{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"State coastal zone management activities, 1974","Authors":"","Publication date":"1974","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000310651"},"Pages":["HT\nState Coastal Zone\nOF\n392\nCOMMUNITY\n.U558\n1974\nManagement Activities\n*\nawesed\na\n1974\nOF\nES\noctober 1974\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management\nREVOLUTION\n)\nPreprint\n1776-1976","HT\n392\nU558\n1974\nSTATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES - 1974\nLIBRARY\nN.O.A.A\nUS Dept of Commerce\nCENTRAL\nLIBRARY\nJUN\n1973\nU. S.\nU. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States.\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management ,\nOctober, 1974\n78\n2189","STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES - 1974\nINTRODUCTION\nThe Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583) authorizes the use of\nFederal resources, both financial and technical, to encourage and assist\nStates in the development and administration of comprehensive management\nprograms for their coastal zones. Responsibility for administration of\nthe Act has been given to the Office of Coastal Zone Management within the\nDepartment of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.\nIn 1974 alone, more than $12,000,000 in Federal and State funds have\nbeen committed to State coastal zone management efforts. Moreover, 31 of\nthe 34 coastal States and Territories are participating in the coastal zone\nmanagement program. This level of attention and funding reflects a nation-\nwide awareness of the problems and conflicts existing in the coastal zone,\nas well as a growing recognition of the need to find thoughtful solutions\nto the complex problems stemming from the sharply increasing demands for\nuse of America's limited coastal resources.\nThere is a clear need for timely and accurate information on the\nactivities of State, local and regional organizations in the realm of coastal\nzone management. For many reasons, information of this sort is frequently\ndifficult to obtain.\nAs administrator of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management has been working with all of the coastal\nStates and Territories. From the applications for program development\ngrants on file in this Office, summaries have been prepared of the work\nprograms to be conducted by each State. Each State's summary briefly des-\ncribes the tasks to be accomplished during the program development phase,\npast coastal activities in the State, pertinent information already available,\nthe State and substate agencies participating in the program, the lead State\nagency and the size of each State's grant.\nThe information contained in this report should enable a comparative\nanalysis to be made of the differing approaches taken by the States. As\nwith our earlier report, \"The Status of State Coastal Zone Management\nEfforts,\" it also provides a baseline against which progress can be measured.\nIt is anticipated that this report will be updated as future applications\nare submitted.\nRobert W. Knecht\nDirector\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management","ALABAMA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Alabama Development Office\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Alabama Coastal Area Board (primary\npolicy-making body) ; Department of Conservation and Natural Resources;\nGeologic Survey of Alabama\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $100,000 (Federal) $150,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nIn 1973, the Alabama State Legislature passed the Coastal Areas Develop-\nment Act establishing the Coastal Area Board with responsibility for\ndeveloping, coordinating and maintaining a coastal area program. The\nCoastal Area Board became operational in late January, 1974, with staff\nand technical functions assigned to the Alabama Development Office (ADO).\nFollowing development of a coastal area administration program, the Coastal\nArea Board will administer a permit program to regulate coastal activities.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Rapid population growth in coastal counties and intensified compe-\ntition among industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential\ndevelopers for the limited land of the coastal area has decreased\nthe amount of land available for public amenities and coastal conser-\nvation areas.\n- Decreasing supply of high-quality fresh water is rapidly increasing\ndemands for the plentiful fresh water resources of Alabama's coastal\nmargin.\n- Inadequately treated wastes from municipal and industrial sources,\ncomplicated by runoff from agricultural areas, are contributing to the\nrapid pollution of coastal waters. Disposal of dredged materials also\nis a water quality issue.\n- Rapid growth of Alabama's shrimp fleet, consisting primarily of\nboats of 80 or more gross tons, is increasing developmental pres-\nsures on the coastal estuarine areas essential as a nursery ground\nfor the shrimp themselves.\n- Unregulated development in wetlands has destroyed areas important\nnot only as nursery grounds, but also in stabilizing shorelines from\nwind and water erosion.\n- A plan for increased petroleum production in offshore waters poses a\ndemand for large coastal shoreland areas required to accommodate\nrefinery distribution and other related resources.\n- Coastal development has proceeded without regard for the necessity\nto avoid areas of higher than normal potential for severe damage\nduring tropical storms and hurricanes and the severe flooding that\naccompanies them.\n- Almost one-third of the Alabama shoreline is subject to erosion,\nparticularly that portion lying along the Gulf Coast.\n1","GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To allocate available coastal resources for the economic and\nsocial benefit of the State's citizens in a manner which will preserve\noptions and values for future generations.\n- To recognize and plan for the capabilities and limitations of the\nnatural systems present in the coastal environment.\n- To minimize irretrievable commitments of natural resources in\ndeveloping a management plan.\n- To develop and maintain an educational system to disseminate\ninformation obtained through marine and coastal research.\n- To establish a coordinated system for handling resource use\nconflicts, embodying the concepts of multiple use, shared use,\nirretrievable commitments, capability analysis and available\nalternatives.\nTo facilitate coordination of activities of the various agencies\n-\nin the coastal area.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nData Acquisition and Evaluation: This work element is designed to acquire\nand evaluate existing data, reports, plans and policies of State and sub-\nState agencies involved in the coastal planning process. Insofar as pos-\nsible, the Coastal Area Board will utilize and build upon currently avail-\nable data and studies developed by these agencies. Data gathering will\nbe focused in the areas of: industrial development; commercial develop-\nment; residential development; recreation; mineral extraction; transportation\nand navigation; waste disposal; fisheries; and agricultural production. Con-\ncentrated effort will be channeled into this element over the first 18\nmonths of the program development period with development of broad policy\ngoals in the 10 subject areas the ultimate objective.\nPolicy Development: State policies are to be evolved and defined with\nregard to the topics of: coastal zone boundaries, permissible land and\nwater uses, geographic areas of particular concern, priority uses within\nspecific geographic area, and alternate strategies for exerting State con-\ntrol in the coastal area. The Coastal Area Board has appointed a sub-\ncommittee to explore the demographic, economic, developmental and biophysical\nfactors related to determination of the coastal boundary which will allow a\nreasonable extent of control of coastal activities.\nDetermination of permissible uses will result from study of the capa-\nbility of coastal lands and waters to accommodate various anticipated uses,\nas well as the impact of these uses on water quality.\nStudies of areas particularly suitable for agriculture or recreation;\nunique geologic or biological areas; or particularly hazardous areas due to\nstorms, floods and erosion, are planned as a foundation for the designation\nof areas of particular concern. Priority use guidelines are to be developed\non the basis of the analysis of permissible uses and areas of particular\nconcern.\n2","Policy development work is expected to continue throughout the\nfirst two years of the program, with most of the effort focused into the first\nyear and a half.\nLegal Activities: A continuing review of State coastal legislative\nneeds will be an integral part of the program development period. Goals and\nobjectives will be evaluated in relation to existing agency powers, and the\nregulatory requirements for coastal zone management will be assessed.\nIn addition, preparations for public hearings on each principal policy\nissue of the coastal area plan will be made, with all documents available\nfor public inspection. As policies are developed, legislation will be drafted\nto accommodate emerging regulatory needs and to sharpen lines of authority and\nresponsibilities. Work in the legal area is expected to continue throughout\nthe program with the major effort occurring before the 1975 and 1977 legisla-\ntive sessions.\nManagement Plan Preparation: The results of the previous tasks are to be\nintegrated into a comprehensive plan for the management and development of\nAlabama's coastal area. The development of the plan will be a continuous\nprocess starting early in the first year and building from that point\ntoward formalization in the third year. Upon completion, the report will\nbe reviewed by the Coastal Area Board members, State agency heads and local\ngovernmental and public individuals.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nIn addition to the public hearings required after the initial drafting of\nthe comprehensive management plan, citizen input will be channeled directly\ninto the policy making process. Educational and planning meetings will be\nheld with such citizen user groups as recreation and tourist interests, housing\ndevelopers, shipping and seafood representatives, conservation organizations,\nagricultural interests, and municipal and county officials. Each user group\nwill be asked to select a committee to determine the most beneficial land use,\nconflicts of use and needs of that particular group. The results of these\ndeliberations will be used as input to the Coastal Area Board's policy form-\nulation sessions. The results of the deliberations can be followed on a\nregional and State basis by a representative of each user group who will be\nselected to represent that group on a citizen's advisory council.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nCoordination among State agencies involved in coastal planning and\nmanagement is provided by the membership requirements for the Coastal\nArea Board. Members include the Directors of: The Alabama Development\nOffice, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Alabama State\nDocks, the Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium and the Geologic Survey\nof Alabama. Members are also drawn from the county and city commissions of\nthe coastal counties. A number of other State agencies (e.g. Health\nDepartment and Water Improvement Commission) act in an advisory capacity to the\nBoard.\n3","Regional coordination is enhanced by the efforts of the South Alabama\nRegional Planning Commission. The SARPC is the principal planning agency\nfor the coastal counties of Baldwin and Mobile, with planning activity\nin the areas of land use, transportation, housing and recreation.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe Coastal Areas Development Act defines the coastal area as \"the\ncoastal waters and adjacent shorelands strongly influenced by each and\nin proximity to the shorelines of Alabama, and includes transitional\nand intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands and beaches. The area extends\nseaward to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea and extends\ninland from the shoreline only to the extent necessary to control shore-\nlands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on coastal\nwaters.\" Coastal waters include sounds, bays, lagoons, bayous, ponds and\nestuaries.\nFor planning purposes, the Coastal Areas Board has divided the\ncoastal area into a Primary, Secondary and Tertiary zone. The Coastal\nAreas Board will have broad management authority over the Primary Zone,\nwhich includes all lands at or below 10 feet above mean sea level and\nall submerged lands seaward to the territorial limit.\nIn the Secondary Zone, the Board will have authority over \"activities\nsignificantly affecting the Primary Zone.\" This zone will include the\narea between the inland boundary of the Primary Zone and 50 feet above\nmean sea level.\nIn the Tertiary Zone, the Board will act in an advisory capacity to\nlocal and county governments and the Regional Planning Commission, and\ncooperate in various planning and implementation studies. The Tertiary\nZone extends from the inland boundary of the Secondary Zone to 100 feet\nabove mean sea level.\n4","ALASKA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Division of Marine and Coastal Zone Management of the\nDepartment of Environmental Conservation\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: None\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning May 15, 1974\nFUNDING: $600,000 (Federal) $900,000 (total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nAlaska's Department of Environmental Conservation was created in\n1971 by the state legislature. Within the Department, five divisions\nwere established, one of which is the Division of Marine and Coastal Zone\nManagement. This Division is responsible for the development of marine\nand coastal zone research and for management of the state's total interest\nin the coastal zone, including the continental shelf. The Division is\nresponsible for developing a plan for conservation and utilization of\nmarine, coastal and estuarine resources, and for reviewing permits for\nuse of the marine environment, wetlands and adjacent uplands.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Overexploitation of fishing stocks by domestic and foreign\nfleets, and destruction of spawning and rearing areas from\nimproper timber harvesting and mining pollution has caused\ndeclining fish populations, and the Alaskan fishing\nindustry has suffered economic losses for a number of years.\n- Increasing coastal population pressures are adversely\naffecting the coastal environment by causing the damming of\ncoastal rivers for hydroelectric power, increased stream\nand tideland alterations, and sewage disposal problems.\n- With the start of large scale oil production in the State of\nAlaska, oil spills have increased in size and frequency,\nthreatening fish, various waterfowl and other animals\ndependent on the coastal zone for breeding and food.\n- Conflicting use demands for the shoreland area are\nincreasing as residential developers, the tourist industry,\noutdoor recreation interests, and commercial and industrial\ndevelopers compete for prime coastal locations.\n- The coastal zone has traditionally provided the basis for sub-\nsistence for many native Alaskan cultures; increasing\npopulation and mining and oil industry developmental\npressures pose a threat to the continued existence of\nthese cultures.\n- The depletion of natural resources and energy supplies in\nthe other 49 states has placed strong pressure on Alaska\nto develop its resources, making management planning which\nappears to impede the economic momentum unpopular.\n5","GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To achieve coordinated development and utilization of coastal\nbiological, cultural, aesthetic and energy-related resources\nwithout emphasizing any single resource at the expense of\nany others.\n- To manage the state's renewable resources in a manner designed\nto attain maximum sustained yield.\nTo attain optimum time-distribution utilization of non-\n-\nrenewable resources in order to achieve maximum economic\nand cultural gain.\n- To achieve a balance in the human use and natural replenishment\nof the coastal zone ecosystem at an optimum level.\n- To retain the aesthetic, ecological and cultural diversity\nnecessary to maintain economic and ecological resilience to\nhuman intervention in the coastal area.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nA. Developing an Informational Base\nHuman Uses Study: An assessment of human uses of the coastal area is\nscheduled as a first year task. Information will be gathered regarding\nnot only physical and economic activities of the coastal population, but\nalso, human attitudes and needs. Questionnaires will be distributed\nto\nelicit responses on selected issues and to assess attitudes of various\nrepresentative segments of the population.\nOwnership of shoreland and intertidal areas will be explored with the\ninformation analyzed according to whether ownership is for commercial,\nindustrial, or residential purposes, and for water-dependent uses.\nThe siting of transportation and navigation facilities, waste\ndisposal and sewage treatment centers, petroleum production activities,\nlogging facilities, hydroelectric dams and transmission lines, recreation\nareas, prime commercial and sport fishing areas, and mining operations\nwill be mapped and analyzed according to shoreline dependency and impact.\nNatural Resources Study: A first year assessment will be made of\ncoastal resources under four broad headings - fisheries resources\n(including critical habitats) ; wildlife resources; topographic and geologic\nresource areas; and recreational, historical and scenic resource areas.\nBoth harvestable fisheries and marine biota and important food\nchain links will be stressed in the fisheries resources component.\nFlyways, feeding and breeding areas of migratory fowl will be\ncharted as critical habitats along with the critical habitats of upland\ngame and marine mammals in an effort to identify potential areas for\ncoastal preserves.\n6","Emphasis will be placed on wetlands and other areas of high productivity\nin analyzing the coastal topography, along with delineation of sand and\ngravel deposits, geothermal sites, and natural harbors.\nRecreational and scenic resources will be compiled on the basis of\nlocal input with attention given to historical and archaeological\nresource areas.\nCoastal Zone Processes: A first year assessment of coastal zone\nprocesses will focus on identification of existing and potential\nhazards to the coastal area. Analysis will be undertaken of shoreline\nstability and suitability for development, and hydrologic, chemical and\nbiological processes, as well as their roles in waste and nutrient recycling.\nThe Division of Marine and Coastal Zone Management has already\ninitiated projects to compile maps of shoreline materials, permafrost\nlocations, localized areas of erosion, areas undergoing uplift or\nsubsidence, and major faults and earthquake epicenters.\nMeteorologic and hydrologic factors such as winds, rainfall, flooding\nand the fluvial processes will also be incorporated into this work element.\nBoundary Definition: Input from the human resources, natural resources,\nand coastal zone processes studies will be used to refine the definition\nof the Alaskan coastal zone for both planning and regulatory purposes.\nB.\nPolicy Development\nThe information gathered and evaluated in the Human Uses, Coastal Zone\nProcesses, and Natural Resources studies will serve as the primary basis\nfor the definition and delineation of permissible uses of coastal zone\nland and water, leading to identification of areas of particular concern\nand identification of priority uses. Physical and biological processes\nof the coastal zone will be assessed with respect to their interactions\nwith the allocation of material resources and with developmental activities\nboth present and planned. Areas of particular concern are to be identified\naccording to an analysis of competing uses and environmental constraints.\nFinally, environmental-economic analysis of management alternatives will\nhelp define high priority uses and establish a ranking procedure.\nC. Policy Implementation\nEstablishment of regulations: An early program development task will be\nthe compilation and review of existing local, state and Federal guidelines and\ncontrols in the area of coastal zone management.\nAlaska conceives of a two-level management program development process;\nbroad coverage for the entire coastal area, and intensive management for\nurban and industrial areas and areas rapidly becoming developed. Regionalization\nof the development program will be evaluated during the first year, with\ndevelopment of regulations for urban and industrial areas and endangered\nrenewable resources receiving priority.\n7","Development of a Management Structure: The organizational structure\nof the regulatory agency and a method of coordination with others active\nin coastal planning and management will be developed. A first year program\ntask will be to review existing local and state responsibilities in an\neffort to further cooperation and coordination between agencies responsible\nfor coastal planning.\nEnactment of Supplementary Legislation: During the first program\ndevelopment year, a review of legislation applicable to coastal zone\nmanagement and planning will be initiated to ensure that the state has\nthe sufficient authority to carry out the desired management program.\nWhere legislative authority is lacking, supplementary legislation\nwill be drafted and sent to the state legislature.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nA series of workshops, displays, and an information dissemination\nprogram will be developed to educate the public with regard to the\nintrinsic values of coastal resources and the need for their effective\nmanagement.\nQuestionnaires will be sent to all coastal communities in an\neffort to gain early public input to goal and policy definition. Through\nthis process, the Division of Marine and Coastal Zone Management plans\nto develop a method of liaison with local planning boards, harbor\nmasters, conservation groups and other interested local agencies, groups,\norganizations, and citizens.\nIn addition, a series of public hearings will be held to acquaint\ncitizen groups, special interest groups, and the public at large with\npreliminary plans, atlases, and analytical studies, and to receive\ninput for necessary modification.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nCoordination with Federal agencies, local governments, communities,\nand other state agencies will be initiated from the beginning of the\nprogram. As an initial step, an advisory committee composed of repre-\nsentatives of state agencies will be established under the chairmanship\nof the Commissioners of Environmental Conservation.\nThe Division of Marine and Coastal Zone Management also plans to\nestablish positions for a Federal and sub-state regional coordinator on\nits planning staff to work directly with the various levels of governmental\nunits with interests in the Alaskan coastal zone.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nA broad coastal zone area has been defined for initial planning pur-\nposes with the seaward boundary corresponding to the three-mile territorial\nlimit and the shoreward boundary approximating the upper limit of the coastal\nzone biome or ten miles from mean high water, whichever is greater. The\nboundaries will vary in estuarine areas to accommodate extensive portions\nof the river drainage basins of the estuaries.\n8","CALIFORNIA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Delta Advisory Planning Council;\nDepartment of Navigation and Ocean Development; Department of Fish and Game;\nDepartment of Parks and Recreation\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 2 years; beginning April 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $720,000 (Federal) $1,648,653 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nAt the present time, there are at least three agencies with the\nprimary planning and management responsibilities in the California coastal\nZOLE: the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (CCZCC) the\nBay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) ; and the Delta Advisory\nPlanning Council (DAPC).\nThe California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and the six substate\nregional commissions under its guidance were created in November, 1972, when\nthe California voters approved Proposition 20, the California Coastal Zone\nConservation Act of 1972. The Act charged the seven commissions to prepare\na coastal zone conservation plan to be presented to the State legislature\nby December 1, 1975. The CCZCC expects to continue planning efforts through-\nout 1976 until the Comprehensive Plan is officially adopted by the State\nlegislature. The plan will contain five major components, one of which\nwill contain nine specific coastal resource-use elements. Final responsi-\nbility for implementing the comprehensive plan rests with the State legislature.\nThe Act further provided for an interim permit control process to regulate\ndevelopment of that portion of the coastal zone lying between the three-mile\nlimit seaward and 1,000 yards landward of mean high tide. Any person wishing\nto undertake any development within the permit area must obtain a permit\nfrom the appropriate Regional Commission.\nThe Bay Conservation and Development Commission was established in 1965\nas a temporary agency to prepare a management plan for San Francisco Bay.\nBased on the plan adopted by BCDC in 1969, the State legislature made the\nCommission a permanent agency responsible for regulating development in\nand around San Francisco Bay. BCDC has regulatory authority over any\n\"proposed project that involves placing fill, extracting materials or making\nany substantial change in the use of any water, land or structure\" within\nthe Bay or its managed wetlands; with limited jurisdiction over developments\nwithin a 100-foot strip inland.\nThe Delta Advisory Planning Council is an advisory body to local and\ncounty governments in five counties comprising the San Joaquin-Sacremento\nRiver Delta area. The Council is preparing a comprehensive resource preser-\nvation and allocation plan, one part of which will recommend a program for\npermanent management of the Delta area.\n9","PROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Fragmentation of authority in existing coastal resource planning\nand management with a resultant lack of coordination among govern-\nmental entities with coastal planning functions.\n- Lack of public awareness and support in evolving acceptable coastal\nconservation and development policies.\n- Lack of a manageable data base, integrating past and present inven-\ntories and studies dealing with resource use conflicts and resource\nallocation.\n- Absence of an effective planning and regulatory mechanism for guiding\ndevelopment according to the carrying capacity of the coastal shore-\nland and marine environments.\nNeed for a process to ensure that coastal development occurring\n-\nduring the planning of long-term coastal zone management processes\nremains consistent with the policy of protection and conservation of\nnatural and scenic coastal resources.\nG OALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To protect coastal property and wildlife, ocean resources, and the\nnatural environment.\n- To preserve the ecological balance necessary to prevent further\ndeterioration and destruction of valuable coastal resources.\n- To restore, maintain and if possible to enhance the overall quality\nof the coastal zone environment.\n- To ensure the continued existence of optimum populations of all\nspecies of living organisms.\n- To achieve the orderly and balanced utilization of resources con-\nsistent with long-term conservation principles.\nTo avoid irreversible or irretrievable commitments of coastal\n-\nresources.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nThe CZCC has identified nine individual components taken\ntogether will constitute California's comprehensive coastal zone management\nplan. For each component, the Commission's staff will conduct research and\ngather information for use by the six Regional Commissions as the \"raw\nmaterials\" for plan development. The Regional Commissions will deal with\neach component separately, emphasizing the issue posing the greatest problem\nin each region.\nMarine Environment: This component deals with the physical aspect\nof the coastal zone including the geologic formation of the continental\nshelf and ocean floor, waves, currents and tides. Analysis is planned of\ndangers to critical resources and key ecological areas with studies to be\nmade of the effects of oil spills, waste discharges, dredging and onshore\nconstruction. In addition, permissible water uses are to be identified\nand evaluated with emphasis on activities such as commercial fishing, plant\nharvesting and aquaculture. Finally, specific water areas of critical\nconcern will be identified and the priorities for their use established.\n10","Coastal Land Environment: The relationships between the ocean and the\nadjacent land are to be the subject of this component. An evaluation will\nbe made of alternative methods of shoreland resource maintenance and utiliza-\ntion. Potential threats to coastal resources are to be identified in\nconjunction with the designation of use priorities and delineation of geo-\ngraphical areas of particular concern. Scheduled as an early effort is a\ncoastal purchase and leaseback study. The plan element is to result in a\ndescription of possible State regulatory approaches with completion scheduled\nfor mid-August, 1974.\nGeology: A cause and effect analysis of geologic hazards is planned as\nan approach to development of protection techniques and policies for regu-\nlating uses. The study, expected to be concluded in August, 1974, will include\nan analysis of potential environmental dangers due to mineral extraction.\nEnergy: An evaluation of the social and economic responsibility of\nCalifornia in meeting State, regional and national energy needs through coastal\nenergy facility siting is underway. Input into this component, which is to\nrun into December, 1974, is to include an identification of the potential\nenvironmental effects of coastal facility siting and recommendations for any\nneeded additional regulations of energy-related activities.\nRecreation: An assessment of existing and projected needs for recrea-\ntion space and facilities is planned for completion in mid-November, 1974.\nAn outline of potential use conflicts and the socio-economic and environ-\nmental impacts of recreational activities is also scheduled. Final results\nare to include an evaluation of the potential for providing an increased\npublic access to the coast and the development of recommendations of areas\nthat should be preserved for recreational use.\nAppearance and Design: This plan component will summarize coastal uses\ncontributing to deteriorating visual quality, survey scenic resources of\noutstanding aesthetic value, and recommend criteria for the design of coastal\ndevelopments that will maximize visual values. Completion of this plan\ncomponent is scheduled for mid-October, 1974.\nTransportation: The need for ports and water-related industrial sites\nwill be analyzed and an assessment made of their economic and environmental\nimpacts. In addition, this component (scheduled for completion in December,\n1974) will examine current systems of land and air transportation in the\ncoastal area and evaluate alternative transportation methods.\nIntensity of Development: An assessment is planned of appropriate\nfigures for allowable intensity of development of specific coastal areas.\nThis component will build on the analysis of priorities of uses by evaluating\ntechniques for assessing the major factors involved in determining the\ncapacity of specific areas to withstand developmental pressures. This analysis\nis expected to continue into February, 1975.\nPowers, Funding and Government: A study of sources of tax revenue to\nprovide for permanent management of the coastal zone has been initiated.\nFurther analysis of the capability of existing governmental authorities and\n11","sources of funding are also planned. This component, which will continue into\nMarch, 1975, will result in recommendations as to the most appropriate forms\nof government for permanent management of the California coast.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThe Coastal Commission has chosen to follow the evolutionary concept of\ndeveloping a single component of the Coastal Zone Conservation Plan at a\ntime,\nexposing the component to the public through public hearings and securing\npublic opinion and comment at each step along the development process.\nThe public hearings will follow a comprehensive review by regional\nsamplings of planning directors, city managers, labor union officials, chamber\nof commerce managers, environmental leaders, etc.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nAs has been already discussed, there are six Regional Commissions with\noffices located in Eureka, San Rafael, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Long Beach\nand San Diego which report to and receive guidance from the State Coastal\nZone Conservation Commission. Local government input is assured by the\nrequirement that a supervisor and city councilman from each county making\nup part of individual Region be a member of that Regional Commission. In\naddition, coordination is provided by having six representatives from the\nRegional Commissions as members of the State Commission.\nState agency coordination is assured by Governor Reagen's designation\nof the Secretary of Resources and the Chairman of the CCC as dual State\ncontacts with the U. S. Department of Commerce for implementation of Cali-\nfornia's coastal zone management program.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nSection 27100 of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972\ndefines the boundaries of the coastal zone as extending seaward to the outer\nlimit of State jurisdiction and extending inland to the highest elevation of\nthe nearest coastal mountain range, except that in Los Angeles, Orange, and\nSan Diego Counties, the inland boundary is the highest elevation of the\nnearest coastal mountain range on five miles from mean high tide, whichever\nis a shorter distance.\n12","CONNECTICUT\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Environmental Protection\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Southeastern Connecticut Regional\nPlanning Agency\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $194,285 (Federal) $324,644 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nBetween 1969 and 1971, the Connecticut Department of Environmental\nProtection (DEP) was given the legislative mandate to regulate all\nconstruction and dredging in tidal, coastal and navigable waters and to\ndevelop a permit system regulating wetland use based on an inventory and\nmapping of the coastal wetlands within the State. The DEP is further\nresponsible for the preparation and periodic updating of a Statewide Comprehensive\nOutdoor Recreation Plan identifying recreation needs and recommending action\nto meet those needs. The most recent SCORP was released in 1974.\nIn addition to SCORP, two other comprehensive plans guide State policies:\nthe Proposed Plan of Conservation and Development, completed in January 1973;\nand the Master Transportation Plan which is revised annually.\nThe Proposed Plan of Conservation and Development, prepared by the\nOffice of State Planning, is a synthesis of land use and water resources\nplanning and objectives at the state level. The Proposed Plan includes maps\nand proposed policies for land and water uses, conservation areas, and urban\ndevelopment opportunities and limitations.\nThe Master Transportation Plan recommends policy with regard to highway,\nrail, air, and water transportation in terms of population and land use demands.\nTo undertake the first year program development work a Coastal Area Unit -\na staff of eight technical specialists will be formed. The Unit will be located\nin the DEP, and will be primarily responsible to the Coastal Area Management\nBoard - a policy-making body consisting of the heads of eight State agencies\nand representatives of each of the six regional planning agencies in the\ncoastal area.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- The coastal area is densely populated and highly urbanized with develop-\nment heaviest along the shorelines of the coast and major rivers - areas\nwhich are most prone to flood and hurricane damage.\n- Growth pressures and poor water quality are threatening\nwetlands, beaches, estuaries, and other critical coastal areas.\n- Marine-oriented recreational opportunities and facilities are limited\nand only a very small percentage of the Connecticut coastline is\naccessible to the public.\n13","- Increasing municipal and industrial waste discharged into coastal\nwaters are threatening aquatic and estuarine ecological systems and\ncommercial and recreational activities.\nIncreasing energy demands are resulting in a major push for the coastal\n-\nsiting of petroleum and power facilities, pipelines and transmission\nlines.\n- Authorities for activities affecting the coastal area are fragmented,\nwith responsibilities shared by local, regional, and State agencies\nwithout effective coordination or a guiding policy framework.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To manage and control industrial, residential, and institutional\ndevelopment in such a manner that benefit to the citizens of the State\nare maximized and adverse effects upon coastal resources are minimized.\n- To preserve and protect areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable\nnatural habitat, historical or cultural value, and scenic importance.\n- To improve existing air and water quality in the coastal areas.\nTo provide sufficient and diverse recreational opportunities.\n-\n- To minimize the danger of damage from natural disasters and coastal\nerosion.\n- To ensure effective and environmentally acceptable energy facility siting.\n- To maximize the productivity and value of fishery and wildlife resources.\nTo achieve and maintain a sound data base upon which governmental\n-\ndecision-making and regulatory activities can be based.\n- To establish unified policies and standards for coordinated management\nof the coastal area by all involved governmental units.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nDefinition of Boundaries: The study of alternative coastal zone boundaries\nis a first year program development task. Determination of an overall boundary\nwill be made with review and of the need for sub-boundaries delineating\nareas of critical concern or specifying certain types of management areas.\nAnalysis will include the possibilities of boundaries being a) consistent\nwith political boundaries; b) an easily identified visual line; c) an ecological\nlimit (e.g., limit of tidal action) d) the inland limit of human activities\naffecting the coastline.\nStrategies for Land and Water Use: The Proposed Plan for Conservation and\nDevelopment, the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, the Master Transportation\nPlan, and various studies at the local, regional, and State levels contain\nvaluable information useful to management plan formulation. Utilizing these\nsources and necessary independent analysis, a strategy will be developed to\ndetermine permissible land and water uses, the priorities of these permitted\nuses. This analysis, scheduled to run throughout the program development\nperiod, will consider: the sources of land and water use pressures;\nthe limitations and values of various coastal resources; and the physical\ncharacteristics of the coastal area.\nGeographic Areas of Particular Concern: Consideration of areas of\nparticular concern will take place throughout the program development period.\nAreas which will be explored for possible designation will include: areas of\n14","high ecological value; lands in flood-prone areas; highly urbanized areas;\nareas with high potential for industrial use; areas with high potential for\nrecreational use; and proposed energy facility sites. Special attention will\nbe given to estuarine areas in the initial development stages.\nAdministration, Review, and Monitoring of Activities: It is intended\nthat through this work element, a process will be established over the three\nyear period to gather and evaluate information on coastal activities\n(including construction and dredge and fill projects), plans, and programs\nof both public and private interests. The goal is to provide a reference\nand technical work oriented focal point for the administration, review, and\nmonitoring of significant occurrences and changes in the coastal area on a\nday-to-day basis.\nAlternative Management Structures: This task is aimed at filling the\nneed for coordination of planning and management activities at all\nlevels. The goal of this three year effort will be to evaluate past respon-\nsibilities and authorities of the various governmental agencies involved in\ncoastal zone management and to evaluate alternative means for exerting effective\ncontrol over land and water uses. This analysis will include study of\nboth\nregional, municipal and State roles, and will identify the need for new\nlegislation to strengthen existing authorities.\nRegional Pilot Study: A pilot study will be conducted by the South-\neastern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency, and will include the shoreline\nand Thames River areas of the southeastern region of the coastal area.\nThe Thames River is one of the State's largest estuaries and it supports\nheavy industry, a deepwater port, power plants, and numerous recreational\nfacilities. The region also includes intensely developed lands and rural\nareas and undeveloped regions. The study is designed to identify resource\npressures and conflicts; identify and assess various jurisdictional authorities;\nexamine local needs, desires, and opinions; and identify areas of particular\nconcern and the success of various management strategies. The pilot study\nis scheduled as primarily a first year effort.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nA series of public meetings in the coastal area is scheduled for the\nsecond half of the first year in an effort to publicize the coastal zone\nmanagement effort and to receive suggestions and gain support for the manage-\nment program. It is expected that these meetings will follow the format of the\nseries of meetings conducted by the Long Island Sound Regional Study in the\nspring of 1974.\nA citizens' advisory committee is to be established early in the first\nyear of the development program. The function of the committee will be to\nprovide general policy guidance to the Coastal Area Unit and to act as\nliaison between the public and the program development staff. In addition,\nthe Regional Pilot Study will develop a mechanism for directly\ninvolving large numbers of the public in the policy formulation process.\n15","INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nIn addition to membership on the citizens' advisory committee, sub-\nState regional interests are represented by six Regional Planning Agencies\nwithin the coastal area who participate on the Coastal Area Management\nBoard. Three of the six regions have adopted regional plans of development;\nthe others have made significant progress toward this end. These agencies\nwill act as liaisons between State and municipal governments, and will be\nkept in close contact with the Coastal Area Unit.\nTwo multi-State - regional organizations have undertaken technical work\nconcerning the coastal area. Connecticut participates in both the New England\nRiver Basins Commission, currently concerned with the Long Island Sound\nRegional Study; and the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission which has\nstudied the western portion of the Connecticut coastline.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nFor planning purposes during the beginning months of program\ndevelopment, Connecticuit's coastal zone is defined as the Con-\nnecticut portion of the New England River Basin Commission's Long Island\nSound Regional Study area. This initial coastal area includes the areas\ncovered by the State's six coastal Regional Planning Agencies - Southwestern\nConnecticut, Greater Bridgeport, Valley, New Haven Connecticut River Estuary,\nand Southeastern Connecticut.\n16","DELAWARE\nGRANT RECIPIENT: State Planning Office\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Coastal Zone Management Committee;\nDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control; University of\nDelaware College of Marine Studies.\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $166,666 (Federal) $250,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nIn June, 1971, the Governor signed the Delaware Coastal Zone\nAct into law. The Act resulted from the recommendations of the Governor's\nTask Force on Marine and Coastal Affairs contained in the publication, The\nCoast of Delaware. The Act bans all heavy industry and port or dock facilities\nwithin two miles of Delaware's coastline not in existence at the time of\npassage of the Act, and requires a permit from the State Planning Office for\nall other manufacturing uses or expansion of existing heavy industrial uses.\nDelaware's continuing concern over unregulated coastal development led\nto legislation establishing a permit system for the uses of wetlands and\nlegislation to preserve and protect the public and private beaches and barrier\ndunes in the State.\nIn 1973, a Preliminary Coastal Zone Plan, as called for by the State's\n1971 Coastal Zone Act, was published. In addition, administrative regula-\ntions have been developed for the Coastal Zone Act, Beach Erosion Act, and\nWetlands Act.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- The growth in industrial and petroleum-related shipping volume, and\nthe emergence of larger, deeper draft ships has increased both the need\nfor expanded deep-water ports and the risks of serious ecological\ndamage due to spill or accident.\n- The Delaware coast is heavily used for resort-related development.\nSuch development is characterized by high-rise condominiums, tourist\naccommodations, lagooned second home complexes, and mobile home\nparks, many of which sit on recently filled wetlands or compete for\nthe fragile beach shore area.\n- Abuse of the coastal area and incomplete understanding of the\ncoastal recreational/resource relationships has had a detrimental\neffect on Delaware's attempt to accommodate increasing coastal\nrecreation demands.\nCommercial and sport fishing has suffered in recent years from\n-\nthe effects of pollution, destruction of nursery grounds from dredge\nand fill operations, and the demands for other uses of the coastal\nwaters.\n17","- Areas critical to the propagation and health of important\norganisms in the marine food chain, wetlands heavily used by migratory\nwaterfowl, and waters covering and supporting extensive shellfish\npopulations are increasingly threatened by pollutants, competing uses\nof the coastal zone, and the general intrusion of man into the natural\ncoastal ecosystem.\n- Lack of knowledge of the impacts of agricultural uses of the coastal\narea and demands for non-farm uses of coastal lands have resulted\nin agricultural concerns being neglected in coastal planning and\nmanagement.\n- Increasing portions of the coastal area are being heavily used\nfor utility transmission and surface transportation requirements with\nlimited understanding of the natural resource base they affect\nand a lack of construction techniques which lessen environmental\ndamage.\n- To date, local and State coastal planning, research, and management\nefforts have been hampered by a lack of coordination and inte-\ngration, with legislation vesting authority in various agencies\nwithout a centralized policy-guiding structure.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To determine the compatibility and appropriate mixtures of uses of\nthe coastal zone.\n- To protect the in-shore and marsh areas from pollution and unwise\nexploitation.\n- To develop and implement criteria, standards, and regulations for\ncontrol of land and water uses within the coastal zone.\n- To provide a focus for coastal zone management in the executive\nbranch of the State government.\n- To establish a mechanism for interagency and intergovernmental\ncoordination and cooperation in coastal affairs.\nTo create a coastal research program to furnish the scientific and\n-\ntechnical information necessary for coastal zone management\ndecision-making.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nComprehensive Coastal Zone Reference and Management Information System:\nThis work item will involve locating coastal zone data sources, receiving\nthe data from the managerial standpoint, establishing the area of coverage\nof the data and identifying data voids.\nAn additional sub-taskwill be to identify and assess the adequacy of\npresent State, regional and local legal authorities in terms of scope\n(in both geographic and use on activity terms), present administrative pro-\ncedures and powers, and overlapping and conflicting authorities. This sub-\ntask and the data collection sub-task are scheduled for the first program\ndevelopment year.\nThe filling of data voids and the creation of data files, information\nsystems, and reference documents will continue throughout the three-year\nperiod.\n18","Coastal Zone Boundary Determination: This task involves the assessment\nof present boundaries being used to describe the coastal zone and the possi-\nbility of creating a resource and use-based boundary. The final product,\nexpected at the end of the first year, will be an official planning boundary\nincluding the necessary mapping and legal description.\nEvaluation of Use Options and Mixes: This task will develop indices\nfor the determination of environmental and economic sensitivity and criteria\nto assess the relative importance of various factors. Criteria will be\ndeveloped for such factors as: uniqueness, scarcity, fragility, vulnerability,\nhistorical value, scenic importance, recreational value, dependence on coastal\nlocation, geological significance, etc. This task is scheduled to run from\nmidway through the first year through most of the second.\nGeographic Areas of Particular Concern: Based on the sensitivity\nmatrix, areas which are extremely sensitive to change and the repercussions\nof changes on the environment, animal and fishery resources, and terrestrial\nresources will be identified, described and mapped. This effort, which will\nbe initiated in the first year and will run through the second, will develop\ndescriptions of critical areas in a manner suitable for legal adoption, and will\nbe a source of major input into the boundary refinement effort.\nPermissible Land and Water Uses: A rating system will be developed in\nthe first year to rank uses of the coastal area based on their overall impacts.\nOverlay and other techniques will be used to build a visual display of possible\nconflicts in the uses of land and water areas.\nProjection of Demands: A statistical analysis of various types and\nintensities of use, including both direct demands and demands caused by\n\"triggering effects\" will be initiated in the first year. This analysis,\nin conjunction with an assessment of national and multi-state regional\nneeds will be used in the development of priorities for coastal use, assess-\nment of impacts, and the feasibility of various multi-use mixes.\nTesting Alternatives: Alternative mixes of resource uses and inten-\nsities will be developed and tested during the second year of the program\nwith the final product to be a report of the impacts and results of various\npolicies for land and water-use configurations.\nDesignation of Priorities and Preparation of a Plan: This task will make\nuse of the background studies to identify preferred uses of various\nportions of the coastal zone in plan form and to serve as the basis for\nregulations and arbitration of conflicts between users. Work on the plan,\nwhich will run from midway in the second year through most of the third,\nwill include a high level of public participation, and the plan will be\nprepared in a form suitable for public review and comment.\nRegulatory Mechanisms: This task will develop the necessary legislation\nand regulations for the State to carry out its management responsibilities.\nThe products of this task will be presented to the Coastal Zone Management\nCommittee, the Governor's Office, and the public for review and comment\nat the end of the second year before presentation to the State General\nAssembly.\n19","Organizational Structures: The authorities and capabilities of the\nvarious groups presently dealing with coastal zone planning will be evalu-\nated for management purposes. A summary report will be issued to recommend\nan organizational structure with appropriate legal and other implementing\narrangements. This task is scheduled primarily for the third program develop-\nment year.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nExtensive public participation is to be channelled into the task of\ndefining policies and preparing the comprehensive management plan. Public\ninput is to include hearings, workshops, and seminars to help define goals,\nobjectives, and social values. Various brochures and summaries of plan\nproposals will be distributed to the general public for educational purposes.\nFinally, public comment will be reviewed, and a plan will be prepared and\npresented to the public for review and comment before presentation to the\nGovernor.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nAt the State level, recent reorganization of the executive branch\nbrought a number of formerly autonomous resource agencies into a single\nDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control which now has\nresponsibility over fish and wildlife resources, water and soil resources,\nmineral resources, solid waste management, subaqueous lands, and the State\nparks system.\nAt the local level, participation and coordination is ensured by\nmembership of representatives of the planning agencies of each of the\ncoastal counties and the major metropolitan areas, as well as local and\nState government representatives, on the 23-member Coastal Zone Management\nCommittee which will advise the State Planning Office and the Department\nof Natural Resources and Environmental Control during program development.\nDelaware also participates in the Delaware River Basin Commission\nin an effort to coordinate water management policies with the States of\nNew Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe planning boundary to be used for initial planning purposes will\nbe the lands and waters situated landward of the State's jurisdiction\nincluding those areas which are within the drainage systems of the Atlantic\nOcean, Delaware River and Bay, Rehoboth Bay, Indian River Bay, Little\nAssawoman Bay, and Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.\n20","FLORIDA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Coastal Coordinating Council; Department of Natural\nResources\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Department of Administration\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $450,000 (Federal) $686,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Coastal Coordinating Council (CCC) has been involved in the develop-\nment of a comprehensive coastal zone management plan for Florida since 1970.\nAs part of its planning function, the CCC published the Florida Coastal Zone\nManagement Atlas in December, 1972. The Atlas explains the approach being\nused to develop Florida's coastal zone management program and applies this\napproach in general map form to the entire Florida coastal zone on a county-\nby-county basis. The CCC approach utilizes three major categories or\nzones of land and water use: Preservation (no further modification),\nConservation (controlled modification), and Development (few if any State\nlevel controls). These are designated after consideration of: soil suita-\nbility; ecological significance; susceptibility to flooding; historical and\narchaeological significance; unique features; water quality standards; present\nland use; and geological factors.\nThe CCC's latest recommendations focussed on the following areas:\na) shoreline use priorities; b) shoreline modification practices; c) develop-\nment in wetland areas; d) residential development; e) regulation of septic\ntank use; f) solid waste disposal-sanitary landfill sites; g) forest manage-\nment techniques; h) agricultural practices; and i) amenities, aesthetics,\nand design. In the important area of shoreline use priorities the CCC\nrecommended that local development policies reflect the following listing:\n1) preservation; 2) conservation (including recreation); and 3) development.\nUnder \"development,\" activities are listed in the following manner: a) military;\nb) ports and water-related industry; c) transportation (where waterfront\nlocation is mandatory); d) utilities (where waterfront location is mandatory);\ne) water-related commercial; f) residential; g) commercial enhanced by water-\nfront; h) industry enhanced by waterfront.\nIn addition to developing components of its comprehensive management\nplan, Florida is developing regulations under the Environment Land and Water\nManagement Act of 1972. This Act, which provides for control of areas of\ncritical State concern and requires approval of developments of regional\nimpact, is administered by the Department of Administration.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Multiplicity of land use demands leading to use conflicts.\n21","- Lack of clear-cut jurisdictional distinctions among the various\nFederal, State, county, and municipal agencies with coastal zone\nmanagement functions.\n- Lack of interagency coordination.\n- Pollution of coastal waters.\n- Destruction of the marine environment through beach erosion and\ndredge and fill projects.\n- Lack of knowledge and data on the cumulative effects of development,\nand the physical and biological parameters of the shore and inshore\nareas of the coastal zone.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To provide for the coordination of all State, Federal, regional,\ncounty, and municipal efforts to effectively manage and utilize\nthe resources and features of the coastal zone.\n- To provide for the most efficient utilization of coastal resources.\n- To provide for the protection, management, and beneficial utilization\nof water resources in the coastal zone.\n- To maintain, restore, and improve air quality in the coastal zone.\n- To maintain, increase, and extend over time the productivity and\nproductivity potential of the living and non-living marine resources\nin the coastal zone.\n- To provide for the preservation, protection, restoration, improvement,\nand enhancement of the upland, submerged land, and biological features\nof the coastal, estuarine, and marine environment.\n- To establish and maintain in perpetuity coastal and estuarine areas\nof unique value so that their features may be preserved for future\neducational, recreational, and scientific purposes.\n- To provide for recreational opportunities to meet State needs and\nfor the protection and preservation of all significant historical\nand archaeological sites.\n- To provide for the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge about\nthe coastal environment and its resources to promote public under-\nstanding of the concepts, values, and issues involved in its management.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nBiophysical Environment: An analysis (more detailed than that contained\nin the Coastal Atlas) is scheduled for the preservation, conservation, and\ndevelopment areas on a regional basis during the first program development\nyear. This effort will involve detailed mapping of the coastal area in terms\nof ecological significance, soils suitability, susceptability to flooding,\ngeology, water quality, present use, archaeological and historical signifi-\ncance, and unique features needing protection.\nHuman Adaptations: Another first year task will be an inventory and\nanalysis of the carrying capacity of land and support services in unincorporated\nareas on a regional basis. This effort, which will include such para-\nmeters as water and power supply, health care and education services, etc.,\nin terms of location and ability to serve additional population demands,\nwill serve as an additional basis upon which local units can determine over-\nall impacts of proposed developments.\n22","In addition, a review and analysis of areas revealed by the biophysical\nanalysis as \"conflict\" areas is planned. Conflict areas will be categorized\nand analyzed according to magnitude and possible solutions.\nStudies planned for the second and third years will include a coastal\nland ownership analysis and an economic analysis of the coastal area.\nEnvironmental Quality: Analyses of existing water and air quality, land\nand open space, amenities and aesthetics, and environmentally stressed areas\nin the coastal zone are planned during the program development period. The\ngoal of the environmental quality analysis will be to develop the criteria\nfor assessing environmental impacts of proposed uses and to develop recom-\nmendations to ensure that future coastal activities result in minimal\nadverse environmental impacts.\nFirst year efforts will focus on an inventory of man-induced coastal\nproblems and conflicts, especially in the areas of shellfish population\nmaintenance and water use.\nPlanning Analysis: Data collected from the studies conducted in the\nareas of environmental quality and carrying capacity will be evaluated in\nthe light of biophysical inventories to develop guidelines and recommenda-\ntions for planning by local units. Local planning policy, needs and capa-\nbilities will be determined during the first year by means of an analysis\nof regional, county, and local plans, planning problems, and growth policies.\nPlanning documents will be analyzed according to jurisdictional area, year\nof adoption (or publication), enforcing body, general objectives, implementa-\ntion method, relationship to coastal zone management, and impact on coastal\nactivities. This analysis is expected to supply the background against\nwhich planning recommendations can be made.\nManagement Analysis: Several studies are planned in an effort to\ndevelop: a) an organizational format for Florida's management of coastal\nactivities; and b) recommendations for the laws and ordinances necessary\nfor implementation of the comprehensive management plan. A first year study\nwill be to identify and assess, by region, the existing legal authorities\nover land and water uses in the coastal zone. With the conclusion of the\nstudy, data of existing agency administration and jurisdiction will be used\nin conjunction with the output of the legal analysis to determine areas of\nmutual support or conflict upon which organizational and legislative recom-\nmendations can be made as to alternative institutions and controls.\nInformation and Data Services and Support: In an effort to provide a\nstrong informational system to respond to local as well as State coastal\nzone planning and management needs, the CCC plans to expand its library and\nnewsletter services and to develop supporting technical capabilities in the\nareas of photo and remote sensing interpretation and application and computer\ndata management.\n23","PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nA Citizen's Advisory Committee will be created to provide public input\ninto the planning process. The Committee's membership will include\nrepresentatives of each of the planning regions from areas of commercial\nfishing, tourism, the construction industry, conservation groups, scientific\ngroups, industry, business, and the general public.\nThe Citizen Advisory Committee will work closely with the regional\nplanning councils through the CCC's regional planning coordinators in an\neffort to serve as a liaison between the Council and the coastal committees.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nA Governmental Advisory Committee (a separate entity from the Citizen's\nAdvisory Committee) will provide State level coordination in coastal zone\nmanagement policy-making. This Committee will include representatives from\nall State agencies involved in coastal zone activities as well as members\nof the State legislature.\nThe Regional Planning Coordinators will provide coordination with the\ncounty and municipal governments in the regions to which they are assigned,\nworking closely with, and if possible being attached to, the staffs of the\n10 Regional Planning Councils in Florida's coastal area.\nFinally, with the addition of an Agency Coordinator, an effort has been\nmade within the CCC's staff itself to ensure a close working relationship is\ndeveloped with governmental units at all levels during the program development\nperiod.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nAs an initial planning boundary, to be later assessed and refined, the\nCCC will use the coastal area as delineated in the Florida Coastal Zone\nManagement Atlas. This area includes the region outlined by the boundaries\nof Florida's 30 coastal counties.\n24","GEORGIA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Office of Planning and Budget\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: State Department of Law; Department\nof Natural Resources\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $188,000 (Federal) $303,400 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, passed in 1970, regulates\ndredging, draining, removal or other alterations of coastal marshlands\nthrough a permit system administered by the Coastal Marshlands Protection\nCommittee within the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.\nAt the State level, the Governor created the State Interagency Task\nForce, composed of 12 members of State and local agencies, to initiate\nplanning and policy-making for coastal zone management. At the same time,\na Task Force was created within the Georgia Department of Natural Resources\n(DNR) to provide technical assistance to the interagency group. The DNR\nhas conducted a three-year inventory of Georgia's estuarine areas, a\ncoastal fisheries management program and study, a wildlife habitat and\nresources inventory, and is nearing completion of an inventory of coastal\ngeology and resources, and preparation of a topographic map.\nTwo local planning agencies, the Brunswick-Glynn County Joint Plan-\nning Commission (BGCJPC) and the Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan\nPlanning Commission (CCSMPC) and one regional planning agency, the Coastal\nArea Planning and Development Commission (CAPDC) have active planning pro-\ngrams within their areas of jurisdiction. The BGCJPC and CCSMPC carry on\nprograms with regard to sand dune protection, flood plain zoning, marsh\nconservation, and storm drainage and protection.\nThe CAPDC, composed of representatives of eight counties in the\ncoastal area has recently conducted the following planning studies: an\nAreawide Major Thoroughfare Survey and Analysis, an Areawide Solid Waste\nSurvey and Analysis, an Areawide Base Map Survey and Analysis, and an\nEconomic Base and Population Study.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Lack of intergovernmental cooperation, public involvement,\nand coordinated policy to guide decision-making relative to\nthe coastal zone.\n- Increasing demand for development without comprehensive\nregional plans to guide such development.\n- Current taxation policies which assess coastal resources on the\nbasis of developmental potential.\n25","- Inadequate water treatment facilities and decline of water\nquality including salt water intrusion in the aquifer.\nNeed to protect fragile natural ecosystems from human\n-\ninterference.\n- Lack of natural resources data, and uncertainty about the\nlegal status of State action in the coastal zone.\n- Need to protect vital beach and sand dunes along the entire\ncoast.\n- Underutilization of coastal resources for economic development.\n- Corporate ownership of large tracts of coastal land.\n- Lack of legislation to deal with oil spills and related problems.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To improve decision-making affecting the coastal zone by\nformulating policies, lopingcomprehensive plans, and involving\nthe public in the decision-making process.\n- To increase intergovernmental cooperation and coordination\nin an effort to develop uniform policies, plans and regulations.\n- To protect fragile coastal ecosystems with particular attention\nto compatibility of uses with the resource base and to the\nprotection of beaches, sand dunes and productive marshes.\n- To improve water quality by providing adequate water and sewage\ntreatment facilities and by protecting the aquifer from\ndepletion and salt water intrusion.\n- To determine the feasibility of assessing land for taxation\npurposes on the basis of environmental constraints, rather than\ndevelopment potential.\n- To increase opportunities for coastal residents to raise their\nstandard of living,with particular attention to raising the\nper capita income and encouraging economic development of\ncoastal resources within proper environmental constraints.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nNatural Resource Analysis: During the first program development year,\nfollowing inventories and analyses will be initiated: (a) the mapping and\nevaluation of the vulnerability of coastal land resources; (b) the identi-\nfication and mapping of valuable and vulnerable resources in coastal waters;\n(c) assessment of the compatibility of current, projected and proposed land\nand water uses; and (d) assessment of the impact of various types of human\nactivities upon basic coastal ecosystems. One interesting facet of the\nwater resources study will be to locate and analyze offshore sand bars\ncritical to beach nourishment. The product of this series of analyses\nwill be employed in the development of permissible uses, the designation\nof areas of particular concern, the determination of priority uses, and\nultimately the definition of management boundaries.\nFirst year inventories will contribute background information to\nbe used in development of a \"Handbook for Coastal Zone Development\" con-\ntaining site-specific guidelines and suggestions for coastal developers\nand for local government. The Handbook will be designed to provide a\ntechnical basis for formulating regional policies with special focus on\nthe utilization of land in ways compatible with the preservation of\nnatural resources.\n26","Land Use and Economic Analysis: This task is designed to consolidate\nexisting and newly-gathered land use and economic data; to explore alterna-\ntive economic development policies with respect to the natural resource base;\nand to formulate alternative land demand projections based on preferred\ndevelopment policies. During the first year, a land use survey and mapping\neffort will be conducted using existing information supplemented with\naerial photography. Particular attention will be focused on the identifi-\ncation of land use problems, including areas where present use is incompatible\nwith land capabilities or other uses. During the first year, information\nwill also be gathered concerning existing and projected population, employ-\nment, and economic trends and the related demands on coastal resources.\nLegal Analysis: An analysis of current State and local means of control\nand an assessment of alternative statutory controls and regulations\nwill be the focus of this work element. During the first year, a legal\ninventory and analysis of existing local ordinances, and State statutes,\nconstitutional provisions, legislative enactments, and regulations\nrelevant to the management of land and water uses and activities will\nbe conducted.\nDuring the second and third development years, emphasis will be placed\non the development of statutes and amendments to fill the gaps in authority\nidentified during the first year.\nManagement Organizational Analysis: This work element, to be completed\nduring the second year, is designed to assess alternative arrangements for\norganizing the management program. Sub-tasks will be structured to analyze\nthe following management \"mechanisms\": (a) policy mechanisms for program\ndevelopment; (b) policy mechanisms for program administration; (c) regulation\nmechanisms; (d) use/activity decision mechanisms; (c) planning/evaluation/\nfeedback mechanisms; (f) enforcement mechanisms; and (g) adjudication\nmechanisms.\nThe Interagency Task Force, with the assistance of the Office of Planning\nand Budget, will have responsibility for guiding this work element. The\nTask Force will be responsible for seeing that alternative recommendations\nrelative to each \"mechanism\" are developed, reviewed in public workshops\nand with local and State officials, and submitted to the Governor and\nGeneral Assembly.\nKey Element Identification: This work element will pull together the\ninformation gathered through the preceding tasks to identify permissible\nuses, designate areas of critical concern, determine priority uses within\nspecific geographic areas, and to develop boundaries of the coastal zone.\nThe second program development year will be devoted to formulating alternative\npolicies for these key elements, obtaining public input, and generating\nfinal policy recommendations for submission to the Governor's office.\n27","PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThe public involvement program during the first year will focus on the\ndevelopment of a Citizen Participation Pamphlet which will serve to\nprovide a uniform approach by which the local planning agencies can handle\ntheir individual programs to involve the public in policy formulation.\nThe major effort to involve the public in program development will consist\nof a series of workshops during the second program development year. It\nis anticipated that workshops will be held in several coastal locations\nto determine policy for each of the key elements identified in the planning\nprocess. A Coastal Zone Management Communication Forum will be assembled.\nThe Forum will consist of county commissioners, city councilmen, the\nchairmen of the local planning commissions, members of the State Senate\nand the General Assembly representing coastal counties, members of port\nauthorities, and citizens representing both economic and conservation\ninterests from each coastal county. A series of discussion meetings between\nthe Forum and citizen committees and policy groups are planned to keep\nthese groups informed on the progress of program development, and to gain\nfeedback on specific policies.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nThe Director of the Office of Planning and Budget will act on behalf of the\nGovernor to coordinate the program development activities of the various\nState and sub-State agencies involved in coastal zone management.\nCoordination among the various State and regional agencies involved in\ncoastal planning will be assisted by the formation of a Coastal Zone\nManagement Technical Committee. The Technical Committee, composed of\nrepresentatives of 10 State agencies, the two local planning commissions\n(BGCJPC and CCSMPC) and the regional planning and development commission\n(CAPDC) will meet frequently in coastal locations to guide the program\ndevelopment phase of the coastal zone management program.\nIn addition to the Technical Committee, a Federal Agency Council, com-\nposed of representatives of the Federal agencies with interests in the\ncoastal zone and the Coastal Plains Regional Commission will be established.\nThe Council's purpose will be to assure that the interests of Federal and\nmulti-State agencies will be reflected in the management program.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nFor planning purposes, the area comprising Bryan, Camden, Chatham,\nGlynn, Liberty and McIntosh counties, with seaward extension to the\nthree-mile limit of the territorial sea, has been designated as the coastal\nzone.\n28","HAWAII\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Planning and Economic Development\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Department of Land and Natural\nResources; University of Hawaii\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $250,000 (Federal) $375,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nIn 1965, the Department of Planning and Economic Development (DPED)\npublished \"Hawaii's Shoreline,\" a three-volume study providing land-use and geo-\nlogic maps, as well as data concerning shoreline characteristics, pollution\nproblems, and zones of danger due to tsunamis, erosion, and over-develop-\nment. This study has remained an important and basic document in planning\nand managing Hawaii's coastal environment.\nIn 1969, \"Hawaii and the Sea, A Plan for State Action,\" was published\nby the Governor's Task Force on Oceanography. The Task Force's report\nmade a series of recommendations for a five-year marine action plan.\nFive years later, a Eawaii and the Sea - 1974 Task Force was formed.\nThe 1974 Task Force report makes more than 70 recommendations for State\naction. Some of the more important recommendations are: 1) to define a\nlegal position for the State in the jurisdiction and control of its\nmanganese industry; 2) to prepare legislation for an inter-island\nmarine transportation system and to include a marine rapid transit\ncomponent as an alternative to a fixed roadbed system; 3) to emphasize\ngoals and Hawaii's \"uniqueness\" in preparing a coastal zone management\nplan; 4) to accelerate plans for the diversion of all sewage treatment\neffluent from Kaneche Bay; 5) to increase technical staffing of the\nMarine Affairs Coordinator's Office and establish an advisory council;\nand 6) to require environmental impact statements for all development\non public and private lands within 500 feet of the shoreline setback\nline (40 feet above the vegetation line).\nThe Hawaiian Legislature passed Act 164 in 1973, instructing the\nDPED to prepare a comprehensive coastal zone management plan. This\nplan will be developed as an integral part of the State's overall land\nuse plan designed to implement the Hawaii Land Use Law of 1968. The\nLand Use Law divided the State into Conservation, Urban, Rural, and\nAgricultural Districts. Development is stringently controlled by the\nDepartment of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) in those areas desig-\nnated Conservation Districts. In 1970, a statute was passed adding a\n40-foot strip of shoreland around all of the Hawaiian coasts to the\nareas designated as Conservation Districts.\n29","PROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Need to integrate prospective coastal zone planning with ongoing\nland use planning, and to define coastal zone management boundaries\nwhen there is no point of land in Hawaii more than 29 miles from\nthe sea.\n- Need to develop improved municipal and industrial waste and surface\nrunoff pollutant treatment methods to enhance the quality of coastal\nwaters, especially in areas of poor tidal flushing such as Kaneohe Bay.\n- Need for improved State-level authority to deal with the conflict\nbetween resort and suburban shoreline uses and the lack of public\naccess to Hawaii's shorelines, especially along the intensely used\nshores of urbanized regions.\n- Need to develop and enforce sandmining controls to protect beach\nsand and sand areas needed for beach replenishment from being used\nfor the construction of homes, resorts, and commercial buildings.\n- Need for increased research and State policy guidelines on the\nproper development of Hawaii's underwater manganese deposits and\nfisheries industry.\n- Lack of regulatory authority over unique areas having a particularly\ndelicate ecological balance where all uses should be restricted.\n- Lack of a sufficient information base to provide a decision-making\nframework for the siting of ocean-based energy complexes and\ndeepwater port facilities which will have significant landside\nimpacts.\n- Need to establish criteria for determining environmental carrying\ncapacity and overload characteristics.\n- Need to re-examine present institutional arrangements and design\nan organizational framework to provide coordinated management\nwithout fragmentation or overlap.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To preserve and improve the quality of the marine and coastal\nenvironment for recreation, the conservation of natural resources,\naesthetics, and the health and social well-being of the people\nof Hawaii.\n- To promote the orderly growth of commerce, industry, and employment\nin the coastal zone in a manner compatible with the goal\nabove.\n- To promote the orderly and responsible use and development of\ncoastal and marine resources.\n- To encourage the effective use of scientific and engineering\nresources of public and private agencies affecting coastal zone\nmanagement activities.\n- To promote cooperation and coordination among governmental\nbodies and public or private organizations in developing related\npublic policy.\n- To provide an overview of the complicated interrelationships\nbetween land use and the marine environment as they apply to a\nstatewide coastal management system.\n30","OVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nBoundaries of the Coastal Zone: An analysis of inland coastal zone\nboundary alternatires will be conducted during the first year. This\nanalysis will include consideration of biophysical factors, shoreline\nimpacts, and institutional factors. of particular importance will be\nthe need to achieve the best balance between the constraints of Hawaii's\nland use legislation and the anticipated national land use legislation.\nFinal boundary determination and adoption is expected during the second\nor third year.\nPermissible Land and Water Uses: An inventory, mapping, and categori-\nzation of land and water uses will be initiated during the first year.\nBuilding upon the inventorying effort will be the development and appli-\ncation of criteria and indices necessary to assess the compatibility with\nand impact of various uses on the coastal environment. An issue and\npolicy analysis and an environmental carrying capacity analysis will be\nimportant elements of this task.\nPermissible use definition will be a lengthy task expected to run\ninto the third year. Particular emphasis during the first year will be\nplaced on those coastal resources limited by supply or accessibility. A\nparticular product planned in addition to the necessary riaps, models,\natlases, and reports, will be the development of adata acquisition and\nanalysis system suited to Hawaii's coastal management needs.\nGeographic Areas of Particular Concern: During the first year the\nbasic data and criteria necessary to identify specific geographic areas\nof particular concern will be developed recommended areas will be inventoried\nand mapped. Actual designation of areas will be carried out during the\nend of the second or in the third program development year.\nA related effort to be initiated in the first year and carried on\nthroughout the program development period will be an inventory and\nanalysis of potential estuarine sanctuaries and other environmentally\nsensitive areas, to include specific recommendations as to treatment,\nacquisition, and/or management.\nState Control Over Land and Water Uses: A legal analysis will be\nconducted in the first year of alternative land and water use control\nmechanisms. The azalysis is to include consideration of relevant consti-\ntutional provisions, legislative enactments, regulations, and pertinent\njudicial decisions. A final report will be made to the Governor and\nLegislature on recommended control mechanisms and suggested executive\nor -legislative initiatives.\nDesignation of Priority Uses: A first year task will be to determine\nState and county goals, priorities and objectives For the preservation and\norderly development of specific areas and resources within the coastal\nzone. A parallel task will be to identify planning and management problems\nand use conflicts in an effort to synthesize appropriate priorities and\npolicies to be integrated with the State and county planning and manage-\nment programs in the second and third program development years.\n31","Organizational Structure: An analysis of institutional options and\nstructures to carry out an effective and coordinated management program\nwill be initiated during the first year. Particular emphasis will be\ngiven to the development of mechanisms for continued public awareness and\nreview, as well as mechanisms for intergovernmental coordination and public\naccess to information and research materials generated during the planning\nprocess. A series of recommendations with regard to organizational\nstructure, the role of citizen advisory committees and public hearings,\nand the establishment of an appropriate information center are expected\nduring the second program development year.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThe design of Hawaii's coastal planning program will draw heavily\non the recommendations contained in the report \"Hawaii and the Sea - 1974.\n\"\nThe report was developed by a committee of marine-oriented professionals\nfrom government, industry and academia, and received substantial public\ninput through study groups and workshops.\nThe question of what future mechanisms will provide for adequate\ncitizen involvement will be addressed in detail during the first program\ndevelopment year. Mechanisms which are expected to be included are:\ncitizen and policy advisory committees, public hearings and informational\nmeetings, and workshops and meetings with public interest groups. Particular\nemphasis will be placed on institutional vehicles designed to provide\ncontinuous public review of the decision-making process.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nThe DPED exercises a number of coordination functions at the State\nlevel including administration of the State clearinghouse process and the\ncontinuous updating of the State's Overall Program Design- a planning\ndocument which identifies and integrates most of Hawaii's major planning\nactivities in a multi-year time frame.\nHawaii's four counties - the city and county of Honolulu and the\ncounties of Hawaii, Kuai, and Maui - will be direct participants with\nthe DPED in each of the six program elements identified as the framework\nfor the Overall Program Design. Through their planning commissions and\ncounty councils, the counties already maintain major roles in regulating\nland use in areas designated as urban, and have joint authority with the\nState in rural and agricultural districts under the State's Land Use Law.\nThere are no incorporated cities in Hawaii.\nNew approaches to organizing and expanding inter-governmental\ncoordination will be examined during the first year work program. Methods\nwill be assessed ranging from consolidation of significant current\nfunctions to the possibility of establishing a separate cabinet-level\nagency.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nFor planning purposes, the State considers its entire land area as\nthe coastal zone. Nearly one half of the State's total area lies within\n32","five miles of the shoreline and there is no point more than 29 miles from\nthe sea. Thus, activities in all areas of the islands can be said to\nhave a direct impact on coastal waters and lands.\n33","ILLINOIS\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Illinois Department of Conservation\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Department of Transportation, Division\nof Waterways; State Geological Survey; Northeastern Illinois Planning\nCommission\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $206,000 (Federal) $309,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Illinois Department of Transportation reviews and issues permits\nfor any filling, dredging, or construction of bulkheads, placement of\noutfall structures, or other alteration of the natural shorelines of\nIllinois' public waters, including Lake Michigan. As a step toward meeting\ntheir mandate to \"preserve and protect\" the public waters, Illinois con-\nducted a cooperative shore erosion study with the U. S. Army Corps of\nEngineers in 1946 and continued lake observations until 1962.\nTo improve public access and shoreland recreation opportunities, the\nDepartment of Conservation is in the process of acquiring the Lake Michigan\nshoreline from the Illinois Beach State Park north to the Wisconsin border\nfor addition to the State park.\nThe city of Chicago, which covers nearly the entire area of Cook\nCounty, one of Illinois' two coastal counties, has developed a lakefront\nmanagement plan and protection ordinance. The protection ordinance makes\nit unlawful for any landfill, excavation or construction to take place\nwithin the protected district without the approval of the Chicago Plan\nCommission. The Commission is guided by the objectives of improving water\nquality in Lake Michigan, promoting public access and recreational use\nof the shorelines, and prohibiting construction which would cause environ-\nmental or ecological damage to the Lake or its natural and living resources.\nFinally, the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) has\nundertaken a series of planning studies concerning Illinois' coastal\narea. Recent products include: a Regional Open Space Plan; a Regional\nWastewater Plan; a Regional Water Supply Report; and a technical report,\n\"The Water Resource in Northeastern Illinois, Planning Its Use.\"\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Because coastal land use decisions are now made entirely at the\nlocal level, State and regional needs are often ignored.\n- The rights and needs of public, as opposed to private, interests\nfrequently conflict.\n- There is increasing competition for available land throughout the\ncoastal area.\n- The State does not have adequate funds to meet perceived needs\nfor land acquisition, recreational development, and erosion pro-\ntection structures.\n34","- The problem of defining a meaningful coastal zone boundary is\nincreased by the heavily urbanized nature of the area.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To preserve, protect, develop, and where possible to restore and\nenhance the resources of the shorelands of Lake Michigan.\n- To encourage and assist local and regional governmental and private\nbodies to recognize and effectively exercise their responsibilities\nto develop and implement local land use management programs for the\nshoreland areas.\n- To ensure that full consideration is given to ecological, cultural,\nhistoric, aesthetic and social values as well as to the needs of\neconomic, urban, and industrial development in the development of\nIllinois' coastal zone management program.\n- To encourage all Federal, State and local agencies\nconcerned industries, and private groups engaged in activities\neffecting Illinois' shorelands to cooperate and participate in\nconducting this shorelands management program.\n- To encourage the general public to become aware of the need for\nwise management of shoreland resources, and to maintain the educational\nprocesses required to effect strong public involvement in the pro-\ngram development process.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nCollection and Compilation of Existing Data: A major effort\nduring the first program development year will be the identification,\ncompilation and assessment of physical, legal, and local land use data\npresently existing within the State.\nPhysical data to be collected will include: a) studies of offshore\nand onshore topography; b) locations of existing groins, bulkheads, piers,\nbreakwaters and other types of erosion protection works; c) locations and\nuses of public and private property abutting Lake Michigan; d) all data\navailable on archeological and historical sites, environmental areas, and\nscenic and aesthetic points located in the coastal zone; and e) all studies\navailable relating to erosion control measures and structures.\nThe NIPC will be responsible for collecting, compiling, and analyzing\nexisting statutory and case law relating to coastal zone management as\na foundation for developing a management program. Emphasis will be placed\non public versus private property rights with regard to the bed, the waters,\nand the shorelands of Illinois' Lake Michigan shorelands.\nThe NIPC will also have lead responsibility for the collection and\nassessment of the zoning regulations, sub-division codes, building ordinances,\nand land use controls of each individual lake front community.\nDevelopment of New Physical Data Required: To fill the gaps anticipated\nin the existing coastal zone data base, a limited number of new studies\nwill be initiated during the first year. Two mapping projects--topographic\nmapping of the shoreland and bathymetric and sediment mapping of the near-\nshore--are to be completed during the first year.\n35","A special study based upon computer analysis of wave and weather data\nand aerial photographs is planned for the purpose of examining the effects\nof man-made structures on shore erosion. Related shoreline erosion studies\nwill be undertaken including: foundation and earth material factors affecting\nshore stability; wind, wave and current effects on sediment transport; lit-\ntoral sediment drift; and bluff erosion. Through the auspices of the State\nWater Survey, the Chicago District Corps of Engineers, and the State Geo-\nlogical Survey, a series of littoral environment observation stations will\nbe established so that daily measurements can be made.\nSpecific areas and sites of particular concern along the Illinois\nshore of Lake Michigan will be identified by the Department of Conserva-\ntion working with municipal units and the State Museum and State Historical\nSociety. Areas studies will include archaeological and historical sites as\nwell as fragile natural areas.\nLegal Restraints and Solutions: A second year effort, which will build\nupon the compilation of existing legal data, will be to develop alternative\napproaches and methods for dealing with the legal restraints identified, and to\nconstruct the necessary framework and authorities upon which to base a\nsound management program.\nManagement Plan Development: Efforts during the third year will be\nprimarily centered on the synthesis of the management plan and the develop-\nment of the legislation necessary for its adoption. State legislators,\nState, local and municipal agencies and the public will be looked to for\ninput in development and assessment of alternative strategies for a manage-\nment plan. Once a final mechanism is selected, the implementing legisla-\ntion will be drafted for introduction into the General Assembly.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThe public information/participation/education program will be\nconducted by local communities, with the State and the NIPC providing technical\nstaff and supplies. To assist the NIPC in maximizing public involvement, a\nShoreline Advisory Committee, composed of two representatives from each of\nthe 14 municipalities along the Lake Michigan shore, has been organized.\nThe Committee will work with the NIPC and the municipalities on\nfield surveys, land use studies, and public meetings and hearings.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nThe Great Lakes Basin Commission assists in providing the overall\ncoordination required in developing the coastal zone management programs of\nthe eight Great Lakes States.\nAt the State level, two mechanisms will be developed to ensure coordina-\ntion, consisting of (a) a State Coastal Zone Advisory Council composed of the\nheads of the Departments of Local Government Affairs, Conservation, Trans-\nportation and Environmental Protection; and (b) the State Projects Task\nForce which would coordinate the daily technical details and input from the\nvarious State agencies involved in the program development process. The\nTask Force will be composed of technical members of 11 major State agencies.\nLocal level coordination will be a primary task shared by the Department\nof Local Governmental Affairs, the NIPC, and the Shoreline Advisory Committee.\n36","COASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nFor planning purposes, the State has included the entire corporate\nlimits of the communities abutting Lake Michigan and the second tier\nof\ncommunities adjacent to the coastal communities in order that suitable\n\"corridors\" through these communities to areas planned for intensive\nrecreational use can be planned. During the program development process, it\nis expected that the coastal zone will be divided into four separate\nzones with various levels of control, including: a water zone, a beach\nzone, a use-impact zone, and a compatibility development zone.\n37","LOUISIANA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Louisiana State Planning Office\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries\nCommission, Louisiana Coastal Commission, Louisiana State University Sea\nGrant Program.\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $260,000 (Federal); $394,090 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nSix major State agencies are involved in Louisiana's coastal zone planning\nand management activities. The Wildlife and Fisheries Commission reviews\nwater quality and impacts on fish and wildlife in the coastal zone. The\nDepartment of Public Works is responsible for water resource development,\ndrainage and flood control. The State Land Office protects State land\ninterests, as does the State Mineral Board. The Board of Health is\nresponsible for sewerage disposal. Oil and gas activities are regulated\nby the Department of Conservation. There are also numerous State boards,\ncommissions and special districts regulating other activities in the coastal\nzone.\nThe Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources\ncompleted \"Louisiana Government and the Coastal Zone\" in 1972, and\nLouisiana Wetlands Prospectus in 1973. Both contain recommendations on\ncoastal zone management organization at the State level. The new State\nconstitution enacted in 1974 mandates the reor ganization of Louisiana's\nState agencies into 20 departments.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Nonrenewable resources (oil and gas, transportation, land develop-\nment, and flood protection) have been developed in a manner which\nhas reduced the renewable resource base, particularly the marsh\nand estuarine resources.\n- Marsh areas supporting fisheries and recreation have been signifi-\ncantly decreased by unrestrained urban expansion, flood control\nprojects, expansion of the transportation system, agricultural\nactivity, saltwater intrusion and pollution.\n- A deep draft terminal planned for offshore Louisiana airport con-\nstruction and major recreational development will cause substantial\nlandside environmental and social impacts.\n- Fresh surface water is in short supply in some parts of the coastal\nzone. The rate of salt water intrusion into previously freshwater\n38","strata is increasing, and alternative freshwater supplies will be\nexpensive.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To review the impact of all wetland uses on water flow, circulation,\nquantity and quality before authorization.\nTo assess the impact of uses on coastal marshes and estuaries in\n-\nterms of cumulative impact upon the whole system.\n- To assess land and water uses in terms of intrinsic suitability\nand the limiting factors of the particular land area.\nTo encourage urban and industrial growth in most suitable corridors\n-\nand to discourage such growth in substantially undisturbed wetlands.\nTo assure that provision of long-term energy needs will not destroy\n-\nthe integrity of the coastal environment.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nDefining the Coastal Zone: This component is designed to delineate\nplanning and management boundaries of the coastal zone. Alternative approaches\nto defining the landward coastal zone boundary will be explored, including\nbiophysical, political and ecological criteria. This task will be completed\nearly in the second program year.\nStudy of Legal Authority: Authority to perform coastal zone management\nrelated activities in Louisiana is currently spread among some thirty\ndifferent State, regional and local governmental entities, with no overall\ncoordination mandated. Investigation of existing legal authorities will\ninclude analysis of the Louisiana Civil Code and Constitution, study of\nthe manner in which this legislation is administered, and a review of other\nrelevant studies. The product of this work, to be completed in eighteen\nmonths, will be a series of recommendations on alternative methods for\nestablishing the required management authorities.\nOrganizational Study: In coordination with the study of legal\nauthorities, the best organization of agencies to manage the coastal zone\nwill be explored. Two primary goals of this element will be the establish-\nment of a close relationship between scientific and administrative\nagencies and recommendations for the participation of substate agencies\nin the management program. This work will be undertaken during the second\nand third programs years.\nEcological Indicators: A substantial part of Louisiana's coastal\nzone is made up of extensive marshes and estuaries which serve a large\ncommercial fisheries and recreation industry in the State. The purpose\nof this element is to identify, review and analyze key ecological indicators\n39","to allow both prediction and measurement of ecological change from\nproposed major uses of the marshes and estuaries. This study will be\nconducted throughout the program development period and will provide\nthe basis for the establishment of a monitoring program.\nResource Use Demands and Trends: Both increased urbanization and\nhigh population growth are expected in Louisiana's coastal parishes for\nthe next 10 years. This task is intended to develop a State capability\nto predict current and future resource use and trends, to analyze services\nand facilities needed to meet demands, to recognize the capability of\nresources to sustain certain uses and to state, as clearly as possible,\nhuman needs and aspirations for coastal resource use. This study will\nbe completed by the end of the second program year.\nCritical Areas: The purpose of this element is to develop criteria\nfor the selection, and procedures for the depiction, of areas of\nparticular concern in the coastal zone. Following selection, specific\nmanagement principles and priority uses for each geographic area will\nbe developed. This task will also be completed by the end of the second\nprogram year.\nImpact Assessment: Utilizing the capabilities developed in the\nthree tasks discussed immediately above, an effort will be made to\ndevelop and standardize techniques for strengthening existing procedures\nfor assessing proposed coastal projects. If possible, procedures for\nassessing cumulative impact at a regional level will also be developed.\nThis task will be completed at the end of the program development period.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThe Office of State Planning will develop a variety of techniques\nto obtain public participation in the coastal zone management program\ndevelopment process. First-year efforts will focus on obtaining public\ninput in the formulation of overall goals and objectives. In order to\nreach and interact with a broader audience than is generally found at\ntraditional public hearings, early emphasis will be placed on new approaches\nto public involvement. These will include role-playing games, workshops,\nstructured conferences and regional seminars dealing with topics of\nparticular regional concern. A direct link between the coastal management\nprogram and the people of the coastal zone, rather than interest group\nspokesmen, is sought. To achieve this goal, the techniques used by\nother agencies, industries, and other States will be reviewed and compared.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nThe new (1974) Louisiana State constitution mandates the reorganiza-\ntion and consolidation of existing State agencies into not more than 20\ndepartments. Within this overall effort, the Office of State Planning\nwill coordinate the operations of all State agencies related to the coastal\nzone management program. All Federal, State and sub-State agency activity\naffecting wetlands will be inventoried and analyzed to locate\nexisting overlaps, conflicts and gaps. The planning and program activities\n40","to be conducted by State, regional and local groups will be identified in order\nformulate a strategy for coordination. There is a significant quantity\nto\nof Federally controlled lands in Louisiana's coastal zone. These lands\nand their associated Federal agencies will be inventoried, and coordina-\ntion mechanisms will be set up between these Federal agencies and the\nState's coastal zone management entity.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nFor planning purposes, the landward boundary of Louisiana's coastal\nzone is defined as the inland boundaries of the two tiers of parishes along\nthe shore. The boundary for management purposes may be different, and\na major first-year work task will be the examination of alternatives.\nA landward boundary drawn along political boundaries, as was the planning\nboundary, is recommended in the Louisiana Wetlands Prospectus. Alternatives\ninclude biophysical or ecological criteria.\n41","MAINE\nGRANT RECIPIENT: State Planning Office, Coastal Planning Group\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Department of Conservation;\nDepartment of Marine Resources, Department of Inland Fisheries and\nGame; University of Maine; 3 regional planning commissions\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 1 1/2 years; beginning March 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $230,000 (Federal) $345,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nIn June, 1970, the Maine State Planning Office (SPO) published\nthe \"Penobscot Bay Resource Plan,\" which depicts problems and\nneeds, identified development opportunities and areas requiring additional\nstudy or increased control, and assessed existing land uses and controls.\nBased on this study, similar inventories have been completed or are\nunderway in lower Penobscot Bay, Hancock County, and the western portion\nof mid-coastal Maine.\nIn August 1971, the SPO completed \"Maine Coastal Resources Renewal, \"\na major coastal resource study discussing the economic feasibility and environ-\nmental impact of fisheries and aquaculture development, electric power and\noil industry facility siting on the coast, and the effects of Maine's substan-\ntial recreation industry. An outgrowth of this analysis was the report of the\nGovernor's Task Force on Energy, Heavy Industry, and the Maine Coast in\nAugust, 1972. The principal finding of this Task Force was that future\nheavy industry should locate in two designated zones with the remainder of\nthe coast held ineligible for the location of new heavy industries.\nIn 1971, the Maine legislature passed the Mandatory Shoreline Zoning\nand Subdivision Control Law requiring coastal planning to be carried out\nin conjunction with sound environmental criteria. The Act authorized the\nMaine Environmental Improvement Commission and Land Use Regulation Commission\nto set standards for local units to enforce in a 250 foot wide strip of\ncoastal shoreland.\nAs a result of data gathered from the land and water capability and\nuse studies conducted to date, and the Statewide poll \"Maine: An Appraisal\nby the People, \" which suggested regional policy priorities, the SPO has\nrecommended interim priorities for the control of development. The first\npriority is the preservation of as much coastline as possible in its\nnatural state. Second is management of the shoreline with emphasis on\nthe greatest possible access to the public. Third is development of:\n(a) ports and water related industry; (b) transportation; (c) utilities;\n(d) water related commercial activities; (e) residential use; (f) commercial\nenterprises enhanced by waterfront location; and (g) industrial uses\nenhanced by waterfront location.\n42","Finally, the SPO has conducted a preservation analysis of unique and\nimportant environmental areas for the entire coast. As a result, 32\nconservation zones were selected as critical natural areas needing\nimmediate attention and consideration.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Lack of an objectively defined and workable resource base.\n- Lack of an administrative control point for the coastal research\nsystem as a whole.\n- Absence of public knowledge, input, and support.\n- An overburdened and underfinanced state and local regulatory and\nenforcement network.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To inventory coastal resources and existing uses.\n- To develop a resource classification system with appropriate uses\nand development standards as a basis for regulating coastal\nactivities.\n- To identify areas of major and impending conflicts, and priorities\nfor immediate action.\n- To propose necessary regulations and controls.\n- To identify public views and interests through public hearings\nand other techniques.\n- To coordinate management efforts with other New England States.\n- To develop institutional arrangements, needed legislation, and\nlocal controls to achieve the necessary foundation for a coordinated\nmanagement program.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nLand and Water Capability Analysis. The Coastal Planning Group (CPG)\nof the State Planning Office is developing the essential elements of a\ncoastal management plan - a resource atlas and a basic resource capability\nanalysis. The atlas will present the raw scientific and technical information\ncollected separately so that it can be reinterpreted by individual coastal\ncommunities according to their own immediate planning needs.\nBase maps for the entire coast have been prepared and most of the\nresource information will be presented on these maps through an overlay\nprocess. A total of 12 resource and land capability maps will be produced\nfor each of the 11 designated coastal areas. Eight of the twelve resource\nmaps were prepared for Penobscot Bay and will form the basis for the mapping\neffort. These include: bedrock geology, surficial geology, soils, slopes,\nwatersheds and water classification, forest types and land use, facilities\nand activities, and wildlife and marine resources. The inventory and mapping\neffort is scheduled for completion by July 1975.\n43","Applied Research: A number of applied research projects are underway\nor planned during the first two program development years. An analysis of\nthe biological and chemical tolerances of estuarine alteration is being\ncarried on by the Department of Marine Resources in conjunction with its\nstudy of benthic population dynamics. In addition, the DMR in conjunction\nwith the University and the Bureau of Geology, is working with the CPG\nin developing a series of maps depicting natural estuarine systems (fluvial,\ntidal inlet, lagoon, etc.) and identifying destructive human activities.\nPart of this task will be to outline prime locations suitable for aquaculture\ndevelopment.\nStudies of coastal hydrology have been initiated to determine the\npotential for ground water and related surface water pollution, and to\nidentify flood-prone areas.\nThe CPG is working on a program to inventory the scenic and historic\nfeatures of the coastal zone. The inventory will be a joint project\ninvolving the CPG, the Department of Transportation, and the Historic\nPreservation Commission with emphasis on landscapes and scenic corridors\nalong coastal roadways, and buildings and communities of historic or\narchitectural importance.\nThe CPG will work with the Parks and Recreation Bureau of the Department\nof Conservation to inventory and make recommendations with regard to recreational/\nconservation areas and facilities including: marine recreation facilities,\ncritical areas, coastal islands, coastal and marine wildlife habitats, and\nwilderness areas. Emphasis will be placed on the expanded use of scenic\neasements, cooperative access and management agreements.\nFinally, through the computer facilities of the recently formed\nMaine Informational Display and Analysis System (MIDAS), demographic\ninformation and data from intensive economic impact studies will be\ncollected and analyzed.\nManagement Plan Synthesis: Synthesis of the land and water capability\nanalysis, applied research tasks, and local and regional input will be\naccomplished by means of data-overlays and resource-use matrices.\nOpportunities and limitations are to be identified on separate maps and\npublished in the resource plans to be drawn up for each planning area.\nFinal systhesis is to result in division of the coastal area into\nfour management categories: (1) critical areas and areas of overriding State\nconcern; (2) resource protection zones - where natural resource limitations\nnecessitate stringent developmental constraints; (3) resource management zones -\nareas which because of physical characteristics, present use, or public\nconsiderations require special regulations; and (4) development zones. Each\ncategory is to be accompanied by general performance guidelines and lists\nof primary and conditional uses.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nAn extensive public opinion poll of citizens and officials in the coastal\nzone is planned in an effort to determine knowledge of, attitude towards,\nand information available regarding coastal problems and needs.\n44","The poll, seen as an extension of the recent Statewide opinion poll,\n\"Maine: An Appraisal by the People, \" will be coordinated by the University\nof Maine with the assistance of the regional planning commissions in the\ncoastal area.\nAlso planned are a series of public meetings at various geographical\nlocations along the coast aimed at the drafting and review of \"alternative\nfutures\" plans for Maine's 11 coastal areas.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nMaine is an active participant in the New England River Basins Commission\nand under its auspices plans to develop its coastal zone management\nprogram in close coordination with the other New England coastal states.\nAt the State level, the SPO has the authority to coordinate the\nactivities of all State, local, and regional entities concerned with the\ncoastal zone. Toward this end, in early 1970 Governor Curtis directed all\nstate agencies and the 131 municipal and sub-state governmental units to\nrefer all future plans for programs or activities in the coastal area to\nthe SPO for review.\nThe Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act calls for each community to zone\nits shoreland area under the guidance of the State. Nearly all of the local\nplanning boards are represented on regional planning commissions in the\n11 coastal areas, each of which will receive grants from the SPO to conduct\nits coastal planning work.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nFor planning purposes, the coastal zone of Maine will comprise the\nland area contained in 11 designated coastal planning areas as well as\nthe water area seaward to the State's territorial limit. The designated\nplanning areas are: (1) Upper Penobscot Bay; (2) Western Penobscot Bay;\n(3) Eastern Penobscot Bay; (4) Eastern Hancock County; (5) Lincoln County;\n(6) Bath-Brunswick, Western Mid-Coast; (7) Western Washington County;\n(8) Central Washington County; (9) Eastern Washington County; (10) Cumberland,\nGreater Portland Area; and (11) Southern Maine, York County.\n45","MARYLAND\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Natural Resources\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Zone Advisory\nCommission\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $280,000 (Federal) $465,7 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was created in 1969.\nAmong its legislative mandates is the specific responsibility for planning,\ndevelopment, conservation, and management of the Chesapeake Bay and other tidal\nwaters, including their shorelines and bottom lands, and any resources associated\nwith the Bay. The DNR is also authorized to plan and develop recreational\nfacilities, and to take measures to protect tidal waterfronts from erosion.\nWithin the DNR, the Water Resources Administration will be the adminis-\ntrative unit with primary coastal zone management responsibilities. As\npart of its activities, the following studies have been undertaken:\na) Chesapeake Bay: Inventory of Undeveloped Shoreline Areas; b) Public\nLandings Study; c) Recreational Boating Needs and Carrying Capacity Study;\nand a detailed water resources study of the Eastern Shore.\nThe DNR also regulates activities in wetlands areas by means of a\npermit system based on a wetland inventory program utilizing aerial photography.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES\n- Loss of valuable wetland areas from agricultural draining, solid\nwaste disposal, the construction of residences and boat marinas,\ndredging and disposal of dredge material, and the diking and bulk-\nheading of shoreland areas.\n- Insufficient data on and knowledge of the causes and effects of\nshore erosion and mechanisms to deal with it, particularly in hurricane-\nprone areas.\n- Lack of advance planning to identify and protect critical areas of\necological importance and to ensure that developments are located\nand constructed to cause a minimum amount of adverse environmental\nand aesthetic impact.\n- Published geological and geophysical data indicating strong develop-\nment pressures will be forthcoming for oil production in the Georges\nBank area off the ecologically valuable and fragile Atlantic coastline\nof the State.\n- Increasing port activity requiring expanded support facilities and\nimprovement and maintenance of shipping canals.\n46","- Large scale diversion of the flow of fresh water into Chesapeake\nBay critical to the survival of the Bay's marine resources.\n- Lack of information concerning the requirements of the Chesapeake\nBay's fish and wildlife resources, their tolerances to human\nactivities, and the long range effects of their management.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To identify and develop mechanisms to protect areas of\nbiological, recreational, aesthetic, scientific, historical,\nand cultural importance and to identify and provide for the\nrational growth of areas appropriate for development.\n- To develop guidelines and standards regarding the conduct of activities\noccurring in other portions of the State's coastal zone so that they\ndo not adversely affect critical areas or the productivity of the\nState's coastal areas.\n- To develop mechanisms, including the setting of priorities, to guide\npublic and private utilization of coastal resources in order to\nminimize conflicts among uses and to protect the natural resource\nbase on which coastal uses depend.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nIntergovernmental Coordinative Mechanisms: In the first year of the\nprogram development period, the adequacy of existing coordinative mechanisms\nwill be evaluated. Where existing mechanisms are considered inadequate,\nappropriate coordinative mechanisms will be designed. Included in the\nstudy will be the development of mechanisms to assure that the manage-\nment of the Federal land is in accordance with the purposes of the State's\ncoastal zone management program.\nInformation Management System: Inventories and resource studies to be\nundertaken during the first year of the program will address specific infor-\nmation requirements, existing information sources, and information gaps.\nA primary first year task will be to develop a coordinated information manage-\nment program for the information sources identified. Alternatives such as\ncomputer storage, standardized map representations, and central file indexing,\nas well as display requirements, updating potential, etc., will be assessed\nand a coastal zone library formed to store documents, reports, and periodicals.\nProgram Implementation Mechanisms: A review of existing Federal and\nState statutory, regulatory, and technical and financial mechanisms will\nbe conducted. Maryland's existing control powers will be assessed and a\ndetermination made as to what additional powers are required to implement a\ncoastal zone management program. The examination of alternative implementation\nmechanisms will take place during the first program development year.\nCoastal Zone Boundaries: Criteria for determination of the proper\nmanagement boundaries of Maryland's coastal zone will be developed during\n47","the first year. The State's land use planning efforts and first year\nmapping and inventory efforts will be utilized to determine areas, the\nuse of which may have significant impacts on the coastal waters of the State.\nAreas of Critical Concern: Identification of these critical\nareas which need protective measures to preserve their values and\nalso of those areas which need regulation to facilitate rational development\nwill be initiated in the first year. An overall inventory of uses, resources,\nlandscapes, and habitats of the coastal zone will be undertaken during the\nfirst two years, with initial emphasis on the refinement of information on\nthe State's wetlands and shoreline areas.\nIdentification of Permissible and Compatible Land and Water Uses: In an\neffort to obtain the necessary information base for decisions regarding per-\nmissible uses, the following tasks will be accomplished: a) the development\nof criteria for assessing impacts of uses on specific environments; b) identi-\nfication of present and potential activities with impacts on coastal resources;\nc) identification of resource requirements for specific coastal activities;\nand d) the identification of use conflicts--the results of these studies to\nbe initiated in the first year, along with literature reviews and the infor-\nmation gained from the inventory of coastal uses, resources, landscapes, and\nhabitats will be used in conjunction with public and local government input\nto develop conflict matrices to determine permissible and compatible land\nand water uses.\nPriorities Among Coastal Zone Uses: With the completion of the identifi-\ncation of critical areas and permissible uses, priorities among permissible\nuses can be determined in the second year. The establishment of priorities\nwill lead to identification of those nondevelopmental critical areas which\nneed either acquisition as refuges or for public use, require restor-\nation, or can be protected by regulations. In the developmental\ncritical areas and remaining areas, the need for regulation can be assessed\nand the necessary controls drawn up for review.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThe Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Zone Advisory Commission, composed of\ncitizens with expertise or interest in various coastal zone processes and\nuses, will be one of the primary means of ensuring public input into program\ndevelopment. The Commission will provide advice to the coastal zone staff\nin policy and procedural matters, and will review the proposals and plans\ndeveloped.\nOther public participation strategies, the exact format of which will\nbe decided during the first year of program development, will be utilized,\nincluding workshops, informational and educational seminars, and direct\nliaison with citizen and special interest groups.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nCoordination among State level agencies in environmental matters is\nprovided by the Maryland Council on the Environment, composed of the Governor,\nLieutenant Governor, and the heads of various State agencies including the DNR.\n48","The DNR and the Department of State Planning are both represented on\nvarious interstate committees undertaking planning studies in the region,\nincluding the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Interstate Com-\nmission on the Potomac River.\nThe DNR interacts with local governments on the review of local compre-\nhensive plans and plans for local water and sewage control. One task in\nthe development of the coastal zone management program will be to expand the\nscope of coordination with local and sub-State regional units.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nFor initial planning purposes, attention will be focused on Maryland's\n15 coastal counties (Prince George's, Charles, St. Mary's, Calvert, Anne\nArundel, Baltimore, Harford, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's, Talbot, Caroline,\nCorchester, Somerset, and Worcester) and Baltimore City. Within this region,\ncritical areas will be delineated for special attention.\n49","MASSACHUSETTS\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Department of Natural Resources\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning May 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $210,000 (Federal) $315,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nMassachusett's Coastal Wetlands Protection Act, passed in 1965,\nempowers the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources to issue\norders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting dredging, filling, removing\nor otherwise altering or polluting coastal wetlands.\nA series of ocean sanctuaries Acts established the Cape Cod Ocean\nSanctuary, the Cape Cod Bay Ocean Sanctuary; the Cape and Islands Ocean\nSanctuary, and the North Shore Ocean Sanctuary. The Acts delineated the\nareas and prohibit certain activities such as: the building of any structures\non the seabed; removal of any sand, gravel, or other minerals except for beach\nand shore restoration; extraction of subsoil minerals; and the dumping of\ncommercial or industrial wastes.\nIn January 1974, Governor Sargent created a Task Force on Coastal\nResources comprised of representatives from the State legislature,\ntate agencies, the University, industry, environmental groups, and regional\nand local units of government. The Task Force will assist the Executive\nOffice of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) in the development of the management\nplan, including the definition of boundaries, permissible and priority uses,\nand the identification of areas of particular concern. In addition, a\ntechnical team of line agency staff and representatives of the six regional\nplanning agencies bordering on coastal waters serves to support the Governor's\nTask Force and the Coastal Resource Planning Group (CRPG), recently created\nwithin the EOEA.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Need to achieve an appropriate balance between local, regional, and\nState decision-making, and to define explicitly those instances where\nState intervention in the management of the coastal zone is necessary.\n- Lack of a sufficient information base and management mechanism for\ndecision-making with respect to the siting of major power and oil-\nrelated facilities, control of the possible air and water pollution,\nand associated urban blight problems.\n- Lack of adequate recreation facilities in and public access to\nshoreland areas in the State, accentuated by the rising demands for,\nand conflicts among, shoreland uses.\n- Need to identify, protect, and restore estuarine, wetland, and fishing\nground areas from the effects of unchecked development, natural\ncatastrophy, and the impacts of erosion, and coastal sewage and waste\ndisposal.\n50","GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To develop coastal zone management implementation measures which\nbuild upon the tradition of local decision-making, but which also\nprovide for State overview of local decisions on matters with far\nreaching impacts on the coastal zone or state as a whole.\n- To encourage commercial, industrial, port, and energy facility\ndevelopments of the type required to meet the Commonwealth's\nsocial and economic needs, and to guide such developments to those\nareas which are best suited for such activities and which can\naccommodate them without undue damage to the coastal environment,\nand to minimize conflict with neighboring uses.\n- To improve public access to coastal lands and waters of significance\nfor recreation and leisure use, and to provide better opportunities\nfor those now suffering from an inequity in the distribution of\ncoastal recreation resources.\n- To protect coastal land, water, and living resources of major\nsignificance from degradation and overuse, and to preserve from\ndevelopment areas of natural productivity and flood and hurricane\ndamage prone areas.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nResources Inventory: Identification and analysis of existing natural\nresource data, cultural, historic, scenic, and socio-economic and human\nvalues and present uses will be undertaken during the first program develop-\nment year. Emphasis will be placed on assembling data from completed or\nongoing programs and the identification of future data requirements.\nA\nparallel effort will be made to strengthen data exchange\nprocedures and coordination with the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor\nRecreation Planning process, the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic\nDevelopment pilot water quality project, Soil Conservation Service work and\nother resource and land use planning programs in the State.\nPermissible Land and Water Uses: A first year task will be to analyze\nthe impacts of specific groupings of land and water uses according to their\neffect upon the carrying capacity of the resource base of the coastal zone.\nAssessments will be made of both (a) the impacts of present and projected\nuses upon coastal resources and ecosystems and (b) the socio-economic impacts\nof limiting the magnitude, intensity, location, and types of such uses. In\nthe second and third program development years the products of the resource\ninventory, the carrying capacity analysis, and the preliminary findings on\ncritical areas (discussed below.) will be synthesized; a preliminary report\ndescribing permissible uses and proposed locational criteria and regulatory\nstandards will be developed.\nCritical Areas: The data generated from the resource inventory will be\nanalyzed to identify areas of critical State concern. A master listing and\nmapping system will then be developed during the second and third years.\nAreas will be assessed according to their unique suitability for certain\nuses, or the pressure on them of competing uses. Areas to be identified\n51","and studied include: areas with a high incidence of unique, scarce, fragile,\nor vulnerable natural habitat or physical features; areas of outstanding\nhistorical or scenic significance; areas of unusually high productivity or\nessential habitats of important animal and plant species; areas needed to\nprotect, or replenish coastal lands or resources such as aquifer recharge\nareas, marshes, and sand dunes; and areas which would be particularly\nvulnerable, if developed, to storms, floods or erosion.\nAnalysis of Management Tools: A first year task will be to analyze\nall relevant Federal, State, regional and local management tools for coastal\nareas according to compatability scope, regulatory powers, and tax incentives.\nA parallel effort will be the review, by the coastal regional planning\nagencies, of the accomplishments of local zoning units and conservation\ncommissions to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses and needs of these\nentities. On the basis of these studies and an assessment of the need for\nadditional State powers to acquire fee simple or less than fee simple\ninterests in lands and waters, alternative model legislation will be\nformulated to be considered in the second and third program development years.\nCoastal Review Center Operations: The objective of this work element\nis to develop an interim process for monitoring significant activities and\nreviewing major projects in the coastal zone, pending completion of an approved\ncomprehensive coastal zone management plan. At the same time, it is expected\nthat the center will serve as a focal point for information collection and\ndissemination to provide technical support to the planning staff of the\nEOEA.\nThe center, which is to have a measure of independence from other State\nagencies, will monitor and regularly compile a summary of activities; it will\nscreen projects and programs to identify points of conflict for resolution\nby the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nA first year task will be to formulate an approach for executing a\npublic information and education effort as part of the program development\nprocess. Information will be compiled discussing accomplishments of major mile-\nstones and explaining major decisions, and will be disseminated by newsletters\nand bulletins and through the Commonwealth's regional planning agencies.\nWhen certain tasks or discussions on major policy\nissues warrant public input, appropriate public meetings will be held at\nthe local level. Emphasis will be placed on ensuring the input of public\ngroups such as: environmental action groups, industrial organizations,\nuniversity interests, local planning boards, and special interests (e.g.,\nfisheries groups)\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nAt the multi-State regional level, Massachusetts is an active participant\nin the New England River Basins Commission. In order to ensure close\ncooperation with the state's planning program, the NERBC will have a member\non the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources.\n52","At the State level, Massachusetts will develop a three-tiered\nstructure to ensure coordination of State, substate, regional and local\nactivities. The three components will be: (a) the Governor's cabinet-\nlevel Resource Management Policy Council; (b) the 30-member Governor's\nTask Force on Coastal Resources; and (c) the technical team of State\nline agencies and regional planning agencies operating as the technical\nsupport arm to the Task Force. The regional planning agencies, through\ntheir participation on the technical support team will act to ensure\nthat local government concerns and specific geographic interests are\nincorporated into the management program.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe coastal zone planning area will encompass all of Massachusetts\n87 coastal cities and towns and extend to the limits of the State's\nseaward territorial limit. Coastal cities and towns are defined as those\n\"bordering ocean and estuarine waters to tidal rise and fall.' \" The\nmanagement area boundary will be determined at the end of the first year\nafter permissible uses and areas of critical concern have been identified.\n53","MICHIGAN\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Natural Resources\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: 10 Regional Planning Agencies\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 2 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $330,486 (Federal) $534,477 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nWith the enactment of the Shorelands Protection and Management Act of\n1970, the Michigan Legislature directed the Department of Natural Resources's\nWater Resources Commission to develop a comprehensive plan for control of\nthe use and development of Great Lakes' shorelands. The plan was completed\nin August, 1973. The various chapters of the plan deal with the following\nareas: (a) an overview of the amounts and types of shoreland use, develop-\nment, and ownership, and an inventory of the physical characteristics of the\nshoreland; (b) the causes and possible solutions of shoreland erosion and\nflooding; (c) description of areas of significant environmental concern\nwhich warrant priority preservation efforts; (d) an examination of the legal\ntools available for shoreland management, and the particular need to establish\na program to buy and resell deeds to shoreland property with appropriate\nrestrictions; and (e) general management guidelines with emphasis placed on\nthe continuing role of local governments in the preparation of county or\nregional management plans.\nThe Plan sets forth three basic principles for management and protection\nof Michigan's shorelands: 1) limit development to those areas which\nspecifically require a shoreline location; 2) require permissible develop-\nments to be planned and constructed to harmonize with the capacity of the\nshoreline ecosystem; and 3) foster and facilitate public acquisition of\nsignificant environmental areas.\nIn December, 1973, the Water Development Services Division of\nthe DNR published, \"Flooding Problems Associated with Current High\nLevels of the Great Lakes.\" The report presents an overview of the Great\nLakes' high water flooding problem: its causes, effects, solutions, and\npossible future alternatives.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Lack of a coordinated management program to effectively deal with\npotential of further serious damage to shoreland properties from\nflooding and erosion. (Over 700 miles of Michigan's Great Lakes\nshoreline were designated as high-risk erosion areas in 1973). .\n- Minimal local planning, zoning, health and sanitation programs for\nmuch of the shoreland area subject to increasing recreational and\nresidential demands.\n54","- Need for the rehabilitation and redevelopment of blighted urban\nwaterfronts dominated by abandoned commercial and industrial\neconomic structures.\n- Need to protect shoreland wildlife and fishery resources from\necologically degrading activities-such as dredging and filling of wet-\nlands, improper placement and design of waste disposal systems,\nimproper development, etc.\n- Need to integrate and ensure cooperation among coastal management\nprograms currently fragmented among numerous units of government.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To protect the overall environmental integrity of Michigan's Great\nLakes shorelands.\nTo facilitate the orderly use and development of shoreland resources,\n-\nincluding transportation, recreation, energy production, industry,\nagriculture, and commerce.\n- To preserve the shoreland ecosystem and its diverse array of flora\nand fauna.\nTo perpetuate unique cultural, ecological, scenic, aesthetic,\n-\nhistoric, and scientific shoreland resources.\n- To minimize damages to shore properties from erosion and flooding.\n- To assist in the conservation and protection of the Great Lakes\nthrough enlightened use and development of shoreland areas.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nGoals and Objectives: This early first year task will focus on\ndevelopment of an explicit statement of goals and objectives for each of\nthe 10 State planning regions included in Michigan's coastal area.\nParticular attention will be given to definition of proposed permissible\nland and water uses and their priorities. The input from the individual\nregions will be synthesized into regional statements of goals and objectives,\nwith particular attention directed to integration of Statewide and national\ninterests.\nUse and Ownership Inventory: Existing data on land and water uses\nand shoreland ownership will be collected early in the first year. Supple-\nmental data will then be collected on physical features, degree of develop-\nment, location of unique cultural and historic features, significant\nenvironmental and ecological resources, and related items to provide an\nadequate information base for the management program. Emphasis will also\nbe placed on developing a mechanism for periodically monitoring land use\nchanges.\nIn addition to the use and ownership inventory, supplemental data\nwill be collected and analyzed for implementing the statutory requirements\nof the Shorelands Protection and Management Act pertaining to significant\nenvironmental and high-risk erosion areas. Research will focus particularly\non erosion recession rates--data which are necessary to the formulation of\nset back lines and other regulatory criteria.\nData Management System: With significant amounts of data generated\nduring implementation of the Shorelands Protection and Management Act, and with\nmore to be collected during the planned inventories, development of a\n55","mechanism for rapid retrieval and analysis of such data is viewed as an\nessential task to be initiated during the first year. To facilitate\ncoordination and data transferability among shorelands management, land\nuse and recreational planning, water resources planning, and other\nprograms, the data management system will be designed to accommodate\na number of programs. Methods to be utilized are to include the develop-\nment of a computer capability and user manual.\nNavigation Needs: An important first year task is the identi-\nfication of future shorelands requirements for improvements in the Great\nLakes navigation system. Identification of port requirements, dredging and\ndredge disposal needs and other shoreland impacts is seen as a task of\nspecial importance in view of the national interest in extension and\nrevitalization of Great Lakes shipping.\nState, Local, and Federal Authorities for Shorelands Management:\nAn early effort will be made to categorize existing statutes, rules,\nregulations, guidelines and policies at both the State and local levels\nin order to evaluate their usefulness in structuring a comprehensive manage-\nment program. Examination will be made of a wide variety of management\ntools including licensing and permit programs, building codes, land\nsales regulation, plat review and approval, environmental impact statement\nrequirements, taxation practices, and air and water quality regulations.\nEqual effort is to be made in examination of State and local programs\ninvolved in such activities as park acquisition, mineral leasing, trans-\nportation, energy facility siting, and historic area preservation.\nFinally, shoreland practices and programs in other States will be\nexamined and critically evaluated for their applicability in Maryland.\nSynthesis of these three sub-tasks will be directed toward identification\nof potential new regulatory and control authorities to remedy\nexisting deficiencies.\nOrganizational Arrangements and Program Formulation: Development\nof an organizational structure capable of management program coordination\nand administration will be addressed primarily during the second program\ndevelopment year. Aspects include: mechanisms to ensure coordination\nof DNR activities with the programs of other State agencies; the distribu-\ntion of management functions among State, regional, and local government\nentities; the structure and composition of a shoreland management agency;\nand provisions to facilitate interstate coordination.\nUpon completion of all other program development tasks, a draft\nmanagement program will be prepared by the middle of the second program\ndevelopment year and submitted for interagency and public review.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nA Governor-appointed, seven-member Natural Resources Commission is\na policy-making body for the Department of Natural Resources. At present,\nthe Commission is holding a series of town meetings across the State to\nsolicit citizen views.\n56","To assist in program review, the Natural Resources Commission has\nappointed a Shorelands Advisory Council. The Advisory Council, composed\nof citizen representatives of many shoreland interests, is primarily\nresponsible for soliciting public views, support and involvement in the\nplanning process.\nFinally, public meetings and hearings will continue to be used\nbroadly as mechanisms for public review of plans and regulations.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nAt the substate regional and local levels, 10 regional planning\nagencies will participate in the development of the management programs.\nThe regional planning agencies will participate in: (a) the formulation\nof local and regional goals and objectives; (b) the identification of local\ngovernment regulations and programs, and the development of legislation\nto clarify their authority; (c) the coordination of local planning programs\nand activities related to the shorelands of the Great Lakes; and (d) the\nformulation and review of statewide management controls and guidelines. The\nregional planning agencies have established a Statewide organization, known\nas the Michigan Association of Regions, to coordinate regional participation\nin the planning process.\nAt the State agency level, coordination is ensured by the organizational\nstructure of the DNR. Each of the major agencies involved in coastal zone\nmanagement planning--the Office of Land Use; the Water Development Services\nDivision of the Bureau of Water Management; and the Divisions of Fisheries,\nWildlife, Waterways, Parks, Forestry, Water Quality Control, Hydrological\nSurveys, and Geological Survey--are within the DNR and under the control of\nits Director and the Natural Resources Commission.\nInterstate coordination will be provided by membership on a committee\non shorelands management created by the Great Lakes Basin Commission.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe State is divided into 14 designated planning regions, each with\na regional planning commission or planning and development commission. Ten\nof the fourteen regions include shoreland areas and will participate in\nformulation of the coastal zone management program. As a rule,\nthe planning area will include a zone extending about one-half mile inland\nfrom the shoreline of each region.\n57","MINNESOTA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: State Planning Agency\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Department of Natural Resources,\nBureau of Planning; Department of Economic Development; Arrowhead Regional\nDevelopment Commission.\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $99,500 (Federal) $149,250 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Shoreland Management Act of 1969 requires the Commissioner of\nthe Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to set zoning standards for county\ngovernments to enact and enforce for all lands within 1,000 feet of the\nnormal high water mark of a lake or pond, or within 300 feet of a river or\nstream in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. The Shorelands Manage-\nment Unit of the DNR is developing a comprehensive plan for the maintenance\nof the shorelines and control of dredging, filling and spoil removal, based\non the classification and regulation schemes developed by the county units.\nThe Department of Highways has recently completed several studies\nrelated to highway planning and construction in the coastal area. The\n\"Norshor\" study, conducted jointly with the DNR, includes an inventory of\nphysical land characteristics and existing land use by means of a computer\nmapping technique. Data mapped includes soil types, vegetative cover,\nhydrology, existing land use, recreational areas and facilities location,\nand unique natural and historical features.\nAt the regional level, the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission\n(ARDC) is responsible for development of a water quality management plan for\nthe Minnesota portion of the Lake Superior Basin. The Commission has developed\nand approved a Sewer and Water Plan for communities of less than 5,500 and a\n6-county Solid Waste Management System Plan.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Lack of proper land use controls causing \"strip\" configurations in\nmany shoreland areas and rapidly eliminating open space and public\naccess.\n- Lack of a bi-State comprehensive plan or organizational structure\ncapable of effective coordination or control over metropolitan and\nharbor development of the Duluth/Superior area.\n- Need for increased public land holdings, parks, recreational\nareas, and public access corridors to the shoreline in the face\nof increasing multi-use pressures.\n- Need for large commitments of land, rail and harbor facilities to\naccommodate expansion of taconite and copper-nickel mining operations.\n- Need for public sewer service in many shoreland areas which are\napproaching urban densities.\nNeed to control industrial waste disposal; accelerated erosion,\n-\nsedimentation and storm runoff, and mining effluents to protect water\nquality and a declining fishing industry.\n58","- Need to develop a mechanism to integrate and coordinate the\npresently overlapping and duplicative activities of various State\nand local entities involved in shorelands management.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To establish procedures for information exchange, consultation, and\ncoordination among all government agencies, public and private\ngroups, and citizens interested and active in the coastal zone, so\nthat proper management goals and objectives may be articulated, and\nNational, State, regional, and local interests in potential uses\nuses clarified.\n- To identify conflicts and inconsistencies in the goals, objectives and\npolicies governing all planning, management, and regulatory activities\ncarried on in the coastal zone by Federal, State, regional, local,\nor interstate entities, to eliminate these, and to adopt\ncurrent policies to a unified set of goals, objectives, and policies\nto be developed.\n- To identify gaps, duplications, or overlaps in legal authorities,\nand possible legislative changes necessary to ensure the establish-\nment of effective controls over coastal zone resource uses necessary\nfor the successful implementation of a coastal zone management pro-\ngram, and institutional arrangements supportive thereof.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nResource Data Acquisition and Analysis: Two inventories are scheduled\nto run concurrently during the first and second program development years.\nAn inventory will be conducted of the natural, historical, cultural and\nscientific resources of the coastal zone. Data will be collected on: soils and\ngeomorphologicl regions; geology, climate, land cover, location of wetlands\nand ground water recharge areas; surface and ground water yield and quality;\nair quality, fish and wildlife; historical and archaeological sites; and\ncultural and scientific resources.\nThe second inventory will examine current resource use and the factors\naffecting it. The information acquired will relate to: land use, land\nand water ownership, zoning, water use, point and non-point sources of water\npollution, air pollution sources and controls, fish, wildlife and forestry\nmanagement, and local tax mechanisms and incentives. The data collected\nfrom the two inventories will be entered into the Minnesota Land Management\nInformation System (MLMIS), a computer-based system serving as a storehouse\nof resource data organized by geographic location. The data will then be\nanalyzed to determine suitability of resources for various land uses, and to\nidentify areas with development potential and areas with particularly\nfragile or unique ecosystems.\nGoals and Policy Development: In an effort to define more clearly\ncoastal zone problems and needs, an analysis will be undertaken during the\nfirst year of goals, objectives and policies presently guiding all planning,\nmanagement, and regulatory activities carried on in Minnesota's coastal zone.\nIn this manner, conflicts and inconsistencies can be uncovered, and a set of\nunified goals, objectives and policies developed. This process will inte-\ngrate the information gained from the resource use capability analysis\ndeveloped from the inventories, and will contain explicit criteria with\n59","regard to priorities of permissible uses in specified geographical areas\nand the designation of areas of particular concern.\nAlternative Institutional Arrangements: A first year task will be to\nsurvey legal authorities under which planning, management, and regulatory\nactivities are presently carried out in order to identify possible gaps and\nduplications. A related task will be the evaluation of existing institutional\narrangements and the present division of administrative responsibilities\nfor activities relating to land and water resource uses. With the completion\nof these analyses, recommendations for legislative and administrative\naction to eliminate duplications and ensure effective regulatory controls,\nand to improve the division of administrative and management capabilities,\nwill be developed.\nImmediate Action Program: An early effort will be made to identify\nthose areas of particular concern at the regional or Statewide level which\nmay require immediate regulation through designation as critical areas\nunder the Minnesota Critical Areas Act of 1973. This legislation assigns\nthe Minnesota Environmental Quality Council the responsibility to identify\nareas of the State, which because of unique characteristics, could be\nirreparably damaged by uncontrolled development. After an area is designated\nas an area of critical concern, the State is required to assist and cooperate\nwith local units of government in developing plans and permit regulations\nfor the use and development of these areas.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nMinnesota considers the development of its coastal zone management\nprogram as the initial component of an effort to develop an overall State\nland use planning process. As a step toward this end, a set of alternative\nfutures or strategies leading to various directions of growth and develop-\nment is being prepared by the Commission on Minnesota's Future, a panel of\ncitizens, State and local officials, and legislators. These strategies will\nguide the formulation of goals, objectives and policies for land use\nplanning and provide a frame of reference against which to assess public\nneeds and desires.\nIn an effort to educate the public concerning Minnesota's coastal zone\nmanagement program, and to provide opportunities for continuous citizen\nparticipation in the planning process, a series of public meetings, seminars\nand interagency workshops are scheduled. In addition to the meetings and\nworkshops, questionnaire surveys will be conducted from time to time to\ndetermine public attitudes toward specific policies and proposals as they\nare advanced throughout the planning process.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nAt the multi-State regional level, Minnesota participates in the\nGreat Lakes Basin Commission, coordinating its shoreland planning activities\nwith the other Great Lakes States. In addition, channels for bi-State coopera-\ntion have been opened through joint participation of the Northern Wisconsin\n60","Regional Planning and Development Commission and Minnesota's Arrowhead\nRegional Development Commission in the preparation of the Lake\nSuperior Basin Water Quality Management Plan. The ARDC will also\nmaintain the primary responsibility for coordinating the programs of\nlocal and areawide governmental entities concerned with shorelands\nmanagement.\nTo strengthen State level coordination, two specific tasks are to be\ncarried out in the initial program development year: 1) the hiring of a\nfull-\ntime State Coastal Zone Management Administrator; and 2) the expansion of\nthe existing State Level Coastal Zone Management Work Group to include\nrepresentatives of various State agencies, educational institutions, and\nthe general public. Under the direction of the State Coastal Zone Management\nAdministrator, this group will provide State policy guidance and facilitate\ncooperation among various agencies during program development.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe coastal zone study area defined for the purpose of coastal zone\nmanagement program development includes that portion of the Lake Superior\ncoastal drainage basin contained in Cook, Lake, St. Louis, and Carlton\nCounties, with particular emphasis placed on activities within a zone extending\napproximately five miles inland from Minnesota's Lake Superior shore.\n61","MISSISSIPPI\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Mississippi Marine Resources Council\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Mississippi-Alaba; Sea Grant Consortium;\nSouthern Mississippi Planning and Development District; Gulf Regional Plan-\nning Commission.\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning May 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $101,564 (Federal) $152,346 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nWith the passage of the Coastal Wetlands Protection Act in 1973, the\nMississippi Marine Resources Council (MMRC) became the regulatory agency\nfor activities conducted on State-owned coastal wetlands, and was directed\nto include an overall plan for use of coastal and private wetlands in the\nState's comprehensive coastal zone management plan.\nThe MMRC works very closely with the Mississippi Sea Grant Consortium,\nwith the Director of the MMRC serving as a member of the Sea Grant Management\nCommittee, along with representatives of the University of Mississippi, the\nUniversity of Southern Mississippi, Mississippi State University, and the\nGulf Coast Research Laboratory. The Consortium's program presently carries\non investigations in the areas of: Program Direction and Development, Marine\nCoastal Law, Pollution, Fisheries Development, Engineering in the Ocean,\nIndustrial Development, and Advisory Services. One ongoing project is a\nstudy to predict ecological changes expected to occur in estuarine areas\nas the result of the introduction of various types of pollutants.\nISSUES AND PROBLEMS:\n- Increasing population pressures and the decreasing availability of\ncoastal lands aggravate competition among industrial, commercial,\nand residential developers and diminish areas available for recrea-\ntional and public use.\n- Inadequate municipal and industrial waste treatment facilities pol-\nlute estuarine and tidal areas to the detriment of wildlife, sport,\nand commercial fisheries and the tourist-recreation industry.\n- Highly productive coastal marshes and wetlands have been developed\nand destroyed.\n- Increasing petroleum extraction and facility construction has\nincreased transportation and waste treatment needs, as well as the\nrisk of oil spills.\n- Inadequate planning has been done to locate coastal development in\nareas least prone to hurricane damage.\n- Increasing industrial development in the coastal area competes for\navailable shoreland areas and places demands on available ground\nwater supplies and waste treatment waters.\n62","- Alternative modes of land based transportation in the coastal\nareas need to be addressed.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To develop available coastal resources in a manner which will preserve\nresource values and provide options for future generations by minimiz-\ning irreversible commitments.\n- To initiate and maintain a continuing inventory of natural resources\nand their requirements and capabilities while recognizing and allow-\ning for their limitations.\n- To set up a mechanism to provide a coordinating framework for\ncoastal zone management activities, focusing on immediate problems\nbut remaining cognizant of long-term trends.\n- To develop and maintain an educational system to disseminate infor-\nmation obtained through coastal zone research.\n- To establish a system for handling resource conflicts which embodies the\nconcepts of multiple and shared use, irretrievable commitments, and\navailable alternatives.\n- To provide protective mechanisms and regulations for the conservation\nof natural ecosystems and prime resources essential to the coastal\nzone.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nDate Acquisition: Efforts will be concentrated in the first 12 months\nof program development to acquire and evaluate all existing information con-\ncerning the coastal zone published by local, regional, State, and Federal\nagencies in the area of coastal zone management. Where informational gaps\nare identified, additional investigation and research will be initiated to\nmeet planning needs in such areas as the determination of environmental\ncarrying capacity, dependencies on particular uses, and identification of\nadverse impacts.\nSetting Policy Goals: Utilizing appropriate technical data, broad\npolicy goals for coastal zone management will be delineated. The MMRC will\nbegin in the second half of the first year to address the areas of industrial\ndevelopment, commerce, residential development, recreation, mineral extrac-\ntion, transportation, waste disposal, and fisheries development.\nPermissible Land and Water Uses, Priority Uses, and Areas of Critical\nConcern: In order to define permissible uses, the MMRC plans a three-pronged\neffort: 1) assessment of the impact of existing and projected uses, and\nestablishment of the carrying capacity for those uses; 2) categorization of\nthe nature, location, and scope of current and anticipated conflicting uses;\nand 3) evaluation of the values and interrelationships among specific\ncoastal environments.\nCriteria for the designation of areas of particular concern will be\ndeveloped and priority of uses determined during the second year of program\ndevelopment. Guidelines will be drawn to reflect the balancing of the\n63","value of economic development with the need for preservation of marine\nand wildlife resources and nutrient rich ecological systems, as well as\nconservation of open space.\nLegal Policy Analysis and Legislative Drafting: In order to develop\nthe legal capability necessary for Mississippi to regulate land and water\nuses and control development, a legal analysis of alternative mechanisms to\nmeet these regulatory requirements will be conducted throughout the second\nhalf of the first and the entire second years.\nLegislative measures required to clarify and extend existing lines of\nauthority and responsibility will be developed in the second and third pro-\ngram development years. Legislation will be drafted to provide the\nauthority necessary to meet the regulatory and control requirements imposed\nby the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.\nPlan Preparation: The results of all the program development tasks\nwill be combined to formulate the comprehensive coastal zone management\nplan--a synthesis of policies, regulatory controls, and geographic delinea-\ntions. The Plan will be drafted and submitted for public and interagency\nreview during the last year of the program development period.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nPublic participation in the development of Mississippi's comprehensive\nmanagement plan will be obtained principally through the establishment of a\nCitizen Advisory Committee and a public seminar-workshop series. The workshops,\nto be held periodically to develop a dialogue between the MMRC and public\ninterest groups, will address technical and political problems and attitude\nidentified with policy development.\nThe foundation for the public participation program has previously\nbeen laid through the efforts of Mississippi's Sea Grant Consortium. The\nSea Grant Program developed a Coastal Leaders Program and conducted a\nCoastal Leaders Conference to concentrate on specific problem areas. The\nMMRC plans to utilize these existing channels and expand this operation to\naccomplish much of the public involvement effort; a series of meetings\nwill be held with civic leaders at major milestones in plan development.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nAt the local and sub-State regional levels, the Gulf Regional Planning\nCommission will play a key role in assisting the MMRC to establish communi-\ncation and coordination with county and metropolitan agencies.\nAt the State level, membership in the MMRC itself provides coordina-\ntion. The Council is composed of 16 members with representatives from the\nState Senate and House of Representatives, the Gulf Coast Research Lab\nand Universities Marine Center, The Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial\nBoard, the Marine Conservation Commission, the Research and Development\nCenter, and the public at large. The Council is chaired by the Governor\nand works in close coordination with the Gulf Regional Planning Commission,\nthe Sea Grant Consortium, and with other State agencies.\n64","Mississippi also coordinates closely with the neighboring State of\nAlabama in its coastal zone management efforts. In 1972, the States combined\nefforts to study the environmental and economic feasibility of locating a\nport off their coasts, and it is expected that such joint efforts will\ncontinue.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nA refined definition of the coastal zone boundary is an early\ntask in the development of Mississippi's comprehensive coastal zone management\nplan. However, a tentative boundary for planning purposes has been delini-\nated employing the concept of primary and secondary zones.\nTentatively, the primary zone will include lands inland one mile from\nmean high tide, or the limit of the critical hurricane exposure zone.\nThe secondary zone, where the MMRC will assume an advisory rather than\na management role, includes all lands extending from the inland limits of\nthe primary zone to the landward boundaries of Hancock, Harrison, and\nJackson Counties.\n65","NEW HAMPSHIRE\nGRANT RECIPIENT: office of Comprehensive Planning\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Strafford-Rockingham Regional Council\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 2 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $78,000 (Federal) $117,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThere are at present twelve State agencies and two commissions with\njurisdiction over coastal resources. Legislation to create additional\nsingle purpose authorities has been introduced in recent sessions of the\nState legislature. The office of Comprehensive Planning is responsible\nfor planning coordination and is presently working with the New England\nRiver Basins Commission to produce the New Hampshire Guide Plan as part of\nthe New England Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan. This work is\nscheduled for completion in 1974. At the regional level, the Strafford-\nRockingham Regional Council has broad planning responsibilities and\nparticipates in the A-95 review process.\nof New Hampshire's governmental agencies, only those at the local\nlevel are prepared to implement coastal zone management programs. All of\nthe coastal communities have planning boards and zoning ordinances.\nEssentially, all coastal communities have the basic land use management\nframework through which local elements of a comprehensive coastal manage-\nment program may be conducted. Local priorities, however, tend to favor\nincreasing the tax base rather than ecosystem preservation or public\nrecreation.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Location of a super port offshore\n- Location of an oil refinery (or refineries) onshore\n- Location of nuclear power plants\n- Mining of sand and gravel offshore\n- Drilling for oil and natural gas offshore\n- Depletion of fisheries resources\n- Dredging of harbor channels\n- Enlargement of port facilities\n- Coastal flooding and storm damage protection\n- Public access to beaches, ocean and estuarine waters\n- Private development on salt marshes and in public waters\n- Pollution abatement needs\n- Ownership of and construction on barrier dunes\nThe impacts of population increases on municipal facilities\n-\n- The seaward ownership of beaches and construction thereon\n- Conflicts between pleasure and commercial craft and between land\ntransportation and waterborne transportation\n66","GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To produce institutions and procedures enabling rational management\nof New Hampshire's coastal resources.\n- To develop an inventory of coastal resources, including land use,\nownership, and socio-economic data, and baseline ecological profiles\nof the remaining natural and modified coastal systems.\n- To develop predictive models to aid in evaluating the impact of\nalternative development actions and understanding the effect of\nactivities on the coastal environment.\n- To improve environmental impact statements for major activities in\nthe coastal zone by making more stringent the requirements for the\npreparation, detail, and use of such statements in making specific\ndecisions.\n- To establish management goals for various coastal resources,\nidentifying permitted uses, and protective measures where necessary.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nData Collection: The Strafford-Rockingham Regional Council will be\nresponsible for collecting all currently available data on natural resource\ncharacteristics, population, and existing land and water use patterns.\nInformation gaps which have been identified and which will be filled\nduring the first program year are: the status of commercial and recreational\nfisheries (by the Fish and Game Department), harbor capacity (by the New\nHampshire Port Authority), park and recreation capacity and coastal\nindustry impact (by the Department of Resources and Economic Development).\nThis information will be mapped by the SRRC and should serve as a basis\nfor designation of areas of particular concern.\nPlanning and Policy Framework: The information collected above,\ntogether with water quality recommendations provided by the Water Supply\nand Pollution Control Commission, air quality recommendations from the\nDivision of Public Health, and a jurisdictional study conducted by the\nWater Resources Board, will be used by the SRRC to develop a series of\npreliminary policy statements on permissible uses within the coastal zone.\nThese statements will be in the form of recommendations to the Office of\nComprehensive Planning, and will be developed in the second year.\nBoundary Delineation: The preliminary coastal zone boundary will be\nexamined in terms of the data collected during the first year, and may be\nrefined at the end of the first year. However, final determination of the\ncoastal zone boundary will await completion of the administrative framework\ndiscussed below.\nAdministrative Framework: The Office of Comprehensive Planning will\nprepare the framework within which the State's coastal zone management\nprogram will be implemented. State, regional, and local roles and\nresponsibilities will be determined, required legislation will be drafted,\nand the necessary organizational structure, staffing requirements, decision-\nmaking processes, and appeal procedures will be developed. This work will\nbe begun in the first year and completed in the second.\n67","PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThe SRRC, which will do most of the planning and policy development\nwork, has a board composed of elected municipal officials as well as\nprivate citizens of diverse backgrounds. The SRRC also has ad hoc commit-\ntees, containing other private citizens, for various major issues.\nIn addition, the ongoing public education programs of the SRRC, including\nlectures, speeches, press and radio coverage, will be used to foster public\nparticipation in the State's CZM development program. The required public\nhearings will be conducted by the State, as will be the meetings and\nhearings it holds as a part of other ongoing planning efforts. Also note-\nworthy is New Hampshire's Right-To-Know law, which mandates public notice\nof and access to almost all decision-making processes.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nCoordination of State agency involvement will be through the 11-member\nCouncil of Resources and Management, which is chaired by the Director of\nState Planning within the Office of Comprehensive Planning. Any affected\nagencies which are not members will be asked to participate on an ex officio\nbasis.\nThe Strafford-Rockingham Regional Council, which includes all 42\nmunicipalities within the State's preliminary coastal zone boundary, will\nserve to coordinate local input and communicate the local perspective to\nthe Office of Comprehensive Planning.\nCoordination with other States and communication with Federal agencies\nwill be handled through the New England River Basins Commission.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nNew Hampshire will use the boundaries of the Strafford-Rockingham\nRegional Council (SRRC) and the State's offshore waters to define its\npreliminary coastal zone. Within the area of the SRRC, however, efforts\nwill be focused on the first tier of coastal municipalities. It is recognized\nthat different land uses will have measurable effects at varying distances\nfrom the water's edge, and New Hampshire therefore reserves final delineation\nof the boundaries to a later date.\n68","NEW JERSEY\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Environmental Protection\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: None\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: Three years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $275,000 (Federal) $412,500 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Department of Environmental Protection was created in 1970 to\nadminister all environmental legislation in New Jersey. Within the DEP,\nthe Office of Environmental Analysis is assigned general responsibility\nto develop new programs to the point where they can be implemented by\nthe line enforcement agencies of the Department. At present, there are\nthree laws affecting the management of New Jersey's coastal zone.\nThe State owns the lands at or below the mean high tide line. Before\na property owner can develop such lands, he must obtain a riparian grant\nor license from the State. The DEP has complete discretion to convey\nriparian lands, whether by lease, license, or sale. In exercising\nthis authority, the DEP is to consider the total environmental consequences\nof proposed development.\nThe Wetlands Act of 1970 authorizes the DEP to control land use on\nall tidal marsh areas, including saline, brackish, or freshwater marshes.\nBefore controlling wetland activities, the DEP must map the areas,\nprepare regulations, notify local property owners affected, and hold public\nhearings in each affected county. Maps at 1:2400 will be completed, and\nall wetland areas will be regulated by September, 1974.\nThe Coastal Area Facility Review Act requires a DEP permit for the\nconstruction of certain facilities within the coastal area specified in\nthe Act. CAFRA directs the DEP to inventory the coastal zone, including\nexisting development, and to assess the capability of the coastal zone to\naccommodate further man-made stresses. This inventory must be completed\nand presented to the Governor and the Legislature by September, 1975.\nBy September, 1976, DEP must develop alternate long-term strategies\nfor the management of the coastal zone and choose one to be\nthe approved coastal zone management strategy.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Large-scale uncontrolled residential and commercial development.\n- Retention of the physical and biological value of wetlands.\n- Maintenance of the supply of high quality, readily accessible\nrecreation areas.\n- The adverse effects of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants and\nsolid and liquid waste disposal methods on coastal resources and\necosystems.\n69","- The decline of older, resort-oriented urban areas such as Asbury\nPark and Atlantic City.\n- The impacts of oil discharges and spills on marine life and beaches.\n- Recreational and economic impacts of declining shellfisheries.\n- Beach erosion and shoreline stability.\n- The impacts on food chains and recreation of oceanic waste disposal.\n- Maintenance of commercial and recreational navigation channels.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To control coastal land and water uses so as to enhance the\nenvironment and to prevent further degradation, while achieving\nmaximum utilization of these resources by present and future\ngenerations.\nTo enhance recreational use of the coastal zone resources, and to\n-\nmake recreational facilities more available.\n- To minimize the conflicts and adverse environmental impacts of\ncommercial, residential and industrial uses of the coastal zone.\n- To conserve the biological productivity of coastal wetlands.\n- To maintain a balance of acceptable air and water quality while\nmeeting social and economic needs.\n- To preserve for posterity such areas of unique value as the New\nJersey Pine Barrens and the Mullica River.\n- To preserve open spaces for recreational use and wildlife habit.\n- To encourage the location of land and water uses damaging to the\ncoastal environment in environmentally suitable areas.\n- To reverse the decline of the older urban resort areas such as\nAtlantic City and Asbury Park.\n- To reverse the decline of recreational and commercial shellfisheries.\n- To undertake programs to offset the erosion of beaches, river\nbanks and land areas.\n- To minimize storm and flood damage to life and property.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nEnvironmental Inventory: First year work will concentrate on\ndevelopment of an environmental inventory, mandated by CAFRA to be\ncompleted by September, 1975. The basic areas of investigation include\nnatural resources, current land use, mean high water line, wetlands delinea-\ntion and the identification of all agencies with coastal zone responsibilities\nMuch of the information will be presented as overlays on a 1:24,000 scale\nbase map of New Jersey's coastal zone. Wetlands delineation and mean high\nwater lines will be drawn at 1:2400.\nLand Use Monitoring Techniques: Techniques for detecting and assessing\nchanges, both natural and man-made, within the coastal zone will be\nidentified and evaluated. Particular emphasis will be placed upon remote\nsensing, including aircraft photography and satellite imagery. The DEP\nhas conducted an ERTS-1 experiment to determine the practical value of\nsatellite data. The technique offers promise as a monitoring tool, but\nfurther development is required.\n70","Land Use and Natural Resource Impact Model: A matrix will be developed\nto identify activities associated with various land uses, the environmental\nimpacts of these activities, and the land use or natural resource informa-\ntion needed to analyze these impacts. This matrix will be used to help\nidentify permitted land uses.\nInformation System: Computerized techniques for display, storage,\nretrieval, and analysis of inventory data will be investigated to determine\nthe extent to which they can aid the decisions which must be made in\nimplementing the management program.\nPermissible Land and Water Uses: Beginning in the second year and\ndrawing on the environmental inventory, indices will be established for\nenvironmental and economic impacts of land and water uses. This will help\ndetermine the location, extent and conflicts of existing and future land\nuses, and identify those uses with direct and significant impacts on coastal\nwaters. Suitability analyses will then be used to determine permissible\nland and water uses.\nGeographic Areas of Particular Concern: New Jersey's shorelines,\nbeaches, flood plains and wetlands are already recognized and managed as\ncritical areas. Criteria will be developed and procedures established to\nenable specific areas to be preserved or restored for thier conservation,\nrecreational, ecological or aesthetic values.\nMeans of State Control: As the environmental inventory nears completion,\nthe DEP will review existing controls, investigate alternative State and\nlocal controls, and evaluate modifications which may be required for adequate\ncontrol of land and water uses. As part of this task, the controls exerted\nby Federal agencies on Federally administered lands will be examined to\ndetermine their relationship to existing and proposed State controls. Part\nof this effort will include a \"national interest\" input into the operation\nof the management program.\nDesignation of Priority Uses: At the beginning of the third year,\nwhen the process of land use control is completed, the DEP will establish\nguidelines for priorities of uses within specific geographic areas\nthroughout the coastal zone.\nStructure for Program Implementation: Alternative organizational\nstructures will be evaluated for implementation of the CZM program, and an\nappropriate recommendation will be made to the legislature.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nInitially, the principal vehicle for public participation will be the\nenvironmental commissions and other citizen groups. The commissions,\ncomposted of interested citizens, have been established in many of the\nState's municipalities to advise local government officials on matters of\nenvironmental concern. A more intensive public participation and educa-\ntion program will be designed for the second and third years. During the\nsecond year, local, county, and regional planning boards and the environ-\nmental commission within the coastal zone will be asked to review the\ninventory results and to assist in establishing guidelines and criteria.\nPublic hearings will be held on the plan during the third year.\n71","COASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe boundaries of New Jersey's coastal zone include the boundaries\nof the coastal area specified in CAFRA, the mean high water line where\nit extends beyond the CAFRA area and the upland boundary wetlands\ndelineated pursuant to the New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970. The planning\narea for the environmental inventory will include all counties having\nshorelines and river banks subject to tidal action. The results of the\nplanning area inventory will be evaluated to determine whether changes\nof the coastal zone boundaries should be recommended to the Legislature.\n72","NEW YORK\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Office of Planning Services\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Department of Environmental Conservation;\nvarious local and regional bodies\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; GRANT NOT YET AWARDED\nFUNDING: $550,000 (Federal) 825,000 (Total) REQUESTED\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Office\nof Planning Services are the two major State agencies involved in coastal\nzone planning and management activities. Under the Tidal Wetlands Act\nof 1973, the DEC is preparing an inventory of all tidal wetlands; upon\ncompletion of this inventory, the DEC will regulate wetlands development\nthrough a permit system. Under the Stream Protection Act, the DEC regu-\nlates dredge and fill activities in the State's navigable waters through\na permit system. Other activities regulated by the DEC include shellfish\nprotection, fish and wildlife management, beach erosion control and\nhurricane protection. OPS provides financial and technical support to\nlocal units of government (cities, town, villages) in the coastal zone\nin the adoption of zoning and other subdivision controls. OPS also\nmaintains the State's Land Use and Natural Resource Inventory, a computer-\nized statewide land and related information system. The State Public\nService Commission conducts public hearings and requires environmental\nimpact analyses in connection with applications by utilities companies\nfor certificates of environmental compatibility and public need,which are\nrequired conditions for construction of major transmission facilities.\nSimilar actions are carried out by the State Board on Electric Genera-\ntion Siting and the Environment in the case of steam electric generating\nfacilities. New York's Sea Grant Program has numerous studies underway\nrelating to coastal zone planning and management issues. Studies and\nprograms are also conducted by the Regional Planning Boards and Commis-\nsions in the State's Great Lakes and Long Island Sound-Atlantic Ocean\ncoastal zones.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Water quality and wastewater handling need to be improved in a\nmanner consistent with coastal zone goals and objectives.\n- Competing 'land and water uses must be reconciled with the need\nfor econemic and social development as well as the preservation\nof natural and scenic features.\n- Further losses or degradation of the State's wetlands need to be\nprevented without causing undue economic hardship.\n73","- Opportunities for public recreation and enjoyment of coastal\nresources need to be achieved without undue adverse impact upon\nprivate property.\n- Fish spawning areas and other wildlife habitats need to be protected\nand restored.\n- Sites that satisfy generating facility requirements need to be developed\nfor such purposes without undue impacts upon other coastal zone\nresources.\n- Shoreline areas need to be managed to minimize the impact of storms,\nwinds and flooding.\n- Maximum voluntary cooperation among State and other levels of government\nneeds to be achieved.\n- The economic advantages of existing or potential major ports and\nharbors need to be maximized.\nGreat Lakes Issues\n- Continued expansion of economic activities and employment opportunities\nneed to be achieved without undue damage to natural resources and\nscenic values.\n- Tourist and recreation values should be more fully realized.\n- Lake levels and stream flows need to be regulated in a manner that\nreconciles different uses.\nMarine Coast Issues\n- Recreation opportunities for urban residents need to be increased.\n- Management of the coastal zone should be directed toward improvement\nof water supply.\n- Ways in which to accommodate port and related waterfront development\nin New York City need to be devised.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To preserve and protect wetlands, wildlife habitats, fish spawning\ngrounds, shellfish beds, distinct or unique geologic formations.\n- To regulate the use and removal of the State's mineral resources.\n- To provide opportunities for public access to and public recrea-\ntion in the coastal zone.\n- To preserve and maintain high quality scenic views and vistas,\nhistoric and unique natural sites, districts, and artifacts.\n- To promote orderly economic development in the coastal zone,\nparticularly over large tracts of undeveloped land, along beach\nfronts and shorefronts, so as to avoid land use conflicts and the\nunnecessary degradation of natural resources.\n- To provide for regional infrastructures such as ports, power\nplants, sewage treatment plants and other water-oriented commercial\nand industrial developments in order to maintain the economic\nviability of coastal communities and to satisfy national interests.\n- To improve air and water quality to meet required standards.\n- To assure an adequate water supply, including the protection of\nwatersheds, aquifers and recharge basins.\n- To preserve high quality agricultural and forest lands.\n74","OVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nGoals and Objectives: During the first year, the preliminary goals\nand objectives will be reviewed and revised as necessary to insure that\nthese are formulated in a rational manner and that they accurately\nreflect the viewpoints of interested public and private parties in the\ncoastal zone. Though this element will be supervised by the OPS, the\nbulk of the work will be accomplished by sub-State entities with\nsubstantial public input.\nInformation Sources and Requirements: Large amounts of data and\ninformation related to coastal zone planning and management already exist.\nDuring the first year, this information will be evaluated in terms of\nits availability and applicability, and critical information for the\nanalysis of natural resources and land and water uses will be assembled.\nThis work will be done by the OPS and DEC along with the Regional\nPlanning Boards, counties, cities, and towns.\nAnalysis of Natural Resources: The DEC will prepare maps of the\nwetlands of Long Island, Hudson River and the Great Lakes from aerial\nphotographs and existing maps. An ongoing flood hazard mapping project\njointly conducted by the DEC and the United States Geologic Survey will\nbe coordinated with the coastal zone management program. Alternative\nsolutions for flood and erosion damage reduction will be evaluated.\nExisting State and Federal programs for shore protection and hurricane\ncontrol will be integrated into the coastal zone management program.\nUsing existing information, potential areas of geographic concern will\nbe mapped at a uniform scale and evaluated.\nAnalysis of Land and Water Uses: Potential development areas will\nbe identified, as well as possible conflicts between environmental and\neconomic concerns. A pilot demonstration project will be conducted in\nNew York City resulting in technical reports on such waterfront topics\nas port development, recreation, water resources and water quality. A\npilot demonstration project will be conducted in Rochester leading to a\nRiver Estuary Plan dealing with preservation of natural features, com-\npatible industrial, commercial and residential uses, and recreational\nand transportation facilities. Water supply needs and problems for\nregional segments of the coastal zone will be evaluated, including\nanalyses of water supply service areas, projected demands and the rela-\ntionship between projected land uses and the available water supply.\nLegal and Institutional Study: Existing Federal, State and local\nlegislation and regulations will be inventoried and analyzed to identify\ngaps. A pilot demonstration project will be conducted in Troy, resulting\nin a model local ordinance suitable for adoption by coastal zone\ncommunities.\nDesignation of Priority Uses: A system for assigning priorities to\nuses within geographic areas of particular concern and within the coastal\nzone management area in general will be developed. Factors to be considered\nin formulating priority rankings will include location (particularly\n75","relative to existing centers of activity, transportation facilities,\npower supplies) magnitude of use, economic, social and cultural impacts,\nand the conflicts and compatibility with other uses.\nPermissible Land and Water Uses: Permissible uses will be defined\non the basis of the priority ranking system, environmental assessments\nof the capabilities of specific areas to accommodate various types and\nintensities of use, social and economic needs and impacts, air and\nwater quality standards, limitations imposed by existing State or local\nlaws and regulations, and the expressed preference of all levels of\ngovernment and other concerned bodies.\nMeans of Exerting State Control: Existing State and local laws will\nbe evaluated to determine their effectiveness in enforcing the permissible\nland water uses assigned to various segments of the coastal zone and in\nmeeting the goals and objectives of the management program. This evalua-\ntion will also indicate the State and local control mechanisms and relation-\nships which need to be strengthened or modified. The necessary legislative\npackage and recommendations will be assembled.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nIn the first year, at least two citizen advisory councils will be\nformed to promote citizen participation in program formulation. A\nseries of regional public meetings, conferences and workshops will be\nheld throughout the State during the first year. Public hearings will\nbe held throughout the three years of program development.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nMany of the tasks to be undertaken in the first year will be\naccomplished by local, county and regional agencies as well as other\nState agencies. A11 State and sub-state entities with coastal zone\nactivities will have an opportunity to review and comment upon all work\ntasks and program elements, though no mechanism has been established yet.\nNew York will work through its Federal Regional Council to establish\ncommunications with Federal agencies active in the coastal zone. Through\nthe Great Lakes Basin Commission and the New England River Basins Commission,\nNew York will discuss and resolve interstate coastal zone management issues.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nAlong the Great Lakes, New York's coastal zone planning area includes\nthe first tier of coastal counties and Cayuga County. In its marine\ncoastal zone are included Long Island and the first tierof counties along\nthe Hudson River up to and including Albany and Rensselaer Counties.\nDuring the first year, alternative coastal zone management boundaries\nwill be explored, and the final boundaries will be set in the third year.\n76","NORTH CAROLINA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Natural and Economic Resources\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Office of Marine Affairs;\nDepartment of Administration; Coastal Resources Commission\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 2 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $300,000 (Federal) $500,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 confers the primary authorities\nand duties for development of North Carolina's coastal zone management\nprogram on the newly created Coastal Resources Commission. The 15-member\nState-level Commission is responsible for establishing policy, developing\nregulations, and adjudicating permit applications. The Commission draws\nstaff support from the Department of Natural and Economic Resources\n(DNER), and from the State Planning Division and the Office of Marine\nAffairs in the Department of Administration.\nThe Act provides for a cooperative State-local program, with the\nState establishing areas of particular environmental concern and acting\nin a guideline-drafting and programmatic review capacity to local govern-\nments, except where the local units do not elect to or fail to exercise\ntheir responsibility. The 20 coastal counties will develop land-use plans\nto be adopted by the Commission and then take on enforcement responsibility,\nincluding permit letting for local developments (the Commission controls\npermit letting for major developments).\nA major source of informational and inventory input into development\nof North Carolina's coastal zone management program will come from the\npreliminary planning document, North Carolina's Coastal Resources. This\ndocument is the product of a joint Federal-State committee appointed\nto work with the Marine Science Council in developing a model marine\nresource development plans.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Provision of economic development and transportation facilities\nwhile still preserving and enhancing wildlife and fisheries\nhabitats, cultural, historic, scenic and scientific resources.\n- Protection and improvement of water quality, including management\nof solid waste disposal.\n- Provision of a variety of shoreline recreation opportunities,\nand protection of public rights of access to shoreline land\nand waters.\n- Minimization of the impact of large-scale agricultural activities\non coastal resources.\n77","GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To preserve and manage those natural ecological conditions of\nthe estuarine system so as to protect, perpetuate, and enhance\nits natural productivity and its biological, economic, and\naesthetic values.\n- To ensure that development and preservation of the land and\nwater resources of the coastal area proceed in a manner consistent\nwith the capability of the land and water for development, use,\nor preservation based on ecological considerations.\nTo establish clear-cut objectives, policies, guidelines, and\n-\nstandards for all public and private uses of coastal lands and\nwaters, and to develop effective institutional arrangements\nto accomplish these objectives.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nNorth Carolina plans to develop its management program by the\nsynthesis of three distinct approaches: 1) implementation of the Coastal\nArea Management Act; 2) utilization of advisory services from State\nagencies and university programs to county and municipal government\nofficials; and 3) a strong emphasis on public involvement.\nA. Implementation of Legislation\nInterim Areas of Environmental Concern: The Coastal Resources\nCommission is in the process of designating interim areas of environmental\nconcern following public hearings recently held in coastal counties.\nThese interim areas primarily include dunes, beaches, historic sites,\nrecreation and wildlife management areas, tidal marshes, coastal inlets,\nflood hazard areas, public water supply areas, and riverine floodways.\nInterim designations will be replaced by a final, expanded list of\nareas based on special studies and nominations from county units and\nthe public.\nGuidelines Preparation: An early effort will be the drafting of\nguidelines for the preparation of the land and water use plans by local\nunits. These guidelines will specify objectives, policies, and standards,\nand give particular attention to the appropriate nature of development\nwithin areas of environmental concern as designated by the Commission.\nThese guidelines will be available in early 1975 for use by counties\nin preparing their plans.\nCounty Land and Water Use Plans: The legislation requires\nthat a land and water use plan be drawn up for each county in the coastal\nzone. A major part of the State effort during the two-year development\nperiod will be a local planning grant program to support the plan prepara-\ntion work. The plans will be based on guidelines approved by the Commission\nand represent the first step in determinations at the local level of what\nconstitute permissible uses and/or priorities within the individual county\njurisdictions. The legislation requires that these plans be submitted to\n78","the Commission for review within 10 months of promulgation of the final\nguidelines. These plans will be the primary means for controlling\nactivities within areas of environmental concern, because no permits will\nbe approved in these areas which are not consistent with the criteria in\nthe approved plans.\nCentralization of Coastal Permit Systems: The Coastal Area Manage-\nment Act provides that before October, 1976, all existing regulatory permits\nwithin the coastal area must be administered in coordination and consultation\nwith the Coastal Resources Commission. A study to develop a more coordinated\nand uniform system of permit control in the coastal area is authorized,\nwith the Commission directed to report its recommendations to the 1975\nNorth Carolina General Assembly.\nB. Advisory Services\nCoastal Area Management Service: The Office of Marine Affairs\nhas established a coastal area management service to inform county units\nof sources of information, planning projects of interest, and ongoing\nprojects which will be developing information of use in their planning\nefforts. The service will develop and maintain the capability, throughout\nthe program development period, to react to local requests and needs within\na period of hours rather than months.\nRemote Sensing and Resource Data Acquisition: A program will be\nestablished in the DNER to create a repository for remote sensing imagery\nand shoreline maps. Acquisition of these items and development of inter-\npretive capability are planned as first year tasks.\nInventory and Mapping of Natural Areas and Areas of Environmental\nConcern: The DNER has been conducting an inventory of natural areas in\nNorth Carolina for several years. A first year task will be to complete\nthe inventory for the coastal counties and to summarize and map the data\nas part of the local land-use plans.\nAdditional inventory and mapping work, which will run through the\nfirst year and one-half of program development, will center on the description\nof regions designated as areas of environmental concern.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nA major step to be taken in development of North Carolina's public\nparticipation program will be the development of a handbook describing\nthe impacts of various land and water uses in terms of the changes they\nwill make in the lives of individual citizens. In addition to development\nof the handbook, an effort to educate the public will be carried out through\na television documentary series showing specific problems in coastal areas.\nPreparation and dissemination of information about the Statewide effort\nto manage coastal land and water uses will begin early in the program\nin order to solicit public comment. A variety of dissemination techniques\nwill be used including: television broadcasts, radio and newspaper coverage,\npublic meetings and workshops, citizens advisory panels, and public hearings.\n79","INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nCoordination between State, local, and substate regional interests\nin coastal zone management is provided for by a 47-member Coastal Resources\nAdvisory Council which advises the Coastal Resources Commission, the DNER and\nDepartment of Administration. Membership in the Council is divided among\nheads of State agencies, representatives from the four multi-county plan-\nning districts of the coastal area, representatives of each of the 20 coastal\ncounties, and representatives of municipalities and the scientific community.\nThe Office of Marine Affairs (the agency given the primary coordination\nresponsibility) also works closely with the multi-State Coastal Plains Regional\nCommission which is presently funding three pilot projects to serve as testing\ngrounds for development of integrated management systems in the coastal area.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe coastal area is defined in the Coastal Area Management Act as the 20\ncounties which (in whole or in part) are adjacent to, adjoining, intersected\nby, or bounded by the Atlantic Ocean or any coastal sound. Coastal sounds\nare estuaries landward to the limit of seawater encroachment under normal\nconditions. The feasibility of this boundary definition and its possible\nrefinement will be assessed during the first months of program development.\n80","OHIO\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Natural Resources\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating\nAgency; Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments; Eastgate Develop-\nment and Transportation Agency\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning May 15, 1974\nFUNDING: $200,000 (Federal) $366,300 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Department of Natural Resources has conducted almost all of Ohio's\ncoastal zone activities. Before 1973, most activities involved engineering,\ngeologic and commercial studies of Lake Erie and its shorelands. The\nShore Erosion and Gological Survey Divisions of the DNR has been conducting\nbasic investigations since 1951 to support shore erosion projects and\ncommercial mineral extraction studies. With the opening of the St. Lawrence\nSeaway, the Division of Shore Erosion began developing plans in cooperation\nwith the Corps of Engineers for harbor projects. The Division of Shore\nErosion was replaced by the Lake Erie Section in the Division of Geological\nSurvey in the early 1960's S. Water resources studies and planning have\nbeen conducted by the DNR's Division of Water, and fish management programs\nhave been conducted by the DNR's Division of Wildlife. Flooding is a major\nproblems because of the extensive development along Lake Erie. DNR's\nFlood Plain Management Section is working to bring vulnerable communities\ninto Federal flood insurance programs.\nIn February, 1973, the DNR organized an Ohio Shore Zone Management\nWorkshop to coordinate the policies and positions of the appropriate State\nagencies in the devleopment of Ohio's coastal zone management program. As\ndesignated lead agency, the DNR developed Ohio's Section 305 application\nand is administering its Section 305 grants.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- The destruction or deterioration of the resources of the Lake\nErie shore zone, particularly water quality, is a major problem.\n- Intensive development along the Lake shore has given rise to a complex\nsystem of competing land and water uses.\n- Record high water levels in the Lake Erie Basin have greatly\nincreased the incidence of flooding, the rate of shore erosion,\nand resulting damage to public and private property.\n- Jurisdictional overlap, duplication of efforts, and fragmented\napproaches to a complex series of problems are obstacles to be\nsorted out and overcome before an effective coastal zone management\nprogram can be put together.\n81","GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To develop a comprehensive overview of the shore zone resource\nbase and a summary of the problems associated with the use of\nthese resources.\n- To inventory legal and administrative arrangements underlying\nState, regional and local planning and management programs in\nthe shore zone, and to recommend changes necessary to implement\nthe shore zone management program.\n- To coordinate the activities of Federal agencies, the Great Lakes\nStates, and Ohio State's regional and local agencies in the pro-\ngram development and implementation process.\n- To develop the functional elements of a comprehensive shore zone\nmanagement program.\n- To provide the resources necessary to conduct special studies\nwhich may result from issues identified in the first year program.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nOhio's program design has two components. The first, Policy\nDevelopment and Problem Identification, will be accomplished during the\nfirst year. The second, Technical Plan and Management Program, will be\ndeveloped in the second and third years.\nPolicy Development and Problem Identification:\nResource Analysis: The resources of the Ohio shore zone will be\ninventoried, and the economic, social, and environmental implications of\nexisting and future uses of the resources will be assessed.\nLegal and Administrative Analysis: State, regional, and local\nlegislative and administrative procedures relevant to planning and manage-\nment of the shore zone will be reviewed and analyzed. As a result of\nthis analysis, a legislative package will be prepared to achieve an effective\nshore zone management program.\nSynthesis: The results of the first year's work will be synthetized\ninto a cohesive package. This will be used to formulate goals and objectives\nto be used as a framework for the technical plan, to identify the need for\nspecial studies and data acquisition, and to recommend necessary adminis-\ntrative arrangements.\nTechnical Plan and Management Program:\nPermissible Use Review Process: Criteria will be developed to define\nthe impact thresholds of various uses of the shore zone resources. These\ncriteria are to represent the tolerance limits within which proposed uses\nwill not adversely affect the area proposed for such use. A decision-\nmaking process and administrative arrangement will be established to\nplace the review of proposed uses by these criteria at the appropriate\nlevel (or levels) of government. The results of this work will be presented\npublicly for review and comment.\n82","Priority of Use System: The permissible use criteria will be\ncombined with economic, social and environmental studies to produce a\npriority rating system for any proposed use in the shore zone. This\nsystem will aid in allocating shore zone resources to the most appropri-\nate use.\nAreas of Particular Concern: Definitions and criteria to identify\nareas of particular concern will be developed. The focus will be on\nintensively developing areas, key facilities, areas of greater than local\nconcern, and naturally and environmentally significant areas. Ohio's\nshore zone will be inventoried to identify and delineate areas of particular\nconcern. Planning and management techniques will also be developed for\nthese areas.\nLand and Water Resource Inventory Program: The data necessary to\nconduct the permissible use, priority of use, and areas of particular\nconcern sub-programs will be collected and stored in the Ohio Capability\nAnalysis Program (OCAP) All inventory data pertaining to the Ohio shore\nzone will be available upon request to all interested agencies and individuals.\nSpecial Studies Program: This program will provide for special studies\nnot directly provided for in the Overall Program Design which are essential\nto the program. Necessary special studies will generally be identified\nthrough the synthesis of the first-year's work. Two special studies have\nalready been identified: a biophysical and political analysis to determine\nan appropriate inland boundary for Ohio's shore zone; and a legal and\nadministrative study, supplementing the first year legal and administrative\nanalysis program to support the implementation of the permissible use,\npriority of uses and areas of particular concern sub-programs.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nSurveys, questionnaires, workshops, newsletters, and public hearings\nwill be used to ensure that individuals and interested groups have ample\nopportunity to affect the development and implementation of the program.\nThe elements of the technical program and management program will be\nformulated in the second and third years; each of these elements will be\npresented for public review and comment.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nProcesses and mechanisms will be developed to resolve conflicts in\nthe development and implementation of Ohio's program among Federal agencies,\nGreat Lakes States, Ohio State, regional and local agencies affecting the\nshore zone. Ohio will identify, survey and initiate workshops with Federal\nagencies to determine the most suitable arrangement for coordination.\nMeetings with the seven other Great Lakes States will be organized to\nidentify issues and problems, discuss the adequacy of existing coordinative\nmechanisms and formulate any additional programs necessary to achieve\nadequate coordination. The Ohio Shore Zone Management Workgroup will be\nthe forum for coordination among State agency, and the A-95 review pro-\nprocedures will be used to coordinate with regional and local agencies.\n83","COASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe Ohio shore zone planning region encompasses the first tier of\ncoastal counties and Wood County. This defined zone does not necessarily\nrepresent the geographic area in which the management program will be\nimplemented. The definition of the regulatory area will be developed\nas a part of the program development effort.\n84","OREGON\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Oregon Coastal Conservation and\nDevelopment Commission (OCC&DC)\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 1 year, beginning March 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $250,132 (Federal) $419,699 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe State of Oregon's concern with protecting its coastal resources\ntook a major step in 1969 with passage of the \"Beach Access Bill\" giving\nOregon's citizens the right to unrestricted use of the State's beaches up\nto the vegetation line. In 1971, the State legislature created the Coastal\nConservation and Development Commission (OCC&DC). The OCC&DC was directed\nto develop a natural resource management plan and to submit the plan to the\n1975 session of the Oregon legislature. The same year, a coastal construc-\ntion moratorium was imposed on all State agencies by executive order until\na shoreland management plan could be implemented.\nOregon's efforts were carried into 1973 by passage of Senate Bill 100\nestablishing the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Four\nof the Commission's primary duties are to: (1) prepare statewide plan-\nning guidelines; (2) review regional, county and city comprehensive plans\nfor conformance with statewide planning goals; (3) issue permits for activi-\nties of statewide significance; and (4) recommend the designation of areas\nof critical State concern.\nMost of the State's grant is going to the OCC&DC so that the Com-\nmission can complete its legislatively mandated plan. To date, OCC&DC\nhas completed an inventory of coastal wetlands and the initial draft of\nan inventory of historical and archaeological sites. In addition, an\nextensive public involvement program including videotape presentation and\na series of public workshops has been undertaken.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Fragmentation of decision-making by special purpose units of\ngovernment.\n- Lack of a coordinated coastal zone planning system.\n- Lack of public awareness of environmental problems.\n- Inadequate information base for management of coastal resources.\n- Conflicting economic and environmental interests.\n- Environmental problems related to intense summer use and winter\ndepopulation.\n85","- To favor preservation of natural over man-made processes to the\nextent necessary to insure maintenance or improvement of environ-\nmental quality.\n- To ensure coordination with local, State and Federal agencies.\n- To develop sound resource inventory and economic information as a\nbasis for resource management decisions.\n- To create public awareness of the need for resource management and\nensure citizen involvement in the planning process.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nA. Policy Development Process\nDraft policies will be developed for 18 categories of natural resources\nas a foundation for development of more detailed standards for resource man-\nagement. These categories are: (1) estuaries; (2) wetlands; (3) flood-\nplains; (4) geologic hazards; (5) beaches and dunes; (6) shorelands; (7) con-\ntinental shelf; (8) unique scenic features; (9) historic and archaeological\nsites; (10) scientific natural areas; (11) wildlife and fish habitats;\n(12) forests and watershed lands; (13) freshwater lakes and streams; (14) agri-\ncultural lands; (15) public recreation areas; (16) industrial lands; (17)\nresidential lands; and (18) aesthetics.\nIt is expected that with the completion of local government and public\nreview of these draft policies a final report of the management policies will\nbe adopted by the end of December 20, 1974.\nB. Inventory and Evaluation Process\nEconomic Survey and Analysis: A joint State and Federal economic\nresources capability study is being conducted under the coordination of the\nPacific Northwest River Basins Commission. A summary document containing\nan overall evaluation of the coastal economy will be completed by the River\nBasins planning team. At the same time, economic planning studies are\nbeing conducted by local economic development districts in the coastal zone.\nThe OCC&DC plans to produce a report tying these studies together and sum-\nmarizing interactions of economic and environmental planning efforts in the\ncoastal zone by the end of November, 1974.\nPlanning Activities: A summary report of coastal planning activities\nbeing conducted by coastal counties, communities and councils of government\nhas been completed (January, 1974) as a first step toward coordination with\nlocal and regional efforts.\nInventory and Evaluation of Coastal Resources: In an effort to gather\nbaseline data for development of management standards and to provide a\nbasis for evaluating impacts of development proposals on coastal resources,\ninventories have been conducted in each of the 18 resources categories\nidentified for policy development above. These categories were divided into\nprimary and secondary groups representing respectively physiographic types\n(e.g. estuaries and wetlands) and areas of particular environmental concern\n(e.g. geological hazards and floodplains).\n86","Each of the primary categories was described in terms of eight\ncharacteristics which include climate, geology, physiography, soils,\nhydrology, vegetation, wildlife and land use. Mapping of the resource\ncategories was completed at the end of June, 1974, with analysis and\nevaluation of uses and values to continue into mid-September, 1974.\nC. Implementation and Support Process\nStandards for Natural Resources Management: The OCC&DC is charged with\ndeveloping standards for natural resource management within the policy\nframework previously developed for each resource category. The standards,\nwhich are to be developed by January, 1975, will be designed to provide a\nframework for management decision-making at the local level.\nCoordinated Mapping: In an effort to coordinate mapping programs\nbeing conducted by local, State and Federal entities along the Oregon\ncoast, identification, collection and, where necessary, compilation of\nmaps and aerial photography is scheduled to be carried out by the Oregon\nState Mapping Coordinating Committee.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nTo ensure widespread citizen involvement in the planning process, the\nLCDC by statute must appoint a Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee and\nhold public hearings throughout the State in preparing its statewide plan-\nning guidelines.\nIn addition, the OCC&DC is currently involved in an extensive public\ninvolvement program directed at determining management policies. The pro-\ngram includes a videotape presentation and a series of workshops in each\ncoastal county and various population centers in the State.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nTo achieve coordination between substate and State planning entities,\nthe OCC&DC is working closely with the five Regional Councils of Govern-\nment in the Oregon coastal zone. The Regional Councils are involved in\nregional land use planning, environmental assessment and review of develop-\nment applications of regional impact. In addition, a strengthened relation-\nship between OCC&DC and county planning agencies and port districts is being\nactively pursued.\nThe OCC&DC also serves as a point of coordination for the coastal\nplanning and management functions of State natural resource agencies\nincluding the: Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Department\nof Environmental Quality, Division of State Lands, Fish Commission, Game\nCommission, Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council, and Soil and Water Conser-\nvation Commission, among others.\nCoordination with other States and with Federal agencies is achieved\nby participation by the Executive Director of OCC&DC on the Pacific\nNorthwest River Basins Commission. In addition, Federal agency repre-\nsentatives serve as technical advisors to OCC&DC study groups.\n87","COASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe coastal zone of Oregon is defined in OCC&DC enabling legislation\nas extending from the crest of the Coast Range on the east to the State's\nterritorial jurisdiction on the west (seaward). This zone is subdivided\nby counties into four districts, in each of which has been established a\ncoordinating committee of the OCC&DC.\n88","PENNSYLVANIA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Environmental Resources\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department;\nDelaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $150,000 (Federal) $225,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nMost land use controls in Pennsylvania are in the hands of local\ngovernment. Uses of the Delaware River, mostly commercial shipping,\nrecreational boating, and wastewater conveyance, are controlled by both\nthe State and the Federal governments. At the State level, shipping and\nboating regulations are set by the Navigation Commission for the Delaware\nRiver; wastewater controls are administered by the Department of Environ-\nmental Resources (DER). The State has assisted the City of Erie in develop-\ning its harbor, and regulates fishing and boating on the Lake, as well\nas any construction, such as piers or pipelines, within the Lake. Water\nwithdrawals from the Lake for public water supply systems are regulated\nby the State, as well as discharges into the Lake from either public or\nprivate sewage systems. Land controls consist primarily of permit\nregulation of any earthwork activity, in order to control erosion and\nsedimentation. Pennsylvania has had active programs in flood control and\nflood damage abatement for many years. Recently, flood plain management\nprograms have been initiated. The Statewide Environmental Master Plan\nand the State Investment Plan will be coordinated with the coastal zone\nmanagement program through the interagency coordination system.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\nProblems Common to Both Coastal Zones:\n- Duplicated authorities, fragmented responsibilities, and over-\nlapping jurisdictions are all aspects of a problem which must be\nresolved before a consolidated management program can be established.\n- A related problem is the resolution of potentially conflicting\npublic rights and needs and private rights. The most urgent\nexisting conflict in these rights is the use of coastal waters\nfor waste disposal, and the larger issue of water quality.\nProblems and Issues of the Lower Delaware River:\n- In this heavily urbanized and industrialized area, wastes must\nbe adequately treated and controlled to improve water quality\nwithout causing detrimental effects on the overall regional\neconomy.\n- The relatively small water surface area of the Lower Delaware\nRiver is generating a conflict between the heavy volume of\ncommercial shipping and the rapidly increasing recreational\n89","boating traffic. As well, there is a problem posed by the\ndisposal of polluted dredge spoil from the ship channels.\nThe deterioration of the coastal zone waterfront is an economic and\n-\nesthetic problem requiring renewal techniques.\n- The Tinicum Marsh poses the problem of preservation (or conserva-\ntion) as a wildlife sanctuary of an area surrounded by pressures from\ncommercial and industrial interests.\nPeriods of drought create water supply problems occasionally when\n-\nthe salinity of coastal waters increases.\nThe fresh water-salt water interface in the estuary may move upstream\n-\ndue to divergence of river water for irrigation, transfers to other\ndrainage basins, or consumptive losses in generating plants.\n- The Lower Delaware faces the pressure of new deep water ports,\neither along the shore or as man-made islands in the estuary.\n- Demands for sand and gravel production from the stream channel\nand along its shores call for extraction regulations.\n- During periods of low flow, the concentration of pollutants\nfrequently acts to create an oxygen block, making it impossible\nfor anadromous fish to migrate upstream to their spawning areas.\nLake Erie Problems and Issues:\n- Restoration of the substandard water quality in Presque Isle Bay\nis important to the Erie area. A related problem is the polluted\nharbor bed and ship channel: dredgings from these areas cannot be\nused to nourish the beaches in the Presque Isle State Park.\n- The high lake level is accelerating shoreline erosion, particularly\nat the Presque Isle peninsula.\n- As in the Lower Delaware, a proper balance between urban-related\nneeds and environment-related needs is required. Recreational\ndemands on the Lake Erie coastal zone are very heavy, and recrea-\ntional opportunities must be increased. Because the shoreline is\nprivately owned for more than three-fourths of its length, ample\naccess to coastal waters for fishing and boating is a severe\nproblem.\n- Exploration for natural gas in Lake Erie, an unpopular issue at\npresent, may become active due to pressures of the energy crisis.\nIf so, adequate management controls should be available.\n- Sand and gravel extraction, both from the lake bed and along the\nlake shores, should be controlled.\n- Shallow salt water, at depths of less than 100 feet along the\nedge of Lake Erie, may \"bleed\" up into fresh water zones and the\nLake unless controls are instituted.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To control erosion and sedimentation in order to benefit other\ncoastal uses.\n- To move unwanted materials to locations where their presence will\nminimize effects upon human activities and upon the natural systems\non which such activities depend.\n- To maximize public recreation opportunities through all forms\nof coastal-related outdoor activities.\n90","- To minimize the combined economic, social, and environmental cost\nof moving materials and people.\nTo optimize the beneficial effects of wetlands on coastal zone\n-\nuses.\n- To maximize public aesthetic opportunities through emphasis on the\ncoastal qualities that please the senses or exalt the intellect or\nspirit.\n- To provide ample, low-cost fresh water of a quality acceptable\nfor current and anticipated uses.\n- To maximize the economic advantages to commerce and industry from\ncoastal locations.\n- To maximize the sustained dollar value of the commercial fish\ncatch extracted from coastal and related waters.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN\nInventory and Analysis: Inventories will be compiled on existing\nconditions, resource uses and activities, and relationships, both natural\nand cultural. The collected information will be analyzed interms of\ngoals and objectives to derive alternative management techniques.\nTentative realistic management objectives and levels of achievement will\nbe established. Finally, the boundaries of the coastal zone for management\npurposes will be delineated. This work is scheduled for completion by\nthe end of the first year.\nPermissible Land and Water Uses: Criteria will be defined for\nidentifying the impacts of land and water uses. Land and water use\nconflicts will be categorized, and sites identified for facilities serving\ngreater than local needs. A list of permissible land and water uses for\nsuitability and compatibility will compiled. Criteria for designating\ncritical and non-critical areas will be established. Finally, priority\nof uses will be assigned for both critical and noncritical land and water\nuses. This work will be completed in the second year.\nAlternative Coastal Zone Management Programs: For each alternative,\nthe appropriate lead agency will be selected and intergovernmental coordina-\ntion mechanisms will be established. For each program, environmental and\nsocioeconomic impacts will be assessed, and the costs of implementation\nestablished. Public reviews will be held to determine necessary revisions\nand recommendations.\nProgram Selection and Analysis: One program will be tentatively\nselected. A continuing program review, evaluation and revision process\nwill be designed. Formal assessments of environmental impact, socio-\neconomic impact, and implementation costs will be made for the selected\nand alternative programs. Intergovernmental reviews and formal public\nhearings of selected and alternative programs will be held. The procedure\nwill be repeated asnecessary until a program is approved.\nNecessary Additional Information: Much planning work has already\nbeen done at the local, regional, State, Federal, and interstate level.\nThese plans may need to be evaluated and updated. As well, aerial photo-\ngrammetric maps will be compiled to give current planning information.\n91","PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nProgram Development Committees will be formed, one in each coastal\nzone, to function as informal forums for public participation during the\ndevelopment of the management program. Membership will consist of repre-\nsentatives from local organizations such as planning commissions, citizens\ngroups and industrial organizations. The committees will be chaired by\nthe designated State agency and hold periodic open meetings. Formal\npublic hearings will be held to receive citizen input concerning important\nelements of the management program. These hearings will be held in the\nlocal areas principally affected by the elements under consideration.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nA committee composed of representatives from each local government\nwill be formed, one in each coastal zone. Existing organizational structures\nwill be used insofar as possible, particularly at the county level. In\nErie County, for example, collaboration with the Erie Metropolitan Plan-\nning Department will facilitate coordination of the various committees\noperating in the Erie coastal zone.\nDuring program development, the Office of Resources Management of\nthe Department of Environmental Resources will provide leadership for an\nad hoc coordinating unit representing those State agencies with programs\nand responsibilities in the coastal zones. Depending upon final legisla-\ntion, a similar organization of State agencies will be used during the\nimplementation of the management plan to ensure effective communication\nand consequent promptness of decisions when needed in on-going State programs.\nInterstate coordination will be handled through the Delaware River\nBasin Commission and the Great Lakes Basin Commission. Coordination with\npertinent Federal agencies will be done on an individual basis by the\nState's designated agency.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nPennsylvania's coastal zones may be divided into three segments:\nthe water zone, intermediate zone, and use-impact zone. Tentative\nboundaries are as follows:\nLower Delaware: Water zone - between the Pennsylvania and New Jersey\nboundary and the normal water mark along the Pennsylvania shore.\nIntermediate zone - between the normal water mark and the 100 year\nflood mark. Use-impact zone - 300-1,000 feet beyond the inter-\nmediate zone.\nLake Erie: Water zone - between the international boundary and the\nnormal lake level along Pennsylvania's shore. Intermediate zone -\nbetween the normal lake level line and the maximum extent of record\nwave \"run-up\". Use impact zone - approximately 1,000 feet landward\nof the intermediate zone.\n92","During the development of the management program, the watershed\nareas landward of use-impact zones will be considered as primary source\nareas of effects on the three zones. The management programs, however,\nwill focus on the coastal zones; i.e., the program elements will be\nconfined to those areas. Some exceptions may occur, however, in cases\nof very significant impact sources outside the immediate coastal zones\nthat may require special study.\n93","PUERTO RICO\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Natural Resources (DNR)\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Puerto Rico Planning Board;\nEnvironmental Quality Board\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 30, 1974\nFUNDING: $250,000 (Federal) $375,000 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe three agencies most active in coastal zone management affairs\nare the DNR, the Planning Board and the Environmental Quality Board.\nThe DNR is responsible for Puerto Rico's natural resources and is\ncurrently active in fisheries management, forestry programs, physical\nand biological oceanography studies, water resources planning, beach\nstabilization and control, and mangrove preservation programs. The\nDNR issues permits for sand extraction and exercises control over dredge\nand fill projects in navigable waters. With HUD 701 funding, the Plan-\nning Board is completing an island-wide master plan, including the\nrecommendation of areas for heavy industry, industrial ports, airports,\nand major highway and rapid transit facilities. In conjunction with\nthe Department of Agriculture, the Planning Board is delineating prime\nagricultural lands suitable for commercial agriculture. Once such areas\nare delineated, the Planning Board may designate all or portions of these\nareas as protected agricultural zones in which conversion to urban\nor industrial use will be severely restricted. As well, the Planning\nBoard is preparing master plans for the three SMSAs in Puerto Rico and\nwill assist the DNR in delineating and describing natural areas suit-\nable for preservation and protection. The Planning Board issues con-\nstruction permits for all building activities within urban areas and\nadministers zoning and subdivision controls.\nThe Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is formulating policies and\nprograms to meet Federal and Commonwealth water quality standards. In\ncooperation with other agencies, the EQB is engaged in an ongoing\nprogram of air and water quality monitoring. Under Section 303 of\nthe Federal Water Quality Act, the EQB is inventorying, analyzing, and\nplanning for water quality management in the 17 management regions into\nwhich the island has been divided.\nThe DNR and the Planning Board have established a joint Coastal\nZone Task Force as the vehicle for program development and interagency\ncoordination.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\nIdentification and protection of unique natural areas and\n-\nassociated wildlife habitats along the coast.\n94","- Controlling extraction of beach sand for construction purposes.\n- Controlling coastal land uses, specifically including industrial\nand harbor development, power plant construction and operations,\ntourism industries, residential housing and waste treatment\nfacilities.\n- Public access to coastal areas, especially beaches.\n- Control over expanded recreational use of coastal waters,\nincluding: protection of reefs and other features, sport\nfishing, boating, swimming and skin diving.\nControl over offshore structures and operations, superport con-\n-\nstruction, supertanker berthing and transfer operations,\nocean shipping and navigation, offshore mineral extraction.\n- Water pollution from human and industrial wastes and from\nsiltation.\n- Supporting the declining commercial fisheries.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To designate estuarine areas for public acquisition.\nApproximately 10 areas will be examined during the course of\nthe program and at least one such area is scheduled for early\nacquisition.\n- To establish protected wildlife habitats and natural areas.\nPublic access to all beach or salt water recreational and educational\nareas shall be maximized consistent with use limitations imposed\nby biological and physical considerations.\n- To specify high priority critical areas within which uses and\nactivities inimical to marine biological processes shall be\nexpressly prohibited.\n- To designate suitable offshore sites for the extraction of sand;\nsuch sites shall be sufficient in extent, volume of reserves and\nof such quality as to provide a continuing, long-term source for\nPuerto Rico's needs.\n- To acquire potentially prime recreational areas, sanctuaries,\nwildlife habitats and other critical natural areas in the coastal\nzone which now are used for defense-related purposes, according to\na systematic plan jointly agreed to by the relevant Federal\nagencies.\n- To develop a program for increasing the commercial finfish and\nshellfish catch to the optimum sustainable yield.\nTo undertake a program of mangrove rehabilitation, concentrating\n-\nor those areas adversely affected by poor drainage practices.\n- To protect barrier beaches from adverse development and to plant\ndune grasses, sea grapes and other protective vegetation.\n- To relocate shoreline uses which do not warrant such location, or\nwhose location is inconsistent with economic and environmental\ncriteria.\n- To relocate \"squatters\" from the water's edge, including house-\nboats, which are in violation of existing statutes, with particular\nreference to critical natural areas, including the shorelines of\nLa Parguera and Ensenada Honda.\n- To investigate the economic and environmental costs and benefits of\nestablishing buoys and/or man-made islands for the concentration of\nlinked activities related to petroleum handling, fossil fuel power\ngeneration and other related industries.\n95","- To establish a firm legal basis for securing the public's\nright of access to the shoreline; and simultaneously, to examine\nand establish the legality and conditions associated with \"crown\ngrants.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nDuring the first year of program development, Puerto Rico plans\nto collect most of the necessary data, inventory the available legal\nand regulatory information, and identify the technical and institutional\nguidelines which will enable the subsequent analysis and formulation of\na management plan to be completed in the second and third year of the\ngrant program.\nPermissible Land and Water Uses: Existing standards or criteria\nused by public agencies to assess proposed land and water use develop-\nments in the coastal zone will be collected and reviewed. Drawing upon\nthese, criteria will be established to assess the impacts of existing,\nproposed, or projected uses and to resolve use conflicts. Coastal land\nand water uses and conflicts will be categorized and analyzed from the\nstandpoint of economic and environmental costs and benefits. The work\nis scheduled for completion by the end of the first year.\nGeographic Areas of Particular Concern: Criteria will be established\nto designate and categorize geographic areas of particular concern,\ntaking into account immediacy of need, intensity of development, restora-\ntion or reclamation potential, etc. The areas themselves will be selected\non the basis of pertinent biological, chemical, geologic, and environ-\nmental parameters. Field surveys will be used as necessary to\nobtain complete descriptions and maps. Estuaries, major reefs, coastal\nflood plains, submarine sand deposition areas, beaches, and intensely\ndeveloped shore areas will be surveyed. Based upon the basic data\nthus collected, areas will be evaluated for designation as areas of\nparticular concern and will be categorized in terms of immediacy of\nconcern and priority importance with respect to restoration or preserva-\ntion potential.\nMeans of Exerting State Control: All applicable laws, judicial\ndecisions, regulatory powers of government agencies which are identified\nas means for exercising government control over land and water uses in\nthe coastal zone will be compiled. These and the existing institutional\narrangements among government agencies will be analyzed in terms of\ntheir potential effectiveness in controlling uses of the coastal zone.\nAlternative arrangements, both single agency and multi-agency, will be\nevaluated. An investigation will be made of ownership and legal issues\npertaining to shorefront areas, with special reference to mangrove\nareas. Ownership rights conflicts will be resolved by investigating\nlegal definitions concerning Spanish law and Commonwealth law. This\nwork will start in the first year and continue through the second year\nof the program.\nDesignation of Priority Uses: Drawing on the preceding work elements,\nguidelines will be established for the priority of uses, in particular\nareas of the coastal zone which will serve as a basis for regulatory\n96","Preparation of Coastal Zone Management Implementation Plan: Draft\ncopies of the management program will be circulated to appropriate\nState agencies for review and updating until a final plan for program\nimplementation is approved. An outline will be prepared during months\n10, 11 and 12 of the first year program. Beginning in the fourth month\nof the second year and continuing until termination of the third year,\nthe implementation plan will be written, reviewed and completed.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nCitizen members shall be appointed to the program's Steering Committee.\nIn addition, periodic public meetings shall be held to review and dis-\ncuss the program as it evolves. Before the program is submitted to the\nGovernor for approval, at least one formal public hearing shall be held.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nA Steering Committee shall be established under the Chairmanship\nof the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. In addition\nto citizen members, the Committee shall be composed of the heads of\nthose agencies participating in the formulation of the management program.\nThe Committee will decide major policy issues and monitor the progress\nof the staff work. In addition to the Steering Committee, the Program\nManager shall be assisted by an interagency task force composed of\ntechnicians from various agencies responsibile for major work elements.\nIn order to coordinate operations with Federal agencies, particularly\nwith regard to military installations, the Secretary of the DNR will\ncreate a Federal/Commonwealth Committee on Coastal Zone Issues. The\nestablishment of this Committee is given high priority, and it will\nfunction continuously throughout the program.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nDelineation of preliminary coastal zone boundaries is not\naccomplished in the application, but is addressed as a task to be accom-\nplished by the Planning Board in the first six months of the first year.\nNatural and man-made features will be reviewed using U.S.G.S. Quandrangle\nmaps and aerial photos and field surveys. The influence of municipal and\nbarrio boundaries on the definition of viable coastal zone boundaries will\nbe assessed.\n97","RHODE ISLAND\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Administration\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Coastal Resources Management Council;\nDepartment of Natural Resources; University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources\nCenter\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 2 years; beginning March 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $154,415 (Federal) $231,623 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe State of Rhode Island has been active in the area of coastal zone\nmanagement since 1956, when \"A Regional Guide Plan Study - The Rhode Island\nShore\" was published in response to the damage caused by Hurricane Carol in\n1954. The next major step toward a comprehensive coastal resources manage-\nment program came in 1969 when the Governor appointed a technical committee to\nstudy future management policies for Narragansett Bay and the entire coastal\nregion. The committee's report in 1970 recommended that a coastal zone manage-\nment mechanism be created to begin preparation of a comprehensive\ncoastal management plan, and that the University of Rhode Island be given the\nresponsibility to assist with technical research.\nResponse came to these recommendations in 1971 when legislation was enacted\nestablishing the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC). The CRMC is\nclosely related to the Division of Coastal Resources within the Department of\nNatural Resources, which serves as its staff arm, and to the Coastal Resources\nCenter of the University of Rhode Island, which provides the Council with\ntechnical assistance.\nThe 17-member CRMC's primary responsibility is to direct the overall\nplanning and management of Rhode Island's coastal region. The Council has\nauthority to approve, modify, set conditions for, or reject any development\nproposal for coastal waters, with the \"burden of proof\" falling on the developer.\nThe CRMC has power in coastal land areas to \"approve, modify, set conditions\nfor, or reject the design, location, construction, alteration, and operation of\nspecified activities or land uses when these are related to a water area under\nthe agency's jurisdiction \" The six specified activities and uses are:\n(1) power generating and desalination plants; (2) minerals extraction; (3) chem-\nical or petroleum processing, transfer, or storage; (4) shoreline protection\nfacilities and physiographical features; (5) intertidal salt marshes, and\n(6) sewage treatment and disposal and solid waste disposal facilities.\nPlan development and coastal zone management are processing in parallel.\nAs segments of the plan are developed, they become part of the CRMC's active\nmanagement program. Segments completed to date include a unique natural areas\nand scenic vistas inventory, and a barrier beach conservation study.\n98","PROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Preemption of the shoreline for the benefit of a few individuals at the\nexpense of the public at large.\n- Permanent preemption of public waters without planning and without cost\nto the beneficiaries through construction of docks, breakwaters, marinas,\nand private residential developments.\n- Lack of \"best use\" guidelines and controls for the location of power\nplants, industrial enterprises requiring waterfront locations, recrea-\ntional service businesses such as marinas, and private residential develop-\nments.\n- Lack of adequate plans for handling dredge materials, toxic wastes,\nsolid wastes and other potential pollutants.\n- Inability of the State and private groups to acquire substantial wildlife,\nrecreational and open space holdings for the public because of insuf-\nficient funds.\n- Inadequate administrative tools for developmental control through the\nexercise of police powers, zoning, easements, and other devices.\nInadequate information about public needs and preferences in the coastal\n-\nzone now and in the future.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To identify all of the State's coastal resources: water, submerged\nland, air space, fin fish, shellfish, minerals, physiographic features,\nand others.\nTo evaluate the coastal resources in terms of their quality, quantity,\n-\ncapability for use, and other key characteristics.\n- To determine the current and potential problems of each resource.\n- To formulate plans and programs for the management of each resource,\nidentifying permitted uses, locations and protection measures, and so\nforth.\n- To carry these resource management programs through implementing\nauthority and coordination.\n- To formulate standards where none exist, and to re-evaluate\nexisting standards where necessary.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nResources Inventory: The legislation which established the CRMC requires\nthat an inventory be developed as a basis for planning. Such an inventory is\npresently in progress, with work shared between the Coastal Resources Center\nand the Statewide Planning Program. Broadly, there are two major aspects to\nthe inventory--natural features and socio-economic features-which will be\ndeveloped,contain baseline information, supporting maps, charts, reference\nmaterials, and suggested guidelines for management. Much of the materials on\nnatural features has been gathered, and considerable text and map work completed.\nSubjects to be covered are: marine geology; hydrography; chemical properties;\nclimate; benthos; wildlife; fish and fisheries; shoreline features, land use\nand land ownership; pollution; recreation; public facilities and utilities;\nand industrial and commercial activities.\nCommercial Fisheries Survey: This task, begun in mid-1972, is\nto result in a detailed review and analysis of offshore and inshore fishing\n99","techniques, catch statistics, fishing areas, economics and problems of the\nindustry, and recommendations for improvements.\nSand and Gravel Extraction: The Coastal Resources Center recently completed\na report on the adequacy of Rhode Island's regulatory framework involving ocean\nbottom mineral extraction. The lack of an accurate analysis of the effects of\ndredging on resident organisms was found to be an important gap in the background\ndata needed for the study. To fill this need, a two-year study will be con-\nducted of: (a) the ability of biotic communities to withstand or recover\nfrom mineral extraction; and (b) turbidity and sediment effects on primary\norganisms such as the northern lobster, flounder, scup, and striped bass.\nLease Fees and Environmental Impact Guidelines: Through the first year\nand into the second, an effort will be made to design effective lease fee\narrangements covering all structures and uses of public waters occupied for\nthe exclusive use of a particular segment of the public. The study will\ninclude the necessary legal review and recommendations for legislation to\nassess fees against owners of docks, piers, moorings, etc.\nIn order to provide improved environmental controls on developmental\nactivities during the program development period, performance standards will be\nprepared to serve as environmental impact regulatory guidelines.\nSocio-Economic Baseline Data: The Coastal Resources Center plans to\ncarry out a detailed data collection and analysis of the socio-economic components\nof the coastal zone throughout the first year and a half. Special studies are\nplanned of various user components in order to assess needs and interactions and\nto evolve controls and standards. Particular emphasis will be placed on\nrelating industry, commerce, transportation, port development and residential\nconsiderations to recreational patterns and projections.\nSalt Marsh Quality: A two-year study will be undertaken to develop a\nsystem for rating the quality of the State's salt marshes for use in determin-\ning preservation priorities. In addition, guidelines for future management\nwill be developed, based upon a legal study of present regulations, to regulate\nvarious activities on lands within and adjacent to the marshes.\nEnergy Requirements: The final report of an ongoing power plant siting\nstudy will be published in early 1974. The study analyzes potential con-\nstruction sites but does not contain a detailed analysis of the relationship\nof siting to regional requirements, or the associated problems of the impact\non the environment and shoreland use of additional transportation, storage,\nand other supporting facilities. The necessary studies to fill this need will\nbe undertaken over the two year development period.\nMarine Recreation: A two-year work task will be an examination of the\ncoastal zone in relation to its ability to maintain projected recreational demands.\nPublic access will be evaluated in terms of need for coastal fishing, boating,\nnature study, scenic viewpoints, and public beach and swimming facilities.\nMarina development, design, and location will receive early attention due\nto the heavy boating pressures on Narragansett Bay.\n100","Legal Studies: An ongoing task, to continue throughout the two year\nprogram, is the assessment of existing management controls and authorities\nand the development of improved ones. Existing controls will be analyzed\naccording to scope, purpose and enforcement capability; overlaps and\nconflicts will be identified. The State's police power, zoning and performance\nstandard authorities and other legal controls will then be assessed, and the\nnecessary legal basis for broad management authority developed.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nRhode Island has developed several mechanisms to ensure public involve-\nment in. the planning process. The CRMC is broadly representative in nature,\nincluding agency heads, legislators, municipal officials, and private\ncitizens. The State plans to involve the public in decision-making by\npresenting the draft reports and recommendations developed for each problem\narea identified in the inventory process to citizens committees, designated\nby the town councils in the shore communities affected for review and\ncomment. Other methods to be employed include: interviews with user groups;\nworkshop sessions; and meetings and hearings at the community level with\ncivic groups, public officials, local planners, conservation, and the\ngeneral public.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nThe CRMC, the primary coastal planning entity, is composed of representa-\ntives of the House of Representatives, the State Senate, local government,\nmunicipal government, and private citizens. In addition to the 17 voting\nmembers, there are numerous non-voting members serving in an advisory\ncapacity. Among the agencies represented are: the U. S. Corps of Engineers,\nEPA, the Coast Guard, the Public Health Service, the New England River Basins\nCommission and the New England Regional Commission.\nState-level planning activities are carried out by the State Planning\nCouncil and Statewide Planning Program working in concert in the executive\nbranch of the State government. The Statewide Planning Program is the central\nplanning agency for the State, and maintains the State Guide Plan. The State\nPlanning Council, composed of 10 department and agency heads and five officials\nof local government, assists the Statewide Planning Program staff in coordinating\nthe planning and development activities of governmental agencies at all levels.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe primary study area for planning purposes includes the land within the\ncoastal drainage basin as defined by topography and drainage patterns. The\narea includes all or part of 26 cities and towns extending across Rhode Island's\nAtlantic coastline and around Narragansett Bay.\n101","SOUTH CAROLINA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: South Carolina Coastal Zone Planning and Management\nCouncil\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Wildlife and Marine Resources Depart-\nment; Department of Health and Environmental Control; Water Resources\nCommission; State Ports Authority; State Development Board; Land Resources\nConservation Commission.\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning May 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $198,485 (Federal) $298,500 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nUntil recently, State agency activities in South Carolina's coastal\nzone were characterized by fragmented authorities and overlapping juris-\ndictions. There are twelve State agencies administering 33 programs\ninvolving the coastal zone in one way or another. As development pressures\nincreased, attempts were made to pass legislation to provide for the\nmanagement of specific coastal resources (dunes, wetlands, etc.). The\nSouth Carolina General Assembly indicated, however, that it was not wil-\nling to grant broad planning and management powers without a thorough\nunderstanding of how effective management would be accomplished. Unfor-\ntunately, the data necessary to develop a comprehensive management program\neither did not exist or was not available in a suitable format.\nIn order to rectify this situation, Governor West created, by Executive\nOrder in August, 1973, the South Carolina Coastal Zone Planning and Manage-\nment Council. The Council was instructed to develop and recommend to the\nGeneral Assembly within three years a planning and management program\ntogether with the necessary legislation to implement such a program. The\nCouncil is composed of representatives of nine key State agencies and\none at-large member representing environmental interests. Core staff is\nsupplied by the Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. A Coastal Zone\nAdvisory Committee was also established, comprised of marine scientists\nfrom universities within the State, representatives from each of the three\ncoastal regional councils of government, and four representatives of private\ninterests. of the 33 State programs identified as affecting the coastal\nzone, 29 are administered directly by members of the Council or its Advisory\nCommittee.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- The State lacks mechanisms for identifying priority industries,\nmeans for identifying and protecting important industrial sites,\nand methods for guiding construction to minimize environmental\nimpacts.\n- Increased coastal development is creating pressure on existing\nresource uses, primarily recreation and commercial fishing.\n102","- Domestic and industrial wastewater, air emissions, spoil deposition\nand the generally unregulated spread of economic development are\ndegrading environmental quality.\n- Although the development of tidal wetlands has been brought under\nsome control, the destruction of less publicized natural and\ncultural areas continues.\n- Much resort and urban growth has occurred without consideration\nof such material hazards as flooding, hurricanes, unsuitable soils\nand erosion.\n- The authority to regulate land and water use, provide required\nsupport services, and undertake planning is fragmented severely,\nparticularly at the local level.\n- Major controversies have developed around the administration\nof Federal and State permit systems.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To ensure the quality and extent of the coastal environment,\nwhile recognizing and accounting for the economic and social\nneeds of coastal residents and the people of the State of South\nCarolina.\n- To prepare a comprehensive, coordinated, and enforceable program\nfor the orderly growth and development of the coastal resources\nof the State over time.\n- To minimize conflicts among coastal activities and users by\ndetermining the public's desires, determining the capacity of coastal\nresources to support these desires, establishing priorities where\ncapacities and uses cannot be matches, and informing the public\nof expected benefits and costs of particular decisions.\n- To identify and reconcile the local, State and national interest\nin the coastal zone.\n- To allocate and clearly define the responsibilities of State,\nregional, and local governments in planning and management of the\nState's coastal zone.\n- To develop and implement a viable public involvement program.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nProgram Management, Goals, and Objectives: A program management\ninformation system will be established, and the process of incorporating\navailable information will be begun. The interrelationship between the\ncoastal zone management program and South Carolina's land use program will\nbe defined. After interagency coordination and public participation\nmechanisms are activated, the original coastal zone management goals and\nobjectives will be reviewed, and detailed goals and objectives will be\nestablished. Using these, the work program will be reviewed for adequacy.\nThis project is scheduled for completion by the Council in the first year.\nInventory and Allocation of Coastal Resources: This is the critical\nproject in South Carolina's program, and is expected to be reviewed and\nupdated throughout the program development phase. Criteria will be\nidentified for estimating the impacts of land and water uses in the coastal\nzone. Land and water use conflicts in the coastal zone are to be categorized.\n103","A continuing assessment of the resources of the coastal zone will be\ninitiated. Sites will be identified for non-local facilities. Based\nupon these work elements, a list of permissible land and water uses will be\ncompiled. After suitable criteria are established, critical areas will be\ndesignated and data collected both on critical and non-critical areas.\nCriteria will be developed for assessing priority uses, and priorities\nwill be assigned for both critical and less-critical land and water uses.\nThe bulk of this work is scheduled for completion by the end of the first\nyear.\nLegislative Review: South Carolina and Federal legislation and\nregulations will be inventoried. The State's existing coastal zone manage-\nment implementation, regulatory and enforcement powers will be described\nand analyzed. From this analysis, legislation needs will be identi-\nfied. This task is scheduled for completion during the second\nyear.\nEvaluation of Alternatives and Program Selection: The selected program\nand alternatives will be formally assessed in terms of 1) environmental\nimpact, 2) socio-economic impact, and 3) implementation costs. Tentative\nlegislative changes will be outlined, and the coastal zone management\nboundaries finalized. Public and interagency hearings and review of the\nselected and alternative programs will be conducted. Upon approval of the\nselected program, the program will be submitted to NOAA for approval. These\ntasks are scheduled for completion at the end of the second year.\nFinalization and Review of Coastal Zone Management Program: In the\nthird year, final changes in the coastal zone management program will be\nmade, and the package of required coastal zone management legislation\nwill be submitted to the General Assembly for action. If the Secretary of\nCommerce does not approve the management program, planning tasks will be\nundertaken as necessary to gain approval.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nSouth Carolina has divided its public participation program into four\nphases. Study Awareness involves preparing and disseminating a brochure\nto inform the public, help open lines of communication, and develop a list\nof contacts. Speeches, slide shows, and media coverage will be initiated.\nFamiliarization tours of the coastal zone and workshops may also be used.\nIn the Program and Issue Clarification Phase, an Issues Panel will be\nestablished to obtain public input in the definition of issues at stake.\nWorkshops and small group meetings with representatives of local govern-\nments and public interests may be held. During the Alternative Develop-\nment and Evaluation Phase, brochures will be distributed, and public discus-\nsions and workshops will be held to initiate a public dialogue on the\nevaluation of alternatives. As the program moves into an Adoption and\nImplementation Phase, a final brochure will be prepared, summarizing and\ndiscussing the program alternatives. Another round of familiarization tours\nwill be held. A final public hearing will be held on the proposed means of\nexerting State control, the designation of priority uses, and the organiza-\ntional structure to implement the program.\n104","INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nLocal government in South Carolina has historically been weak,\nparticularly at the county level. A recent effort is the establishment\nof regional planning districts to promote planning for groups of contiguous\ncounties with common problems and interests. Coordination with the three\nregional councils or governments in the coastal zone will be accomplished\nthrough the Coastal Advisory Committee, of which the Executive Directors of\neach planning council are members.\nCoordination among State agencies is assured by the fact that every\nState agency with an important role in the coastal zone is a member of the\nCoastal Zone Planning and Management Council which sets policy and directs\nthe coastal zone planning efforts. As well, these agencies implement at the\nState level a majority of the Federal programs affecting the coastal zone.\nA Federal Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives of the\nmajor Federal agencies affecting the South Carolina coast, will be established.\nThe Committee will offer guidance, assist in Federal-State coordination, and\ndevelop a mechansim for drawing upon pertinent Federal data and expertise.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING BOUNDARIES:\nThe Council has designated the area encompassed by the three coastal\nregional planning councils as its coastal zone planning area. This includes\nthe counties of Horry, Georgetown, Williamsburg, Berkeley, Charleston,\nDorchester, Colleton, Beaufort, Jasper, and Hampton.\n105","TEXAS\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Texas General Land Office\nMAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Texas Coastal and Marine Council,\nOTHER\nHighway Department, Industrial Commission, Parks and Wildlife Department,\nWater Quality Board\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $360,000 (Federal) $551,648 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Open Beaches Act of 1959, which recognized the historic right of\npublic access to Texas beaches and directed the Attorney General to defend\nthe right, was the first recent Texas coastal zone management activity. In\n1961, a four-year study of the State's bays and beaches culminated in the\nenactment of legislation mandating protection of the public interest in\nthe bays, islands, beaches and submerged lands of the coast. In order to\nobtain more information about the coastal zone and its processes, the\nCoastal Resources Management Program (CRMP) was launched through the\nGovernor's office, with financial support from the State legislature.\nIn\n1973, CRMP studies and recommendations were made to the legislature,\nincluding a report on legal and institutional arrangements, and studies of\nbay and estuarine management, transportation, economic development, power\nplant siting and waste management. Legislation enacted in response to\nthe recommendations touched on many areas--research and teaching programs,\npark development, fish and wildlife management, curtailment of subsidence,\nsand dune protection, beach management, port and harbor development and\npublic land management--but the common theme is best expressed in the\nCoastal Public Lands Management Act of 1973, which reiterates the mandate\nof the 1961 legislation: the State must take the lead in enlightened\nmanagement of coastal resources for the benefit of all Texans.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- There is a clear need for coordinated planning to allow appropriate\ncommunity growth and economic development without sacrificing\nrecreational amenities, environmental values, and commercial enter-\nprises (such as shrimping and tourism) which depend upon these\nvalues.\n- If present growth patterns continue, the metropolitan areas along\nthe coast (four of which contain 22 per cent of the State's popula-\ntion) will have difficulty providing necessary utilities, social\nservices, transportation and amenities.\n- Fresh water is in very short supply in the Texas coastal zone.\nHeavy water use in the Houston-Galveston area has diminished the\naquifer's recharge ability and caused land subsidence of up to\neight feet, thereby increasing the threat of hurricane flooding\nand structual damage.\n106","- Most decisions affecting the coastal zone are made at the local or\nprivate level where local interests are protected, frequently\nat the expense of regional, State, or National interests.\n- Development is taking place along the coast without adequate\ndamage, public access to the shore for recreation activities is\nrapidly diminishing.\n- A coordinated and comprehensive mechanism to guide the site\nselection, design construction, and operation of power plants\ndoes not exist. Unnecessary costs, delays, and environmental\ndamage frequently result.\n- The CRMP reported that certain coastal uses and activities are\nunder the jurisdiction of 15 to 25 different government entities.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To undertake a full and complete evaluation of the coastal and\nmarine resources of Texas.\n- To improve public awareness and understanding of the State's\nactivities and potentials related to the coastal zone and the\nsea.\n- To achieve orderly development of the coastal resources on\nbehalf of all the citizens of Texas balanced with protection and\nconservation of these resources.\n- To achieve full understanding of, and to maintain or enhance\nthe quality of the coastal and marine environment.\n- To review laws, regulations and management structures for the\ncoastal region in order that improvements can be made in a\ntimely and effective manner.\n- To create a new structure in the State offices to provide for\ncomprehensive consideration of the State's interests in the coastal\nzone.\n- To adopt a State program to assist the Texas fishing industry in\novercoming current institutional, regulatory and technological\nbarriers.\n- To take advantage of existing Texas institutions--educational\ngovernmental and industrial--in order to avoid duplication of\nfacilities or efforts and to meet the challenges of coastal zone\nopportunities with minimum delay.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nPhase I - Initial State Planning: This phase is already underway.\nAfter the Coastal Zone Management Act became law, Texas passed legislation\ngiving statutory authority to the General Land Office to begin compre-\nhensive coastal zone planning. Funds were appropriated to hire a skeleton\nstaff for long-range planning and management of the State's coastal zone\ninterest and to begin the task of delineating areas of particular concern\non the State's four million acres of submerged lands and abutting private\nlands.\n107","Phase II - Inventory and Hearings: This phase commences upon receiving\na Section 305 grant (June 1, 1974), continues through September 30, 1974,\nand consists of five tasks. First, the existing limits of State coastal\nzone management authority and the ability of present government structures\nto deal with identified issues and problems will be analyzed. Second, all\nexisting research, data sources, and planning resources available to the\nTexas Coastal Zone Planning Group will be identified, inventoried, and\nevaluated. A third task will be the initial identification of and contact\nwith all local, regional and State interest groups as well as an inventory\nof their desires, capabilities and availability with respect to the proposed\nwork.\nBased on these tasks, public hearings and workshops will be held,\ncoordinated through the five coastal councils of government, the Inter-\nagency Council on Natural Resources and the Environment, and the Texas\nCoastal and Marine Council. These meetings will be used to inform the\npublic of coastal problems and past and present planning and management\nactivities to obtain public input on the proposed three-year effort and\nto provide continuing contact with State, Federal, regional and local\ngroups with coastal zone planning and management responsibilities. The\nfinal task will be to begin determination of the permanent coastal zone\nboundary.\nPhase III - Technical Studies: The technical studies will be\ninitiated upon receipt of the initial grant but will be concentrated in\nthe period from October, 1974, when the first round of public hearings\nare completed, to October, 1975.\nCriteria will be established for the determination of developments\nof Statewide concern in the coastal zone, drawing on the concept of\ncoastal developments of more than local concern. A preliminary deter-\nmination of developments of Statewide concern will be made through public\nhearings and the application of these criteria.\nThe second component will be the assessment of expected demands\non coastal resources to fulfill the needs of the expanding coastal popu-\nlation and economic base. Emphasis will be given to resource demands\nfor those developments identified as of Statewide concern. Next, the\nsupply and capability of coastal resources to support the projected\nneeds of coastal developments of Statewide concern.\nThe fourth component is the process of identifying expected resource\ndemands which can be met at acceptable levels of impact upon coastal\nenvironments and present users. Finally, alternative management mechanisms\nwill be explored, and the permanent institutional mechanism for imple-\nmenting the management program will be designed.\nPhase IV - Public Information and Commentary: This phase will\nlast from November 1, 1975 through August 31, 1976. It is intended to\ninform the public on all phases of the management and planning process\nto stimulate informed comment and criticism on the program and to create\nan informed constituency for coastal zone management. Hearings on pro-\ngram elements are scheduled throughout the three-year effort.\n108","Phase V - Legislative Action - The purpose of this phase, which will\nlast from September, 1976 through the 1977 legislative session, is to\nprovide legislative committees and other members with background information\non which to base comprehensive coastal zone management legislation. A\nreport to the legislature summarizing the program activities and recom-\nmending necessary legislation will be written under the sponsorship and\nreview of the joint committees and will be based on the technical studies\nand public hearings accomplished in earlier phases.\nPhase VI - Final Phase: This phase will commence with the passage\nof necessary legislation and continue until June 30, 1977. The permanent\nCoastal Zone Management Program will be organized, the final reporting\nrequirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act will be fulfilled, and the\nproposal for a program administration grant will be completed and submitted.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThroughout the coastal zone management development program, public\nhearings will be conducted and educational programs will be carried out.\nPublic information elements will provide ample opportunities for the public\nand interested groups to be informed about the program status, history\nand means of involvement. Phase IV of the overall work program addresses\nthe public participation activities in more detail.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nCoordination with other State agencies with coastal zone planning\nand management responsibilities will be achieved through the existing\nmechanisms of the A-95 review process and the efforts of the Interagency\nCouncil on Natural Resources and the Environment. The Commissioner of\nthe General Land Office will establish a mechanism to serve as the single\npoint of contact for the several Federal agencies with coastal zone\nplanning and management responsibilities. Cooperation with the planning\nefforts of other States will be achieved through such mechanisms as the\nCoastal States Organization and the National Governors Conference Task\nForce on Science and Technology. The coastal councils of government will\nbe involved in several program development activities, including the\nsponsorship and coordination of public hearings.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nFor planning purposes, the coast comprises 26 counties, including all\nof the counties fronting on salt water and many of the \"second tier\"\nand \"third tier\" counties. This planning area is judged sufficient to\nallow examination of the major economic and natural systems operative in\nthe coastal zone.\n109","VIRGINIA\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Division of State Planning and Community Affairs\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING ACENCIES: Virginia Institute of Marine\nSciences\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning August 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $251,044 (Federal) $376,566 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nResponsibility for coastal zone-related programs in Virginia\nis spread among several State agencies, because the programs have\nbeen initiated on an ad hoc basis in response to perceived needs.\nThe most recent State-level entity is the Coastal Zone Advisory\nCommittee, comprised of the directors of eight State agencies with\ncoastal zone interests, which was appointed in January, 1973. These\nofficers constitute an advisory committee for Virginia's coastal zone\nstudy effort.\nThe Virginia Wetlands Law, in effect since July, 1972, makes the\nmodification of tidal wetlands without a permit illegal. The Act\ndefines wetlands as that area of the coastal zone within 1.5 times\nthe tidal range, measured from mean low water, when certain grasses\nare present. Counties choosing to establish wetlands boards may\nissue permits. If no board is established, the Virginia Marine\nResources Commission (VMRC), in consultation with the Virginia Insti-\ntute of Marine Science (VIMS), issues and reviews permits.\nThe Division of State Planning and Community Affairs (DSPCA) has\noverall State planning responsibilities. A report has been prepared\non critical environmental areas. The DSPCA is cooperating with the\nState Water Control Board (SWCB), in the preparation of water quality\nmanagement plans and river basin studies. The Local and Regional\nPlanning Section of the Division assists localities in the preparation\nof local plans and ordinances, and administers the State and Federal\nfunds distributed to planning District Commissions (PDCs) to conduct\nrelated planning studies. Control of waste disposal, investigation of\npollution incidents, shellfish sanitation regulations and water\nquality monitoring are additional ongoing State activities related to\ncoastal zone planning and management.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Demands for shoreline development of all types, including\ncommercial, industrial, residential and recreational, are\nincreasing, as are the impacts associated with some of these\nactivities, while current methods of controlling such pressures\nare inadequate.\n110","- Degraded water quality is resulting from the same increasing\npopulation and growth pressures.\nThere is a lack of adequate controls over the use of coastal\n-\nzone resources.\n- Only fifty miles of Virginia's 3,000 mile shoreline are open to\nthe public, much of it in the Virginia Beach area.\n- The Eastern Shore of Virginia, presently rural and relatively\nisolated, is particularly vulnerable to the landside impacts of\noffshore harbor and petroleum development.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To foster cooperation among all levels of the public and private\nsectors to preserve the aesthetic and natural resources of\nVirginia's coastal zone.\nTo relate man's activities, public and private, to the utiliza-\n-\ntion of existing natural resources.\nTo establish a process that enables decisions to be made so\n-\nthat natural resources are managed to achieve optimum levels\nof economic and social vitality.\n- To progressively improve and maintain the water quality of\nestuarine rivers, bays and seas.\n- To identify and protect groundwater sources and suppliers.\n- To preserve, to the maximum extent practicable, the coastal\nwetlands.\n- To improve and maintain commercial and sport marine life.\n- To utilize marine resources at or below a level of maximum\nsustainable yield.\n- To identify and manage vital wildlife areas.\n- To minimize the irreversible use of non-renewable natural\nresources.\n- To identify and protect the significant aspects of the social\nheritage of the Commonwealth.\n- To enhance public and private recreational opportunities.\n- To locate new development in an orderly pattern allowing for\nefficient utilization of land and water resources.\n- To provide efficient mobility within and through the coastal zone.\n- To maintain channels for viable marine transport while providing\npositive solutions to the removal and disposal of dredged spoil.\n- To develop an efficient use and environmentally safe means for\ncargo transfer within major ports.\nTo ensourage economic growth while safeguarding and maintaining\n-\nuse options to the maximum extent possible.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nAn Assessment of Public and Private Activities in the Coastal Zone:\nThe roles and responsibilities of the private, local, multi-county, State\nand Federal organizations active in the coastal zone will be identified.\nThe DSPCA and the Planning District Commissions (PDCs) will conduct\nthese analyses with the assistance of a private consultant, and the work\nis scheduled for completion in the second year.\n111","Data Collection and Analysis: In support of the public participation\nand analysis of public and private action elements, and to substantiate\nthe final goals and objectives, a base of pertinent information will\nbe assembled. VIMS and the DSPCA will share primary responsibility for\nthis effort, towards which most of the Federal grant will be applied.\nVIMS will compile or develop information related to marine life, oceanic\nand estuarine water conditions and study areas in the coastal zone. The\nDSPCA will analyze fast land resources, such as topography, vegetative\nconditions, soils and minerals, and an assessment of the prevailing\nsocioeconomic conditions in the coastal zone. Specific projects will\ninclude a tidal marsh inventory, a series of \"shoreline situation reports,\"\nmapping activities, and the establishment of an information storage\nsystem. The projects are scheduled for completion early in the third\nyear.\nProblem Identification: Using the knowledge derived from the pre-\nC eding elements, the preliminary assessment of problems outlined above\nwill be refined and more carefully delineated. As well, the preliminary\ngoals and objectives will be evaluated and recast as necessary in terms\nof the new information available. Work will commence on this element\nat the start of the second year and should be completed early in the\nthird year.\nDevelopment of Alternative Strategies: Alternative strategies will\nbe formulated to achieve the stated goals and objectives. This will\nprobably necessitate some ranking of the final goals and objectives, as\nthere will probably be some conflicts. Options will be developed for\nshort-range (3-5 years), mid-term (to ten years) and long-range (to 20\nyears) plans and policies. Work on this element will begin at the end\nof the second year.\nRecommendations for Action: Based on the various strategies developed,\nspecific recommendations for action will be made to the legislature. These\nrecommendations will be developed and put forth in the third year.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nTo create a broad understanding of coastal zone management goals\nand activities, a coastal zone planning committee will be established\nto receive local input within the jurisdiction of each planning\ndistrict in the coastal zone planning area; representation will be\nbased on guidelines established by the DSPCA. Each planning committee\nwill review base data generated for inclusion in the program, articulate\nexisting resource utilization policies and procedures, schedule public\nmeetings, and review and comment upon all material incorporated\ninto the overall program. VIMS and DSPCA staff will be made\navailable to assist these committees. A full-time private consultant\nwill be employed to plan, develop and conduct the various programs\ndesigned to introduce coastal zone management to the people of Virginia.\nSeveral series of seminars will be held at various locations in Virginia\nthroughout the program, and regional hearings will be held on crucial\nelement of the management program.\n112","INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nThe Coastal Zone Advisory Committee, presently comprised of eight\nState agencies, will be the primary mechanism for State level coordination.\nIt is proposed that membership be expanded to include one representative\nfrom each of the 9 PDCs in the coastal zone planning area. This will\nbe the primary means of coordination with the substate units of govern-\nment. As well, the PDCs will be involved in the Public Participation\nelement of the program. Federal agencies, especially the Department of\nDefense, control and administer a considerable portion of the lands\nincluded in Virginia's coastal zone. All of these lands and the admin-\nistering agencies will be identified. Contact will be made with the\nidentified agencies, and meetings will be held regularly to keep both\nparties apprised of the activities and plans of the other.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nFor planning purposes, the State's coastal zone will include the\nfollowing nine planning districts: Northern Virginia, Richmond, Rappahanock,\nNorthern Neck, Middle Peninsula, Crater, Southeastern Virginia, Peninsula,\nand Accomack-Northampton. It is presently expected that only the tide-\nwater counties and independent cities within these districts will be\nincluded within the management area.\n113","VIRGIN ISLANDS\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Virgin Islands Planning Office\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: None\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 2 years; GRANT NOT YET AWARDED\nFUNDING: $90,000 (Federal) $135,000 (Total) REQUESTED\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe Organic Act of the Virgin Islands, passed in 1936, gave the\nnewly created Territorial Government the power to control the use of all\npublic and private properties within the Territory of the Virgin Islands,\nand provided that Federal laws are applicable to the navigable waters\nof the Virgin Islands. Zoning laws became effective in 1963, but they\ndid not provide for special treatment for the coastal areas, nor was\nany comprehensive or general development plan or policies adopted. In\nJune, 1970, in response to sharply increasing development pressures,\nthe Virgin Islands Planning Office was created, whose principal function\nis to prepare a long-range, comprehensive plan for the Virgin Islands.\nIn June, 1971, the Legislature passed the Open Shorelines Act creating\nan Open Beach Committee to prepare a comprehensive plan for the conser-\nvation and development of the shoreline areas. This committee was\nnever formed, however, and its responsibilities have not been carried\nout. The Act also established a permit system within the Department\nof Conservation and Cultural Affairs to control land use activities\nalong the Islands' shorelines. Subsequent legislative action gave the\nsame Department the power to regulate filling and development in the\ncoastal waters. The permit system has been established, but in the\nabsence of a plan for the protection and enhancement of the coastal\nzone resources, the regulatory system continues to deal with develop-\nmental proposals on an ad hoc basis.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Most of the shoreline areas suitable for recreation are privately\nowned, with exclusive right of the owners to use the beaches\nand shorefront. While the Open Shorelines Act declared the\nbeaches and shoreline areas to be public lands, its effectiveness\nis limited because access is restricted by adjoining privately\nowned properties.\n- Rapid population and economic growth have placed unprecedent pressures\non the coastal resources. The areas most desirable for development\nare very environmentally sensitive to changes of any kind. There\nis a definite need for a comprehensive approach to resolve land\nuse conflicts, minimize the impacts of development and conserve\nvital coastal resources.\n114","- The Virgin Islands is faced with a number of legal issues\naffecting title to and use of submerged lands, dredge and fill\nregulations, overlapping jurisdictions between Territorial\nagencies, as well as between the Federal government and the\nVirgin Islands, and between the Virgin Islands and Denmark.\nClarification of the status of these and other claims is\nessential to preparation and implementation of a shoreline\nplan.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To prepare a coastal zone management program to insure that\npreservation and development of the land and water resources\nis consistent with their capabilities.\nTo integrate land use planning of inland areas with that of\n-\nthe coastal zone, and to allow greater consideration of the\nphysical relationship and effect of land use activities beyond\ncoastal boundaries.\n- To involve private citizens in the decision-making process\nas it pertains to the formulation of policies for the utiliza-\ntion of coastal resources.\n- To recognize the interdependence of the islands and assess\nthe regional impact of major facility development.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nCharacteristics of the Natural Resources of the Coastal Zone: An\ninventory will be made of the living and non-living resources of the\ncoastal zone, including a description of functional relationships\namong natural resources, the tolerance of the resources or resource\nsystems for various uses and an assessment of the physical characteristics\nof the marine waters and ocean floor. For the coastal lands, climate,\ntopography, geology, hydrology, soils and wildlife information will\nbe gathered and analyzed. The biophysical relationships of the resource\nsystems and their tolerance limits will be described. Scenic and\namenity resources will be classified and evaluated. Historical,\narcheological and other significant sites will be identified. Areas\nsubject to storm flooding, hurricane damage, cliff erosion and sedi-\nmentation will be identified as well as areas presently unstable or\nwhich would become unstable if altered.\nIdentification of Major Uses: Major land and water uses within\nthe coastal zone will be inventoried and classified. Acreage and\nlinear distances along the coastline of the significant uses will be\ncalculated. Public access and open space areas will be identified, as\nwell as existing zoning districts. All land areas will be classified\nand mapped by ownership, acreage and value. The existing land and\nwater use laws and regulations will be inventoried and analyzed in\nterms of adequacy, conflict and effectiveness in controlling coastal\nland and water uses. Legislative needs, options and limitations will\nbe determined. Growth trends will be analyzed to determine projected\nuses and resource demands. Areas of particular or critical concern\n115","will be delineated and carrying capacities determined. Areas suitable\nfor intensive development and those which should be reserved for\npriority uses or as natural areas will be identified.\nPreparation of a Land and Water Use Plan: Goals, objectives and\npolicies which reflect the needs, desires and National and Territorial\ninterests with respect to the conservation and development of coastal\nzone resources will be established. Based on the resource capability\nplan, priority uses will be designated, and areas to be reserved for\nsuch uses will be delineated. In addition, public access areas and\nareas requiring protection will be delineated.\nManagement of the Coastal Resources: Based on the findings of\nan assessment of the legal basis and adequacy of existing land and\nwater use regulations, recommendations will be made as to the regulations\nrequired to control development and acquire land consistent with the\npolicies of the coastal zone plan. An organizational structure to\nimplement the management program in accordance with the Coastal Zone\nManagement Act of 1972 will be recommended.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThe Planning Office will establish direct contact with citizen\ngroups, property owners, special interest groups and government\nagencies. Public hearings and informal meetings with various segments\nof the community will be held. Information will be disseminated to\nthe public through the Office of Public Relations and Information.\nThe Planning Office will work directly with the Governor's Citizens\nAdvisory Council. The public will be informed on research finds\nand will be given an opportunity to respond and react to proposals and\nto become involved in the decision-making process.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION\nAs a territory of the United States, the Virgin Islands are governed\nby a territorial government which does not have any sub-governmental\nlevels. The Planning Office intends to establish liaison with local\nrepresentatives of the National Park Service, which controls a substantial\nportion of the coastal zone on the island of St. John. The Planning\nOffice will take advantage of the working relationship which the Govern-\nment has had with the Department of Interior over a long period of time,\nand will communicate with other Federal agencies.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe boundaries of the coastal zone are defined to include the land\narea and surrounding waters of the offshore islands and cays, all privately\nowned land within a national park boundary below an elevation of 200 feet,\nthe entire water areas surrounding the main island from mean high water\nto the established three-mile limit, and the land areas of the main\nislands which extend inland from mean high tide to an elevation of\n200 feet, except where land is relatively flat the boundary will\nextend 800 feet inland.\n116","WASHINGTON\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Washington Department of Ecology\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: University of Washington Sea Grant\nProgram; Washington Department of Natural Resources\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 1 year, beginning May 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $388,820 (Federal) $583,230 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nWashington's Shoreline Management Act of 1971 is the primary vehicle by\nwhich the State Department of Ecology coordinates the State's coastal zone\nmanagement efforts. It is the stated intent of the Department to implement to\nthe greatest extent possible Washington's coastal zone program through the\nexisting framework developed pursuant to passage of this Act.\nThe Shoreline Management Act covers the marine waters of the State as\nwell as the major lakes and streams. Jurisdiction extends to the shoreland\nwithin 200 feet in a horizontal plane of the ordinary high water mark, except\nalong the Pacific coastline (considered shoreline of statewide significance)\nwhere the boundary is the permanent line of vegetation.\nThe Act establishes a cooperative program between the Department of\nEcology and local governments. Local governments have been given the primary\nresponsibility for administering the regulatory program with authorization\nto issue or deny development permits within their areas of jurisdiction\n(subject to appellate review by the Department of Ecology). In addition to\nthe permit process, \"Master Programs, \" comprehensive shorelines use plans\ndeveloped by the local units under the Department's guidelines, have been sub-\nmitted to the Department for review. The Master Programs represent goals and\npolicies for dealing with the coastal resources identified through compre-\nhensive shoreline inventories required to be performed by the local units\nby the legislation. Development of each Master Program requires specification\nof Natural, Conservancy, Rural, and Urban \"Environments\" in the shoreland\nareas and development of use regulations for these designated Environments.\nThe permit program has been in effect for approximately three\nyears and is expected, after refinement during the next year, to pro-\nvide the primary basis for the administrative phase of the coastal zone\nmanagement program.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- Increasing developmental and single-use pressures are threatening\nthe ecologically valuable and fragile natural shorelands of the\nState.\n- Much of the shoreline and adjacent uplands are privately owned with\nadditional construction unregulated.\n117","Increasing pressures from competing users are hampering efforts to\n-\nmeet long-term recreational needs and key-habitat preservation\nobjectives.\n- Involvement of a diverse and uncoordinated group of State and local\nagencies in the coastal planning and management process is impeding\nevaluation and protection of areas of statewide concern.\n- Public access to even publicly owned portions of the coastal area\nis severelylimited, and recreational facilities are inadequate to\nmeet future demands.\n- Development and unrestricted use of the Puget Sound area is threatening\nthe ecologic integrity and future availability of its unique resources.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\n- To develop a coordinated planning mechanism to protect the public\ninterest in the State's shoreland while, at the same time, recognizing\nand protecting private property rights.\n- To provide for development and management of the coastal area by\nplanning for and fostering reasonable and appropriate uses, while\npreserving the natural character of the shoreline to the greatest\npossible extent.\n- To recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest.\n- To develop management criteria for resource allocation which will\nresult in long-term over short-term benefit.\n- To provide for preservation and protection of estuaries and key\nhabitat areas, and to provide for improvement of water quality.\n- To increase public access to publicly owned portions of the shoreline.\n- To acquire and develop water oriented parks and recreational facilities.\n- To ensure public input and access to the planning and policy-making\nprocess to the fullest possible extent.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nA. Collection and Compilation of Base Data\nBase Mapping and Purchase of Remote Imagery: A three to four month task\nthat has been identified for early funding is the preparation of two sets\nof base maps from existing sources. One set of maps will be of the entire\nmarine coastline at an intermediate scale the other at large scale for\nmore detailed study of critical areas. In addition, purchase of a complete\nset of high altitude infrared imagery for the entire coastal area is planned.\nInventory and Designation of Areas of Particular Concern: The Department\nplans an inventory (from existing data sources) of general geographical areas\nof critical environmental concern. Once conducted, the inventory will be\nconverted to a computerized format; utilizing predefined criteria, certain\nareas will be designated for detailed inventory and analysis carrying into\nthe second fiscal year.\nB. Supporting Studies and Analyses:\nDetermination of a Coastal Boundary: Analysis is planned of the natural,\npolitical and legal considerations involved in delineating the landward extent\n118","of Washington's coastal zone. It is expected that the zone used for the\nregulatory. phase of the program will be based largely on natural features,\nunlike the zone based on political jurisdictional boundaries used for planning.\nCurrents and Patterns of Accretion and Erosion: Data will be gathered\nfrom remote imagery studies as well as historical records and limited field\nstudies for an initial analysis and continuous monitoring of the changing\nshoreline configuration.\nBiophysical Capability: A study will be made to assess the ability of\nvarious shoreland areas to accommodate various forms of development. Detailed\nanalysis will be made of natural ecosystems found to be intolerant\nof any development,including areas of particular biological productivity.\nMineral Extraction: A study and analysis is planned during the program\ndevelopment year of current locations and methods of commercial sand and gravel\nextraction, with recommendations made for regulation of future operations.\nSalt Marshes and Estuaries: A study is planned of the significant marshes\nand estuaries of the State, with analysis to be made of the nature and intensity\nof biological activity of each system and an evaluation of the contribution of\nthe system to the associated water body and shoreland. A scheme for a\nstatewide ranking of the systems is to be developed along with guidelines for\ntheir preservation. This study is expected to continue into the second fiscal\nyear of the program.\nSurvey of Endangered Species: A study of the locational patterns and\npopulation size of selected coastal wildlife species is planned as a foundation\nfor their preservation.\nDevelopment of Permissible Use Indices: A year-long analysis of permis-\nsiable land and water uses impacting on coastal waters is planned. Specific\nguidelines and regulations will be drawn from a detailed investigation of\nthe nature and causes of conflicts of specific uses and classes of uses.\nMarine Resources in Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the Columbia\nRiver Estuary: An assessment is to be made of current aquaculture capabilities\nin conjunction with a study of future requirements for aquaculture development. The\nstudy will define key areas for future aquaculture development and develop criteria\nfor protection of these areas until the aquaculture process can be initiated.\nProgram Evaluation and Impact: A quantitative study of the impact of the\nfirst two years of the State program developed under the Washington Shoreline\nManagement Act is to be initiated. Identification of inadequacies in admin-\nistration or design and a \"testing\" of the impact of various management policies\nare to be major tasks.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nThe Washington public has been extensively involved in the CZM process\nto date. The State guidelines for development of Master Programs urged local\nunits to appoint broadly representative citizen advisory committees to define\ngoals and assist in drafting policy statements. In addition, a series of\npublic meetings and at least one public hearing were required for the develop-\nment of each Program.\n119","To supplement these efforts, an intensive public information program and\ndesign of a public participation process to involved concerned citizens\nthroughout Washington's coastal zone management program has been scheduled\nan early program development task.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nAs previously noted, local jurisdictions have the legislative\nmandate to carry out coastal zone regulatory programs with the Department\nof Ecology responsible for coordination, guidance and review.\nThe Puget Sound Governmental Conference will coordinate coastal planning\non a regional level in the Central Puget Sound Region, providing a cohesive\nplan for the region viewed as a whole in conjunction with individual county\nplanning efforts.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe landward area of Washington's coastal zone has been delineated\nthrough the Shoreline Management Act. The area included is that within 200\nfeet (measured on a horizontal plane) of the mean high tide line but including\nall marshes, bogs, swamps, estuaries, floodplains and associated wetlands\nand streams of 20 cubic feet per second or more. One task to be accomplished\nduring the year devoted to program development will be to reexamine the\nexisting designation for adequacy.\n120","WISCONSIN\nGRANT RECIPIENT: Department of Administration\nOTHER MAJOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Department of Natural Resources;\nUniversity of Wisconsin; Northwestern Wisconsin RP&DC; Bay Lake RPC;\nSoutheastern Wisconsin RPC\nDEVELOPMENT PERIOD: 3 years; beginning June 1, 1974\nFUNDING: $208,000 (Federal) $353,215 (Total)\nCURRENT STATUS:\nWisconsin conducts a variety of land and water planning and management\nprograms in the coastal zone. The Department of Administration's State\nPlanning Office is administering the State Development Policy Program, the\nCritical Resource Information Program, and the Land Resource Analysis\nProgram. The Office is developing a land use information system and has\nresponsibility for the OMB A-95 and the Federal and State mandated EIS reviews.\nThe Department of Natural Resources has responsibility for water\nresources planning including the preparation of the State Water Plan pur-\nsuant to the State Water Resources Act of 1965 and water quality management\nplanning pursuant to the Federal Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500. The DNR\nis also conducting activities in the areas of flood plain management, shore-\nland zoning, the regulation of navigable water, and surface water classifi-\ncation. Related programs administered by DNR are outdoor recreation planning,\nscientific areas preservation, fish management, air pollution control, solid\nwaste management and environmental impact assessment.\nOther State activities affecting the coastal zone include the regulating\nof power generating facilities by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission,\nhighway, waterport and urban transportation system planning by the Depart-\nment of Transportation, and coastal zone related research and education pro-\ngrams carried on by the Sea Grant College Program, the Institute for\nEnvironmental Studies and the Center for Great Lakes Studies, all of the\nUniversity of Wisconsin System.\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES:\n- The highly erodible nature of the shoreline is a major problem in\nmanaging the coastal zone.\n- The amount of shoreland in public ownership does not provide adequate\npublic access to the Lakes.\n- Tourism and recreational needs are increasing the demand for\nland and for support services.\nThe need for economic development must be balanced against irre-\n-\ntrievable commitments of natural resources, particularly along the\nLake Superior shoreline.\n121","- Residential and other development is encroaching upon ecologically\nsensitive areas.\n- In some areas, obsolete structures, inadequate transportation\npatterns, and natural hazards have caused the waterfront to deteriorate.\nCertain shorelands are subject to periodic flooding and damage.\n-\n- The size and composition of the catch can no longer support the\ncommercial fishing industry as in earlier years.\nGreat Lakes ports are losing their competitive position and several\n-\nmay be forced to close.\nGOALS AND OBJECTIVES:\nIn managing the coastal zone, Wisconsin will seek:\n- To revitalize the natural features of the area.\n- To systematically guide, through multi-governmental cooperation,\nshoreline uses to those which are (1) resource dependent, and\n(2) compatible with natural shoreline processes.\n- To provide a better balance between ecological, aesthetic and\neconomic concerns.\nOVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN:\nResource Inventory: An initial task to be performed is an assessment\nand evaluation of existing data sources and the development of a format for\ndata retrieval. Wisconsin plans to develop a reporting system to\nmonitor changes in the coastal area in such a manner as to allow timely\nreaction by management agencies. The monitored changes might include:\nzoning, subdividing, platting and building permit applications.\nDevelopment of a set of base maps and a series of inventories of:\nland use ownership and zoning patterns; vegetative cover; fish and\nwildlife habitats; wetlands; and point sources of pollution are planned.\nA mosaic and data overlay analysis based on these maps and inventories will\nserve as a foundation for physical management.\nAreas of Critical Concern: A second task will be an inventory and\nidentification of areas of particular concern in the coastal zone. Efforts are\nalready underway to inventory historic sites in coastal counties and to\nidentify critical ecosystems in the coastal area. Public review of the\ndesignated areas is expected to be part of the second year of the development\nprogram.\nResource Classification and Regulation: An assessment of the\ndependency of the coastal population upon the land-water interface will\nbe carried out in conjunction with a classification of shore-types and\nuse capabilities. These studies represent an effort to identify the\ndependency of the local economy on the coastal shoreland area. Public\nperceptions of permissible shore uses will be identified from meetings\nwith public agencies and interest groups. The public input will be\nused in addition to the assessment studies to develop guidelines for\nlocal governments to evaluate proposed shore uses according to inherent\nland capabilities and economic considerations\n122","Management Policy: Analyses of alternative future and courses of action\nin relation to several specific coastal issues are`planned. The analyses\nare to be made in an effort to provide the regional planning commissions\nand the Regional Coastal Zone Coordinating and Advisory Councils with\na basis for formulating management policy. Reports to be included are:\nalternative futures for Great Lakes ports and transportation systems; future\nroles of the Wisconsin coastal area in the siting of onshore and off-\nshore energy facilities; recreational pressures on coastal resources and\ntheir primary and secondary side effects; projected rates of shoreline reces-\nsion and the usefulness of alternative man-made protective structures; and\navailable methods for increasing public access to the Wisconsin\nGreat Lakes shoreline.\nProposed Institutional Arrangements and Legislation: Early considera-\ntion will be given to alternative means to exert control over land and\nwater uses. The University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School is scheduled\nto assess and analyze the effectiveness of legislative, executive and\nadministrative powers at various governmental levels for regulatory con-\ntrol of land and water use. Legislative interaction will begin as soon\nas feasible to provide a broad basis for new means of water and land use\ncontrol.\nAnalysis is also planned for improvements in intergovernmental\nand interagency coordination. Included will be consideration of designa-\ntion of a single unit to coordinate planning and management with neighboring\nstates and the Federal Government.\nDrawing on the preceeding legal, institutional and resource analyses,\nthe comprehensive management program, together with a package of necessary\nlegislative actions, will be prepared and submitted to the State legislature\nin time for the January, 1977, Legislative Session.\nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION:\nWisconsin is placing heavy emphasis on public participation. Public\nparticipation activities managed by the University of Wisconsin's Extension,\nthe Critical Research Information Program, and the Institute for Environ-\nmental Studies Lake Superior Project may be integrated with coastal zone\npublic information efforts. The State's first year program concentrates\non obtaining public perceptions of areas of particular concern, permissible\nuses, planning and management zone boundaries, and controls over land and\nwater uses.\nCitizens, local representatives, regional planning commissions, and\nState agencies on the State and Regional Coastal Zone Coordinating and\nAdvisory Councils will establish interim statewide and regional variations\nof policies and goals. The State Coastal Zone Coordinating and Advisory\nCouncil will be the prime vehicle for determining program direction. A\nparallel Citizens Advisory Committee, appointed by the Governor upon the\nrecommendation of the Council, will afford the opportunity for professional\ngroups, special interest groups and knowledgeable citizens to participate\nin the direction setting of the program.\n123","INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:\nThe State-level Coastal Zone Coordinating and Advisory Council will\ncoordinate State and regional/local interests in the coastal zone.\nParticipants in the Council, to be established by the Governor, will\ninclude: (1) all State agencies with coastal-related program responsi-\nbilities; (2) Regional Commission chairmen and other regional/local govern-\nmental representatives; and (3) the University of Wisconsin system.\nAt the substate level, regional planning commissions will be grant\nrecipients for comprehensive planning in coastal areas and for regionally\nspecified studies. They will provide leadership in the coordination\nof public participation, as well as the development of physical inventories\nand plans to aid in the decision-making process. While each regional\nplanning commission will structure its advisory committee as appropriate\nto its region, such advisory committees must adequately represent\ncitizens and the coastal counties, cities, villages and towns.\nLocal decision-makers, who are the zoning and development regulators,\nwill have a strong voice during the preliminary development of a coastal\nmanagement program through membership on the Regional Planning Commissions\nand the Regional Coastal Zone Coordinating and Advisory Councils. Local\nunits of government can also be grant recipients through regional com-\nmissions for specified coastal projects.\nAll states adjacent to Wisconsin and bordering the Great Lakes as\nwell as those Federal agencies with ongoing programs in the Great Lakes\narea are members of the Great Lakes Basin Commission. This membership\non an equal partner basis makes it feasible to use the Great Lakes Basin\nCommission as the coordinating agency between the various states and the\nvarious Federal agencies to implement and coordinate Wisconsin's coastal\nzone management development program with those agencies.\nCOASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA:\nThe planning area is composed of the 15 counties adjoining Lakes\nMichigan and Superior. In addition to providing a consistent political\nboundary, this relatively deep planning area will provide sufficient\narea to analyze the impact of land uses on the coastal waters and, if\nnecessary, provide alternative management zones, particularly in those\ncases where a standard land setback zone from the water will not be\nadequate to encompass the boundaries of certain critical resource areas.\nThe shoreland management boundaries provide a feasible management area,\nincluding those unincorporated lands within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high\nwatermark of navigable lakes, including the Great Lakes. Further,\nSection 87.30 of the Wisconsin Statutes requires that counties, cities\nand villages regulate the floodplains of streams including those tributary\nto the Great Lakes. Jointly, these two statutes provide a possible zone\nwhere State and local authority may be imposed on land use. However,\nexperience with these statutes and the proposed management needs in\nthe coastal zone indicate potential modification of this zone.\n124"]}