/■ SS. J : C £.<?/? 
 
 The Role of Conservat 
 Districts in the Coastal 
 Zone Management 
 Program 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 
 ^r ES o* * 
 
 m^lya*L 
 
 a ■■ ■ 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/roleofconservatiOOnati 
 
rfpgjggtej, 
 
 The Role of Conservation 
 
 Districts in the Coastal 
 
 Zone Management "* S55i ' 
 
 Program 
 
 
 HOW districts have been involved 
 WHY they want to stay involved 
 WHAT they can do about it 
 
 Compiled and Written by 
 
 The National Association of Conservation Districts 
 
 under Contract No. MO AOl 784250 
 from The Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 United States Department of Commerce 
 
 December 1979 
 
 This publication was researched and written by the National Association of Conservation Districts with partial 
 funding from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Views 
 and policy positions expressed in this document do not necessarily represent those of the Office of Coastal Zone 
 Management, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the U.S. Department of Commerce. Opin- 
 ions expressed and interpretations rendered are solely those of the National Association of Conservation Districts. 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 
 Luther H. Hodges, Jr. Acting Secretary 
 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 
 Richard A. Frank, Administrator 
 
 Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 
 Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 This publication was developed in response to a request from the Office of Coastal 
 Zone Management for a description of the potential role of conservation districts in 
 implementing coastal zone management programs and coordinating the nonpoint 
 source pollution control programs being developed under Section 208 of the Clean 
 Water Act. OCZM and EPA are, on an ongoing basis, searching for ways to improve 
 and coordinate their efforts. Both are concerned about the ability of their programs 
 to result in real improvements in the ways in which land and water resources are 
 actually managed. This has resulted in a search for a local, grassroots organization 
 that can help identify problems and opportunities, as well as lead the way to constructive 
 action. 
 
 Since 1938, conservation districts have been involved with the control of soil 
 erosion and the prevention of water pollution caused by excessive runoff, erosion, 
 and sedimentation. These activities have been carried out in coastal as well as inland 
 areas. Over the years, major concerns of coastal conservation districts have included 
 the damages caused by shore erosion, storm damage to beaches and barrier dunes, 
 and the special needs for soil and water management in the coastal zone. 
 
 With the advent of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583) 
 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), two new 
 and very powerful programs affecting this conservation effort were initiated. In addi- 
 tion to a common focus on the protection of water quality in the coastal zone, both 
 programs are to be carried out by agencies of state and local government. This pro- 
 vides a key link for a coordinated effort that can achieve the common goals of all 
 three programs — CZM, 208, and soil conservation. 
 
 This publication will describe the general outlines of the programs that are emerg- 
 ing and look at progress that has been made, particularly at the state and local level, 
 in developing organizational arrangements and strategies for their implementation. 
 It will look for similarities in objectives and goals, as well as operating capabilities, 
 that will help all of the programs complement each other. 
 
 A WORD ABOUT JARGON 
 
 When people set out to talk or write about government programs, they inevitably 
 begin to use a lot of acronyms. This "alphabet soup", while convenient to people 
 who understand it, is both confusing and irritating to those who do not. 
 
 This report is no exception. It mentions programs frequently by their acronym, 
 such as CZM for Coastal Zone Management and FWPCA for the Federal Water 
 Pollution Control Act. These help keep the writing less cumbersome than if each 
 program or agency were spelled out in full. 
 
 A glossary of terms has been included for your reference in case we use a term 
 that is new to you. We hope it helps. In addition, we have tried to keep as much 
 of the "government jargon" out of the report as possible, but there are times when 
 it is difficult to avoid. 
 
THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROGRAM 
 
 A New Idea Grew out of the Dust Bowl 
 
 Concern for the fate of the Nation's soil and water 
 resources dates back to early Colonial days, but official 
 action to involve the Federal Government in conserva- 
 tion programs did not come until the Dust Bowl of the 
 1930's galvanized action. In 1934, a national soil ero- 
 sion survey estimated that 50 million acres of land had 
 already been destroyed for cultivated crops by gully 
 erosion. Another 125 million acres had lost most of 
 its original topsoil. "This wastage of the most basic and 
 indispensable resource of the Nation, the soil, has be- 
 come one of our most pressing problems," the report 
 said. 
 
 In 1935 the Soil and Water Conservation Domestic 
 Act (Public Law 74-46) created the Soil Conservation 
 Service (SCS) within the Department of Agriculture to 
 develop and execute a continuing program of soil and 
 water conservation. The linkage between soil erosion 
 and water pollution was recognized in that original legis- 
 lation. The Act declared that the "wastage of soil and 
 moisture resources on farm, grazing, and forest lands 
 of the Nation, resulting from soil erosion, is a menace 
 to the national welfare and that it is . . . the policy of 
 Congress to provide permanently for the control and 
 prevention of soil erosion . . ." Such a policy, the Con- 
 gress stated, would ". . . preserve natural resources, 
 control floods, prevent impairment of reservoirs, and 
 maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors . . ." 
 
 Through legislative authorities and Departmental as- 
 signments which followed in quick succession, SCS 
 moved within a few years from an erosion-control 
 agency to a multiprogram agency involved in a wide 
 array of resource conservation efforts on nonfederal 
 lands. 
 
 Responding to the Congressional challenge demanded 
 a two-fold effort. New scientific knowledge on the 
 causes and cures of soil erosion and water pollution 
 was needed and, more importantly, this knowledge had 
 to be relayed in practical, usable form to every farmer, 
 rancher, and land user in America. This led to the 
 search for an institutional framework that could involve 
 people in the conservation cause. 
 
 The Secretary of Agriculture's Committee on Soil 
 Conservation proposed "That on or after July 1, 
 1937 ... all erosion control work on private lands . . . 
 be undertaken by the Soil Conservation Service, only 
 through legally constituted Soil Conservation Associa- 
 tions." From this idea was born the Soil Conservation 
 District. 
 
 To get the needed legislative action for the new soil 
 and water conservation focus, President Roosevelt sent 
 letters to state governors transmitting a model soil and 
 water conservation district act. Every state, Puerto Rico 
 and the Virgin Islands passed laws creating conservation 
 districts. The formation of local districts began imme- 
 diately, and by 1945, SCS Chief Hugh Bennett could 
 report to Congress that 1,415 soil conservation districts 
 had been organized, and that "other districts are being 
 
 organized steadily, indicating that the country will soon 
 be covered with (them)." Bennett's prediction has, for 
 all practical purposes, been achieved. Nearly 3,000 dis- 
 tricts now cover more than 99 percent of the Nation. 
 
 Makeup and Responsibilities 
 
 These local units of state government are governed 
 by local citizens and exist independent of, but partner 
 to, the resource conservation programs of the Federal 
 Government. Although the original purpose was erosion 
 and sediment control, the district movement has grown 
 to include new goals and authorities and provide new 
 services to private land users. Through a memorandum 
 of understanding, signed by each district and the Sec- 
 retary of Agriculture, the Soil Conservation Service pro- 
 vides technical assistance to the district and its cooperat- 
 ing land users. Thus, the national goal of soil and water 
 conservation is translated into local action programs 
 designed to fit local conditions and needs. 
 
 Through conservation districts, the knowledge of 
 skilled technicians is combined with the practical ex- 
 perience of land users to develop conservation plans 
 tailored to the land and water resources as well as the 
 user's skills and desires. Plans are based on locally- 
 developed technical standards which, in turn, rely on 
 soil surveys, water resource studies, and a broad range 
 of natural resources research. In this way, both national 
 concern and the latest scientific technology can be 
 brought to the attention of the land user and, through 
 the planning process, incorporated in his decisions on 
 the use and management of the land. 
 
 In actual practice, a landowner makes application to 
 the conservation district for assistance in managing soil 
 and water. After approval of this application by the dis- 
 trict governing body, a technician (usually an SCS em- 
 ployee working with the district under a memorandum 
 of understanding) visits the land user on the land. There, 
 the necessary surveys and investigations are made, and 
 alternatives are presented to the land user. The land user 
 normally chooses a course of action designed to solve 
 the soil and water problem that is compatible with the 
 type of land-using operation being conducted. 
 
 Once the plan has been completed by the land user, 
 there may be more surveys and investigations, engineer- 
 ing designs, or other technical work needed to assure 
 that any conservation practices are installed properly. 
 SCS technical assistance is available for those measures 
 that are new to the land user or difficult to apply. Under 
 certain circumstances, there are cost-sharing funds avail- 
 able from other USDA programs for the installation of 
 selected conservation practices. It is the responsibility of 
 the land user to both install and maintain the practices. 
 Technical assistance remains available, however, to 
 monitor progress and effectiveness, or upgrade the con- 
 servation system if the needs should change. 
 
 The conservation district, in addition to receiving ap- 
 plications from and providing services to individual land 
 users, operates a local conservation program that in- 
 cludes information and education, encouragement of 
 needed research, eliciting cooperation and input from 
 various local, state and federal agencies, and providing 
 
services on natural resource matters to local units of 
 government. In carrying out this program, one of the 
 main roles of the district is to provide a sense of local 
 priorities and guidelines so that many different programs 
 can be efficiently allocated to meet the most pressing 
 local problems. Districts provide, for many local juris- 
 dictions, what amounts to a natural resources depart- 
 ment of local government. 
 
 Districts have banded together, at the state and na- 
 tional levels, in private non-profit associations that can 
 convey district needs, priorities and viewpoints in a 
 coordinated fashion. In addition to the 52 state and ter- 
 ritorial associations, the National Association of Con- 
 servation Districts provides these services on the national 
 level. With headquarters in Washington, D.C., five re- 
 gional service offices, and a service department located 
 in League City, Texas, NACD speaks for districts, pro- 
 vides an ongoing service capability to assist them in 
 their work, and conducts studies on natural resource 
 subjects of interest and value to the improvement of 
 district programs. 
 
 Districts and Water Pollution 
 
 Water quality has been an integral part of conserva- 
 tion district programs from their inception. Hugh Ben- 
 nett's philosophy, as expressed to a Congressional Com- 
 mittee in 1945, was, and still is, a basic tenet of districts: 
 The only way in which water pollution due to 
 erosion silt can be effectively controlled is by 
 the adoption of soil- and water-conservation 
 practices applied in accordance with the needs 
 and capabilities of the land. 
 
 Today, it is estimated that around 50 percent of the 
 4 billion tons of sediment reaching the Nation's streams 
 annually comes from agricultural land. Another 10 per- 
 cent comes from range and forest lands, with 10 percent 
 from eroding roadsides, construction activities, surface 
 mined lands, and other disturbed areas. The remaining 
 30 percent comes from geologic erosion — natural forces 
 at work on land relatively undisturbed by man. It is 
 that first 70 percent that is subject to reduction and 
 prevention by conservation practices on the land. The 
 goal of conservation district programs is to keep soil on 
 the land, where it is a productive resource; and out of 
 the water, where it is a costly nuisance. 
 
 Areas of Concentration 
 
 Today, district programs still focus on the prevention 
 of soil erosion and the control of water pollution. The 
 1979 Policy Position of the National Association of 
 Conservation Districts lists the following eight priority 
 areas for district programs: 
 
 (1) The protection of the resource base and preven- 
 tion and control of nonpoint source pollution. This in- 
 cludes the prevention of soil erosion and the control of 
 pollution from pesticides and herbicides, fertilizer nu- 
 trients, animal wastes, storm-water runoff and sediment. 
 
 (2) Comprehensive resource management on a water- 
 shed basis. This includes the utilization of all techniques, 
 structural and nonstructural, to conserve and develop 
 
 soil, water, forest and wildlife resources within water- 
 shed units for all beneficial purposes. 
 
 (3) Reclamation of areas previously and presently dis- 
 turbed by mining for all minerals. 
 
 (4) Improvement in the management of private, non- 
 industrial forest lands. 
 
 (5) Encouragement and incorporation of environmen- 
 tal education in schools. 
 
 (6) The preservation and enhancement of prime agri- 
 cultural, range, pasture, forest and horticultural lands. 
 This includes management of grass or grazing lands for 
 proper grazing. 
 
 (7) Participation in the land-use decision process by 
 providing resource inventories, soils information, prob- 
 lem identification and technical assistance. 
 
 (8) Reclamation of areas previously and presently dis- 
 turbed by urbanizing and industrial development, in- 
 cluding sedimentation, erosion and stabilizing of 
 roadsides. 
 
 The "Voluntary" Philosophy 
 
 With this background and philosophy, it was only 
 natural that districts would become a part of the na- 
 tion's major assault on water pollution as it grew out 
 of the environmental concerns of the early 1970's. There 
 were differences, to be sure, between the district philoso- 
 phy and the new Federal effort. District programs had 
 long been characterized by a voluntary approach, which 
 most district officials felt was essential to success in 
 gaining the cooperation of private land users. Much of 
 the new federal effort to control water pollution was 
 based on regulatory methods, and this gave district offi- 
 cials serious concern. 
 
 District officials were chary about a program that 
 was solely regulatory in nature. They feared that there 
 could be a widespread rejection of regulation on the 
 part of farmers and ranchers. This would introduce 
 added costs, fail to meet water quality goals, and 
 threaten many of the gains that had been painstakingly 
 achieved over the 40 years of the soil conservation 
 movement. After much debate and discussion, districts 
 chose to take an active role in the new pollution con- 
 trol efforts. By so doing, they brought the conservation 
 district's voluntary approach to bear on the problem of 
 nonpoint pollution control. This has resulted, since 
 1972, in an ever-increasing coordination between con- 
 servation district programs and the water pollution con- 
 trol programs emerging from federal legislation. 
 
 The basic components of a voluntary or non-regula- 
 tory program are efficient administration, research data, 
 an ongoing information and educational effort, technical 
 assistance, and cost-sharing for the most expensive prac- 
 tices. The only difference in a regulatory program is the 
 addition of regulatory authority in those cases where it 
 is locally determined to be needed. 
 
THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY EFFORT 
 
 In 1972, shortly after Executive Order had estab- 
 lished the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
 Congress enacted Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water 
 Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). This complex law 
 consolidated all previous water quality legislation and 
 set the Nation on a gigantic task "to restore and main- 
 tain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of 
 the nation's water." In order to do this, Congress called 
 for action to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into 
 navigable waters by 1985 and, wherever attainable, 
 achieve an interim goal which provides for the protec- 
 tion of fish, shellfish and wildlife by July 1, 1983. 
 
 Section 208, "Areawide Waste Treatment Manage- 
 ment," is a significant part of the FWPCA. It dictates 
 that state and local agencies be designated to develop 
 areawide waste treatment management plans, and that 
 such plans include methods and procedures to control, 
 to the extent feasible, nonpoint sources of pollution 
 related to agriculture and silviculture, mining, construc- 
 tion, and residual wastes. 
 
 Section 208 planning began in 1975 with the issuance 
 of EPA guidelines and regulations. The early efforts 
 were concentrated on regional plans, usually involving 
 metropolitan areas. Statewide efforts followed, with ad- 
 ditional emphasis on the nonpoint pollution problems 
 created by agriculture and forestry. This process is only 
 recently beginning to produce plans, which must be 
 approved by EPA before they are deemed to meet the 
 requirements of Section 208. 
 
 Regional and state-level planning is central to this 
 process. Section 208 sought to establish a continuing 
 planning process, updated annually to meet current 
 problems. It further called for the management of non- 
 point sources of pollution by appropriate methods. As 
 state plans began to take shape, it became clear that 
 local participation would play a major role in the effort. 
 It also became clear that there were close correlations 
 between the programs of conservation districts and the 
 local mechanisms that would be needed to prevent non- 
 point pollution. 
 
 In 1977, the National Association of Conservation 
 Districts, under a grant from EPA, prepared a publica- 
 tion entitled "Conservation Districts and 208 Water 
 Quality Management". This book was designed to ac- 
 quaint water quality planners and others with conserva- 
 tion district activities in water quality management. It 
 discusses relevant resource information, technical mate- 
 rials, and operating procedures. It also contains an ex- 
 tensive description of conservation district capabilities 
 and the possible areas and methods of participation by 
 districts in Section 208 planning with respect to each of 
 the 16 water quality planning elements required by the 
 EPA regulations. 
 
 Of the 16 elements required by EPA, conservation 
 districts were found to be able to play a major role in 
 five: nonpoint source problem identification and assess- 
 ment; nonpoint source control needs (Best Management 
 Practices); target abatement dates; alternative nonpoint 
 
 source program structures (voluntary, regulatory, or 
 possible combinations); and management agency desig- 
 nation for implementing the nonpoint source control 
 plans. 
 
 Still lacking from the 208 effort, however, was a 
 means of implementing the plans that were developing. 
 The economic dislocations that might be caused in agri- 
 culture and forestry by the mandated application of all 
 necessary erosion control practices precluded this ap- 
 proach as a practical alternative. Conservation districts, 
 with their voluntary approach, could not be expected 
 to gain adequate cooperation if land users were not of- 
 fered some form of economic incentive to offset the 
 costs of pollution control. 
 
 This led to enactment, in 1977, of a new subsection 
 (j) to Section 208. This subsection established a program 
 known as the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP), 
 which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter 
 into five- to ten-year contracts with private land users 
 to provide technical assistance and cost-sharing for the 
 installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for 
 preventing nonpoint pollution from rural lands. Con- 
 servation districts are cited in Section 208(j), and given 
 responsibilities to help set local priorities for assistance 
 under the program, as well as assist with the administra- 
 tion of part or all of the program if the Secretary of 
 Agriculture so designates. 
 
 The development of regulations for the Rural Clean 
 Water Program has resulted in a program that is to be 
 limited to high-priority areas identified in 208 plans. 
 It is a voluntary program, similar in many respects to 
 earlier cost-sharing efforts based on long-term contracts, 
 such as the Great Plains Conservation Program admin- 
 istered by SCS. Projects have not been started under 
 RCWP, however, due to the lack of funds. No money 
 was appropriated in FY 1979, the first year of the two- 
 year authorized life of the program. 
 
 The RCWP is based on the philosophy that water 
 quality will be enhanced to the maximum feasible extent 
 by the installation and maintenance of conservation 
 practices on the land. These practices, termed Best Man- 
 agement Practices (BMP's) in the language of 208, are 
 usually one or several conservation practices that, taken 
 singly or in combination, result in the application of 
 the best practical conservation technology to the land. 
 By the application and maintenance of these BMP's, the 
 land user is making a good-faith effort to minimize 
 water pollution from his land. 
 
 BMP's are defined (40 CFR 35.1521-4 (c), May 23, 
 1979) as: "those methods, measures, or practices to 
 prevent or reduce water pollution and include but are 
 not limited to structural and nonstructural controls, and 
 operation and maintenance procedures." 
 
 Since most pollutants from nonpoint sources are 
 transported to surface waters by overland flow, BMP's 
 which reduce the delivery of sediment, nutrients, pesti- 
 cides and organic wastes to water are usually the same 
 as the conservation practices applied to land to prevent 
 soil erosion. 
 
 While BMP's can be selected on the basis of nonpoint 
 
source problem area identification and assessment, pre- 
 cise combinations of BMP's for a given land situation 
 and their design can only be selected on the basis of 
 an on-site planning process. In so doing, the historic 
 approach of the soil conservation district programs in 
 assisting individual land users are of particular value. 
 
 The same BMP's used to reach land protection and 
 water quality objectives can often be used in the coastal 
 zone to protect coastal waters from sediment, nutrients, 
 pesticides and animal wastes. 
 
 Practices or BMP's for shore erosion control may also 
 be adapted from land conservation techniques, but will 
 usually be more sophisticated. In areas where shore 
 erosion problems can be handled with vegetation, selec- 
 tions of plant materials, site preparation and planting 
 methods must be carefully planned, installed and main- 
 tained. 
 
 Structural BMP's for shore erosion control are expen- 
 sive to install and maintain, and must also be selected 
 and planned with great care. 
 
 Conservation practices for land protection, BMP's 
 for water quality, and measures for coastal and shore 
 erosion have a common need for site-specific problem 
 identification and assessment, selection of the best, most 
 cost-effective alternatives, careful installation, and con- 
 tinuous maintenance. All require careful consideration 
 of soils, climate, vegetation, and costs. All draw on the 
 same professional disciplines: soil science, plant science, 
 engineering and economics. And, finally, all must be 
 understood and acceptable to the people who must install 
 and maintain them — the owners and operators on the 
 land. 
 
 Conservation districts have the experience, expertise 
 and local judgment to help solve local problems in land 
 protection, water quality, and shore erosion to address 
 these problems either singly or in combination. The 
 RCWP would, if funded, add to the capability already 
 available to encourage land users to take advantage of 
 this service. 
 
 Despite the uncertainty created by the lack of fund- 
 ing for the Rural Clean Water Program, the 208 pro- 
 gram is at a significant crossroads. Planning efforts are 
 in full swing and initial plans are completed, or nearly 
 completed, on the agricultural nonpoint problems in 
 most states. It is time to start action programs. The 
 shape of those action programs, how they will relate to 
 ongoing conservation district programs, and what they 
 will mean to the nation's private land users is a major 
 question. In the 500 counties that border the nation's 
 coasts, another question of equal significance arises. 
 How will these pollution prevention programs affect, 
 and assist, the Coastal Zone Management effort? 
 
 THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT 
 
 The same year the FWPCA set out to eliminate the 
 discharge of all pollutants into navigable waters by 1985, 
 Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act 
 (CZMA), PL 92-583. It established a program within 
 the Department of Commerce to help states manage the 
 
 competing demands on the lands and waters surround- 
 ing the nation's coasts. A key intent of the Act is man- 
 agement of those near-shore activities which have a 
 "direct and significant" impact on coastal waters. 
 
 The program encourages states to reaffirm state and 
 local authority over the land and water in the coastal 
 zone through development of management programs. 
 Federal grant funds are administered by the Office of 
 Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) to assist the states 
 in this task. Designated to receive assistance under the 
 CZMA were 35 states and territories adjacent to the 
 Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and 
 the Great Lakes. In 1976, amendments to the CZMA 
 added shoreline erosion as a necessary consideration in 
 each state program. 
 
 A significant characteristic of the CZM program is 
 that it is voluntary. There are no sanctions placed on 
 any state which chooses not to participate. 
 
 A second important trait of the CZMA is its emphasis 
 on the leadership of state and local government. Three 
 optional means of implementation are provided for in 
 the act: direct state administration; local administration 
 subject to state-established standards; and local admin- 
 istration subject to state review. 
 
 The participating states must, pursuant to the act, 
 address the following nine points: 
 
 1. Identification of coastal zone boundaries; 
 
 2. Designation and inventory of areas of particular 
 concern (these may be of economic as well as environ- 
 mental significance); 
 
 3. Broad guidelines on priority of uses of particular 
 coastal areas including, specifically, lowest priority 
 uses; 
 
 4. A determination of permissible land and water 
 uses which have direct and significant impacts on 
 coastal waters; 
 
 5. The means by which the state proposes to control 
 those uses (this refers to implementation authorities 
 the state will use to make its program work); 
 
 6. An organizational structure to implement the 
 program; 
 
 7. A planning process to deal with the issue of pub- 
 lic access to the coast; 
 
 8. A planning process for shoreline erosion; and 
 
 9. A planning process for the siting of energy 
 facilities. 
 
 Grants 
 
 Federal grants for planning are provided under Sec- 
 tion 305 of the CZMA. Grants for implementation are 
 provided under Section 306. Once a state program has 
 been developed by the state, the state may seek the ap- 
 proval of the Secretary of Commerce. If federal ap- 
 proval by the Secretary is given, the state is then eligible 
 for 306 implementation grants to implement the 
 program. 
 
 A key part of the act is Section 308, which established 
 the Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP). This au- 
 thorizes financial assistance to states to meet needs re- 
 sulting from activities specifically related to energy 
 development. 
 
Interagency Cooperation 
 
 Finally, the act emphasizes interagency cooperation 
 at all levels. Under Section 307, the "federal con- 
 sistency" clause, federal agencies are directed to con- 
 duct their programs and activities to the "maximum 
 extent practicable" in a manner consistent with the 
 state's approved coastal management program. Conver- 
 sely, the section directs states to coordinate with federal 
 agencies during development of their program. This 
 clause provides a challenge and opportunity for state 
 and local governments to require a greater accountabil- 
 ity from federal agencies and gives state and local offi- 
 cials an important growth management tool. 
 
 The Environmental Protection Agency, in coopera- 
 tion with OCZM, has established guidance for coordina- 
 tion between the Coastal Zone Management program 
 and state and areawide water quality management 
 programs. 
 
 Growing out of a joint letter in August, 1975, between 
 EPA and OCZM, the guidance report calls for integra- 
 tion of work plan elements (such as inventory and data 
 collection), mutual participation in advisory and review 
 groups, documentation of coordination efforts, and co- 
 ordination of the EPA water quality program and the 
 CZM program at the state level, where possible. 
 
 The CZMA provides for compatability with water 
 quality programs developed in response to the Clean 
 Water Act. The Act dictates that water quality pro- 
 grams or standards in the coastal zone must not be 
 violated by the CZM program. But it is obvious that 
 there needs to be a more tangible link between 208 and 
 coastal zone management programs. Conservation dis- 
 tricts, by their legal authorities, and as one of the local 
 institutions implementing 208 programs, provide a logi- 
 cal organization for tying 208 and CZM programs to- 
 gether on the issue of controlling coastal erosion and 
 pollution from agricultural uplands. 
 
 OTHER MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIVITIES IN THE 
 COASTAL ZONE 
 
 A summary of some other major federal activities 
 that strongly affect both the coastal zone management 
 efforts and the conservation district programs in the 
 coastal zone will help draw a picture of the important 
 interrelationships which have historically existed. 
 
 Many federal agencies have activities in the coastal 
 zone, and each in its own right is concerned with the 
 water quality and other impacts of its own programs. 
 A major category of federal agencies are those that 
 manage federal lands in the coastal zone. This is mainly 
 the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and 
 the National Park Service, although there are major 
 federal holdings by the Department of Defense as well. 
 
 Other federal agencies operate grant programs that 
 
 encourage state or local agencies to purchase and man- 
 age land in the coastal zone. These might be recreation 
 or wildlife management areas, encouraged by grants or 
 other funds from agencies of the Department of the 
 Interior or transportation facilities encouraged by grants 
 from the Department of Transportation. A growing 
 
 number of sites are devoted to energy facilities, many 
 of which are operated under federal permit or with 
 federal funding. 
 
 Federal programs are also available to provide loans, 
 grants, or cost sharing for the construction of facilities, 
 including conservation practices, in the coastal zone. 
 Several of these are within the Department of Agricul- 
 ture, but others are under the Department of Com- 
 merce, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior. 
 
 Two agencies provide technical assistance to land- 
 owners in the planning and installation of conservation 
 and shore erosion control measures in the coastal zone, 
 the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the U.S. Army 
 Corps of Engineers (CoE). 
 
 Soil Conservation Service 
 
 The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the US De- 
 partment of Agriculture provides many services neces- 
 sary for sound coastal zone management. Working pri- 
 marily through districts, the SCS provides technical 
 assistance to individuals, groups and units of govern- 
 ment in planning and carrying out locally adapted con- 
 servation programs. Land users are aided with the 
 installation and maintenance of conservation practices 
 and measures that meet their needs and objectives. In 
 turn, the resource base is protected. 
 
 Other services provided by SCS include forestry as- 
 sistance through soil mapping, soil-related forest man- 
 agement interpretations and erosion control assistance 
 to forest lands; accelerated technical assistance on 
 mined-land reclamation (all states in the coastal zone 
 have some involvement in mining activities); technical 
 assistance for pasture improvement (much of the land 
 in coastal areas is used for pasture and hay and needs 
 proper management); floodplain management assistance 
 (almost every coastal conservation district has a sig- 
 nificant area of flood-prone lands); soil surveys (SCS 
 has national leadership) which identify the potential of 
 the land for alternative uses; and operation of Plant 
 Material Centers. 
 
 To help meet the many needs for improved plant ma- 
 terials, SCS operates, funds or provides technical as- 
 sistance to 22 Plant Materials Centers in the United 
 States. Approximately 16,000 domestic and foreign 
 plant collections are being comparatively evaluated at 
 any one time in these centers. Special emphasis is placed 
 on selecting plants for stabilizing critically eroding areas 
 such as sand dunes, streambanks and shorelines. Most 
 of the plant-materials work is carried out in coopera- 
 tion with other federal agencies, state experiment sta- 
 tions, and state departments of natural resources, con- 
 servation or wildlife. For example, SCS is cooperating 
 with the Corps of Engineers in evaluating and selecting 
 plant materials to be used alone or in combination with 
 structural devices under the Shoreline Erosion Control 
 Demonstration Act of 1974, PL 93-251. 
 
 Army Corps of Engineers 
 
 The CORPS' Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstra- 
 tion Program is a program of unique interest to con- 
 servation districts. Section 54 of the Water Resources 
 Development Act of 1974 authorized a program which 
 
would, over five years, construct low-cost prototype 
 shoreline erosion control devices, both engineering and 
 vegetative, on the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast, the 
 Gulf coast, and the Great Lakes. The areas selected for 
 demonstrations were to contain a variety of geographic 
 and climatic conditions. 
 
 The program is designed to demonstrate to private 
 property owners the types of measures that they, them- 
 selves, can install. A key point to remember is that 75 
 percent of the shoreline of the country, excluding 
 Alaska, is privately owned. 
 
 The program, it is fair to say, was initiated not solely 
 because of private landowners; but also because of 
 public interest in the damage to recreational, water qual- 
 ity and marine resources. Nearly half of the Nation's 
 population lives in coastal counties, and the demands 
 placed on coastal lands and waters is by far the most 
 intense of any region in the nation. 
 
 It might be noted here that, while the CORPS pro- 
 gram is helpful to those who have already built or pur- 
 chased homes in coastal areas, other programs, such as 
 CZM, are working to direct new development away 
 from areas which are subject to erosion and other 
 natural hazards. 
 
 However, the CORPS' Shoreline Erosion Control 
 Demonstration Program is serving an important func- 
 tion right now. Equally as important as construction 
 and monitoring of erosion control devices at the 16 
 selected sites is the dissemination of information about 
 low-cost means to control and prevent shoreline erosion. 
 A Shoreline Erosion Advisory Panel (SEAP), composed 
 of 15 members from different parts of the country, in- 
 stitutions of higher learning, etc., is directed by sub- 
 section 54(d)(2)(E), to "recommend means by which the 
 knowledge obtained from the project may be readily 
 available to the public." 
 
 The CORPS' project and the other federal programs 
 that conservation districts work with in the coastal zone 
 are important links in coastal conservation efforts. 
 
 COASTAL STABLIZATION 
 
 When measuring conservation district involvement in 
 the coastal zone, there is an important distinction to 
 be made between district involvement (or lack of it) 
 with coastal zone management agencies and the long 
 history of district involvement in dune stabilization and 
 shoreline and estuarine erosion control. 
 
 Shore erosion problems have been a major concern 
 of conservation districts in the coastal zone since they 
 were organized. This concern led, in 1963, to the or- 
 ganization by NACD of the National Committee on 
 Shore Erosion. This committee was later broadened and 
 named the Coastal and Shore Resources Committee. 
 Objectives of the committee include gaining support for 
 pilot or demonstration projects, developing a working 
 relationship with OCZM, encouraging coastal states with 
 significant problems to develop and implement control 
 programs through appropriate legislation, expanding 
 needed research, and expanding the use of adapted plant 
 materials for erosion control. 
 
 Districts have long responded to landowner requests 
 for assistance, particularly if SCS help was available. 
 Concern with such matters as stabilization of the back- 
 side of dunes has prompted districts to assist beach 
 property owners in such activities as planting and fer- 
 tilizing vegetation and building sand fences since the 
 mid-forties. 
 
 The following story from Delaware is typical of the 
 kind of beach stabilization and coastal erosion activities 
 which have occurred over the years. 
 
 A district cooperator, living on a coastal river bay in 
 the 1950's, had a beach erosion problem which the SCS 
 plant materials specialist helped him tackle. This land- 
 owner shaped his shoreline and planted it to grasses 
 ranging from cord near the water to coastal bermuda 
 high up the beach. The results were positive, and re- 
 ported at a state association of conservation districts 
 meeting. At that meeting, Delaware Highway Depart- 
 ment representatives wanted to know more about coastal 
 vegetation, since they managed 13 miles of the coastal 
 area. As a result, the Highway Department became a 
 district cooperator and utilized the services of the plant 
 materials specialist and others. 
 
 One of the products of this cooperation was establish- 
 ment of a fertilizer trial area and a beach grass nursery. 
 This early start provided important information that 
 was put to good use after a storm in the '60s. Dunes 
 were flattened so that the area looked like a desert. The 
 SCS plant materials specialist responded to the districts' 
 call for help by recommending immediate aerial fertil- 
 ization of the area based on his examination of plant 
 fragments in the storm-bulldozed area. The fertilization 
 was so successful that regular aerial fertilization is still 
 carried out by the State. 
 
 The storm damage was not limited to public property. 
 Private landowners turned to districts, and one land- 
 owner took on the job of producing grass, using tech- 
 niques learned from his district. That small start led to 
 the establishment of a nursery which is now used to 
 increase new selections of beach grass each year. 
 
 Shoreline work by Delaware districts continues to 
 result in landowner requests for dune stabilization and 
 erosion control assistance. 
 
 In Oregon, coastal conservation districts' experience 
 in shore erosion and dune control dates back to the 
 Civilian Conservation Corps days of the 1930's. Some 
 of this early work stands out today as prime examples 
 of what can be done. 
 
 More recently, one Oregon soil and water conserva- 
 tion district has used CZM (Section 305) planning grant 
 funds to plan for cooperative stream corridor manage- 
 ment on an estuary. District, state and federal agency 
 officials recently met with local landowners and opera- 
 tors to talk about needs and assign responsibilities for 
 cooperative management of the river and its corridors. 
 Removal of unused piling and snags as part of the 
 restoration of the river has already occurred through 
 this activity. 
 
 8 
 
Oregon conservation districts are cited in an amend- 
 ment to the state's coastal management law which states 
 that conservation districts, through their programs, have 
 major responsibilities for developing and implementing 
 specific shoreline erosion control policies. Conservation 
 districts can now proceed in an orderly fashion to in- 
 corporate these "specific erosion control policies" into 
 their county comprehensive plans. (Local land planning 
 in accordance with statewide goals is required in this 
 state.) 
 
 In Maine, the Waldo County Soil and Water Conser- 
 vation District has subcontracted with four towns to 
 provide mapping of important agricultural lands and 
 flood-prone areas. The idea was originally recommended 
 to the towns by the district. In this instance, the towns 
 use CZM funds and serve as the contractors. 
 
 SHORE EROSION/ MITIGATION PLANNING 
 
 Process Elements had either been included in the 14 
 approved state plans or covered by approved or pro- 
 posed amendments to the state plans as of June 1, 1979. 
 
 Policy and planning process guidelines were examined 
 in five plans and found to be comprehensive in scope. 
 Sources of technical and financial assistance were iden- 
 tified in some plans including the conservation districts, 
 Agricultural Conservation Program of the Agricultural 
 Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the Soil 
 Conservation Service. 
 
 Here are some highlights of how some other states 
 are dealing with erosion issues as reported in "The 
 First Five Years of Coastal Zone Management; An 
 Initial Assessment," OCZM, NOAA, March 1979. 
 
 Erosion is one of the major issues with 
 the Michigan program deals. Using the au- 
 thorities provided in several existing Acts — 
 the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control 
 Act of 1976, the Sand Dunes Protection and 
 Management Act of 1976, and the Shore- 
 lands Protection and Management Act of 
 1970 — Michigan has used CZM funding to 
 identify, designate and more effectively 
 manage over 125 miles of high-risk erosion- 
 prone areas along the shoreline of Lake 
 Michigan. 
 
 Included among the enforceable policies 
 of the California Coastal Act are several 
 dealing with development in erosion and 
 earthquake-prone areas, and areas where 
 there are important aquifers. These policies 
 all constitute criteria on which the States 
 and Regional Coastal Commissions base per- 
 mit decisions. 
 
 In developing its coastal management pro- 
 gram, New Jersey developed regulations re- 
 stricting development in high-risk erosion 
 areas. 
 
 New York has introduced legislation that 
 will establish a construction setback tied to 
 the 30 year recession rate. 
 
 In Pennsylvania, one beneficial result of 
 earlier program funding was the develop- 
 ment of erosion control and setback or- 
 dinances that have since been enacted into 
 law by three local communities along Lake 
 Erie. 
 
 Under authorities contained in North 
 Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act, 
 the State's Coastal Commission has identi- 
 fied and designated erosion-prone areas as 
 Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's). 
 These AEC's are now subject to a permit 
 before any development is allowed in these 
 areas. 
 
 Rhode Island identified significant erosion 
 areas in its coastal program and established 
 setback requirements and other restrictions 
 in regulations. 
 
 ACTION POTENTIALS 
 
 When district officials from all parts of the country, 
 comprising the NACD Coastal and Shore Resources 
 Committee, assessed the results of this report, it was 
 decided that they needed to determine ways that districts 
 
 could get further involved in CZM programs, and that 
 CZM agencies could utilize district services. It was 
 agreed that districts need a list of benefits they can 
 realize from CZM. If districts establish more formal 
 ties with the national and state CZM program, what 
 will it mean to them as longstanding institutions of local 
 government with established programs and give-and- 
 take networks of assistance and communication firmly 
 established in the community? To be candid, what is in 
 this program for them? Beyond that, what are the steps 
 which need to be taken to become further involved with 
 CZM officials and programs? Next, what district activ- 
 ities can reasonably be funded through CZM? Then, 
 what benefits can CZM programs derive from districts? 
 What specific services can districts provide to CZM 
 agencies? Twenty-nine areas of district expertise were 
 listed, which CZM can call on for assistance. 
 
 Then, the Committee along with NACD staff and 
 officials asked for a summary statement of roles that 
 state soil conservation agencies and state associations of 
 conservation districts should and can play in this effort. 
 These listings comprise a working list action benefits 
 and potentials which are included here. 
 
Action Potentials 
 
 What Benefits 
 Can Districts 
 Realize From CZM? 
 
 For Conservation Districts 
 
 Inclusion of district objectives, plans and proj- 
 ects in CZM plan 
 
 Influencing and encouragement of unified and 
 streamlined permitting procedures 
 
 Increase of the capabilities of both districts and 
 CZM to implement needed work 
 
 Coordination of 208, CZM and district programs 
 at the local level 
 
 How, Then, 
 Can Districts 
 Become Involved 
 In CZM? 
 
 Be involved with COGs, RC&Ds, County govern- 
 ments, port authorities, municipalities, town- 
 ships and others 
 
 Establish communications with state CZM 
 agencies 
 
 Make districts' expertise, technical capabilities 
 and other resources known 
 
 Develop list of district needs which CZM might 
 address 
 
 Offer to assist in planning and implementation 
 work 
 
 Invite coastal zone management coordinators 
 
 and officials to such annual and regional 
 
 meetings as urban erosion sedimentation 
 symposia 
 
 What Benefits 
 Can CZM 
 Realize From 
 Conservation Districts? 
 
 For Coastal Zone Management Agencies 
 
 1. The conservation district, authorized under state 
 law to carry out programs for conservation of 
 soil and water and related resources, provides 
 a local focal point for implementing the coastal 
 and shore erosion phase of CZM plans. 
 
 2. CZM officials can, under memoranda of agree- 
 ment, delegate specific local implementation 
 functions to conservation districts 
 
 3. Districts can provide local coordination on elimi- 
 nation of duplicative activities in CZM, water 
 quality, and soil and water conservation pro- 
 grams 
 
 4. Districts can provide CZM officials with data on 
 resource problems such as erosion, land use, 
 and water quality and technical assistance to 
 implement local projects to solve them 
 
 5. Through conservation districts, CZM officials 
 can gain access to private landowners to de- 
 velop voluntary participation in CZM imple- 
 mentation 
 
 6. Districts can identify for CZM officials viable 
 CZM projects consistent with the CZM plan 
 
 10 
 
What Specific 
 Services Can 
 Districts Provide 
 To CZM Programs? 
 
 1. On-site assistance to land users in developing 
 a conservation program that meets their needs 
 and the needs of the land 
 
 2. Soils information which provides the basis for 
 needed interpretations of the potential and pres- 
 ent condition of cropland, rangeland, woodland 
 and pasture, hayland, and forest land 
 
 3. Assistance to land users including information 
 about the potential of the land for alternative 
 agricultural uses, the limitations or hazards to 
 the land associated with specific uses and al- 
 ternative conservation practices necessary to 
 protect and maintain the productivity of the re- 
 source for selected uses 
 
 4. Assistance to land users for the installation and 
 maintenance of conservation practices and re- 
 sources that meet the needs and objectives of 
 the land user and in turn achieve protection of 
 the resource base 
 
 5. Soil mapping for forest management; technical 
 assistance in forest land use decision making 
 and on-site resource planning assistance; and 
 provision of erosion control assistance for for- 
 est lands 
 
 6. Assistance in mining activities and related ac- 
 tivities which drastically disturb the land to re- 
 claim or stabilize these areas 
 
 7. Communication with planning and regulatory 
 agencies of ways to incorporate resource data 
 into their regulations 
 
 8. Engineering assistance through the Corps of 
 Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service on 
 erosion problems common to beaches and 
 shorelines of lakes, tidal bays and estuaries 
 
 9. Other engineering assistance on grade stabili- 
 zation structures, surface drains, water level 
 control structures, flood control, dikes, tide 
 gates, open channels, and marsh development 
 
 10. Participation in selected river basin studies with 
 emphasis placed on water and water related 
 land resources, such as flood plains, irrigated 
 lands, wetlands, coastal areas, water quality, 
 and critical sediment producing areas 
 
 11. Conservation Districts can evaluate the actions 
 taking place on flood plains: 
 
 — new homes, schools, industries and commer- 
 cial enterprises being built 
 
 — flood restricting culverts or bridges being 
 built 
 
 — land fills or quarries 
 
 — natural vegetation being disturbed 
 
 — new highways 
 
 — agricultural land being converted 
 
 12. Provision of inventories on wind and water 
 erosion and sediment delivery 
 
 11 
 
What Specific 
 
 Services Can 
 
 Districts Provide 
 
 To CZM Programs? (con't) 
 
 13. Coordination and administering of cost sharing 
 financial assistance: 
 
 — Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
 
 Program 
 — Resource Conservation and Development 
 
 Program 
 
 — critical area treatment 
 
 — flood prevention 
 
 — agricultural water management 
 
 — public recreation 
 
 — fish and wildlife developments 
 
 14. Technical assistance in designing, laying out 
 and checking the construction and maintenance 
 of dams, terraces and other structures, in select- 
 ing plant varieties, seeding methods and rates 
 and cultural practices to establish grass or 
 trees as planned, and in solving problems that 
 arise in managing pastures, woodlands or wild- 
 life habitat 
 
 15. Information about adapted plants or crops for 
 each type or group of soils 
 
 16. Information about alternative land uses and 
 treatment to control erosion and reduce sedi- 
 mentation 
 
 17. Assistance to governments in inventorying their 
 natural resources and planning for wise use of 
 the resources. 
 
 18. Interpretive information on the potential and 
 limitations of different kinds of soil for various 
 uses to help city and county officials, engineers, 
 land-use planners, developers, contractors and 
 builders 
 
 19. Coordination with state forest agencies on non- 
 federal, nonindustrial forest-land management 
 
 20. Assistance with information and education pro- 
 grams 
 
 21. Coordination with university extension services 
 for advisory assistance 
 
 22. Coordination of 208, CZM and district work at 
 the local level 
 
 23. Remapping for flood insurance 
 
 24. Provision of technical ability for interpreting al- 
 ready existing data 
 
 25. Involvement in the erosion-control phase of 
 coastal zone management programs 
 
 26. Advice on how development will affect a limited 
 finite resource, such as a barrier island 
 
 27. Animal waste management 
 
 28. Removal of sediment from estuary channels 
 
 29. Specialized assistance in the use of vegetation 
 for stabilizing sand dunes, streambanks and 
 shorelines 
 
 12 
 
What Roles 
 Can State Soil 
 Agencies Play? 
 
 What Roles 
 Can State 
 Associations Play? 
 
 For State Soil Conservation Agencies 
 
 1. Provide liaison with CZM agency, other agen- 
 cies and state association of conservation dis- 
 tricts 
 
 2. Provide information and guidance to CZM and 
 to conservation districts 
 
 3. Coordinate efforts and information of individual 
 districts 
 
 4. Assist with staffing and funding 
 
 1. Perform the CZM advocacy function with state 
 legislature and federal, state and local agencies 
 
 2. Seek budget and authorization for adequate 
 funding and staffing 
 
 3. Assist with information, education and training 
 for district officials 
 
 4. Establish coastal and shore resources commit- 
 tee to deal with CZM program 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 As the various coastal zone management programs 
 move from planning and development stages, the em- 
 phasis is increasingly toward local implementation of 
 the program. Both conservation districts and coastal 
 zone management programs believe in government by 
 local people governing themselves to the maximum ex- 
 tent possible. There is much to be gained from open 
 
 communication between conservation districts and 
 coastal zone management programs. This report is a 
 beginning, and points out the need for continued effort. 
 For if open dialogue between districts and CZM agen- 
 cies and the realization of common purpose occurs, 
 then all the early and continuing efforts of local pro- 
 grams by local people in this country's coastal zone will 
 not have been isolated straws in the wind. 
 
 Acknowledgements 
 
 Special thanks and gratitude are extended to the members of the NACD National Coastal and Shore 
 Resource Committee: 
 
 Stanley Christensen 
 Salem, Oregon 
 
 James Bellamy 
 Shallotte, North Carolina 
 
 William Chamberlin 
 Mannsville, New York 
 
 Fred Gross 
 Waialua, Hawaii 
 
 Richard M. Hollier 
 Opelousas, Louisiana 
 
 Dwight Spuller 
 Branch, Michigan 
 
 Vernon F. Reinert 
 St. Paul, Minnesota 
 
 Peregrin Terrasa 
 Arechibo, Puerto Rico 
 
 Robert Wakefield 
 Kingston, Rhode Island; 
 
 participants in the case studies, with special thanks to: 
 
 Henry Fulmer 
 
 Deputy Director 
 
 South Carolina Land Resources 
 
 Conservation Commission 
 
 Wayne Beam 
 
 Executive Director 
 
 South Carolina Coastal Council 
 
 Charley S. Staples 
 
 Executive Director 
 
 Louisiana State Soil and Water 
 
 Conservation Committee 
 
 13 
 
Acknowledgements (con't) 
 
 Brad Spicer 
 
 208 Coordinator 
 
 Louisiana State Office of Planning 
 
 Paul Templet 
 
 Coastal Resources Program 
 
 Manager Louisiana 
 
 Frank Ricker 
 Executive Director 
 Maine Soil and Water 
 Conservation Commission 
 
 Norris Braley 
 RC&D Coordinator 
 Time & Tide RC&D 
 Waldoboro, Maine 
 
 Allan Corson 
 208 Coordinator 
 Maine Department of 
 Environmental Protection 
 
 Esther Lacognata 
 
 Maine Coastal Program Manager 
 
 David Hallett 
 Program Director 
 Wisconsin Board of Soil and 
 Water Conservation Districts 
 
 Harry Henrikson 
 BSWCD Representative 
 Wisconsin Board of Soil and 
 Water Conservation Districts 
 
 Al Miller 
 
 Wisconsin Coastal 
 Management Program Manager 
 Wisconsin Office of State 
 Planning and Energy 
 
 Tom Ward 
 
 Conservation District Coordinator 
 
 Manitowoc County, Wisconsin 
 
 Ken Cookson 
 
 State Conservationist 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 John Konrad 
 
 208 Nonpoint Coordinator 
 Wisconsin Department of 
 Natural Resources 
 
 Robert C. Baum 
 
 NACD Pacific Region Representative 
 
 Salem, Oregon 
 
 Mike Fleschner 
 
 Assistant Director 
 
 Oregon State Soil and Water 
 
 Conservation Commission 
 
 Dick Stembridge 
 Coastal Resource Specialist 
 Oregon State Soil and Water 
 Conservation Commission; 
 
 and the many others interviewed; members of the interagency advisory team: 
 
 John G. Housley 
 Department of the Army 
 Office of Chief of Engineers 
 Washington, DC 
 
 Dallas D. Miner 
 
 Chief, External Relations 
 
 Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
 
 Administration 
 US Department of Commerce 
 Washington, DC 
 
 Robert S, MacLauchlan 
 Plant Materials Specialist 
 Soil Conservation Service 
 US Department of Agriculture 
 Washington, DC 
 
 and to: 
 
 Dale Manty 
 
 Agency Liaison 
 
 Coastal Zone Management 
 
 Environmental Protection Agency 
 
 Washington, DC 
 
 to whom we are indebted for his tireless patience and encouragement. 
 
 Lyle Bauer 
 
 President 
 
 National Association of 
 
 Conservation Districts 
 
 R. Neil Sampson 
 Executive Vice President 
 National Association of 
 Conservation Districts 
 
 Robert E. Williams 
 Director, Special Projects 
 National Association of 
 Conservation Districts 
 
 Rosalee Robertson Johnson 
 
 Writer 
 
 National Association of 
 
 Conservation Districts 
 
 Robert C. Baum 
 Staff Advisor 
 Coastal and Shore 
 Resources Committee 
 National Association of 
 Conservation Districts 
 
 Mary E. Garner 
 Legal Consultant 
 National Association of 
 Conservation Districts 
 
 14 
 
Appendix A 
 
 A COMPARISON OF THREE PROGRAMS WHICH AFFECT WATER QUALITY 
 Conservation District Programs Coastal Zone Management Programs 
 
 Section 208 Water Quality Manage- 
 ment Programs 
 
 Basic Authorities — 
 
 Originally modelled on "A Standard 
 State Soil Conservation District Law" 
 distributed to the Governors by the 
 President in 1937, all 50 states, 
 Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands 
 adopted laws for creation and opera- 
 tion of locally governed soil conser- 
 vation districts 
 
 Basic Authorities — 
 
 P.L. 92-583, Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment Act of 1972 
 
 P.L. 94-370, Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment Act of 1976 
 
 State laws by which the state exerts 
 control over the land and water uses. 
 
 Basic Authorities — 
 
 P.L. 92-500, Federal Water Pollution 
 Control Act Amendments of 1972 
 P.L. 95-217, Clean Water Act of 1977, 
 (Particularly section 208 "Areawide 
 Waste Treatment Programs" includ- 
 ing nonpoint sources) State water 
 quality legislation and standards. 
 
 Purposes (General — varies slightly 
 by states) 
 
 — create conservation districts 
 
 — prevent erosion and sedimenta- 
 tion 
 
 — conserve soil, water and other 
 natural resources 
 
 — establish state soil conservation 
 agency 
 
 — empower districts to adopt pro- 
 grams and legislation 
 
 — adoption and carrying out soil 
 conserving practices 
 
 — etc. 
 
 Purposes 
 
 — preserve, protect, develop, re- 
 store or enhance the resources 
 of the coast 
 
 — development and implementation 
 of state management programs 
 
 — cooperation and participation of 
 state and local governments 
 
 — public participation 
 
 Purposes (in part) 
 
 — restore and maintain the chemi- 
 cal, physical, and biological in- 
 tegrity of the nation's waters 
 
 — discharge of pollutants elimi- 
 nated by 1985 
 
 — wherever attainable, make wa- 
 ters fishable and swimmable by 
 1983 
 
 — areawide waste treatment and 
 management processes to be 
 developed and implemented 
 
 — nonpoint pollution control 
 through designated areas 
 
 — federal financial aid to landown- 
 ers for installation of nonpoint 
 pollution control measures 
 
 Scope 
 
 — prevent damage by wind and 
 water erosion, floodwaters and 
 sediment 
 
 — conserve and develop water 
 
 — protect and enhance wildlife 
 
 — prevent impairment of streams, 
 dams and reservoirs 
 
 — protect the tax base 
 
 — provide technical assistance to 
 land-owners in developing con- 
 servation plans to control ero- 
 sion 
 
 — provide technical assistance in 
 applying conservation practices 
 
 — conduct surveys, studies; pro- 
 vide basic resource data 
 
 — coordinate natural resource pro- 
 grams at local level 
 
 — receive and direct technical and 
 financial assistance to achieve 
 objectives 
 
 Scope 
 
 — development of management 
 programs to achieve wise land 
 use 
 
 — implementation of management 
 programs 
 
 — coordination with other Federal 
 and State agencies 
 
 — coastal energy impact 
 
 — shoreline erosion control 
 
 — access to the shore 
 
 — marine and estuarine sanctu- 
 aries 
 
 — concern with national interest in 
 managing the coastal zone 
 
 — grants to states and local gov- 
 ernment units for developing 
 plans and implementing pro- 
 grams 
 
 — provide technical assistance to 
 local units through state gov- 
 ernment 
 
 — financial assistance to install 
 local shore erosion projects 
 consistent with state plans 
 
 Scope 
 
 — agriculturally, silviculturally, mine 
 oriented, and construction 
 sources of pollution, including 
 soil and sediment-related pollu- 
 tants 
 
 — runoff from manure disposal 
 areas 
 
 — dissolved salts in irrigation re- 
 turn flows 
 
 — 106 — grants to states to assist 
 in administering pollution con- 
 trol programs 
 
 — 109 — grants for demonstration 
 projects for controlling pollution 
 in Great Lake watersheds 
 
 — 208 — Rural Clean Water Pro- 
 gram (cost share best manage- 
 ment practices) 
 
 — 314 — financial assistance to 
 states to carry out methods and 
 procedures to restore quality of 
 fresh water lakes 
 
 15 
 
Appendix B 
 
 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL RELATIONSHIPS: RESOURCE 
 
 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON NONFEDERAL LANDS 
 
 NATIONAL CONCERNS 
 
 SOIL & WATER 
 
 CONSERVATION 
 
 (PL 74-46, 83-566, 
 
 84-1021,92-419, 
 
 95-192, etc.) 
 
 WATER QUALITY 
 
 MANAGEMENT-NPS 
 
 (PL 92-500, Sec 208) 
 
 EPA 
 
 COASTAL ZONE 
 
 MANAGEMENT 
 
 (PL 92-583) 
 
 Dept. of Commerce 
 
 OCZM 
 
 SURFACE-MINED LAND 
 
 RECLAMATION 
 
 (PL 95-87) 
 
 USDI-OSM 
 
 Title IV, USDA-SCS 
 
 STATE PLANNING 
 & 
 
 COORDINATION 
 
 STATE SOIL 
 
 CONSERVATION 
 
 AGENCY 
 
 STATE SOIL 
 
 CONSERVATION 
 
 DISTRICT LAW 
 
 STATE WATER 
 
 QUALITY AGENCY 
 
 STATE WATER 
 
 POLLUTION 
 CONTROL LAW 
 
 STATE CZM 
 
 AGENCY 
 
 STATE CZM LAW 
 
 STATE MINING 
 
 AGENCY 
 
 STATE MINING 
 
 RECLAMATION 
 
 LAW 
 
 LOCAL COORDINATION, 
 PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION 
 
 SOIL CONSERVATION 
 DISTRICTS 
 LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERN- 
 MENT ESTABLISHED UNDER 
 STATE LAW 
 
 16 
 
Appendix C 
 
 Sample 
 Memodandum of Understanding 
 between 
 the State Coastal Zone Management Agency, the State Soil Conservation Agency 
 
 and 
 the Conservation District 
 
 The State CZM Agency has the responsibility under ( citation to state 
 
 law ) of carrying out the requirements of the CZM Act of for the State 
 
 of . 
 
 The State Soil Conservation Agency has the responsibility under ( citation 
 to state law ) for the development and coordination of programs in the state for 
 the conservation and protection of its soils, waters and related natural 
 resources. 
 
 The Conservation District has the responsibility under 
 
 ( citation to state law) to carry out a program for the conservation, protection 
 and proper use of the soils, waters and related natural resources within its 
 boundaries. 
 
 This memorandum of understanding is entered into on , 19 _, 
 
 between the Coastal Zone Management Agency, the State Soil 
 
 and Water Conservation Commission, and the S oil and Water 
 
 Conservation District, for the purpose of furthering their common objectives of 
 controlling, preventing and mitigating damages to the coastal areas of the 
 nation resulting from erosion, sedimentation and related causes. 
 
 17 
 
I. What the State Coastal Zone Management Agency will do: 
 
 A. Develop overall planning for the development, control, prevention 
 and mitigation of damages to the coastal zone areas of the state 
 
 B. Provide information as to authorities, limitations, problems and 
 needs in CZM area 
 
 C. Provide funding, if deemed within CZM ability to do so, for 
 cost-share assistance for measures having substantial public benefits 
 (where the costs exceed the benefits to the landowner); specific 
 agreements will be developed with affected districts for each 
 approved CZM project 
 
 II. What the District will do: 
 
 A. Furnish soils information 
 
 B. Assist the CZM Agency in developing and implementing comprehensive 
 CZM plans 
 
 C. Develop and/or review plans for erosion and sediment control measures, 
 including nonstructural measures 
 
 D. Provide on-site planning assistance 
 
 E. Provide information on agricultural conservation measures and practices 
 being conducted through districts with landowners in the coastal zone 
 to the CZM agency 
 
 18 
 
F. Provide information on non-public forest and construction erosion 
 projects being conducted by districts in the coastal zone 
 
 G. Administer cost-share assistance as approved by the State Coastal 
 Zone Management Agency and funded under specific agreements for 
 each CZM project. 
 
 H. Cooperate in sponsoring and coordinating public-participation and 
 education programs 
 
 I. Coordinate district-level Section 208 Water Quality programs with 
 CZM projects 
 
 J. Provide such other assistance as needed and available 
 
 III. What the State Soil Conservation will do: 
 
 A. Assist with education and information programs designed to make the 
 public aware of the need for the control, prevention and mitigation 
 of damages to the coastal zone areas of the state 
 
 B. Keep the State CZM Agency and the District informed on planning and 
 development proposals that affect the protection of the coastal zone 
 areas of the state including soil conservation programs, Section 208 
 Water Quality Management programs, etc. 
 
 C. Consider and, as appropriate, provide fiscal and coordination support 
 to assist District and, if deemed within state soil conservation agency 
 to do so, state CZM Agency, in carrying out its responsibilities under 
 this agreement 
 
 19 
 
IV. It is mutually agreed that: 
 
 A. The parties to this agreement will meet periodically and at least 
 annually to review and coordinate their individual programs and 
 activities for maximum mutual benefit 
 
 B. Either party using information from the other party in a publication 
 shall credit the provider of the information and shall give the 
 provider opportunity to review drafts of the publication 
 
 C. This memorandum may be amended or terminated at any time by mutual 
 consent of the parties hereto or may be terminated by any party 
 giving sixty (60) days' notice in writing to the others 
 
 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have entered into this agreement on the 
 day, month and year written above. 
 
 State CZM Agency 
 
 By 
 
 State Soil Conservation Commission 
 
 By 
 
 Conservation District 
 
 By 
 
 27april79 
 
 20 
 
Appendix D 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 
 Office of the Chief of Engineers EC 1105-2-59 
 DAEN-CWP-A Washington, D.C. 20314 
 
 Circular 
 
 No. 1105-2-59 21 May 1976 
 
 EXPIRES 31 MARCH 1977 
 Planning 
 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENTS WITH SOIL AND WATER 
 CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 
 
 1. Purpose . This circular provides a standard format for a memorandum 
 of agreement between a District Engineer and a Soil and Water Conserva- 
 tion District, and encourages District Engineers to enter into such 
 agreements. The circular also clarifies the guidance on when Corps 
 Districts should initiate such agreements. Prior to the expiration date 
 of this circular, the information contained herein will be incorporated 
 into a regulation in the 1105-2-XXX series. 
 
 2. Applicability . This circular is applicable to all OCE elements and 
 all field operating agencies having Civil Works responsibilities. 
 
 3. Reference . ER 1105-2-800. 
 
 4. General . In many areas across the nation, the Corps of Engineers 
 and local Soil and Water Conservation Districts are cooperating in work 
 to conserve land and water resources. Representatives of the National 
 Association of Conservation Districts have suggested that a formal 
 Memorandum of Agreement be developed and utilized to solidify this type 
 of cooperation and to form the basis for cooperation in areas where it 
 may not now exist. The Director of Civil Works supports the suggested 
 formalization of agreements on a case-by-case basis to assist in achieving 
 the Corps public involvement objective, as discussed in ER 1105-2-800. 
 
 5. Interim Guidance . 
 
 a. The National Association of Conservation Districts will be 
 requesting their member Districts to contact field operating agencies 
 concerning the establishment of formal agreements, as appropriate. 
 District Engineers may also initiate an agreement on a case-by-case 
 basis as the need arises. 
 
 b. District Engineers are authorized to sign a Memorandum of 
 Agreement, (Appendix A), and to make such modifications as deemed 
 appropriate by the Corps or the Soil and Water Conservation District. 
 
 This circular supersedes EC 1105-2-41 dated 24 October 1975 
 
 21 
 
EC 1105-2-59 
 21 May 76 
 
 6. Revisions to Interim Guidance . Field operating agencies may submit 
 suggested revisions to this circular to HQDA (DAEN-CWP-A) WASH DC 20314, 
 
 FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS: 
 
 1 Appendix 
 
 APP A - Memo of Agreement 
 
 MARVIN W. REES 
 
 Colonel, Corps of Engineers 
 
 Executive Director of Civil Works 
 
 22 
 
EC 1105-2-59 
 21 May 76 
 
 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 
 Between the 
 
 District 
 
 and the 
 Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army 
 Statement of Purpose 
 
 The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement is to provide for 
 
 cooperation between the Conservation District, 
 
 established pursuant to the laws of the State of , 
 
 and the Corps of Engineers of the Department of the Army, in the 
 planning and carrying out of projects and programs for the conservation, 
 wise utilization, and efficient development of the land, water, and 
 
 related resources within the Conservation 
 
 District. 
 
 A. What the Corps of Engineers Will Do 
 
 1. The Corps of Engineers will call upon the District at an early 
 stage for advice and recommendations in the planning and carrying out of 
 any projects and programs the Corps may undertake within the District. 
 
 2. The Corps of Engineers will notify the District of all public 
 hearings on proposed projects and project plans which would affect the 
 land, water, and related resources within the District. 
 
 23 
 
EC 1105-2-59 
 21 May 76 
 
 3. The Corps of Engineers will make available to the District such 
 information, technical advice, and assistance as it may request, subject 
 to the limitations of paragraph C-l of this agreement. 
 
 4. The Corps of Engineers will enter into agreements supplemental to 
 this Agreement setting forth in all necessary detail (a) the nature of 
 any assistance to be rendered in connection with the carrying out of a 
 specific project or program, and (b) the arrangements under which such 
 assistance is to be made available. 
 
 B. What the Conservation District Will Do 
 
 1. The District will assist the Corps of Engineers in carrying out 
 any activities which the latter may undertake within the boundaries of 
 the District by furnishing such advice and recommendations as may, in 
 its opinion, result in better coordination of the Corps activity with 
 the long-range plan of the District. 
 
 2. The District will provide the Corps of Engineers with copies of 
 any annual and long-range work plans it may adopt and its annual reports. 
 
 3. The District will call upon the Corps of Engineers for such 
 information, technical advice, and assistance in the planning and 
 carrying out of aspects of the District's activities as the Corps may be 
 particularly well qualified to provide because of its specialized knowledge 
 and experience. 
 
 24 
 
EC 1105-2-59 
 21 May 76 
 
 C. Further Understandings 
 
 1. Any assistance furnished by the Corps of Engineers under the 
 provisions of the Agreement will be subject to the limitations of its 
 legislative authorities, the regulations of the Department of the Army, 
 and the availability of funds and personnel. 
 
 2. Cooperation by the District in carrying out the provisions of 
 this Agreement will be subject to the limitations of the laws 
 establishing the District and the availability of funds and personnel. 
 
 3. This Memorandum of Agreement will be effective when signed, and 
 
 may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of the parties hereto, 
 
 or by either party after 60 days notice of its desire for termination. 
 
 BY: 
 
 Chairman, District Governing Body 
 
 DATE 
 BY: 
 
 District Engineer, 
 Corps of Engineers 
 
 DATE: 
 
 ATTEST: The signing of this Memorandum of Agreement was authorized by 
 a resolution of the District Governing Body adopted at a meeting held 
 
 on . 
 
 BY: 
 
 Secretary, District Governing Body 
 DATE: 
 
 25 
 
Appendix E 
 
 So/7 and Water Conservation Commission 
 
 1015 - 13th STREET S.E.. SALEM. OREGON 97310 PHONE 378-3810 
 
 February 2, 1978 
 
 TO: SWCD Chairmen, Commission Members and OACD Board Members 
 
 FROM: Charles V. Liles 
 Director 
 
 SUBJECT: Model Memo of Understanding for use with Counties 
 
 Enclosed is a copy of the subject Memo of Understanding 
 recommended for your use with the Board of County Commissioners. Specific 
 language addressing ORS 197.185 special district planning responsibilities 
 and agreements with cities and counties is included in the memo. The 
 Executive Director of the Association of Oregon Counties has reviewed and 
 endorsed the memo. 
 
 You may wish to add to and/or delete from the model memo 
 adapt it to your specific situation. 
 
 to 
 
 It is the position of the Commission that its plans and programs 
 are in conformance with the statewide planning goals and otherwise meet 
 requirements of ORS 197.180. It is also the Commission's position that the 
 Districts' plans and programs are in conformance with the statewide planning 
 goals as required in ORS 197.185. The Commission also believes that Districts 
 do coordinate their planning with other affected units of local government. 
 
 The model Memo of Understanding supports these positions and 
 should assure counties of continued coordination and cooperation by the 
 Districts. 
 
 It should not be necessary to execute a similar memo with cities 
 as the counties (COG's in some areas) perform the comprehensive planning 
 coordination function. 
 
 Please contact the Commission Office if you have questions or 
 need assistance. 
 
 JPH/jla 
 
 Enc. 
 
 cc: Guy Nutt, SCS 
 
 District Conservationists 
 
 26 
 
D E L 
 
 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 
 Between 
 
 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 
 
 And 
 
 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
 
 THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING entered into on b etween 
 
 the Soil and Water Conservation District (hereinafter 
 
 referred to as the "District"), and the Board of County 
 
 Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), and 
 
 WHEREAS, the County and the District desire to cooperate in a program of 
 developing and exchanging information, services and facilities that would be mutually 
 beneficial and would serve to achieve common objectives in the conservation and 
 development of renewable natural resources. 
 
 WHEREAS, the County has been given responsibility for coordinating all planning 
 activities affecting land uses within the County, including those of the County, 
 cities, special districts and state agencies, to assure a coordinated comprehensive 
 plan for the entire area of the County; and 
 
 WHEREAS, the District has been duly established under the authority of ORS 568.210 
 to 568.800 with responsibility for establishing and administering programs for the 
 planning and management of renewable natural resources lying within its jurisdictional 
 boundaries; and 
 
 WHEREAS, the District is required to develop both a long range program and an 
 annual work plan pertaining to the conservation and development of renewable natural 
 resources; and 
 
 WHEREAS, the District has entered into Memoranda of Understanding and agreements 
 with many federal, state and local agencies, and works with private landowners and 
 operators in establishing a cooperative working arrangement in carrying out a planned 
 program of conserving and improving the soil, water, wildlife, and related natural 
 resources, and 
 
 WHEREAS, ORS 197.185 (2) requires counties and special districts to enter into 
 cooperative agreements with one another in order to bring special district plans and 
 programs into conformity with statewide goals, and to coordinate special district 
 programs with other affected units of local government; 
 
 27 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises herein contained, the 
 partteshereto agree with each other as follows: 
 
 I. THE DISTRICT AGREES TO: 
 
 A. Provide information and services related to guiding proper land 
 use patterns consistent with the needs of soil, water, wildlife, 
 related natural resources, and human resources. 
 
 B. Assist and cooperate in sponsoring and coordinating educational 
 programs. 
 
 C. Advise with the County on planning and development programs 
 dealing with soil, water, wildlife, related natural resources, 
 and related land uses. 
 
 D. Provide the County with information in regard to proposed 
 watershed projects and other local works of improvement that 
 affect land use planning, as the District becomes aware of 
 such proposals. 
 
 E. Provide planning jurisdictions within the District, a Natural 
 Resource Conservation Program for inclusion as natural resource 
 elements of their respective comprehensive plans. 
 
 F. Each year provide planning jurisdictions within the District, an 
 annual work plan to implement objectives and policies contained 
 in the Natural Resource Conservation Program. 
 
 G. Provide planning jurisdictions with an updated Natural Resource 
 Conservation Program to serve as a basis for comprehensive 
 plan revision, as changing circumstances may require. 
 
 H. Conduct its activities in accordance with statewide planning goals 
 
 I. Support the planning coordination efforts of the County by 
 providing local leadership for planning and management of 
 renewable natural resources. 
 
 J. Provide such other assistance as the District may be able 
 within the limits of its technical and financial resources. 
 
 II. THE COUNTY AGREES TO: 
 
 A. Assist with education and information programs designed to 
 make the public aware of the need for the proper use and 
 development of natural resources. 
 
 B. Keep the District informed on planning and development 
 proposals that affect conservation of soil, water, wildlife 
 and related natural resources. 
 
 C. Recognize the Districts' Natural Resource Conservation Program 
 as official input to the comprehensive planning process, and 
 
 to give appropriate consideration to the objectives and policies 
 contained therein for inclusion in the County Comprehensive Plan 
 
 28 
 
Recognize the District Annual Work Program as the implementing 
 mechanism for appropriate Natural Resource Conservation Program 
 objectives and policies which have been included in the 
 Comprehensive Plan. 
 
 Recognize the District as the local leader in matters 
 pertaining to the planning and management of renewable natural 
 resources. 
 
 Consider, and as appropriate, provide fiscal resources to 
 support District activities of benefit to the County. 
 
 Consider, and as appropriate, provide fiscal and coordination 
 support to assist the District to comply with requirements of 
 statewide planning goals 1 and 2. 
 
 III. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 
 
 A. The District and the County will meet periodically and at 
 least annually to review and coordinate their individual 
 programs and activities for maximum mutual benefit. 
 
 B. Either party using information from the other party in a 
 publication shall credit the provider of the information 
 and shall give the provider opportunity to review drafts 
 of the publication. 
 
 C. This memorandum may be amended or terminated at any time by 
 mutual consent of the parties hereto or may be terminated 
 by either party by giving sixty (60) days notice in writing 
 to the other. 
 
 D. Special Conditions - 
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the 
 day, month, and year first above written. 
 
 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION 
 By: 
 
 Chairman 
 
 Secretary 
 
 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
 
 By: 
 
 Chairman 
 
 29 
 
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 
 
 BMPS 
 
 CZM 
 CZMA 
 
 CORPS 
 DISTRICTS 
 
 EPA 
 FWPCA 
 
 NOAA 
 OCZM 
 
 RCWP 
 
 scs 
 
 208 
 
 Best Management Practices. The conservation and pollution 
 control measures and combinations of measures identified 
 in 208 plans as being both feasible and effective in reducing 
 water pollution. 
 
 Coastal Zone Management. 
 
 The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, P.L. 92-583, 
 that established the CZM program. It was amended in 1976 
 as P.L. 94-370. 
 
 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of 
 Defense. 
 
 Often used to refer to Conservation Districts. In some 
 states, these are called Soil Conservation Districts, Resource 
 Conservation Districts, or Soil and Water Conservation 
 Districts. 
 
 The Environmental Protection Agency. 
 
 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as 
 the Clean Water Act. The 1972 legislation was P.L. 92-500. 
 It was amended again in 1977 as P.L. 95-217. 
 
 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
 Department of Commerce. 
 
 The Office of Coastal Zone Management, which is located 
 in NOAA, and is responsible for administering the Coastal 
 Zone Management Act. 
 
 The Rural Clean Water Program, authorized by Section 
 208 (j) of the Clean Water Act. 
 
 The Soil Conservation Service, the agency of the U.S. 
 Department of Agriculture that provides technical 
 assistance to land users on soil and water conservation. 
 
 Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 
 1972, P.L. 92-500. Section 208 is entitled "Areawide Waste 
 Treatment Management," and focuses on state and area 
 planning for the prevention and treatment of point and 
 nonpoint sources of pollution. 
 
 30 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Data User Services, US Bureau of the Census. Selected 
 Information on the United States, Office of Coastal Zone 
 Management, Washington, D.C., 1977. 
 
 Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic 
 and Atmospheric Administration. Coastal Facility 
 Guidelines. US Department of Commerce, Washington, 
 D.C., April 1976. 
 
 Warren, Charles E. Biology and Water Pollution Con- 
 trol. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, London, 
 Toronto, 1971. 
 
 A Standard State Soil Conservation Districts Law. US 
 GPO, Washington, D.C., 1936. 
 
 Abstract of Opinion of the Solicitor on Constitution- 
 ality of Standard State Soil Conservation Districts Law. 
 
 Office of the Solicitor, US Department of Agriculture, 
 Washington, D.C., 1936. 
 
 US News and World Report. "Can the Tides Be 
 Turned? The Worry Over US Shores," November 13, 
 1978, pp. 63-66. 
 
 US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Shore- 
 line Erosion (a brochure). US GPO 797-517, Washing- 
 ton, D.C., 1978. 
 
 Housley, John G. "Shore Protection: Yes, at a Price," 
 Water Spectrum, Summer, 1978, (reprint). 
 
 Memorandum: Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstra- 
 tion Program. Secretary of the Army. DAEN-CWP-P, 
 December 5, 1978. 
 
 Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of 
 Agriculture. Assistance Available from the Soil Con- 
 servation Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin 345. 
 GPO 0-552-498, 1974. 
 
 Sharp, W. Curtis. Conservation Plants for the North- 
 east. Soil Conservation Service, US Department of 
 Agriculture. GPO Catalog No. A 1.68:1154, 1977. 
 
 Section 35, "Agricultural Cost Sharing, "PL 95-217. 91 
 STAT. 1579, 1977. 
 
 "A Resources Agenda for the 80s." NACD paper. 
 NACD, Washington, D.C., 1978. 
 
 International City Management Association. Coastal 
 Zone Management. Management Information Service 
 Report, Volume 9, Number 12, December 1977. 
 
 Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic 
 and Atmospheric Administration. Examples of State 
 Policies on Agriculture and Forestry As Incorporated 
 Into Coastal Zone Management Programs. US Depart- 
 ment of Commerce, OCZM., Washington, D.C., 1978. 
 
 Coastal Zone '78, Volumes I, II and III. Sponsored by 
 American Society of Civil Engineers, The Conservation 
 Foundation, and the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 
 New York, 1978. 
 
 Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 
 Incorporated into the Coastal Zone Management Act 
 of 1972 (PL 92-583 and PL 94-370). 86 STAT. 1280 
 and 90 STAT. 1013, respectively. Available from Of- 
 fice of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic 
 and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of 
 Commerce, Washington, DC, 1977. 
 
 Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration Act of 1974 
 
 (Section 54, Water Resources Development Act of 1974, 
 PL 93-251). 
 
 Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agricul- 
 ture. RCA. National Resources Conservation Act 
 Manual. USDA, Washington, DC. 
 
 NACD. 1978 Policy Positions. NACD, League City, 
 TX., 1978. 
 
 Land Conservation and Development Commission, 
 Oregon. LCDC Facts. LCDC, Salem, OR. 
 
 Department of Land Conservation and Development, 
 Oregon. Oregon Lands (newsletter), Vol. 2, No. 1, Jan- 
 uary, 1979. ODLCD, Salem, OR. 
 
 State Planning Office, Maine. Maine's Coastal Program. 
 
 Coastal Program, State PI. Office, Augusta, ME, 1977. 
 
 An Act to Establish The South Carolina Coastal Coun- 
 cil (R204, S208). Printer's No. 122-S. Available from 
 S.C. Coastal Council, Columbia, S.C., 1977. 
 
 State Plainning Office, Louisiana. The State of the 
 State, Economic and Social Report to the Governor. 
 State PI. Office, Baton Rouge, La., 1977. 
 
 Coastal Resources Program, Louisiana. Work Products, 
 Annotated Bibliography. Department of Transportation 
 and Development, Baton Rouge, LA., November 1978. 
 
 Manitowoc Soil and Water Conservation District. Wis- 
 consin Coastal Management Program Demonstration 
 Program. Manitowoc SWCD, Manitowoc, WL, 1978. 
 
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 ■ III