develop in the South Atlantic region. 



In the Mid Atlantic region there has been a substantial lack of har- 

 mony in planning for offshore activity between state and Federal jurisdic- 

 tions. In most cases these difficulties are cuased by a scarcity of 

 quantitative data on anticipated production and well-field location, the 

 reluctance of energy companies and federal managers (USGS,BLM) to share pro- 

 prietary geophysical data on likely oil reserves, and the vastly different 

 staffing and operating practices that exist between operating companies. 

 Planning for production from a coastal zone manager's view is difficult and 

 mostly hypothetical until offshore reserves are located, quantified, and the 

 methods of extraction, collection and distribution clarified and operating 

 companies have been identified. It is this feeling of inevitability of off- 

 shore development regardless of local interest and inputs that has resulted 

 in a generally negative attitude in the Hid Atlantic coastal zone states. 

 This negative reaction has manifested itself in many ways, i.e., in the com- 

 ments of state officials (Governor of New Jersey, Secretary of Delaware De- 

 partment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Director of Delaware 

 State Planning Office, etc.), in the comments of special interest constituen- 

 cies at public hearings such as those held in Trenton, New Jersey, on poten- 

 tial lease sales in the region, and by the formation of political action 

 groups that lend greater weight to the regional publics' interests (i.e. 

 MAGCRC, Mid Atlantic Governors' Coastal Resources Council). 



Locational analyses of such major facilities as described above signifi- 

 cantly influence uses of coastal zone lands, alignment of pipelines, and de- 

 mands on local labor markets and infrastructure (water supply, police, sewage 

 treatment, health care, education). Development of onshore facilities also 



25 



