sources Commission, the State Coastal Resources Advisory Committee, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In all States, sub-units of the above organizations provided information. In addition, private citizens not affiliated with any organization were interviewed in each State.

The Committee thanks the headquarters personnel of Federal agencies for their participation in this study. Appreciation is also extended to the Office of Coastal Zone Management for its assistance in the report.

Finally, the Committee is grateful to the individuals who commented upon earlier drafts of the manuscript. Many of their suggestions have been addressed in this report. The responsibility for the findings and recommendations herein, of course, resides with the Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee.

SUMMARY

"This study is both timely and important due to Congressional reauthorization hearings on the Federal program next year, fiscal year 1980 budgetary decisions which may establish future program funding levels, court cases involving the implementation of State programs, and the significance of formulating a comprehensive oceans policy in the Carter Administration." (p. iii)

"[T]he Committee intends to pursue its recommendations in all appropriate forums." (p. iv)

"Most observers agree that demands upon the Nation's coastal areas have increased during the 1970's. . . . Indeed the need for coastal zone management ... is greater today than it was [in] 1972]." (p. 1)

"The objective of this inquiry is to examine the depth and breadth of the coastal zone management constituency. This constituency is important since coastal zone programs will ultimately be judged in the political arena. . . . As a panel of private citizens... the Committee is in a unique position to address the... constituency issue." (pp. 1-2)

"The development and implementation of State coastal zone management programs consists of four stages: data collection and issue analysis, program formulation, program adoption, and program management. One State in each of these categories was examined...." (p. 5)

"[In Ohio] several key assumptions of coastal management. . . are not present." (p. 7)

"An Ohio management program must be cast in such a way so as to enhance coastal resources in a tangible, easily comprehensible manner." (p. 9)

"Like Ohio, but unlike California, there does not seem to be a sense that Louisiana's coast faces very real dangers. The program, therefore, is seen more as another source of Federal funds to add to State and local budgets and less as a way for the State to deal with its coastal problems." (p. 12)

"[A]lthough North Carolina expressed interest in coastal management before the passage of the national Act in 1972, it has been encouraged and strengthened by Federal money, support, and leadership." (pp. 16-17)

"The... States, in very different ways, demonstrate the significance of establishing and maintaining a constituency for balanced use of the coastal zone. . . . Coastal zone management agencies must continue to inform people and build citizen support. . ." (p. 17)

...

"Nearly all [Federal] agencies believe that the establishment of a coastal zone management program is a task of considerable magnitude. . . . [However,] comments concerned (1) the lack of evidence that agency views were thoughtfully considered, (2) the unsatisfactory nature of State coastal zone management plans, and (3) the future of the Federal program." (p. 20)

"A variety of specific changes were suggested by individual administrators...." (p. 21)

"All agencies believe that a basic reason for the Federal relations problems described above is that the Office of Coastal Zone Management acts as a "lobby" for States." (p. 22)

"[T]here does not appear to be undue concern about the future of coastal zone management among Federal officials. Most respondents recommend that States should continue to receive interim program development funding until they are fully prepared for program approval." (p. 22)

"In general, it was found that the demanding work necessary to formulate and approve programs meant the important, long term issues did not receive the attention they deserved." (p. 26)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

"[S]erious constituency problems for coastal zone management... have developed. [They] are... (1) limited public participation, (2) the lack of State program specificity including the Federal consistency and national interest provisions of the Act, and (3) future funding issues in coastal management." (p. 26)

"The Committee found that there is a lack of understanding of coastal management in the country. If this situation is as pervasive as it appears, no concerned individual, user group, or government agency can effectively articulate its concerns." (p. 27)

"Rational use of the coastal zone . . . will not occur without a high degree of civic awareness. . . . The Committee advises the Secretary of Commerce to initiate immediately a major public awareness and participation effort. . . ." (p. 27)

"If Congress and the nation desire careful management of coastal resources, the type of initiative discussed above is a mandatory first step...." (p. 29)

"Deliberations. . . on these two important provisions of the national law, [Federal consistency and national interest], are significant building blocks in establishing and maintaining a constituency for coastal zone management." (p. 29)

"These provisions of the Act . . . have created considerable uncertainty and tend to undermine public and private sector confidence in the coastal management process." (p. 30)

"The Committee recommends that the Secretary take action to insure that an adequate level of specificity include ... (1) definition of performance standards regarding specificity of State program elements . . ., (2) monitoring of consistency determinations over time as a gage of specificity, and (3) a review of Office of Coastal Zone Management procedures concerning Federal agency views, informal efforts to resolve differences, responses to serious disagreements, and the use of mediation as prescribed by the Act." (p. 31)

"[T]he Committee recommends that a policy document be prepared by the Office of Coastal Zone Management that describes what constitutes the adequate consideration of the national interest." (p. 32)

"It was found that the availability of Federal money was crucial to the establishment of comprehensive coastal programs in nearly all States." (p. 33)

"The Committee . recommends that selected States which have made significant progress deserve an extension of preliminary program approval funding for a limited period. . . ." (p. 34)

"It is the consensus of the Committee, however, that States not making meaningful progress should be dropped from the program." (p. 34)

"In light of the importance of Federal monies in establishing State programs and the need to extend that support, an abrupt cut-off of program implementation funds would be detrimental to the balanced use of coastal resources and clearly not in the national interest." (p. 34)

"[T]he Committee recommends a gradual phase-down of Federal monies for operating programs. . . . The matching Federal share should drop from the current 80 percent to 66% percent, 50 percent, and 33% percent over a 10-year period. . . . If the State coastal zone management effort does not have enough support to obtain the necessary monies from its legislature, it is doubtful that it could engage in a meaningful, comprehensive program under any circumstances." (pp. 34-35)

"Since the Federal share of administrative costs is to be reduced, the Committee recommends that special assistance coastal pro