing is included in the minutes
of the January 12-13, 1977, CRC meeting. The specific
procedures for major permit development and the guide-
lines for minor permitting are attached in Appendix F.

(7) Public Hearing on Regulations to provide for a "General
Permit" for Development Initiated Prior to March 1, 1978, and for
Uncontested Permit Applications.

Documentation

A public hearing was held on March 23, 1978 in
Wilmington, N.C. No formal statements were received
for the record at this hearing. These adopted regula-
tions (15 NCAC 7K .005) are included in the Addendum.

(8) Public Hearing on Proposed Exemptions from CAMA Permit
Requirement - Structural Accessways Over Frontal Dunes - Private
Bulkheads, Riprap, and Piers.

- Documentation

A public hearing was held at Manteo, N.C. on May
24, 1978 during an official CRC meeting. A Summary
Transcript of Proceedings was prepared. A copy of
these regulations (15 NCAC 7L. 0307, .0308) as adopted
are included in the Addendum.

At least two public hearings are also required by the U.S.
Department of Commerce prior to final adoption and submission of
the state management program. Over 100 hearings have been held by

local governments, the Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development and the Coastal Resources Commission assoc-
iated with the development of the Plan's constituent parts. The
whole plan (final draft) was presented for public hearing on
December 13, 1977, in Morehead City, NC. (See Appendix D for the
transcript of this hearing.)

A number of other informal opportunities have been provided
for public participation in the program. These include:

(1) A public notice of each Commission and Advisory Council
meeting has been sent to the entire CAMA mailing list which has
steadily increased to include social clubs, organizations,
interested individuals and property owners.

(2) On several occasions, personal invitations to attend
CRC meetings have been sent to local area officials representing
the area where the Commission has met. These include Nags Head,
Morehead City and Washington.

(3) All coastal county commissioners and mayors of
municipalities developing land use plans were personally invited
to meet with the CRC at their March, 1976, meeting in New Bern to
discuss items of mutual interest.

(4) The CRC and the Advisory Council have held almost all
of their meetings in strategic locations in the coastal area so as
to allow better opportunity for participation of coastal residents
and to keep the program as close as possible to the people.

(5) CAMA (G.S. 113A-119(f)) states that before any final
action on land use plans the Commission "shall afford interested
persons an opportunity to present objections and comments
regarding the plan, and shall review and consider each county land
use plan in light of such objections and comments.. ." Thus, still
another opportunity has been provided for public participation in
the planning process.'

For a one-year period, ending June 30, 1977, two public
participation coordinators were employed by NRCD under a grant
from the Coastal Plains Regional Commission. These coordinators
worked out of regional offices establishing contact with the
citizen advisory councils in each municipality and county in the
coastal area. Advice and direction were offered on topics ranging
from the production and distribution of a community planning
bulletin to the use of electronic media. Local citizen planners
were assisted in their efforts to create an atmosphere of working
together for the common good when decisions were made on specific
tracts of land and thus public interest reaches a peak. From its
inception, the CRC has stressed its belief that the only way to
generate wide-spread support for the plans now being drawn up
under CAM~A is to have the support of a broad base of citizens who
have guided the plan through its development and who feel that the
plan belongs to them rather than to a state or federal agency.

The local public participation coordinators traveled to the
counties and towns, provided assistance and kept the process at an
Is ~~~even pace. The coordinators served in an ombudsman role between
local citizen planners, the CRC, and DNER. The local public
participation coordinators, indeed, played a vital role in keeping
the lines of communication open between state and local officials.

In September, 1977, two information and communciation
specialists were added to the Coastal Area Management program
staff. Their assignments are: (1) to develop an on-going public
information program, keeping news of the coastal program available
to the public; (2) to plan continued activities involving
.citizens in the coastal management process; and (3) to prepare
educational materials on the coastal program. On-going public
information activities will include releases of information to the
media, announcements, special programs, brochures, flyers, etc. ,
and a monthly update (newsletter) of Coastal Area Management news.
Public involvement activities for which the specialists will be
responsible include preparations for public hearings, gathering
commentary on the coastal program through questionnaires or
interview situations/meetings, assisting with arrangements for
Commission and Advisory Council meetings, and coordination of
public information activities with other public agencies, special
interest groups, and individual citizens interested in the coastal
program. Examples of educational materials being planned by the
specialists are a brochure describing designated ABCs, an AEC
pamphlet designed for the person who may be applying for an AEC
permit, and a permit officer's handbook to be used in the
permit-letting process. Also planned are regional meetings with
Commission and Advisory Council members and local government
officials to provide a current look at the coastal prog rain and to
outline coastal issues currently being studied by the Coastal
Resources Commission.

Coordination with Other Planning Programs and Activities

There are three major areas of coastal management program
development that exhibit sound coordination efforts with other
planning programs and activities. These are CAMA's local land use
planning guidelines, the land use plan review process and the CAIIA
staff A-95 reviews. The CAMA guidelines state that all county and
respective municipal land use plans must be consistent and coor-
dinated to the maximum extent possible. More specifically,
governments were required by CAMA guidelines to establish land
classification schemes that not only met the CAMA thresholds for
development limitations and population density, but that also
reflected consistency to the maximum extent possible with other
planning efforts.

Three examples illustrate this delicate balancing of state
and regional programs with local objectives and eventual meshing

100

of all relative planning programs together. Local governments
were required to include within the CAMIA transition class of lands
all those areas expected to experience high density growth and/or
to be provided with the necessary water, sewer, education and
transportation services. For local governments to determine
transition areas they became familiar with state and regional
planning programs and attempted to be consistent with them. A
second example involves the conservation land use classification
which identified land to be maintained essentially in the natural
state and had to include all fragile, hazardous, and
publicly-owned areas. These fragile, hazardous, or publicly-owned
areas include publicly-owned forests, parks (SCORP classifica-
tions) , fish and gamelands, water supply watersheds, etc. , and
federal or state hazard area determinations, such as F.I.A.A.
100-year flood levels, military base K-9 zones, and nuclear power
plant radioactivity buffer zones. Thirdly, in order-to determine
the difference and extent of rural and community classifications,
local planners found helpful information from other planning
programs such as the LRO's regional development guides, Soil and
Water District plans for resource management, S.C.S. soil maps,
forest management maps, state transportation plans and regional
sewer and water plans.

The second area of program development exhibiting coord-
ination with other planning requirements involved the holding of
two major technical two-week review sessions by the CRC over a
ten-month span to analyze the local land use plans that were
submitted. Participants at each of these review sessions included
the representatives of affected state agencies, federal agencies,
lead regional organizations, the League of Municipalities, and the
Association of County Commissioners. Each agency participated in
the draft reviews and were invited by the Executive Secretary of
the Coastal Resources Commission to attend a final review session,
to examine the plans, comment on them, and have any comments
recorded and forwarded to the Commission for their use in the plan
review and approval process. Consequently, state and regional
government representatives were provided the opportunity to
identify inconsistencies between the locally developed land use
plans and their own program plans. The involvement of state and
regional governments on the Coastal Resources Advisory Council,
which helps formulate CANA policies, plans and procedures, as well
as in the above stated process for public hearing and agency
review of coastal management activities, provided yet another
opportunity to assure coordination and consistency among plans.

The third area of program development exhibiting agency
coordination with other programs is through staff reviews of all
local, regional, state, and federal projects coming through the
State's A-95 Clearinghouse. At the present time, the Coastal
Management staff is involved in reviewing drafts of the Section
201 Wastewater plans for the coastal area. The staff is just
beginning to establish the procedures for review of major projects
that travel through the Clearinghouse and is continuing consul-
tation with relevant agencies. For details of further coordina-

tion activities, see Chapter Six. Appendix D includes lists of
State planning and regulatory programs and regional councils of
government planning programs affecting local land use plans.

State and Federal Agency Involvement and Consultation

North Carolina made concerted efforts to involve relevant
federal and state agencies, governmental and quasi-governmental
regional organizations, port authorities and other interested
parties, in addition to the general public, in every stage of the
management program development. This involvement was a valuable
element of the program from the state's standpoint in that most
,"interested parties" were keenly aware of the need for compre-
hensive coastal zone management, supported the program, and had
valuable ideas and suggestions to offer the State's Coastal
Resources Commission, Department of Administration, and Department
of Natural and Economic Resources. (Hereafter, the term
"interested parties" will be used to include the relevant federal
agencies, state agencies, regional organizations, port authorities
and other interested parties referred to in Section 303(d) of the
FCZMA.) The involvement was valuable to the interested parties in
that it allowed them to remain informed of all aspects of the
program and remain aware of how the program might ultimately
affect them. The involvement allowed both state and non-state
participants to coordinate research and planning activities in
order to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. It also
initiated coordination of some related planning and management
programs between which no coordination previously existed.

Consultation

Efforts to develop an adequate forum with which 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", as
required in 15 CFR 923.30, were initiated at an introductory
federal consultation meeting sponsored by the Department of
Natural and Economic Resources in November 1975. DNER compiled a
list of interested federal agency representatives and sent to each
an invitation to the meeting with an explanation of the meeting's
purpose and agenda. The purpose of this meeting was to acquaint
the federal agencies with the representatives of DNER with whom
they would be working, the CAMA and its governmental structures,
and to outline the State's implementation activities under the
CAMIA.

In the meeting, discussion was initiated to identify
potential state/federal consistency problems and to examine
possible procedures and working relationships that could be used
to resolve these points of contention. Specifically, discussion
covered the following subjects:

(1) the kinds of meetings, review procedures and exchange
desired, including changes in the approaches used
previously;

102

(2) the extent to which state and federal land and water
use permitting could be coordinated;

(3) problems or potential areas of conflict which should be
"red-flagged"t for intensive discussion; and

(4) excluded federal lands.

The over-riding conclusion drawn from all discussion was that
federal agencies need every opportunity to participate in the
development and review of the State's program on a continuing
basis.

The November 1975 meeting was followed in December with a
letter sent to all federal contacts soliciting their views on a
variety of issues, including regulatory authorities and permit
review responsibilities and the degree and form of interaction
desired, and requesting a listing of lands under federal juris-
diction. An analysis of the response to this letter revealed a
number of state and national interests issues, among which is the
exclusion of federal lands. Since a substantial portion of the
State's coastal area is under some form of federal jurisdiction,
the issue is of great concern both to the State and to agencies
such as the Navy, Air Force, National Forest Service and National
Park Service.

Direct Involvement

In addition to participation through consultation,
interested parties are directly involved in the following five
major aspects of program development: local plan preparation and
review, IAEC designation, AEC designation, state management plan
development and review, and local ordinance review. The involve-
ment in each of the above is described below.

Local Plan Prparaion and Review

The purpose of involvement with interested parties in local
plan preparation was to ensure consistency or at least compati-
bility among local plans and the areawide regional plans for
activities and facilities in the coastal area. A review of all
relevant plans compiled for the jurisdiction was required by the
State Guidelines to be included in local plans. Compiling these
reviews on the state level produced a comprehensive inventory of
plans which the state needed to take into account. A list of
those plans, as required in Section 306(c)(2) of the FCZNA, is
included in Appendix D.

The first opportunity for federal agencies to review and
comment on the local planning process directly was afforded them
during the December, 1975, draft plan review. Federal representa-
tives were given the option of reviewing the plans concurrently
with state agency representatives or at a later date. The
comments made by federal plan reviewers were relayed to local

103

planners in February, 1976, with the directive that they incor-
porate the comments into the planning process.

In May, 1976, a letter was sent to designated contacts of
federal agencies and the executive directors of the regional
Councils of Governments (multi-county planning organizations)
inviting them to participate in the final local plan review held
from May 26 through June 18, 1976. In this review, agency
representatives were primarily concerned with the goals and
policies of their agencies, technical accuracy, and addressing of
the "national interest". The responses of the federal agencies
were sent to local governments in order that the proper
adjustments could be made.

IAEC Designation

In addition to continuing consultation concerning the
coordination of permit-letting authorities in AECs, interested
parties were given full opportunity to participate in the Interim
AEC designation process. In May, 1976, following adequate notice
as required by Section 306(c)(3) and 308 of the FCZMA, a public
hearing was held in New Bern. The purpose of the hearing was to
receive and review comments on areas proposed for IAEC designa-
tion. Notice was sent directly to all federal contacts, several
of whom responded with expressions of concern on the proposed
action.

* ~~~~AEC Designation

Prior to AEC designation extensive opportunities were given
to interested parties to comment on the proposed permit standards
and descriptions for AECs. Between April 28th and May 18, 1977,
public hearings in each of the 20 counties were held pursuant to
the provisions of CAMA (G.S. ll3A-115). Additionally, a notice
and schedule of public hearings were sent along with a copy of the
proposed AEC amendments to the State Guidelines to all federal
contacts. The comments received at the public hearings and the
responses from the federal contacts were analyzed by the staff and
presented to the Coastal Resources Commission in May and June of
1977. Subsequently, designation of ABCs occurred on June 22,
1977.

Federal agencies have and will continue to serve as a
valuable source of technical information in the development of the
State's AEC program. Their contributions to the program to date
include supplying scientific data, assisting in the analysis of
data and aiding in policy development by co-sponsoring research
projects, as well as serving as consultants.

State Management Plan Development and Review

Federal agencies responded splendidly to the Draft
Management Plan released in April of 1977. Comments received from
* ~~~~federal agencies assisted with defining problems in the Draft

104

Management Plan and in discovering additional communication
channels between North Carolina and the federal government.
Additional valuable comments were received regarding the public
hearing draft. They are attached in Appendix D and assisted in
identifying steps to take to initiate and conduct program imple-
mentation and enforcement, identifying problem areas, and in the
formulation of the DEIS. Also, comments received by OCZM at two
public hearings held on the DEIS and written comments submitted
were considered in developing the Final Environmental Impact
Statement.

Local Ordinance Review

Local ordinance review is underway. The coastal management
staff is checking local ordinances specifically for inconsis-
tencies between AEC standards and local regulations.
Additionally, the staff will review local ordinances that may
potentially affect federal operations on federal lands. if
problems are discovered, the concerned agencies will be requested
to review the ordinances and possibly meet with the appropriate
governing body of the local government. The purpose of involve-
ment of the federal agencies is to ensure that adequate considera-
tion by local government is given to national interests.

Summary

North Carolina's Coastal Program has been very ambitious in
encouraging public involvement and program coordination throughout
the various development phases. The Commission staff and Advisory
Council not only devoted much of their time in obtaining the
public participation necessary for development of a comprehensive
and balanced management program but also in obtaining views on
proposed implementation. The network of past communication to
achieve intergovernmental cooperation and public participation has
been established and shall continue to be utilized even after
program approval. Documentation of this full participation effort
which addresses intergovernmental communication, plan coordina-
tion, AEC designation process and public involvement can be
examined in Appendix D.

105

CHAPTER THREE THlE FOCUS OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
IN NORTH CAROLINA

Findings Concerning the Need for Coastal Management

The need for instituting a comprehensive program of coastal
.management in North Carolina is clearly described by General
Assembly findings as set forth in the Coastal Area Management Act.
These findings emphasize the value of the State's coastal
resources, the need to manage them properly in the face of the
increasing pressures arising from society's conflicting uses of
the region, and the need to protect, to the maximum extent
possible, the quality of the State's shorelines and coasts:

"It is hereby determined and declared as a matter of
legislative finding that among North Carolina's most
valuable resources are its coastal lands and waters. The
coastal area, and in particular the estuaries, are among the
most biologically productive regions of this State and of
the nation. Coastal and estuarine waters and marshlands
provide almost 90 percent (90%) of the most productive sport
fisheries on the east coast of the United States. North
Carolina' s coastal area has an extremely high recreational
and esthetic value which should be preserved and enhanced."

"In recent years the coastal area has been subjected to
increasing pressures which are the result of the often
conflicting needs of a society expanding in industrial
development, in population, and in the recreational aspira-
tions of its citizens. Unless these pressures are
controlled by coordinated management, the very features of
the coast which make it economically, esthetically, and
ecologically rich will be destroyed. The General Assembly
therefore finds that an immediate and pressing need exists
to establish a comprehensive plan for the protection,
preservation, orderly development, and management of the
coastal area of North Carolina.

"In the implementation of the coastal area management plan,
the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical, esthetic,
cultural, and recreational qualities of the natural shore-
lines of the State shall be preserved to the greatest extent
feasible; water resources shall be managed in order to
preserve and enhance water quality and to provide optimum
utilization of water resources; land resources shall be
managed in order to guide growth and development and to
minimize damage to the natural environment; and private
is ~~~~property rights shall be preserved in accord with the
Constitution of this State and of the United States."

106

These legislative findings are compatible with and parallel
to Section 302, parts (a) through (g) of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act (FCZMA) which emphasize the value and fragility of
the nation's coastal zone and the competing demands on it.
Furthermore, they represent North Carolina's response to the
declaration of policy in Section 303(a) of FCZMA that national
policy is "to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to
restore or enhance, the resources of the nation's coastal zone for
this and succeeding generations." The management program de-
scribed in CANA represents an effort by North Carolina to exercise
"its full authority over the lands and waters" in its coastal zone
by "developing land and water use programs for the coastal zone,
including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods, and
processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more
than local significance in accordance with Section 302 (h) of
FCZMA. " CAM4A and the state management program described herein
represent North Carolina's effort at "development and implemen-
tation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and
water resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration to
ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as to
needs for economic development" (FCZMS, Section 303(b)).

To further elaborate on the above general findings and to
explain more specifically the focus of the North Carolina manage-
ment program, the following section identifies and discusses
specific coastal management issues. A third section discusses the
State policies for dealing with each of these issues. These
policies are taken from statues, major program regulations, or
policy statements established by the Land Policy Council or other
special groups with recognized authority to make policy concerning
resource management and land use planning. Following each policy
statement, the source for the policy is referenced, and the pri-
mary legal authority or authorities for implementing the policy
are noted. These authorities are then more thoroughly discussed
in Chapter Five.

Specific Issues and Problems Concerning
Coastal Management in North Carolina

The following issues and problems have been grouped under
seven general topics. They are further divided into more specific
topics in order to focus in greater detail on the issues that must
be addressed by the North Carolina Coastal Management program.

107

The challenge to North Carolina's coastal municipalities and
counties is to develop the capability to effectively deal with
local growth management problems. Coastal North Carolina has
historically lagged behind other State regions in economic
development. Local land use plans indicate that coastal residents
want economic growth. Local government officials are dependent on
economic development for the maintenance of a strong local tax
base to provide and upgrade services. Nevertheless, coastal
residents are very conscious of the necessity to manage economic
growth. They seek the benefits of economic growth but not at the
cost of abruptly changing the coastal lifestyle or the natural
environment. Specific growth problems include assuring that
non-compatible land uses are not mixed; encouraging compact
development patterns so that necessary services can be provided
more efficiently and less expensively; avoiding sprawled develop-
ment or other unwise uses of prime resource lands, such as lands
containing valuable minerals or prime agricultural lands; and
guiding development away from fragile or valuable natural areas.

108

Key Facilities

Development patterns can be strongly influenced by the
location of certain types of public or quasi-public facilities
which must be present before development can occur. The location
of these facilities is to a great extent controlled by state and
federal agencies either through regulation or providing funds for
the facilities. Examples of such facilities are:

- major highways and interchanges - major airports -
major ports and waterways - rail lines - OCS related
facilities - electric power plants - major recreation
development facilities - military installations

The Coastal Management program must address how to insure
that in locating key facilities, local preferences and needs are
considered by state and federal agencies, while assuring that
local interests do not arbitrarily exclude uses of regional, state
or national benefit (see uses of regional benefit, p. 247).

Conflicting Uses of Land

One important technique of guiding growth and land use
patterns involves making decisions on the best uses for land and
resources within a planning jurisdiction. Such a technique is a
valuable means for coordinating the various policies, standards,
regulations, and other activities at all levels of government that
effect land use planning. It is fmportant that the technique be
based upon such factors as: the existing characteristics of the
land; the expected future demand for land suitable for develop-
ment; the capability of local jurisdictions to provide service to
new urban development; and existing local, state, and federal
land-related plans and policies. North Carolina's Coastal
Management program must address how to establish a system to be
used by localities to identify appropriate uses of land which is
definitive enough to guide land use-related decisions and policies
at all levels of government, but which is not so complicated or
detailed that it cannot be practically applied throughout the
coastal zone.

Residental and Second Home Development in the Coastal Area

The recreational and scenic attractions of the ocean and
inland coastal waters of North Carolina have and continue to
induce high rates of residential and second home development
adjacent to the water's edge. A great majority of this develop-
ment is sprawled along the Outer Banks or the estuarine shoreline
rather than located in municipalities or populous areas where

109

local or regional facilities and services could most adequately be
placed. Consequently, these residences are served by individual
facilities such as septic tanks and individual water
wells. These systems prolif-
erate along the coastal
shoreline in areas which are
~L '-.. d ~ ~ very low in elevation, and
2 *.-.[~ ~ thus have severe limitations
for septic tanks. The result
is that the waste waters
,~---~- ~ generated from such develop-
.-- -~'ment seep for relatively
great vertical and lateral
distances before being
purified, thus polluting
surface waters. Residential
and second home developments
along the waterfront restrict
public access to beaches and
waters. Also, development in
these areas is often subject
to natural hazards such as
hurricanes, erosion, and
flooding which endanger life
"~.L~Bir~~ ~and property and necessitate
expensive landscape changes
to protect homes, in addition
to periodic evacuation of
residents.

Waterfront residential and second home development also
presents a difficult transportation problem. Maximum expense is
incurred with the minimum efficiency of moving people from place
to place. For example, along the Outer Banks traffic must move
through the bottlenecks at the bridges along roads that are used
by both short distance travelers as well as sightseers who are
traveling many miles.

In summary, residential development along North Carolina's
water-front has caused problems in providing adequate facilities
and transportation systems to accommodate the population, and in
exposing of property to unnecessary risks and unsightly landscapes
through destruction of protective frontal dunes. The coastal
management program must address how to accommodate residential and
second home development patterns in a manner such that the
greatest cost efficiency in providing necessary services is
maintained while still protecting the character of the coastal
area.

Coastal Industry Issues

The twenty coastal counties of North Carolina are predomin-
antly rural with limited industrial development. Agriculture,
forestry, and fishing have been the backbone of the coastal

110

economy. Although New Hanover County has experienced significant
industrial activity and Beaufort County has recently become a
major phosphate production center, most of the coastal area
remains only slightly affected by the primary and secondary
impacts of industrial development.

North Carolina and its important coastal region has been
identified as a prime industrial development area for the future.
Local governments in their land use plans have expressed the
desire to see the economic growth associated with industrial
development but not at the expense of the currently established
farming and fishing activities nor at the expense of radical
.changes in lifestyle.

The coastal management program must face the problem of
protecting and enhancing the current economic backbone of the
coast and the natural resources of the area while encouraging a
controlled, gradual rate of industrial development.

Fishing and Seafood

The fishing industry in its varying forms has traditionally
been an important aspect of coastal North Carolina' s economy. The
gross annual income from fishing activities in 1976 was approxi-
mately $200,000,000 and most of the economic benefits derived from
the fishing industry accrue to the coastal area of North Carolina.

North Carolina's estuarine environment is responsible for a
great number of the commercial species utilized in this important
coastal industry. The estuarine system in North Carolina is the
largest on the Atlantic coast, and occupies approximately
2,327,000 acres of marsh, creeks, rivers and open sounds. In
1976, ninety percent of North Carolina's commercial fisheries
production (almost 200 million pounds of edible products) was
either harvested in the estuary or was comprised of species
dependent on the estuary at one or more of the critical phases of
their life cycle.

In recent years, the North Carolina fishing industry has
suffered due to the declining viability of the estuary. Water
pollution resulting from various sources, including improper
sewage treatment, increased sedimentation, and industrial
discharges, has diminished the commercial potential from certian
portions of the estuarine system. A particular problem exists
concerning shellfish, long an important part of North Carolina's
fishing industry. Over the last few years, a substantial portion
of the State's shellfishing waters (350,000 acres) have been
closed to commercial harvesting due to water quality problems.

Habitat destruction is also a problem in the estuary.
Important shellfish beds, nursery areas for commercial species,
migration routes for anadromous fish and submerged grassbeds that
serve as important feeding areas are all subject to alteration
directly through dredging operations and indirectly through

111

sedimentation from onshore development. Although many dredging
projects are necessary, if they are improperly located within the
estuary, they can have significant detrimental effects on im-
portant estuarine habitats. The smothering of sedentary species
such as shellfish and the alteration of important bottom lands
often results from poorly planned dredging operations and
improperly designed onshore land clearing activities.

The North Carolina coastal management program must address
how to maintain, promote, and enhance the North Carolina fishing
industry in a manner that is consistent with local economic
objectives and long-term productivity of our important renewable
fishery resources.

~~~ - ~~~~ ~-

Agriculture and Forestry

Agriculture and forestry are among the most important
economic activities in the coastal area. The agricultural and
forestry industry employs a significant number fo coastal
residents. Agriculture contributes approximately $345 million and
forestry $272 million per year to the state's economy. Agricul-
ture and forestry is a way of life in much of rural eastern North
Carolina. The maintenance and success of these industries is
therefore extremely important to the economic well-being and
social stability of the predominantly rural coastal area. Both
forestry and agriculture supply the food and fiber needs of the
nation and the world and are, thus, of concern not only to the
State of North Carolina but to the nation as a whole. The ability
to produce is affected by many factors. The conversion of land
from farming and timber to other uses, environmental and land use
regulations, tax policies, and energy shortages all impact
directly upon the economic viability of agricultural operations.

112

North Carolina ranks fifth in the nation in the number of
commercial forest acres. Approximately 21% of the state's
commercial forest land is located within the twenty county coastal
area. Most of this acreage supports softwood species that are
converted to valuable sawtimber and pulpwood products. The
coastal area also supports a great volume of the highly valued
wetland forest types such as cypress and gum.

North Carolina presently ranks tenth in the nation in
agricultural exports. Tobacco, corn, wheat, peanuts, soybeans and
poultry products are important parts of our exports. Many of our
crops show a potential for further development if an export market
can be established or
expanded. An expansion of foreign markets could promote the
development of food processing facilities within North Carolina.
This not only would help the agricultural community, but could
provide more jobs within the coastal area. North Carolina's
agricultural exports have grown rapidly. The value of these
exports has increased from $406 million in 1970 to $786 in 1976.
Further expansion of agricultural exports is a definite possi-
bility for this State and further development of our ports would
be necessary to handle the growth.

Along with the industry's benefits, however, come certain
environ-mental and resource management problems. Agricultural and
forestry practices necessarily involve certain land and
water-disturbing activities that affect the coastal resources and
in turn, affect other important coastal industries. The most
conspicuous activity conducted in forestry and agricultural
operations that impacts another important coastal industry, namely
fishing, is the ditching and drainage of agricultural land. Such
ditching is widespread and necessary because much of the coastal
zone is very poorly drained and in close proximity to the

113

groundwater table. Unfortunately; however, the removal of water
from agricultural fields often results in negative impacts in
terms of water quality that in turn affect important marine
species. Runoff from agricultural ditches may have high levels of
sediment and chemicals associated with herbicides, pesticides and
fertilizer.

The current trend is for the individual farm to be larger
with more intensive activity (production per acre). Productivity
is increased, but so also are the side effects of drainage
ditching, pesticide, chemical, and animal waste runoff.

Local citizens, through their county land-use, have
expressed their desires to grow industrially. However, they have
consistantly emphasized the importance of their current way of
life. Industrial development would be welcome, but not at the
expense of the currently established farming and forestry
activities nor at the expense of radical changes in their rural
lifestyles.

The North Carolina Coastal Management program must address
how to maintain, promote, and enhance the agricultural and silvi-
cultural production of the coastal area while minimizing the
negative effects on coastal resources that are necessary to other
important activities. This should be done in a manner consistent
with the local economic objectives and long term productivity of
our valuable agricultural resources.

Mining

Portions of the North Carolina coastal area contain exten-
sive deposits of phosphate that are of local, national and world
importance. Cement
manufacture from
limestone is an important
mineral industry in New
Hanover County and
limestone resources are
also found in several -
other counties. Signi-
ficant deposits of peat
occur in parts of the
coastal zone which, if
mined, can prove to be
a valuable energy
resource. Although peat
mining is now only in the
experimental stage, the
potential for developing
the resource is great. In
addition, significant
deposits of glass sand
and heavy minerals may
be present. Therefore,

114

phosphate mining, limestone mining, and, possibly in the future,
peat, glass sand, heavy mineral mining, sand and gravel, soil and I
clay mining contribute significantly to economic and employment
opportunities in our coastal area. In fact, mineral production in
the coastal counties amounts to $20 million per year, nearly 25%
of the total State production.

The mining of phosphate is accomplished by open pit mining
methods that impacts other resources in the coastal area. In
order to maintain a dry, open pit mine it is necessary to contin-
ually pump a large volume of groundwater to lower the pressure in
the Castle Hayne Limestone which underlies the phosphate deposit.
This pumping controls the artesian pressure in the Castle Hayne
aquifer, but it has created a cone of depression in the artesian
pressure surface (piezometric surface) that is regional in extent.
Over development of the groundwater *resources in the coastal area
could lead to salt water intrusion into the fresh groundwater
aquifer.

Other environmental impacts attributable to mining include
disturbance of the surface of the area being mined, discharge of
air and water effluents from mining and manufacturing processes,
and dredging activities for water control and transportation
purposes.

The North Carolina Coastal Management program must address
the issue of further development of the mineral resources of the
area for local and national economic benefits, while protecting
the quality of the natural setting of the waterways, natural
environment, and lifestyle of the coastal area.

Manufacturing

Residents of North Carolina's coastal zone consistently
emphasized the need for economic development and growth in their
land use plans. New manufacturing facilities and the employment
that accompanies them are primary stimulants for such growth.
Historically the coastal area has been the site of only a small
amount of manufacturing activity which was primarily associated
with processing natural products of the area such as fish, timber,
and agricultural products. This trend has begun to change in
recent years, and a greater variety of manufacturing facilities
have begun to develop in coastal North Carolina. Although these
plants are still widely dispersed, except for a heavy concentra-
tion in the Wilmington area, evidence of an increasing importance
for manufacturing in the coastal economy is available.

Many plants are attracted to the coastal zone by the
abundant water supply which can be used in manufacturing pro-
cesses, in transportation, and in the removal of waste from the
manufacturing process. The plants, therefore, are often located
adjacent to the coastal waters and can have a direct impact on
those waters as point sources of pollution. Although the North
Carolina coastal zone is certainly not yet proliferated with such

115

point sources, some of them (for example, pulpwood plants) have a
very significant impact on local waters. In addition to water
quality impacts, manufacturing plants have obvious secondary
impacts on the area in which they are located. Increased trans-
portation needs and residential growth with the accompanying
problems of waste disposal and services are primary examples of
these impacts. While acknowledging that economic growth is desir-
able, the coastal zone residents have consistently stated in their
land use plans that such development should be diversified and
compatible with the coastal environment and the assimilative
capacity of the coastal resources. The implications would seem to
be that a selective and deliberate approach be used in seeking new
industry, rather than encouraging new industry at all costs.

In summary, the North Carolina Coastal Management program
must address how to promote moderate growth in the manufacturing
industries in a manner consistent with the long-term productivity
and well-being of the natural and human environment.

Transportation Issues

Full utilization of coastal natural resources in the pro-
duction of goods and services depends to a great degree on the
transportation of these resources to markets that often lie
outside the coastal area. Therefore, adequate transportation
facilities such as roadways, airports, railways and waterways are
necessary for the economic development of the coastal area. The
tourist and vacation industry, which is vital to the coastal
economy, is particularly dependent upon good roads to provide
access to and from the major tourist attractions on the coast.
The moving of goods and materials within the coastal area and to
and from the coastal area is essential to all the major coastal
industries, especially manufacturing.

Highways, Roads, and Related Facilities

As essential as roads and other transportation facilities
are, it must also be recognized that their construction and
operation have both direct and indirect impacts on coastal waters.
Direct impacts result from building roads in areas close to waters
so that sedimentation may eventually reach and disturb marine
resources. Major roads and related bridges and causeways may also
have an indirect impact by providing access to fragile coastal
landscapes. This action, in effect, directs growth into areas
that may not be able to accommodate both development and the
continued productive use of natural resources. Also, roads may be
planned and designed in a manner that would subject this public
resource to naturally occurring coastal hazards. Roads in some
areas may in fact increase the danger of flooding and damage to
adj acent development.

The problem to be addressed by North Carolina's coastal
management program is how to provide highways that are adequate
for the economic growth desired in the coastal area while insuring

116

that such facilities do not unnecessarily degrade waters and
promote growth in the areas that cannot accommodate it.

Ports

North Carolina's two major ports, ' \~
located at Morehead City and Wilmington,
make an important contribution to the
economy of the coastal area. It is
estimated that 11,000,000 tons of cargo
were moved through these ports in 1976.
Approximately 1,670 workers are employed
in activities associated with these
ports, with over 32,000 jobs being either
directly or indirectly affected by port-
related activities. It is estimated that
each ton of commerce adds $76.00 to the
aggregate figure for personal income in
North Carolina.

At Morehead City, phosphate is the most important commodity
handled, followed by tobacco, petroleum products, pulpwood, lumber
and plywood. At Wilmington, steel, plywood, and lumber are the
leading imports on a tonnage basis. Wilmington has also become
the dominant port in the three state area for chemicals and
alcohol. However, North Carolina ports handle only about 56
percent of the exports produced in North Carolina. Some important
products, such a's cigarettes, are primarily shipped through ports
in other states which have better container service to handle such
goods. Another characteristic of North Carolina ports is that
imports and exports are not balanced at either port. Wilmington
handles 89 percent of the State's imports and Morehead City has 76
percent of the exports.

The development of ports has a broad range of impacts on the
local and regional environment. The direct impacts on coastal
waters are caused by the dredging and filling activities that are
necessary to maintain navigability and to build wharves and other
facilities. Runoff during construction projects and from
developed areas, residues from vessels, fuel spills, etc., can
affect water quality in the vicinity.

The secondary impacts of ports are very broad. A recent
survey shows that 35 of 291 responding industries considered ocean
transport critical or very significant to their location decision.
Clearly, the existence of a port facility will tend to attract
industries. Transportation facilities must be provided for land
movement of goods. The 65,000 trucks that are loaded and unloaded
annually create a high demand for road consturction and mainten-
ance.

In summary, the North Carolina Coastal Management program
must address how to insure that the facilities and services
necessary to accommodate the growing activitiy conducted by North

117

Carolina ports are provided in a manner that is least damaging to
coastal waters and adjacent shorelands.

Navigation

Waterborne trade has played an important role in coastal
North Carolina's development despite the fact that navigation has
been somewhat hampered by North Carolina's coastal land configura-
tions. Nevertheless, waterborne transportation has proved to be
competitive with other forms of transportation on a cost per
ton-mile basis. In addition, increasing demands for seafood,
waterbased recreational activities, and passenger ferry service
have demonstrated the need for expanded considerations of naviga-
tional needs and wise utilization of the State's coastal waters.

Large Scale Shipping

Development associated with large scale shipping can be
divided into two categories: harbors or ports, which are
discussed elsewhere and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW).

The AIWW is a national waterway providing a major
North-South shipping corridor. The AIWW benefits the State in two
ways: (1) by providing intracoastal transportation corridor and
(2) by providing for access to North Carolina and the nation for
large scale shipping. Approximately 3.4 million tons or 21
percent of the total State tonnage was reported carried via the
AIWW in 1976. When combined with the Morehead-Beaufort and
Wilmington harbors, the three represent 90 percent of all tonnage
shipped in that year. In terms of expenditures, the AIWW repre-
sents $32 million or 30 percent of the total recorded expenditures
for nagivation.

Operation of this important interstate shipping corridor is
possible only through continuous maintenance dredging projects.
The Army Corps of Engineers performs the maintenance of AIWW while
attempting to minimize the negative environmental effects created
by dredging. Other problems associated with AIWW operations are
increased shoreline erosion to property owners along the AIWW and
the increasing scarcity of acceptable spoil sites.

Small Scale Shipping

In addition to providing benefits to the commercial fishing
industry, the small navigation projects serve as important "farm
to market roads" for both agricultural and seafood products. The
more than 40 small navigation projects provide for the economic
security of many coastal areas which have few economic alterna-
tives. These projects, additionally, provide for utilization by
North Carolina's commercial and sport fishing operations and allow
for use of recreation resources.

Recreational boating is another aspect of small navigation
development. The increased incomes and leisure time of the last

118

two decades have generated tremendous growth in this industry and
in the demand of recreational boating on navigable waters.
Accordingly, the economic benefits, direct and indirect, of
recreational boating have risen dramatically. A 1972 study
prepared on sport fishing in the Morehead City area gives an
indication of its magnitude. In that area, spending for charter
and head boats, fishing piers, and rented ship and boat storage
space by non-residents of Carteret County generated $2.7 million
in revenues during 1971. Of this figure, $1.4 million (52
percent) remained in the county as direct or indirect contribu-
tions to the personal income of the residents.

Environmental problems have resulted from the process of
dredging and maintaining navigation channels. Dredge disposal
areas displace many marine species, such as oysters. The
elimination of marsh and bottom habitat also lowers commercial and
sport fish yields, recreational opportunity, and wildlife areas.
Relatively deep natural bottoms have become shallow and even
exposed ground. Discharges from hydraulic dredging operations
usually cause a period of lowered water quality (increased
turbidity, acidity and coliform bacteria levels) which also
adversely affects marine species. The location of these spoil
areas adversely affects many types of small navigation, often
preventing the desirable random movement of small pleasure boats
and the smaller commercial and sport fishing vessels. In summary,
the Coastal Management program must address the problem of how to
maintain and expand the existing navigation base so that it works
as a coordinated regional system and so that adverse impacts on
small boats and coastal ecosystems are minimized.

Tourism and Recreational Resource Issues

North Carolina's coastal area contains priceless natural,
aesthetic and cultural resources that are enjoyed by both coastal
residents and visitors from other parts of the State and nation.
The natural beauty and cultural richness of the coast is usually
cited by residents as an important factor in making the area a
desirable place to live, as well as being the primary attraction
for the great number of vacationers and tourists that annually
visit the area. In fact, the natural, aesthetic, and cultural
resources of the coastal area represent an unusual opportunity for
the coastal resident, in that their proper management and preser-
vation is compatible with both economic and quality of life
benefits for citizens of both the coastal area and the entire
State. However, unguided development can affect the quality of
these resources through pollution, overuse, loss of aesthetic
sense or outright destruction.

Recreation

The coastal area is one of the richest sections of North
Carolina for recreational activities such as fishing, boating,
swimming and hunting. Each of these activities take an important
place in the lifestyle of coastal residents. Also, these

119

activities attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year
thereby creating one of the most important sources of income
for residents. Two groups of
issues for tourism and
recreation can be separated
here; those for the permanent
residents and those for
seasonal residents. For
permanent residents, the
everyday recreational needs
must be considered, including
permanent facilities such as
tennis courts, baseball
field, etc., and organized
programs for users of these
facilities. This requires
that a complete analysis be
made of the anticipated
recreational needs of the
.~ ....present and future popula-
tions and that ongoing pro-
grams and funding to meet
these be identified. Of
course, maintenance of good water quality is critical to keeping
coastal waters attractive for recreational use by both seasonal
and permanent residents.

The Coastal program should attempt to mesh management of
resource areas with ongoing community outdoor recreation programs
and wherever possible, promote use of such areas for compatible
recreational activities.

Tourism

For seasonal residents, the issue is to provide access to
resources of the coast, such as a particular beach or historic
site, while assuring that
the resource qualities are
protected. The more fragile
areas need to be identified
and protected from overuse
with visitors directed to areas
that can sustain greater impacts.
Maintenance of forests and other
forms of vegetative cover is vital
to the natural aesthetic quality
of the area. Adequate roadways �
for North Carolina residents is
another issue of concern. A
large portion of the coast is
more accessible to out-of-state
residents than native North
Carolinians. The scenic
quality of these roadways and '/fTi7i-~: '..'=..
the development that accompanies
them is also important.

120

Other problems associated with tourism are the provision of
facilities and services to handle the seasonal influx of people;
the competition between visitors and residents for the use of
resources which can result in lack of access for residents; the
potential negative effects on the natural, aesthetic, and cultural
resources caused by the increased commercial and transportation
facilities required to accommodate tourists.

The coastal management program must address the problem of
how to promote and facilitate tourism in the coastal area to the
maximum extent possible without degrading the natural and man-made
resources that attract people to the coastal area in the first
place.

Unique Cultural and Natural Resources

The coastal area of North Carolina abounds in cultural
resources and in particular historic sites and structures. Well
preserved historic buildings add an element of tradition and
character that many residents consider important to the quality of
their community. In addition, these cultural resources are a
major attraction for the growing number of tourists who appreciate
their aesthetic, architectural and historical significance. Many
of these sites are in private ownership; therefore, no mechanism
exists to insure that they will be preserved. Also, many archae-
logical resources are in jeopardy of being lost often because
their location is unknown. Development activities can unknowingly
destroy a site before there is time to salvage the priceless
resource. The Coastal program must address the problem of how to
support a comprehensive program for identification and preserva-
tion of valuable cultural resources in the coastal area.

Beach Access

North Carolina has 308 total
miles of ocean shoreline of which
148 miles are in public ownership.
This large percentage of public
beach area, primarily associated
with the National Seashores, pro- ~ l
vides the citizens of North Caro- "
lina with a great amount of
recreational beach area. Access
to these public beaches is a pro- -. '- t:.
blem only from the standpoint
that most of the population
centers of North Carolina are a a
great distance away from the . -'
National Seashore properties.
The Park Service has made adequate - -.
provision for access to the beaches -'
within the National Seashore by
providing parking lots, roadways,
crosswalks and walkways across the

dunes. Public access beaches along the 160 miles of the North
Carolina coast not yet publicly owned is not as favorable. Some
communities have provided for public access, but in many areas,
access has never been a problem and no provisions have' been made
to insure that it will not be a problem in the future. In fact,
there are very few areas where access is denied to the public. It
is recognized, however, that increased development in and use of
the shoreline may cause beach access to become a problem in the
future.

Another side of the beach access question is the conflict
between the various groups of beach users. This is particularly
true of those who wish to drive their vehicles on the beach in
direct conflict with the wishes of the pedestrian beach user.
Conflicts also exist between fishermen and swimmers, private land
owners and beach users, surfers and swimmers and other user groups
as the intensity of beach use increases. These conflicts often
result in the restriction of public access by private land owners
and in the implementation of local laws to restrict the full use
of the public beach.

In summary, the Coastal Management program must address the
issue of how to insure adequate access to the public beaches in
coastal waters in a manner which is not detrimental to the
delicate beach environment and which satisfactorily allocates such
access among the competing types of uses.

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~Energy Issues

Energy-Generating Facilities

Although the present function of the North Carolina coast in
supplying energy for the State and the nation is not particularly
significant, the potential for energy development may be signi-
ficant. Coastal management must consider energy development
because the coast has abundant supply of water for cooling
processes and pollutants, the various sites suitable for petroleum
unloading and refining, and an extensive continental shelf that
may eventually have valuable oil and gas reserves proven.

Large energy-generating facilities are of a real concern to
North Carolina, especially in the, coastal zone. Energy is cer-
tainly essential to the continued productivity of the nation as
well as the State of North Carolina. However, it must be
recognized at the same time that an energy-generating facility may
have significant effects on coastal environments and especially on
coastal waters. Furthermore, the socio-economic effect of the
facility is very significant to the area in which it is located,
particularly because manpower needs during the construction stage
are large but the long-term employment associated with the
operation is low. This causes an influx of people seeking employ-
ment at the construction stage. Each family requires housing and
other facilities which the prevalent rural areas of the coast are
not equipped to provide. The resultant development patterns and

122

problems are often undesired. Secondary growth may also occur
within the county due to the lower taxes that result from the
enormous contribution such plants have on assessed property
values. In summary, it is possible that an electrical generating
plant of significant size can change the natural, cultural, and
economic environment in the coastal area. The questions facing
North Carolina are: first, what type of energy generating
facility is best suited to the coastal zone, if any? Second,
where is the best location for such a facility within the coastal
area?

Petroleum Refineries

Presently North Carolina has no petroleum refineries
operating within its jurisdictional boundaries, and none antici-
pated for the immediate future. North Carolina imports both its
oil and natural gas and ranks tenth in national gas consumption;
therefore, the potential market for petroleum products is strong.
The principal factor influencing an industry's decision to site a
refinery is the proximity of the market, along with other factors
such as the source of the crude oil, necessary site features, and
environmental regulations. Since refineries are both land and
water intensive, North Carolina's coastal area may be a prime area
for future siting.

Although there is no general correlation between the
discovery of oil in a frontier OCS area and construction of a
refinery, a significant find and its location may provide an0
impetus for siting a refinery in North Carolina. However, at this
juncture, it can be safely stated that North Carolina does not
anticipate having such a facility in the near future.

However, if a refinery should locate in the coastal zone,
the impacts could be great. A refinery will need a large site
(1,000 - 1,500 acres) which will permit both expansion and a wide
buffer zone. Approximately 600 acres will be required to accom-
modate structures resulting in significant land disturbing
activities. Sedimentation and runoff can become a major problem
to coastal waters during the construction phase. Another feature
of refineries is that they tend to locate near the water's edge,
causing alteration and destruction of marshes or wetlands during
construction, and permanent alteration of the natural habitat
conditions of an area. Refineries also use tremendous quantities
of water. Significant wastewater volumes will be created which
must be discharged. Air quality can also be degraded by
refineries. Specifically, analysis has shown that hydrocarbon
emissions may be in excess of standards for typical
"state-of-the-art" refinery design, and hydrocarbon emissions are
the principle contributor to the formation of petrochemical
oxidants (ozone and smog). Finally, the secondary impacts that
result from a significant population influx must also be
considered.

123

In summary, the North Carolina Coastal Management program
is ~~~recognizes that petroleum refineries are not a pressing major
problem, but nevertheless we must address the question of how to
develop a mechanism to select the best location to plan for and
mitigate the negative impacts of any oil refinery that might be
proposed in the coastal zone.

Outer Continental Shelf Development

The North Carolina Outer-Continental shelf area is geograph-
ically associated with what has been termed the South Atlantic
Region by the U.S. Department of the Interior and may contain
,valuable oil, gas, sand and gravel deposits. The South Atlantic
Region is composed of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and
Florida. The first lease sale for oil and gas exploration and
development purposes in this region took place in March 1978.

The lease sale consisted of offering for lease the rights to
explore for and produce oil and gas resources that may be present
in 224 tracts in the South Atlantic area known as the Southeast
Georgia Embayment. The sale area covered 1,280,966 acres and the
tracts are located from 30 to 75 miles offshore South Carolina,
Georgia and Florida and lie in water depth ranging from 43 to 540
feet. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that this sale
area could contain undiscovered recoverable resources of 0.28 to
1.0 billion barrels of oil and 1.9 to 6.8 trillion cubic feet of
gas. However, because this is a frontier area which has exper-
ienced no oil and gas exploration by actual drilling or develop-
ment, there is no assurance that petroleum in marketable
quantities will be found. This may explain why there was no real
interest in leasing the rights offered in Sale 43.

As the initial exploration in the South Atlantic Region will
take place off the coast of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida
for all practical purposes, North Carolina will be minimally
impacted by OCS oil and gas development during at least the next
decade. As exploration will not take place off our coast, but off
South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, the chances for primary
impacts during the exploration stage are unlikely. However,
depending upon the size, nature, and location of a find, the
potential for secondary impacts does exist. Such impacts include
use of harbor facilities for transportation, refineries and/or
petrochemical complexes. Seconda ry impacts can in turn cause
habitat loss through ill-planned site alteration, conversion of
wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas, drastic changes in
coastal life styles, economic burdens on local governments from a
population influx, etc.

it is hard to predict to what extent North Carolina will in
reality be affected since there are so many variables. Conse-
quently, the North Carolina coastal management program must
address two questions concerning outer continental shelf
activities in the near future. The first is to determine what
valuable resources other than oil and gas exist and to what extent

124

and how they will be used; the second is to determine what second-
ary impacts are likely to result from energy-related OCS activ-
ities off the coast of North Carolina and other states. The0
issues that the Coastal Management program can then address
include: "should the State of North Carolina encourage the
development of OCS-related facilities recognizing the possible
impacts from such a posture and what should the State of North
Carolina do to manage and minimize the negative impacts resulting
from OCS development either off North Carolina's or the neighbor-
ing states' coast?"

Environmental Issues

The following discussion briefly describes a few of the
environmental issues that North Carolina's Coastal Management
program must address. Far from exhaustive, this section only
attempts to provide the reader with a perspective on some of the
pervasive environmental problems of the coastal zone.

Waste Disposal and Water Supplies

The proliferation of the use of septic tanks in the coastal
area, particularly in areas adjacent to coastal waters, has caused
much concern about their regulation. Poor soil characteristics
throughout most of the coastal area and a generally high water
table through much of the year tend to make conventional septic
tank sewage disposal systems environmentally unsuitable for
continued use in high density coastal development. Many areas of
the coast are already experiencing a substantial pollution problem
evidenced by the alarmingly large number of acres of state waters
which are presently closed to the taking of shellfish. A
significant amount of this problem can be attributed to the
disposal of sewage by conventional sub-surface septic systems.

The major soils of the coastal area management region are
not suitable for sewage disposal by conventional septic tank
systems. Recent studies show that most conventional septic
systems that are used for sewage disposal in the region will cause
pollution of ground or surface waters, or some other problem
within the first year's use. In conditions where the only avail-
able land is either marsh, spoil material, or frequently inundated
soils, other systems of waste treatment must be used to adequately
treat and dispose of sewage. In such areas, waste is injected
directly into shallow groundwater at the site, often polluting
important water supplies. From there the waste moves in basically
untreated form to nearby surface waters, canals, or estuaries.

Such soil conditions are prevalent on the Outer Banks and
other offshore islands and along the shorelines of estuarine
waters. These are the types of areas subject to heavy residential
and second home development. Unless a suitable substitute for the
septic tank is developed, then the only environmentally sound way
to accommodate intensive development in these areas is by means of
municipal or regional waste treatment systems. Many localities0

125

have recognized the problem of waste disposal and have unreali-
stically depended on central treatment facilities as a solution.
These systems are expensive, especially if development is not
guided into patterns that can be efficiently serviced. Further-
more, disposal of treated waste is still a problem in many coastal
areas because much of the estuarine system does not have the
assimilative capacity to handle even treated waste. Therefore,
other methods of disposal, including ocean outfall, land applica-
tion and nonconventional individual waste treatment systems
(septic tank alternatives) need to be examined as alternative
waste disposal techniques.

In summary, the North Carolina Coastal Management program
must address the problem of how to minimize the impacts of waste
pollution on coastal waters by supporting development of environ-
mentally sound waste treatment systems and guiding new development
to areas which are served by such systems or which are suitable
for septic tanks.

Development in Coastal Hazard Areas

Proximity of development to coastal waters and the exposed
nature of the landscape create the greatest hazards to coastal
development. Periodic hurricanes and storms are the most severe
of the coastal natural hazards. The Outer Banks and the islands
off the coast are especially vulnerable to the dangers associated
with high winds and storm surges resulting from hurricanes. The
Outer Banks must also face rapid erosion of the ocean shoreline,
as well as extensive flooding. Certainly in the future as devel-
opment proceeds on the Outer Banks, greater economic losses of
private and public property can be expected and unfortunately,
many times the cost of relief and rehabilitation of private
development on the Outer Banks falls upon all taxpayers.

Another type of natural hazard
that occurs frequently on the coast
is associated with northeastern
winds or northeasters. Associated
with this hazard is accelerated
erosion that many times results in
a major retreat of the ocean shore-
line as well as the shorelines
bordering the sounds. Although
the danger to life certainly is not
as great with the northeasters as
it is with the hurricanes, the
economic loss of property can be
almost as great and certainly more
predictable. A recent inventory
conducted by the Soil Conservation
Service indicates that the shore-
lines adjacent to the major sounds
in coastal North Carolina have a
typical rate of erosion of 2 to 3
feet per year with some shorelines

126

exhibiting an erosion rate of 20 feet per year. The amount of
erosion occurring depends on a number of factors including the is
fetch of the adjacent water body, the exposure of the banks to the
northeast storms and southeast hurricane winds, the type of soil
composing the shoreline and the type of vegetation both in the
shallow water areas adjacent to the shoreline and on the shore-
line.

Finally, there are continuously occurring natural phenomena
that cause significant shifts in coastal land forms, primarily
resulting from wind or water erosion. These alterations in land-
scape are not associated in particular with any abnormal storm
.conditions but occur because of the natural tidal cycles and
sedimentation processes. Lands adjacent to inlets, for example,
are extremely dynamic because of the continuous and sometimes
rapid shift in the inlets configuration. These shifts occur to
some degree because of changes in sedimentation patterns and tidal
forces. There is also a continual but extremely slow process of
erosion of shorelines resulting from sea level rises.

The combined effect of these various coastal hazards is to
create a situation where both location and design of development
is critical to its continued survival. Unfortunately, because of
the great demand for coastal recreation and relaxation, and the
high volume of recent development, most structures have not
incorporated these concerns into their design and planning. These
problems are compounded by the lack of knowledge on the part of
new residents to the coastal area concerning the dangers of0
erosion and flooding. Landowners do not know where to obtain
reliable information on erosion rates and flooding problems; nor
do they realize the great expense involved in protecting their
property by means of bulkheads, seawalls, and other protective
measures. As a result, owners of endangered property find them-
selves compelled to seek financial as well as technical assistance
from public agencies. Government is therefore faced with the
uncomfortable situation of either committing taxpayers' money to
the protection of private property following a natural hazard or
to refusing assistance to private citizens who have suffered
severe property losses.

In summary, the North Carolina Coastal Management program
must address how to direct development away from hazard areas
thereby avoiding both the private and public expense associated
with protecting property in obvious hazard areas.

Drainage

Coastal North Carolina consists of vast areas of lowland
characterized by a high water table and abundant rainfall. A
process for removing excess water is essential to preparing such
lowlands for any form of development.

The excavation of ditches for drainage is therefore a
practical necessity for economic activity within the coastal zone.0

127

Yet drainage ditching also creates potential environmental
problems, prmrl yincreasing the amount and rate of runoff
into coastal surface waters. Direct destruction of coastal
wetlands can result from
ditching, and can be
worsened by the improp-
er disposal of dredge spoil.
Ditches have the potential for
conveying many different pollu-
tants, such as sediment, fertilizer,
pesticides, and bacteria, to the
estuaries. Freshwater runoff
when drained onto esturine waters
can be considered one of the most
menacing pollutants to manage.
Urban areas and lands drained
by ditches are intense sources
of freshwater runoff.

In summary, the State
Coastal Management program
must address the problem of
how to determine what are
acceptable purposes for drain-
ing coastal lowlands and what
are the best patterns and tech-
niques to minimize the negative
effects of such drainage on
coastal waters, taking into full-
consideration the importance of
drainage to the coastal economy.

Dredging and Spoil Disposal

Dredging, the excavation of bottom material, and filling,
the deposition of these materials onto the bottom, are construc-
tion techniques used widely in North Carolina's coastal area.
Various parties may desire to dredge to create and maintain
navigation channels, turning basins, harbors and marinas, for
laying pipeline and as a source of material for fill or construc-
tion. Filling refers to deposition of dredged materials, either
for the specific purpose of creating new "dry land areas" for
commerical, industrial, residential or other uses, or as disposal
of the by-product (dredge spoil) produced during dredging. There-
fore, dredge and fill activities can be economically beneficial

128

and are in great demand for improving usability and increasing the
value of land adjacent to
North Carolina's coastal
waters.

Dredge and fill activ-
ities can adversely effect
the coastal waters in a
variety of ways. They can
create short and long-term
changes in watei~ currents,
circulation, mixing, flushing
~;and salinity; add to the
water turbidity, and pollu-
tion; and lower the dissolved
oxygen level. Dredging also
increases the potential for
groundwater discharge and
loss of storage. Seepage
from spoils may degrade local
groundwater supplies. The
most obvious direct effect of
these closely linked
activities is the immediate destruction of coastal wetlands,
bottoms and tidelands, diminishing their natural productivity, and
the habitats they provide for many species. Furthermore, dredging
navigation canals and channels produces spoil which must be
disposed of, and filling requires some areas to be dredged for a
source of fill material. Dredge spoil is a slurry of sediment and
water which contains a high proportion of polluting materials:
organic matter, heavy metals, toxics and fine sediments. Direct
runoff from these spoil areas can therefore degrade water quality
and deposit sediment on bottoms over a substantial area. Pollu-
tants can also circulate downward to the water table and contam-
inate the groundwater.

The North Carolina Coastal Management program must consider
determining the proper justification for the destruction of public
resources through dredging, as well as promoting the best dredging
techniques (location, timing, method of disposal, etc.) for those
projects that are justified.

Coastal Wetlands Preservation

The value of North Carolina' s vast coastal wetlands can
hardly be overestimated. The high productivity level and complex
food chains within the estuarine system cannot be maintained
without the detritus and nutrients that are exported from these
coastal marshlands. Man harvests various aspects of this produc-
tivity when he fishes, hunts, and gathers shellfish from the
estuary. The importance of these marshlands are indicated by the
fact that estuarine dependent species of fish and shellfish such
as menhaden,9 shrimp, flounder, oysters, and crabs currently make
up over 90 percent of the total value of North Carolina's
commercial catch.

129

Coastal wetlands act as good quality waterfowl and wildlife
feeding and nesting areas. In addition, coastal wetlands serve as
the first line of defense in retarding estuarine shoreline erosion
and flood damage by dissipating wave action and resisting soil
erosion. Marshlands also act as nutrient and sediment traps by
slowing the water which flows over them and causing organic and
inorganic particulate matter to settle out. In this manner, the
nutrient storehouse is maintained, and sediment harmful to marine
organisms is removed. Also, pollutants and excessive nutrients
are absorbed by the marsh plants, thus providing an inexpensive
water treatment service.

Coastal wetlands often separate the dry shorelands from
coastal waters, and therefore they are affected by activities
either associated with or dependent upon coastal waters. For
example, the high value of coastal waterfront makes it profitable
to fill wetlands. Wetlands and estuarine bottoms are often the
nearest and most convenient place to deposit dredge spoil, parti-
cularly from drainage ditching and channelization. All of these
activities threaten or greatly diminish the total acreage of
wetlands, and consequently reduce productivity of coastal waters.

In summary, the North Carolina Coastal Management program
must address how to minimize destruction of wetlands without
denying reasonable access to coastal waters for water-dependent
uses.

Protection of Unique Coastal Environments

Certain natural areas within the North Carolina coastal zone
contain unique natural features that give them particular educa-
tional, scientific and cultural value. Such areas are often
relatively small assemblages of plants and animals that have

130

remained essentially unchanged by the development which has
occurred in the coastal area. Nevertheless, they are important
coastal resources because of their scientific, educational, scenic
and cultural value. Often these natural areas contain habitat
conditions suitable for rare or endangered species or they support
plant and animal communities representative of pre-settlement
conditions. These areas help provide a historical prospective to
changing natural conditions in the coastal area and together are
important and irreplaceable scientific and educational resources.

Development pressure and lack of knowledge concerning the
nature of these coastal environments have combined to threaten the
,delicately balanced systems of these coastal habitats. Both the
design and the location of development occurring adjacent to and
within these unique coastal environments have often in the past
neglected to consider the best method of conserving the natural
values of the area while at the same time accommodating the devel-
opment's objective. Therefore, the State of North Carolina must
address the issue of how to identify unique coastal environments
and then develop a management system and a management approach
capable of preserving the best examples of these unique coastal
resources.

Institutional Arrangements

In order for any comprehensive coastal management program to
succeed, careful consideration must be given to both the existing
institutional arrangements, their weaknesses and strengths, and
the desirability of any changes in institutional practices.
Decision-making responsibilities and processes should be organized
and allocated among the various levels of government and the
citizens themselves, in a manner that promotes efficiency and
reflects the social, governmental, and legal traditions of our
State.

Public Participation

Any resource management and land use planning program must
be built on a foundation of legitimate public participation. Most
localities in coastal North Carolina have never been involved in a
comprehensive land use planning effort. Therefore, any citizen
participation effort must overcome a lack of familiarity and even
distrust of an organized planning effort. This resistance is
often further intensified by the strong tradition of localism that
is prevalent in coastal North Carolina. The coastal management
effort is perceived by many to be state interference in a sphere
of activity that should be left to local government. Therefore,
the key issue concerning citizen participation has been how to
involve coastal citizens on a continuing basis in the genuinely
substantive aspects of decision-making, thereby creating an
atmosphere of trust and facilitating the exchange of ideas between
the public, local government, and the State coastal management
agency.

131

Local and State Cooperation

The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act, the key
element to this State's coastal management program, has recognized
that, in addition to water pollution control standards and similar
resource protection programs, good land use planning is necessary
to the success of an attempt to protect coastal waters. At the
same time, the Act recognizes that comprehensive land use planning
and regulation has traditionally been done at the local government
level, and that most land use decisions are more appropriately
dealt with at the local level. The problems in allocating coastal
planning functions is complicated by the fact that many of North
Carolina's coastal counties are very rural in character, and most
municipalities are small. As a result, they do not have the
existing staff capability to handle the planning and regulatory
functions necessary for a coastal management program. Further-
more, they cannot justify the expense involved in developing and
maintaining a staff for such a purpose. Consequently, a system
must be developed to provide local governments with necessary
financial assistance, information and other technical services.

In summary, the North Carolina Coastal Management program
must address how to best allocate and finance certain of the
coastal planning and management functions to local governments in
the coastal area while retaining enough responsibility at the
State level to assure that legitimate regional, State, and
national interests are taken into consideration.

Federal Consistency and National Interest

Another aspect of the institutional changes necessary to a
successful coastal management program is the need for federal
agencies to participate in, acknowledge, and cooperate with the
coastal planning effort in all activities that directly and
significantly affect coastal waters. Coastal North Carolina
contains vast areas that are either owned or regulated by federal
agencies. The State acknowledges that these land holdings and
activities serve identified national interests, and indeed, that
federal lands are excluded from the technical definition of the
coastal zone. However, the coastal planning and management
program is also an effort to analyze and protect the
greater-than-local interests in the coastal zone, thereby serving
a national interest recognized by the FCZMA of 1972. As such, the
management program represents to some extent a subordination of
local perogatives to greater-than-local needs, in return for which
federal agencies are mandated to conform their activities to the
greatest extent practicable with the approved state management
plan. The fulfillment of this mandate is necessary to popular
acceptance of the coastal management effort. Without it the
entire program will be seen as just another effort to remove power
from the local level.

In summary, the problem to be addressed by the coastal
management program is how to insure that the national interests of

132

federal agencies are reflected in a coastal plan, that a system is
developed to insure that federal agencies give proper considera-
tion to the state management plan, and that the plan is presently
clear enough to provide federal agencies with the guidance
necessary to determine whether their activities are consistent.

Uses of Regional Benefit

North Carolina has emphasized throughout its management plan
the need for local governments to exercise their full preroga-
tives. However, it is also necessary to recognize that certain
uses that are of an overriding benefit to the nation and the State
,must not be arbitrarily excluded from the coastal area because of
local opposition. The coastal area of North Carolina accommodates
presently and will continue to accommodate land uses that provide
benefits of a greater than local nature.

North Carolina's coastal management agency has the responsi-
bility of identifying uses of regional benefit assuring that local
regulations do not unreasonably restrict or exclude such uses and
for seeking alternatives that mitigate local government objections
if these alternatives exist.

State Agency Consistency

In addition to the need for federal consistency, state
government agencies need to be coordinated and consistent with the
coastal management objectives of North Carolina. The agencies of
the State must cooperate if achievement of the ambitious goals of0
North Carolina in coastal management are to be realized. While it
may appear unnecessary, since the State plan is in theory a
coordinated comprehensive plan, intra-state coordination can pose
serious problems in establishing a coastal management program.
Intra-state coordination is a problem to be faced by North
Carolina.

Permit Coordination

Another institutional problem that greatly concerns all who
are involved with the coastal management effort, particularly
coastal residents, is the duplication, confusion, and delay caused
by the proliferation of permits required for coastal development
by the various levels of government. The primary source of
concern is the overlap of authority over development in coastal
waters and wetlands, i.e. , federal permits under Section 10 and
404, state dredge and fill permits (G.S. 113-229) and easement to
fill (G.S. 146-6(c)). A key factor in this problem is that most
of the permit procedures were promulgated on a piecemeal basis, in
response to specific environmental and land use problems. Simply
stated, they do not mesh together properly. Other factors serve
to complicate the problem:

(1) All echelons of government; state, federal, and local;
are in the permit business, often requiring permits for
the same type of activity;

133

(2) Even within specif ic agencies, overlap and lack of
coordination sometimes exists;

(3) In many instances, agencies not involved in the actual
permit procedure have mandatory review responsibility,
and in some cases actual veto authority.

In summary, the North Carolina Coastal Management program
must address how to consolidate and simplify existing permit
programs in the coastal zone without degrading the resource pro-
tection provided by these programs.

State Policies Concerning
Coastal Management in North Carolina

The policies of the State of North Carolina concerning the
issues important to coastal management can be divided into two
general categories. Discussed first in the following section are
those policies that are very general and are broadly applicable to
private development activities and/or government activities and
programs that affect the environment. Second are those policies
that can be considered more specific because they apply to parti-
cular types of activities or protect particular types of
resources.

General Goals, Objectives, and Policies

Protection of the Environment

The policy of the State of North Carolina with respect to
the conservation of its natural resources generally, and speci-
fically of its coastal wetlands, estuaries, and beaches, is
expressed in Article XIV, Section 5, of the State Constitution,
known as the North Carolina "Environmental Bill of Rights":

"Sec. 5 Conservation of natural resources. It shall be the
policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and
water for the benefit of all its citizenry and to this end
it shall be a proper function of the State of North Carolina
and its political subdivisions to acquire and preserve park,
recreational, and scenic areas, to control and limit the
pollution of our air and water, to control excessive noise,
and in every other appropriate way to preserve as a part of
the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands,
estuaries, beaches, historical sites, openlands, and places
of beauty."

"To accomplish the aforementioned public purposes, the State
and its counties, cities, and towns, and other units of
local government may acquire by purchase or gift properties
or interests in properties which shall, upon their special
dedication to and acceptance by resolution adopted by a vote
of three-fifths of the members of each house of the General
Assembly. The General Assembly shall prescribe by general

134

law the conditions and procedures under which such
properties of interests therein shall be dedicated for the
aforementioned public purposes (1971, c.630, s.1.)."

This policy is further articulated in the State Environ-
mental Policy Act:

S.S. 113A-3. Declaration of State Environmental Policy. -
The General Assembly of North Carolina, recognizing the
profound influence of man's activity on the natural environ-
ment, and desiring, in its role as trustee for future
generations, to assure that an environment of high quality
will be maintained for the health and well-being of all,
declares that it shall be the continuing policy of the State
of North Carolina to conserve and protect its natural
resources and to create and maintain conditions under which
man and nature can exist in productive harmony. Further, it
shall be the policy of the State to seek, for all of its
citizens, safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically
pleasing surroundings; to attain the widest range of
beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk
to health or safety; and to preserve the important historic
and cultural elements of our common inheritance. (Article
1, G.S. 113A)

The general policy of the State of North Carolina concerning
all air and water resources in the State is as follows:0

"It is hereby declared to be the public policy of this State
to provide for the conservation of its water and air
resources. Furthermore, it is the intent of the General
Assembly..., to achieve and to maintain for the citizens of
this State a total environment of superior quality.
Recognizing that the water and air resources of the State
belong to the people, the General Assembly affirms the
State's ultimate responsibility for the preservation and
development of these resources in the best interests of all
its citizens and declares the prudent utilization of these
resources to be essential to the general welfare." (G.S.
143-211)

Coastal Resource Management and Development

The broad goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the
CAIIA for coastal resource management and development are as
follows. It is State policy to create a management system for the
coastal area, provide for the protection and orderly development
of the region's resources, and provide general policies and
standards to guide state and local governments in meeting these
goals:

"(1) To provide a management system capable of preserving
and managing the natural ecological conditions of the
estuarine system, the barrier dune system, and the

135

beaches, so as to safeguard and perpetuate their
natural productivity and their biological, economic,
and esthetic values;

(2) To insure that the development or preservation of the
land and water resources of the coastal area proceeds
in a manner consistent with the capability of the land
and water for development, use, or preservation based
on ecological considerations;

(3) To insure the orderly and balanced use and preservation
of our coastal resources on behalf of the people of
North Carolina and the nation;

(4) To establish policies, guidelines, and standards for:

(i Protection, preservation, and conservation of
natural resources including but not limited
to water use, scenic vistas, and fish and
wildlife; and management of transitional or
intensely developed areas and areas
especially suited to intensive use or
development, as well as areas of significant
natural value;
(ii) The economic development of the coastal area,
including but not limited to construction,
location, and design of industries, port
facilities, commercial establishments and
development;
(iii) Recreation and tourist facilities and
parklands;
(iv) Transportation and circulation patterns for
the coastal area including major
thoroughfares, transportation routes,
navigation channels and harbors, and other
public utilities and facilities;
(v) Preservation and enhancement of the historic,
cultural, and scientific aspects of the
coastal area;
(vi) Protection of present common law and
statutory public rights in the lands and
waters of the coastal area;
(vii) Any other 'purposes deemed necessary or
appropriate to effectuate the policy of this
Article."
(G.S. 113A-102(b))

The most important generally applicable coastal policies,
both in terms of specificity and enforceability, are the standards
for development in coastal AECs. (These AEC standards are
reproduced in their entirety in Appendix B.) These standards
apply to all development in AECs that is not exempted by the CANA.
(AECs form the first tier of North Carolina's coastal zone, which
is in the area in which management of development is most critical

136

for protecting coastal waters). To avoid continuous repetition,
the AEC standards are not repeated as statements of policy for
each of the following issue or problem topics. However, it is
important to remember that AEC standards do apply to any
activities associated with the following issues and problems if
those activities take place in an AEC.

Policies Concerning Specific Issues and Problems

Any of the following policies which were set forth by the
Land Policy Council and which are not shown to be implemented
under some authority other than the Land Policy Act are considered
to be advisory or enhancement policies.

Growth M aaemn Policies

It is State policy:

(1) That land resources in the coastal zone shall be
managed in order to guide growth and development
and to minimize damage to the natural environment.
Development or preservation of coastal resources
shall proceed in a manner consistent with the
capability of the land, air and water for devel-
opment, use, or preservation based on ecological
considerations. As set forth and implemented
under authority of the CAMA.

(2) That criteria be developed for recognizing areas
capable of and willing to accommodate growth.
State growth policy, public invest ment, and
regulatory programs shall reinforce the State,
regional and local desire for such areas to grow,
and assure that the public services necessary to
support that level of growth will be provided. As
set forth by the Land Policy Council and the CRC's
"Guidelines for Local Planning" and implemented
under authority of the CAHA.

(3) That local growth policies and plans be developed,
and State policies and programs in areas within
the jurisdiction of those local governments should
be influenced by these local policies and plans.
As set forth by the Land Policy Council and the
CRC's "Guidelines for Local Planning" and imple-
mented under authority of the CAMA.

(4) That State and federal governments use land
classification plans and the State growth policy
as a guide for regulatory and public investment
programs affecting the location and timing of
growth. As set forth by the Land Policy Council
and the CRC's "Guidelines for Local Planning" and0
implemented under authority of the CANA.

137

Key Facilities Policies

It is State'policy:

(1) That the location and timing of investments in key
facilities, and their regulation, should be con-
sistent with State, regional, and local devel-
opment objectives. As set forth by the Land
Policy Council and the CRC's "Guidelines for Local
Planning" and implemented under authority of the
CAMA.

(2) That if local governments in the coastal area are
having difficulty dealing with the impact of key
facilities, State agencies should, upon request,
come to their aid. As set forth by the Land
Policy Council and implemented under authority of
the CAMA.

(3) That the location of major state and federal
facilities in the coastal zone be coordinated with
local, regional, and statewide land policy objec-
tives. As set forth by the Land Policy Council
and implemented under authority of the CAMA.

(4) That the role of key facilities such as highways,
waterways and ports in influencing growth patterns
be recognized and that other agency's activities
cocerning these facilities should be consistent
coastal policies as set forth in the State guide-
lines. As set forth by the Land Policy Council
and implemented under authority of the CANA.

Conflicting Uses of Land

It is State policy:

(1) That all coastal counties, and all municipalities
that desire to do so, will develop a land use plan
consistent with State guidelines developed by the
Coastal Resources Commission. The Coastal
Resources Commission will develop a plan for those
localities that elect not to do one. Each plan
shall consist of statements of objectives,
policies, and standards to be followed in public
and private use of land and water areas in the
coastal zone. Every local plan shall include a
land classification system and set forth policies
for development in each class of land. Local
zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and
other land use regulations should be consistent
with the land use plan. As set forth by the CRC's
"State Guideline for Local Planning" and imple-
mented under authority of the CAIIA.

138

(2) That the Coastal Resources Commission may
designate as Areas of Environmental Concern
certain critical resource areas that are of more
than local interest. The CRC may develop regula-
tions for proper management of these areas. As
set forth by the CRC "State Guidelines for Local
Planning" and implemented under authority of the
CAJIA.

Residential, Commercial and Second Home Development

It is State policy:

(1) That local governments and state agencies attempt
to encourage moderate to high density growth in
areas (classified as transition) where such growth
is compatible with the natural characteristics of
the land, water and air and can be efficiently
provided with the necessary public services. Such
lands should not include areas with severe
physical limitation for development with public
services; lands which meet the definition of the
conservation class including Areas of Environ-
mental Concern; lands of special value such as the
following unless no other reasonable alternative
exists: productive and unique agricultural lands,
productive forest lands, potentially valuable
mineral deposits, potential aquifers and key parts0
of water supply watersheds, scenic and tourist
resources, habitat for economically valuable
wildlife species, flood fringe lands, open coast
flood hazard areas and estuarine flood hazard
areas. As set forth in the CRC's "State Guide-
lines for Local Planning" and implemented by
authority of the CANA.

Coastal Industry Policies

Fishing and Seafood

It is State policy:

(1) To promote the better utilization and prevent the
physical waste of coastal fisheries by encouraging
and permitting those engaged in coastal fisheries
to act jointly and cooperatively to promote the
common good, by developing a joint program with
the Atlantic states, and by making reasonable
regulations for both public and private fishery
areas. As set forth and implemented under the
authority of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Compact (G.S. 113-251 et seq)

139

(2) To develop and improve the cultivation, har-
vesting, and marketing of oysters and clams in
North Carolina, both from public grounds and
private beds. As set forth and implemented under
authority of the Fisheries Statutes (G.S.
113-201).

(3) To give the highest priority to developing the
estuarine system in a manner that will preserve
and develop the natural ecological conditions and
safeguard and perpetuate its natural productivity.
As set forth in the CRC's "State Guidelines for
Areas of Environmental Concern" and implemented
under authority of the CAMA.

(4) That second priority of use in coastal wetlands,
public trust areas, and estuarine waters shall be
given to types of development activities assoc-
iated with commercial and sports fishing. These
include simple access channels, and boat docks,
piers, wharves and mooring pilings. As set forth
in the CRC's "State Guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern" and implemented under
authority of the CAMA.

140

(5) To regulate coastal wetlands so that highest
priority is given to their conservation and so
that second priority is given to types of devel-
opment activities that require water access and
cannot function elsewhere. As set forth in the
CRC's "Guidelines for Development in Areas of
Environmental Concern" and implemented under
authority of CAMA.

(6) To provide leadership in planning, design, and
construction in a selected area (or areas) a
modern seafood industrial park with the facilities
needed to land and process seafood. As set forth
by the Secretary of DNRCD and implemented under
authority of G.S. 113-14.1, Promotion of Seashore
Industry and Recreation.

(7) To manage coastal water bodies according to their
assigned best usage and to regulate discharges
into these waters so that they do not exceed
assigned water quality standards. As set forth
and implemented under authority of Water Quality
Control Statutes. (G.S. 143-214.1 and G.S.
143-215.1)

Agriculture and Forestry

It is State policy:

(1) That State government support programs aimed
principally at employing good agricultural
land-use practices, and encourage local govern-
ments to do so. As set forth by the Land Policy
Council under authority of the Land Policy Act.
(G.S. 113A-150)

(2) That prime agricultural lands should not be
converted to non-agricultural uses where alterna-
tive lands are available. As set forth by the
Land Policy Council and the CRC's "Guidelines for
Local Planning", and implemented under authority
of CANA.

(3) That the State land resource program stress, and
the State encourage local land use programs to
stress, (a) the need to maintain a supply of good
quality timber into the future; (b) the non-timber
values of forest lands to the public; (c) the role
of the individual landowner of the application of
good forestry practices to water resources,
wildlife, and recreation management. As set forth
by the Land Policy Council under the authority of
the Land Policy Act. (G.S. 113A-150)

141

(4) That large productive forest tracts be identified,
and measures taken to encourage their maintenance
for timber production. As set forth by the Land
Policy Council under authority of the Land Policy
Act. (G.S. 113A-150)

(5) That productive agricultural and forest lands
should be managed for productive resource utiliza-
tion and provided with limited public services.
Only development that is compatible with agricul-
tural and forest production should be encouraged.
These lands should be classified as rural under
the land classification system. As set forth by
the CRC's "State Guidelines for Local Planning"
and implemented under the authority of the CANA.

(6) That construction of ditches in coastal wetlands
for the purpose of draining upland agricultural
and forest lands is acceptable only where there
will be no significant adverse effect on the use
of the water by the public, on the .value and
enjoyment of the property of any riparian owners,
on the conservation of public and private water
supplies, on wildlife or fisheries, or on other
valid aspects of the public health, safety or
welfare as determined by the Coastal Resources
Commission or the State of North Carolina. As set
forth by the CRC's "State Guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern" and implemented under
authority of the CAMA.

(7) To regulate feed lot runoff to prevent estuarine
waters and other coastal waters from exceeding
water quality standards set for that body of
water. As set forth in Environmental Management
Regulations, North Carolina Administrative Code
2H.0122 and 0123, and implemented under authority
of G.S. 143-213(24), G.S. 143-215.1, and
143-215.3(a)(1).

(8) To regulate, according to state and federal
standards, the use and application of pesticides.
As stated and implemented under the North Carolina
Pesticide Law of 1971 G.S. (143-434 et seq.)

(9) To incorporate in the North Carolina coastal
management plan appropriate best management
practices for non-point source pollution developed
through the Section 208 planning process. (This
statement of coordination within DNRCD will become
policy when the coastal management plan is signed
by the Secretary of DNRCD).

142

Mining

It is State policy:

(1) That before land is committed to high density
urban development, a study of mineral resources be
made. Land areas found to contain significant
mineral resources should not be committed to urban
development unless other reasonable alternatives
are not available. As set forth by the Land
Policy Council under authority of the Land Policy
Act. (G.S. 113A-150)

(2) That lands with potentially valuable mineral
deposits should be managed for productive resource
utilization and provided with limited public
services. Only develop ment that is compatible
with mineral production should be encouraged.
These lands should be classified as rural under
the land classification system. As set forth by
the CRC's "State Guidelines for Local, Planning"
and implemented under authority of the CAMA.

(3) That the usefulness, productivity, and scenic
values of all lands and water involved in mining
within the State will receive the greatest
practical degree of protection and restoration.
No mining shall be carried on in the State unless
plans for such mining include reasonable provi-
sions for protection of the environment and re-
clamation of the affected area of land. As set
forth and implemented under authority of the
Mining Act. (G.S. 74-48)

(4) To prevent mining operations from: causing
long-term adverse affect on wildlife, fisheries,
public parks, forests, or recreation areas;
violating air or water quality standards; creating
a substantial physical hazard to neighboring
structures; or resulting in landslides or sedimen-
tation or pollution of waters. As set forth and
implemented under authority of the Mining Act.
(G.S. 74-48)

(5) To prevent mining activities from causing conta-
mination of subsurface water supplies and/or salt
water intrusion. As set forth and implemented
under authority of the Water Use Act (G.S. 215.11
et seq).

143

Manufacturing

It is State policy:

(1) To promote planning and development of seacoast
areas for the purpose of attracting new industrial
growth. As set forth and implemented under G.S.
113-141, Promotion of Seashore Industry and
Recreation.

(2) That the DNRCD will conduct an evaluation in
conjunction with other agencies having environ-
mental responsibilities of the effects on the
State's natural and economic environment of any
new or expanding industry or manufacturing plant
locating in the coastal zone of North Carolina.
As set forth and implemented under authority of
G.S. 113-15.2, Investigation of Impact of Proposed
New and Expanding Industry.

0 ~~~~~~(3) That the State will encourage and support local
governments in the use of their land classifica-
tion plan to guide the location of large manu-
facturing facilities to those areas where any
necessary services can be efficiently provided and
where valuable natural resources will not be
damaged. The State will not favor funding for
water and sewer facilities to service manufac-
turing plants which are proposed for or con-
structed in an area that is not classified transi-
tion. As set forth by CRC's "State Guidelines for
Local Planning" and implemented under authority of
the CAMA.

(4) To manage coastal water bodies according to their
assigned best usage, and to regulate discharges
into these waters so that they do not exceed
assigned water quality standards. As set forth
and implemented under authority of the Water
Quality Control Statutes (G.S. 143-214.1 and G.S.
143-215.1).

144

Transportation Policies

Highways

It is State policy:

(1) To develop and maintain a state-wide system of
roads and highways which is based on the needs of
the State as a whole. This system shall not
sacrifice the general statewide interest to the
inappropriate local desires of any particular
area. As set forth and implemented under
authority of the Department of Transportation and
Highway Safety Act (G.S. 136-44.1).

(2) That the impacts of proposed major transportation
actions upon the surrounding environment be
analyzed and, when the negative effects outweigh
the positive effects, that the decisions be
altered. As set forth and implemented under the
State Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-4).

145

(3) That municipalities shall prepare and utilize
comprehensive street and thoroughfare plans that
are mutually adopted by the municipality and the
North Carolina Board of Transportation and that
are coordinated with the appropriate county,
regional, and statewide plan. As set forth and
implemented under authority of G.S. 136-66.2,
Streets and Highways in and around Municipalities.

(4) That no construction or placement of major
state-supported transportation facilities will be
permitted in ocean hazard areas, nor will they be
allowed in the estuarine shoreline area if the
cost of keeping them in safe, usable condition is
likely to be high. As set forth in the CRC's
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental
Concern" and implemented under authority of the
CANA.

(5) That roads, bridges and other major highway
transportation facilities shall be constructed
according to a sedimentation control plan that has
been approved by the North Carolina Sedimentation
Control Commission. As set forth and implemented
under authority of the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act (G.S. 113A-50).

* ~~~Parts

It is State policy:

(1) To improve harbors, seaports and inland ports at
Wilmington, Morehead City, Southport and other
places deemed feasible and to increase the
movement of waterborne commerce, foreign and
domestic, to, through, and from those harbors and
ports. As set forth and implemented under
authority of G.S. 143-217, purposes of the State
Ports Authority.

(2) It is State policy to cooperate with and act as
agent for the federal government or its agencies
to accomplish the above purposes and to maintain,
develop, improve and use the harbors and seaports
in connection with and furtherance of war opera-
tions and other national needs. As set forth and
implemented under authority of G.S. 143-217,
Purposes of the State Ports Authority.

(3) Any port development activities in coastal
wetlands, estuarine waters, public trust areas,
and estuarine shorelines must be consistent with
AEC standards for development in those areas. As
set forth in the CRC's "State Guidelines for Areas

146

of Environmental Concern" and implemented under
authority of the CAMA.

(4) Port development activities in estuarine waters
and coastal wetlands must meet state standards for
a permit to excavate and/or fill in those areas,
and must receive an easement to fill state-owned
submerged lands. As set forth and implemented
under authority of the State Dredge and Fill Act
(G.S. 113-229).

(5) Port activities which involve development of land
areas of more than one acre must be made pursuant
to an approved sedimentation control plan if the
development is controlled by the State Ports
Authority, or must be made consistent with appli-
cable local sedimentation control ordinances if
the development is controlled by a private party.
As set forth and implemented under authority of
the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (G.S.
113A-50).

Navigation

It is State policy:

(1) To encourage development of such river and harbor,
flood control and other similar civil work
projects as will accrue to the general or special
benefit of any county or municipality of North
Carolina or to any region of the State. As set
forth and implemented under authority of the
Federal Water Resources Development Law (G.S.
143-215.39).

(2) To plan and execute a long-range program for
preserving, developing, and improving rivers,
harbors, and inland ports. As set forth and
implemented under authority of G.S. 143-355.

(3) That the design of navigation channels should meet
demonstrated navigational needs, should not create
dead or stagnant water pockets, should not create
shoreline erosion problems, should not block or
impair existing navigable channels, should avoid
shellfish and significant wetland areas, and
should make maximum use of natural or existing
deep water channels. Provision should be made for
water circulation in canal projects. As set forth
in the North Carolina Administrative Code
Sub-chapter 3D - "Dredge and Fill", Section
.0109(a)(1-7); 33 CFR s.s.209.145 "Navigation and
Navigable Waters"; 40 CFR s.s.203, "Discharge of
Dredge and Fill Material" and implemented under
authority of the Dredge and Fill Act (G.S.
113-229).

147

(4) That fishermen marking their fishery areas or
private beds in navigable waters shall do so in a
manner that does not hinder or impede navigation.
As set forth and implemented under authority of
G.S. 113-205, Exercise of Private Fishery Rights.

Recreational and Tourism Resource Policies

Recreation

It is State policy:

(1) To protect and preserve its land and waters for
the benefit of all its citizenry by acquiring and
preserving park, recreational and scenic areas.
As set forth in Section 5, Article 14 of the
Constitution of North Carolina and implemented
under all authorities mentioned below.

(2) To preserve to the greatest extent feasible, the
public's opportunity to enjoy the physical,
esthetic, cultural, and recreational quality of
the natural shorelines of the State. As set forth
in and implemented under the CAMA.

(3) To maintain superior quality of water and air
resources to ensure continued enjoyment of the
natural attractions of the coast. As set forth in
G.S. 143-211 and implemented under authority of
G.S. 143-214.1 and G.S. 143-215.1.

(4) To provide or help provide outdoor recreation
opportunities for all citizens and visitors. As
set forth in the "State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan" (SCORP) and implemented under
authority of G.S. 113-34, Acquisition and Control
of State Forests and Parks.

(5) To plan and promote
recreational develop-
ments in these areas,
with emphasis upon
making the seashore
areas of North Carolina r:.,
attractive to permanent
residents. As set forth
and implemented under
G.S. 113-14.1, Promotion
of Seashore Industry and
Recreation.

(6) That the State acquire,
locate and manage state-
owned lands in a manner
generally consistent

148

with local land-use and land classification plans,
and with local land-use regulations. As set forth
in the CRC's "State Guidelines for Local Planning"'i
and implemented under the authority of the CAI4A.

(7) To maintain a continuing planning program for
outdoor recreation to guide decision-making in
outdoor recreation programs and needs. As set
forth in the "State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan" (SCORP) and implemented under
authority of G.S. 113-34, Acquisition and Control
of State Forests and Parks.

(8) To acquire adequate examples of natural outdoor
recreation features and to preserve them in as
close to a natural state as feasible. Such
natural features should be made accessible to the
public for outdoor recreation to the extent that
such use does not destroy or degrade the resource.
As set forth in the "State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan" (SCORP) and implemented under
authority of The Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of
1971 (G.S. 113A-30 et seq); The North Carolina
Trails System Act (G.S. 113A-83 et seq); and G.S.
113-34, Acquisition and Control *of State Forests
and Parks; and G.S. 113-29 et. seq., Acquisition
and Development of State Forests.

Tourism

It is State policy:

(1) To assist in the sound development of the seacoast
areas of the state, giving emphasis to planning
and promoting attractions and facilities for
travelers in these areas; with particular interest
upon the development of the scenic and
recreational resources of the seacoast. As set
forth and implemented under authority of G.S.
113.14.1, Promotion of Seashore Industry and
Recreation.

(2) To coordinate the activities of local government
and state and federal agencies in planning and
development of seacoast areas for the purpose of
attracting visitors. As set forth and implemented
under authority of G.S. 113-14.1, Promotion of
Seashore Industry and Recreation.

(3) To discourage sprawl and strip development and
roadside advertising where they detract from
scenic quality by encouraging the Department of
Transportation and local governments to adopt and
enforce design standards for all roadside

149

advertising. As set forth by the Land Policy
Council and implemented under authority of G.S.
136-122 et. seq., Preservation, etc., of Scenic
Beauty of Areas Along Highways.

(4) That reforestation and preservation of vegetative
cover be encouraged as much as possible toward
enhancing state visual quality. As set forth by
the Land Policy Council under authority of the
Land Policy Act (G.S. 113A-50).

Unique Cultural and Natural Resources

It is State policy:

(1) To promote and encourage
throughout the coastal
area knowledge and ap-
preciation of North
Carolina history and4
heritage by providing
assistance for identi-
fying places of his-
torical significance
and, where feasible,U
acquiring such pro-
perties. As set for
and implemented under
authority of 6.5.
121.9, Administration
of Historic Properties.

(2) To foster the preserva-
tion of coastal complex
natural areas, unique
coastal geologic forma-
tions, and coastal areas
that sustain remnant species by receiving and
studying recommended acreas that may fall into
those categories, designating as AECs areas as are
deemed to qualify, and establishing a management
program for the preservation of those areas. As
set forth in the "State Guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern" and implemented under
authority of the CAMIA.

Beach Access

It is State policy:

(1) That in the 75 foot estuarine shoreline AEC high
priority of land use allocation shall be given
water access proposals, provided that public
resources will not be detrimentally affected. As

150

set forth in CRC's "State Guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern" and implemented by
authority of the CAMA.

(2) That in the ocean hazard area (ocean beaches,
frontal dunes, and inlet lands), structural access
ways to the beach may be permitted on or seaward
of the frontal dunes, provided that their specific
location and design are demonstrated to be the
most suitable alternatives and will not damage the
dunes. As set forth in CRC's "State Guidelines
for Areas of Environmental Concern" and imple-
mented by the authority of the CAMA.

Energy Policies

Energy Generating Facilities

It is State policy:

(1) To provide
fair regu- 7;
lation of
public
utilities
(including
energy gene-
rating
facilities)
in the interest ?
of the public, e. l._ '~-
to promote adequate,
economical and efficient utility services to all
of the citizens and residents of the State, to
foster a statewide planning and coordinating
program to promote continued growth of economical
public utility services and to cooperate with
other states and with the Federal government in
promoting and coordinating interstate and
intrastate public utility services. As set forth
and implemented under the authority of the Public
Utilities Act (G.S. 62.2).

(2) That construction of a facility for generating
electricity to be used for furnishing public
utility service shall not begin until a deter-
mination has been made that public convenience and
necessity requires, or will require, such a
facility. As set forth and implemented under the
authority of the Public Utilities Act (G.S.
62-110.1).

(3) No energy generating facility will be permitted
until it receives appropriate permits from DNRCD

and from any other state agency with applicable
permitting authority. Necessary permits will in
S ~ ~~~~~most instances include dredge and fill permits,
Air Quality permits, NPDES permits, and sediment
and erosion control permits. Criteria and
standards which guide the issuance of these
permits are included in Appendix C.

Petroleum Refineries

It is State policy:

(1) To promote the health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens of this State by protecting the land and
the waters over which this State has jurisdiction
from pollution by oil, oil products and oil
by-products. As set forth and implemented under
authority of the Oil Pollution Control Act (G.S.
143-215.75 et seq).

(2) That local governments shall be encouraged to use
land classification plans to guide the location of
oil ref ineries. As set forth by the Land Policy
Council under authority of the Land Policy Act
(G.S. 113A-150).

(3) That no facility for refining oil shall be
constructed without a permit from the Secretary of
Natural Resources and Community Development. As
set forth and implemented under authority of the
Oil Pollution Control Act of 1973 (G.S.
143-215.99).

(4) That the DN'RCD will conduct an evaluation in
conjunction with other agencies having environ-
mental responsibilities of the effects on the
State's natural and economic environment of any
new or expanding industry or manufacturing plant
(including petroleum refineries) locating in the
coastal zone of North Carolina. As set forth and
implemented under authority of G.S. 113-15.2,
Investigation of Impact of Proposed New and
Expanding Industry.

Outer Continental Shelf

It is State policy:

(1) To support an approach to off-shore oil and gas
exploration which will provide an adequate supply
of energy while protecting the public environ-
mental, social and economic interests in our
is coastal and off-shore areas. As set forth by the
Secretary of Administration in a special letter

152

concerning the possible impacts associated with
OCS lease sale #43 in April, 1977.

(2) That the State will take an active role in the OCS
decision process in the review and comment on all
OCS lease stipulations and operating orders prior
to their approval. As set forth by the Secretary
of Administration in a special letter concerning
the possible impacts associated with OCS lease
sale 1143 in April, 1977.

(3) It is state policy to protect the public interest
in natural oil and/or gas by establishing regula-
tions to prohibit waste, compel ratable produc-
tion, and protect the environment. (G.S. 62-110)

(4) That the DNRCD must be contacted and a permit
issued before any oil or gas well drilling may
proceed. Each abandoned well and dry hole must be
plugged according to DNRCD rules. Allowing a gas
or oil well to go wild or out of control is
prohibited. As set forth and implemented under
authority of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act,
G.S. 113-381, et seq. This authority extends only
to the three mile state jurisdiction.

(5) That discharges of oil upon any waters, tidal
flats, beaches, or lands, or into any sewer,
surface water drain, or other waters that drain
into state waters is prohibited. As set forth and
implemented under authority of the Oil Pollution
Control Act, G.S. 143-215.75, et seq.

Environmental Policies

Water and Air

It is State policy:

(1) To provide for the conservation of its water and
air resources. As set forth in G.S. 143-211.

(2) To preserve and develop these resources in the
best interest of all citizens. As set forth in
G.S. 143-211.

(3) To prohibit, abate or control air pollution com-
mensurate with established air quality standards.
As set forth and implemented in the Air Quality
Statutes (G.S. 143-215.07(a)(5)).

(4) To manage coastal water bodies according to their
best usage, and to regulate discharge into these
waters so that they do not exceed assigned water

153

quality standards. 'As set forth and implemented
under authority of the Water Quality Control
Statutes (G.S. 143-214.1 and G.S. 143-215.1).

Water Supplies and Waste Disposal

It is State policy:

(1) That the water resources of the State be put to
beneficial use to the fullest extent to which they
are capable, subject to reasonable regulation for
conservation and maintenance of conditions which
are conductive to the development and use of water
resources. As set forth and implemented under the
authority of the Water Use Act (G.S. 143-215.12).

(2) To administer a complete program of pollution
abatement and control which is coordinated with
other jurisdictions. As set forth in the Water
Quality Standards (G.S. 143-214.1) and implemented
under authority of G.S. 143-215.1.

(3) To encourage the planning and development of
regional water supplies in order to provide
adequate supplies of high quality water to North
Carolina citizens; and furthermore to provide a
framework and financial assistance for compre-
hensive planning of regional water supply systems,
and for the orderly coordination of local actions
to make possible the most efficient use of water
resources and economics of scale for construction,
operation and maintenance. As set forth and
implemented under the Regional Water Supply
Planning Act G.S. (162A-20 et seq.)

(4) That every person or unit of local government
supplying water to the public for drinking and
household purposes shall be subject to rules and
regulations concerning the location, construction
and operation of a water supply system. As set
forth and implemented under the authority of the
Water and Sewer Sanitation Act (G.S.
130-157-161.1).

(5) To require that each proposed public water supply
system be designed to provide an adequate,
reliable and safe supply of water to all areas
that it is designed to serve. Each system must
also be designed to permit interconnection, at an
appropriate time, with an expanding municipal,
county, or regional system. As set forth and
implemented under the authority of the Sewer and
Sanitation Act (G.S. 130-161.1).

154

(6) To require that the location, construction,
repair, and abandonment of wells, and the instal-
lation of pumps and pumping equipment be regulated
as necessary to protect the public welfare,
safety, health and ground-water resources. As set
forth and implemented under the authority of the
Well Construction Act (G.S. 87-84).

(7) To encourage planning and development of regional
sewage disposal systems in order to promote
efficient disposal of sewage through comprehensive
planning of regional sewage disposal systems and
orderly coordination of local actions relating to
sewage disposal. The State should provide
financial assistance to local governments and
regional authorities to encourage such planning.
As set forth and implemented under the authority
of the Regional Sewage Disposal Planning Act (G.S.
162A-26 et seq).

(8) To make ground absorption sewage dispos~al systems
ecologically safe and to protect the public health
by prohibiting installation of such systems in a
faulty or improper manner or in areas where they
may malfunction and there, endanger the public
health because of unsuitable soil and population
density. To require that such systems be set back
at least 100 feet from shellfish waters and 500
feet from other coastal waters. As set forth and
implemented under the authority of the Ground
Absorption Sewage Disposal System Act (G.S.
130-166.23 and G.S. 130-60).

(9) To allow septic tanks to be used for projects
adjacent to coastal wetlands and estuarine waters
only where the soil will support or absorb this
method of sewage disposal. As set forth in the
"1State Handbook for Dredge and Fill Projects" and
implemented under the authority of the State
Dredge and Fill Law (G.S. 113-229, 230).

(10) To prevent nuisances and promote and preserve an
environment that is healthy, requiring maintenance
of safe and sanitary conditions in and around
solid waste disposal sites. As set forth and
implemented under the authority of the Solid Waste
Disposal Standards (G.S. 130-166.17).

Development in Coastal Hazard Areas

It is State policy:

(1) That hazard areas not be used in ways that cause0
unreasonable risk to life or property. As set

155

forth by the Land Policy Council under authority
of the Land Policy Act (G.S. 113A-150).

(2) To help control and minimize the extent of floods
by preventing obstructions which inhibit water
flow and increase flood height and damage, by
assisting local governments in designating
floodways in which artificial obstructions may be
places only according to strict regulations. As
set forth and implemented under the authority of
State Floodway Regulation (G.S. 143-215.51).

(3) To encourage the establishment of parks and other
open spaces in flood prone areas. As set forth in
the North Carolina Water Resources Framework and
implemented under authority of G.S. 113-34
Acquisition and Control of State Forests and
Parks.

(4) To adopt erosion and sedimentation standards which
will permit development of this State to continue
with the least detrimental effects from pollution
by sedimentation. As set forth and implemented
under the authority of the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act (G.S. 113A-50).

(5) To control the location and design of structure
and to prevent damage to natural protective
features in ocean hazard areas (which include
beaches, frontal dunes, inlet lands) in order to
reduce the loss of life and property. As set
forth in the CRC's "State Guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern" and implemented under the
authority of the CAMA.

(6) To ensure development along estuarine shorelines
is compatible with both the dynamic nature of that
shoreline and the natural values of the estuarine
system itself. As set forth in the CRC's "State
Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern" and
implemented under authority of the CAMA.

Drainage

It is State policy:

(1) To permit development of this State to continue
with the least detrimental effects from pollution
by sedimentation. As set forth and implemented
under authority of the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act (G.S. 113A-50).

0s (2) To prohibit feed lot runoff into the estuarine
system which would cause the estuarine waters and

156

other coastal waters to exceed the applicable
quality standards. As set forth in Environmental
Management Regulations, North Carolina Admini-
strative Code 2H.0122 and .0123, and implemented
under authority of G.S. 143-213(24), G.S.
143-215.1, and 143-215.3(a)(1).

(3) That construction of ditches in coastal wetlands
for the purpose of draining low lands will be
allowed only where there are no significant
adverse effects on the use of the water by the
public, the property of riparian owners, public
and private waters (among the effects on public
and private waters to be considered is degradation
below standards for point sources under the
FWPCA), wildlife or fisheries or the public
health, safety or welfare. As set forth and im-
plemented under authority of the State Dredge and
Fill Law (G.S. 113-229).

(4) That where drainage ditches are permitted in
wetlands, erosion control methods, such as
grassing, must be employed on fresh dikes and on
freshly cleared (or spoiled upon) upland areas.
As set forth in the State Dredge and Fill Guide-
lines and implemented under authority of the State
Dredge and Fill Law (G.S. 113-229).

Dredging and Spoil Disposal

It is State policy:

(1) That excavated materials should not create
stagnant water conditions, deposit sumps, or
lethal fish entrapments.

(2) That excavation will be regulated to prohibit
activities in primary nursery areas during known
or estimated periods of fish migration and
spawning (period of maximum biological activity).

(3) That confinement facilities for depositing spoil
materials be constructed on high ground areas
above the mean high water mark.

Policies (1), (2), and (3) are set forth in
Subchapter 3d, Section .0109(a) of the North
Carolina Administrative Procedures, the Dredge and
Fill regulations, and implemented under authority
of the Dredge and Fill Act (G.S. 113A-229).

(4) That to minimize the movement back into the
affected water of all materials excavated, both in
water and on high ground. If there is effluent,

157

the location of outlets and the quality of the
effluent from the spoil retention area should meet
water quality standards adopted by the State and
Federal government under the FWPCA and should
preserve the adjacent aquatic ecosystems. As set
forth in the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
(G.S. 113A-50); Title 15, Subchapter 2H, Section
.0100 of the North Carolina Administrative Code,
Waste Water Discharges to the Surface Waters, and
implemented under authority of The Dredge and Fill
Act (G.S. 113-229).

(5) That in-bay, open water, and deep water disposal
will be considered only as a last resort and after
all upland alternatives have been explored and
exhausted. Such disposal will be allowed only for
projects that promote a public interest and will
be made only at State and Federally designated
sites or sites specifically selected and agreed to
by all concerned agencies. As set forth in
Subchapter 6-A, Section .0500, "Easements to
Fill"; and Subchapter 3d, Section .0109(b), The
Dredge and Fill regulations, and implemented under
authority of the Dredge and Fill Act (G.S.
113-229).

Wetlands Preservation

It is State policy:

(1) That any development in coastal wetlands will not
diminish the natural or cultural value of the area
through irreversible actions. As set forth by the
Land Policy Council under authority of the Land
Policy Act (G.S. 113A-150).

(2) To provide a management system capable of
preserving and managing the natural ecological
conditions of the estuarine system so as to
safeguard and perpetuate their natural produc-
tivitiy and their biological, economic, and
aesthetic values. As set forth in the CRC's
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental
Concern" and implemented under authority of the
CAMA.

(3) That unless a development will provide an
overriding public benefit, a permit to
dredge-and-fill in marshlands, estuarine waters or
tidelands will be denied if there would be signi-
ficant adverse effect: on the use of water by the
public; on the value and enjoyment of property of
any riparian owners; on the public health, safety,
and welfare; on the conservation of public and
private water supplies; on wildlife or freshwater,
estuarine, or marine fisheries. As set forth in
the State "Handbook on Dredge and Fill Projects"

159

and implemented under the State Dredge and Fill
Law (G.S. 113-229).

(4) That the construction of drainage canals or
ditches solely for the purpose of draining coastal
marshlands will not be allowed. However , con-
struction of drainage channels or ditches as the
least damaging alternative will be allowed when it
is shown that insect vector control is required as
a public health necessity or other public health
purposes, or where the control of urban runoff is
a part of a comprehensive flood plain zoning plan.
As set forth in the State "Handbook on Dredge and
'Fill Projects" and implemented under authority of
the State Dredge and Fill Law (G.S. 113-229).

(5) To adopt regulations restricting or prohibiting
the dredging, filling, or otherwise altering of
coastal wetlands and contiguous areas for the
purpose of promoting public safety, health, and
welfare, and protecting property, wildlife, and
marine f isheries. As set forth and implemented
under the authority of the Wetland Protection
Order (G.S. 113-230).

Protection of Unique Coastal Environments

0 ~~~~~It is State policy:

(1) That any development in a recognized fragile area
will not diminish the natural or cultural value of
the area through irreversible actions. As set
forth by the Land Policy Council under authority
of the Land Policy Act (G.S. 113A-150).

(2) To foster the preservation of coastal complex
natural areas, unique coastal, geologic forma-
tions, and coastal areas that sustain remnant
species. This will be accomplished by receiving
and studying recommended areas that may fall in
these categories, designating as AECs those areas
that are found to qualify, and establishing a
management program for the preservation of those
areas which are designated. Furthermore, where
regulation of any of the above types of areas is
found to constitute a taking of the affected land,
the State may purchase that land. As set forth by
the CRC's "State Guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern" and implemented under
authority of the CANA.

(3) That it is necessary to balance the conduct of man
and the preservation of the natural beauty along
the many rivers of the State. This policy

160

includes retaining the natural and scenic condi-
tions in some of the State's valuable rivers by
maintaining them in a free-flowing state and
protecting their water quality and adjacent lands
by retaining these natural and scenic conditions.
As set forth and implemented under the authority
of the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act (G.S.
113A-3 1).

Institutional Arrangements Policies

Public Participation

It is State policy:

(1) That involvement of a large segment of the
effected citizens is an essential ingredient of
the CANA land use plans developed by coastal
municipalities and counties. Therefore, before
approval of any CAMA land use plan the Coastal
Resources Commission will require that the plan
set forth the methods used to secure public
participation and the degree of that participa-
tion.

(2) That before any coastal municipality or county
adopts or amends its CANA land use plan, a public
hearing shall be held to give public and private
parties an opportunity to present comments and
recommendations.

(3) That every municipality and county that prepares a
CANA land use plan shall prepare a synopses of
that plan for distribution of every household in
each affected planning jurisdiction.

(4) That prior to permanently designating any area of
environmental concern a public hearing will be
held in each county in which lands to be affected
are located at which public and private parties
shall have the opportunity to present comments and
views.

The above policies are set forth in the CRC's "State Guides
for Local Planning" and implemented under authority of the
CANA.

State and Local Government Cooperation

It is State policy:

(1) To establish a cooperative program of coastal area
management between local and State governments.
Local government shall have the initiative for

161

planning. State government shall establish areas
of environmental concern. With regard to
planning, State government shall act primarily in
a supportive standard-setting and review capacity,
except where local governments do not choose to
exercise their initiative. Enforcement shall be a
concurrent State-local responsibility. As set
forth and implemented under authority of the CANA
(G.S. 113A-lO1).

Federal Consistency and National Interest

It is State policy:

(1) To give meaningful consideration to balancing the
national interests involved in planning and siting
facilities with other national, state, and local
interests related to coastal resource management
and conservation except where certain national
interests are paramount as in the case of the
protection of air and water quality.

(2) To insure that Federal activities in the North
Carolina coastal zone are to the maximum extent
practicable consistent with the approved State
Coastal Management Plan.

* ~~~~The above policies are set forth in the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act and will become State policy when this plan
is signed by the Governor of North Carolina.

Uses of Regional Benefit

It is State policy:

(1) To insure that local regulations in the coasal
zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude
projects or regional benefit. As set forth in the
CRCts "Criteria for Local Implementation and
Enforcement Plan", Subchapter 7E of the North
Carolina Administrative Code, and implemented
under authority of CANA.

State Agency Consistency

It is State policy:

(1) That State guidelines developed by the Coastal
Resources Commission for planning and development
for the coastal area shall consist of statements
of objectives, policies, and standards to be
followed in public and privat-- use of land and
water areas within the coastal area. State land
policies governing the acquisition, use, and dis-

162

position of land by State departments and agencies
shall take account of and be consistent with the
State Guidelines, an the local land use plans that
are consistent with those "Guidelines", insofar as
lands within the coastal area are concerned. As
set forth and implemented under authority of the
CAMA (G.S. 113A-107(a)) and (G.S. 113A-108).

(2) All State agencies shall take account of and be
consistent to the maximum extent possible with the
coastal policies, guidelines and standards
contained in the State guidelines, with the local
land use plans developed under the mandate of The
Coastal Area Management Act, and with the North
Carolina Coastal Plan prepared under the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in all regu-
latory programs, use and disposition of
state-owned lands, financial assistance for public
facilities, and encouragement and location of
major public and private growth-inducing
facilities.

Permit Coordination

It is State policy:

(1) That after the CAI4A permit system is put into
operation, other regulatory permits within the
coastal area shall be administered in coordination
and consultation with (but not subject to the veto
of) the Coastal Resources Commission. No such
existing permit shall be issued, modified,
renewed, or terminated except after consultation
with the Commission. As set forth in and to be
implemented under the authority of the CAHA (G.S.
113A-125(b)).

(2) That consideration should be given to combining
three exclusively coastal permits and merging them
with the CAM4A permit. Two of these, the dredge
and fill permit and coastal wetlands orders, are
State administered. The third, sand dune protec-
tion permits, are administered by coastal
counties. As set forth and implemented under
authority of Executive Order #'15.

(3) That a master application form for coastal permits
should be developed, so that permit applicants can
at one time provide all the application informa-
tion needed and be handed all of the appropriate
forms.

(4) That the field offices of the Department ofS
Natural Resources and Community Development will

163

be responsible for receiving permit applications
and interviewing applicant. Local governments
should be incorporated into the permit application
system as rapidly as the appropriate local
officials can be trained to carry out effectively
the interviewing and permit-routing functions.

(5) That an inormational handbook should be prepared
for wide distribution setting forth in a clear and
concise manner basic facts on all State regulatory
permits. The handbook should include comprehen-
sive and easily understandable instructions for
each permit program setting forth the procedures
for application, requirements for permit approval,
and locations where further information can be
obtained.

The above policies (2)-(5) are set forth in the CRC's "Report to
the 1977 General Assembly on Developing a Better Coordinated and
unified System of Environmental and Land 'Use Permits in the
Coastal Area" and authorized by the CAI4A (G.S. 113A-125(d))

164

Gates H i

FIGURE 1. COASTAL ZONE

165

CHAPTER FOUR COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES

Direct and Significant Impact -- Definition of the Coastal Zone

The primary objective of North Carolina's coastal management
efforts is to provide a system capable of insuring the orderly
balanced use and preservation of its coastal resources for the
people of North Carolina and for the nation. Achievement of this
objective is possible only if the management of land and water
uses having direct and significant impacts on important coastal
resources takes place. Consequently, a first task in designing
~the North Carolina coastal management program was to define uses
having a direct and significant impact on its coastal resources.
These defined uses could then be used to establish the degree and
breadth of control necessary for the North Carolina management
program.

Determination of uses that are to be managed cannot in any
practical sense simply be summed up by listing major uses having
impacts on coastal resources. Rather, it was recognized by the
North Carolina program that it was more proper to use two major
criteria to determine the potential impact of any given activity:
the location of the use in relation to coastal waters and the
character of the use. That is, there are certain areas in the
coastal zone in which almost any use has the potential to directly
affect coastal waters while in other areas only large scale
activities would significantly affect coastal waters. Thus, in
planning an approach to the management of uses with significant
impact on coastal resources, North Carolina realized that varying
levels of control were desirable. Therefore a two-tier system was
developed to manage desired levels of control.

Coastal Management Within Areas of Environmental Concern -
the First Tier

The critical areas in the North Carolina coastal zone can be
identified as Areas of Environmental Concern under authority of
the Coastal Area Management Act (CANA). In combination, these
are~as comprise the First Tier, which is the more thoroughly
regulated area in North Carolina's coastal zone. The Coastal
Resources Commission has determined which types of areas should be
presently designated as AECs and has established standards for
development in those areas. All but a few exempted activities
must receive a permit to develop in these areas, and must
therefore comply with the appropriate standards. The AECs as
designated include: Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters, Public
Trust Areas, Estuarine Shorelines, Ocean Beaches, Frontal Dunes,
Ocean Erosion Areas, Inlet Lands, Small Surface Water Supply
Watersheds, Public Water Supply Well-Fields, and certain Fragile
Natural Resource Areas. These areas and the standards for
development within them are thoroughly described in Chapter Five
of this plan as well as the State Guidelines (Appendix B) and will

166

not be further discussed here. However, several points should be
explained or emphasized at this juncture.

- All of the above mentioned AECs combine to create a zone
that includes all estuarine waters and coastal wetlands and a
narrow buffer zone around them. This zone is the area where
strictest regulation is deemed necessary, and therefore where the
most thorough regulatory process (the CAMA permit letting process)
will be applied to practically all development.

- The CRC is authorized by CAMA to consider designation of
AECs from a list of categories that is considerably more inclusive
than the areas they have chosen. Therefore, further designations
can be made by the CRC if it concludes that regulation of the
chosen AECs and existing regulation of development outside of AECs
are not sufficient in combination to manage land and water uses
that directly and significantly affect coastal waters. The CRC
will study the other categories with a view toward establishing
policies to serve as a guide for development and government
activities.

- Finally, it should be pointed out that the CRC is the
agency responsible for designating and setting standards for all
development in AECs. The CRC itself will administer and enforce
the standards for major development in AECs, while local govern-
ments have the option of implementing the standards for minor
development. The CRC and its staff will continue to operate
within DNRCD, the lead agency for North Carolina's coastal
management plan. This first tier is more specifically described
and management techniques discussed in Chapter Five. Figure 2
illustrates the geographic extent of AECs in one county. AECs
form a border around coastal waters.

Management of Areas Outside of AECs
the Second Tier

As mentioned before, the second part of North Carolina's
definition of "direct and significant impact on coastal waters" is
based on the type of activity and the size of the development.
Thus, the State has identified certain uses that have potential to
affect coastal waters even though they are not located in the
AECs. In determining such potential for direct and significant
impact, consideration was given to such factors as the nature of
the process of activities involved and the residuals generated;
the tendency of the type of project to induce further development;
and the scale of the development. The level of control is less
intensive in this second tier and management is directed only to
uses that have recognized significant impacts. This control is
affectuated through existing regulatory programs and through less
coercive management tools established specifically for coastal
management. The authorities keyed upon to control major uses in
the second tier are discussed in detail in Chapter Five.

167

FIGURE 2.

'\ . ':'"::::':'::'.:.'::

CURRITUCK COUN1 Y

AEC - ESTUARINE WATERS

AEC - PUBLIC TRUST WATERS ; '

AEC - COASTAL WETLANDS
( approximate location)

OCEAN HAZARD AREAS
(exaggerated scale)
AEC - OCEAN BEACHES
AEC - FRONTAL DUNE
AEC - OCEAN ERODIBLE AREA

AEC - ESTUARINE SHORELINE
exaggerated scale)

FIRST TIER AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

168

Boundaries

Section 305(b)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
requires that a state's coastal zone management program identify
"the boundaries of the coastal zone subject to the management
program." Section 304(a) requires that this area include those
lands "necessary to control the shorelands, the uses of which have
a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters" as defined
in Section 304(b) of the Act.

Definition

As explained earlier in this Chapter, the Coastal Area
Management Act, in establishing a procedure for designating the
State's "coastal area", designated a "coastal zone" in which two
levels (tiers) of control will be applied. Collectively the
State's areas of environmental concern (described in Chapter Five)
constitute the first tier of the coastal zone and include the
coastal waters and adjacent shorelands, the use of which have a
direct and significant impact on the coastal waters. The AEC
permit program is the management tool established to apply
controls over these areas. The remaining area of the entire 20
county "coastal area" constitutes the contiguous area deemed
"necessary to control the shorelands...". These two areas
together constitute the State's "coastal zone" which is the
geographical area over which the terms of the entire management
program will be exercised. However, as will be made clear later
in this plan, the level of management for the two tiers varies
because of the difference in their proximity and relationship to
coastal waters.

The North Carolina "coastal area" is defined in Section
113A-103(2) of CAMA as "the counties that (in whole or in part)
are adjacent to, adjoining, intersected by or bounded by the
Atlantic Ocean (extending offshore to the limits of state juris-
diction, as may be identified by rule of the Commission for
purposes of this article, but in no event less than three geo-
graphical miles offshore) or any coastal sounds." The limits of
CRC authority shall not extend beyond the current offshore State
jurisdiction as defined by the Federal government. Former
Governor James Holshouser, as charged by the CAMA, in Executive
Order 5 issued April 29, 1974, designated Beaufort, Bertie,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare,
Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank,
Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington as the counties
comprising the coastal area (see Figure 1).

Although North Carolina's coastal area is delineated by
political boundaries, environmental factors formed the criteria to
be considered in determining which counties to include. Counties
adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean were obvious choices and there was
general agreement in the legislature that all counties adjacent to
any coastal sound should be included. Problems were encountered,
however, in defining the landward limit of coastal sound. A

169

number of possible criteria for establishing such a limit were
considered including the zone of tidal influence on major coastal
rivers entering the sounds. In the end, however, Section
113A-103(3) of CAMA defined the inland limits of a sound or a
tributary river under normal conditions as follows:

"'Coastal sound' means Albemarle, Bogue, Core, Croatan,
Currituck, Pamlico and Roanoke Sounds...'Normal conditions'
shall be understood to include regularly occurring condi-
tions of a low stream flow and high tide, but shall not
include unusual conditions such as those associated with
hurricane and other storm tides. Unless otherwise deter-
mined by the Commission, the limits of seaward encroachment
shall be considered to be the confluence of a sound's
tributary river with the river or creek entering it nearest
to the farthest inland movement of oceanic salt water under
normal conditions. For purposes of this Article, the afore-
mentioned points of confluence with tributary rivers shall
include the following:

(a) On the Chowan River, its confluence with the
Meherrin River;
(b) On the Roanoke River, its confluence with the
northeast branch of the Cashie River;
(c) On the Tar River, its confluence with Tranters
Creek;
(d) On the Neuse River, its confluence with Swift
Creek;
(e) On the Trent River, its confluence with Ready
Branch.

Provided, however, that no county shall be considered to be
within the coastal area which: (a) is adjacent to,
adjoining or bounded by any of the above points of con-
fluence; or (b) is not bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and
lies entirely west of the westernmost of the above points of
confluence".

This limit was chosen because of a somewhat better body of
technical data to support it than was available in support of
other proposed limits.

Although the criterion is by no means perfect, the 20
counties that were designated the North Carolina coastal area are
the 20 counties that lie in that part of the State considered to
be the Tidewater region as it is delimited on physiographic and
geologic maps. The counties included are those where elevations
are generally less than 30-40 feet above sea level, where drainage
is poor and where there are discernible effects of salt water. It
is also the area the majority of which was inundated by the last
Pleistocene rise in sea level. Thus, although the definition is
based upon political boundaries, it generally agrees with geo-
logical and biological boundaries that are well-known and in
common usage.

170

Alternative Definitions of the Coastal Area Considered

The first version of CAMA simply defined the coastal area as0
those counties bounded in whole or in part by the Atlantic Ocean.
Because of North Carolina' s irregular coastline, with its vast
inland sounds, such a definition was quickly rejected as too
narrow and unlikely to meet the criteria of the FCZMA.

The second version Qf CAMIA broadened this definition by
patterning it much more closely after the wording of the federal
act by listing the counties to be included.* The 20 counties
ultimately included in North Carolina's coastal area were listed
.in this version, plus Bladen, Columbus, Halifax, Jones, Martin,
and Northhampton. This definition identified the coastal area
both in terms of natural phenomena arnd by listing specific
counties. The counties to be included were basically those that
contain coastal fishing waters as these are defined by statute
(G.S. 113-129(4)) and by agreement between the Director of the
Wildlife Resources Commission, dated March 1, 1966, and as sub-
sequently amended. Despite this dual effort at specificity, the
definition was deemed defective because it was vague, imprecise,
and based on criteria that were difficult to quantify. Further-
more, the jurisdiction it created extended too far inland, thus
including counties generally agreed not to be coastal counties,
and violated its own stated criterion of extending "inland from
the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control shorelands,
the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on the

coastal waters."

*"'Coastal area' means the coastal waters (including the
lands therein and thereunder) and adjacent shorelines (including
the waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each
other and in proximity to the shoreline of North Carolina, and
includes the transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes,
wetlands and beaches. The zone extends seaward to the outer
limits of the State of North Carolina and extends inland from the
shorelines only to the extent necessary to control shorelands, the
uses of which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal
waters. The applicable lands and waters are those within the
following counties: Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden,
Carteret, Chowan, Columbus, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates,
Halifax, Hertford, Hyde, Jones, Martin, New Hanover, Northampton,
Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell and
Washington Counties."

171

The bill submitted for initial legislative consideration in
1973 returned to a reliance on county boundaries and defined the
coastal area as "the counties that (in whole or in part) are
adjacent to, adjoining, intersected by or bounded by the Atlantic
Ocean or any coastal sound or major river to the end of the zone
of tidal influence." Major rivers were defined as the Cape Fear
and its tributaries, the Neuse, the Pamlico, the Chowan, and the
Roanoke. The concept of "zone of tidal influence"' was defined by
reference to major familiar landmarks that approximated as well as
possible the tidal reaches of the rivers. This definition was
deemed vulnerable because its listing of "'major coastal rivers"~
was not sufficiently comprehensive, because the identification of
tidal reaches upon which it relied could not be supported with
adequate technical data and because it, too, did not extend inland
"lonly to the extent necessary to control shoreland, the uses of
which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters."

The ultimate definition of North Carolina's coastal area
contained in CAMA evolved as a result of refinements in the
definition in the 1973 bill. The final definition uses the same
basic criteria but omits reference to specific coastal rivers and
defines the inland limit of a sound with reference to the limits
of seawater encroachment on its principal tributary river(s). The
actual limit was determined by reference to data on salinity
provided by th 'U.S. Geological Survey and, for purposes of
statutory specificity, is defined as "the confluence of a sound's
tributary river with the river oceanic salt water under normal
conditions." Early versions of the definition named the counties
that would be included under the definition but these references
were deleted in the final version of the bill in favor of a
process requiring the Governor to designate them based on the
standards included in the Act.

The alternative utilized in the final version of CAMA was
judged by the legislature to be the best method of defining a
coastal area, utilizing objective criteria in conjunction with
political (county) boundaries. Objective criteria establishing
the distinctiveness of the area were deemed necessary to avoid the
charge that the Act might be a local act, and thus vulnerable on
constitutional grounds. Political boundaries were vital because
of the heavy reliance in CANIA on local government responsiblity
and the requirement that they be responsible for planning within
their own limits of jurisdiction.

Interstate Legislation

South Carolina has recently adopted legislation comparable
to North Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act. Virginia is to
consider coastal management legislation in the near future.

South Carolina

* ~~~~The bill passed by the South Carolina legislature defines
its management area as the tier of counties adjacent to the

172

Atlantic Ocean. Thus, South Carolina's coastal zone where it
borders North Carolina includes Horry County. The regulatory
authority contained in South Carolina's proposed legislation
covers critical areas including coastal waters, wetlands, beaches,
and the first row of sand dunes. This authority is very similar
in extent to that contained in North Carolina's legislation and it
appears, therefore, that similar regulatory programs will be
exercised on either side of the border. From these facts, we
conclude that the coastal zone boundary proposed by South Carolina
is compatible with that established by North Carolina.

Virginia

Although Virginia has not developed a full coastal zone
management program, the State's proposed southern coastal zone
boundary extends inland to the western border of the Southampton
County line. This line joins North Carolina slightly west of our
coastal area boundary. The boundaries defined thus far by the two
states seem to be compatible.

Excluded Federal Lands

North Carolina must exclude from our coastal zone those
"~areas owned, leased, held in trust or whose use is otherwise by
law subject solely to the discretion of the Federal Government,
its officers or agents.'" 15 CPR 923.33(a).

During program development, questions were raised as to
whether the federal lands to be excluded from the coastal zone
were those over which the federal government has only "exclusive
legislative jurisdiction'" or those over which the federal govern-
ment exercises any of the varying sorts of jurisdiction which it
may have over land. In August, 1976, this issue was resolved in
an opinion issued by the Justice Department that since ttfull power
to control the use of lands of the United States resides in
Congress, such power must also be the sole power, for power is not
full if subject to the actions of another. Thus... .all federal
lands are excluded from the Coastal Zone."I

The location of major federally owned lands in North
Carolina's coastal area, which are therefore excluded from the
State's coastal zone, is shown in the Appendix E as Excluded
Federal lands.

This exclusion of Federal lands applies only to authorities
granted to North Carolina under the Federal Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act of 1972 which became effective upon approval of North
Carolina's Coastal Management Plan. It is not intended to exclude
activities on federal lands from other existing or future state
authorities or controls.

173

CHAPTER FIVE AUTHORITIES FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT

Introduction - The Two-Tier Appr~oach
and the Major Provisions of CANA

North Carolina has chosen a two-tiered approach to coastal
management because of the need for two levels of management in
this State's coastal zone. (See Chapter Four.)

The critical or vital areas in the North Carolina coastal
zone are identified as Areas of Environmental Concern under
authority of the Coastal Area Management Act (CANA). In combina-
tion, these areas comprise the First Tier, which is to be the more
thoroughly regulated area in North Carolina's coastal zone. The
Coastal Resources Commission has designated AECs and has estab-
lished standards for development in those areas. All but certain
exempted activities must receive a CAMA permit to develop in these
areas, and must therefore comply with the appropriate standards.
The CRCs designated AECs are: Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters,
Public Trust Areas, Estuarine Shorelines, Ocean Beaches, Frontal
Dunes, Ocean Erosion Areas, Inlet Lands, Small Surface Water
Supply Watersheds, Public Water Supply Well-Fields, and certain
Fragile Natural Resource Areas to be nominated and designated on a
0 ~ ~~case-by-case basis in the future. These areas and the standards
for development within them are thoroughly described in the
following section o~f this plan and will not be further discussed
here.

To understand North Carolina's management system for the
second tier of its coastal zone, it is helpful to review the
definition of "direct and and significant impact" on coastal
waters. The second part of North Carolina's definition of "direct
and significant impact" is based on the type of activity and the
size of the development. Thus the State has identified certain
uses that have potential to affect coastal waters even though they
are not located in the AECs. In determining such potential for
direct and significant impact, consideration was given to such
factors as the nature of the process or activities involved; the
residuals generated; the tendency of the type of project to induce
further development; and the size of the development.

The following sections explain in more detail the authorities
relied on to manage each tier and the, manner in which these
authorities will be administered and/or 'coordinated to implement
the policies listed in Chapter Three of this plan.

174

The First Tier Management of Areas of Environmental Concern

Introduction

Areas of environmental concern (AECs) represent geographic
segments of the coastal zone that have been identified as critical
resource management areas of greater than local concern. It is
the purpose of this section to explain the functional role of AECs
in our management system.

AEC Concept

Areas of environmental concern (AECs) are considered in two
contexts in our management plan. First, AECs form the first tier
of our coastal zone because of their function in controlling
direct and significant impacts on coastal waters. Second, AECs
are interpreted through the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act to
be Areas of Particular Concern (APCs). The emphasis of this
chapter is AECs as the first tier of the coastal zone while
Chapter Six deals more thoroughly with APC.

Relationship to Coastal Zone Boundaries

AECs, because of their spatial relationship to coastal waters
and their characteristic resources, are considered to be of major
importance in protecting the values of coastal land and water
resources. AECs form the first tier of North Carolina's coastal
zone and are managed through a permit program that regulates mostS
forms of development within their geographic boundaries. This
permit program, administered by the CRC and DNRCD in conjunction
with local governments, ensures an intensity of management that is
commensurate with the threat of degradation to coastal waters.

Advantages of AECs as a Resource Management Tool

A major advantage given to North Carolina's coastal manage-
ment program through AECs is its control over impacting uses.
Created and designed specifically for coastal management, the AEC
permit is a coercive implementation tool that requires that public
and private land uses comply with the standards for activities in
and adjacent to coastal waters. As a resource protection
strategy, the AEC permit program is unique in North Carolina.

Another important advantage of the AEC program is its flexi-
bility since the designated AECs may be reviewed and both the
geographic extent as well as the permit standards altered if the
conditions upon which the original designations were based have
changed (G.S. 113115(c)). The process required to implement such
desired changes is discussed in Chapter Six.

Alternatives Available in Selecting and Designating AECs

In order that the reader may understand the ABC designation0
process, a brief review of the criteria for AEC selection is given

175

here. The source of the standards that were utilized for
selecting ABCs was the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act.
Section 113A-113 provided that the Coastal Resources Commission
may designate as AECs one or more of the following general cate-
gories:

(1) coastal wetlands;

(2) estuarine waters;

(3) renewable resource areas where uncontrolled or incom-
patible development which results in the loss or reduc-
tion of continued long-range productivity could
jeopardize future water, food, or fiber requirements of
more than local concern:

(4) fragile or historic areas, and other areas containing
environmental or natural resources of more than local
significance, in which uncontrolled or incompatible
development could result in major 'or irreversible damage
to important historic, cultural, scientific or scenic
values of natural systems;

(5) areas such as waterways and lands under or flowed by
tidal waters or navigable waters, to which the public
may have rights or access or public trust rights, and
areas which the State of North Carolina may be author-
ized to preserve, conserve, or protect under article
XIV, Section 5 of the North Carolina Constitution;

(6) natural hazard areas where uncontrolled or in compatible
development could unreasonably endanger life or property
and other areas especially vulnerable to erosion,
flooding, or other adverse effects of sand, wind, and
water;

(7) areas which are or may be impacted by key facilities.
(See Appendix A for a more complete description of the
legislative criteria for AEC selection.)

In addition to the criteria for the identification of ABCs,
the legislation also contains a, description of the types of
activities that might be controlled by AEC regulations. An under-
standing of these types will allow an accurate evaluation of the
degree of control possible through the AEC program. G.S.
113A-103(5) explicitly states that "development" (those activities
subject to the provisions of the AEC regulations) means:

many activity in a duly designated area of environmental
concern (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivi-
sion) involving, requiring, or consisting of the construction
or enlargement of a structure; excavation; dredging; filling;
is dumping; removal of clay, silt, sand, gravel or minerals;
bulkheading, driving of pilings; clearing or alteration of

176

land as an adjunct of construction; alteration or removal of
sand dunes; alteration of the shore, bank, or bottom of the
Atlantic Ocean or any sound, bay, river, creek, stream, lake,
or canal. (b) The following activities including the normal
and incidental operations associated therewith shall not be
deemed to be development under this section:

(i) Work by a highway or road agency for the main-
tenance of an existing road, if the work is carried
out on land within the boundaries of the existing
right-of-way;

(ii) Work by any railroad company or by any utility and
other persons engaged in the distribution and
transmission of petroleum products, water, tele-
phone or telegraph messages, or electricity for the
purpose of inspecting, repairing, maintaining, or
upgrading any existing substations, sewers, mains,
pipes, cables, utility tunnels, lines, towers,
poles, tracks, and the like on any of its existing
railroad or utility property of the above distri-
bution-related facilities to serve development
approved pursuant to G.S. 113A-121 or 113A-122;

(iii) Work by any utility and other persons for the
purpose of construction of facilities for the
development, generation, and transmission of energy
to the extent that such activities are regulated by
other law or by present or future rules of the
State Utilities Commission regulating the siting of
such facilities (including environmental aspects of
such siting), and work on facilities used directly
in connection with the above facilities;

(iv) The use of any land for the purpose of planting,
growing, or harvesting plants, crops, trees, or
other agricultural or forestry products, including
normal private road construction, raising livestock
or poultry, or for other agricultural purposes
except where excavation or filling affecting
estuarine water (as defined in G.S. 113-229) or
navigable waters is involved;

(v Emergency maintenance or repairs;

(vi) The construction of any accessory building
customarily incident to an existing structure if
the work does not involve filling, excavation, or
the alteration of any sand dune or beach;

(vii) Completion of any development, not otherwise in
violation of law, for which a valid building or
zoning permit was issued prior to ratification of
this Article and which development was initiated
prior to the ratification of this Article.

177

(viii) Completion of installation of any utilities or
roads or related facilities not otherwise in
violation of law, within a subdivision that was
duly approved and recorded prior to the ratifica-
tion of this Article and which installation was
initiated prior to their ratification of this
Article and which to the ratification of this
Article.

(ix) Construction or installation of any development,
not otherwise in violation of law, for which an
application for a building or zoning permit was
pending prior to the ratification of this Article
and for which a loan commitment (evidenced by a
notarized document signed by both parties) had been
made prior to the ratification of this Article;
provided, said building or zoning application is
granted by July 1, 1974."

In 1974, the Coastal Resources Commission, on the basis of the
criteria summarized above, began the process of AEC selection that
culminated with the designation of AECs in June of 1977.

Alternatives Considered

With the legislation as a starting point, the Coastal
Resources Commission and DNRCD proceeded in a cooperative effort
to designate AECs and to implement a permit program to protect
critical coastal resources. Various alternatives have been
considered, including the designation of the entire Outer Banks as
an AEC, the inclusion of prime forestry land as an AEC, the
exclusion of small marsh areas adjacent to intensive development
from the Coastal Wetlands category of AEC, the delegation of AEC
designation powers to local government, and the designation.of
wooded swamps as an AEC. Each of these specific suggestions have
been rejected in favor of a program that now incorporates the most
critical resource areas in the coastal zone. The program is
characterized by a joint state/local administration of regulations
and standards established by the Coastal Resources Commission.

Relationships of AEC Standards to Priority of Uses

Section 305(b) of the FCZMA requires that the state manage-
ment plan include "broad guidelines on priority of uses in parti-
cular areas, including specifically those uses of lowest priority"
(Section 305(b)). The prioritization of uses within APCs has been
a difficult concept to place within the context of North
Carolina' s coastal management program. However, a synthesis of
the use standards developed for the AEC permit program, serve as a
listing of priority of uses for each AEC. Appendix B includes the
specific standards used in the permit program.

There may be what appears to be an inconsistency in some
instances between the AEC standards set forth in Appendix B and

178

the listing of lowest priority uses in the following discussion.
This impression may be received by those readers who believe that
the uses described as "inappropriate" in the AEC standards should
not be considered uses of lowest priority. However, North
Carolina is not attempting to generally prohibit the uses listed
as "inappropriate" but to identify uses that normally would not be
able to satisfy the performance or "use standards" also described
in Appendix B.

Areas of Environmental Concern -
Descriptions, Significance and Priority of Uses

Thirteen AECs were selected by the Coastal Resources
Commission from the alternatives provided in the Coastal Area
Management Act. The descriptions and standards of use for each
designated AEC are summarized in the following material. The
thirteen AECs are grouped into four broad resource categories:
Estuarine System, Ocean Hazard Areas, Public Water Supplies, and
Fragile Coastal Natural Resource Areas.

Estuarine System

The first AECs discussed collectively represent the water and
land areas of the coast that contribute enormous economic, social,
and biological values as North Carolina's estuarine system.
Included within the estuarine system are the following AEC cate-
gories: Estuarine Waters, Coastal Wetlands, Public Trust Areas,
and Estuarine Shorelines. Each of these AECs is either geograph-
ically within the estuary or, because of its location and nature,
may significantly affect the estuary.

Significance of the Systems Approach in Estuaries

The management program must embrace all characteristics, pro-
cesses, and features of the whole system and not characterize
individually any one component of an estuary. They are all
completely interdependent and ultimately require management as a
unit. Any alteration, however slight, in a given component of the
estuarine system may result in unforeseen consequences in what may
appear as totally unrelated areas of the estuary. For example,
destruction of wetlands will have harmful effects on estuarine
waters. As a unified system, changes in an AEC category may
effect the function and use within another category. See Figure
4.

AECs Within the Estuarine System

The following defines each AEC within the estuarine system,
describes its significance and expresses the priority of uses for
each AEC.

179

AEC Coastal Wetlands

Description

Coastal Wetlands are considered to be those marshes that are
subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides, including
normal wind tides. Certain vegetative species are included in the
technical definition as indicators of the frequency of flooding.
(See Appendix B).

Significance

Coastal Wetlands provide plant materials (detritus) that form
the basis for the complex food chain of the estuary. Marshes also
supply good quality nesting, feeding and refuge areas for water-
fowl and wildlife; serve as an erosion buffer for upland areas;
act as an effective nutrient and sediment trap; and provide the
coast with a unique and pleasant landscape.

Priority of Use

Highest priority of use shall be allocated to the conserva-
tion of existing coastal wetlands. Second priority shall be given
to those types of development activities that require water access
and cannot function elsewhere. Lowest priority will include
restaurants and businesses; residences, apartments, motels, hotels
and trailer parks; parking lots and offices, spoil and dump sites;
wastewater lagoons; public and private roads and highways; and
factories.

AEC Estuarine Waters

Description

Estuarine Waters are all the waters of the bays, sounds,
rivers and their tributaries seaward of a line that separates
coastal from inland fishing waters.

Significance

Estuarine waters include the water areas of the coast where
freshwater mixes with saltwater to form the productive natural
environment of the estuary. Estuarine dependent species of fish
and shellfish currently make up over 90 percent of the total value
of North Carolina's commercial catch.

Estuarine waters are also the source of economic benefit to
the coast resulting from waterfowl hunting, marinas, boatyards,
marine repairs and supplies, fish processing operations, tourism,
commercial navigation and recreation.

ISO

Priority of Use

Highest priority of use shall be allocated to the conserva-0
tion of estuarine waters and their vital components. Uses of
second priority in estuarine waters shall include those types of
development activities that require water access such as simple
access channels; structures to prevent erosion; navigation
channels; and boat docks, piers, wharfs, and mooring pilings.
Lowest priority is allocated to those uses that would adversely
impact important marine grass beds; spawning and nursery areas of
valuable estuarine dependent species; important nesting, feeding,
and wintering sites of waterfowl and wildlife.

AEC Public Trust Areas

Description

Public trust areas are all waters in the coastal zone in
which the public has acquired rights by prescription, custom,
usage, dedication, or any other means. Public Trust Areas
include, in addition to Estuarine Waters, certain water bodies
within the coastal zone that are inland from Estuarine Waters.

Significance

The public has rights in these areas, including navigation
and recreation that need protection. In addition, these waters
support valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have aestheticS
value, and are important potential resources for economic
development.

Priority of Use

Highest priority will be allocated to uses that enhance the
rights of the public within public trust areas. Second priority
will be given to navigational channels, drainage ditches, the use
of bulkheads to prevent erosion and the building of piers, wharfs,
or marinas. Lowest priority is given to projects which would
directly or indirectly block or impair existing navigation
channels, increase shoreline erosion, deposit spoils below mean
high tide, cause adverse water circulation patterns, violate water
quality standards, or cause degradation of shellfish waters.

AEC Estuarine Shorelines

Description

Estuarine shorelines are the fastlands adjacent to estuarine
waters extending landward 75 feet from mean high water or normal
high water.

7-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I

FIGU~~RELI3.

75'

normal or mean high water level

AEC - ESTUARINE AEC - ESTUARINE WATERS AEC - COASTAL WETLANDS
cq
co SHORELINES

cord grass
and
black needlerush

glasswort
75 feet landward
AEC - PUBLIC salt grass

of mean high TRUST WATERS sea lavender

bulrush
water level
sawgrass

cat-tails

salt meadow grass

salt reed grass

FIGURE 4. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN - ESTUARINE SYSTEM

183

* ~~~Significance

Development within the estuarine shorelines of AECs influ-
ences the quality of the estuarine system and is subject to the
damaging processes of shore front erosion and flooding.

Priority of 'Use

Highest priority of use shall be allocated to recreational,
rural and conservation activities in those shoreline areas
exhibiting a significant erosion rate. High priority shall also
be given to water access and shoreline protection, provided that
.public resources will not be detrimentally affected.

Second priority of land use shall be given to proposals which
illustrate a sound understanding of the management principles of
this dynamic and susceptible zone. Lowest priority shall be
allocated to major public facilities that would promote growth in
areas where a substantial possibility of excessive public expendi-
tures for maintaining the use of the facility may result or the
facility would result in a loss of significant private resources.
Proposed development that may harm estuarine resources or cause
damage to riparian properties will also receive lowest priority.
See Figure 4.

Ocean Hazard Areas

The next grouping is composed of those AECs that are
considered natural hazard areas along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline
where, because of their special vulnerability to erosion or other
adverse effects of sand, wind, and water, uncontrolled or incom-
patible development could unreasonably endanger life or property.
Ocean hazard areas include Beaches, Frontal Dunes, Inlet Lands,
and other areas in which geologic, vegetative and soil conditions
indicate a substantial possibility of excessive erosion or flood
damage.

The following defines each AEC within the ocean hazard area,
describes briefly each's significance and outlines the respective
priority of uses. Appendix B describes in more detail the
standards for each AEC.

AEC Ocean Beaches

Description

Ocean Beaches occur along the Outer Banks. They extend from
the Atlantic Ocean landward to a point where either the growth of
vegetation or a distinct change in land forms occur. See Figure
5.

184

Significance

Ocean Beaches in North Carolina represent a dynamic zone of0
unconsolidated sand that absorbs a great amount of wave energy.
Ocean development within this shifting zone may result in a loss
of property and possible loss of life. Ocean Beaches are also
important recreational areas that attract tourists nationwide.

Priority of Use

Highest priority shall be allocated to recreational uses that
maintain the high quality of the beach while providing access to
public beaches. Lowest priority is given to land uses involving
the construction of permanent or substantial structures.

AEC Frontal Dunes

Description

Frontal Dunes are mounds of sand located directly landward of
the coastal beaches. The AEC extends f rom the Ocean Beach to the
lowest elevation in the depression immediately behind the first
dune ridge. See Figure 6.

Significance

Frontal dunes serve a very important function as a protective
barrier to development from storm tides. Development with
inadequate design may alter the protective character of the dunes
and consequently, subject life and property to a substantial risk.

Priority of Use

Highest priority shall be allocated to the preservation of
frontal dunes. Lowest priority will be given to development that
would involve the removal or relocation of frontal dune sand or
vegetation.

AEC Inlet Lands

Description

Inlet lands are lands adjacent to inlets having demonstrated
a tendency or a probability of migrating along the Outer Banks.
The AEC is defined using the past history of the inlet to predict
possible future movements of the inlet. As seen in the illustra-
tion, Figure 7, the AEC - Inlet Lands includes those lands that
have either eroded within the past 25 years or that are predicted
to erode in the future. Predictions were calculated through the
use of demonstrated erosion rates. (See Appendix B.)

Significance

The location of an inlet is often a temporary one, such
channels often are subject to extensive migration. Coastal inlet
lands are therefore, extremely dynamic land areas that are highly
susceptible to becoming completely displaced by water.

Priority of Use

Highest priority shall be given to uses that do not involve
the construction of substantial structures. Lowest priority will
be allocated to major public facilities.

AEC - Ocean Erodible Areas

Description

Ocean Erodible Areas are ocean shoreline areas that have been
identified by the state geologist as hazardous to development
because of excessive erosion. The Ocean Erodible Area overlays
the Frontal Dune and is described as a distance landward from the
toe of the Frontal Dune. The distances landward used in this
description are based on studies of the probable erosion resulting
from a storm surge of a 25 year frequency. See Figure S.

Significance

Ocean Erodible Areas are extremely dynamic lands, highly
susceptible to becoming displaced by periodic storm surges.
Figure 9 attempts to demonstrate the effect of this storm surge.

Priority of Use

Highest priority shall be allocated to recreational and other
non-structural uses. Lowest priority shall be given to structures
for commercial or institutional purposes that encourage growth in
these hazardous areas.

Public Water Supplies

Public water supplies as a broad category includes two AECs:
Small Surface Water Supply Watersheds and Public Water Supply Well
Fields. The following discussion includes the description,
significance, and the priority of uses for each.

AEC Small Surface Water Supply Watersheds

Description

These are catchment areas which contain freshwater streams
that are of the highest quality in the coastal zone. They require
a minimum amount of treatment in order to serve as potable water.
See Figure 10.

I- I

I AEC - OCEAN BEACHI| OCEAN

FIGURE 5. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN - OCEAN HAZARD AREAS

W ~ W

GSECONDARY DUNE AEC - FRONTAL DUNE AEC - OCEAN BEACH OCEAN

FIGURE 6. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN - OCEAN HAZARD AREAS

.-'-chh�c h .N.C. INLET 1952

SAME INLET 1964

SAME INLET 1977

AEC- INLET LANDS areas most likely to erode in the next 25 years,

based on records of past inlet migration.

AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN - OCEAN HAZARD AREAS
FIGURE 7.
_.
.
.

~~~~~~

t o the frontal dune

I III
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
AEC - FRONTAL DUNE AEC -OCEAN BEACH OCEAN

AEC - OCEAN ERODIBLE AREA

varies 61 to 156

FIGURE 8. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN - OCEAN HAZARD AREAS

SECONDARY DUNE PRIMARY DUNE j BEACH OCEAN

AEC -OCEAN ERODIBLE AREA 61' to 156'

- ~~~~~~~AFTER

n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~25 YEAR

~~~ - - ~~~~~~~~~~STORM SURGE

NEW PRIMARY DUNE NEW BEACH OCEANI

AEC - OCEAN ERODIBLE AREA 61' to 156'

FIGURE 9. SIGNIFICANCE OF OCEAN ERODIBLE AREA

191

Significance

These critical water supplies, if degraded, could adversely
effect public health or require substantial monetary outlays for
alternative water source development.

Priority of Use

Highest priority shall be allocated to non-intensive recrea-
tional uses. Lowest priority will be given to' major land dis-
turbing activities or development that has a possibility of
introducing pollutants into the surface waters.

AEC Public Water Supply Well Fields

Des cript ion

This AEC includes those well fields judged to be critical as
a public water supply by the North Carolina Division of Health
Services. See Figure 11.

Significance

The area, unless protected, could be subjected to development
that could adversely effect water quality or quantity. This
situation would result in a significant loss of public resources.

* ~~~Priority of Use

Highest priority shall be allocated to non-intensive uses
that offer no threat to water quality such as green spac es, parks,
athletic fields and other non-intesive uses. Lowest priority is
given to development that requires construction of permanent
structures or other impervious surfaces.

Frgile Coastal Natural Resource Areas

The fourth and final group of AECs is gathered under the
heading of Fragile Coastal Natural Resource Areas and is defined
as areas containing environmental or natural resources of more
than local significance in which uncontrolled or incompatible
development could result in major or irreversible damage to
natural systems, scientific or educational values, or aesthetic
qualities. Three AECs (Coastal Complex Natural Areas, Unique
Coastal Geologic Formations and Coastal Areas That Sustain Remnant
Species) are included under this major heading.

Nomination of Sites

The designation of a Coastal Complex Natural Area, a Unique
Coastal Geologic Formation, or a Coastal Area that Sustains a
Remnant Species is a process peculiar to these categories of AECs
alone. Unlike the other AECs, designation is based upon a
procedure of nomination, evaluation, and site specific
designation.

WATERSHEDS OF CLASS A-TI STREAMS

WHICH SERVE AS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY

AEC -SMALL SURFACE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS

FIGURE 10. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN - PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES

* .*.......wt.::..4.:.>�..t~~x*.*.< shallow fresh wtr tbe.****.*

- - - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~impermeable - -a - - - --y -r
- = - = = = = clay layer -�_-i=

A~~ ~ ~ E C --
.... ..%...flA . *:.:.*-:-:-&:V:;:-X-.... .. ..A
.,:*."fl~a..fl. .....

AEC-

PUBLIC

WATER

SUPPLY

WELL

FIELD

FIGURE 11. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES

194

Nomination

The first step in the nomination process will be the collec-
tion of relevant information regarding location, size, importance,
ownership, and uniqueness of the proposed site by the sponsoring
individual or group. This information will then be transmitted to
the CRC and the local government in whose jurisdiction the site is
located. The local government will forward the nomination and
recommendations to the CRC within 60 days of the first meeting of
the local board following that nomination. Those sites considered
appropriate, i.e., meeting the definition of at least one of the
Fragile Coastal Natural Resource Areas categories, will continue
to the evaluation step.

Evaluation

Opportunity will be given to local government officials,
interest groups including private land owners, the CRAC, the CRC
staff, and those with scientific expertise to comment on the
appropriateness of designation. Statements from the scientific
community should include any documentation attesting to the unique
qualities of the site, and, when appropriate, a discussion
relating the specific values of the site to the associated
biological and physical systems.

Designation

The CRC has the sole authority to designate AECs; thus, upon
receipt of all relevant information, the CRC must decide if
designation is merited. This will be determined by establishing
that the resource is of unusually high or unique quality and by
showing that the resource does fit the description of at least one
of the Fragile Coastal Natural Resource Areas categories. General
statements from local government and interest groups will be
considered along with the scientific rationale. All parties in-
volved in the processes of nomination and evaluation will be
informed, in writing, of the Commission's decision to designate or
not to designate the site in question.

A public hearing is required prior to designation of each
site at which time the Commission shall present the scientific
documentation and general statements concerning the designation
decision. Also, the values established in the evaluation state-
ment will be so stated and will be used as the basis for policy
development by which permits will be approved or denied. All
sites chosen for designation that are within the bounds of
state-owned property will become an AEC regardless of state agency
ownership. Sites located on private property will immediately
become AECs if the property owner is in favor of their designa-
tion. If landowners dissent, they will be given 60 days to
prepare arguments explaining why their property should not be
designated, whereupon the Commission will make its final judge-
ment. It is the intent of the Commission to point out the
significance of AECs on private property and to suggest how appro-
priate development should proceed within the constraints imposed
by constitutionally guaranteed rights of private property.

195

The description, significance, and priority of uses follow
for each AEC (Coastal Complex Natural Areas, Coastal Areas that
Sustain Remnant Species, and Unique Coastal Geologic Formations)
within the grouping of Fragile Coastal Natural Resource Areas.

AEC Coastal Areas that Sustain Remnant Spees

Description

Coastal Areas that Sustain
Remnant Species are those areas
that support native plants or
animals threatened and endan-
gered within the coastal area.

Significance

The continued survival of habi-
tats that support threatened and
endangered native plants and animals
in the coastal area is vital to the -
preservation of our natural heritage
and tor the protection of natural
diversity which is related to
biological stability.

Bird rookery on coastal island.

Priority of Use

Highest priority shall be given to uses that protect and
enhance the habitat conditions essential to threatened and
endangered species. Lowest priority is allocated to uses that
will involve the alteration of the natural conditions of the site.

Venus Fly Trap -N.C. is the north- Alligator N.C. is the northern
ern most extent of its range. most extent of its range.

196

AEC Coastal Cornplex Natural Areas

Description

Coastal Complex
Natural Areas are defin-
ed as lands that support
native plants and animal
communities providing
habitat conditions that
have remained essentially
unchanged by human activ-
ity.

River Swamp.

Significance

Coastal Complex Natural Areas function as key biological
components of natural systems, as important scientific or educa-
tional sites, or as valuable scenic or cultural resources.

Northern most extent of the Sabal Tidal Marsh.
Palmetto Tree in the East Coast
Maritime Forest.0

197

Priority of Use

Highest priority shall be given to uses that preserve the
natural character of the AEC. Lowest priority is given to uses
that involve the disturbance of natural vegetation or animal life
or increase uncontrolled access to the site.

AEC Unique Coastal Geologic Formations

Description

Unique Coastal Geologic Formations are defined as sites that
contain geologic formations that are unique or otherwise signi-
ficant components of coastal systems or are especially notable
examples of geologic formations or processes in the coastal area.
Such areas will be evaluated by the Commission after identifica-
tion by the State Geologist.

Significance

Unique Coastal Geologic Areas are important educational,
scientific, or scenic resources that would be jeopardized by
uncontrolled or incompatible development.

Priority of Use

Highest priority is allocated to uses that enhance the educa-
tional and scientific importance of the site. Lowest priority is
given to uses that adversely impact the site as a unique scien-
tific or educational resource.

198

AEC Permitting

The authority to designate AECs rests exclusively with the
CRC. However, once these areas are designated, the authority for
administering the CANA permit program is shared between the CRC
and local government units within the coastal area. The CANA
provides that "each county and city within the coastal area shall
submit to the Commission a written statement of its intent to act
or not to act as a permit-letting agency..." Upon presenting to
the Commission and having approved a plan for a local implemen-
tation and enforcement program, any county or city that has sub-
mitted such a letter will be authorized to process applications
for minor development permits in AECs. The Commission will
process applications for major development permits and appeals of
local decisions concerning minor development applications.

Therefore, in order to understand which permits. will be
handled locally and which will be handled by the Commission, it is
necessary to distinguish between major and minor development.
Major development is any development that requires the authoriza-
tion, permission, certification, approval, or licensing of another
state agency; or will occupy a land or water area in excess of 20
acres; or contemplates drilling for or excavating natural
resources on land or under water; or which occupies on a single
parcel a structure or structures in excess of a ground area of
60,000 square feet; or the siting of a utility facility that is
not subject to the authority of the State Utilities Commission.
Any other development is minor.

The Mao Development Permit Process

The Application

The statutory requirements for the CANA permit for major
development are found in G.S. 113A-119 et seq. This section
begins by stating that "(a)ny person required to obtain a permit
under this Part (a major development permit) shall file with the
Secretary of Natural and Economic Resources an application for a
permit in accordance with the form and content designated by the
Secretary and approved by the Commission". Therefore, it is the
responsibility of the Secretary of DNRCD, subject to approval by
the Commission, to determine the details of what the CANA permit
will be.

At this time, the major development permit application has
taken the form of a comprehensive project description. This form
should allow a standardized application to be used that will
supply the permit reviewer with information sufficient to evaluate
the project's consistency with the various land use standards in
each of the AECs. Most pr6jects in each AEC will be similar,
making an elaborate project description unnecessary for a deter-
mination of whether a permit should be issued. In those few cases
where the initial application does not supply sufficient infor-
mation, more specific information can be requested or additional
site visits can be arranged.

199

The Distribution

The CAI4A permit application will be distributed from at least
two locations: (1) at the DNRCD field offices located in
Washington and Wilmington and (2) at the Division of Marine
Fisheries Office located in Morehead City. Permit officers at
each of these locations will be trained to help applicants with
their project description/master application form and to help them
determine what other local, state, and federal permits are
required. The permit officer will also help the applicant decide
whether he is actually in an AEC.

Public Notice Requirements

S.S. 113A-119 of CANA states that upon receipt of an appli-
cation, the Secretary shall issue public notice of the proposed
development by (1) mailing a copy of the application or a brief
description, thereof together with a statement indicating where a
detailed copy of the proposed development may be inspected to any
citizen or group which has filed a request to be notified of the
proposed development, and to any interested state agency; (2)
posting or causing to be posted a copy of the application at the
location of the proposed development; and (3) publishing notice of
the application at least once in one newspaper of general
circulation in the county or counties wherein the development
would be located at least seven days before final action on a
permit under G.S. 113A-121 or before the beginning of the hearing
on a permit under G.S. 113A-122. The notice shall set out that
any comments on the development should be submitted to the
Secretary by a specified date, not to exceed 15 days from the date
of the newspaper publication of the notice. Public notice under
this subsection is mandatory.

Disposition of Major Development Applications

A decision on the CAMA permit will usually be made after the
decision on any other state permits that are required for the
project is made. The CAHA permit can be considered the compre-
hensive or "overview" state permit. Nevertheless, the decision
must be made within 90 days, or the permit automatically issues.
Thus the CANA permit should be issued conditional upon the
issuance of any permits, such as NPDES, which take more than 90
days for issuance.

At the time that the final decision is made on the CAIMA
permit, a determination will also be made, where appropriate, on
the consistency of the project with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Plan.

Further discussion of the disposition of major development
permits and the relationship of the permit with other state
* ~~~permits can be found in Chapter Six.

200

Minor Development Permit Process

The Application

CAHA minor development permit applications will take the form
of a master project description and should be, to the greatest
extent possible, interchangeable with the major development
application. The content is to be determined by DNRCD with
approval by the CRC.

The Distribution

CAMA minor development permit applications should be issued
by the local designated official (LDO)* at the local permit
office. The LDO will be trained to help applicants determine
whether they are in an AEC and what other permits might be
required (thus becoming the first contact in permit coordination
efforts as described in Chapter Six). A more complete describtion
of the LDO training process is included in Appendix D.

Disposition

It is desirable that other local permits be issued before the
CAMA minor development permit is issued. The LDO will be trained
to coordinate and/or process several of the local permits where
they apply to development in AECs. The LDO will be primarily
concerned with development in beach hazard areas, estuarine
shorelines, public water supply areas, and public trust areas0
landward of the line separating estuarine and inland waters. Any
other development, by virtue of being in water-covered areas and
wetlands, will require a state permit, and thus is major devel-
opment by definition. Consequently, the local permits that will
generally be applicable in addition to the CANA minor development
permit are septic tank approvals, sand dune permits, erosion
control approvals, floodway zoning permits, building, electrical
and plumbing inspection, and subdivision and zoning approvals.
Local governments will be encouraged to coordinate and consolidate
all appropriate local permit programs in order to achieve the
maximum degree of efficiency and economy while streamlining the
process for the applicant. It is particularly important and
efficient for the LDO to also administer sand dune permits in
ocean hazard areas and erosion control plans in estuarine shore-
lines because most minor development will be development in these
areas and the CANA permit standards are very similar to sand dune
protection and erosion control standards.

*LDO refers to the local official authorized and designated by
the CRC and local government to administer the minor development
permit.

201

Monitoring and Conflict Resolution

Monitoring Local Minor Development Permit Programs

The responsiveness and simplicity of our permit program will
be enhanced by the delegation of administrative responsibilities
to local government. However, it is necessary when delegating
responsibilities for any purpose to attach a degree of account-
ability. The Coastal Resources Commission has recognized this
fact and is planning to actively monitor the results of the minor
permit program and evaluate the performance of each local govern-
ment. Consistency with the Commission's standards for AECs,
.compliance with the provisions of the approved local implementa-
tion and enforcement plan, and conformity with the administrative
provisions of CAIMA will be the primary subjects to be emphasized
in the monitoring activities.

Members of the CRC and the Coastal Resources Advisory
Council, most of whom are coastal residents will be available to
observe and hear comments from other local residents concerning
administration of local permits. Coastal management staff members
and field enforcement officers for the major development permits
will spot check permit decisions by the LDO's. These monitoring
activities will be facilitated by requiring quarterly reports from
LDOs summarizing all permit dispositions made during the previous
three months.

* ~~~Remedies for Violations by the Local Permit-Letting Agency

When a local permit-letting agency fails to administer or
enforce the local implementation and enforcement program submitted
to the Commission and approved by it, the Commission shall:

- notify the local permit-letting agency in writing that
it is in violation of the provisions of its local
enforcement and implementation plan and specify the
grounds for such charges of violation;

- inform the local permit-letting agency of specific
deficiencies in administration and enforcement;

- inform the local permit -letting agency of its oppor-
tunity to request, a hearing before the Commission at
which time it may make any presentation or present any
arguments relevant to the issue raised in the Commission
letter to the local agency. The Commission may question
any witness presented by the local permit-letting
agency. The Commission may at its sole discretion hear
from any other affected person at the hearing.

When the conditions are not remedied or corrected within 90
days after receipt of Commission notification of such violation,
the Commission shall assume the duties of the local permit-letting
agency until the local permit-letting agency indicates to the

202

Commission in writing its willingness and/or ability to perform in
conformance with its approved local implementation and enforcement
plan.
When the local permit-letting agency exceeds the scope and
extent of its authority, which is limited to consideration of
applications proposing minor development as defined in CAMA, that
action shall be null, void, and of no effect. The determinations
of the Commission shall be binding on the local permit-letting
agency as to questions of such jurisdiction.

The local permit-letting agency lacks the authority to issue
variances (G.S. 113A-120(c)) or to consider permits for the siting
of any utility facility for the development, generation, or
transmission of energy when such facilities require permits under
the CAMA.

The Second Tier - Management Outside of AECs

North Carolina has employed two broad approaches in estab-
lishing ~a management system for the less vital second tier of its
coastal zone. The first approach involves direct state regulation
through existing regulatory programs of certain types of uses and
activities which, because of their type or size, have potential to
directly and significantly effect coastal waters and are therefore
of statewide concern. (These critical uses should be considered
"permissible uses" in the FCZMA terminology.) At least one, and in
most cases several state permits apply to each of these critical0
uses. The standards applied under the combination of permits
applicable to a particular critical use should be viewed as a set
of "performance standards" for the critical use. It is important
to note that North Carolina is relying primarily on this network
of coordinated state regulations to directly manage the impacts of
critical uses outside of AECs which are likely to affect coastal
waters.

The second approach is the promulgation by the Commission of
State Guidelines for planning in the coastal zone, and the devel-
opment by local governments of land use plans that are consistent
with those Guidelines. Thus, both the State Guidelines and the
local land use plans are a part of North Carolina's management
program. This approach is therefore a joint state-local effort,
with state responsibility for the broad framework and policies for
local planning (particularly through the land classification
system) and the local responsibility for fleshing out the frame-
work and implementing the plan. Although this approach is con-
sidered to be an important aspect of North Carolina's Coastal
Management program, it should be again emphasized that it is the
first approach (i.e. direct State regulation) that is being relied
upon at this time for enforceable state management of critical
uses outside of AECs.

This is because the CRC does not have authority to require
local governments to implement the local plans through zoning

203

CHART 4. PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN AECs

DNRCD receives copies|
of development
proposals within AECs.
ib
Public notice,
possibly hearing.

major - minor
development iol development ,

Minor developments are
reviewed by designated
local officipl.

-A'

tDenial. | Approval, or failure
to act within 30 days
is automatic approval.

Appeal to designated
local body. *
Appeal by persons No further
directly affected action, begin
lAppeal to CRC.I by a decision and/or minor
lSecretary of DNRCD. development.

|IReview by Coastal Resources Commission.

CRC denies permit CRC falls to approve,
(statutory criteria CRC approves deny, or dispose of
for permit-denial).l Ipermit. appeal within 90 days,
automatic approval.

Appeal.I INo further Appeal by No urther Appeal by
action, begin person action, begin person
development. directly development. directly
affected affected
by the by the
decision. decision.

I Superior Courtl |

* Local appeal body is an option available to local government.

204

ordinances , subdivision regulations, or other types of land use
ordinances. (The CRC is authorized to review such local ordin-
ances and recommend changes in them for purposes of enforcing the0
plans. For more detail on this process, see the discussion of
enforcement of local plans later in this Chapter.) However, the
Governor's Executive Order (discussed in more detail later in this
Chapter) requires that state agency policies and actions con-
cerning coastal resources be consistent to the maximum extent
possible with policies set forth in the "State Guidelines for
Local Planning". Therefore, inasmuch as the policies set forth in
"Guidelines for Local Planning" are a part of the state program
and have been followed in the local land use plans, federal
agencies should consider pertinent aspects of the applicable local
plan before taking actions in the coastal zone. Thus through
state and federal agency efforts to be consistent with local
plans, those plans will be given a substantial degree of efficacy
that will cause them to be taken seriously at all levels of
government.

Direct State Regulation of Critical Activities

Description of Authorities

North Carolina has over the past several years developed an
extensive array of statutory programs (authorities) which allow
the State to influence the impacts of certain types of development
considered potentially damaging to natural resources. This
composite of authorities can be divided into two categories, which0
are differentiated based on the type of role that the particular
authority allows the State to play. The two categories of
authorities are: (1) authorities that allow regulation, primarily
of private uses; and (2) authorities that affect government or
government financed activities (state, local, and federal) through
controls of acquisition, spending, planning, and review of
projects.

Regulation is the direct use of the State's police power to
ensure that the regulated projects meet certain standards. This
is the most direct form of authority that the State exercises over
private development.

The power of acquisition, an authority that affects govern-
ment or government financed activities, is simply any statutory
authority the State might have to purchase or to otherwise receive
land for purposes that can contribute to managing land and water
uses that directly and significantly affect coastal waters. This
authority is, to the extent that land is purchased, a form of
spending, that provides such direct and complete control of the
lands involved.

The power to spend includes any authority the State has to
spend money for building facilities for public use. Traditional
examples that are particularly important to coastal management are0
roads, bridges, and port facilities. Planning and review func-

205

tions include those authorities that allow State input into
decisions that are made at other levels of government. These
might include review of both federal projects or federal grants to
localities in the coastal zone, where those projects or grants
have the potential to directly and significantly affect coastal
waters.

Authority affecting government or government financial
activities might also include any state input, standards, or
guidelines affecting locally administered authorities that are
important to coastal management. An example is the minimum
standards set at the state level for septic tank regulations that
are otherwise administered by the counties. This type of
authority is less decisive and direct (from the State's viewpoint)
than the others, but nevertheless offers real opportunities to
apply state coastal management policies in the coastal zone.

To determine the potential of North Carolina's composite of
authorities to effectuate the management policy for relevant land
and water uses in the coastal zone, three factors must be con-
sidered. The first factor is whether the aggregation of author-
ities is sufficiently comprehensive or broad to allow management
of a full spectrum of uses in the coastal zone that may directly
and significantly affect coastal waters, and which must therefore
be managed to effectuate a coastal management program. This can
be termed the "breadth" of the management program. The second
factor concerns whether the combination of authorities applicable
to each use allows consideration of those aspects of that use that
are relevant and essential to the coastal management. More
simply, does the authority allow consideration of the necessary
factors to effectuate the policies and address the issues
discussed in Chapter Three of this Plan. This can be termed the
"scope" of the authorities. The third factor is the capability of
ensuring that the authority will be administered in conformance
with North Carolina's coastal management policies, whenever the
coastal zone is affected by the activity under consideration.
This is called the "networking" of authorities.

The following discussion addresses the above three factors in
the order mentioned. There is first a discussion of the breadth
of the authorities. This discussion includes a listing of the
uses (called critical or permissible uses) that are subject to
management in the Second Tier of the coastal zone. Included in
this section is a matrix showing which authorities are applicable
to each of the critical uses. Second, concerning "s cope" there is
a listing of the authorities being relied upon to manage the
critical uses and thereby implement the coastal policies. (A more
thorough description of the "scope" of each authority, including
identification of the administering agency, can be found in
Appendix C.) This list includes all authorities that are appli-
cable to each issue as identified and described in Chapter Three.
These authorities are categorized there under the Departments
responsible for their administration. Third, is the discussion of
how the authorities are coordinated or ''networked"~ in order to

206

insure that they work together toward the accomplishment of the
goals and policies of the Coastal Management Plan.

Breadth of Authorities

Permissible Uses and Uses Subject to Management

Uses subject to the management program in the second tier are
those uses and activities outside of AECs which are of statewide
concern (included are a few uses which will be found within AECs,
but which are regulated by an authority that adds additional
management capability to that provided by the CANA permit). The
CAM1A authorizes the CRC to establish policies, guidelines, and
standards for activities throughout the coastal area, including
protection, preservation, and conservation of natural resources;
economic development; recreation and tourist facilities and
parklands; transportation and circulation patterns; preservation
and enhancement of the historic, cultural, and scientific aspects;
protection of present common law and statutory public rights
(Section 102(b)).

Because these uses are of statewide concern and come under
the purview of the coastal management program, they are called
critical uses, or in terms of the FCZMA, the permissible uses.
They are the uses which have the potential of causing direct and
significant impact on coastal waters.

The following is a list of critical uses. Many of these usesS
have been mentioned in the discussion of issues in Chapter Three
of this Plan.

(1) Energy Development Activities
Petroleum refineries
Energy generating facilities
Oil and gas wells
Major petroleum storage sites

(2) Industrial Activities
Industrial parks
Shopping centers
Agriculture
Livestock feedlot operations
Livestock grazing on outer banks
Pesticide application
Large drainage operations
Manufacturing facilities
Mining operation
Commercial Fishing

(3) Residential and Related Activities
(Water and sewerage activities are considered in
this category because they are major factors in
residential development, and individual residential0
decisions can incrementally cause direct and

207

signif icant impact on coastal waters. Water and
sewerage controls are a means of guiding these
incremental residential decisions. Water is also a
major factor in industrial, commercial, and agri-
cultural use, but these uses are already managed
through other authorities.)
Large water wells
High-rise apartments or hotels
Large subdivisions
Sewage treatment facilities
Public drinking water supplies and systems
Solid waste disposal sites

(4) Transportation Activities
State Roads and Interstate
Bridges
Commercial Ports
Navigation Projects

(5) Tourist and Recreation Related Activities
(Preservation is grouped with recreation
because leisure-time use is often closely
linked with areas that have been purposefully
preserved or restored.)
Large marinas
State parks
State forests
Preservation of natural and scenic rivers
Public accessways to state waters and beaches

(6) Water Control Projects and Impoundments
Large dams
Major water diversions

The following matrix entitled "North Carolina Authorities to
Critical Uses," is for the purpose of identifying the authorities
(regulations) that are applicable to each of the critical (permis-
sible) uses included under North Carolina's management plan. The
critical uses are listed in the vertical column on the left, and
the authorities are listed in the horizontal column across the
top. "X"s mark the authorities that apply to each critical use.
(Several of the authorities such as are applied to certain types
of areas, rather than specific uses. Therefore, all uses in those
certain areas are subject to regulation unless they are exempted
by the authorizing legislation or agency regulations. The most
important of these regulated areas are capacity use areas, flood-
ways, sand dune protection areas, and wetlands subject to dredge
and fill regulations.)

Scope of Authorities

The matrix is intended to facilitate identification of
S ~ ~~authorities that apply to critical activities in the coastal zone.
The discussion of coastal issues and policies in Chapter Three

208

sets forth the major policies which guide implementation of these
authorities and indicates to which important coastal issues these
policies apply. Thus these policy statements in Chapter Three
give an indication of the "scope" of these authorities. Appendix
C elaborates on the "scope" of each authority by giving more
information concerning the goals, objectives, and regulations
promulgated by each. These authorities are listed under the state
agency responsible for their administration, therefore describing
how North Carolina's administrative agencies are organized to
implement the Coastal Management plan. Additionally, Appendix C
contains a description of the standards and criteria which will be
used to make decisions under each authority appearing on the
matrix.

Networking of Authorities

CRC Policy-Making Authority Concerning State Agencies'
Acquisition, Use and Disposition of Coastal Lands

The CAMA explicitly requires that State policies concerning
the acquisition, use and disposition of lands in the coastal area
shall be consistent with State Guidelines. The CRC is authorized
to develop and issue policies for coastal resource management in
the State Guidelines, and therefore can make policies with which
other State agencies must be consistent when acquiring, using and
disposing of coastal lands. This statutory mandate is explained
in detail by the following opinion from the North Carolina
Attorney General's office:

"Section 113A-107(a) clearly provides statutory authority for
the CRC to adopt guidelines for the entire coastal area.
That section reads as follows:

'State guidelines for the coastal area shall consist of
statements of objectives, policies, and standards to be
followed in public and private use of land and water
areas within the coastal area. Such guidelines shall be
consistent with the goals of the Coastal Area Management
System as set forth in G.S. 113A-102. They shall give
particular attention to the nature of development which
shall be appropriate within the various types of areas
of environmental concern that may be designated by the
Commission under Part 3. Such guidelines shall be
adopted, and may be amended from time to time, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in this
section.'

Thus, as long as the Guidelines are consistent with the goals
of the Act as set forth in Section 113A-102, the Commission
appears to have wide latitude in establishing policy via the
State Guidelines not only with AECs, but throughout the
entire coastal area. Particular attention should be given to
the provisions of Section 113A-102(b)(4)(i) through (vii)
which provide guidance as to which concerns the guidelines
should address.

NORTH CAROLINA AUTHORITIES TO CRITICAL USES

Department of Natural Resources and Community Development a
ADMINISTERING s O -ea

AGENCY P A. 'C aw w La a w 'A 'C 2! 2~ ES a, c,

(G.S. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C CITTIN C

STTrOYUTHORITY IE ' -o 'a S u 'I-r. '-

S- g .C ~ C . '

<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ to= a t .aa
-~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~, 0. -2 -; C C; 55 - a. -
CRITI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a C ' a. - a.0 a. C e 5 c '5
~~ 'c ~~~ .0 a. 'C C' C a. 5 .5 n - " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ st -- a~~~~~a.
n C 0 5 - - a. a. 0 a. La- o C 0 'C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- g - t

Oil a n d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 Gas Well x1 *xa -< xa .5 ., a. o x

Brid g e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a s a. a. C. a.. = a.C C

Pemerolea Refieris X X X x x x xx x x x

ENeegyanrtingPrjciltis X X X X X

Minping Op neraton X X X X X X X X X

hLajor erlu trge Subiviios X X X X X X X X

StatRie R p.oradtes X x X x X X X

CaummetrigFciuliotis X X x x X x x x x x

Navsiga eelion P opetios X X X XX

Pnuestiad Pars . X

Large SDbdivis peaions X X XX XXX XX

Hirghie apts orHoells X X X X X X

Mnn-acl Ttmentu Facilities x x X X X XX XX

ulivescuek FeedWat OerSuppies X X x X

PsticidWse Dispoaies x

Large Marainase Operarons X X

Stgeaterparks X X X x X X

Sewage ForestmnFaites X X X X X

Preservation of Natural
and Scenic RivetsX X

Preservation of Historic
Fropersies xx

Public Aecessways f X X X X

Large Dans X X X XX

Commercial Fishing X X XiK

210

It is clear from Section 113A-108 that 'any State land
policies governing the acquisition, use and disposition of
land by State departments and agencies shall take account of
and be consistent with the State guidelines adopted under
this article, insofar as lands within the coastal area are
concerned.' Thus, if the State guidelines adopted by the CRC
address land use policies in areas other than AECs, other
State departments and agencies would be required to be con-
sistent with these policies in their use of land throughout
the coastal area. How this consistency would be achieved as
a practical matter is open to conjecture. Your suggestion
that the State Environmental Policy Act might provide a
suitable mechanism certainly merits consideration.

Section 113A-108 also provides that 'any State land classi-
fication system which shall be promulgated shall take account
of and be consistent with the State guidelines adopted under
this Article, insofar as it applies to lands within the
coastal area.' It is obviously also very problematic to
determine what effect the adoption of broad policy guidelines
by the CRC would have on any future State land cl~assificia-
tion system."

The Executive Order

As the above section explains, state agencies must comply
with the policies of the CRC in their proprietary activities
concerning coastal land.

The bigger issue is whether state agencies must administer
their regulatory programs in a manner consistent with validly
developed coastal policies. To resolve this confusion or
ambiguity, North Carolina has issued an Executive Order to insure
consistency.
The following is a copy of the Executive Order and a discus-
sion of its provisions and significance.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 15

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in passing
the Coastal Area Management Act, has expressed its desire for a
comprehensive, coordinated management system for the protection
and orderly development of the coastal area; and,

WHEREAS, the stated goals of the Coastal Area Management Act
are:

(1) To preserve and manage the natural ecological
conditions of the estuarine system, the barrier dune system,
and the beaches, so as to safeguard and perpetuate their
natural productivity and their biological, economic and
aesthetic values;

211

(2) To insure that the development or preservation of
the land and water resources of the coastal area proceeds in
a manner consistent with the capability of the land and water0
for development, use, or preservation based on ecological
considerations;

(3) To insure the orderly and balanced use and preser-
vation of our coastal resources on behalf of the people of
North Carolina and the nation;

(4) To establish policies, guidelines and standards for:

(i) Protection, preservation, and conservation of
natural resources, including, but not limited to,
water use, scenic vistas, and fish and wildlife;
and management of transitional or intensely devel-
oped areas and areas especially suited to intensive
use or development, as well as areas of significant
natural value;
(ii) The economic development of the coastal area, in-
cluding, but not limited to, conservation, location
and design of industries, port facilities, com-
mercial establishments and other developments;
(iii) Recreation and tourist facilities and parklands;
(iv) Transportation and circulation patterns for the
coastal area, including major thoroughfares, trans-
portation routes, navigation channels and harbors,
and other utilities and facilities;0
(v) Preservation and enhancement of the historic,
cultural and scientific aspects of the coastal
area;
(vi) Protection of present common law and statutory
public rights in the lands and waters of the
coastal area;
(vii) Any other purposes deemed necessary or appropriate
to effectuate the policy of The Coastal Area
Management Act; and

WHEREAS, the Coastal Resources Commission shall be respon-
sible for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the State
guidelines for the coastal area, which shall consist of statements
of objectives, policies, and standards to be followed in public
and private use of land and water areas within the coastal area;
and

WHEREAS, all local land use plans adopted pursuant to The
Coastal Area Management Act within the coastal area shall be
consistent with the State guidelines; and

WHEREAS, any State land policies governing the acquisition,
use and disposition of land by State department and agencies shall
take account of and be consistent with guidelines adopted under
The Coastal Area Management Act, insofar as lands within the0
coastal area are concerned; and

212

WHEREAS, from and after the "permit changeover" date; all
existing regulatory permits within the coastal area shall be
administered in coordination and consultation with (but not
.subject to the veto of) the Coastal Resources Commission. No such
existing permits within the coastal area shall be issued,
modified, renewed or terminated except after consultation with the
Commission;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDTHAT:

Section 1. All State agencies shall take account of and be
consistent to the maximum extent possible with the coastal
policies, guidelines and standards contained in the State guide-
lines, with the local land use plans developed under the mandate
of The Coastal Area Management Act, and with the North Carolina
Coastal Plan prepared under the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 in all regulatory programs, use and disposition of
state-owned lands, financial assistance for public facilities, and
encouragement and location of major public and private
growth-inducing facilities.

Section 2. The Secretary of Natural Resources and Community
Development and the Coastal Resources Commission shall ensure the
opportunity for full participation by affected State agencies in
the development of policies and guidelines for the coastal area
prior to their adoption.

* ~~~~Section 3. All conflicts arising from the implementation of
this order within the Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development shall be resolved by the Secretary of that
Department, and all conflicts over consistency between the admin-
istering coastal management agency (Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development) and another department of
State government shall be resolved by the Governor.

Section 4. This Executive Order shall be effective immed-
iately.

The main purpose of the Executive Order is to insure that State
agencies conduct their regulatory and financial assistance
programs, as well as their proprietary programs, in a manner
consistent with coastal policies properly established in the State
Guidelines, CAMA local land use plans, and the Coastal Management
Plan, so long as these policies are consistent with the existing
statutory authority under which these programs operate. It should
be noted at this point that the State Guidelines are the authori-
tative statement of policy, and where the local plans and the
Guidelines conflict, the latter will control: similarly when
policies in the N. C. Coastal Management Plan and provisions of
the local land use plan conflict, the Coastal Management Plan
policies will control. The CRC will be responsible for inter-
preting the guidelines and resolving any such inconsistencies.
(See the discussion of state and federal consistency in Chapter
Six).

213

To insure that coastal policies are not developed without
benefit of the expertise and consideration of the opinions of
interested agencies, the Executive Order directs the Secretary of
DNRCD and the CRC to allow the opportunity for full participation
by all State agencies that would be affected by the policies under
consideration. Where agreement concerning consistency with
coastal management policies is not reached voluntarily, the Order
designates the Secretary of DNRCD to resolve conflicts within his
department, and the Governor to resolve conflicts between DNRCD
and other agencies.

The efficacy of executive orders divides itself into three
major issues:

(1) Authority of the Governor to issue orders; the scope of
the orders;
(2) Degree of enforceability of the orders;
(3) Capacity of DNRCD to monitor other projects.
(4) Enforceability by private individuals or groups.

(1) Authority Of The Governor To Issue Orders; The Scope Of
The Orders. Bernard Schwartz in A Commentary on the Constitution
of the United States notes that the President of the United States
constantly issues prescriptions in the form of proclamations,
orders and directives. Contrasted with the Presidential model,
the North Carolina procedure accepts only a limited number of
executive pronouncements. Yet, in theory and practice, the
executive orders of each body are nearly identical.
Accordingly, Am Jur 2d notes that "the executive power5S
is vested by the Cons-titution in the President." (Am Jur 2d, s
42). In Article III SI, the North Carolina Constitution provides
that "the executive power is vested by the Constitution in the
President." (Am Jur 2d, ss 42). In Article III, I the North
Carolina Constitution provides that "the executive power of the
State shall be vested in the Governor." 'Under both the U.S. and
N.C. Constitutions, the executive's power is Sto see that
"the laws are faithfully executed." (See Art. III, s 5(4) of N.C.
Constitution.) In the exercise of their executive powers, both
figures are accorded discretionary actions which are not subject
to judicial control except through impeachment. Where the power
of the executive has not been limited by legislation, his regula-
tions cannot be questioned or defined. (Am Jur 2d, ss 45-46).

In the exercise of the executive function vested in him by
the Constitution, the President of the United States may make
various proclamations and "executive orders which are regarded as
public acts of which all courts of the United States are bound to
5
take notice and to which they must give effect." (Am Jur 2d, s,
47) Executive orders are accorded the same presumptions as
statutes -- they -are presumed to have a "valid existence on the
day of their date, sand no inquiry should be permitted upon the
subject." (Am Jur s 47). Executive orders often vest "the power
to perform certain acts in the various administrative depart-

214

ments." In the interpretation of executive orders, it is "the
duty of a government department to adopt a construction that would
5
give the order validity." (Am Jur s 49) Executive orders which
seek to reorganize agencies for "the purpose of rendering those
agencies more eff ective, promoting economy and increasing effici-
ency of governmental operations and consolidating government
functions" are proper. The test of the executive function is that
it does not embark on the legislative function. The executive
order is marked by a lack of sanctions. (Schwartz, p. 76)

In North Carolina, the Governor has long relied on the afore-
mentioned provisions as authority to issue executive orders to
clarify, consolidate and otherwise insure execution of the laws.
The Governor's executive order power is only limited to the extent
that the order is executive, that it is not inconsistent with
existing law or the legislature's intent as expressed in those
laws. Research of case law in North Carolina reveals no cases
which clarify the basis and efficacy of an executive order. It
is, therefore, necessary to examine the scope of the presidential
orders. (This analogy is justified because (1) the State consti-
tution may not be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and (2)
the U.S. Constitution's "'granting clauses (as regards the
Executive) are nearly identical to the North Carolina Consti-
tution. Decisions by Federal courts have decided that
Presidential executive orders are valid and have the force of law
where they are based on sufficient statutory authority and where
they do not come in conflict with existing laws. (See Farmer v.
Philadelphia Electric C., 329 F. 2nd 3 (1965), cert. denied 424
U.S. 966.)

In the present case, North Carolina's governor has issued
Executive Order #15. *Like the Farmer order just mentioned, this
order is solidly based on existing statutory authority. As set
forth in the order itself, the CAMKA provides that ...

the Coastal Resources Commission shall be responsible for the
preparation, adoption and amendment of the State Guidelines
for the coastal area, which shall consist of statements of
objectives, policies, and standards to be followed in public
and private use of land and water areas within the coastal
area . . . [Furthermore,] all local land use plans adopted
pursuant to the CAMA within the coastal area shall be consis-
tent with the State Guidelines.

*Farmer involved enforcement by a third party against a
contractor of an anti-discrimination provision in a contract with
the U.S. Government. The agency had placed the provision in the
contract as a result of executive order. The court held the order
had legal force in that it was issued pursuant to the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 which authorized
the President to issue direction as he deemed necessary to
effectuate the Act.

215

The CAMA not only requires that the Guidelines and local land
use plans be consistent, but it also requires that state agency
activities be consistent with the Guidelines (hence, indirectly
with the local land use plans as well).

Any state land policies governing the acquisition, use and
disposition of land by State departments and agencies shall
take account of and be consistent with guidelines adopted
under the CAIIA, insofar as lands within the coastal area are
concerned . . . [Furthermore,] from and after "permit
changeover" date, all existing regulatory permits within the
coastal area shall be administered in coordination and con-
sultation with (but not subject to the veto of) the Coastal
Resources Commission. No existing permits within the coastal
area shall be issued, modified, renewed or terminated except
after consultation with the Commission.

With the exception that final decisions concerning regulatory
permits remain solely in the authority of the administering
agency, it is the clear intent of the legislature that state
agency activities be required to be consistent with coastal
policies. The broad framework for such policies are explicitly
set forth in the CAMA and the Executive Order. Additional
statutory foundation for the policies set forth in the Governor's
Executive Order may be found in the "Environmental Bill of Rights"
of the N. C. Constitution and the State Environmental Policy Act
(N.C. G.S. 113A-1.)

The first requirement (in light of Farmer and Am Jur explica-
tion concerning executive orders) which demands that there be a
statutory basis for the order appears to be amply satisfied. The
second requirement which requires that the order not conflict with
other state laws revolves about a fair interpretation of the
language in the order. The order demands that

. all agencies shall take account of and be consistent to
the maximum extent possible (emphasis mine) with the
coastal guidelines and standards contained in the State
Guidelines, and (be consistent) with the local land use
plans developed under the mandate of the Coastal Area
Management Act and with the N. C. Coastal Management
Plan prepared under the FCZMA of 1972 in all regulatory
programs, use and disposition of state owned lands,
financial assistance for public facilities, and encour-
agement and location of major public and private growth
inducing facilities.

The key words "consistent to the maximum extent possible"
mean to the extent that such coastal policies are not inconsistent
with existing legislation.

The order also establishes a mediation process for deter-
mining and resolving inconsistencies with the existing law. When
the existing law is administered within DNRCD (as is the case with

216

the majority of important environmental laws), the Secretary of
the DNRCD is the mediator. When other departments are concerned,
the Governor or his staff will make the decisions. The executive
order establishes a procedural framework to protect itself against
inconsistencies which might render the order invalid or unenforce-
able (on a case by case basis).

(2) Degree Of Enforceability Of The Orders. Related to the
issue of general efficacy of executive orders is the concern that
even if the order is legal and binding, its impact can not reach
beyond the departments immediately and completely under the
Governor's control. The Governor has the ability to significantly
affect the actions of Commissions and Departments that are largely
regarded as "independent" of the executive. This ability to color
action rests upon his inchoate powers as an executive and his
duties in carrying out the laws of the state as well as his power
to appoint commission members.

As we mentioned in the prior section, the Governor is
designated chief executive in the Constitution. As chief
executive, he posseses inherent administrative powers over all
agencies executing the laws. All Departments and Commissions have
as their sole function the execution and administration of the
laws. They are subject to the same legal constraints in admini-
stering those laws as are agencies under appointed cabinet
members. Furthermore, even employees of Departments with elected
heads are subject to the State Personnel Act. All Commissions
rely on State Departments for staff services.

The major commissions affecting environmental quality in the
state are listed in the following chart. In each instance, the
department supplying staff has been listed, the number of members
on the commission, their term of office and the person by whom
they are appointed have been noted. The chart furthermore out-
lines the Governor's power to remove for failure to execute the
laws of the State and other reasons and his ability to fill
vacancies.

CHART 6. Major Commissions Affecting Environmental Quality
In North Carolina

Power Governor's Governor's Governors
to Power to Power Power
Terms Appointed Appoint Appoint to Remove To fill
Commission Dept. #Members (Yrs.) By Governor Chairman Replacements For Cause Vacancies

Environmental DN1RCD 13 6 13 No Yes Yes Yes
Management
Commission

N. C. Mining DNRCD 9 6 9 No Yes Yes Yes
Commission

Sedimentation Con-
trol Commission DNRCD 11 4 7 Yes Yes Yes Yes

North Carolina DC 7 8 7 Yes Yes No Yes
Utilities
Commission

Marine Fisheries
Commission DNRCD 15 6 15 ? Yes Yes* Yes

Health Services
Commission DHR 11 4 7 ? Yes Yes Yes**

N.C. Wildlife
Resources
Commission DNRCD 9 6 9 ? Yes Yes Yes

* Unlimited

** Limited to his own appointments

218

Although North Carolina expressed a preference to appoint
independent commissions to handle special statewide problems, the0
legislature has seen fit to extend substantial control to the
executive concerning the actions of the commissions. Typically,
executive control takes the form of a power of appointment over
all or a majority of the members of the commission. In all the
above commissions except SCC and Health Services, the governor
appoints all members. In situations where the appointment is
limited, the limitation is typically expressed in terms of a
"knowledge of" a particular field, such as ecology. Although many
of the commissioners' terms of office will often exceed that of
the governor appointing him, the executive typically has the power
. to fill more than a majority of all seats on any commission
(exception for Utilities Commission, only 50%). Control through
the appointment process extends to such collateral matters as the
power to fill vacancies and name replacements. Furthermore, the
Governor retains the power to remove all commission members for
cause. Under the Executive Organization Act of 1973 (see N.C.G.S.
143B-13) cause sufficient for removal is described by the language
"misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance." Although we are not
aware of any cases interpreting the breadth of this language, we
believe that the failure to execute the laws of the State come
within the scope of this language.

In addition to selecting the members of the Commission, the
Governor has, in some instances, the power to designate the
chairman of the Commission. The chairman's position is extremely
important in some of the busier commissions, such as the Utility0
Commission. In this Commission, the chairman, whom the Governor
selects to serve for a four-year term concurrent with himself,
determines which matters will be heard by the full Commission,
which by subcommittees and which by particular members. The
chairman furthermore has the power to initiate investigations.

In all, the Governor posseses the potential to exert consid-
erable control over all agencies and departments in the government
where the matter at issue involves the execution of the laws of
the state.

(3) Capacity Of DNRCD To Monitor Other Projects. The final
issue is whether the Coastal Management Agency or DNRCD or its
delegee has the capacity to monitor activities of other agencies
and to take remedial action where it is necessary? The CRC has a
statutory mandate to review important permit decision of other
agencies. "From and after 'permit changeover date' all existing
regulatory permits within the coastal area shall be administered
in coordination and consultation with... the Commission. No such
existing permit within the coastal area shall be issued, modified,
renewed or terminated except after consultation with the Commis-
s ion. "N.C.G.S. 113A-125(g). Permit coordination and consulta-
tion will be accomplished by having copies of all permit decisions
sent to the CRC (Office of Coastal Management) for review. These
permits are listed in Chart 7.0

CHART 7: Permits to be Renewed by the
N. C. Coastal Resources Commission

PERMITS CHAPTERS/ARTICLES

Dredge and Fill Permits G.S. 113-229
Sand Dune Permits G.S. 104B-4
Air Pollution Control Permits G.S. 143-214.1
Water Pollution Control Permits G.S. 143-215.1
Board of Water and Air Resources Permits Chapter 143
Capacity Use Area Permits G.S. 143-215.30
Floodway Permits G.S. 143-215.54
Water Diversion Authorizations G.S. 143-354(c)
Oil Refinery Permits G.S. 143-215.99
Mining Operating Permits G.S. 74-51
Permissions for Construction of Wells G.S. 87-88
Restricted-Use Pesticide Permits G.S. 143-440(b)
Pesticide Applicator Licenses G.S. 143-452
Water Supply, Drainage or Sewerage Approvals G.S. 130-161.lf.
Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Ch. 130, Article 13B
Sanitation of Shellfish, Crustacea or Scallpops Permits Ch. 130, Articles 14A or 14B
Mosquito Control Permits Ch. 130, Article 23
Septic Tanks or Water Well Permits G.S. 113-391
Oil or Gas Well Regulations and Orders G.S. 113-391
A Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Chapter 62
for any Public Utility Plant or System
Erosion Control Plans G.S. 113A-60f.

220

The CRC is also authorized by statute to review state
activities concerning acquisition, use and disposition of land.
N. C. G.S. 113A-108. This review process will be accomplished by
monitoring all projects going through A-95 review, DNRCD Office of
Plans and Programs and Environmental Impact Statements. If the
Office of Coastal Management should, upon review, disagree with
any agency actions, the remedial action is to activate the media-
tion process explained earlier.

(4) Enforceability by private individuals or groups because
of the constitutional basis for both types of executive orders, it
seems that North Carolina Executive Order #15 can be enforced by
interested members of the public to the same extent as Federal
executive orders.

CRC Guidelines and Local Planning

The CAMA establishes a joint planning effort between the
State and the local governments in North Carolina's coastal zone.
The Act requires that a land use plan be developed for all
localities. This plan must be consistent with State Guidelines
for land use and resource planning developed by the CRC. Section
113A-107(a) of the CAIMA provides that the CRC may adopt State
guidelines for the coastal area which

"shall consist of statements of objectives, policies, and
standards to be followed in public and private use of land
and water areas within the coastal area. Such guidelines0
shall be consistent with the goals of the Coastal Area
Management System as set forth in G.S. 113A-102."

Therefore the policies set forth by the CRC in the Guidelines
will be reflected in the local land use plans. Particular atten-
tion should be given to the provision of Section 113A-102(b)(4)(i)
through (vii) which provide guidance as to which concerns the
guidelines should address. The Commission is therein authorized to
establish policies, guidelines, and standards for:

(i) Protection, preservation, and conservation of
natural resources including but not limited to
water use, scenic vistas, and fish and wildlife;
and management of transitional or intensely
developed areas and areas especially suited to
intensive use of development, as well as areas of
significant natural value;
(ii) The economic development of the coastal area,
including but not limited to construction, location
and design of industries, port facilities,
commercial establishments and other developments.
(iii) Recreation and tourist facilities and parklands;
(iv) Transportation and circulation patterns for the
coastal area including major thoroughfares,
transportation routes, navigation channels and0
harbors, and other public utilities and facilities;

221

(v Preservation and enhancement of the historic,
cultural, and scientific aspects of the coastal
is ~~~~~~~area;
(vi) Protection of present common law and statutory
public rights in the lands and waters of the
coastal area;
(vii) Any other purposes deemed necessary or appropriate
to effectuate the policy of this Article.

Section 113A-1O8 also provides that "any State land classi-
fication system which shall be promulgated shall take account of
and be consistent with the State guidelines adopted under this
Article, insofar as it applies to lands within the coastal area."
It is obviously also very problematic to determine what effect the
adoption of broad policy guidelines by the CRC would have on any
future state land classification system.

The State Guidelines require that every local land use plan
include a land classification system and set forth the policies
for that system. Briefly, the North Carolina land classification
system contains five classes of land. These five classes provide
a framework to be used by local governments to identify the
general use of all lands in each county. Such a system presents
an opportunity for the local government to provide for its needs
as well as to consider those of the whole state. This system also
allows local governments to make a statement of policy regarding
the location and density of growth and to conserve the county's
natural resources by guiding growth. (More detail concerning the
five classes of land and the policies for their use may be found
in Chapter Two, Part D of the Guidelines. See Appendix C.)

As a statement of local policy consistent with statewide
needs and goals, the county land classification map will serve as
a basic tool for coordinating numerous policies, standards, regu-
lations, and other governmental activities at the local, state,
and federal level. Such coordination may be achieved by the
following methods:

- The land classification system encourages coordination and
consistency between local land use policies and those of state
government. Lands are classified by the local governments. The
CRC reviews those classifications to ensure conformance with
minimum guidelines for the system. The coastal county maps taken
together will be the principal policy guide for governmental
decisions and activities which effect land uses in the coastal
area.

-The system provides a guide for public investment in
land. For example, state and local agencies can anticipate the
need for early acquisition of lands and easements in the transi-
tion class for schools, recreation, transportation, and other
* ~~~public facilities.

222

-The system can also provide a useful framework for bud-
geting and planning for the construction of community facilities
such as water and sewer systems, schools, and roads. The
resources of many state and federal agencies, as well as those of
the local government which are used for such facilities can then
be more efficiently allocated.

- In addition, such a system will aid in better coordination
of regulatory policies and decisions. Conservation and rural
lands will help to focus the attention of state and local agencies
and interests concerned with the valuable natural resources of the
state. On the other hand, lands in the Transition and Community
classes will be of special concern to those agencies and interests
who work for high quality development through local land use
controls such as zoning and subdivision regulations.

-Finally, the system can help to provide guidance for a
more equitable distribution of the land tax burden. Private lands
which are in the Rural and Conservation classes should have low
taxes to reflect the policy that few, if any, public services will
be provided for these lands. In contrast, lands in the transition
class should be taxed to pay for the cost of new public services
required to support anticipated growth.

Enforcement of Local Plans

As mentioned above, the local land-use planning process,
particularly land classification, is a tool for helping ensure0
that uses outside of AECs are consistent with state policies. The
local plans are required to be consistent with the State Guide-
lines, which in turn incorporate or are consistent with state
coastal management policies. This is, from the state level view-
point, an admittedly imprecise networking tool because the State
does not have authority to directly enforce the plans outside of
AECs where no critical uses or state agency actions subject to the
Executive Order are involved. Nevertheless, the CRC does have the
following statutory authority to review local enforcement
mechanisms for consistency with the local plans:

"All local ordinances and other regulations affecting a
county within the coastal area, but not affecting an area of
environmental concern, shall be reviewed by the Commission
for consistency with the applicable county and city land use
plans and, if the Commission finds any such ordinance or
regulation to be inconsistent with the applicable land use
plan, it shall transmit recommendations for modification to
the adopting local government." (G.S. 113A-1l1)

As the statutory language indicates, this authority is of
advisory nature and does not authorize the CRC to change local
ordinances and regulations outside of AECs. However, it must be
remembered that North Carolina's coastal management program is a
delicate balance of the proper roles and responsibilities for both0
state and local governments. It should also be pointed out that

223

this system of shared responsibilities is just beginning to
function with regard to coastal resources. Positive management
tools must be encouraged as a complement to regulatory powers, for
it is only through exercising both positive as well as negative
authority that the state can make long-term progress in the
management of its coastal resources. The local planning and land
classification system is such a positive tool for guiding growth
and its impact on resources. Fifty of the 52 coastal localities
have drawn up plans and are committed to carrying out future
activities in conformance waith these plans. The CRC is continuing
to work with local governments in formulating local implementation
and enforcement programs that are consistent with state policies
not only as they affect AECs, but also as they affect critical
activities or areas which are not designated AECs but which do
have the potential to directly and significantly affect coastal
waters.

Furthermore, implementation of land use plans is the respon-
sibility of the local government. The plans themselves serving as
the expression of the citizens' desires, will be utilized to guide
state and federal agency activities through the project review and
consistency determination process (see Chapter Six). Ths process
will lend efficacy to the local plans.

It is also worth reemphasizing that North Carolina is relying
not on the local planning process but rather on a composite of
state management programs and authorities mentioned earlier in
0 ~ ~~this Chapter for enforceable management of uses outside of AECs
that may directly and significantly affect coastal waters. The
local planning program is seen as laying a foundation for better
local land use and resource management that will be critical to
the long-range success of any program for such a large coastal
zone as North Carolina's.

225

CHAPTER SIX PROCESSES FOR ONGOING MANAGEMENT

Introduction

North Carolina's coastal management system, to be effective,
must be dynamic and responsive to emerging coastal problems.
Without this flexibility, the machinery for coastal management
will be shortly antiquated. This chapter describes the major
provisions of the North Carolina coastal zone management program
that have been devised to keep coastal management current and
relevant.

Policy Development

Because coastal management issues change continuously as the
competition for limited coastal resources increases, it is unrea-
sonable to expect that coastal problems will remain static. The
development of the coast will result in the emergence of new
problems and the re-evaluation of existing resource issues. As
these changes occur, North Carolina's coastal management system,
to be successful, must be prepared to respond. A response that is
particularly necessary, is the development of coastal policies
that establish positions and attempt to implement solutions to
coastal problems.

Amendment of the State Guidelines -
An Authority and Forum for Policy Expression

As has been emphasized elsewhere in this document, the State
Guidelines developed by the CRC pursuant to CAIIA are a primary
vehicle for setting and implementing state policy for land and
water uses in North Carolina's coastal zone. CAMA emphasizes this
policy-making responsibility in describing the Guidelines as:

"'statements of objectives, policies, and standards to be
followed in public and private use of land and water areas
within the coastal area. Such guidelines shall be consistent
with the goals of the coastal area management system as set
forth in G.S. 113A-102.

They shall give particular attention to the nature of devel-
opment which shall be appropriate within the various types of
areas of environmental concern that may be designated by the
Commission under Part 3. Such guidelines shall be adopted,
and may be amended from time to time, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in this section.

Is ~~~The Commission shall be responsible for the preparation,
adoption, and amendment of the State guidelines. In

226

exercising this function, it shall be furnished such staff
assistance as it requires by the Secretary of Natural
Resources and Community Development and the Secretary of the
Department of Administration, together with such incidental
assistance as may be requested of any other state department
or agency."

"The Commission may, from time to time, amend the State
Guidelines as it deems necessary. In addition, it shall
review such guidelines each five years after the effective
date of this Article in accordance with the procedures for
adoption of the original guidelines, to determine whether
further amendments are desirable. Any proposed amendments
shall be submitted to all cities, counties, members of the
General Assembly and lead regional organizations in the
coastal area, and may be distributed to such other agencies
and individuals as the Commission deems appropriate. All
comments and recommendations of such governments, agencies,
and individuals shall be submitted to the Commission in
writing within 30 days of receipt of the proposed amendments.
The Commission shall review and consider these written
comments and thereupon may by rule reject or adopt the
proposed amendments or modify and adopt the amendments.
Certified copies of all amendments shall be filed with the
Secretary of State and the Principal Clerks of the Senate and
House. Amendments shall thereupon be mailed to each city,__
county, members of the General Assembly and lead regional
organizations in the coastal area-and to such other agencies
and individuals as the Commission deems appropriate. Copies
shall be made available to the public through the Department
of Administration."

Thus, the Legislature has clearly given the CRC
authority for continuing development of North Carolina's
coastal policies, an authority the CRC can exercise at any
time new policies are deemed necessary to improve this
state's coastal management program.

A Process For Coastal Policy Development

The process envisioned for actual development of State policy
statements to be incorporated into the State Guidelines and the
State management plan emphasizes full participation of all levels
of government. A closer working relationship among local, state
and federal agencies than has existed proviously was a primary
concern in designing our system for policy development.

The process is activated when a policy void is identified by
any of the governmental or private sectors involved in coastal
resource management. Subjects for policy development will be
prioritized in order to focus the energies of the state on the
most pressing coastal management issues. The high priority
subjects will be selected by the CRC and the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development for investigation. A "Policy

227

Task Force" will be created consisting of Coastal Resource
Commissioners and Advisory Council members. Specialists from
appropriate state, local, and federal agencies will be brought
together to assist the Task Force in understanding the programs,
services, policies, and capabilities of government. The technical
staff will attempt to gather all the facts associated with a
policy matter needed to educate the Policy Task Force and will be
responsible for making policy recommendations. The Policy Task
Force will, following their investigation of the existing situa-
tion, recommend to the Coastal Resource Commission a policy
position. The substance of this policy proposal will be dis-
tributed to all affected state and federal agencies and to coastal
citizens and governmental units as outlined in Section 113-107 and
a public hearing will be held prior to policy adoption.

Following the consideration of comments received through
public hearings, the Coastal Resources Commission will make
whatever changes are appropriate to the State Guidelines. The
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development will
make the necessary changes in the coastal management plan. Then,
the appropriate changes will be forwarded to the affected local,
state or federal agencies.

Through this procedure, the state will for the first time, be
in a position to develop a clear and comprehensive set of coastal
policies. Offering meaningful participation in policy development
to affected parties and incorporating a process for change and
updating the outlined policy development procedure is viewed as a
significant improvement over the existing situation.

The effectiveness of our policy development approach in the
final analysis will be judged by the success of the implementation
of policy. The consistency of Federal and State actions with
state policy and the incorporation of policy into local planning
are considered essential to policy implementation. Each is a
subject discussed in the later parts of this chapter.

Land Use Planning

Updating and Implementing Local Plans

As mentioned in earlier sections of this plan, the Act states
that the Commission "may from time to time amend the State
Guidelines as it deems necessary. In addition, it shall review
such guidelines each five years after the effective date of this
Article". Furthermore, the CRC has required in the Guidelines
that "the local land classification maps must be updated every
five years". The CRC therefore, will establish a procedure for
reviewing the local plans for consistency with any major changes
in the Guidelines. The exact process for such review has not yet
been determined, but it is likely that submission of local plans
or the pertinent parts therein for updating will be required at
the end of the five year period and then only if the amendments
are substantial. The CRC will then review the local plans and

228

approve or comment on the consistency of the plan with the
Guideline changes. At the same time, the updated local land
classification plans will be reviewed for consistency with any
Guideline changes, requirements, or new policies properly estab-
lished by the CRC.

Local governments, and not the CRC. are directly responsible
for implementing the local plans. However, the following passages
from CAIMA indicate the Legislature' s intent that the CRC should
monitor and assist local implementation.

"No local ordinance or other local regulation shall be
adopted which, within an area of environmental concern, is
inconsistent with the land use plan of the county or city in
which it is effective; and existing local ordinances and
regulations within areas of environmental concern shall be
reviewed in light of the applicable local land use plan and
modified as may be necessary to make them. consistent
therewith. All local ordinances and other local regulations
affecting a county within the coastal area, but not affecting
an area of environmental concern, shall be reviewed by the
Commission for consistency with the applicable county and
city land use plans and, if the Commission finds any such
ordinance or regulation to be inconsistent with the
applicable land use plan, it shall transmit recommendations
for modification to the adopting local government." (G.S.
113A-111)

The CRC intends to continue working with local governments to
better effect good coastal management techniques. For example,
the CRC has stated in the State Guidelines the policy that the
local land classification map "will serve as a basic tool for
coordinating numerous policies, standards, regulations, and other
governmental activities at the local, state and federal
level... .The (land classification) system provides a guide for
public investment in land... .The system can also provide a useful
framework for budgeting and planning for the construction of com-
munity facilities such as water and sewer systems, schools, and
roads ... In addition, such a system will aid in better coordina-
tion of regulatory policies and decisions... .Finally, the system
can help provide guidance for a more eqitable distribution of the
land tax burden."

It is the intention of the CRC to provide the greatest
possible technical and funding asssitance to localities to develop
better techniques for implementing the above planning and manage-
ment concepts. Particular emphasis will be placed on techniques
that have potential to positively affect coastal waters or other
critical coastal resources or uses.

Land Use Plan Amendment

The CAMA establishes the following procedural requirement for
all land use plan amendements:

229

The land use plan may be amended only after a properly
held public hearing. Notice of the public hearing must
appear at least 30 days prior to the public hearing and must
state the date, time, place, proposed action, and that copies
of the amendment may be viewed at a particular office in the
county courthouse during the designated hours. The notice
must appear at least once in a newspaper of general circula-
tion in the county." (112A-110(e))

The CRC will be notified of and given the opportunity to
review all substantial local amendments. However, it is imprac-
tical and unnecessary to review minor or technical amendments.
Therefore, when the governmental unit amending the land use plan
deems the amendment sufficiently insubstantial, it may request a
waiver of the formal amendment procedure when giving notice to the
Executive Secretary. The Executive Secretary shall make such
determination in accordance with specific CRC standards and policy
and promptly post written notification to the local government.

As has been emphasized elsewhere in this document, the local
land use plans are an important aspect of North Carolina's manage-
ment plan. These plans represent a joint effort by the State and
the localities to promote wise planning in the coastal area.
These plans are required to be consistent with the State Guide-
lines to ensure that they reflect good planning techniques and are
compatible with general state policies for the coastal area.
Section 110(d) of CAMA provides that the land use plan may be
amended as a whole by a single resolution or in parts by suc-
cessive resolutions. The successive resolutions may address
geographical sections, county divisions, or functional units of
subject matter.

Once a proposed amendment is determined to be substantial,
the following process will be followed. The Executive Secretary
will receive written notice of the public hearing, a copy of the
proposed amendment, and the rationale for amendments 30 days prior
to the public hearing. When notice of a public hearing is
received, the staff will review the proposed amendment and forward
such comments along with the proposed amendment to Commissioners
from that area. After comment by such Commissioners, staff may
modify the original comments to reflect Commission concerns and
respond to the local government noting any reservations, sugges-
tions, or general consistency. The Commission or CRAC representa-
tive from the area may appear at the public hearing to express
certain concerns. The Commission will then determine whether the
finally proposed amendment is consistent with the Guidelines and
notify the locality of the decision. When a local plan is
amended, all principally affected state and federal agencies will
receive notice of the substance of the modificiation.

230

Coordination with Federal and State Programs

Coordination with and cooperation between North Carolina's Is
coastal management program and the various other federal and state
agencies is critical to our success. Without coordination, the
coastal management objectives of the State will be unobtainable.
Fortunately, both the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and
North Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act recognized the
necessity of coordination and consistency among governmental
actions and provided adequate provisions and authorities to accom-
plish this objective.

Furthermore, throughout the early development of the program,
North Carolina has recognized the need for full participation by
other governmental agencies if coastal management goals are to be
achieved. Chapter Two outlines the communications initiated by
the State, as well as the opportunities afforded to the general
public, local governments, and state and federal agencies, during
program development. As has been the case throughout the pro-
gram's development, North Carolina will continue to stress full
participation of interested parties in the development and imple-
mentation of our system of coastal management.

Federal Consistency

THE BASIS

The FCZI4A represents a unique opportunity for coastal states i
to demonstrate their capabilities and willingness to manage
:responsibly their coastal land and water resources. Federal
consistency provisions in the CZMA are the best evidence of the
extent of the opportunity. Section 307(C), (D), (E) and (F)
provide that: (paraphrased)

(1) Federal activities and development projects signi-
ficantly affecting the coastal zone shall be conducted
consistent with the approved management program to the
maximum extent practicable;

(2) No license or permit shall be granted by a Federal
agency until the State or its designated agency has
concurred with the applicant's certification or until by
the State's failure to act, the concurrency is conclu-
sively presumed;

*OCS Plan - The term `OCS Plan" means any plan for the exploration
or development of, production from, any area which has been leased
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 USC See. 1351 et
seq.).

231

(3) No Federal agency shall grant a license or permit for
any activity described in detail in the OCS* (Outer
Continental Shelf) plans and that significantly affects
any land or water use in the coastal zone until the
State concurs with the certification of consistency made
by the person submitting the OCS plan;

(4) Federal agencies shall not approve proposed assistance
projects to State and local governments that signi-
ficantly affect the coast zone and are inconsistent with
a coastal state's management program.

Section 307 of the Act contains these and other provisions
that assure the states that Federal grant programs, licenses and
permits, and Federal development projects in the coastal zone will
be consistent with the State's approved management programs. In
addition, Section 307(c)(3)(A), 307 (c)(3)(B) and 307 (d) provide
that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce may find
that a Federal license or permit activity (including OCS permit
activity and/or Federal assistance activity), which is inconsis-
tent with a State's management program, may be approved because it
is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the FCZMA or
because it is in the interest of National Security.

The FCZMA, and in particular the Federal consistency provi-
sions of that Act, provide the State of North Carolina with the
opportunity to achieve the State's coastal management objectives.
Full consideration of the state's policies and concerns prior to
the initiation of significant Federal actions should accrue
substantial benefits to North Carolina through enhanced consul-
tatin and coordination early in the Federal decision-making
process.

CRITERIA FOR FEDERAL CONSISTENCY

In judging the consistency of Federal actions with the
objectives of an approved coastal management program, it is
imperative that a definitive listing of the State's policies be
available. The foundation of effective Federal consistency is a
clear declaration of the State's policies and positions regarding
coastal resources. Policies in North Carolina's management
program are derived from four sources:

(1) Areas of environmental concern policies and standards
(Chapter Five and Appendix B);

(2) Local land use plans (discussed in Chapter Two, synopses
available through OCZM);

(3) Present and future statements of policy contained in the
State Guidelines (Chapter Six, Appendix B);

(4) The policies contained in the FEIS as developed by
relevant state agencies (Chapter Three and Appendix C).

232

AEC policies and permit standardes are in most instances
explicit enough to allow a Federal agency satisfactory guidance on
consistency. Statements of policies contained now or in the
future in the "State Guidelines" should be addressed specifically
in the consistency determination made by Federal agencies.
Coastal Management Program policies developed in conjunction with
relevant State agencies, and stated in the management plan, will
be considered in the analysis of consistency of Federal actions
with coastal management objectives. As the program continues to
be refined, additional policies may be necessary. Where policies
are added to the management plan, the policy development procedure
outlined in Chapter 6 will be followed and in conformance with the
FCZMA Rules and Regulations.

Finally, local land use plans (LUPs) provide a statement of
local goals and the proposed pattern of growth (land classi-
fication). These plans have been based on State Guidelines and
have been approved by the State. The use of local LUPs has been
clarified to reflect that the local LUPs are binding on both State
and Federal agency decision-making that involve: 1) critical uses
and, 2) public investment expenditures.

(1) The State has identified certain critical uses that are
of State interest. Management and regulation of such
State-level intersts will be made in accord with local
LUPs, except where in conflict with State coastal
policies. Federal actions involving these critical uses
will also have to be in accord with LUPs except when in
conflict with State coatal policy. (When State policies
and LUPs conflict, State policies will prevail.)

(2) Public infra-structure investment decisions involving
both State and Federal agency participation should be
made in accord with the LUPs. Situations in which
Federal agencies would be expected to be consistent with
the local land use plans are those in which State or
local monies are use to match Federal funds. Those
Federal agency public infra-structure investment
decisions, which would normally involve a State-level
action (e.g., Federally funded sewer lines, Federally
funded water lines, major highways, etc.), but which may
in a particular case be proposed without direct State
action or funding are also subject to Federal consis-
tency procedures and must be in accord with local LUPs
except where the LUPs are in conflict with State
policies.

The use of local land use plans in the consistency deter-
mination process is restricted to the established planning juris-
diction articulated in each plan. As such, consistency with local
plans would not apply to OCS activities, but would apply to
activities and development within the established planning juris-
diction of the local government.

233

EVAUATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

0 ~~~~The State Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development's Office of Coastal Management will serve as the
single designated State agency for consistency pursuant to Secton
306(c)(5) requirements. Where local governments have minor
development permitting responsibilities in AECs, the issuance of
the local permit will precede issuance of a consistency determina-
tion by DNRCD's Office of Coastal Management.

On occasion, if projects are determined to be inconsistent
with coastal management policies of the State, the Federal
.agencies might request the opportunity to mediate with the State.
Mediation would be available through the Secretary of DNRCD.

Since the consistency decision of the Secretary of DNRCD
establishes a State position, the determination of Federal Consis-
tency may be challenged by State agencies within or outside the
Department. On these occasions, the same conflict resolution
process would be followed as is outlined in the Executive Order
(Chapter Five). If the agency involved was another Department,
the conflict would be resolved by th Governor, while, if the State
agency was within the Department, the Secretary of DNRCD would
clearly decide the issue.-

In the event that serious disagreemtns arise between the
State and a Federal agency that cannot be resolved by the Federal
agency and the State, then a mediation and resolution mechanism is
available as provided in the CZMA (Sections 307(b)(1) and (b)(2)
and proposed regulations adopted pursuant to the Act (15 CFR
Sections 930.44 and Subpart G).

FEDERAL ACTIONS, SPONSORED ACTIVITIES, ASSISTACE TO STATE
AND) LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PERMITS OF INTEREST TO THE STATE

In order to discuss the substance of Federal consistency
determination, it is necessary to understand what Federal Actions
are of interest to North Carolina. The following is offered as a
preliminary list of those Federal actions. These lists have been
altered since the DEIS in response to Federal agency comments.
Future adjustments in the list are anticipted as Federal agencies
continue their consultation with the State.

FEDERAL LICENSES AND PERMITS

Federal licenses and permits affecting the State's coastal
zone will be subject to certification by the North Carolina DNRCD.
The following Federal licenses and permits have been identified
for review by the State for consistency:

234

Federal Licenses and Permits

Agency Licenses and Permits

Army Corps of Engineers -Permits required under Sections
Department of Defense 9 & 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899

-Permits required under Section
103 of Marine Protection,
Research & Sanctuaries Act
of 1972

-Permits required under Section
404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972

Coast Guard -Permits for bridges, cause-
Department of Transportation ways, pipelines over navigable
waters required under the
General Bridge Act of 1946;
Rivers and Harbors Act of 18943,
1899 and 1906; 33 CFR 114,
115, 117
-"Deep-water ports" permits

Department of Interior -Permits required for off-shore
Geological Survey drilling
Bureau of Land Management
-Approval of OCS pipeline
corridor rights-of-way

Nuclear Regulatory Commission -Licenses for siting, con-
struction and operation of
nuclear power plants, re-
quired under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, and Title
II of the Energy Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1974

Federal Energy Regulatory -Permits for construction,
Commission operation and mantenance of
interstate pipelines facilities
required under the Natural Gas
Act of 19380

235

-Permission required for aban-
donmient of natural gas pipe-
S ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~lines and associated facilities
under Section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act of 1938

-Licenses for construction and
operation of non-Federal
hydroelectric projects and
associated transmission lines
under-Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act of 1938

Economic Regulatory -Permits for construction and
Administration (DOE) operation of facilities needed
to import or export natural gas

An applicant for a Federal license or permit is responsible
for supplying a consistency determination to the Federal agency
before the Federal license or permit can be granted. (It should
be noted that the applicant will still apply directly to the
Federal agency for the required Federal permit.)

When an application is made for a Federal license or permit,
the North Carolina Office of Coastal Management should be notified
S ~ ~~in writing. This notification should include all corresponding
material needed for a State consistency determination to be made
on the application. Any necessary State permit required will have
to be obtained prior to a State consistency determination being
made by DNRCD's Office of Coastal Management. Once a State
consistency determination has been made, the application will
supply this to the Federal agency in order to complete his appli-
cation for the Federal license or permit.

In those cases where a major development AEC permit is
required in addition to the Federal license or permit, the
issuance of the AEC major development permit will serve as the
State's consistency certification as well. In those cases where a
minor development AEC permit is required, the issuance of this
permit by a local government will not serve as the State's consis-
tency determination.

The DNRCD's Office of Coastal Management retains the respon-
sibility for issueing consistency determinations for activities
requiring minor development AEC or other State permits.

DIRECT FEDERAL ACTIVITY

The following Federal activities will be reviewed by the
5 ~~~State coastal management program for consistency:

236

o All actions occurring within or adjacent to areas of
environmental concern (AECs occur within the coastal
zone) .

o All purchases, sales or leases of Federal real property
above 20 acres in size (within the coastal zone).

o Constructin of major facilities (20 acres disturbed or
60,000 square feet) significantly affecting the coastal
zone.

o Federal development projects occurring in or signi-
ficantly affecting the coastal zone (e.g., Erosion
Control, Flood Control ad Navigation Projects).

o All actions of regional or interstate significance.

o Activities on Federal property that result in signi-
ficant impacts on the coastal zone.~'1

Federal agencies are required to provide a consistency deter-
mination to the DNRCD stating whether or not the proposed Federal
activity is consistent with the State's coastal management plan to
the maximum extent practicable. Notice of direct Federal
activities, including development projects significantly affecting
the coastal zone, must be provided to the State by the Federal
agency proposing the action 90 days before final approval of the
Federal action. Federal agencies may use the State A-95 clearing-
house f or this notification. A review period of 90 days will
follow, starting from receipt of the notice by the State clearing-
house, resulting in one of the following actions:

o concurrence with the Federal agency determination
o disagreement with the determination;
o no response--presumed concurrence.

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMHENTS

The following is a list of Federal assistance activities
which the State will use for consistency purposes. As with those
direct Federal activities and licenses and permits previously
listed, Noth Carolina welcomes the opportunity to refine this list
through our continuing consultation with Federal agencies.

*Projects with probable significant impact should be identified
through criteria arrived at by the State and Federal agency
mutually in the process of consultation.

237

Federal Assistance to State and Local
Governments

Citation from
1975 Catalog of Department
Federal Domestic or
Assistance Agency Title of Program

10.409 Dept. of Agriculture Irrigation, Drainage, and Other
Soil and Water Conservation
Loans (Exceptions: Loans to
grazing associations to develop
additional pasturage and loans
for purchase of equipment)
10.414 Dept. of Agriculture Resource Conservation and Develop-
ment Loans
10.415 Dept. of Agriculture Rural Rental Housing Loans
10.418 Dept. of Agriculture Water and Waste Disposal Systems
for Rural Communities
10.419 Dept. of Agriculture Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Loans
10.422 Dept. of Agriculture Business and Industrial Develop-
ment Loans (Exception: Loans to
rural small businesses having no
significant impact outside com-
munity in which located)
10.423 Dept. of Agriculture Community Facilities Loans
10.424 Dept. of Agriculture Industrial Development Grants
10.901 Dept. of Agriculture Resources Conservation and Develop-
ment (Exception: small projects
costing under $7500 for erosion and
sediment control and land stabiliza-
tion and for rehabilitation and con-
solidation of existing irrigation
systems)
10.904 Dept. of Agriculture Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention
11.300 Dept. of Commerce Economic Development - Grants
and Loans for Public Works and
Development Facilities
11.310 Dept. of Commerce Local Public Works Capital De-
velopment and Investment Act of
1976 Projects
11.407 Dept.. of Commerce Commercial Fisheries Research
Development

238

Citation from
1975 Catalog of Department
Federal Domestic or
Assistance Agency Title of Program

13.408 Dept. of HEW Construction of Public Libraries
13.477 Dept. of NEW School Assistance in Federally
Affected Areas - Construction
13.887 Dept. of HEW Medical Facilities Construction
14.001 Dept. of Housing and Flood Insurance (Applications
Urban Development for Community Eligibility)
14.203 Dept. of Housing and Comprehensive Planning Assi-lta~ice
Urban Development
14.218 Dept. of Housing and Community Development Block
Urban Development Grants - Entitlement Grants
14.219 Dept. of Housing and Community Development Block
Urban Development Grants - Discretionary Grant-
15.400 Dept. of the Interior Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition,
Development and Planning
15.600 Dept. of the Interior Anadromous Fish Conservation
15.605 Dept. of the Interior Fish Restoration
15.611 Dept. of the Interior Wildlife Restoration
15.904 Dept. of the Interior Historic Preservation
Construction
20.102 Dept. of Transportation Airport Development Aid Program
20.103 Dept. of Transportation Airport Planning Grant Program
20.205 Dept. of Transportation Highway Research, Planning, and
20.500 Dept. of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Capital
Improvement Grants (Planning and
Construction only)
20.501 Dept. of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Capital
Improvement Loans (Planning and
Construction only)
20.505 Dept. of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Demon-
stration Grants
20.506 Dept. of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Demon-
stration Grants
20.507 Dept. of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Capital
and Operating Assistance Formula
Grants
28.002 Coastal Plains Coastal Plains Technical and
Regional Commission Planning Assistance - Construction
only

239

Citation from
1975 Catalog of Department
Federal Domestic or
Assistance Agency Title of Program

49.002 Community Services Community Action
Administration
49.011 Community Services Community Economic Development
Administration
66.001 Environmental Protec- Air Pollution Control Program
tion Agency Grants
66.027 Environmental Protec- Solid Waste Planning Grants
tion Agency
66.418 Environmental Protec- Construction Grants for Wastewater
tion Agency Treatment Works
66.419 Environmental Protec- Water Pollution Control - State
tion Agency and Interstate Program Grants
66.426 Environmental Protec- Water Pollution Control - Area-
tion Agency wide Waste Treatment Management
Planning Grants
66.432 Environmental Protec- Grants for State Public Water
tion Agency System Subdivision Programs
66.433 Environmental Protec- Grants for Underground Injection
tion Agency Control Programs

Applications for Federal assistance (as listed above) by
agencies, local governments or related public entities will be
routinely forwarded by the statewide A-95 clearinghouse to
DNRCD's Office of Coastal Management for consistency determina-
tion. In addition, the Office of Coastal Management will period-
ically monitor assistance activities not listed above in order to
update the list and discover unlisted activities of significance.
Within the time frame for A-95 review, DNRCD shall notify the
clearinghouse as to whether the project is consistent with the
State's Coastal Management program. The statewide clearinghouse
will forwad these findings to the appropriate Federal agency.

A review period of 90 days will follow, starting from receipt
of the notice by the State clearinghouse resulting from one of the
following actions:

o concurrence with the Federal agency determination;
o disagreement with the determination;
o no response--presumed concurrence.

240

State Consistency

As discussed in Chapter Five, state consistency is an addi-
tional aspect of North Carolina's program that ensures to the
maximum extent possible, consistency between state agency actions
and coastal management policies. Through the Executive Order
contained in Chapter Five, the state recognizes that intra-state
coordination of resource programs are as important as federal
consistency. The details of a process to implement the Governor's
directive are discussed in pages 210 through 220. But in the
end, it is anticipated that his Executive Order will represent a
significant additional implementation mechanism.

National Interest

Associated with the States' expectations of federal consis-
tency is the States' responsibility to recognize and consider
national interest issues in their management programs. Section
306(c)(g) of the FCZMA requires that "the management program
provides for adequate consideration of the national interests
involved in the siting of facilities necessary to meet require-
ments which are other than local in nature."

The reciprocal nature of federal consistency has been
recognized by the State of North Carolina. North Carolina,
furthermore, realizes that a vast array of national interests
exist which must be considered and provided for in the development
and subsequent implementation of the State's coastal program.
Through our federal consultation, the magnitude of national
interest considerations that must be provided for has become
obvious. Some of the federal departments identified as having
programs representing national interests include; The Department
of Interior; The Department of Transportation, The Department of
Defense components, The Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, The Department of Commerce, The Department of Housing and
Urban Development, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The
Environmental Protection Agency and The Department of Energy.
Each of these agencies and more have participated through Federal
consultation in the development of North Carolina's program. The
extent of this involvement is explained in Chapter Two and
Appendix D. Through this involvement, national interests have
been considered in the very design of the program. Examples of
this integration of national interests can be seen in the AEC
priority of uses in Chapter Five and the AEC Use Standards in the
State Guidelines (Appendix B).

The State has also provided for the consideration of national
interests by involving state agencies that represent both state
and national concerns. These state agencies have been consulted
from the stage of early development to the present. Examples of
state agencies representing state and national interests include:

241

1) The Division of Environmental Management within DNRCD
which administers Air and Water Quality programs. All
standards and requirements of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as amended, and The Clean Air Act are
enforced by the Division of Environmental Management and
are incorporated into our management program. The AEC
permit standards embrace all the FWPCA requirements and
should assist in accomplishing the national goals of
clean air and water.

2) The Division of Parks and Recreation within DNRCD which
has responsibility for developing and implementing the
SCORP plan and has been involved in designing North
Carolina's State Guidelines and the coastal management
element on beach access/island preservation. Parks and
Recreation has and will continue to assist the coastal
management effort in ensuring adequate consideration of
recreation and tourism in the local land use plans.

3) The Department of Cultural Resources in conjunction with
the Division of Parks and Recreation, the Wildlife
Resources Commission and the Department of Agriculture
have assisted the Coastal Resources Commission in
providing for the protection of threatened and endan-
gered species, historic sites and unique natural coastal
environments. This protection is accomplished through
AEC regulations and/or local land use planning
mechanisms.

4) The Division of Marine Fisheries is responsible for the
protection -and management of the State's marine
f isheries and coastal wetlands. The Division has been
closely involved in the development of North Carolina's
coastal program. The AEC standards for Estuarine
Waters, Public Trust Waters and Coastal Wetlands are
designed to protect the nation's interests in the
important marine environments and species. The Division
will also be involved significantly in the implemen-
tation of the coastal management program.

These examples are by no means exhaustive since various other
state agencies also represent national interests. More informa-
tion on the missions and authorities of the State agencies
involved in the creation of our state management program is found
in Appendix C.

North Carolina, although promoting the consideration of
national interests in program development, also realizes that many
national interests compete and in some cases are incompatible.
Therefore, the state must ensure that national interests are
recognized and balanced in order to protect the overall public
welfare. When national interests are clearly paramont as in the
is ~~case of the preservation of national security and the protection
of the water and air quality then the balancing of natural
interests is unnecessary.

242

Tradeoffs may be necessary in other situations, however, as
for example when meeting of the nation's energy needs is incom-
patible with the protection of the nation's marine resources. The i
consistency determination procedures described later in this
chapter will allow for the consideration of these tradeoffs.
North Carolina believes that through the consistency determination
procedures, the combination of the Coastal Area Management Act
policies and authorities, other state authorities, local land use
planning consistent with State Guidelines and the continued
involvement of federal agencies in program development and imple-
mentation, that national needs and resources will be properly
considered and protected in the coastal area of North Carolina.

North Carolina recognizes its important contribution to
national objectives as evidenced through the existence of the
multitude of federal facilities on the coast. Even a list of the
extensive federal land holdings as seen in Appendix E is not
indicative of the extent of national interest on North Carolina's
coast. The following description of some of the national
interests associated with North Carolina's coastal area is
provided in order to give the reader an appreciation of the
magnitude of these national needs provided for by the state.

National Defense

National defense is an important activity in the coastal zone
from both an economic and national security standpoint. Numerous
facilities such as the Cherry Point Marine Air Corp Station, Camp
Le-Jeune, the Stumpy Point Target Range, The Military Ocean
Terminal, Dare County Target Range, and various other facilities
provide the nation with a service of the highest priority to all
citizens. All the major branches of the military including the
Coast Guard have facilities within the coastal zone that are
essential to national defense. North Carolina recognizes the need
to maintain the military readiness of these facilities and to
provide for their necessary operation and expansion without
unnecessary and unjustified interference by the State and local
governments. North Carolina's management efforts will not inter-
fere with or jeopardize national security missions carried out on
these military reservations. The Department of the Air Force, the
Coast Guard and the Department of the Navy have identified the
need for North Carolina to consider defense as a national
interest.

Recreation

Coastal North Carolina provides a recreational paradise for
the citizens of this nation as evidenced by the Cape Hatteras and
Cape Lookout National Seashore. It is the State's objective to
enhance this national resource in order to provide for an obvious
national need. Our program will in the near future initiate
efforts to identify and plan for adequate water and beach access
as a concrete step towards satisfying the recreational needs of
both North Carolina and the citizens of our nation.

243

Energy Transmission and Production

Major energy transmission facilities and power plants such as
the nuclear facility in Southport are needed by the State and
nation. Recognizing the requirement for reasonably priced energy
and at the same time the possible environmental impacts of energy
facilities, North Carolina hopes to develop a process for locating
energy facilities on the coast without the uncertainty and lengthy
delays now encountered while at the same time providing for the
maximum protection of coastal resources. Section 305(b)(8) of the
FCZIIA offers the State the resources necessary to accomplish this
task. The Department of Energy in our consultation sessions has
specifically identified electric supply and reliability and
natural gas transportation as national interest concerns that
should be considered by North Carolina.

Transportation, Ports and Navigation

Vital highways to neighboring states, two important port
facilities and international and interstate navigational channels
are located within the coastal area. These facilities serve a
national economic need among others and nothing in our management
plan will arbitrarily restrict or unnecessarily interfere with
these important activities. The Maritime Administration in the
Department of Commerce has urged North Carolina to consider
specifically port planning and development as an issue of national
* ~~~interest.

National Fisheries

North Carolina's estuaries support a large variety of species
important in the nation's commercial fisheries. Our management
program embraces the objective of enhancing these fisheries and
protecting their resources.

Regional Water and Waste Treatment Facilities

The State 303 Water Quality Plan and the various 201
facilities plans have been considered in the development of this
management program and are important in arriving at the local land
classifications. The State Guidelines emphasize the need for
localities to recognize both the need and cost for these regional
treatment plants.

Water and Air

The protection of water and air quality is of paramount
importance to North Carolina and as set for in the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act and the North Carolina Coastal Area Management
Act, nothing in our program will interfere with the enforcement of
National Air and Water Quality Standards.

244

Wetlands

The benefits contributed to North Carolina and the United
States by certain wetland habitats are recognized by our coastal
management program. It is our objective to preserve and enhance
the values derived from wetlands and to manage the uses occurring
in coastal wetlands through a regulatory scheme that is cognizant
of their contribution to the public.

Endangered Flora and Fauna

North Carolina, through coastal management, will attempt to
promote the protection of endangered flora and fauna species as a
national and state replacement resource. The Fish and Wildlife
Service has stressed their concern that North Carolina consider
endangered species to be of national interest and we have accepted
the issue as such.

Floodplains and Erosion Hazard Areas

The scope of the problem associated with development within
flood plains and other hazard areas is of national proportion.
North Carolina, through its coastal management efforts in AECs and
with the cooperation of the Federal Insurance Administration will
attempt to address effectively this resource management issue.

Barrier Islands

North Carolina has an extensive system of barrier islands
that represent a unique state and national resource. Our manage-
ment program will attempt to preserve certain undeveloped island
within the state and protect the resources located upon those
islands that are or have developed.

Historic Sites and Districts

North Carolina is rich in historic sites of national and
state significance. The coastal management program intends to
protect and enhance the state's heritage for benefit of our
citizens.

Wildlife Refuges

As evidenced in Appendix E, North Carolina has many refuges
and preserves for wildlife and waterfowl in the coastal zone. We
recognize their national importance and are committed to their
purposes.

Minerals

North Carolina realizes that the state has a responsibility
to the nation and the world in supplying phosphate ore that is
essential to agriculture. Our management program is keenly aware
of the need to recognize this national concern and to protect all
other significant mineral resources through our management program.

245

Prime Agricultural Lands and Forests

The dependence of the nation on North Carolina agriculture
and forest products is accounted for in our management program.
Provisions for a minimum of interference with these industries are
incorporated into our state coastal management legislation.

Living Marine Resources

The issue of protecting and enhancing marine resources is the
foundation of our program. We are designing our program to accom-
plish the goal of protecting the state's marine resources for the
.benefit of the state and nation.

Areas of 'Unique Cultural Significance

The unique cultural significance of certain coastal areas is
of a concern in our coastal management efforts and of recognized
national interest.

Specific policies defining the state's treatment of national
interest issues can be found on: pages 150, 151 and 152 for
energy production; pages 144, 145 and 146 for transportation,
ports and navigation; pages 153 and 154 for regional water and
waste treatment; page 149 for historic sites; page 142 for
minerals; page 104 for prime agricultural lands and forests; page
138 for living marine resources and page 149 for areas of unique
cultural significance.

Additionally, AEC policies (see Appendix B) that will be
implemented through a permit program address the national interest
for the protection and management of fisheries, water and air
quality wetlands, endangered flora and fauna, erosion hazard
areas, portions of barrier islands and living marine resources.
The land use planning guidelines furthermore require special
treatment of wetlands, sites supporting endangered flora and
fauna, floodplains, areas of unique cultural significance, wild-
life refuges and prime agricultural lands and forests.

Obviously, the plan cannot list all the national interests
considered in our planning and management program. The above list
is only a sampling of some of the important national concerns
recognized by the State. The reader is referred to Chapter Three
and Appendix B (AEC standards) to observe the treatment of the
national interest issued through established coastal policies.

Federal Lands

As discussed in Chapter Four, in the early stages of North
Carolina's program a great deal of concern revolved around the
issue of the program's impact on federal activities on federal
lands. In response to that concern and in accordance with the
opinions provided by the Department of Justice, the State has
excluded from the coastal zone all those lands owned, leased or
held in trust by the federal government.

246

Uses, activities, or development projects on excluded Federal
lands are, exempt from the state's management program, except
where the impacts of those uses or activities extend beyond the
Federal property boundaries and significantly affect the State's
coastal zone. Federal activities that affect significantly the
State's coastal zone must be conducted in a manner consistent to
*the maximum extent practicable with the approved program.
However, it is our expectation that federal agencies will consider
the management principles of our program and conduct themselves on
federal property in the same responsible manner as will be
*required of all others. The exclusion of Federal lands is a
provision that should further ensure a minimum of interference in
activities of national concern.

This exclusion of federal lands applies only to authorities
granted to North Carolina under the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 which became effective upon approval of
North Carolina's Coastal Management Plan. It is not intended to
exclude activities on federal lands from other existing or future
state authorities or controls.

Continuing Consultation

In the future as the coastal management program continues to
evolve, it will be extremely important to continue the consulta-
tion between levels of government that have characterized North
Carolina's program in the past. The major changes that will
eventually take place should benefit from the same extensive
public participation and intergovernmental involvement that
initial program design received. Fortunately, the CAMA has
adequately provided for the interaction desired. As explained in
this chapter, the amendment of local land use plans requires
extensive public participation, including local public hearings.
Similarly, AEC changes require that public hearings be held and
that the resulting evidence be considered by the CRC prior to
designation. The State will furthermore notify all interested
federal, state or local government agencies of proposed changes in
any of the major aspects of the program. This includes policy
development actions described previously in this chapter. North
Carolina, in summary, will continue to provide at every oppor-
tunity a means for public comment and intergovernmental involve-
ment into the necessary management decision.

Beyond public involvement, the CANA also recognizes the need
for state management decisions to be cognizant of local regula-
tions. Therefore, Section 113A-111 provides a mechanism for
continual review of local ordinances and regulations by the
Coastal Resources Commission. Local regulations in designated
AECs must be consistent with the local land use plans. Outside
AECs, the CRC is given the opportunity to review local ordinances
and make suggestions as to possible changes that would ensure
consistency. Either way, the State has a mechanism for reviewing
all local regulations and interacting with local governments on
the effects of management decisions on local concerns. The

247

coastal management staff will use this mechanism to give adequate
0 ~ ~~notice to counties and cities of possible conflicts between state
and local objectives and furthermore, as required in FCZMA
306(c)(B) the staff will provide a 30-day comment period to local
governments. Public hearings may follow if significant conflicts
are identified.

Uses of Regional Benefit

Subsection 306(e)(2) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act requires prior to the approval of a state's coastal management
implementation plan, that the state provide for a method of
assuring that local land and water regulations do not unreasonably
restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit. The
first step in satisfying this requirement is the identification of
those uses. Using the technique suggested in 15CFR 923.13(c),
North Carolina has decided to list uses which we perceive will
affect or produce some regional benefit. Those uses are:

1. Public recreational facilities of a regional or
statewide significance;

2. Major energy transmission or generating facilities;

3. Major transportation facilities such as interstate high-
ways, ports, airports, and important navigational
is projects;
4. Regional water and waste treatment facilities; and

5. Major public facilities such as multi-purpose
reservoirs, state and federal prisons, hospitals and
universities.

The next step in providing for uses of regional benefit is
the State's identification of the methods that shall be relied
upon to assure that unreasonable restrictions or exclusions do not
occur.

North Carolina will rely on two techniques to ensure that an
adequate amount of specific sites are set aside to meet a
projection of reasonable and forseeable demand for uses of
regional benefit. The first technique is state acquisition of
sites as the need arises for particular uses of regional benefit
and the second technique is the designation of "areas which are or
may be impacted by key facilities" (G.S. 113A-113) as areas of
environmental concern. Both methods can ensure that local regula-
tions do not unreasonably restrict uses of regional benefit.

Various agencies, including the Coastal Resources Commission,
have the authority to "recommend to the Secretary of Administra-
tion the acquisition by purchase, gift, condemnation, or other-
0 ~ ~~wise, of lands of any interest in any lands" within the coastal
zone. (G.S. 113A-125(c)(2). The Department of Administration

248

through the State Properties Office pursuant to G.S. 146-22.1 is
authorized and empowered to acquire: lands necessary for public
parks and forestry purposes; land necessary to provide public
access to the waters within the state; lands necessary for the
development and preservation of the estuarine areas of the State;
lands necessary for acquisition of all or part of an area of
environmental concern, as requested pursuant to G.S. 113A-123. In
addition, G.S. 40-2 empowers the State to use the powers of
eminent domain to acquire real property for various other purposes
including: the construction of water and sewer systems; the
development of electric light plants or the distribution of
electric power; the provision of educational, penal, hospital or
other institutions incorporated or chartered by the State; and the
acquisition of property necessary for the building of highways and
roads. Through the State's power to acquire property, North
Carolina can ensure that an adequate amount of specific sites are
available for uses of reasonable benefit.

The second technique does not depend upon the State's acqui-
sition powers and therefore can be used to anticipate future
acquisitions. The Coastal Resources Commission may designate
"areas which are or may be impacted by key facilities" as areas of
environmental concern (G.S. 113A-113(b)(7)). Key facilities
include the site location of major improvement and major access
features of key facilities. Public facilities, as determined by
the Commission, on non-federal lands which tend to induce devel-
opment and urbanization of more than local impact and major
facilities on non-federal lands for the development, generation
and transmission of energy are considered key facilities (G.S.
113A-103(6)). Pursuant to the authority of the Coastal Area
Management Act, the Commission can then control development within
the AEC through the prescribed permit program. Furthermore,
through G.S. 113A-111, the Commission can ensure that within AECs,
local regulations and ordinances are consistent with the approved
land use plans. In effect, this means that the Commission,
through the combined responsibility to designate AECs and approve
local land use plans according to the requirements of the State
Guidelines, can ensure that recognized uses of regional benefit
are not unreasonably excluded by local land and water regulations.

The procedure envisioned in designating AECs for areas
impacted by key facilities is very similar to the process used in
the original AEC designations. The Commission would entertain
recommendations for AEC designation from any sector including
state and federal agencies. The staff of DNRCD would pursue an
investigation of the facts with emphasis upon the extent of the
problem and the need for designation. Following this process, the
Commission and staff would consult with the interested parties
including local governments, state and federal agencies and if a
resolution of the problem of unreasonable exclusion could not be
resolved through consultation, the Commission would propose the
area be designated an AEC. Adequate notice of the proposal would
be given according to G.S. 113A-115 and through our federal
consultation procedures. A public hearing would be held in the

249

county or counties affected and the responses considered by the
Commission prior to deciding the question of designation. I f the
Commission found that the designation was justified and needed in
order to preserve adequate sites for uses of regional benefit,
designation and regulation would follow.

Areas of Particular Concern

Introduction

North Carolina's coastal management program recognizes three
types of areas of particular concern (APCs). Each are distin-
,guished by the management strategy selected for the protection of
these critical resource areas. These distinctions are based upon
the premise that all APCs are not appropriately managed through
any one technique. The management strategy must be fitted to the
degree of control necessary for the protection of the APC
resources.

The three strategies selected are: (1) designation and
regulation of AECs by the CRC pursuant to the CAMA (G.S.
113A-113); (2) designation and management of APCs for preservation
and restoration by state and local governments; and (3) designa-
tion and management of APCs through local initiatives. Although
the three APC types are not mutually exclusive (i.e. certain
categories of AECs may also be considered APCs for preservation
and restoration), the various APC management strategies reflect
the opinion that the degree of importance and the most appropriate
management scheme is not necessarily identical for all APCs.

AECs, which by definition are of statewide significance, have
been included within a management strategy that ensures protection
through the State's police powers (see Chapter Five). On the
other hand, APCs that are designated for preservation and restora-
tion, because of their unique qualities and limited extent, will
often be maintained in an inviolate state that requires the use of
positive incentives rather than regulations. Finally, APCs that
are to be designated and managed by local governments are not
considered essential to the protection of the estuarine system.
Yet they are important coastal resource management areas.
Consequently, the management strategy is adjusted to allow the
local governments to creatively participate in APC protection
through local initiatives.

The AECs are extensively discussed in Chapter Five; in
keeping with the theme of this Chapter, the remaining two types of
APCs and the AEC amendment process will be discussed in this
section. The amendment process, the APCs for preservation and
restoration, as well as the APCs protected by local initiatives
represent a new and continuing aspect of our coastal management
program.

250

The AEC Amendment Process

In order to realize the full advantages of the AEC protection
strategy, periodically the effectiveness of the program must be
examined and adjustments made that reflect the dynamic conditions
of the coast.

"Have the restrictions imposed by the permit program effec-
tively implemented the management objectives? Are AECs geograph-
ically too restricted to protect the resource values or unneces-
sarily expansive? Should the use standards be modified to deal
with unexpected changes in economic or social conditions?" These
questions need to be answered and the proper adjustments made in
the management of AECs. The CAMIA has provided for this flexi-
bility by stating that;

"the Commission shall review the designated areas of environ-
mental concern at least biennially. New areas may be
designated and designated areas may be deleted, in accordance
with the same procedures as apply to the original designa-
tions of areas under this section. Areas shall not be
deleted unless it is found that the conditions upon which the
original designation was based shall have been found to be
substantially altered."
(G.S. 113A-115(c))

This amendment process allows the CRC to consider at any time
changing or adding AECs as it deems necessary to accomplish the
objectives of CAMIA. The statutory procedural requirements for any
new designations include a public hearing in each county in which
lands to be affected are located; 30-day public notice of such a
hearing; and consideration by the CRC of submitted evidence and
arguments. In addition, notice shall be given to any state
agency, citizen, group, etc. As with State Guidelines amendments,
the CRC will formally notify and seek comments from all interested
federal agencies. All such agencies will be sent the final
proposed AEC designation, and will be given 30 days to comment.
This process constitutes the formal consultation process regarding
a change in the State management plan. Federal agency comment
should, be provided before the final date set for public hearing.

Areas For Preservation and Restoration

The second major category of APCs discussed is areas
designated for preservation and restoration. APC~s included under
this heading are dealt with somewhat differently from other APCs
because of their special values or limited extent. The regulatory
mechanisms developed for other coastal zone resources may be
inadequate to maintain or to achieve the levels of quality desired
for these areas. If preservation precludes use or so restricts
the use of property that it deprives its owner of any practical
use, then regulations achieving preservation could conceivably
constitute an unconstitutional "ttaking"f of land. Less restrictive
incentive devices such as tax incentives can be used to encourage

251

landowners to restore an area's conservation, recreational,
is ~~ecological or esthetic values, but the provision of incentives
alone will not ensure restoration.

As required in Section 306(c)(9) of the FCZMA, North
Carolina's management program includes "provisions for procedures
whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of
preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational,
ecological or esthetic values." These provisions, in our manage-
ment program, utilize "existing" (other than CAMA) authorities,
exercised by local governments and various state agencies, in
combination with the mechanisms established in CAIIA for coastal
area management. The following describes the principle programs
for achieving preservation and restoration of APCs.

There have been programs aimed at the preservation of
valuable natural resource lands underway for a number of years in
the State. The Division of State Parks and Recreation in DNRCD
acquires such lands for use as State Parks, Recreation Areas, or
Natural Areas depending on their particular physical character-
istics, their value in terms of rarity, and the needs of different
geographical portions of the state. While natural areas are the
only areas specifically designated for preservation, lands
acquired for use as State Parks or Recreation Areas are usually
afforded more protection from conflicting or detrimental uses than
land use regulations alone could provide them.

In the State's coastal zone, several areas have already been
acquired by the State as parks, natural areas, or under other
acquisition programs. These areas include Goose Creek, Little
Goose Creek, Dismal Swamp, Green Swamp Nature Conservancy, Hammock
Beach, Merchant's Mill Pond, Jockey's Ridge, Carolina Beach State
Park, Fort Macon, Rogue Banks (Roosevelt) Natural Area, Fort
Fisher, Brunswick Town, White Oak River Game Land, Gull Rock Game
Land, Pamlico Point Game Land, Bald Head Island marshes, several
oyster management areas and nursery management areas.

The Division of State Parks use a general set of criteria to
prioritize possible future acquisition and inclusions into the
Park system. Generally, the Division attempts to provide a park
within 50 miles of every citizen. When selecting sites that
satisfy this geographic criteria comparisons of the proposed area
with existing park sites in the region are conducted. Evaluations
of natural features, the quality and scarcity of the parks
resources, what facilities can be provided and the regional demand
for park facilities are all considered.

Then, using these evaluations, the sites are ranked in order
of importance. Land areas necessary to protect key qualities are
identified and appraised. Then, a priority list is taken to the
legislature for appropriations.

252

In addition to the traditional activities of the State in
preserving State Parks, North Carolina initiated a program0
recently that promises to protect more adequately the areas of the
State that are characterized by unique natural features. Through
the cooperative efforts of the Nature Conservancy, the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, the Babcock Foundation, the Z. Smith Reynolds
Foundation and DNRCD, the preservation of natural areas has for
the first time gained significant stature. The Natural Heritage
Program, sponsored by these concerned organizations and agencies,
will in the near future complete an initial inventory of natural
areas, establish a procedure for identifying the sites of highest
priority, and explore the preservation techniques available to the
State. Certainly, this program will assist in the preservation of
unique coastal natural areas.

Elements of the Program Established by CAMA

CAMA authorizes the CRC to

"recommend to the Secretary of Administration the acquisition
by purchase, gift, condemnation, or otherwise, lands or any
interest in any lands within the coastal area" (G.S.
113A-124(c) (2)).

Furthermore, CAMA (G.S. 113A-113(b)(4)) authorizes the
designation of the following as AECs:

"Fragile or historid areas, and other areas containing0
environmental or natural resources of more than local signi-
ficance, where uncontrolled or incompatible development could
result in major or irreversible damage to important historic,
cultural, scientific, or scenic values or natural systems,
which may include: ...

(v) Complex natural areas surrounded by modified landscapes
that do not drastically alter the landscape, such as
virgin forest stands within a commercially managed
forest, or bogs in an urban complex;

(vi) Areas that sustain remnant species or aberrations in the
landscape produced by natural forces, such as rare and
endangered botanical or animal species;

(vii) Areas containing unique geological formations, as
identified by the State Geologist;"

Those categories of land and water designated as ABCs by the
CRC include the three areas listed above; Coastal Areas that
Sustain Remnant Species, Coastal Complex Natural Areas and Unique
Coastal Geologic Formations. (See Chapter Five.) As a group,
these areas are termed Fragile Natural Resource Areas and are
defined in the State Guidelines as areas "containing environmental
or natural resources of more than local significance where
uncontrolled or incompatible development.could result in major or

253

irreversible damage to natural systems, scientific or educational
values or aesthetic qualities". The criteria used in the evalua-
tion of proposed sites for inclusion under the three AEC cate-
gories are described in Chapter Five. All three categories are
considered to be of a fragile character that may often require
compensation to the property owners for effective protection.
Consequently, each will be included within our preservation and
restoration program.

In addition to the above categories of AECs that will be
included in the preservation and restoration program, estuarine
and marine sanctuaries may receive similar protection and manage-
ment. Presently, North Carolina is investigating three possible
sites for the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary for inclu-
sion in our program.

Local Government Initiatives for Special Management Activities

Areas within the coastal boundaries other than AECs and areas
for preservation and restoration may also be important for similar
reasons although they are presently not recognized as of such
critical importance to require direct state management at this
time. The CRC intends to encourage and support local governments
in identifying and managing objectives. These areas represent a
lower priority of APC than AECs and areas for preservation and
restoration. Special management activities should be construed to
also cover efforts by local governments to improve existing
regulatory standards for management of development where it is
determined that more stringent management practices would be
desirable. Examples of areas that local governments may wish to
develop special management programs for are: maritime forests,
historic places, secondary dunes, areas which are or may be
impacted by key facilities, and other areas identified by the CRC
as potential APCs. In these areas, local governments may wish to
apply more stringent management practices because established CANA
development standards, septic tank regulations, erosion control
ordinances, building codes, etc., may be felt not to be adequate
because of unusual local conditions.

In this portion of the program, local governments and local
citizens will decide the desirability of developing special
strategies for resource management. The Commission's role with
the assistance of the State management agency will be to develop
broad policies; to assist local governments upon request in
identifying such areas developing appropriate management
strategies; to review the locally developed program; to determine
consistency of the local program objectives with the established
coastal management objectives (including the local land use plans
and CRC policies); to determine that the management strategies
proposed by local governments are satisfactory and adequate to
meet their established objectives; to approve or reject the local
program based on its appropriateness and potential effectiveness;
to assist the local government in funding the undertaking; and to
generally monitor the local administration for its effectiveness.

254

In summary, the establishment of a locally controlled program
for identification and management of APCs represents an effort by
the State of North Carolina to limit state management to only I
those critical areas of overriding state and national interest,
and to encourage local management in areas that are not so
critical but that nevertheless merit special management practices.
The establishment of stricter standards for existing regulations
is an attempt to encourage local initiative in improving on
minimum state standards, where such improvement can be justified
due to special local conditions.

Research and Education

Introduction

The principle goal of the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act is to "provide a management system capable of
preserving and managing the natural ecological conditions of the
estuarine system, the barrier dune system, and the beaches, so as
to safeguard and perpetuate their natural productivity and their
biological, economic and esthetic values" (G.S. 113A-102(b)(1).
Resource management connotes the capability to influence, direct
and control the vital steps leading from the perception of a
resource allocation problem to the implementation of an effective
solution to that problem. An important aspect of resource
management and therefore, a subject of North Carolina's management
plan is the sponsorship, direction and utilization of research and
education concerning coastal resource management problems.

The realization that applied research can provide answers
essential to the resolution of many critical coastal land use
issues is becoming increasingly prevalent. However, if coastal
North Carolina is to realize the potential benefits of applied
research, research efforts must be coordinated and directed and
the results must be applied. This in one of the purposes of the
coastal management plan. Another objective of the agency with
cooperation from the Office of Marine Affairs, Sea Grant, and the
Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Service, will be to
sponsor and encourage educational activities concerning coastal
resources over issues.

Research and Technical Assistance Role
of Coastal Management (CM) Agency

The effectiveness of North Carolina' s coastal management
program depends to a large degree on the adequacy of technical
assistance and training that can be supplied to permit officers at
both the state and local level and the success of research efforts
in solving resource problems. The means available to North
Carolina's CM agency for accomplishing these goals include direct
sponsorship of technical support and research through federal
Coastal Zone Management Funds and the coordination of existing
re~search funding programs.

255

Research Sponsorship

Section 310 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
enables the Secretary of Commerce to provide funds for research,
study and training to implement management objectives. The monies
made available through this section are to be used for conducting
research and training in order to enhance both the broad program
objectives of Coastal Zone Management on an interstate, regional
or national basis (Section 310(a)) and the participating states
coastal management objectives (Section 310(b)). The State will
communicate to NOAA possible research subjects of interstate and
national concern, assist the Associate Administrator in prior-
itizing subjects for 310(a) support and generally ensure that the
State's interests be represented.

Section 310(b) offers more definite support through direct
grants to North Carolina for research, studies and training which
will meet the objectives of the State. Administering this aspect
of our coastal management requires: 1) continual assessment of CM
technical assistance and research needs within the state; 2)
prioritization of state needs and assignment of adequate funding
levels; 3) development of grant requests to reflect desired
research activity; and 4) administration of the state's grants
program (review of research and assistance proposals, admini-
stration of funds, monitoring of progress and dissemination of the
results of research).

Coordination

Besides the assistance and support made available through the
FCZMA there are various state supported research programs dealing
with coastal resource management issue North Carolina's Department
of Administration, because of its over all administrative and
coordination responsibilities as described in Appendix C, will
coordinate the activities of these programs, so to maximize their
contributions in solving coastal problems. Because of the inter-
departmental role of the Department of Administration, duplication
of research will be minimized and the State can ensure that the
subjects proposed for research will be relevant to the resource
management objectives of State. Additionally, the Department of
Administration can be a convenient contact point for agencies
interested in the results of research efforts because of its
established role in coastal research.

Program and Policy Development

The CM agency (DNRCD) has a greater responsibility in pro-
moting coastal management objectives than merely initiating
research and providing technical assistance. It must also
initiate responses to new resource management problems of the
coast through both established and new governmental programs.
Therefore, the CM agency will continually be called on to evaluate
the relationship of state activities and coastal zone management
objectives. This evaluation may result in suggested organiza-
tional or administrative adjustments in existing or new programs.

256

It is certain that many new governmental programs will
develop because of the State's coastal management activities.
Examples of these programs include the Estuarine and Marine
Sanctuaries Program, Beach Access program, Shoreline Erosion
program and Energy Facilities Siting. The appropriate admini-
strative and organizational arrangements needed to execute the new
or expanded state objectives associated with the coastal manage-
ment program will be designed as appropriate.

Finally, the CM agency will serve an important function in
prompting the development of state policies essential to coastal
management. It is the direct responsibility of the Coastal
Resources Commission to utilize the State Guidelines in estab-
lishing state policy regarding coastal resources (see Policy
Development). In addition, the CM agency will periodically, upon
discovering the lack of clear State direction, suggest policy
statements to the appropriate governmental body.

In this manner, the CM agency can bridge the obvious gap
between perception of a coastal resource problem and the stimula-
tion of effective governmental action. The CM agency in summary
clearly plays the lead role in the efforts of state government in
resource management.

-a-- ---

258

GLOSSARY

and Community Develop-
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ment (DNRCD) designa-
(AECs): Those areas of the ted by the Secretary
zone where uncontrolled of DNRCD to develop
development, unregulated and carry out the State
use, or other man-related Coastal Program.
activities could result
in major or irreversible COASTAL RESOURCES ADVISORY
damage to important re- COUNCIL (CRAC): A 47-mem-
source values, or natural ber body created by the
systems or processes, 1974 General Assembly
which are of more than through the Coastal Area
local significance, or Management Act (G.S.
could unreasonably en- 113A-105). It is comn-
danger life or property posed of a broad cross-
as a result of natural section of coastal inter-
hazards, or could re- ests to advise the Coastal
sult in loss of con- Resources Commission.
tinued long-range pro-
ductivity in renewable COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
resource areas. (CRC): A 15 member body
appointed by the Governor
COASTAL AREA: The 20 counties representing various
that are adjacent to, adjoin- prescribed coastal inter-
ing intersected by or bound- ests which serves as the
ed by the Atlantic Ocean primary policy-making
or any coastal sound. group for coastal manage-
This area is subject to ment in North Carolina.
the provisions of the
CAIIA and are considered COASTAL SOUND: Coastal Sound
North Carolina's coastal means the Albemarle, Bogue,
zone. The coastal area Core, Croatan, Currituck,
extends offshore to the Pamlico and Roanoke Sounds.
limits of state jurisdic- Sounds are large bodies of
tion. water behind the Outer
Banks that typify recent
COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT geologic development of
OF 1974 (CAMA): An the coastal plain.
act relating to the
management of the coastal DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RE-
area of North Carolina. SOURCES AND COMMtUNITY DEVEL-
This state legislation OPMENT (DNRCD):
establishes the framework Previously the Department
for the North Carolina of Natural and Economic
coastal management pro- Resources (DNER); has
gram. primary responsibility
for administering
COASTAL MANAGEMENT STAFF: environmental and natural
The organization or office resource management program
within the Department and is the principal coas-0
of Natural Resources tal management agency.

259

DESIGNATED LOCAL OFFICIAL
(DLO): repair is limited to
Local employee whose those activities that
duty is to administer wither limit further
the CAJIA local minor danger to lives or pro-
development permit perty or whih restore
program. the structure to its
condition immediately
DEVELOPMENT: Any activity preceding the emergency.
in an Area of Environ No additions, expansions,
mental Concern involving, or major modifications
requiring, or consisting to the existing structure
of construction or en- or other property are
largement of a structure; within the contemplation
excavation; dredging; of this definition.
filling; dumping, removal
of clay, silt) sand FCZMA: Federal Coastal
gravel or minerals; Zone Management Act.
bulkheading, driving
of pilings; clearing or INLETS: Inlets are breaks
alteration of land as in the Outer Banks that
an adjunct of construc- allow free passage of
tion; alteration or the water from the
removal of sand dunes; Atlantic Ocean to the
alteration of the shore, coastal sounds. There
bank, or bottom of the are presently some twenty-
Atlantic Ocean, two active and open inlets
or any sound, bay, river, in the entire barrier
creek, stream, lake, or island system of North
canal. All of these Carolina.
activities with certain
specified exemptions INTERIM AREAS OF ENVIRON-
are subject to the pro- MENTAL CONCERN (IAEC):
visions of the CANA Prior to the official
permit program. designation of Areas of
Environmental Concern,
EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE OR the Coastal Resources
REPAIRS: Any activity that Commission officially
occurs as a result of a adopted definitions for
sudden or unexpected Interim Areas of
happening which signi- Environmental Concern.
ficantly affects life or These definitions served
property, which activity as the first attempt by
has as its objective the the Coastal Resources
preservation of life or Commission to identify
the preservation and critical resource areas
repair of property which that might be designated
is significantly endan- as final Areas of En-
gered is not develop- vironmental Concern. The
ment. Although this Coastal Area Management Act
provision is to be requires that developers,
liberally construed, the 60 days prior to initi-
excluded maintenance or ating development notify
the Coastal Resources Com-
mission of the proposed
activity in the IAEC
(G.S. 113A-114(e)).

260

LAND) USE PLANS: Plans STATE GUIDELINES: A docu-
developed by local govern- mn rprdb h
ments to guide future Coastal Resources Commis-
growth and land uses con- sion to aid local govern-
sistent with locally stated ments in the preparation
goals and objectives and of land use plans. A
the requirements of the statement of objectives,
Coastal Area Management policies and standards
Act. to be followed by local
governments in design-
LITTORAL DRIFT: Sand move- ating public and private
ment parallel to the shore uses of land and water
by wave action. areas in the coastal
area.
MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW):
In bodies of water having SYNOPSIS: Summaries of
six inches or more lunar individual CANA land use
tidal influence, mean high plans containing the sub-
water is the average height stantive elements of the
of the high water over a local planning process,
19 year period. and distributed to each
household in the coastal
MEAN WATER LEVEL OR NOR- area. These summaries
MAL WATER LEVEL: In are to serve as an
bodies of water having less important public infor-
than six inches lunar tidal mation material.
influence, and excluding
tropical storm and hurricane TWO TIER COASTAL ZONE (TWO
conditions, mean water level TIERED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM):
is the average height of all This refers to a coastal
water levels. zone which is divided
into two areas which
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY have different levels of
(mgd): A liquid flow rate. state management and
regulation. In North
NPDES: National Pollution Carolina, the first
Discharge Elimination tier consists of all AECs
System. and is thoroughly and
strictly managed by the
OUTER BANKS: The Outer Banks State by means of the CAMIA
are a thin chain of barrier permit; the second tier
islands which protect or consists of the remainder
enclose North Carolina's of the 20 coastal
sounds and bays. counties in which only
PERMIT CHANGEOVER DATE: certain high impact
The date established by uses are regulated by the
the Coastal Area Manage- State.
ment Act for the Imple-
mentation of the CAMA
permit program, March
1, 1978.

261

SOURCES OF ILLUSTRATIONS

* ~~~Photographs Page

1. Makers of North Carolina History by Conners, page
78 Courtesy of the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History 63

2. Stuart George, Public Affairs, North Carolina De-
partment of Natural Resources and Community
Development 66

3. Courtesy of Aurora Project and Randy Hester,
Landscape Architecture Program, School of Design,
North Carolina State University 70

4. Stuart George, Public Affairs, North Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment 72

5. Aurora Project and Randy Hester 87

6. Jim Page, Public Affairs, North Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment 107

7. Jim Page, Public Affairs, North Carolina Department
0 ~ ~~~~of Natural Resources and Community Development 109

8. Courtesy of Public Affairs, North Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment III

8. Courtesy of Public Affairs, North Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment 112

10. Courtesy of Aurora Project and Randy Hester 113

11. Clay Nolan, Division of Travel and Tourism 116

12. Courtesy of North Carolina State University Sea
Grant Program 119

13. Clay Nolan, Division of Travel and Tourism 119

14. Steve Murray, Courtesy of North Carolina State
University Sea Grant Program 120

15. Jerry L. Machemehl, Provided Courtesy of the
University of North Carolina Sea Grant Program 125

262

PhotoraphsSOURCES OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Pg

16. Courtesy of the University of North Carolina Sea
Grant Program 127

17. Courtesy of the Division of Wildlife, North Caro-
lina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development 128

18. Clay Nolan, Courtesy of the North Carolina Divi-
sion of Travel and Tourism 129

19. Clay Nolan, Division of Travel and Tourism 139

20. Courtesy of Division of Travel and Tourism 144

21. Courtesy of the University of North Carolina Sea
Grant Program 147

22. Jim Page, Public Affairs, North Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment 149

23. Courtesy of Carolina Power and Light Company 150

24. Ted Dossett, Division of Wildlife, North Carolina5
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development 158

25. Jack Dermid, Division of Wildlife, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development 195

26. Joel Arrington, Division of Wildlife, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development 195

27. Courtesy of Aurora Project and Randy Hester 195

28. Joel Arrington, Division of Wildlife, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development 196

29. Tom Jackson, Division of Wildlife, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development 196

30. Ted Dossett, Division of Wildlife, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development 1965

263

SOURCES OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Photographs Page

31. Clay Nolan, Division of Wildlife, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development 197

32. Courtesy of the Division of Wildlife, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development 257

Drawn Illustrations by Daphne Webster, North Carolina
Coastal Management Staff

265

PART II I

I a ~~~~~~ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

266

CHAPTER ONE: DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED

The State of North Carolina has identified a 20-county area as the
coastal zone boundary under Federal requirements. This areas has
significance for both the State and the Nation. It is an impor-
tant natural and economic resource for North Carolina. The
following is a description of the environment affected by this
coastal management program.

A. The Coastal Environment and Its Boundaries

The North Carolina coastal zone is a gradual transition from
land to sea dominated by rivers, estuaries and bays. The
entire coastal environment is influenced by and intimately
linked to the vast lagoon-estuary areas of North Carolina.
The inland extent of the coastal plain actually begins many
miles inland from the boundaries of the coastal area.
Although land use activities in the upper coastal plain, as
well as the piedmont and mountains, affect the coastal
resources, the impacts of such activity are less direct and
significant than the impacts resulting from development
occurring directly within the coastal area.

The North Carolina coast has a relatively significant proba-
bility of hurricane and severe storm occurrence each year.
Although it has been a number of years since the last such
occurrence, development has continued in natural hazard
areas. Such trends have been noted and considered by North
Carolina.

The State legislature in developing the CAM~A tried to select
a boundary that would include development activities having a
direct and significant impact on coastal resources. After
careful study, a water quality standard of 200 mgs. per liter
of chloride was used to identify points of confluence on
major tributaries that represented the inland extent of the
area directly influenced by the marine environment. The
coastal area then was defined in the Coastal Area Management
Act, Section 113A-103(2) as, ".. .the counties that are adja-
cent to, adjoining, intersected by or bounded by the Atlantic
Ocean. ...or any coastal sound." The inland limit of the
coastal sound was def ined in Section 113A-103 (3), " -.. as the
limits of sea water encroachment on said tributary river
under normal conditions... .with the limits of sea water
encroachment... .to be the confluence of a sound tributary
river with the river or creek entering it nearest to the
farthest inland movement of oceanic saltwater under normal
conditions...". The definition continues to identify
specific points of confluence along five of the major sounds'
tributaries.

267

The identified coastal area includes 20 of North Carolina's
100 counties. Within this coastal area, the State has
developed a two-tiered management approach.l/

Part II, Chapter 4 of the management plan introduces the
two-tier concept and Part II, Chapter 5 carefully analyzes
the authorities for coastal management within each tier.
Briefly, the first tier includes the critical Areas of
Environmental Concern in the North Carolina coastal zone:
Estuarine Resources (pp. 178 ); Ocean and Inlet Hazard Areas
(PP. 183 ); Public Water Supplies (pp. 185 ), and Fragile
Coastal Natural Resource Areas (pp. 191 ). Within these
areas, permits will be required for any project initiating
development as defined in the CAMA G.S. 113A-118(d)(l&2).

The second management tier includes all areas outside of AECs
but within the 20-county coastal area. These areas will be
managed with existing State authorities with development in
these areas guided by the local land use plans. Addition-
ally, an Executive Order has been signed which requires State
agency actions to be consistent with State coastal policies
as outlined in the coastal management plan as well as with
State Guidelines (for a full description see Appendix B and
the local LUPs.

B. Socio-Economic Setting

The economic and social conditions in the 20-county coastal
area are of mixed prosperity and poverty. A large portion of
the coastal area is rural with scattered small communities,
while at the same time, this area contains one large metro-
politan area, Wilmington, and a number of other areas
slightly less developed but of economic significance
including New Bern, Morehead City and vicinity, Elizabeth
City, Washington, Manteo and the Dare County beach commun-
ities. In 1970, twenty-one percent of the families in the
coastal area earned an income below the established poverty
level. Also, seventeen percent of the homes did not have
complete plumbing facilities. In several counties, the
percentage of homes with incomplete plumbing ranged as high
as 35 to 45 percent. In contrast, the prosperity can be
recognized in the beach areas where some ocean front lots are
reported to sell for over $700/per front foot. While in
recent years the economic disparity is reported to have
narrowed, these statistics cannot be ignored when considering
the area's economic development.

1/ Many sources of environmental information are available on
the coastal area of North Carolina including publications
available thru: the North Carolina Sea Grant Program,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Ocean Survey,
National Weather Service, Environmental Data Service.

268

The backbone of coastal industry consists of agriculture,
forestry, mining and fishing. Farms are traditionally small
and operated by a single family for several generations. In
recent years, however, corporate interests have amassed
considerable land holdings; the largest exceeding 300,000
acres. It is anticipated that these "super farms" will
dramatically affect the agricultural sector of the coastal
area and the State. The forestry industry offers a variety
of mixed hardwoods in swamp areas and vast areas of pine in
upland areas. Croatan National Forest is among the many
forest areas managed for timber production. Mining, the
newest industry in the North Carolina coastal area, centers
around extensive phosphate deposits in Beaufort and Pamlico
counties and is already a major source of fertilizer for the
Nation. Finally, the commercial sports fishing industry
contributes "substantially" to the coastal economy with the
potential of growing many times over in the near future.

The coastal area is one of the richest sections of the State
for recreational activities and tourist attractions offering
fishing, boating, swimming as well as a rich heritage seen in
the historical landmarks. Prominent National Parks enrich
the recreational opportunities to both seasonal and permanent
residents alike.

North Carolina has two major ports located at Wilmington and
Morehead City, numrous small harbors servicing the fishing
S ~ ~~~fleet and the Intracoastal Water Way serving as a major
shipping corridor. It is estimated that more than 300,000
tons of cargo were moved through the Morehead City and
Wilmington ports in 1976. Phosphate, tobacco, petroleum,
steel, and forestry products were the primary import and
export commodities. The smaller ports servicing the fishing
industry have steadily increased in number and at the present
time a new port and fish processing facility is being
constructed in Wanchese. Finally, the Intracoastal Waterway
is a major north-south shipping corridor that is used to
transport nearly 16 percent of the State's tonnage.

A more thorough discussion of the elements that comprise the
socio-economic setting is given in the Management Plan.

C. Institutional Setting

In North Carolina, Federal, State, county and local govern-
ments all influence the use of the coastal area. On some
issues, there has been direct and ongoing communication and
coordination. However, some coastal issues have rarely been
addressed in a comprehensive or coordinated manner.
Similarly, resource management activities are distributed
among different State agencies, as well as different levels
S ~ ~~~of government. The policies that exist at the different
levels of government may conflict with each other.

269

Therefore, the management system that has existed in the past
has been, in some instances, fragmented in its interpretation
and implementation.

With the development of the State's Coastal Area Management
Act, greater coordination is evolving. Under CAMA, the State
Coastal Resources Commission was established. The CRC (as
described in the management plan) is a regional commission
empowered to help develop a coastal resource management
system.

Because the coastal area is, for the most part, rural in
nature, county governments have provided a great deal of
assistance to local governments during their planning
process.

Development of North Carolina's Coastal Management Program
has also involved Districts and Associations such as the Soil
and Water Conservation Districts and the Sewer and Water
Associations which were organized by county governments to
effectively pool their resources in addressing certain
issues. Also, the Regional Councils of Governments provide
services to local governments such as planning assistance in
obtaining State and federal grants and assistance in com-
pleting the A-95 review process. It is anticipated that with
Federal approval of a Coastl Management Program in North
Carolina, coordination of existing resource management

activities and regulatory functions will be greatly enhanced.

270

CHAPTER TWO: PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM

An Environmental Impact Statement normally contains two sections
at this point, one describing the relationship of the proposed
action to land and water use plans, policies and controls for the
area; and the other, assessing the probable impact of the proposed
action on the environment. In this assessment, it is convenient
to examine these two sections in one step as follows:

The North Carolina Coastal Management Program represents an effort
to develop a rational environmental program that will accommodate
development and economic growth while maintaining or enhancing the
quality of the natural environment. The program will serve as a
blueprint for the use of the resources specific to the North
Carolina coast by providing a set of carefully conceived land and
water use standards, guidelines and policies. The impacts of this
program have been assessed at each development phase, and it is
anticipated that a net gain in environmental quality will result.
Four categories have been selected as topics in analyzing the
program's impacts. These topics include: regulation, policy
development and implementation, consistency and coordination,
research and inventory.

A. Regulation

* ~~~~North Carolina's resource management program depends on State
regulation to achieve the State's objectives and policies for
coastal management. This program document outlines two
different levels of management and regulation. The most
intensive level of management is centered in "areas of
environmental concern"'. These are geographically defined
areas where it has been determined that the coastal
environment is most sensitive and needs the greatest degree
of management control.

A second level of management exists in those coastal areas
outside of the defined AECs since there are uses within these
non-AEC areas that might have direct and significant impact
on coastal resources. Management in these areas is less
comprehensive than in AECs, as only critical uses are to be
regulated.

With Federal approval of the State's coastal management
program, this State regulation process will be affected in
certain ways.

a. There will be additional State government enforcement
personnel.

b. The permitting process should become more coordinated
between State agencies.

2711

C. This more coordinated approach to regulation and coastal
management should improve the environmental quality in0
sensitive areas.

The impacts of program approval on AECs will be to give
highest priority to the protection and coordinated management
of these areas so as to safeguard and perpetuate their
biological, social, economic, and aesthetic values and to
ensure that development occurring within these AECs is com-
patible with natural characteristics so as to minimize the
likelihood of significant loss of private property or public
resources.

It is anticipated that the cumulative effects of regulating
AECs will have an overall positive impact on the integrated
coast-' resource system.

There are also impacts of program. approval on areas outside
of AECs. The State intends to regulate certain uses outside
of AECs that might have a damaging effect on coastal
resources. This level of management will not require new or
different State regulation. Rather program development under
the FCZMA has influenced the emphasis of existing State
legislation. Better coordination and implementation of
current SI-te laws regulating coastal areas, as well as
conformance by State agencies, in their decision-making, to
State coastal policies and objectives, will produce a more
comprehensive approach to coastal management.
The Executive Order, which was needed to ensure Federal
program approval, will have a significant impact by requiring
that state regulatory and management decisions in the coastal
areas be made in accordance with the coastal policies in Part
II, Chapter III.

B. Policy Development and Implementation

The North Carolina Management Program establishes several
modes for policy expression including the State Guidelines,
the local land use plans required by the Coastal Area
Management Act, and the State Coastal Management Plan. The
State Guidelines contain policies adopted by the Coastal
Resources Commission that serve as the framework for the
development of the local land use plans, establish the
standards for Areas of Environmental Concern and represent
the overall State policy on coastal issues. The local land
use plans further define these State policies by applying the
policies contained in the Guidelines to local situations and
circumstances. Consistency of local actions with State
policies is promoted through this planning arrangement
because of the required approval of the local plans by the
Coastal Resources Commission. The North Carolina Coastal
Management Plan incorporates the policies from both the0
Guidelines and the land use plans, as well as other State

272

Coastal policies derived from various official policy
sources.

North Carolina's Coastal Management Plan describes a policy
development process that will be used to formulate future
policies for incorporation into the Management Plan. The
procedure will involve: first, the identification of
important coastal issues; second, the gathering of the
information necessary to understand the issues; third, the
development of policies addressing the issues, and finally,
the implementation of the stated policies. The procedure in
detail includes the following steps: (1) The staff of the
Office of Coastal Management (DNRCD) consults with the
Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development as well as other State agencies to
identify the most urgent needs for State coastal policy; (2)
Staff presents recommendations to the Coastal Resources
Commission. The Commission designates the areas for study
and appoints a "Policy Task Force" consisting of three
Commission members and three Advisory Council members to work
on the subject under study; (3) Specialists from appropriate
State, local and Federal agencies are brought together to
serve the Task Force in understanding the programs, services,
policies and capabilities of government in addressing the
problem; (4) These specialists would assess the needs;
educate the Task Force, and make recommendations to the Task
Force for policies and guidelines for the coastal area; (5)
The Task Force makes recommendations to the Commission on the
proposed policies and upon adoption, holds a public hearing;
(6) The Commission may choose to adopt these recommendations
as State Tuideline Amendments and the Department of NRCD will
incorporate these amendments in the State management plan;
(7) Inclusion of specific policies in the State management
plan and in the "Guidelines" will serve as criteria in
guiding State and Federal actions through consistency deter-
mination in the implementation phase; (8) Local governments
will be required to address the new elements in the
"Guidelines" in their next revision of their local land use
plans; (9) The local plans reflecting the local desires and
situation relative to the new planning element will serve as
one of the criteria for consistency determination for State
actions; (1) The Task Force is dissolved and the process is
repeated as needed.

The process described above serves as a clearly recognizable
policy development mechanism that is accessible to all levels
of government as well as to the citizen. Furthermore, the
mechanism proceeds along a rational series of steps that
build on the information available and culminate with a
specific policy response. The effect of instituting this
policy development procedure is to make the local, regional
and State governments of North Carolina effective partners
with the Federal government in coastal resource management.

273

Both the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the State
Coastal Area Management Act indicate within their legislative
findings that the reason for ineffective coastal resource
management at the State and local level has been the lack of
a clear review procedure and sets of policies. This condi-
tion has ultimately resulted in the assumption of respon-
sibilities by numerous State and Federal agencies and the
consequent erosion of local prerogatives and powers.

The development and implementation of state policies will
ensure that the merits of a project can be quickly considered
based on broad criteria rather than the narrow criteria
common in current decision-making.

The most immediate issues to which the policy development
process will be applied are:

Shorefront Access and Coastal Recreation

These policies will help to maintain the cultural, ecolog-
ical, and aesthetic qualities of the coastal area. The
cultural and aesthetic richness of the coast has been used
frequently to promote the statewide tourist industry. Many
vacationers are attracted each year to the coast.

Local recreational needs and opportunities have not been
given adequate consideration in the past. As a result those
coastal areas of Statewide, regional, and/or national0
interest have received a greater part of the financial aid
available to the State. It is anticipated that with State
coastal policies, there will be a greater degree of predict-
ability in the distribution of these funds.

Providing adequate beach access is another issue that will be
addressed through State coastal policy. These policies will
help to secure funds to purchase access points and facilities
such as walkways. Funds will also be available for devel-
opment of plans to adequately manage these sites. Technical
assistance to localities will be available from the State in
developing management plans.

Shoreline Erosion/Mitigation Planning

These policies support the need for: inventory and analysis
of shoreline erosion areas; an analysis of current shore
erosion management practices; research into the potential
causes of shoreline erosion along North Carolina's coast.

These same policies are designed to reflect the adequacy or
inadequacy of existing State management programs (including
AECs). Relevant erosion planning policies will be endorsed
and/or recommendations for new and more comprehensive
policies will be made.0

274

It is anticipated that this new and more comprehensive
approach to shoreline erosion planning will help simplify the
permitting process for the potential applicant.
The policies developed for shoreline erosion planning will
also recommend a State participation formula that considers
social, physical, and economic thresholds which could be used
to give priority to requested erosion control civil works
projects.

Energy Development

The policies addressing energy development will establish a
mechanism to reflect the concerns of State and local govern-
ments in facility construction and establish a planning
framework to assist local governments in planning and
mitigating potential environmental and socio-economic
impacts. Also) assurances will be made to include all
relevant State agencies in the review of individual projects.
Locally, the policies will provide a strong voice in project
review and will insure the availability of funds in planning
for such developments.

C. Consistency and Coordination

A primary goal of the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program is to develop a comprehensive resource management
system. This is possible only through coordination of local,
State and Federal government actions. With the approval of
North Carolina's program, financial support will be provided
to local governments to encourage consistency of local
actions and decision-making with the State's program goals
and policies. Additionally, program approval will ensure
that State agency decision-making is closely coordinated and
in conformance with State coastal program goals and policies.

Through Federal consistency provisions (Section 307 of the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act), Federal agency actions
will also have to be consistent, to the maximum extent
possible, with State coastal program goals and policies. It
is anticipated that the impact of Federal consistency within
the State's coastal area will mean greater State control and
influence over Federal activity here.

The Coastal Resources Commission and the Secretary of the
DNRCD view Federal consistency as a rare opportunity to
greatly improve existing relationships with the Federal
Government. Policy statements will be expressed clearly and
concisely allowing Federal agencies to accurately make
consistency determinations. Through each step of policy
development, great efforts have and will be made to consult
with and reflect the concerns expressed by Federal agencies.
Also, particular attention has been given to incorporate the
provisions of the Federal Air and Water Laws and comments
made by the agencies charged with implementing them.

275

D. Research and Inventory

Section 310 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management ActS
of 1972, as amended, provides funds to establish a
program of research, study and training to implement
management objectives. North Carolina plans to place an
emphasis on research applied to relevant coastal issues
such as Beach Access and Island Preservation, Shoreline
Erosion Planning and Mitigation, Marine Fisheries
Management, Waste Disposal Alternatives, Inventories of
Significant Estuarine Resources and Energy Facilities
Siting. Each of these topics and more will be addressed
in our program of applied research described on page
254.

Researzh and inventories on the subject of beach access and
island preservation will provide the State with an under-
standing of the problems from a local, regional and State
perspective regarding coastal recreation and beach use. The
result of this research will hopefully be a clear course of
action that can lead to better utilization of the public
beaches and islands with a minimum of negative effects
resulting from recreational use.

Shoreline erosion is a significant problem in North Carolina.
However, at this time, governmental reaction to the problem
is uncertain and uncoordinated. Investigations as to the
extent of the problem and methods for erosion mitigation will
assist government agencies at the State and local level to
better understand and deal with the program.

North Carolina has an extensive estuarine system and
bountiful marine fishery. If this resource is to be fully
utilized, however, the State must know more about the species
present, the population levels, the migration patterns and
other relevant data. The result of our research will be an
economic benefit to the coast.

Waste disposal is a serious problem in coastal North Carolina
because of the unsuitable soils present. If North Carolina
is to preserve its natural coastal resources while providing
for the growth expected, alternatives to the present sewerage
disposal systems for individuals and municipalities must be
devised.

Inventories of significant estuarine resources can supply the
State with the information necessary to evaluate proposed
governmental projects and permit applications. An appraisal
of the anticipated effects can be accomplished with this
information. Consequently, the design can be modified or
mitigation measures employed that will preserve the quality
of our estuarine resources.

276

Energy facilities will in the future become more prevalent in
the coastal area. North Carolina must be prepared to examine
the effects of each facility and provide the best available
sites for the facility. Through this process, the State can
become an effective decision-making body for energy facil-
ities without unnecessarily delaying the development of our
Nation's energy resources.

It is realized that the effectiveness of North Carolina's
coastal management depends to a large degree on the adequacy
of technical assistance and research that can be applied to
coastal issues. In part, as a result of these continuing
research efforts, better decisions with respect to coastal
resources can be expected within the public and private
sector. The application of this research should lead to
enhanced environmental quality and more informed economic
decisions.

277

CHAPTER THREE: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. INTRODUCTION

Given the nature of the proposed action, which is approval of
the North Carolina Management Program, all alternatives would
involve a decision to delay or deny approval. Delay or
denial of approval could be based on failure of the North
Carolina Program to meet any one of the requirements of the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). In approving a
CZM program, affirmative findings must be made by the
Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management on over
twenty such requirements.

The North Carolina response to the need for wise coastal
management was enactment of an innovative and unique law, the
Coastal Area Management Act. The law is multi-faceted; it
calls for regulation, planning, policy development, and
coordination of government at all levels. Additionally, the
State has expanded the scope of the program by coordinating
all state agency functions by means of a Gubernatorial
Executive Order. Thus North Carolina has taken significant
action, with both the legislative and the Executive branches,
to address the State's coastal resource issues.

Nevertheless, in the course of development of the North
Carolina program, several potential deficiencies were
identified. These deficiencies have now been addressed by
North Carolina and the Assistant Administrator has made a
preliminary determination that North Carolina has met the
requirements for approval under Section 306 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act. In order to elicit public and agency
comment and assure that the Assistant Administrator's preli-
minary assessment is correct, this section identified areas
where there are possible deficiencies and considers alterna-
tives of delay or denial based upon each. Before examining
the alternatives, the following section identifies the
general impacts that would result from delay or denial on any
basis.

The generalized impacts of delay or denial of approval of the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program, regardless of the
basis of delay or denial, are as follows:

(1) Loss of Federal monies to administer the program.
Under Section 306, North Carolina would receive
approximately $1.3M per year to administer its
coastal management program. Most basic to a loss
of Federal funds will be the inability of the State
to provide adequate staffing and administrative
support to their permitting program throughout the
coastal area and, in particular, areas of environ-
mental concern (AECs).

278

Additionally, problems identified by North Carolina
may continue due to a lack of funds to address
them. Local governments would also be without the
funds necessary to revise their land use plans and
to bring them into closer alignment with the
State's coastal policies and objectives. Such
refinement would be essential for the most
effective coastal management program.

Delay or denial of this program would also make it
difficult for the State to give needed considera-
tion to shorefront access, shoreline erosion, and
OCS development.

(2) Loss of consistency of Federal actions with North
Carolina's Coastal Management Program and its
stated policies. Program approval would mean that
Federal actions, in or affecting the North Carolina
coastal area, would have to be consistent with the
State's management program under Section 307(c) of
the CZMA. This would be of particular concern to
the State of North Carolina as the coastal area is
heavily influenced by Federal activity.

(3) Loss of adequate consideration of the national
interest in the siting of facilities which are
other than local in nature as required by Section
0 ~ ~~~~306(c)(8) of the CZMA. By delaying or denying
program approval states and local governments would
be under no obligation to give adequate considera-
tion to coastal resources and facilities that are
of national interest. This may result in loss of
public benefit that the use of such resources may
provide. For example, failure to allow expansion
of port facilities in the national interest to
accommodate trans-shipment of coal for energy
production may result in the need to use a differ-
ent energy source. This may add to higher energy
costs to the public. However, the national
interest also encompasses a concern for the
protection of resources such as water, air, wet-
lands and wildlife. Consideration of the need for
the national interest in facilities must take into
account the impacts of facilities on these key
resources.

Program approval would mean that the State could
undertake increased technical assistance to local
governments and improved implementation of existing
State programs. This would give the State and
local governments an opportunity to give balanced
consideration to both facilities and resources in
Is ~~~~the national interest. Lacking program approval,
these considerations affecting resources in the
national interest might not be made.

279

B. FEDERAL ALTERNATIVES:

Alternative I - The Assistant Administrator could delay
or deny program approval if the "Areas of Environmental
Coner1'are not geographically broad 1en-ough.

The Federal Act requires States to identify land and water
uses which have direct and significant impacts on coastal
waters. The States must also inventory areas of special
management concern. For purposes of management, North
Carolina has used a two-tiered approach.

The first tier, which is the more thoroughly regulated area
in North Carolina's coastal zone, is made up of "areas of
environmental concern" (AECs). AECs are regulated by permit
under the State's Coastal Area Management Act (CANA). The
designated AECs include: Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters,
Public Trust Areas, Estuarine Shorelines, Ocean Beaches,
Frontal Dunes, Ocean Erosion Areas, Inlet Lands, Small
Surface Water Supply Watersheds, Public Water Supply
Well-Fields.

All of the AECs mentioned here combine to create a zone that
includes all estuarine waters and a narrow buffer zone around
them. Further AEC designations can be made by the Coastal
Resources Commission (CRC) if it is necessary to better
regulate development outside of the currently designated
AECs.

The second management tier includes all those areas that lie
outside of designated AECs and are in the 20 counties
comprising the State's coastal zone. The level of control in
this second tier is directed to uses that have a direct or
significant impact on the coastal waters. Control over this
second tier is based on existing State regulatory programs
and authorities and a Gubernatorial Executive Order.

There have been concerns expressed during the program
development that the current AECs have not been defined
broadly enough to ensure that all areas of concern to this
program can be managed adequately. For example, the controls
over fresh water wetland areas that lie outside of AECs are
limited. Similarly, some believe that the entire Barrier
Islands System off the coast of North Carolina should be
managed as an AEC; this alternative was considered and
rejected by the State in favor of their AEC management
technique.

North Carolina originally proposed developing a Federally
approvable Coastal Management Program based solely on defined
ABCs managed directly by the State. A determination was made
at that time that certain uses outside the AEC area had the
potential for direct and significant impact on coastal waters
and therefore needed to be controlled by the program also.

280

The 20-coastal county area was considered the optimum size
for managing such uses.
The State subsequently developed their program with the
two-tiered management approach discussed above. The
Assistant Administrator is satisfied that this approach now
fulfills our program requirements. In addition, the State
now has an Executive Order which helps to network the
existing State agency authorities in areas outside of AECs,
thus strengthening the management approach in the second
tier. The mechanism for future AEC designation can be
utilized if the CRC concludes, as circumstances change, that
regulation of the chosen AECs and existing regulation of
development outside of AECs are not sufficient in combination
to manage land and water uses that directly and significantly
affect coastal waters.

Because of the questions concerning the comprehensiveness of
current AEC designation, the Assistant Administrator could
delay or deny program approval. The State could:

(1) do nothing

(2) have the CRC designate additional AECs prior to
program approval

If the State determined to "do nothing", the impacts would be
those generalized impacts identified above for delay or
denial of program approval.

Under the second option, the State would request that the CRC
designate those areas of State management concern that
currently lie outside of AECs. The mechanism for designation
is already in place and such a designation would enhance the
management technique.

Alternative 2 - The Assistant Administrator could delay
or deny program approval if the State lacks The-ability
to insure State agency compliance with the coastal
policies in areas outside AECs.

A key element of North Carolina's coastal management tech-
nique, as discussed in Alternative 2, is the Executive Order.
The Executive Order provides a mandate that State agency
decision-making be consistent, to the maximum extent
possible, with coastal goals and policies as outlined in the
North Carolina Coastal Management Plan; with the State Guide-
lines; and with the local land use plans. Such State agency
consistency provides the special management attention needed
in coastal areas outside of designated AECs. All regulatory
programs, all financial assistance programs, and all public
development projects are therefore subject to these consis-
0 ~ ~~~tency provisions.

281

While the State believes that current State agency regula-
tions are designed to pursue objectives consistent with wise
coastal resource management, the Executive Order ensures that
the development and implementation of new coastal policies
can continue as needed and that State authorities will be
administered in accord with such policies.

It should be noted here that the State's coastal policies, as
articulated in the Coastal Management Plan and the State
Guidelines, are the authoritative statement of policy, and
where local plans conflict with these policies, the latter
will control. The DNRCD is responsible for monitoring agency
actions and for resolving inconsistencies between the local
land use plans and State coastal policies.

During; North Carolina's program development, OCZM identified
the lack of adequate networking of State agency authorities
as a deficiency. As a result of this identified deficiency,
the State drew up the Executive Order which addresses these
inadequacies. Other concerns have been identified, however,
regarding the authority of the Governor to issue Executive
Orders and the enforceability of Executive Orders on certain
independent government bodies.

As a result of the criticism regarding the unresolved
questions about the Executive Order, the North Carolina legal
staff has done additional research on the question of the
legal status of Executive Orders in North Carolina and the
applicability of an Executive Order to State Commissions and
other independent governmental bodies. Their arguments have
been included in the document as part of the discussion of
Executive Orders in Part II, Chapter Five, and are summarized
briefly below.

Legality of Executive Order

Although no North Carolina case law exists which
clarifies the status of an Executive Order, the North
Carolina staff argues that decisions by Federal courts
regarding Presidential Orders should be useful in analyzing
the status of North Carolina Gubernatorial Orders, since the
clause in the North Carolina Constitution granting the
Executive Powers is nearly identical to the "granting clause"
in the U. S. Constitution. Federal cases have held that
Executive Orders are valid and have the force of law where:
(1) they are based on sufficient statutory authority; and (2)
where they do not conflict with existing laws. The North
Carolina legal staff believes that both of these requirements
are met. As to the first requirement, the statutory
authority for the Executive Order is solidly based on
language in the CAMA (Sections 113A-107, 113A-108, and
3113A-125). Concerning the second requirement, the Executive
Order language "to the maximum extent possible" insures that
the Order operates only within the framework of existing law.

282

Effect of Executive Order on Commissions

* ~~~~~A second concern is that a Gubernatorial Executive Order
may not be applied to Commissions and agencies not immedi-
ately and completely under the Governor!'s control. The
State's response to that suggestion is as follows:

The Governor is designated Chief Executive in the
Constitution. As Chief Executive he posseses inherent
administrative powers over all agencies executing the laws.
All Departments and Commissions have as their sole function
the execution and administration of the laws. They are
subject to the same legal constraints in administering those
laws as are agencies under appointed cabinet members.
Additionally, employees of Departments with elected heads are
subject to the State Personnel Act and all Commissions rely
on State Departments for staff services.

Although North Carolina expressed a preference to
appoint independent commissions to handle special statewide
problems, the legislature has seen fit to extend substantial
control to the Chief Executive concerning the actions of
these commissions. Typically, Executive control takes the
form of power of appointment over all or a majority of the
members of the commission. In all the Commissions, except
the Sedimentation Control Commission and Health Services, the
Governor appoints all members. Although many of the
commissioners terms of office will often exceed that of the
Governor appointing him, the executive typically has the
power to fill more than a majority of all seats on any
commission (exception for 'Utilities Commission, only 50%).
Control through the appointment process extends to such
collateral matters as the power to fill vacancies and name
replacements. Furthermore, the Governor retains the power to
remove all commission members for cause. Under the Executive
Organization Act of 1973 (see N.C.G.S. 143B-13), cause
sufficient for removal is described by the language
"misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance." Although we are
not aware of any cases interpreting the breadth of this
language, we believe that the failure t execute the laws of
the State come within the scope of this language.

In addition to selecting the members of the
Commission, the Governor has, in some instances, the power to
designate the chairman of the Commission. The chairman's
position is extremely important in some of the commissions,
such as the Utility Commission. In this Commission, the
chairman, whom the Governor selects to serve for a four-year
term concurrent with himself, determines which matters will
be heard by the full Commission, which by subcommittees and
which by particular members. The chairman, furthermore, has
* ~~~~the power to initiate investigations.

283

In all, the Governor possesses the potential to
exert considerable control over all agencies and departments
in the government where the matter at issue involves the i
execution of the laws of the state.

Monitoring Conformance With Executive Order

A third question which has arisen concerns the issue of
who will monitor State agency action to insure that the
Governor's mandate is carried out. According to CAMA, the
State agency may not issue, modify, renew, or terminate a
State permit within the coastal area until it has consulted
with the CRC (N.C.G.S. 113A-125(G)). Accordingly, the CRC
will be informed by the State agencies of all permit appli-
cations and proposed agency actions. The staff will review
propo~cd agency actions and inform the CRC and the Secretary
of DNRCD where an action inconsistent with the State policies
or a local land use plan is proposed. This will trigger the
mediation process described in the Executive Order. If the
conflict involves a dispute between units of DNRCD, the
Secretary will settle the dispute. All conflicts over
consistency between the administering coastal management
agency (DNRCD) and another department of State government
shall be resolved by the Governor. The CRC is also author-
ized by statute to review state activities concerning acqui-
sition, use and disposition of land. This review process
will be accomplished by monitoring all projects going through
A-95 review. If the DNRCD should, upon review, disagree with0
any agency actions, the conflict resolution process would be
triggered. The Assistant Administrator believes that the
legal arguments supporting the legality of the Executive
Order and its application to Commissions are valid. if)
however, legal questions remain concerning this networking
mechanism, the State can respond in two ways:

(1) do nothing

(2) obtain an Attorney General's opinion

Under Option (1) above, the generic effects to North
Carolina's program would be those already discussed.

Under Option (2) above, the State would need to request a
formal opinion from the State Attorney General. An attorney
General's opinion would augment the position taken on these
legal issues.

Alternative 3 - The Assistant Administrator could delay
or deny prora approval if local g oenet are not
obligated to enforce the State approved local land use
plans.

State laws require coastal counties to adopt local land use
plans (LUPs) which are consistent with State Guidelines, both
within and outside areas of environmental concern (AECs).

284

AECs are regulated by permit under the State's Coastal Area
Management Act (CANA). Areas outside of the defined AECs are
managed with existing State authorities and guided in their
development by the local LUPs. Local governments are not,
however, statutorily mandated with the LUPs in their zoning
and subdivision authority in conformance with the LUPs in
areas outside AECs. Therefore, the State can ensure adoption
of a conforming plan, but it cannot ensure that the local
government will enforce the plan in coastal areas that are
not AECs.

The lack of enforceability of local LUPs has raised some
questions as to the State's ability to control some uses in
areas outside of AECs that have a direct or significant
impact on coastal waters.

Despite the inability of the State to force local governments
to enforce the local land use plans, the State is not without
authority in non-AEC areas. Each major use in coastal areas
outside AECs is presently regulated by the State. The
Executive Order signed by the Governor requires each State
agency with relevant authorities related to each major use to
exercise such authority in conformance with State coastal
policies and with local land use plans. Thus State agencies
will be managing and regulating each non-AEC use subject to
the management program in conformance with State policy as
well as with local land use plans. Of course, in those
0 ~ ~~~~instances where a local land use plan conflicts with State
coastal policy, the State policy controls. But except for
such a conflicting situation, the local land use plans will
be honored by State agencies where non-AEC uses, which have a
direct and significant impact on coastal waters, are
involved. Admittedly it is the State and not the local
government that is mandated by the Executive Order to enforce
the local plans. This State enforcement, which will be
accomplished through regulatory programs as well as through
State activities involving the use and disposition of
State-owned lands, financial assistance for public
facilities, and encouragement and location of major public
and private growth-inducing facilities, is pervasive and will
affect both local governments and private developers'
activities.

Because of the questions concerning the need for enforceable
local LUPs, the Assistant Administrator could delay or deny
program approval. The State could then:

(1) do nothing

(2) rely on existing case law

If the State determined to "do nothing", the impacts would be
those generalized impacts identified above for delay or
denial of program approval.

285

Under option 2, the State would have to develop a strong
legal argument through research and an analysis of existing
North Carolina case law. There appears to be evidence that
existing case law requires that local zoning and land use
decisions conform to comprehensive land use plans. If such
an argument could be made, this would provide a legal basis
for the State to go to court if and when the comprehensive
land use plan (local LUPs) are not upheld and enforced.

286

CHAPTER FOUR: PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROGRAM WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED

The act of approving the North Carolina Coastal Management Program
will not in itself lead to the loss of resources. Overall, the
anticipated effects of the program are positive. However, we
recognize the possibility that revenues will be lost to the State
by discouraging development in certain areas of the coast. For
example, second home and industrial development, both vital to a
growing coastal economy, will be discouraged from locating in
certain Areas of Environmental Concern such as the Ocean Hazard
Areas and in areas identified by local government as unsuitable
for development. While some economic benefits may, in the short
run, be sacrificed by this aspect of implementation, it should be
minimized because the program also identified areas in which
development will be encouraged.

Another concern with the program is that it will contribute to the
general erosion of private property rights and values. While such
concerns are valid in any regulatory program, it is the intent of
the Commission and the Secretary of DNRCD to carefully implement
the program in order to minimize this impact to the greatest
extent possible. The program has been and will continue to be
very conscious of the trade-offs involved in restricting private
actions and providing for the general public benf it. Neverthe-
less, the program can be expected to restrict private actions and
S ~ ~~to depress the property values for certain landowners. However,
the magnitude of these potential losses is unknown at the present
time. In fact, some property values may be inflated because of
the government's encouragement to develop within these areas as
manifested through capital investments and lack of restrictions.

Concern has also been expressed that new permitting procedures
will add to the confusion and delays that already occur in
permitting of activities. This is a very real possibility in the
short run but in the long run the confusion and delays will be
reduced. The program has been specifically mandated to report to
the General Assembly of North Carolina on means of shortening and
simplifying the State's coastal permit procedures. The State is
committed to this objective. The Coastal Area Management Act, in
delegating police powers stresses the importance of expeditious
processing of permit applications. CANA also instructs the
Secretary of DNRCD to develop criteria for local assumption of
minor development permitting so as to emphasize permit coordina-
tion. (G.S. 113A-117(a)). The Coastal Resources Commission is
instructed to conduct an ongoing study of permit coordination and
to report to the General Assembly every two years on the progress
of this study (G.S. 113A-125(d)).

The Coastal Zone Management Act requires the States to consider
the National Interest in the siting of facilities and to ensure
0 ~ ~~that local governments do not restrict or exclude uses of regional
benefit. These two requirements may facilitate the siting of

287

various types of development which might otherwise be excluded
from the coastal area and which might have some adverse impact on
the environment.

Another potentially adverse impact relates to the coverage and
scope of the areas of environmental concern. The fact that
certain biologically important areas, such as the interior of a
barrier island are not included within the AECs, could result in
adverse impacts to such areas. A discussion of the sufficiency of
AEC coverage is dealt with in the Alternatives section of this
document.

288

CHAPTER FIVE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL, SHORT TERM USES OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AN]) ENHANCEMENT OF LONG
TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Central to the theme of the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program is that restrictions on the short term use of the environ-
ment will be balanced with a long term perspective assuring that
the natural resources and benefits of the North Carolina coast
will be available for future use and enjoyment. The program
recognizes that development will continue to occur but it estab-
lishes a system to guide growth based on the use standards for
Areas of Environmental Concern and on State policies for coastal
land and water uses.

A basic precept of this management program is to recognize the
interdependences of natural systems as well as th need to expand
and improve the socio-economic conditions of the people that must
coexist with them. Without a system of management, intense short
term development uses and benefits, such as those realized thourh
residential and industrial development, would unfairly accrue to
a small portion of the private sector. Such short term benefits
would most likely result in future restrictions on resource use
and benefits because of degradation and loss of basic resources.
This fact is substantiated by the increasing number of areas in
North Carolina that are being closed to the taking of shellfish.

400,000 acres of shellfishing waters are presently closed to
shellfishing which is a full 20% of the potential shellfishing
waters. The closing of shellfish waters has continued for many
years peaking in 1975 when 640,000 acres were closed. Although in
recent years this total number of restricted areas have decreased,
this has been due largely to the monitoring of waters of pre-
viously unknown quality. The reasons for the closing of these
waters included spetic tanks, point discharges and agricultural
runoff.

289

CHAPTER SIX: IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED0
ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED

The approval of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program will
not in itself lead to the loss of resources as would a site
specific project. As described, this program is simply a process
of focusing on and balancing various development trade-of fs that
can no longer be given haphazard attention if the quality of the
coastal environment is to be maintained and enhanced. The resolu-
tion of these development conflicts will cause certain areas to be
developed more intensely which will, in fact, be an irreversible
and irretrievable commitment of resources.

These dec.'.;ons will allow other areas to remain less intensely
developed, based on land and water resource considerations. Also,
the review process described in this program will complement the
checks and balances instituted through other programs.

290

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHIERS

1. Past Involvement

During the development of this coastal program, both the
State and CRC members were keenly aware of the need for a
comprehensive approach to coastal resource management,
meriting the involvement of all interested State, Federal and
area-wide agencies. In order to fulf ill this goal, the
Department of Natural and Economic Resources sponsored an
introductory Federal consultation meeting in November of
1975. This early involvement aided the State by providing a
forum of educated opinions from which to gain guidance and to
coordinate future participation. Federal agency participants
received information on all aspects of the program which
might affect them. Ultimately, the purpose of this meeting
was to acquaint Federal agencies with CANA, FCZMA, the
management program outline, and the representatives of DNCD
with whom they would be working as the program developed.

Shortly, thereafter, in December 1975, Federal contacts were
sent a letter to solicit their views and positions on a
variety of issues that were introduced at the initial meeting
a month earlier. Briefly, the information which was
requested included (1) permit review responsibilities, (2) a
list of lands under Federal jurisdiction, (3) regulatory
0 ~ ~~~authorities, and (4) the form of future or desired inter-
action. Appendix D contains documentation of these
responses.

2. Direct Participation

Immediately following these initial contacts, both State and
Federal agency representatives were requested to participate
in the planning phases of the program. This direct involve-
ment and exchange of ideas involved six major aspects of
program development which are explained below:

a. Local Draft Plan Preparation and Review - During
December and January of 1975-76, the local draft
plan review process occurred whereby Federal and
State agencies made comments as to consistency
and/or compatibility with their respective juris-
dictions, laws and programs. Many helpful comments
were relayed back to local planners to amend the
identified conflicts and deficiencies.

b. Final Review of Land Use Plans - In May-June of
1976, the final plan review process was organized
primarily to test the technical accuracy of land
classification schemes to ensure consistency with
0 ~ ~~~~~State, area-wide and Federal agency goals and
policies. Conflicts with State and national

291

interests were identified and forwarded to local
governments to consider.

C. Designation of Interim Areas of Environmental
Concern (IAEC) - Again, all interested parties,
governmental agencies and the general public were
given full opportunity to participate directly with
the IAEC selection process. In May, 1976, Federal
and State contacts responded to the public notices
with very constructive comments and recommenda-
tions.

d. Designation of Final AECs - Over the course of one
year, from May 1976 till June 1977, various Federal
and State agencies served as consultants and
researchers for the Commission to give assistance
in developing the rationale to designate AECs. The
State CRC staff had very close contacts with these
agencies as data was generated, analyzed, and
formulated into policy.

e. State Management Plan Development and Review - At
the completion of these four program development
phases, mentioned above, excellent communication
channels were established between the involved
State and Federal agencies. Many of the expecta-
tions and identified problem areas became commonly
known to the CZM staff that had to be addressed
within the plan. Formal requests for comments were
released in April of 1977 and most of the Federal
and State agencies responded with valuable comments
and recommendations.

f. Review of Local Ordinances - This task is yet to be
completed but will be essential to determine incon-
sistencies between AEC standards and local regula-
tions. State and Federal agencies may want to
participate to determine incompatibility with their
programs and identify conflicts with State goals
and national interests.

In each of these six major phases of the program' s
development, coordination between all levels of
government became a reality and without such
cooperation this comprehensive management program
could not have been realized.

3. Future Coordination

Since the Federal CZMA requires that all Federal grant
programs, permits and Federal development projects in the
State's identified coastal zone must be consistent "to the
maximum extent practicable" with this management program,
North Carolina recognizes the need to consult with Federal

292

agencies early in the Federal decision-making process. This
need has been met through the design of "the Federal
Consistency Determination Process" as explained in the
management plan on pages 230-240.

Briefly, this process envisions a communication procedure
among all affected Federal, State and local interests. After
a coordinated State response is assembled, it shall then be
forwarded from the Secretary's office of DNRCD to the appro-
priate Federal agency, after which further consultation may
be necessary. It is believed that-.all Federal interests and
national needs will be properly considered and adequately
protected by these consistency determination procedures.