economic development."104/ Two incentives were held out to the states for the development of such management programs. One was the familiar incentive of federal money, on a two-to-one matching basis; the other was the promise that once a state management program was developed and approved, most federal activities or development projects in or affecting a given state's coastal zone would have to be "consistent with" the state's management program.105/ These incentives were sufficient to induce each of the thirty eligible states to begin planning for the development of their own management programs. No efforts will be made here to analyze in detail each of the many steps involved in the process of developing and securing federal approval for state coastal zone management programs. That sort of analysis, together with a discussion of some of the perplexing legal questions raised by the Act, can be found elsewhere. 106/ Rather, the intention here is to focus narrowly on those aspects of the Coastal Zone Management Act of most significance for wildlife conservation purposes. The Act prescribes six features that must be included in every state management program. The most significant of these is that the program include "an inventory and designation of areas of particular concern."107/ While the statute does not itself define this term, the implementing regulations include several 104/ Id. $1452(b). 105/ Id. $1456. 106/ 107/ See, e.g., Power supra note 101; Brewer, Federal Consisten- 16 U.S.C. $1454 (b) (3) (Supp. IV 1974). examples which underscore the importance of this concept for wildlife purposes. Thus, the regulations offer the following examples: (1) Areas of unique, scarce, frag- sand deposits, and mangrove stands.108/ Closely related to the designation of areas of particular concern are the requirements that the management program contain "broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas, "109/ and that it identify "the means by which the state proposes to exert control over" such uses.110/ These requirements give substantive effect to the designation of critical areas by assuring a means of protection for them. Apart from the substantive requirements for state management programs set forth in the Act, there are also certain procedural requirements which assure a voice for wildlife proponents in the development of such programs. Thus, before the Secretary may approve a management program, thereby making it eligible for federal "administrative grants," he must find that the state has held public hearings and given "the opportunity of full participation [to] relevant Federal agencies, and other interested parties, public and 108/ 15 C.F.R. $920.13 (1976). 109/ 16 U.S.C. $1454 (b) (5) (Supp. IV 1974). 110/ Id. $1454(b)(4). private."111/ Further, the Secretary must find that the management program "provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. "112/ While this requirement was apparently directed principally at energy related facilities, the implementing regulations also recognize "wildlife reserves," "wildlife refuges" and "areas of species and habitat preservation" as having "national interest."113/ One other feature of the Act which may have substantial importance for wildlife purposes is a provision authorizing the Secretary to make available to coastal states federal grants of up to 50 percent of the cost of acquiring, developing and operating "estuarine sanctuaries, "114/ defined in the Act as "a research area which may include any part or all of an estuary, adjoining transitional areas, and adjacent uplands, constituting to the extent feasible a natural unit, set aside to provide scientists and students the opportunity to examine over a period of time the ecological relationships within the area."115/ This provision was amended in 1976 to authorize similar grants for "acquiring lands to provide for access to public beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and for the preservation of islands."116/ This authority is given without regard to whether a particular state applying for a grant has established a coastal zone management program, although 116/ Pub. L. No. 94-370, $12, 90 Stat. 1013. the implementing regulations state that among the criteria to be considered in passing on applications for estuarine sanctuary grants is "the benefit of the proposal to the development or operations of the overall coastal zone management program."117/ From the foregoing, it is apparent that the Coastal Zone Management Act offers at least the potential for coordinated state and federal wildlife conservation in an ecological area with substantial significance for wildlife. Whether that promise will in fact materialize is as yet uncertain. To date, only the state of Washington has had its management program formally approved, although several others will soon be acted upon. Like NEPA, however, the purposes of the Coastal Zone Management Act are far broader than just wildlife conservation. Still, it provides one more mechanism for introducing into the planning of future development activities some consideration of the likely effects of such activities on our wildlife resources. D. Federal Control of Air and Water Pollution It was said at the outset of this book that there is no satisfactory way to draw a line between those federal statutes which may properly be considered within the body of "wildlife law" and those which are outside it. For it is true of nearly every law that if one looks at its effects rather than its purposes, one can almost always find a significant wildlife effect. Nowhere is this more evident than in connection with the recent federal pollution statutes. Consider the problem of air pollution. The federal laws which seek to control it are principally con 117/ 15 C.F.R. $921.20(a) (1976). cerned with human health and secondarily with a broadly defined "public welfare." Yet recent evidence would indicate that one of the major threats to certain types of wildlife in various parts of the world, including the eastern United States, is "acid rain," a phenomenon caused by ever increasing quantities of pollutants, especially sulfur compounds, in the atmosphere.118/ Thus, the Clean Air Act of 1970 may be among the most important federal wildlife laws, yet one finds wildlife mentioned in it only once.119/ One of the principal mechanisms established by the Clean Air Act of 1970 for the control of air pollution is the promulgation of so-called "primary" and "secondary" ambient air quality standards by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for each air pollutant found by him to be adverse to public health or welfare. The primary standard is intended. to establish that level of air purity necessary to "protect the public health," allowing for "an adequate margin of safety."120/ The secondary standard is intended "to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects."121/ The Act's definition of public welfare is the only place that the word "wildlife" appears, and there it is lumped together with "soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, weather, visibility, and climate" and still other factors. 122/ 118/ Thus, the only time that air pollution effects on See, e.g., Ferenbaugh, Acid Rain: Biological Effects and Implications, 4 Envt'l Aff. 745 (1975), and Risebrough, The Effects of Pesticides and Other Toxicants, in Council on Environmental Quality, Wildlife in America (in press). 119/ 42 U.S.C. §§1857-58a (1970). |