e Citizen participation in preparation of the local 
master programs has been extensive and is regarded 
as one of the strong points of the State program. 
e The program has led to attempts to deal with 
regional resource issues, such as a bay bordered by 
a number of jurisdictions and the Columbia River, 
Evaluation 
In order to evaluate the coastal zone management 
programs, it will be necessary to examine in detail 
individual State programs. There is general agree- 
ment that the merit of the individual State programs 
will be the key to the overall success or failure of the 
coastal management effort, not the number of State 
programs given approval and continued funding. 
Evaluations should concentrate on those features 
of the intrastate and State-local governmental process 
that provide a meaningful picture of how the coastal 
zone management program is working in practice. 
State programs should be examined for the follow- 
ing types of information: 
® Determine the iocation and size (fulltime per- 
sonnel) of the State coastal zone management pro- 
gram office; the rank of the executive who is man- 
aging the program on a day-to-day basis; compare 
with water quality program office; 
® Ascertain the reporting layers between the 
coastal zone program office and the governor’s 
office; if possible get an indication of the amount of 
interest in the program on the part of the governor; 
e Determine the number of outside interest 
groups commenting in detail during the formulation 
of State programs and on environmental impact 
statements; 
® Determine the amount of legislative interest 
(actual votes, hearings, inquiries from legislators, or 
other expressions of interest); the extent to which 
coastal zone management is a public issue (by check- 
ing newspaper files for coverage); 
© Determine which major State coastal issues and 
controversies were handled by the coastal zone office 
and which were referred elsewhere in the State gov- 
ernment; 
® Survey State line agencies (highways, recrea- 
tion, natural resources, port authorities, and others) 
for changes they have instituted as a result of coastal 
zone management policies; that is, what changes in 
procedure they attribute to coastal management 
policies; 
e Determine the State/local permit issuing pro- 
cess for key coastal activities such as wetland altera- 
tion, bulkhead construction, dune alteration, marina 
construction, or condominium construction, how it 
was done previously and how it is done after adop- 
tion of a coastal zone management program; de- 
scribe the impact of the changes on an individual 
also traversing several local governments. 
® The Washington State coastal program has 
sponsored an ambitious atlas providing detailed 
maps of the coastal area for use by local govern- 
ments and others. 
Criteria 
applicant for one or more of the State permits, 
step-by-step; 
e Examine “memos of understanding” or other 
means used by the State coastal zone office to influ- 
ence other State agencies’ day-to-day operations; 
obtain an opinion of the legal standing of the in- 
struments; 
e Determine the amount of new data that has 
been assembled by State (and local) coastal program 
offices; determine how much existing data has been 
transformed to usable information; 
e Survey a sample of local governments for 
changes in zoning permit decision-making brought 
about as a result of coastal zone management pol- 
icies; find out what additional steps or considerations 
are involved because of the program, and how they 
are institutionalized; 
e Obtain the views of diverse interest groups 
about the effectiveness of the program and the de- 
gree of change it has brought about; 
e Examine State coastal zone office expenditures 
by general category: personnel (permanent and tem- 
porary), travel, research, consultants, mapping, pass- 
through to local governments, and 
e Learn if any use is made of the Federal con- 
sistency provision of the Act, determine what change 
in a Federal agency action was required as a result. 
Preliminary evaluations indicate that delays in 
program implementation are probably due to in- 
herent problems in program design rather than to 
faulty administration. Three problems in program 
design have been identified: (1) difficulty with effec- 
tive land-use planning and zoning, particularly that 
requiring local government to relinquish powers; (2) 
absence of positive incentives for State and local 
participation, since the program is voluntary (as for 
the promise of “Federal consistency,” GAO found 
that States are concerned that the provisions will be 
“sutted” by Federal interagency agreements); and, 
(3) planning is generally a low-level operation in the 
States, and there is a tendency to want to study for- 
ever. 
While inherent difficulties are felt to be primarily 
responsible for the longer-than-expected develop- 
ment of the program, administration by the Office of 
- Coastal Zone Management has not escaped criticism. 
Among them are: 
® Inconsistency of direction to the State program 
managers; in other words, shifting directions from 
IV-38 
