protection, two programs spent more than 50 percent of their resources on this topic, and two programs spent less than 10 percent. While there is a national concern with each of the seven subject areas, the incidence of each particular issue is not uniformly distributed around the country. Port expansion may be a major concern for one state while another may not even have nor need a commercial port. This diversity of interest and need is reflected in state and territorial program activity. For five subject areas, at least two programs did not devote any CZMA funds to that subject. However, other state programs devoted significant attention to each of these subjects. Twelve programs devoted more than 10 percent of their funds to public access improvements, nine over 10 percent for natural resource development, eight over 10 percent for both hazard area mitigation and urban waterfronts, and two over 10 percent for ports issues. This study confirms that the CZMA has been successful in one of its key objectives— establishing a national program that incorporates state diversity. The states and territories are devoting the bulk of their attention to two key subjects, improving government decision-making and protecting the coast's natural resources, but the states and territories have retained the interest and ability to address other national interest areas where they exist and need management attention. Another striking finding of the study is how much has been done with limited resources. Coastal zone management has not been lavishly funded in the United States. Annual federal expenditures for program implementation in the study period were on the order of $34.75 million. The total federal grants for program implementation for the 6-year detailed analysis period was $190 million. These funds were spread among 29 participating state and territorial programs and were used to address the wide variety of subjects noted above. This fact should be kept in mind as the program accomplishments are discussed below. For example, $15.3 million was devoted over 6 years to hazards mitigation. Yet this modest investment has produced significant results. Thirteen states have instituted shore front setback programs. Studies have been completed to determine erosion rates. Plans have been developed for storm evacuation and post-storm rebuilding. Flood warning and shore protection plans have been developed. Critical hazard areas have been purchased for open space and recreational use. Coastal managers played a critical role in securing reform of the flood insurance program to promote relocation and other pre-storm loss reduction measures. As Hurricane Hugo so graphically proved in the Virgin Islands and South Carolina in 1989, coastal storms put billions of dollars of public and private development at risk every year. The coastal management projects undertaken by the state programs will significantly reduce these losses in the future. These data also confirm that through the constructive use of financial assistance, state priorities can be shifted to devote greater attention to critical national policy concerns. The clearest example of this is found in the expenditure information on public access to coastal resources. For the first 3 years of the detailed study period, 1982-84, expenditures on public access averaged $1.7 million per year. In 1985 funds were for the first time made available under Section 306A for land acquisition and low cost construction projects to improve public access. For the final three years of the detailed study period, 1985-87, expenditures on public access increased to an average of $5.7 million per year. Part of this increase can be attributed to higher overall funding levels for Sections 306 and 306A. However, the allocations by the states for public access relative to other subjects also rose dramatically after 1985. In 1982-84, public access received an average of 6.25 percent of available funds. In 1985-87, this rose to 13.67 percent. Section 306A has been popular with the states and territories. Of the 28 states that received program implementation grants in 1985-87, seventeen exercised the option of using some of their funds for Section 306A funding. In all, the states and territories devoted an average of 12.67 percent of each year's available funds to these projects. Public access projects were the leading use of these funds. By adjusting the eligibility standards to allow broader use of funds for installation of beach access projects, the states' and territories' relative effort on public access was doubled. It is difficult to make generalized conclusions about these 29 individual programs. The individual programs vary significantly, as do their coasts and their development pressures. Some programs directly regulate development to protect environmental resources. Others primarily play a role of coordinator, broker, or facilitator amongst other line agencies at the state and local level (Born and Miller 1988). This collection of 29 uniquely designed state and territorial programs does serve important national interests. Through a variety of methods, government decision-making on coastal issues and natural resource protection has been improved in every participating state and territory. Where warranted, careful attention is also being given to other key issues, such as improved public access to the coast, better management of development in natural hazard areas, and development of coastal natural resources. Some programs are undoubtedly more active and more effective than others. Six states are not participating in the CZMA at all. Yet most of the nation's coastline is covered by an approved coastal management program and the aggregate of their efforts will result in a coastal zone that is healthier, more productive, and more attractive for the long term benefit of the nation. REFERENCES Born, Stephen M.; Allen H. Miller. Assessing Networked Coastal Zone Management Programs. Coastal Management 16:229-243; 1988. Burgess, James P. Status of the Coastal Program-A Federal Perspective. In Coastal Zone '89. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers; 1989. Coastal States Organization. America's Coasts: Progress & Promise. 1989. Coastal States Organization. Coastal Management-A Sound Investment. 1989 Coastal States Organization. Coastal Management-Options for the '80's Final Report. 1979. De Grove, John M. Land Growth & Politics. Chicago: APA Planners Press; 1979. Fischer, Michael L. California's Coastal Program: Larger-Than-Local Interests Built into Local Plans. J. American Planning Association. 51:312-321; 1985. Guy, William E., Jr. Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program: A Critical Analysis. Coastal Zone Management Journal. 11:219-245; 1983. Kinsey, David N. Lessons from the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. J. American Planning Association. 51:330-336; 1985. Knecht, Robert W. Coastal Zone Management: The First Five Years and Beyond. Coastal Zone Management Journal. 6:259-272; 1979. Matuszeski, William. Managing the Federal Coastal Program: The Planning Years. J. American Planning Association. 51: 266-274; 1985. McCrea, Maureen; James H. Feldman. Interim Assessment of Washington State Shoreline Myers, Jennie C. America's Coasts in the '80's: Policies & Issues. Washington, D.C.: The Coast Alliance; 1981. Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce. The First Five Years of Coastal Zone Management: An Initial Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1979. Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Managing the Nation's Coast: Biennial Report to the Congress on Coastal Zone Management for Fiscal Years 1980 and 1981. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1982. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Biennial Report to the Congress on Coastal Zone Management for Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1984. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Coastal Management: Solutions to Our Nation's Coastal Problems. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 101. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce; 1988. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Coastal Management Solutions to Nonpoint Source Water Pollution. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 102. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce; 1990a. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Coastal Management Solutions to Natural Hazards. (Draft). Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 103. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce; 1990b. Owens, David W. Coastal Management in North Carolina: Building a Regional Consensus. J. American Planning Association. 51:322-329; 1985. U.S. General Accounting Office. Problems Continue in the Federal Management of the Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office; 1980. U.S. General Accounting Office. Resource Management: Information on the Coastal Zone |