Public Support for 
 
 Coastal Zone Management Programs: 
 
 The Implementation of the 
 Coastal Zone Management 
 Act of 1972 
 
 A Report by the Coastal Zone 
 Management Advisory Committee 
 
 *<°7<V 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 
 Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 The Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee was established 
 by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to make policy recom- 
 mendations to the Secretary of Commerce. 
 
 The Committee Charter states that the Committee should provide 
 assistance on public understanding, proposed legislation, Federal 
 activities, and the administration of the act. 
 
 The Advisory Committee is an independent citizens panel which 
 consists of eleven conservationists, State government personnel, 
 business executives, and environmentalists who represent a variety 
 of occupations in coastal states around the nation. 
 
 John F. Hussey, 
 
 Committee Chairman 
 Director, Legislative Affairs 
 Monsanto Company 
 
 Dr. James S. Bowman, 
 
 Executive Director 
 Coastal Zone Management 
 Advisory Committee 
 
 Janet K. Adams, 
 
 Committee Vice Chairwoman 
 President, California Coastal 
 Alliance 
 
 Donald G. Allen, Vice President 
 New England Electric System 
 
 Robert Blake, President 
 Cordova Aquatic Marketing 
 Association 
 
 Robert Cahn 
 
 Writer-in-Residence 
 
 The Conservation Foundation 
 
 John R. Connelly, Consultant 
 California Senate Finance 
 Committee 
 
 John A. McWilliam, 
 
 General Manager 
 and Chief Executive Officer 
 Toledo-Lucas County Port 
 Authority 
 
 O. William Moody, 
 
 Former Administrator 
 Maritime Trades Department, 
 AFL-CIO 
 
 Dr. Joe C. Moseley, 
 
 Executive Director 
 Texas Coastal and Marine 
 Council 
 
 Carl Savit, Senior Vice President, 
 
 Technology 
 Western Geophysical Company 
 
 Ann Jennings 
 
 Former Conservation 
 
 Chairwoman 
 South Carolina LeConte Chapter, 
 
 Sierra Club 
 
 Committee Manager: 
 
 Delores Clark 
 
 Committee Secretary: 
 
 Jeanette Polansky 
 
Public Support for 
 
 Coastal Zone Management Programs: 
 
 The Implementation of the 
 Coastal Zone Management 
 Act of 1972 
 
 A Report by the Coastal Zone 
 Management Advisory Committee 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 
 Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary 
 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 
 Richard A. Frank, Administrator 
 
 Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 
 Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator 
 
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
 Washington, D.C. 20402 
 
 Stock Number 003-017-00428-7 
 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 
 Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee 
 3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W. 
 Washington, D. C. 20235 
 
 Honorable Juanita M. Kreps 
 Secretary of Commerce 
 Washington, D. C. 20230 
 
 Dear Madam Secretary: 
 
 I have the honor to submit to you Public Support 
 
 for Coastal Zone Management Programs : The Implementation 
 
 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The report 
 
 is the product of a major part of the Advisory Committee's 
 
 work program for this fiscal year. 
 
 The study is both timely and important due to Congressional 
 
 reauthorization hearings on the Federal program next year, 
 
 fiscal year 1980 budgetary decisions which may establish 
 
 future program funding levels, court cases involving the 
 
 implementation of state programs, and the significance 
 
 of formulating a comprehensive oceans policy in the Carter 
 
 Administration. 
 
 We are pleased to be able to comment upon such subjects as 
 public support for coastal zone management, the specificity 
 of coastal management programs, the Federal consistency 
 and national interest provisions of the Federal Act, and 
 future funding for the Federal program. 
 
 Our recommendations are: 
 
 (1) the initiation of a major coastal zone management 
 public awareness and participation effort (please 
 see p . 43) ; 
 
 (2) the establishment of an adequate level of program 
 specificity to include 
 
 a. a definition of performance standards regarding 
 specificity of state program elements, 
 
 b. the monitoring of consistency determinations 
 over time as a gauge of specificity, and 
 
 c. a review of the Office of Coastal Zone 
 Management Federal relations procedures (p. 50); 
 
(3) the preparation of a policy document by the Office of 
 Coastal Zone Management that describes what constitutes 
 the adequate consideration of the national interest 
 (PP. 51-52); 
 
 (4) extension of preliminary program approval funds for a 
 limited period (p. 54); 
 
 (5) deletion from the program of states not making adequate 
 progress (p . 54) ; 
 
 (6) a gradual phase down of Federal monies for operational 
 programs (p . 55) ; 
 
 (7) an increase in size and number of special assistance 
 coastal programs and their linkage to state participation 
 in coastal zone management (p. 56); 
 
 (8) an "evolutionary" approach to the future of coastal zone 
 management as. the most desirable and feasible at this 
 time (p. 58) . 
 
 All of these recommendations will protect the Federal investment 
 in the nation's coasts and will save public funds in the long 
 run. Indeed, many of the recommendations can be implemented with 
 existing resources. 
 
 In general, the Committee has been impressed by the fact that 
 
 despite limited resources , significant accomplishments in coastal 
 
 zone management have occurred. It is now time to refine and 
 
 strengthen that effort in light of the evidence presented in 
 this report. 
 
 The Committee was established by P. L. 92-583 on October 27, 1972 
 and was directed to make recommendations to your office concerning 
 the implementation of the Act. With your assistance, the Committee 
 intends to pursue its recommendations in all appropriate forums. 
 Please be advised that the Committee has been requested to testify 
 before Congress in the near future. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Letter of Transmittal ii 
 
 Acknowledgements v 
 
 Summary vii 
 
 Findings and Recommendations x 
 
 Introduction 1 
 
 Implementation of Coastal Zone Management Programs 
 
 in the States 5 
 
 Implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act: 
 
 A View From Federal Agencies 19 
 
 Implications of the Findings 25 
 
 Conclusion 37 
 
 Appendix: The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 
 
 As Amended 39 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
 The Committee wishes to express its appreciation to those agen- 
 cies which, by making their personnel available, make this report 
 possible. In Ohio, these organizations include the League of 
 Women Voters, Ohio Environmental Council, Lake County Shore- 
 line Advisory Group, Ohio Geological Survey, Lake Carriers Asso- 
 ciation, Ohio Conservation Foundation, Regional Planning Com- 
 mission for Cayahoga County, City of Cleveland Planning Office, 
 Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, 
 Greater Cleveland Boating Association, Ohio Department of Natu- 
 ral Resources, Ohio Electric Utility Institute, Ohio Farm Bureau 
 Federation, and the Ohio State legislature. 
 
 The organizations contacted in Louisiana include Shell Oil Com- 
 pany, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, Louisiana 
 Coastal Commission, Port of New Orleans, Jefferson Parish Coun- 
 cil, Louisiana Ecology Center, Sierra Club, Department of Trans- 
 portation and Development, Office of the Governor, Mid-Continent 
 Oil and Gas Association, Office of the Mayor of Morgan City, Mor- 
 gan City Chamber of Commerce, St. Bernard's Planning Commis- 
 sion, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Orleans Parish Planning Com- 
 mission, Plaquemines Parish Planning Commission, and the 
 Louisiana State legislature. 
 
 In North Carolina, these organizations include North Carolina State 
 University, Department of Administration, University of North 
 Carolina, League of Women Voters, Department of Agriculture, 
 Office of Marine Affairs, Conservation Foundation, State Utilities 
 Commission, North Carolina Petroleum Council, Department of 
 Natural Resources and Community Development, Coastal Re- 
 
sources Commission, the State Coastal Resources Advisory Com- 
 mittee, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
 
 In all States, sub-units of the above organizations provided informa- 
 tion. In addition, private citizens not affiliated with any organization 
 were interviewed in each State. 
 
 The Committee thanks the headquarters personnel of Federal 
 agencies for their participation in this study. Appreciation is also 
 extended to the Office of Coastal Zone Management for its assist- 
 ance in the report. 
 
 Finally, the Committee is grateful to the individuals who com- 
 mented upon earlier drafts of the manuscript. Many of their sug- 
 gestions have been addressed in this report. The responsibility for 
 the findings and recommendations herein, of course, resides with 
 the Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee. 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 "This study is both timely and important due to Congressional re- 
 authorization hearings on the Federal program next year, fiscal 
 year 1980 budgetary decisions which may establish future program 
 funding levels, court cases involving the implementation of State 
 programs, and the significance of formulating a comprehensive 
 oceans policy in the Carter Administration." (p. iii) 
 
 "[T]he Committee intends to pursue its recommendations in all 
 appropriate forums." (p. iv) 
 
 "Most observers agree that demands upon the Nation's coastal 
 areas have increased during the 1970's. . . . Indeed the need for 
 coastal zone management ... is greater today than it was [in 
 1972]." (p. 1) 
 
 "The objective of this inquiry is to examine the depth and breadth 
 of the coastal zone management constituency. This constituency 
 is important since coastal zone programs will ultimately be judged 
 in the political arena. ... As a panel of private citizens . . . the 
 Committee is in a unique position to address the . . . constituency 
 issue." (pp. 1-2) 
 
 "The development and implementation of State coastal zone man- 
 agement programs consists of four stages: data collection and 
 issue analysis, program formulation, program adoption, and pro- 
 gram management. One State in each of these categories was 
 examined. . . ." (p. 5) 
 
 "[In Ohio] several key assumptions of coastal management . . . are 
 not present." (p. 7) 
 
 viii 
 
"An Ohio management program must be cast in such a way so as 
 to enhance coastal resources in a tangible, easily comprehensible 
 manner." (p. 9) 
 
 "Like Ohio, but unlike California, there does not seem to be a 
 sense that Louisiana's coast faces very real dangers. The program, 
 therefore, is seen more as another source of Federal funds to add 
 to State and local budgets and less as a way for the State to deal 
 with its coastal problems." (p. 12) 
 
 "[Although North Carolina expressed interest in coastal manage- 
 ment before the passage of the national Act in 1972, it has been 
 encouraged and strengthened by Federal money, support, and 
 leadership." (pp. 16-17) 
 
 "The . . . States, in very different ways, demonstrate the signifi- 
 cance of establishing and maintaining a constituency for balanced 
 use of the coastal zone. . . . Coastal zone management agencies 
 must continue to inform people and build citizen support . . ." 
 (p. 17) 
 
 "Nearly all [Federal] agencies believe that the establishment of 
 a coastal zone management program is a task of considerable 
 magnitude. . . . [However,] comments concerned (1) the lack of 
 evidence that agency views were thoughtfully considered, (2) the 
 unsatisfactory nature of State coastal zone management plans, and 
 (3) the future of the Federal program." (p. 20) 
 
 "A variety of specific changes were suggested by individual ad- 
 ministrators. . . ." (p. 21) 
 
 "All agencies believe that a basic reason for the Federal relations 
 problems described above is that the Office of Coastal Zone Man- 
 agement acts as a "lobby" for States." (p. 22) 
 
 "[T]here does not appear to be undue concern about the future 
 of coastal zone management among Federal officials. Most re- 
 spondents recommend that States should continue to receive 
 interim program development funding until they are fully prepared 
 for program approval." (p. 22) 
 
 "In general, it was found that the demanding work necessary to 
 formulate and approve programs meant the important, long term 
 issues did not receive the attention they deserved." (p. 26) 
 
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 "[S]erious constituency problems for coastal zone management . . . 
 have developed. [They] are ... (1) limited public participation, (2) 
 the lack of State program specificity including the Federal con- 
 sistency and national interest provisions of the Act, and (3) future 
 funding issues in coastal management." (p. 26) 
 
 "The Committee found that there is a lack of understanding of 
 coastal management in the country. If this situation is as pervasive 
 as it appears, no concerned individual, user group, or government 
 agency can effectively articulate its concerns." (p. 27) 
 
 "Rational use of the coastal zone . . . will not occur without a high 
 degree of civic awareness. . . . The Committee advises the Secre- 
 tary of Commerce to initiate immediately a major public awareness 
 and participation effort. . . ." (p. 2 7) 
 
 "If Congress and the nation desire careful management of coastal 
 resources, the type of initiative discussed above is a mandatory 
 first step. . . ." (p. 29) 
 
 "Deliberations ... on these two important provisions of the national 
 law, [Federal consistency and national interest], are significant 
 building blocks in establishing and maintaining a constituency for 
 coastal zone management." (p. 29) 
 
 "These provisions of the Act . . . have created considerable uncer- 
 tainty and tend to undermine public and private sector confidence 
 in the coastal management process." (p. 30) 
 
"The Committee recommends that the Secretary take action to 
 insure that an adequate level of specificity include ... (1) defini- 
 tion of performance standards regarding specificity of State pro- 
 gram elements . . . , (2) monitoring of consistency determinations 
 over time as a gage of specificity, and (3) a review of Office of 
 Coastal Zone Management procedures concerning Federal agency 
 views, informal efforts to resolve differences, responses to serious 
 disagreements, and the use of mediation as prescribed by the Act." 
 (p. 31) 
 
 "[T]he Committee recommends that a policy document be prepared 
 by the Office of Coastal Zone Management that describes what 
 constitutes the adequate consideration of the national interest." 
 (P. 32) 
 
 "It was found that the availability of Federal money was crucial to 
 the establishment of comprehensive coastal programs in nearly all 
 States." (p. 33) 
 
 "The Committee . . . recommends that selected States which have 
 made significant progress deserve an extension of preliminary pro- 
 gram approval funding for a limited period. ..." (p. 34) 
 
 "It is the consensus of the Committee, however, that States not 
 making meaningful progress should be dropped from the program." 
 (P- 34) 
 
 "In light of the importance of Federal monies in establishing State 
 programs and the need to extend that support, an abrupt cut-off of 
 program implementation funds would be detrimental to the bal- 
 anced use of coastal resources and clearly not in the national 
 interest." (p. 34) 
 
 "[T]he Committee recommends a gradual phase-down of Federal 
 monies for operating programs. . . . The matching Federal share 
 should drop from the current 80 percent to 66% percent, 50 per- 
 cent, and 33 1 /3 percent over a 10-year period. ... If the State 
 coastal zone management effort does not have enough support to 
 obtain the necessary monies from its legislature, it is doubtful that 
 it could engage in a meaningful, comprehensive program under 
 any circumstances." (pp. 34-35) 
 
 "Since the Federal share of administrative costs is to be reduced, 
 the Committee recommends that special assistance coastal pro- 
 
 xi 
 
grams be increased in size and number and tied to State participa- 
 tion in coastal zone management." (p. 35) 
 
 "The Committee recommends an 'evolutionary,' middle course 
 approach to future coastal zone management as the most desirable 
 and feasible at this time." (p. 36) 
 
 "Although an effective coastal zone management program cannot 
 be quickly and easily developed without controversy, experience 
 to date suggests that important changes are needed to strengthen 
 the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This report as well as 
 future Committee documents address that need." (pp. 37-38) 
 
 XII 
 
Introduction 
 
 A Tost observers agree that demands upon the Nation's coastal areas 
 have increased during the 1970's. Energy facility siting, oil spills, coastal 
 recreation, offshore oil and gas exploration, marine pollution, deep 
 water ports, and other issues have heightened public awareness since 
 the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972. Indeed, the 
 need for coastal /one management to deal with the increasing number 
 of coastal problems and conflicting regulations is greater today than it 
 was then. 
 
 The Act encourages States to develop general purpose programs to 
 insure effective management of coastal resources. It also requires Federal 
 agencies to cooperate in the implementation of State management pro- 
 grams. These programs are designed to adjust to the dynamics of the 
 coastal zone and the political process. State programs are an ongoing 
 planning and decision-making procedure and as such provide a forum 
 in which difficult choices can be made. In a word, the management pro- 
 grams of the 30 States and five Territories participating in coastal /one 
 management may influence how America's four coastlines are developed, 
 protected, and restored. 
 
 The implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act occurred 
 in a period when energy and economic issues came to the forefront of 
 the nation's agenda. There is little doubt that the political environment 
 of 1978 is quite different from that of 1972 when the Federal law was 
 passed. How have new needs and shifting national concerns affected 
 coastal zone management? These are priority issues in the Federal Gov- 
 ernment and constitute an important part of the Committee's mandate. 
 This report, therefore, addresses the implications of the changing en- 
 vironment in which coastal zone management occurs. 
 
 The objective of this inquiry is to examine the depth and breadth of 
 
 1 
 
the coastal zone management constituency.* This constituency is sig- 
 nificant since coastal zone programs will ultimately be judged in the 
 political arena. The attitudes and actions of legislators, administrators, 
 interest group representatives, and concerned citizens will be important 
 in determining the number and quality of State programs. A substan- 
 tial degree of public support is necessary if coastal management is to 
 become a reality in the United States. The nature of civic interest in 
 these programs can also illuminate many other policy issues such as 
 the effectiveness of programs, intergovernmental relations, funding 
 levels, and so on. As a panel of private citizens representing a variety of 
 occupations and coastal regions, the Committee is in a unique position 
 to address the coastal zone management constituency issue. 
 
 In order to examine this constituency, two important participants in 
 coastal management — the States, which prepare management programs, 
 and Federal agencies, which review and whose actions must be consistent 
 with those programs — were included in the study. Original information 
 was gathered from the following three sources: (1) structured interviews 
 with a cross-section of concerned businesspeople, environmentalists, 
 elected and appointed public officials, and private citizens in selected 
 states; (2) headquarters personnel representing Federal agencies involved 
 in coastal policy; and (3) testimony from guest speakers and panelists at 
 Committee meetings. In addition, numerous official documents, State 
 and Federal statutes, coastal maps, newspaper articles, organization 
 charts, and research papers were examined. 
 
 Although this analysis is based on original data, the information 
 reported and the strategies for change suggested are not necessarily 
 novel. The fact remains, however, that many of the issues identified in 
 earlier studies have not been fully dealt with. It is hoped that this 
 report will contribute to a renewed discussion of the Nation's coastal 
 zone and its management. Specifically, the Committee recommends that 
 the Department of Commerce commit itself to effective action regarding 
 the recommendations in this report. 
 
 This study identifies and analyzes problems in the management of 
 coastal resources and makes a number of policy recommendations. The 
 Committee also intends to assist policy-makers by (1) forming a task 
 force to monitor proposed changes in the Federal Act, (2) providing 
 advice on the issues discussed in this study, (3) suggesting appropriate 
 amendatory language to the law, and (4) conferring with officials at 
 
 * Webster defines the term constituency as a necessary element or component 
 part of a larger whole. For the purposes of this study, important constitutents 
 in tlie coastal zone management process include the States and Federal agencies 
 (see below). 
 
regular intervals during the controversy over the future of coastal man- 
 agement in the next year. 
 
 An important part of this debate will be the effort to identify just 
 what coastal zone management means. Is it, for instance, embodied in 
 the Federal statute, the administration of the law in Washington, D. C, 
 or State programs around the nation? The Committee believes that 
 coastal zone management is, unavoidably, all of these. Most importantly, 
 however, the management of coastal resources can only be what people 
 perceive it to be in light of law and practice. It is these perceptions 
 that are reported in this study. 
 
 Several other current examinations of coastal zone management issues 
 should be noted. The Department of Commerce, at the request of the 
 President, recently concluded a Comprehensive Oceans Policy Study. 
 This report included an assessment of coastal problems based upon 
 existing government documents and data. In response to a directive 
 from the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Com- 
 merce will also conduct an evaluation of coastal management in late 
 1978. The Office of Technology Assessment will finish an in-depth feasi- 
 bility study of energy facility siting in the summer of 1978. It will in- 
 clude a discussion of coastal issues. The Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment is presently completing a review of the accomplishments of State 
 programs and the effects of Federal funding. The General Accounting 
 Office recently announced that it will review the administration of the 
 Coastal Zone Management Act by the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment during 1978. Finally, Congress began its National Oceanic and 
 Atmospheric Administration oversight hearings this spring. These hear- 
 ings will include an examination of coastal zone management. The 
 Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee study is the only one 
 conducted by a large group of non-Federal employees. It is also the only 
 systematic effort to include candid, private views from users and pro- 
 tectors of the coastal zone. 
 
 The next two parts of the study report, in summary fashion, the views 
 of responsible people in States and in Federal agencies. The findings 
 discussed represent the attitudes of those individuals. The implications 
 of the findings and the Committee's views are presented in section four. 
 There is a brief concluding section at the end of the report. 
 
Implementation of Coastal 
 Zone Management Programs 
 
 in the States 
 
 The development and implementation of State coastal zone manage- 
 ment programs consists of four stages: data collection and issue analysis, 
 program formulation, program adoption, and program management.* 
 One State in each of these categories was examined including Ohio, 
 Louisiana, North Carolina, and California. These States were judged by 
 experts to be illustrative of various dimensions of coastal management 
 issues. Participating States were not selected on the basis of their indi- 
 vidual, State-specific successes or problems. 
 
 Ohio is an example of a State in phase one, data collection and 
 analysis, of program evolution. It is one of a number of northern indus- 
 trial States that has been relatively slow in developing a management 
 program. Louisiana may be indicative of issues that arise in phase two, 
 program formulation, of coastal planning. It is also a leading example 
 of the role of oil and gas activities in the management process. North 
 Carolina was one of the first States to enter phase three, program adop- 
 tion, in recent years. As such, the North Carolina experience may be 
 helpful to other States. Finally, California was chosen as one of the few 
 States in phase four, coastal zone program management. It is also one 
 of the most controversial programs due to the diverse nature of problems 
 on its coast and the significant degree of State authority vested in the 
 program. 
 
 The Committee divided into task forces and conducted site visits to 
 Ohio, Louisiana, and North Carolina in January, 1978. The task forces 
 consisted of four Committee members and one professional staff person. 
 
 * Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator, Office of Coastal Zone Man- 
 agement, "Coastal Zone Management: A Bold Experiment." Address to the 
 Coastal Zone 78 Conference, Jack Tar Hotel, San Francisco, California, March 
 14, 1978. The dynamics of this process are such that not all States fit neatly 
 into these categories. 
 
The State capital and coastal areas were visited in each State. Approxi- 
 mately 25 to 30 individuals were interviewed in each location represent- 
 ing government agencies, citizen groups, and business (see Acknowledge- 
 ments, pp. vi— vii). The number of people interviewed in each session 
 varied from one to eight. Discussions averaged an hour in length. Activi- 
 ties in California were monitored by Committee members from Califor- 
 nia, followed by a 2-hour panel presentation at a Committee meeting in 
 San Francisco, this year. 
 
 The States analyzed do not represent all issues and problems in 
 coastal zone management program development and implementation. 
 One of the unusual features of the Coastal Zone Management Act is 
 that diversity in program development is not only permitted, but actively 
 encouraged. Ohio, Louisiana, North Carolina, and California are indica- 
 tive, however, of a wide variety of concerns in coastal resource manage- 
 ment. Accordingly, the experience of these States may have important 
 policy implications for other coastal States and the national coastal zone 
 program. 
 
 This section discusses the findings from the task force visits to Ohio, 
 Louisiana, and North Carolina. The California program will not be 
 analyzed separately since it has already been the subject of numerous 
 studies.* However, reference will be made to California in the report 
 for illustrative and comparative purposes. The intent of the discussion 
 is to highlight major program directions in the States as seen by im- 
 portant constituent groups. It is not an effort to provide a definitive 
 analysis or exhaustive history of these programs. 
 
 OHIO 
 
 Factors Affecting Coastal Management 
 
 Ohio is in the early stages of the coastal management development 
 process. It also exemplifies some of the issues that occur in a northern 
 industrial coastal area. Since many other States are further along in 
 
 * See, for instance, Institute for Contemporary Studies, (ed.). The California 
 Coastal Plan: A Critique (San Francisco: The Institute, 1976); Thomas Dickert, 
 el al., Collaborative Land Use Planning for the Coastal Zone (Berkeley: In- 
 stitute of Urban and Regional Development, 1976); Robert B. Ditton, et al, 
 Coastal Resources Management (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1977), 
 especially Chapter Nine; Melvin B. Mogulof, Saving The Coast: California's 
 Experiment in Intergovernmental Land Use Control (Lexington, Mass.: Lex- 
 ington Books, 1975); Jens Sorenson, State-Local Collaborative Planning: A 
 Growing Trend in Coastal Zone Management (Washington, D.C.: Office of 
 Coastal Zone Management, 1978), especially Section Two, Part Nine. 
 
program development, Ohio is in a position to benefit from their experi- 
 ence. At least two considerations will influence coastal /one management 
 in the State. 
 
 First, most individuals with whom the Committee spoke indicated 
 that the coast is not a major issue in the State. Access to the relatively 
 small shoreline area is limited by a combination of private ownership, 
 minimal recreational opportunities, and inclement weather. In addition, 
 the virtual extinction of fishing in Lake Erie in the 1960's contributed 
 to the low visibility of the coastline as a management unit. Finally, 
 given the urban character of the State, it. is significant that a number of 
 cities are not located on the coast and some of those on Lake Erie are 
 losing population. 
 
 Several key assumptions of coastal management (e.g., undeveloped 
 shorelines, increasing demands upon coastal resources, widespread recog- 
 nition of their value), therefore, are not present. The issues that have 
 received the greatest public recognition are the water quality of the 
 Great Lakes and shoreline erosion. Other problems include port devel- 
 opment, recreation, revitali/ation of urban shorelines, and facility siting. 
 These issues concern selected interest groups (e.g., boating organizations, 
 industrial and utility companies), or economic elites (summer home 
 property owners, yachtsmen), but not the public as a whole. In short, 
 despite the existence of shoreline problems, coastal zone management 
 is not a high priority issue in the State. Since there is no major concern 
 about the coast, there currently is no large constituency which relates 
 to it. Not surprisingly, coastal zone management simply has not been 
 recognized as a tool for dealing with shoreline questions. 
 
 Second, the 1975 Ohio General Assembly created a Land Use Review 
 Committee to examine relevant programs and make recommendations. 
 This legislative report and its proposals will be considered by the Assem- 
 bly in the near future. Coastal zone management is not mentioned in 
 the study. The central political issue here, as elsewhere, is State versus 
 local control. According to citizen groups and State legislators, the out- 
 come of the land use debate is likely to significantly influence the State's 
 coastal legislative initiative. 
 
 The State Program 
 
 The coastal program is housed in the Department of Natural Re- 
 sources. Its director is an experienced administrator who has the support 
 of the Governor. The political power of the department, regardless of 
 who is in office, is widely respected. One lobbyist explained that this 
 comes from the competence of the staff and the tenacity of the agency. 
 He said, "Once they decide to go after something, it's a question of 
 'when,' not 'if,' and I've got the scars to prove it." 
 
The department has decided not to engage in a high profile program 
 of constituency building and public participation at this time. Since the 
 State is beginning its program formulation phase of the management 
 process, the department feels that it is too early to initiate that type of 
 effort. As evidence of this strategy, the boating editor of the State's 
 largest newspaper indicated that the State agency has never contacted 
 the press in any comprehensive way. The rationale for this approach is 
 that there is little to promise now and there is a danger of public sup- 
 port reaching its peak too soon in the program development process. 
 
 Furthermore, knowledgeable officials indicated that this kind of activ- 
 ity is not the way to accomplish policy goals in Ohio. Instead, the 
 department is beginning a plan to increase slowly public awareness and 
 interest. Opportunities for participation of government agencies, interest 
 groups, and the general public are currently available through a State 
 Advisory Group, seven local Shoreland Advisory Groups, a newsletter, 
 the Governor's Ad Hoc Land Use Coordinating Committee, and the 
 League of Women Voters' coastal activities. 
 
 Ohio has recently received its third Federal coastal zone management 
 grant. National planning money was quite influential in establishing the 
 State program. This is, of course, true for many other States (although 
 not necessarily California where major initiatives preceded the Federal 
 effort). While Ohio has always been involved in shore area management, 
 it is probable that there would be no formal coastal zone program in 
 the absence of Federal support. In fact, the program was dropped in 
 1975 due to State fiscal problems. It was reinstated in 1976. 
 
 The Future of Coastal Management in Ohio 
 
 Although a final proposal for the State program in Ohio has not been 
 developed, its outlines are apparent. First, like California and North 
 Carolina (and other States), the principal management responsibil- 
 ity will reside in local and State governments. The State will provide 
 technical and financial assistance to local governments to help them in 
 their planning and to enforce State coastal policies. Second, the pro- 
 gram is likely to emphasize process issues (i.e., organizational structure, 
 identification of State authorities, definition of permissible uses, and so 
 on) in coastal management. Decisions about specific projects (e.g., the 
 proposed steel mill at Conneaut) will probably be handled by existing 
 State regulatory programs and local governments. 
 
 The State program has developed a conceptual awareness among some 
 interest groups and established an arena in which to discuss coastal 
 problems. In addition, the management framework could serve as a 
 vehicle for overall planning to expedite access to monies from various 
 Federal sources. While signs of progress exist, Ohio is one of several 
 
 8 
 
States where the State coastal management program has not yet made a 
 significant difference in the management of coastal resources.* 
 
 What is needed now, one State legislator argued, is authority for 
 "consensus projects" that could be accomplished without great con- 
 troversy. Demonstration or enhancement projects, such as a major clean- 
 up campaign of beaches or parks, would show that something is being 
 done. Similarly, a key law-maker predicted that if all the coastal delega- 
 tions got together, a program with local emphasis would pass. "But," he 
 continued, "planning and administration — much less regulation — sim- 
 ply won't sell. Some 'hardware' or 'bricks and mortar' money is needed 
 for tangible results." For instance, the proposed erosion amendments to 
 the Coastal Zone Management Act could be to Ohio what the Coastal 
 Energy Impact Program was for other States (see below). 
 
 An Ohio management program must be cast in such a way so as to 
 enhance coastal resources in a tangible, easily comprehensible manner. 
 In some States (e.g., California) a sensitivity to coastal issues, often ex- 
 pressed in legislation, predated the Federal effort. Indeed, this public 
 concern was so substantial that coastal user organizations did not have 
 to be solely relied upon for political support. In Ohio, however, it is 
 likely that a statewide constituency of interest groups and the general 
 public will probably be necessary to achieve the level of attention 
 needed for significant coastal management to occur. As a northern indus- 
 trial State, Ohio's primary concerns are urban and economic in nature. 
 Coastal zone management in Ohio, in conclusion, is simply not a leading 
 public policy issue. 
 
 LOUISIANA 
 
 Origins of the Program 
 
 Unlike Ohio, Louisiana has had a history of various forms of coastal 
 activities. Most interviewees pointed out that competing demands upon 
 the coast over the years have been dealt with on a multiple-use basis 
 without serious controversy. This has been done in the absence of a 
 State wetlands law and a separate government bureaucracy. Louisiana 
 has not had, however, a coordinated and comprehensive management 
 approach to its coastal zone, an important reason for the passage of the 
 Federal law. Respondents indicated that there is a need for some kind 
 of program provided that it enhances local activities. Indeed, the State 
 
 * Statement by Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator, Office of Coastal 
 Zone Management, in United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Com- 
 merce, Science and Transportation, Hearings, 95th Congress, 2nd Session, 
 April 3, 1978. 
 
legislature expressed interest in coastal management as early as 1971. 
 Statewide public opinion polls in 1974 and 1977 also revealed that citi- 
 zens see a need to insure orderly development and protection of Louisi- 
 ana's wetlands consistent with economic growth. 
 
 The State Program 
 
 The State received its first grant in 1974 and initiated program devel- 
 opment activities through the State Planning Office. Much appropriate 
 technical information necessary for completion of phase one of the 
 coastal zone management process has been gathered. Phase two, program 
 formulation, has centered on boundary questions, preparation of local 
 plans, public participation efforts, identification of management areas, 
 and implementation of the Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP).* 
 
 During this period, the lead agency began to press for the necessary 
 legal authority for the program. Three years of controversy ensued 
 which resulted in the passage of a bill that would not meet Federal 
 approval criteria, the transfer of the program to the Department of 
 Transportation and Development, and a gubernatorial pledge to the 
 Office of Coastal Zone Management to support a new bill in 1978. The 
 Federal office was criticized during this time for not making its require- 
 ments clear. "We lacked a framework, the bottom line, with which to 
 prepare an acceptable plan. The Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 didn't deliver the necessary parameters until the fall of 1977," com- 
 mented one influential decision-maker. 
 
 Louisiana, like other States, experienced initial opposition from local 
 governments, according to the program manager and other respondents. 
 An aide to the Governor pointed out that the program was grossly 
 misunderstood at the local level. Many parish officials saw it as just one 
 more Federal planning program that would ultimately restrict their 
 activities. 
 
 Today, however, most officials support the program as a way to re- 
 cover control of wetlands from the Army Corps of Engineers and to 
 fortify their political base. Contracts (instead of grants) w r ith coastal 
 parishes for planning, advisory committees, and public information pro- 
 grams were important factors in gaining local support. In short, the 
 program has provided significant technical information to parishes and 
 
 * The CEIP is designed to help States minimize the economic and social im- 
 pacts associated with rapid energy development. Assistance, in the form of 
 grants and loans, is available for new public facilities and service and environ- 
 mental protection activities. To be eligible for CEIP funds, States must either 
 be participating in the Federal program or be developing an independent 
 program that is consistent with the intent of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 
 
 10 
 
has developed a degree of awareness and appreciation of coastal prob- 
 lems. CEIP "rants and loans have given the program a visibility that 
 it may have otherwise lacked. A parish planner said that "coastal man- 
 agement has not produced significant changes in the way things are 
 done, but there is more money to do them." 
 
 Despite this, the State official responsible for the proposed coastal 
 legislation feels that the program has not accomplished a lot and must 
 be more positive. "Coastal /one management is a half-hearted attempt 
 at land use that may address process problems and may produce reason- 
 able policy," he argues. "The concept is unclear to people." This is 
 illustrated by the fact that this same official has never heard of the 
 Federal consistency provision of the national law.* A key state legislator 
 confirmed the need for a continuing educational effort. "It's not a ques- 
 tion of neutralizing the opposition," he said, "as much as an educational 
 process to build a constituency." 
 
 At the time of the Committee visit, nearly all interviewees, however, 
 thought the passage of an acceptable State law was likely. "It's simply a 
 matter of logrolling to get funding for coastal parishes," remarked a top 
 cabinet official. A State legislator said, "The lure of the Federal dollar 
 and the potential local influence over the district Corps office will be 
 sufficient to pass the bill." "lire stage for compromise is set," according to 
 a gubernatorial aide. "No law, no money." In a word, there seems to be 
 a firm commitment to obtaining financial aid even if a State coastal law 
 is required. While a number of parishes are making a good faith effort, 
 the specifics of coastal zone management are not well understood in 
 many parts of the State. 
 
 Future Prospects 
 
 Although it is difficult to predict what will occur in Louisiana, it 
 appears likely that the State will develop a program proposal and seek 
 a compromise with the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). 
 The approval process can cut both ways, a high official argued. "If the 
 Feds can't approve the Louisiana plan, what can be approved? To sell 
 offshore drilling to Atlantic coast states, OCZM must show a program 
 that works." 
 
 The difficulty with this approach, according to knowledgeable observ- 
 ers, is that the lead agency is well known for its powerful role in State 
 politics. The department might be able to get coastal legislation and 
 State matching monies, but many question its capability to implement 
 
 * This provision requires that all Federal agencies conducting or supporting 
 activities in the coastal zone must be consistent with the State coastal zone man- 
 agement program to the maximum extent possible. 
 
 11 
 
an effective management program. Similarly, parish officials may find it 
 hard to act in concert with State or national interests if these interests 
 come in conflict with their constituencies. Problems such as these sug- 
 gest that Louisiana and other States may not be ready for coastal zone 
 management as the Federal law is now written. Indeed, recently, serious 
 opposition to the coastal management bill has emerged in the State legis- 
 lature. In addition, environmental groups in the State have indicated 
 that they intend to sue if a program that is inadequate in their view is 
 approved. Oil and gas interests, which are powerful in Louisiana, are 
 taking a close look at the program as well. The coastal zone boundary, 
 the number of parishes to be included in the program, and control over 
 permitting activities are important, controversial issues in the State. 
 
 Future program implementation funding issues are not of great im- 
 portance to Louisiana policy-makers. However, the State is acutely inter- 
 ested in future funding levels for the Coastal Energy Impact Program. 
 In contrast to California, where a substantial coastal constituency exists, 
 phasing down of implementation monies (particularly if the program 
 is not firmly established) would be very detrimental to the balanced use 
 of coastal resources. In the opinion of the majority of the respondents, 
 it would probably mean that present program leaders in Louisiana 
 would continue the effort only to the degree necessary to remain eligible 
 for CEIP funds.* Although some officials acknowledge that if coastal 
 zone management does not work, coastal problems will intensify, posi- 
 tive incentives and affirmative actions are needed to make the program 
 more attractive. For example, potential of the State coastal program to 
 influence Federal programs is important in Louisiana where much of 
 its land is regulated by the Federal Government. 
 
 In conclusion, the Louisiana program has developed slowly due to its 
 history of multiple use in the coastal zone, the mistrust and skepticism 
 of local officials of State and Federal governments, and alleged uncer- 
 tainty regarding the requirements of an approvable plan. These factors 
 became evident as the State officials sought to inform decision-makers 
 and the public. However, there now appears to be support for the pro- 
 gram and the Federal assistance that it brings in the form of adminis- 
 trative grants and CEIP funds. Despite these financial benefits, officials 
 claim that the program provides few positive incentives for coastal zone 
 management. Like Ohio, but unlike California, there does not seem to 
 be a sense that Louisiana's coast faces very real dangers. The program, 
 therefore, is seen more as another source of Federal funds to add to State 
 and local budgets and less as a way for the State to deal with its coastal 
 problems. 
 
 * In order to receive continued funding, the Federal Act requires an annual 
 recertification procedure for approved coastal zone management programs. 
 
 12 
 
NORTH CAROLINA 
 Origins of the Program 
 
 The North Carolina legislature, similar to California's and Louisi- 
 ana's, demonstrated interest in coastal problems prior to the enactment 
 of the national law. The most important product of this concern was 
 the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) of 1974. CAM A was de- 
 scribed by one State administrator as so controversial that it was the 
 most amended bill in the State's history. "It was finally approved at the 
 end of the legislative session," in the words of one of its supporters, 
 "because the opposition did not expect it to be brought up." 
 
 The bill was passed by a coalition of liberal Democrats from urban 
 areas and by Republicans from across the State who followed the lead 
 of the Republican Governor. Legislators from coastal districts generally 
 opposed the bill as an attempt by the more populous Piedmont region 
 to impose land use regulations on their area. Only one of the 20 coastal 
 county delegations voted for CAMA. That support was based less upon 
 the merits of the bill (indeed, the county later became an ardent oppo- 
 nent of the law) than on the party affiliation of those representatives. 
 The Act has been judged by the Office of Coastal Zone Management as 
 sufficient State authority to manage the coastal zone under Federal law. 
 
 According to the interviewees, the reasons that North Carolina joined 
 the national program were the following: 
 
 (1) the availability of national dollars (all respondents) 
 
 (a) the previous State administration generally had not secured 
 available grant monies from Washington; 
 
 (b) the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 
 made the promise of Federal planning funds a reality. 
 
 (2) the alleged threat of Federal intervention (i.e., "If we don't man- 
 age the coast the Feds will") (all respondents). 
 
 (3) the climate of the times as reflected in an environmentally con- 
 scious Administration and close ties between the legislature and 
 the university community (most respondents). 
 
 (4) the potential for a consolidated approach for permitting (some 
 respondents). 
 
 (5) recognition of the importance of the coast (several respondents). 
 
 (6) the value of planning in areas that had no previous planning 
 experience (several respondents). 
 
 In summary, the State program began with little support from the re- 
 gion it was to manage. It was perceived by the coastal counties to have 
 
 13 
 
been based upon negative incentives and misconceptions (e.g., availabil- 
 ity of money, the Federal threat). 
 
 Accomplishments and Shortcomings of the Program 
 
 The primary accomplishments of the program are those associated 
 with phase one (data collection) and phase two (program formulation) 
 of the management process. These activities typically include those 
 necessary to develop an adequate scientific base for a coastal program and 
 political support among local officials. In fact, many town council mem- 
 bers and county commissioners who originally opposed coastal area man- 
 agement presently endorse it; the process of developing local plans and 
 making management decisions involved many officials and won their 
 support. There is now a local government constituency that believes in 
 the management of coastal resources, particularly if it is not a State 
 infringement on local control. 
 
 If phase three of the management process, program adoption, includes 
 a political and educational effort to build a constituency beyond official 
 coastal zone management circles, the picture sketched above is less op- 
 timistic. Unlike Ohio, where the program has low visibility, the North 
 Carolina program is visible, but it is not well understood. A responsible 
 official in the State agency indicated that little assistance was received 
 from the Office of Coastal Zone Management on how to establish an 
 effective public participation program. Although North Carolina is 
 ready to enter the program management phase of the Tederal program, 
 the evidence suggests the coastal zone management constituency is not 
 as broad as it might be. Examples of the problem occur in (1) the public, 
 (2) the legislature and the courts, and (3) State government. 
 
 First, the agricultural community has emerged as a chief opponent of 
 coastal management since the passage of CAM A. An agriculture spokes- 
 man believes that this opposition is not necessarily based on the content 
 of the program and may recede under the right circumstances. Nonethe- 
 less, the program is currently seen by some "as still another regulatory, 
 negative law. Despite the potential benefits, people are asking 'how 
 many more rules must be met?'" The depth of this concern is illustrated 
 by the fact that the State Farm Bureau has a standing resolution to 
 repeal CAMA. In addition, a number of environmental groups have 
 also been critical of the program. 
 
 Second, opposition has occurred in legislative and judicial arenas. 
 Although a recent suit contending that CAMA is unconstitutional was 
 dismissed in court, it may be indicative of the constituency problem. 
 Similarly, the State law was subject to attack in the legislature in 1977. 
 
 14 
 
While a bill to repeal CAMA was narrowly defeated, the House passed 
 a measure restricting authority to designate areas of environmental con- 
 cern. It is interesting to note that the State coastal /one management 
 agency supported the bill. The Senate may act on it in 1978. In (he opin- 
 ion of several knowledgeable observers, the ability of CAMA to survive 
 these challenges to date reflects its basic soundness. Nonetheless, as 
 indicated, these problems may reflect the troubled state of the coastal 
 zone management constituency. 
 
 Finally, coastal zone management does not appear to be well regarded 
 within State government. A top administrator in the Department of 
 Natural Resources and Community Development (the agency that 
 houses the State coastal office) said that "coastal management has not 
 had any appreciable effect in resolving such problems as water pollution 
 from ill-conceived developments." Further, he feels that public partici- 
 pation is still pro forma and that local plans will sit on shelves. An 
 official from the Department of Agriculture states that the Department 
 was, for all practical purposes, excluded from coastal zone planning. A 
 respondent from the Department of Administration wondered why the 
 State coastal zone management office did not participate in the Gov- 
 ernor's Conference on Balanced Growth. "The State coastal zone agency 
 could act as management ombudsman if a strong Governor, communi- 
 cation, and real incentives could bring agencies together to coordinate 
 activities in coastal zone areas," another official stated. 
 
 Apprehension in the executive branch may have stemmed from con- 
 cern about what would happen when the North Carolina Coastal Re- 
 sources Commission began issuing permits on March 1, 1978. It also may 
 have been aggravated by a recent executive order requiring State agen- 
 cies to coordinate with the State coastal zone management office. In any 
 case, support for coastal management activities is not what it might be 
 except for those State and local officials who receive direct benefits from 
 the program. 
 
 An important reason for this situation, according to many, is that the 
 Federal office strongly urged the State to move toward program approval. 
 Thus, unlike Louisiana, where Washington was criticized for not pro- 
 viding clear Federal standards and deadlines, North Carolina found the 
 reverse to be true. Due to pressures to meet State requirements, North 
 Carolina would have liked to have had more time to inform and broaden 
 its constituency and to develop policy positions relating to the 1976 
 Amendments of the Federal Act. Public opposition to coastal area man- 
 agement in the latter stages of the management process is not unique 
 to North Carolina and is probably inherent in implementing effective 
 programs. Even California, which has a comparatively large constitu- 
 ency, vigorous opposition to coastal zone management still exists. 
 
 15 
 
Future Prospects 
 
 Since the State has just recently begun its permitting process under 
 CAMA, it is premature to gage the impact of the program. The next 
 two or three years are likely to be very important for its future, since 
 CAMA is due to be reauthorized in 1981. What key problems exist on 
 the horizon that North Carolina and perhaps other States may have to 
 face? The Committee identifies the following three areas: (1) the merits 
 of the program, (2) the State's balanced growth policy, and (3) the pro- 
 posed Office of Management and Budget reduction of Federal funds. 
 
 First, many respondents indicated that the fate of the State program 
 may not necessarily rest on its actual content. Since turnover in most 
 State legislatures is high (as much as one-third), a continuing reeduca- 
 tion effort is necessary. A similar problem exists in many local govern- 
 ments. Further, segments of the public (particularly agricultural and 
 environmental interests) oppose the program. An official for the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture, however, states that farmers might support the 
 program if they were sure of what it meant. North Carolina demon- 
 strates quite clearly that a meaningful, long-term, and more focused 
 public participation effort is necessary if coastal area management is to 
 gain and maintain the support of important groups. 
 
 Second, the current State administration is developing a policy frame- 
 work within which programs must justify their activities. A Depart- 
 ment of Administration spokesman said that "the coastal agency must 
 relate to the Governor's policy on balanced growth." Agency officials 
 have made few visible efforts to link coastal issues with this State policy. 
 If the program is to be a policy forum for competing interests, there 
 must be a compelling reason to coordinate with the coastal agency. 
 Unless the program, financed largely by Federal funds, can further 
 State objectives, coastal management will have limited appeal in States 
 like North Carolina. 
 
 Finally, an important test of broad State support for any national 
 grant program is the fate of the program in case of a Federal funding 
 phase down. Unlike California (where a significant part of the popula- 
 tion lives on the coast), North Carolina would be hard pressed to justify 
 the necessary expenditures for the rural, coastal area in view of other 
 priorities. A senior State senator indicated that "taxes will not be 
 increased for the foreseeable future." Further, a mountain area man- 
 agement act was recently defeated in the legislature. A former State 
 coastal administrator recommended that "the present level of funding 
 should be maintained for several years followed by a gradual phase 
 down. The State program must be given a chance to prove it can make 
 a difference before it can support itself." In conclusion, although North 
 Carolina expressed interest in coastal management before the passage 
 
 16 
 
of the National Act in 1972, it has been encouraged and strengthened 
 by Federal money, support, and leadership. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 This section has reported the digest findings from site visits to three 
 coastal States. Ohio is a State where some of the important reasons for 
 public support of coastal management do not exist. This, no doubt, 
 helps explain why it, like other industrialized States in the lower Great 
 Lakes region, is relatively slow in program development. Ohio illus- 
 trates the necessity of a more aggressive posture at the State level as 
 well as a more affirmative Federal program, provided that its coastal 
 problems are serious enough to warrant it.* Louisiana, whose coastal 
 area is an important national resource, has experienced difficulties in 
 formulating an adequate management plan despite the incentive of 
 CEIP funds. Many of these difficulties are now being dealt with, and 
 it appears that the State will join the Federal program provided that 
 the right mix of minimal conditions and maximum funding exists. 
 The Louisiana experience indicates that while CEIP funding is impor- 
 tant, it may not be a sufficient incentive for States to develop manage- 
 ment practices that meet Federal approval criteria. North Carolina is 
 a State that recognizes the importance of coastal area management. 
 However, it has many other priorities, since most of its population, 
 and that of its sister States in the region, does not live on the coast. 
 
 These three States, in very different ways, demonstrate the signifi- 
 cance of establishing and maintaining a constituency for balanced use 
 of the coastal zone. Ohio needs to do this, perhaps more than other 
 States, but has not. The process being created now will hinder or help 
 it later. The experience of Louisiana and North Carolina (as well as 
 California) suggests that Ohio's policy needs review since those States 
 are continuing to experience constituency problems. However, in 
 Louisiana and North Carolina, most respondents indicated that oppo- 
 sition was based more on misconceptions of the program than on its 
 actual substance. It should be pointed out that the presence of opposi- 
 tion is not, by itself, a sufficient criterion by which to evaluate coastal 
 zone management. Any program that actually makes a difference in 
 public policy will inevitably experience opposition. Clearly the evidence 
 demonstrates the need for an ongoing educational effort to make the 
 
 * Alternatively, the question might be raised, "Is there anything of national 
 significance that would be lost if a coastal zone management program were not 
 established in Ohio?" If the answer is affirmative, perhaps a more narrowly 
 focused, segmented program would be appropriate. 
 
 17 
 
program more attractive. Coastal zone management agencies must con- 
 tinue to inform people and build citizen support through thorough 
 studies and easily grasped explanations of their implications. 
 
 18 
 
Implementation of the 
 Coastal Zone Management Act: 
 A View From Federal Agencies 
 
 This section presents the findings from interviews with government 
 officials in Washington, D. C. These officials represent agencies that 
 play a significant part in national decision-making as it relates to 
 coastal areas in the country. The Coastal Zone Management Act re- 
 quires that all Federal agencies with programs affecting the coastal 
 zone review State plans prior to approval and that they comply with 
 the Federal consistency provisions of the Act. Clearly then, Federal 
 agencies are major participants in the coastal zone management process.* 
 
 The interviews were conducted in January and February, 1978, with 
 eight important agencies: Department of Agriculture, Corps of Engi- 
 neers, Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, De- 
 partment of Energy, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Economic 
 Development Administration. The individuals contacted were the desig- 
 nated "coastal zone management representatives" in their respective 
 organizations. Federal agency field personnel in departmental regions 
 and districts were not contacted in a systematic fashion. The number 
 of interviewees in each agency ranged from one to five. The discus- 
 sions, using a structured interview schedule, averaged one hour in 
 length. 
 
 The objective of this section is to discuss the nature of the coastal 
 management process as perceived by selected Federal departments. It 
 is not an attempt to document the history of the Office of Coastal 
 Zone Management Federal relations nor to provide a detailed analysis 
 of all the substantive issues in intergovernmental affairs. 
 
 * It should be noted that although the term "Federal relations" applies to 
 a specific function and section in the Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 (OCZM), a large number of OCZM personnel engage in relations with other 
 Federal agencies by the very nature of their responsibilities. 
 
 19 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
 The legislative history of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 
 reveals that Federal agencies played a limited role in the formulation 
 of the Act. The major issues concerned which agency should adminis- 
 ter the program (Department of Commerce or Interior) and the rela- 
 tionship of coastal management to national land use proposals. The 
 coastal zone management program was originally viewed by the Fed- 
 eral community as simply another grant program that might later be 
 integrated into a comprehensive land use effort. 
 
 This perception of the program changed when the prospect of a 
 land use law receded and as States began to apply for program ap- 
 proval under the Act. By the mid 1970's, agency concerns and objections 
 were raised in increasing number and severity. These complaints in- 
 cluded requests for exclusion of Federal lands, failure of adequate 
 consideration of Federal agency views, and demands for procedural 
 and substantive overhaul of the entire program.* 
 
 THE FINDINGS 
 
 Nearly all agencies believe that the establishment of a coastal zone 
 management program is a task of considerable magnitude. One rea- 
 son for this is that coastal management does not have a large built-in 
 constituency that will directly benefit in a financial way from Federal 
 grants. Several agencies, however, complimented the Office of Coastal 
 Zone Management staff for its understanding of intergovernmental 
 relations and sensitivity to State and local concerns. Respondents also 
 recognized the difficulties in administering a politically volatile, vol- 
 untary program. It is in this context that many of the criticisms of 
 OCZM Federal relations were cast. The comments concerned (1) the 
 lack of evidence that agency views were thoughtfully considered, (2) 
 the unsatisfactory nature of State coastal zone management plans, and 
 (3) the future of the Federal program. 
 
 First, agencies felt that OCZM Federal liaison activities were good 
 in terms of ease of contact and opportunity to comment. The crucial 
 problem, however, is that officials believe their comments on coastal 
 zone management plans are not taken seriously. For instance, one 
 administrator said that OCZM advised him to "go to court" if his 
 
 * See Comptroller General of the United States, The Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment Program: An Uncertain Future, (Washington D.C.: General Accounting 
 Office, 1976), Chapter Five; and Timothy M. Alexander, "The Intergovern- 
 mental Balancing Act: State-Federal Interests in Coastal Zone Management," 
 (unpublished paper, 1977), especially pp. 41-58. 
 
 20 
 
department did not like a particular State program. Managers also 
 stated that there was not a sufficient feedback mechanism for official 
 comments. It was suggested that OCZM fully develop informal chan- 
 nels of communication in addition to using formal meetings and the 
 Federal Register. In short, willingness to listen exists, but real respon- 
 siveness on the part of OCZM is questioned by many agencies. 
 
 Second, Federal offices feel that many State plans are procedurally 
 and substantively inadequate. Several agencies were critical of the way 
 that the "networking" procedure (the tying together of existing authori- 
 ties to form a State coastal program) is being implemented in some 
 States. One respondent indicated that this strategy is just a way of 
 "sanctioning existing State departments that have proven shortcom- 
 ings" by giving them more money to do what they had been doing 
 before the adoption of the State program. 
 
 Agencies also were critical of the alleged lack of substance in pro- 
 grams. Most officials asked "What does it mean to have an approved 
 program? Plans are so vague that it is impossible to tell what is being 
 approved. We don't want to be held to consistency requirements if it 
 means we are held to everything and anything." Programs that are 
 procedurally and substantially lacking, it was suggested, would lead 
 to numerous court cases. A variety of specific changes were suggested 
 by individual administrators including: 
 
 (1) establishment of regional coastal zone management offices to 
 facilitate intergovernmental coordination; 
 
 (2) dealing with the perceived tension in OCZM between its Fed- 
 eral relations personnel and State programs staff; 
 
 (3) changes in management practices and/or new leadership in 
 order to encourage more specificity in State programs; 
 
 (4) recognition of Federal agency responsibility prior to draft 
 environmental impact statements; 
 
 (5) increased educational and awareness programs to improve 
 understanding of coastal zone management practices; 
 
 (6) a forum or conference for Federal officials on coastal zone 
 management issues; and 
 
 (7) preparation of and adherence to interagency memoranda of 
 understanding. 
 
 In short, respondents felt that better participation would produce 
 better plans. 
 
 One official summarized these views in this way: "The present leader- 
 ship knows these problems, but does little about them. The adminis- 
 trative problems associated with some voluntary grant programs (e.g., 
 
 21 
 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development 701 program) 
 are occurring again. A lot coulcl be learned from the Environmental 
 Protection Agency 208 program." All agencies believed that a basic 
 reason for the Federal relations problems described above is that 
 OCZM acts as a "lobby" for States. From their perspective in Wash- 
 ington, many respondents felt that a more viable role for the Office 
 would be as a third party mediator or ombudsman between the States 
 and the rest of the Federal establishment. For instance, one respondent 
 suggested that OCZM sponsor more meetings between State and Federal 
 officials. 
 
 Third, there was a division of opinion among agencies concerning 
 the future of coastal zone management. One official stated that "the 
 first States to receive approval may well be the best since they are 
 establishing benchmarks. I don't really expect any meaningful im- 
 provements in this process unless OCZM management changes. OCZM 
 hasn't turned anything (i.e., final programs) down yet." Another admin- 
 istrator stated that a funding phase down should permit most States 
 to complete their planning. After that, "States will either say 'the hell 
 with it' or will simply secure Federal monies from other sources." 
 
 A more sympathetic administrator also expressed concern about the 
 future of coastal zone management. "It is not clear what an operational 
 program will look like. It's too early to tell, but some States have no 
 coastal law, Federal consistency requirements, and other key elements 
 of a strong coastal zone management program." Finally, the view was 
 offered that OCZM's rejection of State programs gains little. "The 
 CZM Act is one of the few Federal land use laws on the books. The 
 draft environmental impact statements are weak, but they might have 
 to be given political realities. Programs will improve over time." In 
 general, there does not appear to be undue concern about the future 
 of coastal zone management among Federal officials. Most respondents 
 recommend that States should continue to receive interim program 
 development funding until they are fully prepared for program 
 approval. 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
 By the way of summary, several anecdotes illustrate some of the prob- 
 lems discussed in this section. One respondent indicated that the Ameri- 
 can Society of Planning Officials recently published an in-depth mono- 
 graph, Planning for Onshore Development, which is used in workshops 
 for government executives. The Commerce Department's Office of 
 Coastal Zone Management does not play a prominent role in the publi- 
 cation and is given little consideration as a source of assistance in coastal 
 
 22 
 
planning. Another official is the chairman of a planning agency in a 
 coastal area in a nearby State. In that capacity, he is not aware of any 
 activities on the part of the State coastal agency. These examples suggest 
 that coastal zone management is not as well known as it might be or as 
 Congress has been led to believe. 
 
 However, as shown earlier, knowledge of coastal programs is no guar- 
 antee of their acceptance in the Federal government. One administrator 
 related that an important, scheduled meeting with key OCZM personnel 
 was cancelled by his agency chief in order to interview a college student 
 for a summer job. If the facts described above are indicative of the visi- 
 bility, impact, or importance of OCZM,* it is evident that it is con- 
 sidered a junior member in the community of long-established and well- 
 funded Federal grant programs. 
 
 Respondents, in summary, feel that it is too early to render a defini- 
 tive judgment about the Federal coastal zone management program. 
 Experience to date, however, is not particularly encouraging in the view 
 of concerned agencies. Departments have communicated their objections 
 informally and formally and remain dissatisfied. One office is question- 
 ing why it should continue to evaluate coastal management plans, par- 
 ticularly if the Federal program is going to be phased down. Another 
 department stated that it concurred with an earlier program approval 
 on the grounds that it was better than none at all. They are now recon- 
 sidering their position. 
 
 These concerns were expressed by an official who said that "the issue 
 is not OCZM versus the Federal bureaucracy, but how to address prob- 
 lems in a comprehensive way. The Coastal Zone Management Act is a 
 vehicle for the protection and development of the coasts. CZM programs 
 must do more than simply describe the problem." For both procedural 
 and substantive reasons, the coastal zone management constituency 
 within the Federal government is not particularly supportive of official 
 coastal management practices in the Nation. 
 
 It is apparent that the findings reported in this section reflect the 
 frustration that many agencies have experienced during years of dis- 
 cussion and disagreement over regulations and program approvals. It 
 should also be noted that some Federal agencies have not devoted ade- 
 quate time and resources during the coastal zone management program 
 development process. In addition, a number of the problems identified 
 
 * The substantive problems are documented in the public record. See, for 
 example, the Department of Energy's April 22, 1977, letter on the Oregon pro- 
 gram; the Department of Transportation's May 17, 1976, letter on the Wash- 
 ington program; the Department of Army's December 2, 1977, letter on the 
 Wisconsin program; and Department of Housing and Urban Development's 
 February 8, 1978, letter on the Michigan program. 
 
 23 
 
by the agencies have been addressed by the Office of Coastal Zone Man- 
 agement. In any case, although some agencies did not recommend ap- 
 proval of selected State programs, no agency elected to appeal its views 
 to the Secretary of Commerce. Nonetheless, a significant factor in build- 
 ing support for any program is how that program is perceived. Stated 
 differently, what people think exists is frequently as important as what 
 actually exists. 
 
 24 
 
Implications of the Findings 
 
 The Coastal Zone Management Act is an experiment in intergovern- 
 mental relations designed to encourage the balanced use of coastal re- 
 sources. It was passed by Congress at a time when environmental legis- 
 lation tended to be overwhelmingly and rapidly approved with minimal 
 debate. Not only does the Act contain some complex and unique pro- 
 visions, but it also deals with the controversial subject of land and water 
 use. Virtually all concerned were overly optimistic and had unrealistic 
 expectations about this experiment in the early seventies. It has taken 
 longer for every State, not just the slow ones, to get coastal management 
 started than anyone thought it would before it was tried. 
 
 It has been found that support for coastal zone management in the 
 Nation is not as broad or as deep as it must be in view of the increasing- 
 importance of the problem. This is attributable to several factors includ- 
 ing (1) the formulation of State plans, (2) Federal agencies participating 
 in coastal zone management, and (3) how OCZM denned its role in the 
 decision-making process. 
 
 The State programs analyzed demonstrate the significance of estab- 
 lishing and maintaining a constituency for the rational use of coastal 
 resources. Coastal zone management agencies must educate and build 
 citizen support by identifying concrete goals, developing incentives for 
 coastal management, and demonstrating the benefits to be derived from 
 them. 
 
 Secondly, despite the attention given to program planning, Federal 
 officials are generally dissatisfied with the quality of coastal programs. 
 As a result of this and agency concerns about Federal consistency, po- 
 tential support for coastal zone management within the Federal Gov- 
 ernment appears to be limited. There is a clear need, on the one hand, 
 for both the State and Federal coastal zone management offices to engage 
 Federal agencies earlier and more productively in the program. On the 
 
 25 
 
other hand, Federal agencies must invest the time and resources required 
 to contribute meaningfully to coastal /one management in the Nation. 
 
 Finally, perhaps due to the voluntary nature of the program and the 
 inherently symbiotic relationship that develops, the Office of Coastal 
 Zone Management tends to represent State interests in the Federal pro- 
 gram. The Office might be a more effective agent for coastal zone man- 
 agement if it attempted to act as a third party between the States and 
 Federal Government. It does not need to seek the lowest common de- 
 nominator of a minimally acceptable program from States. The Com- 
 mittee found that, in many cases, States indicated that they would like 
 to have a coastal program even if Federal support did not exist. 
 
 In general, it was found that the demanding work necessary to formu- 
 late and approve programs meant that important, long-term issues did 
 not receive the attention they deserved. A major reason for this is that 
 many Federal decision-makers apparently viewed coastal zone manage- 
 ment as little more than a pilot program in land use. Monies were not 
 appropriated for the 1972 Act for nearly two years and have been small 
 in quantity since, when compared to other Federal programs. 
 
 As a result, both the Federal and many State coastal zone offices have 
 been underfunded and understaffed and serious constituency problems 
 for coastal zone management in the Nation have developed. In fact, 
 according to two influential commentators, the constituency issue proved 
 to be the underlying theme of the national Coastal Zone 78 Conference.* 
 Constituency problems are reflected in the following ways: (1) limited 
 public participation, (2) the lack of State program specificity including 
 the Federal consistency and national interest provisions of the Act, and 
 (3) future funding issues in coastal management. As a panel of citizens, 
 the Committee will attempt to highlight the concerns of the public on 
 these issues and suggest constructive criticisms. It is hoped that these 
 proposals will stimulate a debate about the future directions of coastal 
 zone management that will endorse, refine, or reject the Committee's 
 views. 
 
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 
 
 Public involvement and Federal agency participation in the develop- 
 ment of State programs is required by the Act. Yet, whatever the scien- 
 tific or political legitimacy of coastal management, the coast is seldom 
 recognized as a discrete entity by the American public. Few States, for 
 example, had developed a comprehensive and intergovernmentally struc- 
 
 * John R. Botzum and Rose Jacobius (eds.), Coastal Zone Management 
 Newsletter, Volume 9, Number 12 (March 22, 1978), entire issue. 
 
 26 
 
Cured framework for management of coastal resources prior to the 
 passage of the 1972 Federal Act. Similarly, as discussed earlier, Federal 
 agencies did not generally realize the implications that coastal manage- 
 ment would have for them at the time the Act was passed. 
 
 The Committee found that there is a lack of understanding of coastal 
 management in the country. If this situation is as pervasive as it appears, 
 no concerned individual, user group, or government agency can effec- 
 tively voice its concerns. It is difficult for many participants in the 
 process to see how management policies actually translate into specific 
 issues. The coastal zone management process, under such circumstances, 
 can hardly become an effective ombudsman for or mediator of compet- 
 ing coastal uses. 
 
 An important problem for many planning and management programs 
 is that they do not have a built-in constituency which gains economically 
 from its activities. With the exception of good government groups, it is 
 difficult to get people interested in management problems tin less a 
 widely recognized crisis exists. Further, programs, such as coastal zone 
 management, that benefit the general public are frequently at a dis- 
 advantage in the political arena when compared to programs that 
 reward well-organized, aggressive special interest groups. Finally, in 
 comprehensive coastal management, which holds the potential to deal 
 with numerous problems, disillusionment easily occurs when problems 
 are not quickly solved. Since demands on the coastal zone are accelerat- 
 ing and this is likely to continue throughout the 1980's, basic public 
 understanding and involvement in coastal management is needed. 
 
 The public interest will be actively protected when people become 
 aware of the significance of coastal resources. Coastal zone management 
 challenges people to consider qualitative growth by rethinking tradi- 
 tional institutions and decision-making processes. Rational use of the 
 coastal zone — a concept few dispute — will not occur without a high 
 degree of civic awareness. Although a number of private organizations, 
 with the support of the Office of Coastal Zone Management, have en- 
 gaged in public information activities, coastal user groups cannot be 
 expected to undertake this important task alone. 
 
 The Committee advises the Secretary of Commerce to initiate imme- 
 diately a major public awareness and participation effort at the State 
 and national level. Although this proposal is not new — indeed, it has 
 been suggested in different forms in the past — the fact remains that 
 effective action has not been taken due, in part, to limited personnel 
 and financial resources. The specific nature of this initiative should be 
 agreed upon by coastal interests and could include activities such as 
 State and local hearings, presentations by recognized authorities, private 
 sector mass media advertisements, national and regional conferences, 
 
 27 
 
television documentaries and magazine stories, and additional public 
 information personnel for coastal programs. Within the Federal com- 
 munity, several departments suggested that the Office of Coastal Zone 
 Management initiate some form of communication outlet to informally 
 present its views and positions. Topics of such meetings and publica- 
 tions might be descriptions of coastal zone management, performance 
 levels of State programs, Federal consistency, national interest consid- 
 erations, and other problems discussed in this report and elsewhere. 
 The Committee recognizes that any such program will not, by itself, 
 solve the difficult issues in coastal resources management. It will, how- 
 ever, provide a new forum in which interested citizens can meet and 
 discuss policy — the primary purpose of the Coastal Zone Management 
 Act. 
 
 The timeliness of the proposal is suggested by the fact that major 
 elements of the coastal zone management constituency have recently 
 taken steps in this direction. The American Petroleum Institute, for 
 instance, has pointed to coastal management as one of the most impor- 
 tant issues facing petroleum companies. Similarly, citizens groups such 
 as the League of Women Voters also recognize a pressing need for 
 greater public involvement in coastal problems. A spokeswoman for the 
 environmental movement recently called for a national campaign to 
 preserve America's shores in a controversial book, The Thin Edge* 
 Concurrently, the Sierra Club has identified coastal zone management 
 as a priority issue for the immediate future. Finally, in an attempt to 
 draw together people interested in coastal zone management, the Na- 
 tional Academy of Sciences may sponsor a conference in 1979. 
 
 While the Administration is emphasizing the significance of marine 
 resources and tentatively approved a White House Conference on 
 Oceans and Coasts, the Conference has been indefinitely postponed. The 
 unexpectedly large turnout at the Coastal Zone 78 Conference demon- 
 strates the great interest that coastal issues can generate. However, most 
 participants at the $100 registration fee convention were State and 
 Federal government planners.-)- This highlights the importance of hav- 
 ing meetings that will attract concerned citizens, interest groups, and 
 local governmental officials. Coastal management programs are intended 
 to provide an open and rational process for resolving conflicts. One for- 
 mat in which this could occur would be issue-specific conferences and 
 meetings that strive for the middle ground among all parties in the 
 
 * Anne W. Simon, The Thin Edge: Man and Coasts in Crisis (New York: 
 Harper and Row Publishers, 1978). 
 
 f Surveys conducted by the conference sponsors and the Committee have 
 documented this finding. 
 
 28 
 
private and public sector. Appropriate preparatory and follow-up work 
 is essential to the success of such sessions. 
 
 The kind of program outlined above would assist States in all phases 
 of the coastal zone management program process. It would bring the 
 issues to the attention of the public in States in the data collection phase 
 of their program. In States further along in the management process, 
 it would illustrate that the past uses of the coast are no longer adequate. 
 For States in the implementation phase of coastal management, it would 
 educate new policy-makers and encourage them to support the State 
 program should Federal funds be reallocated. Finally, part of the pro- 
 gram could provide a forum for Federal agencies to attempt to resolve 
 their concerns about coastal zone management. This type of opportunity 
 is needed in light of the material discussed in section three of this 
 report. If Congress and the Nation desire careful management of coastal 
 resources, the type of initiative discussed above is a mandatory first 
 step — one which was unfortunately given low priority in most States 
 when management plans were initially formulated. 
 
 SPECIFICITY OF COASTAL ZONE 
 MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 
 
 No State program is complete without a full awareness of the impli- 
 cations of its decisions for Federal consistency and national interest 
 issues. Deliberations and consultations on these two important provi- 
 sions of the national law are significant building blocks in establishing 
 and maintaining a constituency for coastal zone management. 
 
 The Act requires that State programs fulfill various criteria in order 
 to be eligible for program approval and continued Federal funding. 
 Although the Federal consistency and national interest provisions are 
 important departures in intergovernmental relations, the legislative 
 history of the Act * reveals that there was little discussion or guidance 
 concerning their actual use. The idea that Federal programs must be 
 consistent with other governmental actions in a State is unusual in 
 American federalism. Similarly, defining the national interest has always 
 been far more controversial and difficult than simply asserting it. 
 
 It is not surprising, then, that several of the handful of States in 
 the program implementation phase of coastal management are being 
 sued over these issues. States presently in earlier stages of the manage- 
 
 * United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Commerce and National 
 Ocean Policy Study, Legislative History of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
 of 1972, as Amended in 1974 and 1976 With A Section-By-Section Index, 94th 
 Congress, 2nd Session, 1976. 
 
 29 
 
ment process are likely to encounter similar problems unless they are 
 resolved. Data gathered by the Committee and recent lawsuits (and 
 threats of court action) by environmentalists and oil companies in 
 other states make this clear. These provisions of the Act, therefore, 
 have created considerable uncertainty and tend to undermine public 
 and private sector confidence in the coastal management process. 
 Coastal States must develop programs that set forth objectives, policies 
 and standards to guide public and private uses of lands and waters in 
 the coastal zone. These programs must provide the basis for determin- 
 ing the consistency of Federal actions and provide for adequate con- 
 sideration of the national interest in planning for, and siting of, 
 facilities. 
 
 First, the very existence of the consistency requirement has stimu- 
 lated Federal concern over State programs. In order to ensure that 
 State programs consider Federal agency missions, Federal agencies must 
 engage in effective, balanced consultation with States to develop pro- 
 grams that address competing national needs and agency missions. The 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's consistency regu- 
 lations were developed through the use of an interagency, Office of 
 Management and Budget sponsored review process. The regulations 
 are, as a result, Administration directives which will facilitate enforce- 
 ment. Controversy continues, however, as shown by the data presented 
 earlier in this report and by the prohibition of the consistency provi- 
 sion from the California program by a Federal court pending a final 
 judgment on its legality. 
 
 Concern has been expressed that it is difficult to certify that a given 
 activity is consistent with a "vague" program. For this reason, the 
 Coastal Zone Management Act requires that State plans contain spe- 
 cific land and water use provisions and identify what uses will be 
 permitted and where they will be allowed. In addition, Federal con- 
 sistency regulations require States to assist applicants with their cer- 
 tifications upon request. To date, there has been no occasion for the 
 Secretary of Commerce to review an appeal by an applicant for a 
 Federal permit or to mediate disputes between Federal agencies and 
 the State as provided by law. This may be indicative of the fact that 
 the provision encourages intergovernmental debate and coordination 
 and that major disagreement will occur only if this consultation breaks 
 down. It may also demonstrate that the viability of the concept has 
 not yet been fully tested. 
 
 Since the Federal consistency requirement applies only to approved 
 programs, a judgment on its workability cannot be rendered at this 
 time. Only the State of Washington has had any significant experience 
 in this area. Three major projects in Washington have been dealt with 
 
 30 
 
in different ways. First, the Trident Submarine Base on Hood Canal 
 did not comply with all of the provisions of the Washington coastal 
 zone management program. However, as a national security project, 
 it did comply to the maximum extent practicable as mandated in the 
 Federal consistency regulations. Second, a proposal by the National 
 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to build an office complex 
 and ship mooring facility on Lake Washington was judged to be con- 
 sistent with the State program. In both cases, the Federal agencies 
 provided the State with consistency determinations as required by the 
 Federal activity development project consistency provisions of the 
 Coastal Zone Management Act. Finally, a proposal to expand an oil 
 refinery and pier in Puget Sound raised the issue of Federal consistency. 
 However, the conclusion of a Federal consistency determination was 
 preempted by Congressional action. On the whole, controversial proj- 
 ects in the State subject to consistency have resulted in increased inter- 
 governmental coordination and attempts to be consistent with the 
 State program. Routine projects have generally been handled informally 
 and expeditiously. 
 
 In order to fulfill the intent of the Act — balanced use of the coastal 
 zone — State and Federal governments must insure that an adequate 
 level of specificity and predictability is contained in programs now 
 being approved. For example, given a State's program policies, there 
 must be a high probability of predicting what kinds of uses are per- 
 mitted in selected areas. The Committee recommends that the Secre- 
 tary take action to insure that an adequate level of specificity include 
 but not be limited to: 
 
 (1) definition of performance standards regarding the specificity 
 of State program elements (e.g. priority uses), 
 
 (2) monitoring of consistency determinations over time as a gage 
 of specificity, and 
 
 (3) a review of Office of Coastal Zone Management procedures 
 concerning Federal agency views, informal efforts to resolve 
 differences, responses to serious disagreements, and the use of 
 mediation as prescribed by the Act.* 
 
 The second concern about program specificity is that the State may 
 not provide for an adequate consideration of the national interest in 
 its program. Although the Act requires State programs to consider the 
 
 * In this area, the Office of Coastal Zone Management has indicated that it 
 will act as ombudsman for States and Federal agencies in order to resolve con- 
 flicts prior to Secretarial level mediation. Success in this necessary, if difficult, 
 role will be important in improving the Office's Federal relations. 
 
 31 
 
national interest in the management of their coastal zone, NOAA regu- 
 lations invite the broadest possible claims in the name of national 
 interest while at the same time are virtually silent on what constitutes 
 its adequate consideration. 
 
 Numerous and fruitless attempts have been made to define the 
 national interest. * Recently, the Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 has attempted to grapple with this problem by developing a series of 
 functional national interest statements in selected subject areas based 
 on official documents and existing statutes. This may be a step in the 
 right direction, since the most pragmatic solution to the question, 
 "What is the national interest?" is to recognize that there may be many 
 short- and long-run national interests to balance. This balance is best 
 achieved by competing interests presenting their views in an open, 
 adversary process. 
 
 The nature and importance of short- and long-term national inter- 
 ests should be clarified in the coastal zone management process. States 
 are presently expected to consult with Federal agencies to assure that 
 their management programs do not arbitrarily exclude or unreason- 
 ably restrict the siting of facilities that serve the Nation. State con- 
 tributions to the siting of facilities with national impact must be 
 identified and procedures to deal with facility siting issues must be 
 described. Finally, States are required to identify how their programs 
 will consider national interests on a continuing basis in the future. 
 Some of these problems are addressed by the revised program approval 
 regulations published on March 1, 1978. Federal law does not now 
 require a State to develop a comprehensive, long-term or site-specific 
 program element for the location of facilities in the coastal zone. 
 
 While the provisions outlined above meet the requirements of the 
 Act, the development of an affirmative response to the facility issue 
 is needed. As a beginning, the Committee recommends that a policy 
 document be prepared by the Office of Coastal Zone Management that 
 describes what constitutes the adequate consideration of the national 
 interest. That is, the methods and procedures by which a State makes 
 this determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act needs to 
 be clarified. There must be an identification of the kinds of issues or 
 projects to be considered, the steps taken by States during their 
 decision-making process, and the criteria used in assessing the national 
 interest (e.g., alternative courses of action, nature of coastal dependency, 
 
 * See, for example, Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of 
 Technology, A Report on the National Interest in the Coastal Zone, (Wash- 
 ington, D.C.: Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1974). 
 
 32 
 
and so on). If procedures like these do not prove to be sufficient, 
 remedial legislation may be necessary. 
 
 Either way, it is evident that coastal zone management must have 
 a substantial constituency among environmental, industrial, and other 
 groups for these controversial problems to be resolved. A meaningful 
 process for accommodating the many demands and for resolving the 
 conflicts that occur among them is the greatest benefit a program like 
 coastal zone management can provide. There is no question that such 
 a program is superior to the confusion of single resource-oriented 
 programs on the Nation's coasts. If management programs weigh and 
 balance alternative demands upon coastal resources in a responsible 
 manner, the opportunity exists to garner support among coastal users. 
 One way to put consensus decision-making to the test and make coastal 
 zone management a more affirmative program would be to direct the 
 management process toward discrete areas or problems. For example, 
 at Grey's Harbor, Washington, all concerned parties were brought into 
 the process and most of them were satisfied with the result. 
 
 In short, a management program must establish objective policies 
 and standards that can be used as a guide for public and private uses 
 of coastal lands and waters. Criteria for determining the specificity of 
 State programs need to be established. Adherence to the Federal con- 
 sistency clause is necessary to insure that Federal agencies administer 
 their activities in a manner consistent with the national interest provi- 
 sion of the program. Effective implementation of these provisions is 
 necessary if public support for coastal zone management is expected. 
 
 FEDERAL FUNDING ISSUES 
 
 The final policy area that the Committee examined is the funding of 
 coastal zone management programs. It was found that the availability 
 of Federal money was crucial to the establishment of comprehensive 
 coastal programs in nearly all States. Congress anticipated that coastal 
 States would participate in the grant program and they have. More 
 than $63 million in Federal assistance will have been expended to 
 develop programs by the end of this fiscal year. Approximately $25 mil- 
 lion in matching funds have been contributed by States and localities. 
 For different reasons in different States (see section two) , a Federal 
 phasedown of funds would have a significant impact on State coastal 
 programs. 
 
 The Committee (as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
 Administration) recognizes the need to phase down program develop- 
 ment funds. Nothing is more corrosive of public confidence than to have 
 planners spend planning monies ad infinitum. However, the Coastal 
 
 33 
 
Zone Management Act authorizes program development funds only 
 through fiscal year 1979. Federal agencies and coastal user groups believe 
 that to cut off funds for all States at that point would be an arbitrary 
 action. The Committee recommends that selected States that have made 
 significant progress deserve an extension of preliminary approval of 
 funds for a limited period such as two years beyond the current author- 
 ity. Original Congressional and Administration expectations that all 
 eligible States would complete and implement programs in a short, de- 
 signated time period have proven to be unrealistic. Coastal zone man- 
 agement is basically a political process that involves hard choices and 
 social trade offs. This is what building a constituency means and that 
 process takes years to accomplish. It is the consensus of the Committee, 
 however, that States not making meaningful progress should be dropped 
 from the Federal program. These States would include those that have 
 not demonstrated concrete evidence of interest in coastal issues, lack 
 urgent coastal problems, and do not have strong State leadership in 
 coastal zone management. Those States that lack interest in coastal 
 management, but have serious coastal problems should receive funding 
 to deal with specific segments of their coasts. 
 
 Perhaps a more important dimension of the funding problem is the 
 role of Federal support once State programs are in place and working. 
 At present, the Act authorizes program implementation funding 
 through September, 1980. If States have only one or two years of Federal 
 support for which to plan, it may be difficult for the Office of Coastal 
 Zone Management to insist on strong State programs during the 
 approval process. Indeed, some States may simply drop out of the pro- 
 gram rather than be subject to the national interest and other contro- 
 versial provisions of the Act discussed earlier. 
 
 In light of the importance of Federal monies in establishing State 
 programs and the need to extend that support, an abrupt cutoff of pro- 
 gram implementation funds would be detrimental to the balanced use 
 of coastal resources and clearly not in the national interest. Instead, 
 the Committee recommends a gradual phasedown of Federal matching 
 monies for operating programs. This would (1) permit States to assume 
 greater responsibility for their coastal zone programs, (2) protect the 
 Federal investment in coastal management, and (3) recognize that there 
 is a continuing national interest in management of the shorelines of 
 America. The matching Federal share might drop from the current 80 
 percent to 662^ percent, 50 percent, and 33i/£ percent over a 10-year 
 period. 
 
 By that time, States will have assumed responsibility for activities in 
 the national interest to warrant a continuing Federal match of 33i/3 per- 
 cent. While an indepth financial analysis is necessary, the Committee 
 
 34 
 
recommends, in view of the national need for coastal zone management, 
 that Federal funding not be phased out for operating programs. The 
 exact phasedown schedules over the 10-year period for individual States 
 would depend upon their ability to assume responsibility at the most 
 appropriate time. If the purpose of the national law was to create an 
 operational State coastal program, then States must be prepared to 
 share a significant portion of the costs. If the State coastal management 
 effort does not have enough support to obtain the necessary monies 
 from its legislature, it is doubtful that it could engage in a meaningful, 
 comprehensive program under any circumstances. 
 
 Based on the evidence discussed in this report, incentives for coastal 
 management must be included during and after this phasedown period. 
 Since the Federal share of administrative costs is to be reduced, the 
 Committee recommends that special assistance coastal programs be in- 
 creased in size and number and tied to State participation in coastal 
 zone management. 
 
 Current examples of these programs are the Coastal Energy Impact 
 Program (CEIP) , estuarine sanctuary grants, and interstate and scienti- 
 fic research grants. However, in each case, serious problems now con- 
 front these programs. CEIP loan outlays have been circumscribed since 
 the U. S. Treasury interest rate is currently higher than interest rates 
 in the private capital market. The estuarine sanctuary program has 
 been underfunded; the interstate and scientific research section of the 
 Act has not been funded at all. These problems should be resolved if 
 States are expected to take on greater funding of coastal management 
 programs. Linking coastal zone management programs with other dis- 
 cretionary grant programs in the Department of Commerce and other 
 agencies (e.g., deepwater ports, highways, recreation) also should be fully 
 explored. Finally, since the protection and development of many ocean 
 resources have direct impacts on coastal areas, oceans management 
 activities should be joined with coastal zone management. 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
 This section has examined the implications of the findings from site 
 visits to States and interviews with Federal officials. The Committee has 
 found that the existing support for coastal zone management is not 
 sufficient in light of the demanding issues to be resolved. Accordingly, 
 this report has made recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce 
 regarding public participation, State coastal zone management program 
 specificity, and future levels of Federal funding. 
 
 Taken together these recommendations constitute a basic implication 
 of the findings in this report. That is, important changes should be 
 
 35 
 
made in coastal zone management. One of the major appeals of coastal 
 zone management in the early 1970's was that it promised rational man- 
 agement of resources as an alternative to conflicting regulations and 
 successive court battles. Today, however, it appears that approval of 
 the rational management process itself (i.e., Federal acceptance of State 
 programs) is going to be tied up in litigation. It is unclear whether or 
 not this represents "growing pains" characteristic of many new programs 
 or if it illustrates more deep-seated problems in the management process. 
 Either way, to continue on precisely the same course for the immediate 
 future is not responsive administration. 
 
 If three "alternative futures" for the Federal program include main- 
 tenance of the status quo, important revisions in the existing approach, 
 and mandatory coastal zone management, it is clear that the first and 
 third options are not viable. On the one hand, while the existing process 
 has made a significant start, the changes discussed here and elsewhere 
 are necessary to build upon and improve the present state of coastal 
 zone management. On the other hand, no constituency exists for a 
 mandatory Federal program. Although this is the subject of a fuller 
 analysis and a future report, the Committee recommends an "evolu- 
 tionary," middle-course approach to the future of coastal zone manage- 
 ment as the most desirable and feasible at this time. 
 
 36 
 
Conclusion 
 
 It is evident that demands placed upon coastal resources will con- 
 tinue to increase in the decades ahead. Coastal zone management is an 
 important tool for the protection and development of these resources. 
 Public support is necessary to ensure that this management process 
 works in an effective manner. 
 
 The difficulties in evaluating coastal zone management and its public 
 support cannot be overestimated. Identifying program goals, formula- 
 ting measures of performance, collecting data, and getting decision- 
 makers to use the study results are problematic tasks. These problems 
 are perhaps one reason why several evaluations of the Coastal Zone 
 Management Act are now in progress. 
 
 The passage of the Federal Act represented a unique experiment in 
 intergovernmental relations. An important element in that experiment 
 has been the support that coastal zone management attempted to de- 
 velop in the States and in Federal agencies. This support is the subject 
 of the findings and recommendations contained in the body of the re- 
 port. 
 
 In conclusion, the experiment has been at once promising and proble- 
 matic. It has been promising since a very significant beginning has been 
 made toward rational management of coastal resources. The Federal 
 program has strengthened coastal management in States that had ongo- 
 ing efforts and encouraged the establishment of new programs where 
 no management effort previously existed.* The experiment has been 
 problematic since coastal zone management has received limited fund- 
 ing, progressed slowly, and been challenged by elements of the very 
 constituency it was designed to serve. Although an effective coastal zone 
 
 * An extensive compilation of State program accomplishments is presently 
 being completed by the Office of Coastal Zone Management. 
 
 37 
 
management program cannot be quickly and easily developed without 
 controversy, experience to date suggests that important changes are 
 needed to strengthen the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This 
 report as well as future Committee documents address that need. 
 
Appendix 
 
 THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972 
 
 AS AMENDED 
 
 39 
 
Public Law 92-583 
 
 92nd Congress, S. 3507 
 
 October 27, 1972 
 
 an act 
 
 86 STAT, 1280 
 
 To establish a national policy and develop a national program for the manage- 
 ment, beneficial use, protection, and development of the land and water 
 resources of the Nation's coastal zones, and for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Act entitled 
 "An Act to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated 
 national program in marine science, to establish a National Council on 
 Marine Resources and Engineering Development, and a Commission 
 on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, and for other pur- 
 poses' 1 , approved June IT, 19(56 (80 Stat. 20;}), as amended (33 U.S.C. 
 1101-1124), is further amended by adding at the end thereof the fol- 
 lowing new title : 
 
 TITLE III— MANAGEMENT OF THE COASTAL ZONE 
 
 Marine Re- 
 sources and 
 Engineering 
 Development 
 Act of 1966, 
 amendment. 
 
 80 Stat. 998 | 
 84 Stat. 865. 
 
 SHOUT TITLE 
 
 Sec. 301. This title may be cited as the "Coastal Zone Management 
 Act of 1972''. 
 
 CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS 
 
 Sec. 302. The Congress finds that — 
 
 (a) There is a national interest in the effective management, bene- 
 ficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone ; 
 
 (b) The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, rec- 
 reational, industrial, and esthetic resources of immediate and potential 
 value to the present and future well-being of the Nation ; 
 
 (c) The increasing and competing demands upon the lands and 
 waters of our coastal zone occasioned by population growth and eco- 
 nomic development, including requirements for industry, commerce, 
 residential development, recreation, extraction of mineral resources 
 and fossil fuels, transportation and navigation, waste disposal, and har- 
 vesting of fish, shellfish, and other living marine resources, have 
 resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich 
 areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing 
 open space for public use, and shoreline erosion ; 
 
 (d) The coastal zone, and the fish, shellfish, other living marine 
 resources, and wildlife therein, are ecologically fragile and conse- 
 quently extremely vulnerable to destruction by man's alterations; 
 
 (e) Important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values in 
 the coastal zone which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are 
 being irretrievably damaged or lost; 
 
 (f ) Special natural and scenic characteristics are being damaged by 
 ill-planned development that threatens these values ; 
 
 (g) In light of competing demands and the urgent need to protect 
 and to give high priority to natural systems in the coastal zone, pres- 
 ent state and local institutional arrangements for planning and regu- 
 lating land and water uses in such areas are inadequate; and 
 
 (h) The key to more effective protection and use of the land and 
 water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise 
 their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by 
 assisting the states, in cooperation with Federal and local governments 
 and other vitally affected interests, in developing land and water use 
 programs for the coastal zone, including unified policies, criteria, 
 standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land and water 
 use decisions of more than local significance. 
 
DECLARATION OF POLICY 
 
 Sec. 303. The Congress finds and declares that it is the national 
 policy (a) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore 
 or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and 
 succeeding generations, (b) to encourage and assist the states to exercise 
 effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the devel- 
 opment and implementation of management programs to achieve wise 
 use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full 
 consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as 
 well as to needs for economic development, (c) for all Federal agencies 
 engaged in programs affecting the coastal zone to cooperate and par- 
 ticipate with state and local governments and regional agencies in 
 effectuating the purposes of this title, and (d) to encourage the par- 
 ticipation of the public, of Federal, state, and local governments and 
 of regional agencies in the development of coastal zone management 
 programs. With respect to implementation of such managament pro- 
 grams, it is the national policy to encourage cooperation among the 
 various state and regional agencies including establishment of inter- 
 state and regional agreements, cooperative procedures, and joint action 
 particularly regarding environmental problems. 
 
 DEFINITIONS 
 
 Sec. 304. For the purposes of this title — 
 
 (a) ''Coastal zone" means the coastal waters (including the lands 
 therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the 
 waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and 
 in proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and includes 
 transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. 
 The zone extends, in Great Lakes waters, to the international bound- 
 ary between the United States and Canada and, in other areas, seaward 
 to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea. The zone extends 
 inland from the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control 
 shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on 
 the coastal waters. Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use 
 of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in 
 trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents. 
 
 (b) "Coastal waters" means (1) in the Great Lakes area, the waters 
 within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States consisting of 
 the Great Lakes, their connecting waters, harbors, roadsteads, and 
 estuary-type areas such as bays, shallows, and marshes and (2) in 
 other areas, those waters, adjacent to the shorelines, which contain a 
 measurable quantity or percentage of sea water, including, but not 
 limited to, sounds, bays, lagoons, bayous, ponds, and estuaries. 
 
 (c) "Coastal state" means a state of the United States in, or bor- 
 dering on, the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, 
 Long Island Sound, or one or more of the Great Lakes. For the pur- 
 poses of this title, the term also includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
 Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. 
 
 (d) "Estuary" means that part of a river or stream or other body 
 of water having unimpaired connection with the open sea, w T here the 
 sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land 
 drainage. The term includes estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes. 
 
 (e) "Estuarine sanctuary" means a research area which may include 
 any part or all of an estuary, adjoining transitional areas, and adja- 
 cent uplands, constituting to the extent feasible a natural unit, set 
 
 41 
 
aside to provide scientists and students the opportunity to examine 
 over a period of time the ecological relationships within the area. 
 
 (f ) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce. 
 
 (g) "Management program" includes, but is not limited to, a com- 
 prehensive statement in words, maps, illustrations, or other media of 
 communication, prepared and adopted by the state in accordance with 
 the provisions of this title, setting forth objectives, policies, and stand- 
 ards to guide public and private uses of lands and waters in the coastal 
 zone. 
 
 (h) "Water use" means activities which are conducted in or on the 
 water; but does not mean or include the establishment of any water 
 quality standard or criteria or the regulation of the discharge or runoff 
 of water pollutants except the standards, criteria, or regulations which 
 are incorporated in any program as required by the provisions of 
 section 307(f). 
 
 (i) "Land use" means activities which are conducted in or on the 
 shorelands within the coastal zone, subject to the requirements out- 
 lined in section 307(g). 
 
 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS 
 
 Sec. 305. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make annual grants to 
 any coastal state for the purpose of assisting in the development of a 
 management program for the land and water resources of its coastal 
 zone. 
 
 (b) Such management program shall include : 
 
 (1) an identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone sub- 
 ject to the management program ; 
 
 (2) a definition of what shall constitute permissible land and 
 water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and signifi- 
 cant impact on the coastal waters; 
 
 (3) an inventory and designation of areas of particular con- 
 cern within the coastal zone; 
 
 (4) an identification of the means by which the state proposes 
 to exert control over the land and water uses referred to in para- 
 graph (2) of this subsection, including a listing of relevant con- 
 stitutional provisions, legislative enactments, regulations, and 
 judicial decisions; 
 
 (5) broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas, 
 including specifically those uses oi lowest priority; 
 
 (6) a description of the organizational structure proposed to 
 implement the management program, including the responsibili- 
 ties and interrelationships of local, areawide, state, regional, and 
 interstate agencies in the management process. 
 
 (c) The grants shall not exceed 66% per centum of the costs of the 
 program in any one year and no state shall be eligible to receive more 
 than three annual grants pursuant to this section. Federal fuiids 
 received from other sources shall not be used to match such grants. In 
 order to qualify for grants under this section, the state must reasonably 
 demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such grants will 
 be used to develop a management program consistent with the require- 
 ments set forth in section 306 of this title. After making the initial 
 grant to a coastal state, no subsequent grant shall be made under this 
 section unless the Secretary finds that the state is satisfactorily devel- 
 oping such management program. 
 
 (d) Upon completion of the development of the state's management 
 program, the state shall submit such program to the Secretary for 
 
 42 
 
80 Stat. 12 62 j 
 82 Stat, 208. 
 42 USC 3334. 
 Expiration 
 date. 
 
 review and approval pursuant to the provisions of section 306 of this 
 title, or such other action as he deems necessary. On final approval of 
 such program by the Secretary, the state's eligibility for further grants 
 under this section shall terminate, and the state shall be eligible for 
 giants under section 306 of this title. 
 Grants, (e) Grants under this section shall be allocated to the states based 
 
 allocation. on rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary: Provided, 
 
 however, That no management program development grant under this 
 section shall be made in excess of 10 per centum nor less than 1 per 
 centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out the purposes of 
 this section. 
 
 (f) Grants or portions thereof not obligated by a state during the 
 fiscal year for which they were first authorized to be obligated by the 
 state, or during the fiscal year immediately following, shall revert to 
 -the Secretary, and shall be added by him to the funds available for 
 grants under this section. 
 
 (g) With the approval of the Secretary, the state may allocate to a 
 local government, to an areawide agency designated under section 204 
 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 
 1966, to a regional agency, or to an interstate agency, a portion of the 
 grant under this section, for the purpose of carrying out the provi- 
 sions of this section. 
 
 (h) The authority to make grants under this section shall expire on 
 June 3/0, 1977. 
 
 ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS 
 
 Limitation. § EC 30$. ( a ) The Secretary is authorized to make annual grants to 
 
 any coastal state for not more than 66% per centum of the costs of 
 administering the state's management program, if he approves such 
 program in accordance with subsection (c) hereof. Federal funds 
 received from other sources shall not be used to pay the state's share 
 of costs. 
 
 Allocation, (b) Such grants shall be allocated to the states with approved pro- 
 
 grams based on rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary 
 which shall take into account the extent and nature of the shoreline 
 and area covered by the plan, population of the area, and other rele- 
 vant factors : Provided, however, That no annual administrative grant 
 under this section shall be made in excess of 10 per centum nor less than 
 1 per centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out the pur- 
 poses of this section. 
 
 Program (c) Prior to granting approval of a management program submitted 
 
 requirements . by a coastal state, the Secretary shall find that : 
 
 ( 1 ) The state has developed and adopted a management program for 
 its coastal zone in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated 
 by the Secretary, after notice, and with the opportunity of full partici- 
 pation by relevant Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, 
 regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties, 
 public and private, which is adequate to carry out the purposes of this 
 title and is consistent with the policy declared in section 303 of this 
 title. 
 
 (2) The state has: 
 
 (A) coordinated its program with local, areawide, and inter- 
 state plans applicable to areas within the coastal zone existing on 
 January 1 of the year in which the state's management program 
 is submitted to the Secretary, which plans have been developed 
 by a local government, an areawide agency designated pursuant to 
 regulations established under section 204 of the Demonstration 
 
 43 
 
Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, a regional 
 agency, or an interstate agency ; and 
 
 (B) established an effective mechanism for continuing con- 
 sultation and coordination between the management agency desig- 
 nated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection and with local 
 governments, interstate agencies, regional agencies, and areawide 
 agencies within the coastal zone to assure the full participation 
 of such local governments and agencies in carrying out the pur- 
 poses of this title. 
 
 (3) The slate has held public hearings in the development of the 
 management program. 
 
 (4) The management program and any changes thereto have been 
 reviewed and approved by the Governor. 
 
 (5) The Governor of the state has designated a single agency to 
 receive and administer the grants for implementing the management 
 program required under paragraph (1) of this subsection. 
 
 (6) The state is organized to implement the management program 
 required under paragraph (1) of this subsection. 
 
 (7) The state has the authorities necessary to implement the pro- 
 gram, including the authority required under subsection (d) of this 
 section. 
 
 (8) The management program provides for adequate consideration 
 of the national interest involved m the siting of facilities necessary 
 to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. 
 
 (9) The management program makes provision for procedures 
 whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserv- 
 ing or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, 
 or esthetic values. 
 
 (d) Prior to granting approval of the management program, the 
 Secretary shall find that the state, acting through its chosen agency ov 
 agencies, including local governments, areawide agencies designated 
 under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
 Development Act of 1966, regional agencies, or interstate agencies, has 
 authority for the management of the coastal zone in accordance with 
 the management program. Such authority shall include power — 
 
 (1) to administer land and water use regulations, control devel- 
 opment in order to ensure compliance with the management pro- 
 gram, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses; and 
 
 (2) to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in 
 lands, waters, and other property through condemnation or other 
 means when necessary to achieve conformance with the manage- 
 ment program. 
 
 (e) Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall also find that 
 the program provides: 
 
 (1) for any one or a combination of the following general tech- 
 niques for control of land and water uses within the coastal zone; 
 
 (A) State establishment of criteria and standards for local 
 implementation, subject to administrative review and enforce- 
 ment of compliance ; 
 
 (B) Direct state land and water use planning and regula- 
 tion : or 
 
 (C) State administrative review for consistency with the 
 management program of all development plans, projects, or 
 land and water use regulations, including exceptions and 
 variances thereto, proposed by any state or local authority or 
 private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after 
 public notice and an opportunity for hearings. 
 
 44 
 
80 Stat. 1262; 
 82 Stat. 208. 
 42 USC 33 34. 
 
 Program 
 modification. 
 
 Segmental 
 development. 
 
 (2) for a method of assuring that local land and water use 
 regulations within the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict 
 or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit. 
 
 (f) With the approval of the Secretary, a state may allocate, to a 
 local government, an areawide agency designated under section 204 
 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 
 1 DM), a regional agency, or an interstate agency, a portion of the grant 
 under this section for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this 
 section: Prodded* That such allocation shall not relieve the state of 
 the responsibility for ensuring that any funds so allocated are applied 
 in furtherance of such state's approved management program. 
 
 (g) The state shall be authorized to amend the management pro- 
 gram. The modification shall be in accordance with the procedures 
 required under subsection (c) of this section. Any amendment or 
 modification of the program must be approved by the Secretary before 
 additional administrative grants are made to the state under the pro- 
 gram as amended. 
 
 (h) At the discretion of the state and with the approval of the 
 Secretary, a management program may be developed and adopted in 
 segments so that immediate attention may be devoted to those areas 
 within the coastal zone which most urgently need management pro- 
 grams: Provided. That the state adequately provides for the ultimate 
 coordination of the various segments of the management program into 
 a single unified program and that the unified program will be com- 
 pleted as soon as is reasonably practicable. 
 
 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 
 
 Sec. 307. (a) In carrying out his functions and responsibilities 
 under this title, the Secretary shall consult with, cooperate with, and, 
 to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate his activities with 
 other interested Federal agencies. 
 
 (b) The Secretary shall not approve the management program sub- 
 mitted by a state pursuant to section 306 unless the views of Federal 
 agencies principally affected by such program have been adequately 
 considered. In case of serious disagreement between any Federal 
 agency and the state in the development of the program the Secre- 
 tary, in cooperation with the Kxecutive Office of the President, shall 
 seek to mediate the differences. 
 
 (c)(1) Each Federal agency conducting or supporting activities 
 directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those 
 activities in a manner which is. to the maximum extent practicable, 
 consistent with approved state management programs. 
 
 (2) Any Federal agency which shall undertake any development 
 project in the coastal zone of a state shall insure that the project is, 
 to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state 
 management programs. 
 Certification. (3) After final approval by the Secretary of a state's management 
 program, any applicant for a required Federal license or permit to 
 conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone of 
 that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permit- 
 ting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with 
 the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted 
 in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the appli- 
 cant shall furnish to the state or its designated agency a copy of 
 the certification, with all necessary information and data. Each coastal 
 state shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all such 
 
 45 
 
certifications and, to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for 
 public hearings in connection therewith. At the earliest practicable Notification. 
 time, the state or its designated agency shall notify the P'ederal agency 
 concerned that the state concurs with or objects to the applicant's 
 certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to furnish the 
 required notification within six months after receipt of its copy of the 
 applicant's certification, the state's concurrence with the certification 
 shall be conclusively presumed. No license or permit shall be granted 
 by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has con- 
 curred with the applicant's certification or until, by the state's failure 
 to act, the concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secretary, 
 on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after pro- 
 viding a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Fed- 
 eral agency involved and from the state, that the activity is consistent 
 with the objectives of this title or is otherwise necessary in the interest 
 of national security. 
 
 (d) State and local governments submitting applications for Fed- 
 eral assistance under other Federal programs affecting the coastal zone 
 shall indicate the views of the appropriate state or local agency as to 
 the relationship of such activities to the approved management pro- 
 gram for the coastal zone. Such applications shall be submitted and 
 coordinated in accordance with the provisions of title IV of the Inter- 
 governmental Coordination Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098). Federal agen- 42 use 4231. 
 cies shall not approve proposed projects that are inconsistent with a 
 
 coastal state's management program, except upon a finding by the 
 Secretary that such project is consistent with the purposes of this title 
 or necessary in the interest of national security. 
 
 (e) Nothing in this title shall be construed — 
 
 (1) to diminish either Federal or state jurisdiction, responsi- 
 bility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control 
 of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters; nor to 
 displace, supersede, limit, or modify any interstate compact or the 
 jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established joint or 
 common agency of two or more states or of two or more states and 
 the Federal Government; nor to limit the authority of Congress 
 to authorize and fund projects; 
 
 (2) as superseding, modifying, or repealing existing laws appli- 
 cable to the various Federal agencies ; nor to affect the jurisdiction, 
 powers, or prerogatives of the International Joint Commission, 
 United States and Canada, the Permanent Engineering Board, 
 and the United States operating entity or entities established pur- 
 suant to the Columbia River Basin Treaty, signed at Washington, 
 January 17. 1961, or the International Boundary and Water Com- 
 mission, United States and Mexico. 
 
 (f ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, nothing in this 
 title shall in any way affect any requirement (1) established by the 
 
 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, or the Clean Air Ante, p. 816. 
 Act, as amended, or (2) established by the Federal Government or by 81 Stat. 485; 
 any state or local government pursuant to such Acts. Such require- 84 Stat. 1676. 
 ments shall be incorporated in any program developed pursuant to 42 usc 1857 
 this title and shall be the water pollution control and air pollution note * 
 control requirements applicable to such program. 
 
 (g) When any state's coastal zone management program, submitted 
 for approval or proposed for modification pursuant to section 306 of 
 this title, includes requirements as to shorelands which also would be 
 subject to any Federally supported national land use program which 
 may be hereafter enacted, the Secretary, prior to approving such pro- 
 
 46 
 
gram, shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, or 
 such other Federal official as may be designated to administer the 
 national land use program, with respect to that portion of the coastal 
 zone management program affecting such inland areas. 
 
 Financial 
 
 assistance, 
 
 termination. 
 
 Costal Zone 
 
 Management 
 
 Advisory 
 
 C ommi tt e e » 
 
 establishment} 
 
 membership. 
 
 Compensation, 
 travel ex- 
 penses. 
 
 PUBLIC HEARINGS 
 
 Sec. 308. All public hearings required under this title must be 
 announced at least thirty days prior to the hearing date. At the time 
 of the announcement, all agency materials pertinent to the hearings, 
 including documents, studies, and other data, must be made available 
 to the public for review and study. As similar materials are subse- 
 quently developed, they shall be made available to the public as they 
 become available to the agency. 
 
 REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE 
 
 Sec. ;>09. (a) The Secretary shall conduct a continuing review of 
 the management programs of the coastal states and of the performance 
 of each state. 
 
 (b) The Secretary shall have the authority to terminate any financial 
 assistance extended under section HOfi and to withdraw any unexpended 
 portion of such assistance if (1) he determines that the state is failing 
 1o adhere to and is not justified in deviating from the program 
 approved by the Secretary; and (2) the state has been given notice 
 of the proposed termination and withdrawal and given an opportunity 
 to present evidence of adherence or justification for altering its 
 program. 
 
 RECORDS 
 
 Sec. 310. (a) Each recipient of a grant under this title shall keep 
 such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records which 
 fully disclose the amount and disposition of the funds received under 
 the grant, the total cost of the project or undertaking supplied by 
 other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective 
 audit. 
 
 (b) The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United 
 States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have 
 access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, docu- 
 ments, papers, and records of the recipient of the grant that are perti- 
 nent to the determination that funds granted are used in accordance 
 with this title. 
 
 ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
 
 Sec. .'ill. (a) The Secretary is authorized and directed to establish 
 a Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee to advise, consult 
 with, and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters of policy 
 concerning the coastal zone. Such committee shall be composed of not 
 more than fifteen persons designated by the Secretary and shall per- 
 form such functions and operate in such a manner as the Secretary 
 may direct. The Secretary shall insure that the committee member- 
 ship as a group possesses a broad range of experience and knowledge 
 relating to problems involving management, use, conservation, pro- 
 tection, and development of coastal zone resources. 
 
 (b) Members of the committee who are not regular full-time 
 employees of the United States, while serving on the business of the 
 committee, including traveltime, may receive compensation at rates 
 not exceeding $100 per diem; and while so serving away from their 
 
 47 
 
homes or regular places of business may be allowed travel expenses, 
 
 including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 
 
 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for individuals in the Govern- 80 Stat. 499; 
 
 ment service employed intermittently. 83 Stat. 190. 
 
 ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES 
 
 Sec. 312. The Secretary, in accordance with rules and regulations 
 promulgated by him, is authorized to make available to a coastal state 
 grants of up to 50 per centum of the costs of acquisition, development, 
 and operation of estuarine sanctuaries for the purpose of creating 
 natural field laboratories to gather data and make studies of the 
 natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the 
 coastal zone. The Federal share of the cost for each such sanctuary 
 shall not exceed $2,000,000. No Federal funds received pursuant to 
 section 305 or section 306 shall be used for the purpose of this section. 
 
 Federal share. 
 
 ANNUAL REPORT 
 
 Sec. 313. (a) The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Presi- 
 dent for transmittal to the Congress not later than November 1 of each 
 year a report on the administration of this title for the preceding fiscal 
 year. The report shall include but not be restricted to (1) an identifi- 
 cation of the state programs approved pursuant to this title during 
 the preceding Federal fiscal year and a description of those programs; 
 (2) a listing of the states participating in the provisions of this title 
 and a description of the status of each state's programs and its accom- 
 plishments during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (3) an itemiza- 
 tion of the allocation of funds to the various coastal states and a 
 breakdown of the major projects and areas on which these funds w T ere 
 expended ; (4) an identification of any state programs which have been 
 reviewed and disapproved or with respect to which grants have been 
 terminated under this title, and a statement of the reasons for such 
 action; (5) a listing of all activities and projects which, pursuant to 
 the provisions of subsection (c) or subsection (d) of section 307, are 
 not consistent with an applicable approved state management pro- 
 gram ; (6) a summary of the regulations issued by the Secretary or in 
 effect during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (7) a summary of a 
 coordinated national strategy and program for the Nation s coastal 
 zone including identification and discussion of 'Federal, regional, state, 
 and local responsibilities and functions therein; (8) a summary of 
 outstanding problems arising in the administration of this title in 
 order of priority; and (9) such other information as may be appro- 
 priate. 
 
 (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall contain such recom- 
 mendations for additional legislation as the Secretary deems necessary 
 to achieve the objectives of this title and enhance its effective operation. 
 
 RULES AND REGULATIONS 
 
 Sec. 314. The Secretary shall develop and promulgate, pursuant 
 to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, after notice and oppor- 
 tunity for full participation by relevant Federal agencies, state 
 agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities, 
 and other interested parties, both public and private, such rules and 
 regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
 title. 
 
 Stat. 383. 
 
 48 
 
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 
 
 Sec. 315. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated — 
 
 (1) the sum of $9,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
 1973, and for each of the fiscal years 1974 through 1977 for grants 
 under section 305, to remain available until expended ; 
 
 (2) such sums, not to exceed $30,000,000, for the fiscal year 
 ending June 30, 1974, and for each of the fiscal years 1975 through 
 1977, as may be necessary, for grants under section 306 to remain 
 available until expended ; and 
 
 (3) such sums, not to exceed $6,000,000 for the fiscal year end- 
 ing June 30, 1974, as may be necessary, for grants under section 
 312, to remain available until expended. 
 
 (b) There are also authorized to oe appropriated such sums, not to 
 exceed $3,000,000, for fiscal year 1973 and for each of the four succeed- 
 ing fiscal years, as may be necessary for administrative expenses 
 incident to the administration of this title. 
 
 Approved October 27, 1972. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ; 
 
 HOUSE REPORTS: No. 92-1049 accompanying H.R. 14146 (Comm. on Merchant 
 Marine and Fisheries) and No. 92-1544 (Comm. of 
 Conference) . 
 SENATE REPORT No. 92-753 (Comm, on Commerce). 
 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 118 (1972): 
 
 Apr. 25, oonsidered and passed Senate. 
 
 Aug. 2, oonsidered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 14146. 
 
 Oct. 12, House and Senate agreed to conference report. 
 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 8, No. 44: 
 
 Oot. 28, Presidential statement. 
 
 O 
 
 49 
 
Public Law 94-370 
 
 94th Congress, S. 586 
 
 July 26, 1976 
 
 Sin Slct 
 
 To improve coastal zone management in the United States, and for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and. House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may 
 be cited as the ''Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976". 
 
 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
 
 Section 302 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
 1451) is amended — 
 
 ( 1 ) by inserting "ecological," immediately after "recreational," 
 in subsection (b) ; 
 
 (2) by striking out — 
 
 (A) the semicolon at the end of subsections (a), (b), (c), 
 (d), (e),and (f), respectively, and 
 
 (B) "; and" at the end of subsection (g), 
 
 and inserting in lieu of such matter at each such place a period; 
 and 
 
 (3) by inserting immediately after subsection (h) the follow- 
 
 in g : 
 "(i) The national objective of attaining a greater degree of energy 
 
 self-sufficiency would be advanced by providing Fecferal financial 
 
 assistance to meet state and local needs resulting from new or expanded 
 
 energy activity in or affecting the coastal zone.". 
 
 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 
 
 Section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
 1453) is amended — 
 
 (1) by redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph (1), and 
 by amending the first sentence of such paragraph (1) (as so 
 redesignated) — 
 
 (A) by striking out "'Coastal" and inserting in lieu 
 thereof "The term 'coastal"; and 
 
 (B) by inserting immediately after "and includes" the 
 following : "islands," ; 
 
 (2) by redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (2), and 
 by amending such paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) — 
 
 (A) by striking out "'Coastal" and inserting in lieu 
 thereof "The term 'coastal"; and 
 
 (B) by striking out "(1)" and "(2)" and inserting in lieu 
 thereof "(A)" and "(B)", respectively; 
 
 (3) by striking out "(c) 'Coastal" and inserting in lieu thereof 
 "(3) The term 'coastal"; 
 
 (4) by inserting immediately before paragraph (d) thereof 
 the following : 
 
 "(4) The term 'coastal energy activity' means any of the following 
 activities if, and to the extent that (A) the conduct, support, or facili- 
 tation of such activity requires and involves the siting, construction, 
 expansion, or operation of any equipment or facility; and (B) any 
 technical requirement exists which, in the determination of the 
 Secretary, necessitates that the siting, construction, expansion, or 
 
 Coastal Zone 
 
 Management Act 
 
 Amendments of 
 
 1976. 
 
 16 USC 1451 
 
 note. 
 
 50 
 
operation of such equipment or facility be carried out in, or in close 
 proximity to, the coastal zone of any coastal state ; 
 
 "(1) Any outer Continental Shelf energy activity, 
 "(ii) Any transportation, conversion, treatment, transfer, or 
 storage of liquefied natural gas. 
 
 "(hi) Any transportation, transfer, or storage of oil, natural 
 gas, or coal (including, but not limited to, by means of any deep- 
 water port, as defined in section 3(10) of the Deepwater Port Act 
 of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1502(10))). 
 For purposes of this paragraph, the siting, construction, expansion, 
 or operation of any equipment or facility shall be 'in close proximity 
 to.' the coastal zone of any coastal state if such siting, construction, 
 expansion, or operation has, or is likely to have, a significant effect on 
 such coastal zone. 
 
 "(5) The term 'energy facilities' means any equipment or facility 
 which is or will be used primarily — 
 
 "(A) in the exploration for, or the development, production, 
 conversion, storage, transfer, processing, or transportation of, any 
 energy resource ; or 
 
 "(B) for the manufacture, production, or assembly of equip- 
 ment, machinery, products, or devices which are involved in any 
 activity described in subparagraph (AJ. 
 The term includes, but is not limited to (i) electric generating plants; 
 (ii) petroleum refineries and associated facilities; (iii) gasification 
 plants; (iv) facilities used for the transportation, conversion, treat- 
 ment, transfer, or storage of liquefied natural gas; (v) uranium 
 enrichment or nuclear fuel processing facilities; (vi) oil and gas 
 facilities, including platforms, assembly plants, storage depots, tank 
 farms, crew and supply bases, and refining complexes; (vii) facilities 
 including deepwater ports, for the transfer of petroleum ; ( viii) pipe- 
 lines and transmission facilities; and (ix) terminals which are asso- 
 ciated with any of the foregoing." ; 
 
 (5) by striking out "(d) 'Estuary' " and inserting in lieu thereof 
 "(6) The term 'estuary' "; 
 
 (6) by redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (7) and by 
 amending such paragraph (7) (as so redesignated) — 
 
 (A) by striking out " 'Estuarine" and inserting in lieu 
 thereof "The term 'estuarine", and 
 
 (B) by striking out "estuary, adjoining transitional areas, 
 and adjacent uplands, constituting" and inserting in lieu 
 thereof the following: "estuary and any island, transitional 
 area, and upland in, adjoining, or adjacent to such estuary, 
 and which constitutes" ; 
 
 (7) by striking out paragraph (f ) and inserting in lieu thereof 
 the following : 
 
 "(8) The term 'Fund' means the Coastal Energy Impact Fund 
 Post , p. 1019. established by section 308(h). 
 
 "(9) The term 'land use' means activities which are conducted in, 
 or on the shorelands within, the coastal zone, subject to the require- 
 Post, p. 1018. ments outlined in section 307(g). 
 
 "(10) The term 'local government' means any political subdivision 
 of, or any special entity created by, any coastal state which (in whole 
 or part) is located in, or has authority over, such state's coastal zone 
 and which (A) has authority to levy taxes, or to establish and collect 
 user fees, or (B) provides any public facility or public service which 
 is financed in whole or part by taxes or user fees. The term includes, 
 but is not limited to, any school district, fire district, transportation 
 authority, and any other special purpose district or authority." ; 
 
 51 
 
(8) bv striking out "(g) 'Management" and inserting in lieu 
 i hereof " ( 11 ) The term 'management" ; 
 
 (9) by inserting immediately after paragraph (11) (as redesig- 
 nated by paragraph (8) of this section) the following: 
 
 "(12) The term 'outer Continental Shelf energy activity' means 
 any exploration for, or any development or production of, oil or natu- 
 ral gas from the outer Continental Shelf (as defined in section 2(a) 
 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 (a) ) ) , or the 
 siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any new or expanded 
 energy facilities directly required by such exploration, development, 
 or production. 
 
 "(13) The term 'person' means any individual; any corporation, 
 partnership, association, or other entity organized or existing under 
 the laws of any state; the Federal Government; any state, regional, 
 or local government ; or any entity of any such Federal, state, regional, 
 or local government. 
 
 "(14) The term 'public facilities and public services' means facili- 
 ties or services which are financed, in whole or in part, by any state or 
 political subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to, highways 
 and secondary roads, parking, mass transit, docks, navigation aids, 
 fire and police protection, water supply, waste collection and treat- 
 ment (including drainage), schools and education, and hospitals and 
 health care. Such term may also include any other facility or 
 service so financed which the Secretary finds will support increased 
 population. 
 
 "(15) The term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of Commerce."; 
 
 (10) by striking out "(h) 'Water" and inserting in lieu thereof 
 "(16) The term 'water"; and 
 
 (11) by striking out paragraph (i). 
 
 SEC. 4. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 
 GRANTS. 
 Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
 1454) is amended to read as follows : 
 
 "management program development grants 
 
 "Sec. 305. (a) The Secretary may make grants to any coastal state — 
 
 " (1 ) under subsection (c) for the purpose of assisting such state 
 in the development of a management program for the land and 
 water resources of its coastal zone ; and 
 
 "(2) under subsection "(d) for the purpose of assisting such 
 state in the completion of the development, and the initial imple- 
 mentation, of its management program before such state qualifies 
 for administrative grants under section 306. Post > P- 1017. 
 
 "(b) The management program for each coastal state shall include Requirements, 
 each of the following requirements: 
 
 "(1) An identification of the boundaries of [he coastai zone 
 subject to the management program. 
 
 "(2) A definition of what shall constitute permissible land uses 
 and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and 
 significant impact on the coastal waters. 
 
 "(3) An inventory and designation of areas of particular con- 
 cern within the coastal zone. 
 
 "(4) An identification of the means by which the state proposes 
 to exert control over the land uses and water uses referred to in 
 
 52 
 
paragraph (2), including a listing of relevant constitutional pro- 
 visions, laws, regulations, and judicial decisions. 
 
 "(5) Broad guidelines on priorities of uses in particular areas, 
 including specifically those uses of lowest priority. 
 
 "(6) A description of the organizational structure proposed to 
 implement such management program, including the responsi- 
 bilities and interrelationships of local, areawide, state, regional, 
 and interstate agencies in the management process. 
 
 "(7) A definition of the term 'beach' and a planning process 
 for the protection of, and access to, public beaches and other public 
 coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic, 
 ecological, or cultural value. 
 
 "(8) 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 for anticipating and managing the 
 impacts from such facilities. 
 
 "(9) A planning process for (A) assessing the effects of shore- 
 line erosion (however caused), and (B) studying and evaluating 
 ways to control, or lessen the impact of, such erosion, and to 
 restore areas adversely affected by such erosion. 
 No management program is required to meet the requirements in para- 
 graphs (7) , (8) , and (9) before October 1, 1978. 
 
 "(c) The Secretary may make a grant annually to any coastal state 
 for the purposes described in subsection (a) (1) if such state reason- 
 ably demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such grant 
 will be used to develop a management program consistent with the 
 Post , p. 1017. requirements set forth in section 306. The amount of any such grant 
 shall not exceed 80 per centum of such state's costs for such purposes 
 in any one year. No coastal state is eligible to receive more than four 
 grants pursuant to this subsection. After the initial grant is made to 
 any coastal state pursuant to this subsection, no subsequent grant shall 
 be made to such state pursuant to this subsection unless the Secretary 
 finds that such state is satisfactorily developing its management 
 program. 
 
 "(d) (1) The Secretary may make a grant annually to any coastal 
 state for the purposes described in subsection (a) (2) if the Secretary 
 finds that such state meets the eligibility requirements set forth in 
 paragraph (2). The amount of any such grant shall not exceed 80 per 
 centum of the costs for such purposes in any one year. 
 Eligibility. "(2) A coastal state is eligible to receive grants imder this subsec- 
 
 tion if it has — 
 
 "(A) developed a management program which — 
 
 "(i) is in compliance with the rules and regulations pro- 
 mulgated to carry out subsection (b) , but 
 
 "(ii) has not yet been approved by the Secretary under 
 section 306; 
 "(B) specifically identified, after consultation with the Secre- 
 tary, any deficiency in such program which makes it ineligible 
 for approval by the Secretary pursuant to section 306, and has 
 established a reasonable time schedule during which it can remedy 
 any such deficiency ; 
 
 "(C) specified the purposes for which any such grant will be 
 used ; 
 
 "(D) taken or is taking adequate steps to meet any require- 
 Post, p. 1018. ment under section 306 or 307 which involves any Federal official 
 or agency ; and 
 
 53 
 
'•(E) complied with any other requirement which the Secretary, 
 by rules and regulations, prescribes as being necessary and appro- 
 priate to carry out the purposes of this subsection. 
 "(3) No management program for which grants are made under 
 this subsection shall be considered an approved program for purposes 
 of section 307. Post, p. 1018. 
 
 a (e) Grants under this section shall be made to, and allocated among, Rules and 
 the coastal states pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by regulations, 
 (ho Secretary; except that — ■ 
 
 u (l) no grant shall be made under this section in an amount 
 which is more than 10 per centum of the total amount appropri- 
 ated to carry out the purposes of this section, but the Secretary 
 may waive this limitation in the case of any coastal state which is 
 eligible for grants under subsection (d) ; and 
 
 "(2) no grant shall be made under this section in an amount 
 
 which is less than 1 per centum of the total amount appropriated 
 
 to carry out the purposes of this section, but the Secretary shall 
 
 waive this limitation in the case of any coastal state which requests 
 
 such a waiver. 
 
 "(f) The amount of any grant (or portion thereof) made under this 
 
 section which is not obligated by the coastal state concerned during the 
 
 fiscal year for which it was first authorized to be Obligated by such 
 
 state, or during the fiscal year immediately following, Shall revert to 
 
 the Secretary who shall add such amount to the funds available for 
 
 grants under this section. 
 
 "(g) With the approval of the Secretary, any coastal state may allo- 
 cate to any local government, to any areawide agency designated under 
 section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development 
 Act of 1966, to any regional agency, or to any interstate agency, a 
 portion of any grant received by it under this section for the pur- 
 pose of carrying out the provisions of this section. 
 
 "(h) Any coastal state which has completed the development of its 
 management program shall submit such program to the Secretary for 
 review and approval pursuant to section 306. Whenever the Secretary Infra, 
 approves the management program of any coastal state under section 
 306. such state thereafter — 
 
 4 '(1) shall not be eligible for grants under this section; except 
 that such state may receive grants under subsection (c) in order to 
 comply with the requirements of paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) of 
 subsection (b) ; and 
 
 "(2) shall be eligible for grants under section 306. 
 "(i) The authority to make grants under this section shall expire on 
 September 30, 1979/'. 
 
 SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS. 
 
 Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
 1455) is amended — 
 
 (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows: 
 
 "(a) The Secretary may make a grant annually to any coastal state 
 for not more than 80 per centum of the costs of administering such 
 state's management program if the Secretary (1) finds that such pro- 
 gram meets the requirements of section 305(b), and (2) approves such Ante , p. 1015. 
 program in accordance with subsections (c), (d), and (e)."; 
 
 (2) by amending subsection (c)(2)(B) by striking out the 
 period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof the follow- 
 ing : " ; except that the Secretary shall not find any mechanism to 
 be 'effective' for purposes of this subparagraph unless it includes 
 each of the following requirements: 
 
 54 
 
 Expiration 
 date. 
 
Notice. "(i) Such management agency is required, before imple- 
 
 menting any management program decision which would 
 conflict with any local zoning ordinance, decision, or other 
 action, to send a notice of such management program decision 
 to any local government whose zoning authority is affected 
 thereby. 
 
 "(ii) Any such notice shall provide that such local govern- 
 ment may, within the 30-day period commencing on the date 
 of receipt of such notice, submit to the management agency 
 written comments on such management program decision, and 
 any recommendation for alternatives thereto, if no action is 
 taken during such period which would conflict or interfere 
 with such management program decision, unless such local 
 government waives its right to comment. 
 
 "(iii) Such management agency, if am such comments are 
 submitted to it, with such 30 day period, by any local 
 government — 
 
 "(I) is required to consider any such comments, 
 "(II) is authorized, in its discretion, to hold a public 
 hearing on such comments, and 
 
 k '(III) may not take any action within such 30-day 
 period to implement the management program decision, 
 whether or not modified on the basis of sueh comments."; 
 
 (3) by amending subsection (c) (8)tO read as follows — 
 
 "(8) The management program provides for adequate consid- 
 eration of the national interest involved in planning for, and in 
 the siting of, facilities (including energy facilities in, or which 
 significantly affect, such state's coastal zone) which are necessary 
 to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. In the 
 case of such energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the 
 state has given such consideration to any applicable interstate 
 energy plan or program."; 
 
 (4) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows: 
 
 "(g) Any coastal state may amend or modify the management pro- 
 gram which it has submitted and which has been approved by the Sec- 
 retary under this section, pursuant to the required procedures described 
 in subsection (c). Except with respect to any such amendment which 
 is made before October 1, 1978, for the purpose of complying with the 
 Ante, p. 1015. requirements of paragraphs (?), (8). and (9) of section 305(b), no 
 grant shall be made under this section to any coastal state after the 
 date of such an amendment or modification, until the Secretary 
 approves such amendment or modification.". 
 SEC. 6. CONSISTENCY AND MEDIATION. 
 
 Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 197'2 (10 U.S.C. 
 1456) is amended — 
 
 (1) by striking out "interagency" in the title of such section; 
 
 (2) by striking out the last sentence of subsection (b) ; 
 
 (3) by amending subsection (c) (3) by inserting "(A) "immedi- 
 ately after "(3)", and by adding at the end thereof the following: 
 
 "(B) After the management program of any coastal state has been 
 Ante, p. 1017. approved by the Secretary under section 300, any person who submits 
 to the Secretary of the Interior any plan for the exploration or devel- 
 opment of, or production from, any area which has been leased under 
 the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) and 
 regulations under such Act shall, with respect to any exploration, 
 development, or production described in such plan and affecting any 
 land use or water use in the coastal zone of such state, attach to such 
 
plan a certification that each activity which is described in detail in 
 
 such plan complies with such state's approved management program 
 
 and will be carried out in a manner consistent with such program. No 
 
 Federal official or agency shall grant such person any license or permit 
 
 for any activity described in detail in such plan until such state or its 
 
 designated agency receives a copy of such certification and plan, 
 
 together with any other necessary data and information, and until — 
 
 "(i) such state or its designated agency, in accordance with 
 
 the procedures required to be established by such state pursuant 
 
 to subparagraph (A), concurs with "such person's certification and 
 
 notifies the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior of such 
 
 concurrence ; 
 
 "(ii) concurrence by such state with such certification is con- 
 clusively presumed, as provided for in subparagraph (A) ; or 
 "(iii) the Secretary finds, pursuant to subparagraph (A), that 
 each activity which is described in detail in such plan is consistent 
 with the objectives of this title or is otherwise necessary in the 
 interest of national security. 
 If a state concurs or is conclusively presumed to concur, or if the 
 Secretary makes such a finding, the provisions of subparagraph (A) 
 are not applicable with respect to such person, such state, and any 
 Federal license or permit which is required to conduct any activity 
 affecting land uses or water uses in the coastal zone of such state whicn 
 is described in detail in the plan to which such concurrence or find- 
 ing applies. If such state objects to such certification and if the 
 Secretary fails to make a finding under clause (iii) with respect to 
 such certification, or if such person fails substantially to comply with 
 such plan as submitted, such person shall submit an amendment to 
 such plan, or a new plan, to the Secretary of the Interior. With respect 
 to any amendment or new plan submitted to the Secretary of the 
 Interior pursuant to the preceding sentence, the applicable time period 
 for purposes of concurrence by conclusive presumption under subpara- 
 graph (A) is 3 months."; and 
 
 (4) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsec- 
 tion: 
 
 "(h) In case of serious disagreement between any Federal agency 
 and a coastal state — 
 
 "(1) in the development or the initial implementation of a 
 management program under section 305 ; or 
 
 (2) in the administration of a management program approved 
 under section 306 ; 
 the Secretary, with the cooperation of the Executive Office of the Presi- 
 dent, shall seek to mediate the differences involved in such disagree- 
 ment. The process of such mediation shall, with respect to any 
 disagreement described in paragraph (2), include public hearings 
 which shall be conducted in the local area concerned.". 
 
 SEC. 7. COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM. 
 
 The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is further amended by 
 redesignating sections 308 through 315 as sections 311 through 318, 
 respectively; and by inserting immediately after section 307 the 
 following : 
 
 "coastal energy impact program 
 
 "Sec. 308. (a)(1) The Secretary shall administer and coordinate, 
 as part of the coastal zone management activities of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment provided for under tnis title, a coastal energy impact 
 program. Such program shall consist of the provision of financial 
 
 56 
 
 Ante , p. 1015. 
 Ante , p. 1017. 
 
 16 USC 1457- 
 1464. 
 
 16 USC 1456a. 
 
Post , p. 1030. 
 Rules and regu- 
 lations. 
 16 USC 1463. 
 
 Calculations. 
 
 assistance to meet the needs of coastal states and local governments in 
 such states resulting from specified activities involving energy devel- 
 opment. Such assistance, which includes — 
 
 "(A) grants, under subsection (b), to coastal states for the 
 purposes set forth in subsection (b) (4) with respect to conse- 
 quences resulting from the energy activities specified therein; 
 
 "(B) grants, under subsection (c), to coastal states for study 
 of, and planning for, consequences relating to new or expanded 
 energy facilities in, or which significantly affect, the coastal zone ; 
 "(C) loans, under subsection (d) (1), to coastal states and units 
 of general purpose local government to assist such states and 
 units to provide new or improved public facilities or public serv- 
 ices which are required as a result of coastal energy activity; 
 
 "(D) guarantees, under subsection (d)(2) and sut>jeet to the 
 provisions of subsection (f), of bonds or other evidences of in- 
 debtedness issued by coastal states and units of general purpose 
 local government for the purpose of providing new or improved 
 public facilities or public services which are required as a result 
 of coastal energy activity; 
 
 "(E) grants or other assistance, under subsection (d)(3), to 
 coastal states and units of general purpose local government to 
 enable such states and units to meet obligations under loans or 
 guarantees under subsection (d) (1) or (2) which they are 
 unable to meet as they mature, for reasons specified in subsection 
 (d)(3); and 
 
 "(F) grants, under subsection (d) (4), to coastal states which 
 have suffered, are suffering, or will sutfer any unavoidable loss 
 of a valuable environmental or recreational resource ; 
 shall be provided, administered, and coordinated by the Secretary in 
 accordance with the provisions of this section and under the rules and 
 regulations required to be promulgated pursuant to paragraph (2). 
 Any such financial assistance shall be subject to audit under section 
 313. 
 
 "(2) The Secretary shall promulgate, in accordance with section 317, 
 such rules and regulations (including, but not limited to, those 
 required under subsection (e) ) as may be necessary and appropriate to 
 carry out the provisions of this section. 
 
 "(b) (1) The Secretary shall make grants annually to coastal states, 
 in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. 
 
 "(2) The amounts granted to coastal states under this subsection 
 shall be, with respect to any such state for any fiscal year, the sum of 
 the amounts calculated, with respect to such state, pursuant to subpara- 
 graphs (A), (B), (C),and (D): 
 
 "(A) An amount which bears, to one-third of the amount 
 appropriated for the purpose of funding grants under this subsec- 
 tion for such fiscal year, the same ratio that the amount of outer 
 Continental Shelf acreage which is adjacent to such state and 
 which is newly leased by the Federal Government in the immedi- 
 ately preceding fiscal year bears to the total amount of outer 
 Continental Shelf acreage which is newly leased by the Federal 
 Government in such preceding year. 
 
 "(B) An amount which bears, to one-sixth of the amount 
 appropriated for such purpose for such fiscal vear, the same ratio 
 that the volume of oil and natural gas produced in the immediately 
 preceding fiscal year from the outer Continental Shelf acreage 
 which is adjacent to such state and which is leased by the Federal 
 
 57 
 
Government bears to the total volume of oil and natural gas pro- 
 duced in such year from all of the outer Continental Shelf acre- 
 age which is leased by the Federal Government. 
 
 "(C) An amount which bears, to one-sixth of the amount 
 appropriated for such purpose for such fiscal year, the same ratio 
 that the volume of oil and natural gas produced from outer Con- 
 tinental Shelf acreage leased by the Federal Government which 
 is first landed in such state in the immediately preceding fiscal 
 year bears to the total volume of oil and natural gas produced 
 from all outer Continental Shelf acreage leased by the Federal 
 Government which is first landed in all of the coastal states in 
 such year. 
 
 "(D) An amount which bears, to one-third of the amount 
 appropriated for such purpose for such fiscal year, the same ratio 
 that the number of individuals residing in sucn state in the imme- 
 diately preceding fiscal year who obtain new employment in such 
 year as a result of new or expanded outer Continental Shelf energy 
 activities bears to the total number of individuals residing in all of 
 the coastal states in such year who obtain new employment in such 
 year as a result of such outer Continental Shelf energy activities. 
 "(3) (A) The Secretary shall determine annually the amounts of 
 the grants to be providea under this subsection and shall collect and 
 evaluate such information as may be necessary to make such deter- 
 minations. Each Federal department, agency, and instrumentality 
 shall provide to the Secretary such assistance in collecting and evaluat- 
 ing relevant information as the Secretary may request. The Secretary 
 shall request the assistance of any appropriate state agency in collect- 
 ing and evaluating such information. 
 
 "(B) For purposes of making calculations under paragraph (2), 
 outer Continental Shelf acreage is adjacent to a particular coastal 
 state if such acreage lies on that state's side of the extended lateral 
 seaward boundaries of such state. The extended lateral seaward 
 boundaries of a coastal state shall be determined as follows: 
 
 "(i) If lateral seaward boundaries have been clearly defined or 
 fixed by an interstate compact, agreement, or judicial decision (if 
 entered into, agreed to, or issued before the date of the enactment 
 of this paragraph) , such boundaries shall be extended on the basis 
 of the principles of delimitation used to so define or fix them in 
 such compact, agreement, or decision. 
 
 "(ii) If no lateral seaward boundaries, or any portion thereof, 
 have been clearly defined or fixed by an interstate compact, agree- 
 ment, or judicial decision, lateral seaward boundaries shall be 
 determined according to the applicable principles of law, includ- 
 ing the principles of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and 
 the Contiguous Zone, and extended on the basis of such principles, 
 "(iii) If, after the date of enactment of this paragraph, two or 
 more coastal states enter into or amend an interstate compact or 
 agreement in order to clearly define or fix lateral seaward bound- 
 aries, such boundaries shall thereafter be extended on the basis of 
 the principles of delimitation used to so define or fix them in such 
 compact or agreement. 
 "(C) For purposes of making calculations under this subsection, 
 the transitional quarter beginning July 1, 1976, and ending Septem- 
 ber 30, 1976, shall be included within the fiscal year ending June 30, 
 1976. J 
 
 58 
 
"(4) Each coastal state shall use the proceeds of grants received 
 by it under this subsection for the following purposes (except that 
 priority shall be given to the use of such proceeds for the purpose 
 set forth in subparagraph ( A) ) : 
 
 "(A) The retirement of state and local bonds, if any, which 
 are guaranteed under subsection (d)(2); except that, if the 
 amount of such grants is insufficient to retire both state and local 
 bonds, priority shall be given to retiring local bonds. 
 
 "(B) The study of, planning for, development of. and the 
 carrying out of projects and programs in such state which are — 
 "(i) necessary, because of the unavailability of adequate 
 financing under any other subsection, to provide new or 
 improved public facilities and public services which are 
 required as a direct result of new or expanded outer Conti- 
 nental Shelf energy activity; and 
 
 "(ii) of a type approved by the Secretary as eligible for 
 grants under this paragraph, except that the Secretary may 
 not disapprove any project or program for highways and 
 secondary roads, docks, navigation aids, fire and police pro- 
 tection, water supply, waste collection and treatment 
 (including drainage), schools and education, and hospitals 
 and health care. 
 "(0) The prevention, reduction, or amelioration of any 
 unavoidable loss in such state's coastal zone of any valuable 
 environmental or recreational resource if such loss results from 
 coastal energy activity. 
 "(5) The Secretary, in a timely manner, shall determine that each 
 coastal state has expended or committed, and may determine that such 
 state will expend or commit, grants which such state has received 
 under this subsection in accordance with the purposes set forth in 
 paragraph (4). The United States shall be entitled to recover from 
 any coastal state an amount equal to any portion of any such grant 
 received by such state under this subsection which — 
 
 "(A) is not expended or committed by such state before the 
 close of the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal year in 
 which the grant was disbursed, or 
 
 "(B) is expended or committed by such state for any purpose 
 other than a purpose set forth in paragraph (4). 
 Before disbursing the proceeds of any grant under this subsection to 
 any coastal state, the Secretary shail require such state to provide 
 adequate assurances of being able to return to the United States any 
 amounts to which the preceding sentence may apply. 
 
 "(c) The Secretary shall make grants to any coastal state if the Sec- 
 retary finds that the coastal zone of such state is being, or is likely to 
 be. significantly affected by the siting, construction, expansion, or oper- 
 ation of new or expanded energv facilities. Such grants shall be used 
 for the study of, and planning for (including, but not limited to, the 
 application of the planning process included in a management pro- 
 A-ite p. 1015. gram pursuant to section 305(b) (8) ) any economic, social, or environ- 
 mental consequence which has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to 
 occur in such state's coastal zone as a result of the siting, construction, 
 expansion, or operation of such new or expanded energy facilities. 
 The amount of any such grant shall not exceed 80 per centum of the 
 cost of such study and planning. 
 Loans. "(d) (1) The Secretary shall make loans to any coastal state and to 
 
 any unit of general purpose local government to assist such state or 
 unit to provide new or improved public facilities or public services, or 
 
both, which are required as a result of coastal energy activity. Such 
 loans shall be made solely pursuant to this title, and no such loan shall 
 require as a condition thereof that any such state or unit pledge its full 
 faith and credit to the repayment thereof. No loan shall be made under 
 this paragraph after September 30, 1986. 
 
 "(2) The Secretary shall, subject to the provisions of subsection 
 (f), guarantee, or enter into commitments to guarantee, the payment 
 of interest on, and the principal amount of, any bond or other evidence 
 of indebtedness if it is issued by a coastal state or a unit of general 
 purpose local government for the purpose of providing new or 
 improved public facilities or public services, or both, which are 
 required as a result of a coastal energy activity. 
 
 "(3) If the Secretary finds that any coastal state or unit of general 
 purpose local government is unable to meet its obligations pursuant to 
 a loan or guarantee made under paragraph (1) or (2) because the 
 actual increases in employment and related population resulting from 
 coastal energy activity and the facilities associated with such activity 
 do not provide adequate revenues to enable such state or unit to meet 
 such obligations in accordance with the appropriate repayment sched- 
 ule, the Secretary shall, after review of the information submitted by 
 such state or unit pursuant to subsection (e)(3), take any of the 
 following actions : 
 
 "(A) Modify appropriately the terms and conditions of such 
 loan or guarantee. 
 "(B) Refinance such loan. 
 
 "(C) Make a supplemental loan to such state or unit the pro- 
 ceeds of which shall be applied to the payment of principal and 
 interest due under such loan or guarantee. 
 
 "(D) Make a grant to such state or unit the proceeds of which 
 shall be applied to the payment of principal and interest due 
 under such loan or guarantee. 
 Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the Secretary — 
 
 "(i) has taken action under subparagraph (A), (B),or (C) 
 with respect to any loan or guarantee made under paragraph (1) 
 or (2), and 
 
 "(ii) finds that additional action^ under subparagraph (A), 
 
 (B), or (C) will not enable such state or unit to meet, within a 
 
 reasonable time, its obligations under such loan or guarantee and 
 
 any additional obligations related to such loan or guarantee; 
 
 the Secretary shall make a grant or grants under subparagraph (D) 
 
 to such state or unit in an amount sufficient to enable such state or 
 
 unit to meet such outstanding obligations. 
 
 "(4) The Secretary shall make grants to any coastal state to enable 
 such state to prevent, reduce, or ameliorate any unavoidable loss in 
 such state's coastal zone of any valuable environmental or recreational 
 resource, if such loss results from coastal energy activity, if the Secre- 
 tary finds that such state has not received amounts under subsection 
 (b) which are sufficient to prevent, reduce, or ameliorate such loss. 
 
 "(e) Rules and regulations with respect to the following matters 
 shall De promulgated by the Secretary as soon as practicable, but not 
 later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this section : 
 
 "(1) A formula and procedures for apportioning equitably, 
 among the coastal states, the amounts which are available for the 
 provision of financial assistance under subsection (d). Such for- 
 mula shall be based on, and limited to, the following factors: 
 
 "(A) The number of additional individuals who are 
 expected to become employed in new or expanded coastal 
 
 Rules and regu- 
 lations. 
 
 Financial assist- 
 ance, formula 
 and procedures. 
 
 60 
 
Criteria and pro- 
 cedures for repay- 
 ment. 
 
 Interest rate. 
 
 energy activity, and the related new population, who reside in 
 the respective coastal states. 
 
 "(B) The standardized unit costs (as determined by the 
 
 Secretary by rule), in the relevant regions of such states, for 
 
 new or improved public facilities and public services which 
 
 are required as a result of such expected employment and the 
 
 related new population. 
 
 "(2) Criteria under which the Secretary shall review each 
 
 coastal state's compliance with the requirements of subsection 
 
 (g)(2). 
 
 "(3) Criteria and procedures for evaluating the extent to which 
 any loan or guarantee under subsection (d) (1) or (2) which is 
 applied for by any coastal state or unit of general purpose local 
 government can be repaid through its ordinary methods and rates 
 for generating tax revenues. Such procedures shall require such 
 state or unit to submit to the Secretary such information which 
 is specified by the Secretary to be necessary for such evaluation, 
 including, but not limited to — 
 
 "(A) a statement as to the number of additional indi- 
 viduals who are expected to become employed in the new or 
 expanded coastal energy activity involved, and the related 
 new population, who reside in such state or unit; 
 
 "(B) a description, and the estimated costs, of the new or 
 improved public facilities or public services needed or likely 
 to be needed as a result of such expected employment and 
 related new population ; 
 
 "(C) a projection of such state's or unit's estimated tax 
 receipts during such reasonable time thereafter, not to exceed 
 30 years, which will be available for the repayment of such 
 loan or guarantee ; and 
 
 "(D) a proposed repayment schedule. 
 The procedures required by this paragraph shall also provide for 
 the periodic verification, review, and modification (if necessary) 
 by the Secretary of the information or other material required 
 to be submitted pursuant to this paragraph. 
 
 "(4) Requirements, terms, ana conditions (which may include 
 the posting of security) which shall be imposed by the Secretary, 
 in connection with loans and guarantees made under subsections 
 (d) (1) and (2), in order to assure repayment within the time 
 fixed, to assure that the proceeds thereof may not be used to pro- 
 vide public services for an unreasonable length of time, and other- 
 wise to protect the financial interests of the United States. 
 
 "(5) Criteria under which the Secretary shall establish rates 
 of interest on loans made under subsections (d) (1) and (3). Such 
 rates shall not exceed the current average market yield on out- 
 standing marketable obligations of the United States with 
 remaining periods to maturity comparable to the maturity of 
 such loans. 
 In developing rules and regulations under this subsection, the Secre- 
 tary shall, to the extent practicable, request the views of, or consult 
 with, appropriate persons regarding impacts resulting from coastal 
 energy activity. 
 
 "(f) (1) Bonds or other evidences of indebtedness guaranteed under 
 subsection (d) (2) shall be guaranteed on such terms and conditions 
 as the Secretary shall prescribe, except that — 
 
 "(A) no guarantee shall be made unless the indebtedness 
 involved will be completely amortized within a reasonable period, 
 not to exceed 30 years ; 
 
 61 
 
"(B) no guarantee shall be made unless the Secretary 
 determines that such bonds or other evidences of indebtedness 
 will— 
 
 "(i) be issued only to investors who meet the requirements 
 prescribed by the Secretary, or, if an offering to the public 
 is contemplated, be underwritten upon terms and conditions 
 approved by the Secretary ; 
 
 "(ii) bear interest at a rate found not to be excessive by 
 the Secretary ; and 
 
 "(Hi) contain, or be subject to, repayment, maturity, and 
 
 other provisions which are satisfactory to the Secretary; 
 
 "(C) the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury shall be 
 
 required with respect to any such guarantee, unless the Secretary 
 
 of the Treasury waives such approval; and 
 
 "(D) no guarantee shall be made after September 30, 1986. 
 "(2) The full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to 
 the payment, under paragraph (5), of any default on any indebted- 
 ness guaranteed under subsection (d)(2). Any such guarantee made 
 by the Secretary shall be conclusive evidence of the eligibility of the 
 obligation involved for such guarantee, and the validity of any such 
 guarantee so made shall be incontestable in the hands of a holder of 
 the guaranteed obligation, except for fraud or material misrepre- 
 sentation on the part of the holder, or known to the holder at the time 
 acouired. 
 
 "(3) The Secretary shall prescribe and collect fees in connection Fees, 
 with guarantees made under subsection (d)(2). These fees may not 
 exceed the amount which the Secretary estimates to be necessary to 
 cover the administrative costs pertaining to such guarantees. 
 
 "(4) The interest paid on any obligation which is guaranteed under 
 subsection (d) (2) and which is received by the purchaser thereof (or 
 the purchaser's successor in interest), shall be included in gross income 
 for the purpose of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 26 usc * «L 
 The Secretary may pay out of the Fund to the coastal state or the unit *££: 
 of general purpose local government issuing such obligations not more 
 than such portion of the interest on such obligations as exceeds the 
 amount of interest that would be due at a comparable rate determined 
 for loans made under subsection (d) (1). 
 
 "(5) (A) Payments required to be made as a result of any guaran- 
 tee made under subsection (d) (2) shall be made by the Secretary from 
 sums appropriated to the Fund or from moneys obtained from the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury pursuant to paragraph (6). 
 
 "(B) If there is a default by a coastal state or unit of general pur- 
 pose local government in any payment of principal or interest due 
 under a bond or other evidence of indebtedness guaranteed by the 
 Secretary under subsection (d) (2), any holder of such bond or other 
 evidence of indebtedness may demand payment by the Secretary of 
 the unpaid interest on and the unpaid principal of such obligation as 
 they become due. The Secretary, after investigating the facts presented 
 by the holder, shall pay to the holder the amount which is due such 
 holder, unless the Secretary finds that there was no default by such 
 state or unit or that such default has been remedied. 
 
 "(C) If the Secretary makes a payment to a holder under subpara- 
 graph ( B ) , the Secretary shall — 
 
 "(i) have all of the rights granted to the Secretary or the 
 United States by law or by agreement with the obligor ; and 
 
 "(ii) be subrogated to all of the rights which were granted such 
 holder, by law, assignment, or security agreement between such 
 holder and the obligor. 
 
 62 
 
Ante, 
 
 P- 
 
 1017. 
 
 Ante, 
 
 P. 
 
 1015. 
 
 16 USC 1433. 
 
 Such rights shall include, but not be limited to, a right of reimburse- 
 ment to the United States against the coastal state or unit of general 
 purpose local government for which the payment was made for the 
 amount of such payment plus interest at the prevailing current rate as 
 determined by the Secretary. If such coastal state, or the coastal state 
 in which such unit is located, is due to receive any amount under sub- 
 section (b), the Secretary shall, in lieu of paying such amount to 
 such state, deposit such amount in the Fund until such right of reim- 
 bursement has been satisfied. The Secretary may accept, in complete 
 or partial satisfaction of any such rights, a conveyance of property or 
 interests therein. Any property so obtained by the Secretary may be 
 completed, maintained, operated, held, rented, sold, or otherwise dealt 
 with or disposed of on such terms or conditions as the Secretary 
 prescribes or approves. If, in any case, the sum received through the 
 sale of such property is greater than the amount paid to the holder 
 under subparagraph (D) plus costs, the Secretary shall pay any such 
 excess to the obligor. 
 
 "(D) The Attorney General shall, upon the request of the Secretary, 
 take such action as may be appropriate to enforce any right accruing 
 to the Secretary or the United States as a result of the making of any 
 guarantee under subsection (d) (2). Any sums received through any 
 sale under subparagraph (C) or recovered pursuant to this subpara- 
 graph shall be paid into the Fund. 
 
 "(6) If the moneys available to the Secretary are not sufficient to 
 pay any amount which the Secretary is obligated to pay under para- 
 graph (5), the Secretary shall issue to the Secretary of the Treasury 
 notes or other obligations (only to such extent and in such amounts as 
 may be provided for in appropriation Acts) in such forms and denomi- 
 nations, bearing such maturities, and subject to such terms and con- 
 ditions as the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes. Such notes or 
 other obligations shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury on the basis of the current average market yield 
 on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States on com- 
 parable maturities during the month preceding the issuance of such 
 notes or other obligations. Any sums received by the Secretary through 
 such issuance shall be deposited in the Fund. The Secretary of the 
 Treasury shall purchase any notes or other obligations issued under 
 this paragraph, and for this purpose such Secretary may use as a 
 public debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities 
 issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as now or hereafter in 
 force. The purposes for which securities may be issued under that Act 
 are extended to include any purchase of notes or other obligations 
 issued under this paragraph. The Secretary of the Treasury may at 
 any time sell any of the notes or other obligations so acquired under 
 this paragraph. All redemptions, purchases, and sales of such notes 
 or other obligations by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be treated 
 as public debt transactions of the United States. 
 
 "(g) (1) No coastal state is eligible to receive any financial assist- 
 ance under this section unless such state — 
 
 "(A) has a management program which has been approved 
 under section 306; 
 
 "(B) is receiving a grant under section 305(c) or (d) ; or 
 "(C) is, in the judgment of the Secretary, making satisfactory 
 progress toward the development of a management program 
 which is consistent with the policies set forth in section 303. 
 
 63 
 
"(2) Each coastal state shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
 provide that financial assistance provided under this section be appor- 
 tioned, allocated, and granted to units of local government within such 
 state on a basis which is proportional to the extent to which such units 
 need such assistance. 
 
 "(h) There is established in the Treasury of the United States the 
 Coastal Energy Impact Fund. The Fund shall be available to the Sec- 
 retary without fiscal year limitation as a revolving fund for the 
 purposes of carrying out subsections (c) and (d). The Fund shall 
 consist of — 
 
 " ( 1 ) any sums appropriated to the Fund ; 
 
 "(2) payments of principal and interest received under any 
 loan made under subsection (d) (1) ; 
 
 "(3) any fees received in connection with any guarantee made 
 under subsection (d) (2) ; and 
 
 "(4) any recoveries and receipts under security, subrogation, 
 and other rights and authorities described in subsection (fj. 
 All payments made by the Secretary to carry out the provisions of 
 subsections (c), (d), and (f) (including reimbursements to other 
 Government accounts) shall oe paid from the Fund, only to the extent 
 provided for in appropriation Acts. Sums in the Fund which are not 
 currently needed for the purposes of subsections (c) , (d) , and (f ) shall 
 be kept on deposit or invested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the 
 United States. 
 
 "(i) The Secretary shall not intercede in any land use or water 
 use decision of any coastal state with respect to the siting of any energy 
 facility or public facility by making siting in a particular location a 
 prerequisite to, or a condition of, financial assistance under this section, 
 "(j ) The Secretary may evaluate, and report to the Congress, on the 
 efforts of the coastal states and units of local government therein to 
 reduce or ameliorate adverse consequences resulting from coastal 
 energy activity and on the extent to which such efforts involve adequate 
 consideration of alternative sites. 
 
 "(k) To the extent that Federal funds are available under, or pur- 
 suant to, any other law with respect to — 
 
 "(1) study and planning for which financial assistance may be 
 provided under subsection (b)(4) (B) and (c),or 
 
 "(2) public facilities and public services for which financial 
 assistance may be provided under subsection (b)(4)(B) and (d), 
 the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, administer such sub- 
 sections — 
 
 "(A) on the basis that the financial assistance shall be in addi- 
 tion to, and not in lieu of, any Federal funds which any coastal 
 state or unit of general purpose local government may obtain 
 under any other law ; and 
 "(B) to avoid duplication. 
 " ( 1 ) As used in this section — 
 
 "(1) The term 'retirement', when used with respect to bonds, 
 means the redemption in full and the withdrawal from circula- 
 tion of those which cannot be repaid by the issuing jurisdiction 
 in accordance with the appropriate repayment schedule. 
 
 "(2) The term 'unavoidable', when used with respect to a loss 
 of any valuable environmental or recreational resource, means a 
 loss, in whole or in part — 
 
 "(A) the costs of prevention, reduction, or amelioration of 
 which cannot be directly or indirectly attributed to, or 
 assessed against, any identifiable person; and 
 
 Coastal Energy 
 Impact Fund. 
 Establishment. 
 
 Definitions. 
 
 64 
 
16 USC 1456b. 
 
 Ante, p. 1015, 
 1017. 
 
 Agreements or 
 compacts. 
 
 "(B) cannot be paid for with funds which are available 
 
 under, or pursuant to, any provision of Federal law other 
 
 than this section. 
 
 " (3) The term 'unit of general purpose local government' means 
 
 any political subdivision of any coastal state or any special entity 
 
 created by such a state or subdivision which (in whole or part) 
 
 is located in, or has authority over, such state's coastal zone, and 
 
 which (A) has authority to levy taxes or establish and collect 
 
 user fees, and (B) provides any public facility or public service 
 
 which is financed in whole or part by taxes or user fees.". 
 
 SEC. 8. INTERSTATE GRANTS. 
 
 The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is further amended by 
 adding immediately after section 308 (as added by section 7 of this 
 Act) the following: 
 
 "interstate grants 
 
 "Sec. 309. (a) The coastal states are encouraged to give high 
 priority — 
 
 "(1) to coordinating state coastal zone planning, policies, and 
 
 programs with respect to contiguous areas of such states; and 
 "(2) to studying, planning, and implementing unified coastal 
 
 zone policies with respect to such areas. 
 Such coordination, study, planning, and implementation may be con- 
 ducted pursuant to interstate agreements or compacts. The Secretary 
 may make grants annually, in amounts not to exceed 90 per centum of 
 the cost of such coordination, study, planning, or implementation, if 
 the Secretary finds that the proceeds of such grants will be used for 
 purposes consistent with sections 305 and 306. 
 
 "(b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more 
 
 coastal states to negotiate, and to enter into, agreements or compacts, 
 
 which do not conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for — 
 
 "(1) developing and administering coordinated coastal zone 
 
 planning, policies, and programs pursuant to sections 305 and 
 
 306; and 
 
 "(2) establishing executive instrumentalities or agencies which 
 
 such states deem desirable for the effective implementation of such 
 
 agreements or compacts. 
 Such agreements or compacts shall be binding and obligatory upon 
 any state or party thereto without further approved by the Congress. 
 "(c) Each executive instrumentality or agency which is established 
 by an interstate agreement or compact pursuant to this section is 
 encouraged to adopt a Federal-State consultation procedure for the 
 identification, examination, and cooperative resolution of mutual prob- 
 lems with respect to the marine and coastal areas which affect, directly 
 or indirectly, the applicable coastal zone. The Secretary, the Secretary 
 of the Interior, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Qual- 
 ity, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
 Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, 
 and the Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, or their 
 designated representatives, shall participate ex officio on behalf of the 
 Federal Government whenever any such Federal-State consultation is 
 requested by such an instrumentality or agency. 
 
 "(d) If no applicable interstate agreement or compact exists, the 
 Secretary may coordinate coastal zone activities described in sub- 
 section (a) and may make grants to assist any group of two or more 
 coastal states to create and maintain a temporary planning and 
 coordinating entity to — 
 
 65 
 
"(1) coordinate state coastal zone planning, policies, and pro- 
 grams with respect to contiguous areas of the states involved ; 
 
 "(2) study, plan, and implement unified coastal zone policies 
 with respect to such areas; and 
 
 "(3) establish an effective mechanism, and adopt a Federal- 
 State consultation procedure, for the identification, examination, 
 and cooperative resolution of mutual problems with respect to 
 the marine and coastal areas which affect, directly or indirectly, 
 the applicable coastal zone. 
 The amount of such grants shall not exceed 90 per centum of the cost 
 of creating and maintaining such an entity. The Federal officials 
 specified in subsection (c), or their designated representatives, shall 
 participate on behalf of the Federal Government, upon the request of 
 any such temporary planning and coordinating entity.'". 
 
 SEC. 9. RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 
 
 The Coastal Management Act of 1972 is further amended by adding 
 immediately after section 309 (as added by section 8 of this Act) the 
 following: 
 
 Contracts or 
 other arrange- 
 ments. 
 
 ''research and technical assistance for coastal zone management 
 
 "Sec. 310. (a) The Secretary may conduct a program of research, J 6 USC 1456c 
 study, and training to support the development and implementation of 
 management programs. Each department, agency, and instrumentality 
 of the executive branch of the Federal Government may assist the 
 Secretary, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, in carrying out the 
 purposes of this section, including, but not limited to, the furnishing 
 of information to the extent permitted by law, the transfer of personnel 
 with their consent and without prejudice to their position and rating, 
 and the performance of any research, study, and training which does 
 not interfere with the performance of the primary duties of such 
 department, agency, or instrumentality. The Secretary may enter into 
 contracts or other arrangements with any qualified person for the pur- 
 poses of carrving out this subsection. 
 
 "(b) The Secretary may make grants to coastal states to assist such 
 states in carrying out research, studies, and training required with 
 respect to coastal zone management. The amount of any grant made 
 under this subsection shall not exceed 80 per centum of the cost of such 
 research, studies, and training. 
 
 "(c)(1) The Secretary shall provide for the coordination of 
 research, studies, and training activities under this section with any 
 other such activities that are conducted by, or subject to the authority 
 of, the Secretary. 
 
 "(2) The Secretary shall make the results of research conducted 
 pursuant to this section available to any interested person.". 
 
 SEC. 10. REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE. 
 
 Section 312(a) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as 
 redesignated by section 7 of this Act (16 U.S.C. 1458(a) ) is amended 
 to read as follows : 
 
 " (a) The Secretary shall conduct a continuing review of — 
 
 "(1) the management programs of the coastal states and the 
 performance of such states with respect to coastal zone manage- 
 ment ; and 
 
 "(2) the coastal energy impact program provided for under 
 section 308.". Ante, p. 1017. 
 
 66 
 
SEC. 11. AUDIT OF TRANSACTIONS. 
 
 Section 313 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as redesig- 
 nated by section 7 of this Act (16 U.S.C. 1459), is amended— 
 
 (1) by inserting "and audit" after "records" in the title of such 
 section ; 
 
 (2) by amending subsection (a) — 
 
 (A) by inserting immediately after "grant under this title" 
 the following: "or of financial assistance under section 308", 
 and 
 
 (B) by inserting after "received under the grant" the fol- 
 lowing : "and of the proceeds of such assistance" ; and 
 
 (3) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows: 
 
 "(b) The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United 
 States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall — 
 
 "(1) after any grant is made under this title or any financial 
 Ante , p. 1017. assistance is provided under section 308(d) ; and 
 
 "(2) until the expiration of 3 years after — 
 
 "(A) completion of the project, program, or other under- 
 taking for which such grant was made or used, or 
 
 "(B) repayment of the loan or guaranteed indebtedness 
 for which such financial assistance was provided, 
 have access for purposes of audit and examination to any record, book, 
 document, and paper which belongs to or is used or controlled by, any 
 recipient of the grant funds or any person who entered into any trans- 
 action relating to such financial assistance and which is pertinent for 
 purposes of determining if the grant funds or the proceeds of such 
 financial assistance are being, or were, used in accordance with the 
 provisions of this title.". 
 
 SEC. 12. ACQUISITION OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC BEACHES 
 AND OTHER PUBLIC COASTAL AREAS. 
 
 Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as redes- 
 ignated by section 7 of this Act (16 U.S.C. 1461), is amended to read 
 as follows: 
 
 "ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES AND BEAClt ACCESS 
 
 "Sec. 315. The Secretary may, in accordance with this section and 
 in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Secretary shall 
 promulgate, make grants to any coastal state for the purpose of — 
 
 "(1) acquiring, developing, or operating estuarine sanctuaries, 
 to serve as natural field laboratories in which to study and gather 
 data on the natural and human processes occurring within the 
 estuaries of the coastal zone; and 
 
 "(2) 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 pres- 
 ervation of islands. 
 The amount of any such grant shail not exceed 50 per centum of the 
 cost of the project involved; except that, in the case of acquisition of 
 any estuarine sanctuary, the Federal share of the cost thereof shall not 
 exceed $2,000,000.". 
 
 SEC. 13. ANNUAL REPORT. 
 
 The second sentence of section 316(a) of the Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment Act of 1972, as redesignated by section 7 of this Act (16 U.S.C. 
 1462(a) ), is amended by striking out "and (9)" and inserting in lieu 
 thereof "(12)"; and by inserting immediately after clause (8) the 
 following: "(9) a description or the economic, environmental, and 
 
 67 
 
social consequences of energy activity affecting the coastal zone and an 
 evaluation of the effectiveness of financial assistance under section 308 
 in dealing with such consequences; (10) a description and evaluation 
 of applicable interstate and regional planning and coordination 
 mechanisms developed by the coastal states; (11) a summary and 
 evaluation of the research, studies, and training conducted in support 
 of coastal zone management; and". 
 
 SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 
 
 Section 318 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as redesig- 
 nated by section 7 of this Act (16 U.S.C. 1464), is amended to read 
 as follows : 
 
 "authorization of appropriations 
 
 "Sec. 318. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
 Secretary — 
 
 "(1) such sums, not to exceed $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
 years ending September 30, 1977, September 30, 1978, and Septem- 
 ber 30, 1979, respectively, as may be necessary for grants under 
 section 305, to remain available until expended ; 
 
 "(2) such sums, not to exceed $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
 years ending September 30, 1977, September 30, 1978, Septem- 
 ber 30, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respectively, as may be 
 necessary for grants under section 306, to remain available until 
 expended ; 
 
 "(3) such sums, not to exceed $50,000,000 for each of the 8 
 fiscal years occurring during the period beginning October 1, 1976, 
 and ending September 30, 1984, as may be necessary for grants 
 under section 308(b); Ante , p. 1017. 
 
 "(4) such sums, not to exceed $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
 years ending September 30, 1977, September 30, 1978, Septem- 
 ber 30, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respectively, as may be neces- 
 sary for grants under section 309, to remain available until Ante , p. 1028. 
 expended ; 
 
 "(5) such sums, not to exceed $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
 years ending September 30, 1977, September 30, 1978, Septem- 
 ber 30, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respectively, as may be neces- 
 sary for financial assistance under section 310, of which 50 per 
 centum shall be for financial assistance under section 310(a) and 
 50 per centum shall be for financial assistance under section 
 310(b), to remain available until expended; 
 
 "(6) such sums, not to exceed $6,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
 years ending September 30, 1977, September 30, 1978, Septem- 
 ber 30. 1979, and September 30, 1980, respectively, as may be neces- 
 sary for grants under section 315(1), to remain available until 
 expended ; 
 
 "(7) such sums, not to exceed $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
 years ending September 30, 1977, September 30, 1978, September 
 30, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respectively, as may be neces- 
 sary for grants under section 315(2), to remain available until 
 expended ; and 
 
 "(8) such sums, not to exceed $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
 years ending September 30, 1977, September 30, 1978, Septem- 
 ber 30, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respectively, as may be 
 necessary for administrative expenses incident to the adminis- 
 tration of this title. 
 "(b) There are authorized to be appropriated until October 1, 1986, 
 to the Fund, such sums, not to exceed $800,000,000, for the purposes of 
 
 68 
 
Ante , p. 1017. 
 
 Ante, p. 1015, 
 1017, 1028, 
 1029. 
 
 15 USC 1511a. 
 
 15 USC 1511a 
 note. 
 
 5 USC 5332 note, 
 
 16 USC 1462 
 note. 
 
 Report to 
 Congress. 
 
 carrying out the provisions of section 308, other than subsection (b), 
 of which not to exceed $50,000,000 shall be for purposes of subsections 
 (c) and (d)(4) of such section. 
 
 "(c) Federal funds received from other sources shall not be used 
 to pay a coastal state's share of costs under section 305, 306, 309, or 
 310.". 
 
 SEC. 15. ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 (a) There shall be in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
 Administration an Associate Administrator for Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
 and consent of the Senate. Such Associate Administrator shall be an 
 individual who is, by reason of background and experience, especially 
 qualified to direct the implementation and administration of the 
 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.). Such 
 Associate Administrator shall be compensated at the rate now or here- 
 after provided for level V of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates 
 (5 U.S.C. 5316). 
 
 (b) Section 5316 of title -5, United States Code, is amended by 
 adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph : 
 
 "(140) Associate Administrator for Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.". 
 
 (c) The Secretary may, to carry out the provisions of the amend- 
 ments made by this Act, establish, and fix the compensation for, four 
 new positions without regard to the provision of chapter 51 of title 5, 
 United States Code, at rates not in excess of the maximum rate for 
 GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of such title. Any 
 such appointment may, at the discretion of the Secretary, be made 
 without regard to the provisions of such title 5 governing appoint- 
 ments in the competitive service. 
 
 SEC. 16. SHELLFISH SANITATION REGULATIONS. 
 
 (a) The. Secretary of Commerce shall — 
 
 ( 1 ) undertake a comprehensive review of all aspects of the 
 molluscan shellfish industry, including, but not limited to, the 
 harvesting, processing, and transportation of such shellfish; and 
 
 (2) evaluate the impact of Federal law concerning water qual- 
 ity on the molluscan shellfish industry. 
 
 The Secretary of Commerce shall, not later than April 30, 1977, sub- 
 mit a report to the Congress of the findings, comments, and recom- 
 mendations (if any) which result from such review and evaluation. 
 
 69 
 
(b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall not pro- Analysis, 
 mulgate final regulations concerning the national shellfish safety pro- publication. 
 gram before June 30, 1977. At least 60 days prior to the promulgation 
 of any such regulations, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel- 
 fare, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, shall publish 
 an analysis (1) of the economic impact of such regulations on the 
 domestic shellfish industry, and (2) the cost of such national shellfish 
 safety program relative to the benefits that it is expected to achieve. 
 
 Approved July 26, 1976. 
 
 
 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 
 
 HOUSE REPORTS: No. 94-878 accompanying H. R. 3981 (Comm, on 
 Merchant Marine and Fisheries) and No. 94-1298 
 (Comm. of Conference), 
 SENATE REPORTS: No. 94-277 (Comm. on Commerce) and No. 94-987 
 
 (Comm. of Conference). 
 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 
 
 Vol. 121 (1975): July 16, considered and passed Senate. 
 Vol. 122 (1976): Mar. 11, considered and passed House, amended, 
 in lieu of H.R. 3981. 
 June 29, Senate agreed to conference report. 
 June 30, House agreed to conference report. 
 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: 
 
 Vol. 12, No. 31 (1976): July 26, Presidential statement. 
 
 70 
 
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
 Administration 
 
 Coastal Zone Management 
 
 Advisory Committee 
 Washington, D.C. 20235 
 
 ADD007D c jM4fl77 
 
 210 
 
 Third Class— Bulk Rate