Initiatives | Enhancement | In Depth

How Are the Nine Coastal Zone Program Enhancement Areas Evaluated?

Every five years, state coastal management programs conduct self-assessments of their programs' activities within nine enhancement areas. The coastal management programs perform resource characterizations for each enhancement area, identifying the current status and trends, recent management activities, and any unmet management needs. To learn more about the criteria states use to evaluate their programs, click on the enhancement areas below.

For public access, states base their evaluation on the following criteria:

  1. What is the current status and demand for public access within the coastal zone? Identify any significant impediments to providing adequate access.
  2. Have there been significant changes to the state's management efforts to address public access (e.g. regulatory changes, acquisition programs, comprehensive access planning, operation and maintenance programs, outreach, or beach water quality monitoring programs)?
  3. Does the state need to improve public access through regulatory, statutory, and legal systems?
  4. Does the state need to acquire, improve, and maintain public access sites to meet current and future demand through the use of innovative funding and acquisition techniques?
  5. Does the state need to develop or enhance a Coastal Public Access Management Plan which takes into account the provision of public access to all users of coastal areas of recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological, and cultural value?
  6. Does the state need to minimize potential adverse impacts of public access on coastal resources and private property rights through appropriate protection measures?

For coastal hazards, states base their evaluation on the following criteria:

  1. What is the general level or risk from specific coastal hazards (i.e., hurricanes, storm surge, flooding, shoreline erosion, sea level rise, Great Lakes level fluctuations, subsidence, geological hazards) and risk to life and property due to inappropriate development in the state?
  2. Have there been significant changes to the state’s hazards protection programs (e.g., changes to building setbacks/restrictions, methodologies for determining building setbacks, restriction of hard shoreline protection structures, beach/dune protection, inlet management plans, local hazard mitigation planning, or local post-disaster redevelopment plans, mapping/GIS/tracking of hazard areas)?  
  3. Does the state need to direct future public and private development and redevelopment away from hazardous areas, including the high hazard areas delineated as FEMA V-zones and areas vulnerable to inundation from sea and Great Lakes level rise?
  4. Does the state need to preserve and restore the protective functions of natural shoreline features such as beaches, dunes, and wetlands?
  5. Does the state need to prevent or minimize threats to existing populations and property from both episodic and chronic coastal hazards?

For ocean and Great Lakes resources, states base their evaluation on the following criteria:

  1. What are the ocean and/or Great Lakes resources and uses of state concern and what are the existing and future threats or use conflicts?
  2. Have there been significant state ocean/Great Lakes management programs and initiatives (e.g., statewide comprehensive ocean/Great Lakes management plan, system of marine protected areas or statute, statewide ocean/Great Lakes working groups, dredged material management planning, or ocean/Great Lakes resources mapping or information system)?
  3. Does the state need to enhance regulatory, planning, and intra-governmental coordination mechanisms to provide meaningful state participation in ocean and Great Lakes resource management and decision-making processes?
  4. Where necessary and appropriate, does the state need to develop a comprehensive ocean and Great Lakes resource management plan that provides for the balanced use and development of ocean and Great Lakes resources, coordination of existing authorities, and minimization of use conflicts?  These plans should consider, where appropriate, the effects of activities and uses on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats.  The designation of specific marine protected areas should also be considered.

For wetlands, states base their evaluation on the following criteria:

  1. What kind of specific wetland types exist throughout the coastal zone and what are the direct and indirect threats to these wetlands?  
  2. Have there been significant changes in the state’s abilities to address wetland issues (i.e., changes in regulatory programs, policies, mapping, acquisition programs, outreach programs, assessment methodologies, and restoration/enhancement programs)?
  3. Does the state need to protect and preserve existing levels of wetlands, as measured by acreage and functions, from direct, indirect and cumulative adverse impacts, by developing or improving regulatory programs?
  4. Does the state need to increase acres and associated functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, water quality protection, flood protection) of restored wetlands, including restoration and monitoring of habitat for threatened and endangered species?
  5. Does the state need to better utilize non-regulatory and innovative techniques to provide for the protection, restoration, and acquisition of coastal wetlands?
  6. Does that state need to develop or improve wetlands creation programs?

For cumulative and secondary impacts, states base their evaluation on the following criteria:

  1. What areas in the coastal zone do rapid growth or changes in land use require improved management of cumulative and secondary impacts?
  2. What areas of the coastal zone possess sensitive coastal resources that require a greater degree of protection from the cumulative and secondary impacts of growth and development?
  3. Have there been significant changes in the state’s ability to address cumulative and secondary impacts (e.g., changes to regulations, policies or guidance materials)?
  4. Does the state need to develop, revise or enhance procedures or policies to provide cumulative and secondary impact controls?

For marine debris, states base their evaluation on the following criteria:

  1. What types of marine debris are affecting the state’s coast and how extensive is the problem?
  2. Have there been significant state programs and initiatives to address marine debris (e.g., programs that require recycling; reduce littering; reduce wasteful packaging; manage fishing gear; incorporate marine debris management into harbor, port, marina, and coastal solid waste management plans; or that conduct education and outreach)?
  3. Does the state need to develop or revise programs that reduce the amount of marine and/or lake debris in the coastal zone?

For special area management plans, states base their evaluation on the following criteria:

  1. What areas of the coast are subject to use conflicts that can be or are being addressed through special area management planning?
  2. Are there areas with significant coastal resources (e.g., threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats, wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat) that are being severely affected by cumulative or secondary impacts?
  3. Are there areas where a multiplicity of local, state, and federal authorities that hinder effective coordination and cooperation in addressing coastal development on an ecosystem basis?
  4. Are there areas with a history of long-standing disputes between various levels of government over coastal resources that have resulted in protracted negotiations over the acceptability of proposed uses?
  5. Is there a strong commitment at all levels of government to enter into a collaborative planning process to produce enforceable plans?
  6. Is there a strong state or regional entity which is willing and able to sponsor the planning program?

For energy and government facility siting, states base their evaluation on the following criteria:

  1. Have there been significant changes to the state’s ability to address the siting of energy and government facilities (e.g., changes to regulations, policies or guidance materials)?
  2. Does the state need to enhance existing procedures and long range planning processes for considering the needs of energy-related and government facilities and activities of greater than local significance?
  3. Does the state need to improve program policies and standards which affect the subject uses and activities so as to facilitate siting while maintaining current levels of coastal resource protection?

For aquaculture, states base their evaluation on the following criteria:

  1. What are the state’s current aquaculture activities and do any environmental concerns and/or use conflicts exist?
  2. Have there been changes in the state’s ability to address planning for and siting of aquaculture facilities (e.g., new regulations, policies or guidance manuals)?
  3. Does the state need to enhance existing procedures and long range planning processes for considering the siting of public and private marine aquaculture facilities in the coastal zone?
  4. Does the state need to improve program policies and standards which affect aquaculture activities and uses so as to facilitate siting while ensuring the protection of coastal resources and waters?

 

(top)