Spheres of influence in Hawaii's coastal zone report on the sea grant project, Economic and institutional aspects of multiple uses in Hawaii's coastal zone (R/20-21)

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

,stai Zone i 0011 C5
@orrnation COASTAL ME
Center
WMAMN CEIMR

JNIHI-SEAGRANT-AR-72-03 The University of Hawaii Sea Grant Program

res of Influence
m Hawans uoastal Zone
Volume 1. Federal Ag e1ncy Involvement

Justin Rutka and Chennat Gopalakrishnan

GC
57.2
H3 March 1973
no.72-03
Sphe

V.1

3 c5v/

SPHERES OF INFLUENCE IN HAWAII'S COASTAL ZONE

Volume 1. Federal Agency Involvement

Justin Rutka
Chennat Gopalakrishnan

Report on the Sea Grant project, Economic and Institutional Aspects of
Multiple Uses in Hawaii's Coastal Zone (R/20 -.21); Chennat Gopalakrishnan,
Principal Investigator; Sea Grant Years 03 -,05,_, -@- a ry
property of C@,-

U. D@@ARTMENI OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASIAL SERVICES CENIER
2234.SOUIH HOBSON AVENUE
5-241"
CHARLESTON SC 2910

Sea Grant Advisory Repo 'rt
UNIHI-SEAGRANT-AR-72-03
March, 1973

This work is a result Of research sponsored by NOAA Office of
Sea Grant, Department of Commerce, under Grant No. 2-35243.
G-M
Ln The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute
reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright
notations that may appear hereon.

PREFACE

Hawaii and the nation have entered a period when the need for coordi-
nated participation in establishing guidelines for orderly future growth
is being recognized by all levels of government and concerned citizenry.
This report, the first part of a two-volume series, outlines the general
issues of coastal-resource management, and provides an overview of federal
agency programs in Hawaii's coastal environment. The multi-facet dimensions
of state and county involvement in this environment will be highlighted in
a separate report at a later date. Taken together, these reports are in-
tended to serve as focal points for coordinated coastal planning efforts in
the near future.

The need for coordinated, comprehensive planning for the coastal envi-
ronment is especially urgent, since the growing use of the ocean and the
land that borders it has led to a sharp intensification of management
dilenmas. The influx of new residents, the growth of tourism, and the re-
sultant spread of suburban and resort complexes have seriously eroded the
already limited amount of open shoreline from public use, despite the fact
that state law clearly specifies that Hawaii's beaches and shoreline belong
to the public and as such should always be available for public use. Access
to shoreline areas is at a premium. The use of coastal waters as a recep-
tacle for agricultural, industrial, and human pollutants remains a subject
of 'concern. Given the limited land area of the islands, several plans to
use the offshore coastal zone for aviation purposes and other functions
with large spatial requirements have been proposed. Concurrently, expansion
of affluence and leisure time have caused a significant increase in marine-
based recreation, thus intensifying the conflicts among the multitudes of
activitiestaking place in the ocean or near the water's edge.

In response to these pressures, an awareness has grown on many fronts
that the coastal zone cannot possibly support all uses or users harmoniously.
Indeed, the much-beloved phrase "balanced development" quite often has re-
flected a failure to recognize the physical limitations of the coastal zone
and the inherent tolerances and capacities of the ecosystems therein. More
and more segments of society are now demanding that institutions be shaped
not only to meet the conflicts arising from obtaining access to the use of
coastal resources, but also by the ecological factors relating to the needs
of the resources themselves. Although this awareness has been sporadic and
slow in coming, it nonetheless has already resulted in the shaping of social
machinery needed to handle some of the problems of conflicting use.

of particular note are the National Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 (Public Law 92-583), and the proposed National Land Use Policy Act
(which Congress is currently considering and which has the support of the
Nixon Administration), both of which allow states to take over planning
functions currently assigned primarily to local areas. These measures high-
light the importance of the nation's coastal zone in terms of two distinct
but related regimes of land and water. The National Coastal Zone Management
Act emphasizes protection of the ecosystems of the shoreline environment,
and authorizes federal grants-in-aid to states for the development and im-
plementation of comprehensive coastal zone management programs. On the
other hand, the pending national land-use bill stresses accommodation and

coordination of all land uses, particularly "areas of critical environmental
concern". Significantly, the pending land-use bill lists coastal wetlands
as the first among "areas of critical environmental concern" which are to
receive priority attention. Under the Administration's proposal, states
which fail to develop adequate land-use programs would lose from 7 to 21
percent of federal funds for highway construction, airport building, and
land.and.water conservation. This bill also authorizes hefty federal
grants-in-aid, for states to.develop, and implement coordinated systems of
land and water use.

While most mainland states have either geared up to the task of provid-
ing focus and direction to specific aspects of coastal resource utilization
or have enacted truly comprehensive coastal zone legislation similar to the
national Act, Hawaii has waited for Washington to move first and has not
yet formulated a comprehensive policy in this sphere. on the other hand,
Hawaii was the first state in the country to adopt a centralized land-use
law almost a decade before the inception of the pending federal land-use
bill which calls on other states to adopt somewhat similar measures. Under
the present system the state's Land Use Commission and the State General
Plan provide land-use boundaries and broad guidelines for counties to do
detailed planning and implementation.

Despite the optimistic developments in federal law and state adminis-
tration, it is questionable whether coastal zone planning as a problem apart
from overall land-use planning will be easily resolved. In defining the
coastal zone, the basic problem has been one of isolating a single part of
a natural continuum as needing special attention for planning and managemnet
purposes. The National Coastal Zone Management Act recognizes that society's
use of the interface between the sea and the land represents a sharp con-
trast with general land utilization, and it advocates a comprehensive system
of state management in this realm. However, thefederal Office of Manage-
ment and Budget has refused to seek funding for implementing the provisions
of the Congressionally mandated coastal zone law in favor of the all-
encompassing National Land Use Bill. Proponents of the land-use bill have
argued that since the environmental system of the earth comprises one eco-
system, there should thus be only a single policy and one system of manage-
ment.

The Nixon Administration's land-use proposal rests on the fact that
fragmentation and proliferation of government entities exercising land-use
planning powers are contradictory to the real concern of sound national
land-use policy, which is to "assist States to more effectively exercise
their constitutional responsibilities for the planning and management of
their land base through the development and implementation of state land-
use programs designed to achieve economically and environmentally sound
uses of the Nation's land resources." The impetus of this proposal seems.
to involve conditions that do not exist here. The county-state government
structure in Hawaii is extremely simple compared with other states. Hawaii
lacks cities, townships, and other smaller governmental subdivisions, and
hence, more easily avoids the problem of the formulation of conflicting
land-use plans. While highly appropriate for mainland states, the pending
federal land-use bill seems to be somewhat redundant for Hawaii. Conversely,
the National Coastal Zone Management Act reinforces the accomplishments of
most mainland coastal states, and offers an opportunity for Hawaii to de-
velop an effective statewide system of management for the coastal zone.

Although there are problems and public concern over the conditions of
Hawaii's coastal region, the general state of this zone is not yet of cri-
tical proportions in comparison with Lake Erie or even San Francisco Bay.
The absence of crisis situations, however, does not imply that the need for
management and associated political arrangements for the coastal zone is,
less apparent or politically marketable. To the contrary, the need for
some kind of coastal management at the state level has already made itself
felt since the state's coastal zone has experienced a period of accelerated
growth and associated use conflicts, trends that are very likely to continue
into the foreseeable future.

A debate on land use and coastal zone planning could very likely take
place in the State Legislature this year. There are several coastal zone
and land-use measures in the legislative hoppers at the moment. Instead of
dealing with land-use and coastal zone planning as competing entities, the
goal should be to synchronize the two planning functions. It is expected
that there will be some disagreement on whether coastal zone planning should
be subsumed under general planning. What will emerge from the Legislature
is still uncertain.

The Advisory Services component of the Sea Grant Program is entrusted
with getting research results and marine-related issues before the public.
This report contains, under a single cover, considerable information that
is not widely known to the citizens of Hawaii. It should also be of inter-
est to most public agencies at the state and county levels. It is also
possible that some federal agencies are not fully aware of other federal
agencies' involvement in the coastal zone.

The cooperation of federal agency officials is gratefully acknowledged.
Their assistance has made possible the compilation of information in this
report. @U4. (240COO@
Justin Rutka
Advisory Specialist
.March 12, 1973

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
INTENT AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY . * * ' * * * * ' ' * * ' * * * 4
THE INDISTINCT CHARACTER OF THE COASTAL ZONE . . . . . . . . . . 5

ATTEMPTS AT FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE LEGISLATION: A HISTORICAL
REVIEWo * o e * e 7

AREAS OF FEDERAL CONCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
LEGAL BASIS FOR FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
DELINEATION OF CURRENT OFFSHORE ZONES OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . 13

PART II. FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

OVERVIEW AGENCIES . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND RESOURCES . . . . . . 21
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MARINE RESOURCES AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT. .21
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE . . . . . . . 22
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS IN THE CABINET . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * . .25
National Oceanic 'and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) . . . . 25
National Ocean Survey (NOS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
National Weather Service (NWS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Environmental Data Service (EDS) . * ' ' * * * * * ' '28
National marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) . . . . . . . . 29
Environmental Research Laboratories (ERL) . . . . . . . 30
office of Sea Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Maritime Administration (MARAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Economic Development Administration (EDA) . . . . . . . . . 34
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 36
National Flood Insurance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Comprehensive Planning Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Open-Space Land Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Model Cities . . . . . . . . . * ' * * ' * * * * * * *37
Public Costs of Private Development - Commentary . . . . . . 40
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Water Resources Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Office of Water Resources.Research (OWRR) . . * *43
Bureau of Land Management -- Outer Continental @helf*Oific*e. .44
Bureau of outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . 46
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

vii

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Program Assistance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention . . . . . . . 50
Plant Materials Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @l
Expanded Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Forest Service -- Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry . . .51
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Port Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Aids to Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Merchant Marine Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Search and Rescue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Recreational Boating . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 54
Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . 58
DEPARTMENT OF STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Navigation Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Beach Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Flood Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
General Investigation and Survey Reports . . . . . . . . 64
Expanded Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Department of the Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Department of the Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Department of the Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE . . . . . . . . . . 76

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) . . . . . . . 82

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

1 The baseline from which the territorial sea is measured . . . . 14

2 Continental Shelf in profile with vertical scale exaggerated . .15

3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Atministration,
U.S. Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 Programs Transferred into the Environmental Protection Agency . .78

5 Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table

1 Army Installations/Facilities in the Coastal Zone . . . .. . . 66

2 Air Force Installations/Facilities in the Coastal Zone . . . . .68

3 Navy Installations/Facilities in the Coastal Zone . . . . . . . 71

PART I

INTRODUCTION

This section provides historic and sociological background, states the
problem, describes the intent and scope of the study, and highlights the
indistinct character of the coastal zone. It considers the attempts to
regulate coastal zone activities through legislation at the federal level,
and defines the areas of federal concern.

BACKGROUND

THE PROBLEM

it is often generalized that the policies of government instrumentali-
ties are ambiguous with respect to regulating activities and developments
in the coastal zone so as to conform to the best standards of public welfare.
It is frequently charged that sound bases for rational and orderly planning
in the development of the coastal zone'are lacking, that common policy re-
garding coastal zone legislation and effective administration at the county,
state, and national levels are presently not available, and that agency
responsibility and jurisdiction over activities in the coastal zone are
uncoordinated and overlapping to a serious degree. All of this, according
to at least one expert (Dr. Edward Wenk), results in "an anarchy of utili-
zation" in the coastal zone (Coastal Zone Management: Newsletter of Coastal
Resource Exploitation, Conservation and Enhancement, November 1970, p. 1).
Moreover, the consensus of experts seems to reflect the fact that current
laissez-faire approaches to managing the coastal zone fall far short of
providing for the highest feasible, long-term social and economic good.

The above generalizations may overstate the actual state of affairs with
respect to Hawaii's coastal zone. Nevertheless, statements of this kind are
increasingly heard in Hawaii from various levels of government, from academia,
and from representatives of special-interest groups.

Beginning in 1966 with the enactment of the Marine Resources and Engi-
neering Development Act.(Public Law 89-454), a number of studies were made
that brought into focus the uniqueness of what is now called "the coastal
zone." The most widely known of these studies was published by the Commis-
sion on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources entitled Our Nation and the
Sea (1969), and further elaborated in the "Report of the Panel on Management
and Development of the Coastal Zone," in Science and Environment (1969):

Man's past actions affecting estuaries and shorelines have been
poorly and incompletely planned, often unimaginative and frequently
destructive. Present priorities in uses of the coastal zone often
do not reflect the best interests of the public. Many State and
Federal agencies have overlapping and fragmented authority. The
limit of State and local responsibility is often obscure- the author-
ities are often without real power. Under such circumstances it is
particularly difficult for plans to be designed, made authoritative,
and enforced (Science and Environment, 1969, p. 111-2).

Some months after the Commission completed distribution of Our Nation and
the Sea, Hawaii became the first state in the nation to issue a parallel and
complementary report called Hawaii and the Sea (1969):

In its discussion of the coastal zone management problem, the
Task Group recognized that various responsibilities for each of its
(coastal zone) facets were fractionated among Federal, State, County
and military entities in Hawaii. As a result of this overly broad
dissemination of responsibilities, there is no individual agency that
can establish policy and delegate authority in dealing with problems
ranging from water pollution to beach sand removal (Hawaii and the
Sea, 1969, p. 95).

INTENT AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The Task Group on Role of State and Local Governments 1 generalized that
many uses of the coastal zone are subject to a variety of public and private
actions and fall under several overlapping government jurisdictions, resulting
in uncoordinated efforts to derive maximum social benefit from Hawaii's
coastal zone. However, since the publication of the national and Hawaii
reports, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)2 has been
established bringing together major federal programs dealing with the atmos-
phere and the oceans under a single integrated agency. A companion organi-
zation,. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),3 was created to control
pollution on an integrated basis. Parallel moves at the state level in Hawaii
were therecent establishment of the Office of Environmental Quality Control
(Act 132-1970) and the office of Marine Affairs Coordinator (Act 137-1970).
By Law, the former is entrusted to coordinate all state departments and agen-
cies in matters concerning the environment and ecology; the latter is respon-
sible for the development of an optimum plan for marine resource use. Thus,
both 1969 reports are now partially obsolete.

Despite these integrative developments in federal organization and state
administration, the various responsibilities for coastal zone activities such
as water pollution control, land use management, natural resource conservation,
and shoreline development are still dispersed in various ways both within and
between agencies of government. Centralized institutions for coordinating,
guiding, and directing decisions in the coastal zone proper do not exist.

Moreover, it is often conceded that certain alignments in the overall
organizational structure of government agencies hamper the development of
truly comprehensive systems of coastal resource management. This'awareness
has sparked calls for the creation of new institutions, or the consolidation
or modification of existing institutions, in the spirit of more effective
coastal management. Ultimately, management decisions for the coastal zone
will be made through political channels.

A crucial implication of the presence of numerous government agencies
operating in Hawaii's coastal zone is this: If new vehicles for coordinated
and comprehensive planning and management for Hawaii's coastal zone are to be
created, then the agencies that presently manage the resources and uses of this
zone must first be clearly understood. It is thus necessary to identify those
government agencies which currently participate in Hawaii's coastal zone
affairs and determine where existing agency responsibility lies.4

IThis Task Group was responsible for Chapter 7 of Hawaii and the Sea, pp. 93-106.

2Established by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970. NOAA became effective
on October 3, 1970.

3Established by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. EPA became effective
on December 2, 1970.

4The Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, with support from the Office
of Sea Grant Programs at the University of Hawaii, imdertook an initial survey of
government agencies which participate in Hawaii's coastal activities. Drawing on
various sources, an identifying list of agencies was compiled. Using this master
list as a base, a letter was sent to appropriate agency representatives requesting

The primary objective of this report is to delineate the current interests
and jurisdictions of the federal government in Hawaii's coastal zone. The
report is limited to a descriptive inventory of essential information concern-
ing federal involvement in this environment. It is anticipated that such
information will be of interest and value to the broad array of federal, state,
and local agencies engaged in development and regulation within this zone, as
well as to locally based environmental action organizations, the general
business community, and to the public at large. State and local agency involve-
ment in the coastal zone environment will be outlined in a separate report.

THE INDISTINCT CHARACTER OF THE COASTAL ZONE

The coastal zone means many different things to different people. Since
the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resourcess opened its dis-
cussion of the coastal zone, the formulation of an acceptable definition of
what constitutes the coastal zone has remained a complexity. Some examples
will serve to illustrate the variety of meanings attached to the rubric, "the
coastal zone":

I frequently characterize the Coastal Zone as the girl next door,
who grew up and matured and suddenly became attractive and desirable
not only to me, but to all the other boys in the neighborhood. Each
saw in her-different attributes, each described her in different terms,
each had different estimates of her dimensions, but all agreed she was
something pretty special (Adams, 1969, p. 87).

The Coastal Zone is the interface between land and sea, the land
adjacent to the sea, and the sea and sea bed adjacent to the land.
The Coastal Zone is the edge of sovereignty where the rights of
the nation give way to freedom of the seas.
The Coastal Zone is a place where more people live than any
other place.
The Coastal Zone is unique because of the degree to which activ-
ity in one area of the Zone affects uses at great distance from where
the action takes place.
The Coastal Zone is unique because of the difficulty in deter-
mining boundary lines between private and public ownership of land
and water.
The Coastal Zone is unique. . . (because of) the degree to which
the value of privately owned land and other resources is dependent
upon close juxtaposition of non-marketable common resources held in
trust for the use of all citizens (McBrocm, 1969, pp. 80-81).

The coastal zone is an abstraction reflecting human appraisal
of a sub-region which in turn includes a complex mix of other sub-
regions (Fisher, 1970, p. 403).

a detailed statement covering the legalistic or statutory mission that each agency
may have in the coastal zone, its scope of work, and its various programs as they
relate to the coastal zone. information derived from the mail survey was supple-
mented by personal interviews with many agency heads having offices in Hawaii.
SPopularly known as the Stratton Commission, after Julius A. Stratton, chairman of
the numerous task groups comprising the commission body.

in all of these descriptions, the underlying common theme implies a region
of transition between the land and the sea, encompassing a wide heterogeneity
of physical features and a broad array of activities occurring therein. As
generally delineated, it includes the outer reaches of the territorial sea as
the seaward boundary, and extends inland to the landward extent of marine in-
fluences. The term is subject to definitional argument. No one can state
precisely where the zone begins ashore, or where it ends at sea, in such a
way that everyone else agrees or in such a manner as to provide a clear legal
definition. The coastal zone is simply a matter of viewpoint. It is an or-
ganizing concept for looking at a part of our environment that represents an
irreplaceable and extremely valuable asset. Thus, the promotion of coastal
zone consciousness is an investigatory device undertaken to advance understand-
ing, planning, and administration...assuming, of course, that such a zone has
operational meaning.

The delineation of the boundaries of the coastal zone calls for personal
judgment. Obviously the intertidal zone and the uplands adjacent to the high-
water mark are properly within the area of discussion. Likewise, there is a
consensus that the traditional three-mile belt of marginal sea which is within
state boundaries falls in the realm of the coastal zone. Beyond the outer
limit of the territorial sea, the concept of the coastal zone begins to -lose
some of its meaning. However, the nature of extensive offshore uses and de-
velopments being planned or undertaken in the United States, and their effects
upon the environment, have led to a number of proposals to expand the offshore
area of the coastal zone (Knight, 1970; Krueger, 1970). Moreover,.to under-
stand federal-state responses to historical and current problems and uses of
the coastal environment, including conflicts of jurisdiction,6 it is desirable
to go further ashore. Consequently, the coastal zone can be viewed as includ-
ing two somewhat arbitrary subzones:

Zone A: Primary coastal zone (zone of immediate first-order impacts).
This area extends three geographic miles seaward from the
high-tide line--primarily an area of state jurisdiction--
and extends landward from the high@tide mark to the "extent
of marine influences".
Zone B: Secondary coastal zone (zone of foreseeable future impacts,
currently treated as a zone of second-order impacts). This
area extends from the outer seaward limit of Zone A to the
outer limit of the "continental" shelf or Hawaiian ridge
systems.

6During February 1972, Dr. John P. Craven, State Coordinator for marine Affairs,
advised the Governor that the Hawaii Legislature should declare that the state has
property rights in the vast biological and mineral resources of the sea around the
Hawaiian Archipelago. Dr. Craven's resolution calls for state control over mineral
and non-pelagic biological resources within a corridor 400 miles wide, generally
centered at the highest points of elevation along the Hawaiian Archipelago.

ATTEMPTS AT FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE LEGISLATION:
A HISTORICAL REVIEW

The birth of coastal zone consciousness at the national level can be
traced to the 89th Congress which passed the marine Resources and Engineering
Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-454). This Act created the Commission
on marine Science, Engineering and Resources (the Stratton Commission) and
charged it to develop a long-range program for greater use of the resources
of the seas. From the outset, the Commission recognized the overriding im-
portance of the coastal zone and designated one of its panels to prepare a
report on this environment (Science and Environment, 1969). The Commission
highlighted the significance of the coastal zone by examining the economic.
and social values derived from the many uses of the zone, and pointed out the
often conflicting demands on the resources occurring therein. The panel re-
port identified the opportunities and problems in the coastal zone environment
and the roles played by the various participants, and outlined measures to be
taken for a balanced approach to the development of coastal resources. It
went as far as suggesting sample legislation to accomplish the goals of coastal
zone management (science and Environment, 1969, pp. 111-183 to 111-187).

when a social problem of national importance becomes urgent, congressional
bills are soon introduced to alleviate or resolve the problem. In response to
the Commission's recommendations calling attention to the critical aspects of
the nation's coastal environment, Senator Magnuson introduced S. 2802 late in
the first session of the 91st Congress. Hearings 'were held on the subject in
December of 1969. Subsequently, in the second session of the 91st Congress,
other bills were introduced, including S. 3183 by Senator Boggs on behalf of
the Administration, and S. 3460 by Senator Tydings.

Alerted by numerous scattered reports on the critical problems of water
pollation, the Congress, in passing the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966
(Public Law 89-753), directed the Secretary of the Interior to study the
problems surrounding the pollution of the estuarine zone and to make recom-
mendationsto Congress for an effective national estuarine management program.
The Secretary of the Interior delegated the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration to carry out the study. The completed report was published in
November of 1969 (National Estuarine Pollution Study, 1969). S. 3183 was based
largely on the recommendations of this study, performed pursuant to the Clean
Water Restoration Act (Public Law 89-753) and the subsequent Estuary Protection
Act (Public Law 90-454).

The three Senate bills, S. 2802, S. 3183, and S. 3460, each to some degree,
attempted to establish a national policy and comprehensive program for the.man-
agement, beneficial use, protection, and development of land and water resources
of the nation's estuaries and coastal zone. The Subcommittee on oceanography,
chaired by Senator Hollings, held seven days of hearings (U.S. Senate, 1970)
from March through May of 1970, at which 29 witnesses testified. In addition,
55 articles, letters, and statements7 were received by the Subcommittee and

71ncluding testimony by Governor Burns on behalf of the State of Hawaii, Dr. Shelley
Mark on behalf-of the Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Developmentf letter
from mayor Fasi (City and County of Honolulu), statements from Mayor Vidinha (Kauai),
Mayor Cravalho (Maui), Bruce McCall on behalf of mayor Kimura (Hawaii), and statement
by Senator Fong.

incorporated into the record. Each of these bills clearly recognized that the
states must take a major role in coastal zone development. The specific mea-
sures outlined in S. 2802, S. 3183, and S. 3460 are not so much a matter of
contrast as of emphasis.8

on the House side, recent attempts at coastal zone legislation were no less
complex. During October of 1969, Congressman Alton Lennon, Chairman of the
House Subcommittee on oceanography, conducted a two-day congressional conference
designed to assist the states in finding a workable method for local, state,
federal, and public involvement in land and water use regulation. Representa-
tives from 30 coastal and Great Lakes states were at the-conference. Shortly
following the October meeting, Congressmen Lennon and Mosher jointly prepared
and introduced H.R. 14730, H.R. 14731, and H.R. 15099. These congressional
bills differed in substance only with respect to the agency or department that
would in each case be assigned the primary responsibility for administering
federal grants to assist coastal states in the development and implementation
of a comprehensive management program for the coastal zone. This somewhat
unorthodox approach to the generation of legislation was designed to stimulate
an active response from the representatives of the coastal states in attendance
(Clingan, 1970, p. 4).

The initial momentum toward coastal zone management, established by the
panel report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources,
rapidly dissipated near the end of the second session of the 91st Congress.
With congressional interest and executive support, one may be puzzled as to
why no legislation reached the floor during this period. A few observations
can be offered on why legislative efforts to create a national focus on the
coastal zone were stalled.

The problem is basically institutional in nature. The breadth and vast
magnitude of coastal zone management at the national level call for special
authorizing legislation, bringing into play numerous federal agencies and
several committees of Congress. Each of these has its own special interests
and each is potentially affected by the enactment of sweeping coastal zone
management legislation. Several committees have legitimate interest in the
coastal zone: e.g., the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the
Public Works Committee, and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
Any attempt at integrating ocean management, resources development, and
environmental quality control into a cohesive coastal zone framework could
mean that several committees in both the Senate and House would have to
yield some of their jurisdiction in coastal zone matters.

During the same period, the administration's moves to create larger and
more comprehensive spheres of federal influence (e.g., NOAA and EPA) further
confused the established pattern of congressional committee jurisdiction and
instigated interplays between affected executive departments and agencies.

8"Summary of Principal Provisions of Coastal Zone Management Bills -- S. 2802, S. 3460,
S.. 3183.11 This comparative summary was submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Ocean-
ography on April N, 1970, with statements on the bills by Harold F. Wise on behalf of
the American Institute of Planners.
"Summary of Statement of Sydney Howe, President of the Conservation Foundation on
National Coastal zone Management Programs As Proposed on Senate Bills 2802, 3183 and.
3460," submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Oceanography on April 14, 1970, on be-
half of the Conservation Foundation.

The combination of committee jurisdictional problems and the apprehension
created by reorganizations in the executive branch departmental structures was
instrumental in delaying passage of national coastal zone legislation during
the 91st Congress.

The hearings held during the 91st Congress provided new ideas that were
incorporated in redrafted Senate and House bills on the coastal zone subject.
Early in the 92nd Congress, Senator Hollings introduced S. 582 (a successor to
Senator Magnuson's S. 2802), a revised version of which is current.ly under
consideration. Shortly thereafter, Senator Tower introduced S. 638 which was
drafted to obviate some of the objections voiced by representatives of the
Nixon administration at the hearings conducted during the 91st Congress.

on the House side, Congressman Lennon introduced H.R. 2492 and H.R. 2493,
both bills being revised and expanded versions of the coastal zone bills jointly
introduced by Congressmen Lennon and Mosher during the 91st Congress. Subse-
quently, in the first session of the 92nd Congress, other House bills on the
coastal zone subject were introduced, including H.R. 3615 by Congressman
Dingell and H.R. 6GO5 by Congressman Dellums.

The name of the game has chancred during the last year. A further and
much more serious complication in the already.bewildering legislative process
is the recent administration-backed drive to enact an overall land use plan
ratherthan separate coastal zone legislation. Between the 91st and 92nd
Congress, the Nixon administration became convinced that more broadly-based
land-use management legislation was not only desirable but essential for
effective planning, because of the interrelation of the hinterland to the
coastal zone. The problem is one of conceptualization. Many people now view
the coastal zone not as a distinct entity, but as part of the national whole.
There have been recent strong indications that the Nixon administration is
apprehensive about pursuing coastal zone management legislation because of its
possible deliterious effect on comprehensive state land-use planning.

This belief is manifested by the introduction of S. 632 by Senator Jack-
son designed to result in federal support to the states for developing land-
and water-use programs. S. 632 was shortly followed by the proposed National
Land Use Policy Act of 1971 which was introduced by Senator Jackson (by request)
as S. 992. The House counterpart to S. 992 is H.R. 4332, introduced on behalf
of the Administration by Representative Aspinall.

On May 5, 1971, Russell E. Train, Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality, advised the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and the
Atmosphere that:

The Administration is sensitive to the concern of this Com-
mittee that the issues of coastal zone management be given priority
attention. We are likewise concerned that the States not complicate
their reform of land use law by creating separate institutions over
the coastal zone which might later compete with and complicate the
ability of the States,to address the total problems of land use
planning and regulation within their borders. Certainly, the signs
around us are unmistakable that States are now more willing to
approach the land use regulatory issues on a broader basis. . .
(U.S. Senate, 1971, p. 138).

At the outset, the now defunct Stratton Commission made it quite clear
that coastal zone management responsibilities at the federal level should be
undertaken by a new, independent agency for oceanic and atmospheric affairs.
Succeeding events have demonstrated only a partial realization of that goal.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) came into being on
October 3, 1970, under Executive Reorganization Plan No. 4 of,President Nixon,
not as an independent agency, but rather housed in the Department of Commerce.
There are a number of other developments in federal law and administration that
reflect a dilution of attention to the highly vulnerable land-water interface
of the coastal zone. In June of 1971, during hearings conducted by Represen-
tative Alton Lennon on H.R. 2492 and H.R. 2493, Dr. Robert M. White, Adminis-
trator of NOAA (who was a coastal zone panel member of the Stratton Commission),
was asked for his current views on the subject. Dr. White responded that he
still believes in the need for coastal zone management, but favors embodiment
of that concept in a larger land-use approach (Coastal Zone Management:
Newsletter of Coastal Resource Exploitation, Conservation and Enhancement,
June 1971, p. 2).

Perhaps the most likely basis for federal involvement in coastal resources
management may yet come in the form of the National Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 (S. 3507, a successor to S. 582). On April 25, 1972, to the sur-
prise of nearly everyone following legislative developments an the coastal
zone subject, the Senate passed S. 3507 by unanimous vote. As with other
coastal zone measures, S. 3507 elucidates the nature of the public interest
in the coastal environment and authorizes federal aid to encourage states to
plan for acceptable systems of controlling developments along the shoreline.
Lead responsibility for administering federal grants to help coastal states
develop and implement comprehensive management programs is assigned to NOAA,
under the auspices of the Secretary of Commerce. This bill does, however,
contain some substantial differences as compared with earlier measures. The
coastal area covered is more closely defined, thus mitigating some of the
criticism voiced by the Interior Committee which favors the enactment of the
general land-use bill. Additional changes were drafted into S. 3507, giving
local governments broader participation in the preparation and operation of
coastal management programs.

Despite these optimistic developments, it is questionable whether
coastal zone planning as a problem apart from overall land-use planning will
be easily resolved. The National Land Use Policy Act of 1972, the Senate
land-use bill under consideration, lists coastal wetlands as the first among
"areas of critical environmental concern" which are to receive priority
attention.

In defining the coastal zone, the basic problem is one of isolating one
part of a natural continuum as needing special attention for management pur-
poses. opponents of special coastal legislation have argued that since the
environmentAl system of the earth composes one ecosystem, there should be only
one policy and one system of management. Conversely, the backers of separate
coastal zone legislation have argued that society's use of the interface be-
tween the sea and the land represents a sharp contrast with general land
utilization. Thus, the waters and narrow strip of land within the coastal
zone deserve special consideration, and a diverse systemof management is
needed in this area.

Whether future duplication of effort by coastal planning agencies and
general land-use planning agencies can be avoided i's impossible to predict.
There are indications that the Interior Committees of the House and Senate
will try to reach some agreement on a general land-use bill (Ocean Soundings:
Newsletter of Marine Technology Society, May 1972, pp. 1-2). If the National
Land Use Act of 1972 is enacted, it may severely slow down consideration of
coastal legislation now in conference between the House and Senate.9 More
seriously, the possibility also remains that if a general land-use bill is
passed into law, it could very likely preempt coastal zone measures now under
consideration.

9H.R. 14146 is the House version of S. 3507. on August 2, 1972, the administrative
assignment in H.R. 14146@was changed from the Department of commerce to the Depart-
ment of the Interior. After altering H.R. 14146, the House went on to adopt the
bill 376 to 6. Both bills are now in conference between House and Senate represen-
tatives to see if they can reconcile the differences in the versions passed by each.

AREAS OF FEDERAL CONCERN

LEGAL BASIS FOR FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

The coastal zone embraces three types of natural real estate: (1) lands
above the ocean, (2) lands which are periodically covered by the ocean, and
(3) lands permanently beneath the ocean. Airspace and the water column over-
lying submerged lands must be added to any full inventory of the coastal zone.

While the coastal zone concept is a relatively new formulation, the
federal government has had much experience and involvement in controlling uses
and activities in this zone.10 The principal justification for federal in-
volvement rests chiefly on an expansive interpretation of four provisions of
the Constitution. The first is the supremacy clause.giving paramount rights
to the federal government primarily on matters pertaining to international
relations and to national defense. The second is the interstate conmerce
clause which extends federal jurisdiction to navigable waters of the United
States. The third and perhaps most encompassing justification for federal
involvement in the coastal zone is the Contitutional provision to pXomote the
general welfare. Lastly, the federal property provision of the Constitution
accounts for the extent of coastal uplands and submerged lands underlying
certain portions of the ocean in federal ownership.

DELINEATION OF CURRENT OFFSHORE ZONES OF JURISDICTION

An important influence on government action in the coastal zone has been
the division of powers between the federal establishment and the states.
Legal questions concerning uplands and tidelands are documented in English
common law principles, and are outside the scope of this report. On the
other hand, the use and disposition of submerged lands and waters lack such
a rich historical base of interpretation. Consequently, it is necessary to
set forth some underlying legal and political considerations which have a
direct bearing on the geographic extent of Hawaii's sovereignty and jurisdic-
tion in the coastal zone.

Federal concern over maritime activities can be categorized into six
somewhat overlapping zones: (1) internal waters, (2) territorial waters,
(3) the contiguous zone, (4) the continental shelf, (5) international waters
(high seas), and (6) airspace. It should be noted at the outset that these
zones of delineation merely represent a frame of reference for authority to
carry on offshore activities, and do not constitute a series of political
entities as commonly found on land. Figures 1 and 2 are schematic represen-
tations depicting the zonal demarcations.

loUnited states policy on jurisdictional matters in the marine environment rests on
three principal bases: unilateral proclamations ascertaining.certain rights in off-
shore waters adjacent to the coast, international regulations in the four 1958 Geneva
Conventions, and bilateral and multilatei:al agreements which the U.S. has made with
other nations.

Semi-circle large Baseline
Closure
than water area
Outer limit of terri-
torial sea

3
25
I
0 5 10 15 20
...........
... ......
. ...... ..
Scale in Nautical Miles
Closure at In en tion
mouth of river

HIGH SEAS
Bay
(Also Continental shelf)

Archipekeo
MWti-mouth bay

UVIL
Bay on island coast

TERRITORIAL SEA

Closure more
than 24 mile
s
INTERNAL
WATER

Low tide Pier
elevations

181ar.

Figure 1. The baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.

(Source: U.S. Department of State, Sovereignty of the Sea, Geograp4ic
Bulletin No. 3, Revised October 1969, p. 31.)

LAND DEPTH IN METERS

SEA LEVEL
SUPERJACENT 200
WATERS
Ln 'U
CONTINENIAL bHLLr 400
PHYSICAL VERSION ...

600

6'PONTINENTAL SHELF 80 0
LEGAL VERSION
TO INDEFINITE

Figure 2. Continental Shelf in profile with vertical scale exaggerated.

(Source: U.S. Department of State, Sovereignty of the Sea, Geographic Bulletin No. 3,
Revised October 1969, p. 30.)

Internal waters are those along a coast inside the baseline, which
theoretically is the legal version of the coast. Thus, internal waters are
those which include the waters of gulfs, bays, harbors, and other coastal
indentations. Sovereignty over these waters is identical to the land area
of the coastal nation along which they lie.

Beyond the internal waters, or where there are none, territorial waters
encompass a strip of sea traditionally three miles wide, immediately sea-
ward from the baseline. Complete sovereignty is maintained by the coastal
nation, subject only to the right of innocent passage to ships of all nations
("Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone," Part I,
Articles 14-23, 1958).

The contiguous zone encompasses a band of water beyond the territorial
sea, normally lying over a part of the continental shelf, in which a coastal
nation may prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, and
sanitary regulations. It is measured from the same baseline as the terri-
torial sea and may extend seaward no more than 12 miles ("Geneva Convention
on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone," Part II, Article 24, 1958).
.Coinciding with the boundaries of the contiguous zone, the United States,
under pressure to exclude alien fishermen, has recently claimed a fishing
zone for the purpose of giving exclusive fishing rights to its nationals in
the contiguous zone which is 9 miles in width, exclusive of the territorial
sea (Public Law 89-658).

The continental shelf refers to the seabed area underlying coastal
waters. The term has both physical and legal connotations. Geologically,
the entirety of the coastal plain extending from the shoreline to the point
at which the submerged area drops off into the ocean deeps is all conti-
nental shelf. From the viewpoint of international law, the continental
shelf refers to the seabed area beyond the outer.limits of the territorial
sea. and seaward to,a depth of at least 200 meters and possibly beyond, de-
pending upon the technological exploitability of the area in question
("Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf," Article 1, 1958). Briefly,
this zone may be explored and exploited exclusively bV, the coastal nation
for mineral resources and those living resources which at their harvestable
stage are either immobile or move in constant physical contact with the
seabed ("Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf," Article 2, 1958).

International waters refer to all water beyond the outer limit of the
territorial sea, which for the most part are subject to a minimum of
national control. Although international waters are in part inclusive
with the waters of the contiguous zone, the fishing zone, and those over
the continental shelf, traditional freedom of the seas is not invalidated
by the zonal overlap ("Geneva Convention on the High Seas," Articles'l-4,
1958).

The sovereignty of a coastal nation extends to the airspace over its
territorial sea ("Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Conti-
guous zone," Article 2, 1958). Unlike the right of innocent passage of
ships of all nations through the territorial sea, overflight of foreign
aircraft may not take place over the territorial sea of any nation without
its consent. Beyond the territorial sea, the freedom of the high seas,
includes the unrestricted freedom of the air above the high seas, unaffected

by the existence of jurisdiction associated with contiguous or fishing zones
("Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of
the Living Resources of the High Seas," 1958) or the continental shelf.

When viewed collectively, the international regulations found in the
four 1958 Geneva Conventions and the aforementioned Constitutional clauses
provide almost all of the direct legal bases for the assertion of federal
responsibility in the coastal zone and beyond. Under most circumstances,
state action can proceed in, on, or under all the land and water 1@ling
within its borders with the acquiescence of the federal government. How-
ever, the federal government has the authority to preempt state-initiated
or state-regulated activities in the coastal zone if state laws conflict
with federal laws.

PART II

FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS

Federal instrumentalities concerned with multiple and highly varied
aspects of the coastal environment are roughly delineated into three somewhat
overlapping categories.

First, at the highest level of the federal government, are those bodies
charged with taking an overview of problems affecting the coastal zone. Exam-
ples of-such cabinet-level planning and coordinating bodies, which advise and
assist the President in carrying out federal statutory responsibilities re-
lating to marine science and environmental concerns, are the National Advisory
Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere and the Council on Environmental Quality.

Second, there are more specialized independent bodies within the
Executive office charged with facilitating the administration of various
programs. Examples of such agencies are the Environmental Protection
Agency and the National Science Foundation.

Third, there are numerous agencies within traditional executive depart-
ments whose coastal zone programs are directed primarily to a functional
emphasis. A few examples of such agencies include: the Corps of Engineers.
(Department of Defense), the Coast Guard (Department of Transportation), the
Geological Survey (Department of the Interior), and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce).

The various federal agency programs, legal responsibilities, and multiple
activities, when viewed collectively, define the sphere of federal influence
in Hawaii's coastal zone. However, the problem of defining the extent of
federal influence is no simple matter, since there are only a few federal
agencies which do not participate in some manner in coastal activities. Ex-
cept for those bodies whose responsibilities relate almost exclusively to
the marine environment, most federal agencies have an indirect involvement in
the coastal zone. Their participation may include direct operations in research,
in resource management on federally owned properties, and in direct control of
coastal activities. Indirect participation is generally limited to setting and
at times enforcing environmental standards, providing advisory services and
technical assistance, and matching grants-in-aid to state and county agencies.

In the heavily marine-dependent State of Hawaii, federal agency partici-
pation in the coastal zone is so closely interwoven in the fabric of total
state affairs that the problem of which agencies to include or exclude, on
the basis of their relative impact on the coastal zone, calls for personal
judgment. However, it is believed that all relevant federal agencies having
an important direct or indirect impact on Hawaii's coastal zone have been
included in this report.

OVERVIEW AGENCIES

The Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 declared
a national policy "to develop, encourage and maintain a coordinated, com-
prehensive, and long-range program in marine science" (Public Law 89-454),
and to review the nation's activities in understanding and wisely utilizing
the vast and varied resources of the sea. In addition, the'Act created two
separate but interrelated bodies: the Commission on Marine Science, Engi-
neering and Resources and the National Council on Marine Resources and
Engineering Development.

COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND RESOURCES

The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources was com-
posed of prominent men in industry, government, and education, and was
charged to "make a comprehensive investigation and study all aspects of
marine science in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate na-
tional oceanographic program that will meet the present and future national
needs" (Public Law 89-454).

The Commission approached this task by forming numerous working panels,
each panel being responsible for a major marine area.. An area of special
interest to the Commission was the management and development of the coastal
zone. The decision that the coastal zone should involve a separate panel
report was based on the concern and public attention focused on this en-
vironment, and the awareness that our coastal lands and waters are a vital
national resource being subjected to the growing pressures and conflicts
of the modern industrial society.

The "Report of the Panel on Management and Development of the Coastal
Zone" (Science and Environment, 1969"), published in January of 1969, exam-
ined in detail the many uses of the coastal zone, the role played by
various participants, and both the natural and man-made problems of this
environment. The Panel Report has served as the principal basis for asses-
sing the status of coastal zone matters, for identifying opportunities and
problems, and for preparing measures to be taken. The Commission dissolved
itself after submitting its report to the President and Congress.

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MARINE RESOURCES
AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT

The NationalCouncil on Marine Resources and Engineering Development
was established to implement the numerous provisions of the Act. The
Council consisted of the Vice President as Chairman, the Secretaries of
State, Navy, Interior, Commerce, Health, Education and-Welfare, and Trans-
portation, as well as the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and the
Director of the National Science Foundation.

The duties and responsibilities of the Council are outlined in detail
in the Act, and represent a wide-ranging mandate over the total national
program in marine affairs, including the coastal zone.

The Council did not function as an operating agency; its purpose was
to assist the President in identifying government-wide goals in marine
affairs, in identifying issues, and in reaching informed decisions. It
annually surveyed all significant marine science activities, including the
policies, plans, programs, and accomplishments of all departments and
agencies of the United States engaged in marine affairs. The Council
served the government-wide interest by ascertaining the extent of involve-
ment of various federal departments, bureaus, and specialized agencies in
marine affairs. The Council was authorized to recommend that one agency
assume responsibility for planning, guiding, and coordinating a multi-
agency program, when missions are the statutory responsibility of more than
one agency.

The Council was concerned with the broad area of coastal zone planning,
conservation, and development, including erosion control and shore develop-
ment activities, channel and harbor development, conservation of marine .
ecology, recreational development of marine areas, and pollution abatemerLt
in the marine environment.

In November of 1968, the Council established an inter-agency Committee
on the Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone to explore the intergovernmental
and intersector aspects of the present and proposed management systems in
the coastal zone. The Committee's report (Report on the Seminar on Multi-
ple Use of the Coastal Zone, 1968) was published in 1968. In addition,
the Council has submitted to the President and to Congress an annual report
(Marine Science Affairs, 1967-1971) of its findings and recommendations on
marine science affairs, including the coastal zone. In April of 1971, the
Council released its last annual report. It contains no surprises, but
re-emphasizes the need for reform of the institutional framework in which
resource-use decisions affecting the coastal zone are made. The Council
has been essentially dormant during the past year under the chairmanship
of Vice President Spiro Agnew ("Last Marine Council Report," May 1971i p.
20). The Council was disbanded shortly after releasing its fifth annual
report, thus leaving a temporary void within the executive branch for the.
coordination of federal marine programs.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE

The mechanism chosen by the Administration to take over the defunct
Council's marine science coordinating functions is the National Advisory
Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere.

Section 4 of Public Law 92-125, August 16, 1971, charges the Advisory
Committee (1) to undertake a continuing review of the progress of the
marine and atmospheric science and service programs of the United States,
and (2) to advise the Secretary of Commerce with respect to carrying out
the mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Advisory Committee is authorized to request from any department,
agency, or independent instrumentality of the federal government any infor-
mation and assistance it deems necessary to carry out its functions.11 AS
IlDr. John P. Craven, University of Hawaii Dean of Marine Programs, was one of twenty-
five people named by President Nixon to serve on the new national body.

with the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development,
the Advisory Committee is required by law to submit a comprehensive annual
report to the President and to Congress, setting forth an overall assessment
of the status of the nation's marine and atmospheric activities. Whether
the Advisory Committee will undergo a decided shift in emphasis away from
concentration on exploration and scientific study, and toward concern with
the quality of coastal waters and adjoining lands, remains to be seen.

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Out of a multitude of legislative proposals introduced in Congress in
recent years having a bearing on environmental matters, the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) was the most significant one
signed into law. The Act created the Council on Environmental Quality, an
entity composed of three members appointed by the President, charged with
taking an overview of national environmental problems, obviously including
environmental problems associated with the coastal zone.

In brief, the Act entrusts the Council with making recommendations to the
President on national policies for improving environmental quality, and gives
responsibility to the Council for appraising the effect of federal programs
and activities on environmental quality.

A significant provision of the Act, bearing on present and future
developments in the coastal zone, states that federal agencies must now con-
sider explicitly the environmental effects of their actions before a project
involving federal funding is undertaken. Appropriate federal officials are
now required to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement, including
the comments of state and local environmental agencies, as well as other
federal agencies with environmental expertise. The environmental impact
statement is then made available to the Council, the President, and the public,
before authorization is granted or denied to undertake any federal agency
project in the coastal zone or otherwise.

To further the purpose and policy of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, the President issued Executive Order 11514 (Marbh 5, 1970) re-
quiring heads of federal agencies to consult with state, local, and other
federal agencies in carrying out their activities as they affect the quality
of the environment. By this order, federal agencies were also directed to
make available to the public information of proposed federal programs affecting
environmental quality, to encourage state and local agencies to adopt similar
procedures for informing the public of their activities affecting the environ-
ment, and to coordinate actions among agencies at all levels of government.

It is clear from the content of this Executive Order and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that the Council on Environmental Quality was
given a broad mandate for reform in environmental decisions of federal
agencies.

WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

The Water Resources Council is an independent body established by the
Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-80) and is the principal
coordinating council for federal water agencies. The Council is comprised
of the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Army',
Health, Education and Welfare, and Transportation, and the Chairman of the
Federal Power Commission. Associate members include the heads of the De-
partments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental
Protection Agency.

The Council has the responsibility for formulating principles, standards,
and procedures to be used by federal planning agencies in water resources
conservation and use. It also prepares a periodic assessment of water aLvail-
ability and needs. The first such assessment (Nation's Water Resources, 1968)
was published in 1968, and the next one is scheduled for publication.in 1975.
The Council also monitors the preparation of regional studies which will.
include planning for water resources use in the coastal area in accordance
with the policy adopted by the Council in November of 1967:

It is the policy of the Water Resources Council that the
use, preservation, or development, and management of coastal,
lake, and river shorelines and islands and estuaries are to be
give n full consideration in the planning of water and related
land resources by river basin commissions established under
the Water Resources Planning Act, Public Law 89_80.12

A regional study is under way for Hawaii. It is under the leadership
of a water resources coordinating committee chaired by the head of the
Division of Water and Land Development, Department of Land and Natural
Resources of the State of Hawaii.

In brief, the Council's function is essentially that of coordinating
various government agency programs in the development of the nation's water
resources (including coastal zone water resources). The Council is also
authorized to make grants to states for comprehensive planning regarding
state waters and related land resources.

12Correspondence with W. Don Maughan,.Director, United States Water Resources Council,
August 24, 1971.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS IN THE CABINET

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

The Department of Commerce, with the establishment of the National
oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the department, has become
the key organization within the executive government in developing physical,
environmental, and biological parameters which are essential to the under-
standing of the dynamics of coastal zone processes.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

On July 9, 1970, President Nixon sent to Congress a reorganization
plan (Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970) to bring together the major
federal programs dealing with the oceans and the atmosphere into a single
agency. The President's accompanying message discussed the purposes of
NOAA in terms of the "total environmental system" which comprised the
oceans and the atmosphere, of the compelling need for protection from
natural hazards, and of the need to develop marine resources (Congress and
the Nation's Environment, 1971, p. 19).

NOAA came into existence on October 3, 1970. Its formation brought
together the functions of the Environmental Science Service Administration
(and its major elements -- the Weather Bureau, Coast and Geodetic Survey,
Environmental Data Service, National Environmental.Satellite Center, and
Research Laboratories), Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Marine Game Fish
Research Program, Marine Minerals Technology Center (formerly of the U.S.
Department of the Interior), the National oceanographic Data Center and
National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center (formerly,administered by the
U.S. Navy), the National Data Buoy Development Project (formerly of the
Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation), National Sea Grant Program
(formerly of the National Science Foundation), and elements of the U.S.' Lake
Survey (formerly of the Army Corps of Engineers). Figure 3 illustrates the
organizational structure of NOAA's major line components as of July 11, 1971.

An assessment of NOAA's role in Hawaii's coastal zone shows that there
is considerable activity under way. However, not all elements of the total
NOAA organizational structure have "field" offices in Hawaii. Only those
line components having a current impact on the management of Hawaii's
coastal zone are discussed.

National Ocean Survey (NOS)

The National Ocean Survey (formerly the Coast and Geodetic Survey) is
the primary agency within NOAA which maps and charts American coastal waters
and airspace. It is the lead agency within NOAA for providing and operating
the ships needed for many of the agency's tasks. It conducts hydrographic,
geodetic, oceanographic, and.marine geophysical surveys, and predicts tides
and currents for the Pacific region. it prepares and publishes navigational
charts and related materials which serve mariners, fishermen, and other
users of the coastal zone waters.

ADMINISTRATOR
OfF.. .( G.." C-I
off- t C-W.-..J -A L%,A- Afl- DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR Fd..I C-d- 1. 0- Mppj -A Pd-
Off.: d Aff- hd" C-di- f.. S_
offi. d P.M. Aft- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR a- Ofr- -d SP"W A-
Off.

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR POR
MARINE RESCURCES ---MONITO HCAND ASSOCIATE ADMINLTnLAMR POR
PKEDICTM SCIENICZ A?kTOCHHOLOCY
%

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ASSISTANT ADMINISTILATOR POR
POLICY AND PLANS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF SEA GRAPrr DIRECTOR MOAA CORPS Adt. , Cl-.-. D- P-d D-
o"" &*. D- Fb- 0-
D- CE- D-
D-

NATIONAL MARINE NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY NATIONAL -EATHER SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE NATMAL ENV ONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RU ARCH
FI-SHERIES SERVICE Eg.,-g 0- SATELLITE S VICE LABORATORIES
Off- f: off.. f. L-b --- Y ". -W
Off- f: N.-A r-d.. S-I M-@.&'I OP-- D- K,= Offi. aw Offi. d:
Fi@ H,d,.Iog, Op-
m-- S- . -d M@p. SY- E
ZZ'= RZ=111 I S."- S-
R-- M-W4.t A,--I' :1'-.q 'A C-.Fqby NanorW W-mlq@ C-w
S-- @-I ..... Off- -d

F,,i- K-ch F,.h- Prd...
Td

A
ALAS"
KBG1OH

ALASKA
IN
')ON

A* 11. 19n

Figure 3. National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
1A.E
SURVEY
CEMM

(Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Week, vol. 2, no. 29 (July 23, 1971), p. 2.)

A selective listing of NOS's publications includes:

'0 Harbor Charts -- used for navigation and anchorage in harbors
and smaller waterways.

0 Coast Charts -- intended for coastwise navigation inside offshore
reefs and shoals.

0 General Charts -- used for navigation of vessels whose position
can be fixed by landmarks, lights, and buoys, but whose courses
are well offshore.

0 Coast Pilots a series of nautical books which provide navi-
gational information to supplement the charts.

9 Tide Tables -- predict times and heights of high and low waters
for every day in the year for many of the more important-harbors.

0 Tidal Current Charts -- show the direction and velocity of currents
overlayed on an abbreviated nautical chart.

0 Bathymetric Charts give topographic details of submerged lands.

0 Aeronautical Charts allocate navigable air space to commercial
and non-commercial users.

NOS often works jointly with the University of Hawaii on research
missions. On October 8, 1971, a NOAA ship, the FAIRWEATHER, arrived in
Hawaii on a National Ocean Survey mapping and charting mission (Sea,Gran.t
Newsletter, November 1971, p. 4). The FAIRWEATHER worked along the Kona
coast making magnetic and tidal observations, verifying landmarks, inves-
tigating reported chart deficiencies, and surveying "harbors of refuge"
suitable for small craft in the event of emergencies. The FAIRWEATHER,
which was concerned primarily with large-scale hydrography, continued a
project initiated in 1968 to modernize offshore surveys in the State of
Hawaii. The NOAA ship, RAINIER, will continue this work in 1972 to be
followed by the FAIRWEATHER on a similar mission in 1973.

The national office of NOAA is planning some changes in the program
management structure of the National Ocean Survey to support the national
effortin developing the nonliving resources of the sea. The national
office plans to establish a growing marine technology program within NOS.
it will transfer management of the National Oceanographic Instrumenta-
tion Center and the National Data Buoy Development Project to NOS. To-
gether with the existing engineering technological efforts of NOS, these
will form the nucleus of a new marine technology program ("NOAA Adminis-
trator's Letter," July 1971, p. 9). It is too early to assess how this
program will affect the development of Hawaii's coastal zone.

National Weather Service (NWS)

As with the Nation al Ocean Survey, the National Weather Service (for-
merly the ESSA Weather Bureau) in Hawaii is not involved in managerial
aspects of the coastal zone per se. It reports the weather for the Pacific

ocean and adjacent areas, provides weather forecasts to the general public,
issues warnings against tropical storms, hurricanes, high waves,.and other
atmospheric hazards, and provides a broad array of special services to
maritime, aeronautical, agricultural, and other weather-sensitive activi-
ties in the coastal zone and elsewhere. These services are supported by a
worldwide network of observing and forecasting facilities, communication
links, aircraft, satellite systems, and computers.

The Honolulu office of NWS provides the latest forecasts for Hawaii
coastal waters which can be received via automatic telephone from voice
tape recordings and via VHF - FM radio on 162'55 and 162.40 MHZ on a con-
tinuous replay system. The Weather Service Forecast Office issues marine
weather forecasts at several scheduled times daily for the conduct of
coastal and marine operations, and may issue warnings at any time that
weather or sea-state conditions warrant. Efforts are continuing to estab-
lish a cooperative surf-reporting network with the City and County of
Honolulu.

Environmental Data Service (EDS)

The Environmental Data Service is the scientific data management and.
application arm of NOAA. As such, it serves as the historical data counter-
part of the National Weather Service and other agencies which generate real-
time meteorological and other scientific data. Once these data have served
their immediate real-time purposes, however, they become part of the histor-
ical record and fall under EDS's jurisdiction. EDS's main business, then,
has to do with collecting, archiving, retrieving, processing, interpreting,
and publishing these vast amounts of environmental data and scientific in-
formation, and finally disseminating information to all who may have need
for them.

Some of these historical data are of vital importance to private and
governmental agencies interested in coastal zone problems and development.
For example, the design and construction of small-boat harbors, breakwaters,
and other coastal structures and facilities require taking into account the
atmospheric and oceanic conditions affecting coastlines, such as storm
waves and strong winds. In orienting a seaside hotel complex or in deciding
whether to have windows or louvers, one needs to know something of the
direction and speed of the wind, how often it rains, and whether the wind
may carry rain through the louvers. There are many other coastal activities
in which a host of similar questions arise. From its historical records,
EDS can provide the user with information on the frequency and intensity
of relevant meteorological events in the area in question. Decisions based
on this information, however, are left primarily to the user.

EDS also operates for NOAA the National Data Centers in the fields of
meteorology (climatology), marine affairs, and geophysics: specifically,
the National Climatic Center, the National Oceanographic Data Center, the
National Geophysical Data Center, the Aeronomy and Space Date Center, the
Environmental Science Information Center, and the Laboratory for Environ-
mental Data Research. In addition, under an agreement with the National
Academy of Sciences, NOAA has responsibility for World Data Center activi-
ties in oceanography, seismology, gravity, tsunamis, geomagnetism, meteo-

rology, nuclear radiation, ionosphere and airglow, cosmic rays, auroras,
and solar observations. The Director of EDS coordinates these activities
within NOAA.13

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

The National marine Fisheries Service traces its origin and basic
mission to a joint resolution signed into law in 1871, establishing an
independent agency, the U.S. Fish Commission, "for the protection and pre-
servation of the food fishes of the coasts of the United States" (NMFS, no
date). In 1903, it was placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor and
renamed the Bureau of Fisheries. over ensuing years, the Bureau experienced
a number of name changes and realignments that expanded the scope of its
programs. The latest realignment came in 1970 when the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries became the National Marine Fisheries Service and joined a number
of other federal agencies in the newly formed National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration in the Department of Commerce.

NMFS seeks to discover, describe, develop, and conserve the living
resources of the sea. The Service conducts biological research on commer-
cial and sport fishery species, analyzes economic aspects of fisheries
operation, develops methods for improving catches, and cooperates with the
U.S. Department of State in international fisheries affairs.

To insure that its efforts are responsive to local needs, NMFS is
organized into regional coastal and offshore fishery research centers.
The Central Pacific offshore Fisheries Center, consisting of laboratories
in La Jolla, California, and Honolulu, is headquartered in La Jolla. In
Hawai4.NMFS consists of the Honolulu laboratory and its Kewalo Basin dock-
ing and research facility. The principal function of the Honolulu labora-
tory is to conduct research and oceanographic studies cheifly applied to
the development of tuna fishery resources.

Research at the Hawaii center is organized into three investigations,
each of which contributes to a partial understanding of biological pheno-
menon in the coastal zone and beyond. The Pelagic Fish Ecology Investiga-.
tion studies the interaction of tropical pelagic fishes, chiefly tuna, with
their environment; the Central Pacific Fishery Assessment Investigation
develops methods for, and conducts, stock assessments of the fishery re-
sources of the Pacific; and the Island Wake14 Investigation studies the in-
teractions and biological implications of the islands in the oceanic envi-
ronment. NMFS also has responsibility for marine game fish research.

Some recent accomplishments of NMFS s cientists which have implications
for the future development of fishery resources in the coastal zone include
the successful tracking of both skipjack and blue marlin tagged with elec-
tronic transmitters, establishment of threadfin shad in Wahiawa Reservoir
and its commercial testing as supplementary live bait for Hawaii's skipjack
tuna fishery, and the delineation of modest commercial shrimp resources off
the Hawaiian Islands.

13Correspondence with Saul Price, Regional Climatologist, Pacific Region, June 21,1972.

14Not to be confused with Wake Island. Here the term 'wake" is taken in a similar.con-
text as a wake left by a vessel.

With specific reference to the nearshore coastal environment, the
Coastal Fisheries Research Center based in Tiburon, California, is autho-
rized to conduct coastal zone fishery research when warranted in the Hawaii
area. However, such research and management responsibility of coastal
fisheries is now largely assumed by the State of Hawaii Division of Fish
and Game.

Naturally, NMFS is concerned with any deterioration in water quality
arising from coastal development projects that may adversely affect fish
populations. Any construction or programs undertaken in navigable waters
of the United States are subject to the provisions of the National Environ-
,mental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) which requires an environ-
mental impact statement. Under the current permit program of the Corps of
Engineers, NMFS is authorized to review the environmental impact statement
on its ecological appropriateness as submitted by either public or private
agencies, before the Corps issues a permit.

In addition to providing inter-agency ecological expertise, NNFS main-
tains close relations with the University of Hawaii and other Hawaii research
organizations such as the State of Hawaii Division of Fish and Game and the
Oceanic Institute.

Environmental Research Laboratories (ERL)

The Environmental Research Laboratories conduct fundamental research
to improve man's understanding of the physical environment. Nationwide,
ERL programs range from investigations of ocean processes to studies of
the upper atmosphere and space environments. The ongoing research efforts
of two laboratories, the Marine Minerals Technology Center and the Joint
Tsunami Research Effort, are indirectly involved in current and prospective
developments in Hawaii's coastal zone.

marine Minerals Technology.Center (MMTC). with the passage of the
marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-454)
a strong national impetus has been given to the development of marine min-
eral exploitation. There are four agencies within the federal establish-
ment that are contributing efforts to the exploitation of marine mineral
deposits. Under the Department of the Interior, the Geological Survey is
concerned with the general characterization of marine mineral deposits.
The Bureau of Mines is primarily concerned with techniques of resource
evaluationand recovery technology. The Bureau of Land Management also
has an active part in ocean mineral exploitation, as it is responsible for
the leasing of lands on the outer continental shelf. Within the Department
of Commerce, under the NOAA umbrella, the marine Minerals Technology Center
is similarly concerned with the development of marine mining and is pri-
marily emphasizing the assessment of environmental effects from potential
marine mining operations, as well as the commercial development of marine
minerals. The Center's main facility is located in Tiburon, California,
and its aquarium laboratory is located at Bodega Bay, just north of San
Francisco.

The potential for damage to the coastal zone environment from extrac-
tive operations may be staggering: navigational hazards caused by bathy-

metric alterations at the mine site; turbidity increasing to the point of
inhibiting or even destroying photosynthesis; deposition of current or
wave-carried mine waste materials on shore; and harm to marine life from
4 chemical wastes.

To find a set of socially and economically acceptable solutions to
these anticipated offshore mineral extraction problems, the Center's re-
search approach is based on the realization that as sea floor mining takes
place a certain amount of turbidity is inevitable, whether it is from
placer mining, sea-floor open cut, or sand and gravel dredging. The Center's
concern is how much turbidity will be produced by such operations, how much
bottom will be covered, and how far fine material will be carried by waves
and currents before settling on the bottom. What effect -- detrimental or
beneficial -- will the turbidity have on the ecology in the mining area?

A major effort at the Center is to develop prediction techniques to
mathematically model the changes to be expected in the ocean system that
may be created by marine mining. This project has two parts. The first
is a turbid water aquariums system and the second is a simulated offshore
mining operation.

The aquariums system is designed to study the tolerance of sea organ-
isms to different levels of turbidity from clay minerals in an open-circuit
seawater system. This system is designed to conduct bio-assays on marine
organisms while they are exposed to concentrations of suspended, fine-
grained mineral particles.

The second part of the project is a simulated open-cut mining opera-
tion at an actual site about two miles from the California coast where the
Center has information on bathymetry, prevailing weather, and swell condi-
tions. Researchers will be measuring soil properties to determine the
height to which mine spoil can be piled, and its angle of repose. Studies
will also be made to determine how the spoil pile and pit influence the
wave refraction pattern under variable swell conditions. A measure-of cur-
rents in the mine area will aid in determining the direction and distance
fine material will travel before reaching bottom. Hopefully, researchers
will acquire enough data on the mine to develop a dynamic model of the
operation.

Such research endeavors by the Marine Minerals Technology Center have
a bearing on prospective developments in Hawaii's offshore coastal zone.
Several predictable developments are expected to.make underwater mining
economically attractive to Hawaii sand and gravel companies now largely
operating on shore. Most obvious is the exhaustion of cheaply exploitable
onshore beach deposits. There is also a growing conflict between the needs
of sand for construction purposes and the needs of sand for beaches as part
of the coastal zone recreational system. These factors have prompted the
adoption of a state law (Act 136-1970) that, beginning in 1975, prohibits
the mining of beach sand deposits.

The recent discovery of large deposits of manganese-rich crusts and
nodules off the coast of Kauai may be indicative of Hawaii's future role
in large-scale ocean mineral mining operations. However, jurisdictional
uncertainties at the international level have delayed investment in ocean-

bottom mining operations. Agreements among nations are needed, clearly
distinguishing national jurisdiction over ocean seabeds from international
jurisdiction.

Joint Tsunami Research Effort. The Joint Tsunami Research Effort is
involved with various aspects of physical oceanography: in particular,
the hydrodynamics of waves. Its activities consist of measurement of wave
height, temperature, atmospheric pressure, and other appropriate variables
that affect physical processes in the coastal zone.

The Joint Tsunami Research.Effort, housed at the University of Hawaii,
provides advice as to potential tsunami hazards along the shoreline; such
advice is useful to state and federal agencies, as well as private devel-
opers, insurance companies, and consulting firms.

The Office of Sea Grant

The Office of Sea Grant administers and directs the National Sea
Grant Program which was authorized by the National Sea Grant College and
Program Act of October 1966 (Public Law 89-688). The Act authorized grants
from the National Science Foundation (now from NOAA) for three kinds of
marine resource development; (1) education and training of marine scien-
tists, engineers, and technicians; (2) programs of applied research in
marine resource development; and (3) programs of extension services or
marine advisory program s. The Office carries out these objectives by
making grants to selected academic institutions after the pattern of "land
grant colleges." The University of Hawaii is one such institution.

In general, the Sea Grant Program has focused its efforts on areas
suggested by the numerous advisory panels of the now defunct Commission
on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. At the present time, the
coastal zone and its resources constitute the principal focus of Sea Grant
activity both in Hawaii and on the mainland.

The coastal zone in Hawaii includes shore areas, inshore waters, and
reef ecosystems. A Sea Grant-sponsored "Quality of Coastal Waters" pro-
ject is under way to help resolve the problems of inshore pollution. other
projects consider the economic, institutional, and legal aspects of coastal
zone management.

Surveillance of seasonal and long-term sand loss or accretion, an
inventory of offshore sand deposits, and development of techniques for
replenishing denuded and eroding beach areas will provide needed information
to manage Hawaii's valuable beaches effectively. Study of interrelation-
ships between beach and surf parameters will provide guidance to protect
the stability of beaches and insure preservation and enhancement of surfing
areas.

A Sea Grant project which established the existence of manganese
deposits with valuable trace minerals has drawn strong industry and state
support for a thorough, definitive study. Precious coral, another ocean-
bottom resource with economic potential, is being surveyed to determine
its distribution and abundance. Research results at the end of the current

year's work should be sufficient to evaluate.the.economic potential for a
commercial industry.

Animal aquac ulture projects sponsored by Sea Grant at the University.
of Hawaii represent a coordinated interdisciplinary effort, stressing re
production, growth, disease control, and nutrition of species of commercial
and recreational value. Plant aquaculture includes development of farming
techniques for pharmaceutically valuable seaweeds and the use of seaweed
to reduce pollutant constituents.

Present tuna fishing operations rely on the fragile live-bait known
as nehu. Techniques are being developed to slow the mortality rate of this
bait and permit more fishing time per trip. Potentially superior species
of bai't fishes are'also being studied. A new trapping method is being
tested for a group of local nocturnal fishes which have a significant market
demand.

The University of Hawaii is now closing its fourth year as a Sea Grant
institutional award recipient. The goal of this program is to develop,
conserve, and use the nation's ocean and coastal resources for the greatest
social and economic benefit of mankind. Federal monies are provided to
public and private institutions which meet the requirements of the National
Sea Grant College and Program Act. Grant award recipients are required to
match federal grants on a one-to-two basis.

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

A separate entity from NOAA, the Maritime Administration in the De-
partment of Commerce, thus'far has had little direct specific involvement
in the planning of federal policy and overall national programs concerning
the coastal zone. However, the Maritime Administration is directly in-
volved with transportation (shipping, waterways, and harbors) and shoreline
development'(as it might affect harbor development) wh@ich,'of course, are
concerns of coastal zone planners. MARAD has certain well-defined legis-
lative and promotional responsibilities for the administration of the
Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1151-1161), as amended, together
with certain related acts.

Title V of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, calls for the
promotion, development, and maintenance of the U.S. Merchant Marine by
granting financial aid to equalize the cost of constructing a new ship in
a U.S. shipyard with the cost of constructing the same ship in a foreign
shipyard. The funds appropriated to the marine industry in the form of-
construction differential subsidies are specifically designated for ship
construction or ship conversion and are limited to 41 percent of the domes-
tic costs. By 1976 this subsidy will drop to 35 percent. To be eligible
for subsidy, a U.S. flagship owner must agree to build:the ship in the
United States and operate it under the U.S. flag, with a U.S. citizen crew,
for a period of 25 years.

MARAD also administers a related program for granting operating dif-
ferential subsidies for U.S. flagships already engaged in foreign commerce.

Operating subsidies include wages, insurance costs, subsistence of officers
and men, and repairs not covered by insurance. Under this program (subject
to certain conditions and limitations), MARAD will pay the difference in
wage and insurance costs between U.S.- and foreign-operated vessels. In
terms of economic impact on the U.S. Merchant Marine, this is the most im-
portant subsidy given.

Further financial aid is available to the marine industry in the form
of government insurance on commercial loans and mortgages, so as to make
commercial credit more easily available. Insured loans are available to
assist in financing vessels which are designed for commercial use or for
research, subject to certain eligibility requirements and other restrictions.

MARAD also provides advice and counsel concerning port development
and intermodal transportation systems. The provisions of the Merchant
Marine Acts of 1920 and 1936, as amended, enable MARAD to provide such
technical advice to other federal agencies, to private industry, and to,
state and municipal governments. In this connection the agency is in a
position to provide technical counsel for the choice and implementation
of various proposed water-based transportation systems between Honolulu
International Airport and Waikiki.

In the field of water-pollution abatement, MARAD has initiated a pro-
vision of sewage-treatment facilities in its new ship-construction program,
sponsored research concerned with the prevention of oil pollution, and
initiated oil-pollution abatement in U.S. ports. Other activities of MARAD
on the national and international levels include evaluation of offshore
port-terminal concepts in anticipation of the advent of supertankers and
the development of U.S. position papers on international port and inter-
modal transportation matters. MARAD also evaluates the Economic Develop-
ment Administration's grant applications for port improvements.

MARAD is a lead member of the Department of Commerce Water Resources
Coordinating Committee and consolidates views of other Commerce agencies
on proposed navigation projects. It is expected that further direct in-
volvement of MARAD in coastal activities will ensue, as federal planning
activities in the coastal zone are expanded.

Economic Development Administration (EDA)

The importance of the Economic Development Administration with respect
to current developments in Hawaii's coastal zone has been insignificant to
date. In terms of future reference, however, it appears that EDA can have
a more conspicuous impact on coastal modifications, at least in certain
counties of the state.

EDA was established by the Secretary of Commerce to carry out the
provisions of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (Public
Law 89-136), as amended. In brief, the Act provides for technical and
financial assistance in the construction of public and private facilities
in designated geographic areas where economic growth is lagging, and which
are further characterized by severe unemployment or underemployment.

Because of the relatively low unemployment rate of Hawaii's counties in
relation to the national norm, few counties have been eligible for EDA
assistance in the past. Until 1972, only one county, the island of Hawaii,
was eligible for assistance under a portion of the Act which required that
every state be allowed one redevelopment county whether it met EDA's re-
quirements or not. This was an amendment placed on the Act by Mrs. Patsy
Mink, Representative from Hawaii, and is known as the "Mink Amendment to
the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965."

The Economic Development Administration's program,includes grants and
loans for public works; business loans for industrial and corEme .rcial facil-
ities; guarantees for private working capital; and technical, planning, and
research assistance.

On the national level, EDA has funded about 200 coastal zo ne projects
representing an investment of $178 million. Of these projects, 64 were
technical studies, 20 were business loans, and 116 were for public works
such as docks,' piers, marinas, cargo-handiing installations, roads, water
and sewer systems, and the like (Science and Environment, 1969, p. 111-93).

Applicants to the program may be states, local subdivisions thereof,
private and public non-profit organizations, or associations representing
a redevelopment area. In 1970, the Board of Water Supply, County of
Hawaii, qualified for an.EDA grant of $33,200 to construct a water system,
includinga pump, a control building, concrete reservoirs, and a pipeline
to serve a state park.15

Due to recent increases in unemployment, two additional counties may
become designated for EDA assistance in the near future under the general
terms of eligibility, and thus be qualified to receive public works grants
from EDA. offhand, it appears that more rural sectors of Hawaii's coastal
zone could qualify for EDA-assisted coastal zone development projects.
However, unless there is a drastic change in the economy of the Islands,
it is not expected that additional areas would soon be qualified.

15Information provided by Mr. Matsui, Coordinator, Office of the Federal Programs,,
Department of Budget and Finance, State of Hawaii, March 17, 1972.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND UIRBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)

As with the Economic Development Administration, HUD's involvement in
the coastal zone can appear to be either trifling or significant, depending
on one's perception of the coastal zone's innumerable attributes. If this
region is viewed mostly in terms of its natural-physiographic character-
istics, then HUD's role in such an environment is minimal. If, on the
other hand, it is perceived to be characterized by location and function
as the preferred locale for the residence and livelihood of large numbers
of people, then HUD's involvement takes on greater significance.

organized under the authority of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-117) and by amended legislation, the Department
currently administers 73 programs and services (Catalog of HUD Programs,
1969), virtually all of which can be related in one manner or another to
public management in the coastal zone. However, because of space limita-
tions, only those programs which have special relevance to urban coastal
areas are mentioned.

National Flood Insurance Program

This program was established in 1968 (Public Law 90-448) to make
available to property owners a limited amount of flood insurance, which
was previously unattainable from private insurers, by means of a federal
subsidy. In return for this subsidy, state and local governments are re-
quired to adopt and enforce certain land-use control measures and building
codes in those areas identified as flood zones -- those subject to inunda-
tion by tsunamis or by heavy runoff. Such measures are designed to reduce
the potential for future flood damage to property, and simultaneously to
reduce the amount of sediment deposited in coastal waters.

A move to amend the Hawaii County building code to meet federal regu-
lations to qualify for tsunami insurance met opposition by some councilmen
sitting on the Public Works Committee ("Big Island Code Revision for Flood
Areas Opposed," 1971, p. D-20). Their objection centered around the in-
creased costs of home construction resulting from federal restrictions.
It was argued that using a frequency of one tsunami every 40 to 50 years,
it might be cheaper for homeowners to sustain an uninsured loss than to
pay contractors additional costs created by the building code amendments.
Noting that failure to conform to federal rules could make Hawaii County
residents ineligible to continue purchasing federally subsidized flood
insurance, the County Council later voted 6 to 3 to make the code conform
to federal regulations. This program is a prime example of the "carrot
approach" in the regulation of land use having a direct bearing on the
quality of coastal waters.

Comprehensive Planning Assistance

Section 701, Housing Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-560), as amended,
authorizes HUD to make grants of up to two-thirds of the cost of a planning
project to supplement state and local funds for comprehensive planning

for areas having common or related developmentproblems. Applicants may
be state agencies designated by the Governor, city and county agencies,
and other public planning instrumentalities. Eligible activities include
the preparation of development plans, policies, and strategies; implemen-
tation measures; and the coordination of related plans and activities being
carried on at various levels of-government. A br oad range of subjects may
be addressed in the course of the comprehensive planning process. They
include land development pa tterns; physical facility needs such as housing,
transportation, and recreation facilities; and the development and protec-
tion of natural resources.

Open-Space Land Program

Title VII, Housing Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-70), as amended, em-
powers HUD to provide grants of up to 50 percent of costs involved in
acquiring land for open-space use. Further grants of up to 50 percent of
improvement costs for developing the land are also made. Open-space land
must be acquired and developed in accord with local and area-wide compre-
hensive planning. Grants to acquire developed land in built-up areas may
be made only if there is no suitable undeveloped land in the same area.
Applicants may be state and local public-bodies with authority to acquire
and preserve open-space land and to contract for federal funds.@

Model Cities

This program is designed to provide grants and technical assistance
for cities to carry out comprehensive programs to attack the social,
economic, and physical problems in selected "blighted" areas. Cities are
required to use -and coordinate existing federal grant-in-aid programs and
state, local, and private resources, and to involve neighborhood residents
in planning and executing comprehensive five-year plans.

The City and County of Honolulu has two Model Cities programs in
coastal areas -- one for Kalihi-Palama and one for the Waianae Coast. The
chief responsibility of Model Cities personnel is,to coordinate the actions
requiredat the federal, state, and local levels of government in inte-
grating the basic elements of model Cities programs, and to provide the
coordinated delivery of resources to meet the objectives of this program.

The proliferation of cost-sharing planning programs, many of which
can be directly related to the management of the coastal zone environment,
indicates thatthe exercise of authority and regulation in the coastal .
zone is moving progressively to higher levels of government. Such programs
impose dollar pressures on states-and local communities to plan, manage..
and develop the coastal zone within basic-federal guidelines.

While much has been said and written about the uniqueness.of the
coastal zone environment and the difficulties and complexities involved in
-its, management, the Nixon Administration views the coastal zone not as an
entity unto itself but as part of the national whole. This is indicated
by the Administration-backed drive to enact an overall National Land Use

Policy in favor of separate coastal zone legislation. It was once theo
rized that the prime implementing responsibility for the National Land Use
Plan (if passed) should go to the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (Coastal Zone Management: Newsletter of Coastal Resource Exploitation,
Conservation and Enhancement, December 1970, p. 2). The underlying philos-
ophy behind such speculation is that, out of the multiplicity of federal
agencies that have a stake in the coastal environment, HUD, is currently
best equipped to handle the bulk of coastal zone challenges at the federal
level -- the implication being that most of the pressing problems are urban
in nature. This is especially true of Oahu, where the coastal zone is domi-
nated by the urban scene, which in turn depends on the marine environment
for its survival and growth.

Among land uses within Oahu's coastal zone, residential use appears
to be the most significant, not only in terms of numbers but also in terms
of influencing other coastal-use decisions. Whether residences are used
as permanent homes, for vacations, rental income, or speculation, this use
is bound to occupy an ever-increasing amount of coastal land for a long
time to come, and bestow direct benefits largely upon developers and pros-
pective occupants.

In recent months coastal planning and development news won an unusually
large share of headlines. The State Legislature passed a law (Hawaii Re-
vised Statutes, vol. 2, section 46-6, pp. 5-6) requiring counties to adopt
ordinances which would require subdividers to.dedicate or donate land for
parks, or contribute to a fund for park acquisition, in order to get sub-
division approval. One interpretation of this law is that public welfare
should benefit by rules and regulations requiring substantial park and
other public use donations, in cases where land values rise as a result of
land subdivision. While the City and County of Honolulu is in the process
of drafting such an ordinance, it has yet to be finalized and passed. In
the meantime, coastal development pressures have been mounting. A case in
point is the Makaha Surfside project which has become an embattled issue
involving the City Council, the mayor, representatives of Model Cities,
developers, preservationists, and residents of the.Waianae Coast.

In view of the potential importance of open-space and marine-based
recreation to Oahu, this controversial aspect of coastal development has to
be examined carefully. In May of 1971, the City Council turned down a re-
quest by the developers of the Makaha Surfside Condominium for rezoning
that would permit the apartment complex to be built on more than five acres
of prime Waianae Coast beach property. Newspaper coverage indicated that
the Council would purchase the property and turn it into a public beach
park. At that time the Council's presumed intent was to keep most remain-
ing parcels of open space on the ocean side of Oahu's coastal highways from
further development. It was soon discovered, however, that such beliefs
were unfounded. As it became apparent that the majority of the Council
members were about to reverse the Council's earlier position on the re-
zoning request, the Model Cities group, which prefers parks to condominiums,
lobbied vigorously in a last-ditch effort to forestall the Council's vote.

Model Cities members had asked two city councilmen not to participate
in the final vote, on the grounds that they could have a conflict of in-
terest in the case, since in the past both councilmen had represented the

Makaha Surfside developers. Charges and counter-charges were aired in the
news media. The Council itself was divided on the issue. One member asked
the others to defer their decisions, since a group from HUD was scheduled
to meet later in the week and possibly could make a firm commitment on a
federal grant toward purchasing the property for a park. However, another
Council member successfully argued against deferral: "I believe this is
another delaying tactic," he said. "We heard time and time again about
federal aid and haven't seen a penny" ("Council Changes Mind, OK's Makaha
Condominium," 1971, p. A-14).

The Council finally acted after the City Planning Commission ruled
that there had been no convincing evidence for turning the property into
a public park. In a final 7-2 vote the Council approved the rezoning for
the Makaha Surfside project. Mayor Frank Fasi, who earlier opposed the
rezoning, later sided with the majority vote after the developers said that
they would dedicate 2.8 acres between the apartment complex and the shore-
line for park purposes. 'The Model Cities people have vowed to take legal
action to prevent the Makaha Surfside development, in spite of the Council
vote ("The Coast and the Condo," 1971, P. C-1).

In another similar case, the City Council overrode Mayor Fasi's veto
on a North Shore resort rezoning request involving apartment and resort
rezoning for 137 acres of Campbell Estate land in Kahuku. In this case,
the Mayor had opposed the rezoning because the developers had not provided
a written guarantee that the estate would donate 68 acres of land for park
use in return for zoning changes. However, the Council did respond.to the
mayor's objections by producing a letter from the Campbell Estate which
pledged to abide by a parks-for-zoning agreement worked out earlier.

The controversy over construction of high-density developments along
the Waianae Coast is about to erupt again. The assistant city planning
director has disclosed that a plan for the construction of a 68-foot-
high tower hotel was submitted to the city planning department during the
Makaha Surfside controversy. The plan was withdrawn when the City Council
began discussing a "lei of green" policy to restrict further beachfront
development around Oahu. However, when this.policy was shelved by the
approval of the Makaha Surfside project, the plan for the construction of
an eight-story condominium hotel on Makaha Beach was resubmitted for re-
zoning. The property is currently zoned for residential use, but the Oahu
General Plan calls for resort development in the area.

Sources at the Waianae Model Cities office say that public opposition
to this plan is expected ("New High-Rise Fight at Makaha Looms," 1972,,
p. B-1). The Model Cities organization has maintained its policy of dis-
couraging'development on the ocean side of Farrington Highway along the
entire Waianae Coast.

Public Costs of Private Development - Commentary

As urban, resort, and residential developments have occurred in
Hawaii's coastal zone, they have brought to our society a mixture of bles-
sings. We have an increased amount of fabricated products and a diminishing
supply of certain products of the natural environment. Albeit we have more
houses and fine eating establishments; we also have less unpolluted water
and open spaces.

Traditionally, private land-use decisions have been and continue to
be shaped by considerations of profit maximization. Public land-use deci-
sions are also largely dictated by the principle of "highest and best use",
most often based on the assumption that the market system is a bolerably
good provider of information on both social benefits and costs arising
from development projects. However, recent economic research has shown
that the situation in the real world is often quite different. There have
been several instances when decisions favoring private developers have
been taken against the wishes of the local citizenry. This is certainly
one area where the "invisible hand" doctrine of classical economics --
which equates private selfishness with public welfare -- needs a lot of
help.

As coastal development pressures continue to mount, getting the full
public benefit from land-use decisions has become an increasingly important
subject of discussion. Considerable attention has been focused on public
costs brought about by privately initiated development projects. The
most obvious form of public cost is the loss of considerable areas of
open shoreline from unimpeded public use, despite the fact that state
law clearly states that Hawaii's beaches belong to the public and should
be available for public use. While there may be a need for further de-
velopment, the relevant question centers on the desirability of using
prime shoreline areas to satisfy development demands, while alternative
sites could be used.

Presently, centralized institutions for guiding and directing coastal
development decisions do not exist. Instead, the coastal zone is subject
to competing demands, with many of the outputs being unmarketable or not
directly marketable -- for example, public coastal recreation. Thus,
coastal land-use decisions are often made by extra-market bargaining, de-
pending on value judgments and effective political power tactics.

Clearly, subdivision approval, zoning, and permits should be obtain-
able under well-defined rules and under clear and recognized conditions.
This is especially true for the required park-dedication ordinance. Un-
less the rules are well defined and treated as important policy questions,
it is very likely that influential individuals and groups interested in
coastal development will gain disproportionate benefits. Until county
lawmakers pass an acceptable park-dedication ordinance, it is highly prob-
able that more coastal development controversies will make headlines.
moreover, whether such an ordinance will prove to be an effective tool
for acquiring the highly-needed open-space coastal land to serve the in-
terests of Hawaii residents remains to be seen.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

The Department of the Interior is the nation's chief conservation
agency. It is responsible for water, fish, wildlife, land, park, and
recreational resources -- all of which are viable resource components
of the coastal zone. The Department's activities in coastal zone affairs
include research, advisory services, technical assistance, funding to
state and local agencies, and resource management on federally owned
properties.

Geological Survey

The objectives of.the Geological Survey are to perform surveys, in-
vestigations, and research covering topography, geology, and the mineral
and water resources of the United States. To facilitate the accomplish-
ment of this broad set of objectives, the work of the survey is divided
among four operating divisions:

9 Topographic Division -- whose main function is to prepare and
maintain a series of topographic maps covering the entire United
States.

a Geologic Division -- which conducts a wide-ranging program of
field and laboratory research on the geology of the national domain.

o Conservation Division -- which classifies federal lands as to
their value for leasable minerals (including submerged lands of
the outer continental shelves), or for reservoir and waterpower
sites.

a Water Resources Division -- which determines the source, quantity,'
quality, distribution, movement, and availability of both surface
and ground waters.

Water Resources Division

The only permanent office of the Geological Survey in Hawaii is the
Water Resources Division. However, the cooperative activities of the
Geological Survey in Hawaii are not confined solely to the water resources
field, but extend into nearly all phases of the Geological Survey's work.
The programs of the Survey involve numerous cooperating public agencies
to which it provides technical assistance, largely in the form of maps,
basic data, and interpretive reports. Such information provides the physi-
cal base for planning, development, and management of resources, whether in
the coastal zone or elsewhere. Individual projects in the Geological Sur-
vey's cooperative program are jointly planned and financed with state agencies
as full partners. This effort is aimed at providing the specific data needed
by state and local agencies while simultaneously providing the broad national
coverage which is.the basic mission of the Survey itself. This is in no
sense a grant-in-aid program and should not be confused with the many federal
programs that have been established to distribute funds to the states.

As a federal agency, the Water Resources Division is unique in the
extent to which it shares with state and local water agencies the responsi-
bilities for planning and financing investigational programs. Cooperative
water resources investigations in Hawaii cover a wide field of research
and data collection, in accord with the national obligation of the Survey
and the needs of state and other federal agencies requesting assistance.
The cooperative work in Hawaii is financed with the State Department of
Land and Natural Resources, and the Board of Water Supply of the City
and County of Honolulu. Other water-related work in the state is financed
with funds from the Corps of Engineers, the National Weather Service, and
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.16

The scope of the Division's program in Hawaii consists of (1) the
collection of basic data on streamflow and sediment, water quality, and
groundwater levels, and (2) several special investigations to interpret
the large store of accumulated data as quantitative representations of
complex hydrological systems.

These special investigations enhance the usefulness of raw statistical
data for public and private planners and managers. They range from recon-
naissance studies to describe the hydrologic setting-and the general char-
acter and availability of water in selected areas to detailed and complex
studies to determine more accurately the quantities of water that can be
developed. They also include studies of existing and potential hazards
associated with water development -- for example, saltwater encroachment
in some coastal areas, and erosion and sedimentation resulting from changes
in land use.

The hydrology of basal water systems on Oahu is being studied to
demonstrate the effects on the groundwater system caused by change in
land and water use. A prime example of such change is the conversion
of agricultural land to housing and industrial use. The pattern of pump-
ing and irrigation recharge can be altered significantly, and the exist-
ing balance between salt water and fresh groundwater can be modified ac-
cordingly. By model studies the Water Resources Division hopes to show
where new balances will develop.

In the Pearl Harbor area, where the groundwater basin is being con-
sidered as a possible source of additional water supplies, the Division
is trying to define explicitly the complex relationship by which fresh-
water levels prevent landward movement of seawater into the groundwater
reservoir. The purpose is to determine where and how much additional
water might be taken without danger of destroying this valuable resource
by saltwater intrusion. A related study seeks to determine how much of the
floodwater that now wastes to Pearl Harbor could be recharged to the ground-
water basin to increase the supply further. If the results are favorable,

16The Federal Water Pollution control Administration,was initially established in 1965
under the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to provide grants for research
and development, to increase grants for construction of sewage treatment works, and
,to require establishment of water quality criteria. It was transferred to the Depart-
ment of the Interior by Reorganization Plan 2 of 1966. Its name was changed to the
Federal Water Quality Administration by Act of April 3, 1970. its functions were
transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency by Reorganization Plan 3 of 1970
(see text).

planners could use the subsurface storage capacity in the same way that
surface reservoirs are used to conserve flood runoff.

Sediment investigations of selected drainage basins on the island
of Oahu are aimed at determining the sediment yields, the sediment-
transport characteristics of streams, and the principal factors that
influence these characteristics. The data will be important in the plan-
ning of urban areas, highways, recreation sites, and for pollution studies
of bays and estuaries.

A water resources reconnaissance summary for the island of Hawaii
synthesizes in one package various water-related studies of the island.
This compilation of,hydrologic information is needed for planning pur-
poses by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources.

on the island of Maui, similar reconnaissance studies are in progress
in the Wailuku area. In addition, a study is under way on the northeastern
slopes where considerable water, which theoretically could be used to
irrigate the dry western slopes, is now running off into the ocean.

It is expected that flood studies throughout the state will provide
information relating to the design and location of structures on or near
streams, such as roads and bridges, and to the hazards of floodplain oc-
cupancy and use.

The ongoing research of the Water Resources Division enables public
and private planners to consider non-hydrologic factors (economic, polit-
ical, and social) in making major resource-use decisions. By providing
a better understanding of what might happen to the existing water regime
under alternative development schemes, a decision maker can weigh the
pros and cons of each alternative, thereby minimizing the pitfall of un-
knowingly creating new and sometimes worse problems in the process of
solving existing ones.

4 Office of Water Resources Research (OWRR)

The office of Water Resources Research administers financial aid pro-
grams authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (Public Law
88-379), as amended in 1966 (Public Law 89-404.). Unlike the Water Resources
Division of the U.S. Geological Survey which conducts in-house research on
a cooperative basis, the OWRR does not conduct research itself. Rather,
it supports research in water and water-related resources by out-of-house
allotments, grants, and contracts, largely through institutes affiliated
with land grant colleges. The Water Resources Research Center (WRRC) of
the University of Hawaii is one such recipient of OWRR funding.

Traditionally, most of OWRR support has been in the non-coastal water
resource problems. However, OWRR does support a number of projects that
are clearly in the purview of the coastal zone. These include response of
coastal aquifers to tidal changes, influence of watershed drainage on the
quality of coastal waters, thermal properties of sea water, and others
(Annual Report, 1970-1971).

Bureau of Land Management -- Outer Continental Shelf Office

The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (Public Law 31, May 22, 1953 [H.R.
4198)) determined the zone in which individual states of the Union have
jurisdiction over ocean resources, and the authority to lease offshore
lands for extracting seabed resources. In effect, the Submerged Lands
Act defined the inner continental shelf as being that area between the
baseline (the theoretical version of the coast) and the three-mile seaward
limit of the territorial sea. outside the limit of the territorial sea,
the federal government proclaimed exclusive leasing authority by the pas-
sage of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of the same year (Public Law
212, August 7, 1953 [H.R. 5134]). One of the provisions of this Act was the
authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior to lease such lands
for certain purposes, even though the Act did not define the outer extent
of the continental shelf seaward of the territorial sea. The Secretary of
the Interior in turn placed the authority to administer the resources of
the seabed and subsoil with the Bureau of Land Management.

The principal problem relating to extractive mining operations on or
beneath the sea floor outside the limits of the territorial sea involves
a precise determination of the outer limits of the continental shelf.
As mentioned previously, the 1958 International Convention on the Conti-
nental Shelf17 defines the shelf as being "adjacent to the coast" and
extending seaward to a depth of at least 200 meters (656 feet) and pos-
sibly beyond, depending upon the technological exploitability of the area
in question. Thus, this-definition seems to be open-ended, depending on
the interpretation of the words "exploitation" and "adjacent."

The Department of the Interior has published leasing maps of the
ocean floor off southern California in water depths ranging up to 6000
feet. The Outer Continental Shelf Office has also granted exploitation
leases to oil companies off the Oregon coast in 1800 feet of water, and
exploratory leases to drill core holes off the Atlantic coast in depths
of up to 5000 feet (Alexander, 1968, p. 389).

In a more recent statement of ocean policy, President Nixon suggested
"that all nations adopt as soon as possible a treaty under which they
would renounce all national claims over the natural resources of the sea-
bed beyond the point where the high seas reach a depth of 200 meters and
would agree to regard these resources as the common heritage of mankind"
(President's Statement, 1970, p. 1). There seems to be an inconsistency
in federal policy. The Department of the Interior has been known to issue
leases to oil companies in offshore waters substantially deeper than 200
meters, yet the State Department, vis-a-vis the President's policy message,
implies that it will not.attempt to enforce the leases if disputes arise
with other countries.
With respect to Hawaii's offshore waters, recent Sea Gran@t-sponsored
research has shown that significant amounts of manganese-rich crusts and
commercial quantities of precious coral lie outside the current limits of
state jurisdiction and in waters substantially deeper than 200 meters.
These discoveries have prompted Dr. John P. Craven, State Coordinator for

"The U.S. is a signatory to this Convention.

Marine Affairs, to advise the Governor that the Hawaii legislature should
declare state property rights over mineral and non-pelagic biological
resources within a corridor 400 miles wide, generally centered at the
highest points of elevation along the Hawaiian Archipelago.

Exactly where and how the Outer Continental Shelf Office fits into
this complex matrix of international, national, and state policy is unknown
since large-scale extractive mining operations on submerged lands beyond
the three-mile territorial limit have not yet materialized.

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation serves as an outdoor recreation
planning, programming, and policy-making agency at the federal level.
It is charged with formulating and maintaining a comprehensive nationwide
outdoor recreation plan, and coordinating the land acquisition programs of
the National Park Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Sports Fisheries
and Wildlife.

As part of its mission, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation administers
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.18 This Act provides 50/50 match-
ing grants-in-aid assistance to states and, through the states, to local
jurisdictions for planning, acquisition, anddevelopment of outdoor recre-
ation areas. To qualify for acquisition and development assistance under
the program, each state must prepare a comprehensive outdoor recreation
plan which delineates the outdoor recreation needs of the state and pro-
poses a program to meet these needs. An acquisition and development
schedule is also required as part of the plan. The third comprehensive
assessment of statewide recreation needs in Hawaii has recently been com-
pleted, thus permitting the state to continue its participation in the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Program for three more years before
another updating will be required.

In 1971, Hawaii received its largest federal Land and Water Conserva-
tion allocation to date: $2,609,925 (Hawaii Economic Review, September-
October 1971, p. 7). Of this total, nearly $2.5 million19 (95%) has been
committed to publicrecreation projects that are located within one mile
of the coast. Previous grants have totaled $3.7 million. To date, the
state and counties have had a total of 49 park projects under this federal
program.

From a geographical viewpoint, the island of Oahu is receiving the
largest portion of committed funds -- 45 percent of the total. Oahu is
followed by the Big Island (27%) and Kauai (19%), with the remaining portion
going to recreational improvements on Maui and Molokai. These Land and
Water Conservation funds are being expended on construction of park pavilions,
picnic units, restrooms, landscaping, shower facilities, parking areas, road-
ways, boat-launching facilities, utility systems, land purchase, and the like.

18Passed in 1.965 (Public Law 88-578); amnded in 1968 (Public Law 90-401).

19Correspondence with Frank E. Sylvester, Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Regional
office, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, August 16, 1971.

Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife

The chief area of responsibility of the Hawaii field office of the
Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife is to administer and manage the
Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge System on the uninhabited string
of islands between Kauai and Midway. Activities include planning and
implementing management programs for migratory waterfowl and fish in these
areas. The Bureau is directly involved in wildlife surveys carried out
in cooperation with and under treaties with foreign governments, especially
as they relate to endangered species. For example, a migratory bird treaty
with Japan, which is currently pending ratification, applies to certain
species of sea birds which are part of the fauna of Hawaii's coastal zone.

The Bureau is also responsible for wildlife management of federally
owned lands and waters held by the military. In addition, the Bureau
conducts cooperative research with the State's Division of Fish and Game,
the University of Hawaii, the Oceanic Foundation, and with other organiza-
tions on fish and wildlife research. One example of such cooperative
research was a recently completed study on the fauna and flora of Kealakekua
Bay on the island of Hawaii (Doty, 1968) which was commissioned by the
Office of the Lieutenant Governor. The Bureau is currently involved in a
cooperative effort with the County of Hawaii and the University of Hawaii
Sea Grant Program in a survey of shoreline ponds along the west coast of
the Big Island. A scientific team from the University of Hawaii is sampling
the ponds to ascertain the biological significance of fauna and flora found
in association with these ponds. Scientists regard the ponds, believed to
number more than 100, as ecosystems in a class apart from their marine and
freshwater counterparts. Interest in the ponds was heightened in recent
months by the controversy over Kaloko Pond (see following text) in North
Kona. The results of the survey will be used in evaluating proposals to
develop the South Kohala and Kona Coasts. It is there that the greatest
number of new resorts and leisure communities are expected over the next
two decades (Hawaii Tourism Impact Plan, Volume 2: West Hawaii, 1972).
The survey will aid in selection of natural area reserves and sanctuaries.

As on the mainland, two of the most pressing problems of the coastal
zone in Hawaii are loss of wildlife habitat by filling in of wet lands,
and water pollution that often adversely affects fish and wildlife popula-
tions. In this connection, under the authority of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190), the Bureau, along with
other federal agencies, reviews permit applications issued by the Corps of
Engineers. It evaluates possible detrimental effects on fish and wildlife
populations caused by discharges of effluents into navigable waters and
tributaries thereof, or by physical alterations of such environments.

In a timely news article ("Group Fears for Wildlife, Cites State 'Non
Support'," 1972, P. C@l)i it was noted that of the nation's 52 endangered
bird species, more than half -- 28 species -- arerHawaiian birds. many of
these are water birds whose habitats are threatened by urban developments.

The Executive Director of the Hawaii Wildlife Federation, said that
the state spends so little money on wildlife preservation that it lacks
scientific data on how to preserve the endangered birds. The Wildlife

Federation feels that the only hope for saving the species will be for the
federal government to step in.

The Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife has a budget of $1 million
to spend in the next year to acquire wildlife refuges in Hawaii ("Group
Fears for Wildlife, Cites State 'Non Support'," 1972, p. C-1). Areas of
the Bureau's priority list include 300 acres at Hanalei and the Menehune
Fishponds on Kauai, three lakes on Niihau, several ponds in the Kaneohe
and Kahuku areas on Oahu, Kealia and Kanaha Ponds on Maui, Kahahaea Pond
on Molokai, and Opaeula and Honokohau Ponds on the Big Island. The Bureau
is also empowered to administer grants-in-aid to the State's Division of
Fish and Game for use in its fish and game management program.

National Park Service

The National Park Service is responsible for administration of the
National Park System, which includes some areas with significant marine
resources. There are three units of the National Park System in Hawaii,
each of which extends to the shoreline.

Haleakala National Park extends to the seas in the vicinity of the
Seven Sacred Pools near Hana, Maui. The shoreline is on the windward
coast and is rough and rocky, so water recreation, both present and poten-
tial, is quite limited. However, the Living History Program now being
developed in that part of the park involves the use of the shore and sea
by Hawaiians pursuing their cultural way of life -- fishing, opihi col-
lecting, and other traditional activities. Park visitors use will presum-
ably consist mainly of photography and seascape viewing.

At the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, a long stretch of shoreline is
remote and wave-beaten, devoid of freshwater sources, and consists almost
entirely of low cliffs, thus preventing easy access to the water's edge.
Visitor use is at present minimal, with the exception of sightseeing along
the stretch of shore served by the Kalapana Road. Consumptive uses of the
seashore are not expected to increase to any great extent. moreover, con-
sumptive uses for about one half of that part of the shoreline are further
restricted by the provisions of the Kalapana Extension Act of 193820 which
stipulates that fishing shall be permitted only by native Hawaiian residents
of that area or of adjacent villages and by visitors under their guidance.

At the City of Refuge National Historical Park on the Big Island,
visitors can walk out on the intertidal lava shelf to view reef fish, tide
pools, and wave action. In addition, the shoreline is used by local people
both for fishing and collecting limu. Once again, the relationship of
Hawaiians to the resources in and at the edge of the sea is important to
the interpretive story of the area. It is the aim of the National Park
Service to encourage such use, but to attempt to restrict it to the kind
of use that is appropriate. The National Park Service is trying to limit
the purely commercial uses which could destroy the values of the seashore.

20An Act to add certain lands on the island of Hawaii to the Hawaii National Park, and
for other purposes, approved June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781). This Act added approxi-
mately one half of the present shoreline to the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

For instance, park administrators would like to see the collection of pencil
urchins and coral heads prohibited, but would endorse the continued fish-
ing from outrigger canoes in Honaunau Bay.

In all three areas, the National Park Service has a genuine interest
in what happens along the shoreline, in order that park visitors may see
unspoiled stretches of coastline undisturbed by major commercial operations,
and may also see a continuation of the historical relationship of Hawaiians
to their natural resources. The Park Service is concerned with open space,
recreation, cultural continuity, and preservation of marine and littoral
flora and fauna of the coastal zone. Earlier drafts of park master plans,
now.obsolete, have considered requesting, by congressional action, control
of the ocean waters bordering the seashore of each of the three park units.
The future status of this request is unclear at present. A potential agree-
ment with the State of Hawaii Division of Fish and Game could formalize the
management of those resources to the benefit of all concerned.

The proposed Puukohala Heiau National Historic Site (for which aut-hori-
zation bills are now in Congress) would include an underwater heiau near
Kawaihae on the Big Island. This would include federal control of a small
portion of shoreline and water surface, now under state jurisdiction, bor-
dering'the proposed historic site.

In another move, the National Park Service has released a master
plan for the City of Refuge that would more than double the existing size
of the historical park. "Additional lands are needed not only to pre-
serve inherent historic value but also to protect the entire complex from
incompatible development," the master plan says ("City of Refuge Expansion
Plan to be Aired," 1972, p. C-2).

Another coastal issue involving the National Park Service, the Army
Corps of Engineers, various congressmen, a development company, conserva-
tionists, and local residents is the controversial proposal to turn a
portion of the Big Island's Kaloko Fishpond into a tourist complex. The
Army Corps of Engineers has been asked to approve a permit to alter an
area around the historic fishpond to make a swimming beach for a proposed
tourist development. Opposing the development are a group of native
Hawaiians, the Kona Conservation Group, and Representative Patsy Mink
("Testimony Heard in Fishpond Dispute," 1971, p. B-1).

In its official role, the National Park Service is neither for nor
against development of Kaloko Pond, but rather in the position of a friend
of the court. Since Kaloko Pond is part of a *National Historic Landmark,
any proposed alteration of the landmark involving federal funds or licensing
authority requires the National Park Service to make an evaluation of the
effect of any proposed alteration on the landmark. The National Park
Service evaluated the effects of the proposed development at the Honokohau
Settlement and the matter was referred to the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation as required by the Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In
addition, Representative Mink has recently sponsored a bill (H.R. 11774)
asking for $50,000 to make a one-year study of the Kaloko Fishpond and
the surrounding area with the possibility Of turning the area into the
Kaloko-Honokohau Living Historic Park. Neither the status of this bill
nor the status of the development is clear as of this writing.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

In the literature dealing with public agency involvement in the coastal
zone, the activities of the Department of Agriculture have received scant
mention. Most authors confine themselves to a description of resources
and agency activities affecting such resources, in an area limited to the
narrow interface between the land and the sea, or to the offshore area.
It should be recognized, however, that the soil of the hinterlands is one
of the most important resources falling within the purview of coastal zone
affairs. For example, the quality of the coastal environment can be detri-
mentally affected by surface runoff which transports silt and debris to
beach areas. Although other pollutants such as oil and sewage effluent
have been singled out as serious contributors to coastal pollution, sedi-
ment from surface runoff greatly exceeds the total volume of all other
pollutants of coastal waters. Siltation of offshore waters by erosion
runoff, some of it from agricultural lands and some from excessive grading
for subdivisions and highway construction, is a serious problem. In other
instances, land has been allowed to lie bare for years with heavy rains
periodically washing large quantities of soil into the ocean.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS)

The Soil Conservation Service is the Department of Agriculture's
technical arm of action for soil and water conservation. As such, SCS is
involved in three programs which have an impact on the quality of coastal
waters: (1) District Assistance Program, (2) Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Program, and (3) Plant Materials Program.

District Assistance Program

SCS was initially created to arrest soil depletion in the-United States
as dramatized by the "dust bowl" conditions of the 1930's. The mode chosen
by Congress to achieve soil conservation at the local level was the soil
conservation districts, which were formed through democratic procedures de-
fined by state laws. Such districts are currently in existence in all states.

In Hawaii these districts are known as soil and water conservation dis-
tricts (SWCD). They are government divisions within the state. Today there
are 15 such districts encompassing 96 percent of the land area of Hawaii,
with the outward boundaries of each district terminating at the coastline.

Each district is directed by a board of local people, usually resident
landowners or operators, elected or locally designated. This board of
directors prepares a document describing the condition of the land and
water resources in the district and the problems affecting them, and then
decides upon a district-wide program and plan of action for implementing
development goals.

To assist the districts in carrying out their functions, the State
Legislature assigned to the Department of Land and Natural Resources the
responsibility of overseeing the coordination of activities among the
15 districts and of keeping districts informed of each other's work.

The significance of soil conservation districts.in the regulation of
land-use practices has been negligible, since neither the Soil Conserva-
tion Service nor the district directors have regulatory powers over land-
use practices. However, the weakness of the soil and water conservation
districts with respect to regulation of practices does not imply that their
influence on land use has been nil. Through the formalized organizational
structure of each district,,the achievements of the Soil Conservation
Service have been largely in the field of conservation education and the
provision of technical assistance to private land users and public develop-
ment agencies.

The Soil Conservation Service is essentially an agency that offers the
best technical assistance available. It may recommend that steep or other-
wise highly erodable land be retired from farming, that contour cultivation
be practiced, and that specific structures such as terraces and water out-
lets be erected. To date more than a million acres have been treated to
minimize erosion, and more lands are being brought under some control. For
example, some sugar companies have installed settling basins and hydro-
sepa rators that can reclaim silt for use on poorer lands. The State High-
ways Division has just begun to require the installation of settling ponds
and plantings to curtail erosion from highway construction projects. The
State Health Department has moved on the Waialae Ridgeline Estates sub-
division, requiring increased grass plantings to reduce excessive erosion
that has been polluting the ocean near the Kahala Hilton Hotel. So far,
these achievements have been possible because of the assistance received
through the Soil Conservation Service. However, soil and water conserva-
tion districts could be an even more important institutional mechanism of
cooperative self-improvement and self-regulation, provided that coastal
zone consciousness is infused in district planning.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566)
stipulates that a local organization may apply through the Soil Conserva-
tion Service for technical assistance and cost sharing in constructing local
flood-prevention and watershed protection projects on areas of 'no more than
250,000 acres. In this respect, soil and water conservation districts are
necessary partners in co-sponsoring such projects since these districts are
the principal means for local administration of a land-treatment program
under the Act and its amendments. However, since the districts by themselves
do not have power of eminent domain or taxing powers to finance the local
share, co-sponsoring with the state or a local agency is the rule. moreover,
to qualify for federal assistance, local organizations must have authority
under state law to carry out and maintain the needed works of improvement.

Approximately a dozen local communities have requested watershed pro-
ject protection, and,their applications have been recommended by the state
and forwarded to the Department of Agriculture for SCS planning and finan-
cial assistance. To date, some of these projects have been completed while
others are authorized for operations. Such programs may include fish and
wildlife measures, structural modifications, stream-channel improvementst
and other activities. All of these are measures which should be related
to the management of the coastal zone.

Plant Materials Program

During the past decade, the Soil Conservation service's plant mate-
rials program has played a significant role in providing more conservation
"on the land." SCS operates the Hawaii Plant Materials Center which works
closely with the University of Hawaii in collecting, screening, testing,
and developing new strains of plants primarily for soil stabilization.
Currently, a number of PMC-recommended plants are showing promise in re-
ducing runoff from State Division of Highways projects. Moreover, beach
and ocean pollution resulting from eroded lands is being cut down by large-
scale plantings of pangola grass supplied by the Plant Materials Center.

Expanded Scope

The coastal zone is not only characterized by the physical land-sea
margin, but often includes rapidly changing urbanized areas. It contains
the state's major industrial centers and the preferred choice of residence.
for many citizens of Hawaii. With population growing every year, land is
rapidly going out of agricultural use and being replaced by urbanized de-
mands for living space and for industrial, transportation, and service
facilities.

This growing acreage of highly developed land poses new conservation
problems. The information and experience gained by the Soil Conservation
Service in working with the rural sector is currently becoming useful to
those using land for other purposes. SCS's contribution to broad resource
planning, including both agricultural and urban sectors, has increased
dramatically during the last decade. The Soil Conservation Service works
closely with the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association in designing furrow-
management techniques which should result in minimizing surface water run-
off. In addition, soil, plant, and engineering knowledge accumulated
through the years has encouraged state and county planning organizations
to seek SCS assistance before making land-use decisions. More recently
private developers have been requesting SCS "know-how" concerning soil and
water problems of suburban areas, including advice on residential tract
layout and on other matters where concentrations of people inevitably create
problems of land use and protection.

Forest Service -- Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry

As with the Soil Conservation Service, its sister agency within the
Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, does not participate directly
in coastal activities. However, some of its functions can be related to
the total sphere of coastal zone management.

The Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry located in Honolulu is an
arm of the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station at Berkeley,
California, which is one of a network of regional research units administered
by the.Forest Service. The Institute was established in 1957 at the request
of the Territorial Government, to take inventory of the forest land resources
and to determine the quality and quantity of timber in the Islands. In
this respect, coastal forests are in the Institute's realm of interest.

Since its inception, the primary program of the Institute has been
research in forest and watershed resources. As watersheds are integral
entities of the coastal zone, the Institute's concern with watershed manage-
ment can be directly related to the quality of coastal waters. For example,
preliminary studies conducted by the Institute's scientists on water trans-
mission and water storage suggest that soils under forests are hydrologi-
cally superior to the same type of soils under sugarcane, pineapple, or
pasture. This implies that increasing demands for changes in land use,
particularly agriculture and urban development, can adversely affect an
area's water supply or increase flood runoff or erosion, all of which have
a detrimental impact on the quality of coastal waters. In the future, an
economic feasibility study of obtaining potable water from planting forests
as compared with other methods such as desalinization could be initiated.
It is possible that water obtained from forested watersheds may be econom-
ically and socially preferable to water obtained from the sea.

Forest researchers are studying other aspects of the hydrologic cycle
including "fog drip." It is known that forest vegetation intercepts minute
water droplets which otherwisewould be carried away by the brisk trade
winds. moisture thus pulled from the clouds serves as an additional natural
bonus to people residing in the coastal zone, simply by bringing more water
to underground storage reservoirs.

In addition to research, knowledge of the basic land resources is
necessary to provide back-up information for making land-use decisions.
Intensive management of Hawaii's diverse forest resources can lead to a
broad array of benefits accruing to residents of the coastal zone -- more
and cleaner water from adjacent watersheds; diminished flood runoff, ero-
sion, and siltation, improved recreation opportunities and scenery; and
improved wildlife habitats in coastal estuaries. The Forest Service also
participates in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's flood control programs
(Public Law 83-566) which affect waters flowing to and through coastal areas.

Unlike the mainland where the federal government owns and manages 190
million acres of national forests, in Hawaii there no national forests as
such. Some forests are owned by the federal government-in the form of
military lands and national parks, some of which border the coastline. In
these cases, management assistance is provided by the Forest Service upon
request. In addition, technical assistance is given to othergovernment
.agencies and private firms. Financial assistance is provided to the State
Division of Forestry for forest fire prevention and control, for production
of seedlings, for soil erosion control and other reforestation programs,
and for assisting private landowners in developing their forests. As a
reciprocal measure, the state provides some funding for-the Institute's
annual research budget.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Department of Transportation has a multifold interest in the
coastal zone. It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of the
Department since many of its functions are obvious to the public. Most
coastal zone uses require travel; for example, the tremendous rise in the
use of recreational resources, whether by local residents or visitors, has
been possible because of their accessibility. Conversely, there remain
few areas of high recreational potential in Hawaii which are lightly used
because of lack of adequate access facilities. outside of transportation-
related matters, other functions of the Department are not as recognizable
to the public at large.

Coast Guard

The Coast Guard takes its present name by Act of Congress, January
28, 1915: "There shall be established. . . consisting of the Revenue Cutter
Service and the Lifesaving Service. . The Coast Guard which shall consti-
tute a part of the military force of the United States" (14 U.S.C. 1).
Formerly under the Department of the Treasury, the Coast Guard was expanded
to include the Lighthouse Service and the Bureau of Marine Inspection, and
was placed under the Department of Transportation when the Department was
established in 1967 (Transportation Act of October 15, 1966 [80 Stat. 9321).
Being a branch of the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard operates under the Navy
in time of war or when the President directs. Many Coast Guard functions
in what is now popularly construed to be the coastal zone were authorized
by Congress in 1949 (63 Stat. 495, 14 U.S.C. 89). other statutory respon-
sibilities were outlined in later Congressional Acts.

Port Security

The Coast Guard provides for safe, secure port areas and facilities
and protection of the national interest in internal waters. To accomplish
these objectives the Coast Guard conducts waterside and dock patrols,
supervises the loading and discharge of dangerous cargo within the water-
front facilities, and controls the movement and anchorage of vessels in
Honolulu Harbor when warranted. It has assisted in the establishment of
sea lanes to control the safe passage of vessels in and out of high-traffic-
density ports of the nation. Currently the state exercises harbor-entrance
control in Honolulu Harbor. As a federal agency, the Coast Guard has the
statutory authority to preempt such state control.21 However, considering
the relatively low traffic density in Honolulu Harbor, the state is ade
quately equipped to do the job.

Aids to Navigation

The Coast Guard provides for safe passage on and over the high seas
and waters, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, through an
21Technically speaking, under the interstate coTmnerce clause of the Constitution, the
federal government has the authority to regulate'the control of vessels in navigable
waters of the United States.

intricate short- and long-range system of aids to navigation. The Fourteenth
Coast Guard District in Honolulu maintains and operates a short-range sys--
tem which is a visual, electronic, and audio network of lighthouses, radio
beacons, channel markers and other buoys, and other miscellaneous aids to
navigation. The long-range system, LORAN (Long-Range Aids to Navigation),
is an electronic system incorporating scattered transmitting and monitoring
stations. The most sophisticated long-range system, termed OMEGA, is a
highly technical Navy-supported program which the Coast Guard will adminis-
ter. It is anticipated that OMEGA will be in operation sometime this year.

Merchant Marine Safety

The Coast Guard provides for the safety of life and property on the
high seas and internal waters through programs of regulation and inspection
of vessels, examination and licensing of ships' officers and crewmen, en-
gineering supervision and safety standards, marine casualty reviews, and
liaison with industry representatives.

Search and Rescue

The Coast Guard provides timely assistance to persons and property in
distress on or over the high seas, in waters subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, and elsewhere whenever forces are available. The
search and rescue function is the largest Coast Guard program in terms of
personnel, funds, requirements, and facilities operated. At the Honolulu
Rescue Coordination Center continuous watch is maintained for the control
and coordination of assistance to vessels and aircraft in distress. A
powerful radio station (NMO) on Oahu is the major communications link be-
tween vessels at sea and the Rescue Coordination Center. Honolulu-based
cutters alternate between ocean duty and standby for emergencies in their
home port. Smaller patrol boats are based at Hilo, Maalea Bay, Maui, and
Honolulu.

Recreational Boating

As pleasure boating continues to increase along Hawaiian coasts, a
larger portion of the Coast Guard's effort is being expended in this direc-
tion. As an expanded network of aids to navigation is instigated, more
effort is needed to enforce the Federal Boating Acts of 1940 (60 Stat. 238)
and 1958 (72 Stat. 1754-1758), and more energy is being directed to limit
pollution of the nearshore environemnt resulting from pleasure craft. Of
paramount concern to the boating public are recent federal proposals to
control discharge of wastes from ships and boats. The growing popularity
of'recreational crafts is causing this source of pollution to grow to alarm-7
ing proportions. It is most severe in harbors and marinas. Under proposed
regulations (Federal Register, vol. 36, no. 92 [May 12, 1971], pp. 8739-
8740), the Coast Guard has been entrusted to promulgate federal standards
of performance for marine sanitation devices within a certain time framework.
These devices shall be designed to prevent the discharge of untreated or
inadequately treated sewage into or upon the navigable waters of the United
States. Compliance with these regulations, which apply only to vessels
with installed toilet facilities, shall become effective for new vessels

two years after promulgation of the regulations. Existing vessels will
have five years to comply. Thereafter, the federal government will preempt
the control of vessel sewage from local and state governments unless, in .
the event it.is-necessary to meet water quality standards, the state applies
for complete prohibition of sanitary-waste discharges from vessels.

The Coast Guard cooperates with the State's Harbors Division in the
numbering of small recreation boats, as required by the 1958 Federal Boat-
ing Act. It also conducts boating accident studies and provides public
training for safe boating through the Coast Guard Auxiliary, a volunteer
organization which is strictly civilian in nature.

Law Enforcement

The Coast Guard is charged with the enforcement of all applicable fed-
eral laws upon waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in-
cluding navigation, customs, criminal, conservation, boating, and pollution
laws.

The major Coast Guard law-enforcement effort in Hawaii, aside from
port security and recreational boating, pertains to pollution. Federal
jurisdiction to control pollution stems from constitutional responsibility
that government has over the maritime jurisdiction or "navigable waters"
of the United States in its broadest interpretation.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-660),
as amended in 1961, 1965, 1966, and 1970, is the legal backbone for our na-
tional water-cleanup campaign. In essence, this series of legislative acts
provides for construction and other grants, research programs and enforcement
procedures. Title I of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public
Law 91-224) is the most recent amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act. Among its major provisions, Title I provides for improved control
of oil pollution. The provision gives the federal government the authority
to develop multi-agency contingency plans for responding to oil-spill emer-
gencies, with the cost of the cleanup charged to the offending party, provided
that the United States can prove willful negligence or misconduct on the part
of that party. other provisions of Title I call for control of hazardous pol-
luting substances and control of sewage from vessels, as discussed previously.

By Executive Order of July 20, 1970, the Secretary of Transportation
was designated as the enforcing authority of the Water Quality Improvement
Act upon the navigable waters of the United States. He, in turn, delegated
this duty to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.

Locally, the Coast Guard is presently working on regulations and proce-
dures to enforce the provisions of this Act. It has instituted both aerial
and surface pollution patrols and has apprehended a number of vessels dis-
charging oil into the sea. Recently over 9000 fliers were mailed to island
boaters and marinas requesting they report oil-pollution sightings. Reports
are also being solicited from swimmers, surfers, and others who may observe
the waters being polluted. The precise outcome of all these activities on
the quality of coastal waters is impossible to predict at this time. During
the last few months, the Coast Guard's first pollution cases, involving ships
under the British, Finnish, and American flags (Fourteenth Coast Guard

District Pollution Newsletter, August 1971, p. 4), have been successfully
prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney under the 1899 Refuse Act (33 U.S.C. 407).
As far as can be determined, this represents the first successful prosecu-
tion of marine polluters by a federal agency in Hawaii.

As a public service, the Fourteenth Coast Guard District distributes
a local pollution newsletter to approximately 100 interested parties:
local-state-federal agencies, actual and potential polluters, pollution-
cleanup firms, ecology groupst and others requesting copies.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

How the coastal zone is affected by the activities of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration is difficult to ascertain, since it has no statutory
responsibility specifically related to the zone as such. However, by virtue.
of its overall responsibilities on matters largely related to the use of .
airspace and ground support facilities, some of the Administration's activi-
ties which have a significant impact on the coastal environment are not
easily recognizable to the public.

FAA's role is twofold. It allocates the use of airspace by developing
and operating a common system of air traffic control and air navigation for
both civilian and military aircraft. Groundside, FAA is charged with a com-
plementary task of promoting the development of a national system of airports.

In providing for safe and efficient utilization of the navigable air-
space, the Administration prescribes flight operating rules and procedures
governing the flow of air traffic to and from airport 's. These rules have the
force and effect of law, violations of which can subject the violator to
civil penalties. The Administration operates a network of traffic-control
towers and air route traffic-control centers. It also regulates the installa-
tion, maintenance, and.operation of visual and electronic aids to air navigation.

FAA administers the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) as outlined
in the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-258). This
Act authorizes grants-in-aid to public agencies in developing public airports
that are essential units of the national airport system. It also provides
financial assistance to qualified planning agencies for airport system plan-
ning and to public agencies for airport master planning.

Among the numerous demands placed on the nation's coastal zone, aviation
requirements alone are staggering. For example, Los Angeles International
Airport handled more than 21 million passengers in 1968, and something in the
neighborhood of 50 million is anticipated by 1975. Chicago's O'Hare Airport
accommodated 27 million passengers in 1967 and is expected to accommodate
nearly twice as many in the very near future (Krueger, 1970, p. A/3). To
meet these requirements, more and more cities are considering the offshore
coastal zone for aviation uses and other uses with large spatial requirements.
Chicago is considering a jetport to be placed in Lake Michigan. An airport
to be located in Long Island Sound is being studied as a possible addition
to Kennedy Airport. Similar massive land-water reconfigurations are being
considered for various coastal areas throughout the country. Hawaii is no
exception to this national trend, especially since the mountainous and

irregular terrain of undeveloped inland real estate is unsuitable for air-
port expansion.

Acting under the provisions of the Airport and Airway Development Act,
Hawaii's Department of Transportation, acting as a public sponsor, came to
FAA requesting transfer of certain federally owned upland and submerged
lands to the state. FAA, in turn, formally petitioned the respective
Secretaries of the Navy, Army, and Air Force, who approved the state's re-
quest of title transfer for the planning of the "reef runway" airport
extension project. The State Department of Transportation drafted a pre-
liminary environmental impact statement prior to public hearings which were
held in the spring of 1971.

The state's airport extension plan had been challenged by several en-
vironmental groups, most notably Life of the Land. This group maintained
that the environmental impact statement had failed to point out the adverse
environmental effects of the project. It also had taken action to ensure
a thorough review of the impact statement by the President's Council on
Environmental Quality. The central issues surrounding the controversy were
safety for airport area residents, noise and water pollution, impact of the
runway on the biota and migratory patterns of fish, among others.

Currently (mid 1972), the State Department of Transportation "reef
runway" development plans are in the final stage of preparation. When com-
pleted, the reef runway will be an offshore addition to Honolulu Inter-
national Airport. Before FAA released federal monies for the construction
of the proposed project, all newly raised environmental issues were resolved
in the final environmental impact statement as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190).

As a pollutant to the environment, noise is not a newcomer to the
public ken. The rapid growth of aviation has created a major noise problem
in areas surrounding airports, many of which are located in the nation's
coastal zone. In this regard FAA assists in noise control by encouraging
aircraft taking off from Honolulu International Airport to reduce power
and swing seaward away from the Kalihi-PalaLma industrial and residential
areas. Helicopters are similarly encouraged to maintain sufficient altitude
to minimize noise over residential areas. FAA also requires a limitation
on noise generation through its certification program on newly developed
aircraft, and modifications of existing aircraft.

FAA is involved in a cooperative program with the aviation industry
in developing and testing improved aircraft, engines, and other modifications
intended to reduce exhaust emission, both visible and invisible. Through
this program and its certification program, the Administration puts consid-
erable pressure on the industry to reduce noise and other forms of pollution.

FAA develops specifications for aeronautical charts which the National
Ocean Survey of NOAA prepares and publishes. FAA publishes current infor-
mation on airways and airport services, and provides technical assistance
when requested by a public sponsor for airport planning and design. In
this connection it may be requested by the state to provide assistance in
evaluating and partially funding various alternative over-water transporta-
tion systems connecting the airport and Waikiki.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

The Federal Highway Administration has three principal functions:
(1) multiple aspects of highway research, (2) road-building on federal
domain, and (3) the administration of federal aid to the states for high-
way construction. FHWA has not been involved in road-building projects
within the narrow confines of the coastal zone proper. However, it has
administered federal aid for a number of inland "interstate" and defense
highways, principally on Oahu.

The relationship of the third function of the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration to prospective developments in Hawaii's coastal zone is more poten-
tial than actual at the moment. As pressures on shoreline space mount,
partially due to the spread of suburban and resort development in coastal
areas, the subject of public highway expenditure has become an issue of
prime public concern.

Conceivably, the construction of highways could be used to guide the
pattern of community development and growth along the coast. By deciding
to build or not to build highways, social decisions can be made to expand
or restrict development in certain areas. A case in point is the highly
controversial H-3 interstate highway project designed to connect Windward
Oahu with Honolulu.

Public hearings on the state-initiated H-3 project were held to pro-
vide input for the required environmental impact statement22 and to gauge
the project's social acceptability. In rudimentary form, the lines of
debate were as follows: The advocates argued that the projected growth of
coastal Windward Oahu and the limitations of existing transportation net-
works necessitate the construction of the highway. The opposition countered
that the highway will significantly damage the natural and cultural envi-
ronment and that state planners are skirting the basic issue that continued
growth of automobile traffic is neither inevitable nor necessary.

'In a report to the Federal Highway Administration, the Environmental
Protection Agency's San Francisco regional office (see text) labeled the
state's environmental impact statement on H-3 "deficient" ("EPA Recommends
H-3 Halt," 1972, p. A-1) since it largely ignored the projects' vital
secondary impacts. In the view of EPA, H-3 would not be just a transpor-
tation link, but would very likely also be a major catalyst in promoting
more people and urban sprawl in coastal Windward Oahu, to the possible
detriment of public welfare.

Work on the portion of the freeway through Moanalua and Haiku Valleys
has been delayed for more than a year, to await preparation of an accept-
able impact statement answering all of the criticisms to federal satisfac-
tion. The final decision on the project's fate will be made by the Secre-
tary of Transportation, partially based on the recommendations made by the
Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency.

22As stipulated by the Natio nal Environmental Policy Act; Public Law 91-190.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Unlike some departments within the executive branch of the federal
government the Department of State is not authorized or empowered to inter-
vene directly in the management of Hawaii's coastal zone. However, since
the Department has primary responsibility for conducting the international
relations of the United States, there is a possibility that its actions
may have an effect on 'coastal zone matters. This is particularly true in
the context of the control of activities of vessels and nationals of for-
eign countries. For example, the Department of State may become involved
through international conventions if pollution.of the adjacent high seas
by foreign shipping presents danger of damage to the coastal zone. Also,
the Department is directly involved in negotiations of international fish-
ery agreements governing fishing by nationals of foreign countries in the
contiguous fishery zone and the adjacent high seas around states of the
union. in this context, in the event that a viable local skipjack tuna
fishery is developed in the future, the State Department may be involved
in negotiating treaties to reflect the interest of Hawaii-based fleets.
Moreover, fishing carried on under such agreements might indirectly affect
the ecology of living resources in the coastal zone, examples being the
recent discovery of modest commercial shrimp resources off the Hawaiian
Islands by the Honolulu Laboratory of the National Marine Fishery Service,
and the discovery of commercial quantities of precious corals which lie
outside the current limits of state jurisdiction. As a further example,
a migratory bird treaty with Japan, which is currently pending ratifica-
tion, applies to certain species of seabirds which are part of the fauna
of Hawaii's coastal zone.

The Department plays the leading role in the United States Government
in interpreting and developing the international law of the sea, and most
significantly this function has an effect on the very extent of Hawaii's
coastal zone. For instance, if the position recently taken by the U.S.
delegation at the preparatory meeting for the Law of the Sea Conference
in Geneva prevails, the seaward breadth of Hawaii's coastal zone may be
extended.23 Such an international agreement on.the width of the territo-
rial sea could open up a legal Pandora's box relating to federal-state
control over resources of the coastal zone and beyond -- the recent dis-
covery of substantial manganese deposits off of the island of Kauai being
a prime example.

23An international Law of the Sea Conference is scheduled for 1973 to resolve several
,major areas of non-agreement since 1958. The earlier 1958 Law of the Sea Conference
failed to establish a precise outer limit for the exercise of sovereign rights by
coastal nations over the exploration and exploitation of the seabeds. Another major
area of non-agreement pertains to the width of the territorial sea. In the course
of the last two years, the United States has consulted with a large number of nations
regarding the desirability of making a fresh attempt to achieve some consensus on
this issue. It now appears that there is widespread support for fixing the breadth
of the territorial sea at 12 nautical miles. In addition to these two major areas
of non-agreement, the 1973 Conference will attempt to resolve problems concerning
fisheries conservation and management, management of non-living seabed resources,
transit of international straits, marine pollution, scientific research, and related
subjects.

An International Marine Exposition, scheduled for 1977-78, is planned to
be housed on a floating structure just beyond the present three-mile limit,
in an area where the laws of the federal government are mostly applicable.
This facility will undoubtedly be linked with Oahu through various lines of
communications. These points of connection should be sufficient to permit
the state to regulate many of the activities on such a floating "city" to the
extent consistent with federal laws. Adoption of international proposals to
expand the seaward breadth of the territorial sea would very likely alter the
federal-state jurisdictional regime in the offshore coastal zone. The proposed
floating "citv" could likewise be affected in a legal context concerning the
expansion of state jurisdiction.24 As marine technology develops, other
examples could be brought forward to show how international relations of the
United States, as carried on by the Department of State, may have an impact on
the management of Hawaii's coastal zone.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

The federal government owns a sizeable portion of land in the coastal
zone, including lands in national wildlife refuges, in national parks and
monuments, and in defense establishments. In addition to land holdings,
the Defense Department, through the Army Corps of Engineers, has perhaps
the greatest impact on the coastal zone of any federal department.

Army Corps of Engineers

A shift in the mission of the Corps of Engineers from the early,
strictly military functions to one including many-sided civil works projects
began in 1824 with the passage of the first River and Harbor Act. Since
then ', the enactment of a multitude of laws25 relating to the planning and
execution of the Corps' civil works program has expanded its responsibility
in the coastal zone to include programs for beach-erosion control, con-
struction of breakwaters and jetties, and the effect thereof on the coast-
line; for the development of navigation channels and harbors along the
coast; for flood control involving streams draining through the coastal
zone; and for protection against hurricanes in coastal areas.

Navigation Projects

When the Corps of Engineers was first established in Hawaii nearly
70 years ago, its principal mission as a federal agency centered primarily

24The Admission Act of 1959 provides that boundaries of the state shall include appur-
tenant reefs and territorial waters. State control, therefore, extends at least as
far as three miles from the shores of all islands in the.state and covers all lands
and waters within those limits. Title to all submerged lands of the territorial
waters rests with the state government unless such title has been specifically with-
held by the federal government or has been transferred to private holding by legal
instruments or by prescriptive right.
25For a compilation of laws relating to pre-authorization planning of the Corps of
Engineer's civil works program, see: Robert D. Wolff, Laws Relating to the Coxps
of Engineers; Planning of Water Resource Projects, Program in ' Engineering-Economic
Planning, Report No. 41 (Stanford University, February 1971).

on the development of Honolulu and Pearl Harbor on Oahu. During the ensu-
ing years, acting under the general authority of the commerce clause of
the Constitution and by specific authority of River and Harbor Acts of
various years, the Corps has transformed every major deep-water port and
several small-boat harbors on the Islands.

Navigational projects undertaken by the Corps are limited to provision
and maintenance of channels, basins, and harbor protective works, while
onshore facilities (piers, berths, terminals, and other landside appendages)
are generally the responsibility of state and local governments.26 The
Corps does not engage in any project planning and implementation unless
specifically requested by Congress or by state and local interests. For
example, in view of the rapid industrial and residential development at
Barber's Point (Oahu), local interests requested a deep-water harbor to
serve industries there. Congress in 1965 authorized a federal harbor at
Barber's Point27 which is now estimated to cost $21,500,000, of which
$19,051,000 will be federal funds. The project is now in the final stages
of design; it will provide an entrance channel 3,700 feet long, 450 feet
wide, and 42 feet deep, and a harbor basin about 110 acres in area and 38
feet in depth.

Currently the Corps is planning for several other navigation projects
in the Islands, including further deepening of Honolulu Harbor. other inves-
tigations are now being finalized concerning federal participation in modifi-
cations of Kawaihae Harbor (Hawaii),28 and the widening of the entrance channel'
of the enlargment of the harbor basin at Nawiliwili Harbor (Kauai). A listing
of uncompleted authorized navigation projects, including project description
and status, is available from the district office of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers at Fort Armstrong, Honolulu. The University of Hawaii office of
marine Programs is currently compiling an atlas of Hawaii's marine resources.
One volume of this atlas is an inventory of bays and harbors for the entire
state, including detailed geographical and navigational data in addition to a
facilities inventory.

26For 100 percent harbors, the federal government can provide and maintain at federal
expense entrance channels, turning basins, and protective structures. The berthing
areas and on-shore facilities are the responsibility of the local interest. For 100
percent recreational harbors, the federal government can provide and bear 50 percent
of the cost for entrance channels, main access channels, turning basins, and protec-
tive structures. Under recent administrative policy, maintenance of these dredged
areas and protective structures is assumed by the local interests. Also, all berthing
areas and on-shore facilities are the responsibility of the local interests. Where
both recreational and commercial benefits accrue to a harbor project, federal par-
ticipation can be increased proportionately to the ratio of commercial to recreational
benefits. The federal government can also share in the maintenance cost for the en-
trance channels, main access channels, turning basin and protective structures in
direct proportion to the rates of commercial to recreational benefits.

27The Barber's Point Harbor project was authorized under the River and Harbor Act of
1965. The authorizing document was published as House Document No. 93, 89th Congress,
First Session.

28modification to Kawaihae Deep-Draft Harbor is in progress. The construction contract
was awarded in June 1971.

Besides participating in the provision of commercial and recreational
navigation projects, the Corps administers federal laws protecting and pre-
serving U.S. navigable waters. This responsibility,includes granting permits
for structures in navigable waters;29 the clearing And removal of accumulated
snags, debris, sunken vessels, and other obstructions which can impede navi-
gation in such navigable waters; the establishing of regulations for navigable
waters; and the administering of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.
407) prohibiting the disposal of refuse in coastal and other navigable waters.

Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 18991, commonly referred to as
the Refuse Act, made it unlawful "to throw, discharge, or deposit, or cause,
suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged or deposited . . . any refuse matter
of any kind or description. .. Anto any navigable water of the United States
or into any tributary of the navigable water from which the same shall float
or be washed into such navigable water. . .", subject to certain exceptions
which are not important here. It further authorized the Secretary of the
Army to "permit the deposit of.any material above mentioned in'navigable waters,
within limits to be defined and under conditions to be prescribed by him, pro-
vided application is made to him prior to depositing such material. (33
U.S.C. 407) (emphasis supplied). Parties violating this section are liable to
fine and imprisonment.

It is under this title-that the U.S. Justice Department has recently taken
court action against nine Hawaii sugar mills for causing water pollution off
the Big Island's Hamakua Coast. The Honolulu Advertiser recently reported:
"The companies at present do not have permits from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for discharges@ Under the Act all discharges into navigable waters
ortheir tributaries must have such a permit" ("Sugar Mills Crackdown Asked:
EPA Cites Pollution of Ocean," 1971, p. A-1). In prosecuting a suit of this
nature, a high degree of specificity about. the actions of the dischargers must
be made available to the court. The decision to prosecute this case and poten-
tial cases lies with the Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U.S. Attorney. The ultimate.resolution of such cases and
their overall impact on water quality in Hawaii's coastal zone are presently
unclear.

Beach Erosion

The Corps' participation in coastal erosion projects stems from the
establishment of the Beach Erosion Board in 1930 (now replaced by the
Coastal Engineering Research Center) to furnish technical advice to states
on methods of providing coastal protection. The first beach-erosion con-
trol projects in Hawaii were completed at Waikiki Beach in 1959 and at
Haleiwa Beach in 1965 by the.State,of Hawaii in cooperation with the Corps
of Engineers. By subsequent acts, legislation was extended to permit.the
Corps to conduct studies at federal expense of U.S. shoreline, estuaries,
and bays directly connected therein. Only those erosion problems princi-
pally caused by waves and tidal currents are eligible for study under
present law. Federal participation in coastal protective works is normally
.equal to the cost of protecting federally owned property plus not more than

29Permits for structures over navigable waters are under U.S. Coast Guard jurisdiction.
Construction in navigable waters-requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers.

70 percent for non-federal public parks and conservation areas. Federal
participation is limited to 50 percent of the first costs of construction
of works for the protection of other shores owned by non-federal public
agencies.

Under these provisions the Corps has been authorized to undertake beach
erosion-control projects at Hanapepe Beach and Waimea Beach on Kauai. Beach
erosion-protective works for the Kihei District of Maui was completed in
June 1971.

A new Waikiki Beach erosion-control project authorized by the River
and Harbor Act of 1965 has resulted in controversy. Beach widening at the
Fort DeRussy segment was recently completed using matching non-appropriated
funds. However, the construction plan for the Kuhio segment met resistance.
Local special-interest groups, Save Our Surf (SOS) and others, exerted
strong opposition to the state plan of improvement. In response, the state
has agreed to coordinate the plan with these groups and other interested
citizens. This particular beach-widening phase -- the section of Kuhio
Beach between Kapahulu and Ohua Avenues -- is part of a $4.6 million project
which will widen Waikiki Beach an average of 90 feet from Diamond Head to
the Ala Wai Yacht Harbor. Upon completion of the Kuhio sector, beach sandy
areas will be increased about 25 percent ("'New' Kuhio Beach Grows Day by
Day," 1971, p. D-16). Until plans are finalized, the increase in beach area
for the entire Waikiki Beach cannot be provided. It will probably be greater
than 25 percent.

In 1966, the County of Hawaii requested the Corps' assistance to curb
sand erosion and to provide safe swimming at the much-photographed but
little used Kalapana Black Sand Beach. In response to this request, the
Corps had initially drawn up a plan for a sea-level-high breakwater. It
later drew up a new $1.09 million plan calling for a breakwater 2-1/2 feet
above sea level, 13 feet wide, and running the length of 1,400 feet ("New
Hearing Set on Kaimu Project," 1972, p. B-5). This new plan has been under
considerable attack by conservationists and surfing enthusiasts, since the
proposed breakwater would eliminate three. primary surfing spots in Kaimu
Bay. Since the Corps had altered its original plan, a new environmental-
impact study was ordered.

other Corps of Engineers investigations, not as controversial in nature
and not specifically authorized by Congress, indicate feasibility projects
for a wide array of beach erosion control undertakings, principally on Oahu.

Flood Control

The Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service have
both developed and assisted in creating multiple-use flood control pro-
jects which serve recreationists and other resource users of the coastal
zone. Corps of Engineer projects in flood control are undertaken when the
inter-relationship of flood control and navigation becomes apparent. The
first such project in the Islands was completed in 1950 to provide flood
protection along Kaunakakai Stream on Molokai. Since then, flood-protection
projects, under the authorization of Flood Control Acts and River and Harbor
Acts of various years, have been completed or are currently proceeding on

all of the islands. In the Kaneohe-Kailua area of Oahu, the Corps is in-
vestigating a project for flood control, general recreation, and fish and
wildlife enhancement, with some channel improvement near the mouth of
Kaneohe Stream. Additional projects in and adjacent to the coastal zone
are under study for numerous aspects of development and improvement of
streams and rivers throughout the state.

General Investigations and Survey Reports

In addition to specific projects that are authorized and carried out
in response to local requests, the Corps undertakes investigations covering
a broad array of topics in coastal zone affairs, in response to national
needs. In 1968, the 90th Congress authorized an appraisal of shore erosion
and shore protection needs on a regional level. In response to this mandater
the Corps has released a report (Hawaii Regional Inventory of the National
Shoreline Study, 1971) summarizing the results of a shoreline inventory for
Hawaii, including descriptions of the present conditions of the state's
shoreline, the scope and magnitude of shoreline problems, and identifica-
tion of areas where more research and knowledge of the coastal environment
are required to assess the consequences of natural and man-calised changes
to the shoreline. Other studies of a general nature, of interest to coastal
zone decision makers, are Shore Protection Guidelines and Shore Management
Guidelines, both of which are available from the District office.

Expan Scope

The Corps of Engineers is not a resource-conservation agency in the
literal sense of the term. Some have tended to view the activities of the
Corps as being adverse to public welfare. Life of the Land, a locally
based ecological-action group, has criticized the state's plans to expand
the Haleiwa (Oahu) small-boat harbor, claiming it is an example of "a gross
misplacement or priorities" ("Haleiwa Small Boat Harbor Draws Life of the
Land's Ire," 1972, p. B-1). The state's plan calls for Corps' assisted
dredging of the outer harbor and the building of floating berths for 244
boats. Life of the Land has maintained that the project would cause de-
gradation of the surrounding waters, have an adverse effect on marine life,
and reduce the quality ofopen space.

In the broad realm of resource management in the coastal zone, various
projects of the Corps of Engineers have often been directed primarily to a
functional emphasis. This is especially true since many of the Corps' pro-
jects deal with small-boat facilities geared to active recreation pursuits
of pleasure boaters. However, the potential of these projects to serve mul-
tiple needs has,not always been realized in the past. The Nawiliwili Harbor
on Kauai, for example, has been criticized because it disregards the needs
of beach and park users in water sports activities (State comprehensive Out-
door Recreation Plan, 1971, p. 19). In many cases, harbor projects can be
developed to serve a number of different activities. Initial planning
should insure that the demands of various user groups are considered.

In the last few years, national directives have considerably broadened
the corps' approach toward coastal engineering. Under the provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) and its

amendments, the Corps must now explicitly consider the environmental effects
of its actions before projects are initiated. As a result, the Corps is
currently incorporating comprehensive, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary
studies of the effects of construction activities upon coastal ecology. In
evaluating an application or in planning for a specific project, the Corps
is entrusted to consider the value and usefulness of the project and its
effect upon the uses of the waters by the public, and it must employ pro-
fessional biologists to provide counsel about the project's effect on
coastal organisms. Particular emphasis is being placed on the environmental
impact of federally funded projects, and an evaluation of multi-use poten-
tial is a key factor in considering the priority of these projects.

Military

Approximately 8.9 percent of Hawaii's tidal shoreline30 is utilized by
the three branches of the military for bases, restricted firing, or test
ranges. In comparison, approximately one percent of tidal U.S. shoreline
is utilized by the military (Adams, 1969, p. 94). The Navy alone accounts
for 8.3 percent of tidal shoreline use in Hawaii.

The defense effort has considerable impact upon civilian uses of
coastal lands and waters, since the public may be denied access to and use
of these resources -- a policy which constricts the already limited supply
available for recreational and other non-Consumptive use. At the same time,
lands and waters reserved for defense purposes may be protected from alter-
ation and, therefore, remain open for future options. The expansion or re-
duction of military holdings should be coordinated with state plans for the
coastal zone in the future.

Department of the Army

The Army has nine installations/facilities which are in the purview
of the coastal zone; eight of these are located on Oahu. Tables la and lb
are synoptic statements supplied by the Director of Engineering, Headquar-
ters, United States Army, Hawaii, relating to these Army facilities.

Department of the Air Force

The Air Force has four facilities in the coastal zone. All major"Air
Force shoreline land holdings are located on the island of Oahu; minor coastal
land holdings are located on the southernmost tip of the island of Hawaii..

Tables 2a and 2b are descriptive statements pertaining to coastal
facilities. This information was supplied by the Commander, 6486th Air
Base Wing at Hickam Air Force Base, who is responsible for all Air Force
property in the Hawaii area.
30The tidal shoreline of Hawaii is 1,052 statute miles. Among states and territories,
Hawaii ranks seventeenth in tidal shoreline mileage. The shoreline of bays, estuaries,
and sounds is included in the measurement of tidal shoreline to where such waters nar-
row to 100 feet, and the distance across at such points is included. (Source: U.S.
Coast and Geodetic Survey, Coastline of the United States, April 1, 1961.)

Table la. Army Installations/Facilities in the Coastal Zone

Total Acreage of
Installation Nature of Length of Shoreline Installation
or Facility Location Legal Right (statute miles) or Facility

Ft. DeRussey Waikiki, Honolulu, Owned in fee simple 0.31 72
Military Reservation Oahu (shoreline owned/
controlled by State)

Kapalama Honolulu Harbor, Fee simple/ceded 0.14 138
Military Reservation Oahu

Ft. Shaft er Kalihi, Honolulu Fee simple/ceded 0.00 ?
Military Reservation Oahu mile inland from
Keehi Lagoon)

Ft. Kamehameha Entrance to Pearl Fee simple 0.49 602
Military Reservation Harbor, Oahu

Honouliuli Barbers Point, Fee simple 0.34 70
Military Reservation Ewa, Oahu

Waianae-Kai Pokai Bay, Waianae Ceded 0.34 @16
Military Reservation Oahu

Makua Training Area South of Kaena Pt., Fee simple/ceded/leased 2.00 1,515
Oahu

Moluleia Army Beach Northeast of Kaena Fee simple/on permit 0.47 14
Pt., Oahu from Air Force

Kawaihae LST Ramp Kawaihae Bay Ceded 0.00 3
Hawaii (Submerged; landing
craft ramp area)

TOTAL 1.78 miles of shoreline under
Army control,.all on Oahu

Table lb. Army Installations/Facilities in the Coastal Zone

Installation/Facility utilization/Remarks

Ft. DeRussey Armed forces recreation center including U. S. Army Reserve Center. Beach
military Reservation frontage land is State of Hawaii owned public beach open to public use.

Kapalama Army port facilities located in Honolulu Harbor complex and include cargo
Military Reservation storage and maintenance facilities. Port facilities utilized by State.

Ft. Shafter Located 'i mile inland from Keehi Lagoon. Does not abut the coast.
military Reservation

Ft. Kamehameha Includes Army housing area, Hickam Golf Course, Honolulu International Air-
military Reservation port runway, and Air National Guard facilities. Area along shoreline to
mean high water mark is Army owned. Civilian use by permission.

Honouliuli Army training site. Shoreline boundary extends approximately to mean high
military Reservation water mark. Civilian use by permission.

Waianae-Kai Army beach recreation center operated for the benefit of all armed forces
Military Reservation personnel and dependents. Beach area to mean high water mark is Army
owned. Civilian use by permission.

Makua Training Area Training and impact area; includes Kaena Point. Beach area from Farrington
Highway to ocean is open for public use.

Mokuleia Army Beach Army recreational beach. Civilian use by permission.

Kawaihae LST Ramp LST landing ramp for offloading cargo to Pohakuloa Training Area. The
training area is not in the coastal zone.

Table 2a. Air Force Installations/Facilities in the Coastal Zone

Total Acreage of
Installation Nature of Length of Shoreline Installation
or Facility Location Legal Right (statute miles) or Facility

Hickam Entrance to Pearl Harbor. Fee 2,242.62 1.00 2,244
Air Force Base Bounded by Pearl Harbor Ceded 1.21
Naval Station, the Hono- @2,243.83 acres
lulu International Air-
port, Fort Kamehameha,
and the Pacific Ocean.

Dillingham Northwest coast of Oahu, Fee 637.55 1.37 642
Air Force Base approximately 4 miles Ceded 4.21
west of Waialua town. 641.76 acres

Bellows Directly north of Fee 36.23 2.44 1,493
Air Force Station Waimanalo town and Ceded 1,456.95
fronts Waimanalo Bay, 1,493.18 acres
Oahu.

Southpoint Southern most point on Fee 11.74 0 33
Air Force Station the island of Hawaii. Ceded 21.30
33.04 acres

TOTAL 4.81 miles of shoreline under
Air Force control, all on Oahu.

Table 2b. Air Force Installations/Facilities in the Coastal Zone

Installation/Facility Utilization/Remarks

Hickam This installation shares common runway facilities with the Honolulu Inter-
.Air Force Base national Airport through a joint-use agreement with the State of Hawaii. The
mission of Hickam Air Force Base (15th Air Base Wing) is to: (1) provide
maintenance for all Department of Defense and allied aircraft transiting
Hawaii; (2) provide meals, quarters, and other support for transiting person-
nel; (3) maintain and operate all Air Force installations in Hawaii; (4) pro-
vide administrative, financial, personnel, and other support for over 100
separate operating tenants including Headquarters Pacific Air Forces; and
(5) maintain liaison with federal, state, and county agencies and other mili-
tary services in Hawaii.

Dillingham The mission of Dillingham Air Force Base is to provide an active air base
Air Force Base when needed in the aerial defense of the islands by the 326th Air Division
and the Hawaii Air National Guard. When not being used actively for this
mission, the base is open to general aviation (private flying) by the public
at no cost. Public use of the beach frontage along Dillingham AFB is not
restricted.

Bellows The mission of Bellows Air Force Station is to: (1) provide a site for the
Air Force Station transmitter complex of the Air Force Global Communication System; (2) pro-
vide a training area for U. S. Marine Corps personnel to practice amphibious
assaults and penetration into the land beyond with helicopter support; and
(3) provide recreational facilities for all ranks of all the services on Oahu.
The State of Hawaii has a 5-year renewable license with the Air Force for
public use of the center beach area on weekends from 100 hours Friday to 2400
hours Sunday, and all day on Federal holidays.

Southpoint Celestial tracking facility.
Air Force Station

Department Of the Navy

Tables 3a. and 3b provide a capsulized overview of Navy-controlled
shoreline regions in the state. The effect of Navy activities on lands
and waters in the coastal zone is difficultto describe. In general, the
following can be noted:

0 Tn view of the total defense effort in Hawaii, the Navy.
is by far the major user of coastal lands and waters.
over 18 percent of Oahu's tidal shoreline3l is used by
the Navy for logistical storage facilities, bases, and
operating areas.

0 Significant portions of the state's offhhore waters and
unpopulated islands are restricted to naval firing,
submarine cables, test ranges, and other defense-related
uses.

0 Although the Navy,'s marine science program is directed
primarily toward defense objectives, it provides consid-
erable support for non-defense coastal zone activities
as well.

a. A considerable portion of basic marine research
performed at the University of Hawaii is carried'
out through contacts from the office of Naval
Research.

b. The Navy has recently sponsored conferences on water
pollution and its effects on marine ecology, bring-
ing together federal, state, city and county, and
military representatives. Most of the emphasis
has been focused on pollution of.Pearl Harbor.

c., The Navy has released a small portion of coastal
lands on Oahu to the City and County of Honolulu
and to the state for park development, for wildlife
habitat improvement, for waste disposal facilities,
and for other uses.

d., The major effort by the Navy so far has been to
clean up its shore-based facilities. The problem
of the future will be converting ships to handle
their own sewage and providing shore sewer connec-
tions for Navy ships in port.

31The tidal shoreline of Oahu is 209 statute miles. (source: Hawaii Department of
Planning and Economic Development, Geographic Statistics of Hawaii, statistics Report
67, July 1, 1969.)

Table 3a. Navy Installations/Facilities in the Coastal zone

Total Acreage of
Installation Nature of Length of Shoreline Installation
or Facility Location Legal Right (statute miles) or Facility

Naval Communication Lualualei, Oahu Ceded land 0 1,748 (land)
Station, Honolulu (Inland within one
mile of coastline)
Radio Transmitting
Station, Lualualei

Marine Corps Air Kaneohe Bay, Oahu Fee ownership and 10.2 2,046 (land)
Station, Kaneohe Ceded land

Kaneohe Bay Naval Kaneohe Bay waters Ceded land N/A 2,179 (water)
Defensive Sea Area in and about entrance (See other listings)
to Kaneohe Bay

Honolulu Defensive Waters of Honolulu Ceded land N/A 208 (water)
Sea Area Harbor, its approaches (See other listings)
and tributaries

Pearl Harbor Naval Pearl Harbor waters & Ceded land N/A 5,877 (water)
Defensive Sea Area sea in and about en- (See other listings)
trance to Pearl Harbor

Submarine Base, Naval East Loch, Fee ownership 6.9 725 (land)
Shipyard, Supply Center/ Pearl Harbor 4,776 (water)
East Loch, Pearl Harbor

Naval Supply Center, Adjacent to Middle Fee ownership 0 61 (land)
Ewa Drum Storage Area Loch, Pearl Harbor (Inland within one
mile of coastline)

Public Works Center, Pearl City, Oahu Fee ownership 0
Manana Capehart (Inland within one 98 (land)
Housing Area mile of coastline)'

Table 3a. (continued) Page 2

Total Acreage of
Installation Nature of Length of Shoreline Installation
or Facility Location Legal Right (statute miles) or Facility

Naval Supply Center Pearl City, Oahu Fee ownership 0 134 (land)
Manana. Storage Area (Inland within one
mile of coastline)

Naval Supply Center, East Loch, Fee ownership 0.7 49 (land)
McGrew Point Housing Pearl Harbor

Naval Supply Center, Middle Loch, Fee ownership 3.9 589 (land)
Pearl City Storage & Pearl Harbor
Housing Area

Naval Ammunition Depot, Separates Middle Fee ownership 8.8 1,372 (land)
Oahu Loch & West Loch,
Waipio Peninsula Pearl Harbor
Safety Zone

-Naval Ammunition Depot, West Loch, Fee ownership 6.8 2,537 (land)
Oahu Pearl Harbor
West Loch Branch

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Oahu, Fee ownership 2.7 3,679 (land)
Barbers Point Adjacent to entrance
to Pearl.Harbor

Naval Air Station Area: adjacent to Fee ownership 0.8 524 (land)
Barbers Point, Honolulu International
Keehi Lagoon Area Airport

Naval Air Station, Pearl.Harbor Ceded land 3.6 330 (land)
Barbers Point,
Ford Island

Naval Air Station, Kahoolawe, Hawaii, Fee ownership 34.2 28,776 (land)
Barbers Point, lee side of island
Kahoolawe Island of Maui

Table 3a. (continued) Page 3

Total Acreage of
Installation Nature of Length of Shoreline Installation
or Facility Location Legal Right (statute miles) or Facility

Naval Air Station, 20 miles southwest Ceded land 2.2 108 (land)
Barbers Point, of Niihau Island
Kaula Island

Pacific Missile Range Barking Sands Ceded land 6.7 1,885 (land)
Facility, Barking Kauai
Sands, Kauai

Pacific Missile Range Waters off Barking Leasehold from N/A 7,680 water)
Facility, offshore area Sands, Kauai State of Hawaii (See other listings)

TOTAL 87.5 miles of tidal shoreline
controlled by the Navy,
including:
34.2 miles on Kahoolawe Is.,
2.2 miles on Kaula Is., and
30.7 miles within Pearl Harbor.

Table 3b. Navy Installations/Facilities in the Coastal Zone

Installation/Facility Utilization/Remarks

Naval Communication Station, Transmitting facility; portion outleased for forage
Honolulu cultivation restricted from public use.

Radio Transmitting Station,
Lualualei

Marine Corps Air Station, Navy administrative area and operation of Marine Corps
Kaneohe Air Station; troop training; wildlife conservation;
marine related research; recreation area; fishing
areas open to all civilians.

Kaneohe Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area for purpose of national defense.
Defensive Sea Area Use by non-government vessels permitted.

Honolulu Defensive Sea Defensive Sea Area for purpose of national defense.
Area Use by non-government vessels permitted.

Pearl Harbor Naval Defensive Sea Area for purpose of national defense.
Defensive Sea Area Use by non-government vessels permitted.

Submarine Base, Naval Various uses to carry out mission of cognizant com-
Shipyard, Supply Center/ mands, including operation of supply center, berthing
East Loch, Pearl Harbor of vessels, shipyard. Restricted from public use.

Naval Supply Center, Fuel storage site. Restricted from public use.
Ewa Drum Storage Area

Public Works Center, Housing area. Portion used by State of Hawaii to
Manana Capehart Housing operate low income housing site. It is proposed
Area that area will be transferred to State of Hawaii.

Naval Supply Center, Storage facilities. Restricted from public use.
Manana Storage Area

Naval Supply Center, Housing area. Restricted to military tenants and
McGrew Point Housing guests.

Naval Supply Center, Pearl Storage facilities, housing area, & wildlife
City Storage and Housing sanctuary. Restricted from public use.
Area

Naval Ammunition Depot, Storage facilities; sugarcane cultivation under
Oahu outlease, City & County incinerator site, and wild-
Waipio Peninsula Safety life sanctuary. Open to public; however, permanent
Zone occupancy restricted due to inclusion in safety
blast zone.

Table 3b. (continued) Page 2

Installation/Facility Utilization/Remarks

Naval Ammunition Depot, Ammunition storage, housing area, & wildlife sanctu-
Oahu ary. No permanent occupancy due to inclusion in
West Loch Branch explosive safety zone.

Naval Air Station, Support operations of naval aviation activities,
Barbers Point recreation area, sewage treatment plant, & explosive
safety zone. Restricted from public use. Portions
of coastal region used for aircraft approach & sub-
ject to aircraft noise.

Naval Air Station, No present utilization. Limited use by public, i.e.,
Barbers Point, use of buildings for aviation purposes. Being pro-
Keehi Lagoon Area cessed for transfer to State of Hawaii for airport
expansion.

Naval Air Station, Aviation facility. Used as public aviation facility
Barbers Point, under provisions of license to State. Public access
Ford Island to island restricted.

Naval Air Station, Live ordinance impact area. Use by public limited
Barbers Point, to offshore fishing during authorized periods.
Kahoolawe Island

Naval Air Station, Target area for aviation training. Use by public
Barbers Point, restricted. Areas surrounding island restricted to
Kaula Island boat and air traffic.

Pacific missile Range Operation of landing field; missile operations.
Facility, Barking Sands, Public access to beach area except during operations.
Kauai

Pacific Missile Range Pacific Tactical Range-Tactical Cables. Restricted
Facility, offshore area from public use during operations.

The Department of Defense is undertaking a detailed study of military
land use in Hawaii. The study is dubbed FRESH (Facilities Requirements
Evaluation, State of Hawaii). The defense study team from Washington, D.C.,
which is currently in Hawaii, has been criticized for failure to make pro-
visions for public hearings, although written testimony from groups and
individuals has been welcome. Even the City Council has nothad full op-
portunity to make its views heard. Information of prospective changes in
military coastal zone lands is needed because the City may save millions of
dollars for future parks if a significant amount of military land reverts
to public use.32

Speculation has been mounting that the Defense Department will release
some of its coastal zone land holdings. The City and County of Honolulu
Parks Department director has recently endorsed a proposal put forth by the
Board of Parks and Recreation that the military turn over Bellows Air Field
to the state, with an eye to subsequent inclusion of the land in the city
park system ("Parks Department Backs Plan for Bellows", 1971, p. A-5).
Currently under negotiation is the turnover of Navy land at Barber's Point
Naval Air Station. The land will be used as a site location for a new city
and County sewage treatment plant ("Navy Has Solid Impact on Isles," 1972,
p. 2). Expectations are high that the Army will likewise release some
coastal land at its Kapalama reservation next to Honolulu Harbor. The state
has sought release of the Kapalama land for use by the University of Hawaii
for marine research. To date, there has been no formal commitment by the
Department of Defense with respect to military coastal lands, since the
planning survey of military facilities in Hawaii has not been completed.
The FRESH team will make its final report to Washington in October, 1972.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE (HEW)

one of the main missions of HEW is to protect and improve the health
of the nation's people. In this respect, the two representative offices
of HEW for health-related matters are the U.S. Quarantine Service and the
Division of Federal Health Programs Service (P.H.S. Outpatient Clinic)
which is responsible for giving direct medical care to beneficiaries of
the Public Health Service.

Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred most of the
functions of the Department in the area of environmental protection to the
Environmental Protection Agency (see following text). However, HEW has '
retained some indirect involvement in activities relating to environmental
protection and improvement, primarily through research, investigations,
demonstrations, and technical assistance. These programs are administered
by the Bureau of Community Environmental Management in the Health Services
and Mental Health Administration through HEW's San Francisco Regional
Office. To date, their impact on Hawaii's coastal zone environment has
been negligible.

3.2The military owns outright or leases about 28 percent of all the land on Oahu. A
sizeable portion of military holdings on Oahu abut the shoreline.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Just as a Presidential reorganization plan brought together major federal
programs dealing with the atmosphere and the oceans into a monolithic body
(NOAA), a companion reorganization plan created the Environmental Protection
Agency to restrain environmental pollution on an integrated basis. EPA came
into being on December 2, 1970. In essence, Presidential Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970 called for the consolidation of numerous scattered federal
antipollution operations into one agency within the executive branch, but
independent of traditional executive departments. Figure 4 shows the pro-
grams transferred from old "line agencies" within traditional executive
departments to the new EPA, along with their functions. Figure 5 shows the
organizational structure of EPA and its major programs -- water quality, air
pollution control, pesticides, radiation, and solid-waste management -- each
of which has significant impact on coastal zone matters.

EPA's principal mission is to implement the objectives defined in a
host of legislative acts (e.g., Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, and Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970)
(Beard, 1971). Functions of this agency include: setting and enforcing
environmental standards; conducting research on the causes, effects, and
control of environmental problems; assisting state and local governments
in planning environmental protection programs; and granting financial assis-
tance in the form of ma+-ching grants for municipal waste-treatment facili-
ties and other pollution control programs.

To insure that its efforts are more responsive to local needs and to
better effect coordination with other federal agencies on pollution abatement
matters, ten administrative regions were established within EPA along exist-
ing political (state) boundaries. Hawaii belongs to region IX which is
headquartered in San Francisco.33

Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, a predecessor
agency of EPA, a field office was established in Honolulu to facilitate the
carrying out of FWPCA programs.34 FWPCA was incorporated into EPA which has
a much larger area of environmental responsibility. The functions of the
Hawaii office were then reevaluated in light of broader goals and new respon-
sibilities, particularly in the realm of enforcement and regulation of
adopted standards for air and water quality. From the standpoints of over-
all efficiency and economy, it was decided that a small EPA office should be
retained in Hawaii with strong staff support from its San Francisco head-
quarters. The present functions of the Honolulu office are to provide
liaison, coordination, and public information in all areas of EPA responsi-
bility, rather than in the limited area of water quality only. Specialists
from the regional headquarters are available to provide input on a need
basis.

33Region IX also includes California, Nevada, Arizona, the Territories of Guam and
American Sawa, 4nd the Trust Territory Islands.

34See footnote #16.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Program Transferred from Functions

Federal Water Quality Ad- Interior ---------------------- Charged with the control of pollutants which Impair
ministration. water quality, it is broadly concerned with the impact
of degraded water quality. It performs a wide variety
of functions, including research, standard-setting and
enforcement, and provides construction grants and
technical assistance.
National Air Pollution Control Health, Education and Welfare- As the principal Federal agency concerned with air
Administration. pollution, it conducts research on the effects of ai-
pollution, operates a monitoring network, and pror
mulgates criteria which serve as the basis for setting
air quality standards. Its regulatory functions are
similar to those of the Federal Water Quality Ad.
ministration. NAPCA is responsible for. administering
the Clean Air Act, which involves designating air
quality region, 8pprOVin.%State standards, and pro-
viding financial and tec nical assistance to State
control agencies to enable them to comply with the
act's provisions. Also sets and enforces Federal auto-
motive emission standards.
Bureau of Water Hygiene ..... Health, Education and Welfare The Environmental Control Administration is the focal
(Environmental Control Ad- point within HEW for evaluation and control of a
ministration). broad range of environmental health problems, in-
cluding w@tetrliquality. solid wastes, and radiation.
Programs in a ECA involve research. development
of criteria and standards, and the administration of
planning and demonstration grants. From the ECA,
the activities of the Bureaus of Water Hygiene, Solid
Waste Management, and portions of the activities of
the Bureau of Radiological Health are transferred.
Bureau of Solid Waste Health. Education, and Welfare Other functions of the ECA, including those related to
Management. (Environmental Control Ad- the regulation of radiation from consumer products
ministration). and occupational safety and health remain in HEW.
Bureau of Radiological Health. Education, and Welfare The Food and Drug Administration's pesticides pro.
Health. (Environmental Control Ad- gram consists of setting and enfoi, Ing standards
ministration). which limit pesticide residues in food ZPA will have
authority to set pesticide standards to monitor
compliance with them, and to conduct related er-
search. FDA retains authority to remove from the
market lood with excess pesticide residue.
Pesticide Standards and Health, Education, and Welfare Authority for research on effects of pesticides on fish
Research. and interior. and wildlife is transterred from Interior. This is
specialized research authority under the 1958 Pesti.
cdes Act. Interior retains research on all factors
affecting fish and wildlife. The transfer involves only
one laboratory-Gulf Breeze of the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries. EPA will work closely with Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife laboratories.
Pesticides registration ------- Agriculture (Agricultural Agriculture's pesticides registration and monitoring
Research Service). function is transferred to EPA, to be merged with
pesticides programs from HEW and Interior. Agricul-
ture will continue research on effectiveness of pesti-
cides, furnishing this information to EPA. EPA will
handle pesticides' licensing after consideration of
environmental and health effects. EPA will use
Agriculture's expertise, as in evaluating efficacy of
various pesticides as related to other pest control
methods and effects of pesticides on nontarget plants,
livestock, and poultry. Agriculture's educational pro.
gram an pesticide use will continue to be carried out
through its extension service.
federal Radiation Council Executive Office of the Presi- The Atomic Energy Commission is responsible for
environmental radiation dent, Atomic Energy Com- establishing environmental radiation and emission
standards. mission, and Federal Radiation limits. These standards have been based largely on
Council. broad guidelines recommended by the Federal Radia-
tion Council. AEC's sta ndard- setting authority and
FRC's functions are transferred to EPA. AEC retains
responsibility for implementation and enforcement of
radiation standards through its licensing authority.
Studies of ecological systems. Council on Environmental Authority of the Council on Environmental Quality to
Quality, Executive Office of the perform studies and research relating to ecological
President. systems is transferred to EPA. It will help EPA to
measure the Impact of pollutants. The CEQ retains
authority to conduct studies and research relating to
environmental quality.

Figure 4. Programs Transferred into the Environmental
Protection Agency

(Source: U.S. Library of Congress, Environmental Policy
Division, Congressional Research Service, Congress and
the Nation's Environment: Environmental Affairs of the
91st Congress [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, February 10, 1971] P. 16.)

ADMINISTRATOR

Deputy Administrator

STAFF OFFICES

Office of Office of office of
Office of F Equal Opportunity International Affairs Public Affairs
Congressional Affairs

of
Asst. Administrator Asst. Administrat sst. Administrator Asst. Administrator Asst. Administrator
for for Enforcement for for for Research
Planning Management General Counsel Media Programs Categorical Programs & Monitoring
I I I

Office of. Office of Office of Office of Office of
Administration Planning & Enforcement Air Programs Pesticides
Evaluation Programs

Office of Office Of Office of Office of Office of
Audit Resources Mgt. General Counsel Water .Programs Radiation
Programs

Office of
Solid Waste
Mzt@ Programs
REGIONAL OFFICES

Region I Region 11 .0 IV Region V Region VI
Bosto New York FAIII@,M7, Chicago D 11 s

Figure 5. Environmental Protection Agency

(Source: office of the Federal Register, United States Government Organizational Manual
H
L =,,t0,ff'P',--,,0f,- H
L

1971172 [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1, 1971] p. 632.)

In recent years, various congressional acts have established national
policy to protect existing levels of environmental quality and to upgrade
the quality of the environment where it appears possible to do so. Whereas
the federal government establishes policy, it lays responsibility on the
states to adopt necessary procedures to implement such policy within a
certain time framework. This kind of an approach is backed up by a program
of federal grants giving states wide discretion in implementing the federal
guidelines. A primary responsibility of EPA is to insure that federal
monies are effectively used in meeting national environmental policy
objectives.

Because of the complexity of many coastal zone environmental problems,
several components within EPA may become involved in their solution.
Pollution problems in the coastal zone frequently appear in all media --
air, land, and water., The same pollution source may contribute to several
different kinds of pollution. For example, nationally as well as.in Hawaii,
the proper disposal of used motor oil can present something of a dilemma.
Used motor oil is seldom acceptable for use in a sanitary landfill; air
quality standards may be violated if disposal is by means of open fires or
ordinary incineration; and state and federal requirements prohibit the
dumping of oil in areas protected by water quality standards. Ideally,
recycling is the most desirable, but facilities may not be available to do
so. Specifically designed high-temperature incinerators offer some promise
of relief, but some difficulties remain. EPA has sponsored research on
this and on similar problems to assist state and local governments to find
socially acceptable solutions..

obviously, the mere creation of EPA has not guaranteed solutions to
such problems as the disposal of used motor oil. However, it has provided
for a direct attack on a set of environmental degredation problems.
Coordinated efforts are under way by federal, state, and local agencies
to achieve a better environment. Through the adoption of federal standards
for environmental protection, backed by legislation for their enforcement,
often with federal participation in funding, progress is being made on
many fronts. The Navy with the cooperation of state and local agencies is
in the process of cleaning up Pearl Harbor. A strong grading ordinance is
pending adoption by the City and County of Honolulu to reduce excessive
eros-Lon and siltation of coastal waters. The construction of municipal
waste-water treatment plants will eliminate present discharges of raw sew-
age. State agreements with the sugar industry should eventually remove
fibrous waste materials from ocean discharges along the Hamakua coast on
the island of Hawaii. In an effort.to further abate the remaining chronic
pollution problems arising from sugar mills along the coastline, EPA has
requested the Justice Department to-take necessary action.

With its broad responsibility for environmental protection, EPA is
emerging as the key federal enforcement agency or the "watchdog" of envi-
ronmental,quality regulations.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)

Prior to Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 which created NOAA out of
its major line components, the National Science Foundation administered the
Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-688) which brought
the National Sea Grant Program into existence. The creation of the NOAA
infrastructure transferred both the administration and institutional
funding support of the Sea Grant office from NSF to the Department of
Commerce.

The National Science Foundation has no special legal or statutory
mission in the coastal zone of the United States. Created by the National
science Foundation Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 149; 42 U.S.C. 1861-1875) and
given additional authority by the National Defense Education Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 1601; 42 U.S.C. 1876-1879), as amended, the main function of NSF
is to support research and education in the sciences. While it istrue
that most federal appropriations for marine research directly applicable
to practical coastal zone science are now channeled through other federal
agencies, NSF still sponsors a good share of such programs. The research
is conducted by universities and other institutions. The University of
Hawaii is one such institution in the state that has recently received many
research and education grants from the Foundation. A few examples of NSF-
sponsored projects that could result in long-run payoffs by providing in-
formation for the rational management of Hawaii's coastal zone regime are:
Computer Simulation Studies of "Littorina" (seashore) Populations; Nutrient
Limited Growth and Population Dynamics of Marine Phytoplankton; Chronology
and Extent of Subsidence of the Hawaii Ridge; Dynamic Response of Free-
Standing Structures to Wind Forces; and Operation Support of Research
Vessels Operating in the Nearshore and offshore Environment (National Science
Foundation Grants and Awards for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1970, 1971).

SMITHSONIANINSTITUTION

The Smithsonian Institution administers a number of government pro-
grams placed under its control by Congress and is funded mainly by federal
appropriations. It is a federally chartered, nonprofit corporation which
performs fundamental research primarily in thd fields of systematics and
ecology. Projects sponsored and conducted by the Institution can contrib-
ute to resource management in the coastal zone by providing new information
for the solution of major problems of conservation and pollution.

The developing coral reef ecosystem dilemmas in Hawaii (Banner and
Bailey, 1970; "K-Bay: World's Worst Coral Pollution," 1971, p. A-15; and
Branham, et al., 1971) demonstrate that such back-up information is essen-
tial for making resource-management and land-use decisions. Evidence of
significant detrimental changes in coral reefs in Kaneohe Bay has been pre-
sented, as a direct result of urbanization of the Kaneohe Bay watershed. Ex-
tensive portions of the reefs have been damaged, primarily due to increased
freshwater runoff and siltation and increased volumes of sewage entering
the bay.

These findings suggest that proper management of the coastal zone
requires a continuing program of monitoring and research. To meet such
challenges, the Smithsonian Institution plans and undertakes national and
international programs in predictive ecology and environmental management,
and provides contract services to those engaged in environmental studies.
In addition to sponsoring studies that contribute to coastal zone science,
the Institution maintains the National museum of Natural History whose
collections include specimens from the Hawaii coastal region.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Superficially, NASA's involvement in Hawaii's coastal zone seems remote.
However, an inspection of its overall program reveals that some of its space
efforts are resulting in practical benefits.

NASA-launched weather satellites are providing a variety of direct,
continuing benefits. Major applications are in weather analysis and fore-
casting services, based mostly on large-scale cloud patterns displayed in
satellite pictures. These show the location of major atmospheric systems
and provide insights into their structure and motion. Satellite data are
being routinely used in weather and surf forecasts for aviation and shipping
interests throughout the Pacific, as well as in minimizing the risk of sea-
state hazards, particularly to the many small boatsmen and fishermen active
in the Islands (First Five Years of the Environmental Satellite Program
An Assessment, 1971).

Another important part of NASA's satellite program is directed toward
resource monitoring. NASA has-recently launched a satellite as part of a
long-range program dubbed EROS for Environmental Resources Orbiting Satel-
lite ("NASA Will Keep an Eye [ERTS-A] on all Hawaii," 1972, p. A-14). It
is expected that the satellite will be capable of revealing changes in
beaches and be able to detect pollutants or changes in pollutant levels in
Pearl Harbor and Kaneohe Bay. It should be able to locate heat sources
beneath the islands for geothermal power applications and spot offshore
oil spills that could threaten Hawaii's beaches. A more futuristic appli-
cation could make possible the monitoring of primary productivity of reef
areas in the Hawaiian Archipelago, as well as provide a base for an inven-
tory of major land resources in the coastal zone.

APPENDIX

RESPONDENTS IN SURVEY OF FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS

BY AGENCY AFFILIATION

OVERVIEW AGENCIES

John P. Craven, member of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere
w. Don Naughan, Director, and Ernestine Gibson, Executive Assistant, United
States Water Resources Council

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS IN THE CABINET

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

T.J. Patterson, Jr., Western Region Director, Maritime Administration
C. Mark Smith, Regional Director, Economic Development Administration

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Captain John B. Watkins, Jr.,* Area Director,, National Ocean Survey
F.D. Moran, Chief, Pacific Tide Party, National Ocean Survey
P.H. Kutschenreuter,* Director, National Weather Service, Pacific Region
Saul Price,* Regional Climatologist, Environmental Data Service, Pacific
Region
Frank J. Hester,* Area Director, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Honolulu Laboratory
Wilmot N. Hess, Director, Environmental Research Laboratories
Gordon W. Dean, Research Supervisor, Marine Mainerals Technology Center
Gaylord R. Miller, Director, Joint Tsunami Research Effort
Jack R. Davidson, Director, University of Hawaii Sea Grant Program

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

W.L. Burnham,* District Chief, Water Resources Division, Geological Survey
Frank E. Sylvester, Regional Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Pacific Southwest Regional office
Robert L. Barrel,* General Superintendent, National Park Service, Hawaii
Group

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Fred Haughton, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service
Robert E. Nelson, Director, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Forest
Service

interviewed.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Captain Jefferies* and Commander H.F. Olson, U.S. Coast Guard, 14th Coast
Guard District
Charles W. Carmody,* Chief, Planning/Appraisal Staff, Federal Aviation
Administration, Pacific Region
John B. Dalhouse, Division Engineer and Ralph T. Segawa, Division Engineer,
Federal Highway.Administration, Region Nine

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Stuart Blow, Acting Coordinator of ocean Affairs and Special Assistant to
the Secretary
Vilvan G. Van Campen, Foreign Affairs Officer.and Officer of the Coordinator
of Ocean Affairs

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Army Corps of Engineers
Karl V. Keller and Clarence Fujii,* Planning Branch, Honolulu District

Military

Army
Colonel Donald D. Gabe, Director of Engineering, Hawaii

Air Force

Colonel Ernest W. Pate, Commander
Colonel Charles W. Lamb, Deputy Commander for Civil Engineering

Navy
Rear Admiral H.S. Morgan, Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics,
Personnel and Administration, Pacific Fleet
D.E. Gately, Assistant Chief of Staff for Logistics, Pacific Fleet

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

E. Bartlett Kerr, Acting Regional Director, San Francisco
Fernando E.C. DeBaca, Regional Director, San Francisco

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

L. Russell Freeman,* (Formerly) Director, Pacific Islands office, Environ-@
mental Protection Agency
Charles M. Seeley, Acting Director, Pacific Islands office, Environmental
Protection Agency
T.O. Jones, Deputy Assistant Director, National and International Programs,
National Science Foundation
Robert P. Higgins, Director, Oceanography and Limnology Program,
Smithsonian Institution

REFERENCES CITED

PART I. INTRODUCTION

Adams, David A., "Federal Activities in the Coastal zone," in Transactions
of the Thirty-Fourth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, ed. James B. Trefethen (Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Man-
agement Institute, 1969), p. 87.

Clingan, Thomas A., "Institutional Barriers and the Coastal zone," in
Proceedings: The New England Coastal Zone Management Conference, ed.
Robert H. Forste (Durham, New Hampshire: The New England Center for
Continuing Education, December 1970), pp. 1-9.

Coastal Zone Management: Newsletter of Coastal Resource Exploitation, Con-
servation and Enhancement, "States Air Coastal Endeavors at Lennon
Hearings," vol. 2, no. 6 (Washington, D.C.: Nautilus Press, June 1971),
p. 2.

Coastal Zone Management: Newsletter of Coastal Resource Exploitation, Con-
servation and Enhancement, "Where Man and the Land Meet the Sea,"
vol. 1, no. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Nautilus Press, November 1970), p.

Fisher, David W., "Development in the Coastal Zone: Economics and Policies,"
in 6th Annual Conference and Exposition of the Marine Technology
Society, vol. 1 (1970), p. 403.

"Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of
the High Seas," in United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
U.N. DOCA/CONF 13/L.54 (1958).

"Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf," in United Nations Conference
on the Law of the Sea, U.N. DOC A/CONF 13/L.55 (1958).

"Geneva Convention on the High Seas," in united Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea, U.N. DOC A/ODNF 13/L.53 (1958).

"Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous zone," in
united Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, U.N. DOC A/CONF 13/L.52
(1958).

Hawaii and the Sea, Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development,
Report to the Governor's Task Force on Oceanography (September 1969),
112 pp.

Knight, H. Gary, "The Role of the Outer Continental Shelf in Systems of
Coastal Zone Management," Paper presented to the Conference on Manage-
ment Systems for the Resources of the Coastal Zone, June 8, 1970, at
Charleston, South Carolina, 11 pp.

Krueger, Robert B., "Development of the Coastal Zone and Beyond-" in Under-
sea Technology HandbooklDirectory (1970), pp. A/3-A/9-

McBroom, James T., "Multiple Use of the Coastal.Zone," in Transactions of
the Thrity-Fourth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference, ed. James B. Trefethen (Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Manage-
ment Institute, 1969), pp. 80-81.

The National Estuarine'Pollution Study, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, vols. I, II, and III (November 3, 1969). (Especially
see vol. III, ch. 6, "Estuary Study Recommendations as Compared with
Other Proposals for Managing the Coastal Zone.`)

Ocean Soundings: Newsletter of Marine Technology Society, "Coastal Zone
Bill a Surprise Winner," vol. 9, no. 11 (Washington, D.C.: American
Society for Oceanography, May 1972), pp. 1-2.

Our Nation and the Sea, "Management of the Coastal Zone," Commission on
Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, January 1969), pp. 49-81.

Science and Environment, Vol. 1, "Report on the Panel on Management and
Development of the Coastal zone," Commission on Marine Science,
Engineering and Resources (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, February 1969), pp. III-1 to 111-187.

U. S. Senate, Coastal Zone Management: Hearings Before the Subconmdttee on
Oceans and Atmosphere of the Committee on Commerce, United States
Senate, 92nd Congress, First Session, on S. 582, S. 632, S. 638, and
S. 992, May 5, 6, and 11, 1971, Serial No. 92-15 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 138.

U.S. Senate, Hearings Before the Subcomzrdttee on Oceanography of the Com-
mittee on Commerce, United States Senate, 91st Congress, First and
Second Sessions, on S. 2802, S. 2393, S. 3118, S. 3183, and S. 3460,
Parts 1 and 2, Serial No. 91-59 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing office, 1970). (Especially see Part 2, pp. 1199-1213, for.
statements relating to Hawaii's coastal zone.)

PART II. FEDERAL ORGAVIZATIOWS

Adams, David A., "Federal Activities in the Coastal Zone," in Transactions
of the Thirty-Fourth Nozth American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, ed. James B. Trefethen (Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Man-
agement Institute, 1969), p. 94.

Alexander, Lewis M., "National Jurisdiction and the Use of the Sea, IT in
Natural Resources Journal, vol. 8, no. 3 (The University of New Mexico
School of Law, July 1968), p. 389.

Annual Report 1970-1971, Water Resources Research Center (Honolulu: Uni-
versity of Hawaii).

Banner, A.H. and J.H. Bailey, The Effects of Urban Pollution Upon a Coral
Reef System, Technical Report 25 (Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology,
December 1970).

Beard, Daniel P. (ed.), Environmental Pollution: Legislation and Programs
of the Environmental Protection Agency (Library of Congress, Congres-
sional Research Service, March 26, 1971).

"Big Island Code Revision for Flood Areas Opposed," The Honolulu Advertiser
(December 1, 1971), p. D-20.

Branham, J.M., S.A. Reed,,and J.H. Bailey, "Coral-Eating Sea Stars Acan-
thaster planci in Hawaii," in Science, vol. 172, no. 3988 (June 11,
1971), pp. 1155-1157.

Catalog of HUD Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing office, June 1969).

"city of Refuge Expansion to be Aired," The Honolulu Advertiser (March 23,
1972), p. C-2.

"The Coast and the Condo," The Honolulu Advertiser (December 13, 1971),
P. C-1.

Coastal Zone Management: Newsletter of Coastal Resource Exploitation, Con-
servation and Enhancement, "Land Use Policy: Key to Nizon Cz Approach,"
vol. 1, no. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Nautilus Press, December 1970)r.p. 2.

Congress and the Nation's Environment: Environmental Affairs of the 91st
Congress, Library of Congress, Environmental Policy Division, Congres-
sional Research Service (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, February 10, 1971), p. 19.

"Council Changes Mind, OK's Makaha Condoininium," The Honolulu Advertiser
(December 8, 1971), p. A-14.

Doty, Maxwell S. (coordinator), Biological and Physical Features of Kealakekua
Bay, Hawaii, Hawaii Botanical Science Paper No. 8 (Honolulu: Univer-
sity of Hawaii, December 1968).

"EPA Recommends H-3 Halt," The Honolulu Advertiser (March 7, 1972), p. A-1.

First Five Years of the Environmental Satellite Program - An Assessment,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric@Administration (Washington, D.C.,
February 1971).

Fourteenth Coast Guard District Pollution Newsletter, Coast Guard, vol. 2,
no. 5 (Aggust 10, 1971), p. 4.

".Group Fears for Wildlife, Cites State 'Nonsupport'," The Honolulu Adver-
tiser (March 23, 1972), p. C-1.

"Haleiwa Small Boat-Harbor Draws Life of the Land's Ire," The Honolulu
Advertiser (May 2, 1972), p. B-1.

Hawaii Economic Review, Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Develop-
ment, (September-October 1971), p. 7.

Hawaii Regional Inventory of the National Shoreline Study, Army Engineer
Division, Corps of Engineers (Honolulu,,Hawaii, August 1971).

Hawaii Tourism Impact Plan, Volume 2: West Hawaii, Hawaii Department of
Planning and Economic Development (1972), 114 pp.

"K-Bay; World's Worst Coral Pollution," Honolulu Star-Bulletin (December
29, 1971), p. A-15.

Krueger, Robert B., "Development of the Coastal Zone and Beyond," in
Undersea Technology HandbooklDirectory (1970), p. A/3.

"Last Marine Council Report," in Oceanology International (May 1971), p. 20.

Marine 96felice Affairs, Annual Reports of the National Council on marine
Resources and Engineering Development (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1967-1971).

"NASA Will Keep an Eye (ERTS-A) on all Hawaii," The Honolulu Advertiser
(January 6, 1972), p. A-14.

The Nation's Water Resources, The First National Assessment of the Water
Resources Council (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
November 1968).

National Science Foundation Grants and Awards for the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 1970 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing office,
1971).

"Navy has Solid Impact on Isles," Special Advertising Supplement to the
Sunday Honolulu Star-Bulletin Advertiser (M&y, 14, 1972), p. 2.

"New Hearing Set on Kaimu Project," The Honolulu Advertiser (February 18,
1972), p. B-5.

"New High-Rise Fight at Makaha Looms," The Honolulu Advertiser (July 18,
1972), p. B-1.

"New Kuhio Beach Grows Day by Day," The Honolulu Advertiser (December 6,
1971), p. D-16.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), "National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice, Southwest Fisheries Center, Honolulu, Hawaii" (unpaged brochure,
no date).

"NOAA Administrator's Letter No. 4," National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (July 30, 1971), p. 9.

"Parks Department Backs Plan for Bellows," The Honolulu Advertiser (December
25, 1971), p. A-5.

President's Statement of May 23, 1970, on U.S. Oceans Policy, office of
the White House Press Secretary, p. 1.

A Report on the Seminar on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone, Sponsored by
the Federal Interagency Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone,
National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development,
November 13 through 15, 1968 (1968).

Science and Environment, Vol. 1, "Report on the Panel on Management and
Development of the Coastal Zone," Commission on Marine Science, Engi-
neering and Resources (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
office, February 1969), pp. III-1 to 111-187.

Sea Grant Newsletter, vol. 1, no. 5, (Honolulu: University of Hawaii,
Noverrber 1, 1971) , p. 4.

State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Hawaii Department of Planning
and Economic Development (Honolulu, Hawaii, December 1971), p. 19.

"Sugar Mills Crackdown Asked: EPA Cites Pollution of ocean," The Honolulu
Advertiser (September 13, 1971), p. A-1.

"Testimony'Heard in Fishpond Dispute," The Honolulu Advertiser (November
5, 1971), p. B-1.

ZONE

DATE DUE

GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A

3 6668 14107 3181