{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Report to the Congress on coastal zone management Fiscal Year 1976","Authors":"","Publication date":"1977","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000096531"},"Pages":["HT\n392\nReport to the Congress on\nOF\n.U35\nCOMMERCIAL\n1976\nCoastal Zone\n*\nAvenue\nManagement\nOF\n:s\nPublic Law 92-583\nFiscal Year 1976\nApril 1977\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management","ATMOSPHERIC\nReport to the Congress on\nAND\nNOAA\nHT\nPATIENT\nCoastal Zone\n392\nManagement\nSS\ncountry\nDEPARTMENT\n035\nOF\n1976\nPublic Law 92-583\nFiscal Year 1976\nApril 1977\nLIBRARY\nNOV 19 2013\nNational Occanic &\nAtmospheric Administration\nUS Annt of C mmerce\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nJuanita M. Kreps, Secretary\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nRobert M. White, Administrator\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management\nRobert W. Knecht, Acting Associate Administrator","OF\nCOMMENT\nTHE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE\nWashington, D.C. 20230\nUNITED\nMEMBER\nSTATES OF\nMarch 18, 1977\nDear Mr. President:\nI have the honor to transmit herewith, for submission to the\nCongress, the Annual Report for the Fiscal Year 1976 as\nrequired by Section 316 of the Coastal Zone Management Act\nof 1972 (16 USC 1451).\nRespectfully,\nJuanita M. Kreps\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C. 20500\nEnclosure","Report to the President from the Secretary of Commerce on the Implementation\nof the Coastal Zone Management Act during Fiscal Year 1976\nThis report to the President is submitted in compliance with\nSection 316 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The\nSecretary of Commerce, who is charged with the administration of this\nstatute, is required to submit a report on November 1 on the operation of\nthe program during the preceding fiscal year.\nCongress has included in the requirement for an annual report specific areas\nwhich are to be covered. This fourth report on the coastal management pro-\ngram is organized to respond item by item to the 11 specified topics. The\nthree additional areas added by the amendments to the coastal zone law\nenacted on July 26, 1976, are included. Three of the requirements, items\nfour to six, are not covered because no activity occurred in the areas in\nquestion. They deal with programs that have been disapproved (none),\nactivities found not to be consistent with approved state programs (none)\nand regulations issued during the year (none). Copies of the regulations\nin effect during the year are included with the annual reports of previous\nyears.\nBecause the requirement of the statute is to prepare a report for submission\nbefore November 1, there was not time to cover those activities of the Office\nof Coastal Zone Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-\ntration during the transition fiscal year quarter in 1976. These months will\nbe included in the report submitted for fiscal year 1977.\nFiscal year 1976 saw the first state coastal zone program reach approvable\nstatus. It was a significant occasion for this Department to certify that\nthe State of Washington had met the detailed and stringent requirements of\nthe coastal management law and thus merit Federal matching funds for program\nadministration.\nThe year also saw Congress complete action on a major expansion of the basic\ncoastal zone law and the addition of an energy impact program. This latter\nprogram, authorized at $1.2 billion over 10 years, is a major development in\nnational policy. The program authorizes the Federal Government to assist\ncoastal states and local communities to finance public services and facilities\nnecessary to support coastal energy development which is in the national\ninterest.\nThis action by Congress, signed into law on July 26 by the President, is a\nstrong vote of confidence in the basic merits of the coastal program as a\nmeans of providing national and environmentally sound management of the\nNation's coastal areas.\n-1-","Highlights, Fiscal Year 1976\nApproval of the first state program, meeting the requirements of the\nnational legislation, submitted by the State of Washington. On June 1,\n1976, the Secretary of Commerce approved the Washington program enabling\na grant to be made to the State to aid in the operation of its program\nduring the year, the first such administrative grant made under the pro-\nvisions of the 1972 legislation.\nCongress enacted wholesale changes in the basic program, aimed at\nstrengthening the original Act, and in addition provided for a billion-\ndollar coastal energy impact program. Purpose of the latter is to make\navailable financial assistance where needed by states and local communities\nfaced with the need to provide services and facilities made necessary by\nenergy facilities serving the national interest.\nFour completed programs, two from states and two from geographic segments\nwithin coastal zones, were submitted to the office during the year. They\nare undergoing review with the expectation that it will be approved during\nfiscal year 1977.\nInitial funding to help states plan for the impacts stemming from an\naccelerated Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development program was\nmade available to states. Passed as a supplemental to the fiscal year\n1975 budget at the request of President Ford, the funds were distributed\nduring fiscal year 1976.\nTen Federal agencies distributed guidance to their regional and field offices\nadvising them of the manner in which they should take part in and cooperate\nwith states in the development and implementation of coastal programs.\nThe Office of Coastal Zone Management took part in a number of efforts to\nassess the expected onshore impacts from new Outer Continental Shelf oil\nand gas operations planned around the United States. A joint study by the\noffice, the National Science Foundation and the Bureau of Land Management\nin the Department of Interior, was begun. A second study with the Bureau\nof Land Management on state information needs on OCS impacts was also\nstarted.\nThe third national estuarine sanctuary was established in Hawaii\nwith a grant of $200,000 with which the state will acquire a 5,900-acre\nsite on the island of Hawaii. The grant is a 50-percent matching grant.\n(See Appendix 1.\nDraft regulations were prepared and circulated on a key section of the Act,\nwhich requires Federal agencies to conduct their activities in a manner\nconsistent with state programs once approved at the national level.\n-2-","The operation of the coastal management program was subjected to a\ncareful audit by the General Accounting Office which, while approving\nof the basic administration of the program, indicated areas for\nimprovement.\nA program in which doctoral candidates at Stanford University spend a\nyear in Washington to learn how public policy is made was successfully\ninitiated. Eight Stanford Fellows were attached to various offices\nin Washington dealing with ocean-related policy matters, under the\nsponsorship of the Sea Grant Program, with participation by the Office\nof Coastal Zone Management.\nFunding for fiscal 1976 was approved at the level of $18 million, the\nhighest in the program's existence.\nThe Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee held four meetings\nduring the year ; six new members of the 15-person body were named.\n(See Appendix 2.)\n-3-","IDENTIFICATION OF THE STATE PROGRAMS APPROVED PURSUANT TO\n316(a) (1)\nTHIS TITLE DURING THE PRECEDING FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR AND A\nDESCRIPTION OF THOSE PROGRAMS\nOn June 1, 1976, the Secretary of Commerce signed a document signifying\nFederal approval of the first state coastal zone program to meet the\nrequirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.\nWashington's 2,300-mile shoreline consists of 157 miles along the Pacific\nOcean, 144 miles along the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 89 miles in Grays Harbor,\n129 miles in Willapa Bay, 34 miles along the Columbia River and 1,784 miles\nbordering Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia. The state's two largest\nmetropolitan centers, Seattle and Tacoma, are in the coastal zone as are\ntwo-thirds of Washington's 3.4 million residents.\nThe Washington program is based on the state's Shoreline Management Act of\n1971 which established a cooperative effort between local governments and\nthe State Department of Ecology. Local governments, including all counties\nand incorporated cities in the coastal zone, must develop local master pro-\ngrams which are comprehensive plans establishing goals and policies for\ncoastal resource use control. Within its jurisdiction, each local master\nprogram plan specifies permissible \"environments,\" ranging from urban areas\nto shorelands to be preserved in a natural state. Each plan also regulates\nresource uses within these designated environments. Criteria for regula-\nting resource uses stems from existing legislation, natural resource inven-\ntories and guidelines developed by the Department of Ecology. The Depart-\nment approves local master programs and, based on these programs, develops\nan overall state management program.\nUnder Washington law, the means of controlling land and water uses in the\ncoastal zone is through a permit system which deals with coastal issues as\nthey arise. The system is administered by local governments subject to the\nState Department of Ecology's appellate review and requires a permit for\ndevelopments valued at $1,000.00 or more on marine water areas, associated\nwetlands and all land within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark.\nThe heart of the Washington coastal zone program, as the state described it\nin its application for Federal approval, is the control program instituted\nunder the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Strong support for the Act is\nprovided by the State Environmental Policy Act, also of 1971, and the\nEnvironmental Coordination Procedures Act of 1973. The former provides a\nsolid base of information for public decisionmaking and the latter requires\ncoordinated action by state agencies.\nThe objective of the Shoreline Management Act is to minimize detrimental\neffects of development along the coastline. The Act is clearly not \"anti-\ndevelopment.\" In fact, it explicitly supports preference for development\nuses which \"are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage\nto the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of, the\nstate's shoreline.\"\nA key provision establishes priorities of uses in \"shorelines of statewide\nsignificance.\" The Act spelled out in some detail the basis for declaring\n-4-","shore areas to be of statewide importance, including a listing of specific\ngeographic areas and a definition of specificity such as lakes with a\nsurface acreage of more than 1,000 acres at the ordinary high water level.\nIn areas so designated, the priority of uses which are to govern local\nand state decisionmaking are uses which protect statewide interest in\npreference to local considerations, which preserve the character of the\narea, which take into account the long term benefits rather than short\nterm gains and which protect the resources and natural ecology of the\nshore. The shoreline legislation approved by the voters in a referendum\nin 1972, specifies that where an alteration of the natural condition of\nthe shoreline is to be permitted, preference is to be given to single-\nfamily houses. The second priority is given to ports, the third is for\nrecreational uses and the fourth is assigned to industrial and commercial\nuses which require, by their nature, location on the coast.\nIn the guidelines developed by the Department of Ecology, the designated\nadministrative agency, local governments are given four broad categories\nwith which to designate territory in their jurisdiction. The four basic\ntypes of areas are natural, conservancy, rural and urban. Beyond this,\nthe guidelines aim to encourage types of uses within each category which\nare consistent with the designation for the area,\nThe mechanism established for state review of local decisions is distinctive.\nRather than outright authority for the Department of Ecology to deny a\nlocal action, the shoreline act provides for the establishment of a Shorelines\nHearing Board. The state agency may appeal any local decision with which it\ndisagrees to this board, an independent entity established for this purpose.\nThere are six members on the board, three of whom come from the Pollution\nControl Hearings Board, plus the Commissioner of Public Lands, a representa-\ntive of the Washington League of Cities and a representative from county\ngovernments.\nParticipation by Washington in the national coastal zone program has added\na major element to the state-adopted program. In addition to the Federal\nmatching funds which Washington used to improve its program, the state\ninvolved Federal agencies with interests in the Washington coast to a major\ndegree as a consequence of participation in the national program. Consulta-\ntion with Federal agencies is one of the requirements for states since\nprograms submitted for approval at the Federal level are subject to scrutiny\nby all affected Federal bodies,\nThe effect in Washington has been to open up the discussion between Federal\nagency representatives on the one hand and state and local officials on the\nother. For the Federal agencies, the process has been one where the signifi-\ncance of the \"Federal consistency\" provision of the coastal management law\nhas slowly become recognized. Under this key provision, once a program such\nas Washington's is approved at the Federal level, subsequent actions by\nFederal bodies must conform to the state-local program for the coasts,\nWashington identified 47 Federal agencies with interests in its coastal area,\nSpecial consideration has been given to Indian lands within the state's\n-5-","coastal zone. The discussions with Federal agencies led to modifications\nof the overall state program developed by the Department of Ecology. The\nstate document containing its coastal program acknowledges that this process\nwas beneficial. \"Many problems were revealed or clarified and positions and\npolicies of federal agencies became known to the state, many for the first\ntime, Many of the federal views identified legitimate deficiencies or\ndesirable modifications to the (state-developed coastal zone) program,\n11\nthe program document states.\nIn his submittal to the Secretary of Commerce, the Governor of Washington,\nDaniel Evans, declared, \"I certify that the Washington coastal zone manage-\nment program is now an official program of Washington and the state, acting\nby and through its several instrumentalities, will strive to meet the\nintent of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the state's corollary\nlegislation; and to do so in a uniform, cooperative and aggressive spirit.'\nWith the program approval Washington was awarded a $2,000,000 grant which\nwas matched $1,000,000 by the State. This additional funding has allowed\nthe State to proceed on an accelerated course of program implementation.\nA major part of the funds will be passed on to local governments for basic\nadministration and local master program enhancement. These additional\nfunds will provide local governments with additional staff help for the\npurposes of increased coordination between the various institutional\ndecisionmakers, as well as to conduct needed special studies for program\nmanagement.\nThe management program also provides for:\n1) regional treatment of problems by local governments,\n2) state program administration,\n3) other state agency managerial network enhancement of CZM program\nrelated authorities,\n4) Federal coordination, and\n5) scientific and technical information to improve decisionmaking by\na) interstate coordination,\nb) energy and CZM,\nc) CZM coordination between the 1st and 2nd tier boundaries, and\nd) OCS activities.\nWhile a number of issues on program weaknesses were raised during the program\napproval process, the additional funds that are provided to a state under\nSection 306 of the Act allows the state an increased opportunity to make the\ndesired improvements to their program because of increased fiscal resources\nto meet their identified needs.\nA major benefit of Washington's participation in the Federal program is the\nprovision of significant additional funding for local units of government.\n-6-","This administrative money will enable the local governments in the state's\ncoastal zone to obtain the staff needed to do a more effective job of guid-\ning future growth.\nFormal recognition of the approval of the program was given at ceremonies\nheld in Seattle on June 14, at which time a grant was awarded for adminis-\ntration of the approved program. Among those present was Senator Warren\nMagnuson of Washington, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee which\nproduced the coastal zone legislation in 1972.\n-7-","LISTING OF THE STATES PARTICIPATING IN THE PROVISIONS\n316(a)(2)\nOF THIS TITLE AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE STATUS OF EACH\nSTATE'S PROGRAMS AND ITS ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING THE\nPRECEDING FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR\n-8-","ALABAMA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nAlabama's coastal management efforts were slowed in their second year\ndue to a decrease in staff and uncertainties associated with a legislative\nreview of the Coastal Area Board and coastal management activities. As\na result, little progress has been made in the area of organizational\nnetworks, although a tentative management boundary has been identified,\ncategories of permissible land and water uses have been proposed, and an\ninitial cut has been made at defining geographic areas of particular concern.\nALASKA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe original thrust of the coastal management effort in Alaska\nwas in technical data collection and information dissemination. As a\nresult of the first year's efforts, a considerable amount of data was\nassembled and a framework for a continuing catalogue of \"Data for\nDecision makers\" was developed. The final product of this effort was to\nbe a continuously updated compilation of natural and human environment\nbaseline data and implications of those data for decisions affecting the\nuse of Alaska's coast.\nThe change of administration in 1974 was greeted by emergence of\na key coastal issue -- the accelerated Outer Continental Shelf petroleum\nleasing schedule proposed by the Federal Government. In response, the\ncoastal management program took on an immediate purpose in addition to\nits long term objectives. It was selected as the tool by which the\nstate could coordinate its internal efforts and ensure that the state\nwould play a significant role in determining the intensity, location and\ntiming of petroleum-related onshore development.\nThe crucial role of policy in determining management decisions was\nrecognized and the coastal management program development function was\nmoved to the Division of Policy Development & Planning in the Governor's\noffice.\nIn response to the apparent imminence of OCS-related onshore\nimpacts, comprehensive management legislation was drafted and introduced\nduring the 1975 legislative session. While the legislature failed to\nact on the coastal management bill, the effort produced awareness\nwithin the state of the importance of the issue.\nAlaska, in its second and third year of coastal program development,\nis moving beyond data collection and analysis and into the institutional,\npolicy and service aspects of coastal management program development\n-9-","CALIFORNIA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nCalifornia's coastal management program plan, prepared in response\nto the Coastal Initiative approved by the voters in 1972 and in accordance\nwith the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, is under review by the\nFederal Government.\nIn a separate application, approval is being requested for funds to\nbe allocated to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission\nto implement the coastal management program for the Bay area.\nOperating under its third Section 305 coastal program development grant,\nCalifornia is helping to prepare local implementation programs as well as\nsubregional plans for areas where cumulative impact over time could adversely\naffect coastal resources and public access.\nMeanwhile, at the state level, legislation that would establish\nauthorities to carry out the plan has been approved, Some of the\nplan's 162 policy recommendations are enacted immediately by the\nlegislation; others will receive further study.\nCONNECTICUT\nCURRENT STATUS:\nConnecticut began its second year of 305 program development during\nfiscal year 1976. The Coastal Area Management Advisory Board was expanded\nfrom a membership of state and regional officials to include ten citizens.\nMajor boundary options were mapped, base maps with resource factor overlaps\nwere completed, initial geographic areas of particular concern were nominated,\nFederal coordination activity was undertaken and information meetings were\nheld with coastal officials, special interest groups, legislators and citizen\ngroups. Existing state legal authorities have been inventoried. Analysis\nof basic state management organization options was begun.\nDELAWARE\nCURRENT STATUS:\nMuch of Delaware's first year of management program development\nwas devoted to identifying and filling management data voids,\ndeveloping approaches to delineating areas of critical concern, and per-\nmissible uses and priorities of uses.\nEfforts during the second year of work included: completion of\nmuch of the basic coastal resources and processes research work; appli-\ncation of the general coastal management methodology to the needs and\nissues affecting the Lewes-Rehoboth portion of the coast; initial deter-\nmination of geographic areas of particular concern, including identifi-\ncation of unique and rare natural areas worthy of preservation; initial\nlisting of permissible uses; and additional basic examination of\nexisting legal and organizational arrangements,\n-10-","FLORIDA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nFlorida, in its second year of coastal management planning, is completing\nthe technical background that should provide a basis for boundary determin-\nation, identification of permissible uses and designation of geographic\nareas of particular concern. The state is beginning to deal with the\ndetermination of gaps in authorities, the structure of a permanent management\nentity and the relationship between state, regional and local entities,\nand among state agencies.\nOne of the major issues to be addressed in the coming grant year is the\nweaving together of various existing authorities including the Local\nGovernment Comprehensive Planning Act, the comprehensive statewide plan,\nthe Development of Regional Impacts review process, the Areas of Critical\nState Concern designation procedure and the water district management\nauthorities, into an integrated and coordinated coastal management program.\nGEORGIA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe momentum of Georgia's coastal management plan development was\ninterrupted during a reorganization within the Office of Planning and Budget\nand a re-evaluation of the coastal management effort. With a better focus\non its end goal/product, Georgia is proceeding with its second year of\nprogram planning. It has made substantial progress in determining pro-\ncedures for citing uses of regional benefit and the technical work under-\ntaken. Good intra-state agency relationships exist in this planning\nstage. It remains for Georgia to translate this background work into\nsubstantive policy and management actions.\nGUAM\nCURRENT STATUS:\nIn its second year of coastal program planning, Guam is progressing\nwithin the various work elements and will attempt to facilitate island-wide\nparticipation by establishing networks (e.g. questionnaires) to receive\nreaction to various program activities, Harsh climatological conditions --\ntyphoons -- continue to plague the island.\n-11-","HAWAII\nCURRENT STATUS:\nDuring its second year of coastal management planning, Hawaii\ndeveloped a management policy proposal that is being used in an effort to\ndraft legislation that would implement the coastal management program.\nThe proposal considers the entire state as the coastal zone, includes\npolicy statements for coastal resources, hazard areas, and shoreline development,\nand proposes a new mechanism for designation and focused management of\nareas of particular concern.\nILLINOIS\nCURRENT STATUS:\nIllinois, in its second year of program development, has been concen-\ntrating on substantive elements of its plan, including boundary identification,\ndetermination of permissible uses and designation of geographic areas of\nparticular concern. Organization is of key importance in Illinois, where\nlocal governments have zoning authority.\nThe goals and objectives for the coastal zone have been drawn up by\nthe state staff utilizing input from all levels of government, interest\ngroups and citizens. The state will also set broad guidelines on use\npriorities throughout the coastal zone. These will be more specific than\nthe goals and objectives. For example, the state might say that recreation\nis a priority for the Waukegon shoreline without getting site specific.\nThe state will be specific when setting priorities in areas of particular\nconcern.\nINDIANA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nIndiana is undertaking its program development in two phases:\nprogram identification and program planning. The purpose of program iden-\ntification is to inventory and analyze physical, social and economic, and\nadministrative and legal information relating to the coastal zone. A major\neffort is being made to solicit public opinion and interest.\nLater, during the program planning phase, Indiana will develop a\nprogram for determining overall state program objective and for meeting the\nspecific threshold requirements of the coastal zone management program.\nIndiana is presently in the data collection phase of its program as part\nof its first-year grant effort.\n-12-","LOUISIANA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nA major thrust in Louisiana's second year of coastal program planning\nby the State Planning Office was drafting a comprehensive coastal resources\nprogram statute for consideration by the 1977 legislature. At the same time,\nefforts were made to explain the process of coastal resources management\nto the public and solicit comments and suggestions.\nAlthough the comprehensive bill did not pass, the legislature did\napprove the state and local Coastal Resources Management Act which designated\nthe Louisiana Coastal Commission as an autonomous policy and decision making\nbody within the Office of the Governor. The 21-member LCC was directed to\nrecommend to the legislature prior to March 1977 an act establishing the\nframework of a comprehensive state and local coastal management program for\nthe state. The LCC is to disband in August 1978, unless legislatively\nextended.\nMAINE\nCURRENT STATUS:\nMaine is expanding efforts most strenuously in two areas. It is respond-\ning to the desire of coastal towns and communities for additional participa-\ntion and control of coastal management and attempting to plan for the\nanticipated exploration for and production of Outer Continental Shelf oil\nand gas.\nThe state continued to collect information for final boundaries determin-\nation, to nominate and review geographic areas of particular concern, to\nexamine methods of organizing existing legal authorities to meet Federal\nrequirements and to develop a system of determining direct and significant\nimpact.\nMARYLAND\nCURRENT STATUS:\nMaryland's initial efforts in coastal management planning focused on\nbasic research. To date, the state has focused on completing the resources\ninventory necessary to determine geographic areas of particular concern;\ninitiated a study of onshore development associated with OCS activities;\nestablished a public participation framework within which program elements\nmay be reviewed and appropriately modified; completed the draft comprehensive\ndredge spoil disposal plan; completed inventory and analysis of institutions\nand authorities for managing coastal areas to determine the remedial action\nnecessary; and worked with relevant state and Federal agencies and local\ngovernments in an effort to insure consistency as permissible uses of the\ncoast are identified.\n-13-","MARYLAND\nFollowing governmental reorganization that placed primary\nresponsibility for coastal planning under the Energy & Coastal Zone\nAdministration, a clearer course of actions toward coastal program\napproval is emerging. Major objectives of the state's third year of\ncoastal planning are: a greater effort toward soliciting public and\nlocal government participation; work on the Baltimore Metropolitan\nCoastal Area Study; initiation of a coastal use capability study in an\neffort to develop a management mechanism whereby resources information\nmay be used; work with the Department of State Planning to recommend\nlegislative or other action necessary to meet the requirements for\nauthorities and organizational networking; additional emphasis on state-\nfederal coordination; and preparation of the management program document.\nMASSACHUSETTS\nCURRENT STATUS:\nNow in its third year of coastal plan development, Massachusetts\nis intent upon developing an approvable coastal management program\nbased upon existing authorities, coordinated by the Secretary of\nEnvironmental Affairs. The program has used broad-based public parti-\ncipation and involvement to determine direct and significant use\ncharacteristics and geographic areas of particular concern. Federal\ncoordination and public information programs were developed.\nMICHIGAN\nCURRENT STATUS:\nWith its second year of coastal management plan development nearly\ncomplete, Michigan is attempting to resolve a number of management\nquestions. These include determination of a policy for its relationship\nto Federal lands and privately owned lands within Indian reservation\nboundaries. In addition, consideration must be given to determining\nthe lake boundary between Michigan and Ohio.\nMichigan has solicited input from citizens through the Shorelands\nAdvisory Committee, regional advisory committees, meetings and hearings\non the Shorelands Management Act, workshops and a Great Lakes Shorelands\nConference held under the sponsorship of the state legislature. The\nstate was to hold a public meeting in every county and a public hearing\nin each region on the program this summer.\n-14-","MINNESOTA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nMinnesota has received a six-month extension to complete its\nsecond -year work program. It will be completing special studies\non shore erosion and coastal areas soils and geology, mapping alter-\nnative coastal boundaries and developing management policies for\ngeographic areas of particular concern. The state also is studying\nthe Duluth/Superior Harbor and the St. Louis Estuary in its effort\nto designate geographic areas of particular concern. Inventory work\nhas been progressing, but few policy determinations have been made.\nMISSISSIPPI\nCURRENT STATUS:\nMississippi, in its second year of coastal management planning,\nhas made substantive progress in defining boundaries, permissible land\nand water uses and geographic areas of particular concern.\nAmong the work tasks that require stronger focus are a consideration\nof the national interests in facilities siting and state agency inter-\naction on policy matters. The state is continuing to analyze its current\nlegal framework to determine its adequacy and potential for achieving\ncomprehensive coastal management.\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nCURRENT STATUS:\nAs New Hampshire looks toward the January 1977 legislative session,\nit is concentrating its work program in three major areas: drafting\nlegislation, which encompasses a public participation effort, hearings\nand\nFederal coordination; additional technical work necessary to aid in\nthe promulgation of policies and regulations and completing the\nmanagement program package.\n-15-","NEW JERSEY\nCURRENT STATUS:\nMuch of the work accomplished during the past two years has been\nthat mandated under the auspices of the Coastal Area Facilities Review\nAct. In its third year of program development, the state intends to\nbroaden its efforts to meet the specific requirements of the Act for\nthat area of the northern New Jersey coast not covered by the state's\nCoastal Area Facilities Review Act.\nNEW YORK\nCURRENT STATUS:\nRegaining momentum lost during a reorganization of state govern-\nment that necessitated an extension of the first year's grant, the\nNew York coastal management program is attempting to accelerate its\nefforts to formulate a statewide management structure and to fulfill\nprogram requirements so it can apply for management program approval\non a segmented basis.\nDuring the first year, the state took steps toward inventorying,\nmapping and analysis of tidal and freshwater lands. Identification\nof geographic areas and natural areas of particular concern proceeded\nwith a review of studies of natural resource areas. Goals and ob-\njectives were reviewed. Factors that will assist in the delineation\nof coastal boundaries were identified and regional contractors began\nworking on boundary identification. Beginning efforts were made in\npublic participation and intergovernmental coordination.\nNORTH CAROLINA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe North Carolina program, being developed under the mandate of\nthe state Coastal Area Management Act, is in its third year of develop-\nment and the state is drafting the document that will be submitted for\nFederal approval. Momentum also is evident regarding state fulfillment\nof the provisions of its Coastal Area Management Act, under which local\ngovernments have the primary responsibility for plan development. As\nof July 1976, local land use plans were completed and reviewed by the\nCoastal Resources Commission. North Carolina plans to submit a draft\nprogram for review in January 1977.\n-16-","OHIO\nCURRENT STATUS:\nThe momentum of Ohio's coastal planning efforts has picked up,\nfollowing a statewide lay-off caused by revenue constraints that\noccurred in September 1975. As Ohio enters its second year of coastal\nplanning, various issues prevail. These include the need to look at\nurban coastlines, coordinate public participation in state planning\nwithin the tradition of strong home rule and examine the organizational\nstructure it would employ in implementing a coastal management program.\nIn order to be eligible for funding for program implementation,\nthe state must demonstrate that it does have the authority to control\nuses affecting the shore zone. This control may include Federal,\nState and local planning and managing capabilities. The recommendations\nof the legal consultant who reviewed the state and local authorities\nand administrative procedures for the state during the first year was\nthat the state establish two general types of management areas in the\nshoreline zone: areas of minimum management and areas of optimal\nmanagement. Areas of minimum management would provide for direct local\nregulation consistent with state criteria. In areas of optimal manage-\nment, where intensive regulation is deemed desirable because of unique\nvalue, direct state regulations would be exercised.\nOREGON\nCURRENT STATUS:\nOregon is operating under a third-year program development grant\nwhile awaiting Federal review of the draft management program that it\nsubmitted in February 1976.\nOregon has conducted an environmental assessment of its proposed\nmanagement program; is in the process of developing coastal goals,\nassisting local governments in preparing comprehensive land use plans and\nproviding planning assistance grants and is coordinating goals of the program\nwith Federal and state agencies.\nAdditionally, Oregon will attempt to assure that state and\nnational interests are reflected in the management program and will\ninitiate a third phase of a study to utilize and conserve natural\nresources in the Lower Columbia River Estuary.\nOregon's draft program is undergoing Federal environmental impact\nreviews.\n- -17-","PENNSYLVANIA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nInto its third year of coastal management plan development,\nPennsylvania has identified geographic areas of particular concern\nand tentatively established coastal boundaries. It still must con-\ncentrate on various aspects, including adoption of a coastal management\npolicy framework and development of a method and organizational\nstructure to implement its management program.\nGoals and objectives for the program have been determined by those\npersons participating in the management program's development. The\nregional planning commissions have also solicited views on the\nproblems and issues and the regions have prepared documents relating to\nthem. The program is currently formulating long and short term actions,\nin accordance with the goals and objectives of the program, to deal\nwith these problems and issues. Examples of some of these issues are\nerosion control, port development and increased public access.\nPUERTO RICO\nCURRENT STATUS:\nPuerto Rico into its second year of coastal program planning\nis requesting Federal approval for a management plan for the Culebra\nSegment. That area consists of the island of Culebra, several\nsurrounding islands (of which Culebrita, Luis Penya and North Cay are\nthe most important) and the surrounding coastal waters. That area is\nlocated 17 miles east of the island of Puerto Rico. In addition,\nthe Commonwealth continues to refine work being done to enable it to\ngain Federal approval of its entire plan for comprehensive coastal\nmanagement in Puerto Rico.\nRHODE ISLAND\nCURRENT STATUS:\nDuring this fiscal year Rhode Island refined work done in the\nprevious year and prepared a draft coastal resources management program\nthat was submitted for Federal review in July. The Coastal Resources\nManagement Council has been in operation regulating developments along the\ncoastline. The Coastal Resources Center at the University of Rhode\nIsland has served as major staff to both efforts.\n-18-","SOUTH CAROLINA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nSouth Carolina, in its third year of coastal program planning, was\nunsuccessful in its attempt to pass coastal management legislation during\nthe 1976 legislative session. Following substantial staffing changes\nthe program is again focusing on developing legislation for consideration\nduring the 1977 session and on developing a program that meets the\nFederal approval criteria.\nTEXAS\nCURRENT STATUS:\nInto its third year of coastal program development, Texas in\nJuly 1976 stated its directions in the \"Draft Texas Coastal Management\nProgram.\" In the report, the General Land Office recommended that four\nbasic improvements be made in order that the state may improve manage-\nment of its coastal zone. Those recommendations are that the Interagency\nCouncil on Natural Resources and the Environment be restructured to\nserve as a policy-level council for reviewing, proposing and coordinating\ncoastal management policies and activities; an organized information\nsystem be established and housed in the Governor's office; the \"Activity-\nAssessment Routine\" be established for assessing, in advance, the\nprobable economic, environmental and social effects of specific activi-\nties planned for particular coastal locations; and the boundary should\ninclude coastal waters and only those shorelands closely related to\nthose waters.\nVIRGINIA\nCURRENT STATUS:\nStill in its second year of program development planning, Virginia\nhas been primarily involved with data collection and public discussions\nof coastal management. In the second year's work, the Commonwealth\nintends to define its coastal boundary; dráft its procedure for\ndetermining permissible and priority uses for land and water areas;\nformulate management program alternatives for areas of particular concern,\ndefine procedures for Federal involvement in implementation and\nadministration of the coastal plan; continue to involve the general\npublic and various levels of government in program formulation; prepare\na plan outlining integration of agencies required for a comprehensive\nprogram and prepare legislative proposals where needed.\nIn its third year of study, Virginia will define its management\nstrategy, procedure and organization requirements and develop procedures\nwhereby the public will be able to review and comment prior to final\ncoastal management program recommendations.\n-19-","VIRGIN ISLANDS\nCURRENT STATUS:\nNow into its second year of coastal program planning, the Virgin\nIslands has made substantive progress in its data gathering and analysis.\nBoundary determinations are well advanced and procedures for designating\ngeographic areas of particular concern have been identified. It remains\nfor the Virgin Islands to concentrate on coordination of territorial\nagencies and work more specifically with the interests within the Federal\nGovernment. The Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs has been\nidentified as the implementation agency. The Virgin Islands is expected\nto submit its management program for Federal review in early 1977.\nWASHINGTON\nCURRENT STATUS:\nUndertaking the transition from planning to program implementation,\nWashington will be now concentrating on enhancing the role of local govern-\nments in the areas of program administration and enforcement; revising and\nrefining local master programs; conducting studies of particular concern\nto local communities; establishing closer Federal agency coordination and\ndesigning a conflict resolution mechanism; standardizing coastal resource\ndata; and developing model ordinances and guidelines for marine water areas,\nthe Outer Continental Shelf and the second tier of the coastal boundary.\nWISCONSIN\nCURRENT STATUS:\nWisconsin, into its second year of coastal plan development, made\nsubstantive progress toward boundaries determination, took novel approaches\ntoward the issues of regional benefit and conducted a strong public parti-\ncipation program. In looking at the issue of uses, Wisconsin identified\nthe state Environmental Protection Agency's authority to require a state\npermit any time a use affects more than one locality as a possible source\nof regulatory authority. The state could define uses of regional benefit\nas any use required to go through the EPA. As Wisconsin undertakes its\nthird-year program, the issue of organization -- what mechanism will be\nused to implement the management program -- will become important.\n-20-","316 (a) (3)\nITEMIZATION OF THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO THE VARIOUS\nCOASTAL STATES AND A BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJOR PROJECTS\nAND AREAS ON WHICH THESE FUNDS WERE EXPENDED\nWhat follows is a state-by-state listing of planned expenditures\nduring fiscal year 1976 according to budget category. In each case,\nthe total state expenditure is given, meaning that both Federal and\nstate funds are included.\nIn the case of several states, allocations have been made subsequent\nto the end of fiscal year on June 30, 1976, but are charged to the\nstate account for this budget year; such funds are included in the\nstate totals. Funds advanced to the states under the special supple-\nmental appropriation passed at the end of fiscal year 1975 to assist\nplanning for Outer Continental Shelf operations are included. Also\nincluded is any other supplemental funding made available to states\nduring the fiscal period covered.\nThe figures are drawn from the applications for funding under Section\n305 received by the Office of Coastal Zone Management. The budget\ncategory \"indirect charges\" refers to overhead.\nSome of the state figures are small because the basic program operation\noccurred under fiscal year 1975 funding. The only fiscal year 1976\nfunding for such states was via the supplemental appropriation for\nspecial Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas. development analysis and\nplanning.\n-21-","ALABAMA\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$49,450.00\nPersonnel\n7,930.00\nFringe Benefits\nTravel\n4,200.00\n1,200.00\nEquipment\n600.00\nSupplies\n107,030.00\nContractual Services\nConstruction\n--\n9,500.00\nOther\n$180,000.00\nTotal Direct Charges\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$180,000.00\nTOTAL\n-22-","ALASKA\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$ 119,232.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n25,039.00\nTravel\n23,085.00\nEquipment\n4,220.00\nSupplies\n2,560.00\nContractual Services\n1,621,314.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n4,550.00\n$ 1,800,000.00\nTotal Direct Charges\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\nTOTAL\n$ 1,800,000.00\n-23-","CALIFORNIA\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$ 595,035.00\nPersonnel\n98,182.00\nFringe Benefits\n75,179.00\nTravel\n2,034.00\nEquipment\n124,038.00\nSupplies\n703,585.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n147,213.00\nOther\n$ 1,745,266.00\nTotal Direct Charges\nTotal Indirect Charges\n$ 54,734.00\n$ $1,800,000.00\nTOTAL\n-24-","CONNECTICUT\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$ 115,960.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n20,960.00\nTravel\n2,000.00\n3,500.00\nEquipment\n11,900.00\nSupplies\n320,442.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n22,232.00\nOther\n$ 496,994.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n$91,006.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n$ 588,000.00\nTOTAL\n-25-","DELAWARE\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$ 226,000.00\nPersonnel\n46,500.00\nFringe Benefits\n4,000.00\nTravel\n11,000.00\nEquipment\n8,800.00\nSupplies\n262,700.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n25,740.00\nOther\nTotal Direct Charges\n$ 584,740.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$ 584,740.00\nTOTAL\n-26-","FLORIDA\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$229,285.00\nPersonnel\n34,392.00\nFringe Benefits\n44,384.00\nTravel\nEquipment\n--\n5,050.00\nSupplies\n764,508.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n66,881.00\nOther\n$\n1,144,500.00\nTotal Direct Charges\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$1,144,500.00\nTOTAL\n-27-","GEORGIA SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$23,534.00\nPersonnel\n3,966.00\nFringe Benefits\n10,000.00\nTravel\nEquipment\n--\n3,000.00\nSupplies\n60,000.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\nOther\nTotal Direct Charges\n$ 100,500.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n$100,500.00\nTOTAL\n-28-","HAWAII\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$102,114.00\nPersonnel\n11,492.00\nFringe Benefits\n24,640.00\nTravel\nEquipment\n9,801.00\n1,300.00\nSupplies\n535,000.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n65,653.00\nOther\n$ 750,000.00\nTotal Direct Charges\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$750,000.00\nTOTAL\n-29-","LOUISIANA\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$96,806.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n9,285.00\nTravel\n7,137.00\nEquipment\n--\nSupplies\n3,156.00\nContractual\n709,658.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n24,458.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n850,500.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$850,500.00\nTOTAL\nSUPPLEMENTAL\n$214,500.00\nContractual\n$214,500.00\nTOTAL\n-30-","MAINE\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$141,643.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n14,872.00\nTravel\n5,000.00\nEquipment\n5,000.00\nSupplies\n15,000.00\nContractual\n394,140.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n47,390.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n623,046.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n63,910.00\nTOTAL\n$686,955.00\nSUPPLEMENTAL\nPersonnel\n$65,100.00\nFringe Benefits\n7,200.00\nTravel\n5,000.00\nEquipment\n500.00\nSupplies\n4,500.00\nContractual\n118,742.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n--\nTotal Direct Charges\n201,042.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n17,958.00\n$219,000.00\nTOTAL\n-31-","MARYLAND SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\nTravel\n--\nEquipment\nSupplies\n$208,935.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n208,935.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n22,465.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n$231,400.00\nTOTAL\n-32-","MASSACHUSETTS\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$414,109.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n39,048.00\nTravel\n5,300.00\nEquipment\n11,000.00\nSupplies\n11,300.00\nContractual\n117,039.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n97,388.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n695,184.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n2,316.00\n$697,500.00\nTOTAL\nSUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$50,877.14\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n3,929.10\nTravel\n--\nEquipment\n3,000.00\nSupplies\n--\nContractual\n100,926.25\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n4,000.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n162,732.49\nTotal Indirect Charges\n2,763.38\nTOTAL\n$165,495.87\n-33-","MICHIGAN\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$254,449.00\nPersonnel\n45,801.00\nFringe Benefits\nTravel\n--\nEquipment\n--\nSupplies\n--\n302,870.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n--\nTotal Direct Charges\n603,120.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n51,342.00\n$654,462.00\nTOTAL\n-34-","MINNESOTA SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$ 53,723.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n8,058.00\nTravel\n4,040.00\nEquipment\n--\nSupplies\n100.00\nContractual\n253,890.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n2,356.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n322,167.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n18,333.00\n$ 340,500.00\nTOTAL\n-35-","MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\nPersonnel\n--\nFringe Benefits\n--\nTravel\n--\nEquipment\n--\nSupplies\n--\n$ 120,000.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n--\n120,000.00\nTotal Direct Charges\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$ 120,000.00\nTOTAL\n-36-","NEW HAMPSHIRE\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$79,375.00\nPersonnel\n7,150.00\nFringe Benefits\n2,425.00\nTravel\n1,000.00\nEquipment\n8,700.00\nSupplies\n120,100.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n3,250.00\nOther\n222,000.00\nTotal Direct Charges\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$ $222,000.00\nTOTAL\n-37-","NEW JERSEY SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\nPersonnel\n--\nFringe Benefits\nTravel\nEquipment\nSupplies\n$505,500.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\nOther\nTotal Direct Charges\n505,500.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$505,500.00\nTOTAL\n-38-","NEW YORK\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$125,865.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n39,735.00\nTravel\n13,500.00\nEquipment\n1,000.00\nSupplies\n3,000.00\nContractual\n944,300.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n-B\nTotal Direct Charges\n1,127,400.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n42,100.00\nTOTAL\n$1,169,500.00\n-39-","NEW YORK SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$17,210.00\nPersonnel\n5,590.00\nFringe Benefits\n3,500.00\nTravel\nEquipment\n--\n1,600.00\nSupplies\n525,700.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n--\n553,600.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n6,400.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n$560,000.00\nTOTAL\n-40-","NORTH CAROLINA\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$247,793.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n40,010.00\nTravel\n44,834.00\nEquipment\n4,600.00\nSupplies\n10,200.00\nContractual\n384,148.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n64,600.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n796,185.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n30,341.00\n$826,526.00\nTOTAL\nSUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$91,188.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n15,045.00\nTravel\n21,000.00\nEquipment\n2,900.00\nSupplies\n4,000.00\nContractual\n26,529.00\nConstruction\n--\n30,617.00\nOther\nTotal Direct Charges\n191,279.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n22,740.00\nTOTAL\n$214,019.00\n-41-","OHIO\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$ $178,927.00\nPersonnel\n32,206.00\nFringe Benefits\n8,000.00\nTravel\nEquipment\n--\n2,400.00\nSupplies\n312,566.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n43,000.00\nOther\n577,099.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n61,901.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n$639,000.00\nTOTAL\n-42-","OREGON\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$193,441.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n24,032.00\nTravel\n26,300.00\nEquipment\n3,906.00\nSupplies\n8,511.00\nContractual\n1,029,880.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n59,633.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n1,345,703.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$\n$1,345,703.00\nTOTAL\n-43-","PENNSYLVANIA\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$108,932.00\nPersonnel\n26,258.00\nFringe Benefits\n8,585.00\nTravel\n250.00\nEquipment\n500.00\nSupplies\n242,125.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n5,150.00\nOther\nTotal Direct Charges\n391,800.00\n46,200.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n$438,000.00\nTOTAL\n-44-","PUERTO RICO\nBUDGET CATEGORY\nPersonnel\n$413,803.00\nFringe Benefits\n30,521.00\nTravel\n7,000.00\nEquipment\n2,000.00\nSupplies\n4,000.00\nContractual\n--\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n122,214.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n579,538.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n56,747.00\n$636,285.00\nTOTAL\n-45-","RHODE ISLAND SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n--\nTravel Equipment\n--\nSupplies\n$177,600.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n177,600.00\nTotal Direct Charges\nTotal Indirect Charges\n$177,600.00\nTOTAL\n-46-","SOUTH CAROLINA\nBUDGET CATEGORY\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n--\n$4,000.00\nTravel\n2,000.00\nEquipment\nSupplies\n800.00\n618,810.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n500.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n626,110.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$626,110.00\nTOTAL\nSOUTH CAROLINA SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\nPersonnel\n--\nFringe Benefits\n--\nTravel\n--\nEquipment\n--\nSupplies\n--\nContractual\n$74,382.59\n$14,399.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n--\n$ 14,399.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n$74,382.59\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$74,382.59\n$14,399.00\nTOTAL\n-47-","TEXAS\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$232,443.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n61,891.00\nTravel\n10,500.00\nEquipment\n--\nSupplies\n12,000.00\nContractual\n1,027,545.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n94,334.00\nTotal Direct Charges\n1,438,713.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$1,438,713.00\nTOTAL\nTEXAS SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\nPersonnel\n--\nFringe Benefits\n--\nTravel\n--\nEquipment\n--\nSupplies\n--\n$ 349,054.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n--\nTotal Direct Charges\n349,054.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$ $349,054.00\nTOTAL\n-48-","VIRGINIA\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$126,583.00\nPersonnel\n20,253.00\nFringe Benefits\n11,600.00\nTravel\nEquipment\n--\n4,500.00\nSupplies\n433,844.00\nContractual\nN/A\nConstruction\n8,500.00\nOther\nTotal Direct Charges\n605,280.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$605,280.00\nTOTAL\n-49-","VIRGIN ISLANDS\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$125,016.00\nPersonnel\n10,113.00\nFringe Benefits\n10,000.00\nTravel\n4,198.50\nEquipment\n3,000.00\nSupplies\n12,000.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n15,672.50\nOther\n180,000.00\nTotal Direct Charges\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$180,000.00\nTOTAL\n-50-","WASHINGTON (305)\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$191,327.00\nPersonnel\nFringe Benefits\n32,764.00\nTravel\n14,534.00\nEquipment\n--\nSupplies\n15,000.00\nContractual\n696,014.00\nConstruction\n--\nOther\n--\nTotal Direct Charges\n949,639.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n212,861.00\n$1,162,500.00\nTOTAL\n-51-","WISCONSIN SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$38,100.00\nPersonnel\n3,800.00\nFringe Benefits\n1,000.00\nTravel\nEquipment\n--\n12,250.00\nSupplies\n267,650.00\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n9,000.00\nOther\nTotal Direct Charges\n331,800.00\nTotal Indirect Charges\n--\n$331,800.00\nTOTAL\n-52-","GRANT TOTALS\nFY '76 GRANTS AND SUPPLEMENTS\nSECTION 305\nBUDGET CATEGORY\n$4,657,870.14\nPersonnel\n718,092.10\nFringe Benefits\n396,543.00\nTravel\n71,909.50\nEquipment\n281,165.00\nSupplies\n14,570,395.84\nContractual\nConstruction\n--\n964,331.50\nOther\n21,660,308.08\nTotal Direct Charges\n804,116.38\nTotal Indirect Charges\n14,932,004.40\nFederal Funds\n7,532,420.06\nMatching Funds\n$22,464,424.46\nGRAND TOTAL\n-53-","","316 (a) (7)\nSUMMARY OF A COORDINATED NATIONAL STRATEGY AND PROGRAM\nFOR THE NATION'S COASTAL ZONE INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION\nAND DISCUSSION OF FEDERAL, REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL\nRESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS THEREIN\nThe strategy evolved to date in the administration of the Coastal\nZone Management Act of 1972 has been to provide guidance on the\nbasic elements required to enable a state program to be approved at\nthe Federal level, and to allow states maximum leeway within these\nlimits. This approach is inherent in the original Act, which\nrecognizes the need to accommodate the different state political,\nlegal and geographic situations in addressing coastal issues.\nThe relationship of the Federal, state and local levels of government\nin taking part in the program (plus some regional entities) varies,\ntherefore, from state to state and changes even within states if there\nis a change in leadership at the state capital for instance,\nThe overall strategy from the national perspective concerning the\ncoastal areas of the country is to do everything possiblé to encourage the\nstates and territories to organize meaningful management programs.\nThese programs will have as their accomplishment the better utilization of\na finite resource of immense value to the country -- the coastal areas\nand will permit both the protection of this resource and its wisest\nand best use.\nPutting this objective into practice involves changed habits among\ngovernmental entities and possible restraints on property use. The\nrelationships are evolving ones and probably will remain so for the life-\ntime of the program.\nAt the same time, during fiscal year 1976 a number of specific actions\nwere taken affecting intergovernmental relations and the translation of\nnational objectives in the coastal zone into programs designed at state\nlevels in an area traditionally dominated by local governments.\nFor instance, many state programs have openly acknowledged their obligation\nto consider the national interest, as required by Section 306(c) (8) This\nhas meant that states have come to acknowledge the legitimate Federal role\nin coastal areas in areas such as national defense, navigation, trans-\nportation, interstate commerce and fish and wildlife,\nState programs are addressing how state and local governments should relate\ntheir respective authorities to these acknowledged Federal interests. While\nonly one state program is entirely through the Federal review process as\nof June 30, 1976, the prospect is that more enlightened and better\ncoordinated governmental action will follow as a result of the require-\nment in the coastal management program that states closely coordinate their\nwork with affected Federal agencies.\n-55-","Another area of intergovernmental relations which received major\nattention during the year is the clause in the Act which excludes\nFederal lands from state coastal programs. A major question raised\nduring the consideration of the State of Washington program is the\ndefinition of what was meant by the phrase, Federal lands; that is,\nshould the definition be a broad one or narrow. The matter was referred\nto the Department of Justice whose opinion favored the broad inter-\npretation of the Act's language.\nAt the same time, it was acknowledged that even if states were not to be\nallowed to exercise direct control over Federal lands, broadly defined,\nthere is an obligation on Federal agencies to consider the impacts on the\ncoastal zone adjoining their installations. Such impacts have to be\ntaken into account and made consistent with approved programs.\nWithin the Federal agency family, major progress was made during the\nyear in acquainting Federal offices with their obligation under the\ncoastal management program to work with state and local authorities.\nWith assistance from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, 10 Federal\norganizations issued guidelines to their field offices containing\ninstructions on how the offices should make their views known to state\ncoastal program officials.\nAnother aspect of the evolving national strategy with regard to the\ncoastal zone came in the action Congress took during the year to\nstrengthen the coastal management effort. In addition to the present\nsix program requirements, Congress enacted three new elements. These\nareas are an explicit statement of what are national priorities in the\ncoastal zone, new areas which coastal states are obliged specifically\nto take into account in order to be eligible for funding assistance from\nthe national level. The three new elements to be required in the future\nin state coastal programs are: a planning process to provide for improved\naccess to public beaches and other public attractions in the coast, a\nplanning process for the siting of energy facilities which require coastal\nlocations and a planning process to deal with the problem of coastal\nerosion.\nIn each instance, Congress meant that these were aspects of coastal\ndevelopment and protection which states needed to take into account.\nMany states were already working on one or more of the questions when\nthe new requirements were enacted.\nThe national strategy for the coastal zone and the relationship of the\ngovernmental units involved in translating national policy into state\nand local practice are probably the most sensitive areas in the program.\nThese will continue to receive top priority attention at the Federal level\nand will likewise occupy a major share of attention among those\nresponsible for devising state coastal programs that will qualify for\nFederal approval.\n-56-","316 (a) (8)\nSUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS ARISING IN THE\nADMINISTRATION OF THIS TITLE IN ORDER OF PRIORITY\nIn its administration of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,\nthe Office of Coastal Zone Management has encountered a number of\nproblems. Many of these have been identified and adjustments made;\nothers are inherent in the program itself and are not susceptible\nto easy solutions.\nA thorough examination of the program's operation conducted by the\nGeneral Accounting Office, a draft of which was available in May 1976,\npinpointed many areas of difficulty. Recommendations contained in\nthe report have been or are being dealt with.\nThe GAO report, which included a survey of all state coastal programs\nand a detailed inspection of six representative programs, found three\nmajor difficulties. They were: delays in state program development,\ninadequate participation by Federal agencies and inadequate monitoring\non the part of the national coastal zone. office.\nOn the positive side, the General Accounting Office report commented\nfavorably on the Office of Coastal Zone Management's ability to cut\ndown red tape and to provide quick responses to state requests for aid.\nIn accounting for the delays experienced in development of state\ncoastal programs, the General Accounting Office report cited three\nprincipal reasons: lack of readily available state matching money;\nabsence of legal authority at the state level to meet the requirements\nof the national legislation and political opposition to the concept of\ncoastal zone management.\nThe first listed problem area accounting for delay has been recognized\nby the program's national office and has been dealt with by Congress\nwith the addition of a fourth-year period for program development.\nIn addition, the amendments to the basic legislation provides for an\ninterim period of up to two years after a program is fully developed to\nput it into place. For instance, it may be necessary for a state to\nenact legislation in order to meet the requirements for adequate state\nauthority to administer a coastal program. The action this year by\nCongress was explained as recognition that the three-year period originally\nenvisioned was plainly inadequate.\nWith regard to the lack of adequate state authority, the Office of\nCoastal Zone Management has made this a major point in reviewing state\napplications for third-year funding. States have been made to address\nthe problem, if it existed, of how they proposed to meet the Federal\nrequirements that there be demonstrated the authority in law to carry\nout state-designed coastal programs. This includes the ability to\nadminister land and water use regulations, control development in order\nto insure compliance with the management program, resolve conflicts\namong competing users, and override, if necessary, locally made decisions\nwhich adversely affect coastal areas of more than local significance.\nA compilation has been made of each state law which has authorities\naffecting a state's coastal zone.\n-57-","Dealing with the third major reason for delays identified by the General\nAccounting Office report -- political opposition - is obviously difficult,\nespecially with the limitations inherent in a federally-sponsored\nprogram. Nonetheless, increasing emphasis is being placed\non public participation in development of state programs and in providing\ngeneral public information.\nRecognition has been given to the fact that the recent economic downturn\nhas made it especially difficult for any governmental program perceived\nto be a barrier to full and rapid economic development. To the degree\nthat the coastal management effort has been seen by some as an additional\ngovernmental hinderance to full employment, this obviously has hampered\ndevelopment of wide public support for the program.\nEfforts were made in the past year, and will be intensified, to demon-\nstrate that solid coastal management programs will enhance business\ndevelopment in a number of major ways, as with better coordinated\ngovernmental permit actions and more certainty about siting decisions\nin the coasts.\nA second major area identified in the General Accounting Office report for\nimproved management dealt with Federal agency participation in program\ndevelopment by state officials. The issue was brought home dramatically in\nconsideration of the State of Washington program when it became clear, upon\nthe required Federal review, that more work was required to incorporate\nthe legitimate concerns of affected Federal entities. With some effort,\nthis was in fact accomplished for Washington and the program has now\nbeen approved.\nConsideration of the Washington program served to put the Office of\nCoastal Zone Management on alert that more emphasis was needed to insure\nthat state personnel involve directly, and as early as possible, relevant\nFederal officials.\nThe General Accounting Office report pointed out that part of the problem\ninvolved Federal agencies themselves, which in many cases have been\nslow to recognize their obligation to take part in state program develop-\nment since, upon final approval, their actions will be governed by the\nprograms.\nContinued emphasis on this latter point by coastal zone officials in\nWashington led 10 agencies to issue guidance to their regional offices\nregarding their role in dealing with state coastal management personnel.\nWhile this marks a considerable step forward from the conditions described\nby the General Accounting Office, it is certainly not the final solution.\nThe need for expanded discussion among state, local and Federal officials\nwill continue to receive major emphasis in the administration of the\nprogram from the national office.\n-58-","The third major area of deficiency cited by the General Accountinf Office\nhad to do with the nature of the relationship between representatives\nof the national coastal office and the states. Basically, the investi-\ngators found that the national office was emphasizing too heavily the\nprovision of aid to state program personnel and placing too little\nattention to the need to evaluate and monitor state progress.\nPart of the explanation for this, recognized in the report itself, is\nthat the program is a new and innovative one. Another factor is that\npersonnel available to deal directly with state program offices has\nbeen limited. This has resulted in the national office being forced into\nthe function of responding to urgent requests for assistance instead\nof being able to provide the amount of substantive guidance needed.\nPartial recognition of the need to bolster the regional coordination\nfunction within the Office of Coastal Zone Management was given during\nfiscal year 1976. Four regions of the country were made into five, for\nadministrative purposes, and each regional coordinator was provided a\nfull-time assistant.\nAn overall problem facing the national office, inherent in the program,\nhas been how to balance the need to give the lead to the states on the\none hand, with the requirement that certain minimum standards be met\nin order to qualify for Federal funding on the other.\nThe solution effected during fiscal year 1976 was the development of\n\"threshold papers\" on the seven basic requirements of the coastal zone\nlaw. These papers spelled out what the minimum requirements are in each\narea for states to meet. They were designed to take into account the\ndivergence among the states and the possibility that many states would\ntake different approaches. Despite this divergence, the states have to\naccomplish certain basic requirements in order to qualify for either\ncontinued development funding or, even more difficult, for final Federal\napproval and administrative funding which enable states to place coastal\nprograms into operation.\nA major issue which surfaced during the year, and was brought to the\nfore by the Washington State program application, is what is meant by the\nstatutory definition of the coastal zone which excludes lands, the use of\nwhich is by law subject to the discretion of, or which is held in trust\nby, the Federal government. The legal question involved is whether such\nlands, which are to be outside the scope of state coastal programs, are to\nbe defined in a narrow or a broad sense. The impact on state programs\nwould be significant, but since the statutory language was subject to\nseveral interpretations, this impact was unclear. The question was re-\nferred to the Department of Justice whose opinion was that the phrase\nshould be interpreted to include all lands owned by the United States.\nThis does not mean, however, that effects on property outside Federal\ninstallations could be ignored, since the statute requires that Federal\nactivities which directly affect a state's coastal zone be consistent with\nthe state's approved management program to the maximum extent practicable.\nIt is possible that the issue will ultimately end up in court. Because of\nthe problems with the definition, a legislative amendment to clarify\nthe present language may be helpful.\n-59-","","316 (a) (9)\nDESCRIPTION OF THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL\nCONSEQUENCES OF ENERGY ACTIVITY AFFECTING THE COASTAL\nZONE AND AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF\nFINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER SECTION 308 IN DEALING\nWITH SUCH CONSEQUENCES\nThe consequences of energy activity on coastal areas vary with the nature\nof the activity itself and the area affected. In addition, a single energy\nactivity will have several distinct phases, each involving a different\nwork force and having different impacts on the community involved.\nConcern about the topic has increased in recent years as the necessity\nfor the country to expand rapidly its offshore oil exploration and produc-\ntion becomes clear. While most attention has focused on the Outer\nContinental Shelf issue and its implication for coastal areas, other\ncomponents of the energy picture have unmistakable implication for the\ncoasts as well. For instance, importation of petroleum will require\nnew and expanded facilities in coastal areas, including new deepwater\nport sites and facilities for handling liquefied natural gas. Coastal\nsites are frequently proposed for added nuclear plants or other power\nproduction units.\nThe increased pressure to use coastal location for facilities to meet\nthe country's energy needs led Congress to pass legislation this year\nproviding added planning money through the coastal management program\nto examine the implications of various types of facilities. Also,\nthe Office of Coastal Zone Management has gathered and distributed informa-\ntion on the topic to state coastal program managers and is participating\nin current efforts to develop objective information on the nature and\nextent of energy-related impacts on coastal areas.\nIn addition to providing added planning funds for all energy activity\nlikely to locate in the coastal area, Congress added a $1.2 billion impact\nprogram to assist coastal states and communities in managing and controlling\nthe impacts of certain coastal-dependent energy activities.\nWhile estimates vary about the nature and extent of impacts that will\nfollow introduction of the offshore industry and other energy activity\ninto coastal communities, sufficient agreement existed to persuade\nCongress to make aid available in various forms. To make certain that the\naid program does not serve to attract to coastal areas energy facilities\nthat might well be located elsewhere, this aid is restricted to only\nthose energy activities that by their nature must be in the coastal areas.\nLikewise, Congress restricted the purposes for which grants from the\nimpact program may be used and placed primary reliance on loans and bond\nguarantees. These are designed to help communities with one of the\nobvious consequences of coastal energy development communities\nwill\nhave to provide public services and facilities made necessary by new or\nexpanding coastal energy industry and its workers. The concept is that\ntax revenues from additional workers and new plants should enable the\ncommunities to pay back the loans or pay off the bond issue, but that\nthe Federal government should help with the difficulty of acquiring large\nsums of \"front-end\" capital required to serve immediate needs.\n-61-","The new impact program, which will begin to make assistance available by\nmid 1977, also provides grants when areas can show unavoidable environ-\nmental damage as a consequence of a coastal energy activity. The Depart-\nment of Commerce will request funding for the program with the intent\nor providing assistance in Spring 1977.\nThrough the energy impact program, then, Congress has dealt with the most\nobvious consequences of expanded energy activity in the coasts. Communities\nand state governments are aided with loans and bond guarantees to provide\nthe public facilities and services needed. If through no fault of the\ncommunity a loan or bond guarantee cannot be paid off, several types of\naid including direct grants are authorized. Planning needs and environ-\nmental damage can be dealt with through grant assistance.\nThere are, however, other less tangible consequences of new energy\nactivities in the coasts. For instance, there could be a disruption of\nthe work force in a community. Workers could be lured from current\njobs by higher wages connected with the energy industry. In rural areas,\nthe introduction of a major new industry, such as an offshore platform\nproduction plant, may well permanently alter the character of such an\narea and, unless carefully planned, could be disruptive. There is concern\nin Alaska over the implications for native communities where the offshore\nindustry will locate.\nAnother consequence requiring careful planning is the shut-down phase.\nAfter an offshore field is depleted, much of the support facilities\nneeded to sustain production will no longer be needed. Care will have\nto be taken to avoid the boom-bust cycle for communities in such situations.\nThese considerations underscore the aim of Congress in attaching the\nenergy impact program to state coastal management efforts; that is, to\ninsure that impact assistance coincide with good planning so that environ-\nmental damage is minimized, facilities are developed in orderly ways and\nsocio-economic considerations are taken into account.\n-62-","316 (a) (10)\nDESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE INTERSTATE\nAND REGIONAL PLANNING AND COORDINATION MECHANISMS\nDEVELOPED BY COASTAL STATES\nThere are a number of existing mechanisms that permit a degree of interstate\nand regional planning and coordination among coastal states. It is the\nexperience of the Office of Coastal Zone Management that these mechanisms\nneed to be supplemented with special entities devoted exclusively to\ncoastal issues. This will become possible during the coming year with\nthe special 90-percent Federal matching funding made available as one of\nthe new features of the coastal program amendments passed by Congress\non June 30, 1976.\nFederal regional councils have been used successfully in aiding the\nstates. The Atlanta Federal Regional Council, for example, has established\na coastal zone work group. Membership consists of Federal agency repre-\nsentatives at the regional level and offers states and communities a\nmeans of identifying contacts they need in developing their programs\nand a forum where regional concerns can be aired.\nLikewise, the Dallas and Philadelphia Regional Councils have set up\nspecial committees dealing with coastal issues affecting Federal agencies.\nState communications with such bodies allow a sharing of information\namong states of the same area often faced with similar problems.\nAnother vehicle for interstate coastal management are the river basin\ncommissions in the New England and Great Lakes areas. In New England,\nfor instance, the commission has established task forces for both\ncoastal management and to deal with Outer Continental Shelf questions.\nAnother example is the Standing Commission on Coastal Zone Management,\noperating since September 1974, and comprised of the program managers\nof the eight Great Lakes states and representatives of seven Federal\nagencies. An ad hoc body which serves as an informal forum for information\nexchange and issue discussion, the Committee develops common understanding\nand stimulates new coastal zone policy and procedure.\nThe Committee held a workshop on erosion rate measurement techniques\nand control methods in Cleveland this year and has commissioned a study\non alternative energy facility siting policies for the Great Lakes\nshoreline. The Committee plans to develop regional awareness of coastal\nmanagement issues in 1977, and to consider the best procedures for accomplish-\ning Federal consistency in the Great Lakes region.\nExperience with these two bodies has been that state coastal programs\npersonnel are able to exchange technical information in a mutually helpful\nway. Some discussion of regional policy issues also takes place under\nthe auspices of the basin commissions.\nOne of the commissions established under the Economic Development and\nPublic Works Act, the Coastal Plains Commission in the southeast, has been\nactive in coastal management considerations A coastal zone committee\nhas been established with representation from varied levels of government\nto deal with interstate issues from Virginia to Florida.\n-63-","Still another means of tackling regional questions has been established\non the west coast by the Office of Coastal Zone Management. The\nPacific Coastal Forum is a means for program managers in California,\nWashington and Oregon to deal with issues common to the area. One such\nissue has been the possible location of terminals for oil shipped from\nAlaska when the North Slope field begins production. The groups meets\non an as-needed basis.\n-64-","316( (a) (11)\nSUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH, STUDIES, AND\nTRAINING CONDUCTED IN SUPPORT OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGE-\nMENT\nA variety of studies and reports have been undertaken by the Office\nof Coastal Zone Management with the aim of providing guidance to those\nresponsible for developing state programs,\nWith the new authorization for both national and state funding research\nand training activities, the coming year will see increased emphasis in\nthis area.\nIn addition, close liaison with the Sea Grant Program of NOAA has enabled\nthe national office to alert state program personnel of studies done in\nthe marine research centers at major universities around the country supported\nby Sea Grant.\nState program managers often have used funds made available for development\nof state programs to provide needed research. This has been accomplished\ncustomarily by consulting firms, universities or other state agencies,\nResearch completed during fiscal year 1976 in which the Office of Coastal\nZone Management took part includes the following:\n\"Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone\", July 1975.\n\"Methods of Control of Land and Water Uses in the Coastal Zone\",\nOctober 1975.\n\"Coastal Recreation -- A Handbook for Planners and Managers\",\nJanuary 1976.\n\"Coastal Information: A Guide for Organizing and Indexing Information\nCollections\", February 1976.\n\"Coastal Mapping Handbook (draft edition)\" March 1976.\nProjects currently underway include two which deal with the impacts of offshore\npetroleum activity on coastal communities. A report on state information needs\non onshore and nearshore factors involved with offshore petroleum development\nis being undertaken with the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the\nInterior. A second, more extensive study also involves the Coastal Zone\nOffice and the Land Management Bureau, together with the National Science\nFoundation. This study, due to be completed in July 1977, will focus on\nthe quantification of onshore impacts, that is, how to accurately measure\nthe effects on the economy, community budgets, population and the environ-\nment as a result of the offshore industry. A methodology will be devised\nand the Mid-Atlantic region used as a case study.\n-65-","Other studies and reports in preparation include one dealing with port\ndevelopment as it affects coastal management, a handbook on natural hazards\nin the coastal region and means of dealing with same, coastal water use\nmanagement, analysis of state technical information needs for coastal\nprogram development and administration, assessment of the onshore impact\nof a deep sea mining operation and a handbook for energy facility siting.\nResearch areas receiving initial priority attention in the present year\nwill cover such topics as the monitoring of state permit certification\nwith the aim of improving the efficiency of this activity, guidebooks on\nthe facilities made necessary by 10 specific types of energy facilities\nthat might be located in the coastal region, an examination of the dif-\nferent strategies available for providing public access to beaches and\nother coastal development of recommendations for strategies to deal with\nwater use management questions, the seaward lateral boundary question and\nan examination of tourism in the coastal zone,\nIn addition to maintaining a Coastal Zone Information Center in Washington\nfor use by state personnel and other interested persons, the Office of\nCoastal Zone Management has been working to develop coastal regional infor-\nmation resources. A prototype regional information center has been es-\ntablished in the Great Lakes area. A second center is scheduled for New\nEngland this year.\n-66-","Appendix 1\nThe purpose of the Hawaiian estuarine sanctuary is to ensure the long-term\nprotection of a virtually natural area. The acquisition and designation\nas an estuarine sanctuary of the last perennial, undiverted stream on the\nIsland of Hawaii, its tributaries, and essentially its entire watershed, will\nprotect the integrity of this ecological unit indefinitely. The primary\nuses of the sanctuary will be to conduct ecological investigations and to\nserve as a long-term control for assessment of man-introduced stresses in\nother similar areas, particularly the adjacent Waipio Valley. The latter\nvalley is the first of this series of similar valleys ontthe northeast coast\nof the Island of Hawaii to undergo development; thus the information gained\nfrom ecological studies in Waimanu Valley should be of value to the decision-\nmaking processes which occur in Waipio, as well as other similar coastal\nmountain streams.\nThe Governor of Hawaii has vested the authority to carry out the require-\nments of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act in the Department\nof Planning and Economic Development (DPED). The DPED, in accordance with\nthis authority, has established the policy and procedures for the nomination,\nselection and management of the sanctuary site. In compliance with Hawaii's\nAdministrative Procedures Act, the Department of Land and Natural Resources\n(DLNR) has the responsibility for acquiring the non-public landholdings and\nadministering a management program. Approximately 347 acres of the proposed\nsanctuary lands are privately owned while the remainder of the lands are\nunder state ownership, managed by the Division of Forestry under the Depart-\nment of Land and Natural Resources. The privately owned lands are all in\nthe valley floor near the mouth of the stream; presently, however, there are\nno residential, agricultural or commercial activities within the proposed\nsanctuary boundaries. The application provides that the lands not already\nowned by the state may be acquired in fee simple, through direct negotiation\nwith the landowner, or, in the case of Hawaiian Home Lands, through land\nexchanges. Although it is not anticipated that eminent domain would be used,\nthe state has agreed to employ this method of acquisition if no other alternative\nexists. The lands within the proposed boundary that are presently under the\njurisdiction of the Division of Forestry, DLNR, would be declared an area for\nspecial use by a Governor's Executive Order and would then be managed under\nsanctuary guidelines.\nA Management Advisory Committee will be established to guide in the develop-\nment and implementation of plans concerning the sanctuary. The Committee\nwill also act as a liaison with the public to develop greater understanding\nof the coastal zone management program in general and the estuarine sanctuary\nprogram in particular. There are two existing bodies which could possibly act\nas the Management Advisory Committee. One is the Natural Area Reserves\nCommission which was established by law to advise the governor and DLNR on\nareas suitable for inclusion in the state's Natural Area Reserves System\nand to recommend permitted uses of the areas established as reserves. The\nCommission is, however, administered by the DLNR. The state would prefer the\nManagement Advisory Committee to be administratively and politically independent\nof DLNR policies. As a Commission with statewide interests, it was also felt\nthe Commission may not adequately represent the local interests of the Island\nof Hawaii.\n-67-","An alternative Management Advisory Committee to the Reserves Commission could\nbe the Hawaii Outdoor Center Board. This Board was established several years\nago by the Hawaii 2000 Commission. Four years ago Hawaii 2000, Inc. was\nestablished to discuss and explore the goals of the State of Hawaii for the\nyear 2000. This endeavor led to the establishment of the Hawaii 2000 Commission.\nThis Commission on the Island of Hawaii became very effective in matters\nconcerning environmental education for increasing scientific understanding.\nLocal support and interest are very strong and the Commission has continued\nto thrive after the completion of the original Hawaii 2000, Inc. program.\nSince that time its interests and local support have broadened. The Hawaii\nOutdoor Center Board, established by the Commission several years ago, is\ncomposed of specialists from a variety of fields, including a marine biologist\nand local citizens. Its objectives revolve around preservation and environ-\nmental education. The board is on good working terms with the Division of\nForestry, local scientists and the general public. Because of their knowledge\nand interest in the Island af Hawaii, their scientific and educational objec-\ntives, and their close ties with the community, the state feels this board would\nbe the ideal choice for the Management Advisory Committee. The Hawaii 2000\nCommission and the Hawaii Outdoor Center Board have taken this proposal\nunder consideration.\nSince the area is presently uninhabited and relatively inaccessible, the\nmonitoring of scientific experiments, protection of the investment of\nscientific equipment, and the enforcement of regulations could best be handled\nby a resident manager. This person would not necessarily be a scientist but\nwould be trained to monitor any equipment left in the valley. Whoever was\nchosen would also have to establish and maintain a good rapport with visitors\nand residents of the area who use the valley. This person would be on the\nstaff of the DLNR, probably within the Forestry Division.\nThe presence of a resident manager and occasional scientists will necessitate\nthe construction of two shelters. They will be built on the east side of the\nvalley, 460 meters (1500 feet) from the beach on an elevated shelf above the\nold trail. These shelters will house the resident manager's quarters and\nprovide space for scientists or visitors. The site would provide protection\nfrom flooding and tidal waters; no channelization or other flood preventative\nmeasures would be taken since temporary flooding from heavy rains is a natural\noccurrence here. Water supplies would be provided by catchments or a well.\nSewage disposal facilities would be constructed to have minimal impact on the\nenvironment.\nProhibited uses include mining, clearing, logging, construction of buildings\nor campsites (other than the scientific shelters), introduction of exotic\nflora or fauna, removal of native species of flora or fauna (except for hand\nclearing about certain archeological and historical sites), anchoring of\nvessels within the bay or stream, and alteration or destruction of any arch-\neological or historical sites. In addition, no improvements to accommodate\nhelicopters or boats will be allowed, nor would water diversion from the pro-\nposed sanctuary be permitted. Restricted uses, those which will be permitted\nbut under control, include angling for marine fish, removal of the Rahitian\nprawn from the stream (removal of this exotic introduced species is considered\n-68-","desirable), access to the valley trails and interpretive trails, and research\n(most manipulative research, however, would not be permitted). In addition,\ntrails would be improved to allow safer and easier access to the valley.\nAlthough boats or helicopters may be used for emergency rescue service,\nand to bring in major supplies and scientific instruments, no improvements\nwould be made to accommodate them.\nCamping by visitors not housed in the manager's quarters or scientific\npersonnel shelter will be permitted in designated locations just outside\nthe sanctuary boundaries. The two sites on either si e of the valley would\nminimize the impact of man on the valley and would be located high enough\nto protect the campers from flooding or tsunami and wild pigs. No effort\nwould be made to protect the valley from floods, since floods are a natural\noccurrence here.\nThe valley has been used by local hunters for many years and the hunting of\nwild pigs will be permitted and initially encouraged. Since the wild pig\npopulation (an introduced species) is presently causing considerable destruction\nin the valley and is a threat to anyone within the valley, the long-te\nobjective would be to phase out the feral population at Waimanu and encourage\nthe use of other areas for hunting. Specific regulations concerning hunting\ninclude designated hunting areas, required permits, and check-in and check-out\nwith the resident manager. In addition, no cleaning will be permitted within\n15 meters (50 feet) of any stream, and any carcasses must be buried. The\npermit system and the check-in, check-out system with the resident manager should\nprovide adequate control and monitoring over hunting activities.\nSwimming could be allowed in the bay; however, it will be strongly discouraged\nbecause of the persistent strong undertows and the frequent occurrence of\nsharks in the bay.\n-69-","","Appendix 2\nThe Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee serves as an advisory body to\nthe Secretary of Commerce on matters pertaining to the implementation of the\nCoastal Zone Management Act. This body is made up of 15 members coming from\ndifferent regions and representing a variety of points of view. Its chairman\nis the Associate Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric\nAdministration (NOAA).\nDuring the Fiscal Year 1976, the Advisory Committee held four meeting, three\nin Washington and one in the Virgin Islands. Six new members were appointed\nfor three year terms to replace those members whose terms had expired.\nThe Committee discussed a wide range of topics including coastal user group\ninvolvement in coastal management, extended fisheries jurisdiction, coastal\nmanagement technical assistance to states, excluded Federal lands in coastal\nmanagement, program evaluation, the California program and how it applies to\nother state efforts, a review of 306 approval criteria and an analysis of the\ncoastal energy impact fund. Additional topics dealt with other Federal agency\nactions and how they might impact state coastal management programs.\nAt the September 11-12, 1975, meeting in Washington, D. C., , a resolution was\npassed recommending that the coastal program manager for the state be given\nthe responsibility for establishing research and training priorities under\nSection 310 of the Act. A resolution passed in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands,\non January 15 supporting Congressional enactment of the amendments to the\nCoastal Zone Management Act, S. 586. The Washington, D. C., , meeting during\nMay 1976 produced a resolution asking the Administrator of NOAA to examine the\nimplications of H.R. 6218, Outer Continental Shelf legislation before Congress,\nand its impact on coastal management.\nThe committee formed a task force on state assistance to assist states with\npublic participation, an area which state coastal zone managers indicated\nrequires assistance from the national level. Two committee members have\nassisted the Great Lakes states by individually conferring with state coastal\nzone managers and their staffs on methods of enhancing specific state public\nparticipation programs and at regional meeting.\nItems of continuing concern to the Committee are the relationship of new\nOuter Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing with the design, formulation, and\napproval of the coastal management programs of the states; the excluded\nFederal lands issue; and the integration of the energy impact program under\nthe new legislation with the basic coastal zone management program.\n-71-","","COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE\nChairman: Dr. John W. Townsend, Jr.\nExecutive Secretary: Dr. Richard J. Keating\nAssociate Administrator\nCongressional Liaison\nNat'1. Oceanic and Atmospheric\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management\nAdministration (NOAA)\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.\n6010 Executive Blvd.\n3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.\nRockville, Maryland 20852\nWashington, D.C. 20235\nMembers:\nHonorable Tom McCall\nAdams, Janet K.\nNews Commentator, KATU-TV\nPresident, California\n2300 S.W. Broadway Drive\nCoastal Alliance\nPortland, Oregon 97201\nPost Office Box 4161\nWoodside, California 94062\nMcWilliam, John A.\nGeneral Manager & Chief Executive Officer\nAllen, Donald G.\nToledo-Lucas County Port Authority\nVice President\n241 Superior Street\nNew England Electric System\nToledo, Ohio 43604\n20 Turnpike Road\nWestboro, Massachusetts 01581\nMoody, 0. William\nAdministrator, Maritime Trades Dept.\nBertrand, Emanuel\nAFL-CIO\nWashington, D.C. 20006\nGeneral Manager\nLagoon Marina\nSt. Thomas, V.I. 00801\nMoseley, Dr. Joe C.\nExecutive Director, Texas Coastal\nCahn, Robert\nand Marine Council\nWriter-in-Residence\nPost Office Box 13407\nAustin, Texas 78711\nThe Conservation Foundation\n1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nNayudu, Dr. Y. R.\nMarine and Coastal Zone Resources\nHerdendorf, Dr. Charles E.\nManagement Counsultant\nBox 323, Mile 21/2 Glacier Highway\nCenter for Lake Erie Area Research\nJuneau, Alaska 99801\n484 West 12th Avenue\nOhio State University\nColumbus, Ohio 43210\nSavit, Carl\nSenior Vice President, Technology\nWestern Geophysical Company\nJennings, Ann\nPost Office Box 2469\nConservation Chairman\nS.C. LaConte Chapter, Sierra Club\nHouston, Texas 77001\n4822 Carter Hill Road\nSpellman, John (Vice Chairman)\nColumbia, South Carolina 29206\nCounty Executive\nKing County Courthouse\nJones, Robert P.\nSeattle, Washington 98104\nExecutive Director\nSoutheastern Fisheries Association\nWhitney, Scott C.\n330 South Adams Street\nProfessor of Law - College of William & Mary\nTallahassee, Florida 32301\nWilliamsburg, Virginia 23122\n* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977--240-848/116\n-73-"]}