THE COASTAL SOCIETY Vol. 6, No.1, APRIL, 1982

Table of Contents

TCS News

Proceedings Available ............................................................ 2 TCS and Coastal Zone 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

Coastal News

Changes in Federal Funding - Three Perspectives Revisited South Carolina Consortium. One Year Later - Margaret Davidson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Is There a Future for Coastal Management Programs? - Arthur Rocque, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 The National Sea Grant College Program in FY 82 and FY 83 - Kathryn Tollerton . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary - From Expectations to Reality to Expectations - Dr. Kris Thoemke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . .. 8

Southeastern Coastal Study Available ............................................... , 9 Renewable Natural Resources Foundation Announcements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Meeting of Interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Protecting New Jersey's Shore - Four Perspectives

The State Perspective - David Kinsey ............................................ 10 The Scientific Perspective - Norbert Psuty ......................................... 12 The Local Perspective - Kenneth Smith ........................................... 13 The Legal Perspective - Thomas Norman ......................................... 14

Regular Features

Legal Column - Richard Hildreth and Ken Schoolcraft . ..........................•......... 16 Washington Column - Thomas Bigford . .............................................. 18 International Column - Patrick McCombs . .............................•.............. 21 Book Review: Islands, Capes and Sounds: The North Carolina Coast -

David Cottingham, Virginia Lee .................................................. 23 Coastal Zone Management Journal - Future Issues ...................................... 25 Congressional Hearings of Note ..................................................... 26

2

TCS News Proceedings of Estuarine Sanctuary Workshop Available

The Coastal Society and the Georgia Conservancy announce availability of the proceedings of their work­shop on 'The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program," held at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1979_ The workshop, which attracted about 50 participants including man­agers of each established sanctuary and which was supported by NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Manage­ment, was convened:

1) to identify problems affecting the program; 2) to develop potential solutions to the problems

identified; 3) to provide increased communication between

sanctuar,y managers and users; and, 4) to articulate future directions for the program. The proceedings begin with a summary article that

draws conclusions and makes recommendations in four key areas: establishing a sanctuary; operating a site; the future role of the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management; and funding concerns. The first paper addresses the challenges of the program as viewed by then-Deputy Administrator of NOAA, James Walsh. The remainder of the proceedings are contributed papers and session summaries on the topics around which the workshop was organized: es­tablishing sanctuaries; scientific research; public edu­cation; and future directions. An appendix inCludes a ' short description of each sanctuary, emphasizing re­search and education programs.

Copies of the proceedings, 119 pages in length, are available for $8.50 including postage from the Society in Bethesda.

TCS and "Coastal Zone 83" Plans are now set for Coastal Zone 83 which will be

held June 1-4, 1983, at the Town and County Hotel in San Diego, California. The Coastal Society is currently assessing the possibility of participating in Coastal Zone 83 either as a co-sponsor or by arranging a spe­cial session on the program. Coastal Zone 83 will be the third in a series of interdisciplinary conferences providing an opportunity for those involved in coastal and ocean affairs to exchange information and views. Over 1000 interested professionals and citizens at­tended its immediate predecessor, Coastal Zone 80, at Hollywood, Florida, and a similar attendance is ex­pected at Coastal Zone 83_

The conference will serve as a forum for wide-rang­ing discussion of all aspects of coastal resource inves­tigation, management, conservation, and utilization. Major issues to be addressed include: environmental concerns; development management; access to the

APRIL 1982

shore; governmental considerations; role of states E

other institutions; impact of energy development; l

new directions in marine policy and coastal man­agement.

Coastal Zone 83 Is sponsored by the American So­ciety of Civil Engineers, the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management, the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineer­ing Command, the Coastal States Organization, and the California Coastal Commission. Other sponsors will be announced.

To obtain added information, please write:

Orville T. Magoon General Chairman Coastal Zone 83 P.O. Box 26062 San Francisco, CA 94126 Telex: San Francisco 470093

Coastal News Changes in Federal Funding Three Perspectives Revisited

Editor's note: In the April/August 1981 Bulletin (Vol. 5, No. 1/2), we asked representatives of three interests who would be greatly affected by proposed Reagan Administration budget reductions to comment on how the proposed changes would affect their program, how they have argued against the proposals, what impacts the proposals would have if implemented, and what alternative approaches are possible. We asked the same three groups to comment one year later, after battles both won and lost have clarified the most suc­cessful approach to protecting budgets.

The responses are interesting because of the di­versity of approaches. One group, the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium has become more adept at deal­ing with local politics and interagency competition. The Coastal States Organization is looking to new fed· eral legislation to replace their traditional source of funding. The National Sea Grant Program, effectively having most funding restored last year through the Congressional appropriations process, is seeking <.,

further strengthen arguments to be presented to Ct gress this year. In all three cases, it appears that the stitutions are reQonsidering their role and value. It k

mains to be seen whether one or all will succeed in their efforts this year.

APRIL 1982

South Carolina Consortium, One Year Later

Margaret A. Davidson South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium

Recently, government and academic research insti· tutions have been faced with reduced budgets. Nation· ally, many research programs have had significant reo ductions and some have been "zeroed out". As a "grantmanship broker" for various state academic and government research institutions, the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium is principally supported by public monies from diverse sources and, as such, it has not been immune from the new austerity. And al· though we have attained level funding for the next fis· cal year which is a reduction due to inflation and salary increases, it is nevertheless an achievement.

Here in South Carolina, where the state had a $ 100 million revenue shortfall in FY 82, level funding has not come easily. For instance, although the once pro· posed block grant programs have not developed, the process for determining allocation of state funds for research programs has become openly political. Our· ing the past year, organizations dependent upon public funds for coastal and marine research and manage­nent activities have become compet.ing rather than cooperating agencies as each seeks to strengthen its constituencies while eclipsing those of others in an ef­fort to minimize adverse effects. For example, one agency for whom we had previously coordinated re­search to provide data for their regulatory and man­agement activities ceased cooperative activities, and intensified political undermining. The lesson learned from this was that mission agencies are at a competi­tive disadvantage in the political arena when com­pared to regulatory agencies: we have nothing with which to barter as we don't control allocation of nat­ural resources.

Our difficulties in the political sphere have also been compounded by the fact that we are a new entity. What that translates into is that few public officials have a firm understanding of our mission and whether we are achieving it successfully. It also means that we don't have an established traditional constituency which supports the program. Recognizing these difficulties, the program has borrowed and employed ideas from business management and public relations.

A renewed emphasis has been placed on our com­munication and information activities. Sea Grant pro­grams have always been noted for sharing information with one another. Relying upon that, we have taken it· further: we are d.eveloping a role as the information

\earinghouse for the state with respect to coastal and )arine resources. We" retrieve, compile, and dissemi­.ate needed Information, often upon request and, in­

creasingly, in anticipation of need. As an example, the State of South Carolina is slowly developing a compre­hensive approach towards aquaculture development and management: culling the resources of various

3

Consortium members, we produced and disseminated a collection of existing materials detailing the biolog· ical potential of various species, a map of aquaculture facilities, pertinent statutes, permit flow charts, con­tact persons, bibliography of· technical publications, and a glossary.

Simultaneously, we are refining our skill at packag­ing information. Although we have cut production costs, we have achieved a consistency in quality as well as appearance. We have also produced several "sum­mary sheets" which explain the advantages of the Con­sortium's multi-institutional approach and the eco­nomic benefits of the various research, education, and technical assistance activities which we undertake.

Perhaps the single most important tool we have used builds upon the resources available to us as a Consortium. We have successfully put together several Consortium-wide projects: one project involves five schools, five different diSciplines, and sixteen re­searchers to address an issue of great concern to the state. This inter-institutional, interdisciplinary ap­proach serves several purposes: we are able to put to­gether an outstanding research team and, frankly, it also serves to strengthen our support with each institu­tion involved in the project.

Unfortunately, in an era of declining fiscal re­sources, state research institutions would prefer not sharing research and development monies with other ~nstitutions. The competitiveness that we experienced In the state political process exists also within the aca­demic process on a certain level. How<;!ver, as the pro­ject's researchers begin to work together, the com­petitiveness falls away and the exchange proves to be both exciting and productive.

One year later, we are tired from the multiple fiscal and economic crisis which arose during the course of ~he year. We are also far more experienced in the polit· Ical process and wary of other agencies who seek their salvation only at the expense of others. We have sought to identify those functions which we can best perform in an effective and efficient manner including utilizing the physical and human resources available throughout the Consortium's member institutions. In conclusion, we remain cautiously optimistic and feel that natural resource research programs provide a vital function: however, constituencies must be built care­fully and provided an understanding of the importance of long-term research and development activities.

4

Is There a Future for Coastal Management Programs?!

Arthur J. Rocque, Jr. Program Manager, Connecticut Coastal Area

Management Program; and Chairman, Coastal States Organization

As this article is being written, various committees within Congress are investigating the concept of reV' enue sharing to continue support for marine resource management programs, including specifically coastal zone management programs. The most concrete pro· posal is contained in H.R. 5543 recently reported out of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Commit· tee, and its Senate companion, S. 2129. It would rely on receipts from lease sales for outer continental shelf (OCS) hydrocarbon development channeled to coastal states through: the currently popular block grant, if enacted.

Interestingly, the concept of OCS revenue sharing for coastal programs is not new. It has been debated in Congress since the early 1970's and at least one amendment, Section 308, of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), was passed as a means of de· fusing growing Congressional support for OCS reV· enue sharing. In fact, Section 308 of the CZMA, which was passed in 1976, is a relatively late addition to a long set of precedents for revenue sharing to offset the impacts and share the benefits of activities on federal land which affect states. This approach was first used in 1908 with the National Forest Revenue Act.

Because it is now clear that the federal Administra· tion plans to curtail funding for coastal programs while moving to accelerate and "streamline" the OCS leas· ing process, the revenue sharing concept is of substan· tially renewed interest.

Without an alternative to current funding schemes, recent surveys by Coastal States Organization (CSO) show that between 60% and 80% of the state staffs necessary to discharge existing statutory review responsibilities for 'OCS activities and other coastal related development will be lost. The -Reagan Ad· ministration's initiative to accelerate the OCS leasing schedule and abbreviate states' federal consistency response opportunities under the CZMA while simultaneously eliminating all federal funding support is to court disaster, most likely in the form of increased litigation between federal agencies and the states.

Even as the funding necessary if states are to main· tain their coastal management capabilities is cut, coastal energy development is expected to further ac· celerate. The Interior Department's five·year leasing schedule calls for close to a billion acres of federally owned offshore land to be offered for lease for oil and gas exploration and development. As important and needed as this increased energy development may be, national policy dictates that this development should take place only within the context of comprehensive state coastal management programs. Moreover, while

APRIL 1982

states may receive some potential benefits from 0 activities, they clearly will receive all the adverse ef, vironmental, safety, and boom.growth consequences. Again, it should be emphasized that virtually all federal financial assistance to support the vital reo search, coastal management, and impact mitigation programs is being eliminated in the face of an accel· erated OCS program.

\

To address this problem, alternative means for fund· , ing coastal research, management, and energy impact mitigation programs must be investigated. States CQuld, of course, impose a tax or fee on coastal activ­ities or developments in order to support coastal man­agement programs. But because, by definition, the OCS is outside their territorial boundaries, coastal states are prohibited from directly taxing OCS activo ities. However, this constraint is not imposed upon in­land states which are authorized to impose SeveranCe taxes on minerals produced from onshore federal lands. There are many legal and historical precedents for the federal government to share a portion of its reo ceipts from OCS leasing with affected states. Most of these precedents relate to activities on federally owned land within state boundaries.

While OCS activities may not be within state boun­daries, their impacts are, as are the impacts of the pre­viously mentioned activities for which inland states re­ceive federal revenue sharing. Without question, the' "). is no parity for coastal states in terms of the finane' . benefits shared with inland states subject to feder'­lease sales. Yet the need and certainly the Congres. sional statutory expression of national interest for management and mitigation programs in coastal states is clearly greater. This equity argument alone appears reason enough to give the idea of receipt shar­ing serious consideration. The table below gives a pro­jected comparison of shared receipts. For the first half of 1982 payments to inland states have increased by 35% Over the comparable period of 1981.

Projected Onshore and Offshore Mineral Leasing Receipts, and Projected

States' Share (Dollars in Billions)

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Onshore States'

Total Share

$ 1.5 $ .8 1.6 .9 1.8 .9 1.8 .9 1.8 .9

Offshore States'

Total Share

$11.0 12.2 13.3 13.9 13.9

$ 0 o o o o

Source: 1981, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. De-., partment of the Interior

" t· ,

The CSO's position is that all coastal states and tel­ritories, not just those adjacent to OCS activities, should be eligible for these funds. In fact, sharing OCS receipts only with coastal states directly adjacent to

APRIL 1982

)es activity has been rejected by all except federal agency staff testifying before Congress on this issue. There are several reasons for this position. First, the revenues directly derived from energy development offshore a particular state might not reach that state in time to address or mitigate the impacts of OeS·related development. Second, revenues might go to a directly adjacent state although the impacts are more severly felt in another state due, for example, to prevailing ocean currents or the location chosen by industry for onshore support and processing facilities. Third, if revenues are earmarked exclusively for directly ad· jacent states, financial considerations might override the state's interest in discharging its review responsi· bilities with due regard for fragile coastal resources or organisms. And finally, that approach does not recog· nize that coastal management, its related research and energy impact programs have been determined by Congress to be in the national interest and deserving of federal support independent of directly adjacent oes activity.

Any funds from oes revenues should be distributed based on any equitable formula which takes into ac· count oes activity, other coastal energy activities, state coastline length and population, and, most im· portantly, the presence of a federally approved state coastal management program. Use of the funds should '1e tied directly to these and other coastal management elated research activities to prevent their use to fi·

nance state or local programs unrelated to coastal management or energy impact mitigation. The recent· Iy popularized block grant approach outlined in pro· posed bill H.R. 5543 and S. 2129, with safeguards to assure funding of key components of coastal manage· ment, energy impact mitigation and marine related programs, is one acceptable means of conveying these funds to states.

In short, oes receipt or revenue sharing is a concept that coastal states strongly. support. It is consistent with the Reagan Administration's expressed philosophy of shifting the responsibility for many public services from the federal government to state and local govern· ments, and of moving toward block grants to support these programs. It would also result in a more equita· . ble arrangement for sharing of federal receipts from both inland and offshore activities on federal lands, and would support the expressed national interest in protecting and wisely using our nation's finite coastal resources.

On the other hand, if some measure of revenue shar· ing of oes receipts does not accompany the recent series of Administration proposals to accelerate oes development, in view of the current budget reductions for coastal programs, many states are likely to aban· rion efforts to manage coastal resources on behalf of he nation. States, having less time and less money, lill strain to discharge their statutorily guaranteed

role in the national oes program which will undoubt­edly lead to conflicts with associated costs and delays for oes development.

Support for oes revenue sharing by the Administra-

5

tion has been slow in coming. There is no support for revenue sharing that is targeted to specific programs such as coastal management and little if any support for revenue sharing not directly tied to permitted oes· related activities and facilities. In fact, Administration spokesmen have hinted that coastal programs should fight it out through the "normal" appropriations pro· cess to prove their worthiness in the context of "open competition" for funding. This position is difficult for coastal states to accept since each time a rescission reo quest for coastal program funding is defeated, another budget cut is proposed.

Realistically, at the heart of the state/federal coastal program and revenue sharing differences are the reo lated issues of federal consistency and "directly af· fecting" regulations, currently the subject of litigation between the states and the Department of the Interior. While coastal states support oes revenue sharing, there is no similar consensus supporting changes in the federal consistency provisions of the eZMA. In fact, in testimony before Congress and as evidenced by states' positions on the originally proposed regulations defining activities "directly affecting" state coastal management programs that were withdrawn by the Administration last fall, states have categorically op· posed substantive changes in Section 307 of the eZMA. Part of the reaSon for this position is the documented fact, using both National Oceanic and At· mospheric Administration (NOAA) and General Ac· counting Office (GAO) reports on the oes leasing and development process, that state federal consistency reviews are not causing delays. While current regula· tions and statutes allow 120 days for state reviews, the average federal consistency response has been approx· imately 31 days. . Although they have and do not support amendments

to Section 307 of the eZMA, coastal states are nothing if not realists. Since federal consistency reviews are averaging significantly less time than currently al· lowed by law, it is likely that some shortening of the reo sponse deadlines can be accommodated. To put this limited and conceptual opinion in proper context, a couple of qualifying conditions are important.

First, the success of states in .responding to federal consistency certifications in less time than the current· Iy allowed deadlines is clearly and directly related to capable, technical staff supported in large measure by eZMA funding. Both the NOAA and GAO reports make this point. To eliminate eZMA appropriations without an alternative source of funds, such as oes revenue sharing, will. mean that most states will lose most if not all of their staff. This is especially true when viewed in the context of the myriad of other budget cuts that are affecting the states. The likely altemative left to the states in the face of this scenario is to file ob­jections to consistency certifications as a holding ac· tion. The shorter the response deadlines become and the greater staff reductions due to budget cuts be­come, the higher the probability of this outcome.

Second, while by all evidence federal consistency reo views in the states are not a major problem, an acceler-

6

ation of the OCS leasing schedule may c~use a serious strain under shortened response deadlines. Not only does Interior's proposed new leasing schedule under· score the previous arguments on staff and budgets, the prospect of area or basin lease sales rather than desig. nated tracts places a substantial new burden on the states by reducing the focus of the lease offerings and diluting the supporting data as the frequency of the of. ferings is increased. To adequately respond, states will have to provide for themselves much of the analytical specificity that is necessary for a federal consistency certification. As this is clearly an additional complica. tion to the review and certification process currently in effect, shorter response deadlines and the potential loss of staff further exacerbate the problems.

In summary, the consensus position by coastal states on the Issues of amending the CZMA and OCS revenue sharing should be viewed as balanced, neither completely supportive nor completely opposed. There is a simple law of ecology that states that everything is connected to everything else. The same is the case here. Any changes in consistency responses deadlines and increases in the OCS leasing schedule are clearly connected to funding and staffing levels in state coastal management programs. The success of the former is connected to the adequacy of the latter. For coastal states, there can be no enthusiasm for one without the other and the future of coastal manage· ment on a coordinated nation·wide scale clearly hangs in the balance.

IAn edited version of this article appeared in the second 1982 issue of Oceans magazine this spring.

The National Sea Grant College Program in Fy 82 and FY 83

Kathryn R. Tollerton National Association of State Universities

and Land Grand .Colleges (NASULGC)

The National Sea Grant College Program is alive and well, despite the Reagan Administration's efforts to phase it out in FY 82. Congress responded to the Ad· ministration's request for $1.8 million in phase out funds by appropriating $35 million for the program under FY 82 Continuing Appropriations Resolutions (Public Laws 97-92 and 97-161).

The program survived, in my opinion, because of the strong and enthusiastic nationwide support of the pro· gram' beneficiaries who told their senators and repre­sentatives how important the program was to them; the efforts of the Sea Grant Directors and the university community to educate members of congress on the economic benefits of, the national character of, and the federal, state, university, industry partnership na· ture of the program; and the conviction of members of congress that the program's contributions to increased

APRIL 1982

economic productivity were compatible with the Pre dent's economic recovery program.

The experience of the past year indicates that demo onstrating the economic benefits of the program will be increasingly important as competition for funds in the discretionary portion of the federal budget intensi­fies.

Last year, the work of the Sea Grant Task Force in preparing an analysis of the economic benefits of the program, entitled ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF SEA GRANT, was particularly important in presenting the economic benefits of the program to the Congress.' The analysis of 57 projects showed that the Sea Grant program makes a contribution of approximately $227 million annually to the U.S. economy in revenues and cost savings.' In the first 14 years of the program, total federal support was $270 million. The report was wide· Iy distributed. Senator Lowell Weicker (R,Ct.) sent a copy to Secretary of Commerce Baldrige, calling at· tention to the inconsistency between the budget action on Sea Grant and the Administration's economic pro· gram. The Secretary reportedly was favorably im­pressed with the report, as were members of congress.

A second important project was the survey of the an· nual impact of 25 Sea Grant programs in education, training, servicing industries and transmitting infor· mation and research results to all parts of the country. Annually approximately 562,000 people in commer· '. cial fishing, aquaculture and marine industries we' ) served by the program.' \ /

Early in the year, Senator Robert Packwood (R,Ore.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, gave Sea Grant's efforts to survive a boost when he recommended to the Sen­ate Budget Committee that Sea Grant be funded in the FY 82 budget. The House Merchant Marine and Fish· eries Committee made a similar recommendation.

The national significance and broad impact of the Sea Grant program was demonstrated to Congress at the March 30, 1981, hearing on the National Sea Grant College Program held by the Subcommittee on Ocean­ography of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. The testimony of Sea Grant service users included an engineering company executive whose company specializes in offshore oil and gas work, the scientific director of Bristol Meyers Products, the owner of a seafood packing and distributing firm, the owner of a charter fishing business on the Great Lakes, and an executive of the National Fisheries Institute. A group of Sea Grant Directors rounded out the witness list. The record of the hearing contains a comprehen· sive picture of the program from the perspective of the users and the Sea Grant Directors.

Another important event in support of the program was the testimony of President E.A. Trabant, Unl-._ versity of Delaware (the location of a Sea Gra: College), and Chairman of the Marine Affairs Comm:\ ) tee of NASULGC, before the House and Senate Ap. propriations Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary later in the spring. These hear­ings provided another opportunity to call Congres­sional attention to the economic value of Sea Grant

APRIL 1982

projects and to cite examples of Sea Grant's role in creating research partnerships with federal and private sector participants.

The efforts of Sea Grant users and the Sea Grant community to inform Congress of the economic and national significance of the program bore their first fruit when the House Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY 82 Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriation Bill with $21,780,000 for Sea Grant, rather than the $1.8 million the Administra· tion had requested. The Subcommittee's action was sustained by the full Appropriations Committee and subsequently approved by the House of Representa· tives in early September. Shortly afterward, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee chaired by Senator Lowell Weicker marked up the Senate version of the bill, providing Sea Grant with $41 million.

At this time, reports surfaced that Secretary Baldrige was requesting $20 million for the Sea Grant Program as a new initiative in the FY 83 Department of Commerce bUdget. That report was shortlived, how· ever, because of the President's September 24th an· nouncement that he planned to make a further cut in the appropriations he had requested for FY 82. How· ever, in late October, the Senate Appropriations Com· mittee issued its report on the appropriation bill, stating that:

The Congress fully expects the Secretary to insure that future funding of the National Sea Grant Col· fege program will be commensurate with the bene· fits derived from it. (Senate Report 97·265). Despite the subsequent Conference agreement to

fund Sea Grant at $35 million for FY 82, the Admin· istration is still trying to chip away at the FY 82 bud· get. In May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) formally requested Congressional approval of more than $30 million in reprogramming to fund pay raises, increased administrative costs, and some other activities. NOAA proposes to reduce the FY 82 Sea Grant appropriation of $35 million by $4 million to meet some of these expenses. As this article was being completed, the House Appropriations Sub· committee has agreed to reprogram $2 million of the Sea Grant funds, and the Senate Subcommittee has reo jected the reprogramming request. Final resolution of the issue will await the House·Senate Conference on the so· called FY 82 Pay Cost and Program Supplemen· tal Appropriations Bill.

In the FY 83 budget, the Administration once again requested phase out funds for the Sea Grant Program. In April of this year President Trabant began a second round of appearances before the Appropriations Sub· committees. He pointed out that NOAA and other agencies, contrary to the Administration's FY 83

' .. "testimony, would not continue Sea Grant projects if the program were phased out, since NOAA's own pro· jections of university research and development sup· port between fiscal years 1981 and 1983 showed a steep decline - from $40,6 million in FY 81 to an esti· mated $12.7 million in FY 83. He also pointed out that Sea Grant has been especially effective in promoting

7

economic development "because so many marine in· . dustries are small, highly specialized enterprises which have few resources to invest in research, development, or innovation,"

President Trabant told the Subcommittee about the efforts of the Council of Sea Grant Directors to work with the National Sea Grant Office to set budget and program priorities and to chart research needs in order to improve the administration of the program. Finally, he discussed the February 1982 meeting of ten uni· versity presidents and top NOAA administrators in which the needs and interests of the universities and NOAA were discussed, as well as ways to strengthen and improve ties between the universities and the agen· cy. Although discussion at that meeting touched on all NOAA programs, the university presidents made clear the importance of Sea Grant work on their campuses and stressed that most states would be unable to replace the federal funds if that support ended.

This year, two additional documents have been pro· duced which provide additional information on Sea Grant's national character and economic significance. The first is "Summaries of Recent Sea Grant Activi· ties," a compilation of statements on Sea Grant work in ocean engineering" fisheries, marine microbiology, seafood technology, pollution in the Great Lakes and other topic. The second is the forthcoming Massachu· setts Institute of Technology (MI1)Center for Policy AI· ternatives study entitled, "A Re·evaluation in 1981 of the Commercial Results of Sea Grant Projects Funded in 1975." General conclusions from the study indicate that ten new firms have been established primarily as the result of Sea Grant research and that 11 new pro· ducts have been developed as a direct result of Sea Grant research.

Using the Reagan Administration's budget policy on Sea Grant in FY 82 and FY 83 as a guide, it seems likely that this Administration will continue to oppose the program. The Sea Grant community and its supporters will continue to fight for its survival, using evidence of economic benefits and national contributions to marine and coastal development and conservation to make their case with Congress.

lThe Task Force pt:epared the analysis on behalf of the Marine Affairs Committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grand Colleges (NASULOC) In conjunction with the Sea Grant Association.

2The project areas were fish harvesting, seafood processing and mar­keting, aquaculture, marine construction, marine-related real estate, marine-related retail trade, and marine service Industry_

3Both of these reports were discussed by John Kermond, in this review of the Sea Grant Program in the April/August issue of the BulleUn, p. 8·10.

8

Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary - From Espectations to Reality to Expectations

Editors Note:

Dr. Kris W. Thoenke Sanctuary Manager.Rookery Bay

National Estuarine Society

This is the second article appearing on Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary in the Bulletin. The first ar­ticle was printed in the January 1980 issue (Volume 3, No.4, p. 8-9). The first article described the sanctuary, summarized its history and outlined the plans for the re­search, educational and acquisition programs. This arti­cle describes how these plans have been implemented and some future plans for the sanctuary's continued development.

Six years ago the idea of a National Estuarine Sanc­tuary at Rookery Bay was merely that - an idea in the minds of a few conservationists in Collier County, Florida. Three and a half years ago Rookery Bay be­came a National Estuarine Sanctuary and those in­volved had many expectations of how the Sanctuary. would develop. Today we are starting to see or expecta­tions become reality.

The 6, 1 00 acre Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanc­tuary is located between Naples and Marco Island on Florida's southwest Gulf coast. Rookery Bay is the northem end of the famous Ten Thousand Islands, a group of mangrove islands and shallow tidal bays and rivers stretching to Cape Sable in the extreme south­western tip of Florida. As a part of the National Es­tuarine Sanctuary program administered by NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management, Rookery Bay and her eleven sister sanctuaries were established as sites for estuarine research and public education.

When the sanctuary manager was hired in April 1979 only the land making up the core of the sanctuary ex­isted. Research and educational programs were out­lined on paper and a sanctuary headquarters and edu­cation center were only ideas. In the three years that have elapsed, research, education and acquisition pro­grams have been defined and initiated, a sanctuary headquarters facility has been built and a nature center and boardwalk have been constructed.

The research program has developed along two lines: implementation of a long term environmental monitor­ing program and recruitment of research projects from scientists known to have expertise in a particular field. Along with the daily administration of the sanctuary ·these are the primary responsibilities of the sanctuary manager.

The long-term monitoring program is designed to gather data on the natural fluctuations of a relatively un­disturbed estuary. Presently, water quality samples, continuous recordings of tidal fluctuations and quarter-

APRIL 1982

Iy bird census are being conducted. Soon the enviJ':l\ . onmental monitoring program will be expanded. Addi· .J tional water quality parameters will be monitored, sed­iments will be analyzed, meteorological data will be re­corded and detailed surveys of the flora and fauna will be conducted. Other types of monitoring activities such as rrieasuring primary productivity and leaf litter studies are being considered for future expansion of the monitoring program.

The goal of these activities is to explain which param­eters have the most influence on the Rookery Bay ecosystem, understand how these variables relate to each other in a natural system and provide a detailed data base of the physical, chemical and biological con­ditions which characterize a natural system. This type of program presents a unique opportunity to study a natural system over a longer period of time than has been possible in past research efforts. These monitoring activities will also allow us to keep an eye on Rookery Bay system, checking for the possibility of environmen­tal degradation.

The other thrust of the research program is to interest scientists in using Rookery Bay as a research site. Be­cause of the unspoiled nature of the Rookery Bay area, the existence of an ever-expanding data base and the facilities available to visiting investigators, we expect Rookery Bay to become a focal point for research. Even before its designation as a national estuarine sanctuary, .•. the Rookery Bay area was used as a research site when W', ')~ was an Audubon Sanctuary. Since its designation as "' ... national estuarine sanctuary, numerous faculty members and graduate students from several univer­sities have used Rookery Bay as a research or collection site. Topics which have been studied include· fiddler crab behavior and a study on the role of seagrass detritus on juvenile pink shrimp. Making other scientists aware of the sanctuary and its potential is accomplished by the sanctuary manager attending scientific meetings and giving presentations on research opportunities in the sanctuary. These activities are supplemented through mailings of information on research oppor­tunities, and through articles such as this one which ap­pear in professional journals, bulletins, and newsletters.

To encouragethe use of Rookery Bay as a research area, several facilities are available to investigators. The sanctuary headquarters facility contains a 540 square foot laboratory used for the long-term environmental monitoring program and visiting scientists. The lab is presently being equipped with cabinets and a variety of scientific equipment including balances, an incubator, compound and dissecting microscopes, ovens, and meterological equipment. In addition to this facility, the Collier County Conservancy maintains the Norris Marine Research Station next to the sanctuary head­quarters facility. Additional lab space, equipment, and boats are availabile at this facility. The Conservancy can'1 also provide temporary living quarters for up to twelve r ~~~ ;

Shortly after the Sanctuary Management Board began to meet, it became apparent that the job of con­ducting both the research and education programs was going t.o be a substantial undertaking. At one of the

APRIL 1982

;, ,';anctuary Management Board meetings it was pro­posed that the Collier County Conservancy take the lead in developing and implementing a public educa­tion program. The other board members readily agreed since the Conservancy has been very active in providing public education to the residents of and visitors to southwest Florida for many years through their Big Cypress Nature Center located in Naples. Soon there· after, 20 acres of sanctuary land was leased to the Con· servancy. A nature center and boardwalk have been recently constructed on this land and will be open in the fall. The nature center will contain exhibits depicting life in a mangrove estuary and a self·guiding brochure will be prepared for visitors to use on the boardwalk.

The third aspect of Rookery Bay's evolution is a land acquisition program. When the sanctuary was estab· lished, approximately 5,400 acres of land, leased pri· marily from National Audubon Society, made up the sanctuary. Since then, approximately 560 acres of State owned land has been incorporated into the sanctuary and 143 acres of privately owned land has been pur· chased by the State. An additional 2,500 acres of land have been authorized for acquisition and negotiations with the landowners are underway. The possibility of ac· quiring an additional 4,500 acres has been rec· ommended by the Sanctuary Management Board and is now being considered by the State of Florida. Although

"·'\progress on the acquisition program is a slow and com· .pJicated procedure, the program is succeeding in ac· 'quiring valuable estuarine wetlands and upland buffer zones.

In the three year period since active management of Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary began, our expectations have become reality. Research, education and acquisition programs have been developed and these long·term programs have been implemented. Plans to improve on these programs have become our new expectations. In a few years, we hope these expecta· tions will become reality and will be replaced with new ideas. If Rookery Bay can progress in this fashion, this area will develop into one of the premiere research and educational facilities in the United States.

If you would like additional information contact:

Dr. Kris W. Thoemke Sanctuary Manager Florida Department of National Resources Rookery Bay national Estuarine Sanctuary 10 Shell Island Road Naples, Florida 33942·8341

Southeastern Coastal .'/ Study Available

Southern Exposure recently published a special issue devoted to the coast of the southeastern United States. The issue, written largely for a non· technical audience, explores the "beauty and mistique, the exploitation and destruction, the culture and folklore" of the coast. The

9

issue contains 22 articles, essays and interviews. In ad· dition, it contains profiles of the coastal regions in all nine coastal states from Virginia to Texas. The Journal is a mix of technical subjects and sociolcultural sub­jects that's seldom found in Journals. The issue, entitl· ed Coastal Affair: Loving It to Death, is available for $4.00, with a 40 percent di.scount on orders of 5 or more copies.

For more information, or to order, contact:

Southern Exposure P.O. Box 531 Durham, N.C. 27702

Renewable Natural Resources Foundation Announcements

RNRF, the consortium of 14 non·profit scientific and professional organizations to which The Coastal Society belongs, has made two recent announcements of in· terest to TCS members. First, RNRF has assumed publi· cation responsibility for the quarterly scientific journal ResolffCes Evaluation Journal. It had been published as a newsletter by the federal government before budget cutbacks forced it to terminate operations in November 1981. The Journal will include technical articles on pro­cedures for evaluating natural resources, general infor· mation on resource management, and calendar infor· mation on workshops and symposia. Subscription rates are nominal - $15 for U.S. residents, $19 outside the U.S., $30 for U.S. institutions, and $34 for foreign in· stitutions. Address all correspondence to Don l. Wort· man, Executive Director, Renewable Natural Resource Foundation, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814.

The second announcement is Mr. Wortman's appoint. ment as Executive Director of RNRF a position formerly held by Dan Beard. Mr. Wortman joins RNRF after 30 years of public service with the federal government in a series of top management positions. He is a member of the National Academy of Public Administration.

Meeting of Interest The 13th Underwater Mining Institute will be held in

Madison, Wisconsin, on 26-28 October 1982. Topics to be covered at the 13th UMI include sulfide deposits at spreading centers, geological framework of deep sea rifts, mineralogy of rift sulfides, continental shelf min· erals exploration, assessment of oes hard mineral deposits, new exploration techniques, engineering con· straints in coastal mining operations, reports on new discoveries, up· date on new offshore mining rules and regulations, and other subjects related to marine min· ing, including robotics. The keynote address will be given by Dr. John Byrne, Administrator of the National

10

, Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A program and registration details are available on request.

For registration information, contact:

Dr. Gregory Hedden Sea Grant Advisory Service University of Wisconsin 1815 University Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53706

For program information, contact:

Dr. J.R. Moore Marine Science Institute The University of Texas P.O. Box 7999 Austin, Texas 78712

Protecting New Jersey's Shore - Four Perspectives

Editor's note: New Jersey's coast is perhaps both the most heavily used and heavily modified in the United States. The result has been a concentration of develop· ment and high values in locations threatened by ero· sion and storm damage. The State of New Jersey responded by developing a Shore Protection Master Plan, That plan, adopted and now being implemented, is a source of numerous conflicts between all in· terested parties.

The four articles below define and examine some of these conflicts from different points of view. These four viewpoints represent major interests involved in coastal conflicts around the United States. The authors were invited to prepare these articles to outline and analyze the issues in their context. A main benefit in New Jersey of the debate represented by these four ar· ticles is that the public's awareness is raised, first over the shore protection plan in general, and .more recently over the dune protection proposals. ,

The first article, by David Kinsey, provides an over­view of the State's initiative and goals in the Shore Pro· tection Master Plan. The second article, by Norbert Psuty, reviews the scientific basis for one of the most contentious issues in implementing the program, one which requires additional state legislation - dune management. The third article, by Kenneth Smith, ex­amines a local perspective on the most appropriate ap­proaches to beach protection and restoration. The fourth article, by Thomas Norman, describes the three bills before the New Jersey legislative and reviews

, beach and dune protection from a local legal perspec· tive.

The Bulletin editors will attempt to assemble sets of articles in future issues which contrast alternative points of view on major coastal issues.

APRIL 1982

The State Perspective David N. Kinsey, Director,

Planning Group, New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection

In late 1981, the New Jersey Departrnen) of Environ­mental Protection adopted its first Shore Protection Master Plan, an unprecedented action by a coastal state to take stock of its shoreline resources and pre­pare a comprehensive management plan independent of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As New Jersey has the most heavily built up, urbanized oceanfront in the nation, including the only casinos on a barrier island, it is appropriate that this New Jersey effort be looked at as a model for the nation. The State Depart­ment of Environmental Protection (DEP) prepared the plan over a two year period of studies, workshops, meetings, and hearings, while controversy flared among scientists, engineers, elected officials and shore property owners, particularly as a result of DEP's aggressive and public advocacy of dune and beach protection legislation in 1980.

In its simplest terms, the New Jersey Shore Protec­tion Master Plan charts many steps that should be taken in coming years to protect New Jersey's shore-, line by working in closer harmony with the naturalE'), forces of the sea. For the past 200 years, the people 0 ,,'

New Jersey have extensively built up the shoreline," often abusing the natural system, through actions such as leveling dunes in order to have oceanfront views. Some of these actions have led to disappearing beach­es and property destruction during coastal storms.

The stakes are high along New Jersey's oceanfront, as well as its river, bay and inlet shorelines. For exam­ple, the value of the real estate of one barrier island alone, Long Beach Island in Ocean County, is more than $1 billion. The oceanfront shoreline is the back­bone of the State's resort economy, which, with an esti­mated annual value from $3 billion to $7 billion, de­pending upon the multiplier one picks, is the State's second largest industry. This valuable shore real estate is essential ,for the tax base of seasonal communities, and provides the bulk of the tax base for shore coun­ties. More thEm one-third of the 127 mile oceanfront shoreline is critically eroding. Moderate or even small storms threaten the coast with imminent attack be­cause of the degree of erosion.

The Plan has four basic parts. First, it spells out a program of coastal engineering actions, based on a priority list for various regions, or reaches of the shore­line. The total estimated cost of the preferred alterna­tive for each reach is an initial $59.1 million with a total present worth cost including maintenance costs;\ over the 50 year estimated life of the plan of $338.f '. million. The second element of the Plan recognizes thl ; importance of existing state and local land use regula­tion to protect beach, dune and related areas as well as the need for additional regulation. Third, the Plan sup­ports the on·going program of acquiring selected bar-

APRIL 1982

i( rier island properties by local or state government in '\ order to prevent further development of an area that is

prone to storm damage, as well as to facilitate natural beach processes over a wider area. Finally, the Plan recognizes that many federal programs and policies in­fluence the degree and extent of shore protection, coastal development, and use of coastal resources. The Plan supports existing and evolving federal programs which upgrade coastal construction standards, increase the incentives for post storm relocation of damaged properties, and provide assistance for occupants of coastal high hazard areas. Specifically, in 1981-82, DEP supported congressional efforts to lirnit federally sub­sidized flood insurance on undeveloped parts of barrier islands. DEP also supported the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (H.R. 3252, S. 1018) that would limit all federal actions that would facilitate development of undeveloped parts of coastal barrier islands, even though New Jersey has been excluded from the system.

The four approaches to managing shoreline pro­cesses: coastal ,engineering, land regulation, land ac­qUisition, and support of federal policy actions, are complementary. This four-way approach is essential to achieve the, broadest possible consensus on how to rnanage the shoreline, recognizing conflicts among en­vironmental interest groups, real estate interests, sci­entists, local elected officials, and individual property owners. Statewide voter approval in 1977 of $20 mil-t, lion in bond funds for shore protection provided the im­petus for the Plan. DEP is now using the Plan as a guide to prudent capital investment in the top priority shore protection projects. More than $4 million in State bond funds has been spent already in shore protection pro­jects along river, bay and inlet shorelines, with DEP sharing the cost on a 75% state share, 25% local share basis with participating local governments. During the summer of 1982, construction will begin on major oceanfront projects adopted as top priorities under the Plan, including a $5,049,000 bulkhead repair and a one million yard beach nourishment project. It is not sur­prising that Atlantic City, with the nearly $2 billion in private sector capital investment in hotel-casino con­struction since 1978, is a priority on the master plan. A major seawall repair and bulkhead reconstruction pro­ject is underway as a prerequisite to a major 'beach nourishment project for the four municipalities on Absecon Island, including Atlantic City.

The Plan will guide five types of decisions and ac­tions by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and in particular by its Division of Coastal Resources, to protect the shoreline. First, the Plan will guide DEP's decisions on financial assistance for the construction, repair' and maintenance of beaches, groins, jetties, seawalls, bulkheads, and dunes, invest­ing prudently and rationally the funds available from the Beaches and Harbors Bond Fund of 1977. The Plan has already provided the basis for laying the ground­work for a second and larger bond issue, hopefully to be on the ballot in 1982, which will provide $50 million for state projects and matching grants to local govern­ments, plus $12 million for a revolving loan fund for those local governments that are unable to meet all of

11

their local matching funds directly. The Plan will also provide the basis for coastal engineering projects that meet the design standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, so that federal reimbursement will be possible, once the projects are authorized and funds appropriated by the U.S. Congress.

Second, the Plan provides the framework for DEP's technical assistance on shore protection matters to local officials, citizens, and developers. DEP gives ad­vice on how to design dune fencing, pathways through dunes, preparation of local beach and dune protection ordinances, and similar matters.

Third, the Plan recognizes the important role of ex­isting land use regulation by DEP and local govem­ments and protecting sensitive beaches and dunes from inappropriate development. The Plan does not re­quire additional state'land use regulatory legislation, but does suggest areas where additional legislation would be helpful on a partnership basis between the

. State and local governments. Fourth, the Plan will help DEP raise public aware­

ness of the fragility of New Jersey's barrier islands and shoreline as well as of the risks of coastal develop­ment. For example, twenty years ago a major north­easter, the Ash Wednesday storm, struck the Jersey coast. To remember that storm and its effects, DEP is scheduling a symposium at the shore this summer with remembrances being shared by Richard J. Hughes, who was governor at the time of the 1962 storm, Dr. Neil Frank, Director, National Hurricane Center, NOAA will give a report on hurricane forecasting limitations and the effects of a hurricane on the Jersey shore. An oral history will be provided by a panel of participants in the post storm response in 1962_

Fifth, the Plan defines DEP policy and provides the basis for the advocacy of proper management of shore­line processes. As the steward of the built and natural environment in New Jersey, DEP is often called upon to take a position on controversial issues. The adopted Shore Protection Master Plan provides a publicly pre­pared basis for DEP's advocacy of protection of the shoreline environment.

The Department of Environmental Protection devel­oped the Shore Protection Master Plan in an open, public process that included a number of workshops. A complete draft report with many ideas that were later modified or rejected, and a sincere effort to respond to all public comments received from public hearings, in­dividual workshops with local officials in each county, and extensive public correspondence characterize de­velopment of the plan. Public planning on contro­versial issues of private property, the environment, and the future requires a willingness to hear different viewpoints, a commitment to responsiveness, an understanding that an agreement to disagree may be the only agreement among parties, and an acceptance of the different time perspectives of various interests, with the Department of Environmental Protection being charged with a long term perspective. The Shore Protection Master Plan, as adopted in New Jersey, is a synthesis of many diSCiplines, including geology, biol­ogy, history, law, 'engineering, economics, planning,

12

· politics, and finally luck. With some good fortune, the · Jersey shore will continue to exist with the assistance of public and private efforts at all levels to manage

· shoreline processes. The basic philosophy that drives the Shore Protection Master Plan is that the shore is now and should continue to be in the future a place for many people to live, work and visit. In the past, man has abused the shoreline. In the future, using the guid· ance of the Shore Protection Master Plan, the people of New Jersey aim to work more in harmony with na· ture.

1/1 '" '*' *

Note: Copies of the three·volume New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan, including the plan itself, a detailed basis and background containing ref· erence materials and discussions of all the alter· natives considered in developing the plan, and a volume of public comments on the draft plan and DEP responses, is available at no charge from the Coastal Information Center, CN 401, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

The Scientific Perspective Norbert P. Psuty

Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies Rutgers University

Coastal dune dynamics remain the least studied and least understood of the processes acting to form our mobile shoreline. Coastal dunes are an integral part of the beach profile and legitimately should be consid· ered an equal partner in the dune/beach system. The dune is the location of sand storage in the upper por· tion of the dune/beach profile and represents an area where terrestrial processes and marine processes inter· face. The presence of pioneer vegetation as well as bushes and shrubs on the leeward side of the dunes creates distinctive habitats not found on the beach. The dune form may be an even ridge line or it may con· sist of a member of hummocks and even bare sand areas associated with active blowouts. Regardless of the particular forms, dimensions, or ecological habi· tats represented by the dune system, it continues to function as a dynamic portion of the profile and inter· acts with the beach to provide the characteristics of the local beach/dune environments. In all cases the dune is an area of sand storage and a buffer against storm surge penetration inland. The degree of storage and of surge protection are directly related to the dimensions of the dune.

Coastal dune management is essentially directed at maintaining and/or enhancing the dimensions of the dunes. New Jersey is currently contemplating state legislation to create a dune management district

APRIL 1982

(DMD) along its shoreline. The DMD would create 1:) zone where dunes are protected, and a permit pro)

, cesses would apply for any type of system modification or intrusion. The proposed New Jersey legislation is unique because it contains language to incorporate barrier island/dune dynamics as well as the dune form itself. Fire Island, on Long Island, N.Y., currently has a dune district in which the essential purpose is to main· tain the integrity of the dune by a permit process which excludes any major modification to structures in the district and prohibits any original construction in the district.

Whereas the Long Island ordinance and similar ordi· nances enacted elsehere have the worthy objective of protecting existing dunes, they are flawed because they assume static situations. That is, they create a mapped zone and thereby establish static boundaries for a very dynamic system. The challenge is to create a dune district that is as dynamic as the dune/beach sys· tem. It is this quality that is so different in the New Jersey legislation. In addition to the specific zone where the dune form exists, the New Jersey program . calls for a setback area to the lee of the dune where there are some use restrictions and where dune pro·

. cesses continue to be encouraged. The setback is an area where dunes may migrate and within which sed· iment exchange may continue. The use restrictions are not as great as in the dune zone. Equally important is the necessity to periodically evaluate the boundarie;~ of the dune zone and the setbacl< area. If erosion i.} severe and the features are migrating landward, thE; dune zone and the setback area will migrate also. The flexible zoning concept applied to the dunes is based on the recognition of the dynamics and an attempt to preserve the dynamics and thus the features.

In those areas where erosion is characteristic, the dune management district will be migrating inland and thus controls. will be extending over additional proper· ties as the boundaries are adjusted. In those areas where the shoreline is stable, the boundaries will reo main in place and the coastal zone will not shift. In those rare instances where the shoreline is advancing the control zone is nearly meaningless because the basis for management has been negated. That is, where new land is being added in front of develop. ment, the natural buffer is ever enlarging. If the shore· line is indeed' accreting and advancing seaward, the necessity for erosion controls no longer exists.

The basis for a dune management district is to pro· tect the dune form and to encourage dune forming pro· cesses. The dune form adds to the sediment budget in the way of sand storage and also provides a buffer against storm surge penetration. Whereas the dune form is a nice characteristic to have in the dune/beach profile for its esthetic and ecological values, it is most valuable in its role as a protector for the economic d9:. velopment inland from the dunes. The dune zone pro· '\. vides a degree of safety to development in a high risl J area. To compromise the integrity of the dune system is to increase the level of risk in this hazardous area.

APRIL 1982

'eThe Local Perspective

Kenneth Smith, President, New Jersey Shore and Beach

Preservation Association

New Jersey is often used as an example of coastal land mamigement at its worst. Its 127 miles of coast· line are almost 100% developed. The only exceptions are Island Beach State Park, a 9.5 mile strip of natural barrier beach, and a few other state and federal natural areas.

In Atlantic Beaches, Jonathan Norton Leonard, writing for Time·Life Books, termed the New Jersey coast an eyesore, and likened it to a collection of tar paper shacks sitting on rotted pilings.

Geologist Orrin Pilkey of Duke University has de· rided the "New Jerseyization" of our coast, and has called for the elimination of erosion control projects. According to Piikey, the American public is spending vast sums in tax dollars to protect the interests of a few foolish people who decide to live by the sea.

The New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan is of the same philosophical bent, that the public interest is best served by the conversion of private property into

. public ownership, and that "natural" is better than .( ~'''developed.'' I disagree totally with these views, and I ""~houJd like to put the case here that conversion to

r public ownership would be the worst possible course of action for New Jersey.

Within a 300 mile radius of Atlantic City live 25% of our nation's population. The coast is only a gas tank away from Philadelphia, New York, and Baltimore. It is jammed every summer with Americans on vacation. On Long Beach Island, the access route backs up some 30 miles with traffic on a Saturday afternoon. Millions of tourists visit the Jersey shore in summer. A very few people remember the old days, when access was limited and the shore was much less crowded. But lamenting for the old days is unproductive, for New Jersey cannot and should not go back. Like it or not we are the host to America in the summer: we who live here cannot be the last ones in and sla'm the door behind us. Our location has predetermined our role.

Island Beach State Park is a beautiful park, a place where one can experience the barrier beach in its pristine wildness. It is a wonderful place to take the family for an outing, and I highly recommend at least one visit during your vacation. But get there early. Last weekend the park was closed to traffic at 11 :00 a.m. on Saturday and 10:30 a.m. on Sunday. Parking capacity is perhaps 1000 cars, lirniting the public acess (which may be good for the park rangers but not so hot for the

,A\npublic). Adjacent to the park are Seaside Park and , eaSeaside Heights, with just over 2 miles of breach fron· -'h~age. At last estimate over 5 million tourists spend

. ~ their summer vacations in these two tiny towns, about 10 times as many as the park hosts each year.

Let's look at some figures. Tourism in New Jersey is the second largest source of revenue, generating close

13

to $7 billion annually, with projections of 20 billion by 1990. The four coastal counties, (Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic and Cape May) account for 41 % of the seasonal employment increase in New Jersey. The Master Plan's estimate of property values on just the barrier islands (exclusing the area from Barnegat Light to Sandy Hook) was $5,261,000,000 in 1979. It's safe to say the value has tripled,

The Garden State Parkway is being widened, at a cost of about 100 million dollars, to faciliate public ac· cess to the shore. To keep our waters clean, the entire coast is installing sewer systems at a cost of many mil· lions of dollars.

In short, there is a huge investment of money, public and private, in New Jersey's coast. It is ironic that the one type of expenditure that is most important, that for erosion control and beach restoration, has not been readily forthcoming. Under the administration of Governor Brendan Byrne, the shore was allotted very little in beach protection money. The nadir was reached in 1977, when New Jersey spent a grand total of $42,085.00 on shore protection. The 8 years of neglect under Byrne could not have come at a worse time, for the costs of beach restoration began to skyrocket in the late 70's.

In 1976, the Army Corps of Engineers had updated a comprehensive plan for the rehabilitation of the Jersey shore. It included the establishment of weir systems, feeder beaches, sand bypassing, stabilized inlets, and beach nourishment from offshore sources. The cost in 1976 was approximately $200 million dollars, with a state cost of about $100 million. That cost has nearly doubled at this writing. While the New Jersey Depart· ment of Environmental Protection (DEP) shirked their responsibility to protect our coast, we watched our beaches erode, year after year. In spite of the enor· mous socioeconomic and recreational value of the Jersey shore, it seemed the administration always had 10 or 20 better places to put its money. As to funding, the shore towns were put into a Catch·22 situation. A caps law was passed, which prohibited municipalities from budgeting more than 5% over their previous budget each year. That, coupled with the DEP's 50·50 state· local cost sharing arrangement (which has only recently been changed to 75·25) put meaningful shore protection out of reach for the coastal municipalities.

In 1977, the Beaches and Harbors Bond Issue was approved by the voters. It authorized 20 million dollars to be spent for beach protection. The DEP took voter approval as a mandate to launch yet another study of the coast, which culminated 4'12 years and half a mil· lion dollars later in the adopted Shore Protection Master Plan. The Plan is an exhaustive study of the Jersey coast, combining coastal engineering, land ac· quisition, and regulation, to effect prioritized alter· natives for the 14 reaches of shoreline fronting the Atlantic Ocean.

The draft of the Master Plan proposed the passage of the Dune and Shorefront Protection Act, a bill which would have banned reconstruction of any structure damaged more than 50% by a storm in an area from the ocean to the first parallel paved road. The response

14

from the residents and vacationers alike was probably best expressed as a "string'em up" attitude toward the DEP. Public hearings were jammed and stormy, and the bill was eventually withdrawn.

I hope that the DEP learned a lesson about private property during those hearings. It is simply that you better not mess with it. The ownership of private prop· erty is not merely, as David Kinsey put it "like in· vesting in the stock market: sometimes you win, sometimes you lose." If, as a member of the American Littoral SOciety said, "nature doesn't care about prop· erty values," it does not follow that the interests of the individual and the community at large are not served by mitigating the effects of nature on private property.

I think that many environmentalists have a cavalier disregard for the importance of private property. It is not just a set of figures on a tax roll. It is a measure of dreams and hard work; the realization of aspirations stretched over a lifetime. To most of us, our home is much more than its components. It is our protection from the elements and our statement of being. We may lose it eventually to the sea. But woe be the bureaucrat who would legislate it away from us.

I am happy to report that a welcome change has come over the DEP with the new administration of Governor Kean. There is a commitment to beach pro· tection and beach restoration projects are under way at priority areas along the coast. There is an openness and responsiveness in the DEP which is very refreshing and I look forward to a much closer relationship than we have had in the past.

Coastal engineering has a higher priority with the DEP now, and they will be working more closely with the Corps of Engineers in the future. On land acquisi· tion, I think the general lack of funds have made it a dead issue. As for regulation, we are watching the bills, but our legislators got a loud and clear message from us over the last two years, so I'm not too worried.

One sad irony is that now that we have a State com· mitment to beach restoration, we have very little money. The budget constraints, both state and federal, are throwing the funding responsibilities back the locals, and we have our own constraints. Further, with the rapidly increasing costs of beach protection, it is going to be very difficult to use bonding' as a funding mechanism. How do you bond 20 years for a project which may last five years; or two years? How do we fund the annual maintenance, which could approach a state share of 12 to 15 million dollars? We can pro­bably bond the initial project costs, but the annual maintenance is a problem.

There are several approaches we can take. Within the four coastal counties, a portion of the sales taxes should be earmarked for shore protection. A room tax can be instituted at hotels, and other rental properties, and, as a last resort, a special assessment could be levied on property owners in the coastal zone. It could be rated on assessed value, with perhaps an equaliza­tion factor based on proximity to the beach, and could be managed on a reach specific basis, much like a municipal utilities authority. I hesitate to propose such a tax, since the coastal residents would be in a position

APRIL 1982

of double taxation if they are paying off bonds. But' necessity is the mother of invention, and if the oceanl was knocking at my door, I'd be willing to go a few ex­tra bucks to keep it at bay.

I suppose the day will come when we can no longer hold back the sea, and plans will have to be made to deliberately abandon parts of our coast. Perhaps, this can be done by offering tax breaks over a number of years to imminently endangered properties. This would allow the owner some compensation for his loss. We have not reached that point, yet, and there is a wealth of engineering technology available to forestall it.

It is sufficient for the present to commit ourselves to the role which our fellow Americans have mandated us, that of providing the facilities, the restaurants, the amusements, which enable them to enjoy the whole­some recreation of a vacation at the beach. We are not the Outer Banks, or Cape Cod; we are New Jersey. And we serve up more fun to more people, mile for mile, than any other coast in this country.

Beyond all the dollar figures, the good times we offer, the smiles we send people home with, are what make the Jersey shore well worth perserving.

The Legal Perspective ~ Thomas Norman

Attorney at Law

Introduction Presently in New Jersey, three legislative proposals

have been introduced to protect sand dunes and beaches along the New Jersey coastline. According to the statements of the sponsors of the three proposals, local efforts to protect sand dunes and beaches have met with little success. Why? Is it that local municipal officials lack enthusiasm or the necessary scientific in· formation to develop standards upon which affirmative action can be based. In this context, one must also ask, how important are the legal constraints, if any, which impact local decision making and enforcement. Of particular import in this regard is the "taking issue", the one significant legal issue which can send chills of fear down the spines of local officials confronted with ever increasing budgets and shrinking tax dollars. This paper explores the ramifications of the taking issue in light of the three proposals. Each legislative proposal will be analyzed briefly and reviewed in light of New Jersey decisional law and constitutional standards.

Proposed Legislation The three bills are quite similar in terms of ex-'

pressed goals and objectives, stressing the need for'·. protecting dune areas and beaches for the health, safe-.) ty and general welfare of the residents of New Jersey. They are also similar in that all three bills were intro· duced in the 1980 session of the New Jersey Legisla­ture. However, beyond these two points, the

APRIL 1982

''?''imilarities fade a'ld practically disappear. \~, The first bill, identified as "Dune and Shorefront

Protection Act" (Assembly Bill 1825), was introduced in June of 1980, and was clearly the strongest of the three bills in terms of regulatory control and state in­volvement. Regulated areas under this bill extended from mean high water to the first public road parallel to the ocean. Within this area all new construction was prohibited as well as reconstruction of facilities includ­ing residential dwellings damaged by ocean storms. However, the construction prohibition only came into effect where the damage exceeded 50% of the fair mar­ket value of the dwelling. Initially, the State of New Jersey through the Department of Environmental Pro­tection (DEP) had the authority to enforce the regula­tions. Local governmental units were given the authority to adopt ordinances which must be approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. How­ever, this authority at the local level can be revoked by the DEP if a finding was made that the local ordinance was not being properly implemented and enforced.

Several months later, after a storm of violent opposi­tion was heard from property owners along the New Jersey coastline, a second proposal entitled "The Beach and Dune Protection Act" (Assembly Bill 2228) was introduced. By its terms, the regulated area ex­tended from the mean high water to the landward toe of the most inland dune. Within this area new construc·

!'tion was prohibited, although the reconstruction of '\... :Jamaged residences, regardless of the degree of '" damage, was expressly permitted. Again, local govern-

mental bodies were permitted to prepare and adopt ordinances consistent with the State act and with the blessing of the Department of Environmental Protec­tion. While this proposal allowed for the reconstruc­tion of damaged buildings, it did not find a great deal of support.

The third proposed legislative alternative was identi­fied as the "New Jersey Shorefront Protection Act" (Assembly Bill 2262). It regulated the area extending from the mean high water to the closest of four alterna­tive locations involving either (1) a line 200 feet land­ward of the vegetation line; (2) a line 200 feet landward of the seaward foot of the dunes; (3) the landward foot of the dunes; or (4) at a seawall or revetmef.lt having a minimum elevation of 10 feet above mean sea level. Within this area, removal of native vegetation and the operating of a motor vehicle was prohibited. Residen­tial and commercial construction was expressly per­mitted as a regulated land use, and the reconstruction of existing buildings damaged by storms as well as the expansion of two family buildings were expressly made exempt from any regulations unless the development would disturb the dune or beach. Local government or­dinances could be implemented provided that they sat­

)sfied the requirements of the bill as determined by the (state Department of Environmental Protection.

Decisional Law - The Beach Haven Series In a rather unusual line of decisions involving the

same parcel of land, the New Jersey Supreme Court'

15

passed initially upon the validity of a dune protection ordinance adopted by a local governmental agency, i.e. Beach Haven Borough. The ordinance in question designated a dune area extending from mean high tide to a building line beyond the dune area established by an engineering study. Within this area virtually all de­velopment was prohibited. The property owner argued that the regulations destroyed the usability of the land. The municipality countered with the argument that it would be unsafe to construct houses oceanward of the building line because of the possibility that they would be destroyed during a severe storm. However, the mu­nicipality also submitted evidence to substantiate its argument. Unfortunately for the property owner, no evidence was submitted to substantiate the existence of some present or potential beneficial use of which he had been deprived_ In this posture, the New, Jersey Supreme Court upheld the validity of the dune ordi­nance but also ruled that the property owner was en­titled to another "bite" at the apple by way of addi­tional proceedings, based upon a claim showing an ac­tual taking of a beneficial use. The property owner then instituted a second action2 against the Borough claiming the dune ordinance deprived him of the bene­ficial use of his property without just compensation. Essentially, four parcels were in issue. The Court found that three of the parcels could not be developed safely nor economically from a common sense standpoint. However, the Court also found that a safely construc­ted residence could be built on the fourth parcel and that the land owner, in making application for a build­ing permit, had a sincere intention of using the prop­erty for that purpose. The test established in this case is worth repeating:

Our review of the evidence as to the physical charac­teristics of this tract and the hazardous conditions to which it might be subjected because of its location satisfies us that although it may be possible from a strictly engineering standpoint to erect a residential structure on the site with supporting utilities, it would not be safe or economically feasible to do so from a common sense standpoint. . _ . Weighing the interest of the property owner against the public, we are satisfied that this tract has no present beneficial use for residential construction, absent an outlay of money out of "II reasonable proportions to the uses to be derived from it and the imposition of an unrea­sonable hazard on the public. We conclude that plaintiffs are entitled to no compensation as to this property_3

Future Assuming the New Jersey Courts follow the prece­

dent set down in the Beach Haven cases, one must ask what can local municipalities and the State of New Jersey expect if one of the three dune protection laws is enacted and implemented along the Jersey coast­line. The test to determine whether a taking has oc­curred as established in the Beach Haven decisions in­volves a determination based primarily upon the costs of engineering the site in relation to the extent of dam-

16

age which may occur as a result of an ocean storm. The Court has asked whether such expenses are reasonable in terms of common sense. However, the common sense yardstick of 1965 when the Supreme Court ini· tially decided the Beach Haven case has changed sub· stantially if one assumes engineering costs are related to the value of property. Land values of ocean front properties in 1982 far exceed values in 1965 when the original decision was handed down and it may well be that the economic reasonableness test can be satisfied except in the most novel situations where extensive fill is required in conjunction with very elaborate engi· neering requirements. In short, appreciating land values have simply weighted the balance toward a find· ing of land confiscation if engineering costs are utilized as a significant factor. Assembly Bill 1825 and Assem· bly Bill 2228 may create some very difficult financial problems for municipalities and for the State since the development prohibitions are very extensive within areas of regulation which are also fairly extensive. The last proposal, Assembly Bill 2262, is probably the safest in terms of satisfying issues related to land con· fiscation but, then, it also permits activities which, we are advised by the scientists, should be prohibited in order to protect the function of sand dunes and ultimately the barrier beach islands.

In sum, it seems that one of the key impediments to local initiative to protect the dunes is the fear of loss of tax dollars through adverse Court decisions. It may be that only the State is able to deal with this issue since only the State has the financial capability to pay for ocean front properties which have been found by the Court to be confiscated by restrictive land use regula· tions.

lSpleglf~ V8. Borough of Beach Haven, 46 N.J. 479, cert. den. 385 U.S, 83-1 (1966).

2Spieg/e vs. Beach Haven, 116 N.J. Super. 148 (App. Div. 1971).

3Spiegle, supra at 164.

APRIL 1982

Regular Features

~

Legal Column: The 1981 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act

,''\, . .; ':-j. -~

Richard Hildreth, Professor of Law and Co·Director University of Oregon Ocean and Coastal Law Center

Ken Schoolcraft, Associate Editor University of Oregon Law Review

In 1981, Congress passed the first extensive amend· ments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA or Act). The amendments retained the primary purpose of the MMPA - to restore and maintain ma:, , . rine mammal populations - but revised definitiop:~~ and administrative procedures that were unclear an,',,/ cumbersome.

Problems Under the MMPA One problem was that the definitions of optimum

sustainable population (OSP) and optimum carrying capacity (OCC), both central to the Act, were circular and unclear.

Second, the incidental taking of porpoises by the . tuna purse seine fishery had become a problem. Fish· . ermen, setting their net on porpoises to catch the yel· lowfin tuna which congregate beneath the mammals, sometimes harm or kill the porpoises. Section 1371 of the MMPA, however, declared it to "be the immediate goal that the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of marine mammals permitted in the course of com, mercial fishing operations be reduced to insignificant levels approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate." Since 1972, the tuna fishery has made substan· tial progress In reducing incidental taking, but it has not achieved the zero mortality goal.

A third difficulty with the Act, the return of manage· ment to the states, became apparent after Alaska reo quested a waiver of the moratorium on takings in con· nection with the return of management. Alaska made its initial request regarding the walrus and nine othe( species in 1975. The MMPA's complex administrativf"r notice, hearing, and review requirements, includinl J the need to prepare an environmental impact state·' ment, the split of jurisdiction' between the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, and considerations involving Alaskan natives delayed the final decision. By 1979, only the management of the

APRIL 1982

't"/alrus had been delegated to Alaska. Then the court in '~People of Togiak v. United States, 470 F. Sup. 423

(D. D.C. 1979), held that the native exemption provi· sion of the MMPA preempted Alaska's law that pro· hibited preferences for native uses. Alaska returned management of the walrus to the federal government and revoked its request to manage the other species.

A fourth problem involved the exemption for native subsistence taking. The MMPA only required that na· tive taking be for certain purposes and not be "accom· plished in a wasteful manner." The Secretary of Com· mere or of the Interior can only intervene when the species or stock subject to taking has been depleted. Considering the difficulty in rebuilding depleted popu· lations, the actions of the Secretary might be too late for the survival of the population.

A Preliminary Assessment of the 1981 Amendments

Section 1 of the amendrnents clarifies definitions in the MMPA. It first deletes the term "optimum carrying capacity." Either "carrying capacity" or "optirnum sus­tainable population" (aSP) is substituted for optimum carrying capacity. "Carrying capacity", a term new to the Act, is not defined. While these changes do not ap· pear to significantly change administration of the MMPA, they do clarify Congress' intent that asp be a

~l~ ")opulation range, rather than a precise number. Sec" .\..ion 1 also revises the definition of "depleted" or "de­

pletion". The term now refers to a determination made by the Secretary of Commerce or of the Interior or a state that a species or population stock is below aSP. A species or population stock is also depleted when it is listed as endangered or threatened under the Endan· gered Species Act of 1973.

Section 2 amends the moratorium section of the Act, 16 U.S.c. §1371. It first removes the limited-time exemption for commercial fisheries which had expired in 1974. The section then redefines the zero mortality goal for purse seine fishermen of yellowfin tuna taking marine mammals incidental to their operations. Zero mortality for these fishermen, who adversely affect porpoises, is satisfied by the "continuation of the ap· plication of the best marine mammal safety techniques and equipment that are economically and technologi. cally practicable." Congress in this amendment recog­nizes that porpoise mortalities have decreased from 368,000 in 1972 to 15,303 in 1980. New techniques such as "backing down" that allow the porpoise to es­cape the net, and equipment such as the Medina Panel have helped produce this result. Other techniques, which include systems for detecting tuna not necessar­ily associated with porpoises and for artificially aggre­gating tuna, are being developed. Section 5 of the ",\mendments requires the Secretary to conduct reo f earch into other methods of fishing for yellowfin tuna \"hich will not involve the incidental take of marine mammals.

Section 2 of the amendments states that the Secre· - tary may allow non· tuna commercial fishermen to take

17

small numbers of mammals. This provision is meant to apply to situations such as the seal·salmon fishery in· teraction in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, and the sea otter· abalone controversy in California. The amendments set forth three guidelines: (1) the mam· mal species or population stock may not be depleted; (2) the Secretary, after notice and comment, must find that the taking will have a negligence impact; and (3) a cooperative monitoring system must be established. The amendments also state that the Secretary shall withdraw or suspend authorization if he or she finds, after notice and comment, that the taking is having more than a negligible impact on the population or that the Act would be better served by disregarding

, this provision. This "small numbers" provision creates much uncer·

tainty. First, the procedure the Secretary must follow to authorize the taking is not stated. Second, the term "small numbers" is undefined. The legislative history indicates that the term refers to "infrequent, unavoid· able, or accidental" takings. The vagueness of the term is compounded by the uncertainty of whether a precise number must be given when permission to take is granted. Third, the term "negligible impact" is vague and thus likely to generate controversy and litigation.

Despite these drawbacks, the "small numbers" ex· ception process can be used to generate information on marine mammal-fishery interaction. At present few non· tuna fishermen report incidents involving marine mammals, in part because of complex procedures re­quired to obtain a permit. By simplifying the process and removing the threat of punishing for reporting an incidental take without a permit, Congress and the agencies should receive more information regarding the frequency and impacts of marine mammal.fishery interactions and gain better population information.

Under Section 2 of the amendments, the Secretary also may allow other persons to take small numbers of marine mammals without following the Act's regula· tion and permit requirements. This provision was in· tended to apply to offshore oil and gas developers. It is similar to the proviSions allowing such takings by non· tuna fishermen. However, the Secretary must state precisely what activity is involved a'1d where it will be conducted. Notice to the public through local media is required prior·to the granting of permission to take. The amendments give the Secretary emergency powers to suspend permission without following notice and comment procedures. These additional pro­cedural safeguards reflect the possibility of an impact greater in scope in a shorter amount of time than would be possible in a non·tuna fishery. The specificity requirement prevents the issuance of general permits to take marine mammals in the course of oil and gas exploration.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra­tion has issued proposed regulations governing small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified ac­tivities other than commercial fishing. (47 Fed. Reg., March 3, 1982). The regulations attempt to define some of the amendment's vague terms. "Small num·

18

bers" is defined as "a portion of a marine mammal spe­cies or stock whose removal has a negligible impact on the species or stock." "Negligible impact" is that im­pact "which can be disregarded or which is so small or unimportant, or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention." The agency, using the best avail­able sCientific evidence, must determine whether the taking has a negligible impact on the species or stock, their habitat, or the availability of the species for sub­sistence uses.

These regulations help clarify the meaning of these definitions, but do not set strict proportional or numer­ical limitations. The Secretary still has a considerable discretion to determine whether "small numbers" will be or have been taken. This is shown in the proposed regulations regarding takings of ringed seals inci­dental to on-ice seismic activities. The Secretary has determined that the takings will have a ngligible im­pact on the species, stock, or subsistence require­ments. Permissible methods and monitoring and re­porting requirements are imposed but a precise num­ber of allowable takings is not stated. The taking is terminated only if the Secretary withdraws or ter­minates the authorization after notice and comment.

Other provisions of the amendments allow federal, state, and local authorities to take mammals humanely in the course of their duties. The nonlethal removal of nuisance animals is now pOSSible, although the term "nuisance" is not defined.

In addition, section 1371(b) is amended to clarify that the native exemption to the Act's taking mora­torium is subject to state regulation and applies only to Alaskan natives.

Section 4 of the amendments changes the proce­dures for transferring management of marine mam· mals from the federal agencies to the states. The Sec­retary's transfer decision now is made after notice and comment, rather than after the lengthy hearing pro­cess previously required by the regulations promul­gated under the original Act. The legislative history is clear that judicial review is stin available.

The state program must: (1) be consistent with the Act's policies and goals and with international treaty

'obligations; (2) require humane takings; (3) prohibit takings until the state determines the population's OSP and the number that can be taken without the population falling below OSP; (4) prohibit takings in­consistent with OSP; (5) prohibit taking for scientific research or display purposes unless undertaken by or for the state; (6) provide for further OSP research; (7) provides a federal-state dispute resolution process; and (8) provide for annual reports.

These criteria, by emphasizing OSP levels, allow a state to implement a program which is more flexible than the present federal program. Thus, states may be able to manage some marine mammals in a manner more responsive to local desires. However, the Secre­tary may revoke the transfer in situations of abuse. The requirement that federal-state cooperative allocation agreements be entered for species whose range ex­tends beyond the state's jurisdiction also may help pre­serve national interests. The Secretary retains author-

APRIL 1982

ity over most takings for scientific research and pub Ii "\ display purposes. Environmental impact statement. ) are no longer required when the Secretary transfers

: authority to the state or revokes the transfer. The Sec­retary is also authorized to make grants to help states develop management programs.

The foregoing changes attempt to respond to prob­lems Alaska encountered in seeking management au­thority. As a condition of receiving management au­thority under the amendments, Alaska must adopt and implement a statute that will give rural residents of the state a priority consumptive use of marine mammals. Acceptable subsistence uses are defined as "the custo­mary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of marine mammals for direct personal or family con­sumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handi­craft articles out of nonedible byproducts of marine mammals taken for personal or family consumption; and for barter or sharing for personal or family con­sumption." The Secretary may prescribe regulations requiring marking, tagging, and reporting of animals taken by Alaskan natives.

Problems Unresolved by the Amendments Some important problems are not dealt with by the

1981 amendments. The MMP A' and the Fishery Con­servation and Management Act (FCMA) are concerne<\"~,, with species in the same ecosystem, but neither act e' ) fectively accounts for the interests of the other_ TI , date, fishery management plans developed under the FCMA have not considered adequately the needs of marine mammal populations, Conversely, the MMPA requires little consideration of the goals of the FCMA. The 1981 MMP A amendments require a cooperative allocation agreement between a state and the FCMA regional fishery management council when a state de­sires to manage a mammal whose range extends beyond state boundaries. While this is a step in the right direction, more is necessary to ensure that both federal and state agencies consider the needs and plans of fishermen and manage species under both acts on an ecosystem basis. The ongoing FCMA reau­thorizationprocess presents an opportunity to take additional steps.

A second major problem not resolved by the amend­ments is the division of jurisdiction between the De­partment of Commerce and Department of the In­terior, This division causes duplication of effort and unnecessarily complicates administration of the Act. Some action seems necessary to reduce the ineffi­ciency inherent in the division of jurisdiction,

APRIL 1982

Washington Column Thomas Bigford

Personnel Changes

"

The U.S. Coast Guard has shuffled its top managers following the retirement of Commandant John Hayes this spring. Vice Admiral James Gracey, formerly Commander of both the USCG Third District in New York and the entire Atlantic Division, has been ap· pOinted the new Commandant and selected for promo· tion to Admiral. The new number two person will be Rear Admiral, Benedict Stabile who comes to Washington, D,t. from the USCG Seventh District in Miami. Confirmation hearings for both appointees were held May 5 before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology. Cdr. Hayes of­ficially retired on May 27.

At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis­tration, two changes have been announced, First,

,'lames W, Winchester has been sworn in as the Asso· { ,:iate Administrator. Mr. Winchester brings to NOAA a "\ diverse background in marine environmental systems

evaluation and analysis, He has advanced degrees in public administration and physical oceanography, At NOAA, Mr. Winchester will assist Administrator John V. Byrne in all phases of the agency's operations. Sec· ond, Martin H. Belsky has announced his resignation effective July as Assistant Administrator for Policy and Planning, Mr. Belsky will be going to the Uni· versity of Florida where he will be Director of the Center for Governmental Responsibility and an Asso­ciate Professor of Law at the law school. '

Ocean Dumping The Environmental Protection Agency continues to

reevaluate its policies on the disposal of municipal waste, sludge, and low-level radioactive wastes in the oceans. Reconstruction of the oceans as dumpsites has become more serious since an August 1981 federal court decision that directed EPA to assess a broader range of alternative dumping practices. EPA's pro­posal could allow cities like New York and municipal­ities to dispose of sludge with a permit, increase the amount of dumping of dredged materials, and ease the permit requirements for disposal of low-level radio­active wastes, The major reason for these proposed re-4isions is that the current regulations fail to consider

('ppropriate costs and benefits of various disposal i nethods.

Atomic Wastes High-level radioactive wastes disposal has also been

the subject of debate in Washington, D.C, circles, The

19

Office of Technology Assessment released a report on April 26 which stated that no insurmountable tech­nical obstacles block the way toward constructing waste repositories in certain types of stable geological formations, OTA concluded that such disposal sites were preferable to other altematives, including seabed enplacement. Standards for these repositories will be developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will implement the standards, and the Department of Energy will build the sites. Users fees paid by consumers may finance development of disposal sites.

In a related action on April 29, the Senate approved legislation by 69-9 to establish a national program for storage of radioactive wastes that have been accumu, lating over the past 35 years, Comparable legislation on the House side is stalled in the Energy and Com­merce Committee.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission The U.S. Court of Appeals decided 2-1 on April 27 to

suspend NRC's environmental standards for nuclear power plants. If the decision stands, which is in some doubt since the court may have entered a policy forum reserved by Congress for NRC, the absence of stan­dards could delay licensing procedures for several power plants, This issue had been heard in 1978 by the Supreme Court but was passed to the Appeals Court. Future courses of action could include a rehearing be­fore the Supreme Court or NRC preparation of stan­dards on a case-by-case basis for each license appli­cation.

National Parks Debate continues on how the Department of Interior

should manage its national park system. Last year, Secretary James G, Watt stated that he would prefer to consolidate existing parks and manage them better be­fore purchasing additional lands. Now DOl is propos­ing to reprogram part of its budget to condemn lands the National Park Service has sought to purchase in the past. These condemnation purchases are still within Secretary Watt's policy of ending outright purchases of park land. Most of the condemnations involve small parcels of land' adjacent to existing parks.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) The "U.S. List of Endangered and Threatened Wild­

life and Plants" (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12) has been up­dated and reprinted. The new version is available from the Office of Public Affairs - Publications, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D,C. 20460.

Hill debate has continued for months on the future of the Endangered Species Act. Senate testimony on December 8 and 20, 1981, and House testimony Feb­ruary 22 and March 8, 1982, initiated Congressional discussion on reauthorization of the ESA. Hearings have thus far focused on Sections 4 (determining species to be endangered or threatened), 7 (federal agency involvement in consultation and the exemption

20

process), and 9 (impact of "taking" prohibitions on development) and the length of reauthorization. Sec· tion 4, one of the least controversial aspects of the amendments, addresses how species are listed under the ESA. Widespread concem has been aired that reo quirements for a cost· benefit analysis have encum· bered the listing process. Indeed, only two species have been listed in the past several years. Section 7 is the primary mechanism for requiring federal agencies not to jeopardize listed species by harming the species or adversely modifying their habitat. Some testimony urged that the consultation processes with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service be streamlined while others argued that Section 7 activities shOUld be initiated earlier in the course of a federal action. Section 9 is based on "taking", a concept some industries would like to refine in more specific terms. Reauthorization testi· mony from the FWS urged one year with amendments while NOAA recommended two years without amend· ments. House and Senate subcommittee action on May 5 urged a three· year reauthorization with amendments to reduce delays in listing and processing exemptions. Both bills now proceed to the full committees. (Since their summary was prepared, the House approved it's bill on June 8.)

Congressional Activities As noted in the list of selected House and Senate

hearings presented elsewhere in this issue, Congress has had a very busy spring. Besides the topics dis· cussed in detail in this column, other activities in· c1uded:

• Great Lakes Protection - H.R. 3600 has been drafted to create a Great Lakes Research Office in NOAA and reauthorize appropriations for the National Ocean Pollution Planning Act a $4 million for FY 1983 and 1984.

• Ocean Dumping Act or Title II of the Marine Pro· tection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act - H.R. 6112 was introduced April 20 to authorize appropriations for Title II at $12 million annually for FY 1983 and 1984. The 1983 level constitutes a significant increase from the $4.835 million level requested by the Admin· istration.

• Barrier Islands - S. 1018, introduced by Senator Chafee and discussed at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee meeting last October 21, was approved by the Subcommittee on Environmental Pol· lution on April 28. The bill would limit federal assis· tance at 140 units identified as unprotected and unde· veloped. It was amended to delete the provision for flood insurance and reduce the authorization level from $5 million for 5 years to $1 million for 3 years.

• Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act - H. R. 4597 and a related bill (H. R. 2792) are proceeding through the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and its subcommittees. Title I of H.R. 4597 would speed up permitting and licenSing activities for oil and gas drilling. Title III addresses consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Title IV would

APRIL 1982

establish a National Ocean and Coastal Resource MaJ'{ir agement Block Grant Program and create a system of' revenue sharing. H.R. 5543 and S. 2129 propose mod· ified versions of the grant system of Title IV. H.R. 5543 has passed the full committee and may be considered by the House after Labor Day.

• Port Development - Hearings continued before the Subcommittee on Water Resou rces of the House Environment and Public Works Commitfee on H.R. 4677. The bill proposes to improve and finance coastal ports, inland waterways, and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaways.

Clean Water Act The Department of the Army (on behalf of the Corps

of Engineers), Environmental Protection Agency, and some members of Congress have proposed a series of amendments to the Clean Water Act. One of the key changes would be in Section 404, the language that directs the Corps to regulate via permits, discharge of dredged or fill materials into the nation's waters, which include many wetlands. As presented to OMB on February 1, 1982, new language would not only streamline the appeal process on permit decisions but also remove wetlands from protection by limiting 404 to navigable waterways. Other amendments circulating in federal agencies address reauthorization, industrial compliance dates for meeting clean water schedule(~' modifications of thermal discharge tests, and extensiOi of terms for national pollutant discharge elimination system permits, On this same topic, the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief announced on May 7 the implementation of major administrative reforms to streamline the Corps' 404 permit program. These reforms parallel the amendments under consideration in Congress but are limited to dredge and fill permits and the agency procedures for review and approval of such permits,

Water Resources Council The Council has proposed changes in the rules by

which the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Recla· mation, and Soil Conservation Service plan water reo sources projects. The new "principles and guidelines", published in the Federal Register March 22 on page 12297, would replace the existing "principles, stan· dards, and procedures," As implied by the new title, the change is intended to make optional several of the analyses now listed as mandatory. The new guidelines would require a "national economic development ac· count" or analysis but make optional accounts of en· vironmental quality, regional economic development, and other social effects.

OCS Hydrocarbon Activities ',', J

The Interior Department has made a series of an' nouncements regarding offshore oil and gas. In March, the latest 5·year plan was released. On May 5, Interior revealed that it is once again considering oil and gas leases off portions of the Califomia Coast. On May 13,

APRIL 1982

;ecretary Watt sent Congress a proposed final plan reo ,terating his plans announced March 13 to offer nearly 1 billion acres of tracts in a revised five· year leasing program that includes a series of about 40 sales be· tween July 1982 and the summer of 1987. Among the more controversial sales is one off California between Point Conception and the Oregon border. Interior's May 6 announcement of sales in that area made spe· cial notice that the California tracts causing such con· troversy in 1981 would be deleted from the new sale on September 1983. Excluded tracts include areas near the marine sanctuaries and Monterey Bay. Besides these changes, Interior also has altered its procedures from determining the fair market value for all tracts before a lease sale to a new system where market value is calculated only for tracts on which bids are received; deleted the North Aleutian Basin in response to en· vironmental concerns; altered the nominations pro· cess by replacing the old "tract selection" step with an "area identification" step; and announced plans to pre· pare environmental impact statements on entire lease sale areas but focus on identified tracts.

Sanctuari~s

NOAA's Sanctuary Program Office has formally reo moved two marine sanctuary .nominations from their List of Active Candidates. The Flower Gardens site,

/~'fhich was the subject of a draft environmental impact ( Jtatement (DEIS) in April 1979, was withdrawn since . Jnost of the resource management issues have been

settled in recent years. NOAA also removed the St. Thomas, Virgin Islands site. Delays in the development of cooperative efforts by the Virgin Islands prevented NOAA from continuing its mAnagement planning. These decisions do not preclude reconsideration of the sites at a later date. On the remaining active candi· dates, work continues on the issue papers and DEISs for two sites in Puerto Rico (waters off La Parguera and waters off Mona and Monito Islands), Monterey Bay in California, humpback whale habitat off Hawaii, and Fagatele Bay on Tutuila Island in American Samoa. In the Estuary Sanctuary Program, information is being collected on Great Bay estuary near Durham, New Hampshire, a site in Wells, Maine, a four· site system (Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, lona Island Marsh, and Piermont Marsh) along the Hudson River in New York, the Mink River in northern Wisconsin, two sites (Carrot Island and Zekes Islands) in North Carolina, and Weeks Bay off Mobile Bay, Alabama.

Regulations prohibiting hydrocarbon development in the Channel Islands and PI. Reyes.Farallon Islands National Maine Sanctuaries became effective March :3'1, 1982. These regulations had been suspended in 1981 pending completion of a Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order No. 12291 on Regula·

,j )ry Relief. . I .

21

.International Column: Coastal Planning in New Zealand

Patrick McCombs Ministry of Transport

Wellington, N.Z.

Coastal planning poliCies are currently being drawn up in New Zealand under legislation which provides for port authorities to plan over water within their har· bours, and cities or counties to plan coastal land use, with coordination and policy objectives being provided at a regional level. This approach to coastal planning has several interesting features.

New Zealand lies in the southem Pacific ocean, its two islands stretching between latitudes approximate· Iy equivalent the US borders with Mexico and Canada, giving it a coastline nearly twice as long as the west coast of the continental United States. New Zealand, with a population of 3.2 million, has a Parliamentary system of government and no federal/state divisions. The land area is divided into city or county districts which have been grouped into 21 regions to provide for coordinated planning. The major ports are op· erated by 15 harbour boards whose members are elect· ed from within the traditional catchment areas for cargo passing through the ports. All of the money spent on port development and administration, includ· ing dredging, is derived from ship, wharfage and dock· age dues.

The Development of Regional Government Throughout the 1970's, considerable concern was

expressed about the need to control developments in the harbours near the main urban centres and in areas subject to tourist pressures, to co·ordinate land and water planning, and to provide greater opportunities for public involvement in decision· making. During the same period, many people had hopes that the then· proposed regional planning process would strengthen planning at the local level and widen its concerns from land use to cover all natural, economic and social reo sources. The new, intermediate level of planning pro· vided an opportunity to plan for the coast without the limitations of boundaries between units of local gov· ernmentor the administrative boundary drawn at mean high water mark.

However, there was considerable opposition to the. creation of a new tier of government over the local councils. Like other local authorities, the harbour boards expressed concern that, in the name of coordi· nation, a non·specialist body would be given power to control the development of their ports. This fear has not eventuated, at least thus far.

The first regional councils were established in 1978, and a few have yet to be constituted. The councils are only now producing their first regional planning schemes. As they are free to choose the topics on

22

which they will initially concentrate (depending on the problems which they perceive in their region) very few have yet made much progress towards the preparation of a section of their regional planning scheme dealing with the coast.

Alternative Approaches to Coastal Planning While coastal planning at a regional level was being

advocated by people who sought a system which would overcome the parochial views and poorly funded basis of local government, three alternative approaches were put forward - a national "coastal commission", the extension of territorial city and county boundaries to cover the adjacent water, and planning by the har· bours boards themselves.

The first two of these possibilities were never seri-. ously considered. The central government is reluctant

to interfere in local planning matters. The Town and County Planning Act provides for local councils' dis­trict planning schemes to be drawn up and brought in­to force by the councils themselves (subject to objec­tions which are heard by the council but cim be ap­pealed to a quasi-judicial independent Planning Tri­bunaJI) without any need for approval by the central government. If the government believes that a draft planning scheme fails to protect the wider public inter­est in some way it has only the power to object and ap­peal, just like landowners or other individuals. The proposal to create a coastal commission with the power to review local planning schemes and to require them to be brought into line with a national policy was therefore well outside the traditional approach to town and country planning in New Zealand.

A further criticism of the proposal for a coastal com­mission was that the coastline was not the only re­source which needed careful planning, and that if it de­served a commission then what about peri-urban land, land of high value for agriculture, and land of special importance to the native Maori people? The belief was that, rather than deal with each of these on an ad hoc basis, the planning system should be required to re­flect their importance within the general structure. Ac­cordingly the Act was amended in 1973 to require dis­trict and regional planning schemes to "r.ecognise and provide for" various factors including "the preserva­tion of the natural character of the coastal environ­ment and the margins of lakes and rivers, and the pro­tection of them from unnecessary subdivision and de­velopment". The only authority which is able to decide whether a plan has provided adequately for the protec­tion of the coast, or whether or not a particular devel­opment is "necessary", is a Planning Tribunal. The simple step of requiring town planning schemes to pay special attention to the coast has greatly improved planning for coastal land, reducing subdivision and promoting public access and protection of the natural vegetation.

The suggestion that the power of city and county councils to plan land use should be extended below mean high water mark into the adjacent sea was felt unworkable. The drawback to this means of providing

APRIL 1982

)..\

a planning system for coastal water use and for co· dinating land and water planning was most obvious in the urban harbours where the need for coastal plan­ning was greatest. With 13 council districts adjoining Auckland Harbour, and 5 around WeJlington harbour, any extension of their planning responsibilities would have badly fragmented planning for the harbours. It would also have been politically unacceptable for city councils to be given planning powers over port devel­opments proposed by harbour boards. These boards have traditionally been subject only to the need to ob­tain authorizations from the central government.

, Maritime Planning by Harbour Boards The means of providing a planning system for

coastal waters finally chosen by the government re­flected the political strength of the harbour boards. A new procedure, named maritime planning ("maritime" as a word was not in general use in New Zealand) was incorporated into the Town and Country Planning Act when it was completely rewritten in 1977 and allowed harbour boards to become planning authorities within their harbours.

Maritime planning areas cover the waters of the har­bours with boundaries drawn around mean high water mark and across the mouth of natural harbours. The land directly associated with the port is also include!, .. " While the harbour board is the martime planning' thority, the Act requires it to establish a planning coo mittee including members from the regional council, the regional water board (responsible for water quality) and two government agencies. The introduction of maritime planning is not mandatory for all harbours, and only four maritime planning areas have been es­tablished covering harbours that are subject to high levels of conflict between competing uses. The proce­dure followed in the preparation of a maritime plan­ning scheme, including public rights of objection and appeal, are similar to that followed for the land-based district schemes.

When maritime planning was first enacted, the plan­ning authority had no powers of control before it had completed its planning scheme; until that time the status quo remained with works in the harbour being considered and authorized by government agencies, and the planning authority having only an advisory role. There were two reasons for the absence of interim plan­ning powers - to provide an incentive for the com­pletion of a multiple use planning scheme (on land some councils had not produced operative district schemes 25 years after they were required by law to do so), and to allow them to commit their resources to the preparation of the plan rather than dealing with indi­vidual applications. In addition, the absence of any im­mediate impediments to project approval may have ,"­sisted the passage of the legislation.

However, in 1980 the Act was amended to give II maritime planning authorities planning power over proposals in their areas before their schemes are oper­ative. The issue which forced the amendment was a proposal by the Auckland Harbour Board to build a

APRIL 1982

wlti-story building for itself on an unused wharf in the narbour. Without the introduction of new interim plan­ning powers there was no adequate procedure for pub­lic involvement in the consideration of the proposal, which the harbour board (sitting as the maritime plan­ning authority), approved but which is awaiting the hearing of an appeal lodged by the owners of a hotel whose view would be blocked by the office building.

Attitudes to Harbour Boards as Planning Authorities

There was considerable criticism of the concept of letting harbour boards prepare plans for their own har· bours. However, this approach was justified on the grounds that "maritime planning" does not equate with "coastal planning" since regional planning and district schemes also play significant roles; and that habour boards have broader responsibilities for the management of activities within their harbour, such as recreational boating, in addition to their responsibili­ties for the commercial port. Some argued that the harbour boards will perform the new responsibilities they have been given as effectively as they carry out their primary role of port operator. The members of the boards are directly elected. (In the local body elec­tion held since the 'appointment of the four harbour boards as planning authorities, several candidates \ampaigned on the basis that they were seeking elec­ion to a maritime planning authority rather than to a

harbour board). The honeymoon for maritime planning is not yet

over. Although the Act was passed in 1977, the harbour boards have not yet published their draft maritime schemes, nor dealt with any contentious projects apart from the Auckland office building. As a result, the public has yet to see how the boards deal with their own port projects on the one hand, and with activities or resources outside their traditional concerns on the other. However, the approach of assigning to the body which does the most in harbours the role of the mul­tiple-use planner will be put to the test within the next year.

. National Coastal Policies No attempt has been made in New Zealand to estab­

lish national policies for coastal management. It is not usual for statutes in Westminister-style countries to set out policies (being a matter for the government rather than the legislature) and accordingly the Acts provid­ing for the control and regulation of coastal activities mostly use expressions such as "the wise use of the re­source", or "in the public interest". The government agencies responsible for administering these Acts on

,,'Jehalf of their ministers have either evolved general ,olicies (such as a bias against infilling tidal lands), .ave sympathies for particular uses like navigation, or

nave a mission such as the protection of wildlife. The only example of comprehensive policy formulation is being undertaken for fisheries management. One im­portant function of regional planning will be the ex-

23

. traction of policy statements from the government agencies and their coordination on a regional basis.

Comment The performance of the harbour boards which have

taken on the new role of maritime planning reflects their traditional style of operation. In comparison to territorial local government, the harbour boards, as trading organizations, have been able to cornmit greater resources to planning, even if progress towards operative maritime planning schemes has seemed slow. The impression given by some of the harbour boards is that when their schemes are completed they will be as well-founded, and as strongly defended, as any other proposal put forward by the boards in their more traditional role. However, there is widespread suspicion that their plans will be little short of self­serving.

The most interesting question will be the way in which the maritime planning schemes deal with port developments and other matters of direct concem to the harbour boards. While the schemes are likely to fa­cilitate rather than inhibit port development, there can be little doubt that port activities have a very strong claim to be accommodated in harbour areas. The desire of the government to see cargo moved efficient­ly through ports would have been a primary reason for giving harbour boards the harbour planning function, with the objective of accommodating port develop­ments alongside other uses, maintaining environmen­tal standards, and providing for public involvement in decision making.

The govemment agencies, which in the past have in­vestigated and authorized port projects (and which will retain the power to do so) must ensure that the mari­time planning schemes fully protect their interests so that they will be able to accept the decisions which flow from the planning process. The ability of these agencies to oversee the performance of the harbour boards in their new planning role will serve as a useful safeguard, but it is to be hoped that the duplication of authority which it represents will be phased out in the future.

Maritime planning has been introduced over only four of the 15 major ports and hundreds of natural har­bours and estuaries. Elsewhere planning for coastal management is provided through the regional plan­ning schemes, the land-based district schemes or ad hoc non-statutory planning exercises. What this ap­proach lacks in comprehensiveness it gains in flexi­bility, allowing planning to match the problems being experienced. Of the 15 identifiable coastal planning exercises now under way, no two are following similar approaches, even though four are maritime planning schemes and four are coastal sections of regional schemes. The experience gained from these pioneer­ing planning exercises will be useful in identifying the most suitable techniques for the future.

While the most distinctive aspect of coastal plan­ning in New Zealand is the appointment of harbour boards to undertake multiple use planning over the

24

harbours within which their ports are situated, this is the case only in a few areas subject to unusually high conflicts and pressures. Elsewhere regional planning schemes (which cover both land and the adjacent terri­torial sea) are able to establish policies for coastal management, while in some local areas ad hoc ap· proaches to planning are used. While the ability of har­bour boards to be responsible for planning their har­bours can be seen as reflecting their political clout, these planning areas are restricted in size and number

. and are, in any case, required to comply with the re­gional schemes which overlie them.

The proposal for coastal planning supported by most environmentally concerned people - planning of land and water together at the regional level - has been provided for in addition to the more localized maritime planning procedure which has received most of the attention. However, due to a lack of funding for regional government and other more pressing plan­ning problems, regional councils have not yet made much use of the powers which they have for establish­ing planning policies for their coasts, while at the national level there is no machinery nor driving force for the establishment and coordination of a coastal policy. It seems that coastal planning in New Zealand has reached the crucial stage where it is approaching the end of the introductory phase, with its novelty and enthusiasm, and must now settle into a workable and useful aspect of the planning machinery.

lThe Planning Tribunals are chaired by a judge specialising in plan­ning law, assisted by two people experienced in local government affairs, and are appointed by the government. The Tribunals travel a circuit hearing appeals on planning, water pollution and several other matters.)

Book Reviews ISLANDS, CAPES, AND SOUNDS: THE NORTH CAROLINA COAST, by Thomas J. Schoenbaum. Pub­lished by Blair Publishing Co., 1406 Plaza Drive, Win­ston-Salem, N.C. 27103. 332 pp. $22.50. Reviewed by: David Cottingham, Oftlce of Ecology and Conservation, NOAA, Washington, DC

The North Carolina coast is one of the nation's least publicized great natural resources. It includes a 300 plus mile string of barrier islands (including Cape Hat· teras and Cape Lookout National Seashores) and roughly 2.2 million acres of highly productive estuaries. The history of the area has elements of every period of national history from pirate escapades to bat· tles during the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and World War II. In recent years, use of the North Carolina coast has been the source of numerous conflicts be· tween preservationists and real estate developers, recreational fishing interests and National Park Ser· vice policies, and port developers and home owners.

Thomas Schoenbaum's description of the North Carolina coast merges regional history, coastal

APRIL 1982

ecology and coastal engineering with personal obst . vations on coastal politics during the 1970's. lslands;~ Capes, and Sounds seems to have been written as much for practitioners and students of coastal management as for North Carolina history buffs. It traces patterns of coastal development from earlier times in a way that allows readers to understand how today's pressures on coastal ecosystems evolved.

The book's organization enhances its historical per­spective while simultaneously detracting from readers interested primarily in coastal management for the 1980's .. Part I (Background) contains comprehensive, but brief, summations of coastal ecology and the area's history from Indian domination and early Euro· pean exploration to development during the last 30 years. In Part II (The Regions), Dr. Schoenbaum divides the area into seven regions, with a chapter dedicated to each. Each chapter follows a pattern of describing a region's history - including colonization, Revolu· tionary War batties, piracy, and Civil War campaigns - and then moving forward into the last 30 years when development pressures have intensified. Part III (Pro. tecting the Coastal Heritage) presents Dr. Schoen­baum's first person account of working with the State Legislature during debate on the· North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and represen· ting conservation interests in litigation concerning,. CAM A."

Managing coastal development is the main theme \ the book. There are two parallel rules which Dr.' Schoenbaum brings out several times. First, when engineers try to "fix" perceived problems such as beach erosion or inlet migration, they provide only temporary, very local solutions which frequently reo quire continuous maintenance. Second, building roads opens areas up for people who begin building houses. Highly desirable places attract crowds of people, necessitating additional roads and parking, and detracting from the area's desirability. It is clear that the state Department of Transportation and the Army Corps of Enginners have different ideas from Dr. Schoenbaum about how to manage coastal areas.

Professional coastal managers should find the dis­cussions of' recent (and present) controversies and their resolution (or continuation) interesting and en­lightening. Most of the discussions on these contro­versies are in the last half of each chapter in Part II and in the chapter on legal issues. These are excellent ex-

i amples of how local government politics and influen­tial citizens affect coastal programs. The description of political battles over a proposal (by real estate devel­opers and the state Department of Transportation) to build a public road along Currituck Banks is all too familiar to coastal management professionals. After years of special study commissions, engjneerinl-"~· reports, and litigation, the public road is not likely t, be built. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal f; create a wildlife refuge has been accepted by the state.­I agree with Dr. Schoenbaum's assessment that:

"The story of Currituck Banks is a remarkable in· stance of local, state, and federal cooperation to reo solve a very complex and difficult issue of great im-

APRIL 1982

portance. It shows the value of a comprehensive .ap· proach to resource planning problems." , Having been a student in North Carolina during the

1970's, I closely followed coastal issues such as the permit application for Bald Head Island and the CAMA debate. Reading this book refreshed my recollection of those many debates over issues. However, I found the book's organization to be distracting because of the shift from the present (at the end of a chapter) to Civil War or earlier history (at the beginning of the next). This should not dissuade people from reading this book; solutions to coastal problems are still valuable. This book is well written and accomplishes what the author sets out to do, "I offer a humanistic exploration of the coastal heritage of North Carolina and sugges· tions on how that heritage should be preserved."

At $22.50, the book is too expensive to recommend to those without special interest in North Carolina his· tory as well as coastal management. Hopefully, the book will be published soon in paperback as it would make an excellent text for coastal planning students anywhere in the country.

Reviewed by . Virginia Lee, Division of Marine Resources, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, R.I.

The book is a compelling well·woven tale of the his­. ~ory of human use on North Carolina's coast. Discus­lIOn focuses on how the land has constrained human use and how uses have affected changes along the coastline. Most of the book is a discussion of the heritage of each of the regions along the coast that brings alive the rich diversity of the area's past and its special regional character that is a delight to read and should be recommended reading for anyone visiting the area.

The first and last sections of the book deal more broadly with present human uses and consequent man­agement problems that face· coastal Carolina and, for that matter, much of the rest of the U.S. coast. The last ~ouple of pages of each section of the regional descrip­bons present excellent case studies. The examples cited provide valuable useful analogies to problems cau~ed by burgeoning developments along the coast, barners and bays in the Northeast. The discussion of Oregon inlet in the Cape Hatteras and Ocracoke sec­tion is pertinent for the management issues attending other barrier island inlet complexes. In the last chap­ter, the sections on erosion, hurricanes, water and waste, bridges and roads, beach access and use, estua­ries, and offshore waterways are useful examples of the management issues to be found along most of our coastline. The author has synthesized nicely the his· torical trends and hard-Ieamed lessons for a wide

i ~ariety of coastal management problems ranging from In~jor ~redging, be~ch no~rishment programs, to pol­JtlOn Impacts of IndustrIal and residential develop.

Inent, to the cumulative effects of small individual ef· forts to halt erosion on barrier islands. He has inter­woven a discussion of how political maneuverings col· or the management process ..

25

This book is a well· presented discussion of the evolu· tion of issues in coastal North Carolina. Portions of it are useful for perspective on many similar struggles bet· ween man and nature,and man and man that are occur­ring along the nation's coastlines.

Coastal Zone Management Journal - Future Issues

The next issue of the Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1·2, will be available in Septem· ber. The following articles will appear in this issue:

• .Fish and Wildlife Mitigation: Description and Analysis of Estuarine Applications, by Daniel M. Ashe.

• Coastal Amenities and Values: Some Pervasive Perceptions Expressed in Literature, by Georgiana Dix Blomberg.

• Assessing Economic Activity in Coastal Areas: A Shift·Share Approach, by David Mulkey, William B. Hackett, and John R. Gordon.

• Controversy Over the Use of a Coastal State Park, by Christine Drake.

• Environmental Improvement on Narragansett Bay as a Result of Section 312 Implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, by Niels West, Charles Heatwole, and Lindsey Smith .

• Agricultural Land Preservation: The Case of Carlsbad, California, by Louis M. Rea.

• Coastal Energy Impact Mitigation in the Gulf: The Past Reviewed and Alternatives for the Future, by Dan Derheimer and Jack D. Salmon.

26

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS OF NOTE Date

February 2

2-4

3

4

4,5,8

5

17-18

18

22

23

24

25

26

March

1

2

2-3

8

9

CommIttee and Subcommittee

Senate Environment and Public Works (SE&PW)

House Science and Technology (HS& T)

SE&PW, Environmental Pollution Subcommittee (EP)

House Merchant Marine and Fish!)ries (HMM&F), Oceanography Subcommittee (0)

House Interior and Insular Affairs (HI&IA), Public Lands and National Parks Subcommittee (PL&NP)

SE&PW, EP

HMM&F

HMM&F, Fish and Wildlife Conservation and Environment Subcommittee (F&WC&E)

HI&IA, PL&NP

HMM&F, F&WC&E

SE&PW

HMM&F

HS& T, Science, Research, and Technology Subcommittee (SR&T)

HMM&F, Coast Guard and Navigation Subcommittee (CG&N)

House Public Works and Transportation (HPW&T), Natural Resources Subcommittee (NR)

HS&T, Natural Resources, Agricultural Research, and Environment Subcommittee (NR,AR&E)

HI&IA, PL&NP

HMM&F,O

NS&T, NR,AR&E

SE&PW

SE&PW

HI&IA, PL&NP

HMM&F

HS&T, NR,AR&E HPW&T, Water Resources Subcommittee (WR)

HMM&F, F&WC&E

HMM&F

HS&T,NR,AR&E

APRIL 1982

Topic

Clean Air Act

U.S. science and technology and budget stress

Federal funding for growth on barrier beaches and islands

National Ocean Pollution Planning Act; Great Lakes Protection Act

Oversight on National Parks Service

Clean Water Act

Fish and Wildlife Service budget for FY '83 .

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service budget for FY '83

National park system and budget for '83

Endangered Species Act reauthorization EPA budget for '83

Law of the Sea

NOAA authorization

U.S. Coast Guard budget

Federal water pollution control programs

EPA authorization

National Park Service budget

National Ocean Pollution Planning Act

. NOAA authorization

EPA budget for '83

Fish and Wildlife Service budget for '83 Bureau of Land Management budget for '83

Law of the Sea

EPA authorization

Water transportation system

Endangered Species Act oversight

Collapse of the rig Ocean Ranger

Great Lakes Protection Act

,

APRIL 1982

. Date .

10 10·11

17 17·18 18,23

24

25

25·26

29

30

April

1

; 19

20

21

22

30

May

4

5

Committee and Subcommittee

HPW& T, Investigation and Oversight RPW&T, WR

HMM&F, GC&N

HPW&T, WR HMM&F, 0 and F&WC&E

HMM&F, CG&N

HPW&T, WR

HMM&F, F&WC&E

HMM&F, 0 and F&WC&E

HMM&F, CG&N

HI&IA, PL&NP

HMM&F, CG&N

SE&PW

House Foreign Aff"irs (HFA), Human Rights and International Organizations Subcommittee (HRIO)

SCS&T HMM&F, 0 and F&WC&E

SE&PW

HMM&F, Panama Canal and Outer Continental Shelf Subcommittee (PC·OCS) SCS&T

HMM&F,O

HFA, International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee (IEPT)

SE&PW, EP

HI&IA, Mines and Minerals Subcommittee (MM)

HS&T, RR,AR&E

Topic

EPA regulations

Water transportation system

U.S. Coast Guard authorization

Water transportation system

Titles I and II to Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act

U.S. Coast Guard authorization

Water transportation system

Fishery Conservation and Management Act amendments and Anadromous Fisheries Conservation Act amendments

Titles I and II to Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments, offshore oil pollution

National Park System

Offshore Oil Pollution Liability Fund of the U.S. Coast Guard Endangered Species Act legislation and reauthorization Global environment

NOAA authorization Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, National Ocean Pollution Planning Act, Deep Seabed Mining Endangered Species Act

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments

FCMA amendments and oversight NACOA reauthorization

Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act

Authorizations for Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

Peep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act EPA and NOAA authorizations for FY'83

27

Date Committee and Subcommittee

12 HMM&F

13 SE&PW

SFR

18 HMM&F, CG&N

20 HMM&F

25 HMM&F, F&WC&E

The Coastal Society Suite 150 5410 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda, MD 20814

Topic

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments

Coastal barriers

Law of the Sea representative

Roles and mission of the U.S. Coast Guard Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments and the Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and Development Fund

Wetlands Loan Fund

Non·ProfilOrganiz.ation U,S. POSTAGE

PAID Arlington, VA

Permit No. 2401

)