HomeMy WebLinkAboutState of New York Coastal Management Program & FEIS 1986 State Of New York
Coastal Management
Program and
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
-U.S. oePAnOMW of oor
wlbnd ooanb ra Apnoph�ric Aaminaaaaon
omoe of cx..a zap.
OFC11\
df
REPRINT 1986
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND THE
NEW YORK COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AUGUST 1982
Prepared by:
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Commerce
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235
and
New York Department of State
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12231
The preparation of this publication was financed in part through the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA.
DESIGNATION: Final Environmental Impact Statement
TITLE: Proposed Federal Approval of the New York
Coastal Program
ABSTRACT: The State of New York has submitted its Coastal
Program to the Office of Coastal Zone Management
for approval. Approval would allow program ad-
ministrative grants to be awarded to the State,
and would require that Federal actions be consis-
tent with the program. This document includes a
copy of the program (Volume 1) , which is a com-
prehensive management program for coastal land and
water use activities. It consists of numerous
policies on diverse management issues which are
administered under existing State laws and is the
culmination of several years of program develop-
ment. New York' s coastal policies either promote
the beneficial use of coastal resources, prevent
their impairment, or deal with major activities
that substantially affect numerous resources. The
program will improve decision-making processes
used for determining the appropriateness of actions
in the coastal area.
Approval and implementation of the program will
enhance governance of the State's coastal land
and water areas and uses according to the coastal
policies and standards contained in the existing
statutes, authorities and rules. Federal alter-
natives to program approval include delaying or
denying approval, if certain requirements of the
Coastal Zone Management Act have not been fret.
The State could modify parts of the program or
withdraw their application for Federal approval if
either of the above Federal alternatives result
from circulation of this document.
APPLICANT: State of New York, Secretary of State
LEAD AGENCY: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
CONTACT: Ms. Kathryn Cousins
North Atlantic Regional Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3000 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235 (202/634-4126)
STATE OF NEW YORK
i
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ALBANY, N. Y. 12231
BASIL A. PATSRSON
S[CA[TART O/ OTATC
August 13, 1982
Mr. William Matuszeski
Assistant Administrator
Office of Coastal Zone Management
United States Department of Commerce
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Page Building 1
Washington, D.C. 20235
Dear- Mr. Matuszeski:
I am pleased to submit New York State's Coastal Manage-
ment Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
As Secretary of State, I have been designated, pursuant
to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act
of 1981, and Chapter 464 of the 1975 Laws of New York State,
to prepare and implement a coastal management program. This
document is the culmination of years of local, state and
federal government efforts, as well as those of groups repre-
senting civic, environmental, development, and other interests.
The public and government officials have had numerous
opportunities to shape this program. Public meetings, held
in 1978, were followed by public hearings in early 1979 con-
ducted by this agency. Legislative hearings were held in
late 1979. There were over 1,000 meetings to assist in the
preparation of this document. As a result of the comments
received, the State's program uses a networking approach
enforced primarily through the existing New York State En-
vironmental Quality Review Act.
In accordance with the provisions of 'Section 102 (2) (c)
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 1,500 copies
of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed
New York State Coastal Management Program were circulated for
Mr. william Matuszeski
August 131 1982
Page 2
review and comment to Federal, State, regional and local govern-
ment agencies as well as to numerous private interest groups.
In response to the many comments received, numerous changes
have been made to the program.
In accordance with the requirements of the Coastal Zone
Management Act regulations (Section 923.48) , a letter from the
Governor will follow after the minimum ten-day review follow-
ing the notice of availability of the Final Environmental
impact
tnreview ydis a rctihe
Now YorStatement.
StateEnvironmentalQualitReviewAregulations
(6NYCRR Section 617.9) .
Upon York
oState willeion of hhavedanal review approved Coastal,Management
antici-
pate New Yorkrk
Program in September, 1982.
S cerely
Basil A. Paterson
Enclosure
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART I - OVERVIEW
Section 1 - Summary of the New York State
Coastal Management Program . . . . . . . . . I- 3
Section 2 - Changes the Program Will Make. . . . . . . . I- 5
Section 3 - Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. . . . . I- 6
Section 4 - Cross Reference to 306 Program
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW YORK STATE
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Section 1 - Introduction . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . II-1-1
Section 2 - Coastal Regions, Resources and Problems
of New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2-1
. Marine Coast of Long Island and
New York City
. Hudson River Estuary
. Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River
Section 3 - Coastal Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3-1
Boundary Criteria
. Special Accommodations
. New York State Coastal Area
Section 4 - Program Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4-1
Section 5 - Coastal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5-1
Section 6 - Coastal Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6-1
Section 7 - Planning Processes . . . . . . . . . . . II-7-1
-iii-
Page
Section 8 - Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . II-8-1
• Identification and Selection
• State Parks
• Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs
. Estuarine Sanctuaries
• Areas for Preservation or Restoration
Section 9 - Special Federal Program Requirements . . . . II-9-1
Section 10 - Description of Work Program. . . . . . . . . II-10-1
PART III - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION. . . . . . III-1
PART IV - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4
PART V - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . V-1
. Environmental Effects
. Institutional Effects
. Economic Effects
. Development Effects
. Energy Effects
. Social Effects
PART VI - AGENCIES CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1
PART VII - LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
RECEIVING COPIES OF THE DEIS . . . . . . . VII-1
PART VIII - DOCUMENT PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1
PART IX - RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT IX-1
APPENDICES
VOLUME ONE
NEW YORK STATE LEGAL AUTHORITIES - REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
Page
APPENDIX A - REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS
Department of State Consistency Regulations . . . . . A-1
Department of Environmental Conservation State Environ-
nfttal Quality Review Act amendments for Purposes of
Rxecutive Law, Article 42
Department of Environmental Conservation regulations
to implement the Shoreowner's Protection Act
Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization
Development and Approval Regulations
NOTE: All the above regulations will be promulgated by
the State agencies prior to approval of this Coastal
Management Program by OCZM.
APPENDIX B - GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL WATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS B-1
APPENDIX C - FEDERAL-STATE CONSULTATION
AND PLAN COORDINATION . . . C-1
APPENDIX D - EXCLUDED FEDERAL LANDS . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
VOLUME TWO
NEW YORK STATE LEGAL AUTHORITIES - EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS
APPENDIX E - EXISTING LAWS PURSUANT TO WHICH REGULATIONS
HAVE BEEN DRAFTED AND EXISTING REGULATIONS
WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED
Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act -
Executive Law, Article 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
State Environmental Quality Review Act, and existing
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations. 7
Shoreowner's Protection Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
-v_
APPENDIX F - ADDITIONAL NEW YORK STATE LEGAL AUTHORITIES
Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Acts and regulations. . . 47
Energy Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Public Service Law, Articles VII and VIII . . . . . . . 117
Summary of Other Legal Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . 205
Miracle Mile Associates v. DEC.
430 F. Supp 2nd 440 (July 10, 1 80) . . . . . . . . . . 223
VOLUME THREE
APPENDIX G - MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR NEW YORK CITY
Introduction
Boundaries
Organization and Implementation
Waterfront Policies
-- Issues
-- Policies
Special Revitalization Areas
Appendix A: Major Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Appendix B: Future Approaches
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: Volume Two, Appendices E and F, are not re-
printed for review with the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS).
ILLUSTRATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Legal Authorities Essential to the Imple-
mentation of New York State's Coastal
Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4-14
2 Federal Activities and Development Projects
Likely to Directly Affect New York State's
Coastal Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-9-18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Application of Boundary Criteria . . . . . . . 11-3-8
2 Application of Boundary Criteria . . . . . . . 11-3-9
3 Application of Boundary Criteria . . . . . . . 11-3-10
4 Application of Boundary Criteria . . . . . . . 11-3-11
5 Map of New York State Coastal Area . . . . . . 11-3-12
-vii-
PART I - OVERVIEW
I. OVERVIEW
1. Summary of the New York State Coastal Management
Program
This document constitutes a framework for government
decision-making which affects New York's coastal area.
It provides statements of policy to which Federal and
State agencies must adhere and also serves as a
reference for local government action in the coastal
area. In addition, the document complies with Federal
regulations for submission of state coastal management
programs set forth pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, and constitutes the
environmental impact statement for the State Program.
New York is unique among coastal states. It contains
within its coastal boundary a great diversity of marine
and freshwater areas divided into four distinct
sectors: Long Island, a land mass fronting on the
Atlantic Ocean; New York City, a major international
port where the intensity of land and water uses is the
greatest in the State; the Hudson River Valley, an
ecologically and historically important corridor which
extends 150 miles from New York City into upstate New
York; and the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River region,
a vast freshwater, non-tidal coastal system.
While New York's coastal area is extensive and varied ,
a number of issues emerge as common to all sectors. The
first and most obvious has been that, although New York
has numerous laws, programs, and regulations to manage
coastal resources and activities, State agencies were
not fully coordinating their activities with each other
and as a result, inconsistent decisions about the use
of coastal resources were made.
The Coastal Management Program has provided a means for
improving this situation by describing in this document
the forty-four coastal policies with which all State
agency actions must be consistent. Generally, the
policies fall under three headings: promotion of
beneficial use of coastal resources; prevention of
their impairment; and management of major activities
substantially affecting numerous resources. The
criteria embodied in these policies require all
agencies to take into account the interrelationships
that exist or should exist in the coastal area.
I - 3
The main instruments for iinplementing the forty-four
policies are a number of State regulatory and
management authorities assigned to the New York State
Department of State, the Department of Environmental
Conservation, the Department of Energy, the Public
Service Commission, and the Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation. Among these authorities is
the recently enacted Waterfront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act (Executive Law, Article 42) which
forms the basis for coordinating all State actions
affecting the coastal area. Article 42 requires that
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (Environ-
mental Conservation Law, Article 8) be amended to
assure adequate consideration of coastal policies and
to provide that the Secretary of State review agency
actions affecting achievement of coastal policies.
Nine other issues were found to affect all sectors of
New York 's coastal area. The Waterfront Revitalization
and Coastal Resources Act gave the Coastal Management
Program authority to advocate specific actions to meet
or cope with these issues. The specific actions which
the Coastal Management Program advocates include:
promoting waterfront revitalization; promoting water
dependent uses; protecting fish and wildlife habitats;
protecting and enhancing scenic areas; protecting
and enhancing historic areas; protecting farmlands;
protecting and enhancing small harbors; protecting
and enhancing public access; providing research, data,
and information for participation of government
agencies and citizens concerned with the State's
coastal area; and coping with erosion and flooding
hazards. The last action necessitated passage of the
Coastal Erosion Hazards Area Act.
The Coastal Management Program, in its dual role of
coordinator and advocate, also seeks the voluntary
assistance of local governments to help further its
goals. Coastal communities are encouraged to
participate under the Waterfront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act which provides the means and
incentives for municipalities to prepare and implement
local waterfront revitalization programs. The Depart-
ment of State will provide financial and technical
assistance, as well as guidelines for developing local
nth
grants of up to 50%community
its costs receive
to developlva local
program.
I - 4
New York City has already been developing a local pro-
gram. The proposed program can be found in Volume III
of this document.
When a local waterfront revitalization program has been
approved by the Secretary of State, the local govern-
ment will be eligible to receive additional funding for
pre-construction activities related to projects recom-
mended in the program. State consistency applies
automatically to any approved local program. Further-
more, an approved local program may be incorporated
into the State Coastal Management Program; federal
consistency provisions of the Program would then apply.
2. Changes the Program Will Make
The New York Coastal Management Program, in addition to
furthering national coastal management goals, will
cause changes in the way existing environmental and
economic development activities of State agencies
affect the use of coastal resources, and it will offer
local governments and private interests the means to
focus on the waterfront and bring about solid
improvements. More specifically:
-- Forty-four coastal management policies will apply
to State agency decisions and voluntarily adopted
local government waterfront revitalization pro-
grams. Twenty-nine of these policies are new or
have significantly increased enforceability as a
result of the State's Waterfront Revitalization
and Coastal Resources Act. Fifteen of the poli-
cies are from such existing State laws as the
Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Acts.
-- Development in areas subject to erosion and on
beaches and dunes will be set back from the
shorelines a distance sufficient to minimize
damage from erosion.
-- All activities involving a State permit, funding
or other action will be undertaken in a manner
consistent with the coastal policies.
Protection of significant fish and wildlife habi-
tats, significant coastal scenic areas, and
important agricultural lands will be increased.
The Department of State and the Office of Business
Permits must consolidate, simplify, expedite or
otherwise improve existing permit procedures which
affect development in the coastal area.
Non-structural measures for erosion control will
be promoted .
I - S
Land development will be encouraged to locate in
areas where infrastructure and public services are
adequate.
-- The Department of State, Urban Development Corpor-
ation, Environmental Facilities Corporation,
Departments of Commerce, Environmental Conserva-
tion, Transportation, and others -must seek new and
alternative means of effectuating waterfront
revitalization.
-- State agencies and local governments with approved
waterfront revitalization programs must promote
and protect the traditional character and uses of
small harbors.
-- Within the existing major ports, State agencies
and local governments with approved waterfront
revitalization programs must site land uses and
development which are essential to or in support
of waterborne transporation of cargo and people.
-- Enforcement capabilities will be increased for
existing State programs which protect natural
coastal resources, and for those existing State
programs which promote proper development of
coastal resources.
-- Federal agency actions will be consistent with the
coastal policies.
-- State and Federal agency actions will also be con-
sistent with approved local waterfront revitaliza-
tion programs.
-- Financial assistance will be provided to local
governments to prepare and implement local
ordinances for erosion hazard areas and waterfront
revitalization programs.
State and local agencies will be provided tech-
nical assistance in solving coastal problems.
3. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
In response to intense pressure, and because of the
importance of coastal areas of the United States,
Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(CZMA) (P.L. 92-583 ) . The Act authorizes a Federal
grant-in-aid program to be administered by the
Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this
responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAH) Assistant Administrator for
Coastal Zone Management, who heads the Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) .
I - 6
The CZMA was substantively amended on July 16 , 1976
(P.L. 94-370) and on October 1, 1980 (P.L. 96-464 ) .
The Act and its amendments affirm a national interest
in the effective protection and careful development of
the coastal zone, by providing assistance and en-
couragement to coastal states (and U.S. territories) to
voluntarily develop and implement management programs
for their coastal areas. Financial assistance grants
under Sections 305 for program development and 306 for
program implementation were authorized by the CZMA to
provide coastal states and territories with the means
for achieving these objectives.
Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of the CZMA
provide the necessary direction to states for devel-
oping their coastal management programs. The program
development and approval provisions are contained in 15
CFR Part 923, revised and published March 28, 1979, in
the Federal Register. In summary, the requirements for
program approval are that a state develop a management
program that:
1. identifies and evaluates those coastal resources
recognized in the Act that require management or
protection by the state or territorial government;
2. re-examines existing policies or develops new
policies to manage these resources. These poli-
cies must he specific, comprehensive, and enforce-
able, and must provide an adequate degree of pre-
dictability as to how coastal resources will be
managed;
3. determines specific uses and special geographic
areas that are to be subject to the management
program, based on the nature of identified coastal
concerns. Uses and areas to be subject to manage-
ment should be based on resource capability and
suitability analyses, socio-economic considera-
tions and public preferences;
4. identifies the inland and seaward areas subject to
the management program;
5. provides for the consideration of the national
interest in the planning for and siting of
facilities that meet more than local requirements;
and
6. includes sufficient legal authorities and organi-
zational arrangements to implement the program and
to ensure conformance to it.
I - 7
In arriving at these substantive aspects of the manage-
ment program, states are obliged to follow an open
process which involves providing information to and Y
considering the interests of, the general public,
special interest groups, local governments, and
regional, state, interstate, and federal agencies.
Section 303 of the CZMA provides guidance of specific
national objectives that warrant full consideration
during the implementation of approved state coastal
management programs.
Section 305 of the CZMA authorizes a maximum of four
annual grants to develop a coastal management program.
After developing a management program, the state is
then eligible for annual grants under Section 306 to
implement its management program. If a program has
deficiencies which need to be remedied or has not
received approval by the time Section 305 program
development grants have expired, a state may continue
development of a Federally approvable coastal manage-
ment program using entirely state funding. However,
new Federal funding assistance for program development
is no longer authorized by the 1980 CZMA amendments.
Section 306 requires states to devote increasing
portions (up to 30 percent) of their grant funds to
activities leading to significant improvements in
achieving national coastal management objectives.
Section 306(1 ) also authorizes the award of grants for
preservation of important natural areas, public access
and urban development. Section 306(A) encourages
states to inventory coastal resources of national
significance and develop standards to protect them.
Section 307 of the Act stipulates that Federal agency
activities shall be consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with approved state management prograns.
Section 307 further provides for mediation by the
Secretary of Commerce when a serious disagreement
arises between a Federal agency and a coastal state
with respect to a federal consistency issue.
Section 308 of the CZMA contains provisions for grants
and loans to coastal states to enable them to plan for
and respond to onshore impacts resulting from coastal
energy activities including grants to mitigate the
coastal impacts of coal transportation and alternative
ocean energy activities. To be eligible for assistance
under Section 308, coastal states must be receiving
Section 305 or 306 grants, or, in the Secretary's view,
ioagcetnconsistent
with
polciesndobjetivs contained in Setion303of the
CZMA.
I - 8
Section 309 allows the Secretary to make grants to
states to coordinate, study, plan, and implement
interstate coastal management programs. ---
Section 310 allows the Secretary to conduct a program
of research, study, and training to support state
management programs. The Secretary may also make
grants to states to carry out research studies and
training required to support their programs.
Section 312 directs OCZM to evaluate the performance of
state coastal management programs on a continuing
basis.
Section 315 authorizes grants to states to acquire
lands for access to beaches and other public coastal
areas of environmental , recreational , historical ,
aesthetic, ecological , or cultural value, and for the
acquisition of islands for preservation, in addition to
the estuarine sanctuary program to preserve a
representative series of undisturbed estuarine areas
for long-term scientific and educational purposes.
I - 9
4. CROSS REFERENCE TO PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (306)
How the New York Coastal Program beets the Requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act
Requirements Regulations New York Coastal Program
Sec. 306(a) , which includes the requirements of Sec. 305:
305(b) (1) : Boundaries............................... .. .. .........923.21-923.34 Paint I1. Section 3
305(b) (2) : Uses subject to management..... ...... ... ........ .... ..923.11 Part II, Sections 4,6,8
305(b) (3) : Areas of particular concern... .......... ..... .........923.21-923.23 Part II, Section 8
305(b) (4) : Means of control.......... ......... ... ..... ...........923.41 Part II, Sections 4,6,7,81Appen.A,E,F
305(b) (5) : Guidelines on priorities of uses. ............ ..... ....923.21 Part II, Sections 6,8
305(b) (6) : Organizational structure. ..........o. .. .... ..o... o. -923.46 Part II, Section 4
305(b) (7) : Shorefront planning process............ ...... . ..... ...923.24 Part II, Section 7
305(b) (8) : Energy facility planning process.. ....................923.13 Part II, Section 7
305(b) (9) : Erosion planning process.. ........... .... ........ .... .923.25 Part II, Section 7
Sec. 306(c),which includes:
306(c) (1) : Notice= full participation] consistent with
Sec. 303.............. ................... .........923.3, 923.51 Part II, Section 91
923.55,923.58 Part VI; Appendix D
►-� 306(c) (2) (A) : Plan coordination.... .. .923.56 Appendix C
306(c) (2) (B) : Continuing consultation mechanisms................923.57 Part I1, Section 4
306(c) (3) : Public hearings.......................................923.58 Part II, Sections 1,9
CD *306(c) (4): Gubernatorial review and approval............ .........923.48
306(c) (5) : Designation of recipient agency. ... .. ... .... .... ......923.47 Part II, Section 4
306(c) (6) : Organization........................ ..... .... .........923.46 Part II, Section 4
306(c) (7) : Authorities. **...9—.......... .o..........#9.....9. ...923*41 Part XI, Sections 4,61Appendix A,E,F
306(c) (8) : Adequate consideration of national interest...........923.52 Part II, Section 9
306(c) (9) : Areas for preservation/restoration.. ......... .........923.22 Part II, Section 8
Sec. 306(d), which includes:
306(d) (1) : Administer regulation, control development=
resolve conflicts.. ............................. .• .923.41 Part II, Section 4
306(d) (2) : Powers of acquisition, if necessary... ............. ...923.41 Part Ii, Sections 4,61 Appendix 14F
Ser_. 306(e), which includes:
306(e) (1) : Technique of control.,... ..... 0-0 .. . .94 .9.996-1923.42-923.44 Part Ii, Sections 4,5,81 Appendix A
306(e) (2) : Uses of regional benefit. .. . .. . ... . .. . .. ........ . .....923.12 Part II, Section 9
Sec. 307, which includes:
307(b): Adequate consideration of federal agency views........923.51 Part Vit Part IX; Appendix C
307(f) : incorporation of air and water quality requirements...923.45 Part II, Section 6
SEQR requires a minimum ten day review after notice of availability of FEIS prior to gubernatorial approval.
FART II - DESCRI°TION CF TWE NEW YORK STATE
COASTAL N'J` IAGEMEAT PTROGRAM
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
New York State's coast is recognized as one of the State's
greatest assets. It is unique, for it contains a variety of
natural , recreational , industrial , commercial , cultural ,
aesthetic and energy resources of local, statewide and national
significance. unfortunately, the coast is severely threatened by
competing demands. _ The resources of the State's Coastal Area are
increasingly subject to the pressures of population growth and
economic development, which include requirements for industry,
cor.merce, housing, recreation and energy production. These
demands result in the loss of living marine resources and
wildlife , the diminution of open space areas, shoreline erosion,
permanent adverse changes to ecological systems, anti a loss of
economic opportunities.
To address these coastal problems and provide a means for
resolving them, the New York State Department of State has
prepared , in cooperation with the Federal government, other State
agencies, the State Legislature, local governments and the
interested public , a statewide Coastal Management Program. This
proposed Program has three naior parts: _
The first establishes the boundaries of the Coastal Area
within which the Program applies.
The second describes the organizational structure to imple-
r.,ent the Program.
The third provides a set of statewide policies enforceable
on all State and Federal agencies which manage resources
along the State 's coastline.
New York State 's Coastal Management Program
The Now York State Legislature has, over the years , enacted
legislation and established programs for protecting the State 's
valuable natural and man-made resources. The proposed Coastal
Management Program is built upon these existing laws and
programs. However, during the development of the Progran, it was
found that additional legislation was needed: (1 ) to protect
shoreowners and their property from the damaqes caused by severe
erosion, (2 ) to provide a method to accomplish coastal management
objectives through coordination of existing prograns and by
developing a consensus among all levels of government and the
private sector to achieve these objectives, and (3 ) to establish
enforceable policies for State and Federal actions in the coastal
area. In 1981 , the New York State Legislature passed and
Governor Carey signed into law two bills which will enable New
York to meet these requirements -- The Coastal Erosion Hazard
Areas Act (Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law) and
the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Article
42 of the Executive Law) .
II - 1 - 3
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources law
establishes a balanced statewide approach for encouraging
developwent in the coastal area while protecting natural coastal
resources. The law establishes boundaries for the State's
Coastal Area by adopting a map which defines the area within
which the Coastal Management Program will apply. it provides a
set of policies which address significant coastal issues. State
agencies will use the Department of State's review procedures and
the existing Statethese Environmental
hei y Review decisions.
(SSQR►)
process to abide y policies i
The Act's coastal policies encourage the development and use of
existing ports and other areas where infrastructure and public
services are adequate. They also encourage facilitation of
public access to coastal locations for recreational purposes.
Certain policies affirm the need to protect and appropriately
revitalize or develop such natural and ran-made resources as fish
and wildlife habitats, agricultural lands, other concerns
areas, and scenic and historic resources. One policy
protection of natural and man-made features from damage caused by
flooding and erosion.
Optional Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs
The new law offers local governments the opportunity to partici-
pate in the State's Coastal Management Program on a voluntary
basis. Localities are encouraged to prepare and adopt local
waterfront revitalization programs which in turn, would provide
more detailed implementation of the State's Program through use
of existing broad powers such as those covering zoning and site
plan review. with a waterfront revitalization program approved
by the Secretary of State, a locality may take advantage of
certain tangible benefits. first, the Department of State is
empowered to provide technical and financial assistance for the
preparation and implementation of local programs. Secondly, State
agencies' actions must be consistent with approved local programs
to the maximum extent practicable. Thirdlyt if a State's Coastal
Management Program is amended to include the approved local
es will reto
program, federal agae cies which is requiredd of Stateere agencies.is
program to the sagz
Public Participation
The core of the State's public involvement is the New York State
Citizen's Advisory Committee. The advisory body is made up of
representatives from the five coastal regions of the State. The
Committee not regularly durinq the development of the Program to
review technical report
s•a ake ;ssimninti public itpartieipation
legislative propos
activities. -
4
ram has
o been
d by
nts
The Coastal
gran na wide variety of interest hgroups. Thiswas
and Sugg o
a deliberate attempt to involve people and groups who are
interested in and potentially affected by the Program. The
Department of State actively sought input from the public and
local interest groups, including local government, in developing
the State's Coastal Management Program. In all, over one
thousand meetings were held during the Program's development.
At
a very early stage in its preparation, a series of sixteen public
meetings were held at various points along the coast, to solicit
public comments on the general approach. The initial draft
document and the proposed legislation derived from this input.
The ,haft Program, in turn, was aired publicly, at a series of
eight public hearings held in all areas of the coast during the
spring of 1979.
Based upon comments received at these hearings, the proposed
legislation was substantially revised and introduced in the
Legislature in May of 1979. Informational bulletins were at that
time forwarded to all members of the public who had registered at
the hearings, to update them, and demonstrate that their concerns
were reflected in the proposed legislation.
In the fall of 1979, further hearings were held by the State
Legislature, and following additional bill revisions , in the
spring of 1980, the Department sent further informational
bulletins to the interested public.
In response to further comment by public interest groups, the
proposed legislation was again substantially revised and re-
introduced in the 1981 legislative session where it was over-
whelmingly approved. The Governor signed this legislation into
law in July, 1981.
The State's proposed Coastal Management Program and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (CMP-DEIS) were distributed to
interested agencies and organizations (See Part VII of this
document) . In July, 1982, hearings were held in Buffalo, Albany
and New York City to receive additional public comment. This
document contains responses to all comments received on the CMP-
DEIS (See Part IX) as well as appropriate revisions.
Program Development
The Department of State relied heavily on local , county, regional
and State agencies in the preparation of the Coastal Management
program. Under numerous contracts, State and local agencies
analyzed coastal resources and
helped to shape the rcamand ensurerecommendations
coordination.
To aid in the preparation of the Program,
Advisory documents coast were
was
divided into five coastal regions
prepared for each region:
New York Cit - prepared by the Department of City Planning ,
Cly o New York.
Nassau-Suffolk - prepared by the Long Island Regional
Plann ng Board.
St. Lawrence River-Eastern Ontario Area - prepared by the
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Comm ss on.
Nudson River Valle (including the West t ester County shore
tate
o Lon Islandsound), - prepared bye
partment of State.
Great Lakes West - prepared by the New York State Department
o State.
These regional reports were used in the preparation of the
Coastal Management Program. Many of the recommendations on poli-
cies, boundaries, special areas of concern, and implementation
have been incorporated to the coastaltprograms et theram nlocalllevelide
a framework for developing
6
SECTION 2
COASTAL REGIONS OF NEW YORK:
RESOURCES AND CONCERNS
Introduction
New York is unique among the coastal states. No other State
encompasses three distinct coastal environments within its
borders: the marine environment of Long Island and New York
City; the tidal estuarine environment of the Hudson River; and
the freshwater environment of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
region. This richness of resources brings with it, however, a
distinct complex of problems.
There are no common solutions for these three coastal environ-
ments. Both the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and the Long Island
regions, for example, are faced with serious erosion problems
along portions of their coast; however, climatic conditions, land
configuration, soil structure, and shoreline recession rates in
each region differ so that solutions proposed for one region are
not transferable to the other. Changing water levels mark both
the freshwater environment of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and
the marine environment of New York City-Long Island, but extreme
tidal fluctuations and period differentials between freshwater
inflow and outflow create additional concerns. While these
problems may seem at times insurmountable , New York's Coastal
Management Program provides an opportunity to devise ways not
only to preserve but to enhance the environment in which its
residents live and work. Distinctive characteristics and prin-
cipal concerns of the State's three different coastal environ-
ments are identified in the following discussion.
Marine Coast of Long Island and New York City
Long Island
Long Island is a detached segment of the Atlantic Coastal Plain,
separated from the mainland on the north by Long Island Sound and
from Manhattan on the west by the narrow East River and New York
Harbor. The Atlantic Ocean completes the Island 's salt water
encirclement. The Island is 120 miles long, varies in width from
20 miles to less than a mile, and is surrounded by a shoreline
(including barrier islands) of approximately 1,475 miles , 46% of
New York State's designated coastline.
II - 2 - 1
The last continental ice sheets retreated from Long Island and
elsewhere 10,000 years ago, leaving behind unconsolidated, highly
erodible glacial materials. Since then, rising sea levels have
shaped the Island 's rough outline. Today, littoral forces of
wind, wave, and tide constantly reform the coast. About once
every two years, storms cause moderate damage to properties along
the shoreline, and approximately three times a century a catas-
trophic storm rips over the Island. In a few hours severe storm
conditions can alter the shore as much as normal conditions do in
a hundred years. Thus, shoreline recession is a variable
process, depending mostly on the frequency and severity of
storms.
The north shore of Nassau County erodes at a rate of one half
foot to a foot per year, and Suffolk County's north shore erodes
at an even faster rate. Despite such vulnerability, In leordhave
continued to build all along this fragile shoreline. n
protect shorefront property, it has been the practice to con-
struct jetties , groins and seawalls and to nourish beaches.
These measures, however, tend to be effective only in a limited
area and may actually cause serious problems in adjacent areas.
west of Port Jefferson is a highly irregular configuration of
deep harbors and bays separated by peninsulas projecting into
Long Island Sound. Sand and graveleroded othe peninsulas
eEaton's nnsula
have been deposited as spits (e.g. , West Beach on
and bay mouth bars (e.g. , Old Field Beach at Port Jefferson) .
East of Port Jefferson, a line of uninterrupted bluffs rising as
high as 130 feet extends all the way to Orient Point. Erosion
rates of these bluffs range from 0. 8 to 5. 2 feet a year.l
The Island's south shore includes two distinct physiographic
features: an eastern headlands , section on the Island 's south
fork and an off-shore barrier complex. The eastern headlands
section, extending 33 miles westward from Montauk Point to South-
ampton, is characterized by truncated hills of varying heights
and steepness. Fronted by narrow beaches of gravel and coarse
sand, these headlands have suffered severe erosion.
The barrier complex stretches parallel to Long Island for 73
miles west from Southampton to the Nassau County-New York City
boundary. Fire Island National Seashore and Jones Beach State
Park and other recreational areas are found on these formations.
Consisting of ocean beach, irregular sand dunes and bayside
tidal lagoons, these narrow islands are continually subject to
the action of waves, wind and westward longshore currents.
Most
important, these barriers receive the brunt of severe :storms and
protect the bays and "mainland" from storm damage.
1Lee E. Koppelman, et al, The Urban Sea: Long Island Sound
(New York, 1976 ) , P. 50.
II - 2 - 2
In addition to the loss of land through erosion, valuable land
resources on Long Island have been absorbed in the rapid popula-
tion expansion from west to east. Although Suffolk County renains
today the most productive agricultural county in New York State
in terms of value of products sold, most of the farmland in
Nassau and western Suffolk Counties has been developed, either
for residential , commercial , and industrial purposes, or utilized
for transportation services.
The salt marshes and meadows of Long Island are highly productive
fish and wildlife habitats. They also serve as pollutant filters
and as natural buffers dissipating the energy of storm waves.
However, during the period 1954-1964, these multiple values were
often overlooked as 8,200 acres of marshland in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties were filled in for residential, recreational,
industrial and related development. This ten-year period saw
somewhat greater losses in Nassau County (33 percent of the total
1953 acreage) than in Suffolk County (17 percent of the total ) .2
Increased development has also put added stress on the Island 's
groundwater aquifer, its sole source of potable water. Since the
aquifer is vast and continually replenished, the overall quantity
and quality of Long Island 's underground water supply is
satisfactory. However, a greater demand for water from the
western end of the aquifer has created an east-west imbalance in
the system. Failing septic tanks in natural aquifer recharge
areas threaten to elevate nitrate concentrations in the ground-
water.
Stormwater runoff is another development-related problem affect-
ing the groundwater supply. Recharge basins have been built
throughout Long Island to retain this runoff and filter it back
into the aquifer. Now, trace levels of toxic chemicals fron
lawns, roads, parking lots, industrial sites and other areas have
been detected in some parts of the aquifer. Stormwater may
require treatment to remove those chemicals.
Although the overall condition of Long Island 's marine surface
water is good, human uses of the coast cause localized degrada-
tion. Surface waters in and adjacent to highly developed areas
are impacted by nitrates and BOD (biochemical oxygen demand ) from
municipal sewage treatment plants. These point sources of
pollution contribute over 70% of the total internals loading of
nitrogen in such areas as Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor and
Hempstead Bay in Western Nassau County, and Flanders Bay in
2Long Island Regional Planning Board, Fourteen Selected Marine
Resources Problems of Long Island, New York: Description
Eva uations Hart ord , , p• •
II - 2 - 3
eastern Suffolk County. Generally, sewage treatment plant
effluents are not considered a major source of bacterial
(coliform) contamination of surface waters, unless the plants are
outmoded, as in Hempstead Bay. There are relatively few
industrial discharges to surface waters on Long Island , and
those that do occur (e.g. , in Glen Cove Creek) have only
localized impacts.
For certain areas, non-point sources of pollution carried by
stormwater runoff, streamflow, and groundwater underflow are the
major contributors of pollutants to surface waters. Areas where
non-point sources are the major contributors include Oyster Bay
and Port Jefferson harbors on the north and Great South Bay and
Moriches Bay on the south. On-site sewage disposal systems
(septic tanks and cesspools) , landfills and scavenger waste
treatment facilities, and fertilizers contribute directly to
surface water quality by contaminating streams and groundwaters
with nitrates and other soluble pollutants. Urban stormwater
runoff contributes coliform bacteria to most surface waters and
has necessitated the closing of large areas to shellfishing.
Wastes from waterfowl populations and domestic animals on the
Island 's east end are collected in runoff and further degrade
surface waters. Finally, development-related erosion, dredging
and dredge spoil disposal add particulates and other pollutants
to coastal waters. In addition to local point and non-point
sources, pollution from New York City also affects the quality of
Long Island 's surface waters.
Offshore, a potential for additional pollution exists with Outer
Continental Shelf oil exploration and related activities. Based
on United States Geological Survey estimates, there is a . 59%
chance of one to four spills of greater than 1,000 barrels over
the life of North Atlantic field operations. Tankers using the
Nantucket to Ambrose traffic lanes could endanger the Island's
barrier, beaches as well.
Water quality problems may also affect the Island 's important
commercial fishing industry. Total landings of fish (finfish and
shellfish) reached a peak of 31,000 metric tons in 1938,
continued high for a decade, and declined steadily to about
15,000 metric tons in the late 1970'x. This decline may have been
caused by a combination of factors such as deteriorating water
quality, overfishing, manmade environmental changes, and natural
fluctuations.
Nonetheless, the water surrounding Long Island continues to be a
permanent or seasonal home for a wide variety of finfish and
shellfish. Although certain species of finfish are present
throughout the year, seasonal migrants tend to dominate the fish
population. The important deepwater species are found primarily
on the southern side of the Island and also in the vicinity of
Block Island Sound, Montauk Point and Georges Bank. Of all
II - 2 - 4
shallow water species landed in 1978, hard clams accounted for
the greatest tonnage and dockside value. They were found
primarily in Great South Bay. Oysters and scallops were
harvested primarily in the Gardiner-Peconic Bay area.
Not only do the vast expanses of water surrounding Long Island
support commerce, they also constitute an extensive recreational
resource serving residents of the entire New York metropolitan
region. Public access, as well as good water quality, is
essential to the enjoyment of coastal waters. The Fire Island
National Seashore, seventeen State parks, and numerous county,
town and private recreational areas provide access to coastal
waters. In Nassau County, despite great development pressures,
extensive lands have been set aside for recreation uses: 3,234
acres are Federally-owned , 5,261 State-owned, and 5,315 county-
owned. In Suffolk County, where development pressures have been
less, there was an opportunity to bank many more acres of park-
land in anticipation of growth: 3,391 acres are Federally-owned,
18,545 State-owned and 14,787 county-owned.3 Still , the Island
will require additional recreational capacity over the next 25
years, not so much to meet new demand as to relieve current
pressures.
New York City
Each of New York City's boroughs is situated on an island, with
the exception of the Bronx which is part of the continental land
mass. The topography of these islands range from abrupt rocky
outcroppings in linear patterns, such as those found in northern
Manhattan, to steep slopes of unconsolidated glacial material in
random clusters which level out on the edges of the island,
finally ending in wetlands and beaches.
Throughout the City's history, its land has been intensively
used. Surface conditions have been radically altered by
excavation, filling, construction and paving. The extent of
wetlands has been significantly reduced and natural drainage
patterns altered in many cases as filling activities extended the
City's land area. Yet, with all these alterations, the general
physiography remains predominantly as it was determined by
geological formation and other forces.
The Hudson River flows along Manhattan's western shore carrying
water from the distant Adirondack Mountains. It is a tidal
estuary, as are all the straits surrounding this island. Fresh
water laden with nutrients mixes with salt water in these
estuaries to create an ideal environment for a wide variety of
3Long Island Regional . Planning Board, Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Element Report, (Hauppauge, 1978 ) p. 18.
II - 2 - 5
Jamaica Bay, an estuary with
plant and animal species. round for finfish and
associated wetlands, is a major spawning g
habitat for at least 200 species of
crustaceans as well as a
birds.
New York Harbor is naturally divided into several parts. The
Lower Bay at the entrance to the Atlantic
nims connected,
via
the
the Ambrose Channel, to the Upper Y
Hudson River. Forty-two channels run throughout the Harbor.
These channels require constant maintenance. Unfortunately,
f
n associated with the
adverse environmental impacts h osave lee particularly when the
processes of dredging spoil d p
dredged materials are polluted.
During dredging operations, sediments pcte potennded and mixed
tial for immediate
with water, thereby increasing
release of contaminants into surrounding areas. When the dredged
WWwater disposal site,
sediments or spoils are deposited at an openthe overlying water
contaminants may be released slowly
into column for several years. Because of this threatethe eFederal
government is phasing out the disposal of polluted
dredgspoils
in open waters.
oped for
Alternate nethods for dredge spollmethodsainclude l must binland ldisposal
the New York City region. These
and placement behind diked enclosures.dis osal Hsitesrand hthe hpotential
available and suitable onshore p
leaching of contaminants from such enat ve imethonto adjacent expensive and
surface waters make these al
hazardous.
Other important adverse impacts may result from dredging and
disposal activities in New Yorocaltwater atersThese circulat onpatterns,
in bottom topography, 1
Biological
and flushing, erosion and sedimentation rates.
effects, such as the loss of he aquatic and chemical habitats imp ac
mentioned
above , may result from the physical
dredging.
The potential for oil and hazardous sPI untof commercialn New sh ppin9k
Harbor due to the substantial the location of numerous oil
This possibility is compounded by
and other bulk storage facilities etdevelopment tof offshore oil and
Jerseys waterfronts. While acilities may contribute to the
gas production and new energy f
revitalization of some deteriorating shorefront areas in New York
City, the chances for spillage multiply-
2
ul p Y
II - 2 - 6
Floating debris in the Hudson River and New York Harbor another serious problem. The debris comes from decaying piers and
bulkheads, abandoned ships, and vegetation. It is estimated that
the River and the Harbor annually receive over 600,0004 cubic
feet of debris which poses a threat to commercial shipping and
recreational craft.
The Port of New York has been the nation's foremost maritime
center since the Erie Canal opened in 1825. For many years, the
volume of foreign cargo grew tremendously; and industries,
associated with or dependent on water transportation, developed
along Manhattan's shores.
However, the heyday of New York's port has passed. People and
commerce have moved from inner city to suburb, leaving many
underutilized, sometimes abandoned, sites along Manhattan's
waterfront. New methods of production, increased reliance on
the truck for product distribution, need for more space, anti-
quated physical plants, deteriorating neighborhoods, and
spiraling property taxes compounded by the financial incentives
provided by suburban counties and other states, are among the
reasons for the reduction in manufacturing and commercial
activity along New York's waterfront. Revitalization of these
areas is the most effective way to encourage economic develop-
ment without at the same time consuming valuable suburban and
rural open space.
Some deteriorating waterfront areas might be redeveloped to meet
the recreational needs of New York's seven million residents.
Much of the City's outdoor recreation is based on structured
activities, with opportunity for less structured relaxation
provided along the southern shore in Gateway National Recreation
Area and at other smaller sites in all five boroughs. Here, good
water quality allows for such activities as swimming and fishing.
However, a great many of the City's residents lack adequate means
of transportation to outlying parks, are barred from their
immediate shore by private development and forced to crowd into
the more accessible facilities. Development of recreation sites
in deteriorated waterfront areas closer to densely populated
residential centers would relieve crowding at existing
facilities, provide easier access, and at the same time
contribute to an improved economic climate.
More important than inadequate recreation resources for the
people of New York City are the basic problems of solid waste
disposal, and water and air pollution. Partially treated sewage
is discharged into adjacent waters, however new treatment
facilities are under construction and existing plants are
scheduled for upgrading.
4Bruce Howlett Inc. New York City and Hudson River Waterway Use
Study (Brewster, New York 7 ) p. 111-71
II - 2 - 7
Urban stormwater runoff and combined sewer outflows significantly
affect the quality of coastal waters in the New York City.
While many of the critical environmental and economic problems
besetting New York City affect areas well beyond its boundaries,
the City's vast natural and cultural resources are a boon and
creative stimulus not only to the immediate region, but also to
the State, the Nation and beyond.
Hudson River Estuary
The Hudson River estuary is a long arm of the sea, extending 150
miles inland. Its present geologic form dates from the period
after the last glacier. As the glacier melted, rising seawater
moved in and flooded the old course of the river. Today, because
it is so large a tidal and navigable river, the Hudson is unique
in the northeastern United States.
As an estuary, two major characteristics of the Hudson are its
tidal action and its salinity. Up to Troy, the River's flow
reverses with the tide, the mean tidal range at Albany being 5.3
feet. The limit of salt water intrusion in the Hudson varies.
It is primarily determined by the interaction of the tidal force,
which pushes salinity up the estuary, and the freshwater inflow,
which flushes the estuary seaward. The limit, therefore, changes
with the seasons; during spring runoff, freshwater inflow is
greatest and salt water extends not far beyond Yonkers; while in
the winter, salt water can extend nearly to Poughkeepsie, a
distance of seventy miles.
The history of the Hudson River reflects a strong relationship
between the natural environment and the economy. Access to the
River, water transportation, fisheries, agriculture and the
scenic quality of the area have been major factors in the
development of the Valley. These factors, plus the proximity of
large population centers, some of which depend on the river as a
source of water supply, continue to make the Hudson a unique
economic and environmental resource for the State, and therefore,
are the major concerns of the Coastal Management Program for the
Hudson Valley.
The Hudson is an important link in the State's transportation
network, being navigable for ocean-going vessels as far as
Albany. Beyond Albany, the State Barge Canal provides a system
for shallow draft vessels which connects the Port of New York
with the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The Port of
Albany is the most diversified of the upstate New York ports. It
is a significant economic force in the Hudson Valley because of
its location at the center of a large market area with excellent
highway and railroad access, a 12-month operating capability, and
a strong commitment from both the State and the Albany-Rensselaer
II - 2 - 8
business community to see to it that the Port realizes its
potential as a shipping and industrial center. Between the Port
of New York and the Port of Albany, the Hudson River serves a
limited but important group of water-related industries including
petroleum, sand and gravel, cement, and gypsum. Without access
to the River, these industries would operate at an economic
disadvantage. In general , the region benefits from the lower
cost of water transportation as compared to land routes. In some
cases (particularly gypsum and gravel) , the cost savings of water
shipment are directly responsible for the location of those
industries along the Hudson.
In the mid-eighteenth century, rail lines were built alongboth
sides of the Hudson. For almost the entire length of the east
shore, and for half the length of the west shore, these railroads
were built directly on the River's edge. Thus, railroads have
severely limited access to the Hudson. However, the railroad
must also be seen as essential to economic life in the State. It
should also be noted that while the railroads have limited
physical access, they have also served to prevent other develop-
ment of the shore which might have had greater adverse impact on
the quality of the coast.
The Hudson River is inhabitated by an extraordinarily rich
variety of fish species. Some of the best known are diadromous
forms, those fish which spend part of their life cycle in fresh-
water and part in salt water. Among the important diadromous
species are the American eel, shad, alewife, striped bass, and
sturgeon. Two species of sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum) and Altantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) are
found in the river. The former is a listed endangered species.
Indeed, the River is one of the major spawning grounds for
several commercially significant Atlantic species, particularly
striped bass. In the past, commercial fishing in this estuary
was a viable industry. However, fishing activity has been
reduced because of the sharply increased pollution, the unpre-
dictability of the catches, and changing social conditions.
While the quality of its waters has improved through treatment of
municipal wastes, past discharges of toxic wastes still contam-
inate the River. Because of this toxic pollution, all commercial
fishing in the River below Troy is banned except for shad,
goldfish, and large sturgeon. Within this estuary and its
immediate environs, there are many important wildlife habitats,
particularly the numerous wetlands which are used by migratory
waterfowl and other forms of wildlife.
The Hudson Valley is an important fruit growing area. Orchards
in Columbia, Ulster, Dutchess and Orange counties account for
more than a fifth of the value of fruit grown in New York State.
Most of this production occurs close to the River. It is found
there because of the way the Hudson and the surrounding landforms
have influenced the microclimate. The area's greatest concentra-
tion of orchards is found in southern Ulster County and northern
Orange County. Microclimate and soil conditions make these
orchards among the most productive in New York. It is in this
area also that the Hudson Valley's best vineyards and wineries
are found. This is a small but significant industry with a long
I1 - 2 - 9
history and a strong potential for growth. The agricultural land
in the Hudson Valley is under pressure for conversion to other
uses. However, reflecting a local concern for preserving farm-
land, most of the important coastal agriculture now lies within
agricultural districts.
The Hudson Valley coastal region is one of the most outstanding
scenic attractions of the United States. Its scenery includes
the dramatic vertical rise of the Palisades at the lower end,
beautiful views of the Catskills along its upper reaches, the
magnificent Hudson Highlands which rise straight from the water's
edge, long stretches of farms and historic estates, and a scat-
tering of urban waterfronts. The outstanding scenic resources of
the Mudson Valley inspired one of the most significant and first
truly American schools of painting. Most of the scenic area in
the Hudson River Valley is in public ownership, notably that land
owned by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission. In the
Highlands, much scenic land is either in State parks or occupied
by the U.S. Military Academy. However, significant areas of
these scenic resources are not in public ownership and are not
protected.
Because the Hudson River can provide large amounts of water for
cooling purposes, energy production facilities have been located
along its banks. Numerous proposals for additional facilities,
mostly nuclear, have been made and have engendered much contro-
versey over their potential impact on existing industry,
fisheries, agriculture, and the scenic quality of the region.
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region
The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence area has the most diverse
shoreline of New York State's three coastal environments.
Although the area has problems common to the State 's other
coastal regions, there are additional concerns unique to this
area, which includes the State's second and third largest cities
and its principal heavy industrial center. Its borders encompass
the vast freshwater bodies of Lake Erie, the Niagara Rivet, Lake
Ontario, St. Lawrence River and internationally renowned scenic
resources of Niagara Falls and the Thousand Islands.
The mainland coast of the Great Lakes area extends for over 700
miles. When 340 miles of island shoreline - located mostly in
the two rivers - are added to this mainland frontage, New York's
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence coastline comprises about one-third of
the State's entire coast. The greater areal extent is repre-
sented by its waters - approximately 4,000 square miles.
Onshore, the area of the 78 communities which are located along
the coast totals almost 3,000 square miles.
The coastal lands lie in the Erie-Ontario Plain and in the St.
Lawrence Marine Plain, areas of generally low relief broken only
by drumlin formations along sections of eastern Lake Ontario.
II - 2 - 10
Despite the absence of significant variations in the relative
altitude of landforms along the coastline, there are many
prominent topographic features which give the area a unique
character. In addition to Niagara Falls and the Thousand
Islands, which attract millions of visitors each year, those
features include: the Genesee River gorge; embayments, such as
Braddock Bay, Sodus Bay and Henderson Bay; and the area's only
dunes which stretch for five miles along the eastern shores of
Lake Ontario.
A particularly significant topographic form are the bluffs found
along a substantial portion of the coasts of Lake Erie and from
Niagara to Oswego County on Lake Ontario, rising in many places
to over 120 feet in height. These bluffs provide superb vantage
points for sweeping views of the coast, an amenity which is
prized by tourists as well as shoreline residents. However, the
bluffs also severely limit access to the shores and to the waters
of the coast. This means that the multifaceted relationships
between land and water found in other regions are lacking along
much of this Great Lakes coast. Because of the single dimension
of the coastal experience in most of these bluff areas, and the
lack of viewing points further inland owing to the flat land
configuration, connection with the coastal waters fades quickly
as one moves away from the shore's edge. Another characteristic
of the Great Lakes coast is the scarcity of wide beaches, even
when the lakes are at their average levels. This is due princi-
pally to the absence of suitable beach-building materials.
The waters of the area's lakes, rivers and tributary streams
constitute one of the State's most valuable fisheries. Because
of previous over-exploitation, water pollution, destruction of
habitats and introduction of certain non-native fish, many
valuable species, such as lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)
and Atlantic Salmon, became virtually extinct. In recent years,
because of intensely focussed fishery management practices such
as the salmonid stocking program, many species highly prized by
fishermen have been on the increase. Numerous fish habitats of
significance are located throughout the area and include:
Cattaraugus Creek; Strawberry Island in the Niagara River - a
major spawning ground for muskellunge; Eighteen Mile Creek in
Niagara County which serves as a spawning habitat for salmonids,
northern pike and smallmouth bass; Oak Orchard Creek in Orleans
County; Braddock Bay, a major wetland complex which supports bass
and perch populations; the embayment habitats of Wayne and Oswego
counties; the renowned fishery in the Salmon River; the northern
pike fishery which extends from Henderson Harbor through the
Thousand Islands; Chaumont Bay which provides not only sport but
commercial fishing opportunities; and, Cranberry Creek Marsh on
the St. Lawrence River. The area's fishing resources not only
offer fine recreation to the residents of the coastal communities
but contribute to the region's economic life by attracting large
numbers of sports fishermen from both the United States and
Canada.
II - 2 - 11
The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence region has a wide array of
opportunities for waterfowl hunting, or simply observation of
hundreds of species including such rare birds as bald eagles ,
double-crested cornorants and red phalaropes. Of special note is
the location of much of the area in the "flyway" used by
thousands of migrating birds each year. These important fish and
wildlife resources are located not only in rural communities but
in or near urban centers such as Buffalo and Rochester.
Unfortunately, these valuable natural resources continue to be
subjected to intense pressures. Toxic substances released into
the area's waters have been found in certain Lake Ontario fish.
Wetlands, streams and other habitat areas are endangered by
dev*]Lopment which directly interferes with the life cycle of
species or lowers water quality below that necessary for their
optimum production. In many places, access to harvest or to
observe those species is limited.
Erosion is a regional problem, but it is more severe on Lake
Ontario and on sections of the St. Lawrence River• because the
shorelands there are composed mainly of vulnerable glacial soils.
As the land is undercut, buildings gradually topple onto the
beaches or into the water. Many structures, built at great
expense to protect the shore, prove to be inadequate; in some
cases they have caused erosion of adjacent lands. The financial
losses incurred directly and indirectly by
both public and
private interests are substantial.
The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence area differs from the hudson River
and the marine coast in one important respect -- its waters are
not subject to tidal movements. However, the levels of Lake Erie
and Lake Ontario respond first to inflows not only from their own
drainage basins but also from Lake Michigan, Lake Superior and
Lake Huron, whose waters eventually reach the sea through the St.
Lawrence River. Water levels are also affected by the speed with
which waters can flow down from Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. In
the case of the former, the depth of Niagara River's existing
channel limits the rate of outflow. Because Lake Erie in recent
years has been at a level higher than the long-term average,
studies are under way to determine the feasibility of changing
the Niagara River's channel configuration to allow more water to
escape from the Lake. On the other hand, Lake Ontario's outflow
channel, the St. Lawrence River, was modified in 1956 so that the
Lake's water level could be managed for three purposes: to allow
deep draft ships to enter Lake Ontario from the sea; to provide
for the operation of hydro-electric power plants; and, to permit
a greater outflow from the Lake. In 1973, a severe storm,
occurring during a period of very high water level, caused
extensive damage to shoreline properties. Since then, coastal
esidents, fearful of the continuing high levels, have criticised
the International Joint Commission for failing to take their
interests into account.
II - 2 - 12
Recreation is a major concern in the area, not only as to the
extent of the resources but also their quality and the public's
accessibility to them. State, county and local governments and
the private sector are all suppliers of such resources. Forty
State parks line the shores, placed to take advantage of such
features as: scarce wide sand beaches on low-lying lands, as at
Lake Erie State Park, Evangola State Park, Hamlin Beach and.
Selkirk Shores; areas of high scenic quality, as can be viewed
from the cluster of State parks around Niagara Falls and the
river gorge; and the unique juxtaposition of land and water in
the Thousand Islands region where several State parks are sited.
County and municipal parks and facilities, and those owned by
private interests, add considerably to the region's total number
of gatreational resources. Despite this abundance, a number of
problems remain. In the urban areas of Buffalo and Rochester,
there are still pressing needs for swimming, boating and fishing
opportunities. In some instances, resources exist, but because
of poor water quality, swimming is precluded. In Buffalo and in
other places, highways block access to shorelands, thereby
reducing the opportunities for residents to enjoy their coastal
resources.
The anticipated expansion of interest in boating will impose
greater demands on existing facilities in the region which are
not sufficient to satisfy needs in many areas, particularly on
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario where the fisheries are attracting
great attention. More harbors of refuge are required, because of
the larger number of smaller craft being used by fishermen and
the dangerous storms which can arise very quickly on both lakes.
The residents of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence area also share a
major concern with those of other coastal regions - how to bring
new life to the often abandoned, and run-down, waterfront sec-
tions of their communities, both large and small. This concern
reflects a growing recognition of the unrealized economic and
social potential of ports and harbors, such as Buffalo,
Rochester, Oswego and Clayton, which served in the past as
mainsprings for the area's development. The challenge is to
revitalize those waterfront locations in a balanced way and thus
restore them to their historic role as major contributors to the
well-being of the region.
II - 2 - 13
SECTION 3
COASTAL BOUNDARIES
Introduction
The Coastal Management Program has established statewide
boundaries in accordance with the requirements of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and its
subsequently issued rules and regulations. This was not a
sirple task; New York is unique among the coastal states in
the diversity of its "coastal areas" and "coastal waters."
As indicted previously, the State's Coastal Area is com-
prised of distinct sectors: Long Island, a land Blass
fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, which exhibits strong land
and water interrelationships; New York City, where the
intensity of land and water uses is the greatest in the
State; the Hudson River Valley, with a unique estuary that
extends 150 miles into upstate New York; and the Great Lakes
- St. Lawrence River region, which contains a vast non-tidal
freshwater coastal system..
The Coastal Zone Management Act and the Federal rules and
regulations pertaining to it define a number of general and
specific requirements that rust be followed in determining
statewide coastal management boundaries:
1. A determination of the inland boundary necessary
for the management program to control shorelands,
the use of which have a direct and significant
impact on the coastal waters ;
2. A determination of the extent of the territorial
sea , or, where applicable , of State waters in the
Great Lakes;
3. An identification of all federally-owned land or
lands which are held in trust by the Federal
government, its officers and agents in the coastal
area and over which the State does not exercise
any control as to use;
4. An identification of tidal and saline waters,
transitional and inter-tidal areas , salt marshes,
wetlands, and beaches; and ,
5. A process for consultation with adjoining coastal
states so as to minimize the possibility of
incompatible uses occurring at boundary 'unctures.
Both State and local agencies provided input to the
definition of Npw York's Coastal Area. Regional and
municipal planning agencies mapped in sketch form an initial
coastal boundary, employing guidelines developed by the
Department of State. The Department of Environmental
II - 3 - 1
Conservation, under contract with the Department of State ,
proposed a statewide boundary determination process based
upon work performed during the initial phase of the program
by the various agencies. The Department of State summarized
the boundaries
whichwere developed
recommended
by the local agencies. The recommended boundaries
delineated on maps at a scale of 1:24,000.
Boundary Criteria
Following this preliminary works, tDepartment
epa tm nt of State
adopted a set of boundary delineation
in
accord with the Federal requirements and also recognized a
out-
linedbelow, awe a nd local employed cine definingese the cfinal i coastal
lined
boundary:
1. Utilize a one-tier bounds rather than a
multipleZtier conce t. Despite proposals by
several Jurisdictions for a multiple tier approach
to boundary definition, the single tier boundary
was adjudged to provide for simpler admininis-
tration.
2. Conform with the nearest cultural feature or
o t caboundary. Employment o recognizable or
sownland-marks such as a road , railroad, utility
right-of-way, or municipal boundary as the onshore
feature to delineate coastal boundaries permits
speedy determination as to whether a particular
parcel of land lies within the defined coastal
boundary. Unless otherwise indicated, the
shoreward side of a road, railroad or other
right-of-way is to be considered the boundary
line.
3. Include all land and water uses directl im actin
coasts waters. The oun ary encompasses all
those an and water uses of direct and signifi-
cant impact on coastal waters" specified in the
Coastal Zone Management Act-1 Such impact is
defined as that which changes the physical,
chemical , biological , littoral , or aesthetic
characteristics, or the socio-economic values of
coastal waters to the extent that the character,
use or availability of its resources and/or the
environmental quality standards of the coastal
only bere maintained adversely
restored affected t that high they
can
to
only
society.
1Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
Section 304 (1)
II - 3 - 2
4. Include any specially designated management areas.
These comprise State pars along the shore, and
areas for which a local waterfront revitalization
program has been approved by the Secretary of
State, and areas designated as estuarine
sanctuaries.
S. Include tidal and saline waters wetlands, islands
an eac es. The States Coastal Area includes a
ll
coastal waters which, as defined by the Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act, include
"lakes Erie and Ontario, the St. Lawrence and
Niagara rivers, the Hudson river south of the
federal dam at Troy, the East and Harlem rivers,
the Kill von Kull and Arthur Kill, Long Island
sound, and the Atlantic ocean, and their connect-
ing water bodies, bays, harbors, shallows and
marshes." All barriers and other islands situated
in these waters are within the coastal boundary.
Also, significant portions of creeks, streams and
rivers which are tributaries to these coastal
waters are found within the Coastal Area.
6. Exclude present federally-controlled lands. The
Federal legislation specifies that such lands be
identified and then excluded from the boundary.
All Federal lands and facilities situated in New
York's Coastal Area are listed in Appendix D.
Major land holdings are delineated on the Coastal
Area maps.
7. Provide buffer areas , where appropriate. Where
desirable for nest etic or other reasons, a
landward buffer area of up to 1,000 feet from an
identified political/cultural feature is provided ,
where otherwise the feature itself would serve as
such boundary.
B. Coordinate boundary lines with those of adjacent
states. Such action is necessary to avoid
incompatible use conflicts at the juncture of New
York's coastal boundary with those of Connecticut,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Throughout the
development of New York State's Coastal Management
Program, discussions were held and information was
exchanged with officials from neighboring coastal
states regarding the location of the coastal
boundaries. It was determined that no major
conflicts would arise due to any differences in
the location of the inland boundaries at the
borders of the respective coastal states.
9. Incor orate, to the reatest extent possible,
local agency recommendat ons. Preliminary boundary
proposals made by local agencies provided a basis
II - 3 - 3
for final boundary determination, although some
modifications were made to incorporate one or more
of the preceding criteria.
Special Accommodations
The following were additional concerns, reflecting existing
State policies and local circumstances which were recognized
in the final landward boundary delineation:
1. Agricultural lands - The boundary was extended
inland to include certain areas of coastal
dependent agriculture where that use was very
intensive, covered a large contiguous area and
there was a clear inland boundary, i .e. , a change
in land 'use.
2. Viewsheds - Efforts were made to include within
the boundary those avenues of visual access to the
shore from public viewing points such as roads and
public recreation areas. The ridgeline that
defined the limits of what could be seen, for
example, from the Hudson River or its shore was
used to include the most scenic areas, primarily
the Hudson Highlands and the Palisades.
3. Power Plant Sites - All existing steam-electric
generating facilities of 50 megawatts or more, all
sites for which application has been made to the
State Siting Board to construct such a facility
and all hydroelectric facilities, if coastal
waters are used for cooling or generation
purposes, were included within the coastal
boundary. If a site for which application has
been made is rejected by the State Siting Board,
the boundary will be re-evaluated according to the
boundary criteria listed above.
4. Historic Sites - Those historic sites which have a
close association with the history of New York's
coast were included. Also included were small
coastal villages with historic relationships to
the coastal waters.
5. Industrial areas - All areas of coastal-dependent
industrial activity and areas with known potential
for such development were included , primarily
areas zoned industrial and located adjacent to
existing coastal dependent industrial areas.
6. 100 Year Flood Line - The area encompassed by this
line, as identified by the Federal Emergency
Management Administration under the National Flood
Insurance Program, is the area most directly
II - 3 - 4
affected by the dynamics of the coastal process.
Where the 100 year flood plain is clearly coastal
related , it is included within the boundary. This
flood line is a significant boundary determinant
on many of the downstream segments of creeks,
around embayments and along the shoreline itself.
7. Coastal Recreation Areas - Those recreation areas
that are not State parks but are on or near These
coast were included within the boundary.
areas include municipal and county parks and
beaches, fishing and boating access sites, and
campgrounds.
It should be noted that the above were not rigidly applied;
in some areas additional specific information from counties,
citizen groups, and other sources was used in determining
boundaries.
Figures 1-4 illustrate the application of the boundary
criteria and special accommodations at various locations in
the State's Coastal Area.
New York State Coastal Area
Landward Boundary
Generally, boundary proposals made by local government
agencies form the basis for the delineation of New York's
landward coastal boundary. Understandably, modifications
were necessary where local recommendations did not satisfy
the criteria established for the statewide approach. Where a
local agency could not agree on a boundary proposal , the
Department of State developed the boundary line in accord
with the indicated criteria.
As a result of the above process, the landward boundary of
New York State' s Coastal Area varies from region to region.
Generally, the following conditions prevail :
1. The inland boundary is approximately 1 ,000 feet
from the shoreline of the mainland.
2. In urbanized and other developed locations along
the coast, the landward boundary is about 500 feet
from the mainland's shoreline or less than 500
feet at locations where a major roadway or rail-
road line runs parallel to the shoreline.
3. At locations where major State-owned lands and
facilities and electric power generation
facilities abut the shoreline, the boundary
extends inland to include such lands and
facilities.
II - 3 - 5
In the Long Island region, the State's Coastal Area includes i
all barrier and other islands which are situated in coastal
waters. On the mainland , the landward boundary is generally
1,000 feet from the shoreline, however, at major tributaries
and headlands it extends several thousand feet inland.
Along the Long Island Sound coast of Westchester County, the
boundary extends 10000 to 8,000 feet inland.
In New York City, this boundary extends 500 to 1,000 feet
inland at most locations. However, on Staten Island and
alone major tributaries, such as the Bronx River, Newtown
Creek and Flushing Creek, the landward boundary is several
thousand feet from the mainland's shoreline.
Throughout most of the Hudson River Valley region, the
landward boundary is generally 1,000 feet, but at some
ome
locations over 10,000 feet, from the River's shoreline.
latter occurs at places which are exceptionally scenic (for
example, Hudson Highlands) or have significant agricultural
and recreational lands.
Finally, the Coastal Area in the Great Lakes region of the
State is about 18000 feet inland from the shoreline.
However, in many of the urbanized and developed areas of the
coast (for example , Buffalo, Rochester, Oswego, Alexandria
Bay anti Ogdensburg) and at several locations where State
highways and rail lines parallel the shoreline, the boundary
extends 500 feet or less inland.
Seaward Boundary
The Federal requirements regarding the seaward boundary are
explicit. The State's Coastal Area must include all coastal
waters that are within its territorial jurisdiction. In
accordance with these requirements, the Department of State
has established the following seaward boundaries:
o Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Area - Beginning at the Lake
Ere Pennsy Ivan la/New York liner the boundary follows
the international boundary through Lake Erie, the
Niagara River, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River
to that point where the St. Lawrence River leaves the
United States.
o Atlantic Ocean Area - Beginning at the New York/Now
Jersey liner the boundary follows the State boundary in
the Hudson River, Upper Bay, Arthur Rill and Raritan
Bay to the three-mile limit of the territorial sea in
the Atlantic; follows the New York/Rhode Island
boundary in Block Island Sound and the New York/
Connecticut boundary within Long Island Sound .
II - 3 - 6
Mapping
As indicated above, a set of maps, presenting the entire
Coastal Area of New York State at a scale of 1:46,000, has
been filed with State agencies. Additionally, appropriate
copies of these maps have been filed with the clerks of
coastal counties, cities, towns and villages. These maps
show the location of the State coastal boundary and major
areas of excluded Federal lands.
II - 3 - 7
� ��;, ,• -Ik, jo
.��.� �'"'
'Y s
c.
doom
Till
[ 44.
��s///`�i ��..tll(_�y�1= ��: � � ��,1�♦ �� � ,•Its � ,� •
6 46
WILL
TRIBUTARY
sit
�-rt= -� - - `�• N1�=lnl,l..ter-_ ��1� -
1� ( �. , ' +♦ �� �• i ►'� X11 ` Ri ��IIU 11 r111 11 •!
.tel• ���•�`�'� '��! ,;, 11 19
N`�'�/ �Ir.' 9A]�;��al
•*`�1 :. ��` JI`` � ,���t r 1� .��� '���� �u. �'l�l/111
•`�1 . 4 1��i �. -rte . .. _1r•.IV
` ��1GA MOM
�.
4L_ %a .����
imn
ul
.41114 /A�
f/j
114 m
�
17
3S `
ITT
elm
r•' { '� �f �+ COASTAL MANAGEMgMT PROGRAM
0i . i, I 1 0 tum,
Coastal Area
• 10 OO•SH $at
"..d°-�•:, , ; ! . CULTURAL
FEATURE
• 'L
! .!►a" ' �e ISLANDS `
«w• ,fib s•� \
'IY.tY•. .. ;. s' -: ,• 1.
•T
601
The .4. sell
Vk
AM
4.
at
dp
.• -.;�..� ,± �...0 .• r POWER .K
_
� .�l` ��'= •'; �:: PLANT
'! '
Cm
pit
IL
� ►' ►:`;• TIDAL 8 SALINE
'•• • '�=�• �" TRIBUTARY
Vear, I
•. .airy
OWN
''11CC'- ` .ANO �•tvr-' `
Sim
06
00
rr `• i� � A � c 's ♦• c.,.•S a.trt•./' v ...••tn•
V. "` - 1..�.., WATER DEPENDENT
INDUSTRY
MEMO
F ICURE Z APPLICATION OF BOUNDARY CRITERIA
�" 04II - 3 - 9 w'.
Nvw
TO&
•. �•�s ` �.• L w X OEM j 3 MOO-
iT
CO_ � ,
T A T. .... Coastal Area
�..� STATE {
PARK _ t:�.tr� tr• t."
�3E li 'ter.r_`, �'• •
1 !, •0 N
'* T` ""00' t 1 FRESHWATER
t*- �►' WETLAND p
1
; � • 1 t • j ( `
w,
� T
ale
SCENIC
`x Z V I EWSHED
T •
FEDERAL -
LAND fit•— �•
Ile
f•' T S'• T G VJJJTART ACAD> Y • i �r
IF I
FIGURE 3 APPLICATION OF BOUNDARY CRITERIA
II - 3 - 10
s �' . ,•. ._. . - N"Yak stn.
' at /• - COASTAL MANAOEMgMT P90G SAM
o Coastal Arta
• •,; ��� • � t:N.�00 t••�.�00 IMS
CIO
CONNECTING
WATER BODIES �-
f t J \ • .•' J
FRESHWATER WETLAND r ••:;•;. '�••. „� .
$ TRIBUTARY '. t • ` '
0 tgb
• STATE—OWNED W
LANDS
r • s' •4
• t
M
i
•
t •• • .
•i '
Vii', 1•
FIGURE 4 APPLICATION OF BOUNDARY CRITEPIA
3I - 3 ?l _
SECTION 4
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Introduction
New York State's Coastal Management Program must perform two
major roles in order to achieve its overall purpose. One is to
coordinate existing programs, activities, and decisions affecting
the State's coast. The second is to advocate specific desired
coastal activities. These two functions are supported by
regulations promulgated by the Federal Office of Coastal Zone
Management which require a State's program to satisfy the
following criteria:
1. The management program must contain policies relating
to resource protection, land use and development , and
governmental processes (15 CFR 923.3) .
2. The State must have sufficient legal authority to carry
out and assure compliance with the program's policies
(15 CFR 923.40 , 923.41 and 923.43 ) .
3. The State must indicate the organizational structure
that is to be used to implement and administer its
program (15 CFR 923.46) .
4. A single State agency must be designated to administer
the management program (15 CFR 923.47 ) .
This section addresses all of the above-listed criteria. How-
ever, the criteria pertaining to program policies and legal
authority are discussed in some detail in Section 6. ,
In the development of New York State's Coastal Management
Program, several determinations were made in response to the
above Federal requirements:
1. New York State would, to the greatest extent possible,
rely upon existing laws and programs to implement the
Program's objectives.
2. In July, 1981, two bills -- the Waterfront ooastavitaliza-
tion and Coastal -Resources Act and
l Erosion
Hazard Areas Act -- were signed into law. This legis-
lation filled gaps in existing laws and programs, thus
enabling the State to have an approvable Prbgran.
3. Comprehensive review processes, such as the Environ-
mental Quality Review (Environmental Conservation Lau,
Article 8 ) and Siting of Major Steam Electric
y Generating Facilities (Public Service Lbw, Article
VIII) , would be used to determine an action's
consistency with the Program's policies.
loot
t
oil .
1010 (1
coe
e..`.e 1 /� `
r
eftsulm iONO&
ail i-
010101"
edamew
va��Od
r
T
.a.m. It"Aw i . � A Ir..
. . 7'
I i mW
UMM
NEW YORK STATE
Coastal Area
few-We Woo"
4. Local governments would be encouraged, to develop and
implement waterfront revitalization programs, thus
participating in the State's Coastal Management
Program.
The above factors were important in shaping the basic framework
of New York State's Coastal Management Program, particularly the
State's response to the Federal requirement as to the method for
ensuring compliance with the Program's policies. New York State
must clearly demonstrate that the entities (e.g. , State agencies )
responsible for the implementation of its Coastal Management
Program will exercise their authorities in conformance with the
Program's policies.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, requires
that one of three techniques (or any combination of the three) be
used to ensure compliance with a State's coastal policies. liew
York State's Coastal Management Program utilizes the first two
techniques identified by the Act, but primarily, the second
technique, "direct State land and water use planning and
regulation" , because New York already has many regulatory,
capital construction and other programs in effect at the State
level which address coastal concerns. There are two ways of
operating a coastal management program under this technique: 1)
to adopt comprehensive legislation that addresses all
coastal concerns and requires State agencies to comply
with policies; or 2) to 'network" existing programs so that When taken
together they result in a comprehensive and unified approach for
managing coastal land and water uses. New Yorks Coastal
Management Program employs the networking approach, and
compliance with coastal policies is ensured by the consistency
provision of Article 42 of the Executive Law and the proposed
regulations which implement this requirement.
For specific parts of the State's Coastal Management Program, the
first technique will be utilized. Essentially, this technique
involves implementation by local governments of State-established
standards, criteria and procedures. New York State has enacted
several laws for the protection and management of particular
resources and areas -- freshwater wetlands, coastal erosion
on
hazard areas -- which authorize the use of this technique.
each case, the State has established criteria and standards that
have been or must be incorporated into these local programs prior
to implementation by a local government. The State must review
and approve such programs and is responsible for assuring that
the programs are implemented in accordance with the established
criteria and standards. Where non-compliance is found, the State
may withdraw its approval of the local programs.
Where local implementation is not approved, the State will
continue to rely upon the second technique.
II - 4 - 2
Management Role of State Agencies
Most State agencies will have a role in the implementation of the
Coastal Management Program. The extent of their involvement will
vary due to the nature and , in some instances, the geographic
jurisdiction of the programs that they operate. Their participa-
tion will involve the promotion and coordination of activities
which occur within or affect the State's Coastal Area.
Coastal Management Agency
As the designated coastal management agency of tiew York State (L.
1975, C. 464, 547) , the Department of State will be responsible
for administering the Coastal Management Program as well as
coordinating activities essential to its implementation.
Chapter 464 of the Laws of 1973 authorizes the Secretary to apply
for, receive and administer any Federal funds which are made
available to the State under the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended. These Laws also permit the Secretary to enter
into agreements with other State, regional, county and local
agencies which could assist the Department of State in the
administration and/or implementation of the Coastal Management
Program.
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act
(Executive Law, Article 42) requires the Secretary to file,
maintain and, when appropriate, amend the Coastal Area map. As
discussed in Section 3, this map shows the lands and waters in
New York State to which the Act's coastal policies apply. The
Act also charges the Secretary to review and approve waterfront
revitalization programs prepared by coastal communities. As part
of this review process, State agencies and appropriate county and
local governments will be consulted before the Secretary of State
approves any local waterfront revitalization program. In
situations where a conflict between a local program and an
existing State policy arises, the Secretary must attempt to
resolve the difference.
The Department of State will perform other activities which are
essential to the State's Coastal Management and Waterfront
Revitalization Programs. Monitoring the decisions of State
agencies as to the consistency of their proposed actions with
coastal policies will be an important administrative activity.
The Department will track actions proposed in the Coastal Area
through the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
process and will evaluate the consistency determinations made by
State agencies. When appropriate, the Department will advise the
:agencies on the consistency of such actions with the coastal
policies. The Program-related administrative and implementation
activities of agencies under contract to the Department will also
be monitored and reviewed.
Ii - 4 -- 3
Changes to policies and boundaries of the Coastal J�rea require
the review and approval of the Secretary of State. if appro-
priate, such changes may necessitate notification, review and/or
approval by Federal and local governments. Procedures covering
amendments to local waterfront revitalization programs are found
in the draft regulations pertaining to the Department's review
and approval of such local programs.
The Department of State will also be responsible for conducting
the Federal consistency review process at the State level.
Generally, the Department will evaluate major actions proposed in
the Coastal Area of the State by Federal agencies or by entities
requiring Federal permits and determine the consistency of those
actions with the Program's policies. Specific procedures
governing this review process are contained in Section 9 of this
report.
Departmental of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
DEC has the major responsibility for protecting the natural
resources of the coastal area. This responsibility includes new
areas as welleas its existing ting pfor ermit authority coastal
for wetlands,hazard
both
areas as
tidal and freshwater, and air and water quality.
In its permitting role? DEC reviews most activities that have the
potential to impact coastal resources. Those with the potential
for significant impact are thoroughly reviewed in connection with
the SEQRA process and can be approved only after DEC has found
that the activity will be consistent with the policies of the
coastal management program. This review will ensure compre-
hensive implementation of the program with respect to a wide
variety of activities.
In addition, DEC is responsibile for a number of direct and
funding activities, some of which, such as the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities, have major consequences for
coastal development. The assured consistency of these activities
will have major long range beneficial effects on the coastal
area*
lAmeement
ram are
subject n o to
State's oceanic and Coastal Atmospheric Administration's
subject to
regulations under 15 CFR 923.
II - 4 -4
Other State Agencies
State agencies, including State created authorities , commissions
and boards, operate a number of programs which are critical to
and may affect the proper management of New York's coastal
resources. In addition to the Departments of State and
Environmental Conservation, some of the other agencies include
the Offices of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation,
Business permits, Energy, and General Services; the Departments
of Transportation and Commerce; the Public Service Commission;
the Power Authority of the State of New York; and the Port
Authorities of Albany, Buffalo, Ogdensburg, Oswego, and New York
- New Jersey; and the St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission.
The State's property disposition, acquisition and leasing,
capital project construction, financial assistance, regulatory
and planning programs cover many land and water activities that
beneficially use and adversely affect these resources. Some of
the land and water activities affected by the agencies' programs
include the construction of highways; acquisition and development
of parklands; siting of energy facilities; construction of
seawalls, bulkheads, groins and jetties; and leasing of
underwater lands. Most of these programs serve singular
purposes, but collectively they form an impressive block of State
programs which are aimed at the wise use and protection of
coastal resources. Thus, agencies of New York State are equipped
and are expected to perform a vital role in the implementation of
the Coastal Management Program.
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act is the
basis for bringing together all of —the appropriate State
agencies' programs for the purpose of implementing New York
State's Coastal Management Program. Section 912 of the Act
establishes several general policies applicable to the Coastal
Area of the State and provides the legal basis for most of the
policy statements contained in Section 6 of this report. The
intent of these policies is to provide direction to State
agencies when operating their programs in the Coastal Area. These
policies cover a range of concerns pertaining to the use and
protection of natural and man-made coastal resources, but one
significant declaration is ". . .to achieve a balance between
economic development and preservation that will permit the
beneficial use of coastal resources while preventing the loss of
marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space areas or
public access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion, impairment of
scenic beauty, or permanent adverse changes to ecological
systems". This policy sets the tone for New York State's Coastal
Management Program, and the objective that State agencies' should
strive to achieve in the Coastal Area.
II - 4 - 5
Section 919(1) of the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act requires that ". . .actions directly undertaken by
State agencies within the coastal area. . . shall be consistent
with the coastal area policies of this Article." This provi-
sion of law effectively ties together the programs of State
agencies by binding their decision-making actions to the coastal
policies. Thus, the assurance that these agencies act in accor-
dance with these policies is provided by Section 919(1) . Actions
which are not consistent with applicable coastal policies are to
be prevented or, where appropriate, modified to an extent that
they may be found consistent with the policies. The State agency
having jurisdiction over a proposed action is responsible for
determining the consistency of that action with the coastal
policies. In instances where two or more agencies may have some
jurisdiction over a proposed action, each agency is expected to
make its own consistency determination. The actions of State
agencies must also be consistent, to the maximum extent practic-
able, With local waterfront revitalization programs which have
been approved by the Secretary of State.
Advocacy Role of State Agencies
In carrying out their respective administrative and coordination
responsibilities, the Department of State and other State
agencies will promote a number of interests that are central to
the overall purpose of the Coastal Management Program. These
interests include: (1) the revitalization of waterfront areas;
(2)the siting of water dependent uses; (3) the protection of
significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic and historic areas
and farmlands; (4) the enhancement of economic and other activi-
ties in small harbors; ( 5) the reduction of damages caused by
flooding and erosion; and, (6) the stimulation of research,
dissemination of information, and the participation of the public
and private sectors on coastal-related activities.
The major vehicle for promoting waterfront revitalization is
through the implementation of voluntary local government
waterfront revitalization programs. Section 8 of this document
details the minimum requirements to be ret by local waterfront
revitalization programs. The implementation of these programs,
once approved by the Secretary of State, is substantially
assisted by the requirement that State agencies are to be
consistent with the approved programs. In addition, when such
local waterfront revitalization programs are incorporated into
the State's Coastal Management Program through the amendment or
routine implementation processes established by the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Federal agencies must also be consistent.
In addition to the local government effort, the Department of
State, as the Coastal Management agency, will further
revitalization by:
II - 4- 6
Assisting State agencies in establishing priori-
ties for waterfront projects.
Investigating and establishing alternative funding
and land use mechanisms which would not unduly
burden the public or private sector. This would
include investigating the feasibility and appro-
priateness of such mechanisms as simplification of
State permits and other, similar permits between
levels of government, incentive zoning, revolving
loan funds, special tax districts, dedication of
property taxes, public benefit assessments, sand
and gravel mining fees, tax increment financing,
and Outer Continental Shelf revenue sharing.
Fostering interagency involvement in revitaliza-
tion efforts on a continuing basis.
There are two major vehicles for promoting water dependent uses.
First, State agencies are required to avoid undertaking funding
or approving non-water dependent uses when such uses would pre-
empt the reasonably foreseeable development of water dependent
uses. State agencies must also utilize appropriate existing
programs to encourage water dependent uses. Second, the Depart-
ment of State will work with other State agencies responsible for
those coastal resources whose proper use could be water depen-
dent. For example, the Department of State will work with the
Departments of Agriculture and Markets, Environmental Conserva-
tion, and Commerce to determine methods for expanding the State's
commercial fishing industry at proper locations, and then work
with selected coastal communities that can feasibly increase this
industry.
A primary vehicle for protecting significant fish and wildlife
habitats is through the authority granted the Department of
Environmental Conservation by the Waterfront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act. Significant habitats will be identified
and mapped on the State's Coastal Area map. In most instances,
it will be possible to avoid or mitigate adverse effects of an
action through careful timing or conditioning of that action.
Two means will be utilized in the Coastal Management Program's
advocacy for scenic areas. The first is through waterfront
revitalization programs, described in Section S. The Department
of State will also provide assistance on the usefulness of
several approaches available to local governments for increasing
the quality of and/or protecting scenic areas.
The second means is through the Department of State's identifica-
tion of a limited number of scenic resources of State-wide
significance on the Coastal Area Map. Once identified , State
agencies must determine whether a proposed action could affect
this resource. If the proposed action does affect the resource,
agencies are encouraged to choose an alternative site for the
action. If it is not feasible, special siting and design
guidelines are offered which will minimize degradation of this
resource.
II - 4- 7
The Program actively promotes the preservation of all historic
and cultural resources which have a coastal relationship, by
requiring protection of the area around historic sites, as well
as areas of significance. Further, the Program requires State
agencies and localtgovernments
with apved restorerforntrevitali-
revitalixe
xation programs Y seekto
appropriate areas through adaptive reuse.
The Department of State's research efforts will include working
with the Office of Parka, Recreation and Historic Preservation to
develop additional means of augmenting preservation and develop-
ment of coastal historic areas.
Important agricultural lands will be identified and mapped on the
Coastal Area map. State agencies are required to prevent actions
that would result in a significant loss of such identified agri-
cultural ndLocal waterfront revitalization
erwi
rams are
required lands.
oProtecimportant farmlands f they are thin the
waterfront areas.
State agencies are required to consider whether any proposed
action would detract from recreational and commercial fishing,
ferry services, marinas, historic preservation, cultural pursuits
and other compatible activities which enhance small harbor areas
and hence make significant contributions to the State's tourism
industry. Local waterfront revitalization programs are required
to recognize the social benefits of small harbors and ensure
their protection. Further, through rhsesresearch
activities, alternative mens for efectuatingteactionswill
be sought.
Visual and physical access to and along the shore will be
protected and Increased, in part thorugh a single coordinated
statewide access planning process. This process will result in
the identification of a list of the specific access improve-
ment areas to which the State will give priority within financial
and legal limits. Local waterfront revitalization programsVarious
also increase access and protect existing access.
procedures that may be used are discussed in Appendix B.
The damage to property inflicted annually by flooding and erosion
in the State's Coastal Area is not only a burden on individual
shorefront residents, but on local governments and the State who
lose valuable facilities and are called upon to expend
substantial sums for the replacement and for the installation of
protective structures. The Coastal Management Program's advocacy
stance seeks to reduce this ever-increasing economic waste by
setting standards which reduce areducee th merisk Hoffor the damage pinotfloodn and
of
natural defenses
erosion prone areas.
II - 4- 8
The Department of State has collected and mapped basic coastal
resources data. This information will be made available to all
State agencies and any local government preparing and/or
implementing a local program. The Department will maintain its
coastal resources inventory of significant natural resources
areas, historic sites, agricultural lands, and areas suitable for
water dependent uses. This information will assist State and
Federal agencies in ensuring consistency of their actions with
the policies. It will also serve as a valuable tool to the
private sector and government agencies in their development
efforts. The Department of State maintains a clearinghouse of
exifling and potential Federal and State funding programs
available for waterfront revitalization and a compendium of
various approaches suitable for waterfront revitalization.
The Department will work with Sea Grant to assist in determining
research priorities which will serve the purposes of both
programs. It will also work with State research and development
agencies to establish alternative means of effectuating
waterfront revitalization, and protecting significant coastal
resources.
The Coastal Management Program will continue providing
information to raise the level of public awareness of coastal
issues and opportunities, and will continue seeking advice from
affected interests and government agencies in the decision-
making process. The Department of State will periodically
conduct workshops with State and Federal agencies to review the
performance of the Program, resolve differences, and make
improvements. Workshops will also be held with environmental ,
development and other interests to ensure the Program is meeting
its objectives and addressing the problems of concern to these
interests.
The voluntary waterfront revitalization programs are based on
building a consensus between all affected interests, users and
regulators of the waterfront. This undertaking demands extensive
participation resulting in broad based support of the Program.
Consistency of State Agencies' Actions
The basic thrust of New York State's Coastal Management Program
is to have State agencies carry out their respective programs
consistent with the policies contained in Section 6 of this
document. All of the Program's policies are derived from
existing laws and regulations administered by State agencies.
Table 1 identifies the various laws that provide the basis for
and are essential to the enforcement and implementation of the
coastal policies. Many of the Program's policies are carried out
by programs administered by the Department of Environmental
Conservation. For example , the Department operates regulatory
programs which provide protection to tidal and freshwater
wetlands (Policy 44 ) , restrict development and other activities
in flood and erosion hazard areas (Polices 11-17) , and protect
II - 4 - 9
air and water resources (Policies 30-35 and 40-43 ) .
Other
agencies, such as the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation, Public Service Commission and the State Board on
Electric Generation Siting and the Environment administer
programs which provide t= nsmission stal recreational
facilitiescandt regulast t ulthe
ate
the siting of energy
location of electric power plans, respectively.
Other Program policies are based upon the provisions of Article
42 of the Executive Law. These policies carry out the intention
of the State Legislature that there be "a balance between
economic development and preservation that will permit the
beneficial use of coastal resources while preventing the loss of
living marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space
areas or public access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion,
impairment of scenic beauty, or permanent adverse changes to
ecological systems" (Executive Law, Article 42, Section 912(1 ) ) .
Executive Law, Article 42, requires that actions directly
undertaken by State agencies within the State's coastal area be
undertaken in a manner consistent with this second group of
policies. In addition, the procedures of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (Environmental Stateaactions,v ofon Lawp whatever Article
will
will insure that all agency
be consistent with these policies.
The Department of State, in cooperation with the Department of
Environmental Conservation, has prepared draft regulations to
ensure that State agencies carry out their responsibilities under
section 915 (8 ) and 919 (l) of the Waterfront Revitalization aid
Coastal Resources Act. hese f ate Envirorunentalulations take wQu lityReview
amendments to Part 617 0 the St
regulations; and (2) new rules to be promulgated by the
Department of State.
State Environmental Quality Review Process
Generally, SEQRA is a comprehensive review process that is
applicable to all actions of State and local agencies which may
have significant effects upon the environment. Agencies are
required to determine whether or not a proposed action is subject
to the review process. Exempt, emergency and ministerial actions
(Type II actions) are exempted from this process, but other
proposed activities must be evaluated for their probable impact
l have
on the environment. If an agency finds that an action *positive
significant adverse
made and an environmental
environmentaleffector
impact statement
declaration" must
(EIS ) must then be prepared. Before making any decision on an
action that requires the preparation of an EIS, an agency must
repare written findings which indicate the followings (1)
"consistent with social,
economicand
alternatives etheretol
considerations from g the
IZ - 4 - 10
the action to be carried out or approved is one which minimizes
or avoids adverse environment effects to the maximum extent
practicable; including the effects disclosed in the relevant
environmental impact statement," and (2) "consistent with social,
economic and other essential considerations , to the maximum
extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the
environmental impact process will be minimized or avoided by
incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative
measures which were identified as practicable."
New York State's Coastal Management Program relies upon SEQRA as
a means for implementing the consistency requirement under
Section 919(1 ) of the waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act. This review process already contains points of
consideration which would help a State agency, determine the
consistency of a proposed action with coastal policies. In
amending the SEQRA regulations to accommodate the waterfront
legislation's directives, two conditions were set: (1) the
existing review procedures would not be substantially altered or
made complicated; and, (2) the agencies be alerted "up front" of
any new procedural and substantive requirements.
The principal amendments to Part 617 of the SEQRA regulations
address the following:
For those actions having a significant effect upon the
environment and necessitating the preparation of an
environmental impact statement, State agencies must
ensure that such actions are consistent with the appli-
cable coastal policies contained in the Department of
State regulations.
Department of State Regulations
As the State's Coastal Management Agency, the Department of State
must be knowledgeable of the activities occurring in or affecting
the Coastal Area. The amendments of SEQRA, as described above,
will in part enable the Department to track major activities, for
it will receive copies of the EIS documents and have the
opportunity to comment on such proposed actions. Draft SEQRA
amendments are located in Appendix A.
To avoid burdening the SEQRA requlations with additional
procedures, requirements and criteria, the Department of State
will promulgate regulations which are applicable to Typela
nd
"Unlisted" actions occurring in the Coastal Area. These proposed
regulations dovetail with the SEQRA process. Essentially, the
Department's regulations include the following requirements
and/or items:
II - 4- 11
1. The completion of a Coastal Assessment form (CAF) is
required for all state agency actions in the Coastal
Area. This CAF is to be used to supplement other
information in order to assist that agency in
determining the significance of the action, pursuant to
SEQRA. if the action will not have a significant
effect, the CAP will assist state agencies In arriving
certification decisions, as
at their discussed below.
2. Certificates of consistency Faust be filed with the
Secretary of State for actions that do not have a
significant effect upon the environment (as determined
under the E Areprocess)
oranarea e ) and which
by an approved wCio
r affect
the Coastal
local waterfront revitalization program.
3. Coastal policies are described and wade a part of these
regulations.
All proposed regulations needd finel tpriorimplement
approval ofasthe
tal
Management Program will �
Program.
Judicial Review of Agencies' Decisions
State agencies will be responsible for determining the
consistency of their actions with coastal policies. The
Department of State will work with the agencies and assist them
in fulfilling this requirement under Article 42 of the Executive
Law. The Department is not authorized to override the deAcisions
of its sister agencies on matters relating to this Law•
hird
party may seek judicial bele 78 ofiew of nth� Civil PracticeratioLawn of
consistency pursuant to A
Article 78 proceedings exist primarily to afford relief the
f to
parties personal] y aggrieved by governmental actions.
One o
questions that may be raised in such proceedings is whether a
determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of
discretion. This is a legislative enactment of what has long
been the case law of New York. The courts have consistently held
that administrative action which is arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion is subject to judicial
review and annulment. In reviewing eher ether action iion of a s withiublic n othe
the court determines not only
body's statutory power but whether, within the frame of .power,the
action is arbitrary. Even in the presence of a delegated power
of discretion and legislative ssao a�teasaonableness within the
body is reviewed for arbitrarine
standards set down.
The test usually applied in deciding the arbitrariness of a
determination is whether it has a rational or adequate .
basis, or,
stated in another whether
trdxcie Circumstances
possible scope for the exercise of aiscretion
which leave no
Under both the substan rationality
ruirlhata is treviewed by the
capricious standard, r Y ^
court.
IT - 4 - 12
With respect to who would be "personally aggrieved" so as to have
standing to seek relief under Article 78, that hurdle is not a
While a respondent in an Article 78
high one in New York State.
proceeding may occasionally contest the aggrieved petitioner's
is (the highest court in New
standing to sue , the Court of Appea
York State) has indicated that the right to challenge administra-
tive action should be enlarged rather than diminished. Dair lea
cooperative, Inc. v. Walhle , 38 NY2d 6, 377 NYS2d 451, 339 NE2d
The Court stated that "only where there is a clear
legislative intent negating review. . .or lack of injury in fact
. . .will standing by denied. Dairylea, suiera. r 38 NY at 11, 377
NYS2d at 455, 339 NE2d at 868such intent anexpressed esse tor
manifest in Executive Law, Article 42, nor in y otherhe
State statutory authorities relied upon for implementation of
this program.
When taken together , the Department's proposed regulations, the
amendments to the SEQRA process and the judicial review of
actions will ensure that State agencies will carry out their
actions consistent with the policies of the Coastal Management
Program. Table 1 lists the major authorities which State
agencies will utilize to implement the Program.
IZ - 4 - 13
TABLE 1
Legal Authorities Essential to
the Implementation of New York State's
Coastal Management Program
1. Agriculture and Markets Law
. Article 25AA - Agriculture District Program
2. Energy Law
Article 3 - State Energy Policy
. Article 5 - State Energy Office; Organization and
Powers, Functions and Duties
3. Environmental Conservation Law
. Article 3 - General Powers and Duties
. Article 8 - State Environmental Quality Review Act
Article 9 - Lands and Forests
Article 11 - Fish and Wildlife
Article 13 - Marine and Coastal Resources
. Article 15 - Water Resources
. Article 17 - Water Pollution Control
Article 19 - Air Pollution Control
Article 23 - Mineral Resources
Article 24 - Freshwater Wetlands Act
. Article 25 - Tidal Wetlands Act
Article 27 - Collection, Treatment and Disposal of
Refuse and Other Solid Waste
Article 34 - Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
. Article 36 - Participation in Flood Insurance Programs
Article 37 - Substances Hazardous to the Environment
. Article 45 - State Nature and Historical Preserve Trust
Article 49 - Protection of Natural and Man-Made Beauty
Article 51 - Implementation of Environmental Quality
Bond Act of 1972
4. Executive Law
Article 42 - Waterfront Revitalisation and Coastal
Resources Act
5. Highway Law
Article II - Commissioner of Transportation
Article III - State Highways
II - 4 - 14
6. Navigation Law
. Article 3 - Navigable Waters of the State
. Article 11 - Improvement and Preservation of Waterways
. Article 12 - Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Com-
pensation
7. Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law
. Article 3 - Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation
Article 11 - State Board for Historic Preservation
Article 14 - Historic Preservation
. Article 20 - State Park Preserve System
S. Public Buildings Law
Article 2 - Commissioner of General Services
Article 4B - Historic and Cultural Properties
9. Public Health Law
Article 2 - Department of Health
Article 11 - Public Water Supplies, Sewerage and
Sewage Control
10. Public Lands Law
. Article 2 - Office of General Services
. Article 3 - Unappropriate State Lands
Article 6 - Grants of Lands Under Water
11. Public Service Law
Article 3C - Provisions Relating to Liquid Petroleum
Pipeline Corporations
Article 4 - Provisions Relating to Gas and Electric
Corporations; Regulation of Price of
Gas and Electricity
Article VII - Siting of Major -Utility Transnission
Facilities
Article VIII - Siting of Major Steam Electric Generating
Facilities
J1 - a - 15
Local Government Involvement
Many coastal communities have adopted regulatory programs which
reflect State-established standards and criteria on matters
relating to the protection of freshwater wetlands and flood and
erosion control. Federal approval of the State's Program is not,
however, dependent upon the preparation and adoption of similar
programs by local governments.
The State of New York strongly supports a coastal management
effort that encourages local governments to prepare and implement
waterfront revitalization programs. Throughout the Coastal Area
of the State, many communities have undertaken a variety of
actiylties directed at protecting valuable resources and bringing
new vitality to decayed and unused waterfronts. Other waterfront
municipalities wish to do so, but lack the financial and/or
technical support necessary to accomplish this objective.
State's Coastal Management Program will, therefore, focus its
attention
that communities
in he wise use andtiate protection continue
of natural
activities
and man-made coastal resources.
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act provides
the means and incentive for municipalities in the Coastal Area to
prepare programs for their waterfront areas and then work with
the Department of State and other State agencies implement such
programs. By participating, local governments will be eligible
to receive financial and technical assistance for the preparation
of their waterfront revitalization programs. Upon approval of
these programs by the Secretary of State, the communities may
also receive assistance for pre- construction activities (e.g. ,
feasibility studies, engineering and architectural designs)
essential to projects that are recommended in the approved
programs. Further, Section 916 (1) of the Act requires State
agencies to carry out their various regulatory, capital
construction, funding assistance and acquisition activities in
ways which are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
the approved local waterfront revitalization programs.
II - 4 - 16
For the purposes of the State's Coastal Management Program,
approved local waterfront revitalization programs will provide
more specificity to the coastal policies and their geographic
application. Since these local programs contain a more detailed
approach for managing activities in the Coastal Area, the water-
fronts affected by such programs will be treated as special
management areas. One of the ways to increase the specificity of
the State's Coastal Management Program is the designation and
adoption of a proyran for a special management area. Section 0
of this report provides more information on special management
areas.
Local Program Approval Process
Draft rules and regulations have been prepared which establish
review and approval procedures for local waterfront revitaliza-
tion programs. These proposed rules and regulations are
contained in the Appendix of this report.
As required by the authorizing legislation, a local waterfront
revitalization program must: clearly identify the geographic area
to which it applies; state the goals and specific objectives of
the program; demonstrate its consistency with the Act's purposes
and coastal policies; inventory the waterfront's natural and
historic resources; identify current and future land and water
uses in the area; describe the municipality's activities
essential to program implementation; demonstrate the community's
authority and capability to carry out its program; and, identify
specific actions by State agencies which would aid local
implementation, efforts. This information will assist State
agencies in determining the effect , if any, that the local
program will have upon their activities. Also, the required
information is necessary to increase the specificity of the
State 's Coastal 11anagement Program.
In reviewing a local waterfront revitalization program, the
Secretary of State will consider:
2Amendments to the State's Program are also subject to National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's regulations under 15 CFR
923
II - 4 - 17
1. Its consistency with the Act's policies.
2. Its fulfillment of the Act's criteria on water depen-
dent and water enhanced uses; public access to coastal
waters and water-related activities; promotion and
Protection of scenic, historic and natural resources;
utilization of existing infrastructure; protection of
sensitive ecological areas; promotion of port and
harbor activities; and incorporation of aesthetic
consideration in development activities.
3. Its compliance with existing State policies and State
agencies'programs.
4. Its effect upon the facilities, policies and programs
of the county and adjacent local governments.
5. Comments provided by the general public, public
interest groups, and business organizations.
Notification of the Secretary's approval of a local waterfront
revitalization program will be sent to all State agencies and
appropriate county and local governments. Amendments to such
local programs may be made, but are subject to review and
approval by the Secretary. Periodically, the Secretary of State
will review the administrative and implementation actions of
local governments affecting the coastal area for which there is
an approved waterfront revitalization program in order to
determine if these actions are being carried out in accordance
with the goals and objectives of the approved local waterfront
revitalization program.
Program Funding
Pursuant to Congressional appropriations, New York State may
receive $3 million in Federal funds in FY 82 for the administra-
tion and implementation of its approved Coastal Management
Program. The State will provide $.75 - $1 million as its match
to the Federal monies. State funds which are provided for the
implementation of the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Acts may be
counted as part of the State's required match as appropriate.
State Agencies' Activities
The Coastal Management Program is a statewide program that relies
upon State agencies for its implementation. Previous parts of
this Section indicated what is expected of the various State
agencies. Generally, funds will be provided to the Department of
State for its administration of the Program, including its ad-
ministrative functions required under the Waterfront Revitali-
zation and State Coastal agsources encies t to to al gThe overnments will's
lnalso
ical
assistance 9encies and
be funded by these Program monies.
1i - .4 - 18
Where necessary, State agencies will be eligible for funding to
cover the costs associated with the consistency deterninatioll
process. It is anticipated that only the Departnents of Environ-
mental Conservation and Transportation and the Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation, and the Office of General
Services may require funds for this purpose. The implementation
of State programs critical to the continued approval of the
Coastal Management Program will receive necessary financial
support. Some State agencies may assist the Department of State
in providing technical assistance to local governments and in
turn be compensated for their efforts. Finally, some agencies
will be encouraged to undertake special studies that will advance
Program objectives, including those contained in approved local
waterfront revitalization programs. Such studies may focus on
one or more coastal concerns and apply to the entire or some
portion of the State's Coastal Area.
Local Government Activities
During the preparation of the State's Coastal Management Program,
the Department of State encouraged coastal communities to become
involved in the Program. Many local governments did participate.
Funding was provided to some for the preparation of waterfront
management programs; others received financial assistance to
conduct special studies related to a local coastal issue or
project. The desire of local governments to bring new or
additional vitality to their waterfronts far exceeded the funds
that the Department had for this purpose.
Local governments' interest and participation in the State's
Coastal Management Program are expected to be substantial. In
anticipation of this level of involvement, approximately 50% of
the available funds will be allocated for local government
efforts. The preparation of waterfront revitalization programs
and preconstruction activities for projects recommended in
approved waterfront programs will be eligible activities.
Special studies which address one or more coastal issues
affecting two or more adjacent coastal communities will be
eligible for funding under the State's Program. A maximum of
one, 12 month grant, not exceeding 50% of the cost for preparing
a local waterfront revitalization program nay be available.
Local governments will be expected to draw upon their own
agencies for the technical expertise that is needed to perform
any of the eligible activities. In instances where a local
government may not have the capability to undertake such tasks ,
the Department of State, other State, county and regional
agencies should be consulted and , if appropriate, requested to
provide the necessary technical expertise. Program funds would
be made available to the local government for this purpose.
11. - 4 -- 19
Funding Priorities
Pursuant to Congressional appropriations , the State oiN is Ynot
ork
may receive $3 million. Given this uncertainty, t
possible at this time to determine how much money will be
allocated to the various Coastal Management Program related
activities. However, some general priorities are established to
guide the Department of State in its allocation of these funds.
Coastal Management Program funds will be used by State agencies
for implementation of 1SMana programs
Programtical to the continued
including consistency
approval of the Coast 9
activities and special studies, if necessary.
Program funds for local government activities will be used for:
1. Preparation and implementation of local waterfront revital-
ization programs and local ordinances for erosion hazard
areas; and,
2. Pre-construction projects and other activities recommended
in approved waterfront revitalization programs.
II - 4- 20
SECTION 5
COASTAL ISSUES
DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
Coastal development is an all pervading concern of New
York's Coastal Management Program, and its consideration is
recognized and reflected throughout the other policy
discussions -- most notably in Agriculture, Energy, Fish and
Wildlife, and Recreation. There are several other aspects
of coastal development which are discussed below and form
the basis for the policies that will guide the State in its
various development decisions along the shore.
Deteriorated and Underutilized Waterfront Space
The exodus of people and commerce from the inner city is
most clearly manifested in the underutilized, sometimes
abandoned and often deteriorated sites found along urban
waterfronts. Outdated and deteriorating private and public
facilities, the need for more space, increased reliance on
trucking, deteriorated surrounding neighborhoods, spiraling
property taxes, and financial incentives provided by
suburban counties and other states, are some of the reasons
for the reduction in development activity along New York
State's urban waterfronts.
The Program seeks to reverse this trend so that revitalized
urban waterfronts can regain their position as focal points
for industry, commerce, culture, recreation and housing.
Competition for Space
Although much of the State's coastline is underutilized ,
some areas are subject to intense use pressures. The
reasons a particular site becomes desirable for development
vary, but are generally related to such factors as topo-
graphy, local climatic and soil conditions, access to
transportation, aesthetic value, and surrounding land uses.
Unfortunately, where there is competition for a particular
site, the market mechanism and existing regulations do not
always ensure that the public interest will be served. For
example, many uses which are dependent on a waterfront
location are preempted by development that merely seeks the
convenience of a visually-enhanced setting , or by happen-
stance. The problem of competition for space can be
particularly acute in urban areas.
Because it is the obligation of the Coastal Management
Program to consider the long-range interest of the public,
the task of the Program thus becomes one of determining
which uses should receive priority treatment in the coastal
areas, and what form that treatment should take.
TT • 5 - 1
Incompatible Adjacent Uses
Because certain sites are desirable locations for a number
of uses, a situation often develops where incompatible
activities are forced to locate next to one another. An
example of this would be in port areas where heavy indus-
trial uses may lower air, water and visual quality, and
raise surrounding noise levels, with a consequent reduction
in the enjoyment of those people who are participating in
nearby recreation activities. Recreational uses within
harbor areas, on the other hand, can inhibit port develop-
ment by restricting industrial expansion, forcing port
interests to alter dredging operations, interfering with
shipping movements, or by creating safety hazards.
When incompatible uses are, or are proposed to be, located
adjacent to one another, the Coastal Management Program, in
conjunction with other State and local programs, is faced
with the task of mitigating the negative aspects. When new
development is to take place, steps should be taken to
ensure it will locate where adjacent uses are compatible
and, preferably, supportive.
Transportation Issues
State transportation policies have a substantial role in
shaping the course of development. Following are those
transportation issues which have particularly important
implications for the Coastal Management Program:
A. Consequences of Major Transportation Improvements
Most of the State's planned transportation system is
already in place. However, significant new develop-
lop-
ments or modifications may occur in the future.
improvements would probably bolster the economy of an
area, but negative consequences are also possible
insofar as another area might be put at a competitive
disadvantage, orderly or planned growth patterns might
be disrupted, or serious environmental problems might
be caused.
B. Access to the Waterfront
While the State's coastlines have served as natural
corridors for highways and railroads, the coastlines
have frequently been made inaccessible by the existence
of these same transportation facilities. For the most
part, the damage is done and is, for the foreseeable
future, irreversible. However, where new facilities
are being planned and where existing facilities do not
preempt use of the shoreline, opportunities to increase
public access can be accommodated if cost and safety
considerations are not prohibitive. This issue is
further discussed in the Public Access section.
!1 -- 5- 2.
C. Competition Between Transportation Modes
Relationships among the various modes of transport
(particularly the relationship between rail and ship)
will vary according to circumstance. In many cases,
rail and ship lines are mutually supportive (as in
Oswego, where the local Port Authority has opposed the
abandonment of the Erie-Lackawanna rail line, and as in
New York Harbor, where rail service is being re-estab-
lished on the Brooklyn waterfront with the objective of
enhancing general port activity. ) In other situations,
various modes of transportation may directly compete
with each other, and State supportive action in favor
of one may have negative effects on another. The State
must encourage a relationship between the various modes
of transportation that is based on healthy competition,
if not mutual support.
D. Water Transportation Issues
Continued dredging of harbor areas and rivers is a
necessary component in any long range improvement of
the State's water transportation facilities. The depth
to which the channels should be dredged, the precise
location, and the manner in which the dredge spoils
should be disposed of, are problems that must be
addressed. Dredge spoils are further discussed in the
Water Resources issue section.
The shipping industry needs accurate knowledge of
tides, wind and water depths so that ship movements can
be effectively planned. To meet this need, New York
State will soon install, and then begin testing, a
tidal gauge system for New York Harbor and the Hudson
River.
Non-port related activities often have been proposed ,
or located, adjacent to major port areas, in a manner
that could inhibit normal port operations. Mechanisms
need to be developed that will recognize the needs of
port development when potentially conflicting
activities are proposed within or adjacent to port
areas.
Navigation on the Hudson River, -in New York Harbor and
in commercial boat harbors is severely constrained by
floating debris. The debris comes from sources such as
decaying piers and bulkheads, abandoned barges and
ships, and vegetation such as large tree trunks. (It
is estimated that approximately 600,000 cubic feet of
debris enter the Hudson River and New York Harbor
annually. ) The debris poses a serious threat to
commercial shipping and recreational craft.
11 - 5- 3
Concentration of Development
The argument for concentrating development is based on the
need to increase energy efficiency, reduce the cost of
public services, make more efficient use of existing
infrastructure, increase the likelihood of downtown
revitalization, and improve the protection of valuable
natural resources.
The Program considers the concentration of development to be
crucial in coastal areas because development pressures there
are more severe, while the unique natural functions per-
formed by coastal areas are critical to attaining both a
sbound economy and a sound environment.
The issue faced by the Program is how to accomplish concen-
trated development, not with a negative approach that merely
restricts development, but by adopting a positive approach
that seeks to stimulate and guide development where it would
be desirable.
Permitting Procedures
The public perceives that increased costs of "doing
business" results from burgeoning government regulations.
Builders state their costs have increased, in part, because
of unnecessary regulations and excessive design standards.
Some manufacturers view regulations in New York State as a
reason not to expand and in some cases a reason to relocate
out of State.
The Coastal Management Program agrees that the accumulation
of single purpose environmental and land use controls has
frequently resulted in overlaps, redundancies and inequities
in the administration of regulations. The way in which
regulations of local , State and Federal government agencies
are integrated can be improved.
Consequently, the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources bill was enacted so as to require the Secretary of
State to work with other agencies in an effort to determine
ways of expediting development and seeking additional means
of effectuating waterfront revitalization. Simplifying and
consolidating permit procedures is one means to achieve this
desirable goal.
r
II - 5- 4
FISH AND WILDLIFE
Introduction
The abundant fish and wildlife found in New York's coastal
areas, particularly its estuaries, have long been
recognized as important food resources and for their
recreational and commercial value. As an indicator of
their direct value to the State, the economic benefits
derived in 1976 from commercial and sport utilization of
tiew York's marine fisheries were estimated to be $87.8
4aillion and $222.5 million respectively. In 1981,
'resources from sport fishing in freshwaters was estimated
to be $405 million.
The State's fish and wildlife resources also provide a less
direct but equally important social benefit in that they
function as indicators of the quality of man's environment.
The decline of certain species (often the rarer species) is
frequently an early symptom of environmental stress and
degradation.
Finally the State's living coastal resources are important
in terms of their own intrinsic ecological value. Diversity
of flora and fauna provides stability to an ecosystem. In
addition, these living resources contribute to the produc-
tivity of coastal environments through their conversion of
energy and recycling of materials.
Hence, the basic goal of Dew York's fish and wildlife
management programs has been to protect, manage, and
develop these resources so that they sustain their capacity
to continue providing these economic, social , and
ecological benefits.
Habitat Protection
Valuable fish and wildlife species cannot be protected and
maintained without preserving their habitats. While loss
of individual animals can usually be made up by reproduc-
tion, loss of habitat will likely result in an irreversible
loss to fish and wildlife. A habitat is an area where
there exists a unique combination of resources (food ,
shelter, living space, etc. ) and environmental conditions
(temperature, climate, salinity, etc._) which animals need
for their survival. When man destroys a vital repource or
alters an environmental condition beyond an Grganism's
range of tolerance, he destroys its habitat.
II - 5- 5 ;
Certain habitats, such as breeding grounds, nursery areas,
and migratory routes, are special areas where fish and
wildlife populations tend to congregate. Such areas must
be identified and afforded special protection, since their
loss would create a greater threat to the survival of a
population than would the loss of areas where the organisms
were less densely distributed.
In New York, a category of habitats which has been
suffering the greatest losses are freshwater and tidal
wetlands. Until 1973, draining and filling of wetlands for
development purposes was largely unregulated. Wetlands
provided convenient, inexpensive sites for disposal of
dredge spoils. Such practices resulted in the loss of
breeding, nesting and feeding grounds for reptiles,
amphibians, mammals, shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as
the loss of spawning and nursery areas for fish, shellfish
and crustaceans. Many of the wetland areas around the
highly developed waterfront sections in EuffLlo, Rochester
and New York City have been drained and filled.
Less direct, upland land use practices have also
contributed to the loss of Wetland and aquatic Habitats.
Vegetation removal, stream channelization, and certain
farming practices have increased the variability of water
temperatures and surface runoff. Increased fluctuations in
surface runoff induces stream bank erosion and sedimenta-
tion in coastal tributaries. Important littoral areas used
for fish spawning habitat are being blanketed with silt.
The silty bay areas are then invaded by nuisance aquatic
weed species Which radically alter the ecology of the bay
systems and thereby destroy vital habitats. Unfortunately,
this pattern of habitat degradation is becoming increas-
ingly common throughout the developed areas of New York's
coastal region.
'Prior to 1973, some freshwater wetlands- (except those on Long
Island ) were being protected under the Stream Protection Act
(Environmental Conservation Law, Article 15, Title 5) . Wetlands
contiguous to navigable waters and wetlands associated with
protected waters (streams and rivers with a classification of C
(t)or higher) were and still are being regulated under this
Act. In 1973, however, New York increased its regulatory controls
over wetlands along the marine coast with the passage of the
Tidal Wetlands Act. In 1975, the State adopted the Freshwater
Wetland Act.
II - 5- 6
Toxic Substances and Other Pollutants
In New York, a critical problem is the contamination of
fish, wildlife and their habitats with toxic substances, in
particular Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) , Mirex, Dioxin
heavy metals (mercury and cadmium) and some pesticides.
These compounds enter the environment from industrial and
municipal discharges, atmospheric fallout, leachate from
landfills, or agricultural run-off.
Of particular concern is the accumulation and transfer of
toxic substances in the aquatic food chain. For example,
Mirex had been discharged into the Niagara River where it
collected in the bottom sediments. Small invertebrates
feeding on the bottom organic food materials directly ingest
the Mirex. It then becomes increasingly concentrated at
successive levels of the food chain. Unacceptably high
concentrations of Mirex now exist in certain predator fish
species such as salmon, lake trout, and smallmouth bass.
In 1976, New York State restricted the possession of these
and other fish species caught in Lake Ontario and its trib-
utary streams. Although these restrictions were replaced by
a health advisory in March, 1978, the contamination of Lake
Ontario fish by Mirex and other toxic compounds persists. As
recently as the summer of 1981, Dioxin was detected in Lake
Ontario fish. The New York State Health Department has
broadened the health advisory for eating certain species
known to be contaminated with Dioxin.
An equally serious problem has occurred in the Hudson River
where 440,000 pounds of PCBs were discharged into the River
and these PCBs have contaminated the bottom sediments, as
well as resident and migratory fish species. Cleanup costs
for dredging the "hot spots" in the river were estimated to
be approximately $49. 5 million. Today, commercial fishing
for striped bass and the American eel is banned. Recrea-
tional fishing is also prohibited in certain portions of the
Hudson.
The more conventional pollution problems created by combined
overflows, failing septic systems, urban stormwater runoff,
oil spills, discharge of vessel wastes and solid wastes,
adversely affect fish, shellfish, wildlife and their
habitats. These problems persist in_ areas surrounding the
major metropolitan areas of the State such as western Long
Island, New York City, Albany, Rochester and Buffalo.
Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Throughout most of New York's coastal area, inadequate
public access constrains present hunting and fishing as well
as non-consumptive uses such as bird watching , wildlife
photography and nature study. Posted lands, strip develop-
ment, highways and railroads located along the coastline
severely limit physical access to the marshes and estuaries
TT - C- 7
which support valuable fish and wildlife populations.
Substantial efforts have been made by State, county and
local governments to improve access to these resources
through acquisition programs and construction of boat ramps
and dock facilities. However , increasing cost of land and
construction materials and decreasing amounts of available
public funding will limit future efforts to meet increasing
demands for public access.
Commercial Fisheries Development
For years, New York's commercial fishing industry has been
sadly neglected. New York City, once a prominent fishing
Vort, is used today as a home port by only one commercial
fishing vessel. Although the Long Island commercial fishing
fleet is still active, not one of the Long Island fishing
ports is large enough to be included on the National Marine
Fisheries' list of the top 100 fishing ports. Commercial
fishing in the Hudson River and Lake Ontario has been
severely curtailed due to toxic substance contamination of
the fishery resources in these waters.
However, a tremendous opportunity for expanding the State's
commercial fishing industry was created with the passage of
the Federal Fishery Conservation Management Act of 1976.
This law provides U.S. fishermen priority rights to harvest
the millions of tons of fist, previously being caught by
foreign fishing fleets. To realize this development
potential , New York must make adjustments in the harvesting ,
processing and marketing sectors of its fishing industry.
Inadequate channel access and limited availability of
docking, unloading, and processing facilities presently
impede the growth of offshore, deepwater fisheries. An
insufficient number of boat ramps, inadequate catch transfer
sites, and lack of shellfish processing and gear storage
facilities limit development of the near-shore fisheries.
Also, it will be necessary to address and reconcile user
conflicts between sport and commercial fishermen if growth
of the fishing industry is to occur.
Another opportunity for increased commercial fishery
development exists with the possible expansion of
acquaculture. As a process very analogous to agriculture,
aquaculture has been a practice on Long Island since the
mid-1800'x. By 1880, the Blue Point Oyster had gained
international fame. Approximately 10,000 metric tons of
oyster meats were produced annually at the turn of the
century.
11 - 5- 8
Today, however, only a few of the original private oyster
farms still exist. Sone firms have converted their
facilities to grow hard clams. One recently formed
enterprise is experimenting with growing striped bass to
marketable size for sale to restaurants. But current
production levels of these high-value seafood products do
not meet domestic and export market demand. Results of a
recent study of the feasibility for expanding acquaculture
activities on Long Island indicate that the constraints on
aquaculture are primarily institutional and economic rather
than technological. Limited access to capital , restrictive
State and local laws and insufficient acreage of underwater
sands available for leasing to aquaculturists are the
-primary constraints to future industrial growth.
II - 5- 9
FLOOD AND EROSION HAZARDS
Introduction
Flood and erosion hazards in the State's coastal areas can be
classified into two types by locations along the exposed coasts
of Long Island, New York City, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and
along the banks of its major rivers and tributary streams. The
first category is the more crucial in New York State's coastal
areas.
Flooding and erosion on the State's coasts are generated by
powtrful natural processes setting water and wind against the
shorelands. To maximize their benefits from resources in the
coastal area, people have often ignored or been unaware of those
processes and have built structures on beaches , dunes, barrier
islands, erodible bluffs, and flood plains, where they are
subject to damage or loss, or cause harm to natural protective
landforms. People have also attempted to defend their property
against flooding and erosion by installing protective structures,
many of which have been inadequately designed and constructed,
and have caused damage to adjacent property. As a result, great
economic loss and public expense have been incurred, and human
lives endangered.
Beaches are the most valuable of the hazardous coastal landforms,
because they are subject to the impact of both wave and current
energy as well as continually rising sea levels in the tidal
zone. In their natural state, with their movements unaffected by
man, beaches may be reduced in extent (erosion) , rebuilt
(accretion) or remain stable over time, depending on the varying
power and direction of the agents acting upon them and on the
type and availability of beach materials. Wave energy is the
principal agent of change on beaches although wind can also
supply sediment to them or deplete them. Waves attacking a beach
at oblique angles also generate longshore transport which, on
extensive stretches of the State's coast, travels generally in
one direction (for example, west to east on Lake Ontario, and
east to west along Long Island 's south shore). This redirected
wave energy will carry beach materials along its path, period-
ically depleting beaches at one point and augmenting them at
others. In some cases, as on Lake Ontario, the sand particles
are eventually lost in deep troughs offshore and thus permanently
removed from the process.l The most extensive beaches in the
State's coastal area are found on the . barrier islands and
"mainland" of Long Island , particularly along its south shore.
Although the width of beaches on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie
varies with the water levels of the lakes, for the most part the
relative scarcity of sand in the coastal lands and, in the case
of Lake Ontario, the sharp drop in the beach terrain offshore,
have not permitted accumulation of beach materials to the same
extent as on Long Island. Beaches are valuable as a first
defense against storm waves.
5 . 11
Dunes are formed from sand blown by onshore winds from adjacent
beaches and, except for the Deer Creek Marsh and Sandy Pond Marsh
area on Lake Ontario, are found only on Long Island. They are
constantly changing form, reaching a degree of stability only as
vegetation establishes itself. Those on Lake Ontario are of
special concern because they were formed thousands of years ago
when the lake was at a lower level. Once destroyed, they will
never reform because their source of sand is now underwater.
Dunes are fragile and very susceptible to damage by man's
activities. Dunes have a high value as a second tier of defense
against the powerful actions of storm-driven waters and as part
of the shore system.
Barrier islands are a unique shore form, the most significant
being found on Long Island at Fire Island and Jones Island.
(Smaller scale barrier features are also located elsewhere on
Long Island and at the mouths of several bays and streams of Lake
Ontario). These long, narrow accumulations of unconsolidated
materials comprise a beach fronting the ocean, a dune system. and
The
tidal wetlands or beaches and bays on their landward side.
islands are separated by tidal inlets which help flush the inner
bays. This combination of shoreforms and natural coastal
processes creates the most fragile and unstable of coastal lands
which, because of their location, are most attractive for
development. When unaltered by man, barrier islands respond to
natural forces by absorbing wave energy which, in major storms,
is dissipated on the beach and over the dunes , with beach
materials often being carried into the bay beaches or wetlands.
Barrier islands earn their name in this way by protecting the
waters of the inland bays and the shoreline of the "mainland".
After beaches, bluffs are the most prevalent landform in
the
State's coastal area. Erodible bluffs can be damaged by wave
attack and by landward sources such as surface runoff and ground-
water seepage. The degree to which waves contribute to bluff
erosion depends principally on the geologic composition and
structure of the bluffs, the strength of the waves, and the
energy-absorbing capacity of the beach at the base of the bluffs.
Strong waves, combined with high tides or lake levels which
reduce the width and thus the protection provided by the beaches,
will produce a high rate of bluff recession.
The attack on bluffs by landward sources can have an effect at
least as severe as that caused by waves, and includes: ground-
,hater seeping along permeable layers of sand, carrying soil with
its the gradual slippage of upper bluff materials along a clay
he bluff face by run-off
stratum= and direct erosion of t . The
following estimates of annual bluff recession rates on the
State's coasts reflect differences in the geologic composition of
the bluffs, as well as the relative strength of erosion or other
destructive agents at the bluff location: at Old Field Point on
Long Island, 5. 2 feet per year12 on the Lake Erie shoreline of
Chautauqua and Erie counties, from 0. 5 to 1. 1 feet per yearf3
and in the stretches of bluff in Oswego County on Lake Ontario,
up to 2.35 feet annually.4 Average annual recession rates, of
course, do not necessarily mean that the bluffs erode steadily at
a fixed rate. In some cases, individual storms or slumping may
remove land at many times the average rate.
II - 5- 12
Damages Resulting from Flooding and Erosion
On beaches, barrier islands, bluffs, and other hazard areas such
as low-lying flood plain lands, man has built houses and other
permanent facilities. Measures of the hazard risks and of the
large scale of investments made in those areas are suggested by
the following examples. In March 1973, storm waves resulting
from the action of strong northerly winds on a high lake level
caused damage estimated at $25 million to both public and private
property along the New York shore of Lake Ontario.5 As an
indicator of extreme conditions, 1977 estimates showed that over
$750 million in damages could be inflicted on the south shore of
Long Island between Fire Island Inlet and Montauk Point if the
coast were assailed by the most severe hurricane likely in that
locale at record high tide levels ( a standard project hurri-
cane) .6 The effects of erosion and flooding, however, are not
linked solely to catastrophic weather disturbances. For
instance, the Corps of Engineers has calculated that annual
damages along the 120 mile length of Long Island 's south shore
are in excess of $30 million. 7 In developing those hazard
areas, private as well as public investments are threatened. The
burden of maintenance or replacement of local, county or State
facilities, and post-storm debris removal, necessitated by
erosion and flooding, is borne by public funds. Thus, the drive
to locate as close as possible to the shorefront has resulted in
the commitment of massive private and tax-financed public
expenditures in areas where it is subject to damage or loss.
An additional consequence of development on hazardous shorelands
is that it may destroy natural protective landforms such as
beaches and dunes which could absorb the energy of stormwaters.
Thus, inland development which otherwise would be considered
outside the principal hazard zone may become vulnerable.
Damage from riverine flooding and erosion, while not of major
proportions compared with that incurred on the marine and Great
Lakes frontal shorelands, is significant. Some of the damage
occurs on the banks of tributary streams at points near the coast
where ice jams, or sediments carried down by the streams or by
longshore transport, block their flows. In the narrow channels
of the Hudson and St. Lawrence Rivers, erosion caused by ship
waves is of concern. Residents on the St. Lawrence River are
also particularly disturbed by the threat of erosion caused by
the movement of ice resulting from the Winter Navigation/Season
Extension Program now under consideration by the Secretary of the
Army. The State has affirmed its opposition to the Programa
The State is not opposed to shipping on the St. Lawrence River at
any time of year when ice conditions are not present. However,
the State finds that adequate economic and environmental informa-
tion does not exist to demonstrate the justifiability of any
season extensions on the River which are defined solely by
calendar dates. 9 The Program would have little economic
benefit to the State while it would impose serious effects upon
the management of levels and flows, fish and wildlife and their
habitats, production of hydroelectric power, rates of shoreline
erosion, and upon shoreline property.
T1 - C- I Z
Responses to Coastal Hazards
There are four types of responses to coastal hazards: ( 1) the
building of protective structures, including those which use
natural materials such as sand, to defend coastal property
against damage by flooding or erosion - the "structural"
responses (2) such actions as the planting of vegetative cover,
the re-shaping of bluffs or, perhaps the most prudent approach,
the avoidance of the hazards by siting buildings in safe loca-
tions - the "non-structural" response; (3) the purchase of
insurance against the hazards - the "insurance" response; and
(4) acceptance of the risk of damage to, and eventual loss of
property - the "do-nothing" response. The latter response is
one snot deliberately chosen by riparian owners but rather
forced upon them, most often due to their unawareness o the
hazards, or because of their inability to pay
her
alternatives. The other responses are often used in combination
with one another.
The "Structural" Response
The most common type of structural response is the installation
parallel to the shoreline of frontal protective devices against
erosion or flooding. There are several difficulties associated
with those widely used devices. Because of the great force
generated by coastal processes, the structures must be soundly
designed and constructed in order to be effective. However,
one study showed that along the eastern end of Lake Ontario and
the shores of the St. Lawrence River, less than half of the
frontal strucures inventoried were of more than limited
effectiveness-10 In addition, improperly designed frontal
structures such as bulkheads, revetments and seawalls may
accelerate the loss of beach materials as storm wave energy is
focused on the beach. Thus, a natural shield may be lost.
Difficulty also arises from attempts to protect a house located
on a narrow stretch of shoreland. Because erosion may continue
on the unprotected sides of the structure which are vulnerable
to lateral wave attack, the useful life of an otherwise sound
structure could be shortened considerably and erosion
conditions on adjacent lands exacerbated.
Protective structures are not only used as defenses against
direct frontal attack but also to prevent the loss of, and to
build up, beaches. However, the process of littoral transport
will add sand on the desired side of a groin or jetty only at
the expense of beaches down current which, being deprived of
their natural supply of sand, will be more subject to reces-
sion, thus eventually threatening buildings at that location. A
breakwater may create a similar effect by blocking wave energy
and slowing littoral transport, thus causing sand to accumulate
on the landward side of the structure.
II - 5- 14
One group of structural responses takes advantage of natural
materials. Dune-building and the replenishment of beaches
require sand in great quantities. Sand and gravel mining to meet
the future needs of the construction industry is a potentially
significant activity in the State's coastal waters. However,
care must be taken to ensure that these materials are not
obtained from sites, onshore or offshore, which are parts of the
delicately-balanced coastal process. The particle sizes of the
beach-building materials must also be compatible with the local
beach environment or the investment will be lost.
The high cost of protective devices is another problem of the
structural response. Because the cost of the most appropriate
structure will vary with specific site conditions, the following
estimates for a 100-foot stretch of shoreline are only illustra-
tive: stone revetment, eight feet high - $23,000; steel bulk-
head, ten feet high - $58,000; timber crib bulkhead, seven feet
high - $8,500.11 A further cost often overlooked by riparian
property owners is that necessary to implement a program of
maintenance for protective devices. Most structures, although
built to reasonable standards and design, will succumb over time
to the. powerful forces of the sea or lakes and must be inspected
and repaired to preserve their effectiveness. The long-term
protective capacity design of devices, and thus their original
cost may be reduced if property owners follow a prudent
maintenance program.
A final cost consideration arises from the case cited above of
the property owner who attempts to protect his own small length
of shoreline. On a stretch of coast possessing generally similar
characteristics of form, geologic materials, and exposure to
waves (technically termed a "reach" ) , the most efficient method
may be to protect the entire shoreline. This would require, of
course, the agreement of all property owners on the reach to
finance the undertaking. However, there may be economies of
scale which could make it attractive.
An important aspect of structural responses to coastal erosion
and flooding is public sector activities in providing costly
large-scale structural solutions including major groin fields,
bulkheads, beach nourishment, sand-bypass installations and
dune-building. The Federal government is the principal source of
those activities with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
assigned the greatest responsibility. Generally, the Corps is
authorized to become involved in shore, hurricane and tidal, and
lake flood protection studies and projects on the Great Lakes and
marine coasts as well as in riverine areas. However, in the case
of shore erosion and restoration projects, Federal funds may not
be used for the protection of private property unless it: (1) is
incidental to the protection of public property; (2 ) would result
in public benefits; or (3) is necessary to mitigate shore damages
on private property caused by Federal navigation works. An
exception to this principle is sometimes made in the event of the
threat of extreme flooding as in the Operation Foresight Program
initiated during a period of high water levels in the Great Lakes
area in 1972-73 through which emergency assistance was provided
to private property owners.
%x -15
The Corps of Engineers may also provide technical assistance to
private property owners on flooding and erosion problems. Most
Corps projects require cost-sharing with State and local govern-
ments for both construction and maintenance.
The largest Corps of Engineers coastal flood and erosion projects
are undertaken on the State's marine shorelands principally
because: the coastal processes there are more powerful; above
mean high water, many of the beaches are in public ownership
while almost all of them are owned by the State below mean high
water; and shoreline development is more intensive. However,
those projects often provoke controversy reflecting disagreement
as to their effects on shoreline resources as well as the
substantial expenditures involved, particularly in regard to the
State and local cost-sharing requirement.
Those elements are seen in the project to protect 83 miles of
Long island's coast from Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point at an
estimated cost of $138 million (1976 prices). Only five percent
of this project (authorized by Congress in 1960) has been com-
pleted by the placement of 17 of 50 proposed groins and 2,000,000
cubic yards of fill. However, the 15 groins in the Westhampton
Beach area, while stablizing the beach on the site, are alleged
to have caused heavy erosion to the west and consequent storm
damage to shorefront homes in early 1978. An interim project to
cure this problem would cost initially $42 million and an
additional $6 million every five years thereafter. The State's
share of first costs would be over $8 million while Suffolk
County would be required to provide almost $4 million.
Although many of the Corps' projects are single purpose (beach
erosion, or hurricane protection) , some are multi-purpose. On
Lake Erie, a new project at Cattaraugus Creek is expected to
reduce flooding upstream by preventing ice jams and longshore
transport sedimentation at the mouth of the stream. the primary
purpose of the project, however, is to create a harbor of refuge
to protect recreation craft from storm driven waters. The Corps
also has completed, or is investigating a few small projects
which do not require Congressional approval: examples include
the St. Columbans-on-the-Lake Emergen Bank Protection and Wendt
Beach Park Shoreline Erosion projects�2
The "Non-Structural" Response
The first component of the "non-structural" response is the
strengthening of landforms and the use of appropriate design
features in buildings as protection against flooding. ` A common
technique of this type is the planting and careful pieservation
of suitable vegetation on dunes and on the top or on the face of
bluffs to reduce erosion caused by wind, run-off or other agents.
II - 5 - 16
This technique, however, does not prevent wave erosion and is
often used in combination with frontal structures at the base of
the landform. Uther "non-structural" responses of this type
include: sand-fencing on dunes to help build up and hold the
sand; drainage systems on bluffs to prevent slumping and the
formation of gullies; mechanically reshaping the face of bluffs
to an angle of repose which will help prevent slumping , and the
flood-proofing of buildings or their elevation above the base
flood level.
The second component of the "non-structural" response to coastal
fling and erosion is the initial siting of development
en . hely out of the hazard areas. This method is the most
economical as it avoids the various difficulties, including the
high cost, of the "structural" approach. Yet it has not been
widely followed by shorefront owners. Although this approach
does not guarantee perpetual protection, it does significantly
improve property owners' chances of reducing the hazard
potential.
Some shore property owners with foresight, the necessary funds,
and available land, are able to move their buildings out of the
hazard zone before damage is incurred. Clearly, the less elabor-
ate the building, the greater the savings; some cottages can be
pulled to safety by a tractor while more substantial residences
must be carefully and expensively transported.
:he "Insurance" Response
Structural and non-structural measures and combinations thereof,
are allowable alternatives under the National Flood Insurance
Progran which offers insurance against property damage caused by
flooding and flood-related erosion. Property owners in a
community which is participating in this program may purchase
insurance, provided the local government regulates development in
the flood hazard area. Regulation includes requirements for
flood-proofing of buildings and restrictions on their siting in
the floodway. A special National Flood Insurance Program
regulation is applicable only to identified Coastal High Hazard
Areas on the marine coast which comprise lands subject to high
velocity waters caused by tidal surges or hurricane wave wash.
Designation of those areas has been made in the majority of
communities on New York State's marine coast. The main require-
ments applicable to such areas are that new construction or
substantial improvements must be: located landward of the mean
high tide line; elevated above the 100-year flood level with
space under the first floor to permit tidal or storm waters to
pass freely; and securely anchored. New mobile °homes are
prohibited. Additionally, alteration of sand dunes which would
increase potential flood damage is prohibited. State-owned and
State-financed facilities are subject to special regulations to
ensure that public investment in flood hazard areas i$ carefully
analyzed and appropriate steps taken to reduce the risk of damage
and loss of life. -
II - 5- 17
The National Flood Insurance Program also provides for the sale
of insurance to property owners against flood-related erosion
damage. However, the regulatory part of this program, which by
law must include restrictions on building in flood-related
erosion hazard areas, has not been initiated because the Federal
Emergency Management Agency has not issued final regulations.
The major obstacle is the difficulty in ascribing property damage
to flood-related erosion as opposed to other types of erosion.
Lake Levels
A further coastal hazard issue pertains to high water levels on
Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.13
The 'International Joint Commission (IJC) , established by treaty
between the United States and Canada, exercises control over the
rate of outflow from Lake Ontario, and thus influences the lake's
level, by ensuring implementation of the "Orders of Approval for
the Regulation of Lake Ontario" (which it issued for the opera-
tion of the St. Lawrence Power and Seaway Project in 1958). This
document sets forth the range within which the lake level will be
maintained, and the specific ways in which the interests of navi-
gation, power and shoreline property owners are to be taken into
account in regulating the lake's outflow. Direct responsibility
for implementing the Orders of Approval has been delegated by the
IJC to its arm, the International St. Lawrence River Board of
Control (SLRBC) . The SLRBC has developed a Plan of Regulation to
provide a systematic framework for its decisions.
Since the March 1973 storm mentioned earlier, the lake's water
levels have been more often in the upper part of the range set by
the Orders of Approval than in the lower half. Coastal property
owners, fearful of these continuing high water levels, have
criticized the IJC and the SLRBC for their failure to lower them.
The property owners' criticisms are threefold. First, they claim
that in its day-to-day examination of level and flow data and
implementation of the Order of Approval, the SLRBC tends to favor
navigation and power interests over shore property owners who
have no direct representation on that body. Second, the shore-
line residents claim that the regulatory plan and Orders of
Approval are inadequate and should be re-examined to find ways to
accommodate better the needs of shore property owners. Third, it
is argued that the IJC should investigate the feasibility of
changing the capacity of the St. Lawrence River to allow a
greater overall rate of outflow from Lake Ontario and thus a
greater flexibility for regulating its level.
At least partial satisfaction of the first criticism was achieved
in 1981 when an official of the State's St. Lawrence-Eastern
Ontario Commission was appointed to the SLRBC, replacing a
representative of the Federal Power Commission. 14
II - 5 - 18
A second action taken in response to these criticisms was the
Lake Ontario Shore Protection Act of 1976 (PL 94-587, Section
180-a) , which directs the Corps of Engineers ". . .to develop a
plan for shoreline and beach erosion control along Lake Ontario"
and ". . . include recommendations on measures of protection and
proposals for equitable cost sharing, together with recommenda-
tions for regulating the level of Lake Ontario to assure maximum
protection of the natural environment and to hold shoreline
damage to a minimum". The first phase of this study was com-
pleted, but funding for the remaining two phases is uncertain.
The proposed Winter Navigation Program mentioned earlier is also
of concern to lakeshore property owners because in addition to
its ether effects, the necessary ice breaking activities in the
St. Lawrence River may increase the level of Lake Ontario.
Shoreline residents of Lake Erie have also been concerned about
high water as, during the past decade, the mean monthly lake
levels have rarely been below the long term average. As a
result, flooding and erosion have caused damage along the coasts
of Erie and Chautauqua counties although, because of their more
erosion-resistant shorelands, the_ magnitude of erosion is not as
great as that oto the Lake Ontario coast. The IJC's Lake Erie
Regulation Study Board recently completed an investigation of the
feasibility of limited regulation of the lake and found that:
"the magnitude of the losses as compared to the benefits is such
that no reasonable changes in assumptions or evaluative tech-
niques could result in net benefits approaching the cost of the
Niagara regulatory works" necessary to implement regulation.15
In response to the United States and Canadian governments' recog-
nition of the need for a system-wide examination of levels and
flows problems throughout the Great Lakes, the IJC established
the International Great Lakes Levels Advisory Board (IGLLAB) in
1979. The U.S. and Canadian members of IGLLAB, who include U.S.
Section Chairman Robert C. Hansen, Coastal Program Manager,
N.Y.S. Department of State, have been directed to: (1) find ways
to increase public awareness and involvement in decisions regard-
ing levels and flows= and (2) make recommendations to the IJC on
actions which the Commission may wish to take regarding ongoing
and proposed activities such as the regulation of lake levels and
the Winter Navigation Program.
The lake level issue is complex. The fluctuating flow of waters
into and out of the Great Lakes system has produced in the past
both low and high water conditions causing varying amounts of
damage to the many interests which depend or front on the lakes
waters. The issue, therefore, is not how to avoid entirely loss
any one interest, but, rather how to ensure an equitable
jistribution of benefits among all interests.
II 5 - 19
Evacuation Needs
Climatological hazards such as hurricanes, northeasters, or
seismic disturbances can seriously impact the coastal area.
During the last 100 years, seven hurricanes have directly hit the
coast of New York State, and several other hurricanes have
affected the coast while passing offshore. The methods of
dealing with storm surge, wind, and flooding associated with
these natural hazards are addressed in the coastal management
program policies, particularly policies 11-17.
Evacuation planning is a necessary component of Coastal
Management, particularly when existing protection from natural
hazard impacts is inadequate. The New York State Office of
Disaster Preparedness has primary responsibility for evacuation
planning. Department of State will work with the office to
ensure adequacy of evacuation plans which may be necessary for
coping with these natural hazards.
xX - 5 - 20
FOOTNOTES
1 St. Lawrence Eastern Ontario Commission, A Report on Coastal
Resources.
2 Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, A Coastal Erosion
_Subplan for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, 1978.
3
Seibel, Erwin, et al , Technical Report on Determination of
Quantity and Quality o Great Laxes U.S. Shoreline Ero e
ateria , International Reference Group on Great Lakei
PollutiEn from Land Use Activities, International Joint
Commission, 1976.
4 St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission, Report on Coastal
Resources.
5 St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission, Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River: Analysis and Recommendations
Concerning High Water eve s, 1975.
6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Final
Environmental Im act Statement for Fire Island Inlet to
Montauk Point, New York Bea—ch Erosion Control and Hurricane
Protection Project, 1977, in Nassau-Suffolk Regional
P anning Board, op. cit.
7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, flew York District New York,
telephone conversation, August, 1981.
8 Letters of Governor Hugh L. Carey dated March 11, 1980 to
the U.S. Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and
October 19, 1981 to Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
9 Carroll, J.L. , etal. Season Extension on the Great Lakes/
St. Lawrence Seawa : A Critique of the Recommended Plan of
the Corps o Engineers, prepared for the NYS Department o
Transportation, July 1979= and Department of Environmental
Conservation, Environmental Assesment, FY1979 Winter
Navigation Demonstration on the St. Lawrence River, ummar
Volume and 15 studies appended as technicial report volumes,
June 1978 , prepared for the Winter Navigation Board.
10 St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission, .A Report on Coastal
Resources.
11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, Help
Yourself, 1978. Those data were prepared for the guidance
oU private property owners.
II - 5- 21
12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Current
Civil Works Pro 'ects of the U.S. ArmX Cors of Engineers
Buffalo District, May, 1977 an May, 1981.
13 See N.Y.S. Department of State, Coastal Management Program,
Draft Regional Element-Great Lakes West, 1978 and St.
awrence-Eastern Ontario omm ssion, Ana sis and Recommenda
tions Concerning High Water Levels, 1975 for more detailed
n ormat on on the LaXe Ontario water level issue.
14 The affiliations of the other three members of the SLRBC
are: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation and the Power Authority of
the State of New York.
15 International Lake Erie Regulatory Study Board, Inter-
national Joint Commission, Lake Erie Water Level Study: Main
Rte, 1981
II - 5- 22
PUBLIC ACCESS
Introduction
Public access to both the recreational and aesthetic
resources of the coast is a key element in the management of
coastal areas in New York State. There are two prinicpal
components of public access: access to existing recreation
resources; and, access to publicly-owned lands and waters of
the coastline at large. The first is linked to the coastal
. recreation issue discussed separately in this section.
Therefore, this public access discussion does not delve into
the need for recreation facilities or resources, but focuses
on problems in getting to these facilities and the coastline
at large.
Access to the Coast at Large
There are two types of conditions which impede public access
to those lands available for public use along the coast:
development and private ownership of land which create
man-made barriers to shorefront access; and natural shore-
line topography or conditions which make access difficult or
impossible. A large portion of New York's coastline is
devoted to private residential , commercial and industrial
use. Along much of this shoreline, the existing land uses
effectively block physical and visual access to the shore,
even where there are lands immediately adjacent to the shore
as well as lands underwater that are publicly-owned. In
other cases, owners of private property that is adjacent to
the publicly-owned foreshore and underwater lands often
legally and illegally restrict lateral access along the
foreshore. Where public rights-of-way to the shoreline do
exist, use of the shore itself is often restricted by
private beach/no trespassing signs.
Transportation facilities are another major man-made barrier
blocking access to the shore. Highways and railroads, both
in urban and rural areas, often provide views of the
shoreline and the water, but their presence usually makes it
difficult to get to the shore. The railroad tracks and
highways lining the Hudson River clearly illustrate this
problem and indicate why the River has failed to fulfill its
potential as a recreational amenity. The railroad tracks
follow both shorelines for long stretches; highways are
located adjacent to the river in cities such as Albany and
Poughkeepsie. inhere these conditions prevail, the Hudson,
aside from its visual value, remains detached from the
community. Moreover, where significant parcels of public
land do exist between transportation rights-of-way and the
river, one 's ability to reach them is often restricted
because it is either too dangerous to cross the right-of-way
or too expensive to provide a safe crossing. The need to
provide safe pedestrian and vehicle crossings is becoming
even more acute now that high speed rail travel has begun.
F) �i
Similar conditions exist along Lake Ontario, where the Lake
Ontario State Parkway is a distinct barrier to physical
access to the shore. In New York City, highways hinder much
of the access to the shore in all boroughs.
In many urban areas, there are numerous obstacles to
increasing public access to waterfronts. In addition to
Industrial and commercial land uses, decaying piers, and
abandoned buildings, unsafe neighborhoods have made the
waterfront an undesirable location for almost any activity.
Opposition from the coastal residential community also
4orves to impede efforts to increase general public access
So the shore. Community opposition, somewhat justifiable, is
tooted in the fear that increased public access would lead
to: (1) diminished individual enjoyments (2) decreased value
of private property adjacent to access points (3) increased
pollution, litter, and noises (4) undesirable commercial
developments and (5) intensified use conflicts as competi-
tion for waterfront space increases.
Visual access problems are caused by development patterns
and specific structural designs that either block the coast-
line from view or intrude upon the scenic coastal landscape.
The discussion on aesthetics contained in this Section deals
with the particular problems of visual access.
Public access is also limited by natural shoreline condi-
tions. Along parts of Lakes Erie and Ontario, Long Island,
and the Hudson River, cliffs and steep slopes, while they
provide great scenic value, preclude all but the most
ambitious from shoreline use.
The nature of public ownership of underwater lands and the
foreshore and the terms and legitimacy of their sale have a
long and complex legal history. The rekindled public aware-
ness of the value of coastal lands requires increased cir-
cumspection before the public lands along the shore are
disposed of or existing public rights of access are
restricted or constrained in any way.
Unfortunately, in a practice that
sand the lforeshorels# the withoutftate
ull
has sold oft underwater
consideration of the value of such lands for public use and
access to the water. This should not be construed to mean
that all sales must cease, but that each such proposed sale
must be carefully evaluated from both a public interest and
riparian rights standpoint. The public interest must
include eh and access tot such lands
public use the water and are held in trust.
II - 5- 24
Access to Coastal Recreation Resources
The other major component of the public access issue is
access to existing or potential coastal recreation
resources. A beach is the most commonly identified coastal
recreation resource. People want to get to the coast to
use beaches for swimming , sun-bathing, fishing , walking , or
simply for enjoyment of scenery. A problem in many areas
is lack of access to beaches. Thus, there is a need to
identify existing and future beach areas requiring
additional access. To aid in this identification, a
technical definition of "beach" has been developed (See
Public Access Planning Process in Part II , Section 7 ) .
Various forms of coastal beaches are found in New York
State. Steep headlands fronted by narrow beaches are common
along Lake Erie , Lake Ontario, the Hudson River, and the
Long Island Sound. Barrier complexes, formed by a sequence
of long , narrow barrier islands or bars , separated from the
mainland by a lagoon or marsh, are found along the south
shore of Long Island and the Port Ontario-Ellisburg region
of Lake Ontario. Sandy beaches fronting the continuous
ridges of sand dunes are also common, especia'Lly along the
southshore of Long Island. Barrier spits are formed when
littoral transport causes the projection of a sediment body
into a bay; i.e. , Rockaway spit and Southhampton spit on
Long Island. The bays and harbors that are found in many
coastal areas of the State normally contain narrow beaches
backed by bluffs or pocket beaches with associated dunes.
There are several factors associated with the concern for
access to existing or potential coastal recreation
resources. One relates broadly to transportation limita-
tions and inadequate parking facilities. The lack of
adequate public transportation to many coastal recreation
areas effectively limits access for many people, partic-
ularly urban residents unable to reach facilities located
in suburban or rural areas. In some areas, the lack of
public waterborne transportation limits access to key
barrier beaches, preventing them from being fully utilized
for recreation. Related to this problem are the limited
parking facilities found at many coastal recreation areas.
Beaches are often closed , not when the facilities are
crowded, but when the parking lot is full. In many
instances, recreation areas could accommodate increased use
by limiting automobile access and providing public trans-
portation such as shuttle buses from remote parking areas.
Restrictions on use of public recreation areas to local
residents exist in a number of coastal areas, such as along
Lake Ontario and on municipal beaches of Long Island.
These restrictions take the form of outright legal prohibi-
tions against non-residents using the facilities , or more
indirect means, such as restricting parking to residents
only, allowing no parking on streets adjacent to beaches,
and charging higher user fees for non-residents.
11 - 5- 25
RECRFATION
Introduction
Coastal areas are New York's most important outdoor recrea-
tion resource. Within these areas a narrow band along the
shore provides a wide variety of water dependent and en-
hanced recreational activities. Coastal residents and
visitors make the coast the most heavily utilized recreation
area in the State. This activity is often intensive and is
an important contributor to the State's economy, with many
coastal communities depending on the recreation industry for
their economic well being.
The appeal and importance of New York's coasts for recrea-
tion creates several concerns. The principal issue is: how
can the special qualities of the coastal area best serve the
demand for recreation, while ensuring that other land and
water use needs will be accommodated and that the natural
resource base will be protected? Flowing from this broad
issue are several more specific concerns. These include
conflicts with other uses of the coast; overuse of existing
coastal recreation areas ; the deficiency of water based
recreation in urban areas; conservation of historic and
cultural resources ; the particular needs of recreation
boating and fishing; and the desire to promote the private
sector's role in recreation.
Use Conflicts
Use conflicts are major barriers to coastal recreation. A
number of land uses which require coastal locations restrict
recreational use of the coast. For example, use of the
shoreline for rail transportation on both sides of the
Hudson River has limited physical access to the river. Yet,
the economic and social value of the railroad is such, that
needs for recreation must be secondary to improved rail
service. In urban areas, because the commerce and industry
of an earlier day was heavily water-dependent, many such
structures occupied shorefront locations. A number of these
facilities still remain, often in a deteriorated or dilapi-
dated condition, and limit access to the recreation oppor-
tunities of the shore. The costs of their removal , where
absolutely necessary, or more preferably their rehabilita-
tion are, along with land acquisition, often prohibitive to
cities wishing to reclaim the land for parks and recrea-
tional use. However, structures such as existing piers are
readily adaptable for recreational uses at reasonable costs.
Other barriers to the enjoyment of coastal recreation
include the presence of industrial plants, nearby sludge and
spoil disposal heaps, pollution control facilities, and
elevated transportation routes. In rural areas, residential
development along the shoreline consumes potential public
recreation space as well as blocks access to the coast.
Use conflicts also take the form of destruction of resources
necessary for recreation. Poor water quality plagues
existing swimming beaches and limits development in some
coastal locations. Water pollution is also a major deter-
rent to the growing sport fishery in the State. Toxic
chemicals, such as Mirex, polychlorinated biphenols and
mercury, have resulted in fishing bans on some species in
the Hudson River and the issuance of health advisories
regarding the consumption of fish from Lake Ontario. Air
and noise pollution additionally limit the recreational
appeal of waterfronts for many outdoor activities.
Natural coastal processes create problems for recreation.
Shifting sand bars intermittently block the openings to
bays, creeks and rivers, thereby cutting off boater access
to the coastal waters. Thus, if boating access is desired,
dredging of channels is necessary. Heavy seas erode beaches
and sudden storms create hazards for boaters if harbors of
refuge are not nearby. In addition, natural , and in some
cases even artificial fluctuations in water levels can
adversely affect fish resources by disrupting breeding
habitats and can severely reduce the size of beaches for
swimming .
On the other hand , the intensity or nature of recreation
activities may pose threats to natural resources. For
example, an embayment or estuary, which is now a productive
fish and wildlife habitat, may be an ideal location for a
harbor of refuge,but the attendant noise and pollution from
motor boats and marine activity may disrupt the fish and
wildlife habitat. Recreation development may also have an
adverse impact on the character of existing shorefront
residential areas by encouraging increased activity levels,
commercial development, and other conflicts with existing
development.
Excessive Use
Each recreation resource has a maximum capacity. Over-use
can impair the quality of the resource and the recreation
experience. Thus, with the increasing number of people
participating in coastal recreation activities, there is a
potential for excessive use of the coastal resources of the
State. Excessive use has a number of effects. It can
frequently result in water and noise pollution. Fragile
coastal resources such as wetlands and dunes, may be damaged
1New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, En-
vironmental Assessment, FY 1979 Winter Navigation Demonstration
on the St. Lawrence River# Technical Summary volumes, P; 32.
II - 5- 27
merely by excessive foot traffic or off-road vehicles.
Other areas, such as islets and offshore rocks that provide
protected bird sanctuaries are often disturbed by any human
intrusion.
Most coastal recreation is seasonal due to climate and
txisting vacation habits. The coastal recreation season
consists, for the most part, of weekends and the summer
vacation months. This is an unavoidable complication en-
countered when providing parks and recreation facilities for
a large population.
Urban Area Needs
In New York State, urban areas generally exhibit the
greatest recreation deficiencies along with the highest use
of existing facilities. Poor water quality, restricted
coastal access, high development costs, and many alternative
demands for limited space severely restrict attempts to
overcome these deficiencies. The needs of the poor,
elderly, and handicapped are particularly affected .
Historic and Cultural Resources
New York State is rich in historic, archeological, and
cultural resources which are important for their recrea-
tional as well as aesthetic and educational value. Unfortu-
nately, there is yet no program or law to prevent the owner
of a significant historic resource from impairing its
historic character or demolishing it. Many significant
historic sites have already been destroyed. Other sites are
threatened by deterioration, lack of maintenance, and
encroaching adjacent incompatible uses.
Recreational Boating and Fishing
Boating and fishing are significant recreational activities
in the coastal waters of New York State. The fundamental
requirement is to provide safe and desirable facilities to
accommodate the demand. While some areas have adequate
facilities now, growing demand indicates increased defic-
iencies in the future. A recent study indicates future
growth in recreational boating in the Great Lakes basin
area. 2 The Department of Environmental Conservation has
initiated a fish stocking program in both Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario. This also promises to increase demand for boating
2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
"Report on Regional Facilities in New York 's Coastal Area" , 1977.
II - 5- 28
facilities. A boating survey indicates the marina industry
on Long Island is grossing $55 million annually, yet marina
facilities are being lost to other more profitable land
uses. At the same time, existing facilities are not
meeting current demands. Public and private marinas report
backup lists of 2n0-300 requests. Furthermore, an undocu-
mented but apparent trend seems to indicate that demand for
small boat launching sites to service smaller boats is
crowing. In New York City in particular, the high costs of
boat ownership combined with an inadequate number of marina
facilities discourage recreational boating in spite of the
opportunities that exist in the waters around the City for
enjoying this activity.
New York State has the potential for developinq one of the
hest sport fisheries in the nation (cf. section on FISH AND
WILDLIFE) . Realizing this potential will require the
provision of adequate support facilities at the shoreline.
Among the facilities needed are a sufficient number of
"Harbors of Refuge" along the shoreline of the Great Lakes.
These harbors must be provided at suitable intervals to
assure safety in the event of rapidly developing inclement
weather. In addition, adequate public marina facilities,
including boat launching ramps, docks and storage areas , are
needed to serve the sport fishermen.
Public vs. Private Ownership
Roth the public and private sectors provide recreation
facilities. In most cases there is little or no overlap.
For example , lodging is generally provided by the private
sector and large developed beaches are generally accepted as
a public responsibility. Where government and private
enterprise are providing the same type of facilities, they
usually serve different markets. However, in some instances,
direct competition has developed. This can create economic
problems for private enterprise and utimately less service
to the public. For example, in the Buffalo area several
firms lost a significant number of their customers to a
recently constructed state-owned marina. On the other hand ,
in some areas of the State, public marinas have attracted
additional boats to the area and boatyard owners have
concluded that public facilities actually helped their
businesses.
3Sea Grant Advisory Service, Cornell University, Ongoing
Research of Recreational Boating on the Shoreline of Westchester
County, New York City and Long Island, Ithaca, NY, 1974.
4Noden and Brown, The New York 'Commercial Marina and Boat and
Industry, 1972, pp. 31, 4
II - 5- 29
often the laws and practices of the various levels of
government have inhibited or at least not promoted coopera-
tion with private enterprise in the provision of recreation
facilities. Many jurisdictions do not permit the develop-
ment of commercial facilities on public parkland-5 The term
of a lease to a private individual that a municipality may
grant for operation on public land is limited by State law.
Since large recreation facilities require a long amortiza-
tion period, this limitation has discouraged private
investment in some aspects of public recreation.
*ecause both public and private investment is necessary to
unsure adequate recreation opportunities, the State must
continue to address the issue of how to assure that a
mutually beneficial relationship evolves between private and
public investment in recreational facilities.
5 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, National Urban Recreation
Study, New York, Newark, Jersey city, . p• 94.
II - 5- 30
SCENIC QUALITY
Introduction
Of the shoreline's many attributes, coastal scenery is
perhaps the most universally appreciated. At least three
basic characteristics contribute to the visual quality of
coastal landscapes: water in its many moods; dynamic
coastal landforms; and expansive views. This environment
attracts wildlife of all forms which also contributes to the
aesthetic quality of the coast. To a degree, even the more
ordinary coastal landscapes possess these attributes.
In great part, scenic resource studies have concentrated on
natural characteristics. This emphasis results from the
perception that natural landscapes are more visually
pleasing than man-modified environments. However, in many
locations, man has changed coastal landscapes in ways which
harmonize with or even enhance their natural scenic
qualities. Old fishing villages, rolling farmlands, and
dynamic city skylines are examples of man's intervention
which have added character and interest to coastal areas.
Beyond their inherent worth, scenic attributes of the coast
augment other values. They combine with recreational
possibilities to make the coast a prime location for
vacationers and thus offer the potential for growth of the
tourist industry.
We have long recognized the importance of scenic resources
for recreational, psychological, educational, and economic
purposes. In 1972 , Congress gave coastal aesthetic quality
even greater importance through the Coastal Zone Management
Act which states:
The Congress finds that the coastal zone is
rich in a variety of natural, commercial,
recreational , industrial and aesthetic
resources of immediate and potential value to
the present and future well-being of the
Nation. (5302(b) )
Similarly, the New York State Legislature in the Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act of 1981 has found
that:
New York State's coastal area is unique with
a variety of. . .aesthetic resources of state-
wide and national significance. (5910)
II - 5- 31
Degradation of Scenic Resources
While the New York State Legislature has recognized the
value and benefits of scenic resources, its concerns are
frequently not translated into real protection and enhance-
ment of these resources. Instead, large and small-scale
development projects often ignore and degrade natural
coastal landforms and attractive man-made features.
Larq a-scale development -- whether industrial , commercial or
residential -- has a greater chance of impairing aesthetic
value, but even a single prominent structure can signifi-
cantly affect the scenic quality of an area.
Other degrading conditions may accompany development and
reduce the aesthetic quality of the coast. Such unattrac-
tive conditions include: deteriorated buildings and piers,
billboards and signs, power lines, transportation networks,
litter, and visible air and water pollution.
The most complete degradation occurs when development blocks
views of coastal waters. In urban areas, the problem is
especially serious, because few visual access points remain.
But the problem exists as well in rural areas where linear
residential and commercial development often spreads to
prevent visual access for all but shorefront property
owners.
Protection of Scenic Quality
In order to protect scenic quality, the characteristics of
scenic landscapes must be more completely considered during
the course of making development decisions. Scenic quality
assessment and protection is a relatively new and complex
field. The complexity results from the uniqueness of each
landscape area and from varying opinions about what consti-
tutes scenic beauty. Even where there is agreement about
the outstanding quality of a given resource, there may still
be varying opinions about what would seriously impair this
quality.
As a result of the many complexities and differing opinions,
scenic resources have been unsystematically inventoried and
assessed; as noted above, they have often been disregarded
altogether when development decisions were made. To assure
more complete consideration of scenic quality, the State
Coastal Management Progam will identify certain significant
coastal resources and will provide more specific guidelines
for protecting and enhancing scenic quality. Local, State
and Federal agencies will , thus, be able to more fully
consider the potential effect of proposed developments and
avoid despoiling coastal scenery.
II - 5- 32
AGRICULTURE
Introduction
Agriculture is New York State's largest industry, with 1979
sales of $2.2 billion.l Dairy farming accounts for more
than 508 of these sales.2 Fruit and vegetable production,
the second largest source of income, accounts for 138 of the
total. To produce this wealth, New York farming occupies
8.7 million acres , of which 358 (3.0 million acres) are in
the coastal counties. These counties are the primary
location of the State's important fruit and vegetable
farming, which in 1978 had a market value of $240.5
million.
While only a small portion of the agricultural land in
coastal counties is devoted to fruit and vegetable farming,
it produces nearly 108 of the total market value of all
agricultural products produced in New York State. Because
of the positive climatic influences of coastal waters , most
of this farming, particularly that devoted to fruit, is
concentrated In areas immediately adjacent to the coast.
Loss of Agricultural Lands
Although the latest U.S. Census of Argiculture3 reveals
that, for first time in decades, the amount of land devoted
to farming in New York has not decreased, the following
factors indicate that the preservation of good farmland is a
continuing problem for the State. Since 1945 nearly half of
the land then being farmed has been lost to other uses.
Though much of this loss is irrevocable, it is not all so.
And while it is understandable that a highly urbanized state
might not, or need not, be self-sufficient in food produc-
tion, New York's present very low level of self sufficiency
increases the cost of food to the State's population and the
State's vulnerability to agricultural calamity elsewhere.
Finally, while the trend toward continual loss of land in
farming may now not be alarming for New York State, the
trend is not consistent across the State. Much land in the
1 New York Crop Reporting Service New York State Department of
Agriculture i Markets.
2 Unless otherwise identified all data is from the 1978 U.S.
Census of Agriculture (published in 1982 ) and is for farms with
sales of over $2,500.
3 According to the U.S. Censuses of Agriculture for 1969 and
1978, the amount of land in New York in farms with sales over
$2,500 was 2,998,395 and 3,010,231 respectively, an increase of
.4 per cent.
xI 5- 33
State is continuing to go out of production, often in areas
that possess the most agriculturally significant land.
These lands produce crops that are a unique or siqnificant
part of national food production e.g. , grapes, sour
cherries, carrots, and onions. In two of the three
important fruit growing areas along the coast, land in
orchards has declined. Along the southern shore of Lake
Ontario from Niagara to Wayne County, land in orchards has
declined by 13.31 between 1969 and 1978. In the Hudson
Valley the principal fruit growing counties of Columbia,
Ulster, and Dutchess have experienced 5.31 decline in
orchards over the period. In Chautauqua County, however,
there has been a 201 increase in the amount of land in
vineyards. In Suffolk County, where much farmland is near
the shore and where farming has consistently generated the
highest market value of farm products of any county in the
State, land in farming has declined by 16.41 between 1969
and 1978.
While there is widespread recognition of the problem of the
loss of farmland, mechanisms for addressing the problem
remain at issue. To be effective, programs to preserve
agricultural land must be comprehensive and authoritative,
yet they must also be adaptable to changing market forces
and responsive to the legitimate property interests of
farmers.
Urban development, as it expands outward into farming areas,
is the major cause of farm loss. In addition, land goes out
of farming at the urban/rural fringe for the following,
often interrelated , reasons : 1) Farming is dependent on
nearby agribusiness enterprises; these, in turn, require a
minimum number of active farms. Once a certain number of
farms cease production and the level of agribusiness is
reduced , the economic viability of the remaining farms is in
question. 2 ) The proximity of an urban labor market begins
to provide alternative employment opportunities to farmers
and farm laborers. 3 ) In urban/rural fringe areas, local
ordinances often restrict farm operation. 4 ) Declining or
low net farm income and high inheritance taxes4 are factors
in the loss of farmland. 5 ) Urban land values raise local
property taxes to levels beyond what is appropriate for its
value for agricultural use . And , 6) Major public infrastruc-
ture investment can accelerate or direct urban growth into
farming areas.
4 Recent changes in tax law have reduced this burden on farm
owners
II - 5- 34
Definition of Important and Valuable Farmland
Different approaches to identifying impoitant farmland have
been taken. Howard Conklin's 1968 study rated farms based
on high, medium, and low economic viability. The State
Development Plan6 restructured this identification into
categories referred to as exceptional , high viability and
medium viability farming areas. The Soil Conservation
Service identifies soils according to several categories of
capability and also has a system for identifying important
farmland as prime, unique, or of statewide or local impor-
tance. In a report prepared for the State 1701 ' Land Use
Element, the Agricultural Resources Commission recommended
that "No one all-encompassing definition of important farm-
lands is practical or desirable." Rather, the Commission
recommended that agricultural land use policy be based on
various combinations of information about soil quality,
economic viability of farming, climate, and existing land
use patterns. This recommendation was considered the best
approach. Therefore, for the operation of the Coastal
Management Program, important farmland has been defined as:
1 ) those lands which meet the United States Soil Conserva-
tion Service' s criteria as being prime, unique , or of state-
wide importance; 2 ) active farmland within Agricultural Dis-
tricts; and 3 ) agr 7 ultural areas identified as having high
economic viability.
Note: Since the above definition was adopted, the State has
developed a new system for identifying and valuing farmland.
In the near future the program will shift to this defi-
nition. The land captured by it is essentially the same.
5 Howard r New Yorkh Stateure and Col lege Distribution
of Agr culturef, 1968in in New
York State, New
6 New York State Office of Planning Coordination, New York
State Development Plan 1, 1971, p. 48
7 This term is defined in the explanation of Program Policy
26.
II - 5- 35
ENERGY
Introduction
New York's coast Plays an important role in satisfying the energy
needs of the State. It provides sites for numerous energy
facilities, including steam-electric generating plants (oil ,
coal, nuclear) ; hydro-electric generating plants; electric and
gas transmission lines; oil and gas exploration, development,
transfer and storage facilities (including LNG facilities) ; and
alternative energy facilities. All these facilities are located
near the coast for one or more reasons: (1 ) access to shipping
corridors for fuel; (2 ) proximity to the consumers of energy;
(3) abundance of cooling water for electric generating Plants;
and (4 ) use of water for direct production of energy from hydro-
power and possibly in the future from wind , wave and tidal
power.
Some energy facilities depend on coastal locations in order to
function, while others , such as closed-cycle power plants and oil
and gas storage tanks, are able to operate at sites inland from
the shoreline. Therefore, in view of the competition among many
types of uses for shorefront locations, proposed energy facil-
ities must be carefully studied to determine their dependency on
coastal sites and resources. In addition to technical require-
ments, other factors must be considered , including public need ,
environmental impacts, and construction and operation costs of
various site alternatives.
The New York State Coastal Manaqement Program (CMP) recognizes
that all energy facilities have certain positive and negative
aspects. They satisfy enerqy demands of individuals , commerce
and industry and create employment opportunities. But these
facilities often require large parcels of land and present
potential dangers to the people and natural resources of the
coast.
A special issue concerns ice management practices. The annual
placement of an ice boom in the Niagara River is essential to
protect power facility water intakes from ice jams and
simultaneously to safeguard downstream shorelines from excessive
ice scourinq and flooding. The timing of installation and
removal of the boom, however, must be carefully reckoned to
ensure the greatest benefits from its use. In other instances,
skillful control of ice formation helps avoid loss of power
production crucial to the State's economic growth while reducing
the risk of flooding and erosion damage.
r
zz 5- 37
Possible impacts of energy facilities on coastal resources
include the following:
Chemical, thermal and/or radioactive discharges into
the air and water of the coast and entrainment and
thermal shock of fish resulting from the operation of
various types of steam electric generating plants;
Alteration of landforms and vegetative cover, degrada-
tion of scenic resources and possible health hazards
from electric transmission lines or fuel pipelines. The
extent of impact from transmission lines and pipelines
on the coastal area will, of course, depend on whether
they run perpendicular or parallel to the coastline;
Spills associated with the transport and storage of
petroleum products;
Explosions and fires associated with petroleum or LNG
facilities;
On-shore land use conflicts and disruption of
underwater habitats from possible Lake Erie gas
exploration and production and from OCS activities.
Degradation of air quality becasue of dust emissions
resulting from the transportation and handling of coal
for an increasing number of coal-fired power plants as
well as the stack gases emitted from these fossil fuled
facilities.
New Energy Sources
The State 's coast may play an additional role in supplying new
sources of energy. Natural gas is present under Lake Erie , and
there is commercial as well as public interest in recovering this
resource. Also, a high resource find on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) could be an important supplemental source of energy
for the State. However, significant environmental problems could
be associated with production in Lake Erie or the Atlantic Ocean.
One issue in Lake Erie is the potential for damage to the lake's
biota and water quality. Drilling operations and the placement
of gas pipelines underwater would result in increased localized
turbidity due to disposal of drilling muds and disturbance of
bottom materials. These operations would have temporary adverse
effects on benthic organisms. Mobile organisms such as fish
should be able to avoid the area and thus any harmful effects,
although significant fish habitats could be threatened. Damaging
impacts would result if construction operations stirred up toxic
wastes which were previously dumped in the lake. Concerns have
also been expressed about the effect of gas exploitation on Lake
Erie's waters upon which Buffalo and other communities depend for
their water supply.
II - 5- 38
A second issue in Lake Erie centers upon the possibility of
accidental oil and gas spills. It is generally accepted by
geologists that the chances of finding oil under the lake are
very small. As for natural gas, the extremely high pressures
associated with Well blowouts are not expected to be encountered
in Lake Erie. If a leak does occur, the gas would bubble to the
surface and disperse. A large leakage of gas would present an
immediate hazard although such an occurrence would cause minimal
environmental damage.
OCS production could result in significant environmental pro-
blems, including impacts on important fish wintering grounds and
migr#tion routes. Drilling , dredging, and laying pipelines could
present possible dangers, but the most serious danger is that of
oil spills, both at the platform and from tankers traveling the
Nantucket-Ambrose lanes. Major and minor spills could adversely
affect fish, wildlife and vegetation in the Long Island area.
Controlling such spills is difficult at best and made all the
more so by severe weather conditions which frequently occur in
the Atlantic. Oil spills could not only damage shore and near-
shore natural resources but also have drastic impacts on the
economic health of Long Island 's multi-million dollar fishing ,
tourism and recreation industries. A spill duriny harvesting or
vacation periods could be devastating. In addition, potential
OCS operations pose navigational risks to ships transiting the
Nantucket - Ambrose lanes. Discarded equipment resting on the
ocean bottom also poses a threat to fishing trawls. Finally,
onshore support facilities, if any are sited in the New York City
- Long Island area, may have beneficial and adverse impacts. The
primary benefit would be the creation of jobs and an income
producing industry. On the other hand , the nature and extent of
any adverse effects would depend upon the facility. For
instance, a supply base would generate excessive noise and reduce
navigational safety due to increased shipping and helicopter
traffic.
3`i
WATER RESOURCES
Introduction
One of New York State's major assets is its abundant water
resources available to meet domestic, commercial, and
industrial water supply demands. The tourist industries
thrive in the Eastern Ontario and Long Island regions of the
State because of the distinctive water recreation and scenic
values of these areas. Vast quantities of high quality water
from Lake Ontario proved to be a key incentive for locating
several breweries in upstate New York. The natural,
deep-water harbor at New York City and the Hudson River
provide an important transportation artery linking the
Atlantic Ocean and upstate New York.
New York State is committed to protecting and developing its
water resources. Since 1962, the State has spent about ten
million dollars to develop comprehensive sewerage studies.
Under the Pure Waters Program established in 1965 and
subsequent bond issues, voters have authorized nearly $1.7
billion for construction of sewage treatment facilities.
In 1975, the State, after bringing its long standing
pollutant discharge control program into conformance with
requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(FWPCA) Amendments of 1972 (PL-92-500 ) , established the
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) which,
like its predecessor programs, regulates municipal and
industrial discharges into surface and groundwaters of the
State.
Under the FWPCA, the State has also conducted basinwide
water quality surveys (303 (e) ) and areawide water quality
management (208)1 studies. These studies provide a
reassessment of the State's water quality problems and
management needs. Of the six primary water basins with
greatest water quality management problems, four of them
encompass New York's entire coastal frontage. In addition,
these studies indicate that although the State has been able
to make great strides in controlling water pollution from
raw sewage and easily discernable industrial wastes, there
remains an even more complex set of water quality problems
including toxic substances, surface runoff and residual
wastes. These problems are nationwide in scope and their
significance went unnoticed until previously unregulated
point source pollutants were eliminated. More attention has
been given to such pollution problems under the 1977
amendments to the FWPCA (the Clean Water Act, PL 95-217 ).
1The references are to sections of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500)
xI ^ 5- 41
Integration of State water quality and coastal management
programs are precisely what was intended by Congress under
Section 307 (f ) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended. This section specifies that water quality
management requirements developed under or pursuant to
F11PCA1, as anended, shall be the water pollution control
requirements applicable under such coastal programs.
Industrial tastes and Toxic Substances
New York State presently regulates the direct discharge of
Industrial wastes into surface and groundwaters through its
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Most of these
wastes must be treated before being discharged. The
effectiveness of this permit program is dependent on the
availability of the information pertaining to the relative
toxicity and the technology to treat these wastes. Without
this infornation, certain chemical wastes may be unknowingly
discharged into the environment in amounts greater than
should occur, only to be discovered later to have danger-
ously adverse health effects. Such has been the case With
the toxic industrial chemicals, Mirex and PCb's which have
created serious biological consequences in Lake Ontario and
the Hudson River. Presently, the annual proliferation of
new chemicals creates a tremendous challenge to State and
Federal governments' efforts to monitor their production and
distribution, establish discharge tolerance limits, develop
treatment technologies and regulate their discharge into the
environment.
Municipal Sewage Treatment
Through the State's 208 program, the twenty-year population
projections used for determining municipal waste water
treatnent needs have been updated, refined and disaggregated
to a minor civil division level. Procedures are being
developed to ensure that facilities planning and design will
be consistent with these revised projections. The construc-
tion of new and upgrading of existing municipal sewage
treatment plants is funded with monies made available by the
State Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1965 and Section 201
of the fl:PCA.
Unfortunately, there have been construction delays due to
difficulty in financing the local shares length of lead time
required for planning, design and site preparation; delays
in the processing of applications; and increasing costs.
Hence, partially treated sewage is still polluting the
State's waters , particularly in the vicinity of large
metropolitan areas. Recent budget cuts for the federal
Construction Grants Program may even further delay construc-
tion of sewage treatment plants scheduled to be built. It
should be noted that the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency and Congress are considering a reduction in the
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) standard from 85% to 50$.
If this lower standard is adopted, the cost of treatment
facilities that meet this requirement will be less, thus
reducing future construction delays.
Because of rising costs, conventional sewage collection and
treatment systems may not be economically feasible in many
small coastal communities and rural areas. In many of these
areas, failure of on-site septic systems or absence of
sewage treatment has resulted in excessive nutrient enrich-
ment of surface Waters, groundwater contamination and
sanitary problems.
Urban Stormwater Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflows
As New York State has progressed in treating industrial and
municipal point sources of pollution, the relative signifi-
cance of the pollution effects of urban stormwater runoff
and combined sewer overflows has become more apparent. In
many of New York's major urban areas, a single sewer system
collects and transports sanitary sewage and stormwater
runoff to the municipal treatment plants. During storms,
the volume of flow through the system exceeds the plant 's
treatment capacity. The excess, therefore , is not treated
and is discharged directly into the receiving waters. Such
discharges include nutrients, coliform and pathogenic
bacteria, organic wastes, lawn and garden chemicals, animal
wastes, petroleum wastes from streets and parking lots, road
salt, garbage and other assorted debris. Even where separ-
ated storm and sanitary sewer systems are used, such as on
Long Island, untreated waters are discharged from the storm
sewer systems with high levels of many of the same
contaminants.
Untreated discharges have forced the closing of public
beaches near Rochester, restricted shellfishing on Long
Island, reduced dissolved oxygen levels in the New York and
Buffalo Harbors, and may be contributing to degradation of
groundwater on Long Island.
A major constraint to addressing the problems created by
urban stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows is the
expense of structural control measures such as the installa-
tion of separate sewer lines, large underground storage
systems or construction of large catchment basins. At
present, Federal financial assistance is not available for
constructing stormwater treatment facilities. Non-structural
methods, such as control of lawn and garden chemicals and
pet control ordinances, may prove difficult to enforce,
because they often depend on voluntary citizen compliance.
In some parts of the coastal area, such as Long Island,
there are close relationships between stormwater runoff and
groundwater quantity and quality. These issues are discussed
further in the sub-section on "Groundwater".
TI - 5- 43
Agricultural Runoff and Wastes
In recent years there has been considerable controversy over
(1) the relative magnitude and significance of the pollution
of State waters generated by agricultural activities and (2)
the determination of which management practices are most
cost effective in mitigating the water quality impacts of
agricultural operations. The non-point water quality
problem associated with agricultural practices is the
transport of nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, organic
matter and sediment by storm runoff into surface waters.
Silting in of fish spawning habitats, excessive growth of
algae or rooted aquatic plants, decrease in dissolved oxygen
concentrations and contamination of certain aquatic
organisms are impacts associated with this water quality
problem.
The variability in data from recent rural non-point studies
makes it difficult to formulate a clearly defined cause and
effect relationship between a given agricultural practice
and an associated water quality impact. A case by case
examination of potential problem areas and application of
"Best Management Practices" for specific problems at a given
site is presently the most practical approach to handling
agricultural and other rural surface water runoff problems.
Vessel Wastes
Commercial and recreation boat discharges of shipboard
wastes (e.g. , sewage, garbage, bilge and cleaning wastes)
degrade surface water quality, particularly in enclosed
embayments and estuaries where diluting water volumes are
low and vessel usage may be high. Serious public health
hazards may result when untreated vessel wastes are
discharged near shellfishing areas, bathing areas or public
water supply intakes.
The Coast Guard enforces Federal regulations established by
the Environmental Protection Agency in waters of the United
States, including territorial seas. Federal sanitary vessel
waste treatment standards, however, are less stringent than
New York's standards. Present technological constraints for
treating sanitary wastes, particularly on smaller
recreational craft, make statewide enforcement of the
State's stricter effluent standards impractical. However,
the prohibition of all vessel waste discharge is feasible on
an area-specific basis, i.e. , near shellfishing and bathing
areas, and where adequate pumpout and treatment facilities
are available. Federal law now prohibits discharges near
public water supply intakes.
II • 5- 44
Dredging and Dredge Spoil Disposal
Dredging is a useful management tool serving a variety of
purposes such as navigation channel maintenance, marina and
shoreline development, beach nourishment, and pollutant
removal. There is also substantial interst in the extensive
offshore sand and gravel deposits in the State's coastal
waters, especially in the New York Bight. These are viewed
as a future supply of materials for the construction
industry in urban areas which now depends largely on
decreasing local terrestrial supplies. Unfortunately, many
adverse environmental impacts have been associated with the
processes of dredging and dredge spoil disposal ,
particularly when the sediments are polluted.
During dredging operations, sediments are resuspended and
mixed with water; this process thereby increases the
potential for immediate release of contaminants into
surrounding environments. After the dredge sediments are
deposited at an open water disposal site, contaminants may
be released slowly from the spoil mound into the overlying
water column for several years. Because of this threat, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires that polluted
dredge spoils be "capped" with clean sediments.
Alternative dredge spoil disposal methods include upland
disposal and placement behind diked enclosures.
The
shortage of suitable onshore disposal sites and the
potential leaching of contaminants into adjacent ground and
surface waters make these alternative methods expensive and
environmentally unsafe. For example, New York State faces a
difficult challenge in the safe removal and disposal of
sediments that are contaminated with PCB's from "hot spots"
in the upper Hudson River.
Important adverse physical impacts on coastal waters may
result from dredging and disposal activities. These include
changes in bottom topography, local water circulation
patterns, and flushing , erosion and sedimentation rates.
Secondary biological effects,
f and ch as the loss chemical impacts identified
may result from the physical
above.
Environmental problems associated with dredging and spoil
disposal can be minimized through careful selection of the
disposal sites and timing of the dredg-ing and spoil disposal
operations. Such efforts, however, are thwarted by a lack
of baseline data, e.g. , location of important habitats,
seasonal distribution of fish populations, local hydrologic
conditions and sediment transport patterns.
. II - 5- 45 -
Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Spills
The potential for oil and hazardous substances spills in New
York's coastal waters is high because of the substantial
amount of commercial shipping. The possibility of such
spills occurring in these waters is greater in major urban
areas which have numerous oil and other bulk storage
facilities. Nearly 1,000 oil and hazardous material spills
were reported in New York State in 1976. In addition to
spills, many bulk storage facilities also present air
quality and fire hazard problems.
The potential development of offshore oil and gas resources
along New York's Atlantic shore and the onshore facilities
essential to this activity increase the chances for
spillage. The recent lifting of the ban on gas drilling
beneath Lake Erie and the possibility of extending the Great
Lakes navigation season increase the potential of the
spillage of oil and hazardous substances in these coastal
waters.
The cumulative effects of a series of small spills on water
quality and other environmental degradation may be as great
or greater than those caused by a single large spill.
Consequently, a sophisticated surveillance and cleanup
program is needed.
Adequate baseline data indicating the distribution patterns
of important living aquatic resources is necessary in order
to identify critical areas where spill incidents would cause
serious biological damage. The data would assist in the
proper siting of facilities and transportation routes and
would be utilized in establishing cleanup priorities for New
York Harbor and the Hudson and St. Lawrence Rivers and other
vulnerable areas along New York's coastline where there is
intense shipping traffic.
Nutrients
High nutrient levels in coastal waters can stimulate exces-
sive growth of rooted aquatic plants and algae blooms, and
thus lower dissolved oxygen levels. These conditions
disrupt water-oriented recreational activities such as
swimming , boating and fishing.
In marine waters, nitrogen is usually the limiting nutrient
to plant growth, while phosphorous is generally the limiting
nutrient in fresh waters. While nutrients do not generally
create a problem in open waters, recent episodes of anoxic
conditions in the New York Bight indicate that the effects
of nutrient overload have extended to the outer continental
shelf. The effects of nutrients are most evident in bays
and harbors of Long Island and the Great Lakes.
11 -• 5 - 0
The accumulation of nitrates in groundwater can create a
health problem, especially when an underground aquifer is
the only source of drinking water. On Long risla , nitrate
maximum
concentrations have, in some cases, approached
drinking water tolerance levels.
Nutrients are discharged into surface and groundwater from a
variety of sources, including municipal treatment plants,
urban stormwater, combined sewer overflows, malfunctioning
septic systems, animal wastes, and agricultural runoff. For
any given nutrient problem, and depending on the nature of
sources in a tributary watershed, unique regulatory and
structural measures may be required for its correction.
These may range from the sewering of shoreline cottages to
application of special agricultural best management
practices, or to nutrient removal at municipal treatment
plants.
Groundwater
The relationship between land use activities occurring in
the vicinity of ground water aquifer recharge areas and the
water quality of the groundwater has become more apparent in
recent years. For instance, excessive application of lawn
fertilizers, failing septic systems and use of road salts
for de-icing can cause elevated nitrate and chloride concen-
trations in groundwater. Where communities, such as those
on Long Island , must rely on groundwater as their primary
source of drinking water, serious health problems could
r result.
The challenge to Long Island communities is not only to
protect the quality but also the quantity of their ground-
water resources. In an effort to reduce the leaching of
contaminants from failing cesspools and septic systems into
the groundwater aquifer, several communities have installed
public sewage treatment systems. Although this results in a
net removal and treatment of pollutants, significant
quantities of water which otherwise would have recharged the
aquifer are instead treated and discharged into marine
waters or their tributaries. This practice causes the
volume of the freshwater aquifer to shrink, and the salt
water intrusion from the surrounding sea to increase.
loss of potable groundwater results. Recharge basins have
been built throughout Long Island to retain storm water and
allow it to filter into the groundwater aquifer.
When stormwater flows over roads, parking lots, industrial
sites, and other areas, it picks up contaminants. It appears
that treatment of the stormwater collected in the recharge
basins may be necessary, since trace levels of toxic contam-
inants are now being detected in some of Long Island 's
groundwater aquifers.
xI - 5- 47
Solid Wastes
As water pollution efforts lead to higher levels of
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment, greater
volumes of residual sludges will result. Because of their
physical and chemical properties, there are no easy
solutions for the disposal of most sludges. Traditional
methods have included land disposal either in landfills or
by spreading on land, incineration, and ocean dumping. Land
disposal poses problems with odors, runoff and leaching;
incineration affects air quality conditions; and ocean
dumping may have adverse effects upon water quality and
aquatic life.
Water Quality Management Planning programs being carried out
at both the State and regional levels under Section 201 and
208 of Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL
92-500) are currently studying the available alternatives
for environmentally sound sludge management and disposal , as
well as the disposition of certain other residual wastes.
In addition, the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217 ) calls
for EPA to conduct a study on the utilization of treated
municipal wastewater and sludge.
In New York State the most severe impacts from sludge
disposal occur in the New York City metropolitan area. Open
water dumping in the New York Bight adversely affected
fishery resources. Discussions are ongoing as to whether or
not any dumping will be allowed at the present site or at
some other undetermined location in the Bight.
Solid wastes such as certain manufacturing wastes and
residue from incinerators also pose substantial hazards to
water quality, especially in the New York metropolitan area
where suitable onshore disposal sites are limited. Even
where these sites are available, the toxicity or hazardous
nature of some solid wastes necessitates expensive treatment
and dispoal methods and long-term monitoring of land
disposal sites.
Thermal Discharges
Most of New York State 's electric generating facilities and
certain other industrial activities are located along the
coast because of the availability of -large volumes of water
needed for cooling purposes. The production of electric
power results in large amounts of waste heat. Water used as
a coolant is then discharged into water bodies. This
discharge of warm water can create serious problems for the
aquatic species and the quality of coastal water, especially
if discharged intermittently as is customary with the start
up and shut down of generating facilities.
yj .- 5, 48
Thermal discharges in small embayments or semi-enclosed
areas (such as estuaries) are likely to have more negative
effects on fish than discharges in open waters. These
enclosed water bodies have low dilution capacities and
flushing rates and thus cannot easily dissipate thermal
discharges. These coastal waters, therefore, are less
appropriate as locations for major stream electric
generating facilities.
During winter months fish often congregate in the warmer
waters created by discharged water. However, should a
generating facility be shut down for a period of time, the
sudden drop in water temperature could cause thermal shock
and subsequent death to large numbers of fish.
Also, warmer water contains less dissolved oxygen which is
needed by a water body to neutralize certain wastes. By
discharging heated water into a water body, its capacity to
assimilate waste is reduced.
Water Supply
Generally, New York State is blessed with ample annual
precipitation to recharge the State's reservoirs, lakes,
rivers, and groundwater aquifers. But from 1979-81,
particularly the winter and spring of 1981, precipitation
levels declined and drought-related impacts and problems
started to become evident. In December 1980, Governor Carey
established the State Drought Management Task Force to
coordinate New York State agency efforts to manage the
intensifying drought in the State. This Task Force prepared
the New York State Drought Preparedness Plan which provides
a staged plan of action for local and State agencies in the
event of a drought emergency.
Several short and long-range water supply projects were
outlined in the Plan. While most of the water supply
projects are proposed for inland water systems, one
particular proposal to use the Hudson River to augment New
York City's water supply is noteworthy. The Hudson River
Flow Skimming Project would draw water from the river above
the City of Poughkeepsie. This project poses a number of
water quality and other environmental issues of concern to
the State and coastal communities located along the Hudson
which presently utilize the river as_ a water supply. A
considerable effort will be needed to build broad-based
support of this project before it can be implemented.
Precipitation levels increased to normal levels in the
following fall and winter of 1981 through the present, and
New York is not presently threatened by drought. However,
the State has prepared itself in the event of a future
drought by completing a strategy for coping with drought-
related problems.
II - 5 - 49
Other Water Resource Related Issues
Issues related to flooding , lake level management, and
winter navigation are described under the Issue Section on
Flooding and Erosion. Infrastructure related problems are
addressed in the guidelines for implementing Policy 5 on
Concentration of Development.
Data and information gathered in the numerous water resource
studies such as the 303e Basin Studies, and the Level "B"
Studies and the River Basin Studies, were used in developing
the New York Coastal Atlas and in the preparation of the
Coastal Management Regional Elements, -published in 1979.
II - 5 - 50
AIR MALITY
Introduction
All of the State's coastal areas are affected by Federal and
State policies to abate and prevent air pollution. The Coastal
Zone Management Act, as amended, reflects this, for any State air
pollution control Ate teSt
to the
Federal Clean Air must bincorporated i a State's Coastal
Management Program.
The State's Air Pollution Control and Coastal Management Programs
must be coordinated to mutuallye that desirablesch can objectives. of NewtiYork
vely
utilized to support
State's air pollution regulatory programs can be enlisted to
achieve coastal management objectives such as protection of
habitats, farmland, or scenic areas. At the same time, these
programs could conflict with some coastal management objectives
such as those related tial to de elopic danAli element anerdination
ffective
requirements are es
coastal management program.
Major air duality management concerns in the coastal area, as
elsewhere, are grouped into four general categories : the attain-
ment and maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards as
proposed in the State Implementation Plan; protection of clean
air areas from significant nddcontrolaofon; air toxic discharges intotrol
he
Problems in rural areas;
air.
Attainment and Maintenance of
National Air Quality Standards
Under the Federal Clean Air Act, National Ambient Air Quality
Standards have been established for seven pollutants.
Recent
amendments to the Act (1977 ) require that the compliance status
of all areas of the country be determined for five of the seven
pollutants. The Act further requires that all areas not in
compliance with these Prllutent standards he brought into
compliance by the end of 1982 or, in special cases, by the end of
1987. The Act also tail the mechanismuires states to s that willare "Stbe utilizedtelimto
tion Plans" which d date.
attain the standards by the statutory
Table I indicates the coastal areas designated
ed for
nonattainment
of the health related National Ambient Y Standards for
various pollutants. with the exception of the New York Metro-
politan Air Quality Control Region, where extensions to 1987 have
been granted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
for ozone and carbon monoxide , the entire coastal area is
expected to attain all health-related National Ambient Air
puality Standards by the end of 1982.
II - 5- 51
TABLE 2
Coastal Areas Designated as Nonattainnent Areas for
Health-Related Pollutants
Carbon Total Suspended Sulfur
Location Monoxide Ozone Particulates Dioxide
New York Metropolitan
AQCR*
New York City . X X
Nassiu County X X
Suffolk County X
Westchester County X X
Rockland County X
Hudson Valley AQCR
Albany County X
Rensselaer County X
Putnam County X
Ulster County X
Dutchess County X
Greene County X
Columbia County X
Niagara Frontier AQCR
Erie County X X X
Niagara County X X
Genesee Finger lakes
AQCR
Orleans County X
Monroe County X
Wayne County X
Central AQCR
X
Cayuga County
*AQCR - AIT Quailty Control Region
In coastal areas not meeting air quality standards, any new major_ source of - -
air pollution must install air pollution controls, and existing sources must
reduce their air pollution emissions. These reductions in emisstons from
existing sources are often difficult to obtain. Because of this; nonattain-
ment areas are not as desirable for certain types of economic activities.
II - 5- 52 ;
s ensued through the
Maintenance of air quality standofd ma for new rsourcese Areas
review of the air quality impactto the
which have recently improved from
nroom for increhe ased pollution
attainment category Will have little
emissions before violating air qua makeit dmoreT
difficult tto
air quality maintenance program may
locate certain types of activities in coastal areas which have
just recently become attainment areas.
Protection of Clean Air Areas
from Significant Deterioration
The 1977 amendnents to the Clei Air Act significant detern through
uire a State to
protect "clean air areas* from s g
re ulatio»s that Classify the entireallowableinto one of deteriorationr of land
area classifications based uponsupportive of the overall coastal
quality. This program can be Supp rotectenhancer or
management environmental goal to preserve• p ,
present time, all of New
restore natural resources. York
At the pr
State is classified "Class II" hick allows
l ws ement fronrthe
increases in air pollution. After
affected local governments and the State Legislature, the
Governor may redesignate areas as eith ors Class wha III lwh ere
increases in air pollution are allowed,
The diff i-
substantial increases in air pollution are allowed. vals and the
culty in obtainingand
coordinating air inllmost coastal the locOf ations is too
fact that the quality
he
near the established standards iI allow l
thattheren of willbe
increment permissible under Classit is
few• if any, redesignati ns to =edesignat ons lass III. similarly,
lareas of the
unlikely that there will be any
State to Class I, since the state ieWr pry=ams�n source
System, other State developme suitable o undeveloped
use regulations are more Preventionof Significant Deterior-
areas than the inflexible
ation program.
Air Pollution Control Problems in Rural Areas
Air quality conditions outside Metor�opom stanpollutants eas are arenebelow
q pollutants
good• and concentration levels
national standards. Throughout the State, however,
which are carried long distances from°mwfldlifewhere h and waey are ter dqualityI.
adversely affect agriculture, fis •
These pollutants, such as ozone and the motor vehicles, urefin-
sulfates and nitrates, are 9 werr plantsted ywhich are often hundreds
cries, chemical plants and po
New
State
0
f miles from the rural areas )gram of documenting the Mechans
embarked upon a comprehensive pTO9r Section 126 of the
isms and effects of acid rain while utilizing Achieving
Clehin Now York an Air Act to attempt to force upwind states to limit their
contributions to air pollution
wit agriculture r f sh, wildlife t and
coastal management policiesart, dependent upon the
water quality will be, in p pollution from sources which
continuing effort to reduce air
affect the r,!ral areas of the State's coast.
53
Control of Toxic Discharges into the Air
Toxic discharges into the air, water and land are of major
national and State concern. In some areas of New York, toxics
have a significant adverse impact on the use of coastal resources
for economic and recreational purposes. While the State has long
regulated toxic emissions directly into the air fron industrial
facilities, toxic air pollution from old chenical dumps such as
Love Canal , from the demolition of contaminated buildings and
from facilities which detoxify Waste products are presenting new
challenges. Detoxification facilities and the potential use of
toxic wastes as fuel in some industrial processes may foster the
economic developnent potential of the State's coastal area.
r
II - 5- 54
SECTION 6
COASTAL POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
The Coastal Management Program has a dual role . In one respect,
it acts as an advocate for specific, desired coastal actions. In
another respect it serves as a coordinator of existing State
programs, activities, and decisions which affect the coastal
area. The need for this double function became clear during the
analysis of the State's coastal area. This analysis resulted in
the identification of ten specific issues which were not then
being adequately addressed by existing State law or regulations.
The first and most obvious problem was that government agencies,
assigned disparate responsibilities and programs, were not re-
quired to coordinate, and as a result, decisions affecting the
appropriate uses of the State's coastal resources were incon-
sistent. Obviously, there was a need to coordinate decision-
making within and between each level of government. With the
passage of the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources
Act , Section 919 of that Act provided the authority to solve this
problem.
The nine other issues which required additional attention
include: promoting waterfront revitalization; promoting water
dependent uses; protecting fish and wildlife habitats; protecting
and enhancing scenic areas; protecting and enhancing historic
areas ; protecting farmlands; protecting and enhancing small
harbors; enhancing and protecting public access; providing solid
and useful data and information on coastal resources and
activities to decision makers; and coping with erosion and
flooding hazards. Each of these items necessitated a specific
action. The last problem -- coping with erosion and flooding
hazards -- required passage of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
Act. The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act
gave the Coastal Management Program the authority to further
advocate each of these activities. A more complete discussion of
the Program's role in connection with these activities appears in
PART II , Section 4 , Program Management.
Coordination
In the past, agencies usually pursued single purpose programs
without considering their interrelationships or combined effect
on the coastal area. The Coastal Management Program provides the
basis for coordinating these programs, in part by spelling out
the 44 policies discussed below. For the first time , all State
agencies are required to advance these policies toward their
logical conclusion, not allowing one policy to override another.
More specifically, the use of this particular set of additional
criteria as embodied in the 44 policies requires agencies to take
into account the interrelationships that exist and/or should
exist in the coastal area -- not just interrelationships evident
in a single ecosystem, i.e. , wetlands, but the coastal area as a
whole. This approach assures that future actions in the coastal
area will, to not interfere te
achieving g for society the mostbenef i ialonuse e
rm
commitment of
coastal resources.
Policies
While the distinction can never be complete, for the most part,
each of the 44 policy statements either promotes the beneficial
use of coastal resources, prevents their impairment, or deals
with major activities that substantially affect numerous
resources. In all cases State agencies are required to adhere to
each policy statement as much as is legally and physically
possible.
The policies designed to promote the use of coastal resources are
summarized as follows:
- revitalize underutilized waterfronts (Policy 1 )
- facilitate water dependent uses (Policy 2 )
- expand the State's major ports (Policy 3 )
- expand the State's commercial fishing industry (Policy 10 )
expand public access and water related recreation (Policies
- develop coastal energy resources (Policy 27, 29)
redevelop the existing built environment (Policies 1, 4'23)
- expedite permitting procedures (Policy 6)
Use of all coastal resources is, however, constrained by the
he
realization that to talo resourceso essentiallfto society must tOf life forthe
long term, the coal
carefully husbanded. This frugal use necessitates strong
protection measures for aii�ntifieA as fragile or rbeingy inimneedinishio
resources. These resources
protection are as follows:
- significant fish and wildlife habitats (Policies 7, 8)
- the traditional character- and purposes of small harbors
(Policy 4)
historic and cultural resources (Policy 23 )
exceptional scenic areas (Policy 24)
II - 6 - 2
agricultural land (Policy 26)
dunes , beaches, barrier islands and other natural protective
features (Policy 12)
water and air resources (Policies 31, 32, 33, 26-28 , 40-43 )
wetlands (Policy 44)
Supplementing the above, are a few policies which address major
activities. These policies clearly state that in undertaking
these activities, special care must be taken not to impair valued
coastal resources.
- siting energy facilities (Policy 17 )
- dredging for navigation, mining, and excavation in coastal
waters (Policy 15)
- managing solid water (Policy 39)
- ice nanagement practices (Policy 28)
- siting and building structures in erosion hazard areas
(Policies 11, 13, 14, 16, 17)
- adequate consideration of State and public interests for
all major coastal activities (Policy 18)
The policies in this Section of the document constitute all the
policies of the program and provide a source of information for
all state agencies. All of the Program's policies are derived
from existing laws and regulations administered by state
agencies. Table IV-1 identifies the various laws that provide
the basis for and are essential to the enforcement and
implementation of the coastal policies. Many of the Program's
policies are carried out by programs administered by the
Department of Environmental Conservation. For example, the
Department operates regulatory programs which provide protection
to tidal and freshwater wetlands (Policy 44 ) , restrict
development and other activities in flood and erosion hazard
areas (Policies 11-17) , and protect air and water resources
(Policies 30-35 and 40-43) . Other agencies, such as the Office
of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Public Service
Commission and the State Board on Electric Generation Siting and
the Environment administer programs which provide coastal
recreational facilities, regualte the siting of energy
transmission facilities and regulate the location of electric
power plants.
Other Program policies are based upon the provision of Article 42
of the Executive Law. These policies carry out the intention of
the State Legislature that there be "a balance between economic
development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use
II • 6 - 3
of coastal resources while preventing the loss of living marine
resources and wildlife, diminution of open space areas or public
access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion, impairment of scenic
beauty, or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems"
(Executive Law, 4912(1) ) . Executive Law, Article 42, requires
that actions directly undertaken by State agencies within the
State's coastal area be undertaken in a manner consistent with
this new, second group of policies. In addition, the procedures
of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (Environmental
Conservation Law, Article 8) will insure that all State agency
actions will be consistent with these policies.
It is important to note that no policy applies to the exclusion
of the others. In applying these policies to a given action, all
policies relevant to the action are to be adhered to. 19 NYCRR
Part 600 and 6 NYCRR Part 617 dictate the only circumstances
under which a policy need not be fully adhered to.
The following pages in this section contain an explicit statement
of State policy, followed by a more detailed explanation of that
statement. In many instances, the explanation is followed by
guidelines to be used by agencies in their decision making.
II - 6 - 4
POLICY 1 Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized
waterfront areas for commercial, Industrial, cultural, recreational and
other compatible uses. _
A. Explanation of Policy
State and Federal agencies must ensure that their
actions further the revitalization of urban water-
front areas. The transfer and purchase of
property; the construction of a new office
building, highway or park; the provision of tax
Incentives to businesses; establishment of enter-
prise sones, are all examples of governmental
means for spurring economic growth. When any such
action, or similar action is proposed, it must be
analyzed to determine if the action would con-
tribute to or adversely affect a waterfront
revitalization effort.
It must be recognized that revitalization of once
dynamic waterfront areas is one of the most
effective means of encouraging economic growth in
the State, without consuming valuable open space
outside of these waterfront areas. Waterfront
redevelopment is also one of the most effective
means of rejuvenating or at least stabilizing
residential and commercial districts adjacent to
the redevelopment area.
In responding to this policy, several other
policies .must be considered: (1 ) Uses requiring a
location abutting the waterfront must be given
priority in any redevelopment effort. (Refer to
Policy 2 for the means to effectuate this
priority) ; (2 ) As explained in Policy 5, one
reason for revitalizing previously dynamic
waterfront areas is that the costs for providing
basic services to such areas is frequently less
than providing new services to areas not pre-
viously developed; (3 ) The likelihood for
successfully simplifying permit procedures and
easing certain requirements (Policy 6 ) will be
increased if a discrete area and not the entire
urban waterfront is the focus for this effort. In
turn, ease in obtaining permits should increase
developers' interest to invest in these areas.
Further, once this concentrated effort has
succeeded, stabilization and revitalization of
surrounding areas is more likely to occur.
Local governments through waterfront revitali-
zation programs have the primary responsibility
for implementing this policy. Though local water-
front revitalization programs need not be limited
II - 6 - 5
to redevelopment, local governments are urged to
identify areas as suitable for redevelopment, and
establish and enforce redevelopment programs.
1. When a Federal or State action is proposed to
take place in an urban waterfront area
regarded as suitable for redevelopment, the
following guidelines will be used:
a) Priority should be given to uses which
are dependent on a location adjacent to
the water;
b) The action should enhance existing and
anticipated uses. For example, a new
highway should be designed and con-
structed so as to serve the potential
access needs for desirable industrial
development;
c) The action should serve as a catalyst to
private investment in the area;
d) The action should improve the deterior-
ated condition of a site and, at a
minimum, must not cause further deteri-
oration. For example, a building could
not be abandoned without protecting it
against vandalism and/or structural
decline;
e) The action must lead to development
which is compatible with the character
of the area, with consideration given to
scale, architectural style, density, and
intensity of use;
f) The action should have the potential to
improve the existing economic base of
the community, and, at a minimum, must
not jeopardize this base. For example,
waterfront development meant to serve
consumer needs would be inappropriate in
an area where no increased consumer
demands were expected and existing
development was already meeting demand;
g) The action should improve adjacent and
upland views of the water, and, at a
minimum, must not affect these views in
an insensitive manner;
h) The action should have the potential to
improve the potential for multiple uses
of the site.
II - 6 - 6
2. If a State or Federal action is proposed to
take place outside of a given deteriorated ,
underutilized urban waterfront area suitable
for redevelopment, and is either within the
relevant community or adjacent coastal
communities, the agency proposing the action
must first determine if it is feasible to
take the action within the deteriorated,
underutilized urban waterfront area in
question. If such an action is feasible, the
agency should give strong consideration to
taking the action in that area. If not
feasible, the agency must take the appro-
priate steps to ensure that the action does
not cause further deterioration of that
area.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42 )
Section 919 of Article 42 requires (1 ) that
State agencies' action, including funding,
planning, and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be
consistent with the policies of this act, one
of which calls for the restoration and
revitalization of natural and man-made
resources. This provision of law is
implemented by amendments to SEQR (cf. 2.
below) and by DOS regulations. DOS regula-
tions (19 NYCRR 600 ) provide that, for their
direct actions which do not have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is con-
sistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Restore , revitalize, and redevelop
deteriorated and underutilized waterfront
areas for commercial , industrial , cultural ,
recreational and other compatible uses"; 2 )
that the Secretary of State shall review
actions of State agencies that may affect
achievement of the policy; and 3 ) that SEQR
regulations will be amended to reflect
consideration of the need to restore and
revitalize coastal resources.
Section 915 of the Act requires local govern-
ments, if they choose to participate in the
Waterfront Revitalization Program, to:
identify uses, public and private to be
accommodated in the waterfront area; describe
means for long-term management and main-
tenance of waterfront development; and
II - 6 - 7
specify their authority and capability to
implement the program. Further, as appro-
priate to the area, local programs must
facilitate the location of industrial,
commercial and other uses which benefit from
a waterfront location.
During the preparation of a program, local
governments will be required to analyze the
entire coastal area to determine the most
desirable activities. (See Section 8 for a
more detailed description of local Waterfront
Revitalization Programs) . Section 2 of the
Act requires that State agencies analyze
their programs' consistency with coastal
policies and that the Secretary of State
recommend any needed modifications to the
Governor and the Legislature.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environment Conservation Law (Article 8 )
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law,
SEAR regulations are amended to require that
for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared, such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Restore, revitalize, and redevelop
deteriorated and underutilized waterfront
areas for commercial, industrial, 'cultural,
recreational and other compatible uses".
3. Public Building Law (Article 4-B)
The Commissioner of General Services is
required to consider the use and restoration
of historic buildings in meeting the State's
needs for building space.
4. New York State Urban Development Corporation
Act, Unconsolidated Law (56251 ) .
The Urban Development Corporation (UDC)
created by this Act has the power to issue
bonds and notes to obtain the capital
resources necessary to carry out its powers
to acquire, construct, -reconstruct, rehabili-
tate or improve industrial , manufacturing,
commercial , educational , recreational , and
cultural facilities as well as housing for
low income persons and families in urban
areas of the State. Where appropriate, and
consistent with the other coastal policies,
the power of UDC can be used to implement the
intent of this policy.
11 - 6 - 8
POLICY 2 Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adja-
cent to coastal waters.
A. Explanation of Policy
There is a finite amount of waterfront space
suitable for development purposes. Consequently,
while the demand for any given piece of property
will fluctuate in response to varying economic and
social conditions, on a statewide basis the only
reasonable expectation is that long-term demand
for waterfront space will intensify.
The traditional method of land allocation, i.e. ,
the real estate market, with or without local land
use controls, offers little assurance that uses
which require waterfront sites will, in fact, have
access to the State's coastal waters. To ensure
that such "water dependent" uses can continue to
be accommodated within the State, State agencies
will avoid undertaking, funding, or approving
non-water dependent uses when such uses would
preempt the reasonably foreseeable development of
water dependent uses; furthermore State agencies
will utilize appropriate existing programs to
encourage water dependent activities.
The following uses and facilities are considered
as water dependent:
1. Uses which depend on the utilization of
resources found in coastal waters (for
example: fishing, mining of sand and gravel ,
mariculture activities);
2. Recreational activities which depend on
access to coastal waters (for example:
swimming, fishing, boating, wildlife
viewing);
3. Uses involved in the sea/land transfer of
goods (for example: docks, loading areas,
pipelines, short-term storage facilities) ;
4. Structures needed for navigational purposes
(for example: locks, dams , lighthouses);
5. Flood and erosion protection structures (for
example: breakwaters, bulkheads) ;
6. Facilities needed to store and service boats
and ships ( for example: marinas, boat repair,
s boat construction yards) ;
II - 6 - 9
7. Uses requiring large quantities of water for
processing and cooling purposes (for example:
hydroelectric power plants, fish processing
plants, pumped storage power plants);
R. Uses that rely heavily on the waterborne
transportation of raw materials or products
which are difficult to transport on land,
thereby making it critical that a site near
to shipping facilities be obtained (for
example: coal export facilities, cement
plants, quarries);
9. Uses which operate under such severe time
constraints that proximity to shipping
facilities becomes critical (for example:
firms processing perishable foods) ;
10. Scientific/educational activities which, by
their nature, require access to coastal
waters (for example: certain meteorological
and oceanographic activities) ; and
11. Support facilities which are necessary for
the successful functioning of permitted water
dependent uses (for example: parking lots,
snack bars, first aid stations, short-term
storage facilities). Though these uses must
be near the given water dependent use they
should, as much as possible, he sited inland
from the water dependent use rather than on
the shore.
In addition to water dependent uses, uses which
are enhanced by a waterfront location should be
encouraged to locate along the shore, though not
at the expense of water dependent uses. A
water-enhanced use is defined as a use that has no
critical dependence on obtaining a waterfront
location, but the profitability of the use and/or
the enjoyment level of the users would be
increased significantly if the use were adjacent
to, or had visual access to, the waterfront. A
restaurant which uses good site design to take
advantage of a waterfront view, and a golf course
which incorporates the coastline into the course
design, are two examples of water-enhanced uses.
If there is no immediate demand for a water
dependent use in a given area .but a future demand
is reasonably foreseeable, temporary non-water
dependent uses should be considered preferable to
a non-water dependent use which involves an
irreversible, or nearly irreversible commitment of
land. Parking lots, passive recreational
II - 6 - 10
facilities, outdoor storage areas, and non-
permanent structures are uses of facilities which
would likely be considered as "temporary" non-
water dependent uses.
In the actual choice of sites where water
dependent uses will be encouraged and facilitated,
the following guidelines should be used.
1. Competition for space -- competition for
space or the potential for it, should be
indicated before any given site is promoted
for water dependent uses. The intent is to
match water dependent uses with suitable
locations and thereby reduce any conflicts
between competing uses that might arise. Not
just any site suitable for development should
be chosen as a water dependent use area. The
choice of a site should be made with some
meaningful impact on the real estate market
anticipated. The anticipated impact could
either be one of increased protection to
existing water dependent activities or else
the encouragement of water dependent
development.
2. In-place facilities and services -- most
water dependent uses, if they are to function
effectively, will require basic public
facilities and services. In selecting
appropriate areas for water dependent uses,
consideration should be given to the
following factors:
a. The availability of public sewers,
public water lines and adequate power
supply;
b. Access to the area for trucks and rail,
if heavy industry is to be accommodated;
and
c. Access to public transportation, if a
high number of person trips is to be
generated.
3. Access to navigational channels -- if
commercial shipping, commercial fishing, or
recreational boating are planned, the
locality should consider setting aside a
site, within a sheltered harbor, from which
access to adequately sized navigation
channels would be assured.
II - 6 - 11
4. Compatibility with adjacent uses and the
protection of other coastal resources --
water dependent uses should be located so
that they enhance, or at least do not detract
from, the surrounding community. Considera-
tion should also be given to such factors as
the protection of nearby residential areas
from odors, noise and traffic. Affirmative
approaches should also be employed so that
water dependent uses and adjacent uses can
serve to complement one another. For
example, a recreation-oriented water depen-
dent use area could be sited in an area
already oriented towards tourism. Clearly, a
marina, fishing pier or swimming area would
enhance, and in turn be enhanced by, nearby
restaurants, motels and other non-water
oriented tourist activities. Water dependent
uses must also be sited so as to avoid
adverse impacts on the significant coastal
resources.
5. Preference to underutilized sites -- the
promotion of water dependent uses should
serve to foster development as a result of
the capital programming, permit expediting,
and other State and local actions that will
be used to promote the site. Nowhere is such
a stimulus needed more than in those portions
of the State's waterfront areas which are
currently underutilized.
6. Providing for expansion -- a primary
objective of the policy is to create a
process by which water dependent uses can be
accommodated well into the future. State
agencies and localities should therefore give
consideration to long-term space needs and,
where practicable , accommodate future demand
by identifying more land than is needed in
the near future.
In promoting water dependent uses the following
kinds of actions should be considered:
1. Favored treatment to - water dependent use
areas with respect to capital programming.
Particular priority should be given to the
construction and maintenance of port
facilities, roads, railroad facilities, and
public transportation within areas suitable
for water dependent uses.
2. When areas suitable for water dependent uses
are publicly owned, favored leasing arrange-
ments could be given to water dependent
uses.
II - 6 - 12
3. Where possible, consideration should be given
to providing water dependent uses with
property tax abatements, loan guarantees, or
loans at below market rates.
4. State and local planning and economic devel-
opment agencies should actively promote water
dependent uses. In addition, a list of sites
available for non-water dependent uses should
be maintained in order to assist developers
seeking alternative sites for their proposed
projects.
5. Local, State and Federal agencies should work
together to streamline permitting procedures
that may be burdensome to water dependent
uses. This effort should begin for specific
uses in a particular area.
6. Local land use controls, especially the use
of zoning districts exclusively for water-
front uses, can be an effective tool of local
government in assuring adequate space for the
development of water dependent uses.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42 )
Section 919 of Article 42 requires: 1) that
State agencies actions, including funding ,
planning , and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be
consistent with the policies of this Act, one
of which calls for the facilitation of the
siting of water dependent uses and
facilities. This provision of law is
implemented by amendments to SEAR (see 2
below) and by DOS regulation. Those DOS
regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600 ) provide that,
for their direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is consis-
tent with the coastal policies, one of which
is "Facilitate the -siting of water dependent
uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal
waters ," 2) that the Secretary of State shall
review actions of State agencies that may
affect achievement of the policy; and 3) that
SEAR regulations be amended to reflect
consideration of coastal activities such as
water dependent uses.
II - f - .13
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their program's consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the legislature.
Section 915 of Article 42 provides for
development of local waterfront revitaliza-
tion programs (See Section 8 on Special
Management Areas for a description of these
programs. ) A requirement of such local
programs is that they must incorporate "the
facilitation of appropriate industrial and
commercial uses which require or can benefit
substantially from a waterfront location,
such as, but not limited to waterborne
transportation facilities and services, and
support facilities for commercial fishing and
aquaculture."
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8)
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law,
SEAR regulations are amended to require that
for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared, such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is "Facilitate the siting of water
dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent
to coastal waters".
3. New York State Urban Development Corporation
Act, Unconsolidated Laws (56251)
The Urban Development Corporation (UDC)
created by this Act has the power to issue
bonds and notes to obtain the capital
resources necessary to carry out its power to
acquire, construct, reconstruct, rehabil-
itate or improve industrial manufacturing,
commercial-, educational, recreational, and
cultural facilities as well as housing for
low income persons and families in urban
areas of the State. Where appropriate, and
consistent with other -coastal policies, the
powers of UDC can be used to implement this
policy.
II - 6 - 14
4. Capital Construction
The capital construction authority of various
State agencies, particularly the Departments
of Transportation and Environmental Conserva-
tion and the Offices of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation and General Services ,
can be used to provide the infrastructure or
other amenities which would support or facil-
itate the development of water dependent uses
along the shore.
II - 6 - 15
POLICY a Further develop the State's major ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York,
Ogdensburg and Oswego as centers of commence and Industry, and
encourage the siting, In these port areas, including those under the
jurisdiction of State public authorities, of land use and development
which Is essential to, or In support of, the waterborne transportation
of cargo and people.
A. Explanation of Policy
The aim of this policy is to support port develop-
ment in New York, Albany, Buffalo, Ogdensburg and
Oswego. Three other development policies,
discussed in this Section, have significant
implications for port development, namely: water
dependency, concentration of development, and the
expediting of permit reviews. In implementing this
policy, state agencies will recognize the
legally-established jurisdictional boundaries of
the port authorities. If an action is proposed
for a site within or abutting a major port, or if
there is a reasonable expectation that a proposed
action elsewhere would have an impact on a major
port, then the following guidelJnes shall be used
in determining consistency:
1. In assessing proposed projects within or
abutting a major port, given that all other
applicable policies are adhered to, the
overriding consideration is the maintenance
and enhancement of port activity, i.e. ,
development related to waterborne transporta-
tion, which will have precedence over other,
non-port related activities.
2. Dredging to maintain the economic viability
of major ports will be regarded as an action
of regional or statewide public benefit if: a
clear need is shown for maintaining or
improving the established alignment, width,
and depth of existing chandels or for new
channels essential to port activitiy; and, it
can be demonstrated that environmental
impacts would be acceptable level according
to State regulations governing the activity.
3. Landfill projects in the near-shore areas
will be regarded as an acceptable activity
within major port areas, provided adverse
environmental impacts are acceptable under
all applicable environmental regulation and a
strong economic justification is demon-
strated.
4. If non-port related activities are proposed
to be located in or near to a major port,
these uses shall be sited so as not to
interfere with normal port operations.
11 - 6 - 17
5. When not already restricted by existing laws
or covenants, and when there is no other
overriding regional or statewide public
benefit for doing otherwise, surplus public
land or facilities within or adjacent to a
major port shall be offered for
leeinpthe
first instance, to the appropriate
ort
authority.
6. In the programming of capital projects for
port areas, highest priority will be given to
projects that promote the development and use
of the port. However, in determining such
priorities, consideration must also be given
to non-port related interests within or near
the ports that have demonstrated critical
capital programming needs.
7. No buildings, piers, wharves, or vessels
shall be abandoned or otherwise left unused
by a public agency or sold without making
provisions for their maintenance in sound
condition or for their demolition or removal.
S. Proposals for the development of new major
ports will be assessed in terms of the
anticipated impact on: a) existing New York
State major ports; b) existing modes of
transportation; and c) the surrounding land
uses and overall neighborhood character of
the area in which the proposed port is to be
located; and other valued coastal resources.
9. Port development shall provide opportunities
for public access insofar as these opportun-
ities do not interfere with the day-to-day
operations of the port and the port authority
and its tenants do not incur unreasonable
costs.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitaliz aw (Article t 4ion and 2jstal
Resources Act, Executive
Section 919 of Article 42 requires: 1) that
State agencies' actions, including funding ,
planning, and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be con-
sistent with the policies of this Act, one of
which calls for encouraging the development
and use of existing ports and reinforcing
their role as valuable components within the
State's transportation and industrial
network. This provision of law is imple-
mented by amendments to SEQR (See 2. below) .
II - 6 - 18
DOS regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600. 5) provide
that, for their direct actions which do not
have a significant effect on the environment,
State agencies certify that the action is
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Further develop the State's major
ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdens-
burg and Oswego as centers of commerce and
industry and encourage the siting in these
port areas, including those under the juris-
diction of state public authorities, of land
use and development which is essential to or
in support of the waterborne transportation
of cargo and people". 2 ) that the Secretary
of State may review actions of State agencies
that may affect achievement of the policies;
and 3 ) that SEOR regulations be amended to
reflect consideration of coastal resources
that can accommodate encouragement of devel-
opment and use of major ports. Section 2 of
the Act requires that State agencies analyze
their programs' consistency with Coastal
policies and that the Secretary of State
recommend any needed modifications to the
Governor and the Legislature.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8)
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law,
SEAR regulations are amended to require that
for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared , such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Further develop the State's major
ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdens-
burg and Oswego as centers of commerce and
industry and encourage the siting in port
areas, including those under the jurisdiction
of state public authorities , of land use and
development which is essential to or in
support of the water-borne transportation of
cargo and people."
3. Transportation Law, Article 21 Sections 14
and 15.
This law gives the New York State Department
of Transportation overall responsibility for
developing, coordinating, and carrying out
comprehensive, balanced transportation policy
and planning, to be expressed in a comprehen-
sive statewide master plan for transporta-
tion. The Department also has responsibility
11 - 6 - 19
to coordinate and assist in the balanced
development and operation of transportation
facilities and services, including marine
facilities.
All proposed revisions to the comprehensive
statewide master plan for transportation are
to be reviewed by the Department of State,
with any recommendations to be submitted to
the Governor, who must approve such
revisions.
4. Council of Upstate Ports
This Council, made up of representatives of
the major upstate ports, acts to increase
coordination among the ports and to increase
cooperation between the ports and the State
(State agencies, particularly the Departments
of Commerce and Transportation, regularly
attend meetings) .
5. New York State Urban Development Corporation
Act, Unconsolidated Law (56251) •
The Urban Development Corporation (UDC)
created by this Act has the power to issue
bonds and notes to obtain the capital
resources necessary to carry out its powers
to acquire, construct, reconstruct, rehabil-
itate or improve industrial, manufacturing,
commercial, educational, recreational, and
culutural facilities as well as housing for
low income persons and families in urban
areas of the State. Where appropriate and
consistent with other coastal policies, the
powers of UDC can be used to implement the
intent of this policy-
6 - 20
olicy.6 - 20
POLICY 4 Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encourag-
Ing the development and enhancement of those traditional uses and
activities which have provided such areas with their unique maritime
Identity.
A. Explanation of Policy
This policy recognizes that the traditional
activities occurring in and around numerous
smaller harbors throughout the State's coastal
area contribute much to the economic strength and
attractiveness of these harbor communities. Thus,
efforts of State agencies shall center on promot-
ing such desirable activities as recreational and
commercial fishing, ferry services, marinas,
historic preservation, cultural pursuits, and
other compatible activities which have made
smaller harbor areas appealing as tourist
destinations and as commercial and residential
areas. Particular consideration will be given to
the visual appeal and social benefits of smaller
harbors which, in turn, can make -significant
contributions to the State's tourism industry.
The following guidelines shall be used in deter-
mining consistency:
1. The action shall give priority to those
traditional and/or desired uses which are
dependent on or enhanced by a location
adjacent to the water.
2. The action will enhance or not detract from
or adversely effect existing traditional
and/or desired anticipated uses.
3. The action shall not be out of character
with, nor lead to development which would be
out of character with, existing development
in terms of the area's scale, intensity of
use , and architectural style.
4. The action must not cause a site to
deteriorate, e.g. , a structure shall not be
abandoned without protecting it against
vandalism and/or structural decline.
5. The action will not adversely affect the
existing economic base of the community,
e.g. , waterfront development designed to
promote residential development might be
inappropriate in a harbor area where the
economy is dependent upon tourism and
commercial fishing.
II - 6 - 21
6. The action will not detract from views of the
water and smaller harbor area, particularly
where the visual quality of the area is an
important component of the area's appeal and
identity.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires: 1) that
State agencies' actions, including funding,
planning, and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be
consistent with the policies of this Act, one
of which calls for efforts to encourage the
development and use of smaller harbors. This
provision of law is implemented by amendments
to SEAR (see 2 below) and by DOS regulations.
DOS regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide
that, for their direct actions which do not
have a significant effect on the environment,
State agencies certify that the action is
consistent with the coastal policies one of
which is: "Strengthen the economic base of
smaller harbor areas by encouraging the
development and enhancement of those tradi-
tional uses and activities which have pro-
vided such areas with their unique maritime
identity" ; 2) that the Secretary of State
shall review actions of State agencies that
may affect achievement of the policy; and 3 )
that SEQR regulations be amended to reflect
consideration of the need to use coastal
resources.
Section 915 of the Article requires local
governments if they choose to participate in
the Waterfront Revitalization Program to:
identify uses, public and private, to be
accommodated in the waterfront area; to
describe means for long term management and
maintenance of waterfront development; and
specify their authority and capability to
implement the program. Further, as appro-
priate to the area, local programs must
facilitate the location of industrial,
commercial anti other uses which benefit from
a waterfront location. During the prepara-
tion of a program, local governments will be
required to analyze the entire coastal area
to determine the most appropriate activities
which should occur. Refer to Section 8 for a
more detailed description of local Waterfront
Revitalization Programs.
TT - A - 12
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8)
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law,
SEAR regulations are amended to require that
for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared , such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Strengthen the economic base of
smaller harbor areas by encouraging the
development and enhancement of those tradi-
tional uses and activities which have pro-
vided such areas with their unique maritime
identity."
3. New York State Urban Development Corporation
Act, Unconsolidated Law (56251 )
The Urban Development Corporation (UDC)
created by this Act has the power to issue
bonds and notes to obtain the capital
resources necessary to carry out its powers
to acquire, construct, reconstruct, rehabil-
itate or improve industrial , manufacturing,
commercial , educational , recreational , and
cultural facilities as well as housing for
low income persons and families in urban
areas of the State. Where appropriate, and
consistent with other coastal policies, the
powers of UDC can be used to implement the
intent of this policy.
II - 6 - 23
POLICY 5 Encourage the location of development In areas where public ser-
vices and facilities essential to such development are adequate.
A. Explanation of Policy
sy its construction, taxing, funding and regula-
tory powers, government has become a dominant
force in shaping the course of development.
Through these government actions, development,
particularly large-scale development, in the
Coastal Area will be encouraged to locate within,
contiguous to, or in close proximity to, existing
areas of concentrated development where
infrastructure and public services are adequate,
where topography, geology, and other environmental
conditions are suitable for and able to
accommodate development.
The above policy is intended to accomplish the
following:
strengthen existing residential, industrial
and commercial centers
foster an orderly pattern of growth where
outward expansion is occurring
increase the productivity of existing public
services and moderate the need to provide new
public services in outlying areas
preserve open space in sufficient amounts and
where desirable
foster energy conservation by . encouraging
proximity between home, work, and leisure
activities.
For any action that would result in large scale
development or an action which would facilitate or
serve future development, a determination shall be
made as to whether the action is within, contig-
uous to, or in close proximity to an area of
concentrated development where infrastructure and
public services are adequate. The following
guidelines shall be used in making that
determination.
1. Cities, built-up suburban towns and villages,
and rural villages in the coastal area are
generally areas of concentrated development
where infrastructure and public services are
adequate.
" II - 6 - 25
2. Other locations in the coastal area may also
be suitable for development, if three or more
of the following conditions prevail :
a. Population density of the area surround-
ing or adjacent to the proposed site
exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile;
b. Fewer than 50% of the buildable sites
(i.e. , sites meeting lot area require-
ments under existing local zoning
regulations) within one mile radius of
the proposed site are vacant;
c. Proposed site is served by or is near to
public or private sewer and water
lines;
d. Public transportation service is avail-
able within one mile of the proposed
site; and
e. A significant concentration of commer-
cial and/or industrial activity is with-
in one-half mile of the proposed site.
3. The following points shall be considered in
assessing the adequacy of an area's
infrastructure and public services:
a. Streets and highways serving the
pdate the
roposed
safely traffic general dby the oproposed
land development;
b. Development's water needs (consumptive
and fire fighting) can be met by the
existing water supply system;
c. Sewage disposal system can accommodate
the wastes generated by the develop-
ment;
d. Energy needs of the proposed land devel-
opment can be accommodated by existing
utility systems; _
e. Stormwater runoff from the proposed site
can be accommodated by on-site and/or
off-site facilities; and
f. Schools , police and fire protection, and
health and social services are adequate
to meet the needs of the population
expected to live, work, shop, or conduct
business in the area as a result of the
development.
n - 6 - 26
It is recognized that certain forms of development
may and/or should occur at locations which are not
within or near areas of concentrated development.
Thus, this coastal development policy does not
apply to the following types of development
projects and activities.
1. Economic activities which depend upon sites
at or near locations where natural resources
are present, e.g. , lumber industry, quarries.
2. Development which by its nature is enhanced
by a non-urbanized setting, e.g. , a resort
complex, campgrounds, second home develop-
ments.
3. Development which is designed to be a
self-contained activity, e.g. , a small
college, an academic or religious retreat.
4. Water dependent uses with site requirements
not compatible with this policy or when
alternative sites are not available.
5. Development which because of its isolated
location and small-scale has little or no
potential to generate and/or encourage
further land development.
6. Uses and/or activities which because of
public safety consideration should be located
away from populous areas.
7. Rehabilitation or restoration of existing
structures and facilities.
8. Development projects which are essential to
the construction and/or operation of the
above uses and activities.
In certain urban areas where development is
encouraged by this policy, the condition of
existing public water and sewage infrastructure
may necessitate improvements. Those State and
Federal agencies charged with allocating funds for
investments in water and sewer facilities should
give high priority to the needs of such urban
areas so that full advantage maybe taken of the
rich array of their other infrastructure
components in promoting waterfront revitalization.
II - 6 - 27
B. State means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires: 1) that
State agencies actions, including funding,
planning, and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be
consistent with the policies of this act, one
of which calls for the encouragement of
concentration of development.
This provision of law is implemented by
amendments to SEQR (see 2 below) and by DOS
regulations. DOS regulations (19 NYCRR Part
600) provide that, for their direct actions
which do not have a significant effect on the
environment, State agencies certify that the
action is consistent with the coastal
policies one of which is: 'Encourage the
location of development in areas where public
services and facilities essential to such
development are adequate, except when such
development has special functional require-
ments or other characteristics which necessi-
tates its location in other coastal areas";
2) that the Secretary of State shall review
actions of State agencies that may affect
achievement of the policy; and 3) that SEQR
regulations be amended to reflect considera-
tion of the use and conservation of coastal
resources.
Section 915 of the Article requires local
governments to analyze their programs'
consistency with coastal policies and that
the Secretary of State recommend any needed
modifications to State programs.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 0)
Under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, State agencies and local governments are
required to prepare an environmental impact
statement for any action that might have a
significant impact upon the environment. The
environment is broadly defined to include
existing patterns of development, and land
resources. Pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEQR regulations are amended
to require that for State agency actions for
II - 6 - 28
which an EIS has been prepared , such actions
shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "Encourage the
location of development in areas where public
services and facilities essential to such
development are adequate, except when such
development has special functional require-
ments or other characteristics which neces-
sitates its location in other coastal
areas".
3. New York State Land Use Element2
As approved by the Governor, the Land Use
Element calls for a "concentrated pattern of
development (that) would not only utilize
existing services and facilities to their
fullest capacity but would reduce growth
pressures on valuable open lands and
resources. Thus, both the economic vitality
and environmental quality of the State would
be improved". The Land Use Element is used
to guide the State's funding and capital
facilities decision-making processes.
2 New York State Land Use Element, Department of State, 1978,
.p. 25.
II - 6 - 29
POLICY 6 Expedite permit procedures In order to facilitate the siting of develop-
ment activities at suitable locations.
A. Explanation of Policy
For specific types of development activities and
in areas suitable for such development, State
agencies and local governments participating in
the Waterfront Revitalisation Program will make
every effort to coordinate and synchronize
existing permit procedures and regulatory
programs, as long as the integrity of the
regulations' objectives is not jeopardized. These
procedures and programs will be coordinated within
each agency. Also, efforts will be made to ensure
that each agency's procedures and programs are
synchronized with other agencies' procedures at
each level of government. Finally, regulatory
programs and procedures will be coordinated and
synchronized between levels of government, and if
necessary, legislative and/or programmatic changes
will be recommended.
When proposing new regulations, an agency will
determine the feasibility of incorporating the
regulations within existing procedures, if this
reduces the burden on a particular type of
development and will not jeopardize the integrity
of the regulations' objectives.
B. State !leans for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 916 (2 ) of the Act calls for the
office of Business Permits (OBP) , with
assistance from the Secretary of State, to
determine means for expediting development
called for in approved Waterfront Revita-
lization Programs, based on the consistency
provisions of the Act. This activity of the
OB P and Secretary of State is to include
consolidating , simplifying, expediting or
otherwise improving permit procedures.
II - 6 - 31
Section 915 of the Act requires local
governments, if they choose to participate in
the Waterfront Revitalization Program, to
identify means for the long term management
and maintenance of waterfront development
including organizational structures, respon-
sibilities and land use controls. To meet
this requirement, a local government will
have to, in part, determine if existing
controls can be simplified in an effort to
expedite desired development in areas
suitable for such development. Further, the
local goverment must identify those State
and Federal permit programs requiring
simplification in order to expedite the
desired development [Section 915 (5) (h)] .
As explained in Section 8 of this document, a
local program must be approved by its
legislative body. This approval will require
local regulatory agencies to adhere to the
program policies, which, if the program is
approved by the Secretary of State, will be
adhered to by State and Federal agencies.
This adherence to one set of specific
policies will provide the basis for improving
the ease of obtaining permits. This require-
ment, in conjunction with the requirement for
all interests to be consulted during the
program's preparation 1915 (3 )) , lessens the
time necessary for public review of individ-
ual actions when proposed, providing another
means for expediting permits.
Section 916 (1 ) (b) of the Act requires State
agencies' actions to be consistent to oved
maximum extent practicable with app
local programs. As explained in Section VI
of this document, local programs are, in
part, a detailing of State policies. This
detailing will significantly increase the
specificity of State policies , decrease the
discretionary power of the regulatory agency,
increase the developer's understanding of
approval conditions and provide a mechanism
for expediting permits.
Section 2 of the Act requires the Secretary
of State to report to the Governor and
Legislature additional means to further the
purposes of the Act. Practical and efficient
means for permit simplification will be a
part of these recommendations.
11 - 6 - 32
2. Article 39 of the Executive Law
The Office of Business Permits "will provide
comprehensive permit information, one-step
service for permit applicants, and the
coordination of permit processing and
review". (Section 975 (3) ] .
3. Uniform Procedures Act, Environmental Conser-
vation Law (Article 70)
The Act establishes uniform procedures and
specific time periods for the processing of
permits applications by the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
II-- 6 - 33
POLICY T Significant coastal fish and wildlife
tr dbita�sWill be mal ProtOcain heir
preserved, and, when practical, nso
viability as habitats.
A. Explanation of Policy
Habitat protection is recognized as fundamental
to assuring the survival of fish and wildlife
populations. Certain habitats are particularly
critical to the maintenance of a given population
tion
and therefore merit special protection.
habitats exhibit one or more of the following
characteristics:
(a) are essential to the survival of a large
portion of a particular fish onds, wildlife
ildlife
population (e.g. feeding g
areas) ;
(b) support populations of rare and endangered
species;
(c) are found at a very low frequency within a
coastal region;
(d) support fish and wildlife populations having
significant commercial and/or recreational
value; and .
(e) would be difficult or impossible to replace.
. In order to protect and
sor developmentshall
n ues uses land and water
not be undertaken if such actions destroy or
significantly impair the viability of an area as a
habitat. When the action significantlyreduces a
vital resource (e.g. , food, shelter, living space)
or changes environmental conditions (e.g. , tempe-
rature, substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance
range of an organism, then the taction would be
considered to 'significantly impair" the habitat.
Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat may
include: reduced carrying capacity, changes in
community structure (food chain relationships,
species diversity), reduced productivity and/or
increased incidence of disease and mortality.
The range of generic activities most likely to
affect significant
butcoastal
not fish
limited wildlife
the
habitats
following:
II - 6 - 36
1. Draining wetlands, ponds: Cause changes in
vegetation, or changes in groundwater and
surface water hydrology.
2. Filling wetlands, shallow areas of streams
lakeslakes# baysp estuaries: May change physical
c aracter of su strate (e.g. , sandy to muddy,
or smother vegetation, alter surface water
hydrology) .
3. Gradin land: Results in vegetation removal ,
TH—creased surface runoff, or increase soil
erosion and downstream sedimentation.
4. Clear cutting: May cause loss of vegetative
cover, increase fluctuations in amount of
surface runoff, or increase streambed
scouring , soil erosion, sediment deposition.
5. Dredging or excavation: May cause change in
su strate compos t on, possible release of
contaminants otherwise stored in sediments,
removal of aquatic vegetation, or change
circulation patterns and sediment transport
mechanisms.
6. Dredge s oil dis osal: May induce shoaling of
littoral areas, or change circulation
patterns.
7. Physical alteration of shore areas through
channelization or construction of shore
structure: May change in volume and rate o
low or rncreased scouring , sedimentation.
S. Introduction, storage or disposal of Pollut-
ants such as chemical, petroc em ca , solid
wastes, nuclear wastes, toxic material,
'5e—sticides, sewage effluent, urFa--nan-a rural
runoffs, leachate of hazardous and toxic
substances stored in landfills: May cause
Increased mortality or sublet al effects on
organisms, alter their reproductive
capabilities, or reduce their value as food
organisms.
The range of physical , biological and chemical
parameters which should be considered include but
are not limited to the following:
II - 6 - 36
1. Physical parameters such as: Living space,
circulation, flushing rates, tidal amplitude,
turbidity, water temperature, depth (loss of
littoral zone) , morphology, substrate type,
vegetation, structure, erosion and sedimenta-
tion rates.
2. Biological parameters such as: Community
structure, food chain re ations ips, species
diversity, predator/prey relationships,
population size, mortality rates, reproduc-
tive rates, behavioral patterns, and migra-
tory patterns.
3. Chemical parameters such as: Dissolved
oxygen, carbon dioxide, ph, dissolved solids,
nutrients, organics, salinity, pollutants
(heavy metals, toxic and hazardous
materials) .
When a proposed action is likely to alter any of
the biological, physical or chemical parameters as
described in the narrative beyond the tolerance
range of the organisms occupying the habitat, the
viability of that habitat has been significantly
impaired or destroyed. Such action, therefore,
would be inconsistent with the above policy.
In cooperation with the State's Coastal Management
Program, the Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion has developed a rating system incorporating
these five parameters (The Development and Evalua-
tion of a System for Rating Fish and Wildlife
Habitats in the Coastal zone of New York State
Final Report, January, 1981, 15 pp. ) .
To further aid Federal and State agencies in
determining the consistency of a proposed action
with this policy, a narrative will be prepared for
each significant habitat which will: (1) identify
the location of the habitat; ( 2) describe the com-
munity of organisms which utilize the habitat; (3)
identify the biological , physical and chemical
parameters which should be considered when assess-
ing the potential impacts of a project on that
habitat; (4) identify generic activities which
would most likely create significant impacts on
the habitat; and (5) provide the quantitive basis
used to rate the habitat. Prior to formal desig-
nation of significant fish and wildlife habitats,
copies of the individual habitat narratives plus
copies of habitat maps and completed rating forms
will be provided to Federal and State agecies and
the public for the review and comment.
II - 6 - 37
B. State Means for Policy Implementation
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires actions
directly undertaken by the State agencies
within the coastal area be consistent with
coastal area policies including the policy
calling for the protection of significant
habitats. When a State agency provides
funding assistance, develops a plan, sells,
leases, transfers or buys land, or directly
uses or develops land within the coastal
boundaries, it must find that its action will
not adversely affect any significant habitat
within or near the proposed project area.
This provision of law is implemented by
amendments to SEAR (see 2 below) and by DOS
regulations. DOS regulations (19 NYCRR Part
600) provide that, for their direct actions
which do not have a significant effect on the
environment, State agencies certify that the
action is consistent with coastal policies,
one of which is: •Significant coastal fish
and wildlife habitats, as identified on the
Coastal Area Map, shall be protected and
preserved so as to maintain their viability
as habitats." The Secretary of State can
review actions of State agencies that may
effect achievement of the policy. SEAR
regulations have been amended to reflect
consideration of significant coastal fish and
wildlife habitats.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law, (Article 8)
Under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, State agencies and local governments are
required to prepare an environmental impact
statement for any action that is likely to
have a significant impact upon the environ-
ment. Actions which have been subject to an
environmental impact statement must, consis-
tent with social , economic, and other essen-
tial considerations, minimize or avoid, to
the maximum extent practicable, the adverse
environmental effects revealed in the impact
statement.
ii - 6 - 38
In addition, pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEOR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared, such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "Significant
coastal fish and wildlife habitats, as
identified on the Coastal Area Map, shall be
protected and preserved so as to maintain
their viability as habitats."
3. Tidal Wetlands Act, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, (Article 24 )
Of the 3,107 total miles of New York coastal
shorelines, about, 11600 miles are subject to
regulation under the Program. Tidal wetlands
often provide wildlife habitats which include
breeding , nesting , feeding grounds, and
vegetative cover for many types of wildlife,
waterfowl and shorebirds. Approximately
two-thirds of New York's marine sport and
commercial finfish and shellfish species
utilize tidal wetlands at some stage of their
life cycle. Under this permit program the
State regulates any land use activities that
would diminish the value of wetlands as fish
and wildlife habitats.
Regulated activities include any form of
draining , dredging , excavation, dumping ,
filling, construction, pollutant discharge or
any other activity which directly or
indirectly impairs the tidal wetland's
ability to provide habitat. The Department
of Environmental Conservation has
inventoried , classified and mapped the
State's tidal wetlands.
4. Freshwater Wetland Act, Environmental Conser-
vation Law (Article 24)
Freshwater wetlands also function as
important fish and wildlife habitat. The
program established- under this Act regulates
activities such as draining, dredging, and
filling , thus protecting many significant
habitats. This program can be administered
by local governments pursuant to State guide-
lines and after official filing of wetland
maps by the State. Counties, or the State ,
may administer the program in municipalities
where local governments fail to exercise this
responsibility. Until the maps are filed with
the communities, the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation regulates freshwater
II - 6 - 39
wetlands through its interim permit program.
Before granting or denying a permit, the
municipality must determine if the activity
will have an adverse impact on the habitat
value of the wetland.
5. Stream Protection Act, Environmental Conser-
vation Law (Article 151 Title 5)
This law was enacted to minimize disturbances
to the beds and banks of certain streams
(Class C (t) and above) which cause increased
turbidity, and irregular variations in
velocity, temperature and water levels, in
order to protect fish and wildlife and their
habitats. The Department of Environmental
Conservation regulates dredging and filling
in navigable waters and adjacent wetlands,
and construction of certain dams and docks.
Further, it requires the removal, replacement
or repair of illegal or unsafe structures,
fills or excavations. This could accomplish
restoration of physically altered habitats.
6. Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 15,
Title 27)
Along stretches of rivers designated as
"wild" , "scenic" . or "recreational the
State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion is authorized by this law to exercise
land use controls in order to protect the
outstanding natural, scenic, historic,
ecological and recreational resources of
these rivers. This may include the protec-
tion of fish and wildlife resources and their
habitats in the preparation and implementa-
tion of adopted management programs.
Presently, portions of the Connetquot and
Carmens Rivers in Suffolk County have been
designated as scenic and recreational rivers.
Studies are underway in other coastal areas
of the State to determine which additional
rivers should be included in this system.
7. Fish and Wildlife Management Practices Co-
operative Program, Environmental Conservation
Law (Article 11-0501)
This law enables the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation to enter into cooperative
agreements with private property owners to
manage fish and wildlife resources and their
habitats on privately owned lands.
II - 6 - 40
8. New York State Park Preserve System, Parks
and Recreation Law (Article 20)
This legislation gives the Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation the
power (in conjunction with Section 3.09 of
PRL, authorizing acquisition of land for
State recreational facilities) to purchase
park preserve areas in or near metropolitan
regions in order to "maintain the integrity
of fauna. . ." and to "provide for the manage-
ment of all unique, rare, or endangered
species of fauna within park preserves
areas." By purchasing fish and wildlife
habitat areas for passive recreational uses,
their preservation and management is assured.
Assistance in identifying such areas can be
provided to the Office of Parks, Recreation,
and Historic Preservation through the
Coastal Management Program.
9. State Nature and Historical Preserve Trust,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 45 )
This section of Environmental Conservation
Law authorizes the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, after recommendation by
the State Nature and Historical Preserve
Trust Board of Trustees and authorization by
the State Legislature, to purchase property
for inclusion. Lands that can be a part of
the preserve include those of ecological
significance, including coastal fish and
wildlife habitats.
10. Implementation of Environmental Quality Bond
Act of 1972, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 51)
Title 7 of Article 51 directs the Department
of Environmental Conservation to appropriate
monies from the Environmental Quality Bond
Act for land preservation and improvement
projects. These projects include acquisition
of important tidal and freshwater wetlands.
Section 3-0305 of -the Environmental Conser-
vation Law gives the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation the power to acquire
property for any of the functions of the
Department.
II - 6 - 41
POLICY d Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal are& from the Intro-
duction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bio-
accumulate In the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or
lethal effect on those resources.
A. Explanation of Policy
Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manu-
facturing processes and are generally character-
ized as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or
toxic. More specifically, waste is defined in
Environmental Conservation Law [S27-0901(3)) as
"waste or combination of wastes which because of
its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical
or infectious charactertics may: (1) cause, or
significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible,
or incapacitating reversible illness: or (2) pose
a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly treated ,
stored, transported or otherwise managed. " A list
of hazardous wastes (NYCRR Part 366) will be
adopted by DEC within 6 months after EPA formally
adopts its list.
The handling (storage, transport, treatment and
disposal) of the materials included on this list
is being strictly regulated in New York State to
prevent their entry or introduction into the
environment, particularly into the State's air,
land and waters. Such controls should effectively
minimize possible contamination of and bio-accumu-
lation in the State's coastal fish and wildlife
resources at levels that cause mortality or create
physiological and behavioral disorders.
Other pollutants are those conventional wastes,
generated from point and non-point sources, and
not identified as hazardous wastes but controlled
through other State laws cited below.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 27,
Title 9)
The purpose of this State law is to authorize
the NYS Department of Environment Conserva-
tion (DEC) to regulate the handling of hazar-
dous wastes generation, storage, transporta-
tion, treatment and disposal in a manner con-
sistent with the Federal Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) .
II - 6 - 43
This State law mandates DEC to identify and
list hazardous wastes, to develop and
implement a manifest system for tracking the
wastes "from cradle to grave" , and to
regulate all phases of handling hazardous
wastes. Strict enforcement of this law by DEC
will minimize new introductions of hazardous
wastes into the environment, thereby protect-
ing Coastal fish and wildlife resources.
2. State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 17,
Title 8 )
The Department of Environmental Conservation
regulates all industrial, commercial and
municipal discharges as well as those from
residential subdivisions of five or more
lots, into the State's surface and ground-
waters. Through this program, the State can
control the discharge of toxics and other
pollutants from point sources which contami-
nate fish and wildlife resources.
3. State Certification, Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Section 401 )
This section of the Federal Hater Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 provides the
State with authority to review applications
for licenses or permits submitted to any
Federal agencies to conduct activities within
the State and to certify whether discharges
into the State 's navigable waters are in
compliance with water quality requirements
stipulated under various sections of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and its
amendments. Federal permits covered by this
section are primarily those issued by the
Army Corps of Engineers for dredging and
spoil disposal , by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency for certain waste water dis-
charges, and by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for nuclear and hydroelectric
energy generating facilities. The discharge
of pollutants resulting from such Federal
projects, which may affect the State's
coastal fish and Wildlife resources, can be
regulated accordingly.
II - 6 - 44
4. Toxic Substance Monitoring Program,
Environmental Conservation Law(Article 17)
This program is designed to monitor the
occurrence and significance of 17 different
toxicants in fish from 102 sampling locations
statewide over a three-year period. This
effort will enable the State to trace the
distribution of toxic substances once they
are discharged into the environment, identify
those biological resources being affected ,
and direct clean-up operations accordingly.
5. Substances Hazardous to the Environment,
Environmental Conservation Law(Article 37)
Substances which are hazardous and tend to
accumulate in the food chain threaten fish
and wildlife and other living coastal
resources. The State recently passed this law
in an effort to control the discharge of
hazardous substances into the environment.
Rules and regulations pertaining to the
storage and discharge of these substances are
under preparation. The hazardous substances
identified will be included within these
rules and regulations.
6. Solid Waste Management, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 27, Title 7)
Garbage, refuse, industrial and commercial
wastes , incinerator residue, sludge and other
solid wastes can cause physiological disor-
ders in fish and wildlife and contaminate
their habitats if not treated and disposed of
properly. The construction and operation of
solid waste management facilities are regu-
lated as authorized by this law, and such
regulations are directed at the prevention or
reduction of pollution of resources.
7. Stream Pollution Prohibited, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 11-0503)
Deleterious or poisonous substances (e.g. ,
dyestuffs, coal tar, and refuse from a gas
house) may not be discharged into any waters
either private or public, in quantities
injurious to fish life, protected wildlife or
waterfowl inhabiting those waters or injur-
ious to the propagation of fish, protected
wildlife or waterfowl. Also, vessel wastes
(oil, sludge, cinders, or ashes) may not be
discharged into the Hudson River.
II - 6 - s5
8. Control of Pollution Injurious to Fish/
Shellfish, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 13-0345 and 17-0503)
These sections of the law provide for the
protection of shellfish and fin fish from
contaminants (e.g. , sludge, acid, refuse, and
sewage ) which affect the flavor, odor, color,
or sanitary condition of these fishery
resources.
9. Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensa-
tion, Navigation Law, (Article 12)
Unregulated discharge of petroleum or oil
spills associated with the transport and
storage of such products can damage the
State's coastal fish, shellfish, wildlife and
other biotic resources. This law authorizes
the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Environmental Conservation to
control the methods of petroleum storage and
transfer and to require prompt cleanup and
compensation to damaged parties when spills
or discharges occur.
10. Siting of Major Steam-Electric Generating
Facilities (Public Service Law, Article VIII )
Prior to construction of a major steam-
electric generating facility, an applicant
must obtain a certificate of public need and
environmental compatibility from the State
Siting Board. The applicant is required to
collect detailed environmental data and be
able to demonstrate that minimum adverse
environmental impacts (including impacts on
fish and wildlife resources ) would result
from construction and operation of the
proposed facility at the selected site. The
process established under Article VIII
addresses Coastal Management Policies in
connection with siting of major steam-
electric generating facilities.
11. Sanitary Code, Public Health Law, (Article 3 )
Municipalities are authorized by this law to
adopt a Local Sanitary Code. These sanitary
codes are designed to insure that individual
sewage disposal systems do not create health
hazards, do not adversely affect the environ-
ment, or do not impair the use of property.
Obviously, fish and wildlife habitats can be
protected from pollutants through the local
adoption of such a sanitary code.
II - 6 - 46
POLICY • Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources In coastal
areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing ex-
fisting stocks,and developing new resources.
A. Explanation of Policy
Recreational uses of coastal fish and wildlife
resources include consumptive uses such as fishing
and hunting, and non-consumptive uses such as
wildlife photography, bird watching and nature
study.
Any efforts to increase recreational use of these
resources will be made in a manner which ensures
the protection of fish and wildlife resources in
marine and freshwater coastal areas and which
takes into consideration other activities depen-
dent on these resources. Also, such efforts must
be done in accordance with existing State law and
in keeping with sound resource management consid-
erations. Such considerations include biology of
the species, carrying capacity of the resource,
public demand, costs and available technology.
The following additional guidelines should be
considered by State and Federal agencies as they
determine the consistency of their proposed action
with the above policy.
1. Consideration should be made by Federal and
State agencies as to whether an action will
impede existing or future utilization of the
State's recreational fish and wildlife
resources.
2. Efforts to increase access to recreational
fish and wildlife resources should not lead
to overutilization of that resource or cause
impairment of the habitat. Sometimes such
impairment can be more subtle than actual
physical damage to the habitat. For example,
increased human presence can deter animals
from using the habitat area.
3. The impacts of increasing access to recrea-
tional fish and wildlife resources should be
determined on a case-by-case basis, consult-
ing the significant habitat narrative (see
Policy 7) and/or conferring with a trained
fish and wildlife biologist.
4. Any public or private sector initiatives to
supplement existing stocks .(e.g. stocking a
stream with fish reared in a hatchery) or
M - 6 - 47
develop new resources (e.g. creating private
fee-hunting or fee-fishing facilities) must
be done in accord with existing State law.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. General Powers and Duties of the Department
of Environmental Conservation, Environmental
Conservation Law, (Article 11, Title 3)
The Department of Environmental Conservation
manages the State's fish and wildlife
resources. It propagates fish and wildlife
to supplement existing stockst regulates
their harvest through restricted seasons, bag
limits, and gear restrictions, and develops
new or improve existing habitats with such
devices as stream improvement structures.
2. Stream Rights Acquisition, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 51-0701)
This law enables the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation to acquire access rights
( fee-simple or less-than-fee-simple) on qual-
ity streams guaranteeing fishermen access to
various stretches of streams and rivers.
Additional information needed for determining
priorities in this acquisition program will
be provided to the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation through the Coastal
Management Program.
3. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919, of Article 42 requires 1) that
State agencies actions, including funding,
planning, and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be con-
sistent with the policies of this Act, one of
which calls the promotion of the recreational
use of fish and wildlife resources. This
provision of law is implemented by amendments
to SEQR (cf 2 below) and by DOS regulations.
DOS regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide
that, for their direct actions which do not
have a significant effect on the environment,
State agencies certify that the action is
consistent with the following policy: "Ex-
pand recreational use of fish and wildlife
resources in coastal areas by increasing ac-
cess to existing resources, supplementing
II - 6 - 48
existing stocks and developing new
resources." Such efforts shall be made in a
manner which ensures the protection of renew-
able fish and wildlife resources and con-
siders other activities dependent on them.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
Section 915 of this law provides for funding
of local government waterfront revitalization
plans by the Department of State. Increased
access to coastal waters for the purposes of
fishing is strongly encouraged as one of the
management objectives for a local waterfront
revitalization plan.
4. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8)
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law,
SEAR regulations are amended to require that
for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared, such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is:
"Expand recreational use of fish and
wildlife resources in coastal areas by
increasing access to existing resources,
supplementing existing stocks and
developing new resources. Such efforts
shall be made in a manner which ensures
the protection of renewable fish and
wildlife resources and considers other
activities dependent on them."
5. Other State Acquisition Powers, Parks
Recreation Law (Section 3. 09)
This law authorizes the Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation to
acquire, establish, and operate facilities
for recreational purposes, including valuable
fishing and hunting areas. For further
information on the Office of Parks, Recrea-
tion, and Historic Preservation's powers,
see the recreation policies contained in this
report.
II - 6 - 49
6. Urban Fisheries Program, Environmental Con-
servation Law (Article 11)
The Department of Environmental Conservation
has elected to increase fishing activity in
several metropolitan areas of the State,
including Buffalo, Albany, Troy, and New York
City, through its Urban Fisheries Program.
Public education, eliminating problems of
access to existing, under-utilized fisheries,
and creation of new fisheries through
stocking of ponds or establishing suitable
habitat are specific means by which the
objectives of this program will be accomp-
lished. In most case es fishing
are accessible by publictransportation.
However, in some instances, inadequate mass
transportation constrains public use of these
resources.
7. Urban Wildlife Program, Environmental Conser-
vation Law (Article 11)
8. Fish and Wildlife Management Practices Co-
operative Program, Environmental Conservation
Law (Article 11-0501)
II - 6 - 50
POLICY 10 Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish and crustacean re-
sources in the coastal area by encouraging the construction of new,
or improvement of existing onshore commercial fishing facilities, In-
creasing marketing of the State's seafood products, maintaining ade-
quote stocks,and expanding aquaculture facilities.
A. Explanation of Policy
Commercial fishery development activities must
occur within the context of sound fishery
management principals developed and enforced
within the State's waters by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Management plans developed by the Regional
Fisheries Management Councils (Mid-Atlantic and
New England) and enforced by the U.S. National
Marine Fisheries Service within the Fishery
Conservation Zone. (The Fishery Conservation Zone
is the area of coastal waters extending from the
three mile State waters boundary to the 200 mile
offshore boundary of D.S. Waters. The Conserva-
tion Zone is authorised by the U.S. Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976. ) Sound
resource management considerations would include
optimum sustained yield levels developed for
specific commercial fish species, harvest restric-
tions imposed by State and Federal governments,
and the economic, political (uses conflicts) and
technological constraints to utilizing these
resources. .
The following additional guidelines should be
considered by State and Federal agencies as they
determine the consistency of their proposed action
with the above policy:
a. A public agency's commercial fishing develop-
ment initiative should not preempt or dis-
place private sector initiative.
b. A public agency's efforts to expand existing
or create new on-shore commercial fishing
support facilities should be directed towards
unmet development_ needs rather than merely
displacing existing commercial fishing
activities from a nearby port. This may be
accomplished by taking into consideration
existing State or regional commercial fishing
development plans.
C* Consideration should be made by State and
Federal agencies whether an action will im-
pede existing _utilization or future develop-
ment of the state's commercial fishing
resources.
d. Commercial fishing development efforts should
be made in a manner which ensures the main- '
tenance and protection of the renewable
fishery resources.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act Executive Law, (Article 42)
Section 915 of this law authorizes the
Department of State to encourage municipali-
ties which choose to develop local waterfront
revitalization programs to implement commer-
cial fishing port development projects. Such
facilities might include the construction or
rehabilitation of piers; facilities for catch
transfer, freezer storage, fishing processing
and packaging; or acquaculture facilities.
Section 919, of Article 42 requires 1) that,
State agencies actions, including funding ,
planning, and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be con-
sistent with the policies of this act, one of
which is: Further develop commercial fin-
fish, shellfish and crustacean resources in '
the coastal area by encouraging the construc-
tion of new, or improvement of existing on-
shore commercial fishing facilities, increas-
ing marketing of the State's seafood
products, maintaining adequate stocks, and
expanding aquaculture facilities. This
provision of law is implemented by amendments
to SEAR (of 2 below) and by DOS regulations.
DOS regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600 ) provide
that, for their direct actions which do not
have a significant effect on the environment,
State agencies certify that the action is
consistent with the following policy:
"Further develop commercial finfish, shell-
fish and crustacean resources in the coastal
area by: (i) encouraging the construction of
new or improvement -of existing on-shore
commercial fishing facilities; (ii) increas-
ing marketing of the State's seafood
products; ( iii) maintaining adequate stocks
and (iv) expanding aquaculture facilities.
Such efforts shall be made in a manner which
insures the protection of such renewable fish
resources and considers other activities
dependent on them.
II - 6 - 52
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8)
Environmental impact as defined in this law
include not only impact on the State's
natural resources but also the State's
economy.
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law,
SEAR regulations are amended to require that
for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared, such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is:
"Further develop commercial finfish,
shellfish and crustacean resources in
the coastal area by: (i) encouraging
the construction of new or improvement
of existing on-shore commercial fishing
facilities; ( ii) increasing marketing of
New York seafood products; (iii) main-
taining adequate stocks and ( iv) expand-
ing aquaculture facilities. Such efforts
shall be made in a manner which ensures
the protection of such renewable fish
resources and considers other activi-
ties dependent on them."
II - 6 - 53
POLICY 11 Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as
to minimise damage to property and the endangering of human lives
caused by flooding and erosion.
A. Explanation of Policy
On coastal lands identified as coastal erosion
hazard areas, buildings and similar structures
shall be set back from the shoreline a distance
sufficient to minimize damage from erosion unless
no reasonable prudent alternative site is avail-
able as in the case of piers, docks and other
structures necessary to gain access to coastal
waters to be able to function. The extent of the
setback will be calculated, taking into account
the rate at which land is receding due to erosion,
and the protection provided by existing erosion
protection structures as well as by natural
protective features such as beaches, sandbars,
spits, shoals, barrier islands, bay barriers,
nearshore areas, bluffs and wetlands. The only
new structure allowed in coastal erosion hazard
areas is a moveable structure as defined in
Section 505.3(u) of the regulations for ECL,
Article 34. Prior to its construction, an erosion
hazard areas permit must be approved for the
structure. Existing, non-conforming structures
located in coastal erosion hazard areas may be
only minimally enlarged.
In coastal lands identified as being subject to
high velocity waters caused by hurricane or other
storm wave wash - a coastal high hazard area '-
walled and roofed buildings or fuel storage tanks
shall be sited landward of mean high tide; and no
mobile home shall be sited in such area. In
coastal lands identified as floodways, no mobile
homes shall be sited other than in existing mobile
home parks.
s
Where human lives may be endangered by major
coastal storms, all necessary emergency
preparedness measures should be taken, including
disaster preparedness planning.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 34)
This law provides for the identification of
coastal erosion hazard areas, including
natural protective features such as beaches
II - 6 - 55
and dunes. The law also requires the
calculation of rates of recession of coastal
lands. Standards and criteria are also
prescribed for the regulation of the siting
of buildings and other structures in relation
to those defined areas.
2. Flood Plain Management Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 36)
This law ensures that, if a community fails
to qualify for the Federal flood insurance
program, the State will develop flood hazard
regulations for that community to make it
eligible for participation in the program.
The regulations are, at a minimum, those
specified by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
State agencies are also constrained by this
law through regulation of such activities as
the financing of projects, or the authoriza-
tion of implementation of projects, on State
lands. The regulations are, at a minimum,
those specified by the Federal flood
insurance program.
3. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires (1 ) that
State agencies' actions, including funding,
planning , land transactions, as well as
direct development activities must be
consistent with the policies of this Act, one
of which requires the use of non-structural
measures whenever possible to minimize damage
from flooding and erosion. This provision of
law is implemented by amendments to SEAR (see
4 below) and by Department of State regula-
tions. Those Department of State regulations
(19 NYCRR Part 600) provide that, for their
direct actions which do not have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is consis-
tent with the coastal policies, one of which
is: "Whenever possible, use non-structural
measures to minimize damage to natural
resources and property from flooding and
erosion. Such measures shall include: (i)
the set back of buildings and structures;
(ii) _ the planting of vegetation and the
installation of sand fencing and drainage
systems; (iii) the reshaping of bluffs; and
(iv) the flood-proofing or elevation of
buildings above the base flood level. "
II - 6 - 56
(2) That the Secretary of State shall review
actions of State agencies that may affect
achievement of the policy and (3) that SEQR
regulations be amended to reflect considera-
tion of the use of set backs as a non-struct-
ural measure.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
4. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 18)
Under this Act, State agencies and local
governments are required to prepare an
environmental impact statement for any action
which might have a significant effect on the
environment. Pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEQR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared, such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "Whenever
possible , use non-structural measures to
minimize damage to natural resources and
property from flooding and erosion. Such
measures shall include: (i) the set back of
buildings and structures; (ii) the planting
of vegetation and the installation of sand
fencing and drainage systems; ( iii ) the
reshaping of bluffs; and (iv) the flood-
proofing or elevation of buildings above the
base flood level. "
5. State and Local Natural and Man-made Disaster
Preparedness Act, Executive Law (Article 2-B)
This law provides for the establishment of a
State Disaster Preparedness Commission and
the preparation of a State Disaster
Preparedness Plan. The Act also declares
that it is a policy of the State that local
governments "continue their essential role as
the first line of defense in times of
disaster" and authorizes counties and cities
to prepare Local Disaster Preparedness Plans.
II - 6 - 57
POLICY 12 Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as
to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding
and erosion by protecting natural protective features including
beaches,dunes,barrier islands and bluffs.
A. Explanation of Policy
Beaches, dunes, barrier islands, bluffs, and other
natural protective features help safeguard coastal
lands and property from damage, as well as reduce
the danger to human life, resulting from flooding
and erosion. -Excavation of coastal features,
improperly designed structures, inadequate site
planning , or other similar actions which fail to
recognize their fragile nature and high protective
values, lead to the weakening or destruction of
those landforms. Activities or development in, or
in proximity to, natural protective features must
ensure that all such adverse effects are
minimizes]. Primary dunes will be protected from
all encroachments that could impair their natural
protective capacity.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 34 )
This law requires the identification of
coastal erosion hazard areas, including
natural protective features such as beaches,
dunes , bluffs and barrier islands. Standards
and criteria are also authorized for- the
promulgation of regulations which will
require that activities and development will
have minimal adverse effects on such natural
protective features.
2. Flood Plain Management Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 36)
(See also Policy 11, B, 2 above)
Regulations promulgated under this law
include a prohibition on the alteration of
sand dunes in coastal- high hazard areas so as
to prevent an increase in potential flood
damage to lands and property.
II - 6 - 59
3. Water Resources Act, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 15)
Sections 15-0503 and 15-0505 regulate the
placement of permanent docks, piers and
similar structures, as well as the placement
of fill, in the waters of the State. The law
also recognizes the adverse effect of such
activities on soil erosion and will be used
to implement this policy.
4. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires (1) that
State agencies' actions, including funding,
planning, land transactions, as well as
direct development activities must be
consistent with the policies of this Act, one
of which requires that damage to natural
resources from flooding and erosion be
minimized, including the protection of
beaches, dunes, barrier islands, bluffs and
other natural protective features. This
provision of law is implemented by amendments
to SEAR (see 5 below) and by Department of
State regulations. Those Department of State
regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide that,
for their direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Activities or development in the
coastal area will be undertaken so as to
minimize damage to natural resources and
property from flooding and erosion by
protecting natural protective features
including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and
bluffs. Primary dunes will be protected from
all encroachments that could impair their
natural protective capacity." (2) That the
Secretary of State shall review actions of
State agencies that may affect achievement of
the policy and (3 ) that SEAR regulations be
amended to reflect consideration of the
adverse effect of activities or development
on natural protective features.
II - 6 - 60
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
5. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 18)
Under this Act, State agencies and local
governments are required to prepare ari-
environmental impact statement for any action
which might have a significant effect on the
environment. Pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEOR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared , such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "Activities or
development in the coastal area will be
undertaken so as to minimize damage to
natural resources and property from flooding
and erosion by protecting natural protective
features including beaches, dunes, barrier
islands and bluffs. Primary dunes will be
protected from all encroachments that could
impair their natural protective capacity."
II - 6 - 61
POLICY 13 The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures
shall be undertaken only if they have a reasonable probability of con-
trolling erosion for at least thirty years as demonstrated in design and
construction standards andlor assured maintenance or replacement
programs.
A. Explanation of Policy
Erosion protection structures are widely used
throughout the State's coastal area. However,
because of improper design, construction and
maintenance standards, many fail to give the
protection which they were presumed to provide.
As a result, development is sited in areas where
it is subject to damage or loss due to erosion.
This policy will help ensure the .reduction of such
damage or loss. .
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 34)
Within coastal erosion hazard areas identi-
fied by this law, standards and criteria-
required by the Act will be used to regulate
the construction or reconstruction and main-
tenance of erosion protection structures.
2. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42 )
Section 919 of Article 42 requires (1) that
State agencies' actions, including funding ,
planning, lana transactions, as well as
direct development activities must be
consistent with the policies of this Act, one
of which states that it is State policy to
minimize damage to property from erosion.
This provision of law is implemented by
amendments to SEOR (see 3 below) and by
Department of State regulations. Those
Department of State regulations (19 NYCRR
Part 600) provide that, for their direct
actions which do not have a significant
effect on the environment, State agencies
certify that the action is consistent with
the coastal policies, one of which is: "The
construction or reconstruction of erosion
protection structures shall be undertaken
only if they have a reasonable probability of
controlling erosion for at least thirty years
as demonstrated in design and construction
standards and/or assured maintenance or
replacement programs."
II - 6 - 63
(2 ) That the Secretary of State shall review
actions of State agencies that may affect
achievement of the policy and (3 ) that SEAR
regulations be amended to reflect considera-
tion of the adverse effect of improperly
designed, constructed or maintained erosion
protection structures.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
3. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 18)
Under this Act, State agencies and local
governments are required to prepare an
environmental impact statement for any action
which might have a significant effect on the
environment. Pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEAR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared , such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "The construction
or reconstruction of erosion protection
structures shall be undertaken only if they
have a reasonable probability of controlling
erosion for at least thirty years as demon-
strated in design and construction standards
and/or assured maintenance or replacement
programs."
II - 6 - 64
POLICY 14 Activities and development including the construction or reconstruc-
tion of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that
there will be no measurable increase in erosion or flooding at the site
of such activities or development,or at other locations.
A. Explanation of Policy
Erosion and flooding are processes which occur
naturally. However, by his actions, man can
increase the severity and adverse effects of those
processes, causing damage to, or loss of property,
and endangering human lives. Those actions
include: the use of erosion protection structures
such as groins, or the use of impermeable docks
which block the littoral transport of sediment to
adjacent shorelands, thus increasing their rate of
recession; the failure to observe proper drainage
or land restoration practices, thereby causing
run-off and the erosion and weakening of shore-
lands; and the placing of structures in identified
floodways so that the base flood level is
increased causing damage in otherwise hazard-free
areas.
B. State !leans for Implementing the Policv
1. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 34 )
Within coastal erosion hazard areas ident i
fied pursuant to this law, standards and
criteria will be established to regulate
activities and development, including the
construction or reconstruction of erosion
control structures, so that on-site erosion,
and erosion of other lands, will not measur-
ably increase.
2. Water Resources Act, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 15)
Subsections 15-0503 and 15-0505 regulate the
placement of permanent docks, piers and
similar structures, as well as the placement
of fill, in the waters of the State. The law
also recognizes the adverse effect of such
activities on soil erosion and will be used
to implement this policy.
II -'6 - 65
3. Flood Plain Management Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 36)
(See also Policy 11, Be 2 above)
This law regulates encroachments in floodways
identified under the federal flood insurance
program so as to prevent increases in flood-
water levels.
4. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires (1 ) that
State agencies' actions, including funding,
planning, land transactions, as well as
direct development activities must be
consistent with the policies of this Act, one
of which states that it is State policy to
minimize damage to natural resources and
property from flooding and erosion. This
provision of law is implemented by amendments
to SEAR (see 5 below) and by Department of
State regulations. Those Department of State
requlations (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide that,
for their direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Activities and development
including the construction or reconstruction
of erosion protection structures, shall be
undertaken so that there will be no
measurable increase in erosion or flooding at
the site of such activities or
d devThaelopment
or at other locations."
the
Secretary of State shall review actions of
State agencies that may affect achievement of
the policy and (3 ) that SEAR regulations be
amended to reflect consideration of the
adverse effect of activities or development
upon coastal lands.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
11 - 6 - 66
5. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 18)
Under this Act, State agencies and local
governments are required to prepare an
environmental impact statement for any action
which might have a significant effect on the
environment. Pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEAR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared , such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "Activities and
development including the construction or
reconstruction of erosion protection struc-
tures , shall be undertaken so that there will
be no measurable increase in erosion or
flooding at the site of such activities or
development or at other locations."
TT - 6 - 67
POLICY 15 Mining,excavation or dredging in coastal waters shall not significant-
ly interfere with the natural coastal processes which supply beach
materials to land adjacent to such waters and shall be undertaken in a
manner which will not cause an increase in erosion of such land.
A. Explanation of Policy
Coastal processes, including the movement of beach
materials by water, and any mining, excavation or
dredging in nearshore or offshore waters which
changes the supply and net flow of such materials
can deprive shorelands of their natural regenera-
tive powers. Such mining, excavation and dredging
should be accomplished in a manner so as not to
cause a reduction of supply, and thus an increase
of erosion, to such shorelands. Offshore mining
is a future alternative option to land mining for
sand and gravel deposits which are needed to
support building and other industries.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
Water ront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42 )
Section 919 of Article 42 requires (1 ) that
State agencies' actions, including funding ,
planning, land transactions, as well as
direct development activities must be
consistent with the policies of this Act, one
of which requires that damage to natural
resources from erosion is minimized. This
provision of law is implemented by amendments
to SEAR (see 2 below) and by Department of
State regulations. Those Department of State
regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide that,
for their direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Mining, excavation or dredging in
coastal waters shall not significantly
interfere with the natural coastal processes
which supply beach materials to land adjacent
to such waters and shall be undertaken in a
manner which will not cause an increase in
erosion of such land." (2) That the Secretary
of State shall review actions of State
agencies that may affect achievement of the
policy and (3 ) that SEAR regulations be
amended to reflect consideration of the
adverse effect of mining, excavation and
dredging upon coastal lands.
II - 6 - 69
r
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 18)
Under this Act, State agencies and local
governments are required to prepare an
environmental impact statement for any action
which might have a significant effect on the
environment. The environment is broadly
defined to include land and minerals: hence,
sand, gravel, and other materials in coastal
waters are viewed as environmental resources.
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law,
SEQR regulations are amended to require that
for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared, such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Mining, excavation or dredging in
coastal waters shall not significantly
interfere with the natural coastal processes
which supply beach materials to land adjacent
to such waters and shall be undertaken in a
manner which will not cause an increase in
erosion of such land."
3. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 34 )
This law provides for the identification of
coastal erosion hazard areas, including
nearshore natural protective features such as
shoals, bars . and spits, which if altered
might lower the reserves of sand or other
natural materials available to replenish
storm losses through natural processes. The
law requires also that excavation or other
alteration of land will be regulated to
minimize adverse effects on those natural
protective features as well as to prevent
erosion of other lands.
n - 6 - 70
4. Public Lands Law (Article 2)
New York State owns the underwater lands in
the State's coastal area, except where its
rights have been sold, leased or otherwise
transferred, or where they have been reserved
to other interests. This law provides for
the leasing of certain underwater lands for
the mining of sand and gravel. Such mining
activities must be implemented consistent
with the policies of Executive Law, Article
34.
5. Protection of Waters Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 15)
This law recognizes the adverse effects on
soil erosion of activities such as excavation
in the State's navigable waters , or in
narshes, estuaries, tidal marshes and wet-
lands adjacent thereto, and requires the
regulation of such activity by permit.
6. Tidal Wetlands Act, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 25)
The regulatory jurisdiction of this law in
the State 's tidal waters includes: (1 )
coastal shoals, bars and flats, as well as
other lands no more than 6 feet underwater at
low mean water, and adjacent areas; and (2)
the dredging, excavation or removal of sand,
or other aggregate. To protect the contribu-
tion which those lands make to flood, hurri-
cane and storm control, those uses are
presumed incompatible and a permit must be
obtained from the Department of Environmental
Conservation, upon demonstration that those
values will not be adversely affected.
7. Freshwater Iletlands Act, Environmental Con-
servation Law (Article 24)
This law provides for the identification of
freshwater wetlands and for the regulation of
activities therein, including dredging ,
nining and excavation.
II - 6 - 71
POLICY 16 Public funds shall only be used for erosion protective structures
where necessary to protect human life, and new development which
requires a location within or adjacent to an erosion hazard area to be
able to function, or existing development; and only where the public
benefits outweigh the long term monetary and other costs including
the potential for increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural
protective features.
A. Explanation of Policy
Public funds are used for a variety of purposes on
the State's shorelines. This policy recognizes
the public need for the protection of human life
and existing investment in development or new
development which requires a location in proximity
to the coastal area or in adjacent waters to be
able to function. However, it also recognizes the
adverse impacts of such activities and development
on the rate of erosion and on natural protective
features and requires that careful analysis be
made of such benefits and long-term costs prior to
expending public funds.
B. State Means for Implementing -the Policy
1. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 34 )
This law contains a provision that, within
identified coastal erosion hazard areas,
consideration be given to both the public
benefits- and long range adverse effects of
proposed activities and development which use
public funds.
2. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42 )
Section 919 of Article 42 requires (1 ) that
State agencies' actions, including funding ,
planning, land transactions, as well as
direct development activities must be consis-
tent with the policies of this Act, one of
which requires that damage from erosion to
natural resources and property is minimized
by proper location of new development, pro-
tection of critical coastal features and the
use of non-structural measures whenever
possible. This provision of law is imple-
mented by amendments to SEOR (see 3 below)
and by Department of State regulations.
II - 6 - 73
Those Department of State regulations (19
NYCRR Part 600 ) provide that, for their
direct actions which do not have a signif-
icant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is consis-
tent with the coastal policies, one of which
is: "Public funds shall only be used for
erosion protective structures where necessary
to protect human life , and new development
which requires a location within or adjacent
to an erosion hazard area to be able to
function, or existing development; and only
where the public benefits outweigh the long
term monetary and other costs including the
potential for increasing erosion and adverse
effects on natural protective features." (2)
The the Secretary of State shall review
actions of State agencies that may affect
achievement of the policy and (3 ) that SEAR
regulations be amended to reflect considera-
tion of the costs and benefits of publicly
funded erosion protective structures.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
3. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 16 )
Under this Act, State agencies and local
governments are required to prepare an envi-
ronmental impact statement for any action
which might have a significant effect on the
environment. Pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEAR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared, such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: •Public funds
shall only be used for erosion protective
structures where necessary to protect human
life, and new development which requires a
location within or adjacent to an erosion
hazard area to be able to function, or
existing development; and only where the
public benefits outweigh the long term
monetary and other costs including the
potential for increasing erosion and adverse
effects on natural protective features."
II - 6 - 74
minimize
e to
tural
urces
POLICY 17 Nonstructural measures n fond erosion shall be usedawhenevero
and property from flood
possi-
ble.
A. Explanation of Policy
1. This policy recognizes both the potential
adverse impacts of flooding and erosion upon
development and upon natural protective
features in the coastal area as well as the
costs of protection against those hazards
which structural measures entail.
2. "Non-structural measures" shall include, but
not be limited to: (1) within coastal
erosion hazard areas identified under Section
34-104, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act
(Article 34, Environmental Conservation Law) ,
and subject to the permit requirements on all
regulated activities and development estab-
lished under that Law, (a) the use of minimum
setbacks as provided for in Section 34-108;
and (b) the strengthening of coatal land-
forms by the planting of -appropriate Vegeta-
tion on dunes and bluffs, the installation of
sand fencing on dunes, the reshaping of
bluffs to achieve an appropriate angle of
repose so as to reduce the potential for
slumping and to permit the planting of
stabilizing vegetation, and the installation
of drainage systems on bluffs to reduce
runoff and internal seepage of waters which
erode or weaken the landforms; and (2) within
identified flood hazard areas, (a) the
avoidance of risk or damage from flooding by
the siting of buildings outside the hazard
area, and (b) the flood-proofing of buildings
or their elevation above the base flood
level.
3. This policy shall apply to the planning,
siting and design of proposed activities and
development, including measures to protect
existing activities and development. To
ascertain consistency with the policy, it
must be determined if any one, or a combina-
tion of, non-structural measures would afford
the degree of protection appropriate both to
the character and purpose of the activity or
development, and to the hazard. If non-struc-
tural measures are determined to offer
sufficient Pio ld 1re�uiren the consistency
of such
the policy 9
measures, whenever possible.
II - 6 - 75
4. In determining whether or not non-structural
measures to protect against erosion or
flooding will afford the degree of protection
appropriate, an analysis, and if necessary,
other materials such as plans or sketches of
the activity or development, of the site and
of the alternative protection measures should
be prepared to allow an assessment to be
made.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization Article Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law
Section 919 of Article 42 requires (1) that
State agencies' actions, including funding,
planning, land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be con-
sistent with the policies of this Act, one of
which calls for minimizing damage to natural
resources and property from flooding and
erosion by the use of non-structural mea-
sures whenever possible. This provision of
law is implemented by amendments to SEQR
(See 2 below) and by the Department of State
requlations. The Department of State
regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide that,
for their direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is consis-
tent with the coastal policies, one of which
is "Whenever possible, use non-structural
measures to minimize damage to natural
resources and property from flooding and
erosion. Such measures shall include: (i)
the set back of buildings and structures;
(ii) the planting of vegetation and the
installation of sand fencing and drainage
systems; (iii) the reshaping of bluffs; and
( iv) the flood-proofing of buildings or their
(i;
elevation above the base flood level."
that the Secretary of State shall review
actions of State agencies that may affect
achievement of the policy, and (3 ) that SEQR
regulations be amended to reflect considera-
tion of the use of non-structural measures to
minimize damage from flooding and erosion.
II - 6 - 76
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8)
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law,
SEAR regulations are amended to require that
actions by a State agency for which an EIS
has been prepared , such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Whenever possible, use non-
structural measures to minimize damage to
natural resources and property from flooding
and erosion. Such measures shall include:
( i) the set back of buildings and structures;
(ii) the planting of vegetation and the
installation of sand fencing and drainage
systems; (iii) the reshaping of bluffs; and
( iv) the flood-proofing of buildings or their
elevation above the base flood level ."
3. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 34 )
Within coastal erosion hazard areas identi-
fied pursuant to this law, standards and
criteria will be established to regulate
activities and development as well as to
protect natural protective features such as
dunes, bluffs, beaches and barrier islands
through a permit system.
II - F - 77
POLICY 18 To safeguard the vital economic, social and environmental interests
of the State and of Its citizens, proposed major actions in the coastal
area must give full consideration to those interests, and to the
safeguards which the State has established to protect valuable
coastal resource areas.
A. Explanation of Policy
Proposed major actions may be undertaken in the
coastal area if they will not significantly impair
valuable coastal waters and resources, thus frust-
rating the achievement of the purposes of the
safeguards which the State has established to
protect those waters and resources. Proposed
actions must take into account the social ,
economic and environmental interests of the State
and its citizens in such matters that would affect
natural resouces, water levels and flows,
shoreline damage, hydro-electric power generation,
and recreation.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42 )
In part, Article 42 declares that it is the
public policy of the State within its coastal
area: to conserve and protect fish and
wildlife and their habitats; achieve a
balance between economic development and
preservation needs that will permit the
beneficial use of coastal resources while
preventing permanent adverse changes to
ecological systems; and minimize damage to
natural resources and property from flooding
and erosion. The Act's policies also call
for the assurance of consistency of State
actions and Federal actions with policies
within the coastal area and cooperation and
coordination with other states, the Federal
government and Canada "to attain a consistent
policy towards coastal management". Section
919 of Article 42 requires (1 ) that State
agencies' actions, including funding, plan-
ning , land transactions, as well as direct
development activities, must be consistent
with the policies of the Act. This provision
of law is implemented by amendments to SEOR
(See 2 below) and by the Department of State
regulations. The Department of State
II - 6 - 79
regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide that,
for their direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is consis-
tent with the coastal policies, one of which
is: "To safeguard the vital economic, social,
and environmental interests of the State and
of its citizens, proposed major actions in
the coastal area must give full consideration
to those interests, and to the safeguards
which the State has established to protect
valuable coastal resource areas." (2) that
the Secretary of State shall review actions
of State agencies that may affect achievement
of the policy, and (3 ) that SEAR regulations
be amended to reflect consideration of this
policy.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 18 )
Under this Act, State agencies and local
governments are required to prepare an envi-
ronmental impact statement for any action
which might have a significant effect on the
environment. Pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEAR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared , such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "To safeguard the
vital economic, social, and environmental
interests of the State and of its citizens,
proposed major actions in the coastal area
must give full consideration to those
interests, and to the safeguards which the
State has established to protect valuable
coastal resource areas."
3. Water Resources Act, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 15)
Section 15-0101 states in part that ". . . the
sovereign power to regulate and control the
water resources of this State ever since its
establishment has been and now is vested
exclusively in the State of New York except
to the extent of any delegation of powers to
the United States. . ."
II - 6 - 80
4. Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 15,
Title 27 )
Along stretches of rivers designated by the
State as "wild" , "scenic" , or "recreational" ,
the State Department of Enviromental Con-
servation is authorized by this law to exer-
cise land use controls in order to protect
the outstanding natural, scenic, historic,
ecological and recreational resources of
these rivers.
5. Protection of Waters, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 15, Title 5 )
This law was enacted to minimize disturbances
to the beds and banks of certain streams
(Class C (t) and above) which cause increased
turbidity, and irregular variations in veloc-
ity, temperature and water levels, in order
to protect fish and wildlife and their
habitats. The Department of Environmental
Conservation regulates dredging and filling
in navigable waters and adjacent wetlands,
and construction of certain dams and docks.
Further, it requires the removal , replacement
or repair of illegal or unsafe structures,
fills or excavations.
6. Tidal Wetlands Act, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 25)
This Act requires that a permit be issued for
activities or development in identified tidal
wetlands. It must be demonstrated that pro-
posed activities or development will not
adversely affect water quality, flood and
storm control , marine food production, wild-
life habitat, open space, and aesthetically
significant areas.
7. Freshwater Wetlands Act, Environmental Con-
servation Law (Article 24 )
This law recognizes the value of freshwater
wetlands in providing flood protection,
wildlife habitats, open space and water
resources. The program established under
this Act regulates activities such as
draining, dredging, and filling. It is ad-
ministered by local governments pursuant to
state guidelines and after official filing of
wetland maps by the State. The Department of
Environmental Conservation regulates fresh-
II - 6 - 81
water wetlands through its interim permit
program in communities where maps have yet to
be filed. Before granting or denying a
permit, the municipality or DEC must deter-
mine if the activity will have an adverse
impact on the value of the wetland.
8. General Powers and Duties of the Department
of Environmental Conservation, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 11, Title 3 )
The Department of Environmental Conservation
is empowered by this law to manage the
State's fish and wildlife resources. The
Department propagates fish and wildlife to
supplement existing stocks, regulates their
harvest through restricted seasons, bag
limits, gear restrictions, and develops new
or improves existing habitats with such
devices as stream improvement structures.
9. Stream Pollution Prohibited, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 11-0503 )
Deleterious or poisonous substances (e.g. ,
dyestuffs, coal tar, and refuse from a gas
house) may not be discharged into any waters
either private or public, in quantities
injurous to fish life , protected wildlife or
waterfowl inhabiting those waters or injuri-
ous to the propagation of fish, protected
wildlife or waterfowl. Also vessel wastes
(oil , sludge cinders or ashes) may not be
discharged into the Hudson River.
10. State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 17,
Title 8)
The Department of Environmental Conservation
regulates all industrial , commercial and
municipal discharges, as well as those from
residential subdivisions of five or more
lots, into the state's surface and ground-
waters. Through this program, the State can
control the discharge of toxics and other
pollutants from point sources which contamin-
ate valuable resources.
II - 6 - 82
11. Control of Pollution Injurious to Fish/Shell-
fish, Environmental Conservation Law (Article
13-0345 and 17-0503)
These sections of the law provide for the
protection of shellfish and finfish from
contaminants (e.g. , sludge, acid, refuse, and
sewage) which affect the flavor, odor, color,
or sanitary condition of these fishery
resources.
12. Substances Hazardous to the Environment,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 37)
Substances, which are hazardous and tend to
accumulate in the food chain, threaten fish
and wildlife and other living coastal
resources. The State recently passed this
law in an effort to control the discharge of
hazardous substances into the environment.
Rules and regulations pertaining to the
storage and discharge of these substances are
under preparation. The hazardous substances
identified will be included within these
rules and regulations.
13. Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 27,
Title 9 )
The Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) regulates the handling of hazardous
wastes generation, storage, transportation,
treatment and disposal in a manner consistent
with the Federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). This state law
mandates DEC to identify and list hazardous
wastes, to develop and implement a manifest
system for tracking the wastes "from cradle
to grave" , to regulate all phases of handling
hazardous wastes. Enforcement of this law
will minimize new introductions of hazardous
wastes into the environment, thereby pro-
tecting coastal resources.
14. oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensa-
tion, Navigation Law (Article 12)
Unregulated discharge of petroleum or oil
spills associated with the transport and
storage of such products can damage the
State's coastal fish, shellfish, wildlife,
beaches and other resources. This law
II - 6 - 83
authorizes the Department of Transportation
and the Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion to control the methods of petroleum
storage and transfer and to require prompt
cleanup and compensation to damaged parties
when spills or discharges occur.
15. Public Health Law (Article 11)
This law provides for the Department of
Health to make rules and regulations for the
protection from contamination of public sup-
plies of potable waters.
16. Solid Waste Management, Environmental Con-
servation Law (Article 27, Title 7)
Garbage, refuse, industrial and commercial
wastes, incinerator residue, sludge and other
solid wastes can cause physiological dis-
orders in fish and wildlife and contaminate
their habitats if not treated and disposed of
properly. The construction and oepration of
solid wastes management facilities are
regulated as authorized by this law, and such
regulations are directed at the prevention or
reduction of pollution of resources.
17. Transportation Law (Article 2, Section 14-F)
This law authorizes the Commissioner of
Transportation to regulate the transportation
of hazardous materials.
18. Flood Plain Management Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 36)
This law ensures that, if a community fails
to qualify for the federal national flood
insurance program, the State will develop
flood hazard regulations for that community
to make it eligible for participation in the
program. The regulations are, at a minimum,
those specified by the federal program, ad-
ministered by the Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency.
State agencies are also constrained by this
law through regulation of such activities as
the financing of projects, or the authoriza-
tion of implementation of projects on state
lands. The regulations are, at a minimum,
those specified by the federal national flood
insurance program.
II - 6 - 64
19. Coastal Erosion Hazards Area Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 34)
This law provides for the identification of
coastal erosion hazard areas, including
natural protective features such as beaches,
dunes, barrier islands and nearshore areas,
and coastal lands subject to significant
erosion. Standards and criteria are also
prescribed for the regulation of activities
and development in relation to those defined
areas so as to minimize damage to natural
resources and property from erosion.
20. Protection of Natural and Man-Made Beauty,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 49)
Under this law, DEC has the power and duty
to: (1) "develop policies and programs to
preserve and enhance the natural and man-made-
beauty
an-madebeauty of the State" and (2) "designate
scenic sites, areas and highways in the State
and develop programs for their preservation
and enhancement".
21. Implementation of Enviornmental Quality Bond
Act of 1972, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 51)
Title 7 of Article 51 directs the Department
of Environmental Conservation to appropriate
monies from the Environmental Quality Bond
Act for land preservation and improvement
projects. These projects include acquisition
of important tidal and freshwater wetlands.
Section 3-0305 of the ECL gives the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation the power
to acquire property for any of the functions
of the Department.
22. Stream Rights Acquisition, Environmental Con-
servation Law (Article 51-0701)
This law enables the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation to acquire access rights
(fee-simple or less-than-fee simple) on
quality streams guaranteeing fishermen access
to various stretches of streams and rivers.
II - 6 - 85
27. New York State Historic Preservation Act of
1980, Parks i Recreation Law (Section 11.03,
11.09, 14); Public Building Law (Article
4-B) ; General Municipal Law (Article 5-R)
The New York State Historic Preservation Act
greatly expands the responsibilities of New
York State agencies and municipalities with
regard to historic preservation. Specifically
the Act provides several means for preserving
the historic architectural , archeological ,
and cultural resources of the State (includ-
ing resources under water) . Each State
agency must designate a historic preservation
officer to coordinate and implement state
historic preservation programs. A State
Register of historic places is created and an
inventory of properties which may qualify for
the Register is established. A Statewide
Preservation Plan is to be prepared and
updated annually. A review process has been
established, to be undertaken concurrently
with existing environmental reviews; this
process requires State agencies to consult
with the Commissioner of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation if a state-funded
project will have an adverse effect upon a
historic property. The review process
requires consideration of alternatives and
that adverse effects he avoided or mitigated.
The Secretary of State is added to State
Board of Historic Preservation, and the Com-
missioner of the Office of General Services
is required to consider the use and restora-
tion of historic buildings in meeting the
State's needs for building space.
28. Parks and Recreation Law (Section 3.09)
This statute authorizes the NYS Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
to acquire, establish, operate, and maintain
state parks, parkways, historic sites, and
state recreational facilities.
29. State Nature and Historical Preserve Trust,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 45)
This program provides for acquisition, when
authorized by act of the Legislature, of real
property (including less than fee interests)
and administration of lands, outsidenat-
ural
the For-
est Preserve counties, 0 . . . of special r
ural beauty, wilderness character or geolog-
ical , ecological, or historical signficance.
n - 6 - 66
30. New York State Park Preserve System, Parks
and Recreation Law (Article 20)
This legislation gives the Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation the
power (in conjunction with Section 3.09 of
PRL, authorizing acquisition of land for
state recreational facilities) to purchase
park preserve areas in or near metropolitan
regions in order to "maintain the integrity
of fauna. . ." and to "provide for the manage-
ment of all unique, rare, or endangered
species of fauna within park preserves
areas." By purchasing fish and wildlife
habitat areas for passive recreational uses,
their preservation and management is assured.
31. Harbors of Refuge, Navigation Law (Article
11, Section 141 )
This law authorizes the Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation to enter
into agreement with the federal government
and with municipalities to construct, oper-
ate, and maintain such harbors. Priorities
for locating harbors of refuge are determined
by the State Comprehensive Recreation Plan
Priority System.
32. State Marina Facilities, Navigation Law
(Article 11, Section 143 )
This section of the Navigation Law authorizes
the State to construct, operate, and maintain
State marina facilities, including those
incidental to a harbor of refuge. Priorities
for location of these facilities are also
determined by the State Comprehensive Recrea-
tion Plan Priority System.
33. Local Marina Facilities, Navigation Law
(Article 11, Section 142)
Municipalities can help meet the demand for
marinas by participating in this program
which authorizes state financial assistance
to municipalities in the construction of
local marina facilities, including those
incidental to a harbor of refuge. Priorities
for giving financial assistance to munici-
palities are determined by the State Compre-
hensive Recreation Plan Priority System.
11 - 6 - 87
POLICY 19 Protect,maintain,and increase the level and types of access to public
water-related recreation resources and facilities.
A. Explanation of Policy
This policy calls for achieving balance among the
following factors: the level of access to a
resource or facility, the capacity of a resource
or facility, and the protection of natural
resources. The imbalance among these factors is
the most significant in the State's urban areas.
Because this is often due to access-related
problems, priority will be given to improving
physical access to existing and potential coastal
recreation sites within the heavily populated
urban coastal areas of the State and to increasing
the ability of urban residents to get to coastal
recreation areas by improved public transpor-
tation. The particular water related recreation
resources and facilities which will receive
priority for improved access are public beaches,
boating facilities, fishing areas and waterfront
parks. In addition, because of the greater
competition for waterfront locations within urban
areas, the Coastal Management Program will
encourage mixed use areas and multiple use of
facilities to improve access. Specific sites
requiring access improvements and the relative
priority the program will accord to each will be
identified in the Public Access Planning Process.
The following guidelines will be, used in
determining the consistency of a proposed action
With this policy:
1. The existing access from adjacent or proxi-
mate public lands or facilities to public
water-related recreation resources and
facilities shall not be reduced, nor shall
the possibility of increasing access in the
future from adjacent or proximate public
lands or facilities to public water-related
recreation resources and facilities be
eliminated, unless in the latter case,
estimates of future use of these resources
and facilities are too low to justify
maintaining or providing increased public
access.
The following is an explanation of the terms
used in the above guidelines:
II - 6 - 89
a. Access - the ability and right of the
pupuubic to reach and use public coastal
lands and waters.
b. Public water-related recreation
resources or facilities - all public
lands or ac hies that are suitable
for passive or active recreation that
requires either water or a waterfront
location or is enhanced by a waterfront
location.
c. Public lands or facilities - lands or
facilities held by State or local
government in fee simple or less-than-
fee simple ownership and to which the
public has access or could have access,
including underwater lands and the
foreshore.
d. A reduction in the existing level of
public access - inc u es but is not
limited to the following:
(1) The number of parking spaces at a
public water-related recreation
resource or facility is signifi-
cantly reduced.
(2) The service level of public trans-
portation to a public water-related
recreation resource or facility is
significantly reduced during peak
season use and such reduction
cannot be reasonably justified in
terms of meeting systemwide
objectives.
(3) Pedestrian access is diminished or
eliminated because of hazardous
crossings required at new or
altered transportation facilities,
electric power transmission lines,
or similar linear facilities.
(4) There are increases in the
following: already existing special
fares of public transportation to a
public water-related recreation
resource or facility; and/or
admission fees to such a resource
or facility, and an analysis shows
that such increases will signifi-
cantly reduce usage by individuals
or families with incomes below the
State government established
poverty level.
II - 6 - 90
e. An elimination of the possibility of
increasing public access in the future
nc udes, but is not--T"mited to the
following:
(1) Construction of public facilities
which physically prevent the
provision, except at great expense,
of convenient public access to
public water-related recreation
resources and facilities.
(2) Sale, lease, or other transfer of
public lands that could provide
public access to a public
water-related recreation resource
or facility.
(3 ) Construction of private facilities
which physically prevent the
provision of convenient public
access to public water-related
recreation resources or facilities
from public lands and facilities.
2. Any proposed project to increase public
access to public water-related recreation
resources and facilities shall be analyzed
according to the following factors:
a. The level of access to be provided
should be in accord with estimated
public use. If not, the proposed level
of access to be provided shall be deemed
inconsistent with the policy.
b. The level of access to be provided shall
not cause a degree of use which would
exceed the physical capability of the
resource or facility. If this were
determined to be the case , the proposed
level of access to be provided shall be
deemed inconsistent with the policy.
3. The State will not undertake or fund any
project which increases access to a water-
related resource or facility that is not open
to all members of the public.
4. In their plans and programs for increasing
public access to public water-related
resources and facilities, State agencies
shall give priority in the following order to
projects located: within the boundaries of
the Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area and
served by public transportation; within the
boundaries of the Federal-Aid Metropolitan
I! - 6 - 91
Urban Area but not served by public
transportation; outside the defined Urban
Area boundary and served by public
transportation; and outside the defined Urban
Area boundary but not served by public
transportation.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42) .
Section 919 of Article 42 requires 1) that
State agencies' actions, including funding,
planning , and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be
consistent with the policies of this act, one
of which calls for preventing diminution of
public access to the waterfront and another
for encouraging and facilitating public
access for recreational purposes. This
provision of law is implemented by amendments
to SEQR (see 2 below) and by DOS regulations.
DOS regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide
that, for their direct actions which do not
have a significant effect on the environment,
State agencies certify that the action is
consistent with the coastal policies, among
which are the following:
Protect, maintain, and increase the
levels and types of access to public
water related recreation resources and
facilities so that these resources and
facilities may be fully utilized by all
the public in accordance with reasonably
anticipated public recreation needs and
the protection of historic and natural
resources. In providing such access,
priority shall be given to public
beaches, boating facilities, fishing
areas, and waterfront parks;
-- Expand recreational use of fish and
wildlife resources by increasing access
to existing resources (19 NYCRR 600.5) ;
and
-- Water dependent and water enhanced
recreation shall be encouraged and
facilitated and shall be given priority
over non-water related uses along the
coast provided it is consistent with the
preservation and enhancement of other
coastal resources taking into account
demand for such facilities. In facili-
tating such activities, priority shall
II - 6 - 92
be given to areas where access to the
recreation opportunities of the coast
can be provided by new or existing
public transportation services and to
those areas where the use of the shore
is severely restricted by existing
development (19 NYCRR 600.5) ;
2) that the Secretary of State review
actions of State agencies that may
affect achievement of the policies; and
3) that SEQR regulations be amended to
reflect consideration of coastal
resources that can accommodate public
access needs.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs'
consistency with coastal policies and
the Secretary of State recommend any
needed modifications to the Governor and
the Legislature.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8 ) .
Under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, State agencies and local governments are
required to prepare an environmental impact
statement for any action that might have an
impact upon the environment. Such actions
include those contiguous to any publicly-
owned or operated park land, recreation area
or designated open space. Since actions deal
with the provision of access, under this
policy, to public water-related recreation
resources and facilities, any action would
require an environmental impact statement to
be prepared if it exceeded 25 percent of any
threshold specified for a Type I action (6
NYCRR Part 617). In addition, Article 42 of
the Executive Law requires that SEQR
regulations be amended to require that
environmental impact statements address
coastal policies whenever a proposed action
would affect achievement of a coastal policy.
Actions which have been subject to an
environmental impact statement must, consis-
tent with social, economic, and other
essential considerations, minimize or avoid ,
to the maximum extent practicable, the
adverse environmental effects revealed in the
impact statement (ECL 58-0109-8) .
II - 6 - 93
In addition, pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEAR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared, such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, among which are:
-- Expand recreational use of fish and
wildlife resources by increasing access
to existing resources (19 NYCRR 600.5 ) ;
Protect, maintain, and increase the
levels and types of access to public
water related recreation resources and
facilities so that these resources and
facilities may be fully utilized by all
the public in accordance with reasonably
anticipated public recreation needs and
the protection of historic and natural
resources. In providing such access,
priority will be given to public
beaches, boating facilities, fishing
areas, and waterfront parks (19 NYCRR
600.5 ) ; and
-- Water dependent and water enhanced
recreation shall be encouraged and
facilitated and shall be given priority
over non-water related uses along the
coast provided it is consistent with the
preservation and enhancement of other
coastal resources, taking into account
demand for such facilities. In facili-
tating such activities, priority shall
be given to areas where access to the
recreation opportunities of the coast
can be provided by new or existing
public transportation services and to
those areas where the use of the shre
existing
is severely restricted by
development (19 NYCRR 600.5) .
3. Acquisition-Parks and Recreation Law (3.09);
Environmental Conservation Law (3-0305) ;
Highway Law 522•
One of the most effective means of providing
access to public beaches and other public
areas of the type listed above is acquisition
of real property, including either the full
fee interest in real property or some lesser
interest therein, such as an easement, or
contractual right to use the real property.
There are presently a number of specific
II - 6 - 94
statutory acquisition powers which could be
used to implement this public access policy.
The cited Parks and Recreation Law and the
Environmental Conservation Law provided broad
acquisition powers to the Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation and the
Department of Environmental Conservation
respectively.
The State Department of Transportation is
authorized to acquire land for highway and
specific transportation purposes, but these
acquisition powers could be used to achieve
their intended purposes as well as to
implement coastal access policies. In
addition to the basic power to acquire
property for transportation facilities per
se, such powers include "Acquisition of
Property. . . in order to provide multi-use
areas adjacent to state highways and
recreational , natural and scenic areas along,
but not necessarily contiguous to, state
highways. . ." (Highway Law S22) • This is a
power which could be used to carry out a
number of coastal policies involving actual
physical access. The "multi-use areas" are
to complement highway facilities. The
statute provides that multi-use areas may
include , but are not limited to walking,
hiking, bicycle, and recreational vehicle
trails, and there is express power to acquire
less than fee interest.
Acquisitions for this program must be
reviewed by the Department of State, the
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation, and the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation. The Secretary of State
will review such acquisitions which are
located within the coastal area.
Pursuant to its general acquisition powers
(see above) , the Department of Environmental
Conservation has instituted a program to
acquire public fishing access to lakes,
rivers and streams, including provision of
boat launching sites. Substantial access has
been provided through acquisition of
easements on private lands. The Parks and
Recreation Pond Act of 1960 and the
Environmental 4uality Bond Act of 1972 have
provided a source of funds for such acqui-
sition. (See Environmental Conservation Law,
551-0701) . Within the coastal area
acquisition will be made in accordance with
II - 6 - 95
the priorities establishes] by the "access
planning process."
Acquisition for improved coastal access made
by these agencies or other funds must be
consistent with the priorities described in
Policy 20.
4. Access Road, Highway Law 510 (37 )
This section of the Highway Law gives the
Comnissioner of Transportation the authority,
upon request of any head of a State agency,
to construct an access road from a State
highway to an agency facility (the agency
would, however, be required to reimburse DOT
for all incurred costs) . Thus, access to
coastal recreational facilities may be
increased at those facilities where road
access has been identified as deficient.
5. Abandoned Railway Acquistion, Transportation
Law (518)
Railroads are a common feature of much of New
York's coast and often restrict access to it.
This section of the Transportation Law gives
the Commissioner of the Department of
Transportation the preferential right to
acquire abandoned railroads, or to authorize
other appropriate State agencies, or
counties, cities, towns and villages to
exercise a preferential acquisition right to
such abandoned property. Where such
abandoned property would improve access to
existing or proposed public recreation areas
and there is no viable transportation use for
it, the Commissioner should give priority to
the public agency that has jurisdiction over
such coastal lands. This Law contains a
consistency provision stating that the
actions of the Department of Transportation
in determining preferential rights to
right-of-way, where a conflict over use
exists between one or more government
agencies, shall take action consistent with
the effectuation of State plans and policies.
This provision plus the State consistency
provisions of the Coastal !Management Program
indicate coastal managenent policies will
influence the decision where a conflict
exists.
II - 6 - 96
6. Siting of Energy Facilities, Public Service
Laws (Article VII and VIII) and Commission
Opinion 72-3, case #26108
Many transmission lines are located in the
coastal area. Use of their rights-of-way can
provide a suitable means of assuring
additional access to water-related recreation
opportunities including use by recreational
vehicles. Under this Law a utility company
is required to allocate an amount equal to
two percent of the total construction cost of
the transmission facilities to a fund to be
used for recreational development of the
right-of-way. Where the right-of-way could be
used for needed additional access, this
provision of the Law will be employed to
provide that access. At the present time,
however, recreational use of such
rights-of-way is not being acted upon because
of research that is underway in connection
with health and safety effects which may be
associated with high voltage transmission
facilities.
Because power plants generally locate along
the coast and a large land area around the
facility is often owned by the utility, these
sites present significant opportunities for
multiple use. At a minimum they can provide
additional access to water-related recreation
opportunities such as fishing.
7. Fish and Wildlife Management Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law, (Article II , Title
5)
The Environmental Conservation Law provides
for a "Fish and Wildlife Management Practices
Cooperative Program", the purpose of which is
to: ". . .obtain on the privately owned or
leased lands and waters of the state
practices of fish and wildlife management
which will preserve and develop the fish and
wildlife resources of the state and improve
access to them for recreational purposes by
the people of the state." The program is
used to provide, by agreement with land-
owners, public rights to access to such lands
for hunting and fishing purposes. Within
coastal areas, efforts to obtain agreements
will reflect coastal management policies.
II - 6 - 97
8. State Comprehensive Recreation Plan, Parks
and Recreation Law (53.15)
The State Comprehensive Recreation Plan has a
priority system for allocating funds
available for outdoor recreation acquisition
and development projects under State and
Federal grant programs and the State
Environmental Quality Bond Act. One of the
positive-rated allocation factors is the
degree to which the project contributes to
the implementation of State plans such as
that for Coastal Management. In addition,
consistency between the Coastal Management
Program and the State Comprehensive Recrea-
tion Plan will be assured by the Secretary of
State's review of such plan, and by the State
Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act which requires State agencies
to act consistent with the Act's policies.
9. Parks and Recreation Law, 53.09 (7-a)
The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation is required to promulgate a
comprehensvie plan for the establishment of a
statewide trails system. Trails are to
include footpaths, bike ways, snowmobile
trails, horse trails, cross-country ski
trails, roads and other rights-of-way
suitable for hiking, strolling , cycling,
horseback riding, skiing, and other means of
motorized and non-motorized travel for
recreational purposes. Included are to be
combinations and systems of trails leading to
scenic and recreational areas, such as those
in coastal areas.
II - 6 - 98
POLICY 20 Access to the publicly-owned foreshore and to lands immediately ad-
jacent to the foreshore or h�wrovideddin a mannse that �com publicly-owned
a with
Mall be provided and it shallp
adjoining uses.
A. Explanation of Policy
In coastal areas where there
s are
specific water-
related
no
recreation facilities providing Pe
related recreational activities, access to the
publicly-owned lands of the coast at large should
be provided for numerous activities anti pursuits
which require only minimal facilities for their
enjoyment. Such access would provide for walking
along a beach or a city waterfront or to a vantage
point from which to view the seashore. Similar
activities requiring access would include
bicycling , birdwatching , photography, nature
study, beachcombing, fishing and hunting.
For those activities, there are several methods of
providing access . which will receive ' priority
attention of the Coastal Management Program.
These include: the developirent of a coastal
trails system; the provision of access across
transportation facilities to the coast;, the
improvement of access to waterfronts in urban
areas; and the promotion of mixed and multi-use
development.
While such publicly-owned lands referenced in the
policy shall be retained in public ownership,
traditional sales of easements on lands underwater
to adjacent onshore property owners are consistent
with this policy, provided such easements do not
suhstantially interfere with continuer] public use
of the public lands on which the easement is
granted. Also, public use of such publicly-owned
underwater lands and lands immediately adjacent to
the shore shall be discouraged where such use
would be inappropriate for reasons of public
safety, military security, or the protection of
fragile coastal resources.
The following te guidelines ionsistency of s
be used in
determining proposed action
g
with this policy:
1. Existing access from adjacent or proximate
public lands or facilities to existing public
coastal lands and/or waters shall not be
of
reduced , nor shall the possibility
increasing access in the future from adjacent
or nearby public lands dacesse
publiccoastal lands an /or waters b
II - 6 - 99
eliminated, unless such actions are
demonstrated to be of overriding regional or
statewide public benefit, or in the latter
case, estimates of future use of these lands
and waters are too low to justify maintaining
or providing increased access.
The following is an explanation of the terms
used in the above guidelines:
a. (See definitions under first policy of
•access", and "public lands or
fac�I�ties" ).
b. A reduction in the existing level of
public access - includes but'Isnot
limited to �e following:
(1) Pedestrian access is diminished or
eliminated because of hazardous
crossings required at new or
altered transportation facilities,
electric power transmission lines,
or similar linear facilities.
(2) Pedestrian access is diminished or
blocked completely by public or
private development.
c. An elimination of the possibility of
increasing u is access in the future -
Includes but is not limited to, the
following:
(1) Construction of public facilities
which physically prevent the
provision, except at great expense,
of convenient public access to
public coastal lands and/or waters.
(2) Sale, lease, or other conveyance of
public lands that could provide
public access to public coastal
lands and/or waters.
(3) Construction of private facilities
which physically prevent the
provision of convenient public
access to public coastal lands
and/or waters from public lands and
facilities.
11 - 6 - 100
2. The existing level of public access within
public coastal lands or waters shall not be
reduced or eliminated.
a. A reduction or elimination in the
existing leve Of ub c access -
Includes but is not AlmItOd to We
following:
(1) Access is reduced or eliminated
because of hazardous crossings
required at new or altered
transportation facilities, electric
power transmission lines, or
similar linear facilities.
(2) Access is reduced or blocked
completely by any public
development.
3. Public access from the nearest public roadway
to the shoreline and along the coast shall be
provided by new land use or development
except where (a) it is inconsistent with
public safety, military security, or the
protection of identified fragile coastal
resources= (b) adequate access exists within
one-half miles or (c) agriculture would be
adversely affected. Such access shall not be
required to be open to public use until a
public agency or private association agrees
to accept responsibility for maintenance and
liability of the accessway.
4. The State will not undertake or fund any
project which increases access to a
water-related resource or facility that is
not open to all members of the public.
S. In their plans and programs for increasing
public access, State agencies shall give
priority in the following order to projects
located: within the boundaries of the
Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area and
served by public transportation= within the
Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area but not
served by public transportations outside the
defined Urban Area boundary and served by
public transportations and outside the
defined Urban Area boundary but not served by
public transportation.
6. Proposals for increased public access to
coastal lands and waters shall be analyzed
according to the following factors:
II - 6 - lol
a. The level of access to be provided
should be in accord with estimated
public use. If not, the proposed level
of access to be provided shall be deemed
inconsistent with the policy.
b. The level of access to be provided shall
not cause a degree of use which would
exceed the physical capability of the
coastal lands or waters. If this were
determines] to be the case , the proposed
level of access to be provided shall be
deemed inconsistent with the policy.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires 1) that
State agencies actions, including funding,
planning, and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities , must be
consistent with the policies of this act, one
of which calls for preventing diminution of
public access to the waterfront and another
for encouraging and facilitating public
access for recreational purposes. This
provision of law is implemented by amendnents
to SEQR (of 2 below) and by DOS regulations.
DOS regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600 ) provide
that, for their direct actions which do not
have a significant effect on the environment,
State agencies certify that the action is
consistent with the coastal policies , one of
which is: "Access to the publicly owned
foreshore and to lands immediately adjacent
to the foreshore or the water's edge that are
publicly owned shall be provided and it shall
be provided in a nanner compatible with
adjoining uses. To ensure that such lands
remain available for public use they shall be
retained in public ownership" ; 2) that the
Secretary of State shall review actions of
State agencies that may affect achievement of
the policy; and 3) that SEAR regulations be
amended to reflect consideration of the use
of coastal resources for including accommoda-
tion of public access needs.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommen� any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
rT f 11n1l
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8 )
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law,
SEAR regulations are amended to require that
for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared , such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Access to the publicly owned
foreshore and to lands immediately adjacent
to the foreshore or the water's edge that are
publicly owned shall be provided in a manner
compatible with adjoining uses. To ensure
that such lands remain available for public
use they shall be retained in public
ownership."
3. Acquisition of Property for Construction of
Bikeways , Highway Law (522 )
An important component of coastal trails
systems would be the inclusion of bikeways,
which are particularly desirable for
providing access because they create few
disturbances of the natural environment and
are compatible with the protection of private
property rights. This section of the Highway
Law could be the principal means to acquire
land for bikeways , since it authorizes the
Commissioner of Transportation to acquire
property for the purpose of constructing such
facilities.
Abandoned Railway Acquisition, Transportation
4. Law (518 )
Where railroad transportation property in
coastal areas has been abandoned for railroad
transportation purposes, the potential is
high for conversion of the right-of-way to a
coastal trails system that will increase
access to the coast. This section of the
Transportation Law gives the Commissioner of
Transportation the preferential right to
acquire abandoned railroads, or to authorize
other appropriate State agencies, metro-
politan or regional transportation
authorities; or counties, cities, towns and
villages to exercise a preferential acqui-
sition right to such abandoned property. The
Law contains a consistency provision stating
that the actions of the Department of
Transportation in determining preferential
rights to rights-of-way, where a conflict
II - 6 - 103
over use exists between one or more govern-
ment agencies, shall take action consistent
with the effectuation of State plans and
policies. This provision plus the State
consistency provisions of the Coastal Manage-
ment Program indicate coastal management
policies will influence the decision where a
conflict exists.
5. Statewide Trails System, Parks and Recreation
Law S3.09 (7-a)
This provision of the Parks and Recreation
Law could be used in conjunction with the
above provision, since it requires the
Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recrea-
tion and Historic Preservation to promulgate
a comprehensive plan for the establishment of
a statewide trails system which may be
implemented by the purchase and improvement
of abandoned railroad rights-of-way. Through
coordination with the Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation, the
Coastal Management Program will ensure that
development of trails in coastal areas
receives a high priority, and within the
coastal area the Secretary of State will
identify areas where trail development should
receive priority.
6. Highway Law (Article II , S22)
Recreational, scenic and natural areas
adjacent to coastal highways enhance not only
the setting of the highway, but can provide
access to coastal areas that, for example,
would otherwise be cut off by the highway.
This applies to both rural and urban areas.
This section of the Highway Law could be used
to provide for such areas because it
authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation
to acquire property in order to provide
multi-use areas adjacent to State highways,
and recreational, natural, and scenic areas
along but not necessarily contiguous to State
highways. Multi-use areas can be used for
such facilities as walking, hiking, bicycle,
trail-bike, recreational vehicle, and
snowmobile trails. Plans for any
acquisitions will be submitted to the
Secretary of State for his review and
recommendation.
II - 6 - 104
7. Siting of Major Steam Electric Generating
Facilities, Public Service Law (Article VIII)
Because power plants generally locate along
the coast and a large land area around the
facility is often owned by the utility, these
sites present significant opportunities for
multiple use, including access. Recognizing
this, ' the law specifically provides for
consideration of recreational use of power
plant sites, which could, of course, include
access to the shore. The law requires
utilities to state "why the primary proposed
location and source is best suited to promote
the public health and welfare, including the
recreational and other concerned uses which
the site may serve." The Secretary of State
will participate in the proceedings and will
formally present to the Siting Board his
recommendations on access.
S. Development of Transportation Corridors;
Multiple Use Outside the Counties of Rings
and Queens of Rights-of-Way, Transportation
Law (Article 14-e)
All transportation facilities, especially
those in coastal areas, have the potential
for development and multiple-use activities,
including recreation and its necessary
component access, in their rights-of-way.
This article of the Transportation Law could
be used for general access purposes to
coastal areas, since it gives the Commis-
sioner of Transportation the power to provide
for the multiple-use of transportation
facility rights-of-way in connection with the
construction of such facilities. This
applies throughout the State with the
exception of Kings and Queens Counties (New
York City) .
9. Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 15,
Title 27 )
This statute empowers the Department of
Environmental Conservation to promulgate
regulations for the control of land use and
development within an area up to one half
mile from the banks of designated rivers.
While this statute provides for police power
regulations, not acquisition, the Commis-
sioner of Environmental Conservation is
authorized to order discontinuance of lana
uses, with payment of compensation.
II - 6 - 105
Along designated rivers in coastal areas
where development patterns deter access, this
power could be indirectly used to facilitate
the provision of access.
10. State Nature and Historical Preserve Trust,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 45)
This program provides for acquisition, when
authorized by act of the Legislature, of real
property ( including less than fee interests )
and administration of lands, outside the
Forest Preserve counties, 0606 of special
natural beauty, wilderness character or
geological , ecological , or historical
significance..":, Wherever properties are
purchased in coastal areas, an indirect
benefit of the program could be the
improvement of access to the coast for a
variety of passive activities, provided
physical access would not conflict with
preservation of the resource.
11. Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Acts, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Articles 24 and 25)
These acts contain authority for programs
applying both performance standards and land
use regulations for the protection of
wetlands. The exercise of the police power
in relation to wetlands is to be accomplished
within the context of the broadly stated
purpose of these acts. While public access
is not specifically listed, several listed
purposes relate to access, including
recreational benefits ("provision of areas
for hunting, fishing, boating , hiking,
birdwatching, photography, and other uses" ) ;
" . . .education and scientific research by
providing readily accessible outdoor
bio-physical laboratories, living classrooms
and vast training and education resources" ;
and ". . .open space and aesthetic appreciation
by providing often the only remaining open
areas along crowded river fronts and coastal
Great Lakes regions. . . "
II - 6 - 106
POLICY 21 Water dependant and water enhanced recreation will be encouraged
and facilitated, and will be given priority over non-water related uses
along the coast.
A. Explanation of Policy
Water-related recreation includes such obviously
water-dependent activities as boating, swimming,
and fishing as well as certain activities which
are enhanced by a coastal location and increase
the general public's access to the coast such as
pedestrian and bicycle trails, picnic areas,
scenic overlooks and passive recreation areas that
take advantage of coastal scenery.
Provided the development of water-related
recreation is consistent with the preservation and
enhancement of such important coastal resources as
fish and wildlife habitats, aesthetically signifi-
cant areas, historic and cultural resources,
agriculture and significant mineral and fossil
deposits, and provided demand exists, water-
related recreation development is to be increased
and such uses shall have a higher priority than
any non-coastal dependent uses, including non-
water-related recreation uses. In addition,
water-dependent recreation uses shall have a
higher priority over water enhanced recreation
uses. Determining a priority among coastal
dependent uses will require a case by case
analysis.
Among priority areas for increasing water-related
recreation opportunities are those areas where
access to the recreation opportunities of the
coast can be provided by new or existing public
transportation services and those areas where the
use of the shore is severely restricted by
highways, railroads, industry, or other forms of
existing intensive land use or development. The
DOS, working with the Office of Parks, Recreation,
and Historic Preservation and with local govern-
ments, will identify communities whose use of the
shore has been so restricted and those sites
shoreward of such developments which are suitable
for recreation and can be made accessible.
Priority shall be given to recreational
development of such lands.
II - 6 - 107
The siting or design of new public development in
a manner which would result in a barrier to the
recreational use of a major portion of a com-
munity's shore should be avoided as much as
practicable.
Among the types of water-dependent recreation,
provision of adequate boating services to meet
future demand is to be encouraged by this Program.
The siting of boating facilities must be con-
sistent with preservation and enhancement of other
coastal resources and with their capacity to
accommodate demand. The provision of new public
boating facilities is essential in meeting this
demand , but such public actions should avoid
competition with private boating development.
Boating facilities will , as appropriate, include
parking, park-like surroundings, toilet facili-
ties, and pumpout facilities. Harbors of Refuge
are particulary needed along Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario. There is a need for a better locational
pattern of boating facilities to correct problems
of overused , insufficient, or improperly sited
facilities.
Also to be encouraged is non-motorized recreation
in the State's coastal area. Water-related off-
road recreational vehicle use is an acceptable
activity, provide no adverse environmental impacts
occur. Where adverse environmental impacts will
occur, mitigating measures will be implemented ,
where practicable to minimize such adverse
impacts. If acceptable mitigation is not practi-
cable, prohibition of the use by off-road recrea-
tional vehicles will be posted and enforced .
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Parks and Recreation Law (Section 3. 09)
This statute authorizes the NYS Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
to acquire, establish, operate, and maintain
state parks, parkways, historic sites, and
state recreational facilities. This Law is
employed by the Office to implement the State
Comprehensive Recreation Plan (SCRP) and
funding priority system described below.
II - 6 - 108
2. State Comprehensive Recreation Plan, Parks
and Recreation Law (Section 3.15)
The State Comprehensive Recreation 'Plan has a
priority system to allocate funding for
public parks and outdoor recreation acqui-
sition, development and rehabilitation
projects under available State and Federal
grant assistance funds and State Environ-
mental Quality Bond Act monies. One of the
positive rated allocation factors is the
degree to which the project contributes to
the implementation of the State Comprehensive
Recreation Plan or other State, national or
regional plans. Thus, the Coastal Management
program would require that projects proposed
for coastal areas be evaluated positively
under this Priority System if they' are
water-related or negatively if they are not
water-related. The DOS will work with the
OPR i KI? in a review of the State Compre-
hensive Recreation Plan to ensure that it
assigns priority to water-related recrea-
tional facilities and activities within the
coastal area.
3. Waterfront Revitalisation and Coastal
Resources Act, executive Law (Article 42)
Article 42, Section 919 provides: (1 ) that
all State agency actions, including funding,
planninn, land transaction, as well as direct
development activities must be consistent
with the policies of this Act which call for
the encouragement and facilitation of public
access to the shore for recreation, recrea-
tional fishing, maintaining open space, and
In general, the beneficial use of coastal
resources, particularly for recreation when-
ever appropriate. This provision of law is
implemented by amendments to SFQR (cf 2
below) and by DOS regulations. DOS regula-
tions (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide that, for
their direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment, State
agencies ' certify that the action is con-
sistent with the coastal policies, one of
which iq: 'Water dependent and water enhanced
recreational activities shall be encouraged
and facilitated and shall be given priority
over non-water related uses along the coast,
provided it is consistent with the preser-
vation )and enhancement of other coastal
resources and takes into account demand for
such facilities. In facilitating such
activities, priority shall be given to areas
II - 6 - 109
where access to the recreation opportunities
of the coast can be provided by new or exis-
ting public transportation services and to
those areas where the use of the shore is
severely restricted by existing development."
(2) that the Secretary of State review
actions of State agencies that would affect
achievement of the policies of the Act; and
(3) that SEAR regulations be amended to
require consideration of impacts on the use
of coastal resources for recreation.
Section 2 of the Act requires State agencies
to analyze their programs' consistency with
coastal policies and that the Secretary of
State review such analyses and make recom-
mendations to the Governor and Legislature
for any needed changes. The formula for
allocating funding to localities and the
State Comprehensive Recreation Plan are among
the programs that will be analyzed.
4. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8)
Under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, State agencies and local governments are
required to prepare an environmental impact
statement for any action that might have a
significant impact upon the environment. In
assessing the significance of an action's
impact on the environment, the impacts on
open space and future recreational oppor-
tunities are among those considered. The SEAR
regulations (NYCRR 617.12) set a much lower
threshold for triggering an environmental
assessment for an action in or near a
recreation area. In addition, as Article 42
of the Executive Law, requires SEAR regula-
tions are being amended to require the con-
sideration of impacts on the use of coastal
resources, such as potential recreational use
of coastal resources. Actions which have
been subject to an environmental impact
statement must, consistent with social , eco-
nomic, and other essential considerations,
minimize or avoid, to the maximum extent
practicable, the adverse environmental
effects revealed in the impact statement (ECL
58-0109-8 ) . In addition, pursuant to Article
42 of the Executive Law, SEAR regulations are
amended to require that for actions by a
State agency for which an EIS has been
prepared, such actions shall be consistent
II - 6 - 110
with the coastal policies, one of which is:
"Water dependent and water enhanced recrea-
tion shall be encouraged and facilitated and
shall be given priority over non water-
related uses along the coast, provided it is
consistent with the preservation and enhance-
ment of other coastal resources and takes
into account demand for such facilities. In
facilitating such activities, priority shall
be given to areas where access to recreation
opportunities of the coast can be provided by
new or existing public transportation
services and to those areas where the use of
the shore is severely restricted by existing
development."
5. Plan for an Urban Cultural Park System; Parks
and Recreation Law (Section 3.21)
This Law has resulted in the formulation of a
plan for the creation of a statewide system
of urban cultural parks, many located within
the coastal boundary and which include, among
other areas of concern, consideration or
urban waterways and other natural areas that
offer active and passive recreational
opportunities.
6. Parks and Recreation Law (Section 3.09 (7-a) )
Where railroad property in coastal areas has
been abandoned for railroad transportation
purposes, the potential is high for con-
version of the right-of-way to recreational
use and for increasing access to the land
shoreward from the railroad. This provision
of the Parks and Recreation Law gives the
Commissioner of the Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation the
power to purchase and improve such abandoned
railroad rights-of-way as can be used to
implement a comprehensive plan for the
establishment of a statewide trails system.
7. Abandoned Railroad Acquisition, Transporta-
tion Law (Section 18)
This section of the Transportation Law gives
the Commissioner of Transportation the
preferential right to acquire abandoned
railroads, or to authorize other appropriate
State agencies; metropolitan or regional
transportation authorities; or counties,
cities, towns and villages to exercise a
preferential acquisition right to such
II - 6 - 111
abandoned property. The Department of Trans-
poration is required to notify all interested
State agencies of the availability of
abandoned railway rights-of-way. This Law
contains a consistency provision stating that
the actions of the Department of Transpor-
tation in determining preferential rights to
rights-of-way, where a conflict over use
exists between one or more government
agencies, shall be consistent to the extent
practicable with the effectuation of all
State plans, policies, and objectives. This
provision fits well with the State con-
sistency provisions of the Executive Article
42.
8. Highway Law (Article II, Section 22 )
Recreational , scenic , and natural areas
located adjacent to coastal highways enhance
not only the setting of a highway, but can
provide access to coastal areas that would
otherwise be cut off by the highway. This
section of the Highway Law can provide for
such areas because the Commissioner of the
State Department of Transportation is
authorized to acquire property for multi-use
areas adjacent to State highways, as well as
recreational , natural , and scenic areas
along, but not necessarily contiguous to,
such highways . Multi-use areas can be used
for such purposes as walking, hiking,
bicycling, trail biking , and for snowmobile
trails. Acquisition and development of such
areas must be consistent with the coastal
policies of Article 42, Executive Law.
9. Harbors of Refuge, Navigation Law (Article
11, Section 141 )
This law authorizes the office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation to enter
into agreement with the Federal government
and with municipalities to construct,
operate, and maintain such harbors. Priori-
ties for locating harbors of refuge are
determined by the State Comprehensive
Recreation Plan Priority System. It is
particularly important that the location of
such harbors be consistent with the preser-
vation and enhancement of coastal resources
so that resource use conflicts are avoided.
II - 6 - 112
10. Local Marina Facilities, Navigation Law
(Article 11, Section 142)
Municipalities can help meet the demand for
marinas by participating in this program
which authorizes State financial assistance
to municipalities in the construction of
local marina facilities, including those
incidental to a harbor of refuge. Priorities
for giving financial assistance to munici-
palities are determined by the State Compre-
hensive Recreation Plan Priority System.
11. State Marina Facilities, Navigation Law
(Article 11, Section 143 )
This section of the Navigation Law authorizes
the State to construct , operate, and maintain
State marina facilities, including those
incidental to a harbor of refuge. Priorities
for location of these facilities are also
determined by the State Comprehensive
Recreation Plan Priority System.
II - 6 - 113
.-OLICy 22 Development when located adjacent to the shore�pprovide ith
for
water-related recreation whenever suc
h USO reasonably anticipated demand for such activities,and is compatible
with the primary purpose of the development.
A. Explanation of Policy
Many developments present practical opportunities
for providing recreation facilities as an
additional use of the site or facility. Therefore
whenever developments are located adjacent to the
shore they should to the fullest extent permitted
by existing law provide for some form of
water-related recreation use unless there are
compelling reasons why any form of such recreation
would not be compatible with the development, or a
reasonable demand for public use cannot be
foreseen.
The types of development which can generally
provide water-related recreation as a multiple
use include but are not limited to:
o parks
o highways
o power plants
o utility transmission rights of way
o sewage treatment facilities
o mental health facilities*
o hospitals*
o prisons*
o schools-, universities*
o military facilities*
o nature preserves*
o large residential subdivisions (50 units)
o shopping centers
o office buildings
Prior to taking action relative to any develop-
ment, State agencies should consult with the State
Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preser-
vation, anti if there is an approved local water-
front program, with the municipality in which the
development is to locate, to determine appropriate
recreation uses. The agency should provide OPRHP
and the municipality with the opportunity to
participate in project planning.
* the types of recreation uses likely to be compatible with
these facilities are limited to the more passive forms, such
as trails or fishing access. In some cases, land areas not
directly or immediately needed by the facility could be used
for recreation.
TT C 11G
Appropriate recreation uses which do not require
any substantial additional construction shall be
provided at the expense of the project sponsor
Provided the cost does not exceed 2% of total
project cost.
In determining whether compelling reasons exist
which would make inadvisable recreation as a
multiple use , safety considerations should reflect
a recognition that some risk is acceptable in the
use of recreational facilities.
Whenever a proposed development would be con-
sistent with CMP policies and the development
could , through the provision of recreation and
other multiple uses, significantly increase public
use of the shore, then such development should be
encouraged to locate adjacent to the shore (this
situation would generally only apply within the
more developed portions of urban areas) .
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42 )
Section 919 of Article 42 requires that State
agencies' actions, including funding,
planning, land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be
consistent with the policies of this Act.
These policies call for increased public
access to the shore for recreation purposes.
The Act therefore makes it incumbent on all
State agencies to promote water-related
recreation whenever there is an opportunity
to do so. This provision of law is imple-
mented by amendments to SEAR (see 2 below)
and by DOS regulations. DOS regulations (19
NYCRR Part 600 ) provide that, for their
direct actions which do not have a signifi-
cant effect on the enviroment, State agencies
certify that the action is consistent with
the coastal policies, one of which is:
"Developments when located adjacent to the
shore shall provide for water-related
recreation whenever appropriate in light of
reasonably anticipated demand for such
activities and the primary use of such land."
Further, this Act requires review by the
Secretary of State of State agency actions
which may affect achievement of coastal
policies. In addition SEAR regulations will
be amended to require consideration of
impacts on the use of coastal resources for
such purposes as recreation.
II - 6 - 116
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and - the Legislature.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8 )
Under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, State agencies and local governments are
required to prepare an environmental impact
statement for any action that might have a
significant effect on the environment. In
assessing the significance of an action's
impact on the environment, the impacts on
open space and future recreational
opportunities are considered. Article 42 of
the Executive Law requires that SEAR
regulations be amended to require the
consideration of impacts on the use of
coastal resources for such activities as
recreation. Actions which have been subject
to an environmental impact statement must,
consistent with social , economic, and other
essential considerations, minimize or avoid,
to the maximum extent practicable the adverse
environmental effects revealed in the impact
statement (ECL S 8-0109-S ) . In addition,
pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law
SEAR regulations are amended to require that
for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared, such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of
which is: "Developments when located adjacent
to the shore shall provide for water-related
recreation whenever appropriate in light of
reasonably anticipated demand for such
activities and the primary use of such
land."
3. Utility Transmission Facility Siting
(Commission opinion 72-3, Case #26108)
Transmission line rights-of-way are often
suitable for recreational activities such as
hiking, cycling, cross-country skiing or
horseback riding. Many transmission lines
are located in coastal areas. Under this
Commission opinion, a utility company is
required to allocate an amount equal to two
percent of the total construction cost of the
II - 6 - 117
transmission facility to a fund for the
recreational development of the right-of-way.
The program applies to electric transmission
lines of 115KV ten miles or more in length,
or for higher voltage lines of one mile or
more. Municipalities traversed by any part of
the right-of-way, as well as State and
Federal agencies, are eligible to use the
fund , which provides fifty percent of the
cost of any particular recreational develop-
ment. The sponsor must pay the rest of the
cost. The Public Service Commission policy
relating to actual recreational development
of a specific right-of-way is decided on a
case-by-case basis. It is not an automatic
part of every order issued by the Commission
in connection with transmission line decis-
ions. At the present time, the joint funding
of recreational development for rights-of-way
is not being acted upon because of research
that is underway in connection with health
and safety effects that may be associated
with high-voltage transmission facilities.
4. Siting of Major Steam Electric Generating
Facilities, Public Service Law (Article VIII)
Because power plants tend to locate along the
coast and require a large land area around
the facility, these sites present significant
opportunities for multiple use. Recognizing
this, this Law specifically provides for con-
sideration of recreational use of power plant
sites. It requires utilities to state "why
the primary proposed location and source is
best suited to promote the public health and
welfare including the recreational and other
concurrent uses which the site may serve."
5. Multi-use Areas Adjacent to Recreational ,
Natural , and Scenic Areas Along State High-
ways, Highway Law (Article 22)
Areas adjacent to highways in the coastal
area can provide numerous opportunities for
multi-use recreation. This part of the High-
way Law authorizes the Department of Trans-
portation to acquire property adjacent to
State highways for multi-use recreational
purposes and along, but not necessary con-
tiguous to, State highways for recreation-
al, natural and scenic purposes. Multi-use
areas may be utilized for, but not limited
to, hiking, bicycle, trailbike, recreational
vehicle and snowmobile trails.
II - 6 - 128
- . .,. _. _.,_._ ..... _. _ .. .._.. ._�•�trm:t was.c_. ...�._._. ...� _
6. Development of Transportation Corridors;
Multi-Use Outside the Counties of Rings and
Queens of Right-of-Way, Transportation Law
(Article 14-e)
All transportation facilities, especially
those in coastal areas, have the potential
for development of multi-use activities,
including recreation, in their rights-of-
way.
This article of the Transportation Law gives
the Commissioner of the Department of
Transportation the power to provide for the
multi-use of transporation facility rights-
of-way in conjunction with the construction
of such facilities. This applies everywhere
in the state except in Rings and Queens
Counties.
7. Acquisition of Reforestation Areas, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (9-0501)
Numerous coastal recreational activities are
compatible with reforestation and forest
management. This law gives the Department of
Environmental Conservation the power to
acquire lands for reforestation and for
establishment and maintenance of forests for
watershed protection, timber production and
other forest products, and for recreation and
other purposes. The reforestation areas must
consist of at least five hundred acres of
contiguous lands.
II - 6 - 119
POLICY 23 Protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that
are of significance in the history, architecture, archeology or culture
of the State,its communities,or the Nation.
A. Explanation of Policy
Among the most valuable of the State's man-made
resources are those structures on areas which are
of historic, archeological, or cultural signifi-
cance. The protection of these structures must
involve a recognition of their importance by all
agencies and the ability to identify and describe
them. Protection must include concern not just
with specific sites but with areas of signifi-
cance, and with the area around specific sites.
The policy is not to be construed as a passive
mandate but must include active efforts when
appropriate to restore or revitalize through
adaptive reuse. While the program is concerned
with the preservation of all such resources within
the coastal boundary, it will actively promote the
preservation of historic and cultural resources
which have a coastal relationship.
The structures , districts, areas or sites that are
of significance in the history, architecture,
archeology or culture of the State, its commu-
nities, or the Nation comprise the following
resources:
(a) A resource which is in a Federal or State
park established, among other reasons, to
protect and preserve the resource.
(b) A resource on, nominated to be on, or
determined eligible to be on the National or
State Registers of Historic Places.
(c) A resource on or nominated to be on the State
Nature and Historic Preserve Trust.
(d) An archeological resource which is on the
State Department of Education's inventory of
archeological sites.
(e) A local landmark, park, or locally designated
historic district that is located within the
boundary of an approved local waterfront
revitalization program.
(f) A resource that is a significant component of
an Urban Cultural Park.
All practicable means to protect structures,
districts , areas or sites that are of significance
in the history, architecture, archeology or
culture of the State, its communities or the
Nation shall be deemed to include the consider-
ation and adoption of any techniques , measures, or
controls to prevent a significant adverse change
to such significant structures , districts, areas
or sites. A significant adverse change includes
but is no limited to:
(a) Alteration of or addition to one or more of
the architectural, structural, ornamental or
functional features of a building, structure,
or site that is a recognized historic,
cultural , or archeological resource, or
component thereof. Such features are defined
as encompassing the style and general
arrangement of the exterior of a structure
and any original or historically significant
interior features including type, color and
texture of building materials; entry ways and
doors; fenestration; lighting fixtures;
roofing; sculpture and carving; steps; rails;
fencing; windows; vents and other openings;
grillwork; signs; canopies; and other
appurtenant fixures and, in addition, all
buildings, structures, outbuildings, walks,
fences, steps, topographical features,
earthworks , paving and signs located on the
designated resource property. (To the extent
they are relevant, the Secretary of the
Interior's "Standards For Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings" shall be adhered to. )
(b) Demolition or removal in full or part of a
building, structure, or earthworks that is a
recognized historic, cultural, or archeo-
logical resource or component thereof, to
include all those features described in (a)
above plus any other appurtenant fixture
associated with a building structure or
earthwork.
(c) All proposed actions within 500 feet of the
perimeter of the property boundary of the
historic , architectural , cultural , or archeo-
logical resource and all actions within an
II - 6 - 122
historic district that would be-• incompatible
with the objective of preserving the quality
and integrity of the resource. Primary
considerations to be used in making judgement
about compatibility should focus on the
visual and locational relationship between
the proposed action and the special character
of the historic• cultural, or archeological
resource. Compatibility between the proposed
action and the resource means that the
general appearance of the resource should be
reflected in the architectural style, design
material, scale, proportion, composition,
mass, line, color, texture, detail, setback,
landscaping and related items of the proposed
actions. With historic districts this would
Include infrastructure improvements or
changes, such as, street and sidewalk paving,
street furniture and lighting.
This policy shall not be construed to prevent the
construction, reconstruction, alteration, or
demolition of any building, structure, earthwork,
or component thereof of a recognised historic,
cultural or archeological resource which has been
officially certified as being imminently dangerous
to life or public health. Nor shall the policy be
construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance,
repair, or proper restoration according to the
• U.S. Department of Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings of any building, structure,
site or earthwork, or component thereof of a
recognised historic, cultural or archeological
resource which does not involve a significant
adverse change to the resource, as defined above.
a. State Means for Implementing Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalisation and Coastal Re-
sources Acts Executive Law (Article 42)
Article 42 1919 requires: 1) that all State
agency actions including funding, planning,
land transactions, as well as direct de-
velopment activities must be consistent with
the policies of this Act. one of these
policies calls for *restoration and revitali-
sation of natural and man-made resources•;
elsewhere the Legislature has determined that
among most important man-rade resources of
the State are its historical, architIctural,
archeological , and cultural assets this
1 Park t Recreation Law 514.01
TT - (+ 17I
provision of the Act will be implemented
through amendments to SEOR regulations (see 2
below) and the regulations issued pursuant to
Article 14 of the Parks and Recreation Law
(see 3 below) , and by DOS regulations. DOS
regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600 ) provide that,
for their direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is consis-
tent with the coastal policies, one of which
is: "Protect , enhance and restore structures,
districts, areas or sites that are of signi-
ficance in the history, architecture, arche-
ology, or culture of the State, its communi-
ties, or the Nation." 2 ) that the Secretary
of State may review actions of State agencies
that may affect achievement of the policies
of the Act; and 3 ) that SEOR regulations be
amended to, among other things, require
consideration of the effects of an action on
the use and conservation of coastal re-
sources, such as the historical, architec-
tural , archeological , and cultural resources
of the coastal area.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8 )
Under this Act, State agencies and local
governments are required to prepare an
environmental impact statement for any action
that might have a significant impact upon the
environment. In determining whether an action
may have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, impairment of the character or quality
of important historical, archeological ,
architectural , or of community or neighbor-
hood character are to be considered as
indicators of such significant effects. The
SEOR regulations set a very low threshold for
triggering an environmental assessment --
"any action (unless the action is designed
for the preservation of the facility or site)
occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to any facility or site listed on
the National Register of Historic Places, or
any historic building, structure, or site, or
prehistoric site that has been proposed by
the Committee on the Registers for considera-
tion by the NYS Board on Historic Preserva-
tion for a recommendation to the State
Historic Officer for nomination for inclusion
in said National Register" . Actions which
have been subject to an environmental impact
statement must, consistent with social ,
TT - f, - 124
economic , and other essential considerations,
minimize or avoid, to the maximum extent
practicable, the adverse environmental
effects revealed in the impact statement.
In
addition, pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEQR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared, such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "Protect, enhance
and restore structures, districts, areas, or
sites that are of significance in the
history, architecture, archeology, or culture
of the State, its communities, or the
Nation."
3. New York State Historic Preservation Act of
1980, Parks & Recreation Law (Sections 11.03,
11.09, 14); Public Building Law (Article
4-B) ; General Municipal Law (Article 5-R)
The New York State Historic Preservation Act
greatly expands the responsibilities of New
York State agencies and municipalities with
regard to historic preservation. Specifi-
cally, the Act provides several means for
preserving the historic architectural ,
archeological, and cultural resources of the
State ( including resources under water) . Each
State agency must designate a historic
preservation officer to coordinate and
implement State historic preservation pro-
grams. A State Register of Historic Places
is created and an inventory of properties
which may qualify for the Register is
established. A Statewide Preservation Plan
is to be prepared and updated annually. A
review process has been established, to be
undertaken concurrently with existing
environmental reviews; this process requires
State agencies to consult with the
Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation if a State-funded
project will have an adverse effect upon a
historic property. The review process re-
quires consideration of alternatives and that
adverse effects be avoided or mitigated. The
Secretary of State is added to State Board
for Historic Preservation, and the Commis-
sioner of the Office of General Services is
required to consider the use and restoration
of historic buildings in meeting the State' s
needs for building space.
II - 6 - 125
4. State Nature and Historical Preserve Trust,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 45)
This program provides for the acquisition and
administration of lands and waters which
should be preserved for their historical
significance, among other purposes. The
Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972 (ECL,
Article 51 , Section 51-0701 ) is the current
source of State funds to acquire lands under
this program.
II - 6 - 126
POLICY 24 Prevent impairment of scenic resources of statewide significance.
A. Explanation of Policy
The Coastal Management Program will identify on the
coastal area map scenic resources of statewide
significance. A list of preliminarily identified
resources appears in the Appendix. The following
general criteria will be combined to determine
significance:
Quality. The basic elements of design ( i.e. , two-
mens onal line, three-dimensional form, texture
and color) combine to create all high quality
landscapes. The water, landforms, and man-made
components of scenic coastal landscapes exhibit
variety of line, form, texture and color. This
variety is not, however, so great as to be
chaotic. Scenic coastal landscapes also exhibit
unity of components. This unity is not, however,
so complete as to be monotonous. Example: the
Thousand Islands where the mix of water, land,
vegetative and man-made components creates
interesting variety, while the organization of
these sane components creates satisfying unity.
Often, high quality landscapes contain striking
contrasts between lines, forms, textures and
colors. Example: A waterfall where horizontal
and vertical lines and smooth and turbulent
textures meet in dramatic juxtaposition.
Finally, high quality landscapes are generally
free of discordant features, such as structures or
other elements which are inappropriate in terms of
siting, form, scale, and/or materials.
Uniqueness. The uniqueness of high quality
landscapes is determined by the frequency of
occurence of similar resources in a region of the
State or beyond.
Public Accessibility. A scenic resource of
s gn ficance must be visually and, where
appropriate, physically accessible to the public.
Public Recognition. Widespread recognition of a
scenic resource is not a characteristic intrinsic
to the resource. It does, however, demonstrate
people's appreciation of the resource for its
visual, as well as evocative, qualities. Public
recognition serves to reinforce analytic
conclusions about the significance of a resource.
II - 6 - 127
When considering a proposed action, agencies shall
first determine whether the action could affect a
scenic resource of statewide significance. This
determination would involve: 1. ) a review of the
coastal area map to ascertain if it shows an identified
scenic resource which could be affected by the proposed
action, and T. ) a review of the types of activities
proposed to determine if they would be likely to impair
the scenic beauty of an identified resource.
Impairment will include: (i) the irreversible
modification of geologic forms; the destruction or
removal of vegetation; the modification, destruction,
or removal of structures, whenever the geologic forms,
vegetation or structures are significant to the scenic
quality of an identified resource; and (ii) the
addition of structures which because of siting or scale
will reduce identified views or which because of scale,
form, or materials will diminish the scenic quality of
an identified resource.
The following siting and facility-related guidelines
are to be used to achieve this policy, recognizing that
each development situation is unique and that the
guidelines will have to be applied accordingly.
Guidelines include:
-- siting structures and other development such as
highways, power lines, and signs, back from
shorelines or in other inconspicuous locations to
maintain the attractive quality of the shoreline
and to retain views to and from the shore;
-- clustering or orienting structures to retain
views, save open space and provide visual
organizaton to a development;
-- incorporating sound, existing structures
(especially historic buildings) into the overall
development scheme;
-- removing deteriorated and/or degrading elements;
maintaining or restoring the original land form,
except when changes screen unattractive elements
and/or add appropriate interest;
-- maintaining or adding vegetation to provide
interest, encourage the presence of wildlife,
blend structures into the site, and obscure
unattractive elements, except when selective
clearing removes unsightly, diseased or hazardous
vegetation and when selective clearing creates
views of coastal waters;
II - 6 - 128
-- using appropriate materials, in addition to
vegetation, to screen unattractive elements;
-- using appropriate scales, forms and materials to
ensure that buildings and other structures are
compatible with and add interest to the landscape.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources
Act , Executive Law (Article 42 )
Section 919 of Article 42 requires 1 ) that State
agencies actions, including funding, planning, and
land transactions, as well as direct development
activities , must be consistent with the policies
of this act, one of which calls for preventing
impairment of scenic beauty. This provison of law
is implemented by amendments to SEAR (cf 2 below)
and by DOS regulations. DOS regulations (19 NYCRR
Part 600 ) , provide that, for their direct actions
which do not have a significant effect on the
environment, State agencies certify that the
action is consistent with the coastal policies,
one of which is: "Prevent impairment of scenic
resources of statewide signficance, as identified
on the coastal area map. Impairment shall
include: ( i) the irreversible modification of
geological forms; destruction or removal of
vegetation; modification, destruction or removal
of structures, whenever the geologic forms,
vegetation, or structures are significant to the
scenic quality of an identified resource and ( ii)
the addition of structures which because of siting
or scale will reduce identified views or which
because of scale, form, or materials will diminish
the scenic quality of an identified resource." 2 )
that the Secretary of State shall review actions
of State agencies that may affect achievement of
the policy, and 3) that SEAR regulations be
amended to relect consideration of coastal
resources such as scenic resources.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 8 )
Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
State agencies and local governments are required
to prepare an environmental impact statement for
any action that might have a significant impact
upon the environment. The environment is broadly
defined to include existing patterns of develop-
ment and land resources; hence scenic areas are
viewed as an environmental resource. The SEAR
regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617 ) require that
II - 6 - 129
actions which have been subject to an environ-
mental impact statement must, consistent with
social , economic and other essential considera-
tions, minimize or avoid, to the maximum extent
practicable, the adverse effects revealed in the
impact statement (ECL S8-0109-8 ) .
In addition, pursuant to Article 42 of the Execu-
tive Law, SEOR regulations are amended to require
that for actions by a State agency for which an
EIS has been prepared, such actions shall be
consistent with the coastal policies, one of which
is: "Prevent impairment of scenic resources of
statewide significance, as identified on the
coastal area map. Impairment shall include: ( i)
the irreversible modification of geological forms;
destruction or removal of vegetation;
modification, destruction or removal of
structures, whenever the geologic forms,
vegetation or structures are significant to the
scenic quality of an identified resource and ( ii)
the addition of structures which because of siting
or scale will reduce identified views or which
because of scale, form, or materials will diminish
the scenic quality of an identified resource."
3. Protection of Natural and Man-Made Beauty,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 49-0103. 1
and 0.0314)
Under these two parts of the law, DEC has the
power and duty to: (1) "develop policies and
programs to preserve and enhance the natural and
man-made beauty of the State" and (2) "designate
scenic sites, areas and highways in the State and
develop programs for their preservation and
enhancement" . Where such programs exist for areas
in the coastal zone, they can be used as a guide
for determining the consistency of proposed
actions with coastal policy. The Coastal Manage-
ment Program will work closely with DEC to
designate additional sites and develop programs
for their protection.
4. State Nature and Historic Preserve Trust,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 45 )
The Trust provides for the acquisition and
administration of lands and waters which should be
preserved for their natural beauty. Scenic
resources of particular significance in the
coastal area would, thus, be eligible for
acquisition. The Environmental Quality Bond Act of
II - 6 - 130
1972 (ECL, Article 51, Section 51-0701 ) is the
major state funding mechanism to implement this
acquisition program.
5. Utility Transmission Facility Siting Act and Power
Plant Siting Act, Public Service Law, (Article VII
and VIII )
Transmission lines and power plants are highly
visible and sometimes unwelcome intrusions upon
scenic landscapes. These two legislative devices
require that Certificates of Environmental
Compability and Public Need be issued for major
utility transmission facilities and steam-electric
generating facilities. Aesthetic factors in
utility planning and development are incorporated
into Article VII and VIII deliberations.
6. Tidal Wetlands Act, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 25)
The issuance of permits for regulated uses or
activities in tidal wetlands requires that the
preservation and protection of aesthetic resources
be considered. 6 NYCRR, Part GG 1.10, specific-
ally includes aesthetic considerations among the
permit issuing standards.
7. Freshwater Wetlands Act , Environmental Conser-
vation Law (Article 24 )
The preservation and protection of aesthetic
resources is one of the objectives of this act.
The regulations require the consideration of
aesthetics in the issuance of a permit.
8. Coastal Erosion Hazards Area Act, Environmental
Conservation Law, (Article 34)
While the purpose of this law is not to protect
the quality of coastal scenery, those natural
protective features (dunes, beaches, spits,
barrier islands, bluffs) which the act protects
are major components of coastal scenery.
II - 6 - 131
POLICY 25 Protect, restore or enhance natural and man-made resources which
are not Identified as being of statewide significance, but which con-
tribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area.
A. Explanation of Policy
When considering a proposed action, which would not
affect a scenic resource of statewide significance,
agencies shall undertake to ensure that the action
would be undertaken so as to protect, restore or
enhance the overall scenic quality of the coastal area.
Activities which could impair or further degrade scenic
quality are the same as those cited under the previous
policy, i .e. , modification of natural landforms,
removal of vegetation, etc. However, the effects of
these activities would not be considered as serious for
the general coastal area as for significant scenic
areas.
The siting and design guidelines listed under the
previous policy should be considered for proposed
actions in the general coastal area. More emphasis may
need to be placed on removal of existing elements,
especially those which degrade, and on addition of new
elements or other changes which enhance. Removal of
vegetation at key points to improve visual access to
coastal waters is one such change which might be
expected to enhance scenic quality.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources
Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires 1 ) that State
agencies actions, including funding, planning, and
land transactions, as well as direct development
activities, must be consistent with the policies
of this act, one of which calls for preventing
impairment of scenic beauty. This provision of
law is implemented by amendments to SEAR (cf 2
below) and by DOS regulations. DOS regulations
(19 NYCRR Part 600 ) provide that, for their direct
actions which do not have a significant effect on
the environment, State agencies certify that the
action is consistent with the coastal policies,
one of which is: "Protect, restore or enhance
natural and man-made resources which are not
identified as being of statewide significance, but
which contribute to the overall scenic quality of
the coastal area." 2 ) that the Secretary of State
shall review actions of State agencies that may
affect achievement of the policy, and 3) that SEAR
regulations be amended to reflect consideration of
coastal resources such as scenic resources.
Il - 6 - LU
Section 2 of the Act requires that State agenices
analyze their programs' consistency with coastal
policies and that the Secretary of State recommend
any needed modifications to the Governor and the
Legislature.
2. State Environmental Qualify Review Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 8 )
Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
State agencies and local governments are required
to prepare an environmental impact statement for
any action that might have a significant impact
upon the environment. The environment is broadly
defined to include existing patterns of develop-
ment and land resources; hence actions which have
been subject to an environmental impact statement
must, consistent with social, economic, and other
essential considerations, minimize or avoid , to
the maximum extent practicable, the adverse
environmental effects revealed in the impact
statement (ECL 58-0109-8 ) . In addition, pursuant
to Article 42 of the Executive Law, SEAR regula-
tions are amended to require that for actions by a
State agency for which an EIS has been prepared ,
such actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "Protect, restore or
enhance natural and man-made resources which are
not identified as being of statewide significance,
but which contribute to the overall scenic quality
of the coastal area."
3. Tidal Wetlands Act, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 25)
See Policy 24.
4. Freshwater Wetlands Act, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 24)
See Policy 24.
5. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 34)
See Policy 24.
II - 6 •• 134
POLICY 26 Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area.
A. Explanation of Policy
The first step in conserving agricultural lands is the
identification of such lands. The Department of State
is mapping all important agricultural lands within the
State's coastal area. The following criteria have been
used to prepare the maps, and the mapped information
will be incorporated in the New York State Coastal
Resources Inventory and on the Coastal Area Map.
Land meleting any of the following criteria is being
mapped.
1. Land which meets the definition of the O.S.
Department of Agriculture as being prime farmland,
unique farmland , or farmland of statewide
importance.
a. Prime farmland is defined by USDA Soil
Conservation Service in CRF 67 Agriculture
Part 657.5(a) , January, 1979. A list of the
soil associations that meet this definition
has been prepared for each coastal county.2
1 After mapping according to this definition was substantially
completed , the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets
completed development of a new agricultural land classification
system. As soon as is practical the following definition will be
the basis for revising the maps of coastal agricultural land.
Important agricultural land shall include all land within an
agricultural district or subject to an eight-year cosmeitment
which has been farmed within at least two of the last five years,
or any land farmed within at least two of the last of the last
five years in soil groups 1-4 as classified by the Land
Classification System established by the NYS Department of
Agriculture and Markets, or any land farmed within at least two
of the last five years which is influenced by climate conditions
which support the growth of high value crops. Additionally,
agricultural land not meeting the above criteria but located
adjacent to any such land and forming part of an on-going
agricultural enterprise shall be considered important
agricultural land.
2 For the purposes of this map the urban areas which are to be
excluded are all cities, the counties of Nassau, Westchester#
Rockland, Putnam and Erie, and any built up area (this applies to
c. also) .
II - 6 - 135
b. Unique farmland is defined by USDASCS in CRF
#7 Agriculture Part 657.5(b) . In the coastal
area of New York all fruit and vegetable
farming meets the terms of the definition.
c. Farmland of Statewide importance is defined
by USDASCS in CRF #7 Agriculture Part
656.5(c) . Lists of soil associations which
constitute farmland of Statewide importance
have been prepared for each coastal county.
2. Active farmland within Agricultural Districts.
The maps of each Agricultural District shows land
committed by farmers. This is the land that will
be mapped as active farmland . The district
boundary will also be shown.
3. Areas identified as having high economic viability
for farming. Any farm not identified under 1
and/or 2 above and which is located in an area
identified as having "high viability" on the map
entitled "Economic Viability of Farm Areas"
prepared by the office of Planning Coordination in
May, 1969. This would be the basis for initial
identification of areas having high economic
viability for farming. Areas will be added and/or
deleted based on comments from the agricultural
community.
4. Areas adjacent to land identified under 1 above if
these areas are being farmed and are part of a
farm with identified important agricultural lands.
5. Prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of
Statewide significance will not be identified as
important agricultural land whenever it occurs as
parcels of land less than 25 acres in size and
these small parcels are not within a mile of areas
of active farming.
II - 6 - 136
Given the Program's application to a narrow strip of
land, implementing a policy of promoting agricultural
use of land must, to be practical , concentrate on
controlling the replacement of agricultural land uses
with non-agricultural land use as the result of some
public action. The many other factors such as markets,
taxes, and regulations , which influence the viability
of agriculture in a given area, can only be addressed
on a Statewide or national basis.
The Program policy requires a concern for the loss of
any important agricultural land. However, the primary
concern must be with the loss of agricultural land when
that loss would have a significant effect on an
agricultural area's ability to continue to exist, to
prosper, and even to expand. A series of determinations
are necessary to establish whether a public action is
consistent with the conservation and protection of
agricultural lands or whether it is likely to be
harmf ul to the health of an agricultural area. In
brief these determinations are as follows : First, it
must be determined whether a proposed public action
would result in the loss of important agricultural
lands as mapped on the Coastal Inventory. If it would
not result , either directly or indirectly, in the loss
of identified important agricultural lands, then the
action is consistent with the policy on agriculture.
If it is determined that the action would result in a
loss of identified important agricultural lands but
that loss would not have an adverse effect on the
viability of agriculture in the surrounding area, then
the action may also be consistent with the agriculture
policy. However, in that case the action must be
undertaken in a manner that would minimize the loss of
important farmland. If the action is determined to
result in a significant loss of important agricultural
land , that is if the loss is to a degree sufficient to
adversely affect surrounding agriculture's viability, -
its ability to continue to exist, to prosper, and even
to expand - then the action is not consistent with this
agriculture policy.
The following guidelines define more fully what must be
considered in making the above determinations:
II - 6 - 137
A. A public action would be likely to significantly
impair the viability of an agricultural area in
which identified important agricultural lands are
located if:
1. the action would occur on identified impor-
tant agricultural lands and would:
a. consume more] than 108 of the land of an
active farm containing such identified
important agricultural lands
b. consume a total of 100 acres or more of
identified important agricultural land,
or
ce divide an active farm with identified
important agricultural land into two or
more parts thus impeding efficient farm
operation
2. the action would result in environmental
changes which may reduce the productivity or
adversely affect the quality of the product
of any identified important agricultural
lands.
3. the action would create real estate market
conditions favorable to the conversion of
large areas of identified important agri-
cultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Such
conditions may be created by:
a. public water or sewer facilities to
serve non-farm structures
b. transportation improvements, except for
maintenance of, and safety improvements
to, existing facilities, that serve
non-farm or non-farm related develop-
ment
co major non-agribusiness commercial devel-
opment adjacent to identified agri-
cultural lands
d . major public institutions
e. residential uses other than farm
dwellings.
3A farm is defined as an area of at least 10 acres devoted to
agricultural production as defined in the Agricultural District
Law and from which agricultural products have yielded gross
receipts of $10,000 in the past year.
iI - 6 - 138
e. any change in land use regulations
applying to agricultural land which
would encourage or allow uses
incompatible with the agricultural use
of the land
B. The following types of facilities and activities
should not be construed as having adverse effects
on the preservation of agricultural land:
1. Farm dwellings, barns, silos, and other
accessory uses and structures incidental to
agricultural production or necessary for farm
family supplemental income
2. Agribusiness development which includes the
entire structure of local support services
and commercial enterprises necessary to
maintain an agricultural operation, e.g. ,
milk hauler, grain dealer, farm machinery
dealer, veterinarian, food processing plants
C. In determining whether an action that would result
in the loss of farmland is of overriding regional
or Statewide benefit, the following factors should
be considered:
1. For an action to be considered overriding it
must be shown to provide significantly
greater benefits to the region or State than
are provided by the affected agricultural
area (not merely the land directly affected
by the action) . In determining the benefits
of the affected agriculture to the region or
State, consideration must be given to its
social and cultural value, its economic
viability, its environmental benefits, its
existing and potential contribution to food
or fiber production in the State and any
State food policy, as well as its direct
economic benefits.
a. An agricultural area is an area pre-
dominantly in farming and in which the
farms produce similar products and/or
rely on the same agribusiness support
services and are to a significant degree
economically inter-dependent. At a
minimum this area should consist of at
least 500 acres of identified important
agriculture land . For the purpose of
analyzing impacts of any action on
agriculture, the boundary of such area
need not be restricted to land within
the coastal boundary. If the affected
II - 6 - 139
agricultural lands lie within an
agricultural district then, at a
minimum, the agricultural area should
include the entire agricultural
district.
b. In determining the benefits of an
agricultural area, its relationship to
agricultural lands outside the area
should also be considered.
c. The estimate of the economic viability
of the affected agricultural area should
be based on an assessment of
i . soil resources , topography, condi-
tions of climate' and water
resources
ii . availability of agribusiness and
other support services, and the
level and condition of investments
in farm real estate, livestock and
equipment
iii . the level of farming skills as
evidenced by income obtained , yield
estimates for crops, and costs
being experienced with the present
types and conditions of buildings,
equipment, and cropland
iv. use of new technology and the rates
at which new technology is adopted
vo competition from substitute prod-
ucts and other farming regions and
trends in total demand for given
products
vi . patterns of farm ownership for
their effect on farm efficiency and
the likelihood that farms will
remain in use
d. The estimate of the social and cultural
value of farming in the area should be
based on an analysis of:
i . the history of farming in the area
ii. the length of time farms have
remained in one family
II - 6 - 140
iii. the degree to which farmers in the
area share a cultural or ethnic
heritage
iv. the extent to which products are
sold and consumed locally
v. the degree to which a specific
crop(s) has become identified with
a community
e. An estimate of the environmental
benefits of the affected agriculture
should be based on analysis of:
i. the extent to which the affected
agriculture as currently practiced
provides a habitat or food for
wildlife
ii. the extent to which a farm
landscape adds to the visual
quality of an area
iii. any regional or local open space
plans, and degree to which the open
space contributes to air quality
iv. the degree to which the affected
agriculture does, or could,
contribute to the establishment of
a clear edge between rural and
urban development
D. Whenever a proposed action is determined to have
an insignificant adverse effect on identified
important agricultural land or whenever it is
permitted to substantially hinder the acheivement
of the policy according to DOS regulations, Part
600, or as a result of the findings of an EIS,
then the required minimization should be under-
taken in the following manner:
1. The proposed action shall, to the extent
practicable , be sited on any land not
identified as important agricultural, or, if
it must be sited on identified important
agricultural land, sited to avoid classes of
agricultural land according to the following
priority:
II - 6 - 141
a. prime farmland in orchards or vineyards
b. unique farmland in orchard or vineyards
C . other prime farmland in active farming
d. other unique farmland
e. farmland of statwide importance in
active farming
f . active farmland identified as having
high economic viability
g . prime farmland not being farmed
h. farmland of statewide importance not
being farmed
2. To the extent practicable, agricultural use
of identified important agricultural land not
directly necessary for the operation of the
proposed non-agricultural action should be
provided for through such means as lease
arrangements with farmers, direct undertaking
of agriculture, or sale of surplus land to
farmers. Agricultural use of such land shall
have priority over any other proposed
multiple use of the land.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources
Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires 1 ) that State
agencies actions, including funding , planning , and
land transactions, as well as direct development
activities, must be consistent with the policies
of this act, one of which calls for the conserva-
tion and protection of agricultural lands. This
provision of law is implemented by amendments DOto
S
SEAR (cf 2 below) and by DOS regulations .
regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600 ) provide that, for
their direct actions which do not have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment, State agencies
certify that the action is consistent with the
coastal policies one of which is: To conserve and
protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal
area, an action shall not result in a loss or
impair the productivity of important agricultural
land, as identified on the coastal area map,
II - 6 - 142
if that loss or impairment would adversely affect
the valuability of agriculture in an agricultural
district or, in the area surrounding such lands,
if there is no agriculture district. Secretary of
State may review actions of State agencies that
may affect achievement of the policy, and 3) that
SEAR regulations be amended to reflect considera-
tion of coastal resources such as agricultural
lands.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State agencies
analyze their programs' consistency with coastal
policies and that the Secretary of State recommend
any needed modifications to the Governor and the
Legislature.
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 8 )
Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
State agencies and local governments are required
to prepare an environmental impact statement for
any action that might have a significant impact
upon the environment. The environment is broadly
defined to include existing patterns of develop-
ment, and land resources; hence farming and
important agricultural lands are viewed as an
environmental resource. The SEAR regulation (6
NYCRR Part 617 ) set a very low threshold for
triggering an environmental assessment for actions
within agricultural districts. Actions which have
been subject to an environmental impact statement
must, consistent with social , economic, and other
essential considerations, minimize or avoid, to
the maximum extent practicable, the adverse
environmental effects revealed in the impact
statement (ECL 58-0109-8) . In addition, pursuant
to Article 42 of the Executive Law SEAR regula-
tions are amended to require that for actions by a
state agency for which an EIS has been prepared ,
such actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: To conserve and
protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal
area, an action ithall not result in a loss or
impair the the productivity of important agricul-
tural land, as identified on the coastal area map,
if that loss or impairment would adversely affect
the valuability of agriculture in an agricultural
district or, in the area surrounding such lands,
if there is no agriculture district.
II - 6 - 143
3. Agricultural District Program, Agriculture and
Markets Law (Article 25AA)
The Agricultural District Law provides the primary
means for the State to directly pursue a policy of
conserving important agricultural lands. Most of
the important coastal agricultural land is already
included in agricultural districts. The provi-
sions of the act which lead to the conservation of
farmland include 1) farm value assessments,
(recent amendments improve this provision) ; 2)
limitations on the exercise of eminent domain; 3 )
a requirement that State agencies' regulations
encourage maintenance of farming; 4) limitations
on local ordinances that adversely affect farming
and 5) limitations on the power of public service
districts to impose taxes. These provisions, plus
the power given the State to create such districts
where it would further state environmental plans,
policies or objectives, constitute the basic state
program for conserving all important farmland .
4. Transportation Law (514-a)
This law requires that the commissioner of Trans-
portation cooperate with the commissioner of
Agriculture and Markets to assure that measures to
preserve farmland and the natural characteristics
of the land traversed by transportation facilities
are included in all stages of such projects .
II - 6 - 144
POLICY 27 Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in
the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compatibility
of such facilities with the environment, and the facility's need for a
shorefront location.
A. Explanation of Policy
Demand for energy in New York will increase ,
although at a rate slower than previously pre-
dicted. The State expects to meet these energy
demands through a combination of conservation
measures; traditional and alternative technolo-
gies; and use of various fuels including coal in
greater proportion.
A determination of public need for energy is the
first step in the process for siting any new
facilities. The directives for determining this
need are contained primarily in Article 5 of the
New York State Energy Law. That Article requires
the preparation of a State Energy Master Plan.
With respect -to transmission lines ' and steam
electric generating facilities, Articles VII and
VIII of the State's Public Service Law require
additional forecasts and establish the basis for
determining the compatibility of these facilities
with the environment and the necessity for a
shorefront location. The policies derived from
the siting regulations under these Articles are
entirely consistent with the general coastal zone
policies derived from other laws, particularly the
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. That
Act is used for the purposes of ensuring con-
sistency with the Coastal Management Program.
The Department of State will comment on the State
Energy Master Plan; present testimony for the
record during relevant certification proceedings
under Articles VII and VIII of the PSL; and use
the State SEOR and DOS regulations to ensure that
decisions on other proposed energy facilities
(other than transmission facilities and steam
electric generating plants) which would impact the
coastal area are made consistent with coastal
policies.
II - 6 - 145
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Energy Law (Article 5)
Under this law an Energy Planning Board was
established. As required, the Board prepared
and adopted the first State Energy Master
Plan which is currently in effect. The Board
is now considering an updated plan. See
Section 7 of this document for a more
detailed discussion of this plan.
2. Public Service Law (Article VIII ) - Siting of
Major Steam Electric Generating Facilities
Before preparation of a site or the
construction of a major steam electric
generating facility can commence, a Certi-
ficate of Environmental Compatibility and
Public Need must be issued by the New York
State Board on Electric Generation Siting and
the Environment. This process is described
in detail in Section 7. In granting this
certificate, the Board must determine that
the facility:
o Represents the minimum adverse environ-
mental impact, considering the state of
available technology; the nature and
economics of the various alternatives;
and the interests of the state with
respect to aesthetics, preservation of
historic sites , forests and parks, fish
and wildlife, and viable agricultural
lands;
o Complies with applicable State laws
concerning, among other matters, the
environment and public health and
safety;
o Serves the public interest, convenience
and necessity.
The regulations which implement Article VIII
and govern the Board's decision (see Appendix
A, #7) assure that this decision will be
compatible with the policies articulated in
this document, both those relating to
environmental protection and to economic
development.
To further ensure compatibility, the Depart-
ment of State will review applications and
may present testimony during proceedings
II - 6 - 146
involving facilities proposed to be sited in
coastal areas. When reviewing applications,
the Department will examine the required
description of reasonable alternate locations
as well as the rationale for the preferred
site, particularly with respect to potential
land uses on or near the proposed site, and .
the justification for the amount of shore-
front land to be used. Proposed uses which
are likely to be regarded by the Department
as requiring a shorefront location include:
o Uses involved in sea/land transfer of
goods (docks, pipelines, short term
storage facilities) ;
o Uses requiring large quantities of water
(hydroelectric power plants, pumped
storage power plants) ; and ,
o Uses that rely heavily on waterborne
transportation of raw materials or
products which are difficult to
transport on land.
3. Public Service Law (Article VII) - Siting of
Major Utility Transmission Facilities
Prior to the construction of a major electric
or fuel gas transmission facility, a Certifi-
cate of Environmental Compatibility and
Public Need must be granted by the Public
Service Commission. See Section 7 of this
document for a detailed description of this
process. In issuing a certificate, the
Commission must determine that the facility:
o Represents the minimum adverse environ-
mental impact, considering the state of
available technology and the nature and
economics of the various alternatives;
o Conforms with applicable State laws;
o Serves the public interest, convenience
and necessity.
As with steam electric generating plants, the
Department of State will review applications
and may present testimony during proceedings
involving transmission facilities proposed to
be sited in the coastal area. The Department
will examine the same matters as under
Article VIII. It will also use the same
II - 6 - 147
criteria to determine the need for a shore-
front location and the consistency of the
proposal with coastal policies.
Interstate transmission facilities , such as
gas and petroleum pipelines, coal slurry
pipelines and electric transmission lines
associated with hydroelectric facilities, are
regulated by Federal agencies. Through
Federal consistency provisions, such facili-
ties will be sited in a manner that is
consistent with the Program's policies.
4. Environmental Conservation Law (Article 23 ,
Title 17) - Liquefied Natural and Petroleum
Gas
All liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) facilities, must obtain
an environmental safety permit before
construction and operation. For a permit to
be granted, it must be shown that such
facilities would not endanger residential
areas and contiguous populations and would
otherwise conform to siting criteria
established by the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation. During the review of
proposed projects, consideration is given to:
the location of the proposed facility; the
design and capacity of the facility; expected
sources of the gas; methods of transporting
gas to and from the facility and transporta-
tion routes; the public need for the
facility; its environmental impacts; and ,
descriptions of reasonable alternate
locations for the facility.
5. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires 1 ) that
State agencies' actions, including direct
energy development activities such as those
undertaken by the Power Authority of the
State of flew York, must be consistent with
the environmental protection and development
policies of this act. This provision of law
is implemented by amendments to SEAR (below)
and by DOS regulations. DOS regulations (19
NYCRR Part 600) provide that, for their
direct actions which do not have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is con-
sistent with the coastal policies, 2) that
the Secretary of State shall review actions
II - 6 - 148
of State agencies that may affect achievement
of the policy, and 3 ) that SEOR regulations
be amended to reflect consideration of
coastal resources.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
6. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8 )
Under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, State agencies and local governments are
required to prepare an environmental impact
statement for any action that might have a
significant impact upon the environment. This
requirement applies to large scale energy
facilities other than transmission lines and
steam electric generating plants as described
above. The environment is broadly defined to
include existing patterns of development and
land resources. Actions which have been
subject to an environmental impact statement
must, consistent with social , economic , and
other essential considerations, minimize or
avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, the
adverse environmental effects revealed in the
impact statement (ECL $8-0109-8 ) . In
addition, pursuant to Article 42 of the
Executive Law, SEAR regulations are amended
to require that for actions by a State agency
for which an EIS has been prepared , such
actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies.
7. Water Resources Law, Environmental Conser-
vation Law (Article 15 )
Proposals, including those to construct all
pipelines, which would excavate or deposit
fill in any navigable waters and adjacent
marshes and estuaries of the State require
permits issued by the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
8. Tidal Wetlands Act, Environmental Conser-
vation Law (Article 25 )
The Tidal Wetlands Act requires that a permit
be issued for uses, including oil piplines,
in identified tidal wetlands. It must be
demonstrated that proposed facilities will
II - 6 - 149
not adversely affect water quality, flood and
storm control , marine food production, wild-
life habitats, open space, and aesthetically
significant areas.
9. Freshwater Wetlands Act, Environmental Con-
servation Law (Article 24)
The Freshwater Wetlands Act requires that a
permit be issued for uses, including oil
pipelines, in identified freshwater wetlands.
It must be demonstrated that proposed
facilities will not adversely affect water
quality, flood and storm control, erosion
control , subsurface water resources , wildlife
habitats, freshwater fish sanctuaries, open
space, and aesthetically significant areas.
10. Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensa-
tion, Navigation Law (Article 12, Section 170
et. seq. )
This Article provides for the protection of
the State's environment and economy by
preventing unregulated discharge of petroleum
from major facilities; by authorizing the
Departments of Environmental Conservation and
Transportation to respond quickly to remove
any discharges; and by establishing liability
for any damages sustained within the State as
a result of such discharges.
The Article also creates a fund for clean-up,
restoration and compensation for damages
caused by oil spills. Before a license to
construct a major oil facility can be issued
by the Department of Transportation, an
applicant must pay the required fee to help
maintain the fund and must show that the
necessary equipment to prevent, contain and
remove petroleum discharges will be provided.
The Department will issue licenses for major
onshore facilities only after the Department
of Environmental Conservation has certified
that the applicant has the necessary equip-
ment to control oil discharges.
11. Environmental nConservationELawl (ArticleSystem,
State 27)
This Article requires permits for construc-
tion of new outlets or new disposal systems
to discharge industrial and other wastes into
State waters, including wastes from nuclear
power plants, other steam electric generating
II - 6 - 150
plants, and petroleum facilities. This permit
procedure ensures that established water
quality standards are met.
12. Air Pollution Control , Environmental Coni--
servation
on-servation Law (Article 19, Title 3)
This Article gives the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation the authority to promul-
gate and enforce regulations controlling air
emissions, including those released by energy
facilities. These regulations appear in the
State Implementation Plan which details State
strategies for meeting Federal air quality
standards under the Clean Air Act.
II - 6 - 151
- _...._. . . ... _ _ -•rte..._.. .. .. ._
POLICY 28 Ice management practices shall not interfere with the production of
hydroelectric power, damage significant fish and wildlife and their
habitats,or increase shoreline erosion or flooding.
A. Explanation of Policy
Prior to undertaking actions required for ice manage-
ment, an assessment must be made of the potential
effects of such actions upon the production of hydro-
electric power, fish and wildlife and their habitats as
will be identified in the Coastal Area - Maps, flood
levels and damage, rates of shoreline erosion damage,
and upon natural protective features.
Following such an examination, adequate methods of
avoidance or mitigation of such potential effects must
be utilized if the proposed action is to be
implemented.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources
Act , Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires (1 ) that State
agencies' actions, including funding, planning,
land transactions, as well as direct development
activities, must be consistent with the policies
of this Act, which, among others, call for
preventing the loss of fish and wildlife
resources, minimizing damage to natural resources
and property from flooding and erosion, and
achieving the beneficial use of coastal resources.
Those provisions of law are implemented by
amendments to SEOR and by the Department of State
regulations. In addition, the Department of State
regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600) provide that, for
their direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment, State
agencies certify that the action is consistent
with the coastal policies, one of which is: "Ice
management practices shall not interfere with the
production of hydro-electric power, damage
significant fish and wildlife and their habitats,
nor increase shoreline erosion or flooding." (2 )
that the Secretary of State shall review actions
of State agencies that may affect achievement of
the policy, and (3) that SEOR regulations be
amended to reflect consideration of this policy.
II - 6 - 153
2. State Environmental Quality Review Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 8 )
Pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law, SEQR
regulations are amended to require that actions by
a State agency for which an EIS has been prepared,
such actions shall be consistent with the coastal
policies, one of which is: "Ice management prac-
tices shall not interfere with the production of
hydro-electric power, damage significant fish and
wildlife and their habitats, nor increase
shoreline erosion or flooding."
3. Energy Law (Article 5 )
See description under Policy 27.
4. Tidal Wetlands Act, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 25 )
See description under Policy 27.
5. Freshwater Wetlands Act, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 24 )
See description under Policy 27.
6. Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensation,
Navigation Law (Article 12, 5170 et. seq. )
See description under Policy 27.
7. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 34 )
See description under Policy 27.
II - 6 - 154
POLICY 29 Encourage the development of energy resources on the Outer Con-
Omental Shelf, in Lake Erle and in other water bodies, and ensure the
environmental safety of such activitles.
A. Explanation of Policy
The State recognizes the need to develop new
Indigenous energy sources. it also recognizes
that such development my endanger the environ-
mnt. Among the various energy sources being
examined are those which may be found on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) or in Lake Erie. The
State has been encouraging the wise development of
both.
Matters pertaining to the OCS are the responsibil-
ity of the Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion. In 1977, the Department, in cooperation
with regional and local agencies, completed a
study which identified potential sites along the
marine coast for on-shore OCS facilities. To
date, these sites have not been developed for this
purpose. The Department, also, actively partici-
pates in the OCS planning process by reviewing and
voicing the State's concerns about federal OCS oil
and gas lease sales and plans. In its review of
these proposed sales and plans, the Department
considers a number of factors such as the effects
upon navigational safety in the established
traffic lanes leading into and from New York
Barbor; the impacts upon important finfish, shell-
fish and wildlife populations and their spawning
areas; economic and other effects upon commercial
and recreational fishing activities; impacts upon
public recreational resources and opportunities
along the marine coast; the potential for geo-
hazards; impacts upon biological communities; and
water quality.
The Department of Environmental Conservation has
also examined the potential impacts of Lake Erie
gas drilling and is instituting reasonable guide-
lines so that activities can proceed without
damage to public water supplies and other valuable
coastal resources. State law prohibits develop-
ment of wells nearer than one-half mile from the
shoreline, two miles from public water supply
intakes, and one thousand feet from any other
structure or installation in or on Lake Erie.
Further, State law prohibits production of liquid
hydrocarbons in Lake Erie, either alone or in
association with natural gas. The Department has
not, however, reached a decision as to whether or
not the lands under Lake Erie will be leased for
gas exploration purposes.
II - 6 - 155
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Environmental Conservation Law (Section
23-1101)
The Department of Environmental Conservation
may lease the lands beneath Lake Erie accord-
ing to specific siting, operation, and lia-
bility requirements. Thus the State's envir-
onmental agency will retain control over the
process and ensure appropriate environmental
safeguards. The production of liquid hydro-
carbons is, however, prohibited by this
Article.
2. Environmental Conservation Law (Section
23-0305)
This law provides that the Department of
Environmental Conservation will retain juris-
diction over any active or abandoned wells
and wellheads and may limit production. The
Department may act to terminate hazardous
discharges which threaten natural resources.
Under this law, producers and handlers must
maintain accurate records of quantities of
gas handled.
3. Siting of Major Utility Transmission
Facilities, Public Service Law (Article VII)
This law establishes procedures to be
followed by developers of natural gas in the
construction of any gathering pipelines from
wellheads and any master collecting pipelines
in accordance with the environmental
considerations of this Article as discussed
under the previous policy.
4. Public Service Law (Article 4, Section 66)
Under this law, the Public Service Commission
regulates the safe construction and operation
of natural gas pipelines from the wellhead to
any onshore connection.
5. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
See description under Policy 27.
6. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Section
8-0113)
See description under Policy 27.
II - 6 - 156
7. Water Resources Law, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 15)
See description under Policy 27.
8. Freshwater Wetlands Act, Environmental Con-
servation Act (Article 24)
See description under Policy 27.
9. Freshwater Wetlands Act, Environmental Con-
servation Act (Article 24)
See description under Policy 27.
II - 6 - 157
POLICY 30 Municipal, industrial, and commercial discharge of pollutants, In-
cluding but not limited to, toxic and hazardous substances, into
coastal waters will conform to State and National water quality Stan-
dards.
A. Explanation of Policy
Municipal, industrial and commercial discharges
include not only "end-of-the pipe" discharges into
surface and groundwater but also plant site run-
off, leaching, spillages, sludge and other waste
disposal, and drainage from raw material storage
sites. Also, the regulated industrial discharges
are both those which directly empty into receiving
coastal waters and those • which pass through
municipal treatment systems before reaching the
State's waterways.
B. State Means for Implenenting the Policy
1. State Pollutant Discharge Eliminatidn System,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 17,
Title 8)
2. Industrial Hazardous Waste Management,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 27,
Title 9)
3. Substances Hazardous to the Environment,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 37)
4. State Certification of Public Sewage Treat-
ment Plant Operators, -Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, (Article 3-0301) , Public Health Law
(Section 225)
POLICY 81 State coastal area policies and management objectives of approved
local Waterfront Revitalisation Programs will be considered while
reviewing coastal water classifications and while modifying water
quality standards; however, those waters already overburdened with
oontominants will be recognised as being a development constraint.
A. Explanation of Policy
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Nater Act of 1977
(PL 95-217) the State bas classified its coastal
and other waters in accordance with considerations
of best usage in the interest of the public and
has adopted water quality standards for each class
of waters. These classifications and standards
are reviewable at least every three years for
possible revision or amendment. Local Waterfront
Revitalization Programs and State coastal
management policies shall be factored into the
review process for coastal waters. However, such
consideration shall not affect any water pollution
control requirement established by the State
pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act.
The State has identified certain stream segments
as being either 'water quality limiting' or
•effluent limiting.• Waters not meeting State
standards and which would not be expected to meet
these standards even after applying "beat practic-
able treatment' to effluent discharges are classi-
fied as 'water quality limiting.' Those segments
meeting standards or those expected to meet them
after application of 'best practicable treatment'
are classified as 'effluent limiting,' and all new
waste discharges must receive 'best practicable
treatment. ' However, along stream segments class-
ified as 'water quality limiting.' waste treatment
beyond 'best practicable treatment' would be
required, and costs of applying such additional
treatment may be prohibitive for new development.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law, (Article 42)
2. Classification of Waters and Adoption of
Standards, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 17, Title 3)
II - 6 - 161
POLICY 32 Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste systems
In small communities where the costs of conventional facilities are
unreasonably high, given the size of the existing tax base of these
communities.
A. Explanation of Policy
Alternative systems include individual septic
tanks and other subsurface disposal systems, dual
systems, small systems serving clusters of house-
holds or commercial users, and pressure or vacuum
sewers. These types of systems are often more
cost effective in smaller less densely populated
communities and for which conventional facilities
are too expensive.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Construction and Operation Grants, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 17, Title 9)
2. Appalachian Regional Commission, Executive
Law (Article 60)
3. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Approval of local waterfront revitalization
programs authorized under Section 915 of this
law would be contingent in part on the
community's demonstrated effort to provide
necessary treatment of any sanitary wastes
being generated at waterfront properties.
When hookup to the municipal sewage collec-
tion and treatment facilities is neither
economically or technically feasible, instal-
lation of alternative treatment systems will
be required as needed and practical.
II - 6 - 163
POLICY 33 Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of
stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining Into
coastal waters.
A. Explanation of Policy
Best management practices include both structural
and non-structural methods of preventing or miti-
gating pollution caused by the discharge of storm
water runoff and combined sewer overflows. At
present, structural -approaches to controlling
stormwater runoff (e.g. , construction of retention
basins) and combined sewer overflows (e.g. , re-
placement of combined system with separate sani-
tary and stormwater collection systems) are not
economically feasible. Proposed amendments to the
Clean Water Act, however, will authorize funding
to address combined sewer overflows in areas where
they create severe water quality impacts. Until
funding for such projects .becomes available, non-
structural approaches (e.g. , improved street
- cleaning, reduced - use of road salt) will be
encouraged.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Agreement of a Five Year Water Quality
Management Program.
2. State "208" Water Quality Management Progam
3. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42 )
II - 6 - 165
POLICY 94 Discharge of waste materials Into coastal waters from vessels sub.
JW to State jurisdiction into coastal waters will be limited so as to
protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and
water supply areas.
A. Explanation of Policy
The discharge of sewage, garbage, rubbish, and
other solid and liquid materials from watercraft
and marinas into the State's waters is regulated.
Priority will be given to the enforcement of this
Law in areas such as shellfish beds and other
significant habitats, beaches, and public water
supply intakes, which need protection from contam-
ination by vessel wastes. Also, specific effluent
standards for marine toilets have been promulgated
by the Department of Environmental Conservation (6
NYCRR, Part 657 ) .
B. State Means for Inplenenting the Policy
1. Disposal of Sewage and Litter in Waterways,
Navigation Law (Section 33-c)
2. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
3. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8 )
II - 6 - 167
POLICY U Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal waters will be under.
taken In a manner that meets existing State dredging permit re-
qulrements,and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats,sonic
resources, natural protective features, Important agricultural lands,
and wetlands.
A. Explanation of Policy
Dredging often proves to be essential for water-
front revitalization and developoent, :maintaining
navigation channels at sufficient depths, pollut-
ant removal and meeting other coastal management
needs. Such dredging projects, however, may
adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife
habitats, wetlands and other important coastal
resources. Often these adverse effects can be
minimized through careful design and timing of the
dredging operation and proper siting of the dredge
spoil disposal site. Dredging permits will be
granted if it has been satisfactorily demonstrated
that these anticipated adverse effects have been
reduced to levels which satisfy State dredging
permit standards set forth in regulations
developed pursuant to Environmental Conservation
Law, (Articles 15, 24, 25 and 34 ) , and are
consistent with policies pertaining to the
protection of coastal resources (State Coastal
Management policies 7, 24, 15, 26 and 44) .
State Means for Implementing the Policy
B.
1. Protection of Waters, Environmental Conserva-
tion Law (Article 15, Title 5) : Summarized
in Vol. 2, page 214
2. Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Acts, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Articles 24 and 25):
Article 24 is in Vol. 2, page' 531 Regulations
are in Vol 2, page 831 Article 25 is in Vol.
2, page 471 Regulations are in Vol. 2, page
66
3. State Environmental Quality Review Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 8) :
Article 8 is in Vol. 2, page 71 Regulations
are in Vol. 2, Page 35
4. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42) 1
Article 42 is in Vol. 2, page 3, Regulations
are in Vol. 1
TT - 6 - 169
5. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Article 34 ) : Arti-
cle 34 is in Vol. 2, page 375; Regulations
are in Vol. 1
II - 6 - 170
POLICY 36 Activities related to the shipment and storage of petroleum and other
hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner that will prevent or
at least minimize spills Into coastal waters; all practicable efforts will
be undertaken to expedite the cleanup of such discharges; and
restitution for damages will be required when these spills occur.
A. Explanation of Policy
See Policy 39 for definition of hazardous
materials.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensa-
tion, Navigation Law (Article 12)
2. Penalties and Liabilities for Spills of Bulk
Liquids, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 71-1941)
3. Transportation Law (Article 2, Section 14-F)
II - 6 - 171
POLICY 37 Bast management practices will be utilised to minimize the non-point
discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils Into coastal
waters.
A. Explanation of Policy
Best management practices used to reduce these
sources of pollution could include but are not
limited to, encouraging organic farming and pest
management principles, soil erosion control prac-
tices, and surface drainage control techniques.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Phosphate Limits, Environmental Conservation
Law (Article 35)
2. State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 17,
Title 8)
3. Realty Subdivision Approval, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 17, Title 15)
4. Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Acts, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Articles 24 and 25)
5. Public Health Law (Section 228 )
6. State Hater Quality Management (108) Program
7. Soil and Water Conservation District Law
(Section 9)
II - 6 - 173
POLICY 38 The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies,
will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters con-
statute the primary or sole source of water supply.
A. Explanation of Policy
Surface and groundwater are the principle sources
of drinking water in the State, and therefore must
be protected. Since Long Island 's groundwater
supply has been designated a "primary source
aquifer,' all actions must be reviewed relative to
their impacts on Long Island's groundwater
aquifers.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Well Drilling Regulation in Long Island,
Environmental Conservation Law (151525 and
15-1527)
2. Realty Subdivision Approval, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 17, Title 15)
3. Solid Waste Management Act, Environmental
Conservation Law, (Article 27)
4. Industrial Hazardous Wastes Management Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 27,
Title 9)
5. Water Supply Approval, Environmental Conser-
vation Law (Article 15)
6. Public Health Law (Article 11)
7. Phosphate Limits, Environmental Conservation
Law (Article 35)
8. Public Health Law (Article 228)
9. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resource Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
II - 6 - 175
POLICY 33 The transport, storms, treatment and disposal of solid wastes, par-
ticularly hazardous wastes, within coastal areas will be conducted in
such a manner so as to protect groundwater and surface water sup.
plies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, impor.
tent agricultural lands and scenic resources.
A. Uplanation of Polio
The definitions of terms 'solid wastes• and "solid
wastes management facilities' are taken from New
York's Solid waste Management Act (Environmental
Conservation Law, Article 27). Solid wastes in-
clude sludges from air or water pollution control
facilities, demolition and construction debris and
Industrial and commercial wastes.
Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manu-
facturing processes generally characterized as
being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic.
More specifically, waste is defined in Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Section 27-0901 (3) ) as
'waste or combination of wastes which because of
its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical
or infectious characteristics may: (1) cause, or
significantly contribute to an increase in mortal-
ity or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible illness= or (2) pose a
substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment which improperly
treated, stored, transported or otherwise
managed.' A list of hazardous wastes (NYCRR Part
366) will be adopted by DEC within 6 months after
EPA formally adopts its list.
Examples of solid waste management facilities
include resource recovery facilities, sanitary
landfills and solid waste reduction facilities.
Although a fundamental problem associated with the
disposal and treatment of solid wastes is the
contamination of water resources, other related
problems may include: filling of wetlands and
littoral areas, atmospheric loading, and degrada-
tion of scenic resources.
6. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Solid Waste Management Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 27)
2. Registration of Septic Tank Cleaners,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 27,
Title 3)
II - 6 - 177
3. Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Act of
1978, Environmental Conservation Law (Article
17, Title 9)
4. Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Acts, Environ-
mental Conservation Law (Articles 24 and 25)
5. Protection of Waters Law, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 15, Title 5)
6. Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 34 )
7. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
II - 6 - 178
POLICY 40 Effluent discharged from major steam electric generating and In-
dustrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to
fish and wildlife and shall conform to State water quality standards.
A. Explanation of Policy
The State Board on Electric Generation Siting and
the Environment must consider a number of factors
when reviewing a proposed site for facility con-
struction. One of these factors is that the
facility "not discharge any effluent that will be
unduly injurious to the propagation and protection
of fish and wildlife , the industrial development
of the State, the public health, and public enjoy-
ment of the receiving waters." The effects of
thermal discharges on water .quality and aquatic
organisms will be considered by the siting board
when evaluating an applicant's request to con-
struct a new steam electric generating facility.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Siting of Major Steam Electric Generation
Facilities, Public Service Law (Article VIII)
2. Thermal Discharge Regulation, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 17, Title 3, 6
NYCRR, Part 704 )
II - 6 - 179
POLICY 41 Land use or development in the ooastal area will not qua National
or State air quality standards to be violated.
A. Explanation of Policy
Now York's Coastal Management Program incorporates
the air quality policies and programs developed
for the State by the Department of Environmental
Conservation pursuant to the Clean Air Act and
State Laws on air quality. The requirements of
the Clean Air Act are the minimum air quality
control requirements applicable within the coastal
area.
To the extent possible, the State Implementation
Plan will be consistent with coastal lands and
water use policies. Conversely, coastal management
guidelines and program decisions with regard to
land and water use and any recommendations with
regard to specific sites for major new or expanded
industrial, energy, transportation, or commercial
facilities will reflect an assessment of their
compliance with the air quality requirements of
the State Implementation Plan.
The Department of Environmental Conservation will
allocate substantial resources to develop a regu-
latory and management program to identify and
eliminate toxic discharges into the atmosphere.
The State's Coastal Management Program will assist
in coordinating major toxic control programming
efforts in the coastal regions and in supporting
research on the multi-media nature of toxics and
their economic and environmental effects on
coastal resources.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Air Pollution Control Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 19), Environmental
Quality Bond Act, Environmental Conservation
Law (Article 15, Title 5) and Hazardous
Substance Act, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 37).
II - 6 - 181
• POLICY 42 Coastal Management policies will be considered If the Stats reclass-
Miss land areas pursuant to the prevention of significant deterioration
regulations of the Federal Clean Air Act.
A. Explanation of Policy
The policies of the State and local coastal
management programs concerning proposed land and
water uses and the protection and preservation of
special management areas will be taken into
account prior to any action to change prevention
of significant deterioration land classifications
in coastal regions or adjacent areas. In addition,
the Department of State will provide the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation with recommen-
dations for proposed prevention of significant
deterioration land classification designations
based upon State and local coastal management
programs.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Air Pollution Control Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 19)
This law provides the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation with the authority to
designate areas of the State based upon
degree of pollution that may be permitted.
It allows the Department to consider that
what may be proper for a residential area,
for example, may not be proper for a highly
developed industrial area.
2. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42)
Section 919 of Article 42 requires 1) that
State agencies actions, including funding,
planning, and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be con-
sistent with the policies of this act, 2)
that the Secretary of State shall review
actions of State agencies that may affect
achievement of the policy, and 3) that SEQR
regulations be amended to reflect considera-
tion and impacts on the use and conservation
of coastal resources.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
II - 6 - 183
POLICY 43 Land use or development In the coastal area must not cause the
generation of significant amounts of the acid min precursors:nitrates
and sulfates.
A. Explanation of Policy
The New York Coastal Management Program incorpor-
ates the State's policies on acid rain. As such,
the Coastal Management Program will assist in the
State's efforts to control acid rain. These
efforts to control acid rain will enhance the
continued viability of coastal fisheries,
wildlife, agricultural, scenic and water
resources.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Air Pollution Control Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 19).
2. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act, Executive Law (Article 42) .
Section 919 of Article 42 requires 1) that
State agencies actions, including funding ,
planning, and land transactions, as well as
direct development activities, must be
consistent with the policies of this act, 2)
that the Secretary of State shall review
actions of State agencies that may affect
achievement of the policy, and 3 ) that SEOR
regulations be amended to reflect considera-
tion of impacts on the use and conservation
of coastal resources.
Section 2 of the Act requires that State
agencies analyze their programs' consistency
with coastal policies and that the Secretary
of State recommend any needed modifications
to the Governor and the Legislature.
II - 6 - 185
POLICY 44 Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the
benefits derived from these areas.
A. Explanation of Policy
Tidal wetlands include the following ecological zones:
coastal fresh :Harsh; intertidal marsh; coastal shoals,
bars and flats; littoral sone; high marsh or salt
meadow; and formerly connected tidal wetlands. These
tidal wetland areas are officially delineated on the
Department of Environmental Conservation's Tidal Wet-
lands Inventory Map.
Freshwater wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs, and
flats supporting aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation
and other wetlands so defined in the N.Y.S. Freshwater
Wetlands Act and the N.Y.S. Protection of Waters Act.
The benefits derived from the preservation of tidal and
freshwater wetlands include but are not limited to:
-- habitat for wildlife and fish, including a sub-
stantial portion of the State's commercial fin and
shellfish varieties; and contribution to associ-
ated aquatic food chains;
-- erosion, flood and storm control;
natural pollution treatment;
-- groundwater protection;
-- recreational opportunities;
-- educational and scientific opportunities; and
aesthetic open space in many otherwise densely
developed areas.
B. State Means for Implementing the Policy
1. Tidal Wetlands Act, Environmental Conservation Law
(Article 25)
This act is designed to "preserve and protect
tidal wetlands, and to prevent their despoilation
and destruction, giving due consideration to the
reasonahle economic and social development of the
State". The regulatory program associated with
the act is contained in the NYCRR, Title 6, Parts
660 and 661. Part 660 describes a moratorium
regulatory program, while Part 661 details a
permanent regulatory program.
The moratorium program provided interim protection
to wetlands while the tidal wetlands inventory was
being completed. Once maps were filed with the
appropriate local governments, the moratorium on
development in the majority of wetlands was lifted
and permanent land use regulations went into
effect.
For the purposes of the Tidal Wetlands Act, the
permanent regulations apply to the six tidal wet-
land types and divide land uses into four cate-
gories: uses not requiring a permit; generally
compatible uses; presumptively incompatible uses;
and incompatible uses. All but the first category
are subject to permit restrictions. More speci-
fically, regulated uses include draining,
dredging , excavation, filling , construction of
facilities , pollution, and land subdivision.
Each application for a permit is subject to a
hearing. A notice of public hearing is sent to
affected parties. If no objections are received,
the hearing may be cannelled . The application is
then reviewed and denied or granted with
conditions to minimize impact. Permits may be
suspended or revoked upon grounds stated in the
regulations.
2. Freshwater Wetlands Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 24 )
This act authorizes the regulation of the use and
development of the State's freshwater wetlands of
12.4 or more acres or of unusual local signifi-
cance as determined by the Commissioner of DEC.
The regulatory program is divided into two phases:
the interim permit program and the permanent
permit programs.
The interim permit program is described in the
NYCRR, Title 6, Part 662. It is in effect in each
locality until final county wetlands maps have
been filed with the clerk of each local government
and prior to implementation of a local freshwater
wetlands protection law or ordinance.
Application for an interim permit must be made for
certain alterations of regulated freshwater
wetlands and adjacent areas within 100 feet of the
wetland. Draining, dredging, filling, erecting
structures and discharging pollutants are some of
the activities which may substantially alter and
impair the functions of a wetland . A public
hearing may or may not be deemed necessary
depending on the number of objections filed or the
II - 6 - 188
nature of the alteration. DEC will finally decide
to issue, deny or condition an interim permit
depending on the effect a proposed activity would
produce on the benefits of a wetland.
The permanent program is fully described in NYCRR,
Title 6, Parts 663 and 664. The permanent program
takes effect in a particular county after DEC
files its official regulatory maps with all of the
local governments in that county. These maps
depict freshwater wetlands of 12.4 acres or more
plus certain smaller freshwater wetlands of
special local concerns. These maps are filed
after public hearings are held. At this writing
only certain counties (and their constituent
municipalities) have received these maps. Once
these maps are completed, reviewed, and filed
wetland laws adopted by communities become
operative. These laws must be at least as
restrictive as DEC's regulations. If a city, town
or village fails to adopt and implement a local
law, the county may take responsibility. If the
county fails to participate, DEC will regulate the
wetlands. Any city, town or village which
defaults or transfers its authority may recover it
at any time.
Regulations for the permanent program contain
standards for issuing permits to undertake
specified activities. The standards are applied
for four classes of wetlands granted according to
their abilities to perform wetland functions and
provide wetland benefits. DEC retains authority
over Class I (highest quality) wetlands and
certain other wetlands for reasons of size or
other special characteristics. Where a local
government has authority over a wetland associated
with a major international or interstate river or
lake (i.e. , the Hudson, Niagara and St. Lawrence
Rivers, and Lakes Erie and Ontario) , it must
consult with DEC before taking any regulatory
action concerning that wetland.
II - 6 - 189
3. Protection of Water Laws Act, Environmental
Conservation Law (Article 15, Title 5)
This law effectively affords State regulatory
protection to any remaining wetland areas not
being protected under the Freshwater Wetlands Act.
This law require that a permit be obtained from
the Department of Environmental Conservation for
any activities which require excavation or filling
of all wetlands that are adjacent to and
contiguous with navigable waters of the State, and
that are inundated at mean high water level.
Furthermore, wetlands associated with protected
waters (streams and rivers classified C(t) or
higher) tributary to navigable waters are also
protected by this law.
3I - 6 - 190
SECTION 7
PLANNING PROCESSES
Introduction
Three planning processes are incorporated into the State Coastal
Management Program. They are: the Energy Facility Planning
Process, the Shorefront Erosion/Mitigation Planning Process, and
the Shorefront Access and Protection Process. These processes,
which are described below, comply with federal regulations for
the Coastal Zone Management Program.
Energy Facility Planning Process
Section 305 (b) (8) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended , requires the management program of each State to
include "a planning process for energy facilities likely to be
located in, or which may significantly affect the coastal zone,
including but not limited to, a process anticipating and managing
the impacts from such facilities" .
I. Identification of Energy Facilities Likely to
Locate In, or Significantly Affect a State's
Coastal Area
Energy facilities likely to locate in, or significantly affect
New York's coastal area include electric generating facilities
(oil , coal , nuclear, hydropowered ) ; electric and gas transmission
facilities; oil and gas exploration, development, transfer and
storage facilities ( including LNG facilities) ; and alternative
energy facilities (e.g. wind ) .
II. Procedures for Assessing the Suitability of Sites
for Such Facilities
1. General Planning
For all such facilities, the planning process begins with
the preparation of the State Energy Master Plan, as required
by Article 5 of the Energy Law; determines State energy
needs; and identifies proposed new, expanding or converting
facilities and their locations. It contains :
a. A forecast of the State 's energy requirements for
periods of five , ten and fifteen years , together with
the bases for such forecasts;
b. A summary of the plans of the State 's major energy
suppliers for meeting forecasted energy requirements,
including descriptions of new energy sources;
II - 7 - 1
c. An identification and analysis of emerging trends
related to energy supply, price and demand;
d. A statement and justification for specific energy
policies, as well as recommendations for administrative
and legislative actions that the State Energy Office
has determined are desirable to implement the State's
energy policy; and
e. Such additional information as the State Energy Office
deems appropriate.
2. Activity Specific Processes
More specific procedures for siting individual facilities
depend on the facility involved.
a. Steam Electric Generating Facilities and Electric and
Gas Transmission Facilities
i) Additional Planning Requirements
Prior to any amendment of the State Energy Master
Plan, members of the New York Power Pool and New
York Gas Group must submit comprehensive long-
range plans for future operations (including
energy demands for the next five, ten and fifteen
year period) to the State Energy Office and other
State agencies. Public hearings must be held
before the Board 's adoption of a revision to the
Master Plan. Once adopted, specific findings of
projected electric and gas "requirements" for the
forecast periods are binding, with respect to any
determination of need for a facility, on those
agencies having powers to issue certificates under
Article VII and VIII of the Public Service Law.
The Coastal Management Program will review the
Master Plan and present its comments to the Energy
Planning Board if any inconsistencies with the
Coastal Management policies are found.
ii) Permitting Processes
The State's review process for individual facil-
ities is set forth in Articles VII and VIII of the
Public Service Law and - regulations promulgated
thereunder (see Appendix F) . The procedure
involves the following steps:
II -
7 - 2
1) Application to the Public Service Commission
for electric and gas transmission facilities,
or to the New York State Board on Electric
Generation Siting and the Environment for
steam electric generating facilties.
2 ) Review for completeness
3 ) Establishment of dates for hearing -- within
60 days for an electric generating facility,
60-90 days for an electric transmission line,
20-60 days for a gas line
4 ) Pre-hearing (Electric generating)
5) Hearing (can be joint )
6 ) Examiner's decision (Electric generating )
7) Decision
8 ) Re-hearing procedures -- up to 3 months
(Electric generating only)
In making its application for a proposed electric
generation facility, the "applicant in its direct
testimony and as part of the exhibit information
required to be submitted by Parts 72 through 80 of
NYCRR, Title 16, shall explain the extent to which
the location, design, construction, operation and
maintenance of a proposed electric generation
facility at a proposed site is designed to comply
with each Federal and State law, rule, regulation
or standard , interstate compact, and international
requirement relevant and material to a determina-
tion of the application". If a proposed facility
will not be in full compliance with the above, the
applicant must describe any limitation or proced-
ure it proposes to assure compliance or justify
nonconforming aspects. (see Appendix F of this
document, NYCRR, Title 16, Subchapter E, Section
71. 9. )
In making its application, the applicant must pro-
vide an analysis of the need for the facility. It
must also provide information about the existing
condition of and potential impacts on air quality,
aquatic ecology, environmental noise , regional and
site geology, land use and aesthetic characteris-
tics , terrestrial ecology, and water quality and
quantity, in addition to the waste characteristics
of the proposed facility (see Appendix F of this
document, NYCRR, Title 16, Subchapter E, Sections
72-80. )
II - 7 - 3
i
a certificate for construc-
The Board. in grantia terthe mine:
must find and
tion, facility;
(a) the public need for environmental
he nature of the Probable
(b) impact; minimum
represents is hcompatible
facility
that the ntal impact• and will not
(c) environment safety,,adverse will in
Public health and that by the
with P n effluent adopted
discharge any standards
of environmental conservation;
contravention of the
department to operate in
designed and local
(d) that the
facility applicable
compliance lations;
laws and reguconsistent with long-
ilitY is electric power
(e) tfac
hat the objectives for
range
st
planning
supply in the public interest,
is atei in the P impact,, the
that the facility environmental available
(f) the possible of
concerning to
sources
total cost availab this document,
sites or alternative ve F of Law,
energy- III of�the Public Service
Article 4
)
Section 146. utility
electric or gas it has
a majoshall state whether mission
its application for licant with this commission
In making the o pending agency
others who have
tment or subject
transmiso rknowsiof tY/vernmental which concerns more
pending other go filing mission• If one °r shall
with any application or the commission. applicant
or before
Federal) • roceedin9 is Pending , nding. whether the
matter of the P filings or filing P filing will have any
such applications or
application
e• each h other application or and whether the
stat for such a certificate,
n the grant or
granting of any denial of any effect P° A naix F
the grant or will have (See PPe
effect On of a certificate or filing." part 86.9. )
ranting other application ter
of any such Title 16, SubchaP
denial NYCRR• submit a statement
of this document, the applicant must impact of
been made of the must also
its appli y wih°ich has The applicant of the
In making any stucn the environments and operation ical
describing the construction or biolOg or
proposed facility changes. if any' in the ouphysic' ny permanent or
state what might induce throu9 topography•
facility life or wild the hydrology•
proposed of Plant
proces8es
temporary change in
significant
soil of the area.
IT _ 7 - 4
The Board , in granting a certificate for construc-
tion , must find and determine:
(a) the public need for the facility;
(b) the nature of the probable environmental
impact;
(c) that the facility represents the minimum
adverse environmental impact, is compatible
with public health and safety, and will not
discharge any effluent that will be in
contravention of the standards adopted by the
department of environmental conservation;
(d) that the facility is designed to operate in
compliance with applicable state and local
laws and regulations;
(e) that the facility is consistent with long-
range planning objectives for electric power
supply in the state;
(f) that the facility is in the public interest,
concerning the environmental impact, the
total cost to society, the possible available
sites or alternative available sources of
energy. (See Appendix F of this document,
Article VIII of the Public Service Law,
Section 146. )
In making its application for a major electric or gas utility
transmission facility, "the applicant shall state whether it has
pending or knows of others who have pending , with this commission
or with any other governmental department or agency (State or
Federal ) , an application or filing which concerns the subject
matter of the proceeding before the commission. If one or more
such applications or filings is pending , the applicant shall
state, for each application or filing pending, whether the
granting of any such other application or filing will have any
effect on the grant or denial of a certificate, and whether the
granting of a certificate will have any effect upon the grant or
denial of any such other application or filing." (See Appendix F
of this document, NYCRR, Title 16, Subchapter G, Part 86.9. )
In making its application, the applicant must submit a statement
describing any study which has been made of the impact of the
proposed facility on the environment. The applicant must also
state what changes, if any, the construction and operation of the
proposed facility might induce in the physical or biological
processes of plant life or wildlife through any permanent or
significant temporary change in the hydrology, topography, or
soil of the area.
II - 7 - 5
The applicant must also state what efforts have been made to
assure that the transmission line right-of-way avoids scenic,
recreational and historic areas; minimizes visibility from public
areas; avoids heavily timbered, high points, ridge lines and
steep slopes; preserves the natural landscape and minimizes con-
flict with any present or future planned land use. In addition,
the applicant must indicate plans to protect natural vegetation,
topsoil, wildlife habitat, and aquatic life. (See Appendix F of
this document, NYCRR, Title 168 Subchapter G, Part 86.4. )
The Commission in granting the certificate for construction or
operation of the major transmission facility must find and
determine:
(a) the need for the facility;
(b) the nature of the probable environmental impact;
(c) that the facility represents the minimum adverse
environmental impact;
(d) in the case of an electric transmission line , (1)
what part, if any, of the line shall be located
underground; (2) that such facility conforms to a
long-range plan for expansion of the electric
power grid of the electric systems serving this
state and interconnected utility systems, which
will serve the interests of electric system
economy and reliability;
(e) in the case of a gas transmission line, that the
location of the line will not pose an undue hazard
to persons or property along the area traversed by
the line;
(f) that the location of the facility as proposed
conforms to applicable state and local laws and
regulations issued thereunder;
(g) that the facility will serve the public interest,
convenience and necessity. (See Appendix F of
this document, Article VII of the Public Service
Law, Section 126. )
b. Offshore Gas and Oil Facilities and Activities
Drilling rigs, pipelines, refineries, storage and other
gas and oil facilities which are located in the State's
coastal waters and adjacent shorelands are subject to
several different laws and regulations that assess,
among other things, the siting of such facilities.
In addition, offshore gas and oil exploration,
development and production activities must meet State
requirements.
II - 7 - 6
f
are subject
as transmission lines Law. The Public
The
locationVII Of the Public Service
to Article before issuing a certificate for
enation of a major gas Pipeline,
Service Commission, the facili-
the construction and ,
is a public need for
must find that atible with the environment (See
is comp Electric Generating
ty and that it under Steam Lines and
the discussion Gas Transmission on this
Facilities and Electric and information Department
F for further The Dep
Appendix review procedure) •
lications for gas transmission
comprehensive siting Commission and may
of State will review submitted to the roceedings
lines which are during the review P
present testimony d such facilities.
regarding the siting subject to
waters are subj which
implementing regulations
Oil transmission d lines eirs imp asta on valuable
several laws facilities would require
focus upon the effects Y such which to the pro-
coastal resources• activities is subject of the
or fill Water Resources) the
excavationor
Article In addition,
visions 15 ( Law• be regulated by
Environmental Conservation would
such facilities Article 25 and
construction
Of such
Wetlands laws ( Law, respec-
the Tidal and Conservation as to their
24 of the Environmental evaluated and water
Such pipelines are aquatic
tively) • navigation, fish, the public health,
effects upon we
and to
resources, functions of transmission lineviewb pro ed-
safety and welfare. Oil to the of
?p (Uniform Procedures
)
the above citedd1by Article 70 0 These procedures
U established Conservation Law. to
a complete application the
the Environmental Conservation;
call for: the submissionfnvironmental including the
the Department of application and time
a notice of if necessary, dis-
publication °f public hearing, the approval or
date of any P comments and, sixty days
period for public lication within if no
approval of the permit aPP record, ort
close of the public hearing
after the ninety days after the submission of a
hearing was held,
complete apPlication.
t determines that a proposed oil pipe-
If significant effect upon the environ-
If the Department
sig act State-
line would have an Environmental Impact
8
ment, the preparation ce as required by Envi-
will be necessary Review Act) of the
ment (EIS) uality Appendix E for further
(State Environmental 4 Law (See PP When an EIS is
ronmental Conservation procedure) . for its
information on this review P in the
d the proposed action
policiesecontained
prepared, with the coast
of State's Part 600 regulations.
consistency
Department
11 - 7 - 7
Oil and gas exploration, development and production
activities in New York's coastal waters are subject to
the provisions of Article 23 (Funeral Resources ) of the
Environmental Conservation Law. This law regulates the
drilling, casing, operation and the spacing and plug-
ging of wells. It also provides for the leasing of
State-owned underwater lands for the purposes of gas
and oil development and production. An applicant
seeking approval from the Department of Environmental
Conservation for a proposed oil or gas exploration,
development and production activity must submit a com-
plete application. The Department will then provide
public notice of the proposed activity and hold a
public hearing. Within sixty days after the conclusion
of the hearing, the Department must either approve or
disapprove the application.
The Department would also be required by Article 8 of
the Environmental Conservation Law to determine the
environmental significance of the proposed activity. If
it is determined that the activity would have a
significant effect upon the environment, the prepara-
tion of an environmental impact statement would be
necessary. In such instances, the Department must also
determine the consistency of the activity with the
coastal policies contained in the Department of State's
Part 600 regulations.
Onshore oil and gas facilities (except for LNG and LPG
storage and gas transmission facilities) must comply
with established State air and water quality standards
and tidal and freshwater wetlands requirements, where
applicable. The discharge of pollutants into the air
and water and the construction of facilities in or
adjacent to designated wetlands are regulated by
Articles 17 (Water Pollution Control) , 19 (Air Pollu-
tion) , 24 (Freshwater Wetlands) and 25 (Tidal Wetlands)
of the Environmental Conservation Law. The review of
such facilities under the above cited laws is subject
to the procedures established in Article 70 (Uniform
Procedures) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The
review procedure established by this law is presented
in the discussion under oil transmission lines.
In addition, onshore oil and gas facilities may be
subject to the provisions of Article 8 of the Envi-
ronmental Conservation Law which requires the prepa-
ration of an EIS, if it is determined that such
facilities may have a significant effect upon the
environment. when this occurs the Department of
Environmental Conservation will have to determine the
consistency of such facilities with the coastal
policies contained in the Department of State's Part
600 regulations. One of the policies calls for facili-
tating the siting of water dependent uses which include
energy-related uses and facilities.
II - 7 - 8
c. LNG Facilities
• Article 23 of the Environmental Conservation Law
(Liquified natural and Petroleum Can)
) toe miresconstuca
certificate of environmental safety prior
tion, reconstruction, enlargement, or initiation of
operation of LNG and LPG facilities. procedures allow
for complete consideration of the facility, the pro-
posed site an alternate
ns prior
re
decision on granting �rtifcate The procedures
Involve the following:
1) Application or certificate
ion to the Department of
Environmental
2) Public hearings
3) Department decision
4) Renewals, modifications
5) Suspensions, revocations
d. Other Energy Facilities
The procedures for assessing the suitability of a site
for other facilities likely to locate in the coastal
sone are essentially the same f p=oject in the cfor oastal
he
suitability of any other type
sone.
If a direct State action is involved, the Waterfront
Revitalisation and Coastal Resources Act
cIf requires
consistency with the coastal policies.
o such
direct or funding action is involved , suitability of
significant facilities will be assessed in the context
of State permitting actions subject to Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law (State Environmental
Quality Review which requires
environmental
Impact statement to Act)
eprfor all actionsexcept
VIII
the
blic
actions subject to �atiha�VII
significant effect effectuupon
Service Law) whichY
the environment.
As amended, the SEAR regulations require that, a state
agency's action be consistent with the coastal
policies. Such a determination is made in addition to
requirements under one or more permitting programs.
any
(See permitting programs described under policy 27 in
part II, Section 6 of this document.)
II - 7 - 9
III. Articulation and Identification of Enforceable
State - Policies, Authorities and Techniques for
Managing Energy 'Facilities and Their Impacts
State energy policies are contained in the Energy Law and State
Energy Master Plan (see Appendix F for the Energy Law). In
general, she policies energy, with ng aeconomicg developmentaband
economic pp1 of Y policies are as
protecting the environment. State energy
follows:
1. The State's consumption of petroleum products must be
reduced. The economic cost and vulnerability to disruption
resulting from the State's continued disproportionate
to shift topless
reliance on oil strongly support
costly and/or more secure energy sources.
2. Conservation and renewable resources must make a greater
contribution to energy supply and will require substantial
additional government support to do so, at least in the
near-term. In many applications, conservation and renew-
ables appear to be the least costly, most economically
productive and environmentally benign means to satisfy a
significant portion of the State's current and anticipated
energy vee contributions to be Government action
respecti made by conservation and
renewables in meeting those requirements.
3. The State of New York and its agencies should encourage the
efficient use of natural gas and stimulate efforts to secure
additional supplies of natural gas from sources that are
economic and compatible with environmental, public health,
and safety standards in order to reduce New York's depen-
dence on oil. Natural gas is and will likely remain an
economic willihe pe insure thatatsupply atible alternative
demandtremain
Oil-
This policycy
balanced throughout the planning period.
4. The increased use of coal must be promoted where economic-
ally feasible and consistent with applicable environmental
standards. Compared to continued use of oil , particularly
in the utility sector, use of coal will result in economic
advantages, given current and forecast cost differentials
between coal and oil, and significant improvement in
certainty of supply over the forecast period. increased
utilization is eastern ndwll inlikelyto regional stabilize economic
ional
energy cos
development.
5. Regional cooperation, coordination, and uaction must e
promoted to enhance the region's energy Sprospects
Interconnection of New York's electric and natural gas
supply systems with Canada should be pursued as a vehicle
for reducing costs and oil dependence to the extent economic
and fes sionlethe Interconnection
environmentalso f from lessen Ve
rse
impact construction and
operation of energy supply facilities.
II - 7 - 10
6. Because of the need to develop a fully adequate national
nuclear waste disposal program, and a need to clarify
substantial uncertainties associated with economic, safety
and regulatory issues related to the nuclear option, new
nuclear power plants should not be included in the State 's
electricity supply plan at this time.
7. All consuming sectors must be given increased choice among
competing energy forms, including conventional fuels, con-
servation, and renewable resources. Increased choice will
benefit consumers by increasing price competition among
energy forms, and will benefit the State by stimulating
innovation and efficiency improvements.
8. Government must act to remove any existing legislative and
administrative barriers inhibiting the development of energy
sources, competition among fuel forms and energy conserva-
tion, except where such action would clearly compromise
public health, safety or environmental quality. Justifica-
tion for any such institutional barriers must be reexamined
in light of compelling State energy needs.
9. The State 's electric and gas utilities, as well as PASNY,
should encourage and stimulate conservation and efficient
use of energy by their customers. Electric and gas utili-
ties should become more active purveyors of conservation and
renewable resource technologies.
10. No person should be without adequate heat or should be
forced to forego conservation improvements by reason of
inability to pay. A commitment to protect public health and
safety requires no less.
11. The energy research, development and demonstration programs
being pursued in New York must be expanded and must empha-
size those technologies that will, over the mid- to long-
term, mitigate energy cost increases and energy supply
interruption. Formal and informal coordination of the
numerous energy RD&D programs throughout the State is
essential to assure that these activities support and
complement State energy policy.
12. In view of the extensive reliance on oil in the transporta-
tion sector, the State should continue to take action to
maximize the efficient use of energy in this sector. More-
over, the relatively energy efficient mass transit and rail-
road systems throughout the State must be maintained to
prevent shifts of mass transit and railroad riders to less
efficient automobiles.
13. Comprehensive energy emergency preparedness activities,
directed at mitigating the adverse economic and social
impacts of an interruption in petroleum supplies, must be
continued and increased in order to protect public health
and safety.
II - 7 - 11
In addition to the above cited policies, the State of New York
has enacted laws and adopted regulations which govern the siting
of certain energy uses and facilities. The basic policies
contained in these laws and regulations are:
1. The siting of major steam electric generating and gas
and electric transmission facilities shall be based
upon public need and compatibility with the environment
(Articles VII and VIII, PSL)
2. The siting of liquified natural and petroleum gas
facilities shall be based upon public safety and
compatability with the environment (Article 23 ECL)
3. Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses and
facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters (DOS Part
600 regulations)
IV. Identification of How Interested and Affected
Public and Private Parties May Be Involved in the
Planning Process
The Department of State, as the agency responsible for the
Coastal Management Program, will ensure that coastal concerns are
part of energy facility deliberations by continuing to review the
State Energy Plan and any amendments thereto. It also by law
receives proposals for review under Articles VII and VIII of the
Public Service Law and will particpate in hearings under Article
VII (as an automatic party) and Article VIII (as a party upon
request) .
In addition, pursuant to the Waterfront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act, Department of State regulations and amend-
ments to SEORA regulations provide the procedural opportunities
for the Department of State to undertake its requried review of
all actions, including energy faciltiies, which may affect the
achievement of the coastal policies.
Before the State Energy Master Plan is amended, major private
sector energy suppliers (NY Power Pool and NY Gas Group) are
required to submit comprehensive long-range plans for future
operations to the State Energy Office and other State agencies.
These plans are reviewed and approved by the Energy Board.
Local governments and the general public are provided the oppor-
tunity to participate as parties in Article VII and VIII
proceedings and other hearings conducted pursuant to the various
permitting and environmental review procedures cited above. The
Department of State will also encourage local governments which
develop waterfront revitalization programs to consider future
energy development activities, to identify appropriate sites, and
to prepare local laws or other mechanisms for dealing with new or
expanding energy development.
II - 7 - 12
The national interest in the planning for and siting of energy
facilities was determined from the National Energy Plan and
through direct communication with appropriate Federal agencies.
For a more complete discussion of the national interest in energy
production and transmission facilities, see Part II, Section 9,
Special Program Requirements, of this document.
Shoreline Erosion/Mitigation Planning
Section 305 (b) (9) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 ,
as amended , requires that state coastal management programs must
include a shoreline erosion/mitigation planning process, the
regulations for which are presented in 15 CFR 923. 25:
" (1) The management program must include a
method for assessing the effects of shoreline
erosion and evaluating techniques for miti-
gating, controlling or restoring areas
adversely affected by erosion. "
" ( 2 ) There must be an identification and
description of enforceable policies, legal
authorities , funding techniques and other
techniques that will be used to manage the
effects of erosion as the State's planning
process indicates is necessary."
As evidenced in the Flood and Erosion Hazards issue discussion
(Part II, Section 5) , which is incorporated by reference as part
of this response, the effects of shoreline erosion and the
techniques for dealing with it are of major concern to New York
State. However, the State lacked a systematic basis for dealing
with that concern until 1981 when the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Areas legislation was enacted. The law (Environmental Conser-
vation Law, Article 34) recognizes: the extensive damage caused
by erosion in the State 's coastal area; man's contribution to the
problem by activities which exacerbate the erosion process or by
placing property where it is exposed to damage; and , that many
measures taken to control erosion are costly, often ineffective,
and may be harmful to other lands. The law has three principal
components: delineation of the hazard areas; promulgation of
regulations; and implementation.
Procedures established by the law require the Department of
Environmental Conservation, in full cooperation with affected
local governments, to complete a preliminary identification of
erosion hazard areas of the State's coastline. Coastal erosion
hazard areas are defined by Article 34 in two ways. In the
first, a requisite period of protection of structures is set at
40 years. That number is then multiplied by the annual land
recession rate on lands where it is at least one foot, to define
the inland extent of the hazard area. The recession rate will be
measured using comparable maps and aerial photography, including
1979 photographs of the State's Great Lakes coast which were
II - 7 - 13
flown specifically for this purpose, and funded under the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act. The second definition of erosion
hazard area encompasses dunes, beaches, shoals and other features
which offer natural protection to shorelands. After required
public hearings and consultations, final identification of
coastal erosion hazard areas will be made. Priority is being
given by DEC to identifying first those areas of the coastline
which are eroding at a rate of 4 feet or more annually.
Within those identified erosion hazard areas, the regulatory
provisions of the legislation will apply. For activities and
development in such areas, regulations promulgated under Article
34 are required to establish minimum standards and criteria
including: the use of setbacks; prevention of increase in
erosion; minimizing of adverse effects on natural protective
features; and measures to ensure the effectiveness of control
structures. The law also specifies that, when public funds are
to be used for activities and developmnet, the public benefits
must clearly outweigh the long-range adverse effects. Policies
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are based on those regulatory
provisions.
Article 34 is designed to give , first, each affected local
government the opportunity to implement its provisions with the
adoption of a local coastal erosion hazard areas law or
ordinance. If a local government fails to exercise its right,
the county, or finally, DEC must issue regulations for that
community.
In summary, the effects of full implementation of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Areas Act are: all erosion hazard areas of the
State's coastline will be identified and mapped; a regulatory
framework govern activities and development in those areas; and
all government as well as private actions and programs will be
constrained by the Act.
Shorefront Access and Protection Planning Process
Several State, regional , and local agencies participating in
development of the Coastal Management Program identified specific
sites in need of improved access for their functional or
geographic areas of concern. Access sites for fishing, boating
and other waterfront related activities have been identified by
the Department of Environmental Conservation; the Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; New York City
Planning Commission; the Long Island Regional Planning Board; the
Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board; the St.
Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission; and individual counties
participating in the program.
While most of the access site recommendations may reflect
knowledge of the local area or specific functional plans, they
are not based on a single coordinated statewide access planning
process. The New York City Department of Planning has developed
a methodology for identifying shorefront areas appropriate for
II - 7 - 14
improved access. The Department tabulated the nature of the
access issues for 33 areas. For three of these, detailed studies
were undertaken consisting of: an examination of the study area
in terms of current modes of access to the shore; identification
of specific shorefront access concerns based on the above
investigations ; and recommended actions necessary to mitigate
these concerns. The remaining identified areas will also be
evaluated in this manner in the immediate future.
The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has
also inventoried recreational facility capacity and undertaken
supply and demand studies which can be applied to determination
of access roads.
A single procedure for identifying , on a statewide basis, public
shorefront areas appropriate for access has been developed as
part of the Coastal Management Program and is outlined below.
This procedure utilizes, in part, various methodologies and
inventories already developed by State and local agencies and the
lists of specific sites needing access improvements. This
procedure satisfies the shorefront access and protection
planning requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Its
application will result in a list of the specific access improve-
ments to which the State will give priority within financial and
legal limits. An interagency advisory committee will be
established to oversee operation of the procedure.
1. Identify the types of public areas to which new or increased
public access is desirable and a single planning process is
appropriate for determining needed additional access.
a. Beaches - definition of beach is as follows: A beach
is a zone of unconsolidated material that extends
landward from the level of lowest water to the place
where there is a marked change in natural or
physiographic form (first line of terrestrial
vegetation) or to the upper limit reached by the
highest storm waves, which is the area subject to
alternate erosion and deposition of beach material. The
offshore limit of a beach is the mean low water line.
A beach consists of both foreshore and backshore zones.
Beach elements include dry sand areas, sand dunes, and
areas of reasonably graduated slope to the water.
Beaches are composed of a variety of materials,
including sand , gravel , or pebbles. Areas composed of
other materials may function as beaches when they are
used for traditional beach activities.
b. Fishing and hunting areas
C . Boat launching sites and marinas
d . Scenic areas of statewide significance - as defined in
the scenic quality issue discussion (Part II, Section
5 ) of this document
II - 7 - 15
e. Waterfront parks
f. The coast at large , to include other non-federal
publicly-owned land
2. Inventory existing public areas to which public access is
provided and/or desirable.
a. Beaches - inventory and map those areas which meet the
definition of beach above, including identification of
those in public ownership. Sources are as follows:
( 1) Office of Parks , Recreation, and Historic
Preservation Inventory of Recreation Sites
( 2) Land Use and Natural Resource Inventory (LUNR)
(3 ) Office of General Services State Land Inventory
(4 ) New York City Coastal Management Program Report
(5) Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board Coastal
Management Program Report
( 6 ) St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission Coastal
Management Program Report
(7 ) State Coastal Management Program Coastal Atlas
(will map all beaches)
b. Fishing areas - an inventory and map of sites to which
the public has access for fishing purposes within the
coastal area. Sources are as follows :
( 1) Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation Inventory of Recreation Sites
(2) Department of Environmental Conservation's Fish
and Wildlife Management Program
( 3) Office of General Services' State Lands Inventory
( 4) New York City Coastal Management Program Report
( 5) Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board Coastal
Management Program Report
(6 ) St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission Coastal
Management Program Report
(7 ) Sea Grant
II - 7 - 16
c. Boat launching sites and marinas - an inventory of all
marinas and boat launching sites open to the public.
Sources include all those listed under "a" above plus
the Corps of Engineers, Sea Grant, and the Department
of Transportation.
d . Scenic areas of statewide significance - an inventory
and map. Principal source is the Coastal Management
Program Coastal Atlas, plus information from the
Department of Environmental Conservation and the Office
of Parks , Recreation, and Historic Preservation.
e. Waterfront parks - an inventory and map. Sources are
as follows:
(1 ) Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation's Inventory of Recreation Sites
( 2) Coastal Management Program Coastal Atlas
f. Coast at large - a map and inventory of areas with
general access to the shore. Sources include:
(1 ) Office of General Services Inventory of State
Lands
( 2) County tax maps
3. Describe the level and type of existing access at each site
identified in terms of mode , capacity, and condition. Major
source is the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation' s Inventory of Recreation Sites.
4. Assess the appropriateness of the above access relative to
the capacity (physical and environmental ) of the site to
accommodate increased access and the present and future
demand for use of the site.
5. Where increased access is appropriate, indicate the
appropriate means for improving access and the agency' s
responsibility.
6. Establish a priority system for areas where increased access
is appropriate.
II - 7 - 17
SECTION 8
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS
Identification and Selection
The New York State Coastal Management Program has identified
three categories of uses and activities which, because of their
particular coastal related values, development pressures, or site
specific circumstances, require detailed attention beyond the
general planning and management system that constitutes the
State's coastal program. The three categories of special
management areas are: 1 ) State parks, 2) local waterfront
revitalization areas, and 3) estuarine sanctuaries.
The Draft NYS Coastal Management Program Report dated March
19791 detailed identification and selection criteria for
geographical areas of particular concern. The application of
these criteria resulted in the proposed designation of 97 site
specific geographic areas of particular concern and four
categories of generic areas. Under the management program as
presented in this final Coastal Management Program most of the
areas that were identified can be adequately managed through the
policies and various implementation measures of the program,
notably the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act,
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Shoreowners
Protection Act, State Historic Preservation Act, Articles VII and
VIII of the Public Service Law and the Tidal and Freshwater
Wetlands Act. Only the three areas mentioned above continue to to
require detailed and/or individual attention beyond the basic
management program. State parks in the coastal area differ
considerably in size, uses, and other circumstances and may
require specific management programs which should be made part of
the coastal management program. Each local revitalization
waterfront area will have a program that, though it will adhere
to common criteria, will be designed to meet the specific needs
of each community. Similarly, any area designated as an estuarine
sanctuary must be managed in a manner which will further federal
sanctuary objectives.
A more complete description of the management of these three
areas follows. Additional information including detailed
regulations and guidelines are contained in appendices to this
document.
1New York State Coastal Management Program, Appendix to Draft
Re ort, March 1979, pp. F-1 to F-6.
II - 8 - 1
State Parks
Shorefront access and recreation are two of the major issues in
New York State's coastal area. Public access to the coastline
for recreational purposes is determined to a great extent by land
ownership and land use patterns. Where coastal lands are
privately owned , as is the case of most coastal lands in New
York, public access is usually prohibited. In addition, the
existing patterns of residential, commercial , industrial , and
transportation land uses make large portions of New York's coast
inaccessible or at the least severely limit access. For example,
access to the Hudson River is substantially reduced because
railroad lines run parallel to both sides.
While leisure time and the associated interest in recreation are
increasing, physical barriers to public access persist and
interest in buying coastal land for private purposes increases.
Therefore, it is imperative that existing public access be
preserved, maintained, and managed and where feasible, new access
areas provided so that as many people as possible can take
advantage of recreational opportunities.
State parks are the public facilities that provide coastal access
and water-based recreational opportunities for the largest number
of New York State residents. There are 90 State parks within New
York's coastal boundary that represent probably the most
important link between the people and the shore. The New York '
State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
(OPRHP) , as part of its comprehensive outdoor recreation program,
administers these 90 State parks which are grouped into four
distinct categories: linear systems, boating facilities, parks
and land preserves, and historic areas. Within each of these
categories are subcategories of facilities to serve all types of
users.
Management Objectives
The overall management objective for State parks is to preserve
and maintain these facilities so that the residents of New York
State are guaranteed recreational access to the coastal area.
However, four other management objectives are important, and
should be considered in any specific management program for a
State park:
1. Ensure first that water-dependent uses and then
water-enhanced uses are accommodated within coastal
State parks.
2. Manage land immediately adjacent to State parks so that
incompatible development does not take place or is, at
least, minimized.
1
II - 8 - 2
3. Provide the appropriate level of public access to
presently undeveloped or underutilized State parks.
4. Encourage the attainment of carrying capacities in
underutilized State parks.
Priority Uses
Highest priority uses within coastal State parks are those
recreational activities that are water-dependent or
water-enhanced. The lowest priority uses are those that would be
environmentally incompatible. The extent of this incompatibility
will vary, of course, from park to park depending on the amount
of existing development and the character of the parkland.
Priority uses of land immediately adjacent to State parks will
also vary according to the types and intensity of both existing
and proposed development and the nature and character of the
State park. For example, in a park that has primarily been left
in an undeveloped State, the highest priority development on
adjacent land should be that which affords maximum protection to
the natural character of the park. In a more highly developed
park, adjacent land development should vary with the nature of
the park.
II - 8 - 3
Existing Management Authorities
1. Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
- It is legislated policy of New York State (Title B,
Article 3, Section 3. 01 of the Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Law) to establish and maintain a
system of State parks. State parks are administered by
the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and
Historic Preservation (OPRHP) . The Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation is presently in
the final stages of developing a State Park Land
Classification System. This system would examine the
land capabilities of each State park area so that the
type and level of appropriate development can be
determined. When completed , this should give OPRHP
increased capability for decision-making concerning
desirable development at each of its coastal State
parks.
2. Office of General Services - There is a great deal of
unappropriated State land throughout New York State.
It could be made available for parks through a transfer
of jurisdiction from the Office of General Services to
the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation.
3. Local Zoning - The Office of Parks , Recreation, and
Historic Preservation's ownership, administration, and
policy planning powers provide adequate management
authority to meet management objectives within State
parks. However, OPRHP does not have power to ensure
that compatible development takes place in lands
adjacent to State parks. Section 13. 07 of the Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law prohibits any
person from erecting or maintaining any advertising
sign or structure within 500 feet of the border of any
State park. Other than that, control of adjacent lands
is left to the local government. The individual
municipalities can, through zoning and other land use
controls, regulate the use of these lands.
4. General Municipal Law - Section 239-m of the General
Municipal Law does require, however, that any proposed
zoning regulation or amendment to a zoning regulation
which would change the regulations applying to real
property within 500 feet of the boundary of a State
park must be submitted to a county planning agency (or
the appropriate regional planning agency if no county
agency exists) for review. If the county planning
agency disapproves the zoning proposal, the municipal
agency having jurisdiction in local zoning matters may
proceed with the disapproved regulation only after a
vote of a majority plus one in favor. In addition, a
resolution must be adopted setting forth the reasons
for going counter to the county recommendations.
II - 8 - 4
Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs
As part of the State's Coastal Management Program, coastal
localities are encouraged to use their resources and authorities
to develop detailed programs for the revitalization of their
waterfronts and the protection of coastal resources. While the
State can promote development and provide for protection of
critical resources and environments, the Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act recognizes that local
governments, with the assistance and cooperation of the State,
are in the best position to determine what specific activities
will take the best advantage of their local circumstances. To do
this, the Act provides incentives for local governments to
develop waterfront revitalization programs. It also sets up a
process for cooperation between all levels of government. The
objective is a detailed local program to which all levels of
government are committed .
The general requirements for development and the content of an
approved local waterfront revitalization program are described
below. The more detailed guidelines that will be used by the
Department of State in approving a local program are contained,
in draft form, in an appendix to this document. These
requirements are based on the Waterfront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act which describes in some detail both the
process for development and the content of a local waterfront
revitalization program.
Procedure for Program Development and Implementation
As to process, the Act provides that any local government or two
or more local governments acting jointly may prepare a waterfront
revitalization program and seek its approval by the Secretary of
State. The Department of State will provide technical and
financial assistance to local governments wishing to prepare
waterfront revitalization programs. Guidelines have been prepared
by the Department to aid localities in the preparation of their
waterfront programs. More importantly, as required by the Act,
the Department will actively work with each locality to
facilitate the necessary consultation and coordination among
local , county, regional , State , and Federal agencies and with
community organizations in connection with the preparation of a
local waterfront program. In addition, the Department of State
will provide, as appropriate, to each participating locality,
maps, data, model implementation mechanisms and technical advice.
Local programs are to include procedural as well as substantive
elements. Among these are requirements that the program be long
range, that the local government have adequate authority and the
ability to implement the program, and that the program identify
specific State actions including permit, funding , construction,
and planning programs necessary for its implementation. The
program must be approved by the legislative body and the chief
executive officer of the municipality before it is submitted to
the Secretary of State.
II - 8 - 5
Program Approval
Before approving a local waterfront revitalization program, the
Secretary of State will consult with affected State and Federal
agencies. The Secretary cannot approve a local program if he
finds it conflicts with an existing State or Federal policy. When
a conflict is found , the Secretary will attempt to resolve the
differences.
Within sixty days of approving a local waterfront revitalization
program, the Secretary will identify specific State permit,
financial assistance, acquisition and capital construction
programs likely to affect the achievement of the local program.
State agency programs so identified will, to the maximum extent
practicable, be undertaken in a manner consistent with the
approved local waterfront program. To assure the consistency of
State actions with a local program, existing review and
notification procedures, particularly SEQR and A-95, will be
utilized. Using these and other procedures if necessary, State
agencies will provide local government with adequate information
on a proposed action. The municipality is expected to evaluate
proposed actions and identify conflicts with its approved local
program. Once notified by the locality of the potential
conflicts, the Secretary will confer with the State agency and
the local government to modify the action so that it will be
consistent with the approved waterfront revitalization program.
The Secretary is also required by the Act to work with State
a,gencies and seek additional means of implementing approved local
waterfront programs. Where a local government has identified
program elements which depend upon other than local funds and
actions, the Secretary will consult with the appropriate State
and Federal agencies to explore the possibilities or programming
of additional assistance that would further the implementation of
the local program.
Program Content
As to the content of a local waterfront revitalization program,
the Department of State guidelines are based on Sections 912,
915.4 and 915. 5 of the Act. First, all local programs must be
consistent with and work towards the achievement of the policies
contained in Section 912. These policies are:
1. To achieve a balance between economic development and
preservation that will permit the beneficial use of
coastal resources, while preventing the loss of living
marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space
areas or public access to the waterfront, shoreline
nt
erosion, impairment of scenic beauty, or pe
adverse changes to ecological systems.
II - 8 - 6
2. To encourage the development and use of existing ports
and small harbors including use and maintenance of
viable existing infrastructures, and to reinforce their
role as valuable components within the State' s
transportation and industrial network.
3. To conserve, protect and where appropriate promote
commercial and recreational use of fish and wildlife
resources and to conserve and protect fish and wildlife
habitats identified by the Department of Environmental
Conservation as critical to the maintenance or
re-establishment of species of fish or wildlife. Such
protection shall include mitigation of the potential
impact from adjacent land use or development.
4. To encourage and facilitate public access for recrea-
tional purposes.
5. To minimize damage to natural resources and property
from flooding and erosion, including proper location of
new land development, protection of beaches, dunes,
barrier islands, bluffs and other critical coastal
features and use of non-structural measures, whenever
possible.
6. To encourage the restoration and revitalization of
natural and man-made resources.
7. To encourage the location of land development in areas
where infrasturcture and public services are adequate.
8. To conserve and protect agricultural lands as valued
natural and ecological resources which provide for open
spaces, clean air sheds and aesthetic value as well as
for agricultural use.
The guidelines for determining whether a local program is
consistent with, and furthers the achievement of these policies,
reflect the elaboration of these policies found in the comparable
policies of the Policies Section of this document. These
guidelines are to be found in Appendix B of this document.
In addition to being consistent with and furthering the policies
of the Act, a local waterfront revitalization program must focus
on each of the following specific activities (Section 914. 5) to
an extent commensurate with the particular circumstances of that
local government. That is, the more relevant the use or activity
is to the circumstances revealed in a community's analysis of its
coastal area, the higher the priority for such use or activity
will be , and the less relevant the use or activity, the lower its
priority.
II - 8 - 7
a. The facilitation of appropriate industrial and commer-
cial uses which require or can benefit substantially
from a waterfront location, such as but not limited to
waterborne transportation facilities and services, and
support facilities for commercial fishing and
aquaculture.
b. The increased use of and access to coastal waters and
the waterfront for water-related activities such as
boating, swimming, fishing, walking, and picnicking.
c. The promotion and preservation of scenic, historic,
cultural and natural resources as community amenities
and tourist designations.
d. The strengthening of the economic position of the
State's major ports and small harbors.
e. The reuse of existing infrastructure and building stock
and the removal of deteriorated structures and
unsightly conditions that have negative effects upon
the waterfront area and adjacent neighborhoods.
f. The application of local aesthetic considerations in
the design of new structures and the redevelopment of
waterfront sites.
g. The protection of sensitive ecological areas, including
but not limited to dunes, tidal and freshwater wet-
lands, fish and wildlife habitats, and the protective
capability of coastal land features. Such protection
will assure that land use or development will not
affect such areas.
The guidelines for determining whether a local government has
adequately incorporated these activities in its program are based
on an analysis of the conditions, problems, and opportunities
that exist along the community's shore, and that can in good
part, be successfully addressed with the resources of that
community. The community will undertake the analysis as a
preliminary step to the development of a local waterfront
program. Guidelines for local programs will require that these
activities be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the
program policies as described in this document.
Finally, local program guidelines include the requirment that a
program address the following items identified in the legislation
(Section 915.4) :
a. Boundaries of the waterfront area;
b. An inventory of natural and historic resources of the
waterfront area to be protected;
II - 8 - 8
c. A Statement of the goals and objectives of the program;
and
d. Identification of the uses, public and private, to be
accommodated in the waterfront area.
Estuarine Sanctuaries
The Estuarine Sanctuary Program was established under Section 315
of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
in response to the findings of the National Estuarine Study which
documented the awesome and rapid destruction of the Nation's
estuaries. The expressed purpose of this program is to identify
acquire and preserve estuarine areas which are still reasonably
natural systems so that these areas can then function as natural
field laboratories where scientists can conduct long-term studies
and educational programs. Through this program, the federal
government provides grants on a 50:50 matching basis to acquire,
develop and manage such estuarine areas as sanctuaries.
Uses of estuarine sanctuaries are intended to serve objectives
such as the following:
-- To gain a more thorough understanding of ecological
relationships within the estuarine environment;
-- To make baseline ecological measurements;
-- To serve as a natural control in order to monitor
changes and assess the impacts of human stresses on the
ecosystem;
-- To provide a vehicle for increasing public' knowledge
and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine
ecosystems, their values and benefits to man and
nature, and the problems confronting them; and
-- To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries
to the extent that such usage is compatible with the
primary sanctuary purposes of research and education.
New York State's Proposal
In August, 1982 New York State submitted its application for an
acquisition grant for purposes of creating the Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary. The acquisition grant request to NOAH for
$375,000, matched by an equivalent amount of State funds and
services, would be used for establishment of a 4,130 acre sanctu-
ary of which potentially 382 acres of wetlands, waters and
shoreline would be purchased and to develop or renovate facili-
ties at two or more of the four Hudson River sites. These
facilities ( i.e. , buildings, roads, parking lots, trails, and
boardwalk) will be used to accommodate research activities ,
II - 8 - 9
educational programs, and visitors. The great majority of land
within the proposed sanctuary boundaries is already publicly
owned or under negotiation for public acquisition under
pre-existing programs. The chief importance of establishing the
proposed sanctuary would be the development of a coordinated
program of research and education that would not be otherwise
realized.
The composition of real property within the proposed sanctuary is
as follows (acreages are approximate) :
Stockport Total area - 1,149 acres
Currently publicly owned 692-804 acres
Proposed for acquisition 152-264 acres
Tivoli Total area - 1,481 acres
Currently publicly owned 1,436 acres
Under negotiation 45 apres
Iona Island Total area - 556 acres
Currently publicly owned 556 acres
Proposed for acquisition 0 acres
Piermont Marsh Total area - 934 acres
Currenly publicly owned 871 acres
Under negotiation 73 acres
The total area of all four sites is 4,130 acres. Of this, 2,860
acres are wetlands and shallows , comprising 13% of the Hudson
River Estuary's total area of wetlands and shallows (less than 6
feet deep at low tide ) .
Estuarine sanctuary research programs would emphasize ecosystem-
level understanding of the Hudson Estuary and especially its
wetlands and shallows, as well as applied concerns of coastal
management including the management of fish, game and fur
resources, vegetation, endangered and rare species, and the
reduction and mitigation of human impacts on the coastal zone.
Much research has been done on the Hudson River Estuary, but
efforts have generally been fragmented and there are many serious
gaps in the knowledge needed to effectively manage the Estuary.
The proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would help to
coordinate and unify Hudson River research and to provide
information to coastal managers at all levels of government and
the private sector with the goal of wise resource management.
II - 8 - 10
The proposed estuarine sanctuary sites contain a variety of fauna
and flora and estuarine habitats representative of the Hudson
River Estuary, and are located within easy reach of millions of
New York State and greater New York City area residents. The
proposed sanctuary would provide an opportunity for many to learn
more of the estuary's geology, ecology and resources. Estuarine
sanctuary funds would be used to develop exhibit space at the
Bear Mountain Trailside Museums complex near Iona Island Marsh
for Hudson Estuary related exhibits; this complex is visited by
over 600,000 people each year. Funds would also be used to set
up facilities at or near the Tivoli Bays site for educational
exhibits and for research work. Additionally, selected programs
such as guided field trips, self-guided trail brochures, and
educational media available to public groups and schools on loan
could be developed.
Management of the Proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation will administer
the proposed sanctuary and will be directly responsible for the
content and structure of the sanctuary's management plan, the
expenditure of program funds, and the formulation and
implementation of general program elements (such as research
programs and educational programs ) . A Sanctuary Steering
Committee comprised of representatives of the five State agencies
involved in the sanctuary: Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) , Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) ,
the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
(OPRHP) , the Department of State (DOS) , and the Office of General
Services (OGS) has been formed. The Committee will guide DEC on
issues related to the formulation and implementation of the
sanctuary's management plan, the expenditure of program funds,
and formulation and implementation of general program elements.
Adoption of the Sanctuary Management Plan is subject to the
unanimous approval of the Steering Committee. Consistent with the
management plan, the State agencies will exercise prerogatives
and make decisions regarding use of lands to which they hold
title.
A Memorandum of Agreement, signed by the agencies represented on
the Steering Committee, has been appended to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement. The Memorandum of Agreement
outlines interagency arrangements for the administration and
management of the sanctuary, and expresses the agencies '
agreement to carry out the management plan.
Three citizens' advisory groups (Columbia, Dutchess, and Rockland
Counties ) , representing local government and sanctuary user
groups, will act as the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and make
recommendations to the Steering Committee. The Advisory
Committee will channel public support and criticism to the
Steering Committee.
II - 8 - 11
Implementation of the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary will be
coordinated with the State's Coastal Management Program by virtue
of three separate mechanisms. First, DOS staff will serve on the
Steering Committee which will perform the duties described above,
most important being its role in assisting with the development,
and ultimately providing approval of the Management Plan for the
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. The Management Plan will set
forth compatible and non-compatible uses for the Sanctuary.
Furthermore, it will provide direction for future research and
education activities to be conducted in the Sanctuary.
Secondly, the Department of State, as the State's lead agency for
the Coastal Management Program , is responsible for review of
federal consistency determinations to be made by federal agencies
relative to their direct actions. By this mechanism, the
Department of State can help assure that the objectives of the
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary Management Plan are not
preempted by the actions by Federal agencies.
Finally, coordination of the two Programs will be reinforced by
the State consistency provisions found in Regulations (19 NYCRR,
Part 600) pursuant to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act (Executive Law, Article 42) . The direct actions of
State agencies within Sanctuary boundaries must be found to be
consistent with the policies set forth in those regulations.
II - 8 - 12
AREAS FOR PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION
The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that "the management
program make provisions for procedures whereby specific areas may
be designated for the purpose of preserving or restoring them for
their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values
(Section 306 (c) (9) )". These same regulations further specify
that standards and criteria must be developed and applied by the
state in designating these areas.
The general planning and management program in Section 6 contains
several policies and criteria that will result in the identifica-
tion of specific areas to be preserved or restored because of
their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic value.
New York State has determined that significant fish and wildlife
habitats, significant scenic areas, and estuarine sanctuaries
will be proposed as Areas for Preservation or Restoration.
Criteria
The policies on protection of habitats and scenic areas contain
detailed criteria for identification of habitats and scenic areas
(cf. Policy 7 A. a-e and Policy 25 A. , respectively) . Estuarine
sanctuaries have been identified as special management areas in
part because of the need to preserve such areas; criteria for
their identification are found in the discussion of special
management areas.
Procedures
The procedure by which significant fish and wildlife habitats and
scenic areas will be designated is as follows:
1. DEC and DOS will jointly investigate and analyze
potential areas;
2. a. DEC will identify those areas which are critical
to the maintenance or reestablishment of a species
of fish or wildlife;
b. DOS, following consultation with DEC and OPR11P,
will identify scenic areas of statewide
significance;
3. Public comment, including that of Federal and State
agencies and affected local governments, will be
solicited on the significance of the areas and accuracy
of associated data, maps, and other supporting
information;
4. After consideration of any comments received, the
Secretary of State will add these areas to the official
Coastal Area Map.
Procedures for designationg estuarine sanctuary candidates are
referenced in the discussion on Special Management Areas.
II - 8 - 13
SECTION 9
SPECIAL FEDERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Introduction
Several Federal program requirements warrant special discussion
due to their particular subject matter and role in a State's
coastal management program. They are the requirements pertaining
to national interest, uses of regional benefit, Federal consis-
tency and public participation
A State must demonstrate that in the development of its program,
adequate consideration was given to various types of facilities
which may locate in coastal areas and are of interstate or
national concern. In addition, the State's management program
must ensure that consideration of such facilities will be con-
tinued throughout its implementation phases (15 CFR 923.52) .
There are some types of land and water uses and facilities which
are of benefit to several coastal communities, or for that
matter, an entire region. Some of these uses may be subject to
governmental regulations which could prevent their siting at
coastal locations. A State's management program must identify
uses and facilities of regional benefit and demonstrate how they
would not be unreasonably restricted or excluded (15 CFR 923.12 ) .
It should be noted that these uses and facilities may be
considered of national interest.
A State's coastal management program must contain the procedures
that will be followed by the State and Federal agencies in order
to implement the Federal consistency requirement contained in the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended . These proce-
dures are intended to help a State achieve its coastal policies
(15 CFR 923. 53 ) .
Finally, a coastal State must ensure that State agencies, local
governments , various interest groups and the general public are
afforded full opportunity to participate in the development of
its management program (15 CFR 923.55 ) . The preparation and
distribution of Program information and public meetings and
workshops are the common means for addressing this requirement.
The projects which meet one of the following two criteria have
been determined to be projects for which a substantial amount of
time, money and effort have been expended, and will not be sub-
ject to New York State's Coastal Management Program and therefore
will not be subject to review pursuant to the Federal consistency
procedures of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended: (1 ) those projects identified as grandfathered pursuant
to State Environmental Quality Review Act at the time of its
enactment in 1976; and (2 ) those projects for which a final
Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared prior to the
effective date of the Department of State Part 600 regulations
[see Appendix A, DOS Consistency Regulations, NYCRR Title 19,
Part 600, 5600. 3 (4 ) ] . If an applicant needs assistance to deter-
mine if its proposed action meets one of these two criteria, the
applicant should contact the Department of State.
II - 9 - 1
Rational Interest
The Federal Act requires State programs, to provide "adequate
consideration of the national interest involved in planning for,
and in the siting of, facilities which are necessary to meet
requirements which are other than local in nature" (Section 306
(c) (8) ) . In giving adequate consideration to such facilities,
State programs must also assure that "natural resource considera-
tions of a national nature enter into the assessment of the
demand for the locational needs of particular types of
facilities" (see 15 CFR 923.52 (c) (4 ) ) .
New York State's coast possesses natural resource , historic,
scenic, recreation, defense and broad-ranging economic values
which are of importance not only to the State, but to the Nation.
Certain development actions which could affect these coastal
values were examined during the preparation of the Coastal
Management Program to ensure that sufficient attention was given
to various national interests.
New York's Coastal Management Program assures continued protec-
tion of natural resources of more than State significance through
existing legislation, program policies and procedures , and
special management areas. The State's Program includes detailed
consideration of coastal resources, including water, wetlands and
adjacent areas, fish and wildlife habitats, erosion hazard areas
( including barrier islands and beaches) , agricultural lands,
historic and cultural resources, and scenic areas. At the same
time, the Program also recognizes the critical need for develop-
ment of certain facilities which depend upon and affect the
various coastal resources.
For the purposes of this Program, national defense , energy pro-
duction and transmission, recreation, and transportation facili-
ties are considered to be of national interest. For each type of
facility, the following information is provided: (1) sources
relied upon for description of national interest; (2) descrip-
tions of national interest in above facilities; (3) description
of how the Cr-1P considers the national interest in such facili-
ties; and (4) the process for continued consideration of the
national interest.
National Defense Facilities
Through direct communications with the various branches of the
U.S. Department of Defense and analyses of the policy papers
issued by its agencies, it was determined that areas of national
defense interest include: (1) the accurate identification of all
lands owned or leased by the military; (2) the maintenance of
transportation facilities within coastal areas at levels that
would ensure optimum military mobility; and (3) the need to
provide new or expand existing military facilities.
II - 9 - 2
Military facilities in New York's Coastal Area are not substan-
tial in size or number. Department of Defense (DOD) lands and
facilities are listed in Appendix D. While the State's Coastal
Management Program does not apply to Federally-owned lands,
including those under the jurisdiction of DOD, it still
recognizes the paramount importance of military facilities not
only for national defense but also for their contributions to the
economic, educational and cultural life of the Nation and State.
Therefore, New York's Program contains no policy that contradicts
the basic justification for new or expanded military facilities.
It is also recognized that any new or expanded national defense
facility can be sited at any location under the eminent domain
authority of DOD.
In the future, defense needs and other coastal interests could be
in conflict if: increased public access to the coast would
interfere with the military functions of defense installations;
new defense facilities were planned for sensitive ecological
areas; or, off-site transportation improvements were necessary
for the continued operation of a military facility.
New York State will seek to prevent serious conflicts between
national defense interests and Coastal Management Program
concerns by using the consistency procedures contained in this
Section to comment on proposed military projects which affect the
coastal area of the State. Through this process , the Department
of State will suggest reasonable mitigation measures and/or
alternative sites, if appropriate, so that DOD activities will be
conducted in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the State's Program.
Energy Production and Transmission Facilities
The National Energy Plan was the primary source for determining
the national interest in energy facilities. Direct communica-
tions with the Department of Energy, Federal Energy Administra-
tion, Bureau of Land Management, Maritime Administration,
Geological Survey, Department of Transportation, Army Corps of
Engineers , and Nuclear Regulatory Commission provided additional
information.
The National Energy Plan sets forth three overriding objectives
for the Nation: (1 ) reduce dependence on foreign oil and vulner-
ability to supply interruptions; (2 ) keep imports sufficiently
low to weather the period when oil production approaches its
capacity limitation; and , (3 ) have renewable and essentially
inexhaustible sources of energy for sustained economic growth.
The salient features of the National Energy Plan are: conserva-
tion; national pricing and production policies; reasonable
certainty and stability in government policies ; substitution of
abundant energy resources for those in short supply; and ,
development of non-conventional technologies for the future.
II - 9 - 3
Many energy facilities are already situated in the State' s
coastal area, including steam electric generating plants,
transmission lines, oil storage tanks and LNG facilities. The
Program's policies on energy are in accord with existing State
laws and plans which address energy needs and environmental
quality in a comprehensive manner.
The State has demonstrated its recognition of the national
interest in energy facilities by the number and scope of
facilities already located in or planned for New York's coastal
area. The total 1981 capacity for New York State utilities was
30,331 megawatts. This was produced by the following types of
existing facilities: (1 ) oil - 100 units, (2 ) hydro - 17 units,
(3) gas - 6 units, (4) coal - 30 units, and (5) nuclear - 5
units. In addition, other facilities are in various stages of
planning and development: (1 ) 2 nuclear - under construction, (2 )
1 coal - under construction, (3 ) 3 coal - licensed to be con-
structed, and (4 ) 1 pumped storage - licensed to be constructed.
When operating , these new facilities will produce 5,868 mega-
watts. Finally, 15 plants are proposed to be converted to coal
and would produce 3,685 megawatts.
Article 5 of the State's Energy Law is the principal authority
under which the national interest in energy is considered. This
law requires the preparation and adoption of a statewide energy
plan which establishes the State's future energy requirements.
In determining these requirements, consideration must be given to
:factors which relate to reducing the State's and the Nation's
dependence on foreign oil and also to developing renewable
sources of energy. Factors include: the extent to which energy
conservation measures and new energy technologies may affect the
State's energy requirements; the extent to which indigenous
energy resources may contribute to meeting the State's require-
ments. Section 5-110.a (4 ) of Article 5 requires that one of the
factors that shall be taken into consideration in preparation of
the Energy Plan is "the impact of the national energy policies on
the State' s energy needs and on available sources of supplies" .
The State Energy Master Plan must be reviewed at least once every
two years; at that time the State Energy Office will prepare any
amendments necessary to update the plan or issue a determination
that no amendments are necessary and the reasons supporting the
determination. Any interested person may seek such a review upon
written application to the Energy Office for an amendment to the
Master Plan. Amendments are to be adopted by the Energy Planning
Board in the same manner as the plan itself; thus again the
national interest will be considered.
Under Article 5 of the Energy Law, the Energy Office must also
formulate and revise a State energy conservation plan to be
submitted pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975. In addition, any action requiring preparation of an
EIS under the State Environmental Quality Review Act must be
reviewed as to its effects on the use and conservation of energy.
II - 9 - 4
Article 5 requires the New York Power and Gas Pools to submit to
the Energy Office comprehensive long-range plans for future
operations. After analysis and review of the plans, the Energy
Office will project long-range electric and gas demands and
supply requirements for 4, 8 , 12 and 16 year forecast periods.
These findings are binding under Article VII and VIII of the
Public Service Law with respect to any determination of need for
an electric generation or transmission facility.
Interstate and international arrangements established by the
members of the New York Power Pool also serve the national
interest. Interconnections with the Pennsylvania - New Jersey -
Maryland power system, the New England power pool, Hydro Quebec
and Ontario Hydro provide mutual reserve capability to ensure
those systems' reliability. Electricity generated by the Power
Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) in its coastal hydro-
electric plants is sold to the State of Vermont. Finally, PASNY
purchases significant quantities of power from the two Canadian
systems.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 42 of the Executive
Law, the Secretary of State will review the above described
programs and actions for consistency with the coastal area
policies. In particular, the Secretary will review the
preparation of the State Energy Master Plan for assurance that
there is adequate consideration of the national interest in the
siting of the energy facilities which are necessary to meet
requirements which are other than local in nature consistent with
Article V, Section 110. a. ( 4 ) . The Secretary will take
particular note of Policy 27 ( "Decisions on the siting and
construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will
be based on public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities
with the environment, and the facilities' need for a shorefront
location" ) and Policy 29 ( "Encourage the development of energy
resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie and in
other water bodies, and ensure the environmental safety of such
activities" ) in making these decisions. For a further
description of the process of siting energy facilities, see Part
II , Section 7.
Recreation Facilities
Various documents, legislation, and Federal agencies were
consulted to determine the national interest in recreation
facilities including: Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan;
Gateway National Park Plan; Fire Island National Seashore Park
Plan; Land and Water Conservation Fund Act; Historic Preservation
Act - P.L. 89-665; Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service;
and National Park Service.
II - 9 - 5
National recreation objectives drawn from the above sources are:
(1 ) to consider recreation as an equal among other uses competing
for space along coastlines; (2 ) to provide high quality recrea-
tional opportunities to all people while protecting the coastal
environment; (3 ) to increase public recreation possibilities in
high density areas; (4 ) to protect existing recreation areas from
the adverse effects of contiguous uses; (5) to improve coordina-
tion and management of recreation areas; and, (6 ) to accelerate
the no-cost transfer of surplus Federal property for recreational
uses.
New York's coast possesses many fine and varied public recreation
areas, including the Fire Island National Seashore and a portion
of the Gateway National Park System. The State'$ Coastal Manage-
ment Program recognizes the multiple values of these facilities
in terms of their contribution to the economy, their role in
achieving more desirable land use patterns, and their immeasure-
able benefit to the health of residents and visitors. In support
of these values and the national interest, New York's Program
supports increasing the number of recreation facilities in its
coastal area while protecting them from excessive use and
incompatible adjacent development. For a complete discussion of
recreation policies, see Part II, Section 6 of this report.
Conflicts between various national and State interests arise
inevitably when activities, such as residential, transportation
or energy development, compete with recreational facilities for
use of limited waterfront space. Frequently, the other uses
prevail because they are considered more profitable and more
critical.
A number of State laws, plans and processes ensure that, among
other critical concerns, the national interest in recreation will
be adequately considered in New York State. First, the State
Comprehensive Recreation Plan, administered by the Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) contains a
priority rating system for allocating funds for recreation
purposes. One factor in that system gives positive weight to an
activity which will contribute to the achievement OPRHP Stalso
regional and national goals for recreation.
administers the Urban Cultural Park Program which is intended to
improve the physical, economic and recreational environments of
the State's historic communities.
Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, recreational
concerns must be considered as part of the environmental assess-
ment process; so too under Article VII and VIII of the Public
Service Law which requires environmental impact analysis for
proposed energy facilities. Finally, under the Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation, Environmental Conservation, Transpor-
tation, and Highway Laws, the State may acquire land for recrea-
tional purposes. Appendices E and F contain additional informa-
tion on these laws and programs.
II - 9 - 6
Transportation Facilities
In determining the national interest in transportation, the
following documents and Federal agencies were consulted:
Department of Transportation Act (49 US 1651, et. seq. ) ; Railway
Safety Act of 1970 (45 USC 421) ; Coast Guard, Primary Duties (14
USC 2) ; Department of Transportation; Maritime Administration;
Interstate Commerce Commission; and, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
From these sources, it was determined that the national interest
in transportation is: (1) to develop a balanced national
transportation system including well-integrated surface, air,
water, and subsurface modes; and, (2) to provide fast, safe,
efficient and convenient transportation via one or more modes for
the movement of people, goods and services to, from, and through
coastal regions.
The Coastal Management Program considers major ports , navigation
channels, interstate highways, railroads, airports and their
ancillary facilities to be in the national interest. For these
facilities, the Program supports the State 's Department of
Transportation policies. These policies, as presented in the
Department 's Transportation Master Plan, are clearly supportive
of national transportation concerns.
In the development of its Coastal Management Program, the State
has indicated where conflicts exist or could arise between the
Program's policies and the national interest in transportation.
In the Hudson River Valley and at many locations along the Great
Lakes, public access to the shorefront is inhibited by rail lines
and interstate highways. Expansion or improvement of existing
port facilities could interfere with existing or the provision of
new recreational waterfront facilities. Finally, the dredging
and deepening of navigation channels may adversely affect
significant fish habitat and the quality of coastal waters.
In the face of these conflicts, New York State will continue to
give adequate and balanced consideration to all national and
State concerns through review of A-95 notifications and environ-
mental impact statements prepared under the State's Environmental
Quality Review Act. The Department of State will suggest reason-
able mitigation measures and/or alternative sites as appropriate.
Uses of Regional Benefit
As indicated previously, a State 's coastal management program
must ensure that local regulations applicable to land and water
uses within the coastal area do not unreasonably restrict or
exclude those uses which are of regional benefit. This require-
ment addresses the situation where a local government may oppose
or place severe limitations on the siting of a needed regional
serving facility or in another situation, where a municipality
may fail to adequately protect natural resources which are deemed
to be of areawide importance.
II - 9 - 7
Identification Criteria
New York's Coastal Management Program must identify uses of
regional benefit and then demonstrate how each will not be unduly
restricted or excluded. Two Federal guidelines are to be
followed in identifying such uses. First, the use or facility
must have an effect on more than one unit of local government.
Second, the use or facility must have a direct and significant
impact on coastal waters.
This Program has used two additional guidelines in the identifi-
cation of these regional uses. Since the overall objective of
the State's Program is to implement its policies, such regional
uses or facilities should then assist the State in the achieve-
ment of these policies. In particular, the need for a waterfront
location should be taken into consideration, for it is the land
along the shoreline where local , State and national concern is
the greatest. Area-serving uses and facilities which are either
publicly owned or regulated by the State is the other guideline
that was used in this identification process.
Types of Regional Uses
Based upon the above Federal and State guidelines, several types
of land and water uses are identified , as well as the means for
assuring that such uses will not be unreasonably restricted or
excluded by local regulations.
1. Recreational uses of regional benefit shall include:
-- State parks and other recreational uses
-- County parks and other recreational uses
All of the above uses satisfy the identification
criteria. First, they provide recreational oppor-
tunities to people who reside both within andoutside
the municipality where such uses are located. Second ,
these uses have direct effects on coastal waters, for
the recreational activities conducted on waters and the
adjacent lands may impair the quality of such waters.
Third, all of the uses are cited in coastal policies as
possible means for increasing water-oriented recrea-
tional oportunities. Finally, these uses are in public
ownership and serve many communities.
II _ 9 - A
The above recreational uses are not unreasonably
restricted by local laws and ordinances. The
acquisition and subsequent development of land with the
Coastal Area for State and county recreational purposes
are not subject to local regulations. Case law, rather
than statutory provision, is the basis for this
determination. Several judicial decisions have
declared that State and county governmental functions
are not subject to local land use regulation.
Therefore, the siting of such recreational uses within
the Coastal Area of the State cannot be unreasonably
restricted or prohibited by a local government.
2. Transportation uses of regional benefit shall include:
-- State and county highways, including necessary
bridges and tunnels
-- Intercity and commuter rail service facilities ,
including necessary bridges and tunnels
-- Major cargo handling ports
-- Navigation channels serving major ports
1 For general discussion on this subject, see Anderson, New
York Zoning Law and Practice, Section 9.04, (2nd Edition. 1973 ) .
Specific judicial decisions on this topic are as follows:
-- City of Rochester v. Town of Rush, 336 NYS 2d 160, 71
Misc. 2d 451 (1972)
-- Nehrbas v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd 's Harbor, 214Y
2d 190, 159 NYS 2d 145 (1957 )
-- Village of Larchmont v. Town of Mamaroneck, 239 NY 551
(1924)
II - 9 - 9
These transportation and related uses satisfy the two
Federally required identification criteria and
partially fulfill the State's Coastal Management
Program guidelines. With respect to the required
criteria, the above uses and facilities are of benefit
to the residents in the locality as well as the people
and businesses in the general area where such uses are
located. Because of their nature, these uses may have
direct and significant impacts upon coastal waters. In
terms of the State's criteria, the Program's policies
address either singularly or collectively the above
transportation uses, for they are essential to economic
activity within the coastal area and the State as a
whole. Ports do require waterfront sites and naviga-
tion channels are, of course , situated in coastal
waters. The other two transportation uses do not
require a location in or near coastal waters , except in
situations where a water body must be traversed to
provide for uninterrupted service. Finally, most of
the State and county highways are provided and main-
tained by their respective governments. There are
situations, however, where this is not true for parts
of New York's coastal area. For example, public
authorities have been established, such as the
Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in New York
City2 for the purposes of constructing, operating and
maintaining necessary bridges, tunnels and roadways
leading to such facilities. All of the State's major
port facilities and most of its rail service facilities
are also constructed, operated and maintained by public
authorities established under New York's Public
Authority Law. Some railroad lines in New York' s
coastal area are still under private ownership, such as
the Delaware and Hudson. As for navigation channels
serving major ports, these are situated on underwater
lands owned and, thus, controlled by the State of New
York.
State and county highways are not subject to local
regulation for the reasons discussed previously. The
major ports and most of the rail facilities are not
subject to local siting restrictions because of the
2 N.Y. S. Public Authority Law, Article 3, Title 3 .
II - 9 - 10
powers generally granted to public entities. The
siting of such facilities are regulated by the State' s
Department of Transportation.3 The U.S. Corps of
Engineers, in cooperation with the State's Department
of Environmental Conservation, is responsible for
maintaining the navigation channels serving the State' s
major ports.
3. Energy uses shall include:
Electric generation facilities
-- Electric and gas transmission facilities
These uses and facilities fulfill several of the
previously described identification guidelines. First,
major electric and gas facilities are beneficial , for
they supply the energy necessary for the operation of
industries, transportation vehicles and services, and
home heating. Second, these uses can have substantial
impacts upon coastal waters. Third , if these facili-
ties are properly sited and operated, several Coastal
Management Program policies will be achieved and state-
wide concerns over their effects on water quality, fish
and wildlife , air quality and aesthetics will be mini-
mized. Also, some of these facilities do require
locations along the waterfront or access to coastal
waters in order to properly function. Finally, some
major electric generation and transmission facilities
are provided by the Power Authority of the State of New
York (PASNY) .
Steam electric generation and electric and gas trans-
mission facilities are subject to the single compre-
hensive siting and permit procedures established under
Article VII and VIII of the Public Service Law. These
processes ensure that such facilities will not be
unreasonably restricted by local regulations. Hydro-
electric and nuclear-fueled generation facilities are
subject to Federal review and approval.
Federal Consistency
Federal agencies are responsible for numerous programs
which can further the policies and purposes of the
State's Coastal Management Program. The Coastal Zone
3 N.Y. S. Transportation Law, Article 5.
II - 9 - 11
Management Act of 1972, as amended, requires that
actions of Federal agencies which impact the coastal
zone must be undertaken consistently with approved
State management programs. These Federal actions are:
-- Federally conducted or supported activities,
including development projects;
-- Federal licenses or permits;
-- Federal financial assistance; and
-- Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) plans.
The Department of State will coordinate and review
Federal actions affecting New York's Coastal Area for
consistency with the State 's Coastal Management
Program. In carrying out this responsibility, the
Department will consult with other State agencies and
local governments before providing its official comment
on all Federal actions. If an action, other than a
Federally conducted or supported activity is determined
to be inconsistent with the management program, the
Federal agency proposing to permit, authorize or
finance the activity may not proceed, unless the
Secretary of Commerce finds that such action is
consistent with the objectives or purposes of the
Coastal Zone Management Act, or is necessary in the
interest of national security.
The basis for all consistency reviews are the enforce-
able policies in Part II, Section 6 of this document,
all the guidelines developed to assist in this review,
and all approved management programs for Special
Management Areas, particulary local waterfront revita-
lization programs which have been formally incorporated
into the State's Coastal Management Program.
The Department of State intends to meet the Federal
consistency provisions without causing burdensome
responsibilities on applicants and Federal agencies.
This will be accomplished by first seeking an early
consultation between pertinent State and Federal
officials and involved private parties. Federal
agencies and applicants proposing an action for which a
consistency review is or may be required should consult
the Department of State as early as possible in the
planning of the action. This will allow the Department
to advise the agency or applicant of the relevant
coastal policies and provisions of the State's Coastal
Management Program and will help to eliminate potential
conflicts before extensive work on a particular
proposal has been completed. Implementing this
principle will establish more efficient coordination
between State and Federal actions.
II - 9 - 12
Second, whenever possible, the Department of State will
base its consistency determination on documents
normally required for compliance with Federal
regulations or approval. Generally, these will include
environmental impact statements and assessments,
applications for Federal permits and licenses, Federal
grant applications, and supporting information.
Third, if additional information should be needed to
make a consistency determination, the Department of
State will promptly notify the Federal agency or
applicant of this need, specify in detail the nature of
the required information, and indicate the reasons for
the additional data.
Fourth, whenever both Federal and State consistency
determinations are required for proposed action, the
review of this action will, whenever possible, occur at
the same time.
Fifth, the State, when appropriate, may enter into
agreements with Federal agencies that would further
define the scope, procedures to be used , and the
notification process for reporting the results of that
review. The primary objectives of such agreements will
be to ease the burden of consistency review on
applicants and Federal agencies, and to synchronize and
simplify existing and new review and/or regulatory
procedures and programs at both the Federal and State
level.
Consistency Procedures for Federally
Conducted or Supported Activities
Consistency reviews , including the necessary informa-
tion outlined in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOW Federal consistency regulations
will be submitted to the Department of State.
Activities, which are determined by the appropriate
Federal agencies as directly affecting the coastal zone
and are listed in Part I of Table 2, require a consis-
tency determination. Activities not listed in this
Table will be monitored through the A-95 review process
and other relevant processess. If a consistency
determination and review is needed for any unlisted
activity, the Department of State will notify the
Federal agency.
Federal agencies must provide the Department of State
with a consistency determination at the earliest
practicable time in the planning of the activity,
preferably when the analysis of alternatives is still
ongoing. Federal agencies will notify the Department
by procedures established by any future agreement that
may be sought between a Federal agency and the
Department, or by any recognized means of notification.
II - 9 - 13
For the present, Federal agencies are encouraged to use
existing mechanisms such as OMB Circular A-95 and NEPA
environmental impact statements to provide the notifi-
cation. In any case, the consistency determination
must be provided no later than 90 days before final
approval of the activity.
Upon receipt of a consistency determination from a
Federal agency, the Department of State will review the
determination and inform the Federal agency of its
agreement or disagreement with the consistency deter-
mination within 45 days. If needed, the Department may
request an extension of 15 days. The Federal agency
may presume State agency agreement if the State agency
fails to provide a response within 45 days from receipt
of the Federal agency notification.
In the event the Department of State is in disagreement
with a Federal agency's consistency determination, the
agency will be informed of the reasons for disagree-
ment, accompanied by supporting information and
alternatives, if any, which would make the activity
consistent.
Consistency Procedures for Activities
Requiring Federal Licenses or Permits
Applicants, requiring Federal licenses or permits for
activities affecting the State 's Coastal Area or for
certain renewals or amendments to such licenses or
permits, shall provide the Department of State with the
application and a certification, with required
supporting information, demonstrating that the proposed
activities are consistent with the State's Coastal
Management Program.
Federal agencies may not issue a license or permit
unless: the State concurs with the applicant's consis-
tency certification; it is conclusively presumed to
concur; or the U.S. Secretary of Commerce finds that a
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act or is necessary in the
interest of national security. Licenses and permits
subject to consistency review are listed in Part II of
Table 2. In addition, the Department of State will
continue to monitor other activities requiring a
Federal license or permit, and, if necessary, will
notify the Federal agency, the applicant, and the
Assistant Administrator of Coastal Zone Management
(within 30 days of receiving the notice for the license
or permit) that an unlisted license or permit will be
subject to a consistency review.
II - 9 - 14
At the same time an application for a license or permit
is submitted to a Federal agency, the applicant shall
transmit a copy of the application, together with the
necessary data and information, and the consistency
certification to the Department of State. The Depart-
ment of State shall make the consistency determination
based on the State's coastal policies , regulations and
procedures and will make a decision or notify the
applicant within 3 months, as provided in NOAA regula-
tions. In no case can the consistency review take more
than 6 months.
With respect to Federal licenses and permits associated
with those energy facilities subject to Articles VII
and VIII of the Public Service Law (utility trans-
mission - facilities and steam electric generating
plants, respectively) , the information needed to assess
their consistency will be developed during the lengthy
statutory review period, particularly the required
formal hearings. Consequently, the State will not
consider an application of any such license or permit
to be supported by the necessary information and data
under 15 CFR 930.56 (b) and 930.58 (a) (2) until the
hearings have been completed. Concurrence or objection
will be based upon the Certification of Environmental
Compatibility and Public Need which will be issued
within six months from the completion of the hearings.
Public notice will be given for any license or permit
being reviewed for consistency in the Environmental
Notice Bulletin, and in a newspaper having general
circulation within the community where the license or
permit activity is proposed. For activities which are
subject to a State permit, the Department of State will
use the applicable agency's notification process.
Should this or other reasonable forms of public notifi-
cation not be available or if the nature of the permit
being applied for is of sufficient interest, the
Department of State will carry out the public notice.
When the Department of State objects to a consistency
certification, it will notify, in writing, the appli-
cant, the Federal agency and the Assistant Admini-
strator of NOAA. The notification will describe how
the proposed activity is inconsistent and alternatives,
if any, which would make the activity consistent.
Consistency Procedures for
Federal Financial Assistance
Federal assistance for projects or programs affecting
the State 's Coastal Area will be monitored by the
Department of State. Those proposed projects or
programs which are inconsistent with the Coastal
Management Program may not be funded by Federal
I1 - 9 - 15
agencies unless the U.S. Secretary of Commerce finds
that such proposals are consistent with the Federal Act
or are necessary for national security purposes.
The Department of State will use the A-95 Project
Notification and Review Process to monitor proposed
Federal assistance projects in the Coastal Area. All
applications for Federal assistance which are applic-
able to the planning , design, construction, alteration
or expansion of physical development projects or other
activities which could affect the State's Coastal Area
will be subject to a consistency review. she applicant
must certify consistency with the policies of the
Program. This certification should be contained in the
A-95 Review Notification, or if not applicable, Federal
agencies will notify the Department by procedures
established by any future agreement which may be sought
between the Federal agency and the Department, or by
any recognized means of notification. The Division of
the Budget, the State agency designated to administer
the A-95 process, shall notify the Department of State
of proposed Federal assistance projects in the Coastal
Area.
Within the time limits provided for review, the Depart-
ment of State will notify the appropriate Federal
agencies and applicants of any objections to proposed
projects. The objection will describe how the proposed
project is inconsistent with specific policies and
shall recommend alternative measures, if any, which
would make the project consistent. Applicants will
also be notified of appeal procedures under NOAA
regulations.
If the Department of State identifies an application
for Federal assistance to conduct an activity which
affects but is not within the Coastal Area, the
Department shall provide notice to that effect to the
Federal agency, the applicant, the A-95 Clearinghouse
and the Assistant Administrator of NOAA within the
designated comment period.
The Federal financial assistance projects and programs
subject to consistency review, are listed in Part III
of Table 2.
Consistency Procedures for Activities
in Outer Continental Shelf Plans
The activities described in detail in plans for the
exploration, development and production of Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) resources and affecting the
Coastal Area must be certified by the person submitting
the plan that the activity complies with the program
and will be carried out in a manner consistent with the
II - 9 - 16
program. The activities described in the plans will be
evaluated for consistency with the State 's Coastal
Management Program in accordance with the NOAA Federal
consistency regulations. The Department of State will
coordinate and provide the public notification
necessary for the review of OCS plans. During this
review, the Department will consult with the Department
of Environmental Conservation as to the consistency of
the OCS plans with the State's Coastal Management
Program. The review will be based on the enforceable
policies, standards, laws, and regulations of the
State 's coastal program.
All OCS plans will be processed as soon as reasonably
possible. The maximum review period as established by
Federal regulations is three months following
commencement of State review, with an additional three
month period available to the State upon notification
to the appropriate parties of the status of the review
and the basis for the additional time. Total review
period cannot exceed six months. Based on the review,
should the Department of State object to a consistency
certification for an OCS activity, the Federal agency
may not approve the plan or issue any license or permit
for activities described in detail in the plan unless
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce finds that the proposal
meets the purposes of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act or is necessary in the interest of
national security.
II - 9 - 17
TABLE 2
FEDERAL ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
LIKELY TO DIRECTLY AFFECT NEW YORK STATE 'S COASTAL AREA
I. Direct Federal Activities and Development Projects
Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service:
Fisheries Management Plans
Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers:
-- Proposed authorizations for dredging, channel improve-
ment, breakwaters, other navigational works, erosion
control structures, beach replenishment, dams or flood
control works, ice management practices and activities,
and other projects with the potential to impact coastal
lands and waters.
-- Land acquisition for spoil disposal or other purposes.
-- Selection of open water disposal sites.
Department of Defense, Air Force, Army and Navy:
-- Location, design, and acquisition of new or expanded
defense installations (active or reserve status,
including associated housing, transportation or other
facilities) .
-- Plans, procedures and facilities for handling or
storage use zones.
-- Establishment of impact, compatability or restricted
use zones.
Department of Energy:
-- Prohibition orders.
General Services Administration:
-- Acquisition, location and design of proposed Federal
government property or buildings, whether leased or
owned by the Federal government.
-- Disposition of Federal surplus lands and structures.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service:
-- Management of National Wildlife refuges and proposed
acquisitions.
II - 9 - 18
Department of Interior, National Park Service:
-- National Park and Seashore management and proposed
acquisitions.
Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service:
-- OCS lease sale activities including tract selection,
lease sale stipulations, etc.
Department of Transportation, Coast Guard:
-- Location and design, construction or enlargement of
Coast Guard stations, bases, and lighthouses.
-- Location, placement or removal of navigation devices
which are not part of the routine operations under the
Aids to Navigation Program (ATON) .
-- Expansion, abandonment, designation or anchorages,
lightering areas or shipping lanes and ice management
practices and activities.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Admini-
stration:
-- Location and design, construction, maintenance, and
demolition of Federal aids to air navigation.
Department of Transportation, Amtrak, Conrail:
-- Expansions, curtailments, new construction, upgradings
or abandonments of railroad facilities or services , in
or affecting the State 's coastal area.
Department of Transportation, St. Lawrence Seaway Develop-
ment Corporation:
-- Acquisition, location, design, improvement and
construction of new and existing facilities for the
operation of the Seaway, including traffic safety,
traffic control and length of navigation season.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra-
tion:
-- Highway construction
II. Federal Licenses and Permits
Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers:
-- Construction of dams, dikes or ditches across navigable
waters, or obstruction or alteration of navigable
waters required under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401, 403 ) .
II - 9 - 19
Establishment of harbor lines pursuant to Section 11 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 404,
405) .
Occupation of seawall, bulkhead, jetty, dike, levee,
wharf, pier, or other work built by the U.S. pursuant
to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
U.S.C. 408) .
-- Approval of plans for improvements made at private
expense under USACE supervision pursuant to the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1902 (33 U.S.C. 565) .
-- Disposal of dredged spoils into the waters of the U.S. ,
pursuant to the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (33 U.S.C.
1344 ) .
-- All actions for which permits are required pursuant to
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972(33 U.S.C. 1413 ) .
-- Construction of artifical islands and fixed structures
in Long Island Sound pursuant to Section 4 (f ) of the
River and Harbors Act of 1912 (33 U.S.C. ) .
Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
-- Licenses for non-Federal hydroelectric projects and
primary transmission lines under Sections 3 (11) , 4 (e)
and 15 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 (11) ,
797 (11) and 808) .
-- Orders for interconnection of electric transmission
facilities under Section 202 (b) of the Federal Power
Act (15 U.S.C. 824 a (b) ) .
-- Certificates for the construction and operation of
interstate natural gas pipeline facilities, including
both pipelines and terminal facilities under Section 7
(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.0 717 f (c ) ) .
-- Permission and approval for the abandonment of natural
gas pipeline facilities under Section 7 (b) of the
Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f (b) ) .
Department of Energy• Economic Regulatory Commission:
-- Regulation of gas pipelines, and licensing of import or
export of natural gas pursuant to the Natural Gas Act
(15 U.S.C. 717) and the Energy Reorganization Act of
1974.
-- Exemptions from prohibition orders.
II - 9 - 20
Environmental Protection Agency:
-- NPDES permits and other permits for Federal
installations, discharges in contiguous zones and ocean
waters, sludge runoff and aquaculture permits pursuant
to Sections 401, 402, 403, 405, and 318 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1341,
1342, 1343, and 1328 ) .
-- Permits pursuant to the Resources Recovery and
Conservation Act of 1976.
-- Permits pursuant to the underground injection Control
program under Section 1424 of the Safe Water Drinking
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300 h-c) .
-- Permits pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1976 (42
U.S.C. 1857 ) .
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services:
-- Endangered species permits pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 153 (a) ) .
Department of Interior, Mineral Management Service:
-- Permits to drill, rights of use and easements for
construction and maintenance of pipelines, gathering
and flow lines and associated structures pursuant to 43
U.S.C. 1334, exploration and development plans, and any
other permits or authorizations granted for activities
described in detail in OCS exploration, development,
and production plans.
-- Permits required for pipelines crossing federal lands,
including OCS lands, and associated activities pursuant
to the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1334) and 43 U.S.C. 931
(c) and 20 U.S.C. 185.
Interstate Commerce Commission:
-- Authority to abandon railway lines (to the extent that
the abandonment involves removal of trackage and
disposition of right-of-way) ; authority to construct
railroads; authority to construct coal slurry
pipelines.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
-- Licensing and certification of the siting, construction
and operation of nuclear power plants pursuant to
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Title II of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
II - 9 - 21
Department of Transportation, Coast Guard:
-- Construction or modification of bridges, causeways or '
pipelines over navigable waters pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
1455.
-- Permits for Deepwater Ports pursuant to the Deepwater
Ports Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501) .
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration:
-- Permits and licenses for construction, operation or
alteration of airports.
III. Federal Assistance
Department of Agriculture
10. 068 Rural Clean Water Program
10. 409 Irrigation, Drainage, and Other Soil and
Water Conservation Loans
10.410 Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
10.411 Rural Housing Site Loans
10.413 Recreation Facility Loans
10.414 Resource Conservation and Development Loans
10.415 Rural Rental Housing Loans 1
10.416 Soil and Water Loans
10.418 Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural
Communities
10.419 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Loans
10.422 Business and Industrial Loans
10.423 Community Facilities Loans
10. 424 Industrial Development Grants
10.426 Area Development Assistance Planning Grants
10.429 Above Moderate Income Housing Loans
10.430 Energy Impacted Area Development Assistance
Program
10.901 Resource Conservation and Development
10.902 Soil and Water Conservation
10.904 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
10.906 River Basin Surveys and Investigations
Department of Commerce
11. 300 Economic Development - Grants and Loans for
Public Works and Development Facilities
11. 301 Economic Development - Business Development
Assistance
11. 302 Economic Development - Support for Planning
Organizations
11. 304 Economic Development - State and Local
Economic Development Planning --
11. 305 Economic Development - State and Local
Economic Development Planning
II - 9 - 22
11.307 Special Economic Development and Adjustment
Assistance Program - Long Term Economic
Deterioration
11. 308 Grants to States for Supplemental and Basic
Funding of Titles I , II ,III , IV, and V
Activities
11.405 Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conser-
vation
11.407 Commerical Fisheries Research and Development
11.417 Sea Grant Support
11.427 Fisheries Development and Utilization -
Research and Demonstration Grants and Cooper-
ative Agreements Program
11. 501 Development and Promotion of Ports and
Intermodal Transportation
11. 509 Development and Promotion of Domestic Water-
borne Transport Systems
Departnent of Housing and Urban Development
14. 112 Mortgage Insurance - Construction or
Substantial Rehabilitation of Condominium
Projects
14. 115 Mortgage Insurance - Development of Sales
Type Cooperative Projects
14. 117 Mortgage Insurance - Homes
14. 124 Mortgage Insurance - Investor Sponsored
Cooperative Housing
14. 125 Mortgage Insurance - Land Development and New
Communities
14. 126 Mortgage Insurance - Management Type Cooper-
ative Projects
14. 127 Mortgage Insurance - Mobile Home Parks
14. 218 Community Development Block Grants/Entitle-
ment Grants
14.219 Community Development Block Grants/Small
Cities Program
14. 221 Urban Development Action Grants
14. 223 Indian Community Development Block Grant
Program
Department of the Interior
15.400 Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition, Development
and Planning
15.402 Outdoor Recreation - Technical Assistance
15. 403 Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property for
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Monuments
14. 411 Historic Preservation Grants-In-Aid
15.417 Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
15. 600 Anadromous Fish Conservation
15.605 Fish Restoration
15. 611 Wildlife Restoration
15. 613 Marine Mammal Grant Program
15. 802 Minerals Discovery Loan Program
II - 9 - 23
15. 950 National Water Research and Development
Program '
15. 951 Water Resources Research and Technology -
Assistance to State Institutes
15. 592 Water Research and Technology-Matching Funds
to State Institutes
Department of Transportation
20.102 Airport Development Aid Program
20. 103 Airport Planning Grant Program
20. 205 Highway Research, Planning, and Construction
20. 309 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement -
Guarantee of Obligations
20. 310 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement -
Redeemable Preference Shares
20. 506 Urban Mass Transportation Demonstration
Grants
20. 509 Public Transportation for Rural and Small
Urban Areas
General Services Administration
39. 002 Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property
Community Services Administration '
49. 002 Community Action
49. 011 Community Economic Development
49.013 State Economic Opportunity Offices
49. 017 Rural Development Loan Fund
49.018 Housing and Community Development (Rural
Housing )
Small Business Administration
59.012 Small Business Loans
59.013 State and Local Development Company Loans
59. 024 Water Pollution Control Loans
59.025 Air Pollution Control Loans
59. 031 Small Business Pollution Control Financing
Guarantee
Environmental Protection Agency
66.001 Air Pollution Control Program Grants
66.418 Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment
Works
66. 426 Water Pollution Control - State and Areawide
Water Quality Management Planning Agency
II - 9 - 24
66. 451 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Program
Support Grants
66. 452 Solid Waste Management Demonstration Grants
66. 600 Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants
Program Support
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability (Super fund )
Note: Numbers refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Programs, 1980 and its two subsequent
updates.
II - 9 - 25
Public Participation
As indicated previously, governmental entities,
interested parties and the general public must have the
opportunity to participate in the development of a
state's coastal management program. From the outset of
developing New York's Program, the Department of State
actively sought to inform and involve private citizens,
local, regional and statewide interest groups, local
governments, and regional and State agencies. The
Department prepared a Coastal Management Handbook
outlining the issues and explaining the purposes of the
Federal program. A display and slide show were also
prepared and taken to meetings to increase public
awareness of coastal resources and issues.
In the first years of program development, local and
regional agencies were under contract with the Depart-
ment to inventory coastal resources and to make
recommendations on preliminary boundaries and areas
warranting special management attention. During this
period, Department staff met on a one-to-one basis with
local officials and conducted small workshop sessions
with officials, interest groups and coastal residents.
These meetings proved to be a most productive public
involvement technique.
Citizens Avisory Committee
The core of the State 's public involvement effort is
the Coastal Management Citizens ' Advisory Committee.
The committee is made up of representatives from the
five coastal regions of the State. It met regularly
during the development of the program to review
technical reports, make recommendations on the State's
program and legislation, and assist in public
participation activities.
Public Meetings
During June and July of 1978, the Department held a
series of 16 public meetings in the coastal regions of
the State from Lake Erie to Long Island. The purpose
of these meetings Was to receive public reaction on the
general approach for developing the coastal program.
In advance of these meetings, the Department widely
distributed a newsletter identifying certain coastal
issues and suggesting possible alternatives for program
administration. The newsletter asked whether local
governments should be required to participate in a
coastal management program or whether State agencies
alone should operate this type of program. It also
asked what State agency should be .responsible for the
program. Maps showing the proposed boundaries of New
York's Coastal Area were displayed at these meetings.
II - 9 - 26
The meetings drew comments from coastal residents,
community groups, universities, regional organizations, '
local governments and others. These participants
raised excellent questions about boundaries, areas and
problems of particular concern, funding potentials,
adequacy of existing authorities, private property
rights, regional coordination, rationale for the
various local/State administrative options, approval
and monitoring of local programs and more. Following
these meetings a draft Coastal Management Program
document was prepared which incorporated recommenda-
tions submitted earlier by regional and local agencies
and also included ideas expressed at the public
meeting.
Public Hearings
In April , 1979, the Department of State held 9 public
hearings in the coastal regions of the State. The
purpose of these hearings was to receive convents from
all parties interested in implementing legislation.
The Department broadly disseminated these documents
prior to the hearings. A summary describing coastal
policies and showing the proposed Coastal Area was also
distributed.
Corune n t s
The hearings again drew comments from a wide variety of
individuals and organizations. Participants expressed
major concerns about the following:
-- The proliferation of State bureaucratic structures
which would be ineffective and which would
infringe upon the authority of local governments.
-- The need for expanded representation on the
Coastal Management Board to include members from
particular fields of expertise and from various
geographic regions.
-- The need to use existing review procedures to
implement the coastal program.
-- The definition of coastal erosion hazard areas and
the procedures for identifying these areas.
II - 9 - 27
Responses
In response to the above concerns, the following
actions were taken:
-- Program legislation was revised to provide that an
existing agency - the Department of State - serve
as the State 's Coastal Management Agency. Certain
additional responsibilities were given to the
Secretary of State relative to determing consis-
tency of Federal actions with the State's Program,
and receipt and administration of Federal grants.
-- The concept of a Board was dropped, but an
advisory committee was structured to provide
specific representation from ten particular areas
of expertise and eight specific geographic areas.
In addition to these 18 members, the advisory
comnittee would be comprised of six ex-officio
members representing the State agencies with major
responsibilities for carrying out aspects of the
Coastal Management Program. The advisory commit-
tee would provide advice to the Secretary on the
conduct of the Program.
-- The legislation was revised to provide for the use
of the State Environmental Quality Review Act as
the mechanism by which State agencies would
determine the consistency of their proposed
actions with the Coastal Management Program. Where
two or more State agencies had jurisdiction over a
particular project, an6 these agencies had
irreconcilable differences. as to the consistency
of an action, the legislation was revised so that
a project applicant or either agency could request
the Secretary of State to resolve differences.
The Secretary could consult with the advisory
committee in any dispute resolution.
-- The definition of the coastal erosion hazard areas
was expanded to permit identification of dunes,
beaches and other natural areas providing
protection against erosion to other lard. In
additions this legislation was revised to provide
for identification of erosion hazard areas after
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
had adopted program 'regulations. A new requirere nt
also called for the DEC to promulgate standards
and criteria for the design and construction of
erosion protective structures so that they have a
reasonable probability of controlling erosion for
at least 30 years.
II - 9 - 28
Legislative Hearings
Late in 1979, the New York State Senate and Assembly
jointly sponsored hearings to solicit public views on
the proposed coastal management and coastal erosion
hazards areas bills. Participants were asked to address
a number of concerns including: the adequacy of the
bills to address environmental, economic and social
impacts on New York's coastline; the appropriate role
of government agencies in implementing a State coastal
program; the economic benefits of State and local
participation in the Federal program as well as the
costs to the private sector; and modifications which
should be made in the two bills.
Testimony at these hearings concerning the future of
the Coastal Management Program was overwhelmingly in
favor of the legislative passage of these two bills (38
statements in favor; 13 opposed ) . Even some of the
testimony opposed to the proposed legislation was in
support of the idea of coastal management and merely
called for a restructuring of the management process .
Comments
The basic thrust of the supportive arguments was that :
(1 ) a statewide management program was necessary to
provide for the coordination of land use, and natural
resource protection policies in the coastal regions;
(2 ) erosion hazards areas legislation was needed since
erosion has a major impact on people living along the
shores of Lake Ontario and Long Island; (3 ) a statewide
program, working in concert with local authorities, was
necessary to ensure New York State's consistency with
Federal guidelines and regulations concerning Coastal
Zone Management; (4 ) a State-administered Coastal
Management Program approved by the Federal government
is a prerequisite for the allocation of Coastal Energy
Impact Program (CEIP) funds to New York and that the
State should not lose this opportunity for Federal
monies.
The arguments opposed to a State Coastal Management
Program basically maintained that: (1) existing
legislation, if properly implemented , was good enough
to protect vital coastal resources and that additional
legislation would duplicate existing regulation and
cause confusion over authority leading to bureaucratic
entanglement; (2 ) the Federal government' s CEIP funds
were being offered to New York "like a carrot on a
stick" and that in the rush to receive a Federal grant,
the legislation was not being properly considered; (3 )
bills did not offer enough protection to the coastal
environment and were too permissive and vague in
allowing commercial and industrial development along
II - 9 - 29
ecologically sensitive waterfronts; and , (4 ) the
proposed legislation would infringe upon economic or
recreational activities of farmers and sportsmen,
respectively, through the increased governmental
control of land uses.
Responses
In 1980, the legislation was again modified to reflect
the comments received at the legislative hearings:
-- Water dependent activities were redefined to
include other than economic activities, and
specific recognition was given to the attraction
of coastal areas for residential purposes.
Membership of the advisory committee was expanded
to include expert representatives from the areas
of residential construction and tourism.
-- Legislative provisions on Geographic Areas of
Particular Concern were simplified and substanti-
ally revised to include certain aesthetic areas,
agricultural lands , fish and wildlife habitats and
water dependent use areas.
-- Coastal policies were simplified and the way in
which they apply was clarified .
-- Improvements were made to better integrate the
consistency review process with State Environ-
mental Quality Review Act procedures.
-- A specific procedure was added for voluntary
withdrawal of local governments from participation
in the State program.
In June, 1980, the New York State Assembly passed both
the program and erosion bills, but the Senate did not.
In 1981, a new bill entitled the Waterfront Revitali-
zation and Coastal Resources Act was introduced in the
Legislature. This bill included a balanced approach to
coastal resource protection and development; use and
coordination of existing State environmental management
and economic development programs; streamlining of
procedures; and voluntary local programs. The bill
was, however, shortened and simplified with an emphasis
on local revitalization efforts. This was in response
to criticism about potential negative economic impacts
of a coastal program. In July, the Senate and Assembly
passed the waterfront revitalization and erosion bills
and the Governor signed them into law.
II - 9 - 30
Year of the Coast
In 1980, Governor Carey joined in proclaiming the Year
of the Coast. The Department of State then organized
or participated in organizing a number of events to
hightlight the importance of the State's coast. The
Department brought together local government represen-
tatives from coastal areas to a workshop where they
shared their experiences on a variety of local
projects. In the summer, the Department worked with
the Mid-Hudson League of Women Voters to organize a
"See-shore Sail" ; and in September, the Department held
a Year of the Coast boatride in New York City to view
potential revitalization sites. Finally, the Depart-
ment co-sponsored a conference with the New York-New
Jersey Port Authority on revitalization of the port. A
number of brochures, updates and maps were prepared for
distribution at these events.
II - 9 - 31
SECTION 10
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROGRAM
Introduction
Throughout this document, a number of activities and items have been
identified and discussed that are essential to the effective adminis-
tration and implementation of New York State's Coastal Management
Program. The discussion on these activities have provided the De-
partment of State with the basis for developing a work program which
would be carried out under New York's initial 306 grant. The purpose
of this section is to briefly describe the types of activities that
will be undertaken by the Department, other State agencies and local
governments during the grant period.
Program Objective
The principal aim of New York State's first grant under Section 306
of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, is to put into effect
the essential components of the State's Coastal Management Program.
These programmatic elements will initiate new and advance ongoing
State activities that are in support of the national policies ex-
pressed in Section 303 of the Act, specifically: (1) the protection
of natural resources; (2) reduction of life and property losses in
flood and erosion prone areas; (3) proper siting of major facilities
and other forms of development, including priority consideration
of coastal dependent uses; (4) provision for better public access to
the coast; (5) assistance for revitalizing waterfronts and ports
find for preserving coastal features; (6) simplification of govern-
mental procedures; (7) coordination and consultation with federal
agencies; (8) public and local government participation in coastal
management decision-making; and (9) assistance for the planning,
conservation and management of living marine resources.
All of the above policies, as well as the policies contained in the
State' s Coastal Management Program, are addressed by work tasks which
are grouped into seven major categories:
1. Program administration
2. Consistency review
3. Coastal resources protection
4. Coastal resources development
5. Major activities affecting coastal resources
6. Public information
7. Local waterfront revitalization programs
II - 10 - 1
Program Administration
The primary objective of this category is to establish and under-
take administrative activities that will support or lead to the
effective implementation of the State's Coastal Management Program.
As the designated "lead agency" , the Department of State will per-
form various programmatic, fiscal management and legal activities
which are essential to the overall administration of the State's
Program and 306 grant. In addition, the Department must fulfill
administrative and review responsibilities required by the State's
Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. Some of the
tasks that will be performed under this category including the
review and approval of local waterfront revitalization programs,
evaluation of federal and state legislative proposals for their
potential impacts upon the State's coastal program, and the revision
of the Coastal Area maps to incorporate information on the location
of significant habitats and scenic resources, important farm lands
and areas with approved local waterfront revitalization programs.
Consistency Review Activities
The sole objective of this category is to ensure that the actions
of Federal and State agencies are consistent with the policies of
New York State' s Coastal Management Program. The tasks under this
category provide for two separate review processes which take into
account the different roles to be performed by the Department of
State. These processes are crucial to the implementation of New
York's coastal program. Therefore, the Department will consult with
Federal and State agencies in order to familiarize the agencies'
staffs with content and intent of New York's coastal program policies
and procedures. This effort should minimize any conflicts or dif-
ferences that may arise during these review processes.
As the State' s 306 agency, the Department of State will coordinate
the consistency review procedure applicable to activities undertaken
or approved by federal agencies. This will involve providing public
notice and holding public hearings, when necessary, and reviewing
consistency determinations and certifications. The Department will
also review the proposed actions of state agencies and provide
recormendations to the agencies on the consistency of their actions.
Coastal Resources Protection
The protection of significant natural coastal resources is a goal
of New York State's Coastal Management Program and the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The objective of this work
program category is not a broad sweeping one, but instead is directed
at implementation activities which will provide further protection
to significant fish and wildlife habitats, important agricultural
lands and scenic resources of statewide significance as well as
beaches, dunes, barrier islands and bluffs in erosion prone areas.
II - 10 - 2
Specifically, the rating and identification of significant fish
and wildlife habitats was started in 1980. The identification of
important agricultural lands and scenic areas of statewide signi-
ficance will begin being mapped in October 1982. During the early
Spring of 1983, there will be opportunity for Federal, State and
local agencies as well as the general public to comment on the maps
and accompanying narrative, if any. After consideration of comments
received the information will be transferred to the Coastal Area
Map and formally incorporated into the program by the end of the
grant period.
The mapping of erosion hazard areas has been underway since 1980.
In January 1983 , maps of areas with high rates of erosion (four
feet or more per year) will be available for review by the affected
local governments. After holding public hearings and considering
all the comments on the identified areas, the Commissioner of the
Department of Environmental Conservation will formally designate
the areas with high rates of erosion by May, 1983. Following such
designations, affected local governments have six months to develop
and adopt regulations for the erosion hazard areas (See Article 34 ,
ECL for further details) .
The identification of the remaining erosion hazard areas will begin
by Spring 1983 and will be completed not later than January, 1984
as required by Article 34. Funding under Section 306 of the OCZM
Act will be provided to DEC to assist its efforts to complete this
mapping before January, 1984.
Coastal Resources Development
The wise use and proper development of New York's coastal resources
is of vital importance to the State and its waterfront communities.
The overall objective of this category is to improve upon the cur-
rent economic and social utilization of the State' s waterfront while
ensuring the protection of significant resources. In response to
this objective, the work program includes several different activi-
ties which focus upon the use of coastal resources. Three of the
tasks to be performed center around the development of coordinated
policies and strategies for commercial fishing and port operations.
Access to existing recreational facilities and publicly owned lands
will be identified as well as the opportunities to increase access
to such facilities and lands. Efforts will be started to determine
ways for simplifying existing Federal, State and local procedures
which affect waterfront development activities. Also alternative
methods for financing such development activities will be investi-
gated, and the information distributed to waterfront communities.
II - 10 - 3
Major Activities Affecting Coastal Resources
There are a number of ongoing and potential activities within and
outside New York State which could affect the management of coastal
resources. It is important to the success of New York's Coastal
Program that the Department of State participate in these activities
to reflect programmatic concerns as well as receive valuable advice.
Thus, the objective of this category is to coordinate the State's
Coastal Management Program with other state, interstate, national
and international efforts that may impact the use and protection
of New York's coastal resources.
Tasks in the work program which respond to this objective include:
the creation and operation of a statewide advisory committee on
waterfront revitalization and coastal management; participation
on regional, interstate and international committees or organiza-
tions which have general and specific coastal interests; and par-
ticipation on the State' s Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary Steer-
ing Committee.
Public Information
Public awareness is essential to a successful and sustained coastal
management program. The objective of this category, therefore, is
to ensure that the general public, State and local officials under-
stand the importance of coastal resources, the thrust of the State's
Program and the means for properly managing the resources. The
publication and distribution of documents is one means of meeting
this objective; however, other techniques will be employed. For
instance, the Department of State will sponsor a waterfront revi-
talization conference and design competition to generate interest
and innovative approaches to waterfront related problems. Also,
a popular brochure will be produced to assist AMTRAK riders in
identifying important scenic, historic and other points of interest
along the Hudson River.
Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs
The State's Coastal Management Program and the Waterfront Revitali-
zation and Coastal Resources Act recognize that the development of
detailed local programs based on the State's coastal policies will
augment the State' s means for implementing those policies. The
objective of this category is to initiate a concerted effort to
have local governments develop and implement waterfront revitaliza-
tion programs. This effort will consist of three components: (1)
aid for the preparation of appropriate approval documentation;
assistance for the development of local programs; and (3) support
of activities which will implement approved local programs. All
II - 10 - 4
such local programs must address all relevant coastal policies.
Each community's program will focus on major concerns which re-
flect community, State and Federal priorities. For example,
LWRps would include implementation provisions for increased:
resource protection; water dependent uses; access; waterfront re-
vitalization; dredging; permit simplification; and other issues
of concern, commensurate with the particular circumstances of that
community.
II - 10 - 5
PART III ALTERNATIVES TO TUE PROPOSED AETIOII
PART I I I
FEDERAL ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
All alternatives to the proposed action, approving the New York
Coastal Management Program, involve a decision to delay or deny
approval. Delay or denial of approval could be based on failure
of the New York Coastal Management Program to meet any one of the
requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. In approving a
Coastal Management Program, affirmative findings must be made by
the Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management on more
than twenty requirements.
Development of the New York Coastal Management Program has
involved eight years of work. Alternative approaches including
different forms of legislation have been introduced. Of particu-
lar concern throughout program development was the method of
obtaining consistency of State agency actions with the coastal
program. Another major concern has been the adequate protection
of beaches and dunes. The first issue is addressed in section
919 of the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act.
The second issue was addressed -in passage of the Shoreowners
Protection Act .
The Assistant Administrator for Cor cal Zone Management has made
a preliminary determination that •New York State has met the
requirements for program approval under Section 306 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act.
However, in order to elicit public and agency comment and assure
that the Assistant Administrator's initial determination is
correct, this section identifies issue areas where there may be
possible need for revisions and considers the alternatives of
delaying or denying approval based upon each issue area.
1. Loss of Federal Funds to Administer the Program
Under Section 306, New York would receive approximately $3
million to administer its coastal management program; if
such funds are made available pursuant to Congressional
action. The loss of any available Federal Section 306 funds
would result in the inability of the State to provide
adequate staffing and administrative support to coordinate
and evaluate coastal actions, implement a state coastal
program, address priority issues, and assure that government
agencies coordinate and operate consistently with coastal
policies. State technical assistance to local governments,
essential for the development of local waterfront revitali-
zation programs, would also be curtailed due to limited
funds. To deny approval of this program would also make it
difficult for the State to coordinate and expedite resolu-
tion of conflicts, and establish unified state policies for
State actions in the coast. Denial of approval would also
jeopardize the eligibility of the State to receive Coastal
Energy Impact Program (CEIP) funds pursuant to Section 306
of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
III - 1
2. Loss of Consistency of Federal Actions with the Program
Approval of New York's
affe ting the coastaloastal Manement roareaa would have
would mean
Federal actions in or
to be consistent with the the Coastal tate aZonenManagement°Act.
under Section 307 (c) with the State's Coastal
Loss of Federal consistency
Management Program would the State's significant costal a d adverse
effects on the resources of
FEDERAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The Assistant Administrator could dela
or en a rov ge
in trecttaan lto csnnni acantaVm"v acts son
activities hav
coaital waters.
Section 305 (b) (2) of the Federal Coastal Zone a ages
ment Act requires each state seeking approval
program to manage land uses which have direct and
significant impacts on coastal waters.determination Assistant
Administrator has made a preliminary
New York has such management authority not only in
special areas su as ands and coastal erosion
based hazaron rite
but also throughout the
WaterfrontlteeEnvironmental
its State tion and Coastal Resources Act
(WRCRA) and its Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) .
Section 919 of the WRCRA requires State agencies to+s
consistently wact
ith the coastal area policies. art_
result of the ament of State men DOS )ts regulations to the � as d contained in
res will
used
Appendix A, two proc�uundertakeneconsistentswith these
sure State
agency actions will
policies.
First, all actions subject to a State agency's autho-
rity and that may rsignificant
the SEQRA process
affect on the
environment will be reviewed through
to the action. The
by those State agencies party
amendments to the
ng utile inve tments such as highwayse that direct ,
actions including p
major sewer and water lines consistent= with stere trcoastal
facilities must be
policies. The SEORA review process will also tie to the
coastal policies the issuance of State permits for all
significant public and private projects requiring a
State Pollutant Discharge Environmental Systemimination onservation
it
from the Department o
(DEC) . The SEpRA not only of significant full disclosure of
the environmental impacts of sig
but also has been interpreted as contain
stto
authority for agencies to condition or deny permMiracle Mile
ensure environmental
430 F.tiSuPptp2nd 4 u
Associates, v.
III - 2
Second , pursuant to the DOS regulations, all direct and
funding actions, other than permitting actions, under-
taken by a State agency that do not have a significant
affect on the environment will be reviewed by the State
agency for consistency with the coastal policies. At
the time that the agency makes a decision on an action,
a certification of consistency must be forwarded to the
Department of State.
Alternative 2: The Assistant Administrator could delay
or deny approval if the Policies of the program are not
specific enough to meet the requirements of the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act.
CZMA regulations 923. 11 (b) (2) and 923. (b) (4 ) require
that coastal policies must provide a clear sense of
direction and predictability for decision makers who
must take actions pursuant to or consistent with the
management program. Specificity is particularly
important when such policies will be administered in
part by local governments, as will be provided in local
waterfront revitalization programs. It is also
important to assure that State administered policies
are not subject to an excessively broad range of
interpretations.
The Assistant Administrator has made the preliminary
decision that the new policies and standards con-
tained in the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act and regulations together with those
existing policies, standards and regulations incorpor-
ated into the program from other State legislation,
provide sufficient specificity for program approval.
This decision is based in part on the draft guidelines
contained in Appendix B, which give local governments
much further assistance in preparing more specific
policies for their voluntary local waterfront revitali-
zation programs.
Alternative 3: The Assistant Administrator could dela
Ur—deny approval it the boundary is not adequate to
meet the requirements o Section 304 (1) - definition
of the coastal zone and 923.31 (a) of the CZM
regulations - inland boundaries_.
Section 304 (1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act
states that the coastal zone shall extend inland from
the shoreland only to the extent necessary to control
shoreland uses which have a direct and significant
impact on coastal waters. The State has established a
boundary that is approximately 1,000 feet inland from
the shorelines. However, in urbanized locations it is
about 500 feet inland and in a few areas where a major
roadway or railroad line runs parallel to the shoreline
III - 3
fee
the
it is less than 500 of t1:48 000 DetailedMaps
abeen f filed ewith
boundary at a scale
clerks of coastal counties, cities, towns and villages
and with state agencies.
The issue can be raised o SOOhfeet from the shof orelineg
in urban areas less than
Federal CZMA regulations 2a'narrower(general
boundaryoineurban
however, clearly allow for
areas by stating that " xtensivelyareas
naturalesystem
the
shoreline has been modified e
relationships between landand
toer define in terms eof
difficult, if not imposible
direct and significant impact". Because of the nature
of the New York coastlihi hn densitthe yban existence areas - iof
ts
extensive bulkheading, 9
infrastructure, and generally builtup character
Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined
that the State will be ave a ldirect anin area
signif icant
twhich o cover all uses that
impact on coastalwaters.
Tcriteria boundary were
employed for delineation of the final are
Section 3 of
outlined in further detail in Part II,
this document. Reviewers of this DEIS were especially
encouraged to commentoundarn which landuse
have ca d rest could cand
inland of this boundary
waters.
significant impact on c
III - 4
STATE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Introduction
During development of New York's Coastal Management
Program, a number of substantive and organizational
alternatives were considered at length. The Legis-
lature, in passing the Waterfront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act, made a choice about the
particular combination of these alternatives which were
to operate in the State. Thus, the number of alter-
natives left to be examined in this environmental
impact statement has been greatly reduced. Before
discussion of the current alternatives, a history of
the major alternatives considered during program
development is presented below.
A. History of Major Alternatives
The discussion of options focused on various
possibilities for legal program authority. A
coastal management program could have been based
on State legal authorities at either the State
level or delegated to the local level, or a
combination of both. In New York, State agencies
have strong management authorities for matters of
statewide or regional concern, while local govern-
ments have strong powers to manage issues of local
concern. On a number of matters, a close inter-
relationship exists between the exercise of
authority at State and local levels. State and
local authority alternatives were considered
separately as follows.
1. State Authority Alternatives
a. Status Quo
The status _quo alternative would
continue all existing State programs
with no new additions. A specific
coastal management program would not be
established. This alternative would
rely on the State policy, as expressed
in Article XIV, Section 4 of the
Constitution, to conserve and protect
the State's natural resources and scenic
beauty and encourage the development and
improvement of its agricultural lands.
The Legislature, in implementing this
policy, has enacted numerous programs
that already provide for management of
most resources of statewide or regional
concern in the coastal area. Important
programs administered by the Department
III - 5
of Environmental Conservation deal with
air quality, water quality and supply,
tidal and freshwater wetlands, flood
plains, and streams as well as mining,
dredging and energy development activi-
ties. Other State agencies, such as the
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation, the Department of Trans-
portation, and the Office of General
Services, also administer a wide range
of programs to manage, use, and regulate
resources in the coastal area.
While a wide variety of issues affecting
New York's coastal area have already
been given special attention, this
alternative would create no mechanism to
coordinate separate State and local
activities that affect the coastal area.
Thus, coastal resources would not be
manages] as effectively as possible.
Further, this alternative would add no
new authorities to deal with the
specific problems of severe coastal
erosion and siting of water dependent
uses. As a result of these inadequa-
cies, the status quo alternative would
not fulfill the requirements of the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
b. Coordinate existing State program
aut oris es
Under this alternative, a State coastal
management program would incorporate the
many existing State management programs
and add new authority to coordinate or
"network• these programs. This would
provide for integrated management of
coastal resources and lead to achieve-
ment of identified State coastal
management policies.
Coordination of the State authorities
could be accomplished through inter-
agency memoranda of understanding,
through an Executive Order from the
Governor, or through specific State
authorizing legislation. Also, a single
State agency would be designated to
administer the program, although that
specific agency need not itself have the
power to enforce the coordination of
programs.
III - 6
This alternative Mould ensure the co-
ordinated management of coastal
resources in matters of statewide or
regional concern, but would leave gaps
in existing authorities ( in particular,
management of erosion hazard areas) and
would fail to qualify the State for
Federal approval of a coastal management
program.
c. Coordinate existing State program
authorities plus additional program
authorities to ll gaps (essentially
the alternative c osen
This alternative would be the same as
the coordination alternative but would
add several specific new program
authorities to fill identified gaps in
existing programs. These additions
would include authority to regulate
development in erosion hazard areas and
provide for designation of water-
dependent uses.
This alternative would qualify New York
State for Federal coastal management
program approval.
d. Comprehensive coastal management program
authority
This rnative would also keep all
existing State program authorities , but
would add new legislative authority to
institute a comprehensive State coastal
management program for directly control-
ling development throughout the coastal
area. A variety of sub-options exist
for this alternative in terms of the
extent to which development would be
controlled. These options range from a
program that would directly control all
development any where in the coastal
area to one that would directly control
only a few key types of development with
a specified minimum size in specific
designated locations. This alternative
would establish priorities for permiss-
ible uses in specific locations within
the coastal boundary, both in terms of
areas appropriate for development and
areas where development would be
inappropriate.
III - 7
This alternatives would tatbtieis state's
level of authority It would provide
coastal resources.
ide implementation of
IF
uniform
policies for coastal resource
predictability
increase psedictabil Y alter-
The
use of coastal resources- State for
native would qualify management
approval of its coastal financial
ram,
progmaking Federal
assistance available to the State.
it could create problems
However, ssible preemption of
associated a with Pies, both State and
existing
local. All thsadministrati n could
level of governmentthe development
either expedite or delay depending on
coastal areas,
the effectiveness Of the administration.
process in
2. Local Authority Alternatives
a. Status Quo
This status quo alternative would simply
continue unchanged the existing powers
responsibilities O of lArticlocal e IX of
meets. Under authority
the New York Stat cal ons
Goverruuents")titution e
"Bill Of Rights for Local
the
the Statute for Local ana Governments,, th
Municipal Home Rule,
statutes, local governments in New York
State are authorized including these a broad
enactment
range of powers* inc ro rams if
of strong land use cont as these powers
they sO chooser as longpreempted by State
are not specifically p
and federal law. Local lend use control
primarily through
programs are exercised P
local coning and subdivisions land °and
wh ich can be used to manage In
water resources of a community.
additiontal
n, under the Istat�S�RjsO�local
Quality Review A aired to consider
governments are factors in reaching
environmental osed actions and to
decisions on prO P
prepare impact
statemhave significant
which are likely
effects upon the environment.
III - 8
The status quo alternative Would be
consistent with New York State's 'home
rule" tradition and would be responsive
to many local attitudes about desirable
levels of local involvement in land use
regulations. However, because the use
of local authority is optional, local
land use control programs in coastal
areas range from very strong to non-
existent. Furthermore, not all local
land use programs in coastal areas fully
consider the environmental and economic
importance of coastal resources. Thus,
significant gaps in the management of
coastal resources by local governments
would remain, as would the problems and
cumulative impacts of independent local
decisions.
Although the State's Coastal Management
Program could provide the basic level of
management required for Federal program
approval, the status quo local alter-
native would result in inconsistencies
between State and local policies , where
these exist, leading to conflicts in the
protection and management of coastal
resources and to possible losses of
those resources not explicitly protected
by State programs. Also, although the
State would maintain its jurisdiction
over the siting of facilities which
serve a region, opposition of local
governments could limit the ability of
the State to promote actions such as
economic development in desirable
locations.
b. Voluntary local coastal management
programs complying wit tate Coastal
Management Program (essentially tFe-
Alternative
ea ternative chosen)
Under this alternative, specific
provisions would be made in new State
legislation for local governments to
adopt local coastal management programs
that would comply with the State's
Coastal Management Program. This alter-
native would differ from the status quo
alternative in that approvable local
programs would be required to meet
State's established criteria. Partici-
pating local governments would be
eligible for financial and technical
assistance in preparing local management
III - 9
programs and in managing coastal
resources. Also, the actions of State
and Federal agencies would be consistent
with such local coastal management
programs.
Although this alternative would result
in greater local participation in
coastal management than under the status
quo alternative and would thus provide
additional management attention to
coastal resources, the voluntary nature
of local participation would result in
similar problems of inconsistency and
conflicts, particularly between those
localities that and do actuanot l amount
artici-
pate in the program.
of local participation would depend to a
significant extent on the specific
approval criteria used by the State
coastal management agency and the amount
of Federal financial assistance avail-
able for implementation of local coastal
management programs. Whatever the level
of local involvement, the regulatory
process in coastal areas could become
more complex. There would, thus, be a
need for measures to coordinate and
streamline review and permitting
processes.
C. Mandatory local coastal management
ro rams com n wit State Coasts
Management Program
This alternative would establish,
through new State legislation, a
requirement that local governments in
coastal areas adopt local coastal
management programs consistent with the
State Coastal Management Program.
Counties would be authorized to prepare
and implement coastal management
pro
the rams eventsf a the locality
faile failed
tooact; in
act# the
the
State's coastal management agency would
implement a program in the locality.
Local governments would be eligible to
receive financial and technical
assistance for preparing and implement-
ing local coastal management programs.
This alternative would eliminate the
problemsof
oin pthential protectionState-local
and
conflicts
Moulds be presentoint the status quotand
III - 10
voluntary local program alternatives.
Depending on the specific State require-
ments for local coastal management
programs, this alternative could help to
assure statewide coverage and consis-
tency with the Coastal Management
Program, increase enforceability of
coastal policies as a result of the
universality of local management
programs, and result in better manage-
ment and protection of coastal resources
by including decisions of sub-regional
significance in the overall Coastal
Management Program. It would, however,
affect local autonomy by requiring that
local governments use their present
authority to develop and implement
coastal management programs, in accord
with State guidelines. This could be
seen either as a loss of local "home
rule" power or as a strengthening of
these prerogatives through the
partnership of local governments with
other levels of government.
d. Preemption of local government coastal
management authority
Under this alternative, any local
controls in the coastal area which are
not consistent with a comprehensive
State coastal management program would
be superceded by legislation declaring
the management of coastal resources to
be a matter of State concern. In effect,
such controls as zoning would be
exercised by the State coastal manage-
ment agency for areas within the
management boundary.
This alternative would prevent problems
of inconsistency between local actions
and the State management program and
would ensure a uniform management
program throughout the coastal area.
Coastal resources would be better
managed and the development process in
coastal areas would be more predictable.
However, the alternative would
significantly limit local "home rule"
powers in coastal areas and would move
many land-use and resource decisions
from the local to State level.
I!I - 11
3. Additional Alternatives
a. Boundaries
In order to have an effective coastal
management program, the boundaries of
the coastal area must be clearly
defined. The Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act requires sohe tboundaries
to extend inland" only
he extent
necessary to control shorelands, the
uses of which have a direct and
significant impact on the coastal
waters". Within this requirement, the
boundaries could be drawn broadly or
narrowly.
An expansive boundary, such as one that
included all of the watersheds draining
into the State's coastal areas, could
include virtually all uses affecting
coastal waters, but would do so at the
expense of having to control many uses
which have little or no effect on
..,oastal waters.
An expansive boundary would thus be an
inefficient means of providing manage-
ment of coastal resources and could
require substantial administrative
support. A limited boundary, such as
one that extended only a short distance
from the shoreline (e.g. , 500 feet)
would substantially limit the area
subject to the Coastal Management
Program, but might not provide for all
uses that could affect coastal waters.
A compromise between these two alter-
natives, based on consideration of
specific local and statewide interests
in each segment of the coast, is a third
alternative.
There are two other options regarding
the application of a coastal management
program within designated boundaries.
one involves a multiple-tier boundary
which divides the coastal area into two
or more sub-areas that are subject to
different levels of management. This
would complicate the administration of
a
coastal management program which by
its
nature is complex. The other involves a
single-tier boundary within which a
coastal management program would apply
equally.
III - 12
Funding
The State could decide not to seek
approval of a coastal management program
under the Federal Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act, but there are significant
advantages to a Federally approved
program, including financial assistance.
Section 306 of the Act authorizes such
funding , but other sections of the law
authorize financial assistance for
specific aspects of coastal management,
such as coastal energy impacts. There
are a number of major categories to
which such funding , if appropriated by
the Congress, could be allocated ,
including the following:
-- Administration of the Coastal
Management Program. This would
include such administrative func-
tions as applying for, accepting
and distributing assistance, as
well as monitoring and evaluating
perf )rmance and compliance with the
pro,.-ram by other agencies. Admini-
stration funds would be used by the
"306" Agency.
-- Improving management of existing
State programs incorporated in the
Coastal Management Program. This
could include providing additional
regulatory staff for specific pro-
grams that are key to the coastal
management effort, such as erosion
hazard areas, in order to provide
improved protection and management
and speed the processing of permit
applications.
-- Preparing and adopting local
coastal management programs.
Funding could be provided directly
to local governments to prepare and
adopt local programs for managing
coastal resources. In addition,
funding could be used to support
technical assistance to local
governments by the 0306" Agency or
other State agencies.
III - 13
ted local coastal
Implementing adop assistance
management Programs' enves
provided to local agi
e `
could be Prov ilocal management
to administer rovide . additional
programs and
to local management
support
efforts.
III - 14
B. Current Alternatives
1. Alternative Choices Concerning State
Participation in Fedeial Coastal Management
Program
a. Participate in the Federal Coastal
Management Program - Proposed Action
Since states participate voluntarily in
the Federal Coastal Management Program,
. New York State could determine that it
is necessary and desirable for the
implementation of its State-mandated
coastal program to participate and seek
Federal approval of the State program.
With an approved program, and subject to
Congressional appropriations, New York
would be eligible to receive Federal
Coastal Management Program (0306") and
Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP)
funds which could in turn be used to
leverage additional assl -:tance from
other sources. The 0306" and CEIP funds
would help to support State administra-
tion of its coastal program and could be
vital to effective implementation of
waterfront revitalization and resource
protection aspects of the State program.
Moreover, financial assistance could be
particularly important as an incentive
to local governments in need of aid not
otherwise available for project planning
to revitalize deteriorated and under-
utilized coastal areas.
In addition, by participating in the
Federal program, New York would benefit
from the consistency requirements of the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
These requirements would create a
continuing dialogue between the State
and Federal agencies engaged in
activities in New York's coastal area.
Thus, Federal agencies would be better
informed about the State's coastal
concerns and would be able to make
decisions more sensitively and more
efficiently. Also, those potentially
affected by Federal actions would be
better able to predict the outcome of
the decision-making process.
III - 15
Finally, New York's participation in the
0306" phase of the Federal Coastal
Management Program would be an appro-
priate conclusion to years of State and
Federal efforts under the 0305" phase to
develop a 11lanc� approved Coastal
State
ManagementProgram.
program entld of° �ational nofor coastal
the
achievem
objectives.
The alternative to participate in the
Federal Coastal Management Program
could, however, have certain dis-
advantages. During the 0306" phase ,
State compliance with Federal program
regulations could increase admini-
strative duties for State agencies, thus
increasing costs and delaying implemen-
tation activities mandated by the State
Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act. The State could rely on
10306" funding to cover some costs
incurred by participation in the Fedrrral
program, but reductions in Feweral
funding levels seriously jeopardize
implementation of the State program.
In addition, by participating in the
Federal program, New York could find
itself in conflict with the Federal
government over respective priorities
for resources to be protected and
activities to be encouraged. Further,
national priorities could change, making
it difficult for the State to operate a
Federal
consistent program. Ultimately,
mightb
involvement
be as excessive an
to decision-making
encroaching upon State prerogatives .
b. Not to Mana Cement ici tPro gram theNo Federal
Coasta
Alternat ve
Since State participation in YorFederal
program is voluntary, � l
could
choose not to participate. Whether the
State chooses to participate or not, it
must, nonetheless, implement the
recently enacted Waterfront Revitali-
zation and Coastal ics ation" alterResonative
ces Act- The
"no parttP
could he
III - 16
reasonable, if Federal program regula-
tions were to hinder the State from
taking immediate and necessary steps to
implement the Act and if 0306" funds
were suddenly reduced or terminated.
Further, this alternative could allow
the State to avoid conflicts with the
Federal government over respective
priorities for managing New York's
coastal resources, and would prevent
further intervention of the Federal
government in the management of its
coast. (See also discussion of dis-
advantages under Proposed Action
alternative. )
On the other hand , the "no partici-
pation" alternatives would have dis-
advantages. A decision not to parti-
cipate could, regardless of current
efforts at the national level to reduce
domestic program expenditures, result in
the loss of funds which could be vital
to the implementation of State and local
aspects of New York's coastal program.
Further, Federal consistency provisions
would not be applicable to New York, and
the State could not expect Federal
agencies to abide by its coastal
policies when undertaking actions within
New York's coastal area.
Finally, New York and the Federal
government have both expended con-
siderable efforts toward instituting a
Coastal Management Program in the State.
A decision not to participate in the
Federal program would not only reduce
the State's effectiveness in imple-
menting its program, but would also
significantly limit the Federal govern-
ment's ability to achieve national
coastal management objectives since New
York has one of the most extensive,
varied and valuable coastlines in the
Nation.
III - 17
2. Alternative Administrative Mechanisms for
Implementing State Consistency Requirements
a. Im lement the State consistency re uire-
ments o the Waterfront -Me-vitalization
-ind CoastalResources Act (Article
42)
bv amending State Environmental Quality
Review Act and Department of State
regulations to re u re that proposed
act ons be consistent w th the coasts
area polices of the Act - Proposed
Alternative
This alternative would satisfy the
intent of the Act in two ways. First,
for all actions requiring preparation of
an environmental impact statement under
the State Environmental Quality Review
Act (SEQR) , it would incorporate the
need to achieve consistency with the
coastal policies contained in Article
42. Thus, the decisions on all actions
which may have a significant impact on
the environment must be consistent with
the coastal policies. Second , for
direct actions which do not have a
significant effect on the environment,
Department of State regulations require
State agencies to certify that the
actions are consistent with the coastal
policies of Article 42.
This alternative would for the most part
eliminate the need for the Department of
State to consult at length with more
than fifty State agencies, since they
will simply use the existing SEAR
process to determine the consistency of
significant actions. Also, with this
alternative, SEAR procedures would
remain substantially unaltered except
for the need that the findings be in
accord with coastal policies.
The consistency review requirements
under SEAR and Department of State
regulations will allow the Department to
monitor activities in the coastal area.
With this information, the Department of
State will be able to advance recommen-
dations to the Governor and the Legisla-
ture for more effectively implementing
the Waterfront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act.
III - is
b. Implement State consistency requirements
of the waterfront Rivitalization an
t_o&stal Resources Act by formala ree-
ments memoranda of understanding)
between the Department of state an
other State agencies
This alternative would satisfy the
intent of the Act, but the Department of
State would have to consult with more
than fifty State agencies in developing
these agreements. This effort would be
time-consuming and costly. In addition,
certain small but significant programs
might be overlooked with so many pro-
grams being considered. Also, the
different regulatory procedures of each
agency would make this alternative very
complex, and there would be no mechanism
for efficient monitoring of agency
decisions. Thus, the Department of
State could not assess the effectiveness
of coastal policies in order to improve
their implementation. Still, formal
ayreements with other State agencies
would provide assurances that their
decision-making procedures had at least
incorporated coastal policies so that
all agencies regarded coastal revitali-
zation and protection goals similarly.
Ce Implement State consistency requirements
of the Water ront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act by informal
agreements between the Department of
State and other State agencies
This alternative might satisfy the
letter of the law; however, it would
probably not satisfy its intent to
coordinate State agencies actions and
programs so as to ensure consistency
with coastal policies. Again, the
Department of State would have to
consult with numerous agencies; the
results would be the same as under the
"formal agreement" alternative. In
addition, informal agreements with other
State agencies would provide no real
assurances that their interpretations of
coastal policies were acceptable or that
various decision-making procedures had
in fact incorporated coastal policies.
As a consequence, implementation of
coastal policies would be complex and
III - 19
uneven. As under the previous alter-
native, informal agreements would
provide no mechanism for regular
exchange of information on proposed
agency actions or final decisions
affecting the coastal area. Thus,
again, the Department of State could not
assess the effectiveness of coastal
policies nor take well-founded steps to
improve their implementation.
3. Alternatives Concerning the Department of
Environmental Conservation and the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Areas Act
a. Promul ate regulations which implement
the 12rovisioni14 - Propose
ct on
Shoreline recession, beach erosion and
man's creation of potentially hazardous
conditions by destroying protective
landforms are problems which have long
plagued New York's coastal areas.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have
been expendedattempting to
meansltsuchstal
as
erosion by s
construction of seawalls, revetments,
groins, bulkheads, and artificial
nourishment. Article 34 is based on the
rationale thathenomenon erosion is of a naturalltremendous
occurring P Structural
physical proportions.
attempts at harnessing nature are always
very expensive, occasionally ineffective
and usually not cost effective. Erosion
protection structures
as they simes
have
created as many problems
solved.
Article 34 directs the Department of
Environmental Conservation to identify
coastal areas subject to serious erosion
and establishes -State policies regarding
the regulation of certain activities and
development in such erosion hazard
certain State
acti policies
1 and lso developmenuiret thatin
areas containing protective landforms
should be regulated so as to maintain
their capability to withstand the forces
of erosion and high water.
III - 20
Section 34-0108 directs the Commissioner
of Environmental Conservation to promul-
gate rules and regulations which will
implement the provisions of Article 34.
These regulations must contain the
following:
standards and criteria to regulate
certain activities and development
in erosion hazard areas;
-- standards and criteria govering the
location and construction of
erosion protection structures;
a procedure pursuant to which any
owner of land in an identified
erosion hazard area may appeal such
designation; and
a procedure by which the strict
application of standards and
criteria may be varied where
practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship can be demonstrated.
6NYCRR Part 505 are the regulations
which the Department of Environmental
Conservation has developed to meet the
statutory mandates of Article 34. These
regulations are contained in Appendix A
of this document.
b. Do not promulgate regulations to imple-
ment Article 34 - No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would ignore
the legislative mandate of Article 34
and result in continuance of the status
quo regarding the regulation of land use
and development in coastal erosion
hazard areas. Since many local govern-
ments in the coastal areas of New York
State do not have adequate, if any,
local laws or other management programs
to address erosion problems, unwise
development and inappropriate activities
would continue. This would result in
continued unnecessary environmental
damage and economic and social costs to
not only coastal residents, but to the
general population as well. Unwise
development in coastal hazard areas
ultimately places a financial burden on
III - 21
all taxpayers through payment of disas-
ter aid. Likewise, coastal environ-
mental degradation is a cost borne by
everyone whether it is higher costs for
seafood, degradation of aesthetic
quality, reduced opportunities for
recreation of diminished potential for
harvesting or viewing fish and wildlife
resources.
The no action alternative is obviously
not viable. First of all, the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation would
have to blatantly ignore a statutory
mandate of the New York State Legisla-
ture. Secondly, the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Areas Act had the solid support
of State agencies, such as the Depart-
ment of State and o Environmenorganizations with Sean
vation, many
interest in proper coastal management as
well as many coastal local governments.
C* Do not romul ate ulations Ed cat on/Int orriation
o imple-
meet Art c e
Program
This third alternative would be for the
Department of Environmental Conservation
to ignore the regulatory nandate of
Article 34 and develop a
ic
education/information program with no
regulatory aspects. The Department of
Environmental Conservation would
identify and quantify areas of coastal
erosion and provide this information to
interested parties. The Department
could also develop model local ordin-
ances to be used by local governments
interested in taking a more affirmative
step in reducing erosion and high water
damage problems. As a third step the
Department could develop handbooks or
other instructive material which provide
information on coastal erosion processes
and the importance of preserving coastal
ladf a protect flooding
anaosion. cnformation ould
provide advice on the limitations of
coastal natural systems to development.
III - 22
However, such a course of action would
necessitate ignoring a clear legislative
mandate. Furthermore, an education/
information program probably would not
be effective because most coastal land-
owners are not interested in erosion
issues until they are directly affected.
Coastal erosion management is most
beneficial and cost effective, if it can
be implemented before erosion or high
water problems exist. Furthermore, by
eliminating the regulatory, i.e. permit,
aspects of an erosion management
program, State and local governments
lose the potential for such prograns to
be financially self-sufficient through
collection of permit fees.
III - 23
PART IV - AFFECTED EIaV I R0IIINIT
PART IV
AFFECTED ENVIROIIMENT
General Description
For further description of the affected environment, refer to
Part II , Section 2 Coastal Regions, Resources and Problems of New
York.
The coastal area of New York State is comprised of all coastal
waters within the State's territorial jurisdiction and the
shorelands adjacent to these waters. Article 42 of the State's
Executive Law describes coastal waters as: lakes Erie and
Ontario; St. Lawrence, Niagara, East and Harlem rivers; Hudson
river south of the Federal dam at Troy; Kill von Kull and Arthur
Kill; Long Island sound; Atlantic ocean; and, their connecting
water bodies, bays, harbors, shallows and marshes. The latter
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Dlock Island sound;
2. Great South, Shinnecock, Great Peconic, Little Peconic,
Gardiners, Napeague, Fioriches, Smithtown, Northport,
Huntington, Manhasset, Little Neck, Flushing , Jamaica ,
Upper New York, Lower New York, Eastchester, Raritan,
Irondequoit, Sodus, jittle Soaus, Henderson, Black
River and Chaumont bays;
3. Hempstead, *Cold Spring, Port Jefferson, Oyster Bay and
Huntington harbors; and,
4. Extensive segments of the Peconic, Connetquot, Nisse-
quoque, Carmans, Bronx, Hutchinson, Croton, Buffalo,
Genesee, Oswego, Black, Chaumont, Grass and Raquette
rivers.
Entire lengths or substantial segments of numerous creeks, many
small bays, harbors and ponds, and extensive saltwater and fresh-
water marshlands are included within the State's coastal waters.
The onshore portion of New York State's coastal area is limited ,
by Article 42 of the Executive Law, to adjacent shorelands
containing uses which have a direct and significant impact upon
coastal waters. These shorelands include, but are not limited
to, islands, wetlands, beaches, dunes, barr er is ands, bluffs,
intertidal estuaries and erosion prone areas. In addition to the
above, onshore physical and man-made conditions were taken into
consideration. As a result of this process, the onshore portion
of the State's coastal area varies from region to region.
Generally, the following conditions prevail:
1. The inland boundary is approximately 1000 feet from the
mainland 's shoreline;
2. In developed or urbanized locations along the coast,
the inland boundary is about 500 feet from the shore-
line or less in areas where a major roadway or railroad
line runs parallel to the shoreline; and,
IV - 1
3. Where major State-owned facilities and lands and
electric power generation facilities abut the shore-
line, the boundary is extended inland to include such
lands and facilities.
On Long Island, the State's coastal area includes all barrier and
other islands located in the coastal waters of this region.
On
the mainland# the inland boundary is generally 1000 feet fron the
shoreline, however, at major tributaries and headlands it extends
several thousand feet inland.
In New York City, the coastal area boundary extends inland 500 to
1000 feet, generally. On Staten Island and at major tributaries
(e.g. , rnthousand feet in fromekr theFahoreline. eek) the boundary
is several
The coastal
o nc3 coast f �est hest r Countyextends 1000 to $000 ,et inland along
the Long Island S
In the Hudson River Valley, the coastal area boundary is gener-
ally 1000, but at some locations over 10400, feet inland. The
latter occurs at places which are exceptionally scenic (e.g. ,
Hudson Highlands ) or have significant agricultural and recre-
ational lands.
Finally, the coastal area in the Great Lakes region of the State
extends over 1000 feet inland from the shoreline. However, in
the urbanized and built-up areas of the coast (e.g. , Buffalo,
Rochester, Oswego, Alexandria Bay, Ogdensburg ) and at several
locations where major roadways and rail lines parallel the
shoreline, the boundary may extend 500 feet or less inland.
IV - 2
TABLE 3
Local Governments With Jurisdiction
Over Land and/or Waters Within
New York State's Coastal Area
SUFFOLK COUNTY Quoque Manorhaven
Sag Harbors Plandome
Babylon (T) Southampton Plandome Heights
Amityville Westhampton Beach Plandome Manor -
Babylon Southold (T) Port Washington
Lindenhurst
Brookhaven (T) Greenport Roslyn
Bellport Roslyn Harbor
Belle Terre NASSAU COUNTY Saddle Rock
Old Field Sands Point
Patchogue
Glen Cove (C) Thomaston
Poquott Long Beach (C) Oyster Bay (T)
Port Jefferson Hempstead (T) Bayville
Shoreham Atlantic Beach Centre Island
C East Hampton (T) Cedarhurst Cove Neck
East Hampton East Rockaway Lattingtown
Huntington (T) Freeport Laurel Hollow
w Asharoken Hewlett Bay Park Massapequa Park
Huntington Bay Hewlett Harbor Mill Neck
Lloyd Harbor Hewlett Neck Oyster Bay Cove
Northport Island Park Sea Cliff
Islip (T) Lawrence
Brightwaters Rockville Center BRONX, KINGS, NEN YORK,
Ocean Beach Valley Stream QUEENS b RICHMOND COUNTIES
Woodsbur
Riverhead e(T) North Hempstead (T) New York City (C)
Shelter Island (T) Baxter Estates
Dering Harbor Flower Hill WESTCHESTER COUNTY
Smithtown (T) Great Neck
Head of the Harbor Great Neck Estates Mount Vernon (C)
Nissequoque Kensington New Rochelle (C)
Southampton (T) Kings Point Peekskill (C)
North Haven Rye (C)
Cities are noted by (C); towns by (T); other listed local governments are villages
sAlso partly within the T. of East Hampton
Yonkers (C)
PUTNAM COUNTY Ulster (T)
Cortlandt (T) Philipstown (T) COLUMBIA COUNTY
Buchanan
Croton-on-Hudson Cold Spring Hudson (C)
Greenburg (T) ORANGE COUNTY Cleremiont (T)
Dobbs Ferry Greenport (T
Hastings-on-Hudson Newburgh C Germantown Irvington Cornwall �IcTI Livingston JTJ
T
Tarrytown Cornwall
on-Hudson Stockport (T)
Mamaroneck (T) CornwaHighlands (T) Stuyvesant (T)
Larchmbnt 2 Highlands Falls
Mamaroneck Newburgh (T) GREENE COUNTY
Mount Pleasaht (T) New Windsor (T)
North Tarrytown Athens (T)
Ossining (T) DUTCHESS COUNTY Athens
Briarcliff Manor Catskill (T)
OssiningBeacon (C) Catskill
Pelham (T)C Poughkeepsie (C) Coxsackie (T)
Pelham Coxsackie
Fishkill (T)
Rye
eChester(T) Hyde Park (T) New Baltimore(T)
Port� Poughkeepsie (T) RENSSELAER COUNTY
ROCKLAND COUNTY Red Hook (T)
Tivoli Rensselaer (C)
Clarkstown (T) Rhinebeck (T) Troy (C)
Upper Nyack Wappinger T East Greenbush (T)
Haverstraw (T) ULSTER COUNTY North Greenbush (T)
Haverstraw Schodack (T)
West Haverstraw Kingston (C) Castle-on-Hudson
Orangetown (T) Esopus (T)
6rand3Yiew-on-Hudson Lloyd (T) ALBANY COUNTY
Nyack Marlborough (T)
Pierment Albany (C)
South Nyack Saugerties Watervliet (C)
Stony Point (T) Saugertiess
2A130 partly within T. of Rye
3Also partly within T. of Clarkstown
Bethlehem (T) Wilson (T) New Haven (T)
Coeymans (T) Wilson Oswego (T)
Colonie (T) Youngstown (T) Richland (T)
Menands Sandy Creek (T)
Green Island (T) ORLEANS COUNTY Scriba (T)
Green Island
Carlton (T) JEFFERSON COUNTY
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY Kendall (T)
Yates (T) Alexandria (T)
Dunkirk (C) Alexandria Bay
Dunkirk (T) MONROE COUNTY Brownville (T)
Hanover (T) Dexter
Silver Creek Rochester (C) Cape Vincent (T)
Pomfret (T) Greece (T) Cape Vincent
Portland (T) Hamlin (T) Clayton (T)
Ripley (T) Irondequoit (T) Clayton
Sheridan (T) Parma (T) Ellisburg (T)
Westfield (T) Penfield (T) Henderson (T)
Webster (T) Hounsfield (T)
ERIE COUNTY Sackets Harbor
F, WAYNE COUNTY Lyme (T)
C Buffalo (C) Chaumont
I Lackawanna (C) Huron (T) Orleans (T)
Ln Tonawanda (C) Ontario (T)
Brant (T) Sodus (T) ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY
Evans (T) Sodus Point
Grand Island (T) Williamson (T) Ogdensburg (C)
Hamburg (T) Wolcott (T) Hammond (T)
Tonawanda (T) Lisbon (T)
CAYUGA COUNTY Louisville (T)
NIAGARA COUNTY Massena (T)
Sterling (T)
Niagara Falls (C) Fair Haven Morristown (T)
North Tonawanda (C) Morristown
Lewiston (T) OSWEGO COUNTY Oswegatchie (T)
Lewiston Waddington (T)
Newfane (T) Oswego (C) Waddington
Porter (T) Mexico (T)
Somerset (T)
Wheatfield (T)
PART V - BY I RONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
PART V
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Environmental
New York State proposes to implement a Coastal
Management Program that is consistent with the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. New
York's Program will further the goals of the Federal
act, i.e. , to protect, preserve, develop and restore
our coast's land , water, and air resources so they may
continue to fulfill man's present and future needs.
The State 's Program is designed to achieve a balance
between resource development and preservation activi-
ties in the coastal area by encouraging the most
environmentally appropriate uses of coastal resources
and by minimizing or avoiding many of the adverse
environmental consequences of coastal development.
To implement the Coastal Management Program, the State
will rely upon various existing State programs (See
Appendices E and F for a description of these State
programs) plus the recently enacted Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Executive
Law, Article 42) and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
Act (Environmental Conservation Law, Article 34 ). While
Coastal Management Program implementation will not
significantly alter the environmental effects of any
single, existing State program, the integration and
coordination of these programs as required by the
waterfront law will create net environmental benefits
for the State's coastal area.
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act
(WRCRA) provides for a balanced statewide approach for
encouraging development in coastal areas while protect-
ing natural resources. The WRCRA establishes the
boundaries of New York State's coastal area by formally
adopting a map which the Department of State, with
considerable local government input, has prepared. This
map is on file in the Secretary of State's office as
well as in the offices of affected local governments,
counties, and State agencies. This legislation also
calls upon local governments to prepare waterfront
revitalization programs. The 240 local governments
eligible to participate in this waterfront revitaliza-
tion program are listed in Table 3 in Part IV of this
document. Participation in this program is at the
option of the municipalities. As of this writing ,
there are approximately 50 communities eager to develop
local waterfront revitalization programs. Because of
previous work and cooperation with the Department of
State, as many as 15 communities are likely to have an
approved program early in the first year. Should they
V
elect to prepare such waterfront programs, the Depart-
ment of State will provide technical and financial
assistance under specific guidelines set forth in the
WRCRA. The local waterfront revitalization programs
will be prepared in conjunction with the policies
forth in the legislation. These policies apply in the
mapped coastal area and have been developed to "insure
the proper balance between natural resources and the
need to accommodate the needs of population growth and
economic development." They deal with the need for
coastal development, better utilization of New York
State's waterfront areas, and protection of significant
coastal resources. Furthermore, the WRCRA gives the
Secretary of State a broad advisory role in reviewing
and evaluating State activities and programs in the
coastal area. The Secretary must, within six months of
the effective date of the legislation, identify each
State agency that has programs and powers affecting
coastal resources, and six months thereafter must
report to the Governor and Legislature on the Finally present
level of consistency of State programs.
Secretary must identify State agency programs which
will likely affect the achievement of any app
local waterfront revitalization program.
The Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act requires the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in
full cooperation with affected local governments, to
complete a preliminary identification of erosion hazard
areas throughout New York State's coastline. Erosion
hazard areas will be identified by determining annual
land recession rates along the coast. Erosion hazard
areas will also include natural protective features
such as dunes, beaches, and shoals. The Act requires
that consultations and public hearings musttakence
final
lace
before final identification is made.
identification is made of the erosion hazard areas ,
regulatory provisions of the legislation will apply.
Any activities or development proposed for such areas
will only be approved if they meet certain minimum
standards and criteria related to the: use of
setbacks; prevention of an increase in erosion;
minimization of adverse effects on natural protective
features; and measures to ensure the effectiveness of
control structures. The legislation also specifies
that, when public funds are to be used for activities
and development, the public benefits must
The legisla-
tion
outweigh any long-range adverse effects.
tion also offers each affected local government the
opportunity to deal with erosion hazard areas identi-
fied within ordinances.darie Should throughy's own
the a affected local
laws or
V - 2
government not exercise its right to regulate such
areas, the county, or finally, the State Department of
Environmental Conservation would promulgate regulations
for that community.
The tiew York State Coastal Management Program has been
designed to improve the management of the State's
coastal resources. To achieve this end, the Program
includes a set of coastal policies applicable to State
agency actions in the coastal area which (1) steer
development away from environmentally sensitive areas
such as fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands, and
scenic areas; (2) channel waterfront development and
revitalization activities towards areas which are
either without ecological and physical development
constraints or areas which had once been developed but
need rehabilitation; (3) promote the proper use ,
development or preservation of coastal erosion hazard
areas such as beaches, bluffs, dunes, and barrier
islands; and (4) encourage wise utilization of coastal
resources which are renewable (e.g. , commercial
fisheries) and non-renewable (e.g. , underwater sand and
gravel deposits) . These coastal policies will provide
a comprehensive framework to guide future resource
management and land use decisions by State, and where
appropriate, Federal and local agencies.
The formal and legal integration of decision-making by
Federal , State and local government agencies will
achieve better management and utilization of the
State's coastal resources. Improved communication and
coordination of all three levels of government will be
achieved by implementing the consistency provisions of
State and Federal legislation and through the develop-
ment, approval and implementation of local waterfront
revitalization programs. Through these intergovern-
mental coordination procedures , resource use conflicts
will either be resolved more quickly and efficiently or
avoided altogether. By alleviating resource
development pressures, the Program will help prevent
over-exploitation of particular renewable coastal
resources. Also, the possibility of identifying
underutilized resources is increased with improved
inter-govermental communication.
Another means by which the State Coastal Management
Program will provide for environmentally appropriate
uses of coastal resources and minimize many of the
otherwise adverse environmental consequences of coastal
development is by using the natural and cultural
resource inventory, provided for in the Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. This
inventory will provide a consolidated source of infor-
mation which will be valuable to public agencies and
private developers in the identification of potential
sites for a specific use or development activity.
V - 3
Considerable effort has already been expended during
Program development by State, regional and local
agencies to gather and compile land use and natural
resource data throughout the State's coastal regions.
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act
requires the Department of State to maintain and update
this data inventory. It will, thereforet continue to
provide an expanded resource information base which
will enable the State and participating local govern-
ments make more environmentallconservation# allocationiande commitment
decisions
with regard to
of coastal resources.
The implementation of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
Act is expected to result in significant long-term
environmental, social and economic benefits to the
people of tiew York. The full impact of the program
will not be felt immediately upon implementation.
In
fact, it may take years before definite results can be
identified• Neverthelenvironmentalssr the shouldl
social and ebe substantial.
Damage from erosion and storm induced high water to
structures placed or constructed in conformance with
the erosion program's regulations will be significantly
reduced. Problens caused by inappropriate or poorly
designed erosion control structures constructed
pursuant to the standards and criteria of 6 NYCRR Part
505 should be eliminated. The enforcement of minimum
setbacks for new structures in coastal areas
experiencing high rates of shoreline recession will
ultimately result in less need for costly, and often
environmentally undesirable, erosion protection
structures. The conservation and preservation of
natural protective features will help insure their
existence for future generations.
Other benefits include a more natural appearing
coastline. As a result of mandatory minimum setbacks
for new structures, these structures will not encroach
and detract from the scenic qualities of the shoreline.
Another benefit is the preservation of coastal
landforms such as dunes, bluffs, barrier islands and
spits which are, to most people, more aesthetically
pleasing than artificial structures such as groins,
revetments, or seawalls. The encouragement of
also foster a greater
nonstructural approaches may
understanding of the inherent natural functions and
values of coastal features.
V - 4
1. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects
New York State's Coastal Management Program is not
expected to have many unavoidable adverse environ-
mental effects.
The Program will encourage new water-dependent
development to locate in areas which are already
developed and/or which are environmentally
suitable for such development. This new develop-
ment may increase air and water pollution, but
these unavoidable effects are regulated under
existing programs so that State air and water
quality standards are not violated. New
development may also require dredging of channels,
but these activities must be conducted according
to existing State and Federal regulations so as to
reduce adverse impacts on water quality, fish and
wildlife habitats, and other natural resources.
Another unavoidable effect may be short-tern
economic losses that might occur by favoring water
dependent uses which at the time may not be the
most profitable or desired use of waterfront
lands. Although every effort will be made to find
ways to offset this economic loss, there probably
will be instances where this cannot be done.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
2. Resources
State adoption and Federal approval of the Coastal
Management Program will not in and of itself lead
to losses of coastal resources. The implementa-
tion of coastal management policies will affect
the actions of State agencies and participating
local governments in the coastal area, and may
thereby result in irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources. For example , policies
to channel growth to already-developed locations
along the coast and to qive priority to water
dependent uses will lead to increased development
at these sites and result in irreversible
commitments of resources. Development activity
necessarily results in the affected site being
committed to the new use for an indefinite period
of time, and can practically be considered
irreversible and irretrievable.
V - 5
To the extent that the Program supports
acquisition of environmental, cultural and
recreational resources in coastal areas, the ,
Program will result in commitment of these
resources to public use, and the exclusion of
these areas from future private use. This is
especially true of areas added to the State Nature
and Historic Preserve :rust, which are given
constitutional protection and cannot be taken out
of the preserve except by law enacted by two
successive regular sessions of the Legislature.
B. Institutional
Although the State's Coastal Managementgramswiil
rely largely on the use of existing State pro
Will also create a tion on t and insitutlonal improveathenmanages
designed to focus alt
went of , coastal recese These constitutional w relationships
will not affect Presentgovernment,between State and local g but should increase
State agencies and
coordination and coopeovernment ation among
well as encourage
different levels of g powers and
local governments to illy
inicoastallares. The new
responsibilities more fully governments resolve
arrangements should also p b s is la
State and other
problems on a partnership
local agencies which they previously had to face
alone.
gement
The Program establishes guide State and coastal Federalagency
policies that will g artici-
actions, along gowith vernments. The
actions
Programa will partici-
along
paling local
that all such actions be
are describedthin thecoastal
tin
policies. (The policies
Part II of this document. )
To assist State agencies in carrying out their
responsibilities to worked ewith the nt with Department oliciest the
Department of State has a consistency
Environmental Conservation to develop
review process that is it r Review tSE(tR)dinated with t procedures•
State Environmental Quality
The interagency effort has resulted in proposed
of
regulations that will facilitate ke coastal edea minatesn and
an action's consistency with
will not complicate SEQR procedures.
The consistency review regulations take two forms:
v - 6
1. Selected amendments to the existing SEAR
regulations;
2. Regulations to be promulgated by the Department of
State.
The former address Type I and Unlisted Actions in the
coastal area, which require the preparation of an
environmental impact statement. The amendments to
Section 617.9 require State agency actions to be
consistent with the coastal policies. Where appro-
priate, the agency would also find that its action is
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with an
approved waterfront revitalization program.
The Department of State's regulations cover Type I and
Unlisted Actions in the coastal area which do not have
a significant effect upon the environment. Specifi-
cally, the filing of a certification of consistency
with the Secretary of State will be required for direct
and funding actions. A similar certification will be
necessary for all actions where an approved local
waterfront revitalization program is in effect.
Section 600.5 of the L .partment's regulations contains
the coastal policies which are to be used in deter-
mining the consistency of a proposed action.
The principal advantages of using these procedures to
implement the State consistency provisions are des-
cribed in Part III.
C. Economic
Federal approval of the State's Program may result,
subject to Congressional appropriations, in increased
Federal financial assistance for program administration
and managing coastal resources. Program approval would
also mean grants may be available, subject to Con-
gressional appropriations, for responding to anti-
cipated impacts of coastal energy activity under
Section 308, the Coastal Energy Impact Program. The
Federal act also authorizes grants for marine and
estuarine sanctuaries. Available Federal funds may be
used to improve the capacity of the State and local
governments to manage New York's coastal resources.
Also, these Federal dollars, matched by State funds,
may provide the impetus for waterfrontably alization
projects which will have local andregional
economic benefits.
v - 7
The State 's Coastal Management Program is likely to
have a dramatic and positive economic impact on the
development of complex, natural resource-based
industries such as commercial fishing and aquaculture.
Growth of the State's commercial fishing industry, for
example, has been impeded by the high degree of risk
and complexity associated with this particular economic
activity. Private investors shy away from this
industry because of erratic changes in harvest rates,
complex pricing mechanisms and the difficult political
context within which fishery resources are managed.
Many of these risks and disincentives, however, can be
reduced to acceptable levels through the State's
Coastal Management Program.
The Program can make a significant contribution in
developing these resources by conducting studies to
identify the environmental , technical and political
constraints which impede further resource development.
The results of such studies can then provide the basis
for preparing a resource development plan which will
provide for more orderly development of the resource.
Such plans are absolutely essential to creating truly
new economic development opportunities rather than
merely displacing existing economic activities from one
geographic location to another.
The Coastal Management Program, through its coordinated
decision-making process involving Federal, State and
local governments will more efficiently channel public
sector efforts to assist private industry in develop-
ment of natural resource based industries. Consensus
among government agencies on development objectives can
now be more readily achieved. Also, a significant
reduction of political constraints and associated
regulatory delays will result as the various government
agencies come to agreement on development strategies.
These reductions in political constraints, coupled with
joint Federal and State financial assistance, should
create sufficient incentive for attracting private
investment in appropriate development of our natural
resources.
V - 8
A net gain in the number of jobs in the State may he
anticipated as a result of the Coastal Management
Program. First, program policies do not infringe on
existing economic activities and, therefore, no
existing jobs should be lost. Further, as a
consequence of Program support for new coastal-related
enterprises, employment levels can be expected to rise.
Such enterprises include fishing, agriculture,
recreation and tourism industries as well as ports,
boat construction and other concerns requiring
waterfront space. Finally, by improving the natural
and economic environment of coastal areas, the Program
should help to improve the entire State's image as a
good place in which to develop new enterprises and thus
new jobs.
As a result of new water-related development, it may be
necessary for localities to make major capital invest-
ments for infrastructure and building rehabilitation.
Such investments are likely due to the Program's
emphasis on •channeling growth to developed areas where
existing infrastructure can accommodate growth.
Local tax revenues will also be affected as a result of
water-related development and natural protection
policies of the coastal program. Th: designation, by
local governments, of certain coastal areas for
water-dependent development may increase property tax
revenues from these areas. This new development may
reduce the value of adjacent properties if the new and
existing adjacent uses are incompatible; but such a
reduction will be minimized by careful selection of
sites for industrial and commercial development which
would be compatible with the existing adjacent uses.
The identification of some coastal areas for protection
and preservation may limit property tax revenues from
those areas ; however, the natural and aesthetic
qualities of protected areas may increase the value of
adjacent or nearby property, especially residential and
commercial property.
Coastal management policies directed particularly at
identifyinq and managing erosion and flood hazard areas
may, in the short term, reduce tax revenues to the
extent that more stringent development restrictions on
private property will reduce the value of the property,
and therefore the property tax revenues. However, in
the long term, identification of these areas should
have beneficial impacts by preventing' unwise
development and thus eliminating or reducing the need
for government disaster relief as well as expenditures
to replace, repair or reconstruct damaged roads, sewers
and other infrastructure.
V - 9
D. Developmental
The Coastal Management Program is committed to
encouraging growth in already developed areas or in
areas where development can be concentrated and
adequately servfd by public facilities. This policy is
based on the belief th the a environment tration of d but�also
will not only protect
strengthen the economy of the State. While the Program
intends to accomplish its asureseCtsuch ias part the by tate's
certain restrictive me
wetlands and erosion laws, its goals will be achieved
aking the more affirmative
primarily by undert
activities outlined in the Waterfront Reitaliz tion
and Coastal Resources h t activitind the es include permit
sectif
this document.
expediting , identification of
consistency.suitable development
sites, and State and
By implementing these activities, the Coastal
Management Program will assistini and incommercial
development in existing Po
centers. This will reduce development pressures on
ecologically sensitive areas, particularly in non
eclude
communities, but will not automatically
development in ers areas, oo
—rnments
retain their Powto make land use decisions.
E. Energy
No negative effects on energy use and development are
expected as a result On f the implementing contr ry, the Program
Management Program• supplies
recognizes the importance of adequate energy It also
for the economic development of the State.
recognizes the possible cilities national
theinterest
coastal nares locating
energy production fa
ensure that such en talfacilitsafeguards,ies are dthel Department
satisfactory environm
of State will participate, as appropriate, in the
ectric
processes for siting tyles VIIiand VIII of theon lines and lPublic
power plants under Articles Review Act
Service Law, in State Environmental Mal
procedures, and in other review procedures.
The Program encourages, subject to existing State
environmental controls, development of additional
ate and recognizes that
energy resources in the tint al Shelf (OCs) and Lake
development of Outer Co to
Erie resources Could he of moderate �selftsuffNciencyk
State in meeting its goal of energy
This development must, however, be subject to strict
environmental controls.
V - 10
In regard to energy conservation, the Program advocates
concentration of new development in appropriate areas,
which may help to reduce future energy consumption for
transportation. Also, any rejuvenation of port facili-
ties may result in shifts to use of Nater transporta-
tion for some commodities. Because ships and barges
are an energy-efficient means of transportation, some
conservation of energy may be a consequence of the
Program's policy to favor port development.
F. Social
The Program is expected to have a favorable social
impact. The Program seeks to create a heightened
awareness of the relationship between land and water
and between people and their environment. As a result,
they will be able to make decisions that will ulti-
mately improve the quality of life along the water-
front. A deteriorated waterfront is an economic and
psychological burden; but a vibrant waterfront area can
serve as a catalyst for areawide economic rejuvenation
and foster a sense of community pride.
A positive social impact will result from the policy of
favoring redevelopment of waterfront areas. Revita-
lized urban coastal areas will draw people back to the
urban center. Thus, there will be greater opportun-
ities for positive social interaction.
Another favorable social impact will result from the
Program policies to increase public access to the
shore. The poor and less mobile people have often been
denied the opportunity to enjoy the State's coastlines.
Improved public transportation, more public access
points and increased amounts of park acreage will
contribute to more use of the shore by all segments of
the population.
A possible negative social impact of the Program would
be perceived infringement on private property rights
brought about by governmental efforts to increase
public access to the coast. The Program recognizes that
some fears are justified; however, it advocates that
efforts to increase public access be undertaken
judiciously, without limiting property rights and
without taxing the carrying capacity of any given
resource.
V - 11
PART VI - AGENCIES CONSULTED
PART VI
AGENCIES CONSULTED
Implementation of the most formal means of consultation
with those identified as having an interest in the
development of the State's Program was achieved by
forwarding to them for review, copies of the March 1979
Draft Coastal Management Program Report. Copies of the
Draft New York City Local Coastal Management Program
were sent also to certain Federal agencies, to State
agencies and to other local and non-governmental
groups. In June 1982, the Coastal Management Program
and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as well as
the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program,
were sent to Federal, State and local government
agencies and to other national, State, and local
interested parties.
Federal Agencies Consulted
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Farmers Home Administration
Cooperative Extension
Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration*
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service*
Sea Grant*
Maritime Administration*
Marine Mammal Commission*
Office of Coastal Zone Management*
Atlantic Marine Center
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force*
Department of the Army*
Aerospace Development Command
Corps of Engineers*
Air National Guard
Veterans Administration
Defense Supply Command
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development*
Department of the Interior*
VI - 3
Bureau of Indian Affairs*
Bureau of Land Management*
Bureau of Mines* '
Heritage Conservatifon and Recreation Outdoor Recreation)
Service*
(formerly Bureau o
Fish and wildlife Service*
National Parks Service*
U.S. Geological Survey*
Department of Justice
Department of Transportation*
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
St. LawrenMassce Seaway evelpment TransportationoAdministraion
Urban tion
U.S. Coast Guard*
Department of Energy
(Formerly Energy Research and Development Adminis-
tration and Federal Energy Administration* )
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission*
(Formerly Federal Power Commission)
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
General Services Administration
Environmental Protection Agency*
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
Nuclear Regulatory
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Marine Mammal Commission
New England River Basins Commission
*Those agencies received Draftboth the York StatCityoLocal
Management Program Report and t e Draft New
Coastal Management Program.
State Agencies Consulted
Department of Environmental Conservation
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
Office of Parks, RRecreationand n HistoriclPreservation
Division of Housing a
Office of General Services
Economic Development Board
Department of Commerce
Department of Agriculture and Markets
Department of Transportation
State Energy A
vi - 4
Department of Health
Department of Public Service
Department of Education
Power Authority of the State of New York
Division of Military and Naval Affairs
Northeastern Queens Nature and Historical Preserve
Commission
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Urban Development Corporation
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
NYS Dormitory Authority
Job Development Authority
Soil and Water Conservation Committee
NYS Council on the Arts
NYS Library
Department of Audit and Control
Office of Mental Health
Facilities Development Corporation
Health Planning Commission
Energy Research and Development Authority
State University Construction Fund
State University of New York
Division of State Police
Department of Social Services
Office of Business Permits
Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse
Commission of Correction
Department of Correctional Services
Environmental Facilities Corporation
Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority
Port of Oswego Authority
Albany Port District Commission
Local Governments Consulted
Draft Program documents and explanatory materials were
also sent to the elected and appointed officials, and
to appropriate local and regional agencies, in the 27
counties and over 240 municipalities, in the State's
coastal area.
VI - :i
Other Interests Consulted
Widespread distribution of the Draft
Coastal
Management
t
Program Report, and the Draft
Statement, additional brochures and summaries assured
the success of the consultative process with
non-governnment groups and individuals. As a result, a
broad range of interests became involved in the
Program's development of which the following are
representative: Center for the Hudson Valley; Scenic
Hudson, Inc. ; Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc;
United Mobile Sports fishermen, Inc; Rochester Gas and
Electric Corporation; Upstate Ports Council; Natural
Resources Defense Council; Leayue of Women Voters;
Udalls Cave Preservation Committee; Long Island Marine
Contractions Association; Charlotte Community
Association; N.Y.S. Farm Bureau; Sierra Club; N.Y.S.
Petroleum Council; N.Y.S. Builders Association;
Environmental Planning Lobby; and New York Coastal
Coalition.
VI - 6
PART V I I - LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGAN ZAT I ONS
RECEIVING COPIES OF THE DEIS
PART VII
LIST OF AGENCIES, OR ORGANIZATIONS, AND
PERSONS RECEIVING THE DEIS DOCUMENT
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation CZM Newsletter
Department of Agriculture Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Department of Commerce Environmental Policy Center
Department of Defense Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Department of Energy Environmental Law Institute
Department of Health and Human Services EXXON Comapny, U.S.A.
.Department of Housing and Urban Development Friends of the Earth
Department of Interior Gulf Oil Company
Department of Justice Gulf Refining Company
Department of Transportation Institute for the Human Environment
Environmental Protection Agency Interstate Natural Gas Association of
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission America
General Services Administration League of Conservation Voters
Marine Mammal Commission League of Women Voters Education Fund
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marathon Oil Company
Federal Emergency Management Agency Marine Manufacturers Association
Marine Technology Society
National Interest Groups Mobile Oil Corporation
American Association of Port Authorities Mobil Exploration and Producing, Inc.
American Bureau of Shipping Murphy Oil Company
American. Fisheries Society National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Realtors
American Gas Association
National Audubon Society
American Industrial Development Council
American Petroleum Institute National Boating Federation
American Shore and Beach Preservation National Coalition For Marine Conservation
National Commission on Marine Policy
Association
American Society of Civil Engineers National Fisheries Institute
American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc. National Forest Products Association
American waterways Operators National Ocean Industries Association
Amoco Production Company National Recreation and Parks Association
Atlantic Richfield Company National Waterways Conference
National Wildlife Federation
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
BoatingIndustry Association Natural Resources Defense Council
Y Nature Conservancy
Bureau of Marine Resources Rice University Center for Community Design
Center for law and Social Policy and Development
Center for Urban Affairs Shell Oil Company
Center for Urban and Regional Resources Sierra Club
Chamber of Commerce of the United States Soil Conservation Society of America
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Sport Fishing Institute
Cities Service Company Standard Oil Company of Ohio
Conservation Foundation Sun Company, Inc.
Continental Oil Company Tenneco Oil Company
Council of State Planning Agencies Texaco, Inc.
The Cousteau Society
VII - 1
National Interest Groups (Continued)
United Mobile Sport Fishermen Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation
Urban Research and Development
Associations, Inc. Division of Military and Naval Affairs
Mater Transport Association Department of Agriculture and Markets
Western Oil and bas Association Commission of Correction
Wildlife Management Institute Department of Correctional Services
Office of General Services
Congressional Department of Health
Environmental Facilities Corporation
Members of the New York State State Energy Office
Congressional Delegation Division of Housing and Community
Renewal
State Officials and Legislators Department of Environmental Conservation
Governor Hugh L. Carey Port Authority of New York and
Office of the Lieutenant Governor New Jersey
Members of the Senate and Assembly Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority
with coastal area districts Port of Oswego Authority
Albany Port District Commission
State Coastal Management Program Municipalities and Counties
t zen
State Agencies and Authorities (245 municipalities and 26 counties)
g See Part IV, Table 3 for listing.
New York State Urban Development Corporation
Department of Law Regional Agencies
St. Lawrence Eastern Ontario Commission Long Island Regional Planning Board
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Southern Tier West Regional Planning
New York State Power Authority
New York State Dormitory Authority and Development Board
Northeastern Queens Nature and Historical Bla knRiver-St.ng Lawrence Regional
Preserve Commission Capital District Regional Planning
Department of Commerce Commission
Job Development Authority Central New York Regional Planning
Soil and Water Conservation Committee and Development Board
New York State Council of the Arts Erie-Niagara Counties Regional Planning
Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board
Department of Education
New York State Library Bi-State Regional Planning Commission
Department of Audit and Control Environmental Management Councils
Office of Mental Health
Facilities Development Corporation Local Government Associations
Health Planning Commission
Energy Research and Development Authority Conference of Mayors
Department of Transportation Association of Towns
State University Construction Fund County Officers Association
State University of New York New York Planning Federation
Division of State Police
Department of Social Services Indian Nations
Department of Public Service St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Office of Business Permits Seneca Nation (Cattaraugus)
Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse
VII - 2
'►ther Governmental Private Sector (Con't)
.,oastal States Organization Republic Steel Corporation
Great Lakes Commission Maritime Association of the Port of
Mid-Atlantic Governors Conference New York
Mid-Atlantic Regional Fishery Eastman Kodak Co.
Management Council Long Island Association of Commerce
New England Governors Conference and Industry
Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition Empire State Marine Trades Association
New York Sea Grant long Island Marine Trades Association
International Agencies Other
Great Lakes Fishery Commission Canada
International Joint Commission rov nce of Ontario
Distribution for New York City Environment Canada
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
Board of Estimate
Community Boards
Borough Presidents
Citizens Advisory Committee
Interest Groups
Center for the Hudson River Valley
Environmental Planning Lobby
League of Women Voters
Charlotte Community Association
Save The River
American Planning Association
American Littoral Society
Izaak Walton League, N.Y. Division
Clearwater
Wave Hill Center for Environmental Studies
The Group for America's South Fork
Sierra Club, Atlantic Chapter
Center for Environmental Information
(Rochester)
Citizens Union
Coastal Coalition
Marine Environmental Council of Long Island
Private Sector
N.Y.S. Petroleum Council
New York Power Pool
Business Council of N.Y.S. , Inc.
New York Farm Bureau
N.Y.S.. Builders Association
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
VII - 3
PART VIII DOCUMENT PREPARERS
PART VIII
LIST OF DOCUMENT PREPARERS
Kathryn Cousins, North Atlantic Regional Manager,
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Degrees: B.A. - University of California at L.A. , 1966
Political Science
M.A. - George Washington University, 1974
Public Administration
Experience: 6 years, Office of Coastal Zone Management
9 years, other professional planning experience
at public planning agencies
Arthur E. Jeffers, North Atlantic Assistant Regional Manager,
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Degrees: B.S. - Michigan State University, 1978
Natural Resource Management
B.S. - Michigan State University, 1978
Secondary Education
Science and Environmental Studies
Experience: 3 years, Office of Coastal Zone Management
1 year, management analysis and
secondary education
John Milholland, General Counsel, Office of Coastal Zone Management
Degrees: B.A. - Williams College, 1963
L.L.B. - Columbia Law School, 1966
L.L.M. - University of Washington, 1974
Law and Marine Affairs
Experience: 4 years, attorney for the Office of
Coastal Zone Management
6 years, private practice
VIII - 1
son, program Manager, Coastal Management program,
Robert C. Un SyS Department of $tate
Of Massachusetts, landscape Degrees: B.S. - ArchitectUniversiture
years• Ma Department Of State, Coastal
Z3cperience: 6
Management Program
7 years, District Direicss, I�YSaDeputiaentte and al
planning 5ery
of State
12 years, other Professional planning experi-
ences, New York Stats and City o
Boston
F. Barton, Coastal Resources Specialist, RYS Department
William of State
Degrees: B.A. - Rutgers University, 1961, Economics
M.S. - Columbia University, 1965, City Planning
zience. 5 years, NNS Department of State, Coastal
Expo Management program
zo ect, local, regional and staencies
l� yeass, P j with public planning 9
plying
and private consulting firm
Coastal Resources Specialist, MMS Department of
David E. Buerie, state
- Clark University, 1965, Geography
Degrees: Ph.D.
Columbia Univorsity, 1959, Sconomic
M.S.
Geography
Management yngineering, Rensselaer
Bachelor of - Civil
Polytechnic Institute, 1955 (Minos
yngineering)
Department of hate, Coastal
Experienes: 6 years, �&g—nt program
zience in engineering,
10 years, professional expo with public
geography. and planning
Planning agencies, universities, and
as private Consultant
VIII - 2
A. Kevin Crawford, Senior Attorney, NYS Department of State
Degrees : B.S. - Union College, Schenectady, 1975,
Civil Engineering
J.D. - New England School of Law, Boston,
1978
Experience: 3 years, NYS Department of State, Division
of Legal Services
James A. Coon, Principal Attorney, NYS Department of State
Degrees : B.A. - Cornell University, 1965, Economics
LLB - Syracuse University College of Law,
1968
Experience: 12 years, New York State planning agencies
(Office of Planning Coordination,
Office of Planning Services, Depart-
ment of State) , extensive experience
in land use regulations
Diane Hamilton, Coastal Public Participation Specialist, NYS
Department of State
Degrees: B.L.A. - State University of New York, 1976,
Landscape Architecture
B.S. - State University of New York, 1975,
Environmental Science
B.A. - Boston University, 1968 , French
Experience: 3 years, NYS Department of State, Coastal
Management Program
2 years, Environmental Planning Lobby
VIII - 3
Alan C. Lillyquist, Coastal Resources Specialist, NYS Department
of State
Degrees: B.S. - University of Wisconsin, 1963,
American Institutions
M.U.P. - University of Illinois, 1970,
Urban Planning
Experience: 6h years, NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation and NYS Department of
State, Coastal Management Program
5h years, other professional planning experi-
ence with NYS office of Planning
Coordination and NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation
Neil MacCormick, Coastal Resources Specialist, NYS Department
of State
Degrees: B.A. - Cornell University, 1956
M.A. - University of Chicago, 1961
Experience: 6 years, NYS Department of State, Coastal
Management Program
13 years, international banking
David M. Markowitz, Senior Planner, NYS Department of State
Degrees: B.A. - State University of New York, Stonybrook,
1971, Political Science
M.U.P. - New York University, Graduate School
of Public Affairs, 1975, Urban Planning
Experience: 4 years, NYS
SDepartment of Stater Coastal
Manag
3 years, other professional planning experience
with public and private agencies
VIII - 4
Charles T. McCaffrey, Jr. , Coastal Resources Specialist, NYS
Department of State
Degrees: A.B. - St. John's Seminary, Boston, 1964 ,
Philosophy
M.U.P. - University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana,
1970, Urban Planning
Experience: 5 years, NYS Department of State, Coastal
Management Program
7 years, other professional planning experience
with New York State agencies
James W. Morton, Coastal Resources Specialist, NYS Department of
State
Degrees : B.A. - Hobart College, 1966, English
M.A. - State University of New York at Albany,
1967, English
M.S. - Cornell University, 1975, Fishery Biology
Experience: 5 years, NYS Department of State, Coastal
Management Program
George R. Stafford, Coastal Resources Specialist, NYS Department
of State
Degrees: B.S. - State University of New York at Syracuse,
1973, Environmental Studies
B.L.A. - State University of New York at Syracuse,
1974, Landscape Architecture
Experience: 6 years, NYS Department of State, Coastal
Management Program
2 years, other professional experience in pub-
lic and private sector - landscape
architectural design
VIII - 5
NYS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, EROSION CONTROL
REGULATIONS STAFF:
Terry Crannell, Associate Water Management Program Coordinator,
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Degrees: B.S. - State University College of New York
at Brockport, 1973, Biological Sciences
M.S. - Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1975,
Urban and Environmental Studies
Experience: 7 years, NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation
William W. Daley, Chief, Coastal Erosion Section, NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation
Degrees: B.S. - Pennsylvania State University, 1962,
Civil Engineering
M.S. - Stanford University, 1963, Water
Resources
Experience: 10 years, NYS Department of Environmental Con-
servation in Flood Plain Management,
Coastal Protection
NEk YORK CITY LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM STAFF:
Harold Goldman, Deputy Counsel, New York City Department of City
Planning
Degrees: J.D. - State University of New York at Buffalo,
School of Law, 1975
B.A. - State University of New York at Buffalo,
1972, Environmental Studies
Experience: 5 years, Alaska, New York, land use and environ-
mental law
VIII - 6
Holly Bruno Haff, Deputy
wuYcrk1City Department Directors -Environmental Division,
Degrees: B.S. - University of Oregon, 1970, Architecture
M.A. - University of Hawaii, 1979, Geography
Experience: 3 years, New York City, architecture
4 years, Hawaii and New York City, environmental
planning
Joseph W. Ketas, NeweYork,CityiDepartment ofy
ronmental aCitnPlanningDivision,
Degrees: Bach. Civil Eng. - University of Detroit,
Engineer
Assoc. Civil Eng. - University of Scranton,
Engineer
Experience: 9 years, New York City Department of City
Planning, Environmental Planning
Director, City Environmental Quality
Review Program
This document was prepared with the
clerical assistance of:
Diane Benjamin
Muriel Brady
Edna Cave
Nan Cherney
Kim Kohinke
Gene Labocetta
Karalee Nelson
Wendy York
VIII - 7
PART IX - RESPO�4SES TO COMENTS O
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PART IX
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
This part contains responses to all comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) received either in writing or at the federal public hearings
during the official review period (June 11 , 1982 through July 26, 1982). The
State and Federal responses to these comments have been coordinated between the
New York State Coastal Management Program and the Federal Office of Coastal Zone
Management.
No attempt has been made to distinguish between comments made on the DEIS and
those made on the Coastal Program, primarily because of the combined format of
the document and the interrelated nature of most comments received.
Some comments have resulted in specific changes to the text of the DEIS. Those
changes have been made to the appropriate pages of the DEIS. Likewise, the
revisions have been noted in response to the various comments and are reflected
in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Written comments were received from thirty government agencies and individuals.
In addition, seventeen individuals or agency representatives testified at three
public hearings on the DEIS.
This section is divided into three sections:
I. Responses to Federal Agency Comments on the DEIS
II. Responses to State and Local Written Comments on the DEIS
III. Responses to Testimony Received at Joint Federal and State Public
Hearings on the DEIS
Page references in all comments are to the DEIS. Page references in all the
responses are to the FEIS, unless otherwise noted.
Within the sections, individual commentators are indicated by capital letters.
An index of commentators is provided on the following page.
IX - 1 - 1
INDEX OF DEIS COMMENTATORS
SECTION I: Responses to Federal Agency Comments on the DEIS
A. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
B. U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers
C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
D. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
E. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
F. U.S. Department of Interior
G. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, State Relations Section U S. Coast Guard
H. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Economics,
I. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
SECTION II: Responses to State and Federal Written Comments on the DEIS
A. William C. Hennessy, Commissioner, N.Y.S. Department of Transportation
B. Mary P. Bass, N.Y.S. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
C. Anthony Tozzoli , Director, Port Department, The Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey
D. Robert D. Vessels, Director, Office of Environmental Planning, N.Y.S. De-
partment of Public Service
E. Louis M. Concra, Jr. , Director, Division of Regulatory Affairs, N.Y.S.
Department of Environmental Conservation
F. Joseph P. Fraioli , Village Manager, Mamaroneck
G. Edith A. Mesick, Planning Director, Columbia County Planning Department
H. Frances F. Dunwell , Scenic Hudson, Inc.
I. Samuel H. Sage, Executive Director, Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter
J. Sarah L. Johnston, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
K. Bryan Luftglass, Sierra Club, Westchester-Putnam Group
L. William E. Miller, United Mobile Sportsfishermen, Inc.
M. Bernard J. Blum, Friends of Rockaway, Inc.
N. Frank R. Seddio, District Manager, Community Board No. 18, Brooklyn, New York
0. Nancy Nagel Kelly, Planner, Group for the South Fork, Inc.
P. Howard Golden, President of the Borough of Brooklyn, New York
Q. Hilda Regier, Rose Mary Lynch, Community Board No. 4, New York, New York
R. John W. Meunzeinger, Westchester County Department of Planning
S. Thomas La Manna, Community Board No. 1 . 9 Staten Island, New York
T. Daniel J. Palm, Executive Director, St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
U. Bonnie June Mellon
IX - 1 - 2
SECTION III: Responses to Testimony Received at Joint Federal and State
Public Hearings on DEIS
*A. Charlene Caile, representing County Executive Edward J. Rutkowski , Erie
County
*B. David Stebbins, Division of Planning, Buffalo
*C. Frances F. Dunwell , New York Coastal Coalition
D. Bernard Melewski, N.Y.S. Environmental Planning Lobby
E. Frances Hodson, Long Beach
*F. Aurora Gareiss, Udalls Cove Preservation Committee, Citizens Advisory
Committee, Governing Board on Water Resources
*G. Mark Wainstock, Neighborhood Organizations and Citizens Outraged Against
Lignite (NO COAL)
*H. Sister Frances Gerard Kress, CSJ, Environmental Protection Committee of
Community Board No. 1 , Brooklyn, and Greenport Civic Council
*I. Virginia M. Dent, N.Y.S. Northeastern Queens Nature and Historical Preserve
Commission
J. Bea Green, New York, New York
*K. Sarah Chasis, Natural Resources Defense Council
*L. Joseph Landau, representing Howard Golden, Brooklyn Borough President
*M. Marilyn Vogel , N.Y.C. Advisory Committee on Water Resources
*N. Thornton Willett, Kane Street Block Association
0. Agnes Hentschel , Woodside, New York
P. Robert Alpern, N.Y.C. Citizens Advisory Committee on Water Resources
*Q. Maurice Hinchey, Member of New York State Assembly, Chairman of Assembly
Environmental Conservation Committee
* Written comments received
IX - 1 - 3
SECTION 1
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS ON DEIS
A. De artment of Agriculture
Peter Myers
Soil Conservation Service
1. COMMENT: We are pleased to note the attention given to the protection of
agriculture. Your policy is consistent with USDA land use policy and
with the Farmland Protection Policy Act, PL 97-98. USDA will provide all
possible assistance in administering the NY CZMP.
RESPONSE: Thank you.
2. COMMENT: On page 248 change "one or more parts" to "two or more parts".
RESPONSE: See correction.
3. 248 the
other thanfarmdwellingsh.c would be strengthened by
lading
-"residential
The guidelines have been revised to include the above.
B. Department of Defense
Colonel o ert K. lurner
MT! Corps of Engineers
1. C_: On page 75, under "Coastal Issues", the statement that ". . .ade-
quate economic and environmental information exists to demonstrate the un-
justifiability of any season extension. .." is not supported by the facts.
The statement is apparently the opinion of some of the State of New York
officials. A complete discussion of the winter navigation/season extension
proposals, including the findings and recommendations of the Corps of En-
gineers, should be presented.
RESPONSE: The State has changed its wording to indicate there is inadequate
n ormation at this time to demonstrate the justification of any season
extension. No projects are specifically prohibited in this coastal program,
all proposals will be evaluated for heCorps the
policies. The
State will consider information by t imakingtheirdecisions,
2. COMMENT: On page 131 , Policy 3.A.2 implies that development of the major
ports will be limited to improving "established" alignments and existing"
channels. There may be a need in the future to establish new alignments and
new channels to improve the major ports. This future need should be
recognized, and the document revised accordingly.
RESPONSE: See revision.
IX - 1 - 4
3. COMMENT: On page 149, Policy 7 provides that the New York State Fish and
i ife Habitat Rating Guide dated January 1981 will be the standard for
determining habitat significance. a) The procedures for identifying sig-
nificant habitats should be clearly defined. The proposed designation of
significant habitats should be coordinated by the State with the Federal
public agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the St.
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and others. b) Key information
from the 1981 habitat rating guide should be included in the Coastal
Management Program to enable Federal agencies to review the impact of
the application of the rating guide on their own activities. Pertinent
information that should be included in the program document should focus
on how procedures were established for rating, how significance is deter-
mined for each of the five parameters used, a definition of "significance",
and those Federal and public agencies with which the rating system report
was coordinated before finalizing.
RESPONSE: Additional information more clearly defining the procedures used for
enti ging significant fish and wild life habitats has been added to Explanation
of Policy V. See revisions.
'ane process of applying the rating system and formally designating significant
habitats will occur during the first year of program implementation. Prior to
formal designation, maps, a copy of the habitat rating form and narratives, if
any, will be provided to Federal and State agencies and the public for review
and comment.
4. COMMENT: On pages 337 and 338, the paragraph on Consistency Procedures for
ed�er fly Conducted or Supported Activities should be revised to consider
the requirement "If a Federal agency determines that a Federally conducted
or supported activity does not directly affect the State coastal area, and
thus a consistency determination is not needed, the agency should notify the
Department of State at least 90 days before final approval of the activity,
setting forth the reasons for its negative determinations" is a duplication
and should be deleted. As provided elsewhere in the paragraph, for
activities listed in Table 2, the Federal agencies will make a consistency
determination and report findings through existing mechanisms, such as OMB
Circular A-95 and NEPA documents. If it is determined that the activity
does ;not directly affect the State's coastal area, it will be supported in
these documents. Also, subparagraph 2 on page 337 provides that activities
not listed in Table 2 will be monitored through the A-95 review process
and other relevant processes by the State, and that the Department of State
will notify the Federal agencies if a consistency determination and review
is needed.
RESPONSE: Agreed. The paragraph is deleted.
Ix - 1 - 5
5. C"ENT: The following provision should be added at the end of the next to
ast subparagraph on page 338 : "The Federal agency may presume State agency
agreement if the State agency fails to provide a response within 45 days
from receipt of the Federal agency notification."
RESPONSE: Agreed. See revision.
6. COMMENT: On Page 347, it is incorrect to list the Corps of Engineers
programs in Part III of Table 2 under the "Federal Assistance" program;
the Corps is not a granting agency. The Corps programs are appropriately
listed in Part I of Table 2 as "Direct Federal Activities and Development
Projects".
RESPONSE: See revision.
IX - 1 - 6
C. Environmental Protection Agency
Anne Norton Miller
Region II, New York, New York
1. COMMENT: It is important that the State Environmental Quality Review
ct ('9EQRA) process be amended prior to issuing the final CMP EIS to
ensure that local and private actions are consistent with the New York
State Department of State (NYSDOS) coastal policies through the SEQRA
process.
RESPONSE: Proposed amendments to the SEQRA regulations were contained
Tn p�dix A of the DEIS. These amendments, as well as proposed DOS
regulations to implement the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act (WRCRA) must be adopted prior to Federal approval of the
NYCMP. A statement to this effect was included on page 54 of
the DEIS and is in the FEIS. page II-4-12.
2. COMMENT: . . .we recommend that a mechanism be established (a) to resolve
possible conflicts between agencies, (b) to ensure compliance with the
intent of CMP, (c) to coordinate existing programs and (d) to advocate
specific desired activities.
RESPONSE: Section 919.1 of the WRCRA requires actions directly under-
ta— e�thin the coastal area by State agencies to be consistent with
the coastal policies. The NYCMP will rely on third party enforcement
of Section 919.1 of the WRCRA. A third party may seek judicial review
of a State agency's determination of consistency pursuant to Article 78
of the NY Civil Practice Law. This technique meets the requirement
established by 15 CFR Section 923.43 which states, in part, "It will be
sufficient if any of the following can act to ensure compliance: The
State agency designated pursuant to subsection 306(c)(5) of the Act,
the State's Attorney General , another State agency, a local government
or a citizen."
Section 913.4 of the WRCRA provides the Secretary of the NYSDOS the
authority "To review, evaluate and issue recommendations and opinions
concerning programs and actions of State agencies which may have the
potential to effect the policies and purposes of this article, including
but not limited to, programs within the jurisdiction of the Departments
of State, Agriculture and Markets, Environmental Conservation, Public
Service, Commerce and Transportation, the Offices of Energy and Parks
and Recreation and the Office of General Services." The Secretary shall
exercise this authority to coordinate State agency programs with an
affect on the coastal area.
In addition to the implementation of voluntary LWRPs, the NYSDOS and
other State agencies will advocate a number of activities central to
the NYCMP. The Secretary of the NYSDOS is also instructed, under the
WRCRA, to encourage public and private institutions to preserve, protect,
enhance, develop and use coastal resources in a manner consistent with
the purposes and policies of the WRCRA.
IX - 1 - 7
3. COMMENT: . . .we suggest that local government be encouraged and given
ncent ve to develop local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances in
accordance with the CMP coastal policies.
RESPONSE: The WRCRA provides the authority and incentive for municipal-
t es to prepare programs for their coastal areas. By participating,
local governments will be eligible to receive financial and technical
assistance for the preparation and implementation of their waterfront
revitalization programs. In addition, a major incentive of an approved
LWRP is the requirement that State and Federal actions must be conducted
consistent with the specific policies of the LWRP. Proposed local water-
front revitalization programs must be found consistent with the coastal
policies prior to State approval (see Section 601 .3(2) of the proposed
DOS regulations). Comprehensive planning and zoning ordinances are two
means for implementation of a local program.
The WR & CRA and DOS regulations (Part 601) and DOS guidelines for
local waterfront revitalization programs require that these programs
must be comprehensive, that is (1 ) they must include the entire coastal
area of the locality, (2) they must be consistent with and further all
applicable coastal policies (28 of the 44 policies are referenced in
Part 601 of DOS regulations and 16 are found in other State laws to
which localities must adhere or which do not relate to local government
activity), and (3) the locality must have adequate legal authority, in-
cluding appropriate land use controls, to implement the program. The
guidelines for local waterfront revitalization programs (Appendix B)
contain the most complete description of what a LWRP must be.
With regard to coordination of activities in areas where some communi-
ties have local programs and others do not, and the voluntary nature of
such programs, the NYS CMP is a State program with adequate authority
to implement all policies. Where a community wishes to participate by
adopting and further detailing State policies, it is encouraged to do
so. Where a community does not participate, all State coastal policies
apply. Where a Federal action subject to consistency occurs in an area
covered by both a participating and non-participating community, the
more detailed policies of the participating community apply if that
community's LWRP has been added to the NYS CMP either through routine
program implementation or a program amendment. Local governments may
participate in the program only if they prepare a comprehensive program,
they can receive project funding assistance only for priority projects
specifically identified in an approved LWRP. This is described in the
WR & CRA, DOS regulations, and DOS guidelines.
4. COMMENT: This concept should be carried through and mentioned in the
Content of Local Program" as well (page 655).
RESPONSE: See additional discussion included (Step 5(b)) on DOS tech-
n ca assistance which will be available to the localities.
IX - 1 - 8
5. COMMENT: The Local Program should stress in sections (2) and (4) the
mmportance of protecting environmentally sensitive areas and natural
resources in developing a local strategy in accordance with the 44
coastal policies.
RESPONSE: The importance and requirement for protecting environmentally
sensitive areas and natural resources is described in Part 2, Specific
Guidelines, pages B-39 to 73 of the FEIS; in particular, Significant Fish
and Wildlife Habitat - page B-39; Flooding and Erosion - page B-47; His-
toric Resources - page B-63; Visual Quality - page B-66; and Agriculture
- page B-71 . Part I , Section 2 references the specific guidelines of
Part II.
6. COMMENT: We recommend that the draft EIS include (a) a time frame or
note cation of the NYSDOS by the involved State agencies and other par-
ties when coastal issues are involved and (b) what type of legal or other
action NYSDOS could take if it found a project inconsistent with the
coastal policies.
RESPONSE: (a) The Coastal Assessment Form, page A-4 of the FEIS, and
5—e -SUFRA, page A-3 will assure NYSDOS is adequately informed, (b) See
response to comments 2a and 2b above.
7. COMMENT: We recommend that (a) regional concerns be described, (b) GAPCs
e esignated, and (c) procedures for GAPCs be identified for inclusion in
the final EIS. _
RESPONSE: (a) Pages II-2-1 through II-2-13 of the FEIS describe the
most significant regional concerns of the three major regions of the New
York coastline, (b) three Cate ories of GAPC's (which the NYCMP refers
to as Special Management Areas were identified in the DEIS: State parks,
Estuarine Sanctuaries and LWRPs. This fulfills the requirements of
15 CFR 923.21 , (c) a reference to the criteria and procedures for desig-
nation of areas for preservation (APRs) has been included in the intro-
duction to Part II, Section 8, of the FEIS.
8. COMMENT: The draft EIS for the subject program should identify the rela-
t—o hip and procedures for coordination between the CMP and applicable
State and local agency air quality plans pursuant to 15 CFR Section 923.56.
Procedures for coordination should be more specific, clarifying the state-
ment in the draft EIS that "mutual program review will concentrate on
identification of the effect of each program upon the other." By explicity
stating procedures of coordination (e.g. for air quality management), the
effectiveness of the voluntary participation in the CMP by local agencies
will be increased.
RESPONSE: As to coordination with applicable State and local air quality
plans, the NYSCMP at several stages was thoroughly reviewed by NYS DEC,
Division of Air Resources. All comments suggested, additions and deletions
were fully incorporated in FEIS. Any future revisions or changes to appli-
cable State air quality plans will be subject to review procedures to
ensure consistency with coastal policies, including the policy requiring
adherence to the Clean Air Act as a minimum. Furthermore, the preparation
of local waterfront revitalization programs will undergo review by applic-
able State and local agencies to ensure that the program is not contrary
to existing air quality plans.
IX - 1 - 9
9. COMMENT: It is recommended that the plan provide a clear statement that
We requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are the minimum air pollu-
tion control requirements applicable within the coastal zone. Also, the
CMP should incorporate the air pollution control requirements pursuant
to Section 307(f) of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The CMP should
provide explicit, legally binding procedures for ensuring that the
requirements of the CAA are not impaired.
RESPONSE: The explanation of Policy 41 is amended to state clearly the
requirements of the Clean Air Act are the minimum air pollution control
requirements applicable within the coastal area, and that all require-
ments of the State pursuant to the Clean Air Act are incorporated (by
reference) in the CM program.
As to ensuring that CMP will not impair the requirements of CAA, the
WRCRA provides that "nothing in this Article shall be construed to
authorize or require the issuance of any permit, license, certification
or other approval . . .which is denied by the State agency having jurisdic-
tion pursuant to other provisions of law or which is conditioned by such
agency pursuant to other provisions of law until such conditions are met."
10. COMMENT: CMP should discuss the relationship between its growth policies
and those being implemented pursuant to the air quality plans, where
applicable.
RESPONSE: The above provisions of Article 42 also govern the relation-
sh p o _CMP development policies with air quality plans, that is, the
development policies are limited by all other coastal policies including
provisions of law relating to air quality.
11 . COMMENT: The program should expand the identification of whether the
r quality control region (AQCR) within the coastal zone is meetin
primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSI
by referencing the Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR Part 52
Section 5291682 and by discussing how, in general, air quality consid-
erations will be factored into the coastal decision-making process.
The CMP should encourage reliance on new source reviews of major emis-
sion sources as one of the initial, major determinants of the
permissability of certain uses. The CMP should recognize the potential
adverse air quality impacts (primary and secondary) of smaller scale
commercial and residential development which are not subject to new
source review.
es
RESPONSE: With regard to Pofntheraised,
CAA as the minimum pollutiontrequirements
re erence the requirements
and all requirements of the State pursuant to the
CAA. Further elabora-
tion is not required for approval under
IX - 1 - 10
12. COMMENT: Identification should be provided on how the CMP would provide
or coordination with the Federal permitting processes in areas of the
coastal zone where one or more local agencies are not participating
while other local agencies are participating.
RESPONSE: The NYSDOS, as the single State agency identified pursuant
to 15 CFR 923.53 responsible for consistency review of proposed Federal
actions, is responsible for securing necessary review and comment from
other State, regional, or local government agencies. It is the only
State agency authorized to comment officially on a Federal consistency
determination, concur with or object to a consistency certification, or
determine the consistency of a proposed Federal assistance activity,
regardless of whether local governments participate in the NYCMP (See
15 CFR 930). Where local governments have approved LWRPs, these plans
will provide more specific policies in addition to the Statewide poli-
cies for the NYSDOS to consider in making its Federal consistency
comment review. See also response to comment 3, above.
13. COMMENT: The CMP should indicate if it is possible for a local agency
to participate only in particular projects of its choosing (with full
or limited funding).
RESPONSE: See response to comment 3 above.
14. COMMENT: In general, it is felt that voluntary participation in the
subject program by local agencies will reduce the effectiveness of the
overall CMP. It appears that local non-participation may be offset to
some extent by State authority in the areas of erosion hazards and water
dependent uses, due to recent State legislation. However, the air qual-
ity management program will still be largely dependent upon the NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation. This may become the case in
both participating and non-participating local areas unless the CMP
identifies and implements procedures for coordination in these areas.
RESPONSE: The NYCMP is sufficiently comprehensive and specific at the
State level, and therefore needs to be strenthened and/or made more
specific and predictable only where a locali%y feels it necessary to
ensure that its priorities are met. The approval of a LWRP does not
substitute for or replace the authorities or controls of the State over
coastal resources. Instead, LWRPs will provide additional specificity
in policies and priorities for the relevant coastal area.
You are correct that the program does not alter the air quality program,
but incorporates it as mandated by 307(j) of the CZMA.
IX - 1 - 11
15. COMMENT: The description entitled "Implementation" under Policy 39 needs
to be —UP dated to reflect that assistance to states for state solid waste
plan development and for resource recovery feasibility under Section 4008
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ceased effective October 11
1981.
RESPONSE: Neither NYC nor NYS policy 39 refers to this program.
16. COMMENT: In addition, New York State has not submitted a final statewide
solid—waste plan to EPA for approval , and indications are that no plan
will be submitted prior to January, 1983.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
17. COMMENT: Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11999
protection of wetlands) provide for protection of floodplain and wet-
land areas: (a) With regard to Policy 44, we believe it is important to
provide additional consideration to protect freshwater and tidal wetlands
less than 12.4 acres in sites that are unique or of local significance to
be consistent with these executive orders, (b) in the description of
Content of Local Program," freshwater and tidal wetlands should be in-
cluded in the list of environmentally sensitive areas to be inventoried
and afforded protection.
RESPONSE: (a) The 12.4 acre threshold only applies to freshwater wetlands;
not t dal wetland areas. The majority of freshwater wetlands which are
less than 12.4 acres in size and that are unique or of local significance
are afforded protection by this law or under the Protection of Water laws
Act. See discussion of this implementing authority on pages II-6-188.
All freshwater and tidal wetlands that are unique or are of local signif-
icance and that meet the criteria described under Policy 7 for designation
as a map, (b)aWttlandtprotectiones iis6-35 to 41 fully coveredlbyethepwetlandsed on hlawsastal
Area map, (b) e p
and the Stream Protection Act.
IX - 1 - 12
D. Federal Energy Regulator Commission
NaTTV. Shuster, Jr. ,
Coordinator, Coastal Affairs
1. COMMENT: In general , the proposed procedures and policies raised no serious
proTems directly related to energy facility development.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
2. COPOrIENT: In the New York City program we are particularly concerned about
proVETtion of facilities associated with liquified natural gas (LNG) tankers.
The prohibition is not based on defensible standards and does,not provide
sufficient justification. Furthermore, we believe such an outright pro-
hibition conflicts with sections 306(b)(8) and 306(c)(8) of the CZMA.
RESPONSE: This policy has been revised. It does not prohibit LNG facilities,
but requires consideration of State and national energy needs public safety
concerns and the necessity for a shorefront location. As is noted in Appendix
6 on page 50, Vew York City has two functioning LING plants.
3. COMP•1ENT: Revisions to list of Federal Licenses and Permits are submitted.
RESPONSE: These revisions are incorporated.
4. COMMENT: There is no statement in the energy facility siting process indi-
cating that Federal review and approval is necessary for hydroelectric gen-
eration facilities.
RESPONSE: In this section there is no mention of the variety of Federal reviews
t a�are needed for most of the facilities described. To repeat all the
Federal reviews would add unnecessary length to the document.
5. COWENT: The 1 : 48,000 scale maps were not distributed with the DEIS and
Mu tie requirements of 923.31 (a)(8) are not met.
RESPONSE: 923.3. (a)(i) requires that the State must be able to advise
nterested parties whether they are within the boundary within 30 days. The
text of the Boundary Section gives the reader an understanding of whether
they are within the coastal zone. During the first year of program imple-
mention the State will submit the detailed boundaries to Federal agencies.
IX - 1 - 13
E. Housing and Urban Development
Stephen J. Bothinger
1. COMMENT: Our staff consulted with the State staff responsible for
eve opment and preparation of the CZMP at frequent intervals over
the past several years. We have had opportuntyto review
eenand com-
ment on applicable chapters. All HUD suggestions
incorporated.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
2. COMMS endorse cneodnr . et
lan
to begTnimmediatesteps to ontinueourcoinatiowiththeSate
after approval of the program.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
IX 14
F. Department of Interior
J. Robinson West
Office of the Secretary
1. COMMENT: Notwithstanding the significant achievement represented by
this program, the Department has several major concerns.
RESPONSE: See responses below.
2. COMMENT: The State's policy 29 to "encourage the development of energy
resources on the OCS" appears to be inadequate to meet the CZMA because
It lacks an implementing mechanism at either the State, regional or local
level . We believe the State could resolve our concern by including an
OCS oil and gas-specific discussion in the section of the Energy Facility
Planning Process which covers assessment of energy site suitability.
RESPONSE: See revised section on Energy Facility Siting Process.
3. COWENT: If the State allows local or regional coastal plans to include
sfte suitability assessment procedures, these plans should be considered
amendments to the State plan.
RESPONSE: All local programs must be consistent with the 44 State poli-
cies,
oli-
s ems, Tincluding Policy 29. In the event a local program would propose a
site suitability assessment procedure for OCS facilities that would
significantly differ from guidelines contained in Appendix B, such local
program would be considered an amendment.
4. COMMENT: The question of what, if any, OCS leasing activities "directly
aff_ectr the coastal zone is in litigation. The FEIS should indicate the
State reserves the right to request consistency determinations pending
outcome of the legislation.
RESPONSE: While the appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court
pp7eeaMs on the question of which OCS activities directly affect the
coastal zone, the State intends to review leasing activities as stated
in the DEIS.
5. COMMENT: It must be made clear to the State that Section 307(c)(1) of
the CZMA regulations requires the head of the responsible Federal agency
to determine whether an agency program activity outside the coastal zone
directly affects the coastal zone.
RESPONSE: See revised section which clarifies this point.
6. COMMENT: We do not believe it is appropriate to list "operating orders"
as a Federal activity that is subject to consistency review.
RESPONSE: Operating Orders have been deleted.
IX - 1 - 15
7. COMMENT: Policies 11 through 17, which deal with barrier island struc-
tures, while recognizing their protective value against flooding and
erosion, do not consider that these features are actually shifting
position.
RESPONSE: The shifting position of the beaches is more fully described
n�e�on 5, Coastal Issues. It would be redundant to repeat the de-
scription again.
8. COMMENT: The NYCZMP should be expanded to include provisions supporting
sand and gravel mining.
RESPONSE: See Policy 15 and additional information added in Section 5.
9. COMMENT: There has been inadequate Federal-State coordination in pre-
paration of the program.
RESPONSE: Appendix C adequately documents Federal-State consultation.
n ad ition to statewide public hearings, copies of various drafts have
been sent to Federal agencies with requests for comments. Ongoing con-
sultation will continue during program implementation.
10. COMMENT: The environmental analyses of the NYCZMP is more of an explana-
t on and rationalization of the proposed program than it is an analysis.
It says future impacts will be recognized by the EIS but does not document
them.
RESPONSE: The document adequately describes and analyses the impacts of
the proposed program. In any situation when discussing likely future im-
pacts, the impacts cannot be documented.
11. COMMENT: Page 20 - Paragraph 3 - DOI suggested updated statistics.
RESPONSE: See revisions, suggestion incorporated.
12. COMMENT: Page -24 - The Hudson River is used as a drinking water
source by Poughkeepsie.
RESPONSE: See revisions, suggestion incorporated.
13. COMMENT: Page 25 - Paragraph 3 - suggests addition of two fish.
RESPONSE: See revisions, suggestion incorporated.
IX - 1 - 16
14. COMMENT: Page 27 Paragraph 3 - identify lake sturgeon and add information on
stoccfing program and hatchery.
RESPONSE: See revisions, suggestion incorporated.
15. COMMENT: Page 46 - All potential and existing pollutant sources
Wo—Mr-be determined and recorded to the extent possible.
RESPONSE: To do so would add unnecessarily to the length of the document
and not a requirement for approval under the CZMA.
16. COMMENT: Page 49 - Continued interagency involvement is essential .
T eh RFSS can better inform its visitors of such issues with better inter-
agency coordination.
RESPONSE: See revision, suggestion incorporated.
17. COMMENT: Page 63 - A discussion of mineral resources should be in-
c—Tu e—Fin Section 5 - Coastal Issues. The NYCZMP should indicate basic
mineral information and describe how the program supports necessary mining
activities.
RESPONSE: See expanded discussion of sand and gravel extraction in Section
PES
18. COMMENT: Page 70 - This section should address the impact of pol-
ut1 ants upon the developing salmonid fishery of Lake Ontario.
RESPONSE: These impacts are addressed in paragraphs 1 , 2, & 3 of page 11-5-7-
19. COMMENT: Page 74 First Paragraph - Text should_ be changed to reflect difference
in unes on Long Island and Lake Ontario.
RESPONSE: See revision, suggestion incorporated.
20. COMMENT: Page 77 Fourth Paragraph. Indicate that Lake Ontario_ Shoreline Pro-
tection
ro-
tecon Study is looking into means of providing cost-sharing for.shoreline
protection.
RESPONSE: See revision, suggestion incorporated.
21 . COMMENT: Pages 131-133 - In view of the Fish and Wildlife
erre c, landfill projects in the near-shore areas of a major port may not
always be acceptable even if the adverse impacts are minimized.
IX - 1 - 17
RESPONSE: The CZMA does not affect the Services' responsibilities to
deny permits where it determines them inappropriate. We are anticipat-
ing that the NYCZMP will serve to help coordinate various Federal and
State agencies with overlapping responsibilities and that all efforts
to resolve such differences will be attempted.
22. COMMENT: Page 141 - This page should either be deleted or more
cc elar y define why certain types of development are exempted and what
constraints still do apply.
RESPONSE: The reasons why these are exempted are clearly stated in the
text. A11 the other coastal policies except Policy 5 still apply to
these eight exempted uses.
23. COMMENT: Page 155 - Non-point source pollution should be recog-
ntz TTn the impact analysis of this policy.
RESPONSE: See additions made.
24. COMMENT: Page 167 - We support Policy 11 , but caution that long
range trends of erosion and accretion may be erratic.
RESPONSE: Agreed. This difficulty is recognized in the "Shoreowners
rotection Act" by the required review of recession rates every ten
years or less if warranted.
25. COMMENT: Page 175 - We do not believe the State or this CZMP can
estaVTsh a scientifically Justified success probability to determine what
is a reasonable probability "of erosion control success". Natural sedi-
ment re-establishment should be considered.
RESPONSE: While it may be difficult to define absolutely "reasonable
probab"iTity" the intent of the policy and of "the Shoreowners Protection
Act" is clearly to impose performance standards on tie use of erosion con-
trol structures. Natural sediment budget re-establishment has been
considered and is encouraged in Policy 12.
26. COMMENT: Page 185 - Protecting existing man-made structures are
generally costly, ineffective and counterproductive on natural barrier
islands. Numerous existing private structures on Fire Island could present
long-term problems.
RESPONSE: The limiting nature of the policy fully accounts for the
problems mentioned.
IX - 1 - 18
27. MENT: Page 187 - Reshaping natural dunes conflicts with NPS
management policy at Fire Island National Seashore.
RESPONSE: The reshaping of dunes is not included in Policy 17 as a non-
structural measure. In any event, the Fire Island National Seashore is
classified as excluded Federal lands.
28. COMMENT: Page 245 - Policy 26 is generally acceptable provided
ag�MuTtural activities do not adversely impact aquatic and ground water
systems.
RESPONSE: Agreed.
29. COMMENT: Page 265 - Energy resource recovery on the OCS could
sign-ificantly impact the ocean and inner bay of Fire Island National
Seashore. The impact analysis of this project should recognize such potential.
RESPONSE: See revision, suggestion incorporated.
30. COMMENT: Page 269 - The periodic adverse effects of offshore
sewage sludge disposal at FIIS-NS gives us serious reservations about such
offshore disposal and lead to support of Corps of Engineers' Interagency
Steering Committee.
RESPONSE: Your concerns were adequately reflected in the policy in the
EE I�—
31. COMMENT: Page 279 - The guidelines established in the policy are
praalseworthy but difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. We recommend
local site specific dredge spoil plans and that NPS be involved where
relevant.
RESPONSE: Agreed. Local site specific dredge spoil plans could be
conducted with coastal management funds. A dredging plan for Long
Island has been prepared by the LIRPB and ten-year plan for the Hudson
River has been prepared by the Corps of Engineers.
32 COMMENT: Page 283 - This is an excellent policy to minimize
non-p t source discharges and could be refined by local management plans.
RESPONSE: Agreed.
33. COMMENT: Page 285 - Despite these rules and regulations, ground
water contamination on Long Island is increasing. This presents a threat
to Fire Island National Seashore water resources.
RESPONSE: See clarifications.
IX - 1 - 19
34. COMMENT: Page 297 - We concur fully with this policy. However,
We impacts on mosquito control programs should be considered in greater
detail.
RESPONSE: Mosquito Control activities are addressed in both the Fresh
ater Wetlands Act (Section 24-0701.6) and Tidal Wetlands (Section 25-
0401.5) See pages 58 and 50 respectively in Volume 2 of this document
for these discussions.
35. COMMENT: A list of changes to DOI agency names are submitted.
RESPONSE: Changes incorporated.
36. COMMENT: Page 336 - Federal licenses or permits are not in them-
selves subject to consistency, nor are OCS plans; it is the activities re-
quiring a Federal license or permit which are subject to consistenc-
review.
RESPONSE: See change in title and text on page II-9-14 on licenses
ani permits and OCS plans to reflect it in the activities.
37. COMMENT: Page 345 - "Department of Interior, Mineral 'sic Manage-
ment Sri_rvices": Permits to drill are exempt from CZM review by15 UK 930.80,
ff the act vity to be permitted is already subject to review in the Plan of
Exploration or Plan of Development (POD) review process. OCS pipelines,
gathering and flow lines described in detail in approved POD's would like-
wise be exempt from further CZM review.
RESPONSE: Agreed, if it is an activity described in detail in the POD.
38. COMMENT: Page 370 (Figure 6) - It is imperative that any develop-
me— nta Factivities be closely coordinated with Gateway National Recreation
Area (GATE-NRA), as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
RESPONSE: Agreed.
39. COMMENT: Page 348 5th Paragranh The text should indicate th t - .t rII con,-
' or i�c+se
mer—T57 fishing in the Hudson River has been banned, but only
species which continued testing show to contain unsafe levels of ta::ic
materials.
RESPONSE: See revisions.
40. COMMENT: Pages 422-423 - In coordination with the Cor of
rs positive steps should be taken to assure that "clean
manner (beach nedge
dredge sands are not dumped at sea but used in a more use
nourishment, etc.)
IX - 1 - 20
RESPONSE: See revisions.
41. COMMENT: Page 471 - Exxon spudded its first well in the
BTti'more Canyon in 1978, not 1976.
RESPONSE: Change incorporated.
42. COMMENT: Page 482 - Policy 39, New York City Policy J).
T�ommendation for re-negotiation with extension of the major landfill
activity in GATE-NRA is not consistent with written agreements and docu-
mented understanding by NPS that such activity will not continue beyond
December 31 , 1985.
RESPONSE: Discussion of re-negotiation has been deleted. Current agree-
ments call for the closure of Fountain and Pennsylvania Avenue landfills
by 12/31/85. New York City is aware of FPA, USFWS, and NPA concerns and
will continue to cooperate with all Federal , State and local agencies
with regard to end-use plans and future closures.
43. COMMENT: Page 632 (Item 4) - While true as far as it goes,
t iii s section deals with only the response during a given storm; a greater
time frame is necessary to include the effects of stabilization of the
barrier. In the next year, more will be known about how important the
inlet, overwash, and wind transport processes are on Long Island based
on the expected results of the Federal interagency study of beach erosion
control and hurricane protection on southern Long Island.
RESPONSE: As new management techniques appear scientifically valid, they
can be incorporated into the program: we look forward to the results of
this study.
44. COMMENT: Page 636 (Item aa. ). There are no criteria for es-
tabTis-Fiing how the "recession rate" is to be consistently measured. What
is the "long term" time duration base, does it include major storms, and
which line of retreat is measured "receding edge" or MLW (mean low water)?
RESPONSE: For clarification, see Section 505.3(j); which defines
structural hazard area". The basis for the calculation of long-term
recession rates includes historical aerial photography as well as current
photography flown especially for this purpose, maps and field surveys.
The time base for recession rate calculations is 30 years but the data
will be scrutinized to ensure that major storms do not distort the record.
IX - 1 - 21
45. COMMENT:
g8hel " should be
lowest point
the intervening
sToof the duneeitrwhereio�oinsthe beach or in
swa�
between the primary and secondary dunes.
RESPONSE: See revision.
46. COMMENT: Page 641 (Item b). It is very difficult to establish or docu-
ment in advance that a proposed structure will (or will not) cause a
measurable increase in erosion rates nearby.
RES- Given e Theer two burdencofteria proofthat is onust thebe met9 applicantitostandard
showno
appears reasonable.
measurable increase.
47. COMMENT: see 645 (Iterovisions to� limittis use ofemot rizedenaltand means r
vehicles on beaches?
enforce-
ment theep
RESPONSE: The "Shoreowner's Protection Act" contains no provisions for
penalties. However, the municipal , county or State agency administering
local erosion programs has available various legal sanctions to impose
on violators of any of the sections of the Act.
f any erosion
48. COMMENT: Page 6whichItem
have)demonstratedaware
successfew
inicont controlling long-term
rotec-
t on structu eS
beach erosion.
RESPONSE: Section 505.9(6) must be considered in conjunction with sub-
sectio(c) which requires a long-term maintenance program for their
replacement as linedenvirounments, the some ofawhichcaretal morerea has a responsivei
de
range of shoreline
structural solutions.
49. COMMENT: Page 650 (Item b). It should be noted that the control of
oca uff relief alone is not necessarily well correlated with the
recession rate, and hence the setback requirements are rather arbitrary.
RESPONSE: These requirements are for moveable structures within the
azar area. etoluff avoidenewacks are developmentronated with the portioncofs
ion rates
but are designedthe bluff
prone to sudden failure along slip planes.
50. COMMENT: Page 652 (Item 3). Because of the deficiencies regarding the
arc k of an established methodology for determination of recession rates
(as noted above on page 6desinnationswith
nnd tieupthealbeit
appealsrprocesses.
data
set could challenge hazard9
What is the long term? Whatis
theacceptability of data resources such
as field surveys, maps or aerialphotos?
Iv - 1 - 22
RESPONSE: The 30 year setback is established in "The Shoreowner's
Protection Act." The hazard designations are based on field surveys,
maps and current and historical aerial photos. The sole acceptable
basis for appeal of a recession rate is to show that it has been in-
correctly calculated (Section 505.11). See also response No. 44.
IX - 1 - 23
G. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
rank W. Young
State Relations Section
MENT: We find that the program, as far as the siting of energy
ac sties is concerned, has been structured on existing regulations
and policy. We are familiar with these and have cooperated with New
York on the review of proposed facilities. We, therefore, have no
comment.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
IX - 1 - 24
H. Department of Transportation
Richard . Walsh, hector
Office of Economics
1. COM9MENT: Many of the policies, particularly #1 , 7, 20 and 26 are scund
anaweTl developed.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
2. COMMENT: Policy 14 (erosion protection structures) - By prohibiting the
construction and reconstruction of these structures where there would ibe
a measurable increase in erosion or flooding at or near the site, no
recognition is given to the protection of existing investments in the area.
RESPONSE: Normal maintenance and repair of existing erosion protection
structures does not require an erosion hazard area permit (see propose.:
Coastal Erosion Management regulations, Part 505, Appendix A). Existing
investments can be protected provided the methods chosen for protection,
structural or nonstructural , meets the regulations, standards and criteria
necessary to implement this policy; which are contained in the guidelines
for the policy and in Appendix A. Note also that if the reconstruction
essentially reproduces the old structure, there is less likelihood the-c it
would cause a measurable increase in erosion.
3. COMMENT: Policy 22 (shoreline development and provisions for recreation) -
nU�ortunately, civilian recreational use of Coast Guard and other military
facilities on a regular basis cannot be allowed due to safety and securit,,r
problems.
RESPONSE: We agree; although for some locations, land areas not direct-i;,
or mediately needed by the facility could, with the permission and
cooperation of the Coast Guard, be used periodically for recreation.
4. COMMENT: Policy 23 (historic resources) - The use of a 500 foot perimeter
as a boundary of environmental impact seems arbitrary (pp. 232-33).
RESPONSE: A 500 foot perimeter is used because numerous New York Statu
anT d use regulations use this figure in calling for review of adjacent uses
(State parks, municipal boundaries, etc. )
5. COMMENT: Policy 28 (ice management practices) - The Coast Guard is unaware
o any past adverse effects from its domestic icebreaking operations on
electric power.
IX - 1 - 25
RESPONSE: Past ice management activities by the Coast Guard may not have had
adverse effects on the production of hydro-electric power. However, the in-
tent of this policy is to require, for present and future activities, the
assessment and prevention or mitigation of adverse impacts on fish and wildlife,
the production of hydro-electric power, and shoreline erosion or flooding.
6. COMMENT: Policy 34 (discharge of waste material from vessels) - To prohicit
discharge of sewage from all watercraft seems inconsistent with previous
statements reflecting the desirability of providing less than secondary treat-
ment for wastewater treatment plants discharging millions of gallons of
sewage per day, while watercraft discharges are relatively insignificant.
RESPONSE: Discharges are already being regulated by the State under
avigat on Law (Section 33-C). The prohibition of vessel waste disposal
at discrete locations (such as significant fish and wildlife habitats,
recreational areas and water supply areas) should provide a very effective
means of protecting these areas. The effect of these vessel wastes at
these particular areas is by no means insignificant. On the other hand,
recent scientific studies indicate that it is not always ecologically
desirable to require secondary treatment of sewage being discharged into
open marine environments where assimilative capacities are great and
ambient nutrient levels are well below acceptable State standards.
7. COMMENT: Policy 35 (dredging and dredge spoil disposal) - No recognition is
given to the difference in environmental and economic effects from maintenancE
versus new dredging, nor is there a discussion on what critical areas and
impacts are most important to avoid and when.
RESPONSE: Additional guidance necessary to determine consistency of an
act on with this policy has been added to the explanation of policy. Appro-
priate references have also been cited.
st at
9. COMMEbasic
st andardsy44 for New Yorks)fourtwould becategoriesuofful to wetlandi least the
uses.
as c
RESPONSE: Standards for the four categories of wetland uses are provided
n the regulations found on page 94 of Volume II.
10. COMMENT: Mitigation measures for wetland development should be discussed.
RESPONSE: See Freshwater and Tidal Wetland regulations in Volume II,
w lc include mitigation measures.
1
IX - 1 - 26
11. COMMENT: There is a need to include specific policies on coastal structures
rt ges, submerged infrastructures, dams,. etc. ).
RESPONSE: We disagree. The direct and significant impacts on the coastal
area of activities involving coastal structures/construction are adequately
addressed and considered in the comprehensive set of 44 policies described
in Part II, Section 6.
12. COMMENT: There is a need to distinguish types of water bodies (rivers, lakes,
ocean, etc.) and ecosystem/habitats (shellfish beds, finfish, migratory
pathways, etc. ) and to integrate these elements into a coherent set of
policies.
RESPONSE: The policies described in Part II, Section 6, are applicable to
We entire coastal area. Policy 7, the protection of significant fish and
wildlife habitats, is the primary policy which addresses the protection of
habitats. The variability in habitats that exists in rivers, lakes, wet-
lands and other types of subecosystems is accommodated for in the new police
guidelines provided in Policy 7.
13. COMMENT: On page 104, paragraph 4: the words "waters of the United States ,
ncluding the territorial seas" should be substituted for "estuarine" in
the discussion of marine sanitation device regulations (from 33 CFR 159.1 ).
RESPONSE: See revision.
14. COMMENT: Page 338, paragraph 5: We recommend that the New York State De-
partment of Environmental Conservation (DEC) , rather than the Department of
State, handle consistency reviews for bridge projects since all bridge
permit actions require, at minimum, a water quality certificate issued by
the DEC. Often wetland and construction permits are also required. This
would make for better coordination between Federal agency applicant and
State.
RESPONSE: Only one State agency may be designated as the sole reviewer of
ed�—consistency determinations (15 CFR 9/30.18). The Department of
State's mandate makes it most suitable for the variety of policies in
the Program. DEC input to this decision will be important.
15. COMMENT: Page 339, paragraph 3: All Coast Guard bridge permit actions
require circulation of a public notice. New York's requirement for public
notice for license/permit consistency review would be combined with the
Coast Guard's process to minimize delays and paperwork.
RESPONSE: The suggestion is appreciated and contact will be made with the
oaf st-Tuard, following Federal approval , to examine the possibility of co^-
bining permits. Policy 6 on page II-6-31 calls for expediting permit procedures
and Department of State gives this a high priority. The U.S. Coast Guard's
cooperation in this matter is welcome.
IX - 1 - 27
16. COMMENT: Page 343 of the document lists Coast Guard activity which "::
State of New York feels likely to require a consistency determination
including:
a. Location, placement or removal of navigation devices. Although
generally stated, we assume this refers to short range aids, buoys,
daymarks, radar towers, etc. This does not directly affect the
coastal zone and should be deleted;
b. Expansion, abandonment, and designation of anchorages. Anchorages
are not licensed or permitted, they are designated by regulation;
c. Expansion, abandonment and designation of lightering areas. Lighterin:
areas are not licensed or permitted. This does not directly affect
coastal zone and should be deleted;
d. Expansion, abandonment, and designation of shipping lanes. Shipping
areas are not licensed offectmtheecoastal zonaree andgshouldbberdeletEie;;s.
This does not directly a
e. Expansion, abandonment, and designation of pilot areas. The Coast
Guard does not establish pilot areas. The intent of this particular
citation is unclear to us. Contact with personnel from the New YorL
Department of State did not clarify this issue since they also were
unsure as to its reference. This should be deleted.
f. Ice management practices and activities. This does not directly
affect the coastal zone and should be deleted.
RESPONSE: Regarding items a, c, d, and f, we disagree. These activities
may directly affect New York's coastal area and are subject to the Federal
consistenty provisions of the NYCMP. Regarding item e, pilot areas,
this has been deleted. Regarding the comment that b, c, and d above are
not licensed and permitted activites -- we agree. However, they are direci:
Federal activities and therefore should not be deleted from consistency
review. They will be listed in the FEIS under Table 2, Section 1 , Direct
Federal Activities and Development Projects. Regarding item b, navigaticr
devices, these activities have been revised and are now more narrowly
defined. These revisions are intended to avoid unnecessary submissions of
consistency certifications.
17. COMHIENT: Appendix D, addressing excluded Federal land on pages 737-739,
requires a few corrections:
a. Bellport Station and St. George Base should be deleted (the Coast
Guard no loncer owns them);
b. Cape Vincent Licht Station should be listed as containing 0.6 acres;
c. Carlton Islan�Pliaht Stati�mnt Corporations now owned �d Themaintained
completeythe
reference
St. Lawrence a ey Develo, e
to Carlton Island Station should be deleted;
d. The reference to G�1dloIsland
CoasttDistrictproperties
beunder
deletedClicense to
the U.S. Coast Gua , Ninth
IX - 1 - 28
e. The reference to the HF/FM Antenna Tower in Rochester listed with
properties under license to the U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth Coast Guard
District, should be deleted.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made as suggested.
Federal Aviation Administration
Elliott ummer
1. COMMENT: Wording on page 337 suggests all FAA activities in the Ste-.-.e
wo�9need a consistency determination.
RESPONSE: See changes in wording which inserts "located in or directly
affect ng the coastal zone."
2. COMMENT: Page 482 recommends two landfill sites at Gateway National
'Fe-creation Area have their termination dates extended so that end-use
site plans can be fully developed. These two sites present a serious bir;'
hazard to aircraft operations into and out o.` JFK Airport. There is ti-,:.a
to develop the land use plans before the 1985 closure date.
RESPONSE: Current agreements call for the closure of these landfills by
T27-31-/'U. New York City Department of Sanitation is exploring alternative
means to waste disposal and is moving forward with the planning phases oaf
two resource recovery facilities. These projects would help reduce the
amount of waste currently being landfilled.
New York City Department of Sanitation is required through NYCRR, Part 3'7"
to develop end-use plans for all landfills operated by the City. End-use
plan for Foundation Avenue should begin shortly.
New York City has tried several tests of proposals designed to disburse
the seagulls. Unfortunately, none of the procedures tested have been sho-r-n.
to be effective. New York City has always been responsive to any prograr:•
the FAA is interested .in pursuing to help ameliorate the seagull problem
and will continue to fully cooperate.
IX - 1 - 29
SECTION 2
RESPONSES TO STATE AND LOCAL WRITTEN CC�MIEN'TS ON THE DEIS
A. V1. C. Hennessy
ommiss over
New York State Department of Transportation
1. COKIENT: For nany of the Department of Transportaion projects multiple
con—s stency determinations will be necessary. This amount of effort seercs
excessive and redundant. This process is further complicated at the Federal
level , for permit and funding actions are governed by different procedures
and additional policies. Administrative efforts could be reduced if a "leFU
agency" was made responsible for the consistency determination which is
based upon a single set of criteria.
RESPONSE: When two or r-ore Federal agencies are involved in determining
Me consistency of a project -pith a state's coastal management program,
the agencies are encouraged. ut not required, to coordinate their re-
views and develop a single consistency determination. If Federal agencies
choose this approach, administrative efforts will be reduced. It is ex-
pected that the evaluation of a project involving Federal actions will be
performed during the NEPA review process. Consistency determinations
are made with a single set of criteria. Federal agencies utilize the p6 icy
statements, explanations and guidelines in the program document. State
agencies use the DOS Part 600, Section 600.5 regulations which contain the
same criteria except for criteria which are a part of other existing
State law already applicable to the actions of state agencies.
There is not a "lead agency" for making consistency determinations (each
Federal agency has the responsibility for determining the consistency of
its proposed actions in the coastal area). However, the NYS DOS has been
desionated the State "lead agency" for review of consistency determinations.
2. COMMENT: The discussion of the Federal consistency process in the CMP/;..r'-.I_^
document does not identify a class of projects which have no significance Z.nd
thus do not require a consistency determination. There are many Department
of Transportation projects which are of small magnitude and have no sig-
nificance to the objectives of coastal policies. Projects which are cate-
gorically excluded from NEPA should not be subject to the consistency prc�;:ess.
RESPONSE: Specific types of transportation projects and activities whic;i arc:
M-e—Ty to affect New York State's coastal area are subJJ'ect to the Federal
consistency process if identified in Table 2, pp. II-9-18 to 25 Federal
agencies determine if a proposed project will affect the State's coast. Federal
regulations pertaining to this process do not provide for categorical ex-
clusion such as those under MEPA. The State's consistency process does ex-
clude actions based on their significance. Actions which are consideree
"Type II" under SEQR are not subject to the state consistency procedure.
Further, any actions which have been excluded from the SEAR provisions,
are excluded from the State agency consistency process.
IX - 2 - 1
3. COMMENT: The discussion on page 3 concerning the lack of coordination amon^
a e agencies is misleading. The SEQR process requires and has resulted in
effective coordination among agencies. Attributing successful coordination
to CMP is inaccurate.
RESPONSE: This discussion has been revised to reflect more accurately the
coordination among state agencies.
4. COMMENT: The A-95 process is not working effectively and should not be used
for Feral consistency purposes. An alternative means of handling Federal
consistency determination should be found. NEPA is an adequate mechanism for
determining consistency.
RESPONSE: If the A-95 process is found to be ineffective, the Department
of State will work with the Federal agencies to develop other means of noti-
fication for financial assistance activities. NEPA will oe usea, to the
extent possible, for consistency purposes.
5. COMMENT: Staff training on the CMP and its requirements will be essential
for the Department of Transportation.
RESPONSE: The Department of State will offer its assistance in such training
endeavors.
6. COMMENT: The CMP/DEIS indicates that State agencies will be eligible for
un ing of their consistency review activities. The Department of Transportation
has estimated that such activities will cost over $50,000 per year.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
7. COMMENT: The policy pertaining to the protection of cultural resources is
not coordinated with and extends beyond numerous existing regulations. The
policy does not allow for balancing impacts on historic resources with other
social , economic and environmental consequences. Existing regulations achieve
the policy's objective.
RESPONSE: Article 42 of the Executive Law contains a general policy that calls
for the restoration and protection of historic and cultural resources. The
resources enumerated in the guidelines are already covered by the existing
programs, except for a designated local landmark within the boundary of an
approved waterfront revitalization program. This is consistent with Article 4"
which requires that local waterfront programs promote and preserve historic
and cultural resources and re-use of existing building stock. The actions of
state agencies are to be consistent with such programs to the maximum extent
practicable. The guidelines under this policy are drawn from the U.S. Secre-
tary of Interior's guidelines for the rehabiliation of historic buildings.
Thus, this policy and its guidelines are coordinated with other existing
regulations.
IX - 2 - 2
As to the issue of balance, this is provided for in SEQR (Part 617), and in
DOS (Part 600) regulations. In both regulations, procedures are designee
to achieve the balance between competing values.
8. COMMENT: In many instances, the landward boundary of the coastal area is a
roadway or some other right-of-way (ROW). This is reasonable, but it subjects
improvements requiring additional ROW to the consistency process. If this
ROW land does not have any coastal significance, then minimal ROW acquisiticn
should not significantly affect the coastal area. Some mechanism should
possibly be provided to faciliate the implemenation of minor R014 widening
projects.
RESPONSE: In most instances, the shoreward side of an existing ROW is con-
sidered the landward boundary. Thus, widening projects which are landward
of this boundary would be outside the coastal area. In certain locations
throughout the State's coast, existing ROW's are close to the shoreline.
In those instances, the entire ROW and/or a specified distance landwara of the
ROW is in the coastal area. If these minor widening projects are deemed
a "Type II" for SEQR purposes, then they would not be subject to the state
consistency process. Even if not Type II, the CAF addresses coastal issues
expeditiously and if determined not to have a significant affect, the CAF
could be used as a quick tool for consistency. If Federal funds are to be
utilized on the project, then the appropriate Federal agency would deter-
mine if the project affects the State's coastal area.
9. COMMENT: A special study on the need for treating stormwater runoff from
roads, parking lots, lawns and industrial sites should be conducted.
RESPONSE: The feasibility of such a study will be investigated.
10. COMMENT: The discussion on state alternatives is not sufficient. Estimates
of the amount and duration of program funding, the magnitude of administretive
costs and project delays are not provided. The benefits of Federal con-
sistency are discussed, but the possiblity of achieving a similar degree of
coordination through existing procedures is not examined.
RESPONSE: The proposed state action alternative has been revised to inc14ila
est—imates on the amount and duration of funding and costs to administer the
CNP. Project delays are not anticipated, for the consistency processes --
both state and Federal -- are tied into or can be accommodated within existin -
review procedures. Under present Federal review procedures, Federal agencies
are not required to uphold existing state policies or positions. Federal
consistency requires federal agencies to adhere to a state's coastal policies.
In many instances the review procedures will be shortened as a result of the
consistency procedures. This is significantly stronger than mere coordinatic-n.
11. COMMENT: Due to the limited availability of CMP funds, local governments
s ou e informed of the level of financial assistance they they could
receive before developing local programs.
RESPONSE: Refer to Part II, Section 4, pp. II-4-18 to20 which discusses
program funding, and Section 10, Part II.
IX - 2 - 3
12. COMMENT: The discussion on the Barge Canal (p. 66) should be deleted,
ecause it does not accurately describe the operations of the canal and
with the exception of two terminal points is outside the coastal area.
RESPONSE: The discussion on the Barge Canal has been deleted.
13. COMMENT: The term "Geographic Area of Particular Concern" should be deleted
from the New York City program
RESPONSE: The term has been deleted.
14. COMMENT: Changes to the New York State CMP and proposed regulations should
be incTuded in the FEIS.
RESPONSE: Such changes are required to be incorporated. Refer to this
document.
B. Mary P. Bass
State o New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority
1. COMMENT: The MTA objects to guidelines which in part define a reduction in
the existing level of public access to recreation resources in terms of
reductions in the level of public transportation service and/or increases in
fares to the resources. MTA feels that results of such guidelines would
lead to the establishment of an unfair and unfeasible policy of reduced
fares and/or subsidized service for a special group of users.
RESPONSE: The following modification has been made to this guideline to
take into account MTA's need to make changes in service in order to
satisfy systemwide objectives: "...use, and such reduction cannot be reason-
ably justified in terms of meeting s stemw e objectives." In addition,
-with respect to increases in fares to the recreation resources, the under-
lined modification has been made to Subsection A(1)(d)(4) which should
satisfy the concern about furthering differential fares, not now a policy:
"There are substantial increases in the following: already existing s ecial
fares of publ is transportation to a public water-related recreation resource
or facility;. . ."
2. COMMENT: questionsMTA whether
rr has
the
authority
lt1rdines"
regarding masstransportationfaesinthe New Yorkmeetropoianegion
RESPONSE: The State of New York, not OCZM, is adopting the guidelines,
since Tey are part of New York State's Coastal Management Program being sub-
mitted to OCZM for Federal approval .
IX - 2 - 4
C. AnthonyTozzoli
Director - Port Department
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
1. COMMENT: The discussion under Policy 3 in the New York City's local program
indicates that the development plans and activities of the Port Authority
will be subject to review by the Secretary of State and the City Coastal Com-
mission. This is interpreted to mean that such plans and activities will be
subject to study and not a review and approval procedure. The latter would
be contrary to the intent of the bi-state legislation and in violation of
the compact creating the Authority.
RESPONSE: Article 42 requires all state agencies to be consistent with the
coastaTpolicies. It providesno distinction between types of State agencies.
State agencies must also be consistent to the maximum extent practicable wit;
an approved local waterfront revitalization program. As required by the GGS
Part 600 regulations and amendments to DEC Part 617, these determinations
of consistency would be made by the State agency. The Secretary of State
has the authority to review, evaluate, and issue recommendations and opinions
concerning programs and actions of state agencies which may have the potential
to affect the policies and purposes of this article. In the event the
Port Authority were determined to be exempt from review by virtue of its
bi-state legislation, it will be required to conform to the state program
to the extext permissible under Section 307(e) of the CZMA.
2. COMMENT: Since the stated purpose of Policy 3 for the NYC WRP as explained on
page a X52 of the DEIS is to "ensure effective interface. . .", the followinr.
modification to the language of the explanation is suggested: ". . .to
ensure effective interface between the Port Authority and State and local
waterfront revitalization programs, the Secretary of State and City Coastal
Commission will consult with the Port Authority in the development and
implementation of the Port Authority's development plans and activities
within coastal boundaries."
RESPONSE: The principal objective of Policy 3, as stated on page II-6-17 of
tie frff, and as elaborated on page 74 of Appendix G is ". .to focus efforts on direct
and positive actions to support the major port agencies, the New York City
Department of Ports and Terminals and the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey, in order to promote their continued and increased vitality."
To assure that this policy is achieved within the New York City coastal
areas, the City Coastal Commission and the Secretary of State will consult
with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Department of Ports
and Terminals, and other affected interests early in the development and
implementation of pertinent plans and activities. The Port Authority
would determine the consistency of their proposed actions with the approved
programs. Refer to the above response.
IX - 2 - 5
3. COP"IENT: With regard to Policies 19 and 20, the merits of public access to
t e waterfront are recognized, and the consideration of safety which is cited
in the CMP/DEIS is strongly supported. However, consideration must also be
given to cost, insurance, liability and available space. Similar con-
sideration should be incorporateduandrPolicies maintenance4ofnd 25 essentialnic port facilities
so that the construction,operation
are not constrained.
RESPONSE: Under both access policies, safety and cost considerations are to
Fe--factored into decisions affecting the provision of increased publicaccess.
The cost consideration would include the concerns for insurance,
liability W
space. Also, the provision of access would not be required until some public
agency or private association assumes responsibility for maintenance and
liability. As for the policy pertaining to significant scenic resources, port
operations and construction that impair such resources would be inconsistent
with this resource protection policy. However, it is possible that essential
port facilities could be constructed elsewhere along the coast. Policy 25
suggests that consideration be given to protecting the scenic quality of the
coastal area. Generally, this can be accomplished through proper siting of
structures, screening and other efforts which would not constrain existing
and future port activities.
D. Robert D. Vessels
Director. -Office of Environmental Planning
NYS Department of Public Service
1. COMMENT: Access roads are mainiaiwe�hiinvolvedconnection
utilitiestrthesesroadsrcould
of-way (ROW) . By working closely
also provide a means for implementing Policy 20.
RESPONSE: Agreed
2. COMMENT: The Public Service Commission's
( Ca ccbyrcaseibasis ratherto recreational
eve opment of transmission ROW is decided onase
than being an automatic part o� ROWrs hasordebeensstoppedountil ,researchoint uonithe
of recreational development fo
health and safety effects associated with such ROW's is concluded.
RESPONSE: The discussion under Policy 22 B.3. has been revised accordingly.
3. COMMENT: In the DEIS Section 7.2.a.ii.1 (p. 303),
it is not clear that an
appT�tion for transmission facilities i ; to the New York State Depart-
ment of Public Service while an application for steam electric generating
facilities is made to the New York State Board on Electric Generating Siting
and Environment.
RESPONSE: This clarification has been made.
IX - 2 - 6
4. COMMENT: The siting procedures in Article VII of the Public Service Law,
scussed under Policy 27 of the New York City Program, relate to major
electric and gas transmission facilities and do not apply to underground
facilities located in cities with a population in excess of 125,000. Since
new transmission facilities in the City of New York are likely to be located
underground, their siting would not be reviewed pursuant to Article VII. Such
facilities would, depending on location, be subject to a variety of State
permit programs, including water quality and wetlands programs.
RESPONSE: This information is now reflected under New York City Policy 27.
IX - 2 - 7
E. Louis M. Concra Jr.
i rector
Division of Regulatory Affairs
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
1. COMMENT: The proposed filing requirement, with regard to "Unlisted"
act ons in the coastal area, is burdensome and unnecessary. The volume
of activities affected by this requirement is potentially high. "Un-
listed actions receiving a negative declaration should be excluded
from the procedural requirements of Part 600 regulations.
RESPONSE: Article 42 of the Executive Law does not qualify which of the
direct-actions taken by State agencies should be subject to the consistency
requirements contained in Section 919(1). In the development of the
proposed Part 600 regulations, it was determined that "Type II" actions
would not likely affect the achievement of the Article 42 policies.
"Unlisted" actions, however, cover a wide range of activities which,
even if they have nosignificant effect upon the environment, could either
assist in or impede the achievement of coastal policies. The exclusion
of this group of "Unlisted" actions would affect the capability of the
Secretary of State to administer the State's coastal program.
2. COMMENT: The proposed Part 600 regulations should reflect the streamlining
of regulatory requirements for insignificant "Unlisted" actions.
RESPONSE: Streamlining existing and future State and other agencies
reguTat ons is one of the objectives of the CMP as well as the Office of
Business Permits. This objective was, in part, achieved by incorporating
the consistency requirements of Article 42 into the Part 617 SEQR regu-
lations. In order to properly administer Article 42, however, additional
procedures are necessaryto ensure that State agency actions which do
not have any significaneffect upon the environment are being under-
taken consistent with the coastal policies.
3. COMMENT: It should be made clear that the policies contained in an approvE�
01�waterfront revitalization program are not determinative on the matter
of license issuance. Also, these policies are not to be substituted
for specific standards and criteria contained in laws and regulations of State
resource protection programs.
RESPONSE: If a proposed State permit action is inconsistent with the policies
ofan approved local program, then that permit cannot be issued unless
conditions are imposed on the permit which would result in the action being
consistent with the policies. At no time, however, can a State agency issue
a permit unless the proposed action complies with existing State standards
and criteria. This requirement is found in Section 915(8) of Article 42
and Section 600.3(5) of DOS regulations.
IX - 2 - 8
4. COMMENT: On page 20 there is a mistake in the oil spill estimate for
the North Atlantic field operations.
RESPONSE: This mistake has been corrected and the probability percent up-
at_e3-in accordance with U.S. Department of Interior information.
5. COMMENT: All bays and wetlands along Lake Ontario, and not just Braddock
a�pport bass and perch populations.
RESPONSE: The text has been modified accordingly.
6. COMMENT: The intent of the maps on pp. 38-42 is unclear. Maps of the
oub ndaries and Federal lands would be more helpful .
RESPONSE: As indicated on page II-3-5 of the document, the purpose of the maps
on pp. II-3-8 tc 12 was tcillustratehow some of the boundary criteria were aoolied
in various ares of the State. Maps of the State's Coastal Area, showing
boundaries and excluded Federal lands, were officially filed with state
agencies in December, 1981 . Inclusion of those maps in the CMP DEIS would
have added considerable bulk to an alraady voluminous document.
7. COMMENT: The discussion on development in the section on coastal issues
oea s not reflect comments previously submitted by DEC on infrastructure
revitalization needs.
RESPONSE: The need to rehabilitate water and sewerage facilities are
only part of the total need to revitalize and restore the State's deter-
iorating and underutilized waterfronts. In the guidelines on Policy 5,
recognition is given to the need for rehabilitating essential public
facilities and services. Also, the condition of these vital facilities
are currently under study by the State Legislature. The results of that
study may be incorporated into the CMP upon its conclusion and acceptance
by the Legislature and Governor.
8. COMMENT: It was DEC's understanding that a separate policy statement
16n'winter navigation would be included in the CMP DEIS.
RESPONSE: The Coastal Management Program does not contain separate policies
on any given activity which may or may not be proposed. The Program policies
have been developed and are intended to be used as criteria by agencies when
making decisions on the appropriateness of any given proposed action. The
policies address the potential effects on the coastal area of any proposed
action. Incorporating a separate policy for winter navigation would set the
stage for incorporating separate policies for each new major activity as it
is being proposed. Over time this would result in an even lengthier, and
ultimately outdated and useless document. The specific concerns which have
been raised by DEC in regard to winter navigation are addressed in the State
policies.
IX - 2 - 9
9. COMMENT: On page 73 the sentence should be changed to indicate that
beaches are the most valuable coastal landform.
RESPONSE: Change has been made.
10. COWENT: Changes should be made to sentences pertaining to damages caused
y storms.
RESPONSE: Suggested changes have been made.
11. COMMENT: The issue discussion and policy on new energy sources should em-
p amaze that Article 23 of the ECL prohibits production of liquid hydro-
carbons in Lake Erie.
RESPONSE: The description of Article 23 under Policy 29 has been revised
to refTect this prohibition.
12. COMMENT: The DEIS gives the impression that DEC has decided to proceed with
the natural gas leasing program for the lands under Lake Erie. This
decision has not been made.
RESPONSE: The explanation under Policy 29 has been revised accordingly.
13. COMMENT: On page 266 the reference to the Public Service Commission on
the di-icussion on Article 23, Section 23-0305 of the ECL is incorrect.
RESPONSE: This reference has been deleted.
14. COMMENT: Comments previously submitted by DEC on the water resources issues
sects suggested that water quality as well as other water resources concerns
should be discussed.
RESPONSE: The water resources section has been expanded to include a dis-
cus—mon water supply and drought conditions. Other water resource re-
lated concerns raised by DEC are discussed under the flooding and erosion
issues section.
15. COMMENT: The DEIS should contain more detail relative to the surveillance
and cTanup program for oil and other hazardous substance spills which is
discussed on page 11-5-46.
IX - 2 - 10
RESPONSE: There is considerable discussion of New York State's existing pro-
grams on this subject under Policies 18 and 36. Fur�t,er jpformation is pro-
vided in Appendix F, Volume 2. The comment on page 4 suggests, however,
that possibly more could be done under the current authority of State agencies.
Through the Coastal Energy Impact Program, the Department of State has funded
the preparation of oil spill prevention programs for the eastern end of
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Similar programs were also developed
for all the inlet areas along the southern coast of Long Island. These pl?ns
should supplement current State agencies' efforts.
16. COMMENT: The policy on water-dependent uses should be more specific as to
Wow-the siting of such uses is determined.
RESPONSE: As ,stated in the explanation of that policy such uses are to be
s t� ed at appropriate locations along the waterfornt. Guidelines are
provided to assist decision-makers in determining the type of use and the
actual site. The decision to approve an action rests with the appropriate
State agency subject to the consistency requirements of Article 42, Section
919(1). This process is explained further under Policy 2 and in Section 4
of the DEIS.
17. COMMENT: The statement on page 123 that the mining of sand and gravel
Ta water dependent use that should be facilitated in the coastal area is
not consistent with Part 505 of the proposed erosion regulations which
would limit this activity in coastal erosion hazard areas.
RESPONSE: This policy applies generally throughout New York State's coast.
an activity, use, etc. is specifically prohibited or otherwise limited by
existing State law and regulations, that activity cannot take place or,
if applicable, must be modified to meet the State's requirements. This
condition is contained in Article 42, Section 919(1 ) and in DOS' Part 600
regulations. Therefore, the inconsistency cited does no exist, And the
erosion regulations will limit excavation in coastal erosion nazarareas.
18. COMMENT: Several minor wording changes should be made to the explanation of
op Ticy 11 and the discussions on various State means to implement the policy.
RESPONSE: The suggested wording changes have been made.
19. COMMENT: Statement on page 178 Section B.3 is incorrect. State becomes
n�voTved only when local regulation is not accomplished.
RESPONSE: The discussion under this section references another section under
oTi y tl where this distinction is clearly made. No change is necessary.
IX - 2 - 11
20. COMMENT: The discussions under Policy 27 and in the energy planning process
sects do not address the federal OCS oil and gas leasing activities, nor
the State's policies in reviewing them.
RESPONSE: Policy 29 specifically addressed Federal OCS oil and gas leasing
activifTes. The text in the energy planning process has been modified to
take into account such activities.
21. COMMENT: The Federal consistency procedures applicable to OCS gas and oil
act'iv ties do not reflect the Department of Environmental Conservation's
major role in this subject area. DEC is the State's lead agency for OCS matters,
and it was understood that the Department would coordinate all OCS reviews.
RESPONSE: Federal regulations, pertaining to the consistency of Federal
agencies' actions with a State's coastal managementprogram, require that
the State designate one agency which would be responsible for coordinating
the review procedure in the State and rendering the consistency determinations.
This requirement prevents the sharing of that lead responsibility. As a
result the Department of State must, as the designated agency, make such
determinations. However, the Department is fully aware of DEC's role and
responsibility on OCS matters and will consult with DEC on all OCS matters
which are subject to a consistency determination. The discussion on this
subject in the CMP DEIS has been modified to reflect this consultation process.
22. COMMENT: The CMP DEIS should identify the method for integrating imple-
ment g regulations with the NEPA process.
RESPONSE: The U.S. Department of Commerce consistency regulations urge
Federal-agencies to utilize the NEPA review process, whenever possible, to
satisfy their obligations under these regulations. The CMP DEIS reinforced
this recommenced approach, for many documents produced under NEPA require-
ments will be used by the Department of State in concurring or objecting to
the consistency determination of a Federal action affecting New York State's
coastal area.
23. COMMENT: There is a need to identify and address the impacts of the coastal
management program on individual projects approved through DEC's Construction
Grants Program.
RESPONSE: Once the State CMP is approved, these projects must be con-
s sstenL with the coastal policies.
IX - 2 - 12
F. Joseph P. Fraioli
Village Manager
Village of Mamaroneck
Mamaroneck, New York
1 . COMMENT: The Village of Mamaroneck states that it has created a permanent
oastaT Zone Management Committee and urges Federal approval of the N.Y.S.
Coastal Management Program so that the Village can complete preparation of,
and implement, a local Coastal Zone Management Program.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your support. No further response needed.
G. Edith A. Mesik
Planning Uirector
Columbia County Planning Department
Hudson, New York
1 . COMMENT: The Columbia County Planning Department states that the New York
State Coastal Management Program would have many positive benefits for Columbia
County, that the program goals are comprehensive, balanced and realistic, and
that the program will protect and enhance the role of local communities in
meeting coastal program goals through the preparation of a local waterfront
revitalization plan. The Department recommends favorable review and approval
of the program by the Office of Coastal Zone Management.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your support. No further response needed.
H. Frances F. Dunwell
Scenic Hudson, Inc.
Poughkeepsie, New York
1. COMMENT: The erosion policies contained in Section 600.5 of the Department
of State's regulations, which advocate the use of non-structural measures to
mitigate property damages resulting from erosion, are not appropriate for the
Hudson River shoreline. Recreational and other activities along the River
require structural protection for erosion caused by ice and the wakes of
passing ships. The policies are more appropriate for the Great Lakes and
marine coasts. The prohibition for using public funds in the construction
of such protective structures will eliminate the provision of access areas
and boating activities.
RESPONSE: The erosion policies referred to in Section 600.5 do not preclude
theand construction of protective structures in any portion of New York
State's coastal area. The use of public funds is indeed limited, but it does
not prevent structural approaches, specifically in instances where human life,
new water dependent uses and existing development would be protected. There-
fore, the erosion policies are appropriate for all of New York's coastal area,
including the conditions which prevail along the Hudson River shoreline.
IX - 2 - 13
I. Samuel H. Sa e
Executive Director
Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter
1. C_: The Department of State is not a natural resources protection
agency and has no programmatic interest in the CMP. The Department
of Environmental Conservation should be the lead agency or possibly a
new, independent agency patterned after the Adirondack Park Agency.
RESPONSE: Refer to the Response to Comment III, E, 12.
2. COMMENT: The Sierra Club is disappointed by the proposed Program and
views it as a veiled raid on the Federal treasury coming up with a barely
acceptable program at the last hour in order to qualify for Federal
funds. Federal approval should be granted since it will provide for
some limited interagency coordination and planning for coastal resources.
RESPONSE: No response required.
3. COMMENT: The underlying weak legislation behind this program can be
strengthened by the yet to be elected Legislature in 1983. The Sierra
Club hopes that Federal approval will be contingent upon a good faith
effort towards such amendments.
RESPONSE: Federal approval is based on the adequacy of existing enforce-
able State authorities.
IX - 2 - 14
4. COMMENT: There has been almost no public participation and the Program
ocd ument contains no recommendations that lead us to believe that the
situation will get any better.
RESPONSE: Since 1975, when the State first began to prepare the CMP, over
1 ,000 meetings have been held by Department of State staff with local
elected officials, environmental and development interests, civic groups,
and others displaying an interest in providing positive and useful advice
and the facts to be incorporated in the Program. In addition, the League
of Women Voters, through its Speakers Bureau, conducted numerous meetings
concerning this program throughout the State.
Three series of formal public hearings have been held in as many years. One
series was conducted by the State Legislature. Two series of informal public
meetings have also been held throughout the State, the last being conducted
in May/June, 1982. The Department of State has also utilized the advice
provided by the State Coastal Management Citizens Advisory Committee, formed
in 1977. Many ad hoc advisory committees have also provided valuable infor-
mation used in this program.
For the future, each local government desiring to prepare a waterfront
revitalization program will be required to demonstrate it has reached a con-
sensus as to the future of its waterfront, among the users, regulators, and
those affected by the activities occurring in the coastal area. This will
obviously require extensive public involvement.
5. COMMENT: The coastal boundary is inadequate and non-uniform, thus limiting
protection of shorelines. The boundary should be set with objective natural
resources criteria and not be based on administrative convenience.
RESPONSE: The coastal boundary was delineated based on, criteria which
ncTudeF natural resource considerations among others. The following
criteria were used: (1 ) utilize a one-tier boundary; (2) conform with
the nearest cultural feature or political boundary; (3) include all land
and water uses directly impacting coastal waters; (4) include any specially
designated management areas; (5) include tidal and saline waters, wetlands,
islands and beaches; (6) exclude present federally controlled lands;
(7) provide buffer areas, where appropriate; (8) coordinate boundary lines
with those of adjacent states; and (9) incorporate, to the greatest extent
possible, local agency recommendations. In addition, the following
special concerns, which include natural resource considerations, were
recognized in the final landward boundary delineation: agricultural lands;
viewsheds; power plant sites; historic sites; industrial areas; 100 year
flood line; and coastal recreation areas.
Administrative convenience in establishing a coastal boundary is a Program
requirement (15 CFR 923.31) , i.e. the coastal boundary should be clear
and exact enough to permit determination of whether property or an activity
is located within the boundary.
6. COMMENT: The inadequate number and protection of GAPCs has been rade moot
by thei elimination from the Program. Provision must be made for protect-
ing critical resource areas and the Program does little in this regard.
IX - 2 - 15
RESPONSE: Special Management Areas (SMAS) is the term used in the CMP, not
eograp is Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs). Refer to PART II, Section 8
for a thorough discussion of the Program's Special Management Areas. Sub-
stantial provision is made for the protection of critical resource areas
throughout the coastal areas. Refer to Policies 4, 7, 8, 12, 23, 24, 26, 21,
28, 31 , 32, 33, 40, 41 , 42, 43, 44.
7. COMMENT: The proposed amendments to SEQR regulations will not require
adequate consideration of impacts of proposed projects on the coastal zone.
RESPONSE: In addition to the considerations required to be analyzed in
as it stands without the proposed amendments, the proposed amendments
will require consideration of all the coastal policies listed in the
proposed NYCRR, Title 19, Part 600, Section 600.5.
8. COMMENT: The regulations should not be limited to actions by State agencies.
RESPONSE: Refer to the Response to Comment III, C, 1 .
9. COMMENT: SEQR requires review and coordination and is not a regulatory
cu—t with findings that are binding on anyone.
RESPONSE: SEQR not only requires full disclosure of environmental impacts
but also requires written findings that (a) the action to be taken is the one
among the reasonable alternatives which minimizes or avoids adverse environ-
mental efforts to the maximum extent practicable, and (b) to the maximum
extent practicable minimizes and avoids those adverse environmental efforts
revealed in the EIS. In addt , the Part 600,dmentsSectionr60055dfor coastalQpoliciestc)(3))
will require consistency withthe
The findings just referred to have been interpreted as providing authority
for agencies to condition or deny permits in order to address factors dis-
closed in an EIS. Miracle Mile Associates, v. DEC, 430 F. Supp. 2nd 440,
July 10, 1980. Those actors will not include the coastal policies. See
amendments to Part 617, Section 617.14(f)(10).
J. Sarah L. Johnston
u son River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
1. COMMENT: Clearwater has been involved for over a decade in extensive public
environmental education and Hudson Riverfront recreation activities. The
Clearwater has helped set up a fishery resources management program for the
Hudson, and has been involved with dredging issues, pesticide problems
and water quality standards. The
ClearwaterNew Ystrongly
ork endorses and supports
implementation of a program
RESPONSE: Thank you for your support.
IX - 2 - 16
2. COMMENT: The CMP regulatory framework lacks a system for determining
prio hies among the forty-four coastal policies as well as any method for
weighing the costs to coastal resources vs. the benefits of a particular
project. Some system of conflict resolution should be included.
RESPONSE: Refer to the Response to Comment III, K, 5. -
3. COMMENT: Regulations requiring State agencies to fill out coastal assess-
ment forms (CAF) should be expanded to include a required notification
process of a proposed action.
RESPONSE: A required notification process for proposed actionsis provided
TO—F-5--every instance where any one of the questions on a CAF is answered
"yes". DOS Part 600, Section 600.4 requires that a copy of that CAF,
with a brief and precise description of the nature and extent of the
actions, be forwarded to the Secretary of State.
4. COMMENT: The regulations which set forth requirements for certification
pr
of a oject r19 NYCRR Part 600.4(2)(3)] should be changed to allow certification
of a non-significant environmental impact only if more than one coastal
policy is to be advanced (rather than conformance with only one policy).
RESPONSE: The necessity to advance one or more of the coastal policies is
only part of the requirements for certification. Before undertaking an
action, the State agency must certify that the proposed action will not
substantially hinder the achievement of any (emphasis added) of the coastal
policies and (emphasis added) advance one or more of such policies. Further,
if the action will substantially hinder the achievement of any policy,
four additional requirements must be met.
K. Br an Luft lass
Sierra u estchester-Putnam Group
1. COMMENT: In Section 2 "Coastal Regions of New York" there is no mention
or coverage of Westchester County's Long Island Sound Coastline.
RESPONSE: Although that subregion is not specifically discussed in Section 2,
the coastal issues and circumstances of this area were a determinant of the
final program. The report "Hudson Valley Regional Element", including West-
chester County's Long Island Sound Coastline, contains a discussion of the
coastal issues of this area and was a major contribution to the final
program.
IX - 2 - 17
2. COMMENT: It is imperative that as much coastal property as possible as
rapidly as possible be set aside to preserve unique environments.
RESPONSE: The Coastal Management Program recognizes the importance of pre-
serving
re-
seryg unique environments. Federal funds which may be allocated to the
program may not be used for such acquisition. The CMP will actively seek
programming of other funds to preserve such areas. Current DOS parAicipation
on the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary Program reflects such an effort.
3. COMMENT: The Agricultural runoff of pesticides as a source of toxic
Pollutants should be noted in the issue discussion on fish and wildlife.
RESPONSE: Agree, the text will be revised.
4. COMMENT: While the discovery of oil under Lake Erie is unlikely, the potential
or loFoger term damage from condensates associated with natural gas should
be investigated.
RESPONSE: Article 23 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law prohibits
production of liquid hydrocarbons in Lake Erie either alone or in association
with natural gas. Therefore, any wells encountering appreciable amounts of
oil on natural gas condensate must be plugged and abandoned immediately.
5. COKIENT: While the tidal range in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence area may
e relatively small , these bodies of water are subject to tidal movements.
RESPONSE: The mean range of true tides on the Great Lakes is .C3 meters,
TFis i s relatively small .
6. COMM IT: On page 23 it is mentioned that 1114,130 cubic feet of debris enter
the Hudson River annually". Do these statements imply that the difference
(585,870 cubic feet) enters the Harbor annually, or are these statements
inconsistent?
RESPONSE: It is estimated that 600,000 cubic feet enters the New York
ar or annually.
IX - 2 - 18
i
L. William E. Miller
Hite o i e portsfishermen, Inc.
1. COMMENT: Maps showing coastal boundaries should have been provided with
tFe GETS.
RESPONSE: Maps showing the statewide coastal boundary for each coastal
county, city, town, and village have been filed with the clerk of each
jurisdiction and are available for inspection. The cost of printing and
including a coastal boundary map with the DEIS would have been prohibitive.
2. COMMENT: Spawning and nursery areas in the Hudson River for striped bass,
n ong Island's Great South Bay for weakfish, and in other areas for im-
portant species should be shown on the coastal area map.
RESPONSE: Where these spawning and nursery areas meet the criteria for
tie identification as "significant fish and wildlife habitats", which
should be the case in most of the above-cited instances, they will be
shown on the coastal area map and a narrative prepared detailing infor-
mation on that particular habitat.
3. COMMENT: Policy 9 for recreational use of fish and wildlife resources
seems too oriented to freshwater and cities. It may need to be supple-
mented to cover saltwater access.
RESPONSE: There was no intention to exclude or diminish the importance
o recreational fishing in the marine waters of the coast. To emphasize
its equal importance, a phrase to the effect has been added
to the explanation of the policy.
4. COMMENT: Policy 19, dealing with public access to public water-related
resources and facilities, may discriminate against suburban and non-urban
areas because of guideline A(4) dealing with State agency plans and pro-
grams for increasing public access and their priorities for particular
areas.
RESPONSE: In developing the State CMP, the DOS discovered that the most
severe access deficiencies occur in urban areas. The guidelines for imple-
menting the access policy recognizes this situation by emphasizing the need
to give a higher priority for access projects in urban areas at the present
time. Over time, as projects are completed to increase access in urban
areas, the priority can change.
5. COMMENT: Existing ORU access routes in the coastal zone to the beach and
a o�g the beach should be mapped in order that they are recognized and
protected.
IX - 2 - 19
RESPONSE: In the first year of the "306" CMP, all existing coastal public
access will be located, mapped, and described in terms of mode, capacity,
and condition. This will be the basis for a second year analytical phase
to determine where and what kinds of increased access are desirable.
6. COMMENT: Policy 21 , dealing with water dependent and water enhanced rec-
reation, should specify that, all other things being equal , water dependent
should be favored over water enhanced recreation.
RESPONSE: Agreed. A sentence will be added in the explanation of the
policy to reflect this change.
7. COMMENT: With respect to utility transmission facility siting, it is sug-
gested recreational vehicle trail use (for trail bikes, 4-wheel drive
vehicles, and snowmobiles) also be considered a suitable recreational
activity.
RESPONSE: Agreed.
B. COMMENT: In Section 600.2 of the Draft DOS Part 600 regulations, the
e inition of "Actions" is too narrow by including only SEQR Type I or
unlisted actions.
RESPONSE: The definition of "Actions" was developed in response to the need
bothtTkeep the burden of review on State agencies at a reasonable level
and at the same time ensure that all significant actions are covered. The
DOS believes that the current definition meets both requirements.
NOTE: The following comments address the Draft Part 500 Regulations
9. COMMENT: Where non-movable structures are to be placed in a structural
erosion hazard area, Section 505.7(b) would require construction of erosion
protection structures which can act as a barrier to lateral access along
the shore. This Section should be deleted because this requirement will
adversely affect CMP access objectives (in spite of regulations against
such effects). Only setback requirements should be applied and, in our
view, structure loss is preferable to public access loss. Section 505.7(b)
should be deleted.
RESPONSE: The Part 505 Regulations are derived from "The Shoreowner's
rootec7lon Act". Article 349 ECL, which deals solely with erosion hazards.
The Act sets rigorous standards for the use of erosion protection structures
including: a requirement that there will be no measurable increase in
erosion to the site or at other locations; and that adverse effects to
natural protective features and natural resources must be minimized.
IX - 2 -20
10. COMMENT: Section 505.8(c)(7) requiring vehicle travel seaward of the upper
ae-FrTs—line or, when absent, the toe of the dune, and for no travel on
vegatation, are all proper and supported.
RESPONSE: No response required.
11. COMMENT: Section 505.8(c)(8) is highly irregular and is condemned. Local
governments always have the authority to regulate uses and do not need
DEC permission. This program reveals a bias against our use that is not
similarly shown for other inherently more destructive uses and thus
selectively waives application of standards in only this particular instance.
It is vehemently rejected and DOS and OCZM are urged to require its deletion.
RESPONSE: Provision deleted.
12. COMMENT: Again, a selective bias against motor vehicles is evident in
e3ct-on 505.8(c)(9) which states that "Nothing in this Part authorizes
trespass of motor vehicles on private lands". Does this mean that tres-
pass by hikers, walkers and boaters is authorized? All trespass is covered
under existing law regardless of mode, and is a ridiculous provision on
its face and should be deleted.
RESPONSE: Provision deleted.
13. COMMENT: Section 505.8(d)(2) - prohibition of vehicular traffic on bluff
aces is proper and supported.
RESPONSE: No response necesary.
14. COMMENT: Permit requirements for pedestrian dune crossings will inhibit
t eTi iir use and is regulatory overkill . Elevated walkways/stairways may not
be the only viable technique. 'There is always the alternate option of
periodically restoring the dune elevation.
RESPONSE: Ill-planned and poorly constructed pedestrian walkways and stair-
ways can cause substantial damage to the fragile primary dunes, interfere
with their dynamics and thus reduce their natural protective character which
is recognized in "The Shoreowner's Protection Act." The Department of
Environmental Conservation hopes that the permit requirement will be a benefit
to applicants by providing technical assistance on the proper construction
and design of such walkways.
15. COMMENT: Section 505.7(b) does not address the fact that erosion protection
structures frequently impair public access to or along the coast. Bulk-
heading and backfilling with fill taken from the water side of the bulkhead
often results in public movement along the shore being blocked by private
property on the landward side of the bulkhead and by water on the waterside.
At a minimum, mandatory public easements across such property should be
required as a condition for permit approval , with appropriate structure
design to permit such movement.
IX - 2 - 21
RESPONSE: See also the Response to Comment 9. above. "The Shoreowner's
rotection Act" contains no provisions for such conditioning of permits
in erosion hazard areas. However, see particularly CMP policies 9, 19
and 20 regarding public access to coastal resources. The inclusion of public
access over such structures is encouraged.
16. COMMENT: Section 505.8(e)(5) - the prohibition of vehicular traffic on
primary dunes is supported in concept but it should be modified to prohibit
traffic dunes "except across designated vehicular dune crossings" to allow
access and egress from the beach.
RESPONSE: See revision, suggestion incorporated.
IX - 2 - 22
M. Bernard J. Blum
Friends o oc away, Inc.
1. COMMENT: There is general dissatisfaction with the manner by which the
Jamaica Bay/Rockaway area has been treated by the New York City Planning
Commission's CMP. Numerous detailed deficiencies are cited. A principal
recommendation is made to the establishment of a Task Force made up of
representatives of the community and agencies with jurisdiction in the
area. The Task Force would be responsible for setting goals for economic
and recreational development conservation, and erosion control .
RESPONSE: The NYC WRP deals with procedures to be utilized to manage the
VTC coastal area. Specific projects for particular areas of the City,
such as the Jamaica Bay/Rockaway area, will receive special attention upon
implemenation of the WRP. Public participation in these activities will
be achieved through the community board, and other mechanisms as appropriate.
2. COMMENT: There is no policy for preventing environmental degradation by
pr vate interests in the form of excessive rates of erosion.
RESPONSE: Policies 13 and 14 are focused on preventing the construction or
reconstruction of erosion protection structures if they adversely affect
adjacent shorelines. New York City policies E and G add specificity to
these policies and apply to both public and private actions. In addition,
the Department of City Planning will be deveioping an erosion hazard
area ordinance which will be in conformance with the State's Environmental
Conservation Law, Article 34. This law provides for minimum standards and
criteria to regulate actvities and developments, including the placement
of erosion protection structures so there will be no measurable increase
in erosion to the development site or elsewhere.
3. COMMENT: Numerous structural solutions are presented for erosion and
marine_ life problems occuring along the Rockaway beaches.
RESPONSE: It is not feasible to comment here on the validity of proposed
structural solutions to specific erosion on marine life problems. Any
proposals, of course, must be consistent with the policies of the approved
NYC WRP and must be in accord with New York City's erosion hazard area
ordinance, when approved.
4. COMMENT: The Arverne-Edgemere Urban Renewal Area is a violation of state
revitalization and access policies.
RESPONSE: Though this specific project may not be consistent with the coastal
poo i cies, the NYS CMP and NYC WRP are not approved. Once approved, all pro-
posed actions in the coastal area must be consistent with coastal policies.
IX - 2 - 23
N. Frank R. Seddio
District Manager
Community Board No. 18
Brooklyn, New York
1. COMMENT: Community Board No. 18 requests a special management area for the
hy�drol6gical areas of Jamaica Bay which would upgrade the environmental
quality of the Bay and preserve the unique characteristics and relate to
the uoaradina of the water quality.
RESPONSE:
The New York City WRP includes the periphery of Jamaica Bay within its
boundary. However, Jamaica Bay, itself, is a federally owned property
and is part of the Gateway N.R.A. As such, it is excluded from the
State's, and thus, the City's coastal area. The management of this water
body is the responsibility of the National Park Service.
2. COMMENT: The Board requests pollution control in Paerdegat Basin.
RESPONSE: The New York City proposed waterfront revitalization program
contras several policies dealing with water quality and describes what
steps the City will take to coordinate water pollution control activities
with protection of natural coastal resources. The City's program supports
the implementation of a Paendegat Basin tributary study which is designed
to address the specific problems of the basin.
3. COMMENT: Illegal dumping is a problem. The Board would support a solid
waste policy which would remove solid waste pollution and illegal dumping
and which would have prevention and enforcement provisions.
RESPONSE: The proposed New York City WRP contains measures and city means
for implementation of policies on solid waste dumping (cf. NYC policies
J and K).
0. Nancy Nagle Kell
anner
Group for the South Fork, Inc.
1. CONDrIENT: Group for the South Fork Inc. commends the efforts of the State
to date in developing a comprehensive management program for coastal land
and water use activities. While some aspects of the plan need further
work and clarification, the framework has been laid for an effective pro-
gram.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your support. No further response needed.
IX - 2 - 24
NOTE: The following comments refer to the draft DEC Part 500 regulations on
the Coastal Erosion Hazards Areas Program.
2. COMMENT: Section 505.7(b) seems to promote the use of erosion control
structures. A great deal of evidence exists that so-called erosion pro-
tection devices are frequently improperly placed, do not serve their in-
tended purpose, and that groins in particular area of limited are unknown
value in preventitive erosion and hurricane damage and cause scouring of
the beach front thus increasing erosion.
RESPONSE: The intent of the regulations is not to promote structural
protection. Such protection could only be built if the requirements of
Section 505.9 were met. However, the prominent placement of Section
505.7(b) before the requirements for movable structures contained in
Section 505.7(c) may create the impression of preference. To avoid this
the final regulations will have the order of the two reve*.r4sed. Note
also that the introduction to 505.9 restates the findings of "The
Shoreowner's Protection Act" regarding the problems associated with the
use of structural protection measures.
3. COMMENT: In its report, A Coastal Erosion Subplan for Nassau and Suffolk
ounties, the Long Island—Ve—gionaT Planning Board states that coasts
ero on plans should be designed to promote "the continuation of natural
geomorphic processes responsible for the maintenance of coastal landforms."
The report emphasizes non-structural solutions to erosion control problems
and discourages projects that block the transport of sand.
RESPONSE: The cited report (which was prepared for the NYS Department of
tai to and financially aided by the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment) was used extensively in the development of the Coastal Management
Program and in draftinq the "The Shoreowner's Protection Act' . How-
ever, in passing the Act, the State Legislature elected to allow greater
discretion to property owners in choosing among the array of alternatives
available, for the appropriate method to deal with erosion hazards.
Nevertheless, as noted in the response above, the Legislature also pre-
scribed rigorous standards where structural measures are employed. You
should also be cognizant of the Coastal Management Program Policy 17 which
requires the use of non-structural measures whenever possible.
4. COMMENT: Section 505.8(c)(5) exempts the construction, modification, or
restoration of structures less than a certain size and/or of a temporary
nature. This may prove detrimental in certain sensitive beach areas.
RESPONSE: Provision deleted.
IX - 2 - 25
5. COMMENT: The protection of barrier islands, spits, and bay barriers would
e greatly aided by the Federal Barrier Islands Bill pending in Congress.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
6. COMMENT: What personsor agencies will be responsible for enforcing and
monitoring Section 505.9(c), (d) and (e)?
RESPONSE: The Part 500 regulations serve two purposes: provide minimum
standards which must be met by local coastal erosion management programs;
and, by the Department when it regulates a coastal erosion management program.
In the latter case the Department's Regional Permit Agents would administer
the regulations. In the former, each municipality or county must determine
how it will administer its local program. See Sections 34-0105, 34,-0106
and 34-0107 of the Act for the conditions determining the implementing unit
of government.
7. COMMENT: We question whether the Section 505.10(b) proposed setbacks for
mova6li structures within hazard areas is adequate.
RESPONSE: The setback distances were established with regard for all factors.
B. COMMENT:
In Section 505.10(c), the setback requirements for non-movable structures
protected by erosion control devices need clarification.
. What are the setback requirements for non-movable structures not protected
by approved erosion protection structures?
RESPONSE:
. The setback requirements for non-movable structures will vary with the
effectiveness of the erosion protection structures protecting the site.
That calculation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
. New non-movable structures or major additions to existing structures are
not allowed in a structural hazard zone unprotected by an approved erosion
protection structure. Refer to Section 505.7(b).
9. COMMENT: As mentioned earlier, we are somewhat sceptical of the effectiveness
ontrovers
s is as otrwhethernsuchstructures
devices(have9dem
exis onstratedasuccess t deal oinccontrolling
exists
long-term erosion.
RESPONSE: These regulations are meant to govern activities throughout the
coastal waters of New York, including the Hudson estuary and the Great Lakes.
Structural solutions in these areas are more feasible than on the south shore
of Long Island.
criteriaospecificbtontheisite in performance
standards
to enable the
when
the reviewing
plans for structural controls.
IX - 2 - 26
P. Howard Golden
President o the Borough of Brooklyn
The City of New York
1. COMMENT: The New York State Coastal Management Program provides an innova-
t v� approach to public waterfront policy, in that, the review process is
equally and separately implemented at the state and local levels. This is
particularly evident in the application, a major portion of which is New
York City's own management program. Although the local program differs
from that of the state's through the added inclusion of land use review
procedures, the two programs are integrally linked under the environmental
review process.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
2. COMMENT: The interrelationship of the State and City environmental quality
rev Tew processes will determine whether the State CMP can be deemed adequate.
It is imperative to note that a separate and identifiable local process is
required under the proposed NYCWRP to implement the State CMP.
RESPONSE: The adequacy and approvability of the State's CMP and the
ity s RP is based upon the enforceability of their respective laws,
regulations and associated processes. SEQR is only one 6t the processes
that will be utilized by both governments. When this process is used by
the City, the departments of City Planning and Environmental Protection
will serve as co-lead agencies in accordance with Executive Order No. 91 .
If an action involves both City and State agencies, the lead agency is
determined by the procedures contained in E.O. No. 91 and Sections 617.6
and 617.7 of SEQR. When an action is subject to both ULURP and SEQR,
the City's designated agencies will , in most instances, be the lead
agencies for SEQR purposes. In either situation, the decisions of
involved State agencies must be consistent with the policies of the
State's CMP and the City's WRP, as required by Article 42 of the
Executive Law.
3. COMMENT: The costs of implementing this local environmental mechanism and
coastal management policies makes it crucial that the State plan provide a
work program and funding commitments which meet the needs of our local
efforts. Although this commitment is not required under the Federal appli-
cation process, it is necessary in evaluating the benefits to be derived
from the City's continued participation in the program and its relationship
to the State's environmental process. Certainly, the City's withdrawal
from or disapproval of the program could only lead to delaying this appli-
cation (an identified alternative in the Draft EIS).
IX - 2 - 27
RESPONSE: As stated in the comment, the preparation of a work program is
not a requirement for approval of either the NYS CMP or the NYC WRP. Further,
as of this writing, Congress has not yet appropriated sufficient funds for
the State CMP. Therefore, even if required, a commitment of funds would be
impossible to make. The Program document and EIS being considered for
Federal and State approval does not contain the reference to the alternative
identified in the above comment. For your information, withdrawal from,
or disapproval of the NYC WRP, would not affect the schedule or status of the
NYS CMP or its application for financial assistance.
4. COMMENT: These comments, as well as my original testimony, are not critical
BT-ItFe Coastal Management Program as proposed. In fact, I am supportive of
the potential benefits derived from New York City's cooperative efforts and
comprehensive submission.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your support. No further response needed.
5. COMMENT: In order to insure an adequate response to _five years of planning,
it is essential that I understand whether a proper allocation of resources
is associated with this program.
RESPONSE: Approval or denial of approval of the NYS CMP and/or the NYC
WRP s not contingent on the availability of funds. As stated above, as
of this writing, Congress has yet to appropriate these funds. Further,
the primary benefit of this program, as explained in the Alternatives
and other sections of the document is not the funds which relate directly
to the Programs, but the consistency provisions of the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act and the State's Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act. The first Act, requires Federal activities to be consistent
with State policy. The second, requires State agencies to be consistent
with those same policies, as well as identified actions of approved local
WRPs. These provisions, plus others will for the first time require all
activities -- Federal , State and local -- within the coastal area, to
accomplish the State policies for waterfront revitalization and coastal
resources protection, without conflict or redundancy.
IX - 2 - 28
Q. Hilda Re ier Rose Mary Lynch
Community Board No.
New York, New York
1. COMMENT: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the State of New York
oaf star Zone Management Program does not address the revitalization
problems of the Waterfront of the west side of Manhattan and the specific
needs of Community Board No. 4 in relation to the waterfront, i.e. , shipping
and possible recreation spots. This report should be expanded to include
the revitalization problems of the waterfront as mentioned above. The
waterfront within the Board No. 4 area should be designated as a special
revitalization area.
RESPONSE: The DEIS and NYS CMP address the principal issues facing the
entre coastal area of the State. These issues fall into three categories:
the need to wisely develop coastal resources; the need to protect coastal
resources; and the major activities which will occur in the coastal area
and which affect numerous coastal resources. The State CMP includes the
regulatory framework within which these issues are addressed. The NYC WRP
provides specificity to the State policies designed to address those three
major categories of issues. These more detailed conditions placed on the
broader State policies are implemented by State authority as well as
existing City regulatory measures. Specific problems of any particular
coastal area of the State, including the west side of Manhattan will be
addressed within this regulatory framework upon approval of both the NYS
CMP and the NYC WRP.
The west side of Manhattan has already been designated as an Area of
Particular Waterfront Significance in orderto address specified problems
related to that stretch of the shorefront. The area extends from the
Battery to 72nd Street.
IX - 2 - 29
R. John W. Meunzinaer
Westchester County Department of Planning
1. C"ENT: DOS regulations Part 601 .4 should be changed from requiring the
sending of a copy of LWRP to "the county wherein the LWRP area is situated"
to requiring sending a copy to the county planning board on agency.
RESPONSE: Each county can make its own arrangements for internal distribution
and review.
2. COMMENT: The proposed amendments to SEQR do not relate well to the existing
aT nguage and format of Part 617 and should be revised. For example, adding
the provision of consistency of State actions within the coastal area to
Section 617.9(c)(3) does not give the attention needed to this major element
of the program. The thought also does not seem to relate to this paragraph
to which it is being added.
RESPONSE: Section 617.9 is the most appropriate location in the SEQR regu-
at ons for the addition of the consistency determinations required by
Article 42. That section requires the findings for the State Environmental
- Quality Review Act. Without altering the existing SEQR process, the proposed
amendments will assure that the coastal policies will receive the consideration
required by Article 42 and necessary for the achievement of the policies and
purposes of New York's coastal program.
3. COMMENT: The language is not totally clear in Section 617.14(f) (10) , but
thetent is obvious. A key word appears to be missing ..."The identification
and discussion shall instead be of the Potential affect, if any, on the appli-
cable policies and purposes of such an approved localwaterfront revitalization
program."
RESPONSE: We agree. See revisions to Section 617.14(f)(10).
4. COMMENT: Language should be added to Part 601 and the Local Government
Guidelines to strongly encourage consultation with adjacent communities
during the development of a local waterfront revitalization program.
RESPONSE: Agreed. Appropriate language has been added.
5. COMMENT: Article 42 should be amended or sufficient language should be in-
cludea in Part 601 and in the Local Government Guidelines to provide for a
review of the consistency between county policy and a local waterfront re-
vitalization program before it is approved by the Department of State.
RESPONSE: See Response to Comment III, A. 2.
IX - 2 - 30
6. COMMENT: There should be a provision for the development of County coastal
plans dor areas of the coastal zone under direct County jurisdiction and
management.
RESPONSE: Article 42 provides for the development of a local waterfront
revitalization program by cities, towns, and villages. Their legal juris-
dictions cover all areas within the CMP boundary, even though counties
and other governmental entities may own, lease, or administer property
within the boundary of a local government. The Department of State regu-
lations (Section 601 .4(3)) do provide counties the opportunity to review
and comment on proposed local waterfront revitalization programs prior to
approval by the Secretary of State. However, giving an option to allow a
county to prepare a WRP would be contrary to Article 42.
__:V
S. Thomas La Manna
ommun ty Board No. 1
Staten Island, New York
1. COMMENT: Criteria should be established to ascertainipriorities when con-
i�T is arise between different proposed waterfront policies, activities,
and uses. For example, while the program places emphasis on economic
revitalization and port development, it does not suggest when that use
should or should not supersede other coastal uses.
RESPONSE: See Response to Comment III, K, 5.
2. COMMENT: The Staten Island waterfront from the St. George Ferry Terminal to
touch Terminal is requested to be included as a shorefront Access Area;
the region including the Arthur Kill , Kill Van Kull and adjoining wetlands
is requested to be included as an Area of Particular Waterfront Significance
and that a Task Force of agency representatives, community groups, and
environmentalists be established.
RESPONSE: Refer to Response to Comment III, M, 3.
3. COMMENT: The CMP does not include a work program for carrying out the policies
it presents.
RESPONSE: Section 4 of the CMP DEIS discusses detailed program management
act—ivTt es that are required to implement coastal policies. In addition to
these detailed activities, annual work programs will be prepared by the De-
partment of State and communities with approved local waterfront revitalization
programs. See Part II, Section 10 for an overview of the first year of
program implementation.
IX - 2 - 31
T. Daniel J. Palm Ph.D
xecut ve Director
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
1. CCo Pages 47-52 -- This section could be strengthened by reference
tChapter 701 , Article 37 of the Executive Law that established the St.
Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission.
RESPONSE: Agreed. See revision.
2. COMMENT: Page 114 , Section 69 Coastal Policies and Implementation would
e strengthened by referring to Chapter 701 , Article 37, Paragraph 847-g,
(Project Review). For example, this legislation specifically addresses
policies 23, 24 and 25.
RESPONSE: The purpose of this Section of the document is to state, and
exp aim coastal policies and describe the means for their implementation
throughout the State's coastal area. The referenced State law applies
only to the SLEOC service area, and therefore cannot implement policies
Statewide.
3. COMMENT: The above 2 items are set forth in a positive sense to reflect
that t wring the past 12 years New York State has implemented coastal resource
management zlong the eastern end of Lake Ontario and along the St. Lawrence
River through the Commission.
RESPONSE: Agreed. The Commission has also had a major role in the develop-
ment
evelop-
menmen of this Program.
ive of the
ram set
rth
4. COMMENT: The the DEIS under review.
Its furthershopestthat review pandrapproval oi
will be
timely.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your support. No further response needed.
IX - 2 - 32
U. Bonnie June Mellon
1 . COMMENT: Approval of the DEIS would be in violation of New York's environ-
menta -policy to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of
the State set forth in Article 1 of the Environmental Conservation Law.
RESPONSE: We disagree. The State has certified that the coastal prograr
s—conesstent with State law. The U.S. Department of Commerce reviews
the program for compliance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
2. COMMENT: The DEIS completely ignores important scientitic and oceanographic
ata revealing hazards to people residing in oceanfront communities on
Western Long Island.
RESPONSE: During the development of the Coastal Management Program and
preparation of the DEIS, a great number of documents and site-specific
studies were reviewed but not all of them were cited in the DEIS.
3. COMMENT: The DEIS omits reference to Article 2B, NYS Executive Law.
RESPONSE: See revision, suggestion incorporated. (See Policy 11 )
4. COMMENT: Waves have not been added to the storm surge elevation for
TI—oo'dinsurance for the City of Long Beach oceanfront which is devoid of
sand dunes. Rezoning for new oceanfront high rise residential buildings
has been enacted by City of Long Beach officials.
RESPONSE: A wave height analysis is being added to the City's Flood In-
surance Study: the amendment was delayed to develop a new topographic
base map for the City and it is expected that the draft study will be made
available by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in early October,
1982. Zoning is, of course, a local government power, however participation
in the federal Flood Insurance Program, including the regulation of activ-
ities in flood-prone areas, is required by State law.
IX - 2 - 33
SECTICN 3
RESPONSE TO TESTI'!('k:Y RECEIVED AT
JOINT FEDERAL API STATE PUBLIC HEARINGS 0f' DEIS
A. Charlene Caile, representing:
Erie County Executive Edward J. Rutkowski
(Written Testimony Submitted)
1. COMMENT: Lake Erie and Niagara River are important to the area for water
supply, fishing and swimming purposes. Also, public investment made to
improve the quality of these waters requires protection.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
2. COMMENT: The guidelines for the development of local waterfront revitali-
zation
evitali-
zato programs do not give recognition to county-wide issues or the need
to coordinate such local efforts with county plans and programs.
RESPONSE: The guidelines have been modified to direct coastal municipalities
to undertake a comprehensive analysis of their entire waterfronts in developing
the local programs. This analysis will address both local and areawide con-
cerns as well as considerations of the plans and programs of other govern-
ments affecting the waterfronts. The Department of State's regulations
(Section 601 .40)) provide counties the opportunity to review and comment
on proposed waterfront revitalization programs prior to approval by the
Secretary of State. This review procedure offers counties the
chance to raise issues or coordinate concerns that may not have been ade
ouately addressed by a coastal community.
3. COM.ENT: The guidelines do not clearly indicate whether projects applied
oar Ey counties have to be situated in localities with approved waterfront
r-:vitalization programs. Such projects should be eligible for funding in
coastal communities with or without an approved local program.
RESPONSE: Under the provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law, only
c t—i ies, towns and villages would be eligible to receive funding. Plus, any
project-related funding must be for "activities which serve to facilitate
construction projects. provided for in an approved waterfront revitalization
program" (Section 918(1 )(b) of Article 42, Executive Law). However, should
a community elect to so provide, a county could be the recipient of funds on
behalf of that community.
IX - 3 - 1
B. David Stebbins, representing:
City of Buffalo, Division of Planning
(Written Testimony Submitted)
1. COtf"ENT: The City of Buffalo strongly supports the NYS Coastal Management
rogram and urges its approval by the Federal government to insure a success-
ful waterfront revitalization effort in the City. The Program represents
a workable and effective approach for balanced management of coastal re-
sources and by using existing authorities will promote the beneficial use
and prevent the impairment of those resources.
RESPONSE: Support appreciated, no further response necessary.
C. Frances F. Dunwell , representing:
New York Coastal Coalition
(Comments presented at the public hearing in Albany were contained in written
testimony submitted on July 20, 1982. The following comments are from that
written testimony)
1. COMMENT: The proposed amendments to the SEQR regulations are confined to
significant state
These
etdansare
vio-
lation ofthe intent ofArtile42of theExcuiveLaw adthe mandate
contained in Section 919(3) of that Article.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments to the SEQR regulations cover all "Type
or Unlisted Actions" as defined in Part 617, Section 617.2, not just
significant actions. See proposed Section 617.5(d).
Section 919(3) is contained in the section entitled "Coordination of
state actions and programs.„ (emphasis added) Both subdivisions one and
t o
two of ecn 919 address state agency actions only. In that context,
subdivinterpision etationree is is alsoninraccord wireted to thpthe debateointate the Stateies. This
Legislature
interpretation
on Article 42.
2. COMMENT: Langua9inednSecion6171
regarding
ta � 1whichareusedindeterminingthe
� eshould
ethe list
of criteria conte
significance of an action under SEQR.
RESPONSE: Coastal resources considerations are incorporated in the deter-
mination
eter-
m nat on of significance by the required use of the Coastal Assessment
Form (CAF) prior to any determination of significance under SEQR. See
Section 600.4 of the proposed Department of State (DOS) Part 600 regulations.
iX - 3 - Z
3. COMMENT: Various environmental criteria in the proposed CAF should be in-
corporated into the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) contained in the
existing SEQR regulations.
RESPONSE: This recommendation would not alleviate the need for the CAF
sincenot all the criteria in the proposed CAF are "environmental" and,
therefore, suited for addition to SEQR and its EAF. It would also be
inappropriate since the EAF is used by all agencies, state, county and
local , and for all actions, both inside and outside the coastal area. The
authority of Article 42 -- and thus the CAF -- is limited in scope to state
agencies acting in a coastal area.
4. COMMENT: The Type I list in Section 617.12 of the SEQR regulations should
BF amended to include certain features that are important to the coastal
program such as significant fish and wildlife habitats, import agri-
cultural lands and other ecologically sensitive areas.
RESPONSE: The Section 617.12 Type I listing is primarily a catalog of
act o s likely to impact on the environment because they exceed certain
thresholds keyed to either magnitude or location. To add certain actions
to that list because of their coastal features alone would alter
the nature of the existing listing.
Also, as indicated similarly in other responses, the suggested change
would affect local as well as state agencies and without regard to the
location of the actions. Article 42's authority extends only to state
agencies acting in a coastal area.
5. COMMENT: Language should be added to SEQR, Section 617.9 to clarify that
eta errminations of consistency pursuant to Article 42, reflected in the pro-
posed amendments to DEC Part 617, Section 617.9, do not require the grantinc
Of a permit or other approval which would otherwise be denied pursuant to
any other state law.
RESPONSE: None of the findings required by Section 617.9 of SEQR require
approval of an action which would otherwise be disapproved. SEQR is simply
the mechanism for assessing, analyzing and weighing the environmental im-
pact of an action to be taken by an agency in achieving some program ob-
jective. It assures minimization or avoidance of adverse environmental
impacts of an action to be undertaken by an agency but it does not and
cannot authorize or require that an action be taken which an agency could
otherwise not take pursuant to the dictates and standards of the program
it is implementing.
6. COMMENT: Permits are not subject to a consistency determination unless they
aredeterminedto be a sionificant action and thus subject to an EIS under
SEQR. This is a significant loophole in the regulations.
RESPONSE: Article 42 does not contain the authority for subjecting per-
miRi actions of State agencies to the Part 600 regulations unless the
action has been identified by the Secretary pursuant to Section 916(1)(a)
of Article 42 . or is subject to SEQR and has the potential to significantly
affect the environment, thus requiring an EIS. The Federal CZMA requires
States to manage land uses having direct and significant (emphasis added)
impacts on the coastal waters; thus the significance test is not a loophole
but is in compliance with the Federal Act, and specifically regulations
23.11 (b)(1 ) . 1X - 3 - 3
7. COMENT: The CAF form should be amended to direct that a "yes" answer to
any question pertaining to natural resources requires the preparation of a
lone form EAF. This will link the CAF to SEQR.
RESPONSE: The purpose of the CAF is to assist state agencies in assessing
the potential impacts that their actions may have upon the achievement of
coastal policies. The CAF is also intended to supplement the EAF in deter-
mining the significance of proposed actions. This link to SEQR is accom-
plished by requiring (in Section 600.4) that the CAF be completed prior to
any SEQR determination of significance. This connection has been further
clarified by the revisions to Section 600.4.
S. COMMENT: In DOS' Part 600 regulations, no reference is made to nor are
there requirements for the use of the explanations and guidelines which
accompany the coastal policies in the CMP DEIS.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to Section 600.5 which identify, reference
And clarify the purpose and use of the explanations and guidelines.
9. COMMENT: Rule-making should not be exempt from the consistency requirement.
RESPONSE: Debate in the Legislature on Article 42 indicated that
they did not intend the enactment of a measure which imposed addi-
tional general regulatory requirements In 5913(1) of Article 42
the listing of the types of actions directly undertaken by state
agencies that must be consistent with coastal policies does not
include rule-making actions. Note further, that in situations where
the Legi�lA ture intended rule-making actions to be covered in other
contexts, express inclusion of rule-making is found. See, e.g.,
Environmental Conservation Law, 5 8-0105.
Rule-making actions, nevertheless must be the subject of a Coastal
Assessment Fora. This form would provide notification to the Secretary
and an opportunity for discussion of proposed rule-making actions which
may affect coastal issues. Also, those rule-making actions for which
an environmental impact statement is prepared pursuant to the SEQR
regulations (Part 617) would be the subject of analysis which must in-
clude the coastal policies since the amendments to Part 167 require
this (see proposed addition to Part 617.14(f)(10)) .
1X - 3 - 4
10. COMMENT: The words "the preservation of" should precede the words "those natural
resources" in the first sentence of Section 600.1(c).
RESPONSE: The language of DOS Part 600, Section 600.1 (c) is a
restatement of the legislative intent contained in Section 910 of Article 42.
11. COF14ENT: The policies in Section 600.5 of DOS' Part 600 regulations should
Winded and state the need to protect fish and wildlife habitats in
general .
RESPONSE: Several existing laws, while their principal intent is not directly
occused on habitat protection, already afford considerable protection to fish
and wildlife habitats. Some of the more noteworthy laws are the Fresh Water
and Tidal Wetlands acts, Protection of Waters Act, State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System and the Solid Wastes Management Act.
12. COMMENT: The policies in Section 600.5 provide no protection to fish and
wfTUTIfTe habitats, except those identified as significant, from adverse
impact resulting from toxic chemicals and other pollutants.
RESPONSE: Several policies contained in the CMP/DEIS specifically provide
protection to these habitats from the adverse effects of hazardous wastes
and other pollutants. Policies numbers 30, and 33-40 address the concern
raised, but are not in section 600.5 regulations for they are already a
part of other existing State law.
13. COMMENT: Public access to publicly owned lands, which have been acquired
to protect fragile natural resources and could-be threatened by public
access, should not be mandated.
RESPONSE: The explanations and guidelines in the CMP/DEIS for both public
access policies give recognition to the harm that may result to fragile
resources from overuse. In addition, the second policy specifically states
that access be ". . .provided in a manner compatible with adjoining uses."
14. COMMENT: The proposed DEC Part 505 erosion regulations should be amended
to ncTude a schedule for designation of those areas within a year of program
approval .
RESPONSE: Deadlines for designation of those areas are contained in Article 34
oft a environmental Conservation Law. NYS CMP funds, which are contingent
upon Congressional approval , will be provided to the DEC to ensure that the
designation of erosion hazard areas will be expedited. The target date for
the completion of the designation process is October of 1983.
TY - 4 6
15. COMMENT: The DOS' Part 601 regulations should be amended to require that a
local government be consistent with its approved waterfront revitalization
program.
RESPONSE: Consistency is already required by Section 601 .6(b) which authorizes
the te sanction or revocation of approval. However, this has been
further clarified by revisions to Section 601.6(x).
16. COMMENT: Part 601 of DOS' regulations should provide a notification pro-
cedure—to
ro-
ce ure to alert the Secretary of State of local actions so that he is
better able to monitor the progress of each local program.
RESPONSE: We agree. Section 601.4(e) has been revised accordingly.
17. COMMENT: State agencies, with programs that have the potential to affect
Tal waterfront program, have the opportunity to review and comment on
every local program prior to approval by the Secretary of State. How
will a negative comment from a state agency on a local program affect
approval by the Secretary of State?
RESPONSE: Article 42 requires the Secretary to consult with those state
age— n—c e with programs ated by a local after consultatio rthat thereeisuatdisarove
conflict with
any program, if she/he finds
any State or Federal policy. The regulations also require disapproval .
See Section 601.3(3).
18. COMMENT: Mention should be made in the CMP document of the means for com-
p"a and updating the identification of significant habitats, scenic
resources and agricultural lands.
RESPONSE: These important coastal resources will be completed and mapped on
e Coastal Area map during the first year following program approval .
19. COMMENT: The economic development policies are overly broad and override
certaTn— existing protection for environmental resources.
RESPONSE: Each policy statement must be read together with all of the
other policies. The balancing of competing policies, which is so vital to
the success of New York's coastal effort and which was recognized as such
by the State Legislature in Article 42, Section 912(1), will take place
in the course of the SEQR process for those actions for which an EIS is
prepared pursuant to DEC's Part 617 regulations, and in Section 600.4 of
DOS's Part 600 regulations for all non-significant actions. The process
of ascertaining consistency, as required in 600.4 and SEQR will result in
decisions which balance all relevant coastal policies. See also revisions
p.l1-5-54.
Ik - 3 - 5
20. COMMUT: The guidelines applicable to the fish and wildlife policies are
tot aT y inadequate and overly restrictive.
RESPONSE: The explanation to the policy on significant fish and wildlife
a stats has been expanded to include guidelines on activities likely to
affect such habitats and physical , chemical and biological parameters.
D. Bernard Melewski , representing:
Environmental Planning Lobby
1. COMMENT: The SEQR, Part 617 regulations should be amended to add coastal
considerations to the Section 617.11 criteria which are to be used when
makina determinations of significance.
RESPONSE: See response to III, C, 2.
2. COMMENT: The environmental criteria in the Coastal Assessment Form (CAF)
st�be incorporated into Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) of the
SEQR regulations.
RESPONSE: See response to III, C, 3.
3. COWENT: The second sentence of the proposed Section 617.9(c)(iii) amendment
toEOR, pertaining to the required finding on a state agency action in an
area with an approved local program -- should be dropped and, instead, put
in the Department of State's Part 600 regulations.
RESPONSE: In an effort to minimize the procedural requirements upon state
agencies, consistency determinations on actions necessitating the preparation
of an EIS were incorporated into the existing findings requirements of
Section 617.9. The suggested revision to this section would require agencies
to follow two different processes, thereby complicating rather than facilitating
the agency's efforts to comply with the provisions of Article 42 and the
SEQR law.
4. COMMENT: The SEQR "Type I" list should be expanded to include identified
coastal resources.
RESPONSE: See response to III , C, 4.
IX - 3 - 7
E. Frances Hodson, Long Beach, New York
1. COM9'9ENT: Section 8-0103 of the Environmental Conservation Law was omitted
n Volume 2.
RESPONSE: This section is not directly related to the implementation of
e program. It has been reprinted as an addendum to this volume.
2. COMMENT: The approval of water supply applications, particularly wells
drawing large amounts of water, require public notice.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
3. COMMENT: local governments should be required to adhere to the coastal
policies.
RESPONSE: Local government involvement in the State's coastal program is
vo untary. Therefore these units are not required by the Waterfront Revitali-
zation and Coastal Resources Act to adhere to the coastal policies, unless
a community has an approved waterfront revitalization program. Many activities
involve various state programs. State agencies in implementing those programs
must of course be consistent with the coastal policies.
4. COMMENT: The State's enabling laws mandate that local zoning regulations
be adopted in accordance with a "comprehensive" plan.
RESPONSE: It is agreed that such regulations be in line with an overall
plan; wever, the enabling laws do not require localities to adopt zoning
regulations.
5. COMJr1ENT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report of Long Beach was not included
n t e report.
RESPONSE: A number of Corps documents were consulted in the preparation of
is raft EIS. Not all of them were cited.
6. COMMENT: No reference is made to the impact of salt water intrusion upon
Long hand's groundwater.
RESPONSE: This subject is discussed in Part II, Section 5 under water re-
sources. Policy 38 also addresses groundwater supplies, particularly those
designated as primary source aquifers.
IX - 3 - 8
7. COMMENT: Dune protection and dune creation programs are not mentioned.
RESPONSE: The protection of landforms such as beaches, barrier islands and
dunes are discussed on pages 111-20 to 21 in Part III of the draft EIS. Also,
artificial nourishment activities such as rebuilding or creating beaches
and dunes are covered on the above cited pages.
8. COMMENT: Valuable materials produced by the Corps of Engineers and the U.S.
partment of Commerce relating to hurricanes, ocean storms, protection of
the barrier beach were not used in the draft EIS.
RESPONSE: A number of documents prepared by regional, State, Federal and
nth ernational agencies were consulted and citied in Part II, Section 5
under flood and erosion hazards, in reference to hurricanes, storms and
barrier beaches.
9. COMMENT: No mention is made of the rising sea level .
RESPONSE: This subject is covered on page 11-5-11 .
10 . COMMENT: The draft EIS must be distributed to the public for review and
recommendation. It should not be rushed through the public review process.
RESPONSE: Copies of the draft EIS were made available to the chief
e e-1 cted officials of all coastal cities, town, villages and counties, as
well as other organizations, businesses and individuals prior to the scheduled
public hearings. The review period for the draft EIS was for a period of
45 days.
11. COMMENT: There should be greater discussion of zoning and its effect upon
civil 1 rights.
RESPONSE: The State's Coastal Program does not rely upon zoning for imple-
mentation on purposes.
12. COMMENT: The Department of Environmental Conservation may be better suited
to protect the health and safety of the State's residents than the Department
of State which is "more suited to the needs of developers".
RESPONSE: Specific responsibility for the State's coastal program was vested
in tf�e 6epartment of State by the State Legislature. The Department's on-
going planning and local government responsibilities were a major factor in
this decision. The State's coastal program is more than an environmental
protection program, for it advocates the beneficial use as well as the pro-
tection of the State's coastal resources. The Department of Environmental
Conservation will still have a major role to play in the coastal program;
because it has jurisdiction over a number of resources protection programs
such as wetlands, water and air quality and habitats.
IX .- 3 - 9
F. Aurora Gareiss, representing:
Udalls Cove Preservation Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee
Governing Board on Water Resources
(Written Testimony Submitted)
1. COMMENT: The approval of New York City's waterfront revitalization program
s supported, provided: the program is undertaken with or without Federal
funding; the City's work program be developed with public participation; and,
the work program include the designation of several special management
areas and special staffing to enforce development regulations on the waterfront.
RESPONSE: Support for Progra.m approval appreciated. The City's
participation in the State's Program is dependent upon a deter-
mination by the City Planning Commission that adequate implementation
funds are available. The Commission's decision will be made when
funding levels are established.
2. COK1ENT: The concept of the watershed would assist in determining the land-
ward ITmit of the coastal area.
RESPONSE: This concept was considered vtry early in the development stages
of the State's coastal program. It was determined then that this concept
was not uniformly practical , since its application would result in a coastal
extending
some
hundreds ieinland. u
ses
in this vast dontand wouldnot haveadirectand significant impact
on coastal waters.
G. Mark Weinstock, representing:
Neighborhood Organizations Cit(Writteizens Lignite (NO COAL)
1. COMMENT: "Coalport - Staten Island" is a coal export terminal proposed to be
built 6y 1986. If implemented, NO COAL believes the project wi11 ruin the
Island's North Shore, destroy an existing tidal wetland and counter New York
State efforts to develop and implement a rational and workable Coastal Manage-
ment Program. As a result of the project, the Stapleton/Clifton waterfront
would cease to be scenic, have its historic character destroyed, cultural
vitality sapped, investment ins and reuse of existing building stock dry up,
and thwart efforts to apply local aesthetic conditions in the design of new
structures. Each of tione914t5nt915.5]results
thesMaterfront Revitalization
and to the
considerations of Sect [
and Coastal Resources Act.
IX - 3 - 10
RESPONSE: In addition to the LGWRP considerations mentioned above,
a LGWRP must also, among other items, facilitate appropriate in-
dustrial uses requiring a waterfront location. Both the protection
and preservation of resources and the provision for their beneficial
use must be balanced and incorporated within a LGWRP. The Coalport -
Staten Island project, should it be implemented, may or may not
result in the effects described. However, once the New York State
Coastal Management Program and the New York City Waterfront Revitaliza-
tion Program are approved, the provisions of those programs will apply
to all such activities in the defined coastal area.
2. COMMENT: NO COAL believes that there is pressure to "grandfather"
Few-York City actions conducted to date from the application of future
legislation, regulations, and guidelines emanating from Federal
approval of the FEIS and Coastal Management Program. New York City
should be made to adhere strictly to the final Coastal Management
Program.
RESPONSE: In New York City, several types of actions which have
combed with all SEQR requirements will not be subject to review under
the City's WRP. These include: public improvements to be constructed
pursuant to the official City map and official drainage plans; a site
selection, urban renewal plan or large scale development plan adopted
prior to the effective date of the WRP; and any action which has been
certified under ULURP prior to the effective date of the WRP. Any
major modifications to the abc,,e types of actions will , however, be
subject to review under the City's WRP.
3. COMMENT: Is the Port Authority, as a bi-state agency, subject to NYS
laws-enacted in response to the Federally-mandated Coastal Zone
Management Act?
RESPONSE: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a state
agency and as such required to adhere to the WRCRA. It should be
pointed out that the Coastal Zone Management Act is an Act which
encourages, not mandates states to participate. (Also see response to
Section II , C.1 .) .
IX - 3 - 11
4. COMMENT: Add a fifth sub-paragraph to NYCRR, Title 199 Part 601 .4(a) to
in New York City, community boards of affected littoral areas
and relevant borough-wide civic/community organizations.", or as an alter-
native and possibly in lieu of that change, the following could be inserted
within the review procedure for LGWRP in Section 601.4: "The Secretary
eainaffec
of State will give publicnotice
and
schedule
public
issionrbygthe at 1ocalityted
.11
sited
s) no later than 30 y i9
RESPONSE: Local discussions should all have occurred by the time the
oca egislative body (in NYC, the Board of Estimates) votes to approve
and submit the local program to the Secretary. Section 915(3) of
Article 42 strongly encourages consultation with community based groups
and others during program preparation. This has been adequately docu-
mented in the case of NYC.
5. COMMENT: Delete the words "if necessary" within NYCRR, Title 19, Part
. .
RESPONSE: We agree. The phrase has been deleted.
6. COMMENT: Add to NYCRR, Title 199 Part 601 .7: "Withdrawal of approved
JGWRP 6y locality will rescind further state funding and other assistance,
if such funding or assisSa�nderce sArtic1eprovided,
thefor
Executive Lawewillncease
LGWRP planning. Benefit
as of the date of withdrawal."
RESPONSE: We agree. See revisions to Section 601 .7.
H. Sister Francis Gerard Kress, CSJ, representing:
Environmental Protection Committee of Community Board No. 1 in Brooklyn,
and Greenport Civic Council
(Written Testimony Submitted)
1. COMMENT: Greenpoint and William buin thosesidents feel neglected since no public
access to the waterfront exists
RESPONSE: The NYS Coastal Management Program and the NYC Waterfront Revitali-
za—tion grogram contain provisions for the preservation and protection of
existing access to the coast and provisions for increasing public access.
Refer to the discussion of the provisions found under Policies 19 and 20 of
both programs. Upon approvareof eui�rements outyS Coastal lined in llamg the
5ection 7
shorefront access and protectionq
of the Program document will be applied.
2. COMMENT: With or without financial support of the NYC Waterfront Revitali-
zaLiori Program, many things can st � done
area�landnestablishublic ingtaccityion
by those living and working i a particular
wide advisory committee.
tv
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
3. COMMENT: Specific areas of the Brooklyn waterfront should be evaluated and
esignated as wetlands and/or as areas to be protected.
RESPONSE: NYS's Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Act and Protection of Water
aws t are the primary means of protecting wetlands. A discussion of how
these Acts are used to implement the wetlands policy can be found after
Policy 44 in the NYS and NYC program documents.
4. COM14ENT: NYS should have a comprehensive plan for monitoring and managing
til York Harbor and Bight.
RESPONSE: After approval of the NYS Coastal Management Program, New York
tate intends to work with affected agencies and interests to develop agree-
ments with such agencies in order to seek methods for more comprehensive
management of the Harbor.
5. COMMENT: Various NYC agencies should have been involved in the preparation
oT the Program and should be involved in its implementation in cooperation
with NYC Community Boards.
RESPONSE: During the six years utilized by the NYC Planning Commission to
prepare the NYC Waterfront Revitalization Program, all affected City agencies
were consulted. They provided sugnificant information and comments used in
shaping the program. As a result of the consistency provisions of the NYS
and NYC programs, all affected agencies must adhere to the program. Further,
NYS and NYC fully intend to involve appropriate agencies in specific
activities during program implementation.
I. Virginia M. Dent, representing:
N.Y.S. Northeastern Queens Nature and Historical Preserve Commission
(Written Testimony Submitted)
1 . COMMENT: The purposes of the Commission, the federal Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act
anage-
meenit and the State's Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources
Act were outlined to demonstrate the mutual concerns of each. Also, the
Commission expressed its intent to cooperate with the Department of State
in the implementation of the State's coastal program.
RESPONSE: No reply necessary.
IX - 3 - 13
2. COMMENT: Despite Article 42 of the Executive Law, New York State must devise
and legislatean -impmentatiorgram. Local governments can help the
Department o inperforming this
k.
RESPONSE: This document is a description of the implementation program for
the coastal Management Program. Local governments can aid the Department
in carrying out the program, if they choose to participate. Their efforts
will add greater specificity to the State's Coastal Program.
3. COMMENT: Specific activities and projects sponsored by the Commission
were identified. Severalare
for Fort Tottenowhichthas been declarewith the d
re
of New York, including a e plan
surplus by the Federal government.
RESPONSE: No reply necessary.
4. COMMENT: The Commission's program -- consisting of the identified activities
an projects -- should be included in the final EIS. on the State's Coastal
Management Program. The Commission views this program comparable to the City's
waterfront program which is included in the draft EIS.
rams
RESPONSE: Artiducted
ensistentthe
withExecutive
c astalLaw
policies,enotState
incorporated'intogthe
porogramoaocument.
J. BeaBea_, New York, New York
1. COMMENT: There are access problems associated with Gatewy National Recre-
ation-Area Area and Brod agenciesaoftenwhich
work atshould
cross-purposesaddressed
with one another,
Various public age c
leading to piece-meal planning.
RESPONSE: Public access to the shorefront is one of the nt access planning processor cisnincluded
eof
�f�CMP and the NYC WRP. A shorefrontto
in the CNP which will result inlist
financialspecific
and 1egalaccess
limitsVem7hesNYC WRPwhich
the State will give priority, within
designates several shorefront areas
as ssropriate for improved access, in-
cluding those Gateway areas with acce
One purpose of the NYS CMP is tocathatplans
Stateand
andrlocalscoastalof various
agencies for the coastal areas toensure
policies are being followed, thus preventing actions occurring at cross
purposes.
IX - 3 -14
K. Sarah Chasis, representing:
Natural Resources Defense Council
(Comments presented after public hearing in New York City were contained in written
comments submitted on July 26, 1982. The following comments are from those written
comments.)
1. COMMENT: It is a significant achievement that the State has finally developed
a comprehensive management program for its coast. Many years of effort went
into this program.
RESPONSE: No response necessary.
2. COMMENT: The relationship between the program document and the regulations
Ts uncTear. Nowhere do the regulations that bind the state agencies to the
coastal policies refer to the program document itself. As a consequence,
the legal effect of the policy explanations and guidelines is unclear.
RESPONSE: We agree that the relationship between the regulations and the
program document was unclear. The regulations have been amended to clarify
and explain that relationship by stating; In evaluating proposed actions
against the following policies, explanations and guidelines contained in
the approved Coastal Management Program document. . .".
3. COMMENT: There are no policy guidelines for some of the most important
po icies, such as the protection of significant fish and wildlife, habitats.
RESPONSE: See revisions which incorporate detailed policy guidelines.
Also, see Response to Section I,B,3.
IX - 3 - 15
it. COMMENT: State permitting decisions are governed by the coastal policies
on1l If the proposed action is deemed significant under SEQR. Since only a
smaI portion of state permitting actions meet this test, the vast majority
of activities permitted by the state will go unregulated under the program.
To remedy this deficiency, NRDC recommends that if any answer to Part (e)
of the Coastal Assessment Form (p. 626 ) is answered yes the action
matically should be deemed significant for purposes of SEQR. This would en-
sure that actions having a significant impact on the coast and the coastal
policies conform to the coastal policies.
RESPONSE: Refer to the Response to Comment III. C. 6. In addition, it
mus—te-pointed out that the CAF is designed and intended for use as a coastal
impact assessment tool for state agencies, similar to the use of the EAF
for environmental impact assessment in DEC's Part 617. No single response to
any inquiry on either form is a form indication of the existence of significant
impacts or the lack thereof. However, once a state agency act on is in fact
determined by that agency, after completion of the CAF, to have the potential
to impact on the environment, then the proposed amendments to Part 617 to
insure that the action -- including a permit action -- will be consistent
with the DOS Part 600, Section 600.5 coastal policies.
5. COMMENT: No mechanism or guidelines are provided for resolution of conflicts
between and among the coastal policies. Many of the development policies
are too broad sweeping and unbalanced. For instance they fail to acknowledge
that preservation of natural resources may be preferable to development in
certain areas.
RESPONSE: Refer to the Response to Comment III. C. 19.
6. COMMENT: The guidelines must reflect a recognition that certain water-
ependent uses and facili — may be inappropriate for certain locations
because of their adverse environmental impacts.
RESPONSE: Refer to those guidelines for additional clarifications.
7. COMMENT: Policy 3 guidelines are totally unacceptable. They, in essence,
approve in advance major port expansions. They provide for an override of
other coastal policies.
RESPONSE: This policy is limited as all policies are limited, by the
requirement that an action must be consistent with all applicable coastal
policies. Language has been added to clarify this requirement. See
revisions.
IX - 3 - 16
8. COMMENT: Policy 3, Port Activity is nowhere limited to water dependent port
acti y.
RESPONSE: Guideline 1 states that "in assessing proposed projects within
ora utting a major port, the overriding consideration is the maintenance and
enhancement of port activity which will have precedence over non port
related activities" The intention of this guideline is that port related
water-dependent activities have precedence over non water dependent activities.
The guideline will be revised to more clearly state that within port areas
port related -activities, i.e. , land use or development essential to waterborne
transportation, should take precedence over development that is not related
to waterborne transportation.
9. COMMENT: Why should all port dredging be deemed of statewide or regional
ene it upon such a meager showing as need and acceptable environmental
impacts. Guideline 5, dealing with landfill , should be struck.
RESPONSE: Neither guideline is as sweeping as the comment suggests. They
w-'Ti T—Fowever, be modified to make clear that acceptable environmental
impacts are only those that would be permitted under all applicable environ-
mental regulations.
10. COMMENT: Guideline 5 under Policy 3 seems overreaching.
RESPONSE: The guideline is not overreaching. However, revisions have been
mad'a to clarify the guideline.
11 . COMMENT: Why is Policy 5 limited to large scale development only?
RESPONSE: The policy is not limited to large scale development. However, the
exp anation refers to large scale development as an example to explain the
meaning of the policy statement.
12. COMMENT: Guideline 1 , Policy 5 would seem to define all cities, built up
su ur an towns and villages, and rural villages as areas of unconcentrated
development having adequate infrastructure and public services.
RESPONSE: Guideline 1 does not define these areas in this way, but as areas
o concentrated development which enerall have adequate infrastructure and
pub services. The adequacy of an area infrastructure and public ser-
vices must still be assessed against the needs of the proposed development
activity to determine whether this policy is being furthered by the action.
IX - 3 - 17
13. C_ All water dependent uses should not be excepted from this policy.
RESPONSE: Agree, the text is to be revised to except only water dependent
uses with specific site requirements not compatible with this policy.
14. COMMENT: All second home development should not be excepted from the policy
on encouraging concentration of development.
RESPONSE: Second home development should be excepted from this policy. How-
ever, second home development is not excepted from any other coastal policy.
Any development, including second-come must be carefully sited so as to
maximize the benefits of maintaining open space and public access and be con-
sistent with coastal policies.
15. COMMENT: Policy 22 should require that the recreation provided be open to
the public.
RESPONSE: The State does not have the authority to require that all pri-
vat— a recreational development be op ned to the public. Facilities using
public funds will be opened for pubic access.
16. COMMENT: Many of the types of development listed in Policy 22 should not
be s ted right on the coast.
RESPONSE: The policy refers to both existing as well as new development,
while many of these uses should not, or need not, have been located on the
coast, they are there, and it is the intent of this policy that, if
precticable, they should provide for water related recreation as a multiple
use.
17. COMMENT: Steam electric generating stations and transmission facilities
are a exempt completely from the coastal policies.
RESPONSE: Actions subject to Article VII and VIII of the PSL are exempt
from MR and thus from the procedures implementing Article 42. However,
the level of environmental protection afforded under Article VII and VIII
is equal to that of the coastal policies. In addition, the Secretary of
State is a party to both proceedings and will present testimony on a
facility's need for a shorefront location and its impacts on all coastal
policies. Her/his testimony must be considered by the Board or PSC in
reaching its decisions.
IX - 3 - 1B
18. COMMENT: The explanation of Policy 28 is inadequate. To remedy this, NRDC
recommends that the phrase ". . .if the proposed action is to be implemented. . ."
be deleted.
RESPONSE: It is unnecessary to delete that phrase, since it would be un-
necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse effects if the action was not imple-
mented.
19. COMMENT: The OCS Policy (NO. 29) has no specific guidelines accompanying it,
t u�i s providing totally inadequate guidance for OCS activities.
RESPONSE: The discussion on oil and gas energy development planning processes
a� expanded in the energy facility planning process section of this
document. All activities including OCS must be consistent with the applicable
policies.
20. COMMENT: The policy explanation for Policy 35 undercuts the natural resource
protection intent of that Policy.
RESPONSE: The explanation of Policy 35 has been revised so it more accurately
states the meaning of that policy.
21. COMMENT: Many of the important environmental policies (e.g. , Nos. 7, 11-17,
T4_7_267 do not become effective until the state has either identified and
ampped significant fish and wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and important
farmlands or identified coastal erosion hazard areas. We could find no state-
ment or commitment to a schedule for implementation of these tasks in the
program. This is a major omission.
RESPONSE: Upon receipt of Federal funds pursuant to Section 306 of the CZMA,
t e tate will complete these tasks during the first year grant period. See
Section 10, Part 2 for more detail.
22. COMMENT: Policy 7 is weak in that it only applies to a range of habitats
w�cFis narrowly defined by the criteria listed for determining significance.
These criteria are more stringent than in earlier drafts. Specific guidelines
are needed governing uses affecting these areas of significance. A policy
should be adopted to protect coastal fish and wildlife habitats not rising to
to the level of significance set in Policy 7.
IX - 3 - 19
RESPONSE: Until the signing into
servationArticle
fish2andNew
wildlifehad
habitats.
Ic irectly focused on the pre wildlife
for in-
The protection of several habitats, howeverg were being provided
Fresh-
directly by existing resource protection
of WatersuActlaws sch as the The intentTidalaof Article 42
water Wetlands Act and the Protect tial protection to the
was to begin to meet this need by affording spe
particularly important or significant habitats.
The criteria for deter-
mining which habitats are of statewide significance have
been re
are essende tial
stringent than as presented in earlier drafts.
to the survival of.. .popul.ation" same and "aseinothe Marchund at a Ver 9�afty low eCMP. A
within a coastal reg ion are the
comprehensive policy protecting fish and wildlife habitats not rising to
the level of'significance set in policy
under7 was
ex not
adopted
ing because Such a
policy would not have been enforceable
23. COMMENT: Specific
dguidelines
resource managementaccompany
considerations are developedand order to assure that sound
adhered to.
RESPONSE: The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation is authorized
under various sections of Environmental Conservation Law (see "State Means
for Implementing the Policy" under respective policies) to regulate the
utilization of the State's fish and wildlife resources. Sound resource
ch as the biology of the spec
management considerations suies, carrying
capacity of the habitat, and public demands, provide the basis for DEC's
decision on harvest restrictionst stocking programs and habitat improve-
ment efforts. Any public or private initiatives to expand recreational
or commercial use of the State's fish and wildlife resources can only be
done with DEC's ext oftsoundyresourcegthat such initiatives management considerations. be
cont
done within the conte
Additional guidelines forimplementing policies 9 and 10, howeverg have
been added to the ft to manageotheseSuchresourceslines will reinforce
DEC's regulatory efforts
24. COMMENT: The standards and evidence
set forth in the regulations should
e referenced in Policia 9h
RESPONSE: It is sufficient to cite the authorizing legislation.
25. COMMENT: The last sentence of the Policy 15 explanation should be struck
s nce here is no basis in the policy for such a statement.
RESPONSE: The cited sentence is essentialto land to clarify that further off-
s ore m ping may be an alternat
26. COMMENT: Policy 26 should not be limited to only public actions affecting
mportant agricultural lands• The hievinliyiby its intent of thesstatutemuch rifdit
and the program would not be achieving the
limited the policy's applicability so narrowly.
RESPONSE: Article 42 requires State agency actions to be consistent with
t e coastal policies. In terms of its applicability, Policy 26 is not
limited any more than any other policy.
27. COMMENT: Policies 31 and 42 should acknowledge the provision of Section 307
w�-W—states that nothing in a State's coastal program shall in any way
lessen or impair standards set pursuant to the Clean Air and Water Acts.
RESPONSE: The explanations of policies 31 and 44 have been amended
accordingly.
28. COMMENT: NRDC adopts the NYS Coastal Coalition comments on the SEQR and
S regulations, wishing to emphasize the following:
. The caveat set forth in Sections 919(1 ) and 915(8) of the statute
should be reflected in Section 617.9(c)(3) of the SEQR.
RESPONSE: Refer to the Response to Comment III. C. 5.
. The exception for rulemaking made in the DOS regulations in Section 600.4(2)
must be eliminated in order to conform to the statute.
RESPONSE: Refer to the Response to Comment III. C. 9.
. The term "if necessary" should be deleted from the third to the last line
of DOS regulations, Section 601 .3.
RESPONSE: Refer to the Response to Comment III. G. 5.
. "May" should be replaced with "shall" in the first line of Section 601 .6(b).
RESPONSE: We agree. Refer to Revisions.
29. COMMENT: Because the coastal erosion hazard area regulations do not go into
effect until those areas have been identified by DEC, it is essential that
a schedule for rapid implementation of this program and designation of these
areas be included as part of the coastal program.
RESPONSE: Refer to the Response to Comment III., C, 14.
30. COMMENT: Section 505.5(e) fails to follow Section 34-0109(b) of the statute
n iscussing the applicability of SEQR.
IX - 3 - 21
RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation
at Section 34-0109(bg is not consistent
do haveasignificant onthe hasignifirticle cnEehh
is
intended to ensure that actions which
en-
vironment are adequately reviewed prior to approval . There are situations
under Article 34 where many regulated activities should it which could not
reasonably be construed that they may have a significant effect on the en-
vironment. The statutory conflict between the two Articles will require
to
subsequent resolution, d it is felt
aro
her
the situation by inserting additional matterrinttheoregulatoionscat thisttime.
31. COMMENT: New non-movable structures and major additions to existing structures
s-houTd-not be allowed in structural hazard areas except perhaps where structural
protection already exists.
otherwise
ofa non-structural solution iencourage
uthe
lbuilding
which
new erosion protection structures in
is contrary to the findings and spirit of the law.
RESPONSE: The underlying authority for the regulations, "The Shoreowner's
ProtectTon Act", does not prohibit the siting of structures, movable or
immovable, but sets standards for their location including consideration of
the protection afforded by erosion protection structures. However, the
prominent placement of Section 505.7(b), before the requirements for
movable structures contained in Section 505.7(c) may create the impression of
a preference for structural eaaiS sCMPTPolicydl7his the o
regardingder theousehoftnon-
sections is n9w reversed
structural measures whenever possible.
32. COMMENT: Section 505.8(c)(7) : this section should be changed to reflect the
greater restrictions imposed on motorized vehicles in an earlier draft.
Commercial fishing or emergency
but otherneeds susesdshouldnbedered in prohibitedrmitting
vehicular use of the bea hs
RESPONSE: The latest draft continues the prohibition of vehicle use on
pr mary. unes and bluffs but allows their operation on the more tolerant
portion of beaches seaward
the
ualupper
highdebris
levellines
of protectionfwhiimeary
virtually dunes,thus assuring a Y eq
providing for reasonable use of a natural resource.
33. C_: The limitations in primary dune development are excellent.
RESPONSE: No response required.
•
34. COMMENT: Section 50519(e) must be revised to state. "The construction,
mofffl'cation, or restoration of erosion protection structures will not be
permitted if such activity will result in (1) a measurable increase in
erosion at the development site and other
locations;
control(structures effects
existin
on natural protective features, 9 erosion
natural resources .
IX - 3 -22
RESPONSE: Disagree: the section as drafted reflects the language and
ntent of Section 34-0108(3) except that the phrase, "significant fish
and wildlife habitats" has been inserted in lieu of "fish spawning and
shellfish beds" which is deleted.
IX - 3 - 23
L. Joseph Landau, representing:
Howard Golden, Brooklyn Borough President
(Written Testimony Submitted)
1. COMMENT: Supports the City's efforts in developing a local coastal program.
The program submitted by the City is very comprehensive.
RES_ PO_: Support appreciated. No reply necessary.
2. COMMENT: One of two public concerns is to prevent unnecessary additions of
ureaucratic red tape. The City's program submission accomplishes this with
an implementation process within existing laws and procedures.
RESPONSE: No reply necessary.
3. COMMENT: Other concern is one of providing adequate financing to implement
-the loEal program. It is not clear
in draft EIS whether or not the City will
receive adequate funds to implement
RESPONSE: At the time of responding to the comments contained in the hear-
ngs testimony, the levels of funding to New York State and consequently
New York City were unknown. An allocation for New York State of $3 million
has a un discussed between306otheeCoastal Zonestate
Managementofficials.
Acturequiresfor
Congressional
w York
State under Section 306 0
appropriations.
4. C_: There is no indication what elements or projects in the City's
program will address the needs
officials should developa workprogram
sof lsatore the fandl
EIS is issued, city and State
reach agreement on funding allocations.
RESPONSE: The Department of State has prepared a draft grant application
covering the use of Fedhe State isl funds er the separatexfromscal the onergoverning thesreview
for
allocating funds withinhin the
and approval of New York State's coastal program.
M. Marilyn Vogel , representing:
NYC Citizens' Advisory
r7estimoiny Submitted)on Water sources
(Written
1. COMMENT: The t1YC WRP should be adopted regardless of whether or not Federal
un ng is available.
RESPONSE: Adoption of the Proqram by NYC is an option whether or not
Federal funds are available. However,
and levelrofcFederal andation in the stateate's
program will depend upon the availability
implementation funds.
IX - 3 - 24
2. COMMENT: Public participation should be provided for in the implementation
of tie NYC ICRP, including participation by the CAC WR.
RESPONSE: Proposals for program implementation will be solicited from and
reviewed by the public through existing procedures. The public participCtion
mechanism to be utilized in New York City will be the 59 existing
Community Planning Boards.
3. COMMENT: The Jamaica Bay/Rockaways/tributaries area should be designated as
anr7 r of Particular Waterfront Significance and a task force created to
make recommendations for policies and projects; policies should be developed
to address problems in the Arthur Kill , Newtown Creek, the Brooklyn Water-
front, and the Northshore of Queens.
RESPONSE: Your recommendation is noted. Specific projects and proposals
such as yours for areas within the coastal boundary for New York Cityjl6il
be solicited through existing channels from the public after approval of
the NYC WRP. (Refer also to Response, Section III , N. 1 )
4. COMMENT: The program should contain guarantees of enforcement provisions,
through staffing.
RESPONSE: Approval of the WRP may make funds available that could be used
to ensure that adequate enforcement is provided. In fact, the City's WRP
strongly recommends funds be used for this purpose.
H. Thornton Willett, representing:
Kane Street Block Association
(Written Testimony Submitted)
1 . COMMENT: The Coastal Management Program offers "fuzzy" goals without
mentioning their implemention or. enforcement.
RESPONSE: The DEIS lists 44 specific coastal policies in Part II, Section 6.
Under each policy are described existing State programs and activities which
can be used to implement and enforce the policy. In addition, the consistency
provision of the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Section
919(1 ) of Article 42 of the Executive Law) requires that actions directly
undertaken by State agencies in the coastal area are to be consistent with
coastal policies. Also, when New York's Coastal Management Program is
approved, the actions of Federal agencies which impact the coastal area must
be consistent with the approved program policies.
2. COMMENT: For numerous reasons cited, New York City's City Environmental
Qualify— Review process (CEQR) does not work and thus is greatly responsible
for the deficiencies of the Coastal Management Program.
RESPONSE: See last response below.
IX - 3 - 25
ENT: The consistency
isions of
3. C8alTow for verification h
enforcementofCthetManagement
cy Program
consistndeterinati
not ons.
RESPONSE: Once the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program is
approved, all City agencies and actions must adhere to that program. To
assure that the consistency provisions of LGWRPs are continually and uni-
formly enforced, the NYCRR, Title 19, Part 600 regulations have been
changed to include provisions for monitoring of those programs during their
implementation. See Section 600.
4. C_: Several improvements could be made in the CEQR process which, in
turn, would help the Coastal Management Program: (1 ) The Project Data State-
ment should include a cost benefit analysis; (2) The Project Data Statement
should DepartmentCof City PlanningBoards asdto involvementiinethetprocesstshould be
(3) The p
eliminated.
RESPONSE: CEQR is now under public review for a new Executive Order.
furthermore, CEQR will be one of the means used to implement the WRP.
The existing procedure is duprogram approval
purposes;
howeve , imprvementscouldbeincorporteinttheprgram
�. Agnes Hentschel , Woodside, New York
1. COMMENT: Desires extension of greenbelts and open space from Gateway
agonal Recreation Aa hshoreline to western ueens nng
Island City in ortoreserverecreationand scenicameenitiesfrom
high rise development.
RESPONSE: Policy F in the NYC WRP emphasizes the priority to be given to
e eve opment of mapped parklands and appropriate open space where the
opportunity exists to meet the recreational needs of immobile user groups and
communities without adequate waterfront park space and/or facilities. The
identification oplacecfollowingareas
WRPfor
apopen
rovalspace
andand
willmbeementationof subject to public
jects will take p
solicitation and review.
P. Robert Alpern, representing:
NYC Citizens Advisory Committee on Water Resources
1. COMMENT: Regarding the NYS CMP, the CAC approves of the Program and makes
Wese recommendati ons: (1) a stat of de citizens
i i tens advisory committee should
be formed to oversee implemenatio
RESPONSE: A statewide advisory committee will be
formed and support for it
nc
s uded in a proposed first year program.
IX - 3 - 26
2. COMMENT: Establishment of an areawide Citizens Advisory Committee should
be a pre-condition for State approval of all local Waterfront Revitalization
Programs.
RESPONSE: Article 42 strongly encourages local governments to consult with
aTT a#ected agencies and community based groups during the preparation of
a local waterfront revitalization program. The DOS guidelines for LWRP
indicate the need for broad local support. Such support would necessitate
extensive public involvement. The precise form of such involvement may vary with
each locality.
3. COMMENT: Consideration should be given to establishing a new State CMP
poTicy on monitoring and control of physical modifications to the shoreline
to avoid adverse cumulative effects.
RESPONSE: While no specific policy addresses the concern reflected in the above
comment, specific coastal features -- dunes, beaches, wetlands, etc. -- the
modification of which are of particular concern, are controlled by specific
policies and specific adverse effects of modification are addressed in policies
on access, water quality, dredging etc. Also, as to monitoring, the DOS will
receive descriptions of, and comments upon, all major actions in the coastal
area.
4. COMMENT: Consideration should be given to establishing a New State
DW-poTicy on comprehensive monitoring and management of New York Harbor
and New York Bight.
RESPONSE: The proposed first year work program includes a task that will
a ress the issue of comprehensive management of the New York Bight including
attention to cooperation with New Jersey and federal agencies.
5. COMMENT: Expand NYS Office of Business Permits master application program
To include Federal, substate, and interstate permits.
RESPONSE: Article 42 requires that the Office of Business Permits shall conduct
contTn ng studies of means of expediting development called for in approved
programs. During the first year work program, the DOS will be working closely
with the Office of Business Permits to identify and implement means for
streamlining permit procedures in the coastal area.
Q. Maurice Hinchey, representing:
Member of New York State Assembly
Chairman of Environmental Conservation Committee
New York State Assembly
1. COMMENT: Urges the approval of the NYS Coastal Zone Management Program. The
eggs ature has worked closely with the NYS Department of State, Department
of Environmental Conservation and other involved agencies and passed the Water-
front Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act and the Shoreowners Protection
IX - 3 - 27
Act. The legislature has been e^�m�ntiActlin theworking
estabtishment ofthe
a StateeS
of the Federal Coastal Zone Manag
plan. Without adequate Federal funfing�t actionaconsistentYork's
with thes
M�anaoement Program, the prospects o p P
es-
tablished federal program is considerably diminished.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your support.
4
IX - 3 - 26
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Regulations and Admendments
The regulations contained in this
Appendix are in draft form, but
will be adopted by the Department
of State and the Department of En-
vironmental Conservation prior to
the approval of the State's Coastal
Management Program by the U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, anticipated
in September 1982.
APPENDIX A m"bv*W agency"naps a state ageocy that has jurisdiction by
Regulations and Amendments flaw to fiend,approve or dkw*andertake a jived sedan.
(g)"Pa►mh"maw a permit.lease,iaase, atrtifixote or other en-
ddement for aer orpermiuiom to act that nay beS mad orkned by a
DOS Pan 600
.
0.eliaetary"ate thesrogswofSate.
(1) 'Mase agency naas nay deparrmeot. bureau, board.anmis-
Ameedments to NYCRR,Title 19.Chapter 13 for purposes of Es- don,public authority or other agency of the sure,Jadeft nay public
active Lw.Article 42.The Department of State adopts a new Part 400 benefit weporadon,any member of w kb is appofsesd by the pver-
b rad as foibws: mar.
Section 9W.1 Anda ft,intent and purpose.(a)Ibis Parr n adopted 5600.3 Owes/ttdn.(1)No state agency involved in an action shall
pursuant to section 919 of the Executive Law to implement the provi. carry mi.Arad or approve the sedan amen it has am pliad with the pro.
am of the waterfront nviulindan and Coastal resources ant. vi' ' ofArtick u of theEsecutive Law.
(b)Ibis Pan B intended to provide for state agencies acft is the (2)b scoardaeae with Executive Law.Arride 4;aetiams directly
coastal area the necessary framework for the considtranon and appfia- suderwee by safe agencies within the Basta/ante.haleft grants,
tion of the state's policies with teepar to waterfront revitalization and leant or other l oft assisance,had use and development,phnnfi j
coastal msourees,as contained in Article 42 of the Executive Low. and Arad transactions, +hail be consistent with the apphobk coastal
(e) It on the intention of the Legislature that the preen don. po les set fortb in section 600.5 of this Pan so as to aehir"a balance
enhancement and utilisation of the natural and man made resources of hetweo the protection of natural resources and the and to ac-
the Sate's unique coastal ante take place in a coordinated and nom- on■modete Me seeds of population growth and economic deveelop-
prebmtdve manner to ensure the proper balance between those astural not.a Provided in Executive Law,secdons 910 and 912(1).It is in-
taourees and the need to accommodate the needs of population growth nen I that this balancing oavr is the maaoer spedlied in section 600.4
and economic development.Accordingly,it ts the Intention of this Pan of this Pan.
so achieve a balance between ec000mic development and preservation (3) b aacardasee with Executive Law, Aside 42, who the
that will Pamir the beneficial use of coastal ruouras whsle prermaq secretary has approved a fowl pvernmar waterfront revkabodon
the bas of kvft marine resources and wrifffe, diminution of open program, and has identified state agency program actions which are
tgaace arms or public access to the waterfront,shoreline woedom,impair- 1 ike/y to affect the achievement of the policies and purposes of such W
ment of sonic beauty. or permanent adverse changes so eookSia/ proved local waterfront rrviaEvation program, the sate agency pro-
Symms. gram actions so identified shall be uadenaken In a manaer which is can-
(d)Ice adopting the waterfront revitalisation and coastal tewuras +treat to the maximum stmt pracdwbk with the approved heal
act,it was the Legislature's intention that review by state agencies re- waterfront nwita/iudon program.
quired pursuant to Artick 42 of the Executive Law, to determine the (4) Ibis Pan shall mot appy to actions for which a !real en-
cassistmcy of proposed actions with the policies of Article 42 and with virme nta/impact statement has ban prepared or for which a deter-
any apphobie approved load waterfront rMahrition program, be nine ion has boo made that the action wiH ant have a sg ifxwt effect
coordinated with and made a pan of each agency's existing procedures, on the omMume t,pursuant to NYCRR,Title 6.Pan 617,prior so the
including reviews conducted under the State environmental quality of/ective date of this Pan.
review an C%EQR"), (Environmental Conservation Law, Article g). (5)Nothing In this Pan shag be construed to autbotiae or require
Aceordiag/y. in compliance with Article 42, this Pan provides s the issuance of nay permit,kense,aardfkanon, or other approval or
hamework which a e mpanhk with and capable of coordination with a the approval of any grant, fan or other funding assistance which is
stare agency's existing review responsibilities under SEQR(NYCRR,Ti- denied by the state agency An*g jurisdiction,pursuant to other provi-
de 6,Pan 617). +ions of law or which is condidosed by such @Stacy pursuant to other
5600.2 Definitions.(a)"Actions"awn either Type I or unused as provisions of Jew undl such conditions are met.
tions as defined in SEQR (NYCRR, Title 6, Pan 617.2), which are 5600.4 Initial review of actions.As early as possible In a state am-
andenako by state agencks, the term shall sot include excluded as cy's formulation of an action it proposes to andaWe,or as am as a
tions as defined In SEQR(NYCRR,Tick 6,Pan 617.2). state agency meives an appli atian for a funding or approval action,it
(b)"Ceniliation"owns a notice prepared and filed by a state gen- shall determine wbetber the sedan it bated within the oasts/arm.For
ey with the secretary at 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York purposes of this Pan,planing or rulemaking actions which affect land
12231, which notice shall.1)contain a statement that ts a eertifiaaon or water In the caasa/area shall be deemed to be bated therein.At the
for purposes of Artick 42 of the Executive Law,the name and address time it is determined that the actin k bated within the coastal arm the
of the state agency and the name and telephone number of s person who sate agency shall fallow the review procedures set forth in this Pan,in-
an provide further information;2)briefly sate andpredwly describe dading the completion of a coastal assessment form(CAF)in a form
the nature. extent and location of the action;and 3)bdely state the Presented by the secretary. 7be CAF shall be completed prior to the
mesons suppor las certification. agency's determination of s(gaffiaace pursuant to SEQR(NYCRR.Ti-
c)"Coastal area"means the state's aoasui we ten and the adjacent de 6.Pan 617)so that it am then supplemot other information used by
shorrlands,as defined In Article 42 of the Executive Law. 1t includes sateagendaInmakiaSdeterminationsof*dfiesnarpursuanttosuch
Was Erie and Ontario, the St.Lawrence and Niagara rivers,the Hud- Pan 617.If it it determined that an sedan will not have a sW am ef-
son river south of the ledera/dam at Troy, the East river, the Harlem fear on the environment,the CAF is intended to assist state agenda in
river, the Kill van KuH and Arthur Kill, Long Island sound and the amv=S at their derision as to certification Urequired by section 60o.4.
Atlantic ocean, and their connecting water bodies, bays. harbors. Where any question on the CAF k answered yes, a brief and pi seen
shallows and marshes. 7be specific boundaries of she coastal arm are description of the nature and extent of the scow shall be provided on
Shown on the coastal area map on fink in the offixe of the secretary,as Abe CAF,and a copy of she CAF forwarded to the secretary.provided,
mquired by section 914(2)of the Executive Law.A copy of the coastal however.this requirement does not appy to permit actions unless and
area map has been provided to each state agency with jurisdiction over actions Involve federal review,fundi,or approval.For the purposes
programs identified by the secretary pursuant to Executive Lw,Artick of compyiurs with the requirements of Executive Law,Ardde 42,state
42 as having the potential to affect coastalresources. agencies shall meet the requirements of dtber pVW*h(1).(2)or(3)
(d)"Direct action"or"directly undertaken sedan"means an sedan of this section,whichever appfles.
Phwoed and proposed for implementation by a state agency.Direst ac- (1) Wbere s determination it made pursuant to NYCRR, 7hle 6,
tions Include but are not limited to capital projects,procedure making Pan 617 that an aedon may have a s(gailiant effect on the envirom-
and policy making. menu, the agency shall damply with the requirements of NYCRR, 7hk
(e)"Fundias"mans any financial support even by a sure agency, 6. Pan 617, subdivisiam 617.*c). FWrtlW such requirements coa-
including contracts,grants,subsidies,loans or other lanes of direct or stitutes a determination of consistency as required by Executive Lw.
indirect financial assistance,In connection with a proposed sedan. Article 42.
A - 1
(2) Where a determination is made pursuant to NYCRR, Tick 6. stocks and devel"ft new rmoums.Such effans Shan be made in a
Part 617 that an action will not have a xWfiant effect on the eoviroo- manner which ensures the protection of renewable fish and wildlife
went,and when a state asency is undertaking a direct or funding ask. resource;and consider other activtnes dependent on them.
awn,other than ruhenakinS,the state agency,at the time of making its (3)}further develop commercial rofish. shellfish and crustacean
decision on the action,Shan frk with the secretary a artifiatine that resources in the coastal arm by.
such action wX not substantially hinder the achievement of any of the (1)encouraging the Construction of new or improvement of ex.
CMI&I policies set fatty in section 6w.5 of this Pan and whenever prac• itiag on-soon oammenial MUM facilities;
dable will advance one or mon of such policies. If the action win (ti)increasia marketing of the State's sufood products;and
substandeW hinder the achievement of any pocky,the agency Shan in. (JO) msintaaft adequate stocks and apandinS aquaculture
stead certify that the following four requirements art satisfied.(a)an facilities.Such efforts shall be made in a saaaner which owns the pro-
reasonable alternatives ant which would permit the action to be taken rection of such renewable fhb resourms anti considers other activities
in a manner,which would sot substantially hinder the achievement of dependent on them.
such policy.(b)the sedan taken will minimise an adverse effects on (d)Ice management prectika shag sot damage sisnificant fish and
such policies to the maximum extent practicable,,(k)the sedan win ad. wWfe anti their habitats,iecresse shoreline erosion or flooding,or in-
vance ane or more of the other coastal policies;and(d)the sedan will Were with the production of hydroelectric power.
result in as overriding regional or statewide public benert. Such oar- (c)At*uh++re►lend;policy.
dfiadan shall constitute a determination of consistency as required by (1)To conserve and protect agricultural bads in the State's coastal
Executive Lw.Article t2. arm,as action shag sot result is aloes,nor hopair the productivity,of
(3) When a determination is made pursuant to NYCRR, Titk 6, important agriculture bunds, as identified on the Coastal arm map, if
Pan 617 that an action will aot have•significant effect on the environ- that lost or impairment would mhww& affect the viability of
meet,and when the action is in the costal ata within the boundaries Wiculture In u asrkultursl district or M there is so agricultural
of an approved local waterfront revitaliradon program arm,and the sc- district,in the ata surrounding such lands.
tion is one idendfied by the secretary pursuant to section 916(1)(8)of (d)Scenic quality policies.
the Executive Lw,a state agency shall submit,throush appropriate a- (1)Prevent impairment of sonic resources of statewide signifi-
beiny clesifthouse procedures,information on the proposed action to canoe,as identifxd on the coastalane map.Impairment shall include.
the load soverameot and,at the time of makigg in decision an the sex (i)the irreversible mod(ficstion of geolgpai forms,the destruc-
tion, rk with the secretary & wdficatm that the action wgl oro tion or removal of vegetation,the destruction or removal of structures,
substantially hinder the achievement of any of the policies and purposes wherever the SeWosic forms,vgvisdon or structures are significant to
of the applicable approved local waterfront revitalization prop=and the scenic quality of an identified resource;and
whenever pracdobir will advance one or morn of such policies.If the (ti)the addition of structures which bemuse of siting or sale will
action wgl substantially hinder rhe achievement of any policy or pur, reduce identified views or which because of sale, form, or materials
pose of the applicable approved load waterfront revitalisation pro- will dimishh the weak quality of an identified resource.
&ram, the state agency shall instead certify that the followinS three re- (2)Protect,restore and enhance natural and man-made resources
quirements we satisfied. (i) oro reasonable shernadves exist which which an not identified as being of statewide sWfiance, but which
would permit the action to be taken in a manner which would not contribute to the same quality of the coastal sura.
substantially hinder the achievement of such policy or purpose;(ii)tine (e)Public occas policies.
action taken will minimize all adverse effects on the local pocky and (1)Protect,maintain and Increase tie k h and typo of occas to
purpose to the maximum extent practicable; and('rid) the action will public watern4ad recreation resources and Whim so that these
result in an overridms regional or statewide public bevert. Such cer- resources and facilities may be fully utilised by all the public is ac-
d ation shall constitute a determination that the sedan h consistent to cordance with ressosably anticipated public recreation needs and the
the maximum extent practicable with the approved load waterfront protection of historic and natural resources.In providins Such WMIS,
revitalization program as required by Executive Lw,Article 12. priority shall be given to public beaches,hosting facilities,rshm areas
J60t1.J Coastal Policiesin evaluating proposed actions asainst the and waterf ront perks.
lollow*g policiesstate agencies are strongly encouraged to consider (2)Access to the publicly owned foreshore and to/cads Immediate-
the coastal policies, explanations and guiddkes contained In WW ly adjueat to the foreshore or the water's edge that are publicly owned
proved Coastal Management Program document. shall be provided, and it should be provided in a manner compadbk
(a)Development policies. with adjomisg uses.Such Lads shag be retained in public ownership.
(1) Raton, revitalize, and redeveft deteriorated sad underud- (n Recradon policies.
6zed waterfront areas for commercial and industrial, cultural.two (1) Water dependent and water enhanced mandon shall be en-
bonal and other compatible uses. counted and facigtated and shall be given priority over sonwiur
(2)Facilitate the siting of water dependent am and fadliti s on or related uses along the coast,provided it 6 consistent with the preserva-
awaeent to coastal waters. tion mad enhancement of other coastal resources and takes into account
(3)Ea"nage the development of the State's O*ft major pam demand for such facilities.In facilitsda;such activities,prbrity shah
of Albany.Buffalo,New York,Ogdmsburt,and Oswego as canters of be even to arms when aeons to the recras opportunities of the
commerce and industry, and encourage the siting,in these port areas, Cast as be provided by am or existing public transportation services
Including those under the jurisdiction of State pubec autboritin of land and to chase arm where the use of the shore is severely restricted by a-
m and devdOpmenr which is essential to or in support of waterborne kdos development.
transportation of cargo and people. (2)Development,when bated adjacent to tie soon,shall provide
(d)S&W#then the economic base of smaller harbor anal by en- for water-related recreation, as a multiple use, whatever such Maw-
Coura&*the development and aohancement of&base traditional as noel use h appropriate in I*bt of reasonably anticipated demand for
and activities whkb have provided such areas with their anique such activities and theprhearypurpow of the devalopmest.
maritime identity. (3)Proteenbanoe and restore structures,districts.&Haas or stars
(S)Encourage ct.e the bcatiam of development In areas where puagc that are of*Wficaace In the history,architecture,arcieaka or ad-
servicer and facilities mendal to such development are adequate,except are of the State,its communities or the Nation.
when such development has special functional requirements or Ducar (S)Matting and erasion hazards policies.
characteristics which necessitates in location in other coastal ares. (1) Whenever pawbk use sonstructur al masum to sainimar
(b)Fish and%IWe polities. damage to natural mourns and property from floodwe and wasiam.
(1)Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats,as identified on rhe Such measures shag include.
coastal area map, shall be protected,pmerved,and, where practical, (i)the set back of buildits and structures;
restored so as to maintain their viabigty as habitats. (ii)the planting of veneration and the installation of sand Pack#
(2)Expand recreational act of fish and wfidlife resources m Coastal and drainage systems,
arms by mcrmsuW somas to existing reeouraa,supplementing existing (In)the reshapig of bluffs;and
A - 2
(iv)the Hood-proofaag of buildings or their skmdon above the a0eaey action le the aorta!ata hs within the boundaries of an approv-
beselbod irvel. ad local waterfront nvitali:atioa p vVem and the action is ams iden-
(2) Min*. lavation or dredgihy In emu, waters shall aot dbed by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 916(lXa)of the Ex-
aiptificandy bterfae with the sutural Casa/Procesrac whkb supply Mudve Law,the action shall be consistent to the maimum agent pmc.
Mach mawkb to had adjacent to such waren and shall be undertaken doable with the apptieabk polida of aucb hal waterfrM revirabs-
fo a BMW Mich will not Muse an ioerase is erasion of such Jane. tial p ropam.
(1)The eomstruedoe or reconstruction of arod"protection strue- 4)Add a sew 5617.10(ex6) to rad as Mows: ale appy with the
atmos"be undertaken only if they have a reasonable probaMw of seaietary ofSaa where the ac*e k a two agency aedw b the oars/
ao ntroJEisp arrtsioia lar at bast dit year;as demonstrated in daipn arra.
and construction and/or assured awdumaoaorrtspJaaemmt 3)Renumber 1617.14(f)(10)-(12)to be 01}{13)and add a sew item
programs. (10)to rad err falbwz:
(4)AWS or derdopmeat in the canal ata will be uodataken p0)fOr aarae a#MWMcdm ie the Dara/am,ao ideatifiadw of
so as to mhrimiae damage to sutural resource; and property from the Canal polices of Executive Law, Artick 42 as contained in
fioa 6 and erosion by pMwft natural protecdve fatum iadudiag NYCRR. 719k 19,Part M.sectaa dW.J which an apptiabk to such
beaches.dines, harrier islands and bluffs. Primary duos will be pro- actions and a dkewsion of the effmo of the propsared action onsuch
owed from W enrnacbsenu that couM impair their narura/proteetive applicable palkles,aapt Men that sate aleacy action m the consul
c4parygra k within the boundaries of an approved tical waterfront nwk&Un-
(SAedvities and devdopment, ii chuft the construction or Am program ata,amd the action A am idendfied by the Secretary of
reconstruction of erasion protection structures,shag be underaka so Sate pmrsuaat to section!160)(8)of the Executive Law,the ideatilks-
alat there w0/be oro measurable increase in erection or fioa ft at the don and discussiao shall bund be of the effects of the proposed action
die of such activities or development or at other locations. OM Sloe applicable Policia andpurpoees of web an approved local water-
(#)Public funds she only be used for erosion protective nructuns front revita/fsatin p+opram.
where necessary to protect human life.and mew development WW re-
quires a barion within or adjacent to an erasion harard ata to be able
10 function,or existing development;and only where the public beerfits
outweigh the buy tam moneary and other accts iscudog the potential
for hscr oda erosion and adverse effects as astural protective
features.
(h)Water reaourees policies.
(1) Sate cases/ and polities and purposes of approved bM/
Waterfroat ReW alintion Programs will be considered whik nriew*
costal water ci dficatans and while mo&fybs water Quality stan-
dards;however,those waters abudy overburdened with mamiaaats
will be recoptired as beings development constraint.
(2)Encourage the use of alternative or ionovadve mniary waste
systems in small communities wbere the costs of conventional fau7ities
at unreasonably hrgb given the site of the exisdog to base of these
eaomunides.
(2)ilea management precdces will be used to ensure the control of
stormwater runoff and combined sewer ovetnbws draining into coastal
waters.
(4)Discha r of waste materials from vessels into Carta/waters
will be limited so as to promo significant fish and wg7dlife bsbitau,
reerestrona/areas and water supply areas.
(5)Best management practices will be utili W to mioimiae the non-
point discharge of excess autrients, organics and at, soils into
coastal waters.
(i) To safeguard the vita/economic, social, and environmental in-
arestt of the Sate and of its citizens, proposed major actions in rhe
Coastal ata must rive full consideration to those interests,and to the
safeguards which the State has established to protect valuable costal
tesouraaheas.
DEC Part 617 Amendments
SEQR amendments to Part 617 of Titk 6 of the NYCRR for Parpoaes
Of IF=give Law,Ardde 42.
1)Reletter definition items(f).(g).etc.of 5617.2 to be(g).(b).etc.,
and add a sew item(f)to rad as follows:
"Chaeta/am-now the sate':costa/waters lad the adisamt
shorrlaads,as defined in Article 42 of the Executive Law, the 4)sdfk
boundaries of whkb an shown on the pasta/ata map on ftk in the Of-
fs of the sacrem"of sate,as required by section 914(2)of the Ex-
awdveLaw.
2)Add a sew 5617.5(d)to rad as foUowt:For state agencea only,
*Wmim whether the action is bared is the coastal ora.If the action
it either a Type 1 or unGued action as defined in section 617.2 and is in
the coastal area, the provisions of NYCRR, 77tk 19, Par NO shag
apply.
3)Add Pew material to 5617.9(cx3)to rad as follows:Sate agency
actions in the coastal ata, shall be consistent with the applicable
policies of Executive Law,Amick 42 as contained in NYCRR, Title 19,
Parr sib section 6Q0.3.moss to achieve•behhoce between the Ptotec-
lion of aatund resources lad the we to woommodate socW and
acaomk considerations as provided in such Pollan. When the taxa
A — 3
I Coastal Aesesament Foran
(a) State agencies shall complete this assessment form for actions which are aubject to Part S00 of Title 19 of the NYCRR.This assessment
is intended to supplement other information used by state agencies in making determinations of significance pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act(sae S NYCRR Part S17).If it is determined that an action will not have a significant effect on the envi-
ronmwt,this assessment is intended to assist state agendas In ariving at their decision as to certification as required by 19 NYCRR f
500.4.
g,) if any question In subsection(e)on this form Is answered"yes,"than the proposed action may affect the achievement of the coastal
policies Contained In Article 42 of the Executive Law.Thus,the action should be analyzed In more detail and,If necessary,modified prior
to either(a)making a certification of consistency pursuant to 19 NYCRR Part 500,or(b)If the action Is one for which an environmental Im-
pact statement Is being prepared,making the findings required under SEOR.6 NYCRR,;11117.9.If an action cannot be certified as consis-
tent with the coastal policies.it shall not be undertaken.
4c) Wore answering the questions In subsection(e),the preparer should review the coastal policies as explained in 19 NYCRR OW S.Ac-
tions should be evaluated as to their beneficial and adverse effects upon the Coastal area.
(d) Description of Action
1. Type of Action
0 Directly undertaken,pursuant to:
_ 1b) Funding,pursuant to: -
_ 40) Permit(s),pursuant to:
(d) Planning activity(ies),pursuant to:
_ (e) Rule,regulation,procedure,polteymaking,pursuant to*
2. Location of Action,fill In blank(s),as applicable.
Ceunty(ies) Townw citylleal,Vll"O(s) Site
3 Anticipated Start Date of Action, -
NgnlNayge.r
4. Will the action require review,funding,"or approval by a federal ageney(lee)?If yes,which federal ageney(iss)
N) Coastal Assessment Yes No
1. Will the action result in a large physical change to coastal site or physically alter more than two acres of land,land
ander water,or coastal waters,if located adjacent to the shore,or five acres if elsewhere within the coastal ares? --
2. Will the action be located In or significantly affect the viability of a significant fish or wildlife habitat Identified on
thecoastal ares nap?
2. Will the action have a significant effect on the commercial or recreational use of fish and wildlife resources?
4. WIII the action be located In or have a significant effect upon an ares Identified on the coastal ares map as•scenic
resource of statewide significance? �—
S. Will the action have any significant visual effect upon a natural or manmade resource which Contributes to the
soenic quality of the coastal ares?
S. Will the action be located on or significantly affect the conservation of important agricultural lands identified on the
Coastal was map?
T. WIII the action be located in or have a significant effect upon any area Included In an approved local waterfront
revitalization program?
i. WIII the action significantly affect existing or the development of future water dependent u M 7 _—
S. WIII the action have a significant effect upon the operation of the State's major ports? -- —
10. Will the action significantly affect land or water uses In and adjacent to the State's small harbors? --
11. Will the action require new or expansion of public services or Infrastructure Into undeveloped or low density areas
of the Coast? —�
12. Does the action involve an energy facility not subject to Article VII or VIII of the Public Service Law? �-
13. Will the action be located In or significantly affect development In designated flood or erosion hazard areas,or on a
beach,dune,barrier island,or other feature that functions as a nature)protection feature against erosion or flooding?
14. Doss the action involve mining,excavation or dredging within coastal waters?
16. WIII the action mutt In a reduction of existing or potential public acme to or Wong the shore? —
15. Does the action involve the sale or change in use of stateowwned underwater lands or lands adjacent to the coast-
If"? -- --
17. Will the action&tett existing or potential recreation oppoRunitles? --
% WIII the action affect any structures,districts,areas,or alta of historic,archeological or cultural significance to the
State or nation? --
(1) N you Checked other than(d)(1Kc),and answered yes to one or more questions In subsection(e)on this form, briefly and precisely
describe the nature and extent of the proposed action,In the space below,and submit the Department of State copy to the Division of
Local Government and Community Services,NYS Department of State,162 Washington Avenue,Albany,NY 12231.
Pnpmrs Nn : TeNphene NuNnber
TNN: A >r Oche
a - �
DOS Part 601 f 601.6(a)Tie aecrer 7 da Ogriodicalh'tevkw the ads,r.Watton
andimplementation of away approved LGWRP to MM ataoas Doer
things,that the bca/spieramemt k&dl aa&conk ent with tie Pohda
Amendments so NYCRR,Title 19,Chapter 17 for purposes of Ex- madso-kofIts approwdLOWRP.
authve Law.Ardde 62.The Department of Sate adopts a mew Part 401 (b)Tits aeaetary",ahs wtitam siooce to the MSW*body of
10 wad as fa0ows: Ne pm"dwdot Jowl SoarmDat,revoke approval E at may time he
Sa-don#01.1 Amtboeity, brat and psnpoee. Title Patz is-doped fbds that thepolities and pals of sbeapprovedIGWRPmreaot heirs
pausuant to eeetfoa 915 of the Executive law to implement the oprioaal MIffW ave b JIWWdIace whb the WMofssucb LDWRp•
Joa/pvermmost waterfrait revitalization propnm Ir LGWRP")NO- #M0 Withdrawal.A hta/phamsien(MY withdrew hs gppto''°'d
ukions of the wandr"t tewkshmum and coastal raounoee act.It b- **XP at any time a provided Je sectio-91300)of Abe E acutive
-dudes: law.Withdrawal Olen approved LGWRP w01 effect an immediate ter-
(1)prooed"mquitemau for voluntary pertidpatiao by htal m iondoo of ad1 baefrts ammIag mods seetioi 916 of the Executive
pests; LAW.boltudiisbutmot imbodtoamyfam"orgcieia/apsiaaia.
(2)akvk for review ofkra/prosrams by the saaearY;
M procedural aquitemats for review and comment on ash
LOWRPanbmitted.
6601.2 Submission of LGWRP. (a)Every submhdoe of a LGWRP
to the secretary,in order to be deemed a oampleted submkdon e§Sibk
for approval. must be accompanied by a resolution of the legislative
body proridtgt for such submission. At those i-suncYs when two or
none local sovsrmments are coopastively submitdog a LGWRP,
mo elutions htum each of the pardeipuins local sovernmenn shall be
ae nurY before a submission a deemed complete mad dofbk for
review by the secretary.
(b)Purmot to the New Yost City Charter,the Board of Eadmote,as
the appropriate body.&ball approve the New York Airy Program before
it is deemed complete and elisibk for review.
(c)Each LGWRP&bap include,for purposes of a oompkted sebmis-
don o jtibk for review by the secretary,all of the elemats oontaised in
Marion 913(4)of the Executive Law.
5601.3 Criteria.In order to approve a submitted LGWRP as dSibk
for the benefits of section 915 of Amick 42 of the Executive Lw.the
secretary must find.1)that the LGWRP incorporates the aitak hued
b section 915(3)of Article 42 of the Executive law to as extent mm-
masunte with the circumstances of the local soverameit or loaf
pvernments seeking approval;aid 2)that At LGWRP is consistent
with the policies of Artkk 42 of the Executive Law as eontsioed in
NYCRR, 7kk 19, Part 6QA 5600.5; and 3) Our conmbadoe with
potentially affected state and federal asencin that the LGWRP will mot
conflict with any applicable state or federal policy.
5601.4 Procedure for review. (a) Upon receipt of a eamplated
LGWRP the secretary shall circulate the prosram to such parties as the
secretary-ball deem appropriate, which parties shall include: 1)@MY
state Vency(a defined in Artkk 42 of the Executive Law)with pro-
scams identified in the submitted LGWRP car ha vias tie potatul to a f-
het the achievement of the waterfront revitalization program;2)may
adjacent bcai government with eoit(tuous costa/area;3)the comity
whereia the LGWRP area k situated; and 4) the regional*Loeb$
board,Many,wherein the LGWRP area is situated.
(b)Each agency shall have 60 days for review mad comment before
At secretary an render a decision as to the approvability of each
LGWRP.
(c)Amendments to any approved LOWRP shad be reviewed b the
acme mainer m any original LGWRP.
(d)Notice of disapproval by the secretary shall be issued b wdit
and shat/Jeclude findings with respect to the criteria wW the LGWRP
fails to meet.Disapproval of s LGWRP shall be without prejudia and
any balpvernment may resubmit a LGWRP without regard to prior
(e)7be sscrenry-say,as a condition to approval of a LO WRP.re-
wire that moria of certain kknufkd actions of that bel government
win aisacks be given to the saaetary prior Ao such -chums bens
taken.
5601.5 Approved programs. A LGWRP approved by the sseretary
SUM be&*Ibk for the brmefiu provided in Article 42 of the Executive
Low.
A — 5
DEC Put 505
Pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law..5S3-0301 and 34-
0108, the Department of Environmental Conservation adopts a new
Pan SOS of Title 6 NYCRR to rad as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Coand Erosion Mampment
Secdon 505.1 Purpose.(a)The mesa/purpose of this Part is to im-
plement the provisions of Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, the Coastal Erosion Hazard Anes Act. More spetditcally, this
Part defines when the Department will administer a regulatory program
within identified coastal erosion hazard areas and establishes standards
for the issuance of erosion ares permits by the Department. This Part
also establishes minimum standards the Department wfil ane in wdfy-
mg local erosion management provams submitted to the Commis-
sioner.
(b) Land use, development and other activities an regulated in
coastal arcs subject to serous erosion. The purpose is to minimize or
prevent damage or destruction to man-made property,natural protec-
tive latus and other sutural resources, due to inappropriate actions
Of man.
(c)New construction or placement of structures an regulated to pilaw
Am a safe d6mace from arms of active erosion. This is to ensure that
such structures are not pnmatundy destroyed or damaged due so im-
proper siting.
(d)Public imwr, eat is services, facilities, or activities whim an
Rely to encourage new permanent devdopment in erosion hazard arras
Js severely limited.
(e)Publicly financed structures to minimize erosion damage are to be
used only when necessary to protect human life or where the public
benefits of such structures clary ontwdsh the public expenditures.
JW.2 Definitions. The following terms used is this Part have the
uranins indicated,unless the context dearly requites otherwise:
(a) "Act'mans the Coastal Erasion Hazard Arras Act which has
been codified as Arock M of the Emviranmental Conservation Law,a
amended.
(b) "ADpurtgaaaggs"mans minor or mostoory muctures attached
to or placed near a principal structure.
(c)"Barrier island"means it detached,akvatedlandform surrotmdod
by water, which is essentially parallel to the mainland, and whkh
separates open water from a bay, lagoon, or wetland. Barrier Wands
wsuaily consist of beaches, dunes,ioterduxW noushs, bay shoes,and
vrgeutioa.
A — 6
(d)"by bavrler"means an alogpte, abvated hudform otaomoe/y •' Ion•'MISOM&BY 6&Mdud,p►►bbc or Private corporation,
Oonsisdap of mad or Smvd dbpodfad by 1046sbore driftft.May by poNdai subOwhics. Rownug of yemcy, partnership, amodsdM,
dere separale open water from wetboa or boons and aro CoiSnsccled Arm.MAIM.pout,or pay oma W andry whatsoever.
a the malaitad a►both cads. b')"Primary dune"anaas the most seaward myor dune whets there
(e)"Black"ADIEUS rhe pone of uncaosof sed material that armds nes twO or none paraM dune hm wkhm a coastal arm. *I mr obs is
hadward. from the mean bow watatioe, ro me puce wbae then is a ah'ase dune pppmt b is the Pdmaryduse. Y One or mon
marked~in materia/or plysiopraplik farm,or to the line Of per- myth*small duce forms pomp ss w of abe dune.For the
a�t w"euWao.ar b me seaward rot of a dupe, whichever it map of thin Part.arch forms willbe oa�adda so be parr of At
(w ",fled"aleaal pay brink a ebtlf With a praeipitouts or MUD" Ivry aha 7W aaawnd XmU of a priaaary thane k the hndWard
Am adisi ft a beach or a body of wirer. 7fe seaward limit of a bluff bi�lt of lts haatbr beach. Ae landward!felt of a primary dune a 23
is the landward limit olive oantsuous beach. Where no beach k prasmr of in ludwaN toe.
W"Raadiar eaMe"means me moa iedwatd line of at'aine action,
the swwnd limit k aeaaa h>tv water. 7>re/aedWard!®ir 8 me blurts or i arils where flea ir oro diaaerm*line of active arosion,i1i;the
�noxft a a! waters" moans lata Erie and Ontario, at Sr. a ostmawardiieofprrmaseatvyefatian.
Lwnace mad AWW n Rivers, tk Xudwe Riva south of me AMW wl di 'l<ar~slion rate"aaaaas the rate,tapaals0 b het per year,at
dam at 7ft the East River, the lfarkm Riva, score 1 mOm .
Arthur ren.Lrq Island Sound and the Athratk Omn,mharrcoanc�t. per) '9tapimits in&Vh a*bAW office aleaas the persao da�aated
bzp water bodies,bays,harbors,sb&*s,and wetlands. ( Permits in Ra Ser the o of the Department.
(k) 'iCarrtuw" mesas the hums adjaeenI ro the scale's coastal ••R � �"meaar me oowstruction a ph>Qemmr of a
sews. sow m%err pay action or ase of hand which mater"y aha,the condi-
fr1 "C�m1If%oner" meas the Commissioner of Enviroemmu/ pion ofd' isde ft Sri• ascove w d wy ft,minim, *a*.
Claaservatioo a his duly authorized rrpr erenutive. ft,�,or oma&sfurbanee of sail.
G) "Debris AMC"means a how aavmukdoe of waterborne debris !dd) w manes as afar an of pay ridge,mound a beak of
afepoaited by h j6h warns ao a back. d+ted mataid such a:and a Qavd. which is submapad err
(k)"Deby t h waters on me Departmmr of Eaviraammni Clamor- �t*.�bw an ohm Amud at me mouth of a river or estuary.
oranlocated a shat Wasnce from,Sad usuallyparalkl to.a beach.
Mdo"Dune"means a (a)'S'oodw duan"metas me mor dune immad t*hudward
sidle a hili of bone, wdodNowa, a ttdfka& of the prtnary dace.7fe seaward limit d a
placadmararial,principally sand. ward limit of fa hero fir'dune o a m-
(m)"Erosion"mans the boss or&wlscement of had due to the no- pin duan. 7be landward limits of a recon-
atop of waver. currents, tides. wind,driven Water, waterborne Joe, or �duoeiN!"A Y 8dMIS otiahudwardroe.
(fl)"Shop/"aromas•deucbad ekvatian of the bottom of a on,lake,
Other hapaca of storms.IM alto mans the boss or displacement of Jud bay,or river.conskW of orcons by and.mud,pave/orother un-
due ro rhe action of wind, tuaolf of surface waters, or,round weer COMoMted material.Shoals an carved by ku than 6 bet of water at
wee' mean low water.
(a)"Erosion ane Permit"am=the wrirtm Deparrmetnia;pproval (a) 1%Wframt Ash Said wfl t hablra:"mass Mbar AWlsts
aagetired by this Pan for the un*mknW of pay rqukled activity which:
Within erosion hazard ares a sbown on woman hazard maps. (Van a OLW ro the survival ofa b uyepardbo of s pardeWa fish
(o)"Erosion hazard ane"awns an arae of the eoasthae which is: or wildlife
(V asMAcruralbazardane,or �tioa'or
R)•ratan/protxtive tlatun area. R)sarPPon ran or endagpend rffl ks.or
m1 )S Ut on hazard " (3)an found at a very bow Jrapumcy Wilma a Mrapl*area,or
soap mans the final map issued by the Com- (I)support fish or W&Me populations helm stlnifkent cammer
mhsioner which delineates the boundaries of aoeion hazard tram sub- pool a reaiaatrona/value.or
lm to rquktion under►his Pan.
(vp "Eroaien protection avucture"mans a smwtan tpedf'=Hy (M)"5 AlicuAM, onibwje ro n ' mwah'gni
des(p►ed ro prevent erosion such as a pain,jetty, sawa/l,revrtmeat. of sand a paced,depodiod by lCgpbore drifaol,and he
batikhted, s rmianbrok art Artificial back nourishment projects trr also attached to the mainland pad the other terming ' r. and
trpu4ledm porion (L') Sure �m open water.
protection structures. �Y"means any department,division,burau,commis.
(r) "E bdog srruemes means those structum and JAwtu"m Aim,bard,public authority,a oma agency of the state.Any public
h aistenoe within erosion hazard areas on the effective dare of any co- benefit eorporatbn, any member of which k appointed by the pver-
sbe hazard am hal kw or ordinance exacted by a local jovernmmr nor.is mate agency.
pursuant to Mick 34 of the Eavironn a ad Cbnmvarion Lr or on (M) 'Stwctun/hazard area"means am dzonlands, odea than
t1t ellaetive date of this Part,whichever k lilt.Ezittiztl swctum also natvy pesceyor Intures,subject to erosion and bared landward of
Axludem structures and appurtenances which were mivamy constructed abpn*=rewfnl at an avaale annua/nte all loot or mon per year.
Outside a Coria/erosion hazard arm.but as a result of additional share 7kt&hW boundary of•Structural hazard ane b akubted by startbS
taCMM an bared in a revised coastal at sm hazard ane. at hY rncedt adle and nnmriay abq/a tine which is awed ro the
Z) "Loa/government"mlaas a Wage. Iowa(outside eke am of Eftof mean bow water a dimece which k tip tints at im-term
iaeorporated dry,or county. "awannualraaasiaa rale.
(r)"MRior addition"maw an addition which result;b a 25 Percent (kk) "Structure"means any objwt Constructed,instsew or placed
Or pato inaraase in the pound am eoverale of a structure. 7be ice- an had or in water badudinl, but not haired to. a buildiM, shed,
erase will be eakukted as the pound am coverage to be added,ice- lard,mobile home.tank,per.dock,jetty,wharf,bulkbnd.or any
C1044 any additioam previously constructed under an erosion am pa- addition to or ahwadw of me lame.
pit, d fv&W by tke pound ora coverape of'Yaiainp strucu m"as M)'7a"mass rbe bwaa point an a slope of a dune or bluff.
Mixed in strbdivisiop(!)above. JQ5.2 Fanctians OJ natural protacdve features.(a)Natural Tatum
(u)"Movable sMAcrtues"mans structures dammed and consMAetsd such as beach",bluffs,dunes,barrkr Minds,sandbam aboshs aw-
aD br rMs ft relocated with minimum disruption of intended use. "bore arae, spits, bay b mn and wahuds, and the vblet um
h) "Natural protective featum"mesas bailees, dunes, sandbar, masa, ports ooalu/etas and human bm ham Wind and water
iPia,
Adak bvrier!,lands,bay barrier,aearshore arae,bluffs.and OrNiOn and storm-induced high water.Ieepp apriare activida of Sean
w+et4 ids,and the valeradon thereon. MY dimmmb or Nimixate an rdy the arodon buffaitl function of
hI "Nausbone am"mans those lauds under water bepinaiop at natun/prorecdve leatum.
the man bow waterline and atendiw k & direction normal to the (b)7be*WfjchnadOMs&WPrWwdn M of ditfarnt typo of
&%XI fie to a point where man bow water depth st 1S Jeer, or to a natural pave features any vary.Caruso 070 of xaturalprotective
borisontal distance of l boo Jeer tram the man bow watatiae,whichever fwtura
ispaster. an intriasiallY betty suited for certain we;of user,activities
A - 7
or development than others. The standards and development ratric- (1)New York City fails to submit to the Commissioner an erosion
tions of this Part that apply to regulated activities within specific types hazard arra local law or ordinance within six months after the filing of
ofnarural protective features are based on: the applicable erosion hazed maps, or within such time as may be e.%-
(1)the protective functions that specific types of natural protective tended by the Commissioner pursuant to subdivision 34-010$(3)of the
features provide,and Act,and,the Department mats the public hearing and nodliation re
(2) the interaction between specific types of natural protective quirements of subdivision 34-0107(2)of the Act,or
features and physical coastal processes. (2)New Yak City's proposed erosion hazed ata loaf law or or-
(c)Described below are the erosion protection functions of various dinance la not approved by the Commissioner within six months after
types of natural protective features and their relationship to physial the faint of the applicable erosion hazard maps,or within such time as
coastal processes, may be extended by the Commissioner pursuant to subdivision 34-
0) Beaches buffer shordands from erosion by absorbing wave 0105(3)of the Act, and the Department mats the public baring and
energy that otherwise would be expended on the togs of bluffs or dunes. notification requirements of subdivision 34-0107(2)of rhe Aa;or
Steep,high, wide bathes protect shordands from erosion mon effec- (3) 7be Commissioner revokes his approval of New York City's
tively than flat, low, narrow ones. Beaches also act as a reservoir of erosion hazard area local law or ordinance bemuse of improper ad-
sand or other unconsolidated material for longshore littoral transport ministration or enforcement.
and offshore sandbar and shoal formation. (d)flu Department is the regulatory authority and will process ero-
(2)Bluffs protect shordands and postal development by absorbing tion!nes permit applications for regulated activities within any county
the often destructive energy of open water. Like dunes, bluffs are of outside New York City when:
greatest protective value during times of storm-induced high water. (1)A county outside New York City fails to submit to the Commis-
Bluffs are a source of depositional material for bathes and other un- sioner an erosion hazard area local law or ordinance within six months
consolidated natural protective features. after receipt of notification as required by subdivision 34-0106(1)of the
(3)Dunes,along with bluffs and bathes, buffer shore/ands from Act,or within such time as may be extended by the Commissioner pur-
Ne energy of open water and an of greatest protective value during suant to subdivision 34-0106(3)of the Act,and the Department meets
conditions of storm-induced high water. The two primary functions of the public hating and notification requirements of subdivision 34-
dunes are prevention of wave overtopping and storage of sand for 0107(2)of the Act;or
coastal processes. High, vegetated dunes provide a grater degree of (2)A county's proposed erosion hazard arta local law or ordinance
protection than low,unvegetated ones. The key to maintaining a stable is not approved by the Commissioner within six months atter the filing
dune system is the establishment and maintenance of bachgran or of the applicable erosion hazard maps,or within such time as may be
other vegetation on the dunes. extended by the Commissioner pursuant to subdivision 344106(3)of
(4) The protective functions of barrier islands reflect those of the Act,and the Department meets the public hearing and notification
bathes and dunes, their major components. Because barrier islands requirements of subdivision 34-0107(2)of the Act,or
often protect some of the most biologically productive as well as (3)The Department does not designate a county to administer a ci-
developed costal areas, their value as protective features is especially ty, town, or village erosion hazard ata local law or ordinance which
great. The key to the maintenance of barrier islands and the protection has been revoked because of improper administration or enforcement;
provided by them is the preservation of their dunes and assurance that or
supplies of sand or gravel are not ardfcally impeded from nourishing (4) The Commissioner revokes his designation of a county to ad-
barrierisland bathes. minister and enforce a city, town or village erosion hazard ata local
(5)Sandbars control the orientation of incoming waves and remove law or ordinance because of improper administration or enforcement,
a substantial amount of wave energy before it reaches the shoreline. or
Sandbars often serve as reservoirs of sand that an eventually returned (5) The Commissioner revokes his approval of a county erosion
to upper bath areas by natural processes.Sandbars also promote the hazard arta local law or ordnance because of improper administration
development of icecap formations which help to protect shorelines dur- or enforcement.
ins winter storms. 503.3 Permits;regulatory procedures. (a)Any person proposing to
(6) Shoals and narshore areas function similarly to sandbars undertake a regulated activity within a designated erasion hazed era
because they absorb incoming wave energy by decreasing wave length must first obtain an erosion area permit•
and velocity.Shoals and nearshore arras also function as reservoirs of (b)Permit applications an available from eachretiona/office of the
sand,travel,and other unconsolidated material. DeparApplications must be made on a form prescribed by the
Department. App
(7)Spits and bay barriers are simile to barrier islands and function Department,and must include Ne following information:
Eke them by protecting adjacent bays, wetlands, shellfish beds, and (U a description of the proposed activity,and
other natural areas as well as mainland development. The key to main- (2)a map drawn to scale,showing the lomdon of the proposed ac-
aining relatively stable spits and bay barriers is to protect and preserve dvity,and
their dunes and to ensure that longshore littoral transport to them is not (3)any additional information the department may require to pro-
obstructed. perly evaluate the proposed activity. Permit applications are not com-
(8) Wetlands function similarly to narshore arras, shoals and plete until the appropriate fa, as specified in section 505.15 of this
sandbars by reducing wave energy,before it an be expended on the Put.is submitted.Completed permit applications should be submitted
shoreline. The roots of wetland vegetation bind finite trained sibs,clays to the appropriate regional permit administrator.
and organic matter to form a fairly cohesive bottom which resists oro- (c)Before the Department issues an erosion ata permit for a state
Sion. agency activity within an ares having an erosion hazard ata local law
or ordinance the Department must first make a finding that the stan-
DEPARTMENT REGULATIONOF dards and criteria of the loaf law or ordinance, adopted Pursuant to
COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS section 34-0108 of the Act,have been met.
$05.4 Appiiabi ft. (a) This section enumerates the instances when (d) The procedures of Pan 621 of this Title(Uniform Proadum)
the Department will exercise Jurisdiction over the issuance of erosion govern the processing of permit applications under ibis Pan and the
area permits. With the exception of direct actions by sate agencies,the modification,renewal,suspension,and revocation of erosion arta per-
Department will not assume or exercise such jurisdiction until after all =its.
appropriate local kvds of government have had an opportunity to (e)All regulated activities an subject to the review Procedures m
assume and exercise such jurisdiction. quired by the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQR),Article
(b)Any state agency that proposes to undertake any regulated activity 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law. The applicant may be re-
within an identified erosion hazard area must tint obtain an erosion quired to submit information necessary,for compliance with SEQR in
area permit from the Department. addition to information required under this Pan.
(c)The Department is the regulatory authority and will process ero- (1)An erosion ata permit may be issued with conditions and/imita-
tion ata permit applications for regulated activities within the City of
New York when:
A — 8
ulnas as are necessary to ensure compliance with the patiries and provi- R)An arosian arae permit for dePodti— of material a shoals,
stone of the Act and of this Pan. aandbam lir aeusbare amwN be fuue d G* when accept able
$0.6 Standards for issuance of erasion arm permits.An erosion area aateiW is need.
permit will be issued only if the Commissioner Jirds that the proposed (3) An erosion area permit k NOW for new o0o trucdoa,
ulatedae'tivity: modification, or naoeatia of docks,pkrs, w0arves,gra Jetties.
rei
(ultra acoabkandnecauary,ooesidaimsreasoabkahaaAtivesto seawalls. im/kboub, breakwaters, and artificial beech aoorkhmeent.
Abe propmed snk*y m d the stmt to w kb tie propowd activity re Normal mit. a sepals oI Michstrnctaees dna cent MGM an
ouira A sboA*W basion,and aroeam area permit.
(b)wi11 not awe a maawrabk imcreaae la nasion u tie proposed aft NI The Duch mqu�of the precadigs pnrapapb
or at other locatiom and gibes not appb,Ao docks,pias, wharves, or structure;built an flats,
(e)miaimiaa adverse of bets to natural protective Tatum,sats oahumas, spen timber. plin• or siollar open-work suPpoa swims a
erosion protection strmcrmra, or ne ural raaoon+es achW*, but not OP surface area of AV spare!tar or las.Docks,piers, wharves, or
jmited to,s(gdrXSNr rub and wildlife habitats and shells beds. adier strucaua built an flats and wh"are raawved fs the 14111 of aach
So.7 Ratricdow on rep feted activities within structural heard ! mr aapred to ted activities on
areas. (a)Appikability. The resubted activities duo m*W it this sec- k1 . 7k followgs prorisiotit apply rand
tion, when undertaken in structural hazard areas, aro subject to the beaches:
standards of this section and the minimum setback rpuiremmts inded- (1)f acavadw or nkW which di bMa tie erosion protection
alio section JW.10 of this Parr. afforded by beaches k probibited.
(b)Movable swctum.Movable smmra and their additions may RI An erosion area permit for deposition of material on beeches
be comoveted or placed within a strtucturai hazard area only Jan eco- wld be fumed only for ap tuvon or stabilise iao of benches; Ap-
don area permit has been granted. Permit requirements isdude the propriatematwialmust be wad.
fol/owiag: (3)Beech grooming and dean-up operations do act require as oro-
0)No permanent foundation is attached to the movable structure afore araa permit.
and any temporary Joundauoas are removed at the time the structure is (4) An erasion area permit k required for new construction,
moved.ldow grade footings will be allowed if satisfactory provision rt modification, or restoration of aumS docks,piers, wharves, boa,rd-
madeforthdrt moval. walks. porins, Jetties. +swab, bulkheads, breakwaters and artificial
(2)Notwithstanding the setback distances of section SO.10 of An beach nourishment.Normal maintenance or repair of such structures is
Pan,no movable structure may be placed or constweced such that it's not mbject to the Pamir m9ithements of this pan.
w*ht prices an excessive around Acedias on a bluff according to ac- (1)73e fo11owing ratrictions apply to the use of motor vehicles on
aepted engineering practice.
(3)A plan for the landward relation of a movabk structure and (i)motor vahicks must operate seeward of tie upper debris lines
ft's appurtenances,when threaremed by shoreline recession,muss be m• at all times.0a tbose beeches where no debris line aim motor vehieks
t
lauded with each erosion area permit application. must operate steward of the toe of the primary dune;and
(4)Movabk structures and appurtenances which Jove been/Dated ry)motor vehicles must not rravelon vepetatioa.
within an avow hoard a ,pursuant to an erosion area Pamir,must (6)Active bird nesting and breeding areas must not be disturbe
read
be removed prior to the time the receding edge ruches a distance from (d) bluffs. 7k fo lowing raerricooas and requirements apply to
at structure qua/to 2 times the hang-tam avaAse annual shoreline npudtedactivides on bluffs.
recession rate established for that site. Debris from structural damage (1)The removal,excavation,or minus of bluffs is nor allowed a-
which may occur as a result of sudden,unanticipated bluff edge failure apt where:
or erosion must be removed within 60 days of the damaginro
g err. (1)the minor modifixedw of a bluff is done in aceordama with
g)The Ler owner of record,as shown on the latest assessment fall, eneWdow rated in an erosion am permit issued for the construction
of nal Property upon which a movable structure k placed is responsible of an erosion protection structure;or
for removing that structure and its foundation and appurnces, (W)a Guff cur k ode in a direction normal to the shorel
excave for
anka the Let owner of record and the owner of the structure.if the the Purpose of Drovidtas sboreGne access' Such P aavaLion
swcture is mot owned by the last owner of ncofd,have made as aster- must be done in accordance with cooWdons stated in Aa Nwioa Ara
meat providing otherwise in a form acceptable to the Department. permit.
(c)New nonmovable structures of ma jot additions to e:rtamg strut- (j)V�ular trait k profs ted on bluff.
n.
tura.T be construction or placement of a nonmovable structure,or ma- mod(31 An u�a cera Dermic erosion nqubad for new cs,walk ays
jor nonmovable addition to as existing structure, k allowed within a orstai ways. or mal aunt ofce oprotection such structures
walkways
structural hazard area only if the structure ss protected by an erosion w stairways.Normal maintenance a repair of such twemtes does not
protection structure approved pursuant to this Pan.Such construction +101quiAm evelopment k prohibited on bluffs unless specifically
arae permit.
or placement k subject to the permit requir menu Of this Part. NI AllN ddeve
(d)An erosion area permit is required for the histalkiion of publicly- allowed by subdivision JOS.S(d)of thio Pan.
owned or publicly-serviced distribution, traumksim, or collection (1)Active bird satins and breedins areas mutt not be disturbed.
systems for sas, dectriciry, water,or wastewater.systems lastAlled an (e)Primary dunes.The faibwims ratricdons and requinmenu apply
mainland sbordwes must be located landward of Abe shoreline strut• to regulated activities on primary duties.
aces b da saved. (1)Primary dimes must not be mined,esesveted,or removed.
$0.8 Restrictions an regulated activities within natural protective (2) Clean rand obtained from excavation, dredging, or beech
Anture areas. paftg may be deposited on a primary dame,or on an area formerly a
(a)Appliabiliry. The resulated activities described 0 this section, primary dune,so increase its site or restore ft.Such deposition is subject
when undertaken in natural protective future areas,are subject to the to erosion area permit nquiramu.
ratrictioas of Ah section and the minimum setback nquimmeau in (3) All development k proirbited a primary duties, except
section 101.10 of this Pan. drvaeed walkways, stairways, or other approved means, to provide
(b)Stals.sandbars,and as,trshore areas.The following mtrrcti-Ru pda or vehicular cocas to beeches.Construction orplacemmr of
and nquiremeau apply to regulated activities in shoals.undbars,and suede elevated walkways,stairways or other structures k subject to eco-
neershore areas. nam area permit requirements.
(1)Mituuls,actvuan,and dredsias,which diminishes the erosion (I)Planting and fencigq, to stabilize or mtroP sand in order to
protection afforded by sbods, sandbars, or awas shore arek pro- maintain ar increase the profile o/duties,ars allowed.Such activities do
hibited.However,erosion area permits for drldSW may be issued for nor require An erosion area permit.
wwtrucW or maintaining navigation channels, bypassing sand (1)Vehiwlar traffic is prohibited on primary dunes,except in thou
around natural and manmade obstructions,or artificial beech nourish- arms mated for dune eroaft.
mens.
A 9
(6)Foot traffic which causes sufficient damage to primary dunes to (1)ensure that there will not be any measurable increase in erosion
diminish the erosion protection afforded by them is prohibited. at the development site or other locations;and
Pedestrian passage across primary dunes must utilise elevated walkways (2)minimize adverse effects to natural protective features,existing
and stairways or other specially designed dune crossing structures. erosion protection structures,and natural resources such as significant
(7)Active bird nesting and breeding areas must not be disturbed. fish and wildlife habitats.
(f)Secondary dunes. The following restrictions and r quimments cap- 505.10 Setback requirements. (a) Regulated activities within struc-
ply to regulated activities on secondary dunes. tura/hazard area's an subject to the following setback requirements and
(1) Secondary dunes must not be mined, excavated or removed restrictions-
such that the erosion protection afforded by them is diminished. (b)Setback for movable structures within structural hazard arras.
f2) Ckan and obtained from excavation, dredging, or beach (1) No movable structure, additions, or appurtenances thereto,
grading may be deposited on a secondary dune,or an area formerly a may be Pisced closer to the receding edge than a distance equal to the
secondary dune,to increase its size or restore it.Such deposition is sub- elevation differential between mean low water and the bluffs receding
ject to erosion area permit requirements. edge,except:
(i)whose the devotion differential is
(3)The construction or placement of a structure,or major addition fess than 1 S tat a setback of
hat w
1S fat is
to an existing structure, requires an erosion arta Permit. Permit n- w ,
quire7ments include: (ii) hen the elevation differential is greater than 10 tat a ser-
i)the lowest floor of a new structure or major addition to an ex- back of 40 fat is required.
isting structure must be built on adequately anchored pilings at least (2) No movable structure, additions, or appurtenances thereto,
four fat above the surface of the secondary dune,and may be plate within 25 fat of the landward to of a primary dune.
(ii)the space below the lowest floor must be left open and fm of (3)When there are no bluffs or dunes present,no movable struc-
obstructions. tun,additions or appurtenances thereto,may be placed within 25 fat
(4)Planting and fencing to stabilize or entrap mad in order to of the landward limit of a beach.
maintain or increase the profile of dunes,are allowed.Such activities do (c)Setbacks for non-movable structures which an Protected by ap-
not require an erosion area permit. proved erosion protection structures within structural hazard areas.
(g)Regulated Wetlands.Article 25 of the Environmental Conserv+- (1) When structural protection has been constructed and is ade-
tion Law, the Tide!Wetlands Act, identities the erosion cartel 1loodiog quately maintained the setback requirement established for the pro-
damage protection from storm tides and waves provided to tidal tected section of shoreline will reflect the effectiveness of such protec-
wetlands. Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the don. The setback requirement willcontinue to be applied to these Pro-
Freshwater Wetlands Act, identifies erosion, flood and storm control tected areas as long as:
benefits provided by freshwater wetlands.Because tidal and freshwater (i) the integrity of the structural protection is maintained, or
wetlands subject to regulation an protected and regulated for their ero- restored at any time partial failure occurs,as part of a committed main-
sion and storm control values by other Parts of this Title,erosion ata tenance program,and
permits an not required for regulated activities within them as long as (i)continued maintenance or restoration activities osioa condi-
tdo he policies, purposes, and permit requirements of 6 NYCRR, Parts damage to adjacent or nearby properties or exacerbate ao
SOS,661,`662,663,and 664 are met. tions thereon.
(h)Nonregulated freshwater wetlands must not be tilled,mined,a- (2)!f the Department determines that adequate maintenance is not
cavated,'moditied,or otherwise disturbed web that the erosion prose- beinI provided for an existing erosion protection structure,the Depart
afforded by them is diminished.Regulated activities in freshwater ment will modify the setback requirement for the protected section of
wetlands which are not subject to regulation under the Freshwater shoreline-
Wetlands Act an subject to the permit requirements of this Pan. (3)Modification or restoration of an erosion protection structure-
505.9 Erosion protection structures. Construction of erosion protec• either to augment existing structures or to replace the existing structure
tion structures is expensive,often only partially effective over time,and pate +new design, will ct considered s a apply proposed structure.
may even be harmful to adjacent or nearby properties.In some areas of Where new erosion protection structures are approved and constructed
the coastline major erosion protection structures of great length would ante setback requirements are determined by the Department based on:
be required to effectively reduce future damages due to erosion. (i)the anddpated stsbthty and durability of the structures,and
However, in those cases where a non-structural approach to reducing (ii) commitment to a maintenance program for the proposed
erosion damages is not feasible, construction of an erosion protection structures•
structure might be warranted.In such cases,the construction,modifi s- SOS•11 Appeal of erosion hazard arra designation. on who
don or restoration of erosion protection structures is subject to the (a)Pursuant to subdivision 34-0108(2)of the Act, any pens
following standards and requirements: owns real property within a designated erosion hazard area identified
(a)An erosion area permit is required for construction,modification, Pursuant to subdivision 34-0104(3)of the Act,may appeal the desigrta-
or restoration of erosion protection structures.Normal maintenance or abs of such real property.
repair of such structures does not require an erosion ata permit. (b)Erosion hazard area designation appals may be made at say time
restoration
(b) All erosion protection structures must be designed and con- after the final identification of the subject lands has beat completed.
structed according to sound engineering principles, which have The procedural steps lading to final identification of erosion hazard
demonstrated success in controlling long-term erosion. The protective areas are outlined in subdivision 344101(3)of the Act.
measures must have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion on (c)Any person wishing to make an appal pursuant to this section
must complete an erosion hazard ata designation appal application
the immediate site for at least 30 years. and submit it to the Department.Appal applications are available at
(c)A long-term maintenance program must be Included with ovary Department regional offices and the Bureau of Flood Protection at the
permit application for construction,modification,or restoration o!as central office in Albany.Appeal Applications are not eompkte until the
erosion protection structure. That program must include specifications applicant provides all necessary information and the appropriate ter.
for periodic maintenance of degradable materials,periodic replacement aPP P within 30 days after
of removable materials, and financial commitments to assure the so- ( The Commissioner will a p PPp* dw
ition, and will adjust the erosion
complishmenr of these requirements. receipt o!a complete appal
(d)All materials used in such structures must be durable and capable d+m boundaries le baaccods
of withstanding inundation, wave impacts, weathering, and other ef-
fects of storm conditions. individual component materials may have a APPS is technical information indiating that:
working life of less than 30 years only when a maintenance program en- (1)the long-term average annual rate of shoreline recession was
sures that they wig be regularly maintained and replaced as necessary to calculated incorrectly,or
attain the required 30 yeah of erosion protection. (2)the subject+ria was erroneously identified as a natural protec-
(e)The construction,modification,or restoration of erosion WNW- dve am'
tion structures must:
A — 10
tt -
'001!'taol mall 001 umga ratafs sunsmux(n)
'Orf'uvJ inag o01 Scrpmrs tou rainoruis(I)
:satna�t m aoasatofd aonoaJo aoanrJtpom fo uorutuuuoJ(N
•m la uvgm Jo'sJald'swop agto/l t(.►n)
'Orf'Mj oto SaungA Jo'sJxd'rgaoP(.s!)
'SES'salld ao saHJtq a Jo Wald'rgaoP(r)
:=uugA&Jo'said'sImp Jo aoaalltpom Jo aa, nruoj(S)
'Orf'��Igru 001�jatooAf rualofd(t►) .
•m'sped.ngna 001 falpoaora aoa mWout(r)
:fa. OWN
'Orf'sP,W x9w 001 UM maAf n.VbJd(y)
,M'rpni xgno W1 Salpaoora too saaa(oM(r)
:MMJ Jo'Stumm'SarprJf'aonr"ar3(E1
'001,04m"pat'scald'swop,amunf)s uoam
-td aolsoa otga agao SaAn omm Jo taauwgd Jo ffmmulsoo3(N
•0n'aoam*np an pj mq uotsoja Jo lradd y(1)
•suoptagddm jo Maleu JoJ mg(a)
•asanbat soda aaagddr aqa of powntat aq lllm aJ ap
'aaa(dmw pmalmaaap S!t!Anjog mrr wfa x vousu flay ut it(9)
.Uvd
srga Jo(-')if'M aot:r"rpgns m pxllzaQs tarromm JW m uonr"Jasno�In
-92mu04ua3 Jo tuawmWap agt of algrfod aprm Japto,tauom fo gaW
pa
grum r,tq pamrdmo-jar aq Isom sladdr uonruhsap rut piuM
aowja pat ntmad an aorsoa JoJ wwratlddy(r) wad tl'SOf
•uora
-ajar slga fq pumbw aoammuolar aqa taagddt aqa awl tsanbw,frw
pat wmpum r ioJ tsanbw r sm urd rola japan Itmuad r foJ aoatagddt
um taw aoaom mro s!q ao dru fotutsarrmps ttruud tvmft aq,f(a)
• l tlddr aW gilm.fpm
-aa sasu";a awW naau aoffKm poasanbu aqa imp hmtisswatsp
Jo =PAW aU •ao.wx slga Jo (t) aolsr"lpgns at pagsl wen "w
aq; saaom aotrikm patsonbat aqa Moq put pxn" aq of tuauwwmbw
fo'aoaautsu'pirpaws xp,(jpads unm tsonbou aauwm aq.1 •Saaum
m os op isnm aoaWa r fol manbat r agmen of Salgtur itorad day(q)
ao.COMJ taa/m"lnba aga fmmiolfad,fIM*Jo/mwlJlo/taol tt taawnbw fol qM aqi SIM galq.*4tgsW"fo,(jlnx JlP/tata�tJd a9a
mp Jo app xp sum,saga fol aantasgns pings saaamata"oS!*no!'aoa aaawa"o os dm=wa mnmmlm aqs q paaranbat avWm aqa(t)
-au frga Jo(r)aonu►pgm m passy woazm pat saoaulpgrm MP a?paw aoaoja par poog atoJJ alms dlgmosau aq lll�taamdola�ap v.(1a
ftwW
mtaamuodaQ fo fauotssluuoO aqa of frmtpu smm Ja"aaaq,a(q) pn,asaadra sjadolmap aga is patua=fdmt aq llcr pat aflrap
utd AIMto PI'SOS Pat tfW'OIYOl'd'SOl'S10l
, •sw 19•0f suoaar Paw 'U)r m Paw (V*" '(q)j," Ym1E.f0E i.WoJd ap oam paasfodJwqa m m On a"rq ram asuam4s lumen,uo
saoautpgm m quol in nwmumbu put 'sagw.wsu 'spfrpam sandm►aw"pm atrfgtm oa sunsam par summ of9paodut Im(f)
arp 'uiamlalm•it 'taam Isom WY ap Jo(l1w10-IE Paw(115010-IE pam'algollt"t q aia a"aoajaalt'tuaptad'algsuorm oa(t)
saolsutpgm w immsmd uoat g.am vi maonslmwoo aga of nam P�'Pa=llnn an
-sof Mol d9 praalmgm smaddid taamaftutm aolma!trim.,(t) qmj,ggnd aagm taamap dop" pat salareaat pamdofd AM JoJ nVI
•sm itoJdtmmafmamm !a aua"pm mai-Saol aqa yfiaMtno djJaja nlJaw9 all9�Wa(1)
aoaoja MOW/oto!Jo wwaoolJCM JoJ spnpaM unmlmly Of*;" :saw aft njaaw Immollol oW tail,PaP!"ojd'PxJlPowm
•1aYApJo90r0•I puvSOf&V( as ,(9Pa4—P pwm ipq'Iru XM 't#gspirq UKsaaaaan ro.4jnxlJlP lvxmd nna
an soolsslmgm San+mJ mmomW amp pas 'saaamulnbou 'sunpoe lLE*Uvd 9W Jo Of'SOS Jo d'SOS'f SOS Y'SOS saoam Jo naamagnboA
•�aq.L 'PFJ a»q OAoq ualP! Jo aur alloo 9"sdtm �o m 'sugw.wat tuaodo/aA* 'rpmpum aga Jo aalal . *mm
pm"aoaoa ap jayr aaaoolJam JoJ jaooasrmmoO ap os smt& aqa a,p aariaswmmp as tuagddt um wq,A (t) •saaatutA Pt*W
-wd tuamaSaarm aoaoja Maw lwg trmgns asnm naamaa"of Ir"I •atmad aur ugms
sutJfatd taamafiarm aopas lrastoo/nq Jo aoaxmgaaS L!'SOl aqa m poaras mmipaw aqa gips aoamgdzw vmw os 'tuawuwdaO aqa
of,ta4mj w saoalpow put pawns gtla put'tunoutr at jar aq asnm dt
crywyHNO/SOif3?YlSV00 dO NOLLV7n03y 7YO07 r^�rr y taautndaQ aga,(4 Panssl stlmadlo sanalpaeo pat=a
age qace aaargdmoo-aoa to prom r aq tlmad an ansate at foJ are
. pors000adagtooa aomarpdrmWjo -ragl jar Sapttmgns oto I r trga swtmjaup q J.r 4.m or MMM
Jo saoWOM jagao,far auspqumy Jo mjjv aoa scop taamfpn/a japuo Jo ental mW m pap r aunbou,tmm taamurdaa au Paas Ef'mf
ganS'Pa mpw ma#W!9m m Away aaw aW of pawpo ss aaamf--r •Saau r m am mmla!gar,annbau,trm
AID tans
Jo JaPJo MAP age anpa*mf taaaadmw Jo unw r tq Pgwal immadja arp 'suasam daaafama MP Jo uoaapoaoa aiJY(q)
PAPnOw q utdJO axq"lp9m'9duhvW'wM=#'armp,farJ/•apr vood�armor of=#a amm gxgm amnm a p agl mp(t1 law
-� ur aUvd JIM Pw aY age Jo NDWOJd 9L'409�S Of IW pat ligf m am amaaofd amgo aJq
' � Jo minosu age par damfsaam aqa aqu p Pw(I Y IVAN
Sq ffA
NJsiooQQr aoamasloap my pAea�ooltota ap dtt PAt+tq aolmar
ar m aaampaaw w m Squp at ynJMOM Sr Int fm PA MNd RW !an)Joaw:lmmpy,!mad/taolb3 aawtdDadahl agl,fjaa(1)
Jo 11'SOE rolum a tamwW aur PAM UOMW jar a,fuadod PM :atom sunsnm aoega fa M pJ af91�►Dot
ga 10
toW.4 "q P age gwddg,ftaQod!m►Jo M"jar wgill (a1 -ad age'samsam buAm a to raamaoaammar age mir stop ft.mi"
.maadal 9m arlalfrls ow UWAI •paslmlalm aq Jsnm Sxunosu IRMIM MOO Par sunaaJ
age Jo pwam ay m o mp Jo awatad Of aq mm P$LIW AF age'Pao a".am"d PLWM w at mop 'uonulPgm sw d9 Pamolm Sr 'win
.0 an=I 9x9 mJ PawPa aA aq oa atr Ox" 'WM an salauaat,faaafjauta aeauaq i W2111001/rmuo o)afmmrp
tDamandaQ JOJ sanuagddsaJom Jo ow ra"loN4 J-wod r aa9A1(P/ taa"atd w a 'diaJw m 4t1p9?44^d rastae oa dJosraaw.ganlpsm
Sif'�laaas'(p) -m!an toga sapp aam,faaafama os dlddt loot op urd Up Jo SYOI
(9)4Snofga(1)gwadluod m Pnq I"sopr"aat Jo SSW"/lY(!! aoaaor Jo rtoamumbat tlmad au(t) saauaat,Gawfam3 t!'fnl
APPENDIX B
GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS
Part 1 - General Guidelines
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTION B-2
GETTING STARTED B-4
Assistance in Funding Local Program Development
Technical Assistance and Advice
Needed Tools
CONTENT OF A LOCAL PROGRAM B-6
Undertaking an Inventory Analysis
Determining Local Objectives and Applicable
State Policy
Identifying Waterfront Uses and Projects
Identifying the Techniques for Implementing
the Program
Obtaining Local Commitment
DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF A LOCAL PROGRAM B-13
3ENEFITS OF AN APPROVED LOCAL PROGRAM B-15
Consistency
Project Funding
Technical Assistance
B - 1
INTRODUCTION
The enactment of the 1981 Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act established the first concerted statewide water-
front revitalization effort in the Nation. This law represents
years of private and public effort. Development interests,
environmental interests, civic groups, and cities, towns and
villages each played a major role in shaping this law. The
experiences of Boston , Baltimore , San Francisco and even a small
city such as Beaufort, South Carolina, in addition to the
experiences gained in preparing this law clearly indicate that
waterfront revitalization cannot succeed through the efforts of
any single entity, either public or private. Hence , the major
theme for the Waterfront Revitalization Program is that of
consensus building to foster a strong private and public sector
partnership that will achieve the single overriding purpose of
this law - the advantageous use and protection of the unique
characteristics evident in each of the State's 240 waterfront
communities.
Since it will take the place of the Statewide coastal program in
the coastal area within the community's jurisdiction, a Water-
front Revitalization Program must be comprehensive. In addition,
to gain the community commitment to undertake the revitalization
effort , the program must be focused and small enough to be
grasped and accomplished within the foreseeable future, and at
the same time big enough to make a difference in the community' s
attitude toward its waterfront. Further, a Waterfront Revital-
ization Program must be exciting enough to maintain the
community's interest and momentum over a long period of time.
Without this long term commitment, a hodge podge of poorly
executed projects with no lasting value may result. A Waterfront
Revitalization Program must also be flexible enough to allow for
and encourage change. The completed Waterfront Revitalization
Program must express a vision of what the waterfront can become,
and a pragmatic strategy for achieving that vision.
A Waterfront Revitalization Program will contain policies which
for the most part either promote the beneficial use of coastal
resources (development) or prevent the impairment of certain
coastal resources (protection) . The emphasis in each program
will vary since all localities differ in terms of development,
economy, population, natural environment and social make-up.
Thus, each local program will be unique and tailored to local
conditions to best take advantage of what is present on the
waterfront. At the same time, there are certain common require-
ments for preparing a program that must be observed. All pro-
grams must begin with an evaluation of the local waterfront - its
assets and its liabilities. Such an evaluation may have already
been undertaken in preparing an existing local plan and simply
require refinement and updating. At the other extreme , a
locality may be seriously looking at its waterfront for the first
time. In either case , a locality should follow this and the
other general steps listed below in preparing a program:
B - 2
First, a community must see what's on the waterfront. It
must identify all of the opportunities and problems, their
interrelationships and complexities and understand what
caused the waterfront to evolve into its present status.
Second, a community should establish a mechanism for
obtaining public and governmental involvement in the
development of a program.
Third, the locality must establish an approach for
addressing the identified opportunities and problems, being
mindful of the community's capabilities, the necessity to
create the excitement and commitment needed for success, and
the need to further those State coastal policies that apply.
Fourth, the locality must devise specific solutions in terms
of uses, projects, or procedures to solve the identified
problems, or to take advantage of the identified
opportunities.
Fifth, the locality should develop specific management,
funding, and legislative strategies for priority uses,
projects, and procedures. At the same time, the locality
must use existing or new enforcement capabilities to ensure
that at a minimum, nothing will occur to prevent the long
term advantageous use of the waterfront.
Sixth, the locality must present procedures for addressing
potential waterfront opportunities and problems so that the
community has the ability to address with new situations as
they arise .
In addition to funds being available to assist in the preparation
and implementation of a Waterfront Revitalization Program, a
major benefit of an approved local program is the requirement
that State and federal agency actions must be consistent with the
details of a program.
B - 3
GETTING STARTED
The initiative for undertaking a local Waterfront Revitalization
Program lies with the individual local government or governments.
The State encourages such a program, but the State's Waterfront
Revitalization Program is not dependent on their existence. Where
undertaken, however, it takes the place of the State's coastal
program.
Localities interested in undertaking a waterfront revitali-
zation program should first contact :
Division of Local Government
and Community Services
Department of State
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12231
Such contact should be established at an early date. The Depart-
ment of State can help an interested community in several ways:
1 . Assistance in Funding Local Program Development.
The Department of State expects to receive federal and
State monies for furthering waterfront revitalization
efforts. These funds will be available to match local
cash or in-kind services on a 50-50 basis. Criteria to
be used in allocating available funds are as follows :
(a) the initiative shown by local government by the
amount of local resources, fiscal and non-fiscal ,
committed to addressing coastal issues;
(b) the relative significance a locality's coastal
resources/activities have for that locality, the
region, or the state;
(c) geographical balance is desired but there will
also be priority for contiguous localities,
particularly whole counties or logical subregions
such as the Long Island Sound shore of West-
chester, the East end of Long Island;
(d ) the degree of coincidence between local coastal
concerns and State and Federal priorities (access,
water dependent uses , erosion, etc. ) ;
(e) the ability of the locality to successfully carry
out the work;
( f) commitment to implementing the program;
(g) ability of locality to undertake work without a
grant.
B - 4
As to the amount of a grant, the factors to be
considered are:
(a) a, b, d, and g above;
(b) the population of a community in total and within
the coastal area and the number ( in general terms)
of people who make use of the coastal area.
2. Technical Assistance and Advice.
The Department has a staff of coastal and development
specialists who are available to consult with municipal
officials interested in undertaking waterfront
revitalization. They will answer questions, suggest
approaches, and provide needed services to launch the
local program.
3. Needed Tools.
In beginning a Waterfront Revitalization Program, a
locality will require special maps and data. The
Department possesses a wide range of resources of this
nature which it can make available.
S - 5
CONTENT OF LOCAL PROGRAM
The following outline describes in detail the steps to be taken
in developing an approvable local Waterfront Revitalization
Program under the 1981 legislation, with suggestions and examples
for local guidance. Most of the steps will be recognized as
familiar planning activities generally followed in the course of
undertaking any land use or economic development program. Because
each local government's coastal situation is different, the
design of a local program will vary. Adherence to the steps
below will assist a community in determining its own waterfront
policies and in determining which State coastal policies are
relevant and are to be considered and dealt with in its local
progran. To gain familiarity with the scope of State waterfront
concerns , a first step should be to carefully read the 28 State
coastal policies. These policies, which are derived from Article
42, are found in DOS regulations , 19 NYCRR Part 600 and in Part
II of these guidelines.
1. Undertaking an Inventory and Analysis
Before a community can design a local Waterfront
Revitalization Program, it must first inventory and
analyze its existing waterfront conditions. Many
community, of course , may have already done much of
this work. Of assistance in this task is the State's
Coastal Atlas, a copy of which is available to any
interested coastal community. The atlas identifies the
major coastal resources and circumstances which must be
recognized in a local program. Such items as important
agricultural land , significant historic sites,
important wildlife habitats, and major scenic vistas
are indicated on the atlas maps. The State has also
identified certain other coastal conditions, such as
erosion and floodprone areas, which may affect local
programs.
Using the coastal atlas as a starting point, the local
government should refine and supplement this
information, based on a more intensive community study,
particularly in the following areas:
( a) Existinq natural , recreational , cultural , aesthe-
tic, and historic resources not accounted for in
the state atlas, but of local significance.
(b) Economic activities, particularly current or
potential industrial and commercial uses dependent
on a waterfront location.
(c) Current land and water uses.
Analysis of inventory and other data should follow to
determine the existence and significance of problems,
issues, and opportunities that are related to the
waterfront.
B - 6
This analysis may indicate that much of the local
waterfront is already in stable uses, such as
residential , and presents no problem. However,
analysis may also indicate that some important uses,
such as agricultural lands, are threatened , and need
local attention and solutions. Other waterfront areas
may be identified as deteriorated , and provide the
opportunity to promote new and more economically
rewarding uses. These problem areas are the ones on
which the local Waterfront Revitalization Program
should concentrate.
2. Determining Local Policies and Applicable State
Policies
Identification of the waterfront problems and oppor-
tunities on which the community program must concen-
trate should be linked to a determination of which of
the policies and required activities described in Part
II need to be incorporated in the local program. Three
possible situations should be considered in making such
a determination. First, each of the State policies and
required activities should be reviewed to see if it is
applicable to the community. For example, the policy
on agriculture is not relevant to New York City while
the policy on port development is not relevant to
Niagara Falls. Second , some policies in particular may
not be a local responsibility or may not represent a
significant issue for the community. In such cases,
the policies can be merely repeated in the local
Program. Third , many of the policies and required
activities will be applicable to the community and must
thus be elaborated upon and incorporated in the
program. In Part II, guidelines are provided for
determining whether and to what extent a policy or
activity is relevant to the circumstances of the
locality.
Based on the above analysis and determination, the
municipal waterfront program should set forth specific
local policies. In establishing the policies of a local
program, the community should keep the following
factors in mind:
(a) be specific; general goals are not sufficient to
provide direction to a program
(b) establish priorities; all problems and opportu-
nities cannot be fully addressed at once
(c) stay within the community's capabilities, both
fiscal and social
(d ) generate excitement and commitment
B - 7
(e) realize that the State policies are a minimum; if
relevant to the locality, they should in most
instances , be elaborated upon in the LWPP.
3. Defining the Waterfront Revitalization Area Boundary
A coastal area boundary has been designated for the
entire State and is shown on the coastal area maps sent
to each local government in 1981. The entire area
within the designated boundary for the local government
is to be included within the geographic area of a local
Waterfront Revitalization Program. However, if it can
be justified that the program's inland boundary should
be altered, a recommendation should be made to the
Secretary of State to revise the boundary accordingly.
Recommendations for the inland boundary of local
Waterfront Revitalization Program should be based on
consideration of the following points:
Plot the geographic locations affected by coastal
issues, problems, and opportunities found to be
relevant and which are to be the basis for the
determination of those policies and activities to
be incorporated into the waterfront revitalization
program.
Recognizable lines, such as cultural features
(highways, streets, railroads , etc . ) , should , if
at all possible , be used for the inland boundary.
4. Identifying Uses , Projects , and Procedures
The heart of a local Waterfront Revitalization Program
consists of the identification of specific uses and
projects proposed for the waterfront area. These must
further each objective of the program and must be as
specific as possible , considering the circumstances of
the particular use or project.
While the proposed uses and projects should be long-
term, this does not preclude attention to immediate
problems nor staged implementation of a program so long
as any major resources identified are adequately
protected and major development opportunities are not
allowed to be foreclosed. Also, proposed uses and
projects can be identified by sub-areas that reflect
neighborhoods or related uses or geography. The
proposals should be very specific. Detailed sketch
plans, preliminary cost estimates, and time schedules
should be included so that implementation of the
proposals can be furthered by an approved program.
Alternatively, a locality may choose to establish a
procedural mechanisn(s) (such as a local Coastal
Commission that reviews and approves waterfront
B - 8
activities, or amendments to an existing procedure such
as SEAR) to achieve all or some of the program's
objectives. Such procedural mechanism(s) would be
appropriate where identification of specific uses or
projects is not realistic , such a procedure would
provide that any proposed uses or projects meet certain
standards. This approach can be taken- for an entire
program and may be most appropriate in a locality with
an extensive and diverse waterfront. In that situation
the approach should be supplemented by the identifica-
tion of a few specific projects. In other localities
the approach taken may concentrate on several specific
uses and projects and supplement that approach with
procedural mechanism(s) that meet the policies not
covered by identification of specific uses or
projects.
5. Identifying the Techniques for Implementing the Program
The Waterfront Revitalization Program places great
emphasis on implementation. In developing the specific
management, funding, and program strategies, a locality
may emphasize those priority uses and projects it has
identified. However, at the same time it must also
identify existing or new enforcement capabilities that
ensure that, at a minimum, nothing will occur to
Prevent the long term advantageous use of the water-
front, or that would frustrate achievement of any
identified local objective or relevant state policy.
Specifically, the State legislation requires a
"description of proposed means for long-term management
and maintenance of waterfront development and activi-
ties including organizational structures and responsi-
bilities and appropriate land use controls." A further
section requires that the local program provide
"specification of the adequate authority and capability
of the local government to implement the program. " A
"description of necessary and appropriate state actions
for successful implementation of the program" is also
called for. What is necessary to meet these several
requirements is described below.
(a) Local programs should include a complete descrip-
tion of the various means that the locality will
employ to implement its program. The description
should clearly indicate how the various means will
achieve each of the policies or proposals
contained in the program. Means of implementation
is defined to include organizational structure,
review procedures, financing , land use controls
and other ordinances, etc. Part two contains a
brief discussion under each policy or activity of
various techniques available to local government
for the given purpose. Localities are free to
choose whatever means they feel suit their
B - 9
circumstances, provided that they can demonstrate
that the means chosen are likely to be effective.
Each policy/activity discussion in Part two also
contains guidelines for determining whether the
means chosen are adequate to achieve the policy or
cause the activity to occur.
(b) A local program should include a section which
provides evidence that the community has the capa-
bility to achieve the policies stated in its
program. Capability refers to: 1) legal capa-
bility, i.e. the local laws and ordinances identi-
fied as part of the program are or will be in
place prior to program approval (the full text of
any local laws or ordinances should be appended to
the program) such legal capability should also
include provisions that municipal agencies operate
their programs consistent with the LWRP; 2)
organizational capability , i.e. there is adequate
staff to manage the program and a mechanism exists
for coordinating the activities of municipal
agencies within the waterfront revitalization
area, and 3 ) financial capability , i.e. the
projects and other program elements to be
developed with local public funding are reasonable
given the fiscal resources of the locality, and ,
to the extent private and other government
financing are to be sought, that there is a
likelihood that they can be obtained .
( c) While it is necessary for a locality to
demonstrate that it can successfully undertake a
Waterfront Revitalization Program, it is
recognized that many of the funding, regulatory ,
and direct activities of state agencies will
greatly influence the successful implementation of
Waterfront Revitalization Programs. The process of
achieving the required consistency of State
actions with local programs can be facilitated by
local governments identifying those specific State
agency actions ( including proposed actions or
classes of actions) and programs which are likely
to affect achievements of the local program,
either in a positive or negative manner.
Localities should describe how their program is
affected and how each State program or action
might be modified.
To aid localities in identifying programs, DOS will
prepare a list of the major State agency programs which
may affect waterfront revitalization. A locality
should attempt to be as complete as possible in identi-
fying such programs; however, failure to identify a
program or action does not diminish the requirement
that the program or State agency action be consistent
B - 10
with an approved local program, provided it is identi-
fied by the Secretary of State as such at the time of
program approval . How consistency works is discussed
in detail below. Localities may also wish to identify
Federal actions which would affect achievement of the
local program.
6. Obtaining Local Commitment
Finally, the local waterfront revitalization program
must be geared to produce results. Once approved by
the State, State agencies and federal agencies are
forbidden to undertake action in conflict with the
approved program.
Because such a program represents partnership efforts ,
a firm local commitment to the proposed program is
expected before State action is taken on the sub-
mission. Local commitment requirements are satisfied
by:
(a ) Approval of the program by the mayor, supervisor
and manager , if any.
(b) Attachment of a resolution by the local governing
body formally approving the waterfront program and
its transmittal to the Secretary of State for
approval.
(c ) Evidence of local support by both public and
private agencies and general citizenry, including
information on public meetings held for the
purpose of informing residents of the proposals.
Such evidence can be in the form of letters and/or
resolutions by such groups as businessmen's
associations, citizen improvement groups, and
environmental groups affected . It is important
that a local program have broad support from both
development and preservation interests. Formation
of a citizen 's advisory committee can often be an
effective means of gaining public support for a
local program.
(d ) Identification of objections to the proposal ,
including any letters or resolutions received in
opposition.
While a local commitment is obtained only near the end
of the process, the effort to obtain such commitment
must begin at the inception of the development of the
program.
B - 11
7. Consultation with Other Affected Governments
Each locality wishing to prepare a local program is
strongly encouraged to consult with adjacent coastal
communities and its county on their plans and policies
for the coastal area. To assure a useful exchange of
ideas this should be done early in program development.
The DOS will assist any community in this effort if
requested.
B - 12
DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF A PROGRAM
There are two stages to the completion and submission of a local
Waterfront Revitalization Program:
1. Draft Program Document. The required content of the
local program was covered in the previous section.
Once the first five of these items have been completed,
20 copies of the proposed program should be forwarded
to the Department of State for initial review by the
state agencies which may be concerned. Copies should
also be provided to county and regional planning
agencies and to adjacent coastal communities. The
implementation section at this time may be proposals
rather than finally enacted laws or ordinances, but the
method of implementation must be made clear. The Local
Commitment section need not be attached to this draft.
The draft document must include maps at any appropriate
scale which clearly identify the proposed program
items. A summary map should also be prepared at a
scale of 1:24,000. Items to be entered on these maps
or map are:
-- boundary of the state coastal area
-- inventory inrormation prepared as part of the
local program
-- specific land and water uses and locations of
projects proposed for the waterfront area.
Copies of local legislation to be used to implement the
program should be included if already enacted. A draft
Environmental Impact Statement may also be required.
2. Final Program Document. After receiving Department of
State clearance of the draft program, the final docu-
ment should be submitted , again in 25 copies. The
following additional items must be part of the final
submission:
-- any amendments or alterations required following
Department of State review of the draft version
-- copies of enacted ordinances or local laws to be
employed in carrying out the program (or a
proposed local law or ordinance to be enacted upon
program approval . Programs may be approved
conditional on such enactement. )
evidence of formal approval of the program by the
local legislative body, and executive
B - 13
-- evidence of local support of the program
-- identification of objections to the program,
including any letters or resolutions received.
B - 14
a. J. ■. .. . . _n . . AM .. .
BENEFITS OF AN APPROVED LOCAL PROGRAM
Consistency
One of the major benefits and innovations of the waterfront
revitalization act is the concept of "consistency". This pro-
vision aims to raise the goal of coordination between local
government and the State and federal governments to a new level
and at the same time provides the means to make it a reality. The
premise behind the concept is as follows: if a locality develops
a detailed Waterfront Revitalization Program which furthers the
State's general coastal policies (and is not in conflict with
other established state policy) , then the State should adhere to
the details of that program. ( i.e. , the State will not attempt to
'second guess' what is the best way to implement a particular
policy at the local level ) . The process of program approval is
to provide the State with an adequate opportunity to determine
that a local program does further the State coastal policies and
does not conflict with other established State policies.
The 'Consistency' provision will work as follows :
1. During the development of its local Waterfront Revita-
lization Program, a locality is encouraged to consult
with State and federal agencies concerning aspects of
mutual interests. The Department of State staff is
available to facilitate such consulatation.
2. Before approving a local Waterfront Revitalization
Program, the Secretary of State will consult with
potentially affected State and Federal agencies. These
agencies will have 60 days in which to comment on a
local program. The Secretary will not approve a local
Waterfront Revitalization Program if he/she finds it
conflicts with an existing State or federal policy.
When a conflict is found, the Secretary will attempt
to resolve the differences. Prior to approving the
program the Secretary must also find that the program
is consistent with the policies and purposes of Article
42 and incorporates certain required activities. Upon
receiving the draft program the Secretary will provide
State and federal agencies likely to be affected by the
program with copies. The following State and Federal
agencies are the ones most likely to receive copies:
-- U.S. Dept. of Commerce - National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Agency
-- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-- U.S. Dept. of Interior - National Park Service and
Bureau of Fish and Wildlife
-- U.S. Dept. of Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard
B - 15
-- U.S. Dept. of Defense - Army Corps of Engineers
-- Federal Emergency Management Administration
-- U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
-- NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
-- NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation
-- NYS Dept. of Transportation
-- NYS Dept. of Commerce
-- NYS Energy Office
-- NYS Dept. of Public Service
-- NYS office of General Services
-- Port Authorities, if located in that community
Other State and federal agencies will be sent copies of
the draft program if the program has identified any
actions of these agencies as necessary for successful
implementation of the local program or if the Secretary
finds that their programs may be significantly affected
by the program.
3. Within sixty days of approving a local program, the
Secretary will identify specific State permit, finan-
cial assistance, acquisition, and capital construction
programs likely to affect the achievement of the local
program. This identification will be based on the
identification of State programs by the locality in its
program, additional consultation with the locality and
State agencies if necessary, and the DOS familiarity
with State programs that affect the coastal area.
4. State agency programs so identified will , to the
maximum extent practicable, be undertaken in a manner
consistent with the approved local Waterfront Revita-
lization Program. Amendments to SEQR regulations
intandem with new DOS regulations will provide the
procedures for the State agency's consistency deter-
mination. Using the Environmental Notice Bulletin,
A-95, and other procedures, if necessary, State
agencies will provide local government with adequate
information on a proposed action. The municipality is
expected to evaluate proposed actions and identify any
conflicts with its approved local program. Once
notified by the locality of the potential conflicts,
B - 16
the Secretary will confer with the State agency and the
local government to modify the action so that it will
be consistent with the approved Waterfront Revitaliza-
tion Program.
5. The Secretary is also required by the Act to work with
State agencies and seek additional means of implement-
ing approved local waterfront programs. Where a local
government has identified program elements which depend
upon other than local funds and actions, the Secretary
will consult with the appropriate State and federal
agencies to explore the possibilities or programming of
additional assistance that would further the
implementation of the local program.
Project Funding
Financial assistance is provided to a local government for
implementation of a local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Grants are available to a local government with an approved
Waterfront Revitalization Program for research, design, and
other activities which serve to implement construction
projects identified in an approved program. Such grants can
cover up to ten percent of the estimated cost of a
construction project.
The allocation of funds to local governments for the imple-
mentation of Waterfront Revitalization Programs will reflect
their initiative and interest in undertaking these tasks and
other factors to assure fair and equitable distribution.
Determination of what constitutes "initiative and interest"
and "fair and equitable" will be based on consideration of
the following points:
-- The initiative shown by the locality by its
commitment of local resources (fiscal and non-
fiscal ) to the implementation of its approved
program.
-- The significance of the coastal resource/activity
affected by the implementation project for the
locality, the region, or the State.
-- The number of people benefiting from the project,
and the population of coastal locality, or coastal
areas as appropriate.
-- The likelihood that the project being facilitated
will be successfully implemented.
-- The degree to which the project furthers State and
Federal priorities.
-- The ability of the locality to undertake th work
without a grant.
B - 17
Technical Assistance
The Department of State is able to offer technical
assistance to localities in the preparation of water-
front revitalization programs. A staff of coastal
specialists will be on hand to answer questions,
suggest approaches, and provide needed services such as
making available maps and data helpful in preparing a
local program.
E - 18
Part 2 - Specific Guidelines
Table of Contents
Page
DETERIORATED AND UNDERUTILIZED URBAN B-20
WATERFRONT AREAS
WATER DEPENDENT USES B-23
CONCENTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT B-28
MAJOR PORTS B-32
SI4ALLER HARBORS B-35
PERi1IT SIMPLIFICATION B-37
SIGNIFICANT :ISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS B-39
COMMERCIAL FISHING B-43
RECREATIONAL USES OF FISH AND WILDLIFE B-45
FLOODING AND EROSION B-47
ICE MANACEMENT PRACTICES B-52
PUBLIC ACCESS B-53
RECREATION g-57
HISTORIC RESOURCES B-63
VISUAL QUALITY B-C-6
AGRICULTURE B-71
WATER QUALITY AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT B-74,
OTHER PLATER QUALITY ISSUES B-76
B - 19
DETERIORATED AND UNDERUTILIZED URBAN WATERFRONT AREAS
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that it is State policy "to achieve a balance between economic
development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use
of coastal resources. . . " (Section 912.1) and "to encourage the
restoration and revitalization of . . . man-made resources "
(Section 912. 6 ) . The Act also declares that a LWRP should incor-
porate "the promotion and preservation of scenic, historic,
cultural, . . . resources as community amenities and tourist desti-
nations" and " the reuse of existing infrastructure and building
stock and the removal of deteriorated structures and unsightly
conditions. . ." Therefore , DOS regulations, require that to be
approved a LWRP further, commensurate with community circum-
stances , the following policy: "restore, revitalize , and re-
develop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for
business, cultural , recreational and other compatible uses. "
Revitalization of their once dynamic waterfront areas is one of
the most effective means of encouraging economic growth, without
consuming valuable open space outside of these waterfront areas.
Waterfront redevelopment is also one of the most effective means
of rejuvenating or at least stabilizing residential and
commercial districts adjacent to the redevelopment area.
Communities affected by this policy should also refer to the
policy guidelines below on: Water Dependent Uses; Concentration
of Developnent; and Expediting Permit Procedures.
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
This policy is directed at communities where the effects of
a steady exodus over time from their waterfronts, of people,
commerce and industry is underutilized , abandoned and often
deteriorated waterfront sites. In determining whether this
policy applies to a particular locale , reliance will be
placed on information obtained from the waterfront resource
inventory which each community is required to produce for
its Waterfront Revitalization Program. In some larger
coastal communities, there should be no uncertainty as to
its application; in small communities, it will be a matter
of judgment, on a use-by-use basis.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
Most communities will find that, among the many policies
which they may have to deal with in preparing Waterfront
Revitalization Programs, this policy probably will require
the most vigorous and imaginative deployment of the powerful
tools at their disposal : legal , financial and political .
B - 20
Implementation also will require the full commitment of the
community's leaders and its residents, as well as the
closest working relationship with other government agencies
and private interests.
While implementation of such major development will depend
heavily on private investment, attracting private investment
will require the imaginative use of all of a community's
legal and financial tools including: zoning techniques such
as the creation of special waterfront districts; site plan
reviews; permit procedures; building codes; the use of
eminent domain powers; tax incentives; special benefit
assessments or improvement districts; and capital facilities
programming.
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this policy
is adequate
DOS recognizes that implementation of this policy is a long
term project. Thus, a community's treatment of it will be
reviewed in that context.
A. Because some communities will find significant levels
of complexity of ownership, use and structural condi-
tions in their waterfront redevelopment areas, they
should first prepare a set of data, including maps,
sufficiently detailed to give precise information, on
the current status of those areas. Without those data,
redevelopment planning efforts would be fruitless.
The community should demonstrate that it has estab-
B. lished, or will establish within a reasonable time,
appropriate laws, ordinances or governmental initia-
tives in regard to waterfront redevelopment areas, in
which direction and incentive is given to ensure that,
where pertinent:
1. Priority is given to uses which are dependent on a
location adjacent to the water;
2. Proposed actions will enhance existing and
anticipated uses;
3. Proposed actions will serve as a catalyst to
private investment in these areas;
4. Proposed actions will improve the deteriorated
condition of a site, and at a minimum, must not
cause further deterioration;
5. Proposed actions will lead to development which is
compatible with the existing or planned character
of the areas, with consideration given to scale,
architectural style, density and intensity of use;
B - 21
6. Proposed actions will have the potential to
improve the existing economic base of the
community and, at a minimum, must not jeopardize
this base;
7. Proposed actions will improve adjacent and upland
views of the water, and, at a minimum, must not
affect these views in an insensitive manner;
8. Proposed actions will improve the potential for
multiple uses of the site.
B - 22
WATER DEPENDENT USES
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that a local waterfront revitalization program must incorporate
"the facilitation of appropriate industrial and commercial uses
which require or can benefit substantially from a waterfront
location such as but not limited to waterborne transportation
facilities and services, and support facilities for commercial
fishing and aquaculture" (Section 915. 5.a. ) . Therefore, DOS
regulations require that to be approved a LWRP must "facilitate
the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent
to coastal waters."
There is a finite amount of waterfront space suitable for devel-
opment purposes. Consequently, while the demand for any given
piece of property will fluctuate in response to varying economic
and social conditions, on a statewide basis the only reasonable
expectation is that long-term demand for waterfront space will
intensify.
The traditional method of land allocation, i .e. ► the real estate
market, with or without local land use controls, offers little
assurance that uses which require waterfront sites will , in
fact, have access to coastal waters. To ensure that such "water
dependent" uses can continue to be accomodated , a community
should avoid undertaking, funding, or approving non-water
dependent uses when such uses would preempt the reasonably
foreseeable development of water dependent uses, and should
utilize appropriate programs to encourage water dependent
activities.
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to
each locality
Rural coastal communities will be the least affected by this
policy although their desire to prepare a local Waterfront
Revitalization Program probably reflects a certain degree of
pressure on their shorefronts. The greatest need for this
policy will be found in locales in or near poplulation
centers, where the competition for waterfront land is
usually more intense. The water dependency concept,
however, is so fundamental to the proper management of
waterfront resources, that most communities will respond to
this policy in their programs.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
Because "water dependency" is a comparatively new approach
to meeting development needs, the processes and techniques
for implementing it are described here in great detail .
B - 23
Water Dependent Uses and Facilities
The following uses and facilities are considered as water
dependent:
1. Uses which depend on the utilization of resources found
in coastal waters ( for example: fishing, mining of
sand and gravel, mariculture activities) ;
2. Recreational activities which depend on access to
coastal waters ( for example: swimming , fishing ,
boating ) ;
3. Uses involved in the sea/land transfer of goods ( for
example: docks , loading areas, pipelines , short-term
storage facilities) ;
4. Structures needed for navigational purposes ( for
example: locks , dams, lighthouses) ;
5. Flood and erosion protection structures ( for example:
breakwaters , bulkheads) ;
6. Facilities needed to store and service boats and ships
(for example: marinas, boat repair , boat construction
yards) ;
7. Uses requiring large quantities of water for processing
and cooling purposes ( for example: hydroelectric power
plants, fish processing plants , pumped storage power
plants) ;
8. Uses that rely heavily on the waterborne transporation
of raw materials or products which are difficult to
transport on land , thereby making it critical that a
site near to shipping facilities be obtained ( for
example: coal export facilities, cement plants,
quarries) ;
9. Uses which operate under such severe time constraints
that proximity to shipping facilities becomes critical
( for example: firms processing perishable foods);
10. Scientific/educational activities which , by their
nature, require access to coastal waters ( for example:
certain meteorological and oceanographic activities) ;
and
11. Support facilities which are necessary for the success-
ful functioning of permitted water dependent uses ( for
example: parking lots , snack bars , first-aid stations ,
short-term storage facilities) . Thoogh these uses must
be near the given water dependent use they should , as
much as possible, be sited inland from the water
dependent use rather than on the shore.
s - 24
Water-enhanced Uses
In addition to water dependent uses, uses which are enhanced by a
waterfront location should be encouraged to locate along the
shore, though not at the expense of water dependent uses. A
water-enhanced use is defined as a use that has no critical
dependence on obtaining a waterfront location, but the profit-
ability of the use and/or the enjoyment level of the users would
be increased significantly if the use were adjacent to, or had
visual access to, the waterfront. A restaurant which uses good
site design to take advantage of a waterfront view, and a golf
course which incorporates the coastline into the course design,
are two examples of water-enhanced uses.
"Temporary" Non-Water Dependent Uses
If there is no immediate demand for a water dependent use in a
given area but a future demand is reasonably foreseeable,
temporary non-water dependent uses should be considered
preferable to a non-water dependent use which involves an
irreversible , or nearly irreversible commitment of land. Parking
lots, passive recreational facilities, outdoor storage areas , and
non-permanent structures are uses or facilities which would
likely be considered as "temporary" non-water dependent uses .
Choice of Sites
In the actual choice of sites where water dependent uses will be
encouraged and facilitated , the following factors should be
considered.
1. Consistency with other coastal policies -- the designa-
tion of a site as appropriate for water dependent uses
will have to be consistent with other policies. Partic-
ularly relevant would be those policies calling for
development where environmental considerations are
favorable , and where the concentration of development
would be reinforced. The siting of water dependent
uses would also have to comply with all policies
relating to specific coastal resources -- the existence
of wetlands , fish and wildlife habitats, important
agricultural lands, and beaches and other erosion and
flood hazard areas, would therefore have to be taken
into consideration.
2. Competition for space -- competition for space or the
potential for it, should be indicated before any given
site is promoted for water dependent uses. The intent
is to match water dependent uses with suitable loca-
tions and thereby reduce any conflicts between
competing uses that might arise . yot just any site
suitable for development should he chosen as a water
dependent use area. The choice of a site should be
made with some meaningful impact on the real estate
B-25
market anticipated . The anticipated impact could
either be one of increased protection to existing water
dependent activities or else the encouragement of water
dependent development.
3. In-place facilities and services -- most water depen-
dent uses, if they are to function effectively, will
require basic public facilities and services. In
selecting appropriate areas for water dependent uses,
consideration should be given to the following factors:
a) The availability of public sewers, public water
lines and adequate power supply;
b) Access to the area for trucks and rail , if heavy
industry is to be accommodated; and
c) Access to public transportation, if a high number
of person trips is to be generated .
4 . Access to navigational channels -- if commercial
shipping, commercial fishing, or recreational boating
are planned , the locality should consider setting aside
a site, within a sheltered harbor, from which access to
adequately sized navigation channels would he assured .
5. Compatibility with adjacent uses -- water dependent
uses should be located so that they enhance, or at
least do not detract from, the surrounding community.
Considerations such as the protection of nearby
residential areas from odors , noise and traffic should
be made. Affirmative approaches should also be
employed so that water dependent uses and adjacent uses
can serve to complement one another. For example, a
recreation-oriented water dependent use area could be
sited in an area already oriented towards tourism.
Clearly, a marina, fishing pier or swimming area would
enhance, and in turn be enhanced by, nearby restau-
rants, motels and other non-water oriented tourist
activities.
6. Preference to underutilized sites -- the promotion of
water dependent uses should serve to foster development
as a result of the capital programming, permit expedit-
ng , and State and other local actions that will be
Sed to promote the site. Nowhere is such a stimulus
is?ded more than in those portions of the State's
waterfront areas which are currently underutilized.
7. Providing for expansion -- a primary objective of the
policy is to create a process by which water dependent
uses can be accomodated well into the future. Local-
ities should therefore give consideration to lone-term
space needs and, where practicable , accommodate future
demand by identifying more land than is needed in the
near future.
E - 26
Promoting Water Dependent Use Areas
In promoting water dependent uses the following kinds of actions
should be considered:
1. Favored treatment to water dependent use areas with
respect to capital programming. Particular priority
should be given to the construction and maintenance of
port facilities, roads, railroad facilities, and public
transportation within areas suitable for water
dependent uses.
2. When areas suitable for water dependent uses are public
owned, favored leasing arrangements could be given to
water dependent uses.
3. Where possible , consideration might be given to provid-
ing water dependent uses with property tax abatements ,
loan guarantees , or loans at below market rates.
4 . Local planning and economic development agencies should
actively promote water dependent uses. In addition, a
list of sites available for non-water dependent uses
should be maintained in order to assist developers
seeking alternative sites for their proposed projects.
5. Local , state and federal agencies should work together
to streamline permitting procedures that may be burden-
some to water dependent uses. This effort should begin
for specific uses in a particular area.
6. Local land use controls, especially the use of zoning
districts exclusively for waterfront uses , can be an
effective tool of local government in assuring adequate
space for the development of water dependent uses.
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this policy
is adequate
Although the techniques for dealing with this policy are set
forth in very specific details above, the newness of the
process requires adoption of a flexible approach to evalua-
tion of a community's treatment. Nevertheless, certain key
elements described must be addressed. (1) Identify Water/
dependent, Water Enhanced , and "Temporary" Non-water Depen-
dent Uses which are appropriate to the community's present
stage of development. (2) Prepare a projection of possible
future demands by those and anticipated new water dependent
uses and facilities. (3) If necessary, select sites where
water dependent uses will be encouraged and facilitated.
(4 ) Establish laws or ordinances to promote and to safeguard
those sites as locations for water dependent uses and
facilities.
B - 27
CONCENTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that it is state policy "to encourage the location of land devel-
opment in areas where infrastructure and public services are
adequate" (Section 912.7) and that LWRPs incorporate the "reuse
of existing infrastructure and building stock. . . " . Therefore,
DOS regulations require that to be approved a LWRP must
"encourage the location of development in areas where public
services and facilities essential to such development are
adequate , except when such development has special functional
requirements or other characteristics which necessitate its
location in other coastal areas" .
By its construction, taxing , funding and regulatory powers ,
government has become a dominant force in shaping the course of
development. Through these government actions, large scale
development in the coastal area will be encouraged to locate
within, contiguous to, or in close proximity to, existing areas
of concentrated development where infrastructure and public
services are adequate , where topography, geology, and other
environmental conditions are suitable for and able to accommodate
development, and where development will not have significant
adverse effects on the achievement of other coastal policies.
The above policy is intended to accomplish the following :
strengthen existing residential , industrial ,
and commercial centers
foster an orderly pattern of growth where
outward expansion is occurring
increase the productivity of existing public
services and moderate the need to provide new
public services in outlying areas
preserve open space in sufficient amounts and
where desirable
foster energy conservation by encouraging
proximity between home, work, and leisure
activities
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
This policy applies to every community.
B - 28
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
The first step a community should take in implementing this
policy is to analyze its waterfront area. This is necessary
because, for any action that would result in large scale
land development or an action which would facilitate or
serve future large scale land development, the community
should make a determination as to whether or not the
proposed action is within, contiguous to, or in close
proximity to an area of concentrated development where
infrastructure and public services are adequate.
Communities should use the following guidelines in analyzing
their waterfront areas and in making that determination.
1. Cities, built-up suburban towns and villages, and rural
villages in the coastal area are generally areas of
concentrated development where infrastructure and
public services are adequate.
2. Other locations in the coastal area may also be suit-
able for such land development, if three or more of the
following conditions prevail:
a. Population density of the area surrounding or
adjacent to the proposed site exceeds 1,000
persons per square mile;
b. Less than 50% of the buildable sites (i.e. , sites
meeting lot area requirements under existing local
zoning regulations ) within one mile radius of the
proposed site are vacant;
c. Proposed site is served by or is near to public or
private sewer and water lines;
d. Public transportation service is available within
one mile of the proposed site; and
e. A significant concentration of commercial and/or
industrial activity is within one-half mile of the
proposed site.
3. The following points shall be considered in assessing
the adequacy of an area's infrastructure and public
services:
a. Streets and highways serving the proposed site can
safely accommodate the peak traffic generated by
the proposed land development;
b. Development's water needs (consumptive and fire
fighting) can be met by the existing water supply
system;
B - 29
c. Sewage disposal system can accommodate the wastes
generated by the development;
d. Energy needs of the proposed land development can
be accommodated by existing utility systems;
e. Stormwater runoff from the proposed site can be
accommodated by on-site and/ or off-site
facilities, and
f. Schools, police and fire protection, and health
and social services are adequate to meet the needs
of the population expected to live, work, shop, or
conduct business in the area as a result of the
development.
Exceptions are made in recognition that certain forms of land
development may and/ or should occur at locations which are not
within or near areas of concentrated development. Thus, this
coastal development policy does not apply to the following types
of land development projects and activities:
1 . Economic activities which depend upon sites at or near
locations where natural resources are present, e.g. ,
lumber industry, quarries.
2. Land development which by its nature ii� enhanced by a
non-urbanized setting, e.g. , a resort complex,
campgrounds, second home developments.
3. Land development which is designed to be a self-con-
tained activity, e.g. , a small college, an academic or
religious retreat.
4 . Water dependent uses.
5. Land development which because of its isolated location
and small-scale has little or no potential to generate
and/or encourage further land development.
6. uses and/or activities which because of public safety
considerations should be located away from populous
areas.
7. Rehabilitation or restoration of existing structures
and facilities.
8. Land development projects which are essential to the
construction and/or operation of the above uses and
activities.
B - 30
Because this policy explicitly requires a positive
approach to land use by "encouraging" concentration of
development, the techniques used to implement it should
be so constructed. That is, communities should use
incentives and disincentives to attract appropriate
development to the areas identified above. Zoning
ordinances, permits, site pre-clearing , capital budgets
and other similar techniques can be used to achieve
that goal .
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this polLCY
Is adequate
A community which has identified areas meeting the criteria
listed in II above and which can demonstrate that it has
established or will establish a reasonable incentive/disin-
centive mechanism so as to encourage development in such
areas should be deemed to have met the requirements of the
policy.
B - 31
MAJOR PORTS
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that it is State policy "to encourage the development and use of
existing ports . . . . . . so as to reinforce their roles as valuable
components within the State's transportation and industrial
network" and that LWRPs provide for the "strengthening of the
economic position of the state's major ports" (Section 912. 2) .
Therefore , DOS regulations require that affected localities in
their LWRPs "encourage the development of the State's existing
ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdensburgh and Oswego as
centers of commerce and industry, and encourage the siting, in
these port areas, including those under the jurisdiction of State
public authorities of land use and development which is essential
to or in support of waterborne transportation of cargo and
people."
The general approach which communities should adopt to meet the
requirements of this policy is one which recognizes the
importance of port operations by, at a minimum accommodating
them, and as far as possible stimulating them, so that they may
continue to contribute to the economic wellbeing of the locale
and of the State.
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to
each locality
The aim of this policy is to promote the development of
the State ' s major ports - New York, Buffalo, Oswego,
Ogdensburg and Albany. Thus, with the exception of the
discussion below on proposals for new major ports, only
communities whose actions might affect those five ports
need observe this guidelines section. Those com-
nunities should also refer to the guidelines on Water
Dependency, Concentration of Development, and
Expediting of Permit Reviews, all of which have
significant implications for port development.
II. Determining whether a community's treatment of this
policy is adequate
First, a distinction must be made between public and
private port operations. All five ports have facilities
operated by public agencies established by the State
legislature such as the Albany Port District Commission
and the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority. The
special character of those agencies is noted below.
DOS recognizes that jurisdictional constraints may
prevent communities from implementing certain of the
guidelines presented below.
B - 32
A. In regard to both public and private port areas, a
community's treatment of this policy will be
considered adequate if it can demonstrate in its
decisions:
(1) In evaluating and acting upon proposed
projects within or abutting port areas, the
overriding consideration is the maintenance
and enhancement of essential port activity
which will have precedence over other
non-port related activities.
(2) Dredging to maintain the economic viability
of the port will be considered an action of
major state or regional benefit if need is
shown and it can be demonstrated that
environmental impacts would be at an
acceptable level.
(3 ) Landfill projects for port related activities
in near-shore areas will be regarded as an
acceptable activity within port areas
provided adverse environmental impacts are
minimized and strong economic justification
is demonstrated.
(4 ) Non-port related activities proposed to be
located in or near a port area will be sited
so that they will not interfere with normal
port operations.
(5 ) In the programming of capital projects
affecting ports, high priority will be given
to those that promote the development and use
of the port.
B. Two additional guidelines are directed at the
community's treatment of public port agencies.
First, when not already restricted by existing
laws or covenants, and when there is no major
public benefit to doing otherwise, surplus public
land or facilities should be offered for sale, in
the first instance, to the local public port
agency. Second, particularly where there is
limited access to the waterfront, the community
should negotiate with the public port agency to
provide opportunities for public access insofar as
this does not interfere with the day-to-day
operations of the port and its tenants do not
incur unreasonable cost.
B - 33
C. Commercial shipping may be hindered or damaged by
floating debris in the ports' waterways. Because
the major source of this hazard is deteriorating
waterfront buildings, piers, barges and other
vessels, the community should enact laws or
ordinances which would ensure the upkeep of those
structures and vessels and prevent their
abandonment.
D. All coastal communities should be aware that any
proposals in their LWRP's for the development of
new major ports will be assessed in terms of the
anticipated impacts on: (a) existing New York
State major ports; (b) existing modes of
transportation; and (c) the surrounding land uses
and overall neighborhood character in the area in
which the proposed port is to be located.
III. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this Policy
Before addressing discrete techniques for implementing
those guidelines, a major port community should ask if
it has established an effective means of coordination
with port agencies, owners and operators so that
implementation of the policy is carried out in an
informed way rather than reactively. For example, port
operations have been viewed as such an integral part of
its overall waterfront activities that the City of
Buffalo has joined recently with the Niagara Frontier
Transportation Authority and other public and private
interests to form a Waterfront Planning Board to help
determine the future of that city's waterfront. Formal
structures such as Buffalo has established may not be
necessary in all communities but the principle is worth
considering.
Implementation of this policy may be achieved by
exercise of the community's police powers including
zoning , building codes and other permit procedures, and
planning functions, and through its capital budget to
assure compatible development in areas adjacent to
ports.
B -34
SMALLER HARBORS
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that it is State policy "to encourage the development and use of
small harbors including use and maintenance of viable
existing infrastructures" (Section 912. 2 ) , and that LWRPs
incorporate means for "strengthening the economic position of. . .
small harbors" (Section 915. 5.d ) . Therefore, DOS regulations
require that a LWRP "strengthen the economic base of smaller
harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of
those traditional uses and activities which have provided such
areas with a unique maritime identity."
This policy recognizes that the traditional activities occurring
in and around many smaller harbors throughout the State's coastal
area have contributed much to the economic strength and
attractiveness of harbor communities. However, in many
instances, sight has been lost of these values. Thus, community
efforts should center on promoting and facilitating such
desirable activities as recreational and commercial fishing ,
ferry services, marinas, historic preservation, cultural
pursuits, and other compatible activities which have made those
smaller harbor areas appealing as tourist destinations and
commercial and residential areas. Particular consideration shall
be given to the visual appeal and social benefits of smaller
harbors which, in turn, can make significant contributions to the
State's tourism industry.
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to
each locality
Many locales will have no difficulty in identifying
themselves as communities with smaller harbors as for
example, Greenport and Freeport on Long Island. Some
will be more substantial than others. In general ,
however, this policy applies to communities with a rich
mix of active traditional uses such as commercial
fishing, recreational boating and fishing, boat
building and repair, and a resource base of natural
amenities and historic buildings. Competition is keen
for waterfront space in those communities and time-
honored activities are threatened with displacement by
new uses, many of which are incompatible with the
harbor's distinctive character.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
The most important tools available to small harbor
communities are , of course , those delegated to them
under the police powers. Imaginative use of zoning to
create commercial marine districts, to restrict build-
ing heights, and to set design standards, for example ,
2 = RS
will help achieve the purposes of the guidelines. Some
communities may decide to establish harbor improvement
districts where agreement can be reached among private
and public interests to share the cost of necessary
upgrading of amenities.
III. Determining whether a community' s treatment of this
policy is adequate
In developing its local waterfront revitalization
program, a community will have a wide range of methods
to develop or enhance its small harbor area. The
adequacy of the approaches it chooses will be
ascertained by evaluating how it proposes to achieve
the following :
(A) Give priority to those traditional or desired uses
which are dependent on or enhanced by a location
adjacent to the water.
(B) Ensure that proposed activities will enhance or
not detract from or adversely affect existing
traditional and/or desired anticipated uses.
(C) Ensure that proposed activities will not be out of
character with, nor lead to development which
would be out of character with, existing develop-
ment in terms of the area's scale , intensity of
use , and architectural style.
(D) Ensure that harbor area structures are not
abandoned or allowed to deteriorate.
(E ) Ensure that proposes] actions will not adversely
affect the existing economic base of the community
- e .g. , waterfront development revolving around a
residential complex might be inappropriate in a
harbor area where the economy is dependent on
tourism and commercial fishing.
( F) Ensure that proposed activities will not detract
from views of the water and the harbor area,
particularly where the visual quality of the area
is an important component of the area's appeal and
identity.
B - 36
PERMIT SIMPLIFICATION
• Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that a local waterfront revitalization program must incorporate
"means for long-term management and maintenance of waterfront
development and activities, including organizational structures
and responsibilities and appropriate land use controls (Section
915. 4.e). As part of this requirement, LWRPs should take steps
to expedite existing permit procedures in order to facilitate the
siting of development activities at suitable locations.
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
This policy applies to every coastal community seeking
approval of a LWRP.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
To meet this requirement, a local government should deter-
mine if existing controls can be simplified in an effort to
expedite desired development in areas suitable for such
development. Furtherr the local government must identify
those State and Federal permit programs requiring simplifi-
cation in order to expedite the desired development (Section
915(5 ) (h) ) .
For specific types of development activities and in areas
suitable for such development, state agencies and local
governments participating in the Waterfront Revitalization
Program, should, to the maximum extent practicable, coordin-
ate and synchronize existing permit procedures and regula-
tory programs, as long as the integrity of the regulations'
objectives is not jeopardized . These procedures and programs
should be coordinated within each agency. Also, efforts
should be made to ensure that each agency's procedures and
programs are synchronized with other agencies' procedures at
each level of government. Finally, regulatory programs and
procedures should be coordinated and synchronized between
levels of government, and if necessary, legislative and/or
programmatic changes recommended.
When proposing new regulations, local government should
determine the feasibility of incorporating the regulations
within existing procedures, if this reduces the burden on a
particular type of development and will not jeopardize the
integrity of the regulations ' objectives.
B - 37
Permit simplification techniques range from simple redesign
of a form to revamping of a complex review process. For
example , the Department of Environmental Conservation and
the Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, now share the same
application form for certain permits, thus reducing the
public's paperwork load. The pre-clearing of sites suitable
for development is another approach which a community may
choose. "One-step shopping" and systems for keeping track
of permit applications are other examples.
Preparation of a guide to development permits could be a
most productive initial step: it would not only give
assistance to developers and the public at large but also
provide a preliminary basis for the community to review the
permit process as a whole.
Local governments should note that the Act requires a local
program to be approved by its legislative body. This
approval will require local regulatory agencies to adhere to
the program policies, which, if the program is approved by
the Secretary of State, will be adhered to by State and
Federal agencies. This adherence to one set of specific
policies will provide the basis for improving the ease of
obtaining permits. This requirement in conjunction with the
requirement for all interests to be consulted during the
program's preparation (Section 915( 3) ) , lessens the time
necessary for public review of individual actions when
proposed, providing another means for expediting permits.
In addition, Section 916 (1) (b) of the Act requires State
agencies ' actions to be consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with approved local programs. Because local
programs are, in part, a detailing of State policies , this
will significantly increase the specificity of State
policies, decrease the discretionary power of the regulator ,
increase the developer's understanding of approval condi-
tions and provide a mechanism for expediting permits.
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this Po4cy
is adequate
DOS recognizes that permit simplification will not be
achieved overnight. However, a community should at a
minimum demonstrate that a review of local permit processes
is underway. Recognition may also be given to earlier
community improvements made in this policy area.
B - 38
SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that it is State policy "to conserve and protect fish and
wildlife habitats identified by the Department of Environmental
Conservation as critical to the maintenance or reestablishment of
species or wildlife. Such protection shall include mitigation of
the potential impact from adjacent land use or development"
(Section 912.3. ) This policy recognizes that valuable fish and
wildlife species cannot be protected and maintained without
preserving their habitats. The intent of this policy is
amplified by DOS regulations which require that a local
waterfront revitalization program, to be approved, must further
the following policy: "Significant coastal fish and wildlife
habitats, as identified on the coastal area map, shall be pro-
tected and preserved so as to maintain their viability as
habitats. "
A habitat is an area where there exists a unique combination of
resources (food, shelter, living space, etc. ) and environmental
conditions (temperature, climate , salinity, etc. ) which animals
need for their survival. When man destroys a vital resource or
alters an environmental condition beyond an organism's range of
tolerance, he destroys the habitat.
Certain habitats, such as breeding grounds, nursery areas, and
migratory routes, are special areas where fish and wildlife
populations tend to congregate during various stages of their
life cycle. Such areas must be identified and afforded special
protection, since their loss would create a greater threat to the
survival of a population than would the loss of areas where the
organisms were less densely distributed.
While habitat protection is recognized as fundamental to assuring
the survival of fish and wildlife populations, certain habitats
are, however, more critical to the maintenance of a given
population than others, and therefore merit a greater degree of
protection. Such habitats exhibit one or more of the following
characteristics:
(a) are essential to the survival of a large portion of a
particular fish or wildlife population (e.g. , feeding
groups, nursery areas) ;
(b) support populations of rare and endangered species;
(c) are found at a very low frequency within a coastal
region;
(d) support fish and wildlife populations having signifi-
cant commercial and/or recreational value; and ,
(e ) would be difficult or impossible to replace.
B - 39
In cooperation with the State's Coastal Management Program, the
Department of Environmental Conservation has developed a rating
system incorporating these five parameters.) This rating system
is being used to evaluate each habitat identified in the
inventory to assess its relative importance. Results of this
evaluation will provide the basis for determining whether a
habitat should or should not be designated a "significant
habitat."
Once a habitat area is identified as significant, it will be
mapped on the official New York Coastal Area Map. A narrative
will be prepared detailing information on that particular
habitat, e.g. , description of the community of organisms and a
list of the types of actions that most likely would affect the
habitat.
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
To determine whether a community must respond to this
policy, it must simply consult the N.Y.S. Coastal Area Map
to see if one or more significant habitats are located
within or near the proposed boundaries of its local
waterfront revitalization program boundary. In such
instances, communities will be required to respond to this
policy.
If a community recognizes a habitat which it considers
important enough to warrant designation as a significant
coastal habitat, then it should recommend in its LWRP to the
Department of State that the habitat area be considered for
such designation. The Department will , in turn, instruct
the Department of Environmental Conservation to field check
the area and apply the rating system to determine its
relative significance.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
The techniques available and suitable for implementing this
policy will be a function of the type of significant habitat
requiring protection, and the degree of protection already
being afforded to that area through existing regulatory
programs.
The Development and Evaluation of a System for Ratin Fish
and Wi d i e Habitats in the Co--a-stal Zone of New-Yor'k State.
Final Report, January, 1981. (.15pp. )
B - 40
In most cases, when a local response is needed, it will
probably have to be a regulatory one. For example,
municipalities may enact zoning provisions aimed at
protecting identified habitat areas, such as open space
requirements, prohibition of the removal of soil and
vegetative cover essential to habitats, and regulations on
the use and siting of buildings or activities which may have
an adverse effect on nearby habitats or fish and wildlife
resources.
Municipalities may adopt programs, where feasible, that
permit an owner of land including or adjoining a habitat to
transfer the development rights of the parcel to another
parcel in the locality.
As part of local subdivision regulations, a developer may be
required to employ the cluster design technique if his land
includes or is adjacent to a significant fish or wildlife
habitat. This approach would permit the developer to locate
future residential construction away from an identified
habitat, thereby reducing adverse effects.
As an alternative to a regulatory approach, a locality could
acquire fee or less than fee interests in land for the
protection of critical fish and wildlife habitats.
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this policy
is adequate
A locality's treatement of this policy will be considered
adequate if it: (1) has recognized the existence of any
significant habitat(s) located within or near its program
boundary; (2) described the habitat in a level of detail
commensurate with that of the existing information on the
particular habitat available at the Department of
Environmental Conservation; (3 ) listed existing State
regulatory programs already affording protection to the
significant habitat (e.g. Freshwater or Tidal Wetlands Act) ;
(4 ) identified a need , if any, for additional local
regulatory controls to preserve the habitat and proposed a
means of implementing such controls; (5) identified likely
adverse impacts associated with any of the proposed
activities identified in their LWRP, and (6) identified and
planned for the mitigation of these adverse impacts to
acceptable levels.
Land and water uses or development shall not be undertaken
or approved if such actions would destroy or significantly
impair the viability of an area designated as a significant
coastal fish and wildlife habitat. When the action causes
the elimination of a vital resource (e.g. , food, shelter,
living space) or a change in environmental conditions (e.g. ,
temperature, substrata, salinity) beyond the tolerance range
of an organism, then the action would be considered to
"significantly impair" the habitat. Indicators of a
significantly impaired habitat include but are not limited
to: reduced carrying capacity, changes in community
structure (food chain relationships , species diversity) ,
reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease
and mortality.
If a proposed action would significantly impair the habitat,
and if no practical alternative exists, it may occur only
if : there were overriding regional or statewide public
benefits resulting from the action; the action furthered
achievement of one or more other coastal policies; and all
reasonable measures to mitigate the adverse impacts on the
habitat were applied.
B - 42
COMMERCIAL FISHING
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that it is State policy "to conserve, protect and where
appropriate promote commercial. . .use of fish. . .resources. . . "
(Section 912.3 ) . Therefore, DOS regulations have been developed
which require that, to be approved, a local waterfront
revitalization program must be commensurate with the following
policy: "Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish and
crustacean resources in the coastal area by:
1. encouraging the construction of new or improvement of
existing on-shore commercial fishing facilities;
2. increasing marketing of the State's seafood products;
and
3. maintaining adequate stocks and expanding aquaculture
facilities. Such efforts shall be made in a manner
which ensures the protection of such renewable fish
resources and considers other activities dependent on
them. "
A tremendous opportunity for expanding the State'a commercial
fishing industry was created with the passage of the federal
Fishery Conservation Management Act of 1976. This law provides
U.S. fishermen priority rights to harvest the millions of tons of
fish previously being caught by foreign fishing fleets. To
realize this development potential, New York must make
adjustments in the harvesting, processing and marketing sectors
of its fishing industry. The single greatest opportunity for
local governments to play a role in commercial fishery resource
development exists with the establishment of shore-side support
facilities. At present, limited availability of docking ,
unloading and processing facilities impedes the growth of
offshore deepwater fisheries. An insufficient number of boat
ramps, inadequate catch transfer sites, and lack of shellfish
processing and gear storage facilities limit development of the
nearshore fisheries.
A second major opportunity for involvement by local governments
in commercial fishery resource development is in the area of
aquaculture. Today the market demand for aquaculture products
(e.g. , clams, oysters, striped bass) far outstrips current
production levels of these high value seafood products.
B - 43
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
Coastal communities, particularly those located along New
York' s coast where commercial fishing is not being
restricted due to toxic contamination of the fishery
resource, are being encouraged through this Program to
direct their energies in helping to foster growth of the
State's commercial fishing industry. Communities which have
established fishing ports or could accommodate new
commercial fishing development activities as part of harbor
development programs are those communities which would be in
the best position to implement this policy.
II .
Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
Municipal zoning regulations can be used to provide
increased utilization of commercial fin and shellfish.
marine commercial zones can be established in areas where
such facilities as marinas, commercial docks, and fish
processing plants would be appropriate. Such zoning would
reduce competition for dock space between sport and
commercial fishermen, and hence reduce the access problem
for commercial fishing activities. Provision may also be
made for the storage of fishing gear in residential areas.
In addition, municipalities have capital construction powers
which might be used to provide infrastructural improvements
necessary for commercial fishing. Roads, piers► docks,
lighting , and sanitary sewers are all facilities that can be
improved or constructed to aid the commercial fishing
industry. Financing such infrastructure improvement
projects could be achieved through the creation of a special
improvement district and then taxing beneficiary property
owners accordingly.
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this policy_
is adequate
A municipality's treatement of this policy would be
considered adequate if: (1) the community has realistically
assessed the potential for commercial fisheries development
in its area of jurisdiction, (2) identified a practical and
meaningful role it could play in promoting commercial
fishery development, (3) identified a means of funding this
development effort, ( 4 ) made adjustment as needed in its
zoning code to provide for such activities along its
waterfront and ( 5) prevented incompatible development
adjacent to existing on-shore support facilities which might
ultimately force the future dislocation of that facility.
B - 44
RECREATIONAL USE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that it is State policy "to conserve, protect and where appro-
priate promote. . .recreational use of fish and wildlife
resources. . ." (Section 912.3 ) . The direction of this policy is
elaborated upon by DOS regulations which require that a local
waterfront revitalization program, to be approved, must further
the following policy: Expand recreational use of fish and
wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to
existing resources, supplementing existing stocks and developing
new resources. Such efforts shall be made in a manner which
ensures the protection of renewable fish and wildlife resources
and considers other activities dependent on them.
In New York the primary responsibility for managing the State's
fish and wildlife rests primarily with the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation. Any efforts to increase
recreational use of fish and wildlife, whether through private or
public sector initiatives, will have to be done in accordance
with existing state law and in keeping with sound resource
management considerations. Such considerations include: biology
of the species, carrying capacity of the habitat, public demand ,
costs, and available technology.
Recreational use of fish and wildlife resources is meant to
include more than simply hunting and fishing activities. Promo-
tion of other nonconsumptive uses of these resources such as bird
watching, wildlife photography and nature study would also be
considered desirable and appropriate objectives of a local water-
front revitalization program.
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
As part of its inventory of coastal resources, a local
government should determine whether there exists valuable
hunting or fishing resources or natural areas along its
waterfront area. Next the coastal community should consult
and cite existing Recreation Needs inventories prepared
either locally or by state agenciesl to assess and
document the need to provide for increased opportunities for
the recreational enjoyment of its coastal fish and wildlife
resources.
Examples of existing state publications include: NYS Office
of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation State Compre-
hensive Outdoor Recreation Plan; NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation's report, New York Angler Survey, 19761977, Final
Report by Walter A. Krester and Lois Klatt (1981 ) ; Interests,
Needs and Attitudes by New York State's Metropolitan Public in
Relation to Wildlife, 1978 by Tommy L. Brown and Chad P. Dawson,
or NYDE .
B - 45
Given the existence of the resources and the need for
increased recreational use of these resources, a local
government should respond to this policy in its local
waterfront revitalization program.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
The most important means by which local governments can
assist with increasing recreational use of the State 's fish
and game resources is by either creating new access to them
or by preventing land use development which will pre-empt
existing access to these resources. Local governments may
exercise their powers to acquire fee simple or less-than-
fee-interests (e.g. , easements) in land to provid for
increased access to public fish and game resources. On the
other hand , local governments could, through site plan
review or planned unit development, induce a developer to
provide for public access to public fishing and hunting
areas in the event that such development activities would ,
otherwise, block public access to such resources.
'III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this policy
is adequate
Municipalities may be encouraged to utilize their
acquisition powers to provide for increased public access to
recreational fish and game resources, within the limits of
local fiscal capabilities. Municipalities will , however, be
required to make a finding that their proposed LWRP will not
pre-empt existing or future access to these resources. If
such impacts are unavoidable then provisions must be made
for new access opportunities which are at least equivalent
to those being eliminated by the implementation of the
proposed program.
B - 46
FLOOD AND EROSION HAZARDS
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that it is State policy: "to achieve a balance between economic
development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use
of coastal resources while preventing . . . . . shoreline erosion"
(Section 912.1 ) and "to minimize damage to natural resources and
property from flooding and erosion, including proper location of
new land development, protection of beaches, dunes, barrier
islands , bluffs and other critical coastal features and use of
non-structural measures, whenever possible" (Section 912.5) . The
Act also states that a LWRP must incorporate, to an extent com-
mensurate with the particular circumstances of the local govern-
ment, the "protection of sensitive ecological areas, including
dunes. . . . and the protective capability of coastal land features"
(Section 915.g ) .
The Department of State has refined these policies regarding
coastal flooding and erosion to make them more specific and to be
reflective of the underlying State legislation on Flooding and
Erosion.
-- Activities or development in the coastal area will be
undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural
resources and property from flooding and erosion by
protecting natural protective features including
beaches, dunes, barrier islands and bluffs. Primary
dunes will be protected from all encroachments that
could impair their natural protective capacity.
-- The construction or reconstruction of erosion
protection structures shall be undertaken only if they
have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion
for at least thirty years as demonstrated in design and
construction standards and/or assured maintenance or
replacement programs
-- Activities and development including the construction
or reconstruction of erosion protection structures,
shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable
increase in erosion nor flooding at the site of such
activities or development or at other locations
-- Mining , excavation or dredging in coastal waters shall
not significantly interfere with the natural coastal
processes which supply beach materials to land adjacent
to such waters and shall be undertaken in a manner
which will not cause an increase in erosion of such
land
B - 47
Public funds shall only be used for erosion protective
structures where necessary to protect human life, and
new development which requires a location within or
adjacent to an erosion hazard area to be able to
function, or existing development; and only where the
public benefits outweigh the long term monetary and
other costs including the potential for increasing
erosion and adverse effects on natural protective
features.
Whenever possible , use non-structural measures to
minimize damage to natural resources and property from
flooding and erosion. Such measures shall include: ( i )
the set back of buildings and structures; ( ii) the
planting of veqetation and the installation of sand
fencing and drainage systems; ( iii ) the reshaping of
bluffs; and (iv) the flood-proofing of buildings or
their elevation above the base flood level.
Fortunately, except for Section 912. 5/Policy 6. 7, the framework
is already established for treatment of the above policies in a
community' s LWRP: in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act
(Article 34, Environmental Conservation Law) , and in the National
Flood Insurance Program in which community participation is
required by Article 36, Environmental Conservation Law. Because
Section 912. 5 is not already covered by an existing means of
implementation, the guidelines for its treatment are described in
greater detail in paragraph II below.
I. Determining the degree to which these policies apply to
each locality
Flooding and erosion are two of the most familiar
phenomena in the coastal area but their severity , and
thus their significance in the preparation of a LP7RP
will vary among communities. Therefore, it will be
necessary first to establish in each community if
flooding and erosion occur , to what extent, and where.
In the case of coastal flooding , data supplied by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the
National Flood Insurance Program are the means to be
relied upon in making that determination. Such data
are included in Flood Hazard Boundary Maps and Flood
Insurance Rate Maps. If a coastal community has been
provided with those data, then the LWRP policies will
apply in identified flood-prone areas.
In the case of coastal erosion, the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) is required by Section
34-0104 of Article 34, ECL, to identify coastal erosion
hazard areas (CEHA's) . Where such areas have been
identified in a community, the LV7RP policies will
apply.
B - 48
In a community where DEC has not yet surveyed the
coastal area, DOS will request that DEC make a
preliminary determination, in consultation with the
local government, as to the likelihood that there are
CEHA's in the community's coastal area and indicate
their probable location. If DEC finds that there is
little likelihood that such areas are present, then the
community's LWRP need not take account of these
policies. (Some communities may desire, nevertheless,
to adopt erosion ordinances in the absence of
identifiable CEHAs due to local concerns, and are
encouraged to do so. ) However, should DEC make a
positive preliminary finding regarding CEHA's, then DOS
will consult with DEC and the local government to make
arrangements for formal identification of the CEHA's as
soon as possible under the provisions of Section
34-0104 as noted above. Unavoidable delays in the
formal identification of CEHA's caused by factors
beyond the control of the local government need not
prevent approval by DOS of a LWRP which meets all other
requirements of Article 42. However, a timetable must
be agreed upon by DEC, DOS and the local government for
completion of that identification process. (See also
III below) .
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing these policies
Implementation of the flooding and erosion policies can
be achieved by the use of familiar tools developed
under local governments' police powers. In communities
with existing zoning ordinances, new provisions can be
added as revisions. Where zoning has not been
introduced as a planning instrument, building codes may
be prepared to meet those requirements. In both cases,
subdivision regulations should also be developed.
Communities may also find the SEQR process a productive
auxiliary device in treating the policies. Last, the
policy which requires "the use of non-structural
measures, whenever possible" may be incorporated in the
procedures of the existing laws or ordinances dealing
with flooding and erosion.
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of these
policies is adequate
a. A community's treatment of the policies (except
Section 912.5) will be considered adequate if,
where applicable as determined in I above, the
community can demonstrate that it has enacted or
will establish according to an agreed-upon
schedule , the following:
B - 49
( 1 ) Flooding Local laws or ordinances which meet
the regulatory requirements of the National
Flood Insurance Program consistent with the
most current flood data provided by FEMA.
This means that where further data has been
provided by FEMA which would enable the
community to upgrade its regulation of
identified flood hazard areas then it must do
so by enacting the appropriate ordinances or
laws.
(2) Erosion Local ordinances or laws to regulate
dev�opment and activities in coastal erosion
hazard areas which have been certified by the
Commissioner of DEC according to Section
34-0105 of Article 34, ECL.
b. In both flooding and erosion hazard areas, the
community' s LWRP must also take into account the
policy enunciated in Section 912. 5 which requires
"the use of non-structural measures, whenever
possible" to minimize damage from erosion or
flooding. Recognizing the high cost and
potentially adverse impacts of such structural
measures as groins , dams and bulkheads, this
policy should be addressed by the community first
by identifying "non-structural measures" appro-
priate to its shoreline, including: (1 ) Within
identified coastal erosion hazard areas - (a) the
use of setbacks as provided for in Section 34-0108
(Article 34, ECL) ; (b) the strengthening of
coastal landforms by the planting of appropriate
vegetation on dunes and bluffs, the installation
of sand fencing on dunes, the reshaping of bluffs
to reduce the potential for slumping and to permit
the planting of stabilizing vegetation, and the
installation of drainage systems on bluffs to
reduce run-off and internal seepage of waters.
( 2) Within identified flood hazard areas - (a) the
siting of new development or activities outside
the flood hazard areas to avoid the risk of
damage; and (b) the flood-proofing of buildings or
their elevation above the base flood level.
Second, the community must have established
procedures to ensure that non-structural measures
are used "whenever possible." Such procedures
must require that when property owners or govern-
mental agencies propose to prevent or diminish
damage from erosion or flooding by the use of
structural measures, they must demonstrate clearly
to the local government that it is not possible to
use alternative non-structural measures which
would afford a similar degree of protection.
Satisfaction of this guideline can be obtained by
requiring that those proposing such structures
B - 50
submit evidence including analyses of the sites,
the circumstances involved and of the protection
measures, in sufficient detail so that the local
government can make specific findings regarding
the reasonableness of the proposals. Obviously,
the procedures must also give the local government
the power to require the use of non-structural
measures where they are found to be effective.
s -
ICE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares:
that it is State Policy " . . . to achieve a balance between
economic development and preservation that will permit the
beneficial use of coastal resources while preventing the loss of
living marine resources and wildlife, shoreline erosion , . . . or
permanent adverse changes to ecological systems" (Section 912.1) ;
"to conserve and protect fish and wildlife habitats . . . (Section
912. 3) ; and " . . . to minimize damage to natural resources and
property from flooding and erosion . . . . " (Section 912. 5 ) ; and
that a LWRP must incorporate, to an extent commensurate with the
particular circumstances of the local government, the ". . .
protection of sensitive ecological areas including dunes, tidal
and freshwater wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats and the
protective capability of coastal land features. " (Section
915. 58. ) . Therefore , DOS regulations require that to be approved,
a LWRP must further the following policy: "Ice Management
practices shall not damage significant fish and wildlife and
their habitats, increase shoreline erosion or flooding, nor
interfere with the production of hydroelectric power. "
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
Although ice forms in the waters of most coastal com-
munities, the degree to which this policy will apply to a
particular locality will depend on the extent to which it
has jurisdiction over these waters, the nature of the
problems which necessitate ice management, and on the
effects of ice management practices. For example , emergency
measures such as the breaking up of ice jams to prevent
flood damage or the freeing of a ship from the ice would be
exempt front this requirement.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for imple-
menting this policy
A local government may exercise its police powers through
the enactment of appropriate ordinances or laws concerning
ice management practices.
III. Determining whether a community' s treatment of this policy
is adequate
First, a locality should provide data on the extent of its
jurisdiction over coastal waters adjacent to its shores.
Second, the locality should provide a description of ice
management problems and practices in its coastal area. And
third, local laws or ordinances designed to achieve the
desired response should be prepared and enacted.
R a S?
PUBLIC ACCESS
Introduction
Public access to both the recreational and aesthetic resources of
the coast is a key element in the management of coastal areas.
Development, private ownership of land, natural shoreline topog-
raphy, inadequate public transportation, limited parking facili-
ties, and non-resident restrictions are all factors which singly
or in combination can restrict public access to existing recrea-
tion resources and to publicly owned lands and waters of the
coastline at large. The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act (Executive Law, Article 42) addresses the public
access issue by declaring that it is necessary "to achieve a
balance between economic development and preservation that will
permit the beneficial use of coastal resources while preventing
diminution of . . . . . public access to the waterfront . . . . "
and "to encourage and facilitate public access for recreational
purposes. " Article 42 gives additional direction to local
governments wishing to develop Waterfront Revitalization Programs
by requiring such programs to call for "the increased use of and
access to coastal waters and the waterfront for water-related
activities such as boating, swimming , fishing, walking , and
picnicking." Given these general directions, DOS regulations
have been developed which require that a local waterfront
revitalization program, to be approved, must further the
following policies:
(1) Protect, maintain and increase the levels and types of
access to public water-related recreation resources and
facilities so that these resources and facilities may
be fully utilized by all the public in accordance with
reasonably anticipated public recreation needs and the
protection of historic and natural resources. In
providing such access, priority shall be given to
public beaches, boating facilities, fishing areas and
waterfront parks.
( 2) Access to the publicly-owned foreshore and to lands
immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the water's
edge that are publicly-owned shall be provided, and it
should be provided in a manner compatiable with
adjoining uses. Such lands shall be retained in public
ownership.
I. Determini-ng the degree to which the policies apply to each
locality
Every locality desiring to prepare a Waterfront Revitaliza-
tion Program has the potential to provide or increase access
to its waterfront for water-related activities. The amount
and type of access and the kind of water-related activities
to be emphasized will depend upon a number of factors.
These include: the amount, location, type, condition, and
use of existing waterfront recreation facilities and parks;
B - 53
the location and type of existing residential , commercial ,
and industrial development; the location of public transpor-
tation; the natural characteristics of the waterfront as
they relate to potential recreation and access opportuni-
ties; and the types and location of specific uses and
projects proposed to implement the local program
objectives.
The initial inventory and analysis steps required of all
localities wishing to prepare a program will reveal much of
the information in the above factors about existing public
access to the waterfront and the potential for maintaining
or increasing access. Several different situations with
respect to access are possible, depending upon the circum-
stances of the locality. For example , a locality with
existing water-related recreation resources along its
waterfront should show that existing access is sufficient
or, if it is not, show how access can be improved.
On the other hand, a community may be developed to such an
extent that little or no waterfront recreation facilities
exist and there is little prospect for their development.
In this case, the potential for increased access must focus
on taking advantage, in existing development and in every
proposed specific use or project, of the opportunity to
provide access to the waterfront -- even if it is just to an
overlook from which to view the shoreline and its activities
or the provision of a footbridge across a transportation
facility to allow access to a city waterfront.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for imple-
menting these policies
There are several methods available to localities for main-
taining or increasing access to the waterfront. Those most
suitable for a locality's particular situation should be
identified in the waterfront program. The following methods
should be considered:
A. Regulation
There are a number of regulatory techniques available
to localities to increase public access to the water-
front. They may (a) establish zoning districts, where
appropriate, which prescribe water-related uses to
facilitate public access for recreation; (b) require
provision, through the site plan or special permit
approval process, for open space and waterfront access;
(c ) establish design criteria and standards for large
planned developments which ensure provision of water-
front access; (d) require access to the waterfront in
new residential subdivisions through subdivision
regulations; or (e) require "in lieu" fees for the
acquisition of public access at locations other than
that of the planned subdivision.
B - 54
B. Land Acquisition and Capital Construction
A locality has broad powers to acquire and develop land
for public purposes. These powers could be used to
acquire fee or less than fee interests in land needed
to increase public access to the waterfront as well as
develop specific capital facilities to increase access.
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of these
'policies is adequate
As stated above, communities have a variety of techniques
available for maintaining and increasing access to the
waterfront. The Department of State, in determining whether
the techniques are adequate to meet the policy requirements
of Article 42, will evaluate them against the circumstances
of each locality. The following factors will be used to
judge the effectiveness of the locality's proposals for
meeting the policy requirements:
A. The amount, location, type, and condition and use of
existing waterfront access areas.
These factors relating to a community's existing access
areas will be reviewed in evaluating the effectiveness
of its program proposals for dealing with access. The
substance of the program proposals will vary from
community to community, depending upon the character-
istics of these factors. Obviously, if a community
already has a large number of various types of access
to the waterfront which are well-located , in good
condition, and greatly used, its access needs are few
and will be so reflected in its waterfront program. On
the other hand, a community with access deficiencies,
i.e. , few access points, poorly-located , in poor
condition, not well-used, etc. , will be required to
show in its program what it proposes to do to
ameliorate the situation.
B. The location and character of existing development and
the degree of pressure for additional development.
The nature of existing development and its location
will have a great influence on the provision of
increased access. A highly developed waterfront will
effectively prohibit many types of access from being
provided , as will the type of development, i.e. , a
transportation facility running the length of the
community along its waterfront. Conversely, a water-
front with little or no development could have many
access opportunities if other factors are also
favorable. Thus, a community's Waterfront Revitali-
zation Program will have to recognize the nature of its
development as it relates to the type of access being
proposed. In the same fashion, the degree of pressure
B - 55
for additional development will particularly relate to
the timing for increased access. Where development
pressures are great, the timing for providing increased
access must be such that opportunities are not fore-
closed by development before action can be taken. Where
there are few or no development pressures, timing will
be a less important factor.
C. The natural characteristics of the waterfront as they
relate to potential waterfront access opportunities.
This factor will be judged against a community's pro-
posal for increasing access to ensure that the propo-
sals are realistic in terms of existing natural charac-
teristics. simply put, these characteristics must
match the type of access being proposed. For example,
it would make little sense to propose increased access
for fishing where water is polluted and fishing is
banned , as is the case along some sections of the
Hudson River.
D. The proposals in the program for specific uses and
projects and the potential for maintaining or
increasing access for each such proposal.
Each proposal for specific uses ana projects in a
community's waterfront program should reflect the
feasibility of increasing access to the waterfront.
This will be specifically looked for in each program.
For example, a proposal for redevelopment of an
abandoned waterfront warehouse into a civic center
would be expected to contain a proposal for increasing
access to the waterfront.
E. The fiscal capability of the locality measured against
the cost of proposals for acquiring waterfront access
areas and developing specific facilities.
The costs of proposed acquisition of land and
development of facilities for increasing access must be
realistic in terms of the fiscal resources of the
community and the possibility of assistance from other
sources.
B - 56
RECREATION
Introduction
Coastal areas are New York's most important outdoor recreation
resource. Their appeal and significance creates several
concerns. Principal among these is determining how the demand
for coastal area recreation can be met while ensuring that other
land and water use needs will be accommodated and that the
natural resource base will be protected. More specific concerns
include: conflicts with other uses; overuse of existing coastal
recreation areas; deficiency of water-based recreation in urban
areas; conservation of historic and cultural resources; the
particular needs of recreational boating and fishing; and the
desire to promote the private sector's role in recreation.
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act
(Executive Law, Article 42) addresses recreation issues by
declaring that it is necessary "to achieve a balance between
economic development and preservation. . .while preventing. . .
diminution of open space areas. . . " ; "to. . .promote. . .recreational
use of fish and wildlife resources. . . " ; "to encourage and
facilitate public access for recreational purposes. . . " ; and "to
encourage the restoration and revitalization of natural and
man-made resources. " Article 42 gives additional direction to
local governments wishing to develop Waterfront Revitalization
Programs by requiring such programs to call for "the increased
use of and access to coastal waters and the waterfront for
water-related activities such as boating , swimming, fishing,
walking, and picnicking. "
The direction of these statements is amplified by DOS regulations
which require that a local waterfront revitalization program, to
be approved, must further the following policies: (1) "Water
dependent and water enhanced recreation shall be encouraged and
facilitated and shall be given priority over non-water related
uses along the coast, provided it is consistent with the
preservation and enhancement of other coastal resources and takes
into account demand for such facilities. In facilitating such
activities, priority shall be given to areas where access to the
recreation opportunities of the coast can be provided by new or
existing public transportation services and to those areas where
the use of the shore is severely restricted by existing
development" and (2) "Development, when located adjacent to the
shore, shall provide for water-related recreation, as a multiple
use, whenever such recreational use is appropriate in light of
reasonably anticipated demand for such activities and the primary
purpose of the development. "
E -57
I. Determining the degree to which the policies apply to each
locality
Almost every locality desiring to prepare a Waterfront
Revitalization Program has the potential to increase theuse
of its waterfront for water-dependent and water-enhanced
recreation activities. Because each locality's waterfront
is different, the amount and type of activities possible
will differ and will depend upon a number of factors. These
include: the amount, location, type, condition, and use of
existing waterfront water-related recreation facilities and
parks; the location and type of existing and proposed
residential , commercial and industrial development; the
location of public transportation; the potential recreation
opportunities; and the types and locations of specific uses
and projects proposed to implement the local program
objectives.
The initial inventory and analysis steps required of all
localities wishing to prepare a program will reveal much of
the information about the above factors and thus the
potential for increasing water-related recreational
opportunities. Several different types of situations are
possible with respect to increasing water-related recreation
activities, depending upon the circumstances of the
locality. For example, a locality with existing water-
related recreation facilities along its waterfront should
show that these facilities are sufficient or, if they are
not, show how and where additional facilities can be
provided. On the other hand, a locality may be developed to
such an extent that little or no waterfront recreation
facilities exist and there would be difficulties in
providing for many types of such facilities. In this case,
providing more of these facilities would depend upon coming
up with imaginative proposals for fitting in appropriate
types of new waterfront facilities with existing develop-
ment. A third situation might be one in which a community
has a large amount of undeveloped waterfront land with no
waterfront recreational facilities. If a large-scale
development were proposed for the community's waterfront,
the waterfront program would have to ensure that such a
development provide water-related recreation facilities as a
'multiple use where appropriate.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing these policies
There are several means available to localities for
increasing water-related recreation facilities along the
waterfront. Those most suitable for a locality's particular
situation should be identified in the waterfront program.
One of the means not described below but which can be used
in conjunction with either one or both is the use of
cooperative arrangements between a locality and private
B -58
developers to provide recreational opportunities in
connection with new developments. The following means
should be considered.
(A) Land Acquisition and Capital Construction
A locality has broad powers to acquire and develop land
for public purposes. These powers could be used to
acquire the lands and develop the facilities needed to
increase the amount of water-related recreation on the
waterfront. A provision of State law provides that the
State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation can cooperate with communities in the
development of recreation facilities.
(B) Regulation
There are several regulatory methods localities can use
to provide for increased recreation:
1. Zoning districts can be created , where appro-
priate, for the protection of natural resources
such as wetlands or other features important for
the development of certain kinds of recreation,
such as sandy beaches for swimming. These
districts can also prescribe selected water-
related recreational activities or require the
provision of open space as a condition of approval
of major new developments which would then be used
for recreation.
2. Flood plains or flood hazard districts can be
created which permit parks, public and private
marinas, boat launching sites, wildlife sanctu-
aries or other types of recreational uses not
susceptible to substantial damage from floods.
3. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is a
potentially valuabe tool which can be used to
provide for open space for recreation while
permitting the development which otherwise would
occur on that land to occur elsewhere in the
locality.
4. Subdivision regulations can be used to require, as
a condition of approval, the provision of lands
for open space purposes where such developments
occur in waterfront areas. Such regulations also
allow, in lieu of providing land , payment of fees
to the municipality to be used for purchase of
parks and recreational land elsewhere.
5. Municipalities have the power, under General
Municipal Law (Article 18-A) , to establish
industrial development agencies which can be used ,
r rp
among other purposes , for the promotion, develop-
ment, encouragement, and assistance of private
sector activities to improve waterfront
recreational opportunities.
6. Local zoning or site plan approval ordinances may
establish site design criteria and standards for
large planned developments which can require the
inclusion of recreation and open space use within
such developments.
III. Determining whether a community' s treatment of these
policies is adequate
As stated above, communities have a variety of techniques
available for increasing water-related recreation facilities
along the waterfront. The Department of State, in determin-
ing whether the techniques chosen are adequate to meet the
policy requirements of Article 42, will evaluate them
against the circumstances of each locality. The following
factors will be used in judging the effectiveness of the
locality' s proposals for meeting the policy requirements:
(A) The amount, location, type , condition, and use of
existing waterfront water-related recreation
facilities.
These factors relating to a community' s existing
water-related recreation facilities will be reviewed in
evaluating the effectiveness of its program proposals
for dealing with recreation. The substance of the
program will vary from community to community,
depending upon the characteristics of these factors.
Obviously, if a community already has a large number of
various types of water-related recreation facilities
which are well-located , in good condition, and used by
its citizens, its need for additional facilities may be
few and will be so reflected in its waterfront program.
On the other hand, a locality with deficiencies in
water-related recreation facilities, i.e. , few facili-
ties with little variety in activities available; poor
o
access in terms of public transportation; poorly
maintained; not well-used, etc. , will be required to
show in its program what it proposes to do to
ameliorate the situation.
(B) The location and type of existing and proposed
residential , commercial , and industrial development and
the degree of pressure for additional development.
The nature of existing and proposed development and its
location will have a great influence on the provision
of increased water-related recreation facilities.
highly developed waterfront will effectively prohibit
B - 60
many types of recreation facilities from being
provided, as will the type of development, i.e. , heavy
waterfront industry, such as a steel mill , may not be
compatible with adjacent waterfront recreation such as
picnicking or swimming. On the other hand, a community
with a sparsely developed waterfront may have many more
opportunities for providing additional recreation
facilities, if other factors are favorable. A
community's Waterfront Revitalization Program will thus
have to recognize the location and type of its existing
development in its proposals for waterfront recreation
facilities.
The degree of pressure for additional development will
particularly relate to the timing for providing water-
front recreation facilities. Where development
pressures are great, the timing for providing such
facilities must be such that opportunities are not
foreclosed by development before action can be taken.
(C) Proposals for large-scale developments to be located on
the waterfront.
A community's Waterfront Revitalization Program should
contain a procedure for ensuring that proposals for
developments of this nature _ also contain recreation
facilities as multiple uses where appropriate to the
development and to other circumstances of the
community.
(D) The natural characteristics of the waterfront as they
relate to potential recreation opportunities.
This factor will be judged against a community's
proposals for increasing recreation facilities to
ensure that the proposals are realistic in terms of
existing natural characteristics. Simply put, these
characteristics must match the type of facilities being
proposed. For example, a proposal for development of a
beach for swimming must be reasonable in terms of the
physical characteristics of the beach and the water to
permit swimming.
(E) The proposals in the program for specific uses and
projects proposed to increase recreation opportunities.
Proposals to increase water-dependent and water-
enhanced recreation facilities will be specifically
looked for in a community's Waterfront Revitalization
Program. Such proposals will be expected to be given
priority over non-water related proposals on the
waterfront. The Department of State will also evaluate
the proposals against the anticipated demand for them.
This demand factor should be carefully developed to
ensure that facilities will , in fact, be used by
citizens of the community.
B - 61
( F) The fiscal capability of the locality measured against
the cost of proposals for acquiring waterfront lands
for recreation and developing specific facilities.
The costs of acquiring land and developing facilities
for waterfront recreation must be realistic in terms of
the fiscal resources of the locality and the possi-
bility of assistance from other public and private
sources.
B - 62
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Introduction
New York's coast is rich in structures, sites and areas of
significance in the history, architecture, archeology and culture
of the State. The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act (Executive Law, Article 42) recognizes the
contribution of historic resources to the character and economic
development potential of a community and requires the "promotion
and preservation of . . . historic and cultural . . . resources as
community amenities and tourist destinations" , "the reuse of
existing. . .building stock," and "the restoration and
revitalization of . . . man-made resources". Therefore, DOS
regulations require that, to be approved , a local waterfront
revitalization program must further the following policy:
"protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or
sites that are of significance in the history, architecture,
archeology, or culture of the State, its communities or the
Nation" .
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
The amount of attention that a local program pays to
historic resources will depend on the extent of these
resources in a community. Some communities may retain along
their waterfronts large areas of historic residential and
commercial structures with few gaps or incongruous elements.
Many other communities may have only one or two structures
of historic interest scattered amongst more recent
development. A few communities may retain little or no
evidence of past history. Each community should, however:
A. Record in the local resource inventory structures,
sites and areas of significance in the history,
architecture , archeology, and culture of the
community, State or Nation.
Structures, sites and areas that the Department of
State and others consider to be of significance
include:
1. a resource which is in a federal or State park
established , among other reasons, to protect and
preserve the resource
2. a resource on, nominated to be on, or determined
eligible to be on the National or State Registers
of Historic Places
3. an archeological resource which is on the State
Department of Education's inventory of
archeological sites
B - 63
4. a resource that is a significant component of an
Urban Cultural Park
5. a local landmark, park, or locally designated
historic district
Where a structure, site or district is of historic signifi-
cance but has not been designated in one of the above ways,
the community should take steps to see that it is officially
recognized at least at the local level.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for imple-
menting-this policy
New York State communities can protect historic resources in
two general ways . They have substantial powers to regulate
for the protection of historic and aesthetic resources, and
they have broad powers to acquire real property.
There are two types of preservation regulations: those
meant to apply to historic districts and those meant to
apply to individual landmarks. The district approach
applies where many or most of the buildings in a delineated
area are of historic significance while the other, as the
name indicates, is concerned with the preservation of
individual buildings and possibly adjacent sites.
Generally a local historic preservation law establishes some
procedure for nominating a district or landmark and then
identifies the actions -- alteration, new construction,
demolition -- which are subject to regulation. Also, the
law usually contains standards for decisions made in
reviewing proposed actions. The Department of the
Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and „Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings” may serveas a good
basis for detailed review standards. When permissible under
State building and fire codes, these standards may be
achieved in part by modifying local codes.
As mentioned above , communities can protect historic
resources by acquiring interests in real property. Not only
can they acquire full fee interests but also lesser
interests. This is a valuable means of acquiring property
to ensure its preservation while avoiding the cost of
outright acquisition.
In addition to the local powers of regulation and acquisi-
tion, communities can encourage reuse of historic buildings
by educating the public about federal tax incentives for
historic rehabilitation. They can also operate programs to
provide government grant monies to individuals for rehabili-
tating historic structures. Such grant programs have
encouraged substantial private investment in the State' s
older developed areas.
B - 64
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this Policy
s adequate
To be considered adequate a program should:
A. Provide assurance that significant historic resources
wi 1 be protected
As described above, strong mechanisms are available to
local governments for protecting historic resources.
Depending on the extent of historic resources and the
level of development pressure, a community's approach
will vary. In many cases, adequate mechanisms are
already in place; but in other cases, communities will
need to strengthen their ability to protect single
resources or a district.
B. Demonstrate how the community will encourage re-use of
historic resources
Traditionally, certain historic resources have been
preserved because of their association with historic
personages or events. More recently, historic preser-
vation activities have expanded to include buildings
and areas that represent a particular historic era.
The new historic preservation mc,rement has sought to
rehabilitate residential structures and adapt old
commercial buildings to new uses. In addition to
giving people a sense of time, place and meaning in
terms of where they live and work, recent preservation
projects have been beneficial for purely business
reasons. For a start they have created jobs and
trained new workers and are generally less costly per
square foot than new construction projects.
To take advantage of the benefits of historic preser-
vation and to encourage private sector involvement in
the re-use of historic resources, a community can:
1. prepare a detailed program of incentives and goals
for re-use of specific resources which are
especially suited to various types of adaptation,
perhaps as part of a larger recreational ,
residential or commercial project, or
2. at a minimum and as permissible, modify local
codes and other regulations in order to facilitate
appropriate adaptive re-use of historic
structures.
B - 65
VISUAL QUALITY
Introduction
State policies on the waterfront recognize not only the inherent
value of coastal scenery but also its social and economic worth.
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Execu-
tive Law, Article 42) declares that "impairment of scenic beauty"
should be prevented at the same time that coastal resources are
being developed. Article 42 gives additional direction in this
regard to local governments wishing to develop local waterfront
revitalization programs by strongly encouraging a community: (1)
to promote and preservescenic , historic, cultural and natural
resources as . . . .
amenities and tourist destinations" and (2) to
apply "local aesthetic considerations in the design of new struc-
tures and the redevelopment of waterfront sites". The Department
of State has elaborated upon this policy by developing regula-
tions which require that a local waterfront revitalization
program, to be approved , must further the following policies:
( 1) Prevent impairment of scenic resources of statewide
significance , as identified on the coastal area map.
Impairment shall include :
( i) the irreversible modification of geological forms,
the destruction or removal of vegetation, the
destruction or removal of structures, wherever the
geologic forms, vegetation or structures are
significant to the scenic quality of an identified
resource; and ,
( ii) the addition of structures which because of siting
or scale will reduce identified views or which
because of scale , form, or materials will diminish
the scenic quality of an identified resource.
( 2) Protect, restore and enhance natural and man-made
resources which are not identified as being of
statewide significance , but which contribute to the
scenic quality of the coastal area.
The DOS recognizes the great variation in the visual character-
istics of communities throughout the coastal area. It also recog-
nizes that resident attitudes towards visual quality vary greatly
depending not only on a community's physical character but also
on such conditions as major commercial and industrial activities,
employment needs, and financial resources. In a resort town,
residents may be very concerned about preserving the natural and
historic features which attract tourists; while in a small city
where industries have folded, residents are likely to be far more
concerned about unemployment than about dilapidated structures
degrading their waterfront. Nonetheless, the DOS is committed to
protecting , restoring and enhancing the visual quality of the
State's coastal areas. The Department expects each community, at
a minimun , to assess the visual quality of its waterfront and to
appropriately strengthen its capability for responding to
potential visual impacts of future development.
B - 66
I. Determining the degree to which these policies apply to each
locality
A. Describe in general the natural characteristics of the
community's coastal landscape and also t e appearance
of land uses along its waterfront.
Every coastal community can be described in terms of
visual quality. One community may be more attractive
overall than another, but almost every community has
some visual feature which is worthy of being protected,
restored or enhanced. An agricultural village or
historic fishing town may be visually pleasant from one
end of the coastal area to the other; but even a highly
industrialized community may have a visually dynamic
waterfront which can be observed from at least a few
access points.
B. Record in the local resource inventory scenic
resources of statewide significance.
The DOS will identify a limited number of scenic
resources of statewide significance on the Coastal Area
Map. These resources are unique in the State and of
especially high quality. If a community believes that
it contains a resource which should be Designated on
the Coastal Area Map, it may request as part of its
local program that the map be amended to include this
resource.
C. Identify in the local resource inventory scenic
resources of local or regionsI significance
The local inventory should include more than the
location and geographic limits of scenic areas of local
or regional significance. It should also include a
description of the important components of each area
and how they combine to create its scenic quality.
Depending on the community, important components would
include natural elements, such as distinctive
geological features or views of coastal waters, and
also architectural and other man-made elements of
aesthetic , cultural and historic value.
Identification of scenic areas in the inventory should
be reinforced by indications that the public recognizes
the scenic value of these identified areas. Such
recognition may be demonstrated by identification of an
area in previous inventories, by public ownership, by
public park development, or simply by regular use of an
area by residents who enjoy its scenic qualities.
Public recognition can be further substantiated through
a public opinion survey.
B - 67
D. Identify in the local resource inventory specific
degraded areas or general conditions which impair the
visual quality of the entire waterfront.
The inventory of a community's waterfront should
include areas that are visually degraded. In addition
to the location and geographic extent of these areas,
the inventory should describe the specific conditions,
such as blighted piers and warehouses, which cause the
unattractive appearance. The inventory should describe
the relationship of these conditions to nearby land and
water uses. Also, the inventory should identify
degrading conditions , such as litter, billboards or
junkyards, which affect the visual quality of the
entire waterfront.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for imple-
menting these policies
Communities in New York can employ a wide variety of
mechanisms to protect and improve visual quality. They can
incorporate height and bulk restrictions or detailed site
plan review provisions into zoning ordinances; allow
clustering in subdivisions to preserve open space and scenic
features; create special districts to protect and promote
historic, cultural and scenic elements; prepare separate
ordinances to prevent the visual abuses sometimes caused by
signs, parking lots , junkyards, etc. , or acquire property,
scenic easements, or development rights.
III. Determining whether a community' s treatment of these poli-
cies is adequate
In many instances, coastal communities have already
instituted one or more of the local mechanisms available for
managing visual quality and thus need few, if any, additions
to enable them to more effectively oversee the visual
evolution of their communities. However, some localities
have not yet incorporated measures for improving or
protecting visual quality; such measures may be particularly
important in areas where significant scenic resources remain
unguarded or where visual degradation seriously discourages
economic development.
A. Provide assurance that the community will prevent
impairment of any scenic resource identified as being
of statewide , regional or local significance
The DOS is particularly concerned that a coastal
community containing or adjacent to a scenic resource
of statewide significance incorporates measures in its
local program to protect the resource; the Department
has similar concerns about regional and local scenic
resources. The following activities would be likely to
impair scenic beauty:
B - 6R
removal of attractive veantation
-- modification of existing landforms
demolition of attractive structures
-- addition of structures or other elements (signs ,
towers, etc. ) which are inappropriate in terms of
use , materials, form, or scale, and/or which may
completely or substantially block views of coastal
waters .
Where scenic resources have been identified , a local
program needs to der+onstrate that it can respond to
proposed development activities so as to prevent, or at
least minimize, their negative effects on the
identified resources. The local Program could require
such protective measures as:
-- setting structures back from shorelines or in
other inconspicuous locations to retain views to
and from the shore;
clustering or orienting structures to retain
views , save open space and provide visual
organization to a development;
-- incorporating sound, existing structures
(esp(-cially historic buildings) into the overall
development scheme;
-- rer*oving deteriorated and/or degrading elements;
-- maintaining or restoring the original land form,
except when changes screen unattractive elenents
and/or add appropriate interest;
maintaining or adding vegetation to provide
interest , hlend structures into the site , and
obscure unattractive elements, except when
selective clearinq removes unsightly, diseased or
hazardous vegetation and when selective clearing
creates views of coastal eaters;
-- usinq appropriate materials , in addition to
vegetation, to screen unattractive elements;
usinq appropriate building scales, forms and
materials which are compatible with and add
interest to the landscape.
B - 69
Local governments can incorperate such measures into
their general site plan or environmental quality review
and approval procedures and then apply the measures
carefully to actions which might affect identified
scenic resources. repending on the type of resource ,
local governments could go further to create special
districts which would include the resource and perhaps
adjacent areas. In these districts, more strict
standards would prevail than elsewhere in the
community.
P. Determine what actions are most appropriate for
s ecific degraded and/or scenic areas of the
community's waterfront
By planning in advance , communities can direct some
development activities toward specific degraded areas
in need of improvement. They can also steer development
away from especially sensitive scenic areas or take
advantage of certain areas as settings for compatible
types of development.
C. Provide assurance that the community has adequate tools
for responding to potential impacts on the general
visual quality of its waterfront
The need for tools to govern general visual quality
will vary depending on the character of a community's
waterfront and on development pressures . In a rural or
suburban community experiencing growth pressures, the
need for detailed site plan review procedures may be
greater than in a highly developed community with
little room for growth. In some communities , only one
type of development (the proliferation of signs,
parking lots, mobile homes. . . ) may be spoiling the
appearance of the waterfront. In such cases , a
community may need a separate ordinance or a special
section in the zoning ordinance to deal with the
offending activity.
B - 70
AGRICULTURE
Introduction
Agricultural land that lies within the coastal boundary of a
community may not be a significant percentage of the total
agricultural land in that community. It can, however, be one of
the most important and extensive land uses within a community's
coastal area and , if so , is often characterized by a higher
percentage of prime and unique farmland than is found elsewhere
in the State. In addition, much of such agriculture is dependent
on its coastal location. Thus, though the goal of preserving
valued agricultural lands is Statewide in scope, the legislation
includes a policy which, calls for "conserving and protecting
agricultural land within the coastal area." LWRPs are, there-
fore, required to include provisions that "to conserve and
protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area, an action
shall not result in a loss, nor impair the producitivity, of
important agricultural lands, as identified on the coastal area
map, if that loss or impairment would adversely affect the
viability of agriculture in an agricultural district or if there
is no agricultural district, in the area surrounding such lands. "
Given the Program's application to a narrow strip of land ,
implementing a policy of promoting agricultural use of land must,
to be practicable, concentrate on controlling the replacement of
agricultural land uses with non-agricultural land use. Many
other factors which influence the viability of agriculture in a
given area, can only be addressed on Statewide or national basis.
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
Relative to the furthering of this policy, a locality
wishing to prepare a LWRP will tend to fall into one of
three situations. The more urban communities may have little
or no agricultural land and need not address this policy at
all. On the other hand, for many rural towns, agriculture
is the principal industry of the coastal area; in these
communities any waterfront revitalization program will have
to recognize the primacy of agriculture, or even, if it
chooses, have protection of agriculture as its major
objective. The third situation is one in which agriculture
is one of several activities along a town's shore; in this
situation the community wishing to prepare a LWRP must avoid
use of agricultural land or inhibiting agricultural
production but need not make protection of agriculture a
major focus of its program.
The agricultural land that is to be protected is the
agricultural land which is mapped on the Coastal Area Map or
in the Coastal Atlas. Localities may identify additional
agricultural lands of local importance and include their
protection in the program.
B - 71
II. Determining whether a community' s treatment of this
policy is adequate
In developing a local waterfront revitalization
program, communities with important agricultural lands
may choose from a variety of methods (cf. III below) to
conserve and protect agricultural lands. The DOS, in
determining whether the method(s) chosen by a community
are adequate to meet the requirement of Article 42,
will evaluate the method(s) chosen according to the
likelihood of its ( their) effectiveness in preventing
conversion of agricultural lands to other uses given
the circumstances of each locality. The factors that
will be considered in judging effectiveness are : 1 ) the
type of farmland that exists along the shore (e.g.
prime farmland in orchards or vineyards, other prime
farmland , other unique farmland , farmland of statewide
importance , etc. ) , 2) the economic, social and
environmental importance of farming to the community,
3) the extent of farming in the coastal area and
surrounding areas, 4 ) the degree of urban development
pressure, 5 ) recent rates of loss or increase of land
in farms , 6) the fiscal resources of the community, and
7 ) support of the method(s) by farmers. In general ,
the more important, in terms of soil quality and
coastal dependency of the crop, etc. , the agriculture
is and the more development pressure there is, the more
rigorous the method(s) for conserving the land will
have to be in order to be judged likely to be
effective.
As part of their program to conserve agricultural land ,
communities must provide assurance that the agencies of
the local government, as well as the public, will not
undertake or approve actions which are directly or
indirectly detrimental to the conservation of important
agricultural lands.
III. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
Several methods for conserving valued farmland have
been utilized or proposed. The principal ones are:
public purchase and lease back; public purchase of
development rights; transfer of development rights;
zoning, either for exclusive agricultural uses, or very
low density residential use; differential real estate
tax assessment and other tax changes; and the
Agricultural District program and law. Of these , the
public purchase and lease back will generally not
appear to be suitable both from the viewpoint of the
responsible public agency and the farmer, for while it
ensures preservation of agricultural land , the costs
are too high for the approach to be widespread , and it
removes the land from direct ownership of the farmer.
B - 72
This technique is perhaps useful only with regard to a
specific and very important farm when no other means
are available . Farm value assessment is essential if
farmers in the urban/rural fringe are to continue
farming; however, of itself it is not sufficient to
prevent conversion of farmland to urban use. New York
law allows farmers who commit their land to agriculture
for eight years to have their farms assessed for their
agricultural value. This is a voluntary program but
local governments may encourage its use. Localities
should identify any such commitments.
The remaining methods have more direct application for
the LWRP efforts to implement the policy of preserving
agricultural lands in the coastal area.
Transfer of development rights is a relatively recent
land use control technique. Its appeal is that it
combines use of police power with partial compensation,
thus avoiding the "taking issue". The technique has
primarily been used as a way to preserve a valued low
intensity or relatively uneconomic use of land (but
which has high value for its physical , social or other
economic characteristics) in areas where there is
pressure from more intensive development. The public
benefit derived from this technique is clear with
regard to the land use or resource being preserved , for
the land use or resource is preserved without requiring
an economic sacrifice by the owner. The problems Will
come in choosing areas to which development rights will
be transferred and assuring that there is a market for
these rights in those locations. The Town of
Southhampton has incorporated a form of transfer of
development rights in its zoning ordinance for the
express purpose of preserving agricultural lands. Such
an ordinance is one method that towns, in which
development pressure on agricultural lands is strong ,
may choose to adopt.
Public purchase of development rights is a similar
technique , in that is based on the separation of
development rights from landownership. Because it is
not a land use regulation per se and there is not a
location to which development riahts must be
transferred , it is a simpler approach; however, it
requires large expenditures of public money. Suffolk
County has pioneered in the application of this
procedure to the preservation of agricultural land.
The authority for Suffolk County's program is found in
the General Municipal 1,aw, Section 247, which allows
local government to acquire full title or lesser
interest in lands to be preserved as open space. Such
a method is available to the other areas of the State
if the fiscal resources are available. This is a
severe limitation on an otherwise very effective
procedure.
S - 73
WATER QUALITY
and
COASTAL DEVELOPME14T
Introduction
The WRCRA calls for ". . . a balance between economic development
and preservation that will permit the beneficial use of coastal
resources while. . .preventing. . .permanent adverse changes to
ecological systems. " More specifically the act requires that a
local program include "protection of sensitive ecological areas ,
including but not limited to . . . tidal and freshwater wetlands,
fish . . . habitats , . . . . Such protection will assure that land use
or development will not affect such areas." Maintaining or
achieving water quality is a major factor in realizing these and
other benefits the coastal area has to offer. Conversely the
type of desired land and water use should be reflected in the
establishment of water quality objectives. Therefore, DOS
regulations have been developed which require that, to be
approved, a local revitalization program must be commensurate
with the following policy: "State coastal area policies and
purposes of approved local waterfront revitalization programs
will be considered while reviewing coastal water classifications
and while modifying water quality standards; however, those
waters already overburdened with contaminants will be recoginzed
as being a development constraint. "
I. Determining the degree to which this policy applies to each
locality
Local governments should consult the New York Coastal Atlas
to determine whether any waters within the proposed water-
front program boundaries are designated as "water quality
limiting" or "effluent limiting. " If any waters are so
identified then they are over-burdened with contaminants and
must be considered to create a constraint to new development
or redevelopment activities. It will be imperative that the
local government consult with the regional DEC office to
determine potential water quality impacts of the proposed
program and to identify ways to mitigate these adverse
impacts accordingly.
If a community's coastal waters are in either a higher or
lower stream classification than seems necessary or
appropriate in light of the community's desired land or
water uses and a reasonable change in the classification
could better accommodate those desired uses , then the
community should include recommendations for modifying
stream classification in its local program.
B - 74
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable for
implementing this policy
From the locality's point of view, i.e. , assuring that land
and water uses are compatible with water quality objectives
and that proposed land uses reinforce proposed water uses,
the means for achieving this policy are traditional land use
controls plus, where appropriate, controls on activities in
or on the water. The other aspect of this policy, i.e.
assuring that classfication of coastal waters reflects
proposed land and water uses of an approved program, will be
implemented as part of periodic reviews of stream classifi-
cations by DEC.
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this policy
is adequate
Localities should provide evidence that they have recognized
existing water quality standards for their respective
portions of coastal waters, considered the water quality
impacts of their proposed program, and have consulted with
technical water quality staff at DEC to identify ways to
avoid or mitigate these impacts. The community must adopt
and implement regulatory controls to assure that development
activities proposed in the local waterfront program will not
further degrade the quality of their coastal waters.
The locality's program should identify those portions of
their coastal waters where the classification is
inappropriate in light of proposed land and water uses.
They should recommend reclassification to a higher or lower
class. For example, an area with potential for shellfish
development that is presently classified 'S' should be
recommended to be reclassified 'A' if that is reasonably
attainable. Conversely, if a portion of a locality's
coastal waters classified 'A' is adjacent to an area
proposed for a major water dependent industry, it may be
appropriate to recommend that it be reclassified if this
would facilitate development of the water dependent industry
and no valuable resources are dependent on the higher stream
classification.
8 - 75
OTHER WATER QUALITY ISSUES
Introduction
The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act declares
that it is State policy "to achieve a balance between economic y
development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use
of coastal resources while preventing. . .permanent adverse changes
to ecological systems. " That is to say the State of New York
should assure that land and water use activities which occur
along its coastal areas should not cause the destruction or
impairment of coastal ecological systems. Aquatic systems, such
as groundwater aquifers, tributaries, inlets, bays and estuaries ,
would be included. While the maintenance and enforcement of
water quality standards have been traditionally the State 's
responsibility, there exist several opportunities for local
governments to play an active role in augmenting the State 's
efforts in preserving water quality. In particular, municipali-
ties should focus their efforts on several water quality problem
areas for which DOS regulations have been developed. These
regulations require that, to be approved, a local revitalization
program must be commensurate with the following policies: (1 )
Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste
systems in small communities where the costs of conventional
facilities are unreasonably high given the size of the existing
tax base of these communities, (2 ) Best management practices will
be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined
sewer overflows draining into coastal waters , (3) Discharge of
waste materials from vessels into coastal waters will be limited
so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats,
recreational areas and water supply areas , and (4 ) Best manage-
ment practices will be utilized to minimize the non-point
discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into
coastal waters.
I. Determining the degree to which these policies apply to each
locality
Generally all communities which elect to develop LWRP's must
consider and take effective steps to anticipate and mitigate
the water quality impacts of any land and water use
activities proposed in their L47RP.
In particular, a municipality's response to this policy will
be contingent on the nature of the primary water quality
problems which either already exist or would likely result
with the implementation of the proposed LWRP should proper
measures not be taken to avoid or mitigate potential water
quality impacts.
For example , there are instances where conventional sewer
collection and treatment systems are not servicing
waterfront properties and where installation of such
facilities proves too expensive to be practical. If the
proposed activities of a local waterfront revitalization
program are likely to result in the release of untreated
sanitary Wastes into coastal waters , then the community
B - 76
would be expected to require that suitable alternative
treatment facilities be installed and operated. The level
of treatment required would be contingent on existing State
water quality standards and intended use of the waterfront
(i.e. drinking water, swimming, boating, industrial water
supply, etc).
A critical need to manage surface runoff and control of
non-point sources of nutrients, organics and eroded soils
may exist in communities which: (1) have had to close their
beaches or shellfishing areas due to pollution, (2) have
been faced with chronic shoaling of their navigation
channels, or (3) had major infestations of nuisance aquatic
weed species choking their bays and inlets. The types of
pollutants being carried into waters include coliform and
pathogenic bacteria (untreated sewage) ; agricultural , lawn,
and garden chemicals; animal wastes; petroleum residuals
from streets and parking lots; road salt; garbage and
assorted debris; and eroded soil. Therefore, communities
experiencing any of the above problems would need to address
this policy.
Municipalities which own and operate solid waste management
facilities (e.g. , sanitary landfills, solid waste reduction
or resource recovery facilities) located within the
boundaries of their proposed LWRP must address potential
groundwater and surface water pollution commonly associated
with such facilities.
And , finally, communities dependent primarily on groundwater
for their drinking water supply may need to regulate land
use development activities which could degrade the water
quality of their groundwater resources. Of particular
concern are aquifer recharge areas, since it is in these
areas where the potential of groundwater contamination is
the greatest. For example, seepage from septic systems
located on top of recharge areas could cause an increase in
nitrate and chloride concentrations to levels exceding
drinking water standards and thereby render drinking water
supplies unfit for human consumption.
This list of water quality problem areas should be
considered as being suggestive of the range and types of
water quality problems local governments might consider as
they prepare their LWRP's.
II. Identifying the techniques available and suitable _ for
implementing these policies
Alternative sewage treatment systems include individual
septic tanks and other subsurface disposal systems, dual
systems, small systems serving clusters of households or
commercial users, and pressure or vacuum sewers. These
types of systems are often more cost-effective in smaller
B - 77
less densely populated communities and for which
conventional facilities are too expensive. Financing these
facilities can sometimes be achieved with use of state or
federal funds. However, in the event these monies are
unavailable, the community should have identified other
means of securing needed funds, i.e. , selling municipal
revenue bonds , creating a special district and collecting
user fees.
A variety of regulatory techniques could be adopted by
communities to manage and control surface runoff. As
appropriate, a municipality could adopt ordinances aimed at:
controlling drainage and soil erosion from construction
sites, pet control ordinances, controlled use of lawn
fertilizer , and regulation of vegetation removal along
streambanks or shore areas, or other potentially suitable
regulatory techniques available to local governments. In
addition, municipalities could further policy implementation
by altering their delivery of public services , e.g. , improve
street cleaning programs or reduce use of road salts.
Adoption of a special zoning classification, i.e. , "Marine
District" or adoption of a special sanitary wastes treatment
ordinance are two means by which a municipality could
regulate and prevent the discharge of vessel wastes into
near-shore coastal waters.
While an outright ban on the construction of new solid waste
management facilities within the coastal boundary could be
enforceable through zoning restrictions, such an approach is
not always feasible or practical. When siting a solid waste
management facility near the waterfront proves necessary, or
such a facility is already located there , technological
devices such as leachate collection systems must be
installed as required in the solid waste management permit.
Through zoning , municipalities can limit the type and
density of land use development on lands overlying an
aquifer recharge area. If homes in a subdivision rely on
septic tank systems to treat sanitary wastes, then the
density of development may need to be controlled. If sewers
are installed, then this density restriction becomes less
necessary.
Municipalities are also authorized under Section 228 of
Public Health Law to adopt and enforce a sanitary code, and
thereby, prevent excessive nutrients from leaching into
groundwater supplies. Furthermore, municipalities could
consider adopting ordinances directed toward reducing animal
wastes, use of domestic fertilizers, . or restricting the
sales of certain chemical cleaners used in septic systems
that are known to have toxic residuals.
B - 78
III. Determining whether a community's treatment of this policy
s adequate
A community's response to water quality issues will be
dictated by the kinds of water pollution problems most
prevalent in their coastal area of jurisdiction. The
following criteria will be applied as appropriate to each
individual situation.
A community must demonstrate how it will prevent the release
of sanitary wastes into coastal waters which might result
from any development activities recommended in the LWRP,
particularly when conventional sewage collection and
treatment facilities is neither economically or technically
feasible. Installation of alternative treatment systems
should be used when they are cost effective.
While most structural approaches (e.g. , construction of
retention basins, replacing combined sewers with separate
sewers) to controlling the flow, storage and treatment of
surface runoff is generally recognized as effective in
reducing the discharge of pollutants into coastal waters,
these approaches are, in most instances, not economically
feasible, and will not be required of communities until
affordable technology is developed. Therefore, a
community's response could be considered adequate if, upon
submission of its local waterfront revitalization program,
either structural or nonstructural means (e.g. , requiring
best management practices for controlling erosion, and other
regulatory controls as suggested above) of controlling
surface water runoff are in place.
When a community has utilized its regulatory powers to
require installation of vessel wastes treatment facilities
as part of its harbor development plan, then its response to
this policy will be considered adequate.
Any community will have satisfied this policy if it has a
solid waste management plan approved by NYDEC pursuant to
the NYS Solid Waste Management Act or it has successfully
obtained a construction or operation permit (pursuant to 6
NYCRR, Part 360 ) for a new facility proposed for construc-
tion within the coastal boundary. In instances where
"midnight dumping" is a problem, municipalities should
document the existence and magnitude of this problem and
present a strategy for attempting to reduce or eliminate it
altogether.
Specific standards by which one could assess a community's
efforts to prevent groundwater contamination do not yet
exist. In general , however, localities could exercise their
police powers to limit the density of residential
development in or near the vicinity of an aquifer recharge
area.
n _ '7n
APPENDIX C
FEDERAL-STATE CONSULTATION AND PLAN COORDINATION
Consultation Activities
The State's federal consultation process was initiated in
1975 with the identification of, and the establishment of
contact with those agencies most likely to be affected by
the Coastal Management Program. Those agencies were then
invited to attend a Federal Coordination Workshop on
October 6, 1976. Program information packets were sent to
all agencies prior to the meeting. The workshop included
presentations on New York's Program development activities,
and exchanges of information and views on federal consistency,
national interest, excluded federal lands and other require-
ments of the Coastal Zone Management Act pertaining to
federal/state relations. Subsequent to that meeting, copies
of several preliminary Program documents were mailed to
federal agency contacts for review and comment: Goals and
Objectives, Preliminary Statewide Boundary, and Geographic
Areas of Particular Concern. As tne State s Program develop-
ment efforts gained momentum, a second federal agency work-
shop was held on September 15, 1977. Twenty-four federal
agency representatives participated in discussions of both
the content and alternative organizational approaches being
developed for the State' s Program as well as federal/state
coordination concerns.
A major step in furthering the federal consultation process was
taken when the March 1979 Draft New York State Coastal Manage-
ment Program documents were sent for review and comment to all
federal agencies with whom contact had been established (See
Part Six of this document for a list of those agencies) .
Written responses received from ten federal agencies were
evaluated by the Department of State and accommodated, where
appropriate. The agencies' comments are on file at the
Department of State.
Notices of public hearings held around the State on the Coastal
Management Program were also mailed to federal agencies to af-
ford them additional opportunities for comment.
At a less formal level, through participation in other workshops,
committees, meetings on specific state and federal projects, and
consultations on mutual concerns, Program staff has continued to
maintain an information exchange with the federal agencies in-
cluding updates on the status of the Program.
C - i
Plan Coordination
The State Coastal Management Program' s Plan Coordination ef-
forts have been ongoing since the incoption of its develop-
ment through the use of two approaches. First, the Department
of State entered into contracts with State, regional, county
and municipal governmental agencies to obtain data on coastal
resources, issues and existing plans and programs which could
be employed in Program development. The list of Agencies in-
cluded all those designated under Sections 201 and 208 of the
Clean Water Act at the state, regional and city level. Second,
the 1979 Draft Coastal Management Program was submitted to all
coastal area governments as well as to state agencies.
Comments were received at public hearings and in writing, and if
there were conflicts of a regulatory or programmatic nature,
they were accommodated in the revised Program document or a
mutual resolution negotiated. In December 1981, a second Draft
Coastal Management Program was sent to state agencies for re-
view. Comments received have been analyzed and no substantive
conflicts found.
C - 2
APPENDIX D
EXCLUDED FEDERAL LAND
(includes underwater lands)
AGENCY NAME OF PROPERTY MUNICIPALITY COUNTY TOTAL ACRES
U.S. Maritime Administration Merchant Marine Academy Kings Point Nassau 73.9
U.S. Corps of Engineers COE property Buffalo Erie 212.3
Buffalo Harbor Breakwater Buffalo Erie 174.5
CK Channel Improvement Glen Cove Nassau 12.2
Channel Improvements New York New York 7.9
Harlem River Channel New York Bronx 160.6
U.S. Treasury Department U.S. Bullion Depository Highlands Orange 4.9
Veterans Administration V.A. Hospital Fishkill and Dutchess 109.4
Wappinger
V.A. Hospital Cortlandt Westchester 215.3
V.A. Hospital New York Bronx 29.8
V.A. Hospital New York Kings 17.1
V.A. Hospital New York New York 6.4
U.S. Department of Agriculture Plum Island Southold Suffolk 840.0
Plum Island Terminal Southold Suffolk 9.5
Circuit Breaker House Southold Suffolk 0.2
Brookhaven National
Laboratory Brookhaven Suffolk 10.2
U.S. Coast Guard - Ninth
District Alexandria Bay CG
Station Wellesley Jefferson 27.0
Braddock Point Light Greece Monroe 0.8
CG Base Buffalo Buffalo Erie 29.59
Cape Vincent Lt. Station Cape Vincent Jefferson 0.6
Chaumont Harbor Light Lyme Jefferson 0.1
D - 1
AGENCY NAME OF PROPERTY MUNICIPALITY COUNTY TOTAL ACRES
U.S. Coast Guard - Ninth
District (continued) Cherry Island Light Lyme Jefferson 0.1
Dunkirk Light Station Dunkirk Chautauqua 3.9
East Charity Shoal Lt. Cape Vincent Jefferson 0.9
Fort Niagara Lt. Station Porter Niagara 1.10
Galloo Island LS Hounsfield Jefferson 30.84
Galloo Island CG Station Hounsfield Jefferson 3.4
Grand Is. Range Rear
Light Grand Island Erie 0.1
Grand Is. Range Front
Light Grand Island Erie 0.1
Niagara Coast Guard
Station Porter Niagara 2.50
Niagara LBS Lookout
Tower Porter Niagara 0.036
Oswego Coast Guard
Station Uswego Oswego 1.8
Oswego Hbr. W. Prhd. LS Oswego Oswego Off Shore
Rochester CG Station Rochester Monroe 2.8
Rochester LBS Dwelling Rochester Monroe 3.25
Rochester Auxiliary Rochester Monroe Permit
Sackets Harbor Light Hounsfield Jefferson 0.23
Sodus Outer LS (Dwelling) Sodus Wayne 3.4
Sodus Point Station Sodus Wayne 0.28
Stony Point Light Henderson Jefferson 0.33
Strawberry Is. Rear Lt. Buffalo Erie 0.124
Thirty Mile Pt. Lt.
Station Somerset Niagara 3.3
Tibbetts Point Lt.
Station Cape Vincent Jefferson 2.96
Property under license to the
U.S. Coast Guard - Ninth
District Aux. Station Henderson
Harbor Jefferson NA
D - 2
AGENCY NAME OF PROPERTY MUNICIPALITY COUNTY TOTAL ACRES
Property under license to the
U.S. Coast Guard - Ninth
District (continued) ATON - Niagara River N. Tonawanda Niagara NA
Buoy Storage Oswego Oswego NA
U. S. Coast Guard - Third
District Brooklyn Air Station New York Kings 90.2
Montauk Station East Hampton Suffolk 1.9
Eatons Neck Station Northport Suffolk 10.6
Fire Island Station Bay Shore Suffolk 137.7
Fishers Island Station Southold Suffolk 4.4
Moriches Station Brookhaven Suffolk 47.1
Shinnecock Station Southampton Suffolk 10.0
Reserve Group - Albany Albany Albany NA
Bar Beach Light Hempstead Nassau 0.7
Cedar Island Light East Hampton Suffolk 0.4
Cold Spring Harbor Light Cold Spring Putnam 0.7
College Point Reef Light New York Queens 0.7
Upper Hudson River
Lights (18) -- -- 24.0
Gangway Rock Light Port Washing-
ton Nassau 0.7
Great Kills Lights ' New York Richmond 0.2
Middle Hudson River
Lights (13) 13.5
Hart Island Light New York Bronx 0.7
Horton Point Light Southold Suffolk 0.8
Rockaway Station New York Queens 3.8
Hudson City Light Hudson Columbia 0.2
Kingston Flat Light Kingston Ulster 0.7
Lawrence Pt. Ledge Light New York Bronx 0.7
North Brother Island
Lights (2) New York Queens 1.2
Old Orchard Shoal Light New York Richmond 0.7
D - 3
AGENCY NAME OF PROPERTY MUNICIPALITY COUNTY TOTAL ACRES
U. S. Coast Guard - Third
District
(continued) Port Chester Hbr. Ch.
Light Port Chester Westchester 0.7
Port Chester Light Port Chester Westchester 0.7
Sand Spit Light Sag Harbor Suffolk 0.7
Sands Point Light Sands Point Nassau 0.7
Sunken Meadow Light New York New York 0.4
Whitestone Point Light New York Queens
Sag Harbor Light Sag Harbor Suffolk 0.7
Flushing Ray Light New York Queens 0.7
Lower Hudson River
Lights (9) -- -- 5.0
Mid Ground F1 . W. Ch.
Light Athens Greene 0.7
Turkey Pt. Lt. At.
Station Saugerties Ulster 8.2
Coney Island Lt. Station New York Kings 0.6
Esopus Meadows Light Esopus Ulster 0.2
Execution Rocks Lt.
Station New Rochelle Westchester 0.2
Latimer Reef Light -- Suffolk 8.8
Little Gull Isl . Lt.
Station Southold Suffolk 1.0
Montauk Pt. Lt. Station East Hampton Suffolk 2.2
Orient Point Light Southold Suffolk 1.0
Montauk Antenna Site East Hampton Suffolk 5.0
Plum Island Light Station Southold Suffolk 3.0
Race Rock Lt. Station
(Fishers Island) Southold Suffolk 1.0
Romer Shoal Light New York Richmond 1.0
Saugerties Light Station Saugerties Ulster 1.0
Stepping Stones Light New York Bronx 0.7
Stony Point Lt. Station Stony Point Rockland 1.2
Tarrytown Light Station Tarrytown Westchester 0.7
Throgg's Neck Family
Hsng. Site New York Bronx 0.4
0 - 4
AGENCY NAME OF PROPERTY MUNICIPALITY COUNTY TOTAL ACRES
U. S. Coast Guard - Third
District
(continued) Staten Island Rg. Re.
Light New York Richmond 0.2
Atlantic Beach Station Long Beach Nassau 0.8
Short Beach Station Freeport Nassau 4.0
Saugerties Lt. At.
Station Saugerties Ulster 3.2
New York MIO (Governor's
Island) New York New York 1.7
Support Center New York
(Governor's Island) New York New York 205.0
Fort Totten Station New York Queens 9.6
W. Hampton Fam. Housing Westhampton Suffolk
Beach 12.7
Rosebank Fam. Housing
(Staten Island) New York Richmond 8.3
Mantauk Fam. Housing East Hampton Suffolk 3.6
Staten Island Lt. At.
Station New York Richmond 0.3
U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare USPHS Hospital New York Richmond 24.1
Federal Aviation Administration Middle Marker
(La Guardia) New York Queens 0.2
Homing Beacon Southampton Suffolk 1.7
Remote Can. Air/Ground
(Douglaston) New York Queens 1.1
General Services Administration Federal Office Building Albany Albany 3.2
U.S. Post Office -
Courthouse Albany Albany 1.0
F.D.R. Library Hyde Park Dutchess 16.3
Disposal Center Buffalo Erie 12.4
Federal Buildings (3rd
Avenue) New York Kings 12.4
D - 5
AGENCY NAME OF PROPERTY MUNICIPALITY COUNTY TOTAL ACRES
General Services Administration
(continued) Federal Building (Ryerson
Street) New York Kings 0.7
Federal Building
(Washington St.) New York New York 1.2
U.S. Mission to the U.N. New York New York 0.3
Federal Office Building New York Richmond 1.2
Rooseveltown Border
Station Massena St. Lawrence 4.8
Customhouse Ogdensburg St. Lawrence 1.7
Peconic MHW Facility Brookhaven Suffolk 15.1
Former U.S. Post Office Huntington Suffolk 0.6
National Parks Service Vanderbilt Mansion Hyde Park Dutchess 211.0
Home of FDR Hyde Park Dutchess 263.4
Statue of Liberty New York New York 10.4
Gateway NRA New York Queens, 16,655.0
Kings,
Richmond
Gen. Grant National
Memorial New York New York 18.0
Sagamore Hill NHS Oyster Bay Nassau 85.0
Fire Island National Brookhaven,
Seashore Islip Suffolk 6,033.92
Ellis Island New York New York 27.5
Castle Clinton NM New York New York 1.0
U.S. Navy Naval Support Activity New York Kings 43.34
USN and MCRC Buffalo Erie 4.76*
USN and MCRC (Fort
Schuyler) New York Bronx 8.04
USNRC Freeport Nassau 2.03
USN and MCRC Huntington Suffolk 3.27*
USN and MCRC New Rochelle Westchester 2.9*
USNRC Poughkeepsie Dutchess 2.41*
USNRC (Whitestone) New York Queens NA
Naval Air Station New York Kings 142.65
*=Leased
D - 6
AGENCY NAME OF PROPERTY MUNICIPALITY COUNTY TOTAL ACRES
U.S. Navy (continued) NUSC, Wilderness Point,
Fishers Island Southold Suffolk 77.36
Radio Ship Positioning + 5.62*
Station East Hampton Suffolk NA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Conscience Point NWR Southampton Suffolk 247.7
E.A. Morton NWR Southampton Suffolk 187.3
Amagansett NWR East Hampton Suffolk 36.0
Oyster Bay NWR -- -- 3,117.0
Seatuck NWR Islip Suffolk 10.4
Lido Beach NWR Hempstead Nassau 22.4
Wertheim NWR Brookhaven Suffolk 1,936.9
Target Rock NWR Huntington Suffolk 80.1
U.S. Department of the Army
(except Corps of Engineers) U.S. Military Academy Highlands Orange NA
(parts) Philipstown Putnam NA
Watervliet Arsenal Watervliet Albany 138.0
Fort Hamilton New York Kings 177.0
Fort Wardsworth New York Richmond 226.0
Hart Island New York Bronx NA
Fort Totten New York Queens NA
Unnamed Brookhaven Suffolk NA
USARC Kingston Kingston Ulster 4.0
ARARC Messena Messena St. Lawrence 5.0
Manhattan Beach Housing New York Kings 5.0
Nike NY 04, 05 NA Rockland 115.0
Nike NY 23 NA Nassau 46.0
Nike NY 24 Brookhaven Suffolk 75.0
Nike NY 25 Brookhaven Suffolk 115.0
Nike Niagara Falls 41 NA Erie 182.0
U.S. Air Force Montauk Air Force Station East Hampton Suffolk 307.65
Ground-to-Air Transmitter East Hampton Suffolk NA
*=Leased
D - 7
AGENCY NAME OF PROPERTY MUNICIPALITY COUNTY TOTAL ACRES
Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation Area No. 1 - Easement Sodus Wayne 0.66
Area No. 2 - Transferred Cape Vincent Jefferson 1.68
Land
- Easement Cape Vincent Jefferson 0.46
Area No. 3 - Easement Cape Vincent Jefferson 0.05
Area No. 4 - Easement Alexandria Jefferson 0.21
Area No. 5 - Purchased Alexandria Jefferson 1.04
Land
Area No. 6 - Transferred Alexandria Jefferson 0.30
Land Bay
Area No. 7 - Easement Alexandria Jefferson 0.04
Carlton Island Light
Station Lyme Jefferson 0.1
Areas No. 8 and 8A -
Purchased Land Massena St. Lawrence 134.42
Area No. 9 - Purchased Massena St. Lawrence 2,758.76
Land
- Easement Massena St. Lawrence 81.38
Area No. 10 - Purchased Massena St. Lawrence 7.31
Land
- Easement Massena St. Lawrence 1.05
Area No. 11 - Purchased Massena St. Lawrence 2.48
Land
Area No. 12 - Purchased Massena St. Lawrence 25.04
Land
Letter of
Agreement
Land Massena St. Lawrence 0.57
Area No. 13 - Purchased St. Regis Franklin 36.51
Land Reservation
- Easement St. Regis Franklin 52.06
Reservation
Area No. 14 - Easement St. Regis Franklin 4.50
Reservation
Area No. 15 - Easement St. Regis Franklin 4.01
Reservation
D _ r