III. SUMMARY OF STATE ACTIVITIES

There is great divergence among the 28 States and Territories taking part in the Coastal Zone Management Program in Fiscal Year 1974. Beyond obvious differences in size, region and extent of present development along the coasts, there are major differences in political systems within the States and differences in levels of public support for coastal management activity.

Despite the wide variances among the States, many common problems emerge. The Coastal Zone Management Act has served in its first year to cause States to begin to take thorough looks at just what the nature of the coastal area problem is. Many states had on their own begun to address one or more of their problem areas; the coastal zone management program marks for nearly all States the beginning of a comprehensive approach to these problems.

The most often mentioned problem the States see is the absence of a coordinated government approach to coastal activities between Federal, State and

local groups and regional bodies as well. Many States, in their applications for matching funds to begin program development, speak of overlapping jurisdictions, absence of clear governmental authority, single purpose agencies or governmental units operating independently and the lack of an overall plan or policy for the coasts. These deficiencies are precisely ones which the Coastal Zone Management Act is designed to overcome.

Other problems which States cite with varying degrees of emphasis include the following:

Multiple demands from competing sources for limited areas of land and

dilemma facing them. Other States in their applications for

initial program development funding did not make specific mention of competing uses, but the conflict was implied.

Access to coastal areas for leisure activity by the general public. Restricted access to beaches specifically, and absence of access to open coastal areas in general, is a major concern for many States. Especially true for heavily populated metropolitan areas, the problem also exists for less populated areas where most coastal lands are in private hands.

Water quality problems exist in many State coastal regions. A number

of the States place restoration of water quality (and air quality)

in their coastal regions as a primary program objective.

of State program designs is presented in the appendix.)

(A summary

Absence of needed data is a problem for many of the State coastal zone management program developers.

In some cases, the problem seems to be

one of fragmentation, where the data is available but spread about,

while in other States the program developers feel the data is not

available.

Erosion is listed by all of the Great Lakes States and a number of others as a major problem to be addressed. Coastal zone management programs

will have to be designed to guide future growth away from erosion-prone

The need to accommodate industrial and commercial expansion,

without environmental damage, is a recurring theme. While coastal

areas as a whole have experienced rapid population expansion in recent years (which is itself a cause of many of the problems facing a number of States), not all regions have had this experience. Many coastal counties have lost population and the need is expressed to revive employment opportunities in these areas to make them viable. At the same time, there is recognition of the need to preserve the coastal region ecology to the extent feasible.

Wetland destruction has occurred in many coastal areas. Where this is felt to be a problem, coastal zone management programs will have to guide future activities away from valuable wetlands and still provide for needed facilities, such as pipelines which in the past may have

been routed through low-lying areas.

Energy-related facility siting poses major problems for a number of States. Pending offshore oil and gas development, possible location of superports with attendant landside facilities, power plant sites near water for cooling, and expanded petroleum refinery capacity are among the demands being made on some coastal areas. Pressure for accommodating these types of facilities has increased during Fiscal Year 1974 as partial answers to the country's energy needs. At the same time, population pressures place greater demands on the same coastal areas for recreation uses which in some instances are not

Increased home construction, either the year-round or second
home variety, is taking place in many coastal areas and not
always with sufficient attention to the carrying capacity of
the land or adjoining waters. The States with this type of
problem see the need to control this type of development in
the future to help head off public expense required to compen-
sate for inadequate site planning.

Fishing problems, both for commercial and sport usage, are
cited by several States. Particularly important are the com-
mercial fleets which have had to curtail activities or the
absence of opportunity for sport fishing in areas previously
sought out by anglers. Pollution and over-fishing, plus natural

phenomenon, are among the factors at work.

All of the States participating in the coastal zone management program have begun to address the problems seen by those charged with preparing comprehensive coastal management efforts. For all but a few of the States which had begun similar activity on their own in the past, Fiscal Year 1974 marks the first occasion that detailed and thorough looks have been taken at the range of problems existing in coastal areas. This activity is a first step toward devising management programs designed to solve or alleviate coastal problems.

Fiscal year 1974 saw the establishment, subject to State legislature approval, of the first estuarine sanctuary in the country under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The action was preceded by years of studies and recommendations suggesting that certain valuable estuary areas be set aside, before they were permanently altered for use by future generations, to serve as benchmarks.

On June 27, 1974, a 50 percent matching grant was given the State of Oregon to help enable it to acquire and operate an approximately 4,200-acre sanctuary on the South Slough of Coos Bay, located south of the community of Charleston on the lower third of Oregon's Pacific Ocean coastline.

Earlier in the fiscal year, guidelines for use by States in making

applications were published.

environmental impact statement.

The issuance of the grant was accompanied by an

In the Oregon sanctuary, about 700 acres are already in State possession. The plan is to acquire the remainder by negotiation, either outright or by the State acquiring a partial interest which will enable it to control future

use.

The purpose of the South Slough sanctuary is to ensure its permanent existence as a representative estuarine sample for use as a natural field laboratory. Direct ecological observations of the sanctuary will permit assessments of the impact of man's activities on similar areas. The direct application of this type of information to coastal zone management decision