For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

OF

COMMERCE

UNITED STAY

OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Rockville, Maryland 20852
Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee
3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

Honorable Juanita M. Kreps
Secretary of Commerce
Washington, D. C. 20230

Dear Madam Secretary:

I have the honor to submit to you Public Support
for Coastal Zone Management Programs: The Implementation
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The report
is the product of a major part of the Advisory Committee's
work program for this fiscal year.

The 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.

We are pleased to be able to comment upon such subjects as
public support for coastal anagement, the specificity
of coastal management programs, the Federal consistency
and national interest provisions of the Federal Act, and
future funding for the Federal program.

Our recommendations are:

(1)

the initiation of a major coastal zone management
public awareness and participation effort (please
see p. 43);

(2)

a.

the establishment of an adequate level of program
specificity to include

a definition of performance standards regarding

specificity of state program elements,
b. the monitoring of consistency determinations

over time as a gauge of specificity, and
a review of the Office of Coastal Zone
Management Federal relations procedures (p. 50);

C.

(3)

the preparation of a policy document by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management that describes what constitutes
the adequate consideration of the national interest
(pp. 51 - 52);

(4)

extension of preliminary program approval funds for a
limited period (p. 54);

(5)

deletion from the program of states not making adequate
progress (p. 54);

(6)

a gradual phase down of Federal monies for operational
programs (p. 55);

(7)

an increase in size and number of special assistance
coastal programs and their linkage to state participation
in coastal zone management (p. 56);

(8)

an "evolutionary" approach to the future of coastal zone
management as, the most desirable and feasible at this
time (p. 58).

run.

All of these recommendations will protect the Federal investment in the nation's coasts and will save public funds in the long

Indeed, many of the recommendations can be implemented with existing resources. In general, the Committee has been impressed by the fact that despite limited resources, significant accomplishments in coastal zone management have occurred. It is now time to refine and strengthen that effort in light of the evidence presented in this report.

The Committee was established by P. L. 92-583 on October 27, 1972 and was directed to make recommendations to your office concerning the implementation of the Act. With your assistance, the Committee intends to pursue its recommendations' in all appropriate forums. Please be advised that the Committee has been requested to testify before Congress in the near future.

June 9,

1978

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter of Transmittal
Acknowledgements
Summary
Findings and Recommendations
Introduction
Implementation of Coastal Zone Management Programs

in the States
Implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act:

A View From Federal Agencies
Implications of the Findings
Conclusion
Appendix: The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,

As Amended

5

19

25 37

39

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Committee wishes to express its appreciation to those agencies which, by making their personnel available, make this report possible. In Ohio, these organizations include the League of Women Voters, Ohio Environmental Council, Lake County Shoreline Advisory Group, Ohio Geological Survey, Lake Carriers Association, Ohio Conservation Foundation, Regional Planning Commission for Cayahoga County, City of Cleveland Planning Office, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Greater Cleveland Boating Association, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Electric Utility Institute, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, and the Ohio State legislature.

The organizations contacted in Louisiana include Shell Oil Company, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, Louisiana Coastal Commission, Port of New Orleans, Jefferson Parish Council, Louisiana Ecology Center, Sierra Club, Department of Transportation and Development, Office of the Governor, Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, Office of the Mayor of Morgan City, Morgan City Chamber of Commerce, St. Bernard's Planning Commission, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Orleans Parish Planning Commission, Plaquemines Parish Planning Commission, and the Louisiana State legislature.

In North Carolina, these organizations include North Carolina State University, Department of Administration, University of North Carolina, League of Women Voters, Department of Agriculture, Office of Marine Affairs, Conservation Foundation, State Utilities Commission, North Carolina Petroleum Council, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Coastal Re