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






      Coastal   ne
       Inform ti n
         Cen r



                                                               Biennial Report
                                          OOSV41 or @0+,       to the Congress
                                                    's
                                                               On Coastal Zone
                                             @ArEs 00,o"       Management'

                                                               Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983




                                                                           COASTAL ZONE
                                                                      INFORMATION CENTER



                                                                                                                                 -40






















                                        j
                                                                                                                    Am


                 HT
                 392
                 U558b
             FY 1982/83
      "Co-ast.al Zo 1984                                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        Info
          C7rmationne
           enter
            te


















































































                 c3
                                                               National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                                               National Ocean Service
                                                               Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management









                                                              Public Law 96. 464


                                                              Biennial Report
                                                              to the Con                                      ess
                                                              On Coastal Zone
                                                              Management

                                                              Fiscal Years 19.82 and 1983


                                                              September 1984

















                                                              U.S. DEPARTMENT-OF COMMERCE
                                                              Malcolm Beldrige, Secretary
                                                              National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                                              John V. Byrne, Administrator

                                                              National Ocean Service
                                                              Paul M. Wolff, Assistant Administrator
                                                              Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
                                                              Peter. L. Tweedt, Drector
                                               C@









                                     AlENT Of:










                                                      Table   of Contents



                                                                                                           Page

               Introduction      ..................................    ......

               Executive    Summary   ...............                                                          3

               Part  I -  Implementation of the CZMA

                     316(a)(1)          State Programs Approved During FY82-FY83            ..............     5

                     316(a)(  2)        Status of Participating States          ........................       7

                     316(a)(3)          Funding-During FY82-FY83       ..........    o............             9

                     316(a)(4)          Disapproved Programs      ......................     o..O  .......  13

                     316(a)(5)          Section 312 Program Evaluation                                 ... 15

                     316(a)(6)          Section 307 Consistency       ....... 0.000.0 .... 00.60.6000.*.    19

                     316(a)(7)          Regulations    .....                                         .....  29

                     316(a)(8)          National Strategy for Coastal Management ... o          ......  o.. 33

                     316(a)(9)          Problems in Administering the Act         ......                    37-

                     316(a)(10)         Section 308 Coastal Energy Impact Program               ..........  41

                     316(a)(11)         Interstate/Regional Coordination                                    45

                     316(a)(12)         Research, Training and Coordination           ...........  o ... o. 47

               Part II - State     Summaries

                     Introduction     ............  o ....................    o  ..... 0.0 ...              53

                     Alabama     ..............  o..o ............. o ...................    0.........    054
                     Alaska   ..........  Io...............   o...o  ...........................      o ... 56
                     American Samoa     ...........  o  ......... o........  o..............    0 ........  59
                     California     ........................     o....... o  ...........................    61
                     Connecticut     .................    o................    ***o.ee..o.e.qOO.eO*O..      66
                     Delaware    ................................                                           68
                     Florida     .......................    o........                                       70
                     Georgia     ..................................................................         74
                     Guam ..  ........ o.........   o .....o ......o ................................       75
                     Hawaii   ..........                                                             .....  77
                     Illinois    ...... 0..... o ...............   o.o  ...........  o.................     80
                     Indiana     ........................    o ..................    o..................    81
                     Louisiana   ..................     o ........................................          82
                     Maine    ...............................    0...................    o  ..............  84
                     Maryland    ...............    o ....o....  o.......o................    o  ..... so.o 87


0




								ii




                   Massachusetts ................................ .........  91
                   Michigan/.............................................   94
                   Minnesota .................................................. 97
                   Mississippi.................................................98
                   New Hampshire     ........................................ 100
                   New Jersey..................................................102
                   New York    ...........................................105
                   North Carolina ........................................ 108
                   Northern Marianas ..................................... 112
                   Ohio ...................................................114
                   Oregon   ................................................116
                   Pennsylvania     .........................................120
                                           
                   Puerto Rico      ......................................  123
                   Rhode Island  ......................................... 126
                   South Carolina  .........................................128
                   Texas   .........  ......................................131
                   Virgin Islands      .................................132
                   Virginia     ............................................134
                                                               
                   Washington    ............................................135                        
                   Wisconsin    ..............................................139
                              A    Coastal Zone Management Act and
                                      Section Summary

                   Appendix   B     Regulations
 










                                              Introduction

                 Section 316 of 'the Coastal Zo'ne Management Act, as amended,requires
            that the Secretary of.Commerce prepare and submit to the President for
            transmittal to the Congress a report summarizing the administration of the
            Act,fo.r each'biennial period. The section further specifies 12 issues which
            are to be addressed in each report. This report covers the activities  under
            the At't for Fiscal'Years 1982 and 1983'. Part I of the report addresses each
            of the issue'areas listed in the statute. Part 11 contains" a brief discussion
            of each coastal statewhich is eligible to participate in the Federal coastal
            program. Thd Appendix' contains the Act with a sectional summary, and the
            regulations promulgated under the Act during,this biennium.







                                                  3


                                           Executive Summary

                 The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) authorized the first
            national program to promote the@ wise use and protection of coastal land and
            water resources. The CZMA provides funds, policy guidance, and technical
            assistance to coastal state and territorial governments to help them establish
            and maintain coastal zone management (CZM) programs that meet Federal
            objectives. CZMA amendments in 1976 and 1978'added the Coastal Energy Impact
            Program (CEIP) designed to assist 'states and-territories financially in
            planning for and mitigating the impacts of offshore oil and gas development
            and other coastal energy activity. -Section 315 of the Act established the
            National Estuarine Sanctuary Program to assist states in acquiring,and managing
            estuarine areas as natural field laboratories for long-term research and
            educational opportunities.

                 The 1980 Amendments to the CZMA confirmed the basic structure of the CZM
            program and, in addition, identified nine national interest-areas in which
            states are required to make improvements as part of their CZM programs:

                 0  Protection of natural resources,

                 0  Management of coastal developme'nt to avoid hazardous areas,

                 0  Pri ority consideration give*n to coastal dependent uses and
                    energy facility siting,

                 0  Public shorefront access,

                 0  Assistance in redevelopment of urban waterfronts and ports,

                 0  Coordination and simplification of governmental procedures
                    to ensure expedited governmental decisionmaking for management
                    of coastal resources,

                 ï¿½  Consultation and coordination with Federal agencies,

                 ï¿½  P'ublic participation in coastal decisionmaking, and

                 0  Comprehensive planning, conservation, and management of living
                    marine resources.

                 The CZMA is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
            Management (OCRM). OCRM, formerly the Office of Coastal Zone Management
            (OCZM), was created as part of a major reorganization of the National
            Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1982. Located in the new
            National Ocean Service (NOS), one of the five main line components within
            NOAA, OCRM contains most of the components of its predeceï¿½sor office with
            the exception of the Office of Resources Coordination and Assessment. OC 'RM
            retained NOAA-wide policy coordination responsibility for Outer Continental
            Shelf oil and gas development, and activities under.the Comprehensive.
            Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("Superfund"),
            and received responsibility in the,reorganization for NOAA-wide policy
            coordination in coastal hazards and marine transportation. OCRM also has
            responsibility for implementing the National Marine Sanctuary Program, which








                                                  4


           is authorized under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
           Act of 1972; the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980, which requires
           that a legal regime be established and maintained to both permit and encourage
           the development of a commercial ocean thermal energy conversion industry; and
           the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, which establishes a legal structure
           to encourage U.S. companies to explore for and commercially recover deep seabed
           hard minerals and thus provide the U.S. with a more stable source of strategic
           minerals.  Further information on each Of these programs can be found in their
           annual reports to Congress. The most recent of these are The National Marine.
           Sanctuary Program, Report to Congress on Fiscal Years 1981-1982; Dee-p-Se-a @e
           Mining, Report to Congress Fiscal Years 1982-1983; and, OTEC Report to
           Congress: FY,1983.

                During the FY 1982-1983 biennium, two.states met the requirements of
           the CZMA and received Federal approval of their coastal management programs--
           the Ocean and Harbor Segment of the New Hampshire Coastal Program and the
           New York Coastal Management Program. In addition, OCRM found that Virginia
           was making adequate progress in the development of its program consistent
           with the policies set forth in Section 303 of the CZMA and, therefore,
           eligible to receive CEIP funds. Three new sanctuaries were added to the
           National Estuarine Sanctuary system--Wells, Maine; Hudson River, New York;
           and three sites of the North Carolina Sanctuary system. Final regulations
           were published implementing the 1980 amendments to the CZMA, and OCRM con-
           tinued its efforts to phase out Federal financial assistance to the states
           'for implementing their programs. These and other activities under the CZMA
           are discussed in this report.



























                                              PART I
                                   IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE CZMA







                                                     5


              316(a)(1) IDENTIFICATION OF THE STATE PROGRAMS APPROVED PURSUANT TO THIS
                        TITLE DURING THE TWO PRECEDING FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS AND A
                        DESCRIP11ON OF THOSE PROGRAMS.

              New Hampshire

                   The Ocean and Harbor Segment of the  New Hampshire Coastal Program (NHCP.)
              was approved in May 1982. This segment,covers the Atlantic Ocean, the Hampton
              Estuary, and the Portsmouth Harbor portion of the New Hampshire coast. It
              includes all coastal waters to the seaward limits of State jurisdi,ction and
              all land along the State's Atlantic Ocean shoreline from the Massachusetts
              border to the Portsmouth/Newington town line, extending inland 1,000 feet or
              to the limits of the Wetlands Board juri 'sdiction over tidal waters, whichever
              is farther inland. The remaining management program, including all are.as
              under tidal influence throughout the coast, especially the Great Bay area, is
              .now under development.

                   The NHCPrelies exclusively on existing State laws, policies and agency
              regulations which provide effective State management and coordination of
              critical coastal resources and significant impacts on coastal waters. These
              include the Fill and Dredge in Wetlands Act, the Water Supply and Pollution
              Control Law,, the authorities of the Fish and Game Department over marine
              species, the Energy Facilities Siting Laws, the authority of the Department
              of Resources and Economic Development to manage State properties which cover
              78 percent of the Atlantic shoreline, and the regulatory power of the State
              Port Authority.   In addition to these core programs, there are over 60 State
              statutes Which give 19 State agencies planning, development, and regulatory
              authority within the coastal areas. The lead agency is the Office of State
              Planning.  Local government participation in the NHCP is voluntary.

                   The NHCP contains 17 coastal policies reflecting   State priorities which
              provide consistent guidelines for coQrdinated State agency action in the
              seacoast, aimed at balancing development with resource protection. The main
              issues facing the NHCP are increasing the monitoring and enforcement of State
              authorit'ies to protect coastal resources, enhancing the coordination of State
              programs, improving the management of State coastal properties, and increasing
              public participation and information.

              New York

                   The New York Coastal Management Program (NYCMP) was approved in
              September 1982. The NYCMP encompasses three distinct coastal environments--
              the marine environment of Long Island and New,York City; the tidal estuarine
              environment of the Hudson River; and the freshwater environment of the Great
              Lakes-St. Lawrence region. The area covered by the program includes all
              coastal waters within the State's territorial jurisdiction and adjacent
              shorelands containing uses which have a direct and significant impact on
              coastal waters. Generally, this inland boundary is approximately 1,000 feet
              from the shoreline and is extended to include all identified geographic areas
              of particular concern. In urbanized areas and other developed locations, the
              boundary is approximately 500 feet from the shoreline or less where a major
              roadway or railway line runs parallel to the-shoreline.







                                                  6


                 The NYCMP contains 44 coastal policies concerning promoting the beneficial
            uses.of coastal resources, preventing the impairment of those resources, and
            managing major activities substantially.affecting coastal-resources. The
            policies are implemented through a number of State regulatory and management
            authorities including the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources
            Act, which forms the basis for coordinating all State actions affecting the
            coastal area; the Coastal Erosion Hazards Act, which provides uniform setback
            requirements in coastal high hazard areas; and the Tidal Wetlands,Act. The
            major issues facing the State are implementing the Coastal,Erosion Hazards
            Act and working with local governments to develop waterfront revitalization,
            plans.







                                                      7


               316(a)(2)   LISTING OF THE  STATES PARTICIPATING IN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
                           TITLE AND A DESCRIPTION OF,THE-STATUS OF EACH STATE'S PROGRAMS
                           AND ITS ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING THE PRECEDING TWO FEDERAL
                           FISCAL YEARS.

                    Table I  depict's the program status of a"11 coastal states eligible for
               participation in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program.    A discussion
               of each state's activities during FY 1982 and 1983 is found in Part II of this
               report--State Summaries.








                                                         8


                                                     Table 1




                             STATUS.OF  STATE COASTAL ZONE    MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS



                                     Actual or Estimated
                                     Federal Approval Date              Comments and Status
             State                   By Fiscal  Year  (ends 9/30)             10/31/83

           Washington                           1976                           Approved
           Oregon                               1977                           Approved
           California                           1978                           Approved
           Massachusetts                        1978                           Approved
           Wisconsin                            1978                           Approved
           Rhode Island                         1978                           Approved
           Michigan,                            1978                           Approved
           North Carolina                       1978                           Approved  ,
           .Puerto Rico                         1978                           Approved
           Hawai.i                              1978                           Approved
           Maine                                1978                           Approved
           Maryland                             1978                           Approved
           New Jersey                           1978                           Approved
            (Bay and Ocean Shore    Segment)
           Virgin Islands                       1979                           Approved
         ,Alaska                                1979                           Approved
           Guam                                 1979                           Approved
           Delaware                             1979                           Approved
           Alabama                              1979                           Approved
           South Carolina                       1'979                          Approved
           Louisiana                            1980                           Approved
           Mississippi                          1980                           Approved
           Connecticut                          1980                           Approved
           Pennsylvania                         1980                           Approved
           New Jersey                           1980                           Approved
            (Remaining Section)
           Northern Marianas                    1980                           Approved
           American Samoa                       1980                           Approved
           Florida                              1981                           Approved
           New Hampshire                        1982                           Approved
             (Ocean and Harbor Segment)
           New York                             1982                           Approved
           Virginia                             1984                           A preliminary draft
                                                                                 of the Program
                                                                                 Document will be
                                                                                 submitted in early
                                                                                 FY 1984
           Ohio                          Non-participating
           Indiana                                  U
           Georgia                                  U
           Minnesota
         .Illinois
           Texas







                                                   9


             316(a)(3)   AN ITEMIZATIUN OF THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS 10 THE VARIOUS COASTAL
                         STATES AND A BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJOR PROJECTS AND AREAS ON WHICH
                         THESE FUNDS WERE EXPENDED,

                  In 1981, the Administration proposed to phase-out Federal financial
             support for the CZM and CEIP programs beginning in 1982. The President's
             economic program was designed to reduce the Federal deficit, and CZM and CEIP
             were deemed sufficiently successful to be returned to the states. In response
             to the Administration's proposal, the Congress, as part of the FY 1982 Budget
             Reconciliation Act, reprogrammed $33 mill'ion from the Coastal Energy Impact
             Fund (CEIF) to be made available to the states for final CZM grants and $7
             million for final'CEIP grants. In FY 1983, Congress appropriated $7 million
             for CZM, over half of which was for the newly approved states of New York and
             New Hampshi,re; the rest was.to be utilized for states with "critical needs."

                  Table 2 shows the funds.received by.each of the coastal states for FY
             1982 and FY 1983 as well as the total funds received by the states under
             Sections .305, 306, :308, and 315, since the passage of the CZMA. . A description
             of how each state utilized its allocated funds is contained in Part 11 of this
             report--State Summaries.,















                                                                                                    Table 2
                                                                   Funds Expended by States Under the CZMA bi Section
                                                                                          (Dollars % thousands


                          State
                                                        Section  306                          Section 306                          Section 315

                                              1974-1981*         1982      1983       1974-1981       1982      1983      1974-1981        1982      1983
                          Alabama                 2.8R       S 779            0       S 3,8991     S    15    $ 220         $   0            25         0
                          Alaska                  17,410       3,000          0         97,9492     1,616         74            0              0,       0

                          American Samoa          1,439          614          0           151           0         75            0              0        0
                          California              19,949       3.000.         0         8,2973        641          0        2,592           700       450
                          Connecticut             4,557        1,037          0         1,674           79        16            0              0        0
                          Delaware                3,728          762        200         1.488         165        167            0              0        0
                          Florida                 6,742                       0         3,474         317        693        3,738              0        73
                          Georgia                 1,857            0          0         1,3574          0          0        1,697            54         0

                          Guam                    2,063          621        300           268           0         75            0                       0
                          Hawaii                  6,319          720        200           312           0          0            70             0       170
                          Illinois                1.709            0          0               0         0          0            6                       0

                          Indiana                 Ij365            0          0           381           0          0            0              0        0
                          Louisiana               6,782        2,574          0         76,9705     1,300      1,577            0              0        0

                          Maine                   6,896        1,031          0         1,984         109          0            0           580       209
                          Maryland                7.989        1,299          0         1,735         166        406           618           50         0
                          -Massaschusetts         8.620          966          0         4.7586          0        140            28             0        0
                          New.Jersey              7,075        2,094          0         3,418         673        261            50             0        0
                          New York                4,955        3,000      3,000         1,903         426        411            56          375         14













                            State                         Section 306                           Section 308                          Section 315
                                                 1974-4981*        1982      1983      1974-1981        1982       1983     1974-1981        1982       1983
                            North Carolina          8,50           1,020      250         1,789            0       170             0         454      1,313
                            Northern Marinas        .1,4.18        628           0           233           0        75             0           0          0
                            Ohio                    1,672             0          0           805           0         0           240           29        62
                            Oregon                  8.656          1,231         0        1,129         56i         85         2,025           0          0
                            Pennsylvania            3,562          1,048         0           730        754         95             0           0          0

                            Puerto Rico             6.661          955           0           118           0        75           400         150         50

                            Rhode Island            5.591          617        140         2,187            0       108           607         213         10

                            South Carolina          5,361          1,278         0        1,650         180        80              0         162          0
                            Texas                   4,183             0          0       34,5568           0         0             0           0          0

                            Virgin Islands          2,140          635        350            174        112          0             0           D          0

                            Virginia                2,234             0          0           159           0       414             .0          0          0
                            Washington             $11,148      $1,251           0      $ 2,167      $  186     $    0        $1,163        $ so         50
                            Wisconsin               6,826          803        350            448        169         53             0           24         0
                               Includes Section    305 program planning funds
                               Includes all Federal funding awarded since 1974 through          FY 1983; Sections 305, 306, 308, 309, 310.        and 315..
                               (Marine Sanctuary funding is not included.)

                            1.  Includes $1,965,000 in loans.

                            2.  Includes $50,182,000 in loans.

                            3.  Includes SI,85O,OQ0 in loans.

                            4.  Includes $1,200,000 in loans.

                            5.  Includes $32.110,000 in loins

                            6.  Includes $2,503,000 In loans.

                            7.  Includes $13,295,000 in loans.

                            8.  Includes $24,843,000 in loans.






                                                    13


              316(a)(4)    AN'IDENTIFICATION OF ANY STATE PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE BEEN
                           REVIEWED AND DISAPPROVED AND A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS
                           FOR 5UGH ACI-ION.

                   No state programs were disapproved during FY 1982-1983.







                                                      15


             j16(a)(5)    A SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
                          SUBSECTION (a) OF SECTION 312, AND A DESCRIPTION OF ANY SANCTIONS
                          IMPOSED UNDER SUBSECTIONS (c) AND (d) OF THIS SECTION.

             Evaluation Procedures

                   The states and programs evaluated during FY 1982-1983 are shown in
             Table 3.   During FY 1982, each state receiving a new award under Section 306
             was evaluated prior to the receipt of funds (25 states). In most instances,
             the awards were for more than one year and were designed to spread final
             Federal funding over an extended period as the state contribution to the
             maintenance of the coastal programs increased. Because of the multi-year
             work programs in the awards, Section 306 programs were not all evaluated again
             in FY 1983. Instead, OCRM focused the evaluations on those states which
             would be receiving a new award,'those in which problems existed which warranted
             a yearly review, or those which had received less than two evaluations. In
             addition to the evaluation of Section 306 programs (16 of 28 approved states),
             OCRM evaluated 12 CEIP (Section 308) programs and six estuarine sanctuary
             (section 315) programs for the first time.

                   OCRM modified and improved its evaluation procedures du,ring,this biennium.
             OCRM staff increased efforts to contact and solicit the views of users of the
             coast to assess the impact of the state programs, particularly their permitting
             processes, on the private sector and the general public. OCRM solicited the
             views.of developers, including builders and contractors, port interests, oil
             companies, fishermen, boaters., state associations of municipalities and of
             county supervisors,and representatives of environmental groups. OCRM adopted
             procedures to improve the timeliness of evaluation reports, including transmit-
             ting preliminary recommendations to the state within three weeks of the site
             visit, and shortening the Findings by focusing only on accomplishments most
             significantly supporting the national objectives.identified in Section 303(A)
             through (I) of the CZMA.

             Inspector General's Report

                   In August 1983, the Department of Commerce's Office of Inspector General
             issued a report entitled "Opportunities to Improve Federal Oversight
             Responsibilities of States' Coastal Zone Management Programs to Assure More
             Effective Results." The report recommended (1) strengthening the evaluation
             system that assesses the effectiveness, including cost effectiveness, of
             state programs; (2) establishing a policy regarding financial assistance for
             significant improvements which would avoid funding existing basic program
             elements, and would support new or expanded program elements and activities;
             (3) improving the timeliness of evaluation reports and developing a problem--'
             oriented evaluati.on schedule; and (4) encouraging states to identify and
             designate coastal resources of national significance and to establish criteria
             for their protection as provided in Section 306(i) of the CZMA.

                  The existing evaluation process and the procedural changes discussed
             above substantially address the third recommendation. In response to the
             first recommendation, OCRM has increased its review of the cost-effectiveness
             of state activities, focusing on innovative techniques for addressing coastal
             issues and the cost-effecti.veness of projects approved for funding under the
             CZMA.   The review of successful cost-effective resource management techniques,,








                                                     16



                                                  Table 3

                                         Evaluations  (FY1982-FY1983)


                                    FY 1982                              FY 1983
                                 Section 306          Section 306     Section 308    Section 315




           Alabama                     t
           Alaska                      t                    t                t
           American Samoa              t
           California                  t                    t                t
           Connecticut                 t
           Delaware                    t
           Florida                     t                    t
           Georgia                                                                         t
           Guam                        t
           Hawaii                      t
           Illinoi's
           Indiana                                                           t
           Louisiana                   t                    t                t
           Maine                       t
           Maryland                    t                    t.               t             t
           Massachusetts               t
           Michigan                    t
           Minnesota
           Mississippi                 t                                     t
           New Hampshire                                    t
           New Jersey                  t
           New York                                         t
           North Carolina              t
           Northern Marianas           t
           Ohio                                                              t             t
           Oregon                                           t                t             t
           Pennsyl vani a              t
           Puerto Rico                 t                    t                t             t
           Rhode Island                t                    t                t             t
           South Carolina              t
           Texas                                                             t
           Virgin Islands                                   t
           Virginia
           Washington                  t                    t                t
           Wisconsin                   t






                                                       17


             such  as joint permitting and/or enforcement with other state and Federal
             agencies and leveraging matching funds for projects, is a standard part of
             all. evaluations. The report criticized.funding certain projects as significant
             improvements, contending the activities were part of the basic program.
             (This is discussed further in Section 316(a)(9) of this report). The current
             regulations implementing the significant improvement provisions of the
             CZMA provide the states and the Federal office with a flexible but effective
             process for improving the management of coastal resources under a variety of
             circumstances. However, proposed significant improvement,projects are receiving
             close scrutiny in light of the recommendation.

                   The report recommended implementation of Section 306(i) of the CZMA, i.e.
             identification, designation and protection of coastal resources of national
             si gni f i cance. During the development phase under Section 305, all the states
             were required to inventory their coastal resou.rces and develop a procedure
             for designating Geographic Areas of Particular Concern and Areas for Preser-
             vation or Restoration. In.addition, several states have used funds under
             Section 306 to continue this process. Therefore, much of the information to
             fulfill the requirements of Section 306(i) already exists in various forms in
             the states and, in most cases, these resources are,receiving special protection
             under the approved coastal management program.       OCRM is considering an effort
             to document the status of information needed to fulfill the requirements of
             this section.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings

                   A synopsis of the evaluation findings for each state during'FY1982-1983-
             can be found in Part II of this report--State Summaries. From the review of
             these results, several trends in state activities can be found.

                   During the period of phase down of Federal funds, the states have modified
             the structure of their.staffs and emphasized the maintenance of a strong core
             program. Changes have included reducing the number of staff, transferring
             staff to other funding sources, and requiring individual staff members to
             diversify their areas of responsibility. Resources have been directed to-
             ward basic program functions such as permitting, monitoring and enforcement,
             and coordinating and consolidating agency activities. States have not con-
             centrated on expanding state capabilities and initiating innovative programs.
             However, where the states have focused their resources on significant coastal
             problems,--their efforts achieve state-of-the-art results. North Carolina's
             and Florida's work in coastal hazards and hurricane evacuation, Oregon's
             mitigation banking activities, and Massachusetts' management of wetlands
             provide prime,examples.

                   Despite some areas of conflict, relationships between the states and
             the Federal agencies continue to improve. In part this progress resulted
             from greater.state attention as programs evolved from the development       ' into
             the implementation phase. The recognition of common goals and the need to
             simplify government proces'ses also contributed to this trend. Finally, the
             expertise which several of the states developed In coastal problems,, such as
             those mentioned above, encouraged the Federal agencies to look to the states
             for advice.







                                                      19:


             316(a)(6)    A LISTINGOF-ALL   ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS   WHICH9 PURSUANT   TO_@,
                          ,THE PROVISIONS.OF SUBSECTION,(c) ORkSOSECTION (4).,PF
                          SECTION 307, ARE  NOT.CONSISTENT  WITH AN  APPLICABLE APPROVED.
                          STATE MANAGEMENT  PROGRAM.

                  The Federal consistency   provisions of:the.Co'aï¿½tal  Zone Ma nagemeht  Act
             (CZMA) received increasing attention'during the earl'y'-198.0'.s from,the states
             Federal agencies, industry and the public.      As' state coastal zone  management
             programs evolved from program development and early.implementation stages to
             a mature program administrative stage, states have become more concerned about
             the consistency of a broad range of Federal programs and projects with their
             federally-approved state coastal management-programs. Federal agencies also
             have been developing the institutional mechanisms to assure earl    y coordination
             with state coastal management agencies and to develop projects which are.con.-
             sistent with-state coastal programs. Industry group%, particularly the oil
             and gas industry, have monitored closely state implementation of the Federal
             consistency provisions and have, in some,cases, participated actively in
             OCRM's evaluation of state programs under Section 312 of the CZMA. Citizens
             groups also have scrutinized the Federal consistency process -and, in a number
             .of cases, have joined with state and localgovernments to bring consistency
             cases to judicial review.

                  Federal  consistency provides  intergovernmental coordination and
             consultation mechanisms to avoid and resolve conflicts in the vast majority
             of situations. A great many projects are found consistent or, after appropriate
             intergovernmental coordination, can be made consii  'stent through the@application
             of conditions or mitigation measures. An OCRM review of Federal consistency
             actions conducted during 1982 indicated that the states reviewed approximately
             300 directrFederal actions.under Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA with non-c     'on-
             currences in about three percent of the cases; approximately 6500 to 7500
             Federally licensed and permitted activities under.Section 307(c)(3)(A) with
             non-concurrences in about two percent of the cases;.approximately 500 Federally
             licensed and permitted activities described in det.ail in OCS plans under
             Section 307(c)(3)(B) with non-concurrences in about 0.5 percent of the casds;,
             and approximately 60O.Federal assistance proposals,to.s.tate and local govern-
             ments under Section 307(d) with non-concurmces in about 0.5 percent of the
             cases. (Note: These numbers are approximate and only describe the general
             ratio of concurrences to non-concurrences. Precise data was unavail-able in a
             few cases. Also, differences in state,administrative procedures result in-,
             figures which are not completely comparable. For example, in reviewing
             Federal licenses and permits, some states'work with.applicants to develop
             conditions which allow state concurrence. Other states will.first issue a
             non-concurrence on a Federal license or permit and then notify an applicant
             of the-conditions under which the project would be consistent.)

                  Although state and Federal'agencies have been    able,usually to.resolve
             their differences, consistency has been,the subject of litigation. In 1983,
             ,state and local governments filed lawsuitt,reg  Iarding the.consistency of Outer
             Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas,lease.@sales (Sale 52 -- North Atlantic;
             Sale 70 - St. George Basin; Sale 73     Central and Northern California; and
             Sale*76 - Mid-Atlantic). Also in 1983, the.State of Florida sued the National
             Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.(NOAA) and,the National Ma@rine Fisheries
             Service (NMFS) claiming inconsistencies between the Florida-Coasta.l.    Management







                                                       20

             Program and fisheries management plans developed under the Magnuson Fisheries
             Conservation and Management Act    for mackerel- and the snapper-grouper fishertes
             complex.-

             SIGNIFICANT USES OF THE    FEDERAL CONSISTENCY PROVISIONS

                   Significant state-specifi.c  issues are'discussed in Part I-I of this
             Biennial Report. The following     discussion highlights national issues and
             trends in theiimplementation of    the Federal consistency provisions of the
             CZMA.

             Sections 307(c)(1) and (2)

                   Sections 307(c)(1)  and  '(2)@of.the CZMA require all Federal activities,
             including development projectsi which directly*affect the coastal zone to be
             consistent to"the maximum,extent-practicable with federally-approved state
             coastal management,pr@ograms. NOAA-regulations define all Federal development
             projects within the coastal, zone as@"directly affecting" the coastal zone and
             direct-Federal agencies to-review other activities on a case-by-case basis to
             determine,whether they "directly affect" the coastal zone (15 CFR 930.33).
             NOAA regulations at 15 CFR 930.32 define "maximum extent practicable" to
             mean fully consistent unless prohibited by the laws and regulations which
             govern a Federal agency@',s activiti.es.

                   The Supreme Court's" @deci si on J.n Secretary of the Interior et al . v.
             California et.al.,, 104'S. Ct-.@656, 52 U.S.L.W. 4063, (U.S. Slip Op.
             No. 82-,1326).,, held that the Section '307(c).(1) provis'ions do not apply to OCS
             oil and gas lease sales.-.(See the Final Note to this section on consistency
             for a review-of the January.1984!,U.S. Supreme Court decision in this matter.)
             Prior to@ the Supreme CourV*s @dectsio'n, the states had focused their consistency
             review-of OCS lease'.,sales.on such'concerns as sale timing, leasing of
             particularly sensitive areas,:,and.oil and gas transportation methods. Each
             state's objection to a cons,istency determination for an OCS lease sale included
             conditions or alternatives wh.ich would allow the,sale to proceed in a manner
             consistent with the-state'f.s'coastal management program. These alternatives
             generally invoWed,deletion of specifictracts from the sale, commitment to
             conduct or.complete dertain enviromental studies and impact analyses, es-
             tablishment of @monitoring programs% or biological task forces, and additional
             stipulations.or information@to lessees in the Final Notice of Sale.

                   OCS lease sales were-,not'Ithe only.Fed6ral *activities to be t   he subject
             of intensive Federal cons.i,stency,. review during the early 1980.'s.    NOAA has
             been particularly concerned with the- -intera-ction between the CZMA and the
             Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and.Management Act (MFCMA)', under which the
             eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, subject to the approval of the
             Secretary of Commerce,-mana,ge  1, fisheries resources in the 200 mile Fishery
             Conservat.ion Zon6,:(FCZ).. 'A si!gn,ificant controversy arose between Florida and
             the National.Marine Fishe.ries Service (NMFS), which administers the MFCMA for
             the S 'ecretary of-Commerce, over the adoption of Federal fisheries management
             plans and implementing regu1ations-for several fisheries, including the
             mackerel and the,snapper-grouper complex, which permitted the use of fishing
             gear expressly-proh:ibited in State waters by the federally-approved Florida
             coastal zone management.program., NMFS.determined that the national standards
             of the MFCMA precluded the prohibition in the FCZ of these gear types,







                                                      21


             specifically purse seine, fish traps, and powerheads. Therefore, NMFS concluded
             that these fisheries management plans were consistent to the "maximum extent
             practicable" with Florida's coastal'program. The Florida Department of
             Environmental Regulation disagreed and subsequently sued the Secretary of
             Commerce. This litigation is currently pending.

                  To clarify the interrelationships between the MFCMA and the CZMA, the
             NOAA Administrator issued Administrator's Letter No. 37 in November 1982. In
             the Letter, the Administrator confirmed long-standing agency policy that
             these two laws are fundamentally compatible and should be administered in a
             manner to give maximum effect to both laws. The Administrator's Letter
             advises that a case-by-case review of specific fisheries management plans
             (FMP's) is necessary to determine whether they "directly affect" the coastal
             zone,within the meaning of Section 307(c)(1). The NOAA Administrator's
             Letter states that FMP's must.be conducted in a manner consistent to the
             maximum extent practicable with approved coastal management programs. The
             Letter advises that FMP's need not contain policies identical to the state
             coastal program, and that differing policies are consistent as long as the
             effect on the state's fishery resource is the same. The Administrator's
             Letter is under review in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Secretary
             of the Interior v. California

                  States and Federal agencies participated in a broad     range,of   Federal
             consistency reviews during the early 1980's. Although major state activities
             are discussed.in Part II of this report, the following sample listing indicates
             the broad-range of reviews.

                  0  Environmental Protection Agency      Designation of  an ocean disposal
                     site off Tampa Bay.

                  0  Federal Railway Administration- - Bridge repair     and enhancement
                     affecting public beich access in Connecticut.

                  0  Corps of Engineers     Dredging in the Hudson River within the
                     Port of Albany, New York. Reconstitution and sealing of the West
                     Jetty, Santa Cruz Harbor, California. Dredging of the Camp
                     Pendleton-Oceanside Harbor, California.

                  0  General Services Administration - Disposal of Federally owned surplus
                     land at the Montauk Air Force Ration, New York, and at the Honolulu
                     Airport. Disposal of surplus land at the.Hamilton Air Force Base,
                     San Francisco Bay.

                  0  National Park Service - Management plan for The War in the Pacific
                     National Historical Fark, Guam. Dredging and channelizing of Redwood
                     Creek Estuary, California.

                  0  Navy - Proposed di-sposal of decommissioned, defueled nuclear submarines
                     of-f-the coast of California. Development of an operational base for
                     the Landing Craft Air Cushion Vehicles at Camp Pendleton, California.
                     Construction of seaside residences and parking facilities at the Naval
                     Submarine Base in San Diego County.







                                                     22



                  ï¿½  Bureau of Land-Management     Oil and gas lease sale in the National
                     Petroleum Reserve, ATE&T-a.   Timber management plans for Oregon's
                     South Coast-Curry and Eugene regions.

                  ï¿½  Coast Guard - Redesignation of Big Stone Anchorage, Delaware Bay, to
                     allow coaT-transshipment.    Proposed anchorage in Pensacola Bay, Florida,
                     for mothballed military vessels.

                  0  Forest Service    Oil and gas leasing in Los   Padres  National Forest,
                     California.

             Section 307(c)(3)(A)

                  .Federal licenses and permits are also subj  ect to Federal consistency
             .review. Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA provides that no Federal license or
             permit shall be granted by a Federal agency to an applicant for an activity
             affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone until the coastal state concurs,
             or is.conc.lusively presumed to concur, that the activity is consistent with
             the federally-supported state coastal management program. Although projects
             requiring Corps of Engineers permits for dredging and fi'lling constitute the
             most numerous set of activities subject to the requirement of Section 307(c)
             (3)(A), other Federal licenses and permits have come increasingly to the
             attention of state coastal management agencies. Examples include the -
             Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) waivers under Section 301(h) of the
             Clean Water Act and EPA's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
             permits, the Interstate Commerce  'Commission's certifications for railroad
             abandonment, and the Department of the Interior's permits for seismic surveys
             and geological and geophysical exploration both onshore and in the OCS.

                  In July 1983, the Corps of Engineers-requested state general concurrences
             from all states and territories with approved programs for 27 nationwide permits.
             The Corps proposed nationwide permits for activities ranging from bank stabili-
             zation and minor fills to structures for OCS oil and gas production. The six-
             month Federal consistency review period ended on January 1, 1984. The unusual
             general review of nationwide permits involved the active participation of state
             coastal zone management staffs and numerous Corps of Engineers District offices.
             As a result, a large number of states were able to develop regional conditions
             which allowed a general concurrence in a majority of the nationwide permits.

                  Most states supported the-Corps' objective of simplifying the regulatory
             system and reducing burdens on applicants, but a number of states raised concerns
             over specific proposed permits. In general, state concerns focused on assuring
             that projects with significant impacts did not "fall through the cracks" in the
             state and Federal permit systems, that special regional conditions were accommo-
           .dated, and that adequate monitoring and enforcement systems were in place.

             Section 307(c)(3y(B)

                  The CZMA at Section 307(c)(3)(B) generally prohibits Federal agencies from
             granting any license or permit for any activity which affects any land or water
             use in the coastal zone and is described in detail in plans for the exploration
             or development and production of oil and gas resources from the OCS unless
             consistent with the fed6rally-approved state coastal zone management pl.ans.







                                                     23


            With the quickening pace of OCS development during the early 1980's, those
            states near OCS frontierareas have become increasingly involved in the
            review of the OCS Plans of Explorat.i.on (POE's) and Development and Produ.ction
            Plans (DPP's) required of oil companies by the OCSLA. For example, as of
            November 1983, the California Coastal Commission had reviewed 75 POE's and 5
            DPP's. Concurrences were given to 72 of the 75 POE's and 4.of,the 5 DPP's
            (the fifth DPP forthe Exxon Santa Ynez Unit was partially disapproved,
            partially approved and the remainder'of this bPP was withdrawn). Of the
            three objections to POE.'s, two cases have been appealed to the Secretary of
            Commerce (see Secretarial Appeals section) and the remaining objection was'
            changed to a concurrence after the applicant made a number of commitments to
            mitigating measures. The only DPP to receive a Coastal Commission objection
            was Exxon's DPP for the Santa Ynez Unit (see Secretarial-Appeals Section).

            Section 307(d)

                 Section 307(d) of the CZMA requires   that Federal assistance to state and
            local governments for projects affecting   the coastal zone.can be awarded only
            if such projects are consistent with the   state coastal zone management programs.
            The Federal agency most affected by this   requirement is the Department of
            Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which administers the Urban Development
            Action Grants and the Community Development Block Grants. Generally, the
            administration of Section 307(d) has been non-controversial. During 1982 and
            1983, state and Federal governments worked primarily to reduce total project
            review time and to maximize the effectiveness of the consistency review
            process. The most challenging activities relating to Section 307(d) have
            been the efforts of state and Federal governments to make t   he adjustments
            necessitated by the replacement of OMB Circular A-95 by E. 0. 12372. Prior
            to 1983, the clearinghouse system established,by OMB circular A-95 was.
            the prime vehicle for consistency review of Federal assistance activi-ties.
            The Executive Order removed Federal funding for the clearinghouse system
            established under A-95 and Instead gave the states the opportunity to design
            and develop their own systems to'review Federal projects. As a result, these
            individual state "'intergovernmental review processes" have required HUD to
            respond with flexibility to meet the requirements of each state as individual
            State intergovernmental review processes are developed.

            Secretarial Appeals

                 The CZMA empowers the  Secretary of  Commerce to override a state's con-
            sistency objection to the issuance of a   Federal license or permit if the.
            Secretary finds that the activity is consistent with the purposes of the
            CZMA, or is necessary in the interest of national security (see 15 CFR 930
            Subpart H),. Prior to 1982, only two appealshad been filed and both were
            withdrawn voluntarily prior to any formal proceedings. Between December 1982
            and December 1983, five appeals were f.iled. Private.developers in North Carolina
            filed two appeals -- one proposing a marina and the other requesting an "after-
            ,the-fact" wetlands fill-permit. The remaining.three appeals were filed by oil
            companies over objections by.the California Coastal Commission to OCS oil and
            gas exploration, development, and production.







                                                     24


                  On December 17, 1982, Union Oil Company of Calif-ornia appealed the Coastal
              Commission's objection to its Plan of E xplorati.on (POE) for OCS Parcel-0203.
              The lease tract is located within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara Channel
              Islands National Marine-Sanctuary and the proposed exploration wells are
              within the buffer zone of the,northbound shipping lanes. Union acquired.this
              lease tract prior to establishment of' the Marine Sanctuary and, therefore, the
              Sanctuary regulations do not restrict activities on the lease (see 15 CFR
              935.6). In November 1981, the California Coastal Commission concluded that
              the project posed too great a risk to isensitive resources and to the endangered
              California brown pelican and, therefore, objected to Union's POE. After the
              filing of the appeal, Union and theCommission staff engaged in lengthy
              discussions and negotiations. As a result of these discussions,    *Union withdrew
              its appeal and re-submitted the POE for consistency review. The revised POE,
              included a number of new commitments. For example, Unionpledged to dispose
              of drilling muds and cuttings outside the Sanctuary, to drill for the briefest
              possible period during the winter months in order to minimize the risk to
              pelican breeding, and to develop the field from a platform outside the boundary
              of the Marine Sanctuary. Although the Commission found Union's mitigation
              efforts laudable, the Commission nevertheless found that these efforts, could
              not rectify the risk associated with the project's close proximity to an
              extremely vulnerableand sensitive-habitat, and that the   mitigation efforts
              did not provide acceptable assurances. The Commission objected to Union's
              POE again in November 1983, and Union appealed this decision to the Secretary
              of Commerce. This appeal is currently under review.

                   In July 1983, Exxon Company, U.S.A. (Exxon) appealed an objection by the
              California Coastal Commission to Exxon's certification that Option A (Offshore
              Oil Treating) of its Outer Continent 'al- Shelf Oil and Gas Development and
              Production Plan for the Santa Ynez Unit in the Santa Barbara Channel is
              inconsistent with the California Coastal Management Program. Exxon is the
              operator for the development of crude oil and gas reserves in the 19 leases
              on the'Santa Ynez Unit on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the
              Santa Barbara Channel.-, Production from the Santa Ynez Unit was initiated o.n
              April 1, 1981, from the existing Hondo A platform. -In order to recover
              additional(@_reserves from the Hondo field and to develop two nearby fields,
              Exxon proposed the installation of three to four' new platforms, an offshore
              oil and gas pipeline system connecting all of the platforms, and two oil and
              gas production and, treating options (offshore oil treatment, onshore gas
              treatment - Option A; onshore oil and gas treatment - Option B). Crude oil
              transportation, under the offshore oil treatment option, would be by marine
              vessel from the existing Offshore Storage and Treating (OS&T) vessel to
              refineries in the Gulf of Mexico area.   Crude oil transportation, under the
              onshore option, would be by marine vessels from a modernized nearshore marine
              terminal.  Exxon estimated that primary recovery by the proposed development
              would be approximately 300 to 400'million barrels of c  rude oil and 600 to
              700 billion standard cubic feet. of natural gas over a period of 25 to 35
              years. The California Coastal Commission rejected Exxon's Option A for
              offshore storage and treatment of the produced oil and transfer of the oil
              to tankers for shipment to refineries and for the construction of platforms
              and*pipelines under that option. 'The Commission concurred with the offshore
              production portion of Exxon's Development and Production Plan, Option B
              (i.e., the platforms and pipeline gathering system). Exxon agreed to withdraw
              its consistency certification for the associated onshore facilities under
              Option B, including oil and gas treatment facilities, a marineterminal, and






                                                    25


             pipelines in State waters, until Exxon resolves the pipeline feasibility or
             transportation issue. in the local permitting process with Santa Barbara County.
             (Update: In February 1984, the Secretary-of Commerce made partial findings
             supported by the record in the appeal and decided to stay the consideration of
             Exxon's appeal pending completion of the environmental review and state/local
             decisionmaking process on the onshorefacilities associated with Option.B.)

                  In August 1983, Exxon filed another appeal from a consistenc objection
                                                                               y
                               Coastal Commission. In this case the Commission had objected
             to Exxon's POE for drilling three wells on OCS-0-0467 in the Santa Barbara
             Channel. The Commission found the POE inconsistent primarily because Exxon
             had not been able to commit to restricting the exploratory drilling to a
             "Window'!. during the winter months. The Commission believed that the restriction
             wis necessary to minimize potential conflicts with the commercial thresher
             shark fishing industry. Exxon and the Commission staff participated in
             informal negotiations facilitated by OCRM which resulted in an agreement
             allowing Exxon to drill the-first exploratory well during the winter of
             1983-1984.. Exxon withdrew its appeal and submitted a revised consistency
             certification. (Update: In February 1984, the Coastal Commission objected to
             Exxon's consistency certifi-cation for the second well, again due to the lack
             of a commitment to drill only during the winter months. Exxon had agreed not
             to pursue a third well, but appealed the Commission's objection to the
             Secretary of Commerce on March 9, 1984.)

             Secretarial Mediation

                 The CZMA establishes, in Section 307(h), a voluntary mediation procedure
             whereby a state or Federal agency which is a party to a consistency dispute
             over a direct Federal activity (Sec. 307(c)(1)), can request the Secretary
             of Commerce to mediate disagreements. The only time the procedure was utilized
             was in 1979 in a.dispute between Californi.a and the Department. of Interior
             over whether OCS Lease Sale 48 "directly.affected" the coastal zone and must,
             be consistent With California's coastal zone management program. The mediation
             was unsuccessful in achieving any agreement between the parties..

                 Although the mediation procedures offer a dispute resolution mechanism
             short,of litigation,.Federal agencies have regularly declined to participate
             when-mediation has been requested by the states. During,1983, the Secretary
             of Commerce received five requests for mediation. The Department of the
             Interior declined to participate in mediation requested by New Jersey over
             the consistency 'of OCS Lease Sale 76 and by California over the consistency
             of OCS@Lease Sale 73. In declining the New Jersey request, Interior stated
             that theconsultation mechanism provided by Section 19 of the Outer Continental
             Shelf Lands Act*(OCSLA) would provide a more effective and expeditious means
             to resolve differences. The California Coastal Commission also requested
             Secretarial mediation of a dispute with the Interstate Commerce Commission
             (ICC) regarding an application by the SantaTeRailroad Company to the ICC
             for abandonment of a railroad line in Los Angeles County. The ICC dec'lined,
             stating that although the applicability of the CZMA to ICC railroad abandonment
             proceedings was "not free from doubt," the ICC considered the Coastal
             Commission's recommendations to the maximum extent possible under,the statutes
             governing railroad abandonments. The National Marine Fisheries Service
             (NMFS) declined to participate in the mediation requested by Florida over
             disputes regarding the consistency of two fishery management plans. NMFS






                                                   26


            determined that no useful purpose could  be served by mediation because any
            further accommodations to meet Florida's requests Would not be possible under
            the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.

            FINAL NOTE:

            The U.S. Supreme Court  Decision in Secretary of the Interior
            et al. V.  C a I i f o r n- -1a--e- T-517

                 On January 11, 1984, the United States Supreme Court decided Secretary
            of the Interior et al. v. California et al., 104 S. Ct. 656, 52 U. L.W.
            4063, (U. S. Slip. Op. No. 82-1326.) In a five-to-four decision, the Court
            held that the sale of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leases is not
            an activity "directly affecting" the coastal zone within the meaning of
            Section 307-(c)(1) of the CZMA, and, therefore, that a consistency determina-
            tion is not required under that section. Section 307(c)(1) requires that
            Federal agencies conducting or supporting activities "directly affecting the
            coastal zone" must conduct or support those activities in a manner which is
            consistent to the maximum extent practicable with federally-approved state
            coastal management programs. The Court's ruling reversed the decision by the
            United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that OCS lease sales are
            subject to the consistency provisions of the CZMA. The Coastal States
            Organization, and the states ofAlaska, Florida and New Jersey filed amici
            curiae briefs in support of California. The Western Oil and Gas Association
            intervened on behalf of the appellants.

                 The Court interpreted the phrase "directly affecting" and concluded that
            Congress used the phrase to strike a balance between two different definitions
            of the "coastal zone" contained in Senate and House.versions of the 1972 Act.
            In the Senate version, Federal lands were excluded from the "coastal zone;",
            in the House version, Federal lands were incl,uded in the "coastal zone." In
            both bills a state's consistency review authority extended only.to Federal
            activities "in" the coastal zone.   Thus, the Court reasoned that, according
            to the House version, Federal activities conducted on Federal lands were
            subject to consistency review; whereas, according to the Senate version,
            Federal activities on Federal lands were exempt from a state's consistency
            review. The Court concluded that the 1972 conference committee on the CZMA
            compromised these different provisions by accepting both the Senate's defini-
            tion of "coastal zone" excluding Federal lands and the House's extension of
            a state's consistency review authority to cover Federal activities on
            Federal lands.  Further, the Court held, based on its analysis, of the legis-
            lative history, "that the 1972 Congress did not intend Section 307(c)(1) to
            reach OCS lease sales."

                 Writing for the dissenters, Justice Stevens argued that the "plain
            language" of Section 307(c)(1) "applies to activities that take place outside
            the zone itself as well as to the activities conducted within the zone." In
            the dissenters' view, the 1972 conferees' substitution of the phrase "directly
            affecting the coastal zone" for the narrow phrase "in the coastal zone"
            clari-fied Congress' intention, expressed in both the 1972 House and Senate
            versions of the CZMA, "to prevent adverse effects on the coastal zone."







                                                    27

                The majority decision does not address the meaning of the statutory
           language in Section 307(c)(1) requiring that Federal agencies carry out
           activities directly affecting the coastal zone in a manner which is consistent
           with state programs 11to the maximum extent practicable." Also, the Court's
           decision does not reach the issue of standing.of environmental groups and
           local governments under the. Administrative Procedure Act to bring an action
           to enforce Section 307(c)(1).







                                                     29


             316(a)(7) A SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS ISSUED.BY THE SECRETARY OR
                        IN EFFECT DURING THE PRECEDING FEDERALFISCAL YEAR.

                  Several regulatory actions were taken during the biennium.     In January
             1982, NOAA withdrew regulations for Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA which define
             the term "directly affecting the coastal zone". In May 1982, regulations
            ,were promulgated to implement the 1980 amendments to the CZMA for Sections
             303/306(a), 306(b), 308, and 312. Proposed revised regulations for implement-
            .ing the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, Section 315,, were published in
             August 1983, and are in the process of being finalized. Also in August
             1983, a petition to.issue regulations to implement Section 312(b) was received
             by NOAA (and later denied)'. These actions are described below.

             Section 303/306(a) - The Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act of    1980
             ______TSection 303 of the CZMA by making Congressional Policy more specific
             amende
             through the identification of nine national coastal management objectives.
             Section 306(a) was also amended to require that each coastal state, which
             had been receiving Section 306 implementation funds for at least a year,
             expend an increasing proportion of its Federal funds (up to 30 percent) on
             activities which would result in significant improvements being made in
             these nine identified areas.

                  The regulations adopted pursuant to these amendments define "significant
             improvements" as activities which substantially strengthen the approved
             program or substantially strengthen the ability of the state to implement or
             enforce its approved program.   They describe the procedures used to identify
             which activities would be significant improvements and set the first mandatory
             contribution to.these objectives as 20 percent of.the second Section 306
             implementation award.' Failure to agree-to pursue significant improvements
             would result i-n the state losing its eligibility for future funds.

             Section 306(b).- The revised regulations pursuant to this Section simplify
             tFe--an-ocation formula for implementation funds under Section 306. The revised
             formula is based on: (1) a minimum share to each state, established by the
             Assistant Administrator; (2) 60 percent of the remaining appropriated funds to
             be allocated based on length of shoreline; and (3) 40 percent of the remaining
             appropriated funds based on the coastal county population. The regulations
             also authorize the Assistant Administrator-to adjust the base level allocations
             as necessary to implement a Phase down of Federal financial support under the
             Act.

             Section 307(c)(1)    In May 1981, NOAA proposed rules  and, in July 1981,
             - BT-
             pu Mid Tina] regulations to clarify which Federal      activities "directly
             affect the coastal zone" and,'therefore, are subject   to consistency review
             under this section@of the CZMA. The rulemaking was extremely controversial.
             Following publication of final rules, additional comments of concern were
             received from state governments and Members of Congress. In addition,
             Congressiona1 resolutions expressing disapproval of the final regulations
             were introduced. In October 1981, NOAA proposed to withdraw the July regula-
             tions and suspend their effective date. After reviewing the comments re-
             ceived on this proposal, NOAA withdrew the regulations on January 29, 1982,
             and it became effective 60 days later. For additional information on Federal
             consistency issues, refer to the previous Section 316(a)(6), Part I.








                                                    30


             Section 308   New Section 308(c)(3).authorizes grants for preventing or
             mitigating, unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from coal. transport-
             ation, storage, or transfer and alternative ocean energy activities. The
             final regulations implementing Section 308(c)(3) were combined with existing
             regulations implementing Sections 308(c)(1) and (2) and replace Subpart D
             (Planning for the Consequences of Energy Facilities) and Subpart L (OCS State
             Participation Grants) of 15 CFR 931--the Coastal Energy.Impact Program regula-
             tions. The final regulations, therefore, govern the award of all grants under
             Section 308(c). Clonsolidation.of the three categories of "c" grants under one.
             subpart has greatly simplified the regulations for administering the CEIP.
             Under this.consolidated approach, states received one allotment under Section
             308(c) that was apportioned at their discretion among the allowable uses of
             Subsections (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3).

             Section 312 - Section 31.2 requires a "continuing review of the performance
             of coastal states with respect to coastal management". This review must
             include a written evaluation that assesses the extent to which the state has:
             (1) implemented and enforced its approved program; (2) addressed the coastal
             management needs identified in Section 303(2)(A)-(I) of the CZMA; and (3)
             adhered to the terms of any grant, loan, or cooperative agreement funded
             under the CZMA. The section describes the penalty a state may suffer for
             failure to make significant improvements in achieving the coastal management
             objectives mentioned above, and the conditions accompanying any proposal to
             withdraw Federal approval and financial assistance from a participating
             state.

                  The regulations adopted pursuant to this section established the
             procedures.for.conducting the evaluations, the scope of activities to    be
             covered by the evaluation, and the.p.rocedures for'assessing adherence  to the
             federally-approved program.  The role of public participation in the continu-
             ing review is discussed, and the procedures for reducing financial assistance
             for failure to make significant improvements and withdrawing program approval
             and financial assistance are specified.

             Section 312(b) - A petition was received from Friends of the Earth and other
             supporting environmental groups contending that NOAA's regulations concerning
             public participation in evaluations of state programs under Section 312(b)
             were inadequate and that OCRM should undertake further rulemaking.. The re-
             gulations require that an Advance Notice of Intent to Evaluate be published
             in the Federal Register at least 45 days before the site visit, that public
             meetings be held during each evaluation, and that evaluation findings be
             prepared, noticed in the Federal Register, and distributed. In September
             1983, NOAA published the petition in the Federal Register- and invited comments
             for 30 days. After reviewing the comments, NOAA denied the petition on the
             groundsthat its rules are sufficient and fulfill the intent of the Act. A
             notice of NOAA's decision was published in the Federal Register on
             December 15, 1983.

             Section 315 - NOAA proposed to revise the regulations  implementing the.
             National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The proposed regulations revise exist-
             ing procedures for selecting-and designating national estuarine sanctuaries
             and provide guidance for their long;-term management. Site identification and
             selection will be based on-a revised biogeographic classification scheme and
             typology of estuarine' areas. The regulations place a greater emphasis on









            management planning by individual states early in the process of evaluating
            a potential site. The regulations also reflect a progression from the initial
            identification of a site, through the designation process, and continued
            management of the sanctuary by the state after Federal financial assistance
            has ended. In addition, the regulations provide for a programmatic evaluation
            of.sanctuary performance. The regulations also clarify the financial
            assistance application and award process.

            List of Current Regulations

            15 CFR 920     CZM Program Development Grants
                           Section 305, issued in 1977, superseded by Part 923

            15 CFR 921     National Esturine Sanctuary Program Regulations
                           Section 315, issued in 1974, revisions proposed in. 1983

            15 CFR  923    CZM Program Development and Approval
                           Sections 305 and 306, issued in 1979, revised 1982

            15 CFR  925  - State C 'oastal Zone Management Programs issued in 1975,
                           superseded by Part 923

            15 CFR  926  - CZM Program Development Grants, Allocation of Funds to
                           States Section 305, issued in 1975 (Authorization for
                           program development grants removed in 1980 amendments.)

            15 CFR  927    Allocation of Program Administration Grants
                           Section 306, issued 1979, revised 1982

            15 CFR  928    Review of Performance
                           Section 312 and 316, issued 1982

            15 CFR  930    Federal Consistency with Approved CZM Programs
                           Section 307, issued in 1979

            15 CFR  931    Coastal Energy,Impact Program
                           Section 308, issued in 1979, revised 1982

                    932    CNInterstate Grants
                           Section 309, issued in 1977

            15 CFR  933  -.CZM Research and Technical Assistance
                           Section 310, issued in 1977







                                                  33


           316(a),(8) A SUMMARY OF A COORDINATED NATIONAL STRATEGY AND PROGRAM FOR
                       THE NATION'S COASTAL ZONE INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION AND
                       DISCUSSION OF FEDERAL, REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL
                       RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS.THEREIN.

                The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, declares  the national
           policy "to preserve, protect, develop,,and where possible, to restore or
           enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding
           generations." The 1980 amendments to the Act specify the scope and emphasis
           of a national coastal management program by identifying nine national objectives
           which must be addressed by the states in their federally-approved programs.
           These objectives, found in Section 303(A) through (I), are:

                     0  Protect natural resources,

                     ï¿½  Manage coastal developme'nt to avoid hazardous areas,

                     ï¿½  Give priority consideration to coastal dependent uses and
                        energy facility siting,

                     0@- Provide public shorefront access,

                        Assist in redevelopment of  urban waterfronts and ports,

                     0  Coordinate and simplify governmental procedures to
                        ensure expedited governmental decisionmaking for
                        management of coastal resources,

                     0  Consult and coordinate with Federal agencies,

                     0, Provide the opportunity for public participat-ion
                        in coastal decisionmaking, and'

                     0  Provide comprehensi 've planning, conservation, and
                        management of living marine resources.

                since 1974, the Federal Government has provided  $234 million to the
           coastal states to develop and implement their coastal programs. Currently
           28 coastal states and territories are implementing federally-approved programs
           covering over 90 percent of the United States coastline and one State, Virginia,
           is funding its own effort to develop a federal ly-approvable program.  In FY
           1982, following an appraisal of the success of coastal management efforts,
           and the need for fiscal restraint, in accord with the original intent of the
           legislation, the Administration sought'to have the states and territories
           assume greater financial responsibility for continuing their CZM programs,
           and instituted a policy of phasing-out Federal financial support. The
           Administration generally has attempted to increase the portion of financial
           support contributed by the user or beneficiary of Federal programs and activi-
           ties.  For instance, among coastal programs, the Federal Emergency Management
           Agency (FEMA) now requires 25 percenttstate and local cost-sharing for
           disaster relief. User fees@are also under consideration for a wide range
           of previously subsidized Federal activities, such as dredging for deep water
           ports and NOAA's production of maps and navigational 'aids.








                                                       34


                In concert with this sharing of financial     responsibility, twin
           initiatives are underway to increase the state and local control of coastal
           decisionmaking and to reduce Federal regulatory duplication of state and local
          .programs. Most notably, the Corps of Engineers and the states have cooperated
           to expand the number of state and regional general permits for activities that
           cause only minimal individual and -cumulative environmental impacts.       In many
           cases, state approval of a project becomes the triggering mechanism for Corps
           approval. States thus assume greater control of activities       'affecting their
           coastal resources and Federal regulation is reduced. Similarly, Executive Order
           12372 eliminated the federally-prescribed A-95 process for the state review and
           coordination of Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development
           projects, and permitted the states to develop their own system for this purpose.

                States and local governments remain the primary coastal managers      . The
           states are concentrating on assurin-g a permanent coastal management program,
           fully integrated with ongoing state -functions, and on identifying sources
           of funding to support their assumption' of coastal management responsibilities.
           In many states, local governments shoulder a significant portion of this
           coastal resource management responsibility. Local coastal programs are a
           requirement in Alaska and California, and are an important element of coastal
           management efforts in several other states such as North Carolina.

                The states also are working together to identify and exchange expertise
           in common problem areas. In some instances, more formal interstate structures
           are being developed to coordinate efforts. Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania
           have joined with the Environmental Protection Agency to form the Chesapeake.
           Bay Council to develop a coordinated approach to the management of the resources
           of the Chesapeake Bay. (A portion of these efforts is being funded through
           a grant under Section 309 of the CZMA.) Another major interstate effort is
           ongoing in the Great Lakes.region to address common problems. These interstate
           groups rely for financial support primarily on their,own resources.

                As the states assume a greater responsiblity for funding coastal management,
           the role of the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)
           is changing from grants management to technical assistance and liaison between
           othe;r Federal agencies and the states. OCRM's emerging technical assistance
           function is focusing on three areas--permit simplification, coastal hazards,
           and special area management planning (SAMP).     A fourth area of concern,
           enhancing the cost-effectiveness of coastal management activities, is an
           integral part of these efforts.

                OCRM also provides policy guidance to states and other Federal agencies
           on the administration of the Section 307 consistency provisions discussed
           earlier in this report, and on the application of consistency to specific
           actions, thereby enhancing the State/Federal partnership set forth in the
           CZMA for the management of the Nation's coastal resources.,

                As part of the major NOAA reorganization in 1982 (discussed earlier
           in the Executive Summary), OCRM continued to coordinate and develop NOAA-
           wide policy on Outer Continential Shelf (OCS) oil and gas exploration and
  Q        development and on implementation of Superfund and National Contingency Plan
           activitfes, and assumed a similar role concerning coastal hazards and marine
           transportation.   These responsibilities form the basis for further assistance
           to states and other Federal agencies on coastal issues. For example,






                                                  35

            discussions are underway with the Corps of Engineeers, the Federal Emergency
            Management Agency, and other elements within NOAA to combine resources to
            assist the states in their hurricane preparedness and evacuation planning
            efforts. OCRM will also contihue-to exercise the Federal responsibility
            under Section 312 of the CZMA to evaluate the efforts of the states in light
            of the national objectives and to assure the maintenance of approvable programs.
            As the states respond to evolving coastal management issues, in part through
            changes in their programs, OCRM will review and assess these changes to
            assure compliance with the CZMA.






                                                       37


             316(a)(9) A SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS ARISING IN THE ADMINISTRATION
                         OF THIS TITLE IN ORDER OF PRIORITY.

                   The following is a brief discussion of issues which, to a varying degree,
             have presented a problem in the administration of the CZMA. Because of
             differences in the nature of the issues, they cannot be ranked in order of
             priority. Rather they are addressed according to the numerical sequence of
             the relevant sections in the.CZMA.

             Significant Improvements (Section 306(a)(3))

                   When the 1980 amendment  's to the CZMA were passed formally establishing
             the concept of "significant improvements". the amendments modified the
             Declaration of Policy and identified nine national coastal management objectives
             that states were required to address in their approved coastal management pro-,
             grams (Section 303(A) through (1)). After its first year of program implemen-
            .tation, each state would be required to spend an.increasing proportion (up to
             a maximum of 30 percent) of each financial assistance award on significant
             improvements in achieving these nine objectives. Through regulation, the
             states were directed to spend a minimum of 20 percent of the Federal funds in
             their second award on significant improvements, with a one percentincrease
             for each subsequent award.

                   In 1981 'changing national priorities resultedin a decision by the
             Administration to accelerate the phase-out of Federal financial assistance for
             the CZM and CEIP programs. Although phase-out funds have been authorized since
             that time, the level of Federal funding to the states is much less than the
             amount available when the "significant improvements" requirement was enacted
             in October 1980. Under these circumstances, the states have reordered their
             priorities and.used the limited Federal funds to maintain the basic.structure of
             their approved programs while they developed alternative state funding . A
            .review of the implementation of the CZMA, conducted by the Department of
             Commerce's.Office of the Inspector General-in 1983, criticized OCRM for not
             requiring more new or expanded projects as significant improvements. How-
             ever, OCRM's regulations, which allow flexibility in determining significant
             improvements, are appropri'ate for dealing with this issue. Through this
             period, the OCRM has worked with.the states to identify activities which
             could meet the requirements of the CZMA without jeopardizing the states'         core
             programs.

             Coastal Resources of National Significance (Section_306(i))

                   Section 306(i) of the CZMA encourages states to inventory and designate
             areas-containing "coastal resources of national significance", and to specify
             standards to protect these resources. The provision states that if
             a coastal state has failed to make satisfactory progress in the activities
             described in this subsection by September 30, 1984, the Secretary shall not
             make any grants to such State provided under Section 306A."' The latter
             Section, which has never been funded, allows appropriated funds to be used
             for the preservation or restoration of these areas of national significance,
             the redevelopment of urban waterfronts and ports, and the provision of public
             access to beaches-and other coastal areas. Because of the lack of or prospect
             for funding, OCRM decided not to promulgate unnecessary regulations for this
             section.







                                                   38


                 The Inspector Oeneral's report, referenced above, recommended that OCRM
            take more aggressive action to implement the Congressional intent of this
            section. OCRM responded that much.of the information required for an inventory
            as described in that section has been acquired by the coastal states during.
            the program development phase under Section 305 as part of the resource
            identification requirement for Federal approval of their programs. OCRM is
            undertaking a study to identify the extent and adequacy of existing inventories
            and other data and to enumerate those resources yet to be afforded special
            consideration. However, Congress has not allowed use of its appropriated
            funds for.Section 306A purposes,, therefore, the incentive for state action is
            limited.

            Consistency (Section 307)

                 Under Section 307(h) of the CZMA, a state or Federal agency party to a
            dispute.over the implementation of the consistency-provisions of the CZMA can
            request the Secretary of Commerce to mediate. States have requested
            mediation five times during the biennium. The specifics of these requests
            have been discussed earlier in this report. In each case, the Federal agency
            involved (Department of the Interior, Interstate Commerce Commission, and
            National Marine Fisheries Service)@declined to participate. The absence of a
            viable mediation process forces some disputes into the courts even though, in
            some cases, mediation would better serve the goals of intergovernmental
            coordination under theCZMA

            Estuarine Sanctuary Issues (Section 315)

                 Management Plans

                 'By the end of FY 1983, 15 national estuarine sanctuaries had''been
            established, States were acquiring land, and developing and implementing
            research and education programs and management plans. As several of the,
            older sites matured, OCRM found that the management plans were not sufficiently
            related to the resources and needs of each particular-sanctuary. Rather than
            general, procedural plans, estuarine sanctuary plans had to be more compre-
            hensive and provide substantive guidance for future actions.in a rather
            small, discrete estuarine area. The planning process had to identify the
            key land and water areas to be purchased, develop site-specific research and
            educational programs, and rank projects and activities in priority order so
            they could be implemented in a cost-effective and time-efficient manner.

                 Toward this end, the Sanctuary Programs Division, within OCRM, sponsored
            a workshop for estuarine sanctuary managers in September 1982. The   workshop's
            focus was on the development and implementation of effective management plans
            for estuarine sanctuaries. Since the workshop, the sanctuary managers and
            Sanctuary Programs Division staff have reviewed and substantially revised all
            of the estuarine sanctuary management plans. By and large, the plans are a
            much more effective management tool for ensuring the protection and use of
            the estuarine sanctuaries over time.







                                                    39


            Translating Estuarine Research Into Coastal Decision-Making

                 The Congress intended that esWarine sanctuaries woul.d be used to collect
            and disseminate information vital to effective coastal and estuarine manage-
            ment around the Nation. Based upon Section 312 evaluations and other informa--
            tion, OCRM concluded that only a few estuarine sanctuaries were having any
            influence on decisions affecting coastal and estuarine resources, and, in
            many cases, sanctuaries were isolated from the mainstream of state coastal
            management activities and programs.

                 OCRM is addressing this need to assure that estuarine sanctuaries are
            used to assist local, state, and Federal coastal resource agencies in address-
            ing major coastal management'problems through a new initiative called the Research
            and Education Information Coordination and Exchange Program (REICEP). REICEP
            sets up mechanisms for timely exchange of research information among sanctuaries,
            assists scientists by providing a basis for comparative estuarine research, and
            also assists states by strengthening the coordination between estuarine sanctu-
            aries and the state agencies whose actions affect estuaries and other coastal
            resources. This program has improved communication among the sites comprising
           ,the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. OCRM also is providing funding and
            direction to a nationwide effort to set up research a   'nd monitoring programs
            at individual sanctuaries that will address coastal management problems. The
            next biennium will see significant improvement in the way estuarine sanctuarie    s
            are us'ed to provide information to assist states in making coastal management
            decisions.








                                                       41


             .316(a)(10)   A DESCRIPTION OF THE ECONOMICS ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL
                           CONSEQUENCES OF ENERGY ACTIVITY AFFECTING THE COASTAL
                           ZONE AND AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FINANCIAL
                           ASSISTANCE UNDER SECTION,308 IN DEALING WITH SUCH
                           CONSEQUENCES.

                   The amendment of the   CZMA to include Section 308,     Coastal Energy Impact
             Program (CEIP) in 1976 was based, in part, on the assumption that increasing
             energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would-have 'a si'gnifi-,
             cant impact on the adjoining coastal-states and that this impact would be one
             of "boom or bust", i.e. unprepared communities would have        to provide a wide
             range of services and infrastructure to accommodate a large influx of
             personnel associated with the energy development and'production activities,
             and could be left with a significant,over-investment and burden when the
             energy resources failed to materialize or their'extraction no longer needed
             significant 'personnel and onshore support.      For'several reasons, this
             phenome'non generally has not occurred, and the impacts have been less than
             anticipated. OCS energy production off the nort!h Atlantic coast occurred at
             a much slower pace than envisioned, and exploration Off the central and
             south Atlantic coast did not reveal any significant resources. In addition,
             the development of new exploration basins off the coasts of South America and
             Africa made, the high costs of exploration inthe deeper waters off the United
             States.coast less desirable. A decline in gas prices and political problems
             halted the importation of.:Iiquified natural gas (LNG) from Algeria. Likewise,
             the continuing excess of refining capacity and current conditions make
             modernization of existing plants more practical than new construction.

                   Although all energy impacts have not materialized as foreseen in 1976.,
             energy development ha's significantly affected some coastal areas. The
             development and transportation of petroleum in Alaska has a great impact on
             Anchorage which, functioning as the principal staging area for the various
             development sites, underwent a great expansion in building and services
             development. More recently the city has experienced a significant under-
             utilization of its resources resulting in empty office space and expensive
             infrastructure. Many of the small native villages have benefited from public
             works projects, funded through energy rece     'ipts, but have also seen a disruption
             of traditional patterns of hunting and fishing. The State of Washington has
             received spillover effects from the Alaskan energy development as support
             businesses have used the Seattle area for their operations base. The Washington
             coast '_ also has seen major increases in tanker traffic. OCS energy activities .
             impact California in a number of ways including increased shipping and pipeline
             development, potential increases in air pollution, and possible conflicts
             with fisheries and other natural resources. Energy development also impacts
             the states along the,Gulf of Mexico. The dredging of pipeline corridors and
             access canals contributes to Louisiana's-loss of approximately 50 square
             miles of wetlands annually. Both Louisiana and Texas coastal communities
             have experienced some problems in.providing adequate public facilities for
             the personnel working on the offshore drilling rigs. However, state and
             local resources have been sufficient to ameliorate the most significant
             impacts. 'Co  'astal energy activity has also contributed positively to the
             social and economic conditions in many communities.








                                                 42


                Table 4-depicts how the coastal states have used the CEIP grant funds to
           mitigate energy impacts. Alaska used its CEIP funds to help rural native
           communities to develop coastal plans to assist them in dealing with the
           impacts of intensive energy development. Louisiana and Mississippi undertook
           the majority of their projects to improve the public services to meet the
           demands of increasing population (6 and 3 projects respectively). Reviewing
           the use of CEIP funds by all coastal states as a whole, the largest expenditure
           of funds was made to purchase and develop parks and other public access sites;
           the largest number of projects,focused on assessing the social, environmental,
           and economic impact of energy development. Most planning projects were
           directly related to specific energy projects including the use of solid waste
           for the generation of electricity. A substantial amount of the funds in all
           categories was passed through to local governments.

                Only one loan for $500,000 under Section 308(d)(1) was made during this
           period--a supplement-to Pascagoula, Mississippi, to complete construction
           of an incinerator. This loan increased the CEIP loan portfolio to approxi-
           mately $128.4 million. During FY 1982-1983, principal and interest pay-
           ments totalling $21.5 million were collected including two loans which were
           paid off in their entirety. These repayments represent a 100 percent collection
           of all amounts due. Two early repayments o 'f loans were received. Brunswick,
           Georgia, returned all funds which had been loaned ($1.2 million) to construct
           a pier for the City of Brunswick, in order to sell the property to the Georgia
           Port Authority which intended to invest over $10 millIon to up-grade the
           property. The Municipality of Anchorage Electric Utility refinanced its
           $7.7 million CEIP loan at a lower interest rate through the private bond
           market. Four requests for repayment assistance also were received pursuant to
           Section 308(d)(3) of the CZMA. Repayment assistance requires the Secretary of
           Commerce to alter the repayment requirements based on a finding that coastal
           energy activity causes less than adequate revenues to enable the borrower to
           meet it's obligations. All four repayment assistance requests were denied
           as not meeting the requirements of the CZMA.







                                                       43


                                                    Table 4


                                              CEIP Grants FY1982-1983

                                           Number              Number
                                            of                   of                 Total Federal
             Category                      States              Projects               Funds


             CEIP Administrationl                14                    14            $   761 425
             OCS Participation2                   9                    17                751,070.

             R6creation/Parks/Access             12-                   29              2,630,109

             Natural Resources                    9                    14                832,567
               Management

             Urban/Waterfront                     4                      5               172,577@
               Redevelopment
               Planning

             Local Coastal Programs               2                    NA              1,141,271

             Siti,ng of Industrial/               6                     8                272,957
               Commercial Facilities

             Planning for Impact of              18                    52              1,818,965
                 Industrial Development/
                Energy Facilities

             Oil Spill Planning/                 10                    14                583,350
                Mitigation

             Planning/Design/                                          16              1,899,057
              Construction of
              Community Infrastructure

             Port Development                     7                    10                664,172

             Other                                9                    18                716,977
              lIncludes staff projects and    local technical assistance.
              21ncludes public education and local technical assistance.






                                                    45


             316(a)(11) A DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION   OF APPLICABLE INTERSTATE  AND
                          REGIONAL PLANNING AND COORDINATING MECHANISMS DEVELOPED BY
                          uOASTAL STATES.

                  While state CZM Programs have not actively organized interstate or
             regional groups for planning and coordinating, they have interacted with such
             groups on many occasions to their mutual benefit. Some of these are discussed
             below.

                  The New England Governors Conference  (NEGC) meets on a regular basis and
             coastal issues are often on the agenda. In late 1982, the NEGC released the
             final report of the New England/New York Long Range Dredge Management Study,
             funded by the U. S. Water Resources Council with in-kind service from Maine,
             Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont (non-coastal
             State). The study explored the relationship between dredging and the region's
             economic well-being, recommended dredge fdanagement strategies at the-interstate
             and state levels, and researched the technical aspects of dredge materials
             disposal. and the dredging of highly contaminated harbor sediments.

                  In 1983, the NEGC cosponsored a forum with OCRM on the proposed Bay of
             Fundy Tidal Power Project to,discuss the likely effects on the coastal area
             of New England and the Gulf of Maine.

                  Improved management of the Chesapeake Bay is a major regional concern   in
             the South Atlantic. In 1983, OCRM awarded its first Section 309 interstate
             grant of $250,000 to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, representing
             the Chesapeake Bay Management Committee. The funds are being used to help
             implement a long-term monitoring strategy for the Bay by upgrading the
             existing computer and purchasing ancillary equipment for the University of
             Maryland Sea Grant Program and the.Virginia Marine Resources Commission, and
             by assisting Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland in habitat monitoring activities'
             by processing fisheries data for inclusion in the Chesapeake Bay data base.

                  Further signifying their concerns over Chesapeake Bay Management, the
             Governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, in conjunction with the
             District of Columbia and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency@(EPA),
             spo nsored a three day meeting in 1983 to discuss the results of the six year,
             $27 million EPA Chesapeake Bay Study and to develop management strategies for
             preserving and enhancing the resources of.the Bay. The states and EPA agreed
             to establish a policy-level Chesapeake Bay Council to direct joint activities
             regarding the Bay.   A Chesapeake Bay Implementation Committee was also formed
             which, in addition to the three states and the EPA, included other Federal
             agencies such as NOAA, and will function through subcommittees to coordinate
             and implement the directives of the Chesapeake Bay Council. Maryland and
             Virginia also began to develop major state initiatives to better manage the
             resources of the Bay and the land-based activities which impact the Bay.

                  The Great Lakes Governors Conference, the Great Lake Basin Commission, and
             the International Joint Commission on the U. S. and Canada (IJC) have all been
             active in Great Lakes issues. In June 1982, the Governors of all the Great
             Lakes states, except Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania which sent representatives,
             the Premier of Ontario, and a representative from Quebec met to discuss issues
             of mutual 'interest. The agenda included'Great Lakes water diversion, ports
             user fees, forgiveness of the St. Lawrence Seaway debt, formation of a Great







                                                     46


            Lakes Marketing Corporation, and U.'S. participation in the United States-
            Canada Water Quality Agreement.of 1972. As a result of the meeting, the
            Upper Great Lakes Goyernors' Council (Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin)
            was expanded to included,Indiana, Illinois, and Ontario, thus including
            Lakes Michigan and Huron, as well as Superior, in a multi-state management
            forum.   In-addition, task forces were established to review the institutional
            structures relating to interbasin water transfer (the participants agreed
            not to act unilaterally on this issue) and to establish uniform toxicant
            level standards for all five Great Lakes. Since that time, Ohio has joined
            as a full.iime member, and Quebec.continues to express interest because of
            .its concern about the St. Lawrence River.

                 The Great Lakes Commission and the Council of Great Lakes Governors (CGLG)
            met during May 1983 to discuss.the economy of the region, OCS revenue sharing,
            Federal water financing and cost-sharing policies, interbasin water transfer,
            recreational'boating.safety and facil'ity development, deep draft navigation
            user charges, Great Lakes dredging, seaway tolls, winter navigation, and
            other issues of interest to the Great Lakes region. In another joint meeting
            .in the fall of 1983, the main,topics of discussion between the GLGL and the
            ,IJC were acid rain and regional water diversion efforts.

                 The state coastal programs   work closely with the Sea Grant Cooperative
            Extension Service in the,Great Lakes region. During early 1983, the Minnesota
            Sea Grant.Extension Service sponsored a major regional conference involving
            many Federal, state, local, and industry officials--"Maritime User Fee Con-
            ference: A Forum on the Effects of User Fees on the Upper Great Lakes." This
            was followed in December 1983, by a Minnesota-Wisconsin Sea Grant Conference
            on "Export Policies To Improve the Great Lakes Economy".

                 During 1982, as a result of the efforts of the Red Cliff Band of the Lake
            Superior_Chippewa Indians, a Great Lakes Indian Fishery Commission was es-
            tablished. It includes five tribes from three states--Michigan, Minnesota,
            and Wisconsin. All the tribes are in various stages of developing commercial
            fishing businesses. The Commission'has a three-fold purpose: facilitating
            policy coordination, developing biologi.cal expertise, and public information
            and education. The Commission has received initial funding from the Bureau
            of Indian Affairs to assist in start-up operations. Development of this
            expertise by the Red Cliff Band is the result of continuing support from the
            Wisconsin.Coastal Management Program.

                 The most active organization representi*ng the Pacific Islands is the
            Pacific Basin Development Council (PBDC) comprised of the Governors of Hawaii,
            Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and a small staff.
            In the past, PBDC has sponsored workshops on the region's economy and on CZM.
            A Regional. Fisheries Development Plan was completed by PBDC in early 1983
            which foc'uses on the capital needs and roles of the public and private sectors
            in implementing a fisheries development strategy. In addition, PBDC has
            coordinated with the Corps of Engineers on proposed general permits delegating
            permit authority to the island coastal programs.







                                                     47


            316(a)(12)     A SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH, STUDIES, AND
                           TRAINING CONDUCTED IN   .SUPPORT OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT.

                 Research  and education on coastal issues is conducted through the state
            CZM and CEIP programs, contracts and conferences/workshops funded by OCRM, and
            by the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program through individual sanctuary research
            and monitoring projects, and educational programs. A list of sanctuary research.
            Funded by NOAA during FY 1982-1983 follows this section. Part II, state summaries,
            highlights significant projects funded at the state level. The following is a
            brief description of major efforts funded by OCRM during the biennium period.

            Conferences

                 In March 1982 and March 1983,    OCRM and the Coastal States Organization
            jointly sponsored a series of workshop briefings on coastal issues for CZM State
            Program Managers. _ Several Pther Federal agencies and private organizations also
            contributed to,these sessions.

                 In cooperation with the American Society of Civil Engineers, OCRM was one
            of over 35 organizations sponsoring a four-day national.symposium in San Diego,,
            California, in June 1983.

                 In July 1982, American Samoa hosted a.Pacific Basin CZM Conference in
            cooperation with OCRM, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas.. Participants.
            concluded that their "unique island status" required that Federal programs be
            sensiti*ve to the cultural and natural resources of those areas. NOAA programs
            in coastal management, fisheries,,and ocean pollution assessment were identified
            as important to the Pacific Basin.     Proceedings were published.

            Coastal Hazards Efforts
                 Following Hurr .. icane Alicia's pass through the southern part of Texas   in'
            August 1983, OCRM funded a damage assessment and hazards mitigation study. A
            report was released in October 1983 which explored why the damage appeared
            excessive in light of the severity of the storm and made recommendations for
            .future mitigation efforts. Natural causes which contributed to the damage
            were identified as well as other factors Which included local building prac-
            tices and lack of building code enforcement. The recommendations concerned
            working with the builders, architects, and other relevant groups to create
            and provide training for improved coastal construction practices.,

                 During FY.1983, OCRM initiated a study to assess the impacts of the
            passage of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 which prohibits Federal
            financial assistance for development on coastal barriers for the purposes of
            minimizing loss of life, saving Federal dollars, and protecting natural
            resources. The Department of Interior has identified 186.undeveloped barrier
            islands to which the restrictions apply. The study,.which focuses on Topsal.1
            Island, North Carolina, and Hutchinson Island, Florida, examines the responses
            of the major groups involved in coastal barrier development and management
            and assesses the implications of study findings for the Atlantic and Gulf,
            States CZM Programs.








                                                     48

                 In  May 1983, OCRM_provided financial support to a.symposium on      "Preventing
            Coastal  Flood Disasters--the Role,of the States and the Federal Response",
            held*in  Ocean City,' Maryland. It was sponsored by the Maryland CZM Program
            and the  Association of State Floodplain Managers. State CZM Managers and
            other Federal, state, and local officials participated'in these discussions.
            The symposium resulted in'recommendAtions in several areas including: improved
            coordination of hazard mitigation policies and public expenditures for sewer
            and water, roads, flood control works, flood insurance., and disaster assistance;
            improved coastal hazard mapping; more effective protection of dunes, wetlands,
            and protective barriers; improved post-disaster response; and improved public
            education.

            National Estuarine Sanctuary Manager's Workshop

                 In September 1982, OCRM sponsored a four-day workshop to assist National
            Estuarine Sanctuary mana-ger@ in the development and completion of sanctuary
            management plans that would be consistent with NOAA policies regarding con-
            struction of facilities, supplemental land acquisition and research/education
            programs. The workshop, held in Port Deposit, Maryland, brought together
            management plan experts and practitioners who shared their     -expertise in man-
            aging natural areas, and in-developing research/monitoring and interpretive
           ,programs. Approximately 50 people attended this workshop,-which was a follow-
            up to the first National Estuarine Sanctuary Workshop held in 1979.

            Estuarine Sanctuary Educational Programs

                 A basic goal of estuarine sanctuaries is to promote an awareness of the
            value of estuaries by providing an'opportunity for public understanding of
            the need to preserve, protect and wisely utilize the natural resources of
            theseareas through'educational programs. During the biennium, several
            sanctuaries have been working on and publishing curriculum material for
            grades 4 through 12. Also the first two estuarine sanctuary interpretive
            centers were dedicated and opened to the public at Old Woman.Creek, Ohio,       and
            Padilla Bay, Washington. These centers are equipped with various habitat        and
            ecology displays, a small theater, classrooms,*a library, a ha*nds-on room,
            and a laboratory.@ Estuarine sanctuaries attracted a wide diversity of indivi-
            duals, families and groups who came for an educational, research or recrea-
            tional*purpose. For example, in 1983 the Padilla Bay National Estuarine
            Sanctuary and Interpretive Center drew over 20,000 people from 36 states and
            10 foreign countries, and over 1,300 students in formal educational programs.
            Three more sanctuaries plan to dedicate interpretive centers in the next
            biennium: Apalachicola River and Bay, Florida: Elkorn Slough, California; and
            South Slough, Oregon.:

            Public Information Activities and Publ-ications

                 The.Coastal Zone'Information Center (CZIC) provides a variety of
            informati'o''n services to OCRM staff, state CZM programs, and the general
            public. CZIC researches questions on the coastal zone, mails out publications
            upon request, and provides referrals to those who wish to research a topic in
            detail. @Other services include compiling selected bibliographies of source
            documents and directories of applicable information sources., and providing
            information about the history and current status of the coastal zone manage-
            ment program. CZIC houses materials on the history of the CZM program and a
            collection of state publications produced over the life of the Program.






                                                    49


            During FY 1983, CZIC  published its third edition of  an annotated,bibliography
            of over 1,500 state work products--a detailed guide   to the work that has been
            sponsored under the CZMA.

                  In addition to the CZM Annotated Bibliography,  several other publications
            were produced by 0 'CRM during FY 1982rl983. The CZM  Information Exchange is a
            publication which summarizes current activities in each state and provides up-
            dates on current legislation, Federal consistenc I           arine and estuarine
                                                              y issues, m
            sanctuary activities, and.other coastal issues.

                  During FY-1982 and 1983, OCRM produced several  state booklets which
            describe in detail a state's coastal management program and projects funded
            under the CZMA. Booklets were produced for the States of California, Florida,
            North Carolina,-South Carolina, and, Rhode Isla.nd in response to special
            events in these States.
                  Sanctuary Management Plans were approved  and publisK@d for National
            Estda-rine Sanctuaries at Old Woman Creek, Ohio; Narragansett Bay, Rhode
            Island; and Jobos Bay, Puerto Rico. These plans describe the significant
           ,natural 'resources of each site, sanctuary management goals and objectives,
            research and educational programs and facilities, and the management actions
            necessaryto implement the plan. Management plans for the other twelve
            sanctuaries will be published within the next biennium.

                  In addition, several other general information documents were produced on
            a variety of subjects including the national CIM program, the CEIP, individual
            sanctuary sites, urban waterfront revitalization, and others. These brochures,
            along with the other publications, are available upon.request.














                                   SU"RY OF NOAA FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS CONDUCTED       AT NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES


                         SANCTUARY       FISCAL               TITLE OF PROJECT                  OBJECTIVES
                                         YEAR

                         FLORIDA

                         Rookery  Day      '1963       "An Analysis of Nutrient, Chlorophyll,            to provide basetiIne date on the I
                                                        Heavy Metal. and Pesticide Levels In             nutrients, chlorophyll, heavy met
                                                        Rookery Bay RES*                                 pesticides In Rookery Day NIS, to
                                                                                                         the date base and determine wheth
                                                                                                         management policy changes are nee

                                                                                                         to examine tidal and seasonal flu
                                                                                                         of nutrients, chlorophyll levels,
                                                                                                         suspended particles In Rookery Do


                         Rookery Bay       1983        "Distribution and Abundance of Benthic            to Inventory the benthic Inverteb
                                                        Invertebrates In Rookery Day RES"                sanctuary and examine the effects
                                                                                                         chemical, and sediment parameters
                                               -                                                         distribution of thA dominant spec

                                                                                                         to gather data on the life historj
                                                                                                         abundance, behavior. and feeding
                                                                                                         dominant species.

                                                                                                         t*q Identify potential pollution I
                                                                                                         spicles among the Invertebrates.


                         NEW YORK

                         Iludson River      1983       'Conmunlty CoMosltlon and Standing                to provide baseline descriptive I
                                                        Crop of Vascular Vegetation In the               on fresh-t1dal marsh vascular veg
                                                        fludson River NES at 11voll Bays"                the fludson River RES research pla

                                                                                                         to test the hypothesis that lludso
                                                                                                         estuary rresh-tidal marsh vascula
                                                                                                         Is similar In species composition
                                                                                                         above-ground standing crop to oth
                                                                                                         last Coast estuaries.














                                                    SUMMARY OF NOAA fUNDED RESEARCII PROJECTS     CONDUCTED  AT .NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCIUARIES'


                        SANCTUARY          FISCAL             TITLE Of PROJECT                    OBJECTIVES
                                            YEAR


                        01110

                        Old Woman Creek     1982   *Secondary Production In Two Lake                  to.compare the use of a fresh water estuari
                                                    Erie IlabItats: Old Woman Creek                   and a nearby marsh as foraging and
                                                    Estuary and Sheldon Harsh"                        reproductive habitats for   certain valued
                                                                                                      species of Lake Erie game   fishes.



                        Old Woman Creek 1982       "Transport and Assimilation of'                    to determine the patterns   of Input   and  output
                                                    Nutrients and Pesticides In the                   concentrations of nutrients and pesticides In
                                                    Old Woman Creek Estuary of                        Old Woman Creek.
                                                    take Erie"
                                                                                                      to obtain baseline data-for refining several,
                                                                                                      hypotheses relating nutrient and pesticide.
                                                                                                      levels to storm events.

                                                                                                      to determine the ecological consequences of
                                                                                                      nonpoint source pollution on freshwater
                                                                                                      estuarine productivity.


                        Old Woman Creek 1982 "Parasites       of Fishes In                          to examine. catalog. and compare the Inverte-,
                                                   Old Woman  Creek NESo'                           brate Parasites of several common fish of OWC
                                                                                                      estuary and an adjacent portion of Lake Erie.

                                                                                                      to understand the role of estuaries In
                                                                                                      maintaining parasite populations In both
                                                                                                      localized and lake-run fish populations.


                        Old Woman Creek 1983       'Fish Recruitment'  and Habitat                    to con are larval and adult fish production
                                                    Utilization In two Lake Erie                      and hatitat utilization In OWC estuary and
                                                    fnvironmentst Ok Estuary                          'Sheldon Marsh.
                                                    and Sheldon Harsh"
                                                                                                      to C     re foraging patterns of whiteperch
                                                                                                      wlthomK4
                                                                                                           w Ite bass In OWC.

                                                                                                      to examine the effect of prey density and wa
                                                                                                      currents on selection of foraging habitats bj
                                                                                                      grizzard shad.

















                                         SUMMARY OF KOM FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECT CONDUCTED AT NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES



                           SANCTUARY         FISCAL             TITLE OF PROJECT                   OBJECTIVES
                                             YEAR


                           01110

                           Old Woman Creek     1983 wCrustacean Zooplankton Distribution              to Investigate the physical and b1olo
                                                       and Dynamics In the UWC Estuary and             rocesses which control If(@ In the
                                                       Adjacent Lake Erie"                            ty comparing the species composition
                                                                                                      successional dynamics of the crustace
                                                                                                      tooplankton In the estuary with simll
                                                                                                      In the adjacent n@arshore zone of Lak


                           Old Woman Creek     1963    "The Terrestrial Vertebrates and their         to establish baseline data on the ter
                                                        Relationship to Ecological Changes at         species of the OWC watershed.
                                                        OWC National Estuarine Sanctuary"
                                                                                                      to Investigate which sampling and Ind
                                                                                                      methods are most suitable for long-te
                                                                                                      monitoring of terrestrial species for
                                                                                                      of ecological changes In the OWC wate


                           RHODE I SLAND

                           Narragansett Bay 1982       "Preliminary Selected Marine                   to gather baseline hydrologic and his
                                                        Biological Sampling In the                    In the waters adjacent to Prudence Is
                                                        Narragansett Bay Estuarine                    provide a basis for long-term monitor
                                                        Sanctuary (Prudence Island)"                  changes In the sanctuary over time.


                           Narragansett Bay 1983       *The Impact of fluman Activities on            to assess the historical and current
                                                        the Narragansett Day NES as Shown    by       of the sanctuary to various pollutant
                                                        flistorical Changes In 1.1eavy Metal          f-rom the Providence River and the at
                                                        Inputs and Changes In Vegetation"             resulting from human.actfvlty, startl
                                                                                                      the Industrial Revol6tion 200 years a

































                                              PART II

                                          STATE SUMMARIES







                                                  53



                                             INTRODUCTION


                This section includes a brief summary of the status of each coastal
           state which is eligible for funding under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
           For the participating states, the report briefly outlines the basis and
           structure of the program, any changes to the program which have been pro-
           cessed during the biennium, the major activities which the state has under-
           taken with funding provided by the CZMA, major consistency issues, and the
           results of the evaluation of the program conducted under Section 312 of the
           CZMA. A description of the nationallestuarine sanctuaries is also included
           where appropriate.







                                                          54



                                                       ALABAMA



              Background     CZM and CEIP Programs:

                    The Alabama Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP)       was approved in
              September 1979. . The program was based on Act 534, the.Coastal Area Act,
              which established the Coastal Area Board (CAB) and directed it to develop and
              implement a comprehensive management program. Act 534 also established the
              coastal boundary as the area from t    'he contiguous 10-foot inland contour to
              the seaward limit of the State's territorial waters, including the coastal
              islands.

                    In 1982 legislation was passed which created a new Department of
              Environmental Management (DEM). CAB's responsibilities were transferred to
              the DEM and.the Department of Economic and Community Affairs (DECA) in an
              effort to st  ,reamline' the permitting process and consolidate environmental and
              regulatory p  .rograms in the State.

                    DECA is the designatedlead agency for both the coastal management and
              Coastal Energy Impact Programs (CEIP). CEIP grant and loan assistance has
              been used for a variety of planning studies, public works construction, land
              acquisition, and environmental loss mitigation projects. Alabama's major
              energy impacts are from OCS development and coal export activities.

              Routine_Program Implementation (RPI)_6nd Amendments:

                    No RPI's or amendments were processed during Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983,
              but changes to the Alabama program as a result of the 1982 reorganization
              discussed above will be submitted to OCRM as an RPI during FY 1984.

              Major Activities:

                    The Alabama program concentrated on three core areas during FY 1982 and
              1983:   (1) administration (personnel, grant and contract processing, program
              evaluation, legal issues, and coordination); (2) implementation (permit
              information center, technical assistance, consistency review monitoring, and
              enforcement); and (3) planning (public access, port development, and tourist
              development). In.addition, during FY 1983, staff time and,,funding were
              required to facilitate the reorganization effort.

                    CEIP projects funded during this period included road and park improvements
              in Mobile, Saraland, Chickasaw, and Daphne, necessitated by increased coal
              activities, and OCS monitoring and participation.

              Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                    To allow the program time to settle in after the reorganization, fiscal
              years 1982 and 1983 were not evaluated until the week of January 23, 1984.
              Prior to this time, the last evaluation was held in the winter of 1981.
              Preliminary findings for FY 1982 and 1983 cited the passage of the 1982
              Alabama Environmental Management Act which provides for one-stop permitting
              as a major accomplishment. Preliminary recommendations noted the need to
              revise the program document to reflect the reorganization, strengthen the






                                                  55


            beach and dune protection provisions of the program, institutionalize county
            program responsibilities, accelerate special area management planning, and
            heighten.public awareness and involvement.  Final findings for this evaluation
            will be available in June 1984.







                                                     56



                                                   ALASKA



             Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                  The, Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) was approved in July 1979.
             The program is based on the Alaska Coastal Management Act which created the
             Alaska Coastal Policy Council (CPC) charged with developing management guide-
             lines and standards for the coastal zone. These legislatively adopted rules
             also guide the development of local coastal programs.     Under the Act, the
             coastal boundary extends inland for varying distances based on biogeographi-
             cal considerations. Legislation was passed in 1983 creating a new Office of
             Management And Budget (OMB) within the Office of the Governor. This office
             is the designated lead agency for coastal program, implementation and State
             and Federal consistency review, and provides staff for the CPC.

                  Alaska's Coastal Energy Impact Program is administered by the Department
             of Community and Regional Affairs. The State's major energy impacts are from
             OCS oil and gas exploration and development.

             Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                  Changes to the ACMP during FY 1982-1983 included the completion of three
             local coastal programs (Hydaburg, Skagway with amendments, and Sitka), the
             adoption of the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan and the Anchorage Scenic
             Coastal Resources and Public Access Plan, and the development of management
             standards for six native subsistence hunting and fishing areas that merit
             special attention (AMSA's) in the Hydaburg area. These were found to be RPI's
             under the-Federal regulations.

             Major Activities:

                  Alaska's third and foueth year programs focused on the development of
             local coastal programs, the streamlini 'ng of its Federal-State consistency
             review process, monitoring and enforcement, and management of the impacts of
             OCS oil and gas development. During FY 1982 and 1983, 14 local coastal pro-
             grams were prepared and are in various stages of review.     To assist this
             development, the ACMP produced a guidebook for local governments, held a
             series of implementation workshops, and initiated a monitoring and enforcement
             program.   A comprehensive wetlands management plan was developed by the City
             of Anchorage which assigned all the freshwater wetlands within the city to
             either development, conservation, or preservation zones, and incorporated
             these zones into the local coastal program.

                  A regulatory reform program was initiated in 1982 that would have changed
             the Federal consistency process and streamlined the permit system, but it was
             not passed by the legislature. Instead, permit reform was accomplished
             administratively. As part of this effort, in 1983, the coastal management
             functions were reorganized under the Office of the Governor.' Under the
             reorganization, the consistency review process was improved by the signing of
             a Memorandum of Understanding by various State agencies which provides for a
             unified interagency review of development activit'ies requiring permits from
             more than one State agency and/or Federal agency.







                                                 57


               Coastal Energy Impact Program funds were used primarily for administra-
          tion, planning assistance to the Coastal Resource Service Area Boards in
          western Alaska to prepare for scheduled OCS lease sales, and the development
          of a legislative proposal for establishing a State Energy Impact Program in
          anticipat.ion of the phaseout of the Federal CEIP.

          Major Consistency Issues:

               The major consistency issue facing Alaska relates to the sale of OCS
          oil and gas leases. During this  period, three major OCS lease sales were
          scheduled off the coast of Alaska that caused concern over possible adverse
          impacts--Lease Sale 57, Norton Sound; Lease Sale 70, St. George Basin; and
          Lease Sale 71, Beaufort Sea. In all cases, State conclusions that the sales
          were inconsistent were'later withdrawn based on negotiations and agreements
          Ireached between the Governor and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
          prior to the sale. Two local programs-disagreed with findings of consistency,
          however. The Village of False Pass filed a lawsuit over Lease Sale 70, but
          the claim of inconsistency was later withdrawn when the Alaska District Court
          ordered DOI to prepare a supplemental EIS.  The North Slope Borough also brought.
          suit over Lease Sale 71, challenging two decisions by Secretary of the Interior
          Watt that changed the terms of the seasonal oil and gas drilling restrictions
          in the Beaufort Sea. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments on the
          grounds that the risk of a spill during the exploratory phase of operations Was
          extremely low. The lease sale occurred in October 1982. High bids totalled
          $2,067,604,786 on 125 tracts.

          Summary of EvaluationFindings:

              The ACMP was evaluated in March 1982 covering the period June 1981 through
          March 1982. Program achievements noted in the findings included the approval
          of the Yakutat local coastal program, the protection of natural resources
          through the district programs, the proposed issuance of general permits to
          Sitka by the Corps of Engineers to expedite decisionmaking, and proposed
          improvements for protection of wetlands. Recommendations for strengthening the
          ACMP included improving the consistency process, providing additional guidance
          and assistance to district programs in the program planning stag e, and improving
          monitoring and enforcement.

               The most recent evaluation covered Alaska's coastal program for the
          period April 1982 through September 1983 and the Alaska CEIP from August 1977
          through September 1983. The findings noted that reorganization of the CZM
          program in State government contributed to delays in meeting project bench-
          marks and other commitments. However, the reorganization, which legislatively
          assigns Federal consistency responsibilities to the new Office of Management
          and Budget, should improve implementation of the ACMP. Recommendations for
          strengthening the program included implementing fully,the new interagency
          permit review.process for conducting consistency review, enhancing OMB's role
          in the approval of district programs, planning for implementation of approved
          programs in Coastal ROsource.Service Areas, correcting problems with monitoring
          and enforcing State-wide Standards and Guidelines and approved district
          programs, and encouraging local governments to continue upgrading hazards
          mitigation plans with state-of-the-art risk assessment.







                                                  58


                 The CEIP played a major role in the State's ability to address concerns
            raised by the accelerated and expanded OCS lease schedule. CEIP funding
            augmented program implementation funding for developing district programs in
            areas affected by energy development. CEIP funds assisted the Alaska
            Departments of Fish and Game, Natural Resources, Environmental Conservation,
            and the OMB in contributing to the State's ability to assess potential impacts
            to coastal resources, including fish and wildlife. CEIP funds addressed
            growth problems by acting as seed money for infrastructure projects. The
            loan program provided credit assistance for essential water and sewer projects.







                                                   59



                                            AMERICAN SAMOA



            Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The American Samoa Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) was approved in
            September 1980. It is based on Executive Order 3-80 which directs all
            Territorial agencies exercising control over land and water areas and uses to
            act consistently with,the policies of the ASCMP as set forth in the Executive
            Order. It designates the Development Planning Office (DPO) as the lead
            agency and directsit to approve all permits,for any use, development, or
            other activity which has direct and significant impacts on the coastal waters
            of the Territory. The Executive Order defines the coastal boundary to include
            all of the Territory's land and water areas and designates two Special Manage-
            ment Areas (SMA): Pala Lagoon, a resource protection SMA, and Pago Pago Harbor,
            an economic development SMA. ,                    11

                 The DPO also administers the Coastal Energy Impact Program. Samoa faces
            impacts from the siting and expansion of energy facilities.

            Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                 No changes to the ASCMP were processed during FY 1982-1983.

            Major Activities:

                 The DPO continued its consolidated la nd use permit and review procedure
            for Territorial permits and Federal assistance projects (Project Notification
            and Review System) and continued to work on improving enforcement. Villages
            retain control of 92 percent of the land in the Territory and are governed by
            chiefs and councils. The DPO worked with seven of the villages to draw up
            land use plans that accommodate growth without destroying social and natural
            values. Samoa's Coastal Atlas, which includes information on soils, slopes
            vegetation, land use, and population, was completed in August 1982 and provides
            decisionmakers with easy access to technical information for the first time.

                 Samoa hosted a well-attended Pacific Basin CZM Conference during July
            1982. The conference concluded that the uniqye status of the State of Hawaii
            and the Territories of Guam, Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands required
            that Federal programs be sensitive to the cultural and natural resources of
            the islands. Proceedings of the conference were published. The program is
            developi,ng a Master Plan for Pago Pago Harbor and has completed a land use
            plan for the port area. The DPO intends to work with the legislature to
            develop comprehensive legislation-to institutionalize the coastal program.

                 The DPO used its allotment of CEIP funds to conduct an aerial survey of
            the islands in order to facilitate planning for pipeline sitings.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 The program was evaluated in June 1982 covering the period May 1981
            through June 1982. The findings noted that the American Samoa Government was
            adhering to its approved program and that adequate progress was being made on
            grant tasks. Two noteworthy accomplishments were the completion of the








                                                  60


            Coastal Atlas and successful initiation of the Project Notification and
            Review System. The findings identified several areas where improvements
            could be made. These included monitoring and enforcement, streamlining of
            the Project Notification and Review System, and taking additional measures
            to protect Pala Lagoon.






                                                  61



                                               CALIFORNIA



           Background --CZM and GEIP Programs:

                The California Coastal Management  Program  (CCMP) is comprised of two
           segments. The management program for the San Francisco Bay segment, which i*s
           ,administered by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), was
           approved in February 1977. The management program for the rest of the coast,
           which is administered by the California Coastal Commission, was approved in
           November 1977. The Coastal Commission is the designated lead agency. The
           program is based on the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended, and the
           McAteer-Petris Act under which BCDC operates. The State's coastal boundaries,
           extend inland generally to the first ridgeline of the coastal mountains and
           up to five miles where significant resources are involved. In the Bay area,
           the boundary extends inland generally 100 feet from the marshes and tidal
           surfaces.

           Routine Program Implementation (RPI)  and Amendments:

                During FY 1982-1983 California  submitted 23 modifications to its approved
           coastal program. These included 13   Local Coastal Programs; the San Diego
           Port Master Plan, and Port Plans for Los Angeles, Port Hueneme, and Long Beach;
           modifications to the BCDC segment (recreational marinas, the Seaport Plan, the
           Corps of Engineers regional permit, and others); and legislative changes to
           .the California Coastal Act. These changes were found to be RPI's under the
           Federal regulations.

           Major Activities:

                During FY 1982-1983, the California program focused on regulatory elements,
           guiding local program development and implementation, ensuring public access,
           and developing policy guidelines for the cumulative impacts of offshore.oil
           development. The Commission implemented a permit monitoring and enforcement
           program and the CCMP was active in Federal consistency issues, especially
           those involving OCS.

                In the area of public access to the coast, the Commission published the
           California Coastal Access Guide, a book containing maps showing public access-
           ways, and worked with the Cal    rnia Coastal Conservancy to develop an access
           sign program to mark clearly those areas open to public access.

                In November 1982, the Commission sponsored an Ocean Studies Symposium to
           develop recommendations for better management of nearshore ocean'resources.
           .The published report of this Symposium was the subject of concurrent Resolu-
           tion 15 which was passed by the California legislature,in April 1983, and which
           directed follow-up action on the report's recommendations in the 1984 legisla-
           tive session. The recommendations related to aquaculture facility siting; the
           establishment of a California Fishery Management Council; marine mammal manage-
           ment,. marine sanctuaries, refuges, and underwater parks; offshore energy and
           mineral activities; marine pollution; marine transportation; and a statewide
           shoreline erosion plan.







                                                    62


                  Severe winter storms during late 1982 and  early 1983 caused considerable
             damage to the California coastline. Coastal Commission staff prepared a report
             and coordinated with the State Emergency Services office on future hazards
             mitigation policies.

                  The State used  CEIP funds for a variety of projects and studies including
             OCS planning activities, local government coordination, energy facility siting
             planning, fishery data, and public access.

             Major Consistency Issues:

                  OCS oil and gas activities continued to be the major Federal consistency
             issues for California.. Another important consistency issue related to the
             impacts of the,abandonments of railroad rights-of-way.

                  During-1982, California sued the Department of Interior (DOI) to enjoin
             leasing certain tracts in Lease Sale 53. In August 1982, in California v.
             Watt, the Ninth Circuit upheld a U.S. District Court's ruling in Califo'rnia's
             Ta-vor that the lease sale directly affected the coastal zone of California
             and that DOI would have to submit a determination that the lease sale was
             consistent to the maximum extent pr acticable with California's approved CZM
             program. In February 1983, Federal defendants filed for a Supreme Court
             hearing to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling. (Note: This decision was
             overturned by the Supreme Court in January 1984--see Part 1, Section 316(a)(6),
             Federal Consistency.)

                  In November 1982, the Coastal Commission objected to Union Oil Company's
             certification that its proposal to drill two exploratory wells within the
             boundaries of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was consistent
             with the CCMP. In December 1982, the Secretary of Commerce received an ap-
             peal from Union to override the Commission's objection, but this appeal was
             subsequently withdrawn'pending informal negotiations. A second appeal was
             filed in December 19.83 and,public hearings were held in February 1984. The
             issue is pending.

                  During 1983, the Coastal Commission found two Exxon proposals to be
             inconsistent with the CCMP. Both of these decisions were appealed to the
             Secretary of Commerce. In the first, the Commission objected to Exxon's off-
             shore oil storage and treatment option in-its Development and Production Plan
             for the,Santa Ynez Unit in the Santa Barbara Channel. (In the same proposal,
             the Commission concurred with the offshore production portion.) The appeal
             was filed in July 1983.   In late September 1983, NOAA sent letters to Federal
             agencies seeking information on whether the Exxon proposal supported the
             national interest. The Department of Commerce conducted a public hearing in
             October 1983.  In September 1983, Exxon brought suit in the U.S. District Court
             claiming that the Commission did not issue an objection to Exxon's consistency
             certification within the six month statutory review period and alleging other
             technical-deficiencies.   Both the appeal and the lawsuit are pending.

                  In the second Exxon  proposal, also in the Santa Barbara Channel, California
             objected in July 1983 to  Exxon's consistency certification for the proposed
             drilling of a maximum of  three wells on the southwest one-quarter of Lease
             OCS P-0467 in the Santa Rosa Unit. The Commission objected because Exxon would
             not commit to drilling only during the winter season to reduce potential conflict







                                                    63


            with commercial shark fishermen.   In August 1983, the Secretary of Commerce
            received an appeal to override the Commission's objection. A public hearing
            was held in November 1983. Exxon subsequently withdrew its appeal as a result
            of informal negotiations. The Commission agreed to approve the drilling of one
            exploratory well. .(Note: Exxon resubmitted a proposal to drill a second well
            in Lease OCS P-0467 in February 1984.    The Commission objected and Exxon has
            filed a second appeal.)

                 During 1983, the Coastal Commission objected to several consistency
            certifications on railroad abandonments by the Interstate Commerce Commission
            on the grounds that the abandonments, including possible removal of tracks and
            future use of right-of-way, could be reasonably.expected to affect land use in
            the coastal zone, such as public access, transportation routes, and commercial
            or residential development    Several'cas'es are in various stages of litigation.
            Based on a-U. S. District Eourt decision in Southern Pacific v. California
            Coastal Commission that ICC abandonment proceedings.aresubject to Federal
            ,consistency provisions9 the Commission began to review abandonment applications
            as an unlisted activ ity. The ICC continues to dispute the applicability of
            Federal consistency provisions to railroad abandonment.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:-

                 The CCMP was not evaluated during Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983. It is
            scheduled for evaluation in-FY 1984. The last evaluation was held in October
            1981., The final findings noted excellent progress in the areas of public
            access, preservation of wetlands, improved coordination and cooperation with
            State agencies, and continued protection of coastal resources. To strengthen
            the program,, the evaluation report recommended that the State complete the
            development of local coastal programs and ensure an effective permit monitoring
            system, continue to improve State -agency coordination and monitoring and enforce-
            ment, and examine the future role of the program.

                 The CEIP was evaluated in May 1983. The evaluation covered the period
            November 1977 through June 1983. The.final findings noted that California
            received over $7 million during,that time to mitigate impacts from offshore and
            onshore OCS oil and gas development. Of that amount, 47 percent was provided
            to local governments for preparation of the energy components of local programs,
            development of. local ordinances and regulations to implement their local
            programs, and participation in the Federal OCS lease sale process.. The remainder
            was provided to.State agencies and was used primarily for technical studies.
            In addition, funds were used to rehabilitate and improve existing access-sites
            to the coast. The recommendations focused on the need to better target CEIP
            funds to areas most likely to experience impacts from OCS activities,in view of
            the current Congressional prohibition of OCS development off northern California,
            and an emphasis on obtaining funds to continue the operation of air quality
            monitoring equipment purchased and previously opetated with CEIP funding.








                                                       64



              Estuarine Sanctuaries:

                   Elkhorn Slou h


                   Facts:

                   Location:                Monterey,  California
                   Size:                    1,500 acres
                   Biogeographic Region:    Californian
                   Acquisition Status:      81% complete

                   Descri pti on:

                   The Sanctuary is located on the south and east portions       of the Elkhorn
              Slough.   The small town of Moss Landing, at the mouth of the      slough, contains
              the Moss  Landing Marine Laboratory, which has been and will continue doing ,
              research  on the slough. The Sanctuary and its environs are a       ,valuable natural
              resource  area.  The waters, mudflats and salt marshes of the estuary are
              important sources of food and shelter for wildlife.       The Sanctuary serves as
              an important link in the coastal flyway for migratory shorebirds, waterfowl
              and other water-associated birds.     Not only do migratory birds feed and rest
              here, but many species are permanent residents, including the endangered
             'California clapper rail.

              Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                   The Sanctuary was evaluated in May 1983 covering the period August 1976
              through May 1983. This first evaluation found thatachievements were
              occurring in preparing the Sanctuary for public access and in the activities
              of the Advisory Committee. However, the findings conclude that the Department
              of Fish and Game has minimally adhered to the terms of its financial assistance
              awards. Recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of the Sanctuary
              operations.and management include completing a management plan that will
              develop a,strategy to facilitate continued program operation after Federal
              financial support is ended, and increasing communications between the adjacent
              property owners and Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

                   Tijuana River

                   Facts:

                   Location:                San Diego County, California
                   Size:                    2,531 acres (885 acres to be purchased)

                   Biogeographic Region:    Californian
                   Acquisition Status:      Acquisition scheduled to be completed by
                                            September 1986.

                   Description:
                   The Sanctuary is the southernmost coastal wetland in California, with an
              opening to the ocean only.1.5 miles north of the Mexican border. The marsh
              system is at the end of the Tijuana River, an ephemeral stream draining
              roughly a 1,731-square-mile watershed within Mexilco.and the United States.







                                                  65


           ,The estuary extends about 1.5 miles inland and 3 miles along the ocean shore,
            and is almost completely separated from the ocean by a broad sandy beach and
            a narrow zone of low sand,dunes.

                 The Sanctuary has a productive marsh containing 95 percent of the
            estuary's growth of cordgrass. The  main channels branch into many small
            channels which are surrounded by areas of low marsh heavily vegetated with
            cordgrass or pickleweed. Also, during low tides, sizable areas of mud flats
            are exposed throughout the Sanctuary.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 The Sanctuary was..not evaluated during this biennium. It is.scheduled
            for evaluation in September 1984.%







                                                      66




                                                  CONNECTICUT

             Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                  The Connecticut Coastal Management Program (CCMP) was approved in
             September 1980. It is based on the Connecticut Coastal Management Act of
             1978 (CCMA), which established a set of policies,.standards, and criteria
             for the use and management of Connecticut's coastal resources..:The-coastal
             boundary extends up to.1,000 feet inland from tidal wetlands or coastal
             waters, whichever is farther. The Department of Environmental Protection
             (DEP) , which is the primary state permitting agency for both public and
             private coastal development activities, is the lead agency. The program
             is administered at the local level through incorporation@of the,CCMA policies
             and standards into municipal coastal site plan reviews. The State has the
             authority to intervene if a municipality approves a project which fails to
             adhere to the policies and standards outlined in the CCMA.

                  The Coastal Energy Impact Program is administered by.the Office of Policy
             and Management. Energy impacts along the Connecticut portion of Long Island
             Sound are quite varied. They include shipping and storage of petroleum pro-
             ducts, electric generating plants, nuclear power plants, extensive trans-
            ,mission lines, and the potential impact of alternati.ve energy sources and OCS
             activities.

             Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                  In September 1983, the CCMP was modified to incorporate changes to the
             Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA) which had been enacted during the
             1982 and 1983 sessions of the Connecticut General Assembly. These changes
             included the clarification of terms used in the Act and uses subject to the
             Act, procedural changes to streamline and detail the permitting process,
             specific measures to make State and local standards for permit review
             consistent, and a reauthorization of the CCMA for a 10 year period. These
             changes were found to be RPI's as defined in the Federal regulations.

             Major Activities:

                  The CCMP has placed emphasis on public     access to the shoreline including
             funding innovative local projects. Bridgeport prepared a master plan for the
             revitalization of Pleasure Beach, an underutilized, blighted former amusement
             park. Norwalk designed a Harbor Center at its Veterans Park which reoriented
             the park toward the water.

                  A majority of the Federal funds received by the State were given to local
             governments to continue to conduct coastal site plan reviews and implement the
             voluntary municipal coastal programs. Twenty-nine of Connecticut's 41 coastal
             municipalities are developing coastal programs. Currently, one third of these
             have been completed. All localities are conducting coastal site plan reviews
             and many have adopted zoning ordinances based upon site plan review require-
             ments. Other projects funded during this period included developing a manage-
             ment plan to restore the degraded Barn Island Wildlife Area, developing plans
             for improving public access on selected State-owned coastal properties,
             devel.oping regulations for the State Structures and Dredging Permit Program







                                                    67


            (closely coordinated with Federal 404   delegation possibilities), and preparing
            a fee schedule for DEP regulatory programs and for boat registration.

                 The CCMP drafted and submitted legislation to authorize local govern-
            ments to prepare harbor management plans and to establish criteria for State
            approval of these plans. This legislation is pending.

                 The CEIP projects funded during this period included the establishment
            of oil spill response cooperatives along the Connecticut shoreline, restora-
            tion of erosion damage in New Haven Harbor, baseline environmental studies
            on Long Island Sound, and the development of a plan and field manual for
            protection of critical environmental areas from oil spills.

            Major Consistency Issues:

                 In January 1983, the Connecticut DEP requested that the State Attorney
            General intervene against the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) regarding
            the effects of the Niantic Bay Crossing Bridge rehabilitation project on public
            beach access. The DEP   'maintained that* FRA erred both procedurally and sub-
            stantively by releasing funding for the project before submitting a consistency
            determination and by not designing the project to be consistent to the maximum
            extent practicable with the.CCMP. An agreement was negotiated out of court
            under which FRA and Amtrak agreed to rebuild an old walkway and to provide a
            permanent easement to the beach, while the State agreed to accept responsibi-
            lity for the maintenance.of the walkway and to relieve Amtrak of liability for
            use of the walkway or the beach.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 An evaluation of the CCMP was conducted in June 1982, covering the
            period June 1981 through May 1982. The evaluation found that the State had
            made outstanding progress toward accomplishing its program's goals. All
            41 coastal towns were fulfilling their responsibilities under the CCMA, and
            many were making good progress in developing their municipal coastal
            programs.   The State had undertaken several special projects including the
            preparation of a coastal development impact mitigation handbook, a tidal
            wetlands restoration study, an erosion hazard study, and the identification
            of State-owned rights-of-way to the coast. The recommendations for
            strengthening the program included increasing the effectiveness of local
            government enforcement by delegating authority to the local bodies to issue
            cease and desist orders for violations of State laws (legislation authorizing
            this delegation passed in June 1983), increasing the exchange of relevant
            iniormation among the coastal towns and to the general public, and continuing
            to work with the Corps of Engineers to streamline Federal and State permit
            processes.







                                                   68


                                                DELAWARE


            Background   CZM and CEIP  Programs:
                 The'Delaware Coastal  Management Program (DCMP) was approved in August
            1979 and is based on a number of State laws including the Coastal Zone Act,
            the Wetlands Act, and the Beach Preservation Act. The program has defined
            its boundary as the entire State. The lead agency is the Department of
            Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC).

                 Delaware's Coastal Energy Impact Program is also housed within the
            DNREC. Its five-year energy,impact strategy identified four major issu6s:
            the impact of four new nuclear power generating facilities in Salem County,
            New Jersey, upon the most heavily populated area in Delaware; the effects
            of,power plant conversions from oil to coal burning; the increasing likeli-
            hood of coal transfer storage-shipping facilities on'the Delaware coast;
            and the likelihood of oil or gas pipelines locating in Delaware as a result
            of OCS activities, and the need to improve State planning and regulation of
            pipeline corridors and pipel.ine construction and operations.

            Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                 In October 1981, the Delaware General Assembly enacted legislation
            reorganizing the State's economic development and planning-functions. As
            part of this reorganization, the responsibility for the DCMP was moved from
            the Office of Management, Budget and Planning to the DNREC. The legislation
            also replaced the Energy Facility Siting Liaison Committee with the Cabinet
            Committee on State Planning Issues. Other modifications to the DCMP under-
            taken by the DNREC included.the negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding
            (MOU) with.the Delaware Development Office to coordinate activities in urban
            areas; the execution of an MOU with the Delaware Department of Agriculture
            regarding implementation of the State's Agricultural Lands Preservation Act
            of 1981, which formalized the policies contained in the DCMP; refinements to
            the regulations under the Wetlands Act and.the Beach Preservation Act; and
            the development of an interim program under the Erosion and Sediment Control
            Act. These changes were found to be RPI's under the Federal regulations.

            Major Activities:

                 The DCMP has devoted considerable effort to improvements in the management
            of the Inland Bay area, encompassing the Indian River and Rehoboth Bays. This
            portion of the Delaware coast is under tremendous pressure.from retirement and
            second home development. Problems facing the area include an increase in the
            sedimentation rate in the bays; surface water quality impacts from non-complying
            sewage and industrial discharges and both urban and agricultura.1 runoff; closure
            of productive shellfish areas; and groundwater deterioration from saltwater
            intrusion, onsite sewage disposal, agriculture practices, and landfill leakages.
            The DCMP formed an Inland Bay Study Group, consisting of representatives from
            concerned State and local agencies, the University of Delaware, and private
            citizens, to develop solution options for these identified problems. The
            program also undertook a public education effort.   As a result, a six month
            building moratorium was declared by Sussex County and a gubernatorially appointed
            study group was formed to develop recommendations for this area. The group's
            report is due to the Governor in May 1984.







                                                    69


                  The.DCMP has streamlined its various permitting processes by establishing
             a Development Advisory Service which is a single contact point for all major
             development proposals. Through this service, a developer can informally meet
             with relevant Federal, State and local agencies to review a development pro-
             posal and identify any major iproblems or necessary modifications before
             significant resources are committed. The process is used to inform the
             applicant of permits and associated information needed for a decision, the
             criteria to be used in permit review and approval, and to render technical
             assistance. This has resulted in fewer del  'ays in the. permitting process and
             in projects better designed to address the concerns of the public agencies.

                   CEIP funds during this period have been used to complete an EIS on a
             disposal site for material dredged from the Christina River to maintain the
             depth at the Port of Wilmington   to examine railway drainage problems at the
             Port, to study the impacts of energy activities on Delaware City and Newark,
             and to undertake projects to improve the management of Delaware Bay fisheries
             in light of the potential impact of proposed coal transshipment facilities in
             the Bay area.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  An evaluation of the DCMP was conducted in October 1981 covering the
             period June 1980 through October 1981. Areas of progress and accomplishment
             included the Open Marsh Water Management Program for controlling marsh mos-
             quitoes with minimal environmental disruption, implementation of the Natural
             Area Preservation System, promulgation of certification procedures for conser-
             vation easements, adoption and implementation of regulations for the Beach
             Preservation Act, and improvements in the rural wastewater management program.
             Areas needing improvement included the promulgation of regulations under the
             Coastal Zone Act, the continued efforts to improve management of the Inland
             Bays area, and the need to improve consistency review procedures for Federal
             projects.








                                                       70



                                                    FLORIDA


             Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                  The Florida Coastal Management    Program  (FCMP) was approved in September
             1981. It is a networked program, as required by the State enabling legislation,
             and is based on 25 existing authorities. The entire State and its territorial
             waters are included within the coastal boundary. The Department of Enyiron-
             mental Regulation (DER) is the lead agency. The DER works closely with the
             Department of Natural Resources, Department of Community Affairs and the Inter-
             agency Management Committee (IMC) in implementing the program.

                  'The Coastal. Energy Impact Program is administered by the Department of
             Community Affairs. Florida's major impacts are from electrical generating
             plants, but the State will face future impacts as OCS and coal import activi-
             ti,es increase.

             Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                  No changes to the FCMP were processed during.FY      1982-1983.

             Major Activities:

                  Major areas of focus for the FCMP during FY 1982-1983 included a statewide
             program of hurricane hazard mitigation planning, the development of long-term
             port maintenance dredging and spoil disposal permits and plans, and assistance
             for areas of critical concern.     The State provided:increased staff support for
             the IMC and the Federal consistency process, and developed a consistency hand-
             book for the use of State and Federal agencies.

                  The Florida program supported a State review of environmental laws-to
             determine whetherpr'ogrammatic or legislative amendments were necessary. Two
             entities were created to conduct this review--the Governorls Environmental Land
             Management Study (ELMS) Committee (supported in part by CZM funds) and a
             Growth Management Committee.selected by the legislature.        As a result of these
             efforts, legisla0on wa's passed to strengthen and,provide more funds for the
             Environmental Land and Water Management Act. This is expected to'improve
             planning in the Florida Keys which has been designated a coastal "area of
             critical State concern". The DER is developing a list of FCMP legislative
             and rule changes that occurred since 1981,', which will be submitted to OCRM in.
             early FY 1984.
                  CEIP proj .ects during;this period included planning studies for OCS energy
             impacts and deepwater port spoil disposal,, development of a mineral leasing
             plan for State waters, analysis of the impacts of a power plant located in
             Taylor County, and State participation in the Federal OCS'oil and gas leasing
             process.

             Major Consistency Issues:
                  The primary consistency   issues were related to OCS oil    and gas develop-
             ment, fishery management plans, and ocean disposal of dredge spoil from the
             Port of  Tampa.  Florida found proposed Lease Sales in the South Atlantic







                                                    71


             (scheduled for July 1983) and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (scheduled for
             November 1983) inconsistent with FCMP policies.. A Memorandum of Understanding
             was signed in May*1983 that included agreements reached between Florida and
             the Department of Interior (DOI) (certain tracts were dropped and additional
             studies were agreed upon) concerning the South Atlantic sales. State concerns
             regarding the Eastern Gulf Sale were largely addressed'by Congressional
             action.

                  The mackeral, coral reef, snapper-grouper, reef fish, and blue    fish  fishery
             management plans were all found to be inconsistent with the FCMP. The principal
             reason was that State statutes incorporated into the FCMP prohibit the use of
             certain gear types (e.g. fish traps, pound nets,.and purse seines) which are
             allowed in the fishery management plans. Florida brought suit over the mackeral
             plan and requested Secretarial mediation in the snapper-grouper plan. The
             Secretary of Commerce, on behalf of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
             declined to mediate because NMFS found the plan to be consistent with the..FCMP
             to the maximum extent practicable. In September 1983, the-U.S. District Court
             for the Southern District of Flori.da found the Florida statute which prohibits
             fish traps for saltwater finfis.h to be unconstitutional to the extent that it
            .attempts to exercise the State's allthority over the Fishery Conservation Zone
             beyond State waters. The State has appealed.

                  The State also successfully'negotiated an agreement   w.ith,Corps of Engineers
             and EPA regarding the designation of an offshore spoil disposal site in Federal
             waters off Tampa. ' The State's, consistency certification agreed to the temporary
             use of the site-, and the development of a monitoring*program to assess the
             impact of the use of the site while pr6v,iding for' the long-term designation of
             this or other sites based upon review of the monitoring program.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  The program was evaluated in.June 1982  for the period September 1981
             through May 1982. The-findings noted achievements in hazards mitigation and
             other"areas. It recommended that significant increases be made in staffing
             to provide adequate administration of, the CZM grant, support for the efforts
             of the Intera gency Management Committee, and implementation of Federal
             consistency review procedures.

                  The program was evaluated-again in,October 1983 covering the period
             June 1982 through October 1983.   The report indicated that progress had, been
             made in resolving the concerns identified in the first evaluation, particularly
             increasing core program staff. Additional programmatic accomplishments
             included the completion of a mana*gement plan for aquatic preserves in the
             Charlotte Harbor area, development of an orderly process to maintain channel
             depths in deepwater ports, and completion of several hurricane evacuation
             plans. Areas needing-attention were coordination of various planning and
             regulatory aspects of resources management by the State working through the
             IMC, support of the IMC with funding and staff, support of upcoming legislative
             action related to wetlands protection, and continued i.mprovement and clarifica-
             tion of the Federal consistency  process including the completion of  a Federal
             consistency handbook.,.








                                                           72



               Estuarine Sanctuaries:

                     Rookery Bay

                     Facts:.

                     Location:                  Collier County,  Florida
                     Size:                      91000 acres
                     Biogeographic Region:      West Indian
                     Acquisition Status:        68% complete
                     Descri pti on:

                     The Sanctuary preserves    a large mangrove filled bay.and two     creeks.
               Management of the Sanctuary is jointly the responsibility of the        Florida
               Department of Natural Resources, The Conservancy (of Collier County), and the
               National Audubon Society. . This management structure originally was created
               when the two private organizations granted.a dollar-per-year, 99-year lease
               of their land to the State. Federal and State funds added additional key
               acreage to the existing core area. Within the Sanctuary is The Conservancy.'s
               Norris Marine Laboratory. A headquarters building has been constructed to
               house an on-site manager and provide additional laboratory facilities for
               visiting scientists. In'1982, the Conservancy opened the Briggs Nature
               Center within the Sanctuary. The Center contains a classroom, preparation
               room and exhibit area. Leading,from the center is a,2,500 foot boardwalk,
               which passes through most of@the major habitats found in the Sanctuary.

               Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                     The Sanctuary was evaluated in    December 1983. Final     findings will be
               available in June 1984.

                     Apalachicola River   and*Bay

                     Facts:

                     Location:                  Franklin-County, Florida
                     Size:                      192,758 acres
                     Biogeographic Regi'on:     Louisianan
                     Acquisition Status-        47% complete

                     Descri pti on:

                     The largest estuarine'san(ftUary, Apalachicola River     and Bay is one of
               the largest remaining naturally functioning estuarine systems in the Nation,
               and it is als.o the first sanctuary on the mouth of a.major navigable river.
               The Sanctuary is characterized by a series of rivers, bays, bayous, and tidal
               creeks that are separated-from the Gulf of Mexico'by a chain of barrier
               islands. Pine flatwoods, hardwood hammocks, swamps, and marshes are
               associated with the river system. Wetlands found in the Sanctuary include
               rivers, streams, swamps, shallow freshwater and brackish marshes, and various
               forms of emergent and submerged vegetation that contribute to an exceptionally
               productive ecosystem.     The bay supports major fisheries for oysters, shrimp,
               crab and.finfish; it is also the major breeding ground for blue crab for the







                                                  73


            eastern Gulf of Mexico. The Sanctuary benefits the oyster and other fishing
            industries*by.protecting the environment and by providing research information
            that will help assure the continued productivity of this river/bay ecosystem.
            Within the Apalachicola National Estuarine Sanctuary boundaries are an
            ex isting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge, a State park, and a State refuge.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 The Sanctuary was evaluated in, December 1983. Final findings will be
            available in June 1984.







                                                       74



                                                     GEORGIA

             Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

             Georgia has not.participated in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program
             since February 1980 when NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone
             Management found that the State was not making satisfactory progress toward
             meeting the requirements of Section 306 of the CZMA. At that time Georgia
             also lost its eligibility to receive.CEIP funds.

             Estuarine Sanctuary-:

                  Sapelo Island

                  Facts:


                  Location:                 McIntosh County, Georgia
                  Size:                     7,400 acres
                  Biogeographic Region:     Carolinian
                  Acquisition Status:       100% complete

                  Description:

                  The Sapelo Island Sanctuary, which was established in 1976, encompasses
             approximately 7,400 acres, of which 6,300 acres are marshland and 1,900 high
             ground.   It includes most of the Duplin River watershed and contains southern
             hardwood forest, pure stands of pines, dunes and beaches. A 200 acre portion
             is managed for timber. The whole island, in addition to two-adjacent islands,
             is preserved by various State and Federal agencies. Sapelo is the site of
             prehistoric Indian mounds, an oyster shell ring, and numerous plantation ruins
             from the late 18th and early 19th century. The only privately held property on
             the island, within a community called Hog Hammock, belongs to approximately 200
             individuals whose families have lived and worked on the islands since the early
             1800's.

                  The final NOAA operations and management award      was terminated in June 1983.
             Although the 1983 session of the Georgia legislature denied a Georgia Department
             of Natural Resource's request for new funding for the Sanctuary, the Commissioner
             of that Department has reaffirmed the State's commitment to the continued
             operation of the Sapelo Island Sanctuary.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  In January 1983, the first evaluation of the operation of the Sanctuary was
             undertaken covering the period September 1976 through January 1983.         During that
             period, the Sanctuary was operated primarily as an educational tour opportunity
             for visitors to Sapelo Island, and significant accomplishments were made.in the
             development and implementation of educational programs and providing public
             access. However, the evaluation found that the research objectives of the
             Sanctuary were not being met. It recommended that several steps be undertaken
             to strengthen the effectiveness of the program. These included establishing a
             Sanctuary advisory committee, clarifying the University of.Georgia's role in
             Sanctuary research, and developing a management strategy to facilitate continued
             program operation and improve program coordination.






                                            J
                                                   75



                                                   GUAM

            Background   C-ZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP) was approved in August 1979.
            The networked program is based on coastal policies and authorities found in
            Executive Orders 78-20, 21, 23 and 37, the Territorial Seashore Protection
            Act, and Public Law 12-200. The Guam Bureau of Planning (BOP) is the lead
            agency.

                 The coastal boundary includes the entire island. The Coastal Energy
            Impact Program is administered by the Guam Energy Office. The Government's
            energy impact mitigation strategy is directed toward reducing the impacts of
            continued reliance on oil importation by developing energy self-sufficiency
            and assessing the impact of ocean thermal energy conversion facilities@

            Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                 No changes to the GCMP were processed during FY 1982-1983.

            .Major Activities:

                 In August 1983, the Bureau of Planning completed its "development
            controls management assessment,",a project begun during FY 1982,to control
            violation of construction and zoning standards.   The assessment concentrates
            on improving enforcement of natural resource laws and@streamlining the permit
            system. The le6islature passed a bill drafted by the BOP to control develop-
            ment on military owned lands after they are resold. The legislation is
            based on a report. entitled "Proposal for Zoning of Federal Lands," which
            proposes a new open space zone to apply to those areas. The BOP also completed
            a land use plan for publically owned lands along the shoreline. A plan for,
            the inland portions is in preparation.

                 Several publications were issued during this period including the Reef
            Fisheries of Guam Handbook; Guide to the Coastal Resources of Guam, Vol7m 1,
            The Fishes; An Introductory Guide to GTaFrs -Land Use Laws and Permit Require-
            ments; ATIntroduction to Aquaculture on Guam; Prospects, Permits and Assis-
            Ta-nce Procedures    e for Achieving Federal-consistency with the Guam Coastal
            Management Program; Guam's Natural and Manmade Constraints; and Aq -i-culture
            Development Plan for the Territory of Guam.

                 Guam received CEIP funds to plan for the impacts of ocean thermal energy
            conversion (OTEC) facilities, coal transshipment and storage, and other energy
            projects.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

            The GCMP*was evaluated in April 1982 covering the period November.1980 through
            March 1982. It was commended for its fisheries management plan, commercial
            port plan, and its aggressive public awareness and education program.
            Recommendations to strengthen the program were to maintain oversi-ght of other
            Territorial agency actions to ensure consistency with GCMP policies, formally
            adopt the Federal consistency procedures developed by BOP, improve monitoring





                                                   76


           and enforcement, and review the development controls system to manage coastal
            resources more effectively.







                                                    .77



                                                  HAWAII

            Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program (HCZMP) was  approved in
            September 1978. It is based on the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Act which
            directs State agencies and county governments to conduct their permitting and
            non-permitting activities in compliance with the Act's coastal policies. The
            Department of Planning and Economic Development (DPED) is the lead agency and
            is advised on policy making and program implementation matters by a Statewide
            Advisory Committee,,composed of representatives from State agencies and
            county planning departments. The boundary of.the coastal zone includes all
            the islands with the exception of the "forest reserves" which straddle the
            interior mountain ridges.

                 The DPED administers Hawaii's Coastal Energy Impact Program.    Hawaii
            faces impacts from the development of ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC)
            and other alternative energy sources, electrical generating plants, and oi'l
            transshipment.

            Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                 No changes to the HUMP   were processed during FY 1982-1983.

            Major Activities:

                 During the biennfum, the program focused on strengthening State agency
            .and local government compliance with enforceable coastal policies, reducing
            the time necessary to.process permits, and developing.a management plan that
            would lead to new enforceable State policies. for the management of Hawaii's
            ocean resources.


                 The State completed a land use plan for Kawainui Marsh on Oahu, the
            largest remaining freshwater wetland in the State. The plan represents a
            compromise for settling a major land use struggle involving the City and
            County of Honolulu, the State Land,Commission, and DPED.

                 A task force comprised of county, State, and Federal agencies was formed
            to determine how to simplify the development permit system,. Recommendations
            were made and refinements continue to be made.

                 The DPED completed a study of the effectiveness of the implementation of
            the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Act since 1978. The study identified the
            progress made in solving problems in seven coastal policy areas and analyzed
            the effectiveness of State.agency.and county regulatory activity. The study
            will be submitted to the State legislature during 1984 to determine whether
            statutory changes are necessary.

                 CEIP funds were.used for the development of an interagency work program
            to resolve problems with handling hazardous petroleum substances in the Barber's
            Point and Honolulu port areas. The-work program is being negotiated by OPED,
            .the State Department of Transportation, and the City and County of Honolulu.








                                                     78


            Major Consistency Issues:

                 In June 1983, the U.S. District Court -for   the District of Hawaii denied
            the State's claim of inconsistency against the    General Services Administration
            (GSA). The court dismissed a suit brought by the State and City and County of
            Honolulu against the Federal Property Board (Ono v. Harper). The plaintiffs
            challenged the Board's policy of denying no@-c7o_st public benefit conveyances of-
            Federal surplus land. The specific instance involved the GSA's'denial of the
            State's 'application for conveyances.of  'two sites on Oahu--the Nike 5 and 6
            missile site and the Maile Coast Guard site. In addition to other claims, the
            plaintiffs claimed violation of Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA since GSA failed
            to conduct a consistency determination.     The' court found "mere transfer of
            title does not change the way in which the landis being utilized. Nor does'
            the Federal Government, in selling the land, make any representations that
            the buyer will take the property free of any representations. placed on the
            land by the State or@the City and County of Honolulu."

                 The State formally reque  sted (and later received)   consistency determinations
            from GSA on the sale of Federal surplus property at the Honolulu Airport and
            Camp Malakole, Oahu.

                 In September 1981, the State.  notified the Western Pac  ific Fishery
            Management Council that its Spiny Lobster Plan was inconsistent with the HCZMP.
            Discussions began between the State, the National Marine Fisheries Service
            (,NMFS), and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) regard-
            ing changes to the Plan that w  'ould make it consistent. The discussion resulted
            in recommendations that the Plan be amended to make it identical to State
            regulations for lobster fishery, including catch size; trap size; season
            closure time; requiring the'lobste'r to be landed whole; prohibi-tions against
            the use of spears, chemicals, poisons, or explosives; and prohibitions against
            retention of lobsters carrying eggs. In addition, the State requested to review
            all permits but agreed to issue a blanket certification once the amendment was
            in place. The Spiny Lobster Plan was approved by the Secretary of Commerce in
            April 1982 and final-regulations.were effective in March 1983. Following
            additional negotiations with the State and OCRM, NMFS agreed to the proposed
            amendments with the exception of the restriction on the size of traps. A
            Notice of Availability of the Amendments was published in August 1983 and
            proposed regulations were published in September 1983. The public comment
            period on the regulations-closed October 14, 1983.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 The program was.evaluated in June 1982 covering the     period June 1981
            through June 1982. Noteworthy accomplishments included the-preparation of the
            "Coastal Concerns Guide",,the development of the Kawainui Management Plan, the
           ,use of trained volunteers to augment the full-time conservation office staff,
            and the DPED's participation on the interagency task force on permit simpli-
            fication. The findings recommended the DPED improve the compliance of the Land
            Use Commission and the Board of Land and Natural Resources with the HCZMA.
            Improvements to DPED's monitoring and enforcement program were also recommended.







                                                       79


             Estuarine Sanctuary:

                Waimanu


                Facts:

                Location:@                Island@of Hawaii
                Size:-                    5,900 acres
                Biogeogrpahic Region:     Insular
               @Acquisition Status.:      100% complete,,

                Description:

                  The Waimanu National. Estuarine Sanctuary, established in June 1976, is an
             isolated, stream-cut valley on the east coast of the Big Island of Hawaii.
             Because overland access is difficult', the 5,900 acre estuarine ecosystem has
             remained nearly pristine while other similar valley systems have undergone
             cultural modifications.    The valley's.natural richness was featured in
             "America's Majestic Canyons,'! published by the National Geographic Society.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  The Sanctuary was evaluated in December     1983. Final    findings will be
             available in June 1984.


0




                                                    80,


                                                 ILLINOIS

            Background - CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 Illinois is no longer participat ing in.the Federal CZM Program. The
            program ended in December.1978 when, coastal legislation required for Federal
            approval failed to pass. Primary,opposition to the proposed legislation
            related to provisions for setbacks in erosion hazard areas and to increased
            public access to the lakeshore in private-residential areas.. At the same
            time, the State lost its eligibility for funds under the CELP Program.
 






                                                  81



                                               INDIANA

          Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

               Indiana's participation in the Federal  Coastal Zone Management Program
          ended in May 1981 when the State was unable  to develop the necessary . .
          organizational structure to implement the authorities of  'its proposed.program.
          At that time, the State also lost its eligibility for funds under the CEIP
          Program. However, CEIP.grants already awarded to the State were allowed to
          continue until completion.

          .Summary of Evaluation Findings.
               An evaluation of Indiana's'CHP   for-the period October 1978 through April
          1981 was conducted in December 1982. The awards under this program were
          directed toward the mitigation or analysis of energy impacts on the Indiana
          coastline and were distributed throughout the shore area. Projects included
          the implementation of the Ma-rktbwh Park Preservation Plan which had earlier
          been partially funded under a Section 305 grant; the renovation of the Jeorse
          Park Beach bath house in East Chicago which allowed the reopening to the public
          of Indiana's westernmost beach; the Hammond Dune and Swale (Gibson Woods)
          Environmental Preservation Project; the development of a Rail Accident Disaster
          Response Plan and follow-up activities in Porter County; and the Port of Indiana
          Coal Transfer Facility Study. The evaluation found that the State had used
          its CEIP to the best advantage in meeting the energy issues of its shoreline..







                                                         82



                                                     LOUISIANA

              Background     CZM and CEIP Programs:

                    The Louisiana Coastal.Resources Program (LCRP) was approved in September
              1980, and is based on the Stat∧ Local Resources Management Act of 1978,
              as well as other pre-existing State laws which are incorporated into the
              program. The boundary of--the coast.al zone includes all or part of 19 coastal
              parishes.and totals 5.3 million acres. The.program is implemented primarily
              by the State through the coastal use permit program and pre-existing State
              permits.   Local, governments have the option of assuming responsibility for
              the permitting of a certain class of uses by developi-ng a local coastal
              program which is consistent with State coastal policy.         the Department of
              Natural Resources (DNR) is the@!lead agency.
                    In Louisiana the CEIP is administered by the DNR.        It remains the largest
              Coastal Energy Impact Program among the states, addressing significant impacts
              f rom OCS oi I and gas devel opment i n the Gul f and a I arge numbe r of ons hore.
              support and supply facilities.

              Routine Program Implementation (RPI)_and      Amendments:

                    No changes to the,LCRP were-processed,during FY      1982-1983.

              Major Activities:

                    Program efforts during this    biennium focused on the implementation of the
              coastal use permit program; the formulation of barrier island, shoreline pro-
              tection, and freshwater diversion plans; and the development and review of
              local coastal programs.

                    .The program was instrumental in the passage of State legislation creating-
              a $35 million Coastal Environment Protection Trust Fund (CEPTF). During this
              period, several projects were approved by the Governor and the joint Natural
              Resources Committee for funding by the CEPTF, including erosion control and
              wetlands management projects. A significant portion of LCRP staff time was
              spent in negotiating with the Corps of Engineers on a Section 404 general
              permit for activities in the Louisiana coastal zone. This general permit
              became effective in September 1983. In another effort to reduce permit delays
              and enhance coordination with the Corps, joint public notice procedures were
              implemented.in August 1983.

                    Local coastal programs were submitted by Cameron, St. James, and
              St. Bernard Parishes but were not approved by DNR because they did not meet
             ,.State standards. The decision of DNR with regard to the St. Bernard and
              St. James plans was overturned by the Coastal Commission, an appellate body
              appointed by the Governor and the parishes, and has since been appealed to the
              courts by DNR.    DNR decisions on several other LCP's were pending at the close
              of 1983.

                    A major conference on the problems and management options for Lake
              Ponchartrian was held in New Orleans during April 1983.         DNR awarded a contract
              to support future efforts to develop a special area management plan for the
              Lake.







                                                  83



                 Major CEIP projects awarded during this period included construction of
            fire stations in Hackberry (the site of the U.S. Department of Energy's
            Strategic Petroleum Reserve) and Creole, restoration of boat.ramps in
            Pt. Fourchon, and improvement of handicapped facilities in Lafreniere Park.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 The program was evaluated  in May 1983 covering the period November 1981
            through June 1983. Significant progress was noted in the area of improving
            permit reviews including permit  monitoring, negotiating a general permit with
            the Corps, and initiating numerous studies and projects through the CEPTF.
            However, the evaluation findings noted that program activities continued to
            be hampered by limited staff resources. The evaluation findings also identi-
            fied the need for closer coordination between the State and the parishes
            .concerning dqvelopment and implementation of LCP's and the need for the State
            to develop a workable permit appeals process with the Coastal Commission.

                 The Coastal Energy Impact Program was evaluated in March 1983 covering
            the period October 1978 through March 1983. During this period, 131 projects
            were funded. Ninety percent of grants and loans went to coastal communities
            for projects ranging from hospitals-accessible to OCS accident victims to the
            diversion of Mississippi water to avoid the loss of bald cypress swamps due to
            saltwater intrusion.

                 The evaluation found that the Louisiana CEIP had been used effectively
            in mitigating energy impacts. However, the findings recognized that the
            effectiveness of the State CEIP might be improved if a small part of the CEIP
            planning funds were used to identify specific -infrastructure and environmental
            problems. Such a State-wide study of coastal energy impacts would have
            assisted the State in refining its Section 308(g)(2) allocation process and
            defining the need for specific projects. The study would still be valuable
            to the State and its local governments in guiding State or local activity,,
            including funding assistance from other Federal or industry sources.







                                                    84



                                                   MAINE

             Background   CZM and CEIP  Programs:

                 .The Maine Coastal Management Program (MCMP) was approved in September
             1978. The program consists of 11 core laws administered by the State and
             local governments within a boundary that encompasses all coastal towns and
             townships on tidal waters, all coastal islands, and waters seaward to the
             extent of the State'-s territorial limit. The lead agency is the State
             Planning Office (SPO) which coordinates all programs activities and the
             activities of the core law agencies. These core law agencies include the
             Departments of Environmental Protection, Conservation, Inland Fisheries and
             Wildlife, and Marine.Resources. Local agencies administer three of the
             11 core laws.

                  TheIMaine Coastal Energy Impact Program is also administered..by SPO.,
             Energy developments which are anticipated to produce significant impacts on
             the Maine coast can be grouped into four major categories: OCS oi.1 and gas
             exploration; oil transportationS storage, and refining; oil to coal conversion
             for electrical generating plants; and alternative energy projects..

             Routine Program'Implementation and Amendments:

                  No changes to the MCMP were processed during FY 1982-1983.

             Major Activities:

                  A major issue facing the MCMP fs the potential impact of a   Tidal Power
             Corporation.of Nova Scotia proposal to construct a dam on the upper reaches of
             the Bay of Fundy that would produce between.12 and 14 billion kilowatt hours
             of electricity a year. Scientists and environmentalists have expressed
             concerns that the rise in tides that will be created by the dam will cause
             erosion, damage coastal wetlands and fisheries habitats, and worsen the
             effects of storms. The MCMP has used CEIP funds for an environmental assess-
             ment of the effect of the project,on the coast of Maine. CEIP funds also
             have been,used to do an analysis of the socio-economic impacts from the new
             Canadian power source, complete a Department of Marine Resources' inventory
             of environmental and aesthetic resources of the coast most susceptible to oil
             spills, and develop oil spill persistency atlases for two coastal areas.

                  Major activities under the State's program implementation grant have
             included improving the enforcement and,administration of Maine's core laws,
             implementing and refining a joint State/Corps of Engineers permit application,
             and est'ablishing and implementing a,new approach to allocating funds to
             localities on a competitive basis. Priority projects under this new system
             include revitali,zation of coastal waterfronts, improvements in public
             recreational access, management of coastal development through improved
             local land use regulations, and management of specific local natural resources.

                  Another major program activity is providing local technical assistance for
             improving coastal management. Over 20 local technical assistance workshops
             were held throughout the coastal area focusing on improving local land use
             ordinance administration.






                                                      85


                 A major progra  M policy initiative during the period was-the 1983 Maine
            Rivers Bill, signed by the Governor in June 1983. This Act affects over 130
            miles of rivers in Maine's coastal area. It identifies the most critically
            important river stretches from a natural and recreational standpoint, prohi-,
            bits hydropower development on these stretches,,and enhances local control of
            shoreland uses and subdivisions, along their shorelines.

                 An ambitious port development pro    Igram initiated by Maine's coastal program
            continued to be Implemented during this period with coastal program assistance.
            Fish piers with support facilities were completed or are near completion in
            seven Maine port communities, supported with $20 million in State, local and
            Federal funds. A major ship overhaul facility was established in Portland,
            Maine, through joint efforts by the State, the'City of Portland, and the Bath
            Iron Works Corporation. A cargo pier facility in Eastport was established
            and expanded with State funds and a proposed      new cargo facility in Searsport
            was designed and submitted for State,- local, and,Federal approvals.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 An evaluation of the MCMP was conducted      in November 1981 covering the
            period October 1980 through September 1981.       Accomplishments   were n.oted in the
            State's review efforts-for OCS development plans, its review and subsequent
            enforcement of core laws, and its.water polluti6n.abatement program in shell-
            fish areas. Recommendations for strengthening the program included providing
            additional technical assistance to local communities on ordinance development
            and enforcement, and.developing ways to increase coastal access.

                 An.evaluation covering FY 1982-1983 was conducted in January 1984. Final
            findings will be available in June 1984.

            Estuarine Sanctuary:

                 Wells


                 Facts:

                 Location:                 York County, Maine
                 Size:                     1,750 acres (300 to be   purchased)
                 Biogeographic  Region:.   Acadian
                 Acquisition Status:       Not yet  initiated..

                 Description:

                 The site is located near Drakes     Island on the extreme southwestern coast
            of Maine. It is a remarkably natural area, considering its location along the
            suburbanizing Interstate 95 corridor. It contains barrier beaches., tidal
            marshes, and associated uplands in the Webhannet, Merriland, and Little River
            estuaries.   The site contains a diverse variety of plant communities represent-
            ing marine, estuarine, forest, non-forest,' and agricultural systems. Although
            the estuarine portions   do not.sustain a large or varied finfish population
            (Atlantic and Coho Salmon are the important species.), the area does support a
            wide variety of birds including two endangered species--th6 bal       d eagle and the.
            peregrine falcon. Harbor seals are the,only marine mammal species occurring







                                                    86


             in the site. It   is Maine's best remaining example of-a sandy double-spit
             -estuarine system in a natural state.

             Summary of.Evaluation Findings:

                  The Sanctuary was not evaluated during  the biennium.






                                                     87



                                                  MARYLAND

            Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The Maryland Coastal Zone Management   Program (MCZMP)  was appro*ved in
            September 1978. The Progr  am is based on the networking of existing State laws
            and authorities.. Implementation is accomplished through Memoranda of
            Understanding (MOU) between the Department,  of Natural Resources (DNR), the
            lead agency, and other State agencies. These    MOU's are supplemented by an
            'Executive Order, a Secretarial Order, and two  administrative,procedures called
            "Project Evaluation" and. "Program Review." The area affected by the Program
            includes 16coastal counties and'Baltimore City. Within these localities, an
            area of focus usually coinciding with the 100-year floodplain has been defined
            for more intensive management. In addition to the Tidewater Administration in
            the DNR, major responsibility for program implementation resides with the
            Department of State Plannin,g and the Department of Health And Mental Hygiene..
            The Program contains a strong public participation element in the Coastal
            Resources Advisory Committee. This body acts through@its various task forces
            to assist the DNR in addressing issues of significance to the MCZMP.

                 Maryland's Coastal Energy Impact'.Program is hou.sed within the Tidewater
            Administration. The Program places considerable emphasis on the mitigation
            of coastal energy impacts as they.relate to the opportunity for recreational
            access along Chesapeake@,Bay and its tributaries, as well as the environmentally
            acceptable management of dredging and associated spoi-1 disposal.
            koutine-Program Implementation (RPI),and Amendments:

                 No changes to the MCZMP were processed during FY 1982-1983.

            Major Activities:

                 The completion of'the  five year, $27"million EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
            has been a major focus of interest for the MCZMP. The Coastal Resources
            Division within the Tidewater Administration was as:signed the responsibility
            in the Department of Natural. Resources for implementing'the results of this
            major research- effort. The Division used some of its Section 306 program
            implementation funds to address related issues such as doing an assessment   ' of
            the impact of no-till farming techniques on water quality, working with the
            Kent and Cecil County Soil Conservation Districts in the development of farm
            conservation plans which address reduction,of sediment and non-point source
            runoff in order to enable the farm owner to,obtain State cost-sharing funding
            to implement needed improvements to farming management practices, and-
            establishing an information system to,assure the compatibility of ongoing
            data collection by the various State agencies. The DNR also was the adminis-
            trative recipient.of the first grant to be awarded   under Section 309 of the
            CZMA. '@The funds were shared with.Pennsylvania and  Virginia to develop a
            Chesapeake Bay monitoring system as.a. continuation. of the work begun under the
            EPA program.

                 The MCZMP also focused  on watershed management activities, assisting local
            governments in developing watershed management plans and providing technical
            and financial assistance to the State.sediment control and.stormwater management
            programs to improve their effectiveness.







                                                     88


                  A major effort of the program was working with local governments to
             improve their ability to address coastal zone management concerns. Through
             contractual agreements, funding was provided to local governments to support
             staff working in local planning and zoning offices on CZM concerns.

                  .Ocean City, Maryland's barrier  island resort encompassing most of the
             State's Atlantic shoreline, continued to be a major focus of the MCZMP's
             efforts.  The MCZMP undertook a study to determine the vulnerability of this
             barrier island to hazards, the adequacy of existing planning for action in
             the event of a major hurricane, and the need to develop a post-disaster
             recovery plan. Recommendations of the study included a revision to existing
             land use controls to reflect an awareness of coastal flood hazards; a procedure
             for modifying the Town ''s Building Limit Line to coincide with the currently
             designated V-zone and the development of a procedure to re-evaluate and
             re-adjust the line as the flood hazard area changes; the prohibition of
             additional canal development on the bay side which, if continued, w   'ould
             .increase the potential for island breaching in the event of a storm; and the
             development of new policies on State investments in infrastructure to reduce
             the potential for storm damage and protect public safety. The report will
             be the basis of a comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Study for the area.

                  CEIP funds were used to assess the impacts of petroleum hydrocarbon
             releases in the Annapolis anchorage from vessels waiting entrance to Baltimore
             Harbor; to expand Maryland's major facility impact model to make it applicable
             to local governments and more types of facilities; to design and engineer a
             passive waterfront recreation area in Vienna; and to develop a recreation
             area on a former dredge disposal-site on Tilghman Island.

             Major Consistency Issues:

                  In a letter to the Department of the Interior, the State found that OCS
             Lease Sale 76 was inconsistent with the MCZMP, and requested that all nearshore
             blocks within 54 statute miles of Maryland's three mile limit be deleted to
             protect the recreational fishery and other resources of the coastal area. In
             addition, the State asked that a stipulation be included in the Notice of Sale
             requiring lessees of all tracts adjacent to and/or affecting Maryland to
             contribute to the support of a special oil spill response team to be located
             at Ocean City. None of the blocks of concern to the State received bids when
             the sale was held.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  In February 1982, an evaluation of  the MCZMP was conducted covering the
             period May 1981 through February 1982.   The evaluation found the State con-
           -tinuing its strong commitment to the full development and implementation of a
             comprehensive living marine resources strategy, emphasizing a strong public
             participation and public information element, and working with local govern-
             ments to address particular problems such as the revitalization of a public
             beach in Kent County and the development of a comprehensive watershed plan
             for the Sassafras River. Recommendations from the review included an evalua-
             tion of the critical areas program, improvements to the annual review of the
             Memoranda of Understanding which link the various agencies in the program,
             and an evaluation of program goals and operations.







                                                    69


                 A second evaluation was held in.July 19  ,83. It-coVered the implementation
            of the.MCZMP for the period March 1982 through July 1983, the activities of
            .the Maryland CEIP for the period August 1977 through July 1983, and the
            development of the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary Program for
            the period September 1981 through July 1983 (see below).

                  The evaluation commended the MCZMP for assisting local governments in
            developing management.plans for sensitive natural areas, formulating strate-
            gies for increasing public sho.refront access, and developing comprehensive
            watershed management plans. The MCZMP undertook a bioeconomic study of
            Maryland's ocean fisheries and a Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Resource Manage-
            ment Study with particular attention to the impact of thermal discharges from
            power plant's on this dwindling resource. Recommendations from the Oevaluation
            again focused on the need to evaluate and enhance the State's Critical Areas
            Program and to continue the efforts to reduce the flood hazard vulnerability
            of Ocean City. Special attention also was directed to the need to@improve.
            the financial management system of the grant recipient.
                 The evaluation found that the CEIP funds had been used effectively by
            the MCZMP to address a number of concerns including identifying spoil disposal
            sites needed for maintaining navigational channels in the Chesapeake Bay;
            mitigating and guiding development in Baltimore H'arbor;,responding to the
            OCS Lease Sales affecting the State; and mitigating recreational losses
            resulting from increased energy activity.

            Estuarine Sanctuaries:'

               Chesapeake  Bay

               Facts-

               Location:               Monie Bay, Somerset County (eastern shore)
                                       Rhode River, Anne Arundel County (western shore)
               Si ze:                  Monie Bay - 3,343 acres
                                       Rhode River - 2,275 acres
               Biogeographic Region:   Virginian
               Acquisition Status:     95% complete

               Description:

                 Maryland is developing a statewide estuarine   sanctuary system   which,
            when complete, will include sites reflecting the   broad' diversity of salinity,
            physical systems and biota*of the Chesapeake Bay. The two initial.designated
            components are the Muddy Creek portion of the Rhode River in Anne Arundel
            County representing typical mid-bay western shore estuaries   I and the Monie
            Bay in Somerset County representing typical lower bay eastern sho.re,estuaries.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 The evaluation, which was conducted in July 1983, found that minimal
            progress had been made in developing the necessary management programs for
            thetwo sites. The Memoranda of Understanding with the participating organi-
            zations had not been finalized, and many tasks set forth in the. operations
            awards bad been delayed. The recommendation was that no additional Federal








                                                   90


            funds for operations or the acquisition of additional sites be given until
            basic problems are resolved.







                                                    91



                                             MASSACHUSETTS

            Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The Mas sachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP) was approved
            in April 1978. The lead State agency is the Executive Office of Environmental
            Affairs which administers most of the regulatory activities associated with
            the program. The coastal zone boundary extends 100 feet inland of specified.
            major roads, rail lines, or other visible rights-of-way which are located up
            to 1/2 mile from the coastal waters or salt marshes, including all of Cape
            Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. The key laws include the Act to Protect
            the Massachusetts Coastline, the Wetlands Protection Program, Waterways Program,
            Wetlands.Restriction Program, Ocean Sanctuary Program, and Energy Facility
            Siting Program. The Wetlands Protection'Program is jointly administered by
            the State and local Conservation Commissions.

                 The Executive Office of,Environmental Affairs administers the Coastal
            Energy Impact Program. Energy activities which impact the Massachusetts coastal
            area include the transportation,, transfer and storage of oil and gas; coal
            conversion of existing oil fired electric generating facilities; and the impact
            Of OCS oil and gas exploration and development.

            Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                 Changes to the MCZMP during FY 1982-1983 included the designation of
            the Weymouth Back Riverand its environs as an Area of Critical Environmental
            Concern, thus highlighting it as a valuable natural resource area. The MCZMP
            also promulgated regulations under the Mineral Resources Act, and revised the
            regulations under the Wetlands Protection Act to establish standard definitions
            and uniform procedures by which the Conservation Commissions and the Department
            of Environmental Quality Engineering implement the Act. Two Governor's Executive
            9rders also were incorporated into the MCZMP. Executive Order 181 discourages
            inappropriate development on barrier beaches by coordinating existing State
            regulatory authority and prohibiting the use of State funds and Federal grants
            for construction projects which would encourage growth and development in
            hazard prone barrier beach areas. Executive Order 190 requires State agencies
            to balance off-road vehicle uses with other recreational uses on the Common-
            wealth's public lands. These changes were found to be RPI's under the Federal
            regulations.

            Major Activities:

                 The MCZMP continued to offer technical assistance to local communities,
            project developers, and public agencies; monitor and coordinate Federal, State,
            and local regulatory activitiesaffecting coastal resources; identify public
            rights-of-way along the North Shore; and assist local coastal communities to
            identify, evaluate, and resolve their coastal problems.      In attempting to
            continue the latter effort with reduced funds, the MCZMP commissioned a public
            opinion survey to determine critical issues for local communities. The results
            of.the survey were highlighted in a pamphlet which was widely distributed.







                                                        92



                   New legislation to institutionalize this    networked program was passed in
              1983. The legislation formally recognized the Office of Coastal Zone
              Management in the Executive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs as-the coastal
              management agency and gave it responsibility for developing new criteria for
              tidelands licensing. The bill-also included $18*million for fishing piers and
              $7 million to rehabilitate Long Wharf, the major access area to Boston Harbor.

                   The MCZMP used its CEIP funds'for several recreational and public access
              projects for the towns of Swansea, Fall River, Barnstable, Quincy, Chelsea,
              and Boston Harbor; and comprehensive waterfront revitalization in Beverly,
              including the construction.of*a:public landing. Several projects also were
              initiated aimed at mitigating energy impacts to Massachusetts shellfish and
              fisheries resources.

              Major Consistency Issues:

                   Reflecting its serious concern with fisheries, Massachusetts      has been
              very active in its review of proposed OCS lease sales. In January 1983, the
              Commonwealth disagreed with the Department of the Interior's (DOI) finding
              of consistency for OCS Lease Sale 52, contending that the sale did      not minimize
              impacts on traditional fishing grounds, fish resources and spawning areas, and
              wildlife and other marine resources as required by.the policies of the MCZMP.
              Several actions to remedy these problems were suggested including the deletion
              of 98 tracts. Subsequently, a.U.S. District Court in Massachusetts issued a
              preliminary-injunction halting the sale, and DOI cancelled its plans. This
              decision was later upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

                   Massachusetts objected to a Corps of Engineers certification of corfsistency
              for the proposed State Program General Permit No. 41 citing inadequate applica-
              tion, public notice and agency review procedures, and the lack of clearly
              identified categories and locations of activities that are consistent with the
              provisions of sound environmental management. The proposed permitwas -later
            .withdrawn by the New England Division Corps of Engineers.

                   The MCZMP requested, and received approval, to review the DOI Certification
              of Rehabilitation Design for the Commonwealth Pier Five Project as an unlisted
              activity. The pier is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and
              is proposed for revitalization which will include commercial facilities, a
              hotel, parking, and cruise ship facilities. The approval was based on the
              expectation that this activity would affect the maritime use characteristics
              of the Boston Harbor area as well as public access to the waterfront. No
              objections to the request to review were'received..

              Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                   An evaluation of the M  CZMP was held in N'ovember  1981 covering the   period
              December 1980 through November 1981. The accomplishments      of the MCZMP
              during thi's period included significant contrib@@tions to investigating     and
              identifying the extent of the PCB contamination in the Acushment River       Estuary
              in New Bedford, substantial reductions in review time for OCS-related permit
              applications, coordination with FEMA to acquire the first storm-damaged
              properties on barrier beaches under Section 1362 of the National Flood
              Insurance Act of 1968, and facilitating the issuance,of the final National.







                                                  93


            Pollution Discharge El.imination System permit for exploratory drilling on
            Georges Bank, with new permit conditions for the discharge of drilling muds
            and cuttings. Recommendations of the evaluation focused on improvements to
            the Wetlands Program.







                                                    94



                                                 MICHIGAN

             Background   CZM and CEIP  Programs:

                  The Michigan Coastal  Management Program (MCMP) was approved in August
             1978. The Department of   Natural Resources' (DNR) Land Resources Programs
             Division is responsible for administration and management of the MCMP and
             the Coastal Energy Impact Program. Major authorities under which the MCMP
             is administered include: the Shorelands Protection and Management Act; the
             Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act; the Sand Dune Protection and Management
             Act; the Inland Lakes and Streams Act; and the Michigan Environmental
             Protection Act. The Natural Resources Commission establishes policy and
             guidelines for all DNR programs based on recommendations of a Citizens
             Advisory Committee and the Standing Committee on Shorelands and Waters.
             In addition, the Inter-Departmental Environmental Review Committee,.the,
             Michigan Environmental Review Board, and the Governor's Cabinet Committee
             on Environment and Land Use serve as forums for coordination and conflict
             resolution. The MCMP has defined its lakeward coastal boundary as the
             jurisdictional border Michigan shares with Canada's Province of Ontario and
             the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The land-
             ward coastal boundary'extends a minimun of 1,000 feet, from the ordinary high.
             water mark, with extensions or bridges around areas containing resources or
             uses with a physical, chemical, biological or other demonstrated impact upon
             the Great Lakes. These areas include significant coastal features such as
             sand dunes, wetlands, and coastal lakes.

                  The major coastal energy impacts on Michigan's shorelines are from coal
             storage and transshipment. Coal transport on the Great Lakes has reached 40
             milli.on tons annually and has,caused increased erosion in the connecting water
             ways, increased port dredging and resultant dredge'disposal problems, contributed
             to the loss of many acres of wetlands for coal. storage and fly ash disposal,
             caused air and water quality problems, and displaced coastal parks and re-
             creational boating facilities as well. as decreased.,public access.

             Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                  No changes to the MCMP were processed during FY 1982-1983.

             Major Activities:

                  The MCMP has taken steps to keep  the public involved and informed with
             respect to the program's activities and to assist local communities in managing
             their coastal areas. These activities included publishing and distributing a
             booklet which explained the Shorelands Protection and Management Act and the
             most frequently asked questions  and answers; conducting zoning workshops to
             -encourage communities to adopt local zoning amendments related to high risk
             erosion areas; providing technical assistance to a Monroe County community to
             determine,the impact of wave run-up and wave-breaking zones on flooding condi-
             tions and to evaluate the impact that proposed projects would have on the
             shoreline; and assisting several communities such 'as Mackinac Island and
             Frenchman's Cove in developing innovative land. development control programs
             to protect,their unique historic and natural resources.







                                                     95


                 Michigan has made very effective use of its low-cost co     'nstruction funds..
            In many instances, coastal funds were used as a catalyst to get larger
            projects started and to leverage additional funds for actual implementation
            from other sources such as the State's Land and Water Conservation Fund.
            Local low-cost construction projects included the restoration of historically
            significant buildings and the restoration and improvement of publ-ic access to
            the shore. At the State level,,these projects included boardwalks over coastal
            sand dunes and wetlands, and interpretive.displays at several State parks. In
            1982, the Michigan State Planning Society bestowed.its award.of excellence
            upon two coastal projects: the Linked Riverfront Park in 'Detroit and the Visual
            Improvements Plan for.the industrial riverfront of the Downriver community.
            Between 1980 and 1982, CZM projects have received over 50 percent of the
            Society's awards.- The Shorelands Advisory Committee conducted a field meeting
            during which an inspection was,made of several low-cost construction-projects
            funded by the MCMP. The.Committee unanimously -agreed that projects should
            continue to be funded by the State.

                 The MCMP staff increased its sensitivity and awareness of the problems of
            the handicapped at a training session sponsored by the Governor's Commission
            on Handica,p Affairs. As a result of the training, the staff conducted ex-
            tensive field work in an effort to inventory handicap facilities along the
            shoreline. This field work culminated in the development of a brochure which
            describes the State's coastal facilities and locations accessible to handi-
            capped persons. Under the designation as a Demonstration State for Low-Cost
           .Construction projects, the MCMP funded several projects designed to provide
            access to coastal facilities for handicapped persons. For example, at Pere
            Marquette Park, located in Muskegon County, beach access for handicapped'persons
            was provided by constructing a concrete walkway from a parking area to the
            pier with a removable wooden platform and ramp that connected the pier.to the,
            water's edge.

                 The MCMP continued to simplify its permitting processes. The computerized
            permit information system was enlarged to incorporate 10 additional resource-
            related laws, to identify all projects requiring approvals under more than one
            law, and to enhance the effectiveness of the reports generated by the system.
            Implementation of the new rules for Act 247, the Great Lakes Submerged Lands.
            Act, simplified-the permit process by providing objective guidelines for
            evaluating proposed projects and by allowing minor project.permits on small,
            noncontroversial shore protection projects. Implementation of these new
            rules also allowed the State to implement a single application process for a
            wide range of water-related projects. 'This made the Act 247 and 326 (St.
            Claire Flats Act) rules compatible with the rules for several other State laws
            and the Corps of Engineers Sections 10 and 404 procedures.

                 During this period, CEIP funds were used to prov    ide the City of Wyondatte
            funds to landscape the edge of Bishop Park to reduce impacts on environmental
            and recreational resources caused by the municipal power plant's coal storage
            area adjacent to the park; to provide funds to the City of Marquette to con-
            struct improvements and public access to the beach area in an effort to miti-
            gate the'impacts caused by the expanded coal storage'operation at the Shiras
            Generating Plant; and to undertake a series of projects related to the
            mitigation of fish losses resulting from power plant operations.








                                                  96


            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 An evaluation of the MCMP was held in May 1982 covering the period
            June 1981 through May 1982. The evaluation found the MCMP to be an effi-
            ciently run program with an effective regulatory system. Noteworthy program
            achievements were.the promulgation of new administrative rules which clarified
            terms and procedures necessary to implement the Shorelands Protection and
            Management Act; promulgation of new administrative rules which established a
            minor permit category under the Submerged Lands Act; development of a consoli-
            dated permit application form for all regulated land and water activities; and
            assumption of responsibility for a six-month experimental program for issuing
            Section 404 dredge and fill permits on inland waters. To strengthen the pro-
            gram, Michigan was urged to consider delegating regulatory responsibilities to
            local governments and to develop a funding phasedown strategy.







                                                  97



                                               MINNESOTA



            Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                Minnesota is no longer participating  in the CZM Program. After four
            years of program development efforts, the State's last grant expired in
            September 1978. Local opposition from the two northernmost coastal counti-es
            resulted in the State's withdrawal from participatio'n in the Federal- program..







                                                  98



                                              MISSISSIPPI


           Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                The Mississippi Coastal Program (MCP) was approved in September 1980 and
           is based, in large part, on the Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Protection Law
           and the Mississippi Marine Resource Council enabling legislation. The Bureau
           of Marine Resources (BMR) is the lead agency. Collectively, three "coastal
           program agencies" (BMR and the Bureaus of Pollution Control and Land and Water
           Resources, both in the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of
           Archives and History) are responsible for monitoring decisions that affect the
           coastal area and for insuring that such decisions are made in accordance with
           the program's goals. The designated boundary encompasses the three coastal
           counties of Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, and all coastal waters.

                The Bureau of Marine Resources also administers the Coastal Energy Impact
           Program. The State faces energy impacts from expanding petroleum production
           and refining.activities and onshore support facilities.

           Routine Program Implementation (RPI   and Amendments:

                Seven revisions to the MCP were'submitted during FY 1982-1983. The most
           important of these were changes to the Coastal Wetlands Use Plan (CWUP) to
           allow for the leasing of certain public trust wetlands in the southern half of
           Mississippi Sound for mineral development. The other changes provided for the
           development of marinas in several specific locations or made minor changes to
           the MCP policies. These were approved by OCRM as RPI's. The program document
           has been reprinted to reflect these changes.
                                                                                 0
           Major Activities:

                The program focused on the administration of the  wetlands use permit, the
           development of Special Management Area programs (SMA)  for two port areas, and
           public awareness. In the latter area, an informational wetlands poster was
           printed, five marine resource booklets for elementary and secondary school
           children were published, and an informative and colorful summary booklet
           describing the MCP was completed.

                .Substantial. progress was made in developing SMA's for the Ports of
           Bienville and Pascagoula, resulting in a draft plan for Port Bienville and a
           preliminary sketch plan for the Port of Pascagoula. The identification of
           issues and preliminary research for the Pass Christian Port also was completed.

                As a result of MCP efforts in coordinating the leasing and subsequent
           permitting of oil and gas development in certain portions of Mississippi Sound,
           an MOU was signed by BMR and other key State agencies involved in such develop-
           ment. It contains specific lease language which addresses the MCP as well as
           specific activity guidelines to be applied to subsequent development.

                CEIP grants were used to build sewer facilities in.Gulfport and a boat
           ramp on the Escatawpa River, restore the historic Marble Spring Bath, and for
           other planning projects. Loans were made to Gulfport-Biloxi (airport),
           Pascagoula (incinerator), and Jackson County (water pipeline).







                                                    99


             Major Consistency Issues:

                  The major area of Federal consistency review involved Corps of Engineers
             dredging and spoil disposal projects in Harrison and Jackson Counties. Several
             issues related to long term disposal in Jackson County are being addressed
             through the Pascagoula SMA Plan.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  The MCP was evaluated in June 1982 covering the period May 1981 through
             June 1982. MCP accomplishments included continued improvements in monitoring
             and enforcing wetlands regulations and reducing the time involved in issuing
             permits, initiation of SMA planning, the issuance of a Wetlands Use change
             allowing oil and gas leasing in the Mississippi Sound bottomlands with stipula-
             tions regirding Statelease language and the MOU, and a wide variety of public
             information and participation activities. To strengthen the program, it was
             recommended that arrangments be made to provide legal services and other
             administrative assistance, an MOU be completed with th 'e Corps of Engineers on
             expedited permitting, and maximum attention be given to making the SMA process
             work on an expedited basis.

                  The Coastal Energy Impact Program was evaluated during December 1982
             covering the period February 1978 through December 1982. At the time of the
             evaluation, Mississippi had received grants for 41 projects, three loans, and
             an OCS participation award.

                  Projects highlighted in the findings included the Jackson County Water
             System -- a 12-mile 36" pipeline which4irectly serves OCS industries while
             reserving some capacity for future municipal use, the Pascagoula incinerator,
             the Gulfport-Biloxi airport terminal, and the Gulfport Harbor Square sewer
             installation. Also outstanding were,the many park, coastal access, and
             recreation projects in all three coastal counties. Especially noteworthy were
             the Pascagoula Park acquisitions, one portion of which was for the Adventure
             Island playground which in December 1982 won a Presidential award; others
             included the University of Southern Mississippi (USM).outdoor classroom, and
             the Ocean Springs recreation center. Areas needing improvement included
             ensuring that work products were filed with OCRM; ensuring that projects which
             were behind schedule were pushed to completion, and where neede 'd, that grant
             extensions were requested; and ensuring that awarded funds were used
             expeditiously.







                                                        100


                                                 NEW HAMPSHIRE

             Background    CZM  and CEIP Programs:

                   The New Hampshire Coastal Program,(NHCP),,Ocean and Harbor Segment,
             was approved  in May 1982. The Program, which coordinates activities among
             the State agencies, is being completed in two phases. The first phase, the
             Ocean and Harbor Segment, covers the Atlantic Ocean, the Hampton Estuary,
             and the Portsmouth Harbor p-ortion of the New Hampshire coast. Phase.two,
             completing the management program for the entire coast including all areas
             under tidal influence, particularly the Great Bay, is under development.
             The boundaries of the first segment include all.coastal waters to the seaward
             limits of State jurisdiction and all land along the State's Atlantic Ocean
             shoreline from Seabrook to the Portsmouth/Newington town line, extending
             inland 1,000 ft. or.to.the limits of the Wetlands Board jurisdiction over
             tidal waters, whichever is farther inland. The lead,State agency is the
             Office of State,Pla.nning.

                   New Hampshire's Coastal Energy Impact Program is     also administered by
             the Office of State Planning. The State faces impacts from several energy
             activities, including the transportation, transfer, and storage of hydro-
             carbons; nuclear power production; and power plant conversion from oil to
             coal.

             Routine  Program  Implementation.(RPI) and   Amendments:

                   No changes to the NHCMP wereprocessed during      FY 1982-1983.

             Major Activities:

                   A Technical Advisory Group,(TAG), composed     of representatives of State
             agencies with resource and development responsibilities on the coast, was
             established to coordinate.State agency activities. The TAG meets as necessary
             to review and discuss progress under the coastal program..

                   In addition, a Coastal Advisory Committee, appointed by the governor       and
             representing seven,Atlantic coastal communities and six coastal interests, was
             formed in the Spring of 1983 to advise the Governor on coastal issues and
             problemsi and to serve as.a focal point for discussionon coastal matters.
             State coastal program staff assist the Committee.

                   CEIP funds were used to purchase oil spill prevention and control equipment
             to be used in the Portsmouth Harbor area; conduct recreational improvements in
             New Castle; restore marsh grass areas in Portsmouth Harbor which were depleted
             due to previous oil spills; undertake a hydro-power development study in the
             Town of Exeter; and fund other local communities and State agencies for energy
             impact planning projects.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings-

                   An evaluation of the NHCP was held in May 1983 covering the period June
             1982 through May 1983. Accomplishments noted included the implementation of
             planning projects funded through the NHCP, increased monitoring and enforce-
             ment of State water pollution and wetlands laws, and improvements in the
             State's ability to prevent and control oi    1 spills.







                                                  101,


                  Re'commendations for strengthening the program included: developing
            a strategy to promote coastal awareness and an understanding of the NHCP
            in local communities; conducting activities which would increase Federal
            agency understanding of the program and the Federal consistency process;
            increasing wetlands inspection efforts by hiring additional staff; and
            working"through the Council on Resources and Development (an interagency
            body of key State agencies) to provide policy direction and resolve con-
            flicts of divergent coastal interests.








                                                   102


                                                NEW.JERSEY

           Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                The New  Jersey Coastal Zone Management Program   (NJCZMP),  received Federal
           approval on September 29, 1980.. The Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the NJCZMP
           was approved. in September 1978    The program is administered by the Department
           of Environmental Protection (DEP) which has regulatory control through the
           Coastal Area Facility Review Act   (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act, the Waterfront.,
           Development Act, and the Riparian Statutes. The boundary includes: (1) the
           shoreline area up to the first road or property line from mean high water from
           the New York border south to the Raritan Bay; (2) the.area under the jurisdic-
           tion of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission; (3) an area extend-
           ing from the Raritan Bay south along the Atlantic shoreline up to the.Delaware
           Memorial Bridge, which varies from 112 mile up to 21 miles inland; and (4) an
           area north along the Delaware River to Trenton, extending inland to the first
           road inclusive of all coastal wetlands.

                The lead agency for the Coastal Energy Impact Program is the Department
           of Energy. Energy impacts are being experienced from oil and coal transport-
           ation, transfer, and storage, and potential OCS activities.

           Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                The NJCZMP  was amended in January 1983 by a new New Jersey Coastal.
           Resource and Development Policy entitled "Wetlands Buffer." This policy
           prohibits development within 300 feet of wetlands and within the drainage.
           areas of those wetlands unless the development uses mitigating measures so
           that it does not have a significant adverse impact and causes minimum feasible
           adverse impact on the wetlands or on the natural ecotone between the wetlands
           and surrounding uplands.

               Several other minor mo difications to the NJCZMP were made which were found
           to be Routine Program Implementation under the Federal regulations. Th     ,ese
           included clarifications to the regulations under the Waterfront Development Act
           defining the circumstances under which illegal fill will be removed and the
           definition of exempted activities; the development of a Memorandum of Agreement
           with the Port Authority of New York and.New Jersey concerning review procedures
           for waterfront development projects; and changes to the Rules on Coastal
           Resource and Development Policies pertaining to Limited Growth Areas and Low
           Density Development.

           Major Activities:

                In 1981, a constitutional amendment was passed which gave the     State until
           -November 3, 1982, to claim any lands which had not been flowed by the tides in
           more than 40 years. If the State failed to stake its claim, this land would
           belong free and clear to t 'he upland owners. The State adopted 820 of the 1,632
           tidelands claim maps. These claims together with claims previously adopted in
           the Hackensack Meadowlands area established the State's claim to about
           67 percent of the land area now or formerly flowed by the tides. Much of
           the remainin,g 33 percent had already been granted to upland owners. The
           NJCZMP is now in a strong position to ensure public access and conservation
           for shore protection purposes.






                                                     103


                 The State updated its   wetlands maps  which  were first promulgated in
            1974 and 1975 and depict the regu,latory jurisdiction under the State Wetlands
            Act. The update reflected both man,-made and natural changes in the configur-
            ation of wetlands which occured between 1972, when aerial photography was
            first taken of the wetlands., and 1982. This mapping added 1,500 acres to        the
            State's jurisdiction.

                 New Jersey voters approved a,$50    million  ShoreProtection   Bond  Issue  in
            November 1982, and the DEP committed the final funds from the 1977 $20 million
            Shore Protection Bond Issue. In addition to beach nourishment and structural
            engineering, the DEP i-nitiated an experimental program of using artificial
            seaweed (Seascape) to control erosion at Cape May Point and Stone Harbor Point.

                 Other efforts.undertaken during this period included      the institution of
            a public access beach,shuttle   program; the development of    State strategies for
            Ahe management and redevelopment of specific urban waterfront segments; ex-
            pansion of technical assistance to the local governments on a broad range of
            planning, legal, and technical issues; evaluation of the      Local Coastal Grants
            Program; and the implementation of the Shore Protection Master Plan.

                 The first waterfront park planned    under a local coastal grant was opened
            in the City of Bridgeton in the fall of 1982.

                 The CEIP provided.funds to"assist    the 'City of Elizabeth in acquiring,
            property on the Arthur Kill for public    recreationa1use and to allow the Ocean
            County Department of Parks.and Recreation to' redevelop Berkeley Island County'
            Park.

            Major Consistency Issues:

                 In FY 1983, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Environmental
            Protection Agency (EPA) acted arbitrarily in imposing a sewer hookup restric-
            ,tion on a grant for a sewage treatment plant when the New Jersey DEP had
            ,approved the particular development to be serviced by the hookup under its
            Coastal Area Facility Review Act, the statutory basis of New Jersey s approved
            coastal zone management program. The court ruled in Cape May Greene, Inc.,
            v. Warren that EPA lacked the explicit authority to prohibit the proposed
            development in light of Congresstonal intention, expressed in the Coastal
            Zone Management Act, to delegate land use decisfons in.the coastal zone to
            state and local governments.

                 In July 1982, New Jersey filed in Federal district      court seeking to   enjoin
            the Department of the Interior's (DOI) re-offering of OCS leases, RS-2.         The.
            State requested that 23 of.the 155 tracts be dropped on the grounds of alleged
            violations of the OCS Lands Act and that the Secret    ary of Interior had failed
            to provide the State with a.consistency determination. The court considered
            two substantive consistency issues: whether the consistency determination must
            consider only "preleasing" activities, and whether the Secretary must determine
            the consistency of Federal activities that impact the socioeconomics of the
            coastal zone but do not directly affect the-natural environment of the coastal
            zone. On September 7,_.1982, Judge Debeviose delivered an oral decision in,
            Kean v. Watt, agreeing with the position adopted by the Ninth Circuit in
            'C-a-lifornia v. Watt which-broadly interpreted, the phrase "directly affecting" to
            include preleasing activities. However, he also found, that "activities of the








                                                     104


             Federal agencies outside of New Jersey's coastal zone which affect commerc     ial
             activities within the State's co  astal zone but which do not affect the natural
             environment,within such coastal zone do not directly affect the coastal zone
             within the meaning of Section 307(c)(1)..." (New Jersey claimed that the
             leasing of certain tracts woul-d directly affect fisheries located within the
             Fishery Conservation Zone, and therefore cause economic injury to State
             fishermen.) This case has been mooted by the January 1984 Supreme Court decision
             discussed in Part I.

                  New Jersey disagreed with DOI's consistency determination on Lease      Sale.
             76 based on the need for revisions to the.Biological Resources and Transportation
             Stipulation and the reinstatement of the Geohazards Stipulation. The Governor
             requested mediation by the Secretary of Commerce, but the Department of the
             Interior declined to,participate. The issue,was resolved in April 1983 when a
             Memorandum of Understanding was negotiated between.New Jersey and DOI which
             addressed the State's concerns..

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  An evaluation of the NJCZMP was   conducted in March 1982 covering the
             period June 1981 through March 1982. Major accomplishments included the
             completion of the Shore Master Protection Plan and the Guidelines for a Master
             Plan for Dredging in Navigable Waters in New Jersey and several public access
             projects. Recommendations for strengthening the program included increasing
             municipal government involvement-in the NJCZMP, providing technical assistance
             to municipalities in shoreline and dune protection, re-examining the Atlantic
             County Growth Area, and increasing public awareness of the program.






                                                   .105

                                                 NEW YORK

            Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 .The New York Coastal Management Program (NYCMP) was approved on
            September 30, 1982. The Department of State is the designated lead agency.
            The program@is based primarily on the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
            Resources Act (WRCRA), the Coastal Erosion Hazards Act (CEHAA) and the Tidal
            Wetlands Act. 'The WRCRA provides the legal.authority to establish a coastal
            program in the State. The Act establishes coastal policies for the State,
            establishes a coastal boundary, provides for optional local government water-
            front revitalization programs, and establishes a process for coordination and
            consistency of State actions and programs with coastal policies. Generally,
            the coastal boundary is 1,000 feet from the shoreline, plus' all identified
            geographic areas of particular concern. In urbanized areas and other developed
            locations along the coast, the boundary  Iis approximately 500 feet from the .
            shoreline or less than 5.00 feet at locations where a major roadway or railway
            line runs parallel to the shoreline.

                 The CEHAA provides for uniform setback requirements in coastal high hazard
            areas. Responsibility for CEHAA program implementation as well as enforcement
            of the Tidal Wetlands Act resides with the Department of Environmental
            Conservation,(DEC).

                 The Department of State is also the lead agency for New York's Coastal
            Energy Impact Program. Major energy i  mpacts result from power generating
            plants; the transportation, transfer, and storage of petroleum products; and
            offshore oil and gas activities.

            Routine Program Implementation (RP I) and Amendments:

                 in January .19839 25 minor changes to the text of the NYCMP were made in
            response to-comments and suggestions received during the review of the Final
            Environmental Impact Statement. These changes were found to be RPI's under
            the Federal regulations.

            Major Activities:

                 During its first year of operation, the NYCMP provided   a considerable
            amount of funds to communities for the development of waterfront-revitaliza-
            tion ?rograms, including implementationfunds for New York City which was the
            state s first approved local waterfront program. In addition, the NYQMP
            sponsored a Waterfront Revitalization Conference in Albany which provided
            technical assistance to local officials in such diverse subjects as waterfront
            festivals and amending local codes to incorporate coastal policies. The
            NYCMP also provided funds to the DEC to undertake studies to designate,and
            map erosion hazard areas along the State's -coastline.

                .During this period, the State used its CEIP funds,to construct a
            pedestrian walkway and public access site under the Brooklyn Bridge, assist
            Ulster County in a park land restoration project, conduct a number of planning
            projects*to assess and mitigate the impacts of proposed or existing energy
            facilities, and assist,in the development of a-Tidal Gauge System to measure
            tidal levels and wind speed and direction in New York Harbor and the Hudson
            River.







                                                      106


             Major Consistency Issues:

                  The New York Departmen  't of State disagreed with  the Department of the
             Interior's (DOI) consistency determination for OCS Lease Sale 52 based
             primarily on the risk of oil spills either from the lease area or tankers
             traveling along the Ambrose/Nantucket navigation line. The DOI'responded
             that they had no responsibility over shipping regulations and, therefore,
             would have no way to enforce a stipulation on tanker routing. DOI later
             cancelled this sale.

                  New York also found OCS Lease   Sale 76 inconsistent. The State contended
             that the petroleum development and   production activities would adversely i.mpact
             State coastal fishery resources and would pose an unacceptably high risk of
             economic losses to the coastal fishing and recreational industries. In April
             1983, New York filed suit in U.S. District Court requesting that the sale be
             enjoined until the DOI deleted 135 tracts of concern, prohibited-tankers from
             using the Nantucket to Ambrose navigation lanes, and applied the Geological
             Hazards and Biological Stipulation to.certain tracts. An agreement was later
             reached which met New York's major concerns. Four tracts of concern to the
             State received bids in the sale. The DOI agreed that the geohazard and
             biological stipulations would be applied to these tracts. Because of the
             location of these tracts, any future tanker traffic would not be using the
             Nantucket to Ambrose navigation lanes.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  The NYCMP was evaluated in   June 1983 covering the period October 1982
             through June 1983. The principal accomplishment during that period was the
             Department of State's activities in carrying out the Waterfront Revitalization
             and Coastal Resources Management Act, including the development of contracts
             with 64 coastal towns for the preparation of Local Waterfront Revitalization
             Plans. Recommendations for improving the program dealt with establishing
             betterprocedures for monitoring and enforcement, enhancing the quality and
             timeliness of coastal erosion mapping activities, providing more technical
             assistance to local governments on preparation of waterfront plans, and
             improving coordination with Federal agencies and the implementation of Federal
             consistency.

             Estuarine Sanctuaries

                  Hudson River Estuary

                  Facts:

                  Location:                 Stockport Flats, Columbia County
                                            Tivoli Bays, Dutchess County
                                            Iona Island Marsh, Rockland County
                                            Piermont Marsh, Rockland County
                  Size:                     Stockport Flats - 1,184 acres
                                            Tivoli Bays - 1,516 acres
                                            Iona Island Marsh - 556 acres
                                            Piermont Marsh    934 acres






                                                   107


                 Biogeographic Region:    Virginian
                 Acquisition Status:      Majority of land in State ownership.
                                          Negotiations underway to aquire the
                                          balance.

                 Des'cription:

                 The four sites represent the Hudson River's high Iest quality tidal wetland
            complexes. All contain extensive high tidal marshes with comparable vegetation
            types, as well as tidal shallows and forested upland margins.

                      0  The Stockport site comprises the mouth of a tributary
                         stream (Stockport Creek) and a four-mile long series of
                         peninsulas, islands, marshes and shallows along the east
                         shore of the Hudson.

                      0  Tivoli Bays comprises two large coves on the east  shore
                         of the Hudson River, North Bay and South Bay, and  includes
                         Cruger Island and Magdalen Island and associated tidal
                         shallows, as well as the mouths of two tributary streams,
                         Stony Creek and Saw Kill.

                      0  The Iona Island marshes occupy a mile-long area between
                         Iona Island and the west shore of the Hudson. The Iona Island
                         site is part of Bea'r Mountain State Park, an element in the
                         Palisades Interstate Park system.

                         Piermont Marsh is one-and-one-half miles long, between
                         Piermont and Sneden's Landing; it includes the mouth of a
                         tributary stream (Sparkill Creek) and is surrounded by very
                         extensive tidal shallows.







                                                   108


                                              NORTH CAROLINA


            Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The North Carolina Coastal Management Program (NCCMP)  was approved in
            September 1978. The program isbased in part on the Coastal Area Management.
            Act (CAMA) although other State laws are networked as well. A State
            Executive Order requires all State agency Actions to be consistent with the
            goals and policies of the NCCMP. The program's boundary extends to the 20
            coastal counties and the lead agency is the Department of Natural Resources
            and Community,Development. The Office of Coastal Management is responsible
            for implementing the NCCMP, with the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC)
            primarily responsible for the' implementation of CAMA. Activities occurring
            within areas.of environmental concern (AEC's) require a CAMA permit. These
            permits can be divided into two general classes: major development which is
            ,regulated at the State*level, and minor development regulated at the local
            level with State overview.

                 The Office of Coastal Management also,administers the Coastal Energy
            Impact Program. Its five-year CEIP strategy identifies peat mining and OCS
            activity (to the extent petroleum deposits are found) as the major energy
            impacts. To a lesser extent, the transfer and storage of petroleum products
            and coal are likely to affect coastal areas.

            Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                 No changes to the NCCMP were pro cessed'during FY 1982-1983.


            Major Activities:

                 During 1982, a legislative study committee was formed to review the
            implementation of the CAMA. Hearings were held in the coastal area and the
            committee found overwhelming support for CAMA's continuation and strengthen-
            ing. As a result of this reviewi three bills were passed to enhance the
            State's authority to manage and protect its coastal resources. These bills
            allowed the State to issue general permits for certain categories of
            activities; expanded the issuance of emergency permits; and shortened the time
            for r-eview and issuance of major permits from 90 days to 75 days (with a 75
            day extension provision). New permit fees also were established.

                 In implementing CAMA, the CRC has adopted new post-disaster policies
            requiring localities to prepare local disaster plans which will mandate the
            relocation of certain structures, such as utilities and roadsf in the event
            of major damage. In addition, local land use plans are now required to address
            storm hazards with mitigation plans which include post-disaster elements. The
            State also requested assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
            (FEMA) to relocate oceanfront structures that are in immediate danger from
            storms and are.covered under the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Other CRC
            actions to protect the State's coastal resources included the development of
            more detailed standards for building beaches in estuarine areas; more detailed
            alignment of navigation channels relative to marsh fringes; expanded standards
            on the use of groins in estuarine areas; a new set of erosion rates; and a







                                                   109

            change in the setback  provisions which requires oceanfront structures with
            more than four units* or more than 5,000 square feet to locate landward from
            the first line of stable natural vegetation a distance equal to 60 times the
            long term erosion rate or, if the erosion rate is less than 2 feet per year,
            a distance not less than 120 feet from the vegitation line.

                 The impacts of peat mining also have been a focus of concern for the
            NCCMP. Peat mines in the State total 16,000 acres and could potentially affect
            an additional 40,000 acres. The Synthetic Fuels Corporation is supporting the
            construction of a multi-million dollar plant to convert peat to methanol.
            Public hearings held by the NCCMP showed considerable concern with the impact
            of this mining on coastal waters and, consequently, the rich fisheries of the
            area. A coalition of environmental groups and local citizens brought suit
            against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.contending that the peat development
            area should be classified as a wetland and be subject to Section 404 of.the
            Clean Water Act. Both the Corps and the State contend these contested areas
            are not wetlands.

                 A study of sources and mechanisms of mercury and heavy metals in peatlands
            drainage was supported by CEIP funds. These funds also were used to develop an
            energy development and land resources information system; conduct a study
            concerning how to manage the impacts of energy development through the leasing
            of State-owned submerged lands;'and to conduct an inventory of natural and
            cultural resources for submerged lands leasing.

                 The NCCMP is implementing a $1 million beach access program passed by the
            General Assembly. Completed public beach access sites include: Nags Head (1),
            Kill Devil Hills, Surf City, Ft. Fisher (New Hanover County) Phase I, -
            Wrightsville Beach, Long Beach, and Ocean Isle Beach. Projects underway include:
            Kitty Hawk, Nags Head (1). Carolina Beach, Topsail Beach, and Onslow County (1).

            Major Consistency Issues:

                 North Carolina disagreed with the,Department of the Interior's (DOI)
            consistency determination for OCS Lease Sale 78. The fin.ding of inconsistency
            was based on three points: (1) the risks of spills from OCS operations and
            possible trajectories were not acceptably evaluated nor were appropriate
            mitigation measures applied; (2) the risks of environmental harm to fish
            spawning areas were not properly ass 'essed or minimized; and (3) the "reasonable
            balance" standard was not met by the administrative process for incorporating
            state comments into Federal OCS decisions. North Carolina had reduced its
            review schedule to 69 days'from 90 days'in response to a request from DOI.
            DOI and North Carolina subsequently reached  'an.agreement meeting most of the
            concerns. The agreement included: (1)'deletion of 151 nearshore tracts (within
            the 200 meter isobath) including the tracts around the U.S.S. MONITOR National
            Marine Sanctuary, and (2) the rerunning,of DOI's.oil spill model using
            new data collected off North Carolina (this information would be included in
            the EIS prepa.red.for the next offering and, under the agreement, North Carolina
            will belincluded in any discussions as to how this information will be used).

                 Two appeals to the Secretary of Commerce were received from private
            citizens whose proposed projects were found to be inconsistent with the NCCMP.
            The first involved the development of a marina on Bath Creek which was found
            inconsistent with the local land use plan. The appeal is still under review.








                                                      -110


           The second appeal involved    denial of  an "after the fact" permit for filling
           two wetlands sites. The second,appeal has been dismissed for failure to
           provide necessary supporting.information.

           Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 An evaluation of the NCCMP was held in January 1982 covering the period
           March 1981 through January 1982. The evaluation found that accomplis         hmehts
           had been made in adopting new and revised regulations, especially for inlet
           hazard areas and marinas and canals, and for addressing issues of setback
           reasonableness and expedited decision-mak-ing; implementing and i.mproving the
           permitting program; updating local land use plans (LUP's); exploring policies
           to guide the leasing of underwater bott6mlands; pioneering efforts towards a
           coordinated State-local post-disaster planning process; coordinating CEIP
           projects with other OCM 'efforts, particularly.those related to major facilities
           siting for the export of coal; providing and financing new beach access
           legislation; implementing new Corps of Engineers General Permitting procedures
           for 80 percent of all eligible cases; consulting with State and Federal agencies;
           and improving and expanding public information and public participation efforts.,

                 Recommendations for'strengthening the program focused on the development
           and realization of a strategy for the long.term f      'inancial maintenance of the
           program, improvements in the relationship between elements within the Department
           of Natural Resources and Community Development tobetter address water quality
           and agricultural runoff issues, and the expediting of studies so that the
           State might proc  eed toward the development and adoption of standards and
           procedures for leasing State-owned botto'mlands.

                 The NCCMP was evaluated   again in February  11984. Final findings will be
           available in July 1984.

           Estuarine Sanctuary:

                 North Carolina System

                 Facts:


                 Location:                Carrot Island   Component,  Cartaret County
                                          Zeke's Island   Component,  New Hanover County
                                          Currituck Banks Component,-Currituck County
                 Size:                    Carrot Island Component -    2,025 acres
                                          Zeke's Island   Component  - 1,650 acres
                                          Currituck Banks Component    - 2,807 acres
                 Biogeographic Region:,   Carolinian and Virginian
                 Acquisition Status:      Carrot Island   Component  - 95%
                                          Zeke's Island   Component  - 1,00%
                                          Currituck Banks Component    - negotiations to begin
                                                                         in FY 1984
                 Description:

                 The Carrot Island  Component contains islands, marshes, intertidal flats,
           creeks, and shallow estuarine water. The site is approximately three and
           one-half miles long and one mile wide. It represents a well-mixed lagoon type









            estuary strongly influenced by inlet processes, and encompasses a  rich diversity
            of habitats.

                 The Zeke's Island Component consists of islands, marshes, tidal flats
            and shallow estuarine waters. The land area includes Zeke's Island, No.Name
            Island, North-Islan'd and a portion of the ocean barrier spit. The system
            represents a drowned river valley estuary and is significant for its diversity,
            productivity, quality of habitat, flora and fauna including six endangered or
            threatened species.

                 The-Currituck Banks Component includes beach, dunes, maritime forest,
           .-marshes, islands, and a portion*of Currituck Sound. It exhibits a marked
            diversity of plant and animal life with northern and southern estuarine species
            being found abundantly side-by-side. One of the six small islands in the complex,
            .Monkey Island, is a cultural resource which was historically occupied by the,
            Poteskeet Indians.'

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 The Sanctuary was evaluated in February 1984.  Final findings will be
            available in July 1984.







                                                    112



                                           NORTHERN MARIANAS

             Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                  The Commonwealth's Coastal Resources Management Program (CRMP) was approved
             in September 1980. The program is based on CRMP Regulations which establish a
             coastal permit program and the boundaries for four types of Areas of Particular
             Concern (APC's): shoreline, lagoon and reef, wetlands and mangrove, and port
             and industrial. The regulations also provide for strict controls on activities
             outside of designated APC's which constitute "major sitings," thereby bringing
             into the purview of the CRMP all activities which may result in direct and
             significant impacts on coastal waters. In addition, mechanisms for designating
             future ACP's are provided for by the program. The@Governor's Executive Order
             15 ensures full implementation of the CRMP by,identifying those agencies
             responsible for.permitting decisions within specific APC's and requiring that
            ,they act in conformance with the policies and standards of the program.     The
             lead agency is the Coastal Resources Management Office (CRMO) within the    Office
             of the Governor.  The coastal boundary includes the entire land area comprising
             the 14-island archipelago and the territorial waters.

                  The Planning and Budget Affairs Office administers the Coastal Energy
             Impact Program for the Northern Marianas which faces impacts from the development
             of alternative energy sources.

             Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                  No changes to the CRMP were processed during FY 1982-1983.

             Major Activities:

                  The major emphasis of the program was to streamline Commonwealth agency
             compliance with Executive Order 15 and the CRMP. Memoranda of Understanding
             between the CRMO and other Commonwealth agencies were renegotiated to provide
             additional clarification on-the roles and responsibilties of the networked
             agencies and coastal coordinators in implementing the program. The CRMO began
             to prepare a strategy to institutionalize the program. This was accomplished
             in late 1982 through the passage of the Coastal Resources Management Act.
             Signed into law in early 1983, the Act adopted the existing coastal program,
             but modified it to include an Appeals Board for permit decisions. It also
             made other organizational improvements.

                  The Commonwealth continued to improve its perm it program. Procedural
             changes were made to streamline the permit proces*s. The program's performance
             was praised by the District Office of the Corps of Engineers for providing a
             mechanism for resolving conflicts with a minimum of Federal participation. A
             particularly significant permit decision resolved conflicts over the,intensity
             and kind of development allowed on Managaha Island, a culturally significant
             and constitutionally protected area adjacent to Saipan. The permit allowed a
             private concern to improve and develop recreational and sanitary facilities on
             the Island while restricting the number of tourists.

                  A special project initiated during FY 1983 was the development of a resource
             management curriculum in the local schools. The curriculum will consist of a
             one semester course which will provide high school students with a basic







                                                 113


          understanding of biological and physical processes. "Hands-on" experience
          using the coastal areas as a laboratory,will be incorporated into the curriculum.

               CEIP grants were used for administration and preparation of a comprehensive
          Saipan Lagoon Land Use Plan. In addition, an oil spill contingency plan was
          prepared and equipment purchased.

          Summary of Evaluation-Findings:

               The program was evaluated in April 1982 covering the period May 1981
          through April 1982. Several specific accomplishments were described in the
          findings including improvements in the permit process; the signing of the
          Fish, Game, and Endangered Species Act prohibiting dynamiting fish an'd taking
          coral; a seminar on the need for an oil spill contingency plan; the development
          of site specifid.plans for coastal vegetation plantings for-vehicle barriers,
          erosion control, and wind breaks; and the publication of the bimonthly "Coastal
          Views" newsletter. The major recommendations to strengthen the program were
          to improve CRMO coordination.with the Marianas Public Lands Corporation; manager
          of most of the land areas on the islands, and to initiate a joint strategy,to
          develop a land use plan for the is-land reflective of CRMO's program guidel ines.

               The Fiscal Year 1983 program was evaluated in December 1983. Final
          findings will be available in June 1984..








                                                       114



                                                       OHIO

              Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                   Ohio has not participated in the CZM Program since 1980. At that time,
              Ohio also lost its eligibility to receive new CEIP funds. Concerns generated
              by private landowners and industrial and commerical developers over the general
              issue of land use control and, more specifically, the proposed erosion hazard
              setback requirements, were the sources of the major opposition to program
              development and approval. The projects funded under Section 308 awards made
              prior to December 31, 1980, were administered by the Ohio Department of Energy.

              Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                   In September 1982, an evaluation of the manner in which Ohio implemented
              its CEIP program was conducted covering the period February 1978 through
              September 1982. Administration of the CEIP was found to have been a model of
              sound programmatic judgment as displayed by the rapport the State maintained
              with local governments and by the number of projects which were implemented
              or which led to further projects to bring about implementation.

                   While all awards were beneficial to the State, several projects are of
              significant value. These include three construction projects, particularly
              the Port of Lorain floating tire breakwater, and many of the planning projects.
              Several planning projects led to construction awards funded through CEIP and
              other Federal programs or State, local or private funds.

              Estuarine Sanctuary:

                 Old Woman Creek


                 Facts:

                 Location:                 Erie County, Ohio
                 Size:                     571 acres
                 Biogeographic Region:     Great Lakes
                 Acquisition Status:       100% complete

                 Description:

                   The Sanctuary is a relatively small but ecologically valuable site. It
              is one of the few comparatively natural estuaries remaining on the heavily
              populated shores of Lake Erie. As such, it is of great importance as a control,
              or baseline area, for measuring the success of coastal land and water management
              efforts for the Great Lakes biogeographic region. The Sanctuary is the site of
              the Ohio Center for Coastal Wetlands Studies. It is also part of a Statewide
              system of sixty-one nature preserves which protects and manages representative
              examples of significant natural features of Ohio.

              Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                   An evaluation of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Sanctuary was
              held.in March 1983 covering the period July 1977 through March 1983. The
              State was found to have done an exemplary job in both managing and operating







                                                 115


           the Sanctuary. Accomplishments included the devel.opment and implementation
           of education programs for the Ohio school system and the public, the develop-
           ment of an interpretive center which provides access to the public while
           protecting the Sanctuary as a natural resource, the productive research which
           can assist in future coastal decisionmaking, and the overall development of
           the Sanctuary as a unified entity.








                                                   116



                                                   OREGON

            Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The second CZM program to receive Federal approval was Oregon, approved
            in May 1977. The program is based on the Oregon State Land Use Law, the
            principal statute controlling land and water uses in the State's coastal zone.
            This legislation established the Land Conservation and Development Commission
            (LCDC) and its staff, the Department,of Land Conservation and Development
            (DLCD), and gave LCDC authority to adopt Statewide goals and guidelines.
            .Cities and counties are required to develop coordinated comprehensive plans
            which comply with these goals. The designated boundary includes all,coastal
            counties., The lead agency is DLCD.

                 The Department of Energy administers the Coastal Energy Impact Program,
            except for OCS activities which are managed by DLCD. Energy activities having
            the greatest-impact on coastal areas are oil and gas transshipment and the
            possibility of oil exploration in State waters and the OCS.

            Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                 A number of changes to the Oregon program were processed by OCRM as RPI's.
            These included changes to the Land Use Law which gave DLCD authority to
            periodically review local implementation of approved plans; require changes
            when necessary; and set & deadline for completion of local plans. Seventeen
            1-ocal,coastal-programs were also approved.

            Major Activities:

                 The major tasks funded by the FY 1982 and 1983 grants were monitoring and
            enforcement and acknowledgement of local coastal programs. A special DLCD team
            was formed to assist in the development and implementation of local programs
            and thus speed up the process. Of the 42 local programs, 21 were acknowledged
            by the State, of these 17 were formally approved by OCRM. The remaining four
            will be reviewed in 1984.

                 There was much legislative.activity during this period. In the November
            1982 elections, a measure was defeated by a vote of 384,696 to 320,704 that
            would have removed the requirement that local programs conform to Statewide
            goals, returned land use planning to locals, and abolished DLCD, LCDC, and the
            ,Land Use Board of Appeals.

                 Coinciding with the referendum, the Governor.appointed a task force to
            study how the State's land use programs affected economic development. Public
            hearings were held and a report was completed in September 1982. As a result
            of the report's suggestion concerning the n'eed to complete local comprehensive
            plans, LCDC was encouraged to defer more to local solutions for land use con-
            flicts. The report also recommended that LCDC focus on economic development
            priorities in appropriate areas. In addition, the task force recommended
            creation of a Land Use Court to replace the Land Use Board of Appeals. The
            Governor introduced legislation incorporating many of these suggestions. The
            Legislation, passed in 1983, set a June 1984 deadline for completion and approval
            of local plans and streamlined and shortened the process for appealing local







                                                 .117


           land use decisions. The Land Use Board of Appeals was authorized to
           continue to review contested land use,decisions and amendments to approved
           local plans.

                A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was  signed between DLCD and  the U.S.
           Minerals Management Service which sets.out procedures for State review of
           Federally permitted OCS geophysical permits. The main objective of the agree-
           ment is to avoid conflicts between survey and fishing activities by improving
           notification procedures.

                In September 1982, after much ne gotiation and coordination, the Coos Bay
           Estuary Management Plan was adopted locally and formally submitted to LCDC.
           One of the most controversial to come before LCDC, the plan is the result of an
           effort to involve Federal and State agencies in deciding how to reconcile their.
           regulatory standards with local land use needs.    The LCDC reviewed the plan in
           April 1983 and the remaining portions.of the Coos County plan in July 1983.
           Coos Bay accepted the Commission's findings and is revising the estuary plan.

                The State Lands Board (OSL) adopted an estuary mitigation rule which
           prescribes a formula to determine, how much and what kind of mitigation is
           necessary for permitted fill activities. It also authorized the establish-
           ment of mitigation banks and a trust fund to support the banks. DLCD and DSL
           established procedures for specific mitigation banks in energy impacted estuaries
           (Columbia River and Coos Bay) under a CEIP grant   .(.see below).
                The Oregon Department of Energy  and the DLCD entered into an MOA providing
           for cooperative management of the Estuary Mitigation Revolving Fund established
           through a CEIP grant. This fund will be used by ports and cities to conduct
           restoration projects in advance of planned construction of energy facilities.

           Major Consistency Issues:

                The most controversial consistency issues dealt with OCS oil and gas
           activities, timber plans, and hazardous materials disposa'l. In most instances,
           agreements were reached.

                In April 1983, the State  submitted formal comments on the Navy's DEIS on
           Disposal of Decommissioned Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants. Oregon
           disagreed.with the Navy's assertions that disposal of the submarines at the
           study site, approximately 200 miles west of Cape Mendocino in northern
           California, would not "directly or indirectly affect land or water use in the
           coastal zone of.any state" nor would it impact the economy of any coastal
           state. Oregon cited as evidence that the necessary closure of 100 square miles
           of submarine lands and overlying waters would displace competing uses such as
           fishing,,scientific research, and possible polymetallic sulfide mining and that
           seabed disposal of nuclear submarines could adversely affect fisheries and
           tourism. Oregon specifically stated that the final EIS must contain a
           consistency determination for State review.

                In June 1983, Oregon disagreed with the Bureau of Land Management's
           consistency determination on the South Coast-CUrry Timber Management Plan. The
           State contended that the plan was not consistent with its Statutory Wildlife
           Policy and, for the same reason, consistency had not been demonstrated with
           State Planning Goals 5 and 9 which require an analysis of economic, social,






                                                      .118


               environmental, and energy  consequences of proposed actions. Conditions were
               suggested that would make  the plan consistent--one was to recognize that
               timber operations conflict with the maintenance.of the Northern Spotted Owl
               Habitat and to submit a revised interagency spotted owl management plan.
               When the Plan was reviewed a few months later, DLCD reaffirmed its inconsistency
               finding but added conditions which allowed partial implementation of the Plan.
               However, until the Plan has been revised in order to be consistent, no pre-
               commercial, harvest, or salvage operations are allowed in.specified spotted owl
               habitat areas.

               Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                    The program was evaluated in February 1982 covering    the period February
               198i through'February 1982. The program was commended for its accomplishments
               in establishing a tax incentive program which encourages riparian owners to
               maintain and enhance shoreline vegetation to benefit fish and wildlife and
               water quality; completing the documentation.of historical estuary changes which
               increases the ability to condukt,detailed estuary restoration and mitigation
               planning; developing a management plan to protect the Snowy Plover, a shorebird
               threatened with extinction; facilitating the passage of amendments to ORS 197;
               and expediting the.review of permits.

                    To strengthen th 'e program, the evaluation findings recommended that the
               State create a staff team to work more directly with local governments to
               resolve conflicts preventing local plan approval; improve the compliance of
               localities with the program by providing technical assistance in how to prepare
               finding's supporting land use decisions; improve interagency coordination and
               monitoring and enforcement; prepare a legislative program to continue DLCD's
               role in appealing inconsistent local and State agency regulato   'ry decisions;
               develop a budget strategy for State funding of the "coastal team"; and improve
               coordination of CZM and CEIP programs.

                    Responses to these recommendations were examined during the August 1983
               evaluation which covered the program period February 1982 through August 1983.
               Areas of progress included the increased rate of acknowledgements of local
               plans, the creation of a low-cost permit tracking system, the development of a
               mitigation banking system, and amendments to the State Land Use Law. The
               findings noted that further improvements could be made that would strengthen
               the program. The DLCD must continue its 'efforts to complete the acknowledgement
               of local-programs. In additi  ,on, DLCD must continue to work with other State
               agencies to conform regulations to the Statewide planning.goals. Other concerns
               include monitoring of interim.actions and mitigation planning and reporting.

               Estuarine Sanctuary:

                    South Slough

                    Facts:

                    Location:                Coos County, Oregon
                    Size:.                   4,476 acres
                    Biogeographic  Region:   Columbian
                   -Acquisition Status:.     95% complete






                                                   119


                 Description:

                 The site was the first Sanctuary funded by the National Estuarine Sanctuary
            Program. Enabling researchers to study both*"natural and human processes,"
            this Sanctuary protects freshwater and.saltwater marshes, an island covered
            with a climax forest, numerousspecies of plants and.animals, and, in addition,
            a prehistoric Indian midden, an abandoned gold mine, and the-sites of old
            railroad logging dumps. The Sanctuary is managed by the Division of State Land
            Use -and the South Slough Estuarine Sanctuary Management Commission, which
            represents several State agencies, local agencies, the private sector, and the
            Oregon University system.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 The operation and management of  the Sanctuary' was evaluated in August 1983
            covering the period from Fiscal Year  1976 through July 1983. Through the
            activities of the Oregon Division of  State-Lands, the State has operated the
            Sanctuary for purposes of research, public education, and limited use recreation.
            As a result of-program implementation ' accomplishments have been made in the
            'development and implementation of education programs for the Oregon school
            system and the public. Problems remain in the development of a Sanctuary
            management plan, in the development of. a.unified scientific research program,
            and'in the State's support.,of.the Sanctuary.







                                                    120


                                               Pennsylvania

            Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The Pennsylvania Coastal.Zone Management Program (PCZMP) was approved on
            September 30, 1980. The program encompasses 63 miles along Lake Erie and 57
            miles along the Delaware River; its width varies from 900 feet along stretches
            of Lake Erie and 1/8 mile along the urban areas in the Delaware estuary to
            three and one-half miles in Bucks County including floodplains of the Delaware
            and Schuylkill Rivers. The State authorities which form the basis of the
            PCZMP include the Dam Safety and Encroachment Act, Floodplain Management Act,
            Bluff Recession and Setback Act, Clean Streams Act, as amended, and the Air
            Pollution Control Act, as amended. The Department of Environmental Resources
            (DER) is the lead agency for implementing, administering, and enforcing the
            PCZMP. The Coastal Zone Management Division is responsible for monitoring and
            evaluating activities relating to coastal zone management and ensuring com- -
            pliance with the program's enforceable policies. An Executive Order highlights
            the importance of State agencies complying with enforceable coastal policies.

                 Pennsylvania's Coastal Energy Impact Program is administered by the
            Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The energy activities anticipated to
            produce significant impacts on the disparate State coastal areas by 1985 are:
            coal transfer, transshipment, and storage faci 1 ities--Del aware Estuary (Port of
            Philadelphia) and Lake' Erie; expansion of refineries--Delaware Estuary; and
            natural gas drilling off the coast of Lake Erie.

            Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                 In February 1983, Pennsylvania modified its program to incorporate minor
            changes to the variance section of the regulations promulgated under the Bluff
            Recession and Setback Act. These changes involved the removal and clarification
            of language in the Act and more detailed guidance to municipalities on standards
            for implementing the Act. These changes were found to be RPI's under the
            Federal regulations.

            Major Activities:

                 As part of an effort to revitalize the Lake Erie waterfront and to stimulate
            economic recovery for that area, the PCZMP provided seed money to the Erie
            Employment Task Force (EETF) to explore the possibility of Canadian and U.S.
            firms locating Warehouse and'satellite offices along the Lake, specifically the
            area around the City of Erie. A seminar was conducted in Toronto in February,
            1983 to discuss the concept of Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ) and U.S. investment by
            Canadian interests. Approximately 24 Canadian firms were identified for further
            contact by Erie sales teams. The'EETF worked with the Free Zone Authority, the
            Appalachian Regional Commission, and the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority
            to establish an FTZ in Erie. The EETF also is coordinating with the Pennsylvania
            DCA and the Sabre Foundation to establish a State Enterprise Development Zone
            (SEDZ) in the City of'Erie. SEDZs are areas targeted for stimulation, creation.,
            and growth of business, industries, and employment, and to enhance housing,
            community facilities, and amenities for the disadvantaged. To be designated,
            areas must meet "distressed population areas" criteria according to HUD's Urban
            Development Action Grant minimum standards.







                                                      121


                 Efforts also were underway to improve the overall economic base of
            counties in the Delaware Estuary coastal zone area.       Under a PCZMP grant,
            five sites- located in Delaware County were identified,for future industrial
            uses. The study recommended economic, energy, and water conservation
            practices'for the sites. Several developers are cons.idering purchasing the
            sites and are amenable to using the innovative energy options recommended by
            the study.

                 A computer model   was completed which will assist the DER in evaluating
            water obstructions permit applications. The model graphically displays and
            predicts changes.that@a shoreline.will undergo-following the placement of a
            shoreline stabilization structure (i.e., groin, jetty)., The model has the
            capability to determine appropriate size, distance,,and location of struc-
            tures in order to get optimum results. It also is used to negotiate mitiga-
            tion actions. The PCZMP uses the model as a technical assistance aid for.
            providing information on erosion and related activities to property owners.

                 Using 306 funds, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission developed a strategic
           .management plan for fishing and boating activities in the Lake Erie coastal
            zone--the first attempt at a long-term fishing and boating management program
            for the Pennsylvania portion of Lake Erie. In developing the plan, the
            Commission used literature reviews, public opi.nion survey results, and personal
            interviews with user groups, and State and local officials. The plan includes
            a series of alternative actions designed to improve the overall economic impact
            of the sport and commercial fishery on the area. It also stresses the. need for
            improving access and promotional literature.

                 Regulations'to implement Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Floodplain
            Management Act were promulgated and became effective on October'159 1983. The
            regulations affect highways or obstructions constructed, owned, or maintained
            by the Commonwealth, by a political subdivisio'n of the Commonwealth (including
            any county, municipality, district, or authori    *ty), or by a person engaged in
            rendering a public utility service, and applies to areas delineated as 100-year
            floodplai-ns on:maps promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

                 CEIP funds were used to assist the construction of the Elk Creek Public
            Access Project. This 45 acre site along the shore of Lake Erie was donated by
            the Pennsylvania Electric Company, which is building a coal-fired electric
            generating station adjacent to the site. CEIP also funded site improvements
            at the expanded McClure Riverfront Park. The additional land was acquired by
            a major oil company and donated to Marcus Hook Borough to provide public acc*ess
            to the Delaware River where most of the waterfront land has been lost as a
            result of the continued expansions of the refineries, their oil tank farms and
            terminals. The City of Chester also received funds to construct a parking         lot
            and boat ramps to provide fishing access to the.Delaware River.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  In June 1982, an evaluation ofthe PCZMP was held covering the period
            May 1981 through June 1982.      Accomplishments included the work of the Delaware
            Estuary Urban Waterfront Action Group. in. serving as a forum for pre-perinit
            conferences with developers and Federal, State, and local agenci'es; the adoption
            of bluff erosion setback ordinances by the eight Lake Erie townships; the
            development of a model monitoring mechanism to improve enforcement of the Bluff






                                                   122,


            Recession and Setback Act at the local level; and the development of a strategy
            for monitoring the DER regulated activities which impact coastal resources.
                 .Recommendations for improving the PCZMP focused on the need for regulations
            under the Floodplain Management Act and the development of a strong public
            awareness component.






                                                  123



                                              PUERTO RICO

           Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                The Puerto  Rico Coastal Management Program (PRCMP) was approved in two
           stages. The'approval of the plan for the Island of Culebra as a segment
           occurred in April 1977. The Culebra plan was then integrated into a
           Commonwealth program based upon the approval of the PRCMP in September 1978.
           The Program is based on the island-wide land use plan, established by the Puerto
           Rico Planning Board and adopted by the Governor in June 1977. The boundary of
           the island coastal zone extends inward 1,000 meters from the shoreline and
           farther inland in places where it is necessary to include an important coastal
           natural system. The boundary includes all offshore islands and waters within
           the three mile limit. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the agency
           designated to administer the coastal program.

                The DNR also administers the Coastal Energy Impact Program. Past activities
           were limited,to planning for the consequ ences of energy development, especially
           the conversion from oil to coal powered.electrical generation.

           Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                Three changes to the PRCMP were appr oved by OCRM as RPI's: (1) the deletion
           of Tourmalines Reef Reserve from the list of'areas recommended for consideration
           as Natural Reserves because it lies outside the offshore limits established by
           statutes for the PRCMP; (2) the Addition of the Cano.La Boquilla Reserve, in
           Mayaguez, Cibuco Swamp Reserve, in Vega Alta-Vega Baga, and Laguna Cartagena
           Reserve, in Lajas tothe list of areas recommended for consideration as Natural
           Reserves;,and (3) a change to the coastal zone boundaries to include Laguna
           Cartagena hydrographic basin in the southwest sector of.Puerto Rico.

           Major Activities:

                The PRCMP conducted work in several areas--permit streamlining,    planning
           for special areas, natural reserve management, hazard reduction plans, and dune
           and mangrove protection and restoration. The Commonwealth has been working to
           better coordinate its permitting and shorten the review time for permits. The
           special area and natural reserve planning and improvement efforts have resulted
           in development of detailed data-bases and has enhanced decision making. The
           hazard reduction planning has resulted in'the relocation of many homes out of
           the floodplain. Dune and mangrove restoration manuals were prepared during FY
           1982-1983. The dune restoration manual includes information regarding dune
           stabilization and enhancement which are used in developing permit conditions.
           The mangrove restoration manual describes mangrove planting and restoration
           projects including planning costs analysis, and execution and monitoring
           procedures.

                CEIP funds were used to develop an oil spill atlas that identifies the
           most vulnerable shoreline segments, recommends boom sites, and includes access
           points and limitations to enhance the Commonwealth's response to.oil spills.







                                                       124


             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                   The program was evaluated in April 1982 covering the period June 1981
             through April 1982. Significant accomplishments noted in the findings were
             the activities of-the Rangers Corps ib monitoring-and enforcement, and the
             development of area-specific plans for hazards managementin. the floodplains.
             To strengthen the program, the findings recommended institutionalizing
             a permit streamlining plan, completing the Commonwealth's special planning
             area plans, promulgating new and.expanded wetlands regulations, promulgating
             off-road vehicle regulations, and co'   mpleting an environmental education
             program.

                   In.May 1983, the  program  was evalu ated again,,covering'the period May
             1982 through May 1983. Significant accomplishments noted in the findings
             included DNRIs initiatives in managing conflicts due to off-road vehicle (ORV)
             use; continued operational improvements including round-the-clock surveil-
             lance by the Commonwealth's Ranger Coirps;'efforts directed toward improving
             the procedures and timeliness for designation of Natural Reserves and Special
             Planning Areas; continued planning for managing flood hazard areas; completion
             of coastal education materials and teacher orientation concerning coastal
             issues; completion of two useful and effective CEIP.studies; and a study to
             identify sand deposit sites and determi.ne the cost/benefit of extraction,
             including.an assessment of ecological and environmental damage.

                   To strengthen-the program, the findings recommended.streamlining and
             institutionalizing the Federal    'consistency element of the program, a-ccelera-
             ting the production and implementation of special planning area management
             plans, timely designation-of natural,reserv     'es and the subsequent preparation
             of management plans, and developing and implementing a plan.for shifting
             financial support of'the program to the Commonwealth.

             Estuarine Sanctuary:

                   Jobos Bay

                   Facts:

                   Location:                  Aguirre,  Town of Salinas
                                                (southwest coast of Puerto Rico)
                   Size:                      2*500-acres
                   Bicigeographic Region:     West Indian-
                   Acquisition Status:        100%.complete

                   Description:

                   The Sanctuary  consist  of 17 islets  (155 acres),  known as Cayos Caribe,
             and 2,345 acres of   mangrove channels,,lagoons, and territorial waters. The
             principal plant associations of the Sanctuary consist of mangroves and as-
             sociated-salt flats.. The mangroves provide a habitat      for a large variety of
          -.-organisms, as well as nesting sites for both native and migratory birds.
            ',,Hypersaline lagoons and salt flats occur inland from the mangrove forest.







                                                  125


                 The Sanctuary contains a number of the other habitats interrelated with
            the mangrove system in the submerged areas. Large, well.-develope'd meadows of
            seagrasses occupy most of the shallow bottom just'offshore of the.fringe.
            Many species of fish and invertebrates, and larger animals, such as sea turtles
            and manatees, are found i-n the seagrass'beds. The Sanctuary also includes
            several coral reefs within its boundaries. The designation of this area as a
            Sanctuary will ensure long-term natural productivity and continued ecosystem
            functioning of a significant portion of Puerto Rico's second largest estuarine
            zone.


            Summary of Evaluation Findings

                 In May 1983, the functioning of the Sanctuary was reviewed from its
            establishment in September 1981. During that period, staff had been hired and
            preliminary plans drawn up for a visitor's center. Other activities during
            the period included (1) completion of the design of a preliminary trail system
            for Cayos Caribes to include boardwalks, an observation tower, and a nature
            trail; and (2) a series,of seminars presented to the colleges and public schools
            in the area for the purpose of promoting the Sanctuary as an education project.







                                                   126



                                               RHODE ISLAND



             Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:;

                  The Rhode Island Coastal Management Program (RICMP) was approved in May
             1978. The lead State  agency is the Office of the Governor. The program is
             based on the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Act which was passed in
             1971. Key agencies which are involved in administration of the program include
             the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC), the Department of Environmental
             Management (DEM), the State Planning Office,, and the Coastal Resources Center
             at the University of Rhode Island. The coastal boundary extends inland up to
             one mile from mean high water,
                  The Governor's Energy Office administers the Coastal Energy Imp act Program.
             The major energy impact faced by the State is OCS oil and gas activities. The
             abandoned Quonset Point/Davisville Navy Base in North Kingston serves as the
             primary OCS onshore service support base for the Baltimore Canyon and Georges
             Bank oil and.gas expl,oration and development efforts..

             Routine Program Implementation (RPI)_ and Amendments:

                  No changes to the RICMP were processed during FY 1982-1983.

             Major Activities:

                  Revisions to the RICMP were adopted on June 22, 1983. These revisions
             contain all the CRMC policies and regulations, as amended, in a format that is
             easy to follow and.tailored to the needs of administering the RICMP. They
             incorporate criteria for land use decisions to be based on adjacent water
             quality. These revisions'replace Chapters 1 through 5 of the existing Program.

                  During this period, implementation funds were used for the preparation of
             Special Area Management Plans for the six ponds along the south shore and the
             upper Narragansett Bay, continued designation of public access rights-of-way,
             and continued funding for CRMC and DEM personnel who provide monitoring and
             enforcement staff support to the program.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  An evaluation of the RICMP was held in December 1981 covering the period
             January through December 1981. Accomplishments highlighted included the shift
             of CRMC emphasis from all permitting actions, including those of minimal impact,
             to major permitting actions, and substantiv'e issues concerning the State's
             coastal resources; rights-of-way identification and designation; streamlining
             of permit processing; completion of an aquaculture management plan; significant
             progress in developing special area management plans for the salt ponds; and
             the completion of the Rhode Island Dredging Needs Survey, 1980-1985. The
             recommendations of the evaluation suggestedreductions in admi.nistrative costs,
             conducting a workshop on Federal consistency authorities and procedures for
             State personnel, and enhancing communication among the agencies involved in
             the Program.







                                                     127


                 An expanded evaluation was held in April 1983 covering the period January
            1982 through April 1983, and assessing the CEIP and the Estuarine Sanctuary as
            well as the Section 306 program. Particularly.noteworthy 306 accomplishments
            were the development of substantive and procedural revisions to the program
            and the salt ponds special area management programs.

                 Recommendations for strengthening the program included focusing more on
            the i-dentification of priority coastal issues by the CRMC; setting deadlines
            for review of 6jor applications by the CRMC (similar to those already set for
            minor applications); conducting Federal consistency workshops to improve under-
            standing among State and Federal 'agencies; and identifying legal responsibilities
            for maintenance and liability associated with public rights-of-way.

                 The evaluation  found that the CEIP-funded projects had addressed.the
            onshore impacts of offshore oil development activities. The State was prepared
            to respond to development activities on the OCS and mitigate impacts from offshore
            OCS activities. These studies provided local governments data to address other
            problems associated with development pressures by providing information useful
            in local planning and zoning.

            Estuarine Sanctuary.

               Narragansett Bay

               Facts:

               Location:                 Newport  County, Rhode  Island
               Size:                     1,629  acres
               Biogeographic  Region:    Virginian
               Acquisition Status:       99% complete

               Description:

               The Sanctuary consists of two islands and the portion of a third lying        in
            the center of the bay. The bay itself-extends for 25 miles from Newport on the..
            ocean to Providence. With the assi'stance of the National Estuarine Sanctuary
            Program, almost all of Patience Island was purchased in 1980. It was combined
            with State-owned lands and waters onrHope and North Prudence Islands to form
            the 1,629-acre Sanctuary, the first of its kind (Virginian classification
            which extends from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras) in the National Estuarine Sanctuary
            Program. The islands contain the'largest salt marshes in Rhode Island and the
            largest bird rookery in the Northeast.     These marshes are generally in an
            undisturbed natural condition., or were once developed but are gradually returning
            to a natural state which the @Sanctuary protection will encourage.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:-
                 At the time of the evaluation, the draft management, plan     for the Sanctuary
            had been completed and a Sanctuary Advisory Committee established. To improve
           .estuarine sanctuary management, it was recommended,that the State develop
            research proposals with application to coas   tal management and decisionmaking;
            ensure that the national character and significance of the Sanctuary is reflected
            in all interpretive materials; and develop a funding and management transition
            strategy for the Sanctuary as Federal funding is phased out.







                                                   128



                                             SOUTH CAROLINA


           Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The South Carolina Coastal Management Program (SCCMP) was approved,in
           September 1979, and is based, in large part, on the South,Carolina Coastal
           Management Act of 1977 (SCCMA). The Act establishes,a permanent South
           Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC), provides for the development and adminis-
           tration of a comprehensive Coastal Management Program, sets up a permitting
           process for activities occurring in the four "critical areas,@' of the coastal
           zone (tidelands, coastal waters, beaches, and primary oceanfront sand dunes),
           an-d provides a mechanism for State and local agency.co ,nsistency with the State'.s
           approved Coastal Management Program throughout the coastal zone.
                 The South Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program is located in the
           Governor's Office., According to the State's five-year CEIP strategy, the
           following.energy activities have been identified as;producing the greatest
           impacts on the State's coastal areas: the transport, transfer, and storage
           of fossil fuels; OCS exploration and development; peat mining; alternative
           sources of energy; and energy facility siting, particularly LNG and electric
           generating plants.

           Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                 In May 1982, South Carolina modified its program by incorporatingthe
          .Hilton Head Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). The plan had been requested
           by Beaufort Couinty.and contains policies designed to maintain water quality,
           protect salt and freshwater wetlands and dunes, and to provide for adequate
           public access to the shore. This change was found to be an RP.I under the
           Federal regulations.

           Major Activities:

                 Shoreline hazards were a maj or element in the SCCMP's activities during
           FY 1982-1983. The SCCC completed the Surfside Beach Sh@oreside Management Study
           which was designed to address expected future hazard and erosion problems by
           assuring maintenance of natural protective features. The study recommended the
           creation of a shore protection ordinance establishing a setback from the exist-
           ing critical areas, and requiring property owners to protect and maintain the
           dune system which protects their property. The plan-has been adopted by the
           City. A Comprehensive Shoreline Management Plan for Folly Beach was completed
           and adopted by the Council. @The@plan includes,an erosion control line assessment
           and establishes specific performance standards for erosion.control devices.
           The SCCMP also began the development of a shoreline management plan for the
           Myrtle Beach area.

                 The SCCMP funded computer runs@of the National Weather Service's SLOSH
           (Sea, Lake, and Over Land Surges from Hurricanes) model which had been adapted
           to the South Carolina coast. The model,.which can predict the extent of
           flooding in the event of a hurricane, was run for 1.86 hypothetical storms and
           focused on 15 coastal areas. Staff of the Water Resources Commission attended
           a training session at the National Hurricane Research Laboratory in Florida to
           learn to translate the results of the model runs into a form useable by.local







                                                    129


             emergency preparedness personnelto assess the adequacy of current evacuation
             plans.

                  The SCCMP conducted several  activities designed to increase the public's
             awareness and understanding of coastal issues.    In February 1982, the SCCC
             hosted a conference on coastal hazards sponsored by NOAA's National Ocean
             Survey, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
             and the Corps of Engineers. In September 1983, the South Carolina CEIP
             sponsored a conference on coastal oil spills. The purpose of the conference
             was to acquaint local, regional and State officials and other interested
             parties with the latest methods of control, clean-up, and mitigation measures
             for oil spills in a coastal environment, Conference participants were.pro-
             vided a demonstration'of a U.S. Coast Guard-Navy oil spill simulation and
             clean-up drill in the Cooper River. The conference agenda included presenta
             tions by specialists on topics.such as: development of an oil spill trajectory
             model for Charleston Harbor; the effects of"oil on coastal   ecosystems; the
             State'.s oil spill response@capability; mitigating oil spill damage; and
             private industry clean-up capacity and safety measures. More than 100 people
             from the public and private,sectorattended the conference.

                  In April 1983, the'SCCMP, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
             South Carolina Water Resources Commission sponsored an information workshop for
             local officials and the 'general public regarding the new regulations under the
             Flood Insurance Program. The SCCMP also posted 100 signs in public areas
             throughout the coast noting the location of the 100-ye.ar floodplain in an-effort
             to increase public awareness of hazards areas.

             Major Consistency Issues:

                  In the fall of 1982, the-South Carolina Coastal Council sent a letter to
             the Department of Energy (DOE) requesting a consistency determination on the
             proposed start-up of the L-reactor at the Savannah River plant in Aiken County.
             The plant, which produces.weapons grade plutonium, was deactivated 15 years ago.
             Although the plant is. outside the coastal zone, there were very serious concerns
             about the contamination of major shellfish beds downstream and the impact on
             the drinking water in coastal Beaufort County due to the increased radioactivity
             resulting from the plant's discharged waters and  resuspension of contaminated
             sediments.

                  The DOE maintained that a consistency determination was not required.
             South Carolina later joined a suit brought by the Natural Resources Defense
             Council, among others, against DOE claiming that the environmental assessment
             prepared for the project was inadequate and  that a full environmental impact
             statement must be prepared before the plant  could be reactivated. The suit is
             still pending and a DEIS for the project is  being developed.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  An evaluation of the SCCMP was held   in January 1982 covering the  period
             November 1ï¿½80 through January 1982. Strong   program implementation efforts were
             found in the areas of beach erosion, post-disaster planning, and oceanfront
           .development standards. TheJindings included recommendations for the improve-
             ment of technical assistance to localities on erosion and hazard mitigation,
             the initiation of new efforts to develop standards and policies for








                                                  130


            post-disaster reconstruction, the establishment of work priorities over the
            next three to five years, the improvement of public involvement in the Coastal
            Council's activities, and'the review of management strategies and policies with
            regard to the impoundment of coastal lands.

                 The SCCMP was evaluated in November 1981. Final findings will be available
            in June 1984.







                                                   131



                                                  TEXAS

            Background   CZM and,CEIP Programs:

                .The Texas Coastal Program (TCP) was scheduled for approval in 1981. The
            TCP was being developed by the Natural Resources Division of the Texas Energy
            and Natural Resources Advisory Council (TENRAC) and was to have been based on
            existing State laws including the Coastal Public Lands Management Act, the
            Texas Water Code, the Dune Protection Act, and the Coastal  'Wetlands Acquisition
            Act. The TCP would have been implemented through the direct State control
            technique provided by existing State permits, leases, and other certifications.
            In a letter dated April 30, 1981, then-Governor Clements indicated that the
            State of Texas would not be submitting its draft program document for OCZM's
            review and approval. OCZM officially terminated t,he State's grant on May 4,
            1981, and allowed a 30-day close-out period. During-the 1983 legislative
            session, a bill was passed which abolished the TENRAC and transferred some of
            its energy advisory functions to other agencies.

                 Although Texas is no longer eligible for participation in the Coastal
            EnergIy Impact Program, the termination does not affect the $9.7 million in
            CEIP grants and $25 million in CEIP loans awarded prior to May 1, 1981. The
            CEIP is administered by the Governor's Office of Planning and Intergovernmental
            Relations (formerly the Budget and Planning Office). Unlike most states,
            Texas by regulation. has limited the use of its CEIP grant funds to either
            planning or the mitigation of environmental or recreational loss. All CEIP
            funded public works projects in Texas have been supported by loans.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                 OCRM undertook a detailed evaluation of the Texas CEIP Program in January
            1983. The timing of the evaluation permitted the review team to examine
            @rojects that were either completed or in the final stages of construction.
            Typical CEIP projects include the construction of fishing piers'in Port
            Arthur, Port Aransas, Fulton, and Nueces County; acquisition of 482 acres of
            floodplain land for parks and passive flood control in Harris County;
            acquisition of wetlands by the City of Portland; and public beach improvements
            in Bay City, Beaumont, Gregory, Kingsville, and Rockport. The reviewers were
            particularly impressed by the high quality ofthe many recreational-   'and beach
            access projects funded by the CEIP, with only minor concerns being raised
            about the administration of the program at.the State level.







                                                    132



                                              VIRGIN ISLANDS

             Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                  The Virgin Islands Coastal. Zone Management Program (VICZMP) received
             Federal approval in June 1979. The Program is based on the Virgin Islands
             Coastal ZoneAct of 1978 (VICZA). The VICZMP was designed to manage all de-
             velopment activities in the Virgin 1,slands coastal zone, which includes all of
             St. Thomas, St. John,and St. Croix Islands, all offshore islands and cays, and
             the territorial,sea.- The VICZA also established the organizational structure
             for the VICZMP by designating the Department of Conservation and Cultural
             Affairs (DCCA) as the lead administrative agency and creating a Coastal Zone
           .Management Commission to serve as the decision-maker for major permits.

                  The Coastal Energy Impact Program is administered by the Federal Programs
             Office. The islands.face energy impacts from the Hess Oil Refinery, the largest
             in the western hemisphere.

             Routine Program Implementation (RPI) and Amendments:

                   Minor changes to the VICZA were processed by OCRM as RPI's. The Act was
             modified.to approve development by the West Indian Company, Ltd., within the
             first tier of the Virgin Islands codstal zone.

             Major Activities:

                  Major tasks funded under the  coastal program included establishment of a
             ticketbook system for assessing fines for violations occurring on land,
             expansion of the registration system,for uses other than boating, design of
             a system for renewing submerged lands leases and calculating new lease fees,
             development of mooring plans, and preparation to assume responsibility for
             implementation of the Territorial Earth Change Law in the inland portion of
             the islands, including the amendments to accomplish it.

                  CEIP.funds are being'used to conduct an oil spill vulnerability study and
             port expansion study.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  The program was evaluated in February 1983 covering the period   October 1981
             through February 1983. The findings indicated that achievements in    coastal re-
             source management had occurred through improved permit processing and increased
             pre-application conferences with developers, prevention of illegal sand removal,
             cleaning-up of the beaches, completion'of the Benner Bay Water Use Plan, comple-
             letion of guidelines for the Mandahl Bay and the Vessup Bay Areas of Particular
             Concern (APC's), and providing priority consideration for coastal dependent
             uses such as the facility for berthing larger cruise ships in the St. Thomas
             Sub-Base area and the containerport facility on St. Croix. Other accomplishments
             included planning for the historic Enighed Library on St. John, renegotiating
             old submerged land leases, opening a part-time office on St. John, working o   'n
             mooring plans for the major bays on St. Thomas with ad hoc citizens committees,
             and coordinating with Federal agencies on is'sues or potential VICZMP Federal
             consistency conflicts.







                                                 133.



                   while achievements were made, progr ess in many areas was impeded
           because Federal funds were withheld based on a 1981 Inspector General's audit.
           The Territory had to repay almost $30,000 in unallowable costs. The Territory
           was advised that additional funds would be witheld if significant improvements
           tasks were not completed on time (as stated in the terms of the grant). The
           most important and timely recommendations for strengthening,the VICZMP were to
           fill staff vacancies; assure full-time legal assistance; institutionalize the
           program; complete work tasks, planning projects, and printing of the Developers
           Handbook; and continue improvement of formal and informal Federal consistency
           coordination.







                                                  134



                                                VIRGINIA



           Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                In'July 1982, Virginia, which had not participated in the CZM Program
           since April 1979, was found to be making satisfactory progress toward the
           development of a coastal management program and therefore eligible toreceive
           CEIP funds.

                OCRM's review of the State's progress was precipitated by a May 12, 1982,
           letter from Governor Robb stating Virginia's intention to develop an approvable
           coastal program. In this review, OCRM found indications of progress including
           the establishment of the Maryland and Virginia Legislative Chesapeake Bay
           Commission and the Executive Bi-State Working Committee on the Bay, the passage
           of the Coastal -,Primary Sand Dune Act, an amendment to the Wetlands Act extending
           State control to non-vegetated wetlands, amendments to the Shore Erosion Control
           Act establishing a Shore Advisory Service and the Public Beach Conservation
           and Development Act, and the establishment of the Virginia Coastal Resource
           Management Review and Evaluation Process. -In late 1983, the State began to
           prepare a program document for submission to the Office of Ocean and Coastal
           Resource Management.'

                Based on the finding of satisfactory progress under Section 303   of the
           Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the State was awarded $414,426 in CEIP
           Section 308(c) funds. The projects funded under this award included the design
           of a waterfront park in Newport News, an assessment of the impacts of dredging
           for coal ports in the Elizabeth River, and support for the construction of
           artificial reefs to mitigate.coal export development.







                                                   135



                                                WASHINGTON



           Background    CZM and CEIP Programs:

                The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP)    was-approved in
           June 1976, distinguishing it as the first State to have a federally-approved
           CZM program. It is based on the 1971 Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Under
           the Act, the coastal boundary is designated in two tiers. -The first tier
           includes all the State's marine waters, lakes over 20 acres, and streams wi-th
           a mean annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second or more, and their associated
           wetlands. The second tier includes the coastal county lands outside the first
           tier. The WC  *ZMP is a networked management program involving several State
           ageIncies, 15 counties and 36 cities. The Department of Ecology (DOE) is the
           lead agency. The 51 local jurisdictions"have,authority under the SMA to issue
           or deny permits for activities within the first tier management area defined
           above. Local actions are guided by locally developed, Stafe-approved Shoreline
           Master Programs (SMP).

                The DOE administers the Coastal Energy Impact Program in Washington.
           Major energy impacts in the State are oil and.coal transshipment and current
           and potential OCS support facilities.

           Routine Program Implementation (RPI)   and Amendments:
                No changes to the WCZMP were processed during FY 1982-1983.

           Major Activities:

                The Fiscal Year 1982 work program continued support for local governments
           and State agencies with important coastal management functions. The DOE focused
           on providing technical assistance and performing its monitori.ng and enforcement
           responsibilities. Tasks under the FY 1983 work program included a review of
           adjacent lands management, and an update of local shoreline master programs.
           Highlights of these projects and other -issues follow.
                During FY 1982, the WCZMP developed an adjacent lands guidance strategy
           which was,intended to clarify the relationship and application of authority to
           lands adjacent t6 the shoreline. The State worked with localities to review
           and improve their present adjacent'lands management policies. The review was
           completed during FY 1983 and recommendations were provided to localities where
           an update was needed.

                A review of the first 10 years   of SMA implementation'wa.s.initiated by DOE
           during FY 1983. The review focused    on the performance of local shoreline
           master programs, public access, wetlands, and public perception of the pro   .gram.
           DOE will present its findings and recommendations to the 1984 legislature.-

                In April 1982, Governor Spellman accepted the recommendation of the State
           Energy Facility Siting Evaluation Council (EFSEC) todeny an application by
           the Northern Tier Pipeline Company to build a 1,500 mile pipeline to transfer
           Alaskan crude oil from Port Angeles,.Washington, to Clearbrook, Minnesota.







                                                 136


           Environmental concerns were cited as the major reason behind this decision
           which was reached after reviewing over 40,000 pages of testimony from over
           175 witnesses. The decision did not rule out the possibility of approving
           an al-ternate overland pipeline in the future.

                In June 1982 DOE signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S.
           Minerals Management Service that gave the State a formal role in reviewing
           Federal permits for geophysical and geological surveys to assess the poten-
           tial for oil and gas development off the Washington coast. The MOA was
           necessitated by misunderstandings between fishermen and,oil and gas explorers
           that resulted in damaged offshore fishing gear and lost crabpots. The SMA
           was amended during 1983 to require a State permit to conduct geophysical
           surveys in State marine waters.

                The Washington Public Ports Association and DOE published the
           "Environmental Impact,Analyses of the Potential Coal Export Facilities in
           Washington." This was',an interagency effort to anticipate and resolve manage-
           ment problems associated with siting coal facilities. The environmental
           impacts of likely specific sites were evaluated.

                The Grays Harbor Estuary Managment Plan DEIS was Published by the State
           and OCRM in July 1983. This special area management plan has attracted
           nationwide interest as an example of consensus-based planning by Federal,
           State, and local entities to manage future development in a sensitive estuary.
           The plan will guide future decisions related to the estuary to meet multiple
           goals: to address the region's social and economic needs; to protect the
           estuarine ecosystem and its recreational natural values; and to provide a
           measure of predictability to and minimize conflict among development interests,
           environmental interests, and State and Federal agencies. Well-attended
           public hearings were held in Septem'ber 1983 and over 400 comments were received
          .on the DEIS. A task force is revising the plan to respond to public comment.

                The DOE initiated a project to protect shellfish beds from contamination--
           a widespread problem in Puget Sound and other'estuaries. A strategy to abate
           chronic sources of pollution was i.mplemented in the,watersheds surrounding
           Burley Lagoon and Henderson Inlet. The DOE will prepare a follow-up report that
           will recommend improvements in water quality standards for the State's estuarine
           waters when shellfish resources are significant.

                Local governments began to process amendments to their master programs to
           comply with new DOE guidelines on managing aquaculture activity.

                The State used CEIP funds to conduct.the following studies and projects:
           OCS rig planning and impact mitigation, crude oil marine terminal and pipeline
           impact identification, hydropower permit review, and coal port environmental
           impact mitigation. The DOE also participated in a study by the EFSEC of an
           acceptable inland crude oil pipeline route as an alternative to the route
           proposed by the Northern Tier Pipeline Company and turned down by Governor
           Spellman in April 1982.







                                                    137


             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  The program was evaluated during February.1982 covering the period
             February 1981 through February 1982.   The program was found to be'making
             satisfactory progress, and achievements were mentioned in several areas:'
             the development of a strategy for improving monitoring and enforcement,
             the development of a comprehensive living marine resource strategy for
             coastal fisheries management, the handling of the Northern Tier Pipeline
             proposal, and public access (the Rushton Way Plan). The findirfgs also re-
             commended that the program could be improved if the State would undertake
             a comprehensive review of its program results during the last 10 years and
             make recommendations to the legislature for improvements and direction; ex-
             amine all local master programs and update them as needed to address emerging
             issues; work with local governments and State agencies to improve management
             of lands adjacent to the shoreland area; and implement the monitoring
             and enforcement strategy.

                  In February 1983, OCRM evaluated WCZMP implementation for the period
             covering February 1982 through February 1983 and CEIP implementation for the
             period covering June 1-977 through February 1983.  The CZM program was com-
             mended for the progress made in monitoring and enforcement, particularly the
             disposition of unpermitted activities; completion of four projects examining
             the boundaries of State-owned aquatic lands; and evaluation of activities
             during the 10 year existence of the SMA4 In previous evaluations, OCRM
             identified several major concerns with the.implementation of the WCZMP,
             including effective.monitoring and enforcement of the WCZMP, resolution of
             the "adjacent lands" issue, and future direction of the WCZMP. In response,
             DOE developed multi-year strategies and plans to a:ddress these concerns.
             OCRM recommended that DOE continue to carry out, as rapidly as possible, its
             plans and strategies for: improved monitoring and enforcement of the WCZMP.by
             ensuring that local governments detect violations of substantial development
             permits and that DOE's response to violations is meaningful and prompt; the
             review of ordina'nces to demonstrate compatibility with the local SMP, and
             resolutions of conflicts; and the review of DOE's performance in the
             implementation of major aspects of the SMA to determine future activities.

                  The findings indicated that CEIP funding had been used effectively.
             Major uses were for impact analysis, the development of mitigation strategies,
             the development of baseline biological resource information, State OCS partici-
             pation, and program implementation. The major uses of funds were directed
             toward the impacts of the following five categories.of energy activities in
             Washington: crude oil marine terminals and pipelines, OCS oil activities,
             nuclear power, coal port development, and hydropower facilities. With the
             exception of OCS activities, entirely a DOE effort, State agencies and local
             governments used CEIP funds to meet their responsibilities under State and
             local laws and regulations.








                                                      138


             Estuarine Sanctuary:

                  Padilla Bay

                  Facts:

                  Location:                   Skagit County, Washington
                  Size:                       11,612 acres
                  Biogeographic Region:       Columbian
                  Acquisition Status:         43% complete

                  Description:

                  The Sanctuary consists of extensive tidal marshes and upland areas. Its
             eelgrass beds, which are perhaps the largest within the continental United
             States, are primary'habitats for substantial numbers of waterfowl. On
             an average winter day there are over 50,000 ducks in Padilla Bay, including
             scamps, g6lden eyes, buffleheads, and the endangered canvasback. Padilla Bay
             is the most important habitat in the Northwest for the scarce@black brant
             duck, since this species is dependent on shallow, coastal bays with a supply
             of eelgrass.

             Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  The Sanctuary was not evaluated during the biennum. An evaluation is
             scheduled for June 1984..







                                                   139



                                              WISCONSIN



            Background   CZM and CEIP Programs:

                 The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) was approved in May 1978.
            The Bureau of Coastal Management in the Department of Administration is the
            lead agency for implementing the program which includes Section 306, Section
            308 (CEIP) and Section 315 (Estuarine Sanctuaries). Regulatory responsibi-
            lities (33 are cited) are primarily carried out through the Department of
            ,Natural Resources, the Department 'of Transportation, the Public Service
            Commission and the counties.

                 The gubernatorially appointed Wisconsin Coastal Management Council
            (WCMC) composed of 25 members.including representatives from the Legislature,
            State agencies, local officials, tribal governments, citizens and the
            University, oversees program implementation and advises the Governor on State
            policies affecting the Great Lakes. The Wisconsin program has a strong policy
            of State/local partnership in coastal resources management..

            Routine Program Implementation (RPI)_and Amendments:         -

                 No changes to the WCMP were processed during FY 1982- 1983.

            Major Activities:

                 As a result of a chartge in Wisconsin's dredge spoil disposal policy which
            now permits the lake disposal of clean material under cetain conditions, the
            WCMP cooperated with the Corps of Engineers in two projects using dredge spoil
            for beach replenishment--Kewaunee Harbor on Lake Michigan and Wisconsi.n.Point
            on Lake Superior. One year after the nourishment at Kewaunee was completed,
            monitoring of the area showed no negative impact on the natural environment
            and that the beach land had maintained a level of one foot above the lake. A
            third project at Oak Creek south-of Milwaukee was undertaken-jointly with the
            Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO). As a result, WEPCO found
            alternative dredge spoil disposal sites and uses for spoil resulting in
            substantial savings for the company as well as environmentally sound spoil
            disposal.
                 The WCMC has had the lead in a study of the issues 'associated with the
            interbasin export of Great Lakes water. The need for the study was based, in
            part, on the Powder River Coal Company's interest in using Great Lakes' water
            to operate a,coal slurry pipeline from Gilette, Wyoming, to either Milwaukee
            or Superior, Wisconsin. In May 1982, an Interbasin Transfer ofWater
            Conference was held which found that although technically feasible, except
            in the case of energy projects, the large scale withdrawal of water from the
            Great Lakes or other basins is not now economically feasible without massive
            Federal subsidies; that if water were transferred, a charge should be paid
            for the water as a depletable resource in addition to the cost of the transfer
            system; that affected States should reach agreement on transfer prior to the
            intervention of the Federal Government; and that regional institutions must
            be developed to address the water transfer issue. The proceedings of the
            conference were published by the WCMP.







                                                  140



                 Two other reports published by the WCMP were "Public Rights to Great
            Lakes Beaches" which malde the case that despite State riparian law, the
            Wisconsin public does have rights to the use of the shoreline, and "The
            Great Lakes: A Balanced Approach for the 80's."   Using illustrations, data
            tables, and text, the latter report describes program activities affecting
            natural resources, urban waterfronts, ports, erosion damage reduction, land
            and water regulation, water quality, energy Impacts, tribal governments, and
            public education efforts on Great Lakes issues.

                 CEIP funds.were used to enhance public access to the shoreline in Kewaunee
            where floating piers were used.to provide d6ckspace and erosion control, and in
            Ashland where a boardwalk was constructed along the Phase III portion of the
            Ashland Lakeshore Trail. On Lake Michigan, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
            Planning Commisssion was assisted in preparing alternative land use and manage-
            ment plans for the site of a soon to be decommissioned power plant in the City
            of St. Francis. The Port of Superior received funds to develop a Management
            Information System to assist in better using existing port land, and the City
            of Green Bay received funds to prepare a comprehensive waterfront plan. The
            program also contributed to the revitalization of the Washburn waterfront (Lake
            Superior).. A hotel, restaurant, marina, and boat building and repair facility
            are now in operation in this city of 2,000 people.

            Summary of Evaluation Findings:

                  In May 1982, an,evaluation of the WCMP was conducted covering the period
            May 1981 through May 1982. Outstanding accomplishments of the program included
            the successful sponsorship of an internationally important conference on inter-
            basin water transfer; protection of natural resources through the completion of
            management plans for Donges Bay Beach, F'ish Creek Slough, and other areas; co-
            operative projects with Wisconsin Indian Tribes; dredge spoil disposal projects;
            and public information and education efforts.  Recommendations for strengthening
            the program focused on improving the evaluation and reporting functions of the
            Bureau of Coastal Management; encouraging more public participation in the
            WCMP; and improving enforcement and, simplifying permitting procedures.

                The WCMP was evaluated again in April 1984. Final findings will be
            available in September 1984.































                                               APPENDIX A

                            COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT, OF 1972 AS AMENDED,

                                                  AND


                                            SECTION SUMMARY


0














                                               COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF I972


                                (PL 92-583,, 16 U.S.C.,1451 et seq, October 27,1972; Amended by PL 93-612-,
                          January 2,1975; PL 94-370 July 26,1976; PL 95-219, December 28, 1977; PL 95-372,
                          September 18, 1978; PL 96-464, October  1980


                                    SHORT TITLE                                    the coastal zone, present state and local institutional
                 SEC. 301. This tide may be cited as the "Coastal Zone             arrangements for planning and regulating land and water
               Management Act of 1972"                                            uses in such areas are inadequate.
                          CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS                                     (1) The key to more effective protection and use of the
                                                                                   land and water resources of the coastal zone is to. en-
                 SEC. 302. The Congress rinds that                                 courage the states to exercise their full authority over the
                 (a) Them is a national interest in the effective manage-          lands and water in the coastal zone by assisting the
               ment, beneficial use,  protection, and development of the            states, in cooperation with Federal and local
               coastal zone-                                                       governments and other vitally affected interests, in
                 (b) The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural.             developing land and water use programs for the coastal
               commercial recreational ecological. industrial. and esthetic
               resources of immediate and potential value to the present           zone, including unified policies, criteria. standards,
               and future. well-being of the'Nation.                               methods. and processes for dealing, with land and water
                                                                                   use decisions of more than local significance.
                 (c) The increasing and competing demands upon the                   (j) The national objective of attaining a greater degree
               lands, and waters of our coastal zone occasioned by Pop-            of energy self-sufficiency would be advanced by
               ulation growth and economic development. including                  providing Federal financial assistance to meet state and
               requirements. for industry, commerce. residential
               development. recreation. extraction of mineral resources            local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activi-
               and fossil fuels, transportat     and navigation. waste dis-         ty in or affecting the coastal zone.
               posal. and harvesting of fish      , shellfish, and other living
               marine resources, have resulted in the loss of living               CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF POLICY
               marine'' resources, wildlife. nutrient-rich areas, perma-                       . The Congress rinds and declares that it is
               rient and adverse changes to ecological systems, decres-             SEC. 303
               ing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion.               the national Policy-
                 (d) The coastal zone. and the fsh, shellfish. other living         (1) to preserve, protect, develop, and Where Possible,
               marine resources, and wildlife therein. are ecologically            to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's
               fragile and consequently extremely vulnerable to destuc-            coastal zone for this and succeeding generations;
               tion by man's alterations.                                            (2) to encourage and assist the states to exercise
                 (e)Important ecological. cultural historic. and as-              effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone
               thetic values in the coastal zone which are essential to the        through the development and implementation of manage-
               well-being of ail citizens are being irretrievably damaged          ment programs to achieve wise use of the land and water
                                                                                   resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to
                             302(f) -added by PL 96-464]                           ecological cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well
                                                                                   as to needs for economic development which programs
                 (f) New and expanding demands. for food, energy,                  should at least provide for-
               minerals, defame needs, recreation. waste disposal,                   (A) the protection of natural resources, including
               transportation, and industrial activities in the Great              wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier
               Lakes, territorial sea, and Outer Continental Shelf are             islands, coral reefs. and fish and wildlife and their
               placing stress on these areas and are a creating the need              habitat-within the coastal zone.
               for resolution of serious conflicts among important and               (B) the management of coastal development to
               competing uses and values in coastal and ocean waters.             minimize the loss of life and property used by
               [Former 302(f)(i) redesignated as (g)(j) by PL                    improper development in flood-prone. storm surge,
               96-464]                                                             geological  hazard, and erosion-prone areas and in areas
               (g) Special natural and scenic characteristics am being          of subsidence and saltwater intrusion, and by the
               damaged by ill-planned,development that threatens these             destruction of natural protective features such as
               values.                                                             beaches, dunes, wetlands, and barrier islands.
                 (h) In light of competing demands and the urgent and                (C) priority consideration being given to coastal-
               to protect and to give high priority to natural systems in          dependent uses and orderly processes for siting major

               2-2881                                                27
 		Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS INC,. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037







                                                                                                                                  FEDERAL LAWS

                 facilities related to national defense, energy. fisheries             (304(2) added by PL 96-4641
                 deveiopment@ recreation, ports and transportation. and                  (2) The term -coastal resource of national significance"
                 the location, to the maximum extent practicable, of new               means any coastal wedand, beach, dune, barrier island,
                 commercial and industrial developments in or adjacent                 reef. estuary, or fish and wildlife habitat, if any
                 to areas when such development already exists,                        such area is determined by a coastal. state to be of
                   (D) public acces to the coasts for tec, ation                       substantial biological or natural storm protective value.
                 purposes,                                                             [Former 304(2)-(16) redesignated as (3)--(17) by
                   (E) assistance in the redevelopment of deteriorating                PL 964"1
                 urban waterfronts and ports, and sensitive preservation                 (3) The term "Coastal waters" means (A) in the Great
                 ai:d restoration. of historic, cultural. and esthedc                  Lakes area, the waters within the territorial jurisdiction
                 coastal features,                                                     of the United States consisting of the Great Lakes, their
                   (F) the coordination and simplification of procedustes              connecting waters. harbors, roadsteads, and estuary-type
                 in order to ensure expedited governmental decision-                   areas such as bays. shallows. and marshes and (B) in
                 making for the management of coastal resources.                       other arins, those waters. adjacent to the shorelines,
                   (G) continued consultation and coordination             with.       which contain a measurable quantity or percentage of sea
                 and the giving of adequate consideration to the vim                   water, including, but not limited to, sounds. bays.
                 ,of, affected,Federal agencies,                                       lagoons. bayous. ponds, and estuaries.
                   (H) the giving of timely and effective notification                   (4) The term "coastal sta&' means a state of ilic
                 of. and opportunities for public and local government                 United States in, or bordering on, the Atlantic, Pacific,
                 participation in, 'coastal management decisionmaking,                 or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico. Long Island Sound,
                 and                                                                   or one or more of the Great Lakes. For the purposes of
                        assistance to support comprehensive' planning,                 this tide, the term also includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin
                 conservation, and management for living marine re-                    Islands. Guam, the Commo'n-wealth of the Northern
                 sources, including planning for the siting of pollution               Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the
               -control and aquaculture facilities within the coastal zone,            Pacific Islands, and American Samoa.
                 and. improved coordination berween State and Federal                               (304(4) amended by PL 964"1
                 coastal zone management agencies and State and                          (5) The term "coastal energy a_=*v"ity'* means any of
                 wildlife agencies; and                                                thefollowing activities if, and to the extent that (A) the
                   (3) to encourage the preparation          of special area           conduct. support, or facilitation of such activity requires
                 management plans which provide for increased specificity              and involves the siting, construction. expansion. or
                 in protecting significant natural resources, reasonable               operation of any equipment or facility: and (B) any
                 coastal-dependent economic growth, improved protection                technical requirement exists which, in the determination
                 of Ufa and property in hazardous area , and improved                  of the, Secretary, ne@cssitat= that the siting. construc-
                 predictability in governmental decisionmakinir, and                   tion., expansion. or operation of such equipment or facili-
                   (4) to encourage the participation and cooperation                  ty @e carried out in. on in close proximity to., the coastal
                 of the public. state and local governments, and                       7one of any coastal state:
                 interstate and other regional agencies, as well as of the               (i) Any outer Caritinentai Shelf energy activity.
                 Fe" agencies having programs affecting the coastal                           Any transportation,. conversion, treatment,
                 zone,, in carr_yin&qut the purposes of this title.                    tra.nsfer. or storage of liquefied natural gas.
                              -P03 revised by PL 96-4641                                 (iii) Any transportation. transfer, or storage of oil,
                                                                                       natural gas, or coal (including, but not limited to, by
                                                                                       tricans of any deep-water port. as defined in section 30 0)
                                                                                       of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1502( 10))).
                                        DEFINITIONS                                      For purposes of this paragraph. the       siting, construc-
                    SEC.' 304. For the'purposes of this       title                    tion. expansion. or operation of any equipment or facility
                    (1) Theterm "coastal zone" means the coastalwaters                 shall be 'in close proximity to tne coastal zone of any
                 (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the 4a-              coastal state if such siting, construction. expansion. or
                 cent shorelands (including the waters therein and                     operation has. or is likely to have, a significant effect on
                 thereunder). strongly influenced by each other and -In                such coastal zone.
                 proximity to the shorelines of -the several coastal states,             (6) The tarm llencrU facilities" means any equipment
                 and includes islands. transitional and intertidal areas@ salt         or facility which is or will be used primarily"-
                 marshes. wetlands. and beaches. The zone extends. in                    (A) in the exploration for. or the development, produc-
                 Great Lakes waters, to the international boundary                     tion. conversion. storage. transfer, processing, or
                 between the United States and Canada and., in other                   transportation of. any energy resource-, or
                 areas. seaward to the outer limit of the United States                  (B) for the manufacturr-- production. or assembly of
                 territorial sea. The zone extends inland from the                     equipment, machinery, products, or devices which are in-
                 shorelines only to the extent necessary to control                    volved in any activity described in subparagraph (A).
                 shorefands. the uses of which have a direct and significant             The term includes. but is not limited to (i), electric
                 impact on the coastal waters. Excluded from the coastal               generating plants; (ii) petroleum refineries and associated
                 zone are lands th 'e use of which is bry law subject solely to        facilities: (iii) gasification plants; (iv) facilities used for
                 the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal            the transportation. conversion. treatment. transfer. or
                 Government. its officers or agents.                                   storage of liquefied natural gas; (v) uranium enrichment

                                                                                                                                                    28







              COASTAL ZONE ACT

              or nuclear fuel processing facilities:     (vi) oil and    gas      treatment (including drainage). schools and education,
              fiacilitie& including platforms. assembly plants-storage            and hospitals and health cam Such term may also in-
              depots. tank farms. crew and supply bases. and refining             clude any other facility or service so financed which the
              complexes; (vii) facilities including dMwater ports.,for            Secretary rinds will support increased population.
              .the transfer of.petroicum; (viii) p*lines and transmis-               (16) The term "SecreMry" means the Secretary of
              sion racifities: and (ix) terminals which are associated            commetc
              with any of the foregoing.                                             (17) The    term 'special area management plan'
                 (7) The term "estimy' means that part of a river         or      mews a comprehensive plan providing for natural
              stream or other body of water having unimpaired connec-             resource protection and reasonable coastaldependgnt
              tion with the open sm where the sea water is measurably             economic growth containing a detailed and comprehensive
              diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage. The            statement of policies; standards and criteria to guide
              term includes estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes.                public and private uses of lands and waters; and
                 (8) The tam "attianne sanctuary" means a research                mechanism for timely , implementation in speci&
              area which may include any part or all of an estuary and            geographic areas within the coastal zone.
              any island. transitional arm and upland in, adjoining, or                        (304(17) added by PL 96-4&1
              adjacent to such estuary, and which constitute to the ex-              (18) The term "water use means activities which are
              tent feasible a natural unit. set aside to provide scientists       i&h6ited in or on the water. but dow not mean or in.
              and students the opportunity to examine over a period of            dude the establishment of any water quality standard or
              time the ecological relationships within the area.                  'criteria or the regulation of the discharge or runoff of
                 (9) The term "Fund" means the Coastal Etiergy Im-                water pollutants except the standards. criteria. or
              pact Fund established by section 308(h).                            regulations which are incorporated in any prograin as
                 (10) ne t=7n "land use" in== activities which 'are               required by the provisions of section 307(f).
              conducted in, or on the shorelands within. the coastal
              zone., subject to the requirements outlined in section              MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
              307(g).,                                                                                     GRANTS
              1 (11) The term:"Iocal governmene* means my political                  SEC. 305. (a) The Secretary may make grants        .to any
              subdivisioti of, or any special entity created by, any              coastal state
              coastal state which (in whole or part) is located in. or has           (1) und@r subsection (c) for the purpose of assisting
              authority over, such state's coastal zone and which (A)             such state in the development of a management program
              has authority to levy taxes, or to establish and coilect            for the land and water resources of its coastal zone; and
              user fees. or (B) provides any public facility or public ser-          (2) under subsection (d)- for. the purpose of assisting
              vicar which is financed in whole or part by taxes or user           such state in the completion of the development. and the
              fees. The term includes. but is not limited to, any school          initial implementation. of its management program
              district, fire district. transportation authority, and any          before such state qualifies for administrative gratits un-
              other special. purpose district 'or authority.                      der section 306.
                 (12) The term "management program'* includes. but is                (b) The management program for each coastal state
              Cot limited to, a comprehensive statement in words,                 shall include each of the following requirements:
              maps, illustrations, or other media of communication,                  (1) An identification of the boundaries of the coastal
              prep - I and adopted by the state in accordance with the            zone subject to the management program.
              provisions of this tide, setting forth objectives, policies,           (2) A definition of what shall constitute permissible
              and,standards to guide public and private uses of lands             land uses and water uses within the coastal zone which
              and waters in the coastal. zone.                                    have a direct and significant impact on the coastal
                 (13) The term "outer contbiental shelf anergy activity"          waters.
              mews any exploration for, or any dmiopment or                          (3) An inventory and designation of arm of particular
              production of. oil or natural gas from the outer con-               concern within the coastal zone-
              tinental shelf (as defined in section Z(a) of the Outer                (4) An identification of the means by which the state
              Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 133 1 (a)), or the           proposes to exert control over the land us= and water
              siting. construction, expansion. or operation of any new            uses referred to in paragraph (2),, including a listing of
              or expanded energy facilities directly required by such ex-         reievant constitutional provisions. laws, regulations. and
              ploration, development. or production.                              judicial decisions.
                 (14) The term "person' me= any individual;- any cor-                (5) Broad guidelines on priorities of uses in particular
              poration. partnership, association, or other entity                 areas. including specificatly those uses or lowest priority.
              organized or existing under the laws of any state: the                 (6) A description of the organizational structure
              Federal Government; any state- regional. or local govern-           proposed to implement such management program, in.
              meat: or any entity ofany such Federal, smte. regionai.             cluding the responsibilities and interrelationships of
              ar local government.                                                local. areawidr.. state. regional. and interstate agencies in
                 (15) -The term -public fhcilitics and public sm-rices"           the management process.
              means racilities or services which are financed, in whole              (7) A definition of @thc term. 'beach' and a planning
              or in part. by any smte or political subdivision thereof.           process for the protection of. and ac=s to. public
              including, but not limited to. highways and secondary               beaches and other public coastal area of environmental,
              roads. parking, mass transit, docks. navigation aids. fire          recreational. historical. esthetic, ecological. or cultural
              and police protection, water supply, waste collection and           value.

              2-2041            Pt%bLLsh*d by THE SURIAIU OF 'CATIONAL AFFAIRS. VC.. WASHIINGTON. D.C. 20037                                 29







                  73:8W4                                                                                                     FEDERAL LAWS

                    (8) A planning process for energy facilities likely to be       section. but the Secretary may waive this limitation in
                  located in, or which may significantly affect. the coastal        the case of any coastal state which is eligible for grants
                  zone, including, but not limited to, a process for an-            under subsection (d); and
                  ticipating and managing the impacts from such facilities.           (2) no grant shall be made under this section in -an
                    (9) A planning process for (A) assessing the effects of         amount which is less than I per centum of the total
                  shoreline erosion, (however caused), and (9) studying and         amount appropriated to carry out the purposes of this
                  evaluating ways to control, or lessen the impact of. such         section, but the Secretary shall waive this limitation in
                  erosion, and to restore areas adversely affected by such          the case of any coastal state which requests such a
                  erosion.                                                          waiver.
                    No management program is required to meet the re-                 (f) The amount of any grant (or portion thereof) made
                  quirements in paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) before October         under this section which is not obligated by the coastal
                  1, 1978.                                                          state concerned during the fiscal year for which it was
                    (c) The Secretary may make a grant annually to any              first authorized. to be obligated by such state, or during
                  coastal state for the purposes described in subsection            the fiscal year immediately following, shall revert to the
                  (a)(1) if such state reasonably demonstrates to the               Secretary who shall add such am@ount to the funds
                  satisfaction of the Secretary that such grant will be used        available for grants under this section.
                  to develop a management program consistent with the                 (g) With the approval of the Secretary, any coastal
                  requirements set forth in section 306. The amount of any          state may allocate to any local government. to any
                  such grant shill not eaceed 80 per centum of such state's         areawide agency designatcd under section 204 of the
                  costs for such purposes in any one year. No coastal state         Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development
                  is eligible to receive maire than four grants pursuant to         Act of 1966, to any regionr ' agency, or to any interstate
                  this subsection. After the initial grant is made to any           agency, a portion of any grant received by it under this
                  coastal state pursuant t 'o this subsection. no subsequent        section for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of
                  grant shall be made to such state pursuant to this subsec-        this section.
                  tion unless the Secretary Finds that such state is satisfac-        (h) Any coastal state which has completed the develop-
                  torily developing its management program.                         ment of its management program shall submit such
                    (d)(1) The Secretary may make a grant annually to any           program to the Secretary for review and approval pur-
                  coastal state for the purposes described in subsection            suant to section 306. Whenever the Secretary approves
                  (a)(2) if the Secretary rinds that such state meets the           the management program of any coastal state under sec-
                  eligibility requirements set forth in paragraph (2). The          tion 306, such state thereafter -
                  amount of any such grant shall not exceed 80 per.centurn            (1) shall not be eligible for grants under this section,
                  of the costs for such purposes in any one year. .                 except that such state may receive grants under subsec-
                    (2) A coastal state is eligible to receive grants under         tion (c) in order to comply with the requirements of
                  thLq xubsection if it has -                                       paragraphs (7), (8). and (9) of subsection (b), and
                    (A) developed a management program which -                        (2) shall be eligible for grants under section 306.
                    (i) is in compliance with ihe rules and regulations               (i) The authority to make grants under this section
                  promulgated to carry out subsection (b), but                      shall expire on September 3. 1979.
                    (ii) has not yet been approved by the Secretary under
                  section 306:                                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS
                    (B) specifically identified, after consultation with the
                  Secretary, any deficiency in such program which makes               SEC.     306.    (a)   The Secretary may             make
                  it ineligible for approval by the Secretary pursuant to sec-      grants to any coastal state for not more than 80
                  tion 306, and has established a reasonable time schedule          per centurn of the costs of administering such state's
                  during which it can remedy any such deficiency;                   management program if the Secretary-
                    (C) specified tne purposes for which any such grant will          (1) finds that such program meets the requirements
                  be used:                                                          of section 305(b);
                    (D) taken or is taking adequate steps to meet any re-             (2) approves such program in accordance with
                  quirement under section 306 or 307 which involves any             subsections (c), (d) and (e); and
                  Federal official, or agency: and                                    (3) rinds, if such program has been administered with
                    (E) compiled with any other requirement which ctie              financial assistance under this section for at least one
                  Secretary, by rules and regulations, prescribes as being          year, that the coastal state will expend an increasing
                  necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of            proportion of each grant received under this section
                  this subsection.                                                  (but hot more than 30 per centum of the grant unless
                    (3) No management program for which grants are                  the state chooses to expend a higher percentage)
                  made under this subsection shall be considered an ap-             on activities that will result in significant improvement
                  proved program for purposes of section 307.                       being made in achieving the coastal management
                    (e) Grants under this section shall be made to, and             objectives specified in section 303(2)(A) through (1).
                  allocated among, the coastal states pursuant to rules and         For purposes of this subsection, the costs of administer-
                  regulations promulgated by the Secretary-, except that -          ing a management program includes costs incurred in
                    (1) no _SranE shall be made under this section in an            the carrying out. in a manner consistent with the
                  amount which is more than 16'per centum of the total              procedures and processes specified therein.     of projec:s
                  amount appropriated to carry out the purposes of this             and other activities (other than those of a kind


                                                                                                                                              30







               -COASTAL ZONE ACT                                                                                                   71:W06

               referred to in clauses (A), (B), or (C) of section              period  which would conflict or interfere with such
               306A(c)(2) that are necessary or appropriate to the             management program decision, unless such local govern-
               implementation of the management program.                       ment waives its right to comment.
               (306(a) revised by PL 96-4641                                     (iii) Such management agency, if any such comments
               . (b) Such grants shall be allocated to the states with ap-     are submitted to if. with such 30-day period, by any locol
               proved programs based on rules and regulations                  government -
               promulgated by the Secretary which shall take into ac-            (1) is required to consider any such comments.
               count the extent and nature of the shoreline and area             (If) is authorized. in its discretion. to hold a public
               covered by the plan. population of the area, and other          hearing on such comments, and
               relevant (actors: Novided, lWat no annual grant made              (111) may not take any action within such 30-day
               under this section shall be less than I per =tum of             period to implement the management program decision,
               the total amount appropriated to carry out the purposes         whether or not modified on the basis. of such comments.
               of this section: And provididfurther, That the Secretary          (3) The state has held public hearings in the develop-
               shall waive the application of the I per centum minimum         ment of the management program.
               requirement as to any grut under this section, when the           (4) The management program and any changes thereto
               coastal State involved rcqucstjst!;h a waiver.                  have been reviewed and approved by the Governor.
                    (306(b) amended by PL 93-611;-PL 96-4641                     (5) The Governor of,the state has designated a single
                 (c) Prior to granting approval of a management                agency to receive and administer the grants for im-
               program submitted by a coastal state, the Secretary shall       plementing the management program required under
               rind that:                                                      paragraph (1) of this subsection.
                 (1) The state has developed and adopted a manage-               (6) The state is organized to implement the manage.*
               ment program for its coastal zone in accordance with            ment program required under paragraph (1) of this sub.
               rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary, after       section.
               notice. and with the opportunity of full participation by         (7) The state has the authorities necessary to implement*
               relevant Federal agencies, state agencies, local                the program. including the authority required under sub-
               governments, regional organizations, port authorities,          section (d) of this. section.
               and other interested parties, public and private. which is        (8) The management program provides for adequate
               adequate to carry out the purposes of this title and is con-    consideration of the national interest involved in plan-
               sistent with the policy declared in section 303 of this title.  ning for, and in the siting of, facilities (including ener3Y
                 (2) The state has:                                            facilities in, or which significantly affect, such state's
                 (A) coordinated its program with local, areawide, and         coastal zone) which are necessary to meet requirements
               interstate plans applicable to areas within the coastal         which are other than local ininaEure. In the case of such
               zone existing on January I of the year in which the state's     energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the state
               management program is submitted to the Secretary,               has given such consideration to any applicable interstate
               which plans have been developed by a local government,          energy plan or program.
               an areawide 'agency designated pursuant to regulations            (9) The management program makes provision for
               established under section 204 of the Demonstration              procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for
               Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, a              the purpose of preserving or restoring them for their con-
               regional agency, or an interstate agency; and                   servation. recreational. ecological, or esthetic values.
                 (13) established an effective mechanism for continuing          (d) Prior to granting approval of the management
               consultation and coordination between the management            program, the Secretary shall Find that the state. acting
               agency designated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this sub-        through its chosen agency or agencies. including local
               section and with local governments, interstate agencies.        governments, areawide agencies designated under section
               regional agencies. and areawide agencies within the             204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
               coastal zone to assure the full participation of such local     Development Act of [966. regional agencies, or interstate
               governments and agencies in carrying out the purposes of        agencies, has authority For the management of the
               this title. except that the Secretary shall not rind any        coastal zone in accordance With the management
               mechanism to be 'effective' for purposes of this sub-           program. Such authority shall include power -
               paragraph unless it includes each of the following re-
               quirements:                                                       (1) to administer land and water use regulations. con-
                 (i) Such management agency is required. before       im-      trol development in order to ensure compliance with the
               plementing any management program decision which                management program. and to resolve conflicts among
               would conflict with any local zoning ordinance. decision,       competing uses. and
               or other action, to send a notice of such managem'cnt             (2). to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple in-
               program decision to any local government whose zoning           terests in lands, waters, and other property through con-
               authority is affected thereby.                                  demnation or other means when necessary to achieve
                 (ii) Any such notice shall provide that such local            conformance with the management program.
               government may, within the 30-day period commencing               (e) Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall also
               on the date of receipt of such notice, submit to the            find that the program provides:
               management agency written comments on such manage*.               (1) for any one or a combination of the following
               ment program decision, and any recommendation for               general techniques for control of land and water uses
               alternatives thereto, if no actioti is taken during such        within the coastal zone:

               2-20-81            Published by THE BUREAU [email protected] AFFAIRS, INC.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037                             31,








                  71:8006                                                                                                        FEDERAL LAWS

                     (A)        establishment of criteria and standards       for         "(b)  The amendments made by            subsection (a)(1)
                  local, implementation, subject to administrative review              and (2)0 of this section apply with        respect to grants
                  and enforcement of compliance; .                                     made after September 30, 1.980, under section 306 of
                     (B) Direct state land and water use planning and                  the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and,
                  regulation; or                                                       within two hundred and seventy days after such date,
                     (C) State administrative review for consistency with              the Secretary of Commerce shall issue regulations
                  the management program of all development plans, pro-                relating to the administration of subsection (a) of
                  jects, or land and water use regulations, including excep-           such section 306 (as so amended by such subsection
                  tions and variances thereto, proposed by any state or
                  local authority or private developer, with power to ap-
                  prove or disapprove after public notice and an opportuni-
                                                                                                    RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
                  ty for hearings.
                     (.2@ for a method of assuring ith4t local land and water                         IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
                  use reg@lations within the coastal zone do not un-                                   [306A added by PL 96-4641
                  reasonably restrict at exclude land and water uses,of                   SEC. 306A. (a) For puirposes of this section-
                  regional bencrit.                                                       (1) The term 'eligible coastal state' means a coastal
                     (f) With the approval of the Secretary, a state may               state that for any fiscal year for which a grant is
                  allocate to a local government, an areawide agency                   applied for under this section-
                  designated under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities                ((A) has a management program approved under
                  and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, a regional                 section 306; and
                  agency, or an interstate agency, a portion of the grant un-             (B) in the judgment of the Secretary, is making
                  der this section for the purpose of car'rying out -the               satisfactory progress in activities designed to       result in
                  provisions of this section. Provided. That such allocation           significant improvement in achieving the coastal       manage.
                  Oshall not'refieve the state of the responsibility for en-           ment objectives specified in section 303(2)(A) through
                  suring that any funds so allocated are applied in                    (I).
                  furtherance of such-- state'.t approved management                      (2) The term 'urban waterfront and part' means any
                  program-                                                             developed area that is densely populated and is being
                     (S) Any coastal state may amend or modify the                     ,,used for, or has been used for, urban residential
                  management program which it has submitted and which                  recreational, commercial, shipping or industrial pur-
                  has been approved    'by the  Secretary under this section,          poses.
                  pursuant to the required procedures described in subsec-                (b) The Secretary may       make grants to any eligible
                  tion (c). Except with respect to any such amendment                  coastal state to assist that state in meeting one or
                  which is made before October 1, 1978, for the purpose of             more of the following objectives:
                  complying with the requirements of paragraphs (7), (8),                 (1) The preservation or restoration of specific areas
                  and (@). of section 305(b), no grant shall be made under             of, the state that (A) are designated under the manage.
                  this section to any coastal state after the date of such an          ment program procedures required by section 306
                  amendment or modification, until the Secretary approves              (c)(9) because of their conservation recreational,
                  such amendment or madirication.                                      ecological, or esthetic values, or (B) contain one or
                     (h) At the discretion of the state and with the app'rovai         more coastal resources of national significance.
                  of the Secretary, a management program may be                           (2) The redevelopment of deteriorating and under-
                  developea and                                                        utilized urban waterfronts and ports that are designated
                                   adopted in segments so that immediate
                  attention rii-ay be devoted to those arci@ witEin tEe                under section 305(b)(3) in the state's management
                  coastal zone which most urgently need management                     program as areas of particular concern.
                  programs. Provided. That the state adequately provides                  (3) The provision of access of public beaches and
                  for the ultimate coordination of the various segments of             other public coastal areas and to coastal waters in
                  the management program into a single unified program                 accordance with the planning proc=3 required under
                  and that the unified program will be completed as soon as            section 305(b)(7).
                  is reasonably practicable.                                              (c) (1) Each grant made by the Secretary Linder
                     (i) The coastal states are encouraged to provide in               this section shall be subject to such terms and con-
                  their management programs for-                                       ditions as may be appropriate to ensure that the grant
                     (A) the inventory and designation of areas that                   is used for purposes consistent with this section.
                  contain one or more coastal resources of national                       .(2) Grants made under this section may be used for-
                  significance. and                                                       (A) the acquisition of fee simple and other interests
                     .(B) specific and enforceable standards to protect                in land,
                  such resources.                                                         (b) low-cost construction projects determined by the
                  If the Secretary determines that a coastal state has                 Secretary to' be consistent with the purposes' oi this
                  failed to make satisfactory progress in the activities               section, including but act limited to, paths, walkways,
                  described in this subsection by September 30, 1984, the              fences, parks, and the rehabilitation of historic buildings
                  Secretary shall not make any grants to such state                    and structures; except that not more than 50 per centum
                  provided under section 306A after such date.
                  (306(i) added by PL 96-464]                                             as-ubsections (a)(1) ind (2) unended Section 306(a) and (b),
                     [Editor's note.- Section 5(b)      PL 96-464 provides:            respectiveiy. of this Act.

                                                                                                                                                    32







               COASTAL ZONE ACT                                                                                                             71-8007

               of any grant made under this section may be used, for                   (c)(1) Each Federal agency conducting or supporting
               such construction projects;                                           activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct
                 (C) in the case of grants made for objectives                       or support those activities in a manner which is, to the
               described in subsection (b)(2)-                                       maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved
                 (i) the rehabilitation or acquisition of piers to                   state management programs.
               provide increased public use, including compatible                      (2) Any Federal agency. which shall undertake any
               commercial activity,                                                  development project in the coastal zone of a state shall
                 (ii) the establishment of shoreline             stabilization       insure that the project is, to the maximum extent prac-
               measures including the installation or rehabilitation of              ticable, consistent with approved        state management
               bulkheads for the purpose of public safety or increasing              programs.
               public. access and use, and                                             (3)(A) After final approval by the Secretary of a state's
                 (iii), the removal or replacement of pilings where                  management program, any applicant for a required
               such action win provide increased recreational use of                 Federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting
               urban, waterfront areas,                                              land or water uses in-ttic coastal zone of that state shall
               but a6tivities,provid@d for under this paragraph shall                provide in the application to the licensing or permitting
               not be treated as con3truction.projects subject to the                agency a certification that the proposed activity complies
               limitations in paragraph (B);                                         with the state's approved program and that such activity
                 (D) engineering designs, specifications, and other                  win be conducted in a manner consistent with the
               appropriate reports; and                                              program. At the same time, the applicant shall furnish to
                 (E) educational, interpretive, and management costs                 the state or its designated agency a copy of the certifica-
               and such other related costs as the Secretary determines              tion, with all necessary information and data. Each
               to be consistent with the purposes of this section.                   coastal state shall establish procedures for public notice
                 (d)(1) No grant, made under this section                may         in the case of all such certifications and, to the extent it
               exceed an amount equal to 80 per centum. of the           cost        deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in
               of carrying out the purpose or project for which it was               connection therewith. At the earliest practicable time. the
               awarded.                                                              state or its designated agency shall notify the Federal
                 (2) Grants provided under this section may be           used        agency concerned that the state concurs with or object:s to
               to pay a coastal state's share of costs required, under               the applicant's certification. If the state or its designated
               any other Federal program that is consistent with the                 agency fails to furnish the required notification within six
               purposes of this section.                                             months after receipt of its copy of the applicant's cer-
                 (3) The total amount of grants made under this                      tification, the state's concurrence with the certification
               section to any eligible coastal state for any fiscal                  shall be conclusively presumed. No license or permit
               year may not exceed an amount equal to 10 per centum                  shall be granted. by the Federal agency until the state or
               of the total amount appropriated to carry out this                    its designated agency has concurred with the applicant's
               section for such fiscal year.                             .    .      cenification or untfl, by the state's failure to act. the con-
                 (e) With the approval of the Secretary, an eligible                 currence is conclusively presumed. unless the Secretary,
               coastal state may allocate to a local government, in                  on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant.
               areawide agency designated under -section 204 of the                  rinds, after providing a reasonable opportunity for detail-
               Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development                     ed comments from the Federal agency involved and from
               Act of 1966, a regional agency, or an intersta     ite agency,        the state, that. the activity is consistent with the objectives
               a portion of any grant made under this section for                    of this title or is -otherwise necessary in the interest of
               the purpose of carrying out this section; except that                 national security.
               such 'an allocation shall not relieve that state of the                 (B) After the management program of any coastal
               responsibility for ensuring that.any funds so allocated               state has been approved by the Secretary under          section
               are applied in furtherance of the state's approved                    .306, any person who submits to the Secretary of the
               management prop-am.                                                   InteTior any plan for the exploration or development of.
                 (f) In addition to providing grants under this section,             or production from. any area which has been leased un-
               the Secretary shall assist eligible coastal states and'their          der the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
               local governments in identifying and obtaining other                  1331 et seq.) and regulations under such Act shall. With
               sources of available Federal technical and rMancial                   respect to any exploration, development. or production
               assistance regarding the objectives of this section.                  described in such plan and affecting any land use or water
                                                                                     use in the coastal zone of such State. attach to such plan a
                    COORDINATION AND COOPERATION                                     certirication that each'activity which is described in detail
                                                                                     in such plan complies with such state's approved manage.
                 SEC. 307. (a) In carrying out his functions and respon-             ment program and will be carried out in a manner consis-
               sibilities under did title, the Secretary shall consult with,         tent with such program. No Federal official or agency
               cooperate with. and, to the maximum extent practicable,               shall grant such person any license or permit for any ac-
               coordinate his activities with other interested Federal               tivity described in detail in such plan until such state or
               agencies.                                                             its designated agency receives a copy of such certification
                 (b) The Secretary shall not approve the management                  and plan, together with any other necessary data and in-
               program submitted by a state pursuant to section 306 un-              formation, and until -
               less the views of Federal agencies principally affected by              (i) such state or its designated ar-ricy, in accordance
               such program have been adequately considered.                         with the procedures required to be established by such
               2-2"1                PabUshod by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037                                      33






                      7,14"                                                                                                                   FEDERAL LAWS

                      state pursuant to subparagraph (A), concurs with such                        (2) as superseding, modifying. or repealing existing
                      person's certification and notifies the Secretary and the                 laws applicable to the various Federal Agencies: -nor to
                      Secretary of the Interior of such concurrence,                            affect the jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the
                         (ii) concurrence by such state with such certifica-                    International Joint Commission. United States and
                      tion is conclusively presumed as provided for in subpara-                 Canada. the Permanent Engineering Board. and the
                      graph (A), except if such state fails to concur with or                   United States operating entity or entities established pur-
                      object to such certification within. three months after                   suant to the Columbia River Basin Treaty, signed at
                      receipt of its copy of such certification and supp           ortinj       Washington, January 17, 1961, or the International
                      information. such state shall provide the Secretary, the                  Boundary and Water Commission, United States and
                      appropriate federal agency, and such person with a                        Mexico.
                      written statement describing the status of review and the                    (f) Notwithstanding 'any other provision of this title,
                      basis for further delay in issuing a final decision. and if               nothing in this title shall in any way affect any require-
                      such'statement is not so provided, concurrence by such                    ment (1) established by the-Federal Water Pollution Con-
                      state with such certification shall be conclusively pre.                  trol Act, as amended, or the Clean Air Act, as amended,
                      sumed: or                                                                 or (2) established by the Federal Government or by any
                         ((ii) revised by PL 95.372, September 18, 19781                        state or local government pursuant to such Acts. Such
                         (ii.i) the.Secretary rinds, pursuant to subparagraph (A),              requirements shall be incorporated in any program
                      that each activity which is described in detail in such plan              developed pursuant to this title and shall be the water
                                                                                                pollution control and air pollution control requirements
                      is consistent- with the objectives of this title or i
                                                                                        Is
                      otherwise necessary in the interest of national security.                 app cable to such program.
                         If a state concurs or is conclusively presumed to con-                    (g) When any state's coastal zone management
                      cur, or if the Secretary makes such a finding, the                        program. submitted for approval or proposed for
                      provisions of subparagraph (A) are not applicable with                    modification pursuant to section 306 of this title. includes
                      respect to such person, such state, and any Federal                       requirements as to shorelands; which also would be sub-
                      license or permit which is required to conduct any activi-                ject to any Federally supported national land use pro-
                      ty affecting land. uses or water uses. in the coastal zone of             ar@m which may be hereafter enacted, the Secretary,
                      such state which is described in detail in the plan to which              prior to approving such program, shall obtain the c'on-'
                      such concurrence or finding applies. If such state objects                currence of the Secretary of the Interior, or such other
                      to such certification and if the Secretary fails to make a                Federal official as may be designated to administer the
                      finding under clause (iii) withrespect to such certifica-Z                national land use program with respect to that portion of
                      tion, or if such person fails substantially to comply with                the coastal zone management program affecting such in-
                      such plan as submitted. such person shall submit an                 -     land areas  '.
                      amendment to such plan, or a new plan, to the Se=tary                        (h) In case of serious disagreement between any
                      of the Interior. With respect to any amendment or new                     Federal agency and a coastal state -
                      plan su .bmitted to the Secretary of the Interior pursuant                   (1) in the development or the initial implementation of
                      to the preceding sentence, the,appticable time period for                 a mana ment_pE9.1rani under section 305, or
                      purposes of concurrence by conclusive presumption un-                        (2) in the administration of a management program
                      der subparagraph (A) is 3 months.                                         approved undersection 306:
                         (d) State and local governments submitting                             the Ztiecretary, with the cooperation of the Executive Of-
                      applications for Federal assistance under other Federal                   fice of the President, shall seek to mediate the differences
                      programs affecting the coastal zone sh          'all indicate the         involved. in such disagreement. The process of such
                      views.of the appropriate state or local agency as to the                  mediation shall. with respect to any disagreement
                      relationship of such activities to the approved manage-                   described in paragraph (2),'in-clude publk hearings whicH
                      ment program for the coastal zone. Such applications                      shall be conducted in die-Focal area concerned.
                      shall. be submitted and coordinated in accordance with
                      the provisions of title IV of the Intergovernmental Coor-                     COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM.
                      dination Act of 19,68 (82 Stat. 1098). Federal agencies
                      shall not approve proposed projects that are inconsistent                    SEC. 308. (a) (1) The Secretary shall administer and
                      with a coastal state's management program. except upon                    coordinate, as part of the coastal zone management ac-
                      a finding by the Secretary that such project is consistent                tivities of the, Federal Government provided for under
                      with the purposes of this title or necessary in theinterest               this title, a coastal energy impact program. Such
                      of national security.                                                     program shall consist of the provision of financial
                         (e) Nothing in this title shall be construed -                         assi.stance to meet the needs of coastal siates and local
                         (1) to diminish either Federal or state jurisdiction.                  governments in such states resulting from specifled ac-
                      responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, develop-              tivities involving energy development. Such assistance,
                      ment, or control of water resources, submerged lands, or                  -which includes -
                      navigable waters, nor to displace, supersede. limit, or                      (A) grants, under subsection (b). to coastal states for
                      modify. any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or                     the purposes set forth in subsection (b)(5) with respect to
                      responsibility of any legally established joint or common                 consequences resulting from the energy activities
                      agency of two or more states or of two or more states and                 specified therein:
                      the Federal Govmmenc, nor to limit the              authority of             (B) grants, under subsection (c)(1), to coastal states for
                      Congress to authorize and fund projects.                                  study of. and planning for. consequences relating to new


                                                                                                                                                                34






                     .-COASTAL ZONE ACT                                                                                                                            71:9009

                     or expanded energy facilities in,.or which significantly                       Government be       'ars to the total volume. of oil and natural
                     affect. the coastal zone:                                                      gas produced in such year from all of the outer Continen-
                       (C) grants, under subsection (c)(2), to coastal                              tal Shelf acreage which is leased by the Federal Govern-
                     states to carry out their responsibilities under the Outer                     ment.
                     Continental Shelf Lands Act:                                                      (C) An amount which bears. to one-quarter of the
                       (D)    loans, under subsection              (d)(1), 'to coastal              amount appropriated for such purpose for such fiscal
                     states and units of general purpose local government to                        year, the same ratio that the,volume of oil and natural
                     assist such states and units to provide new or improved                        gas produced from outer Continental Shelf acreage leas-
                     public facilities or public services which are required as a                   ed by the Federal Government which is first landed in
                     result of coastal energy activity:                                             such state in the immediately preceding fiscal year bears
                       (E) guarantees, under subsection (d)(2) and subject to                       to the total volume of oil and natural gas produced from
                     the provisions of subsection (f), of bonds or other                            all outer Continental Shelf acreage leased by the Federal
                     evidences of indebtedness issued by coastal states and un-                     Government which is first landed in all of the coastal
                     its.of general purpose local government for the purpose                        states in such year.
                     of providing new or improved public facilities or public                          (3)(AXi)      After      making        the- calculations          re-
                     services which are required as a result of coastal energy                      quired under paragraph (2) for any fiscal year, the
                     activity-,                                                                     Secretary shall -
                       (F) grants or other assistance. under subsection (dX3),                         (1) with respect to any coastal state which, based on
                     to coastal states and units of general purpose local                           such calculations, would receive an amount which is less
                     government to enable such states and units to meet                             than 2 per centurn of the amount appropriated for such
                     obligations under loans or guarantees under subsection                         fiscal year, increase the amount appropriated for such
                     ,d)'(1) or (2) which they are unable to meet as they                           fiscal year, increase the amount payable to such coastal
                     mature, for reasons speciried in subsection (d)(3); and                        state to 2 per centum of such appropriated amount; and
                       (G) grants, under subsection (d)(4), to coastal states                          (II) with respect to any coastal state which. in such
                     which have suffered. are suffering, or will suffer any un-                     f Iscai year,  would not receive a grant under paragraph
                     avoidable loss of a valuable environmental or recreational                     (2). make a grant to such coastal state in an amount
                     resource.                                                                      equal to 2 per centurn of the total amount appropriated
                                                                                                    for making grants to all states under paragraph (2) in
                     shall be provided. administered, and coordinated by the                        such Fiscal year if any other coastal state in the same
                     Secretary in accordance with the provisions of this sec-                       region will receive a grant under such paragraph in such
                     tion and under the rules and regulations required to be                        fiscal year, except that a coastal state shall not receive
                     promulgated pursuant to paragraph (2). Any such
                     financial assistance shall be subject to audit under section                   a grant under this subclause unless           the Secretary deter-
                     313.                                                                           mines that it is being or will be impacted by outer Con-
                       (2) The Secretary shall promulgate, in accordance with                       tinental Shelf energy activity and that it will be able to
                     section 317, such rules and regulations (including, but not                    expend or commit the proceeds of such grant in accord-
                     limited to, those required under subsection (e) as may be                      ance with the purposes set forth in paragraph (3).
                     necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of                          (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph -
                     this section.                                                                     (1) the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,
                       I(b) (1) The Secretary shall make grants annually to                         Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
                     coastal states, in accordance with the provisions of this                      New Jersey, New York, North Carolina. Pennsylvania,
                     subsection.                                                                    Rhode Island, South Carolina. and Virginia. the Com-
                                                                                                    monwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (t4e
                       (2) Subject to paragraph (3). the amounts pay-                               @ilantic coastil sitiiei) shall *co'nistiftute -o*n'e' -'r-e-gio-n':
                     able to coastal states under this subsection shall be, with                       (II) the states of Alabama. Florida. Louisiana,
                     respect to any such state (or any fiscal year, the sum of                      Mississippi, and Texas (the Gulf coastal states) shall
                     the amounts calculated. with respect to such state, pur-                       constitute one 'region'.
                     suant to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (Q: ,                                        (111) the states - of California. Hawaii.          Oregon, and
                       (A) An amount which bears, to one-half of the                                Washington. Jt4e Pacific coastal states)              shall consti-
                     amount appropriated for ihe purpose of funding grants                          tute one 'rmion' and
                     under this subsection for such fiscal year, the same ratio                        (IV) the state of Alaska shall constitute          one 'rezion'.
                     that the -amount of outer Continenta        'I Shelf acreage which                (B) If, after the calculations required under-sub-
                     is adjacent to such state and which is newly leased by the                     paragraph (A.), the total amount of funds appropriated
                     Federal Government in the immediately preceding fiscal                         for making grants to coastal states in any fiscal year pur.
                     year bears to the total amount of outer Continental Shelf                      suant to this subsection is less than the'total amount of
                     acreage which is newly leased by the Federal Government                        grants payable to all coastal states in such fiscal year,
                     in such precedin year.                                                         there shali be deducted from the amount payable to each
                                        9 .
                       (3) An amount which bears, to one-quarter of the                             coastal state which will receive more than'2 per centurn
                     arnount appropriated for such purpose for such fiscal                          of the amount of funds so appropriated, an amount equal
                     year. the same ratio that the volume           of oil  and naturil             to the product of -
                     gas produced in the immedia-te'ly p'rece-ding fiscal year
                     from the outer Continental Shelf acreage which is adja-                           (i) the amount by which the total amount of grants
                     cent to such state and which is [eased by the. Federal                         payable to all coastal states in such fiscal year exceeds

                     2-20-81                PubLished by THE BUREAU OF XATIONALAFF AIRS, INC... WASHLNGTON. D-C- 20037                                                   35







                 71:8010                                                                                                         FEDERAL LAWS

                 the total amount of funds appropriated      for making such          seaward boundari   es shall be determined according to the
                 grants; multiplied by      ,                                         applicable principles of law. including the principles of
                    (ii) a fraction. the numerator of which is the                    the Convention on 'the Territorial Sea and the Con-
                 amount of grants payable to such coastal state in such               ti2uous Zone. and extended on the basis of such orin-
                 fiscal year reduced by an amount equal to 2 per centum               ciples.
                 of the total amount appTopriated for such fiscal year                  (iii) if. after the date of enactment of this paragraph.
                 and the denominator of which is the total amount of                  two or more coastal states enter into.or amend an in-
                 grants payable to coastal states which. in such fiscal year.         terstate compact or agreement in order to clearly define
                 will receive more than 2 per centum of the amount of                 or fix lateral seaward-boundaries, such boundaries shall
                 funds so appropriated. reduced by an amount equal to the             thereafter be extended on the basis of the principles of
                 product of 2 per centum of the total amount appropriated             delimitation used to so define or Fix them in such com-
                 for such fiscal year multiplied by the number of such                pact or agreement.                                             I
                 coastal states.                                                        (C) For purposes of making calculations under this
                    (C)(i) I f.  after the calculations required under                subsection. the transitional quarter beginning July 1.
                 subparagraph    (B) for any fiscal year. any coastal state           1976. and ending September 30. 1976. shall be included
                 would receive   an amount which is greater than 371/1 per            within' the Fiscal year ending June 30. 1976.
                 centum of the   amount appropriated for such fiscal year.              (5) Each coastal state shall use the proceeds of grants
                 the Secretary   shall reduce the amount payable to such              received by it under this subsection for the following pur-
                 coastal state to 371/z per centurn of such appropriated              poses (except that priority shall be given to the use of
                 amount.                                                              such proceeds for the purpose set forth in subparagraph
                    (ii) Any amount not payable to         a coastal state in         (A):
                 a fiscal year due to a reduction under clause (i) shall                (A) The retirement of state and local bonds. if any.
                 be payable proportionately to all coastal states which               which are guaranteed unde" subsection (d) (2): except
                 are to receive more than 2 per centurn and less than 371/.,          that. if the amount of such grants is insufficient to retire
                 per centurn of the amount appropriated for such fiscal               both state and local bonds. priority shall be given to retir-
                 year, except that in no event shall any coastal state                ing local bonds.
                 receive more than 371A. per centum of such appropriated                (B) The study of. planning for, development of. and the
                 amount.                                                              carrying out o(projects and programs in such state which
                    (iii) For purposes of this subparagraph. the term                 are - .
                 .payable proportionately' means payment in any Fiscal                  (i) necessary to provide new or improved public
                 year in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2).             facilities and public services which are required as a re-
                 except that in making calculations under such paragr-aph             suit of outer Continental Shelf energy activity.
                 the Secretary shall only include those coastal states which            (ii) of7a t-ype approved by the Secretary as eligible for
                 are to receive more than 2 per centum and less than 371.?'Z          grants under this paragraph. except that the Secretary
                 per centurn of the amount appropriated for such fiscal               may not disapprove any project or program for highway's
                 year.                                                                an@ secondary roads.'docks. navization aids. fire and
                    (4)(A) The Secretary shall determine annually the                 police protection. water supply. waste collection and
                 amounts of the grants to be provided under this subsec-              treatment (including drainage). schools and education.
                 tion and shall collect and evaluate such information as              and hospitals and health care.
                 may be necessary to make such determinations. Each                     The Secretary may. pursuant to criteria promulizated
                 Federal department. agency. and instrumentality shall                by rule. describe' geographic areas in which public Facifi-
                 provide to the Secretary such assistance in collecting and           ties and public services referred to in clause (i) shall
                 evaluating Eelevant in@ormation as the Secretary may
                                                                                      be presumed to be required as a result of outer Con-
                 request. The Secretary shall request the assistance Ja7iy'           cinental Shelf energy activity for purposes of disbursing
                 appropriate state agency in collecting and evaluaWng                 the proceeds of grants unde'r this subsection.
                 such information.
                    (B) For purposes of        making calculations under                (C) The prevention. reduction. or amelioration of any
                 paragraph (2). outer Continental Shelf acreage is adja-              unavoidable loss in such state's coastal zone of any
                                                                                      valuable environmental or recreational resource if sucii
                 cent to a particular coastal state if such acreage lies on           loss results from coastal energy activi    .ty.
                 that statc*s side of the extended lateral seaward bbun-
                                                                                                           . In a timely manner.
                                                                                        (6) The Secretary                          ihall determine
                 daries of such state. The extended lateral seaward boun-
                 daries of a coastal state shall be deter  .mined as follows:         that each coastal state has expended or committed. and
                                                                                      may determine that such state will expend or commit.
                    (i) If lateral seaward boundaries have been clearly               grants which such state has received  I und.er this subsection
                 defined  'or fixed by an interstate compact. agreement. or           in accordance with the purposes set forth in p4ragraph
                 judicial decision (if entered into. agreed to, or issued             (5). The United States shall be entitled to recover-from
                 before the date of the enactment of this paragraph). such,           anv'coastal state an amount equal to ary portion of any
                 boundaries shall be extended on the basis of'the prin-               such arant received bv such state under this subsection
                 ciples of delimitation used to so define or rix them in such         whichZ
                 compact. agreement. or decision.
                    (ii) If no lateral seaward boundaries. or any portion               (A) is not expended or committed bv such state before
                 thereof, have been clearly defined or Fixed by an in-                the close of the fiical year immediately following the
                 terstate co m pact. agreement. or judicial decision. lateral         Fiscal year in which the grant was disbursed. or

                                                                      Enyi.fortrMwir Reporter








                 COASTAL ZONE ACT                                                                                                                    71:8011

                    (8) is expended or committed by          such state for any              (3) If the Secretary rinds that any coastal state or unit
                 purpose other than a purpose set forth in paragraph (5).                 of general purpose local government is unable to meet its
                 Before disbursing the proceeds of any grant under this                   ob@igations pursuant to a loan or guarantee made unde.-
                 subsection to any coastal state. the Secretarv shall re-                 paragraph ( 1) or (2) because the actual increases in
                 quire such state to provide adequate assuranc@s of being                 employment and related population resulting from
                 able to return to the United States any amounts to which                 coastal energy activity and the facilities associated with
                 the preceding sentence may apply.                                        such activity do not provide adequate revenues to enable
                 . (c)( 1) The Secretary shail mak'e grants to any coastal                such state or unit to meet such obligations in accordance
                 state if the Secretary Finds that the coastal ton; of such               with the appropriate repayment sc;cdule. the Secretary
                 state is being, or is likely to be significantly affected by             shall, after review of the information submitted by such
                 the siting. constructi   .on. expansion..or operation of new             state or lunit pursuant to subsection (e)(3), take any'Of the
                 or.expanded, energy facilities. Such grants shall be used                following actions:
                 for the study of. and planning for (including. but not                      (A) Modify appropriately the terms and conditions of
                 limited to. the application of the planning process includ-              such loan or guarantee.
                 ed in a management program 'pursuant to section                             (8) Refinance such loan.
                 305(b)(8)) any economic. social, or environmental con-                      (C) Make a supplemental loan to such state or un* it the
                 sequence which has occurred, is occurring. or is likely to               proceeds of which shall be applied to the payment of
                 occur in such state's coastal zone as a result of the siting.            principal and interest due under such loan or guarantee.
                 construction. expansion.or operation of such new or ex-                     (D) Make a grant to Such state or unit the proceeds of
                 panded energy facilities. The amount of any such grant                   which shall be applie   d to the payment of principal and in-
                 shall not exceed 80 per centum of the cost of such study                 terest due under such loan or guarantee.        I
                 and planning.                                                            Notwithstanding the preceding sentence. if the Secretary
                    (2) The Secret@rv shall make grants under this
                 paragraph to any c'oaSEal state which the Secretarv                         (i) has taken action under subparagraph (A), (B). or
                     S`7is likely to be affected by outer Continental Sheif               (C) with respect to any loan or guarantee made under
                 5 nd
                 energy activities. Such grants shall     .. be used by such state        paragraph (1) or (2), and
                 to carry out its responsibilities under thebuter Con-                       (ii) Finds that 'additional action under subparagraph
                 driental Shelf Lands Act. The amount of any-such grant                   (A). (B), or (C) will not enable such state or unit to meet,
                 shall not exceed SO per centum of the cost' of carrying                  within a reasonable time, its obligations under such loan
                                                                                          or guarantee and any additionaf obligations related to
                 out such responsibilities.
                    (3) (A) The Secretary shall make grants to any                        such loan or guarantee: the Secretary shall make a granT
                 coastal state to enable such state to prevent. reduce.                   or grants under subparagraph (D) to such state or unit in
                 or ameliorate any unavoidable loss in such state's                 -     an amount sufficient to enable such state or unit to meet
                 coastal zone of anv valuable environmental or recrea-                    such outstanding obligations.
                 tional resource. if such loss results from the transporta.                  (4) (308(d)(4) deleted by P L 96-4641
                 tion. transfer. or     st orage of coal or from alternative                 (e) Rules and regulations with respect to the following
                 ocean energy activities.                                                 matters shall be promulgated by the Secretary as soon as
                    (B) Such grants shall be allocated to any such state                  practicable. but not later than _@70 days after'the date of
                 based on r@les and regulations promulgaited bv the                       the enactment of this section:
                 Secretarv which shall take into account the num6er of                       (1) A formula and procedures for apportioning
                 coal or alternative ocean energy facilities, the nature of               equitably, among the coastal states. the amounts whic@
                 their impacts, and such other relevant factors deemed                    are avadable for the provision of financial assistance un-
                 appropriate by the Secreta                                               der subsection (d). Such formula shall be based on, and
                                                ry.
                                [308(c)(3) added by PL 964641                             limited to. the following factors:
                    (0 0 The    Secretary @_hall make loans to any coastal                   (A) The number of additional individuals who are ex-
                 state and to any unit o@general purpose local go@ernment                 pected to become'emploved in new or expanded              coastal
                 to assist such state or unit to provide new or improved                  energy activity, and the related new population. who
                 public facilities orpublic services. ar both. which are re-              reside in the respective coastal states.
                 quired as a result of coastal energy activity. Such loans                   (B) The standardized unit costs (as determined         by the
                 shall be made solely pursuant to this title. and no such                 Secretary by rule). in the re!evant regions Orsuch         states.
                 loan shall require 'as a condition thereof that any such                 for new or improved public facilities and public services
                 state or Unit pledge its full faith and credit to the repay-             which are required as a result of such expected employ-
                                    "o                                                    ment and the related new ooouiation.
                 ment thereof. .4         loan shall be made under th@is
                 paragraph    after September 30, 1986.                                      (") Criteria under which' the Secretary shall review
                    (_'@ The Secretary shall. subject to the provisions of                each coastal state's complianc:: with the requirements of
                 subsection  (0, guarantee. or enter into commitments to                  subsection (g)(2).
                 guarantee.   the payment of interest on. and the principal                  (3) Criteria and procedures for evaluating the extent to
                 amount of.   any bond or other evidence of indebtedness if               which any loan or ituarantee under subsection (d)( 1) or
                 it is issued by a coastal state or a unit of general purpose             (2) which@ is appiic@ for by any coastal state or' Unit Of
                 local government or the purpose of providing new or im-                  general purpose local government can be repaid through
                 proved public faciiities or public services. or both. which              its ordinary methods and rates for generating tax
                 are requh@d as a result of a coastal energy activity.                    revenues. Such procedures shall require such state or unit

                 2-201-81            Plblished bY 'rriE aUREAU OP-NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037,                                         37








                  71:8012                                                                                                      FEDERAL LAWS

                  to submit to the Secretary such information which is                 (2) The full faith and credit of the United Stites is
                  specified by the Secretary to be necessary for such                pledged to the payment. under paragraph (5). of any
                  evaluation. including. but not limited to -                        default on any ind@btedness guaranteed under subsection
                    (A) a statement as to the number of additional iri-              (d)(2). Any such guarantee made by the Secretary shall
                  dividuals who are expected to become employed in the               be conclusive evidence of the eligibility of the obligation
                  new or expanded coastal energy activity involved. and the          involved for suc h guarantee. andthe validity of any such
                  related new population, who reside in such state or unit.          guarantee so made shall be incontestable in the hands of
                    (3) a description, and the estimated costs of the new            a holder of the guaranteed obligation. except for fraud or
                  or improved public facilities or public services needed or         material misrepresentation on the part of the holder, or
                  likely to be needed as a result of such expected employ-           known to the holder at the time acquired.
                  ment and related new population:                                     (3) The Secretary shall prescribe and collect fees in
                    (C) a projection of such state*s or unit's estimated tax         connection with guarantees made under subsection
                  receipts during such reasonable time thereafter, not to            (d)(2). These fees may not exceed the amount which the
                  exceed 30 years. which will' be available for the repay-           Secretary estimates to be necessary to cover the ad-
                  ment of such loan or Suarant= and                                  ministrative costs pertaining to such@ guarantees.
                    (D) a proposed repayment schedule.                                 (4) The interest paid on any obligation which is
                  The procedurei required by this paragraph shall also               guaranteed under subsection (d)(2) and which is received
                  provide for the periodic verification. review, and                 by the purchaser thereof (or the purchaser's successor in
                  modification (if necessary) by the Secretary of the infor-         interest). shall be included in gross income for the pur-
                  mation or other material required to be submitted pur-             pose of chapter I of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
                  suant to this paragraph.                                           The Secretary may pay out of the Fund to the coastal
                    (4) Requirements. terms, and conditions (which may               state or the unit of general purpose local government
                  include the posting of security ) which shall be imposed           issuing such obligations not more than such portion of
                  by the Secretary, in connection with loans and guarantees          the interest on such obligations as exceeds the amount of
                  made under subsections (d)(1) and (2). in order to assure          interest that would be due at a comparable rate deter-
                  repayment within the time Fixed. to assure that the                mined for loans made under subsection (d)(1).
                  proceeds thereof may riot be used to provide public ser-            .(5)(A) Payments required to be made as a result of any
                  vices for an unreasonable length of time, and otherwise to         guarantee made under subsection (d)(2) shall be made b@
                  protect the financial interests of the United States.              the Secretary from sums appropriated to the Fund o'r
                    (5) Criteria under which the Secretary shall establish           from moneys o      btained from the Secretary of the
                  rates of interest on loans made under subsections (d)(1)           Treasury pursuant to paragraph (6).
                  and (3). Such rates shall not exceed the current average             (8) If there is a default by a coastal state or unit of
                  market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of              general purpose local government in any payment of
                  the United States with remaining periods to maturity               principal or interest due under a bond or other evidence
                  comparable to the maturity of such Joans.                          of indebtedness guaranteed by the Secretary under sub-
                    In developing rules and regulations under this subsec-           section (d)(2). any holder of such bond or ot@her evidence
                  tion, the Secretary shall. to the extent practicable, re-          of indebtedness may demand payment by the Secretary           -
                  quest the views of, or consult with. appropriate persons           of the unpaid interest on and the unpaid, principal of such
                  regarding impacts resulting from coastal energy activity.          obligation as they become due. The Secretary. after in-
                    (f)(1) Bonds or other evidences of indebtedness                  vestigating the (acts presented by the holder. shall pay to
                  guaranteed under -subsection (d)(2) shall be guaranteed            the holder the amount which is due such holder, unless
                  on such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall                the Secretary Finds that there was no default by such state
                  prescribe. except that -                                           or unit or that such default has been remedied.
                    (A) no guarantee shall be made unless the indebtedness             (C) If the Secretary makes a vayment to a holder un-
                  involved will be completeiy amortized within a                     der subparagraph (Bi. the Secre'ta*rv shall -
                  reasonable period, not to exceed 30 years.                           (i) have ad of the rights granted to' the Secretary or the
                    (3) no guarantee shall be made unless the Secretary              United States by law or by agreement With the obligor:
                  determines that such bonds or other evidences of in-               and
                  dcbtedness will                                                      (ii) be subrogated to all of the rights which were
                    (i) be issued only    to investors who    I meet the     re-     granted such holder. by law. assignment. or security
                  quirements prescribeii  by the Secretary, or. if an offering       agreement between such holder and the obligor.
                  to the public is contemplated, be underwritten upon                  Such rights shall include, but not be limitei@Eo. a right
                  terms and conditions approved by the Secretary-,                   of reimbursement to the United States against the
                    (ii) bear interest at a rate found not to be excessive by        coastal state or unit of general purpose local government
                  the Secretary: and                                                 for which the payment was made for the amount.of such
                    (iii) contain. or be subject to. repayment, maturity. and        payment plus interest at the prevailing current rate as
                  other provisions which are satisfacto'ry to the Secr;tarv:         determined by the Secretary. If such coastal start, or the
                  . (C) the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury shall          coasral state in which such unit is located, is due to
                  be required with respect to any such guarantee. unt                receive any amount under subsection (b), the Secretary
                                                                       ess the
                  Secretary of the Tr'                                               shall, in lieu of paving such amount to such state. deposit
                                       easury waives such approval;     and
                    (D) no guarantee shall be made after.September 30,               such amount in the Fund until such right of reimburse-
                  1986.                                                              ment has been satisfied. The Secretary may aCCCOE, in


                                                                      Env4eamment R"*rT@r                                                        38







                -COASTAL ZONE ACT


                complete or partial satisfaction of any such rights, a con-             (h) There is established in the Treasury of the United
                veyance of property or interests therein. Any property so            States the Coastal Energy Impact Fund. The Fund shall
                obtained by the @ecretary may be completed. main-                    be available to the Secretary. without Fiscal year limita-
                tained. operated. held. rented.. sold. or otherwise dealt            tion as a revolving fund for the purposes of carrying out
                with or disposed of on such terms or conditions as the               subsections (0 1 ) and (d). The Fund shall consist of -
                Secretary prescribes or approves. If. in any case. the sum              (1) any sums appropriated to the Fund-,
                received through the sale of such property is greater than              (2) payments of principal and interest received under
                the amuunt paid to the holder under subparagraph (D)                 any loan made under subsection (d)(1).
                plus costs. the Secretary shall pay any such excess to the              (1) any fees received in connection with any guarante.,
                obligor:                                                             made under subsection (d)(2); and
                   (D) The Attorney General shall. Upon the request of                  (4) any.recoveries and receipts under security, subroga-
                the Secretary. take such action as may be appropriate to             tion, and.other rights'and authorities described in subsec-
                enforce any right accruing to the Secretary or the United            tion (f).
                States as a result of the making of any guarantee under                 All payments made by the Secretary to carry out the
                subsection (d)(2). Any sums received through any sale                provisions of subsections (c)(1)(d). and (f) (including re-
                under !,ubparagraph (C) or recovered pursuant to this                imbursements to other Government accounts) shall be
                subparagraph shall be paid into the Fund.                            paid from the Fund. only to the extent provided for in
                   (6) If the moneys available to the Secretary are not suf-         appropriation Acts. Sums in the Fund which are not
                ficient to pay any amount which the Secretary is                     currentiv needed for'the purposes of subsections (c)( 1).
                obligated to pay under pa:ragraph (5), the Secretary shall           (d), an8 (0 shall be kept'on deposit or investid in
                issue to the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other                oblieations of. or guaranteed by. the United States.
                obligations (only to such extend and in such amounts as                 (6 The Secretary' shall not intercede in any land use or
                may be provided for in appropriation Acts) in such forms             water use decision of any coastal state with respect to the
                and denominations. bearing such maturities. and subject              siting of any energy facility or public facility by making
                to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the                 siting in a particular location a prerequisite to. or a con-
                Treasury prescribes. Such notes or other obligations shall           d.ition of. financial assistance under this section.
                bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the              0) The Secretary may evaluate, and report to, the
                Treasury on the basis of the current average market yield            Congress. on the efforts of thecoastal states and units of
                on outstanding marketable obligations of the United                  local government therein to reduce or ameliorate adverse
                States on comparable maturities during @he month                     consequences resulting from coastal energy activity and
                preceding the issuance of such notes or other obligations.           on the extent to which such efforts involve adequate con-
                Any sums received by the Secretary through such                      sideration of alternative sites.
                issuance shall be deposited in the Fund. The Secretary of               (k) To the extent that Federal funds are available un-
                the Treasury shall purchase any notes or other                       der, or pursuant to, any other law with respect to -
                obligations issued under this paragraph, and for this pur-              (i) study and planning for which financial assistance may
                pose such Secretary may use as a public debt transaction             be provided under subsection (b)(4)(B) and (c)( 1), or
                the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under               (41) public facilities and public services for which Ftnan-
                the Second Liberty Bond Act, as now or hereafter in                  cial assistance may be provided under subsection
                force. The purposes for which securities may be issued               (b)(4)(B) and (d). the Secretary shall. to the extent prac-
                under that Act are extended to include any purchase of               ticable. administer such subsections - -        -
                notes or other obligations issued under this paragraph.                 (A) on the basis that the financial assistance shall be in
                The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any of            addition to, and not in lieu of, any Federal funds which
                the notes or other, obligations so acquired under this               any coastal state or unit of general purpose local govern-
                paragraph. All redemptions. purchases. and sales of such             ment may obtain under any other law; and
                notes or other obligations by the Secretary of the                      (B) to avoid duplication.
                Treasury shall be treated as public debt transactions of                (1) As used in this section -
                the United States.                                                      (1) The term 'retirement.' when used with respect to
                   (g)(1) No coastal state is eligible to receive any rinan-         bonds, means the redemption in full and the withdrawal
                cial assistance under this section unless such state -               from circulation of those which cannot be repaid by the
                   (A) has a management program which has been ap-                   issuing jurisdiction in accordance with the appropriate
                proved under section 306i                                            repayment schedule.
                   (8) is receiving a grant under section 305(c) or (d): or             (2) The term 'unavoidable,' when used with respect to a
                   (C)  is. in the judgment of the Secretary, making                 loss of any valuable environmental or recreational
                satisfactory progress toward the development of a                    resource, means a loss. in whole or in part -
                management program which is consistent with the                         (A) the costs of prevention. reduction. or amelioration
                policies set forth in section 303.                                   of which cannot be directly or indirectly attributed to, or
                   (2) Each coastal state shall. to the maximum extent               assessed against, any identifiable person: and
                practicable. provide chat financial assistance provided                 (8) cannot be paid for with finds which are available
                under this section be apportioned. allocated. and granted            under, or pursuant to, any provision of Federal law other
                to units of local government within such state on a basis            than this section.
                which is proportional to the extent to which such units                 (3) The term 'unit of general purpose local govern-
                need such assistance.                                                ment' means any political subdivision of any coastal state

                2-20-al            PubLished by THE SUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037                                     39







                 71:8014                                                                                                     FEDERAL LAWS

                 or any special entity created by such a state or subdivi-          The Federal officials specified in       subsection (c), or
                 sion which (in whole or part) is located in. or has allEbori-      their designated representatives, shall participate on
                 ty over, such state's coastal zone, and which (A) has              behalf of the Federal Government, upon the request of
                 authority to levy taxes or establish and collect user              any such temporary planning and coordinating entity
                 fees. and (B) provides any public facility or public service       for a Federal-State consultad0n.
                 which is financed in who@le or part by taxes or user fees.           (e) A coastal State is eligible to receive financial
                   (SEC. 308 revised by PL 95-372. September 18. 19781              assistance under this section if such State meets the
                                 INTERSTATE GRANTS                                  criteria established under section 308(g)(1).
                                (309 revised by PL 96-4641                            RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
                   SEC.    309.  (a) The coastal States are encouraged                    FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGENIENT
                 to give high priority-
                                                                                      SEC. 3 10. (a) The Secretary may conduct a program
                   (1) to coordinating State coastal zone, planning,                of research, study, and training to support the develop-
                 policies, and programs   with respect to contiguous areas          ment and implementation of management programs.
                 of such States;-                                                   Each department. agency, and instrumentality of the, ex-
                   (2) to studying, planning, and implementing unified              ecutive branch of the Federal Government may assist the
                 coastal zone policies with respect to such areas, and       d      Secretary, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, in carry-
                   (3) to establishing an effective, mechanism. an                  ing out the purposes of this section, including, but not
                 adopting a Federal-Stace consultation procedure, for the           limited to, the furnishing of information to the extent
                 identification, examination, and cooperative rciolution            permitted by law, the transfer of personnel with their
                 of mutual problems with respect to the marine and                  consent and without prejudice to their position and
                 coastal areas which affect, . directly or indirectly, the          rating, and the performance of any research. study, and
                 applicable coastal zone.                                           training which does not interfere with the performance of
                 The coastal zone activities described in paragraphs (1),           the primary duties of such department, agency. or in-
                 (2), and   (3) of this subsection may be conducted                 strumentalicy. The Secretary may
                                                                                                                       . enter into contracts or
                 pursuant   to interstate agreements or compacts. The               other arrangements with any qualified person for the pur-
                 Secretary  may make grants annually, in amounts not                poses of carrying out this subsection.
                 to exceed 90 percent of the cost of such activities, if the          (b) The Secretary may make grants to coastal states to
                 Secretar y rinds that the proceeds of such grants will be          assist such states in carrying out research, studies. and
                 used for purposes consistent with sections 305 and 306.            training required with respect to coastal zone manage-
                   (b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to               ment. The'amount of any grant made under this subsec-
                 two or more coastal States to negotiate, and to enter              tion shall not exceed 80 per centum of the cost of such
                 into, agreements or compacts,.which do not conflict with           research, studies, and training.
                 any law or treaty of the United States. for-                         (c)(1) The Secretary shall provide for the coordination
                   (1) developing and administering coordinated coastal             of research, studies, and training activities under this sec-
                 zone planning, policies, and . programs pursuant to                tion with any other such activities that are conducted by,
                 sections 305 and 306; and                                          or subject to the authority of, the Secretary.
                   (2) establishing executive instrumentalities or agencies           (2) The Secretary shall make the results of research
                 which such States deem desirable for the effective                 .conducted pursuant to this section available to any in-
                 implementation of such agreements or compacts.                     terested person.
                 Such agreements or compacts shall be binding and
                 obligatory upon any State or party thereto without                                   PUBLIC HEARINGS
                 further approval by the Congress.                                    SEC. 311. All public hearings req    Iuired under this title
                   (c) Each executive instrumentality or agency, which              must be announced at least thirty days prior to the hear-
                 is established by an interstate agreement or compact                                                  In
                 pursuant to this section is encouraged to give high                ing date. At the time of the announcement. ail agency
                 priority to the coastal zone activities described in               materials pertinent to the hearings, including documents,
                 subsection (a). The Secretary, the Secretary of the                studies, and other data. must be made available to the
                 Interior, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental             public for review and study. As similar materials are sub-
                 Quality, the Administrator of the Environmental Protec-            sequenEly developed, they shall be made available to the
                                                                                    public a; they become avaiiable to the agency.
                 tion Agency, the Secretary of the department in which
                 the Coast Guard is operating, and the Secretary of                            REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
                 Energy, or their designated representatives. shall partici!.                      [3 12 revised by P L 96-4641
                 pate ex officio an behalf of the Federal Government
                 whenever any such Federal-State consultation is re-                  SEC@ 312.    (a) The Secretary shall conduct a con-
                 quested by such an instrumentality or agency.                      tinuing review of the performance of coastal states
                   (d) If no applicable interstate agreement or compact             with respect to coastal management. Each review shall
                 .exists, the Secretary may coordinate coastal zone                 include a written evaluation with an assessment and
                 activities described in subsection (a) and may make                detailed Findings concerning the extent to which the state
                 grants to assist any group of two or more coastal                  has implemented and enforced the'program approved by
                 States to create and maintain a temporary planning and             the Secretary, addressed the coastal management needs
                 coordinating entity to carry out such activities. The              identified in section 303(2)(A) through (1). and
                 amount ot such grants shall not exceed. 90 percent                 adhered to the terms of any grant, loan,,or cooperative
                 of the cost of creating and maintaining such an entity.            agreement funded under this title.
                                                                     Erwmanment Reporter                                                       40








                 COASTAL ZONE ACT

                   (b) For the pur
                                    @pose of making the evaluation of a                (b) The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the
                 coastal. state's performance, the Secretary shall conduct         United States, or any of their duty authorized represen-
                 public meetings and provide opportunity for oral and              tatives, shall -
                 written comments by the public. Each such evaluation                  I ) after any erant is made under this'title or any Finan-
                 shall be prepared in report form and the Secret         'ary      cial assistance is provided under section 308(d): and
                 shall make copies thereof available to the public.                    (2) until the expirafion.of 3 years after -
                   (c) The Secretary shall reduce any financial as-                    (A) completion of the project, program. or other. un-
                 sistance extended to any coastal state under section 306          dertaking ror which such grant was made or used. or
                 (but not below 70 per centum of the amount that                       (8) repayment of the loan or guaranteed indebtedness
                 would otherwise be available to the coastal state under           for which such financial assistance was provided.
                 such section for any year), and withdraw any unexpended           have access for purposes of audit and examination to any
                 portion of such reduction, if the Secretary determines            record.,book. document. and paper which belongs to or is
                 that the coastal state is failing to make significant             used or controlled by, any recipient of the grant funds or
                 improvement in achieving . the coastal management                 any person who entered into any transaction relating to
                 objectives specified in section 303(2)(A) through (1).            such financial assistance and which is pertinent for pur-
                   (d) The Secretary shall withdraw approval of the                poses of determining if the grant funds or the proceeds of
                 management program of any coastal state, and shall                such financial assistance are being. or were. used in ac-
                 withdraw any financial assistance available to that               cordance with the provisions of this. title.
                 state under this title as well as any unexpended portion
                 of such assistance, if the Secretary determines that the                        ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                 coastal state is failing to adhere to, is not justified in            SEC. 314. (a) The Secretary is authorized and directed
                 deviating from (1) the management program approved                to CSEablish@ a Coastal Zone ManagementAdvisory Com-
                 by the Secretary, or, (2) the terms of any grant or               mittee. to advise. consult with, and make recommen-
                 cooperative agreement funded under section 306, and               dations to the Secretary on matters of policy concerning
                 refuses to remedy the deviation.                                  the coastal zone. Such committee shall be composed of
                   (e) Management program approval and Financial                   not more than Fifteen persons designated by the Secretary
                 assistance may not be withdrawn under subsection (d),             and shall perform such functions and operate in such a
                 unless the Secretary gives the coastal state notice of            manner as the Secretary may direct. The Secretary shall
                 the proposed withdrawal and an opportunity for a                  insure that the committee' membership as a -group
                 public hearing on the proposed action. Upon the with-             possesses a broad range of experience and knowledge
                 drawal of   management program approval under this                relating to problems involving management. use. conser-
                 subsection  (d), the Secretary shall provide thme coastal         'vation. protection, and development of coastal zone
                 state with written specifications of the acnons that              resources.                                          i
                 should be   taken, or not engaged in, by the state in                 (b) Mernbers of the committee who are not regular
                 order that  such withdrawal may be canceled by the                full-time employees of the United States. while serving
                 Secremry.                                                         on the'business of the committee. including travel time,
                   (f) The  Secretary shall carry out research on, and             may receive compensation'ac rates not exceedina S100
                 offer technical assistance   to the coastal states with           per diem; and while so serving away from their ho-mes or
                 respect to, those activities. projects, and other relevant        regular places of business may be' allowed travel ex-
                 matters evaluated under t  ihis section that the Secretary        penses. including per them in lieu of subsistence. as
                 considers to offer promise toward improving coastal               authorized by section 5703 of title 5. United States Code.
                 zone management.                                                  for individuals in the Government. service employed in-
                   (Editor's note. Section 9(b) of PL 96-464 provides:             termittentiv.
                   '1(b) Within two hundred and seventy days after
                 the date of the enactment of this Act. the Secretary of                      ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES
                 Commerce shall issue such regulations as may be                            AND ISLAND PRESERVATION
                 necessary or appropriate to administer section 312 of                 SEC. 315. The Secretary may, in accordance with this
                 the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (as
                                                                                   section and in accordance with such rules and regulations
                 arnended by subsection (a)* Of this section)."]                   a.s the Secretary shall promulgate. make grants to any
                                RECORDS AND AUDIT                                  coastal State for the purpose of -
                   SEC. 313. (a) Each recipient of a.grant under         this          (1) acquiring, developing. or operating estuarine sanc-
                                                                                   tuaries. to serve as natural ricid laboratories in which to
                 title or of financial assistance under Sec. 308 shall
                 keep such records as the Secretary shall prescribe,               study and gather, data on the natural and human
                                                                                   processes occurring within the estuaries of the coastal
                 includin2 records which fully disclose the amount and
                                                                                   zone. and
                 disposition of the funds received under the zrant and of              (2) acquiring lands to provide for the preservation
                 the proceeds of such assistance. the total cost of the pro-       of island@. or portions thereof.
                 ject or undertaking supplied by other sources. and such               The amount of any such grant shall not exceed 50 per
                 other records as will facilitate an effective audit.
                                                                                   centum of the cost o@the project involved: except that. in
                                                                                   the case of acquisition of any estuarine sanctuary. the
                                                                                   Federal share of the cost thereof shall not exceed
                     'Subsection (a) revised Section 31Z of this Act.              S3  1000,000. 'No    ant for acquisition of land mav. be
                                                                                                     gr

                 2-20-ai            PubLished by THE SUREAU 01r-NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037                                41







                7U8016                                                                                                        FEDERAL LAWS

                made under this section without the approval of the                 conflicts between the objectives and administration of
                Governor of the State in which is located the land                  such programs and the purposes and policies of this
                proposed to be acquired.                                            title. -Not later than I year after. the date of the enact-
                           [315 amended    by PL 96-4641                            ment of this subsection, the Secretary shall notify each
                                                                                    Federal agency having appropriate jurisdiction of any
                   COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT REPORT                                   conflict between its program and the purposes and
                             [316 head revised by PL 964641                         policies of this title identified as a result of such review.
                   SEC. 31@. (a) The Secretary sha       .11 consult with the         (2) The Secretary shall promptly submit a report to
                Congress on a regular basis c    'oncerning the administra-         the Congress consisting . of the information required
                tion of this title and shad prepare and          isubmit to         under paragraph (1) of this subsection. Such report
                the President for transmittal to the Congress a report,             shad include recommendations for changes necessary to
                summarizing the administration of this title during each            resolve existing conflicts     among Federal laws and
                period of two consecutive fiscal yew. Each report, which            @rogra= that affect the uses of coastal resources.
                shall be transmitted to the Congrm, not later than                               P16(c) added'by PL 96-4641
                April I of the year following the close of the
                biennial period to which it pertains, shall include, but                        RULES AND REG,ULkTIONS
                not be restricted to (1) an identification of 'the state              SEC 317. The Secretary shall develop and promulgate,
                programs approved, pursuant to this title during the                pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
                preceding Federal fiscal year and a description of those            after notice and opportunity for full participation by rele.
                programs: (2) a listing of the states participating in              vant Federal agencies. state agencies, local governments,
                the provisions of this title and a description of the               regional organizations.' port authorities, and other in-
                status of eachstate's programs and its accomplishments              terested parties, both public and private, such rules and
                during the preceding Federal fiscal yc= (3) an itemiza-             regulations as may be accessary to carry out the
                tion of the allocation of funds to the various coastal              provisions of this title.
                states and a breakdown of the major projects and areas
                on which them funds were expended, (4) an identifi-                     AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
                cation of any state programs which have been reviewed                 SEC. 3 18. (a) there are authorized to, be appropriated
                and disapproved and a statement of the reasons for such             to the Secretary -
                action; (5) a summary of evaluatioa.rindings prepared'                (1) such sums, not to exceed S48,000,000 for each of
                in accordance with subsection (a) of section 312. and a             the fiscal years occurring during the period beginning
                description of any sanctions imposed under -subsections             October 1, 1980, and ending September 30, 1985, as
                (c) and (d) of this section; (6) a listing of all activities        may be necessary for grants under section 306, to
                and projects which, pursuant to the provisions of su6-              remain available until expended;
                section (c) or subsection (d) of section 307, are not                 (2) such sums, not to exceed S20,C40,000, for each
                consistent with an applicable approved state manage-                of the fiscal years occurring during the period     beginning
                ment program; (7) a summary of the regulations issued               October 1. 1980, and ending September 30, 1985, as
                by the Secretary or in effect during the preceding                  may be necessary for grants under section          306A, to
                Federal fiscal year, (8) a summary of a coordinated                 remain available until expended;
                national strategy and program for the Nation's coastal                (3) such sums, not to exceed S75,000,000 for each
                zone including identification and discussion of Federal.            of the fiscal years occurring during the period beginning
                regional, state, and local responsibilities and functions           October 1. 1980, and ending September 30, 1988, as
                therein; (9) a summary ofoutstanding problems arising               may be accessary for grants under section 308(b),
                in the administration of this title in order of priority,,            (4) such sums, not to exceed S3,MO,000 for each
                (10) a description of the economic, environmental, and              of the fiscal years occurring during the period beginning
                social consequences of energy activity affecting the                October 1, 1980, and ending September 30, 1985, as
                coastal zone and an evaluation of the effectiveness of              may be necessary for grants under section 309, to
                financial assistance under section 308 in dealing with              remain available until expended;
                such consequences; (11) a description and evaluation                  (5) such sums, not to exceed S9,000*     .000 for each 01
                of applicable interstate and regional planning and                  the fiscal years occurring during the period beginning
                coordination mechanisms developed by the coastal                    October 1, 1980, and ending September 30, 1985, as may
                states: (12) a summary and evaluation of the research,              be necessary for grants under section 315 to remain
                studies, and training conducted in support of coastal zone          available until expended;
                management; and (13) such other information as may                    (6)'such sums, not to exceed S6,000,000 for each of
                be appropriate.                                                     the fiscal years occurring during the period beginning
                (316(a) amended by PL 96-4641                                       October 1, 1980, and ending September 30, 1985, -as may
                  (b) T"he report required by subsection (a) shall contain          be necessary for administrative expenses incident to the'
                ,such recommendations for additional legislation 'as the            administration of this title.
                Secretary deems necessary to achieve the objectives of                           [318(a) revised by PL 96-4641
                this title and enhance its effective operation.                       (b) There are authorized to be appropriated until
                  (c) (1) The Secretary shall conduct a systematic                  October 1, 1986, to the Fund, such sums, not to exceed
                review of Federal, programs, other than this title, that            S800,000,000, for the purposes of carrying out the
                affect coastal resources for purposes of identifying                provisions of section 308, other than subsection,(b), of

                                                                     En*tonmont     Reporter






                 -COASTAL ZONE ACT                                                                                                           Mid*

                 which not to exceed S150,000,000 shall be for purposes                  (Editor's note.- Sections 2 through I I and 13 of
                 of subsections (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3) of such                     P L 96-464 amended and hav-- been incorporated into the
                 section.                                                             existing language of this Act. Section 12 of PL 96-464
                            (318(b) amended by PL 964"1                               follows:]
                   (c) Federal funds received from other sources shall
                 not be used to pay a coastal state's share of costs under               SEC. 12. CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL
                 section 306 or 309.                                                  PROCEDURE.
                            (318(c) amended by PL 96-4641                                (a) (1) The Secretary, after promulgating a final
                   (Editor's note. In addition to amending existing sec-              rule, shall submit such final rule to the Congress for
                 tions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and                 review'in accordance with      this section. Such final rule
                 adding new sections to the Act, PL 94-370 includes the               shall be delivered to each House of the Congress on
                 following sections:]                                                 the same date and to each      House of the Congress while
                                                                                      it is in session. Such final   rule shall be referred to the
                   SEC. 15. ADMIlVIS7RA7101V                                          Committee on Commerce' Science, and Transportation
                   (a) (Repealed by PL 95-2191                                        o  f -the Senate and to & Committee on Merchant
                   (b) (Superseded by subsection        (b) of PL 95-219.             Marine and Fisherim of the House, respectively.
                 See editor's note below.]                                               (2) Any such final rule shall become effective in
                   (c) The Secretary may, to carry out the provisions of              accordance with its terms unless, before the end of the
                 the amendments made by this Act, establish. and fix the              period of sixty calendar days of continuous session,
                 compensation for, four new positions without regard to               after the date such final rule is submitted to the Congress,
                 the provision of chapter 51 of title 5. United States Code,          both Houses of the Congress adopt a concurrent resolu-
                 at rates not in excess of the maximum rate for GS-18'of              tion disapproving such final rule.
                 the General Schedule under section 5332 of such title.                  (b) (1) The provisions of this subsection are
                 Any such appointment may, at the discretion of the                   enacted by the Congress-
                 Secretary, be made without regard to thd provisions of
                 such title 5 governing appointments in the competitive                  (A) as an exercise in the rulemaking power of the
                 service.                                                             House of   Representatives and as such they are deemed
                   SEC. 16. SHELLFISH SAiV17ATrON REGULA-                             a part of the Rules of the House of Representatives
                 TIOlys.                                                              but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be
                                                                                      followed in the House of Representatives in the case of
                   (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall -                              concurrent resolutions which are subject to this section,
                   (1) undertake a comprehensive review of all aspects of             and such provisions supersede other rules only to the
                 the molluscan shellfish industry, including, but not                 extent that they am inconsistent with such other rules;
                 limited to, the harvesting, processing, and transportation           and
                 of such shellfish; and                                                  (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right
                   (2) evaluate the impact of Federal law concerning                  of either House to change the rules (so far as relating
                 water quality on the molluscan shellfish industry.                   to the procedure of that House) at any time in the same
                   The Secretary of Commerce shall. not later than April              manner and to the same extent as in the ca.se of any
                 30, 1977, submit a report to the Congress of the findings.           other rule of that House.
                 comments, and recommendations (if any) which result                     (2) Any concurrent resolution. disapproving a final
                 from such review and evaluation.                                     rule of the Secretary shall, upon introduction or receipt
                   I (b) The. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare             from the other House of the Congress, be referred
                 shall not promulgate final regulations concerning the                immediately by %he presiding officer of such House to
                 national shellfish safety program before June 30, 1977.              the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transporta-
                 At least 60 days prior to the -promulgation of any such              tion of the Senate or to the Committee on Merchant
                 regulations, the Secretary of Health. Education. and                 Marine and Fisheries of the House, as the case may be.
                 Welfare, in consultation with the Secretary of Commcrce@                (3) (A) When a committee has reported a con-
                 shall publish an analysis (1) of the economic impact of              current resolution, it shall be at any time thereafter in
                 such regulations on the domestic shellfish industry, and             order (even,though a previous motion to the same effect
                 (2) the cost of such national shellfish safety program               has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the con-
                 relative to the benefits that it is expected to achieve.             sideration of the concurrent resolution. The motion
                   (Editor's note. In addition to repealing Section 15(a)             shall be highly privileged in the House of Represcrita-
                 of PL 94-370, subsection (b) of PL 95-219 'amended                   tives, and shall riot be debatable. An amendment to
                 Section 5316 of Title.5, United States Code as follows:              such motion shall not be in order. and it shall not be
                   "(140) Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone                    in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the
                 Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-                     motion was agreed to or disagreed to.
                 ministration.                                                           (B) Debate in the House of Representatives on the
                   (141) Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National              concurrent resolution shall be limited to not more than
                 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.                              ten hours which shall be divided equally between those
                   .(142) Assistant Administrators (3), National Oceanic              favoring and those opposing such concurrent resolution
                 and Atmospheric Administration.                                      and a motion further to limit debate shall not be
                   (143) General Counsel, National Oceanic and                        debatable. In the House of Representatives, an amend.
                 Atmospheric Administration."]                                        ment to,    or motion to recommit. the concurrent

                                       Puaitsmea t3v rIAe SURSAU Oa.NAnONAL AF;AIRS. INC WASHINGTON 0 C 20037                                      43






                71:8018                                                                                            FEDERAL LAWS
                resolution shall hot be in order, and it shall not be          (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
                in order to move to reconsider the vote by which such        decision on a matter certified under paragraph (1)
                concurrent resolution was agreed to or disagreed to.         shall be reviewabic by appeal directly to the Supreme
                  (4) Appeals from the decision of the Chair relating        Court of the United States. Such appeal shall be brought
                to the application of the rules of the House of Repre-       not later than twenty days after the decision of the
                sentative3 to the procedure relating to a concurrent         court' of appeals.
                resolution shall be decided without debate.                    (3) It shall be the duty of the court of appeals
                  (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this            and of the Supreme Court of the United &ates to
                subsection, if a House has approved a concurrent             advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest
                resolution with respect to any final rule of the             possible extent the disposition of any matter certified
                S=etary, then it shall not be in order to consider in        under paragraph (1).
                such House any other concurrent resolution with respect        (f) (1) For purposes of this section-
                to the same final rule.                                        (A) continuity of session is broken only by an ad-
                  (c) (1) If a final rule of the Secretary is disapproved    journment sine die; and
                by the Congress under subsection (a)(2), then the              (B) days on which the House of Representatives is
                Secretary may promulgate a final rule which relates          not in session because of an adjournment of more
                to the same acts or practices as the final rule disapproved  than rive days to a day certain are excluded in
                by the Congress in accordance with this subsection.          the computation of the periods specified in subsection
                Stich final rule-                                            (a)(2) and subsection (b).
                  '(A) shall be based upon-,                                   (2) If an adjournment sine die of the Congress
                  (i) the rulemaking record of the rinal 'rule dis-          occurs after the Secretary has submitt  ed  a final 'rula
                approved by the Congress; or                                 under subsection (aXI), but such adiournment occurs-
                  (ii) such rulemaking record and the, record e3tab-           (A) before @h_e end o@ the- period specified in
                lished in supplemental rulemaking proceedings con-           subsection (a)(2); and
                ducted by the Secretary in accordance with section 553 of      (B) before any action necessary to disapprove the
                title 5, United States Code, in any case in which the        final rule is completed under subsection (a)(2);
                Secretary determines that it is necessary to supplement      then the Secretary shall be required to resubmit the
                the existing rulemaking record. and                          final rule involved at the beginning of the next regular
                  (B) may contain such changes as the Secretary              session of the Congress. The period specified in sub-
                considers necessary or appropriate.                          section (a)(2) shall begin on the date of such resub-
                @ (2) The Secretary after promulgating a final rule          mission.
                under this subsection, shall submit the final rule to the      (g) For purposes of this  section:
                Congress in accordance with subsection (a)(1).                 (1) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of
                  (d) Congressional inaction on,' or rejection of a          Commerce.
                concurrent resolution of disapproval under this section        (2) The term "concurrent resolution" means a con-
                shall not be construed as an expression of approval          current resolution the matter after the resolving clause
                of the final rule involved, and shall not be construed       of which is as follows: "That the Congress disapproves
                to create any presumption of validity 'with respect to       the final rule promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce
                such final rule.                                             'dealing with the matter of          I which final rule
                  (e) (0 Any interested party may institute such             was submitted to the Congress on                    (The
                actions in the appropriate district court of the United      blank spaces shall be filled appropriately.)
                States, including actions for deciarator
                                                       ,y judgment, as         (3) ne term "rule" means any rule -promulgated
                may be appropriate to construe the constitutionality         by the Secretary pursuant to the Coastal Zone Manage-
                of any provision of this section. The district court         ment Act (16 U.S.C. 1450 et. seq.).
                immediately shall certify all questions of the consti-         (h) The provisions of this section shall take effect
                tutionality of this section to the United States court       on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall
                of appeals for the c! -rcuit involved'. which shall hear     cease to have any force or w7ect after September 30,
                the matter sitting* en banc.                                 1985.










                                Coastal Zone Management. Act of 1972, as amended

                                                 Section Summary



                Section 301    Short Title


                Section 302    Contains the Congressional.Findings which declare the national
                interes-F @in the coastal zone; acknowledge the importance of the coastal zone
                interms of its ecological, cultural, historic and aesthetic values, and t'he
                vulnerability of the coastal zone and its living resources to the impact of
                manis activities; note the increasing and often competing uses of this area
                and the need to resolve,conflicts among these uses; encourage the states to
                exercise their full authority over the lands and waters of the,coastal zone
                through cooperation with Federal and local governments and other interests
                in developing effective management programs; and assert the value of
                assisting states in meeting needs generated by new or expanded energy
                activities in or affecting the coastal zone.


                Section 303    Declares the Congressional Policy to  preserve, protect, develop,
                and where possible to restore or en  hance, the resources of the coastal zone;
                to encourage and assist the states in the development and management of the
                coastal zone through programs which address nine identified coastal management
                objectives; to encourage the development of special area management plans;
                and to encourage the participation and cooperation of the public and all
                levels of government in supporting the purposes of the Act.


                Section 304    Definitions


                Section 305    Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to coastal
                states for the purpose of developing a coastal management program which
                meets the requirements described in Section 306 below. Defines the mandatory
                compoInents of a management program to include an identification of the
                boundaries of the program area; a definition of permissib-le land and water
                uses having a direct and significant impact.on coastal- waters; an 'inventory
                and designatIon of are:as of particular concern; a description of appropriate
                st@fte authorities to control land and water uses; broad guidelines on
                priorities of uses in particular areas; a,description of the organizational
                structure which will be used to implement the program; a definitio   'n of the
                term "beach" and a planning process for the protection of and access to
                public beaches and other public coastal areas; a planning process for energy
                facilities, including their impacts; and a planning process for assessing
                and lessening the adverse impact of shore erosion. Prior to 1980, the section
                allowed up to four grants to be made to each state and required 20% state
                matching funds. Provision was made for an additional grant thereafter if a
                state met certain criteria-relative to the steps yet necessary to meet the
                requirements of Section 306. The sect,ion established maximum and minimum
                state allocations of the appropriated funds among the.eligible states and
                territories. This section was deauthorized in the 1980 amendments.








                                                        2

                 Section 306   Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to coastal
                 states to implement their Federally-approved management programs and establishes
                 maximum and minimum state allocations for appropriated funds. It requ.ires that
                 an increasing proportion of Federal funds (up to 30%) be used for activities
                 supporting the nine national coastal management objectives identified in
                 Section 303. It establishes the criteria for Federal approval of a state's
                 management program to be: coordination of the management program with other
                 applicable local, areawide and interstate plans; e 'stablishment of an effective
                 mechanism for continuing consultation and coordination between the management
                 agency and other local, interstate, regional and areawide agencies; public
                 heari'ngs; review and approval by the Governor; Gubernatorial designation of.
                 a lead agency to receive and administer the grant; State demonstration of
                 appropriate organization and authorities to implement the program; adequate
                 consideration of the national interest in the planning for and siting of
                 facilities which are necessary to meet requirements which are other than
                 local in nature; and,provision for procedures to designate specific areas
                 for preservation or restoration. The section specifies the powers which the
                 state must possess and describes three techniques for control of land and
                 water uses which a state may use to meet the Federal requirements. It makes
                 provision for amendment,or modification of the approved program and encourages
                 states to inventory and designate areas containing coastal resources of
                 national significance.


                 Section 306A - Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to-make grants to the
                 states to7T) preserve or restore areas des  'ignated under Section 306(c)(9)
                 for those purposes or which contain one or more coastal resources of national
                 significance; (2) redevelop deteriorating or underutilized urban waterfronts
                 and ports; and (3) provide access to public beaches and other @ublic coastal
                 areas. Grants may be used to acquire fee simple or other interests in land;
                 to.implement low-cost construction projects; and for other purposes. It
                 provides for 20% state cost-sharing and sets minimum and maximum amounts for
                 the allocation of appropriated funds.


                 Section 307 - Requires that the Secretary of Commerce, prior to program
                 approval, adequately consider the views of Federal agencies affected by
                 such state programs. Further provides that each Federal agency conducting
                 or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone or any Federal
                 agency undertaking-any-development project in the coastal zone shall support
                 or implement those activities consistent with a state's approved coastal
                 program to the maximum extent practicable. Applicants for a required
                 Federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water
                 uses in the coastal zone must certify that the license or permit is
                 consistent with the applicable coastal management program, and such license
                 or permit may not be issued by a Federal agency until the state has
                 concurred or its concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to
                 act. Similar provisions, with conditions, are included which apply to
                 persons submitting any plan for the exploration, development.of or
                 production from any area leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
                 Act. The provisions of consistency with a state's coastal program also
                 apply to applications for Federal financial assistance. The section also
                 provides for Secretarial mediation in the event of serious disputes and
                 appeals to the Secretary of certain state actions.









                Section 308 - Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants  to states:
                to prevent,.reduce or ameliorate any unavoidable loss of any valuable
                environmental or recreational resource resulting from coastal energy activity;
                to study and plan for the social, environmental or economic impact of energy
                facilities; and to support activities by states to carry out-their
                responsibilities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Provides for
                loans and loan guarantees to provide new or improved public facilities
                and public services which are required'as a result of coastal energy
                activity. The section prescribes how funds appropriated under the
                section shall be a.1located and the terms and conditions of the various
                forms of financial assistance.


                section 309 - Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to any
                group of two or more states under an interstate agreement or compact, or
                temporary planning and coordinating entity to coordinate their coastal
                planning, policies and programs with'respect to the contiguous areas of
                the states; to study, plan and implement unified coastal zone policies with
                respect to such areas; and to establish an effective mechanism for the
                identification,.examination and cooperative resolution of mutual problems
                with respect to marine and coastal areas which directly or indirectly affect
                their coastal zones.


                Section 310 - Authorizes the Secretary to conduct a program of research,,
                study a-FT-Fraining to support the development and implementation of
                management programs. Provides that the Secretary may provide grants to
                coastal states for similar purposes.


                Section 311   Establishes requirements for public hearings conducted
                pursuant to the Act.


                Section 312 -: Requires the Secretary to conduct a continuing review of the
                performance of coastal states with respect to coastal-management. Stipulates
                that each review will include a written assessment and detailed findings
                concerning the extent to which the state is implementing and enforcing its
                approved program, addressing the nine national coastal management objectives
                identified in Section 303, and adhering to the terms of its financial assistance
                award. Requires that public meetings be conducted as part of the evaluation.
                Provides for the Secretary to reduce financial assistance under the award
                if a state is failing to make significant improvement in achieving the nine
                national coastal management objectives identified in Section 303, or to withdraw
                program approval and all financial assistance if the state is failing to
                adhere to, and is not justified in deviating from, its approved 'program or
                the terms and conditions of its financial assistance award. Procedures for
                the withdrawal of program approval are outlined.


                Section 313  Defines the requirements for record keeping and financial
                audits-.










                 Section 314   Establishes the Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee.


                 Section 315 - Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to states to acquire,
                 develop or operate estuarine sanctuaries to serve as national field
                 laboratories, and to acquire land to provide for the preservation of
                 islands, or portions thereof. Such grants shall be matched by a 50 percent
                 state share.


                 Section 316 - Establishes the  timing and content of the biennial report to
                 CongrFss on the administration of the Act. It also requires the Secretary to
                 conduct a systematic review of Federal programs to identify conflicts between
                 the objectives and administration of such programs and the purposes,and policies
                 of this Act.


                 Section 317   Authorizes the Secretary to promulgate rules and regulations
                 pursuant to the Act.


                 Section 318   Contains authorization for  funds for specific sections of the
                 Act.

































                                                 APPENDIX B

                                                REGULATIONS


0




                                    Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 98 / Thursday, May 20. 1982    Rules and Regulations  217S9

                      Company Act of (15,U.S.C. 80-8).              -On page 21024. in the first column.                   generally. reduced by half (from 4% to
                      Is an American Depositoty Receipt of a            before paragraph 1., add.                            2%) the percentage requirement of net
                      foreign Issuer whose securities are,                                                                 capital for those broker-dealers which
                      registered under section 12 of the Act. or        931.140 through 931.152      (Subpart L)         have elected the alternative  method of
                      is a stock of an issuer required to file         [Removed]                                           calculating net capital. allowed the U3e
                      reports under section 15(d) of the Art (15       Mail code 1506-01-1                              of revolving'subordinated loans.
                      U.S.C. 78o(d)).                                                                                      n(oderaled the treatment of short
                                                                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE                             securities differences and allowed
                      (4) Daily quotations for'both- bid and           COMMISSION                                          elimination from the Reserve Formula
                      asked prices for the stock are                                                                       of securities borrowed from customers
                      continuously available to the general            17 CFR Part 240                                     under certain circumstances. The
                      public.                                                                                              amendments that were proposed in
                       (5) There are 300,000 or more shares of       released No. 34-15737; Files Nos. S7-855.               January 1982 included changes in the
                      such stock outstanding -in- addition to        856,922, and 923)                                     percentage deductions (-haircuts-) from
                      shares hold beneficially by officers.                                                             the market value of certain securities in
                      directors. or beneficial owners of more      Net Capital Requirements for Brokers               the proprietary accounts of broker.
                      'than 10 per cent of the stock.                   and Dealers                                         dealers In computing capital
                      (6) The minimum average bid Price of              AGENCY. Securities and Exchange                     requirements; changes in the treatment
                      such stock. as determined by the Board.          Commission.                                         of municipal securities that have no
                      Is at least $2 per share and.                    ACTl0N: Adoption of Amendments to net              ready -- ket: changes in the treatment
                      (7) The Issuer has at least $1 million of        capital rule.                                       of fail to deliver contracts that allocate
                      capital. surplus, and undivided profits,                                                             to fall to receive contracts ("matched
                                                                       SUMMARRY: The Commission Is amending                 fails") under the Reserve Formula; and
                                                                       parts of its net capital and customer               changes in the time period before a
                      Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.           protection rules for broker:dealers. The            deduction must be taken for fail to
                                                                       amendments will alter the haiircut                  deliver contracts. The Commission also
                     The Initial regulatory flexibility.-              under the net capital rule  on most debt           -proposed to amend the customer
                      analysis indicated that because-the-             securities. preferred stock and                     protection rule to change the treatment
                      proposals to amend OTC List  criteria               redeemable securities of certain                    of securities borrowed by broker-dealers
                      involved a mixture of relaxing and        registered investment.compainies.The                from persons other than brokers,
                      tightening changes. It easy to            amendments will also affect the                    dealers, or municipal securities dealers
                      judge the overall Impact on small                                                                                
                      domestic entitles a-primarely                     treatment of securities borrowing and.              under the possession or control
                      small-sized corporations whose stocks          fails to deliver by brokers-dealers.under           'requirement of that rule. The effective
                      are traded In the over-the-counter            both rules. Finally. the Commission is.             date of the amendments that were
                      market                                           adopting a newprovision in the not                  adopted by the Commission in January
                                                                       capital rule designed for a unique class            1982 was delayed untiL May 1. 1982         
                      No comment were received which                 of broker-dealer generally known as                  Following the Commission's actions in
                      would lead the Board to concludes that
                                                                    municipal securities brokees broken             .   January 1982 self-regulatory
                      the adoption of these amendments-        EFFECTCTIVE DATE June 25,1982                            organizations and the Commodities
                      would have a significant economic                                                               
                      impact on a substantial number of small    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT-                    Futures Trading Commission (the
                      entities.                                        Michael A. Macchiaroli, Division of                 -CFTC"] have taken action affecting the
                                                                       Market Regulation (202) 272--2372, 500 N.               capital requirements of many broker-
                      By order of the Board of Governors             Capital Street. Washington. D.C. 20549              dealem The New York Stock Exchange
                      Federal Reserve System. May 12,1982
                      Wlliam W. Wiles.                              SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION : In                   (the -NYSE") adopted a rule proposal
                                                                       January 1982 the Commission                           reducing the  early warning levels.
                      Secretary of the Board.                          announced the. adoption and propsal of             thereby reducing as a practical matter.
                      FR Dec   13482 filed 5-19-42:   aml              amendments to' the net capital and                  the net capital required of member
                               C0DE   6210-01-                         customer protection rules that. taken               firms The Board of Directors of the
                                                                       together; would'sifniflcantly revise the            National-Association of Securities
                                                                       Capital requirements for broker-dealers. i         Dealers. -Inc. (the "NASD") has
                      DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                           The amendment as   adopted or                 approved a substantially similar rule
                                                                       proposed for comment represented the                and has submitted that rule to its
                      National Oceanic and Atmospheric.                                                             membership for approval. The CFTC has
                                                                       Commission's conclusion.following a
                      Administration                                   comprehensive examination of the                    proposed for comment amendments that
                                                                       financial responsibility requirements                           would substantially parallel the
                      15 CFR Part 931                                  applicable to broker-dealers and the                amendments to the net capital rule
                                                                       capacity of the securities Industry to               adopted by the.Commission.
                      Improving Coastal Management In the                 avoid Operational and financial
                      United States                                                                                        The Commission is adopting the
                                                                       problems encountered In the                         amendments       proposed in January 1982,
                      Correction                                       'Paperwork Crisis- of the late 1960's.               modified..as discussed below. to
                                                                       that those capital requirements could be            account for certain of the comments
                      In FR Doc. 82-13359, appearing at                revised without creating  undue risks to          received: The Commission. however.
                      page 21009. in the issue of Monday.May           'Investor,                                          declines to revisit at this time. as several
                      17. 1982 make the following correction:;          The amendments that were_adopted                    commentatiors           suggested. certain issues
                      On page 210224. In the first column,              by the Commission in january  1982                    considered In January 1982        In view of
                      remove the hearing.Subpart C-               	Securities Exchange Act Releases Nos. 18417-         the significant reduction in overall
                      (Removed] appearing after the table of       16420 (Jan,13,1982). 47 FR 2512 (Jan,25,1962).            17 CFR 240.15c3-3a
                      Contents for Subpart D:.                                      
 

0                   Federal Revister / Vol 47  No 95 /   Monday  May 17 1997  / Rules and Regulations     21009


                       DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                             11. Regulatory Issues                               implementing  Sections 306(i).306A and
                                                                              A. General Background                          315
                       National Oceanic and Atmospheric                                                                        A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was
                       Administration (NOAA)                                The CZMA was enacted to encourage                  published on pages 51393-51402 of the                            
                                                                         and assist states in developing and                  Federal 'Register of October 20.1981.
                       15 CFR Part 923, 927, 928, and 931               implementing management programs to                  inviting comments for 30 days ending
                                                                         preserve. protect. develop. and when                  November 20. 1981. Comments were
                       improving Coastal Management in the               possible. to restore or enhance the                  received from 32 sources including
                       United States                                     resources of our nation's coast. The                 federal and state government agencies.
                                                                         primary purpose of the 1980                          regional orginizat ions a nd interest
                       AGENCY: National Oceanic and                      amendments is to reaffirm the nation's              groups.
                       Atomospheric Administration (NOAA).               commitment to the wise else and                     B. Legislative Amendments and Issues
                       Commerce.                                         management of our coastal resources                                
                       ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking.                through the coastal zone management                   Resolved Through Rulemaking
                                                                         program. To this end. key provisions of               1. Improving Coastal Zone
                       SUMMARY: Pub. L 96-464. the Coastal               the CZMA were strengthened to                         Mandagement --Sections 303/306.The
                       Zone Management Improvement Act-of                encourage states to significantly                     provisions of the CZMA paraphrased
                       1980 (the Act). which amended the                 improve their coastal management                      below relate to improving coastal
                                                                         programs.                                             management. and Section 5(b) of the Act
                       Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972                 On December 30. 1980, NOAA issued                    requires the Secretary to issue
                       (CZMA). requires the Secretary of                 an advance notice of proposed
                       Commmerce to issue regulations for                                                                          regulations for their implementation.
                                                                        rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public                   Section 303clarifies national coastal
                       improving the administration of the               comment on rules to implement the
                                                                                                                               policy by describing specific national
                       national coastal zone management                  amendments to the CZMA. Specifically.                 objectives that warrant full
                       program established by the CZMA. This            the ANPR solicited comments on rules                  consideration during the implementation
                       notice sets out final rules for: (1)              for: (1) Encouraging states to achieve                of approved state coastal management
                       Encouraging states to achieve significant         significant improvements in meeting                   programs.
                       improvements in meeting certain                   certain national coastal management                   Section 306(a) encourages more
                       national coastal management objectives;           objectives (Sections 303 and 306(a)); (2)             effective coastal management by
                       (2) allocating Federal financial                  Allocating Federal financial assistance               requiring states with approved programs
                       assistance among eligible states to               among eligible states to administer                   to expend an increasing proportion of
                       administer approved state coastal                 approved states coastal management                     administrative grants (up to a maximum
                       Management programs: (3) awarding                 programs (Section 306(b);(3) awarding               of 30 percent unless a state agrees to a
                       Federal financial assistance to eligible          Federal finacial assistance to eligible
                       states to mitigate adverse coastal               states to mitigate adverse coastal                    higher percentage) an activities that will
                                                                         Impacts caued,by coal and alternative                result, in significant improvement in
                       impacts caused by coal and alternative            ocean energy activities (Section                      achieving the national coastal objectives
                       ocean energy activities; and (4)                  308(c)(3);(4) reviewing and evaluating              specified in Section 303.
                       reviewing and evaluating the                      the performance of approved state                     The final rules implementing sections           
                       performance of approved state, coastal               a                                                  303 and 306(a) broadly define
                       zone management programs and coastal.             coastal zone management programs and                  "significant improvements  to include
                       energy impact programs.                           coastal energy impact programs (Section                 state accomplishments that add
                                                                         312): (5) enhancing the protection of
                       EFFECTIVE DATE:  The final rules will  			  nationally,significant Coastal resources              elements to current management
                       Become effective unless. within 60                (Section 306(i):(6) awarding grants to              programs or strengthen existing program
                       calendar days of continuous session               eligible coastal states for preserving                elements. They provide that selection of
                       after Submission to the Congress for'             specific coastal areas. redeveloping                  management activities designed to
                       review. both Houses of Congress adopt             urban waterfronts and parts. and                      result in significant improvements will
                       a concurrent resolution disapproving the          providing access to                                   be negotiated  between OCZM and
                       final rules. Notification of the effective        coastal waters (Section 306A); and. (7)             individual states. require states to
                       date will be published in-the Federal             awarding grants to assist eligible states             expend in the second year of funding at
                       Re-sister. Until these regulations become         in preserving islands (Section                        least 20 percent of their Federal section
                       effective, they shall provide guidance to         NOAA received 38 comments before the                  306 financial assistance award On
                       federal agencies and state governments            close of the comment period an January                significant Improvement activities and
                       for implementing the CZMA.                        31.1981 In February 1981. NOAA                       increase expenditures by one percent in,
                                                                         distributed issue papers to                           each succeeding year. They also provide
                       FOR FURTHER" IFORMATION CONTACT:                   approximately 400 interested parties on               that a state failing to agree to pursue
                       JoAnn Chandler.. Director. Vickie Allin           a mailing list established for this                   significant improvements may not
                       or Nancy Carter. Office of Policy,               rulemaking. Sixty-six comments were                   receive any financial assistance under
                       Evaluation and External Relations (202)           received-                                             Section 305 to implement its program.
                       34-4245.                                          Based on comments an the ANPR and                    generally. the final significant
                       SUPPLEMENTRARY   INFOMRMATION                 the issue papers. NOAA prepared                       improvement regulations provide for a
                                                                         proposed rules. Because of budgetary                  flexible and cooperative approach so
                       L Authority                                       constraints and the need to eliminate                 that coastal states and NOAA can
                                                                         unnecessary regulations. only those                    effectively deal with the phase down of
                       This notice of final rulemaking is         regulations that were statutorily                     Federal funding. These final regulations
                       issued under authority of Sections 306           mandated and necessary to the                         are published as Subpart K of 15 CFR
                       and 317 of the CZMA and Sections 5. 7.            operation of the coastal management                   Part 923-the existing Coastal Zone
                       and 9 of the Act.                                 programs were proposed. Therefore. the                Management Program Development and
                                                                         NPR did not include regulations                       Approval Regulations.
 






                     210l9                 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 95 / Monday, May 17, 1982 / Rules and Regulations


                      2. Allocating Administrativen Grants-             Consolidation of the three categories of			and that opportunity be provided for             
                    Section(306b). Section 306(b) requires              "c" grants under one subpart (new				oral and written comment by the public.
                    that administrative grants under section            subpart D) will greatly simplify the                  Evaluation reports must be issued                             	
                    306 be allocated among coastal states               regulations for administering the CEIP.			following each review of state
                    with approved programs in acordance				Under this consolidated approach,			performance. The Secretary is directed
			  with rules and regulations that take into		states will receive one allotment under			to reduce financial assistance under
			  account "the extent" of the shoreline			section 308(c) that they will then				Section 306 of the CZMA by up to 30
			  covered by the plan, "the population" of		apportion at their discretion among the			percent if it is determined that a state is
			  the area covered by the plan, and other			allowable uses of subsections (c)(1),			not making significant improvement in
			  relevant factors.						(c)(2), and (c)(3). To assure the timely			achieving the coastal management
			    The allocation formula in the final 			expenditure of section 308(c) funds, the			objectives identified in section
			  regulations is simple, straightforward,			final regulations require states to submit		303(2)(A)-(I), and to withdraw program
			  and easy to administer and will				applications before the end of the fiscal			approval and financial assistance if it is
			  minimize the disruption in state funding		year for which allotments were made:			found that a state is failing to adhere to,
			  from current levels. The formula is			funds not applied for by then can be			or is unjustifiably deviating from, its
			  based on (1) an established minimum			reallotted among other eligible states			approved program or the terms of any
			  share allocated to each state and (2) a			during the next fiscal year.					grant or cooperative agreement and
			  proportionate share of the remainder to				The final regulations also set forth the		refuses to remedy the deviation. The
			  to be allocated 60 percent on the length of		objectives of providing financial				statute outlines procedural safeguards
			  shoreline, which provides a reasonable			assistance to coastal states under				(such as notice tothe state and an
			  approximation of the magnitude of the			section 308(c) and its allowable users,			opportunity for a public hearing) that
			  resource to be managed, and 40 percent 			describe procedures for allotting section			must be observed if the Secretary finds
			  on coastal county population which			308(c) funds among eligible coastal				that program approval and financial
			  provides a reasonable approximation of			states and for applying for assistance			assistance should be withdrawn.
			  the pressures for use of coastal				under section 308(c). In addition, the				The basic requirements for continuing
			  resources. These factors provide				final rules broadly define coal to include		review are set forth in the regulations.
			  continuity with past practice, since they		the waste products of its combustion			They provide that evaluations will be
			  have been used in the allocation process		(ash and sludge), "coal facility" as any			prepared. The Office of Coastal Zone
			  since the inception of the program and			facility that utilizes, transports,				Management expects that the evaluation
			  will produce the least disruption to the		transfers, stores, handles, processes or			of a state's approved coastal zone
			  existing funding pattern. Other factors			produces coal, and "alternative ocean			management program and coastal
			  such as nature of the shoreline and need		energy facility" to include solar				energy impact program will occur at the
			  for management funds were considered 			facilities.								same time.
			  but not selected because they were too				The final rules consolidating the				The final evaluation regulations are
			  subjective and difficult to quantify. The		financial assistance provisions under			published as 15 CFR Part 928,replacing
			  final allocation regulations superside			section 308(c) are published as Subpart			the regulations that governed a one-
			  the expired allocation regulations			D of 15 CFR Part 931--the Coastal				time-only allocation of supplemental
			  published at 15 CFR Part 927.				Energy Impact Program regulations--				funds appropriated for FY 1975. These
			     3. Coal and Alternative Ocean Energy			and replace the existing Subpart D and			regulations are no longer necessary for
			  Impact Grants--Section 308(c)(3). New			Subpart L.								program administration.
			  section 308(c)(3) authorizes the					The consolidation of section 308(c)				The promulgation of regulations
			  Secretary to make grants under the			regulations necessitates some minor				implementing section 312 (c), (d) and (e)
			  Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP)			conforming changes to Subpart G. which			necessitates some minor changes to 15
			  to eligible coastal states for preventing		deals with formula grants. These				CFR 923.82(b)(3),which deals with
			  or mitigating unavoidable environmental			changes are necessary because Subpart			sanctions for state implematation of
			  and recreational losses in the coastal			D, which is being revised, contained			unapproved amendments. The changes
			  zone resulting from the "transportation,		provisions that are required for 				are necessary because this section
			  transfer or storage of coal or from			administering the formula grants				references 923.85, "Termination and
			  alternative ocean energy activities."			provisions of the CEIP regulations.				Withdrawal of Administrative Funding,"
			  Funds must be allocated among eligible				4. Review of Performance				which isbeing replaced by 928.5(b).
			  states in accordance with "rules and			(Evaluation)--Section 312. Section 312			"Withdrawal of Program Approval and
			  regulations...which shall take into			of the CZMA requires a "continuing				Financial Assistance."
			  account the number of coal or				review of the performance of coastal			
			  alternative ocean energy facilities, the		states with respect to coastal				III. Summary of Significant Comments
			  nature of their impacts, and other			management" and Section 9(b) of the				on NPR and NOAA's Responses
			  relevant factors . . .(Section				Act requires the promulgation of rules to
			  308(c)(3)(B).							implement section 312. This review must				NOAA received comments from 32
				The final regulations implementing			include a written evaluation that				sources on the composite rulemaking for
			  section 308(c)(3) have been combined			assesses the extent to which the state			Parts 923, 928 and 937.
			  with existing regulations implementing			has: (1) Implemented and enforced its			Commentators included: 1 Federal
			  sections 308(c)(1) and (2) and revise			approved program: (2) addressed the				agency (the U.S. Department of the
			  Subpart D (Planning for the					coastal management needs identified in			Interior) 19 coastal states and territories
			  Consequences of Energy Facilities) and			Section 303(2)(A)-(I) of the CZMA: and			(South Carolina, New Hampshire, New
			  Subpart L (OCS State Participation			(3) adhered to the terms of any grant,			York, Maryland, Michigan, California,
			  Grants) of 15 CFR Part 831--the Coastal			loan or cooperative agreement funded			Alaska, Louisiana, Oregon, Alabama,
			  Energy Impact Program regulations. The			under the CZMA. Section 312 further				Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
			  final regulations, therefore, govern the		requires that a public meeting be				Florida, Wisconsin, New Jersey,
			  award of all grants under section 308(c).		conducted as part of each evaluation
			  







                                       Federal Register/ Vol. 47. No. US / Monday. May 17, 1982/ Rules and Regulations       21011
                                                  

                       Conneciticut, Government of the Virgin           adopt and effectively implement better            Response: The suggested definition
                       Islands, and the Commonwealth of                  coastal management policies and                    provides no baseline from which
                       Puerto Rica); 8 interest groups (Conoco,          procedures. However, not all significant             significant improvements are measured.
                       Inc.,Sierra Club, International                  improvements are dependent on                     NOAA has determined that Congress
                       Association of Drilling Contractors,              approval by forces outside the coastal             intended states to improve their
                       Coastal States Organization, Texas                agency's control. For example,                     "approved" programs. Improvements, if
                       Eastern Transmission Corp.. Edison                streamlining internal administrative               they are to be "significant," must go
                       Electric Institute, Natural Resources             procedures that decrease permit                    beyond what is expected of an approved
                       Defense Council, and the United Mobile           processing time could qualify as a                 program. NOAA will include the first
                       Sportsfisherman, Inc.); and one member            significant improvement. In addition,              and second suggested example in its list
                       of the Coastal Zone Management                    NOAA may give significant                          of significant improvements with the
                       Advisory Committee. Not all                       improvement credit on a case-by-case               qualification that these activities must
                       commentators submitted comments on                basis for tasks aimed at achieving an              exceed what is expected of the approve
                       all sections of the regulations. All              improvement that is successfully carried           program. The third example is not
                       comments received are on file at the              out by the coastal agency even if the              accepted because it constitutes a basic
                       Office of Coastal Zone Management and             complete achievement of the                        function of an  approved management
                       are available at that office for review           improvement proves to be beyond the                program.
                       upon request. Each of the major issues            control of the coastal agency.                     (3) Section 923.102(b)(1)and(2)
                       raised by commentators has been                                                                      should be amended to delete the words
                       summarized and NOAA's responses                    923.102 Significant improvement                    "beyond what is required by the
                       provided under the relevant subheading            defined.                                           approved program" from the definition
                       in this section.                                 (1) Section 923.102(b)(3) appears to             of significant improvement.
                       A. Part 923. Subpart K--Improving                  encourage states to expand into new                Response: NOAA disagrees. The
                       Coastal Zone Management                           geographic areas beyond their defined              suggested deletion would remove an
                                                                         coastal zones. It is improper to require           essential characteristic of a significant
                         GeneraL (1) Rather than promulgating            states to expand their coastal programs            improvement - i.e.,- that it exceed what
                       regulations,NOAA should concentrate              beyond boundaries approved by the                  is required of an approved management
                       on developing effective phase-down                Secretary of Commerce and imprudent                program. 
                       policy. Publication of regulations should         in light of reduced funding levels for             (4) The definition of significant
                       be delayed until various proposals for             management activities.                             improvement should not be restricted to
                       continued funding of coastal                       Response:  NOAA does not require or                  program amendments or routine
                       management activities are considered.             intend to encourage states to expand               program implementation.
                         Response: NOAA is promulgating                  their coastal zones beyond the                     Response: Significant improvements
                       only those regulations that are                   boundaries approved by the Secretary of            are not limited to programs amendments
                       statutorily mandated and necessary to             Commerce. However if the state chooses             and  routine program implementation.
                       the operation of the national coastal             to expand its coastal zone and extend              Other accomplishments that meet the
                       management program .  Therefore,                     its enforceable program authorities to             criteria of 923.102(a) may also qualify
                       regulations implementing sections 306(i),          the expanded area, in response to                  as significant improvements.
                       306K and 315 were not proposed. In               changed circumstances, the expansion             (5) The definition of significant
                       addition,  the process of promulgating             could qualify as a significant                     improvement encourages states to
                       these final rules provided a forum for             improvement. As proposed,                          expand authorities rather than
                       discussing in detail phase-down issues.
                       The promulgation of these final rules             923.102(b)(3] also applies to                     improving existing program elements at
                       has, therefore, contributed to the                geographic areas located entirely within           a time when Federal financial
                                                                         the existing coastal zone, e.g.,the                assistance is being phased out.
                       development of flexible and effective             incremental expansion of an enforceable            Response: The definition of significant
                       phase-down policies,which are                  policy into a new geographic area within           improvement allows both the expansion 
                       embodied in these regulations.
                         (2) NOAA must recognize that                    the coastal zone. Therefore NOAA will              of program scope and the improvement
                       achievement of significant                        leave that provision intact since it               of existing program elements. Therefore,
                       improvements are often beyond the                 allows for the expansion of the coastal            the definition is sufficiently broad to
                       control of the coastal management                 boundary but does not require it.                  allow states the flexibility to pursue
                       agency. State agencies should not be               (2) Significant improvement should be             significant improvements that best meet
                       penalized because, for example, the               defined as an activity that makes a                their needs. 
                       state legislature failed to enact a statute.       "measurable or clearly perceptible                 (6) In I 923.102(b) delete and word
                       State agencies should be judged only on           improvement in the achievement of any              "significant" because the list of
                       whether they have taken reasonable                of the national interest objectives in             examples in that section constitutes
                       steps to achieve a significant                    section 303(2)(A)-(I)." Such activities            accomplishments whose significance
                       improvement.                                      should include the following provided              must still be determined by testing
                         Response: NOAA does not agree that            they clearly serve the national interest           whether they substantially expand the
                       the achievement of significant                    objectives:                                       scope of the program or substantially
                       improvements should be based solely on             Development of natural resource                   strengthen the ability of the state to
                       the performance of the management                 information critical to making informed            implement or enforce the approved
                       agency. The national Coastal                      coastal management decisions:                      program.
                       management program is designed to                  Development and implementation of                 Response:  NOAA disagrees. The
                       encourage "states" not coastal agencies           state and local strategies; projects, and           suggested change would serve to make
                       to exercise their management authorities          management programs for coastal                    the definition of significant improvement
                       over coastal resources. The ultimate              resources and uses;                                too vague--i.e., it would leave the
                       goal of the significant improvement                Legal work to clarify or protect the              decision as to what constituted a
                       provisions is to encourage states to              public interest in coastal resources.              significant improvement entirely to the






                      211.112       Vaditral Keuister           Vol. 47. No. 95    Monday, May 17, IU82               Mutes allu Kegulailutis

                      discretion of the Assistant                     the Son Francisco Day Plan. will be             a dired bearing (in the significant
                      Administrator. NOAA has clarified the           considered significant improvemenis if          improvement negotiations. However.
                      concept or significant improvemimi by           they meet the requirements of 1923-102.         piiblic participation does not extend to
                      providing specific examples of                  (I'll Is -approved program- in                  grant negoliations between the gruntor
                      accomplisliments that fit the definition.       023.102(a) the sarne an "approved               and grantee.
                      (7) The regulations should provide              management program" in I OZ12(d).               .(4) States should not be allowed to
                      greater detail an what constitutes the          Rimponse. Yes. The terms "approved              make significant improvements in only
                      national interest as defined in section         program" and "approved management               one national interest area.
                      303(2)(A)-(I).                                  program" are interchangeable.                   Ruiptinse: NOAA will negotiate
                      Response. Section 303(2)(A)-(I)                 ï¿½92J.103 Selectionandoppro       vol of         significant improvement activities with
                      provides a very broad statement of the          activities leading to significant               the state on a case-by-case basis. There
                      national goals that states with approved        I-Mprovements.                                  may be occasions when both NOAA
                      management programs should be                                                                   and the state agree that one area merits
                      pursuing.-Specifying requirements for           (1) The proposed regulations subject            the application of all of the state's
                      the national interest under each of the         states to specific deadlines and                significant improvement funds.
                      nine national goals in detailed .               schedules without imposing similar              Therefore NOAA will not arbitrarily
                      regulations would be difficult because          requirements an OCZ1VL Therefore                Dinik the negotiation process.
                      approved programs and conditions vary           I 923.103(d) should be amended by               (5) The regulations provide no
                      from s4te to state. The generic                 adding the requirement that"the                 Indication that state priorities will be
                      examples of significant improvements            Assistant Administrator will provide the        considered when significant
                      provided should give sufficient guidance        State agency with a schedule for
                      to NOAA and the states to negotiate             negotiation and a time certain when a           improvement activities are negotiated.
                      significant improvement activities that         decision will be available to the State         The regulations should provide that
                                                                                                                      state identified needs will serve as the
                      meet both national and state needs.             agency."                                        baIsis for negotiatiom Therefore the
                      (8) Significant improvement should be           Response. NOAA agrees and has                   words -based on the results of the
                      defined to include -the adoption of a           amended ï¿½ 923.103 accordingly.                  continuiIng review described in 15 CFR
                      schedule for consultation and                   (2) The regulations should clearly              Part 928" should be replaced with "In
                      coordination with and the giving of             state that significant improvements may
                      adequate consideration to the viewi of          take more than one -financial assistance        consultation with the state."
                      affected federal agen'cies."                    award period. Therefore I 9M.103(e)             Response. It is NOAA!s intent that
                      Response: NOAA may accept as a                  should be amended by@deleftg "if there          states take the initiative In idendfying
                      significant improvement any                     is a specific reason to iden* a longer          significant improvement activities. The
                      accomplishment aimed at the goal of             period." '                                      selection of these activities will depend
                      improving inter-government                      Response: It Is NOAA's policy Ito               on the nature of the individual programs
                      coordination if It meets the requirements       encourage the achievement of                    and the partidular circumstances in each
                      of 1 931.1(m However, the suggested             significant improvements within the             state. NOAA will base its negotiating
                      language is not accepted because it does        period of one financial assistance award        position In large measure an the Section
                      not specify with sufficient clarity what        because of the potentialfor rapid phase         312 evaluation. Although the selection of
                      is required.                                    out of Federal financial assistance.            activities will be.negotiated. NOAA has
                      (9) There ire no specific standards to,         However, the reguladons permit                  the ultimate responsibility to assure that
                      determine whether a state has achieved          significant Improvements to be reached          Federal funds are being used effectively
                      a significant improvemenL Significant           over a period greater than one financial        and in accordance with the objectives of
                      improvement is defined merely as                assistance award if there is a need for a       the CZMA. However. NOAA is
                      compliance with-the existing state              longer period of time. NOAA has                 amending I 923.103(a) to stress that the
                      program.                                        determined that deleting the "specific          states should take the initiative in
                      Response: Significant improvements              reason" language -.@ould lessen the             Identifying significant improvement
                      and activities leading to significant           likelihood that specific improvements in        activities and I 923.103(b) to emphasize
                      improvements are broadly defined to             coastal program operations are achieved         that significant improvement activities
                      allow NOAA and the states                       with currently available Federal fundg. .       will be determined "in consultation with'
                      considerable flexibility to address a           However. once-a significant                     the state."
                      variety of issues in the fa,ce of reduced       improvement is achieved it becomes the          (6) Add the words "agreement.
                      Federal assistance. However. states             responsibility of the State to fund the         Included in" before the words "rinancial
                      must describe in detail the activities and      continued operation of that                     assistance award" in the last sentence
                      expected products associated with each          improvement out of program                      of I 923-103(d).
                      significant improvement before the @            administradon funds.                            Response. This editorial correction is
                      Assistant'Administrator will approve            13) The proC833 for negotiadng                  made.
                      thern. Sinceall significant improvement         significant Improvement activities
                      activities must be aimed at substandally        between NOAA and the state should               923-204 Establishing the increasing
                      expanding or strengthening the                  provide for participation by the public.        proportion.
                      approved program. the statement that            Federal agencies. and other interested          (1) The 1% annual increase in
                      merely implementing the program will            parties.                                        expenditures required by 1923.104 for
                      result in significant., improvements I$ not     Response.- The evaluadon of approved            significant improvements is too small.
                      accurate.                                       programs under Section 312 provides             At this rate the maximum of 30% may
                      (10) Significant improvement should             opportunities for public involvement.           never be reached by many states. The
                      include adoption of plan amendments             This evaluation will be used by NOAiV           annual increase should be set at 5% or
                      such as those applying to the San               to indentify program needs that, could be       discretion given the Assistant
                      Francisco Bay Plan.                             addressed with significant improvement          Administrator to require bigger
                      Response. The adoption of plan                  funds. Therefore. public participation          Increases on the basis of deficiencies
                      amendments. such as those,applying to           during the evaluation process will have         found during program evaluation.






                                 Fes;urai Regivitn            VuL 4;. No. 95 /. MutaJay. May 17. 1982 /            Rules and Regulations                         21013

                   IN-sponse.140AA is requiring eitch               (2) The withdrawal of all Section OW           specified in section 306(b) o  f the Act. In
                Winte to expend a minimum of 29Y. of its          funds for failure to pursue significant          cases where such statutory conflicts
                (imincial assistance award an                     improvements will impnir, the operation          arise award levels may fall below the
                significant improvement activities                of state coustal management programs             1% mininturn. as prescribed in theactual
                during the first year it is required to           but will not necessarily result in               calculation of the financial assistance
                pursue significant improvements. In light         withdrawal of program approval. As a             award level under 1927.1(0.
                of this large initial expenditure and             result the review for consistency of               (3) The term "tidal shoreline mileage"
                reduced funding levels. NOAA has                  needed energy development projects               should be clearly defined and the
                determined that a 1 percent annual                may be delayed. Therefore. energy                National Ocean Survey (NOS)
                increase is a realistic requirement that          projects should be exempted from                 methodology for measuring tidal
                will balance the need to devote an                consistency review as soon as funding is         shoreline mileage should be explained.
                increasing share of federal funds to the          withdrawn.for failure to pursue                    Response: NOAA uses the NOS
                improvement of coastal programs with              significant improvements.,                       definition and mileage figures for marine
                the need to allow states to                         Response. The CZMA does not                    and island coastal states and territories
                institutionalize existing program                 authorize exempting energy projects              and presently accepts the shoreline
                elements.                                         from consistency review when a state             mileage figures measured by the
                   (2) States that choose to devote more          refuses to pursue significant                    International Coordinating Committee
                than the required amount for significant          improvements. Consistency                        on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and
                improvements should be rewarded by                requirements cease to apply only when            Hydrologic Data for states bordering on
                priority access to unused funds or points         program approval Is withdrawn beCaU38            the Great Lakes. For marine and island
                in the allotment system.        ,             .   a state has refused to remedy a failure          states and territories. tidal shoreline is
                   Response. The formula for                      to adhere to Its approved management             defined as the shoreline of outer coast.
                determining significant Improvement               program or the terms of its Section 305          offshoreislands, sounds. bays. rivers
                expenditures Is equitable and simple to           financial assistance award. Upon the             and creeks to the head of tidewater or to
                administer. Therefore NOAA Is                     withdrawal of all Section 306 funds for          a point where tidal waters narrow to a
                reluctant to establish a syste  'in that          failure to pursue significant                    width of 100 feet. The measurements are
                would be difficult to administer and              improvements NOAA will closely                   made using a recording instrument on
                could lead to conflicts among the states.         monitor state program performance to             the largest-scale charts available. The
                   (3) The regulations should make it             determine whether withdrawal of                  NOS methodology varies slightly from
                clear that "increasing proportion" refers         approval is necessary.                           that used by the latemational
                to the amount of the financial assistance         B.Pdrtg:27 Allocating Administrative             Coordinating Committee on Crest Lakes
                actually received by a state.                                                                      Basia'Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data.
                   Response: NCAA agrees and has                  Grants-4ection 306(bj
                clarified ï¿½ 9Z3.104 to emphasize that the           (1) The regulations should establisL -         and NOAA Is reviewing this
                                                                                                               1. aInconsistency as raised in comments; on
                amount that must be spent an significant          1% minimum and a 16-15% maximum -
                improvements is -obtained by                      financial assistance s.ward level for any        the NPR.
                multiplying the applicable percentage by          state.                                             For clarification NOAA is adding
                the amount of Federal funds actually              .. Response: CZMA program funding                language to the final rule to more
                received.                                         levels and eligible funding recipients are       precisely explain shoreline mileage
                                                                  factors which may vary from year to              calculations.
                ï¿½9=105 Failure to agree to pursue                 year. Although Congress has estabished           ' Section 9271(c)(2)(1) now reads "Sixty
                significant improvement&                          a 1% minimum financial assistance                percent will be allocated based on each
                   (1) The failure to pursue significant          award level. which is reflected in these         eligible state's proportionate share of
                improvements should not result in a loss          regulations. no maximum award level is           the length of tidal shoreline mileage
                of all section 306 funding as required by         established.                                     and/or Great Lake shoreline mileage of
                I 9M.105(a) because this *uirement                  The Assistant Administrator can                all participating states based on the
                can be easily circumvented. States can            adjust the maximum and minimum                   most recently available. official data
                "pretend" to pursue significant                   percentages In the allocation formula to         from or      pted by the National Ocean
                improvements to get full funding since            meet the basic funding needs of eligible         Survey * & .
                fitilure to achieve a significant                 states (commensurate with the total                (4) Factors other than shoreline and
                improvement wiil result in a reduction            available funding for the program) in            population should be considered in the
                or withdrawal of at most 30% of the               implementing effectively CZMA                    calculation of allocadons. such as areas
                state's 305 funds. Therefore. it would be         requirements. The need fai flexibility in        protected or held in trUit. shoreline
                simpler to allow states to declare their          establishing award level is accentuated          features. rate of population change, and
                intentions before receiving their grant.          as appropriations and funding levels             economic significance of the coastal
                . Response: Section 306(a)(3) prohibits           decrease in the phase down of Federal            area.
                the Assistant Administrator from                  funding..                                          Response: In developing both the
                awarding a Section 306 grant unless the             (2) A state failing to make "significant       issue paper and proposed regulations.
                recipient state agrees to pursue                  improvements" should be subject to a             NCAA examined the inclusionof other
                significant improvements. Therefore.              CL7 percent minimum rather than a one            factors (including those above) in the
                NOAA is statutorily precluded from                percent minimum.                                 allocation formula. These factors were
                awarding financial assistance to states             Response: NOAA recognizes that at              not selected because they are too
                that choose not to pursue significant             times implementation of the statutory            subjective and difficult to quantify. The
                improvements. In additiotu NOAA does,             requirements of section 312(c), when a           inclusion of coastal county population
                not accept the assumption that states             state fails to meet "significant                 and shoreline mileage does provide a
                will "Pretend- to be working toward               improvement" requirements. might                 reasonable approximation of the
                signirAcant Improvements merely as a              necessitate reducing the base allocation.        magnitude and the pressures for use of
                ploy to receive full funding under                and that these reductions might result in        coastal resources is objective,
                Section 306.                                      an award failing below the 1% minimum            quantifiable factors. The exclusive use







 210014    Federal Register / Vol. 47. No 95 / Monday, May 17, 1962 / Rules and Regulations

 of these factors provides continuity with   state agency designated under           eligibility is instituted to prevent the
 past NOAA practice, proposes an             931.25(a)(4)(1)to administer the CEIP   funding of projects for mitigating losses
 allocation formula which is simple and      will submit the state's section 30(c)   that could readily have been avoided by  
 easy to administer, and results in the      application and that allocation         reasonable state or local action. The
 least disruption in state funding levels.   questions will be decided within the    October 17, 1980, date allows
                                             state by responsible program officals,  "grandfathering" state and local actions
 C. Part 931 Subpart L-Coastal Energy        including where necessary.  the         that occurred before enactment of the
 Impact Grants-General                       Governor.                               1980 amendments to the CZMA.
    (1) The relationship of new subpart D       (3) The OCS State Participation         (3) To assure that Section 308(c)funds  
 to existing subparts D and L should be      Grants Program should not be            are used to encourage necessary energy
 clarified.                                  consolidated with other provisions of   development, the following limitation on
    Response: New subpart D contains         section 308 because this is a special   308(c) expenditures should be added to
 guidance and requirements applicable to     purpose program whose effectiveness,    937.37: "308(c) funds may not be used
 planning grants found in existing           could be diluted by merger.             to pay for any part of a project likely to
 subpart D and guidance and                     Response: The various financial      prevent, delay, or substantially increase
 requirements applicable to OCS state        assistance programs under section       the costs of the development of energy
 participation grants found in existing      308(C)are being consolidated to simplify facilities otherwise consistent with the
 subpart L The consolidation is intended     program administration and improve      state's approved program."
 to simplify the regulations by              program flexibility. The consolidation     Response: In reviewing section 308(c)
 eliminating duplicative and unnecessary     should not detrimentally affect the OCS applications, NOAA will carry out its
 text. The consolidation is not intended     State Participation program because no  responsibility to see that funds are
 to change the substantive requirements      changes am being made in the            awarded for allowable uses, none of 
 of the planning or OCS participation        substantive provisions of that program. which are for projects that are likely to
 programs. In addition new subpart L         The only change that could affect this  prevent, delay, or increase the costs of
 includes guidance and requirements          program is that the state will decide   energy development that is otherwise   
 applicable to coal and Alternative          how much of the total available under   consistent with the state's approved
 Ocean Energy (AOE) activity impact          section 308(c) will be spent on OCS     management program.  Therefore, the  
 mitigation funds.  When new subpart D       state participation purposes. Since the suggested restriction is neither
 becomes final and effective, it will        Congress has not appropriated specific  necessary nor appropriate.
 supersede existing subparts D and L of      amounts for each of the allowable uses.
 15 CFR part 931. The requirements and       NOAA believes it is appropriate for the 931.35 Section 308(c)allotment.
 guidance with respect to objectives and     state to decide how to apportion its
 allowable uses of planning grants funded    funds among allowable uses.             (1) Basing the proposed allotment
 under Section 308(b)(5)(B) that were in                                             formula an coastal county population     
 existing subpart D have been                931.37 Limitations on expenditures.     puts smaller states and states that have
 transferred to subpart G of 15 CFR Part     (1) Increasing the matching share to 30 controlled development in coastal
 931. This transfer was made solely to       percent is unfair because the most      marshes and other ecologically sensitive
 enable existing subpart D to be             needy local governments will not be     coastal areas at a disvantage. It is 
 superseded in its entirety.  The            able to benefit from Federal assistance.these areas that face the greatest threat
 substantive requirements applicable to      The Assistant Administrator should be   from new energy development.  The             from now energy development. The
 planning grants funded under section        given discretion to vary the matching   allotment formula should therefore be
 308(b)(5)(B) are not affected.              share as a means of increasing          based on the percentage increase in
 (2)Some states have two separate            management flexibility.                 coastal population-since this factor
 agencies administering the existing         Response: A matching share of 30 per    better reflects development pressures
 provisions of section 308. For example,     cent is consistent with NOAA's policy offrom new and expanded energy
 one state agency may administer impact      phasing down CEIP assistance in an      resources. Consideration should also be
 mitigation assistance under sections        orderly manner. Since the funding       given to seasonal fluctuation In coastal
 308(c)(1), (b) and (d) while another state  available for CEIP purposes Is limited. population.
 agency administers OCS state                increasing the matching share will,in   Response: Coastal county population
 participation assistance under section      effect, Increase the total amount       Is a reasonable estimator of the need for:
 308(c)(2). Under the existing regulations   available for Impact mitigation. In     impact assistance. In addition. this
 this arrangement did not present any        addition, an increased matching share   factor provides continuity with past
 administrative problems because there       will encourage the hauling of projects  OCZM practice. Its use will minimize
 was a specific allotment of hinds under     with the highest priority.              disruptions in the existing pattern of
 each subsection. Under the proposed         (2) The significance of the October 17, funding. In addition, using 1980 census
 regulations it is not clear who will        1980 date in 931.37[c](3)(1) should be  data provides recognition of population-
 administer the consolidated grant           Clarified.                              growth.
 program and allocate available funds        Response: Section 931.37(c) prohibits   (2) Too much discretion Is allowed the
 among eligible uses. Guidelines should      the use of section 308(c) funds for     Assistant Administrator to establish the
 therefore be established to require the     mitigating environmental or recreational     allocation formula and maximum and
 expenditure of fixed minimum                lanes that (1) result from the sale. loan    minimum shares. ALI the factors that
 percentages for eligible uses. In           or rental by a state or local government     make up the formula should be specified
 addition. a single agency should be         of property to another party. or (2) that    regulation. A minimum share that
 designated to administer the                could have been prevented by a               equals two percent of the amount
 consolidated 308(c) program                 reasonable exercise of a state's existing    available in a fiscal year under section
 Response:  NOAA has determined that         regulatory authority. if the sale. lease.    308(c) or 75.0008. whichever is greater..
 the state should decide how to allocate     rental or loss occurs after October 17.      should be established. The maximum  
 available section 308(c) funds among        1980--the date that section 308(c)(3) was    share should be set at 15 percent of thd
 allowable uses. NOAA assumes that the       signed into law. This limit on the           amount available.
 





                                   federal Koxister               Vol. 47. No. 95       Monday. May 17. 1982                   Rules and Regulations                          2101S

                    Response. Not specifying the                         between CEIP and coastal management                   Response: The new regulations
                    allotment formula or the maximum and                 activities.                                           appropriately place responsibility on the
                    minimum shares in regulations                        ï¿½93t.38 Application for financial                     state for allocating available funds
                    simplifies the regulations and Increases             assistance.                                           among allowable uses. As noted
                    progrum flexibility.                                                                                       previously. Congress has not
                    However. the regulations require the                 (1) The proposed regulations                          appropriated specific amounts for each
                    Assistant Administrator to submit any                Improperly Impose a requirement that                  of the allowable uses. In the absence of
                    proposed formula. which would include                the intra-state allocation process be                 this guidance. NOAA has determined
                    provisions for maximum and minimum                   used for OCS state participation grants.              that the states should determine their
                    shares. to the states for review and                 fiesponse.-The proposed regulations                   needs and funding priorities.
                    comment before allocations are                       were not intended to lmpose@any now                   D. Part 928 Review of Performance-
                    calculated.                                          requirements on the use of funds for
                    (3) Shoreline mileage used in the                    section 308(c)(21--OCS State                          Section JZ2
                    allocation formula should be clearly                 participation-purposes. Therefore.                    ï¿½92&Z General
                    defined.-                                            I 931.36(b)(3) has been amended to
                    Response: Before calculating                         indicate that only planning and coal and              (1) The statement in ï¿½ 928-1(b) that
                    allotments J 931-35(c) requires the                  AOE Impact mitigation assistance must                 "these regulations may be supplemented
                    Assistant Administrator to submit the                be subjected to the intrastate allocation             by procedural memoranda issued
                    proposed allotment formula to the states             process.                                              periodically by the Office of Coastal
                    fat review and comment. If shoreline                 (21-The application and information                   Zone Management. - ." is unnecessary
                    mileage is used in the allotment formula             requirements under 1931.36 are too                    and might lead to confusion regarding
                    it will be the same as used in J 927.1 to            burdensome for small construction and                 the legal enforceability of the procedural
                                                                                                                               memoranda.      .
                    allocate section 306 funds. See Comment              land acquisition projects.                            Response: In response to comments
                    3 under B. Allocating administrativO                 Response: NOAA is also concerned
                    grants above.                                        about burdensome application                          on the Issue Paper on Review of
                    (4) New or expanded coal activities                  requirements and has tried to keep these              Performance. NOAA shortened and
                    should be give.n the greatest wiight In              requirements to a atinimum. NOAA has                  simplified the proposed rules by
                    the allocation formula.                              determined that the Information                       eliminating detailed procedures from the
                    Response. As previously noted.                       requirements specified in I 93L36 are                 regulations and retaining only the basic
                    NOAA is not specifying the allotment                 necessary and appropriate to assure                   requirements of continuing review and
                    formula In regulations. The details of the           compliance with Fed" environmental                    evaluation. The purpose of the
                    allotment formula will be developed In               and administrative requirements. NOAA                 procedural memoranda is to provide a
                    consultation with the states pursuant to             has. however. deleted the requirement                 more detailed statement of how these
                    I 93145(c).                                          for submitting state and locai permit                 basic requirements will be met. NOAA
                    ï¿½93Z.3Z Objectives.                                  applications and approvals for                        wishes to remove any possible
                                                                         construction projects.                                ambiguity concerning the legal status of
                    (1) Ile phrase "and that pbrmits the                                                                       the procedural memoranda and.
                    coastal states and units of local                    ï¿½93Z= Delinitimm                                      therefore, has deleted this reference
                    govetnmeht a high degree of control and -            (1) *Rad transport facility" should be                from the regulations.
                    discretion" should be deleted from the               added to the list of coal facilities in               ï¿½ 9292 Defmitionx
                    statements of CEEP objectives in                     1931-3*)(1).
                    I 931JI(c) because this phrase is                    Response. NOAA agrees and has                         (1) NOAA should change the
                    gratuitous and not supported by the                  added the term -mil tran@port facility"               definition of "Justifiable- to state that
                                                                         to I=_
                                                                               V
                    legislative history..                                        Ab)(,I)(v).                                   the principal criterion for de
                    Response: NOAA disagrees. The                        (13) The'reguladon3 should clarify                    whether a deviation is jus I a'       is
                    Conference Report (Report No.                        Section 308(c) funds may be used to                   whether It is beyond the control of the
                    that accompanied the CW legisWIMS)                   mitigate the Impact of the disposd of                 state coastal program manager, not
                    states that the coastal state and.    ation.         ash and sludge. the waste products of                 whether It Is beyond the control of the
                    localities "should make the basic                    burning coal. -                                       state. The proposed criterion-beyond
                    decisions as to the particular needs"                Responser NOAA has defined coal to                    the control of the stat&-4s unrealistic
                    that result from energy development and              include ash and sludge-the waste                      and does not recognize that.state
                    therefore the "discretion" of "Federal               products of burning coal. It is NOAA's                coastal programs am constrained in
                    Officials should be correspondingly                  intent that the Impacts of storing and                their ability to influence governors and.
                    limited" (p. 24). Therefore. the objective           transporting these waste products for                 State legislatures.
                    of allowing states and local                         the purpose of disposal be eligible under             Response: NOAA disagrees with this
                    governments a high degree of control is              Section 308(c). NOAA has determined                   comment. It In appropriate to assess
                    consistent with the legislative history of           that defirdtion of coal facility is                   whether or not a deviation Is beyond
                    the CEIP and the Administration's policy             sufficiently broad to include facilities              state" control. All coastal management
                    Of returning resource management                     Involved in ash and sludge disposal and               programs must be approved and
                    decisions to the states.                             that amending the regulations is not                  transmitted to NOAA by the governor of
                    (2) The following objective should be                necessary.,                                           the state. Therefore. although NOAA
                    added to the list of CEIP objectives in              ï¿½931-34 Allowable uses.                               acknowledges that state coastal
                    1931-31: "To improve and strengthen                                                                        program managers frequently are limited
                    Coastal management in the United                     (1) The regulatf orts provide no                      in their ability to influence state
                    States."                                             assurance that funds authorized under                 governors and legislatures. their
                                                                         section 308(c)(3) are expended for                    programs are "stift" programs and the
                    Response: This objective is added to                 mitigatIng the impacts of coal or AOE                 states are responsible for carrying them
                    emphasize the close relationship                     activifles.                                           out.







                   21016                                                        MONDAY, MAY 17, 1982             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS    

                                                                                                                                                              
                     NOAA should limit the criteria for             financial assistance ends, obviously                  (4) The regulations should specify that
                   determining whether a deviation is               there will be no such sanction and the             draft findings be made available to
                                                                                                                                        
                   justifiable whether a deviation is               review will simply determine whether               affected Federal agencies at the same
                   currently enumerated to those criteria           the state program continues to meet the            time they are sent to the states.
                   definition. All or the criteria should be        requirements for approvability, in order             Response: Draft findings are available
                   spelled out in the regulations in order to       that the state may continue to exercise            to affected Federal agencies, or anyone
                   provide fair and predictable                     Federal consistency. Because this                  else, upon request.
                   administration and the determination of          distinction was not made clearly, we                (5) Since the proposed rules impose
                   whether the criteria are met should              have added clurifying language to the              time deadlines on the states in the
                   involve the public.                              definition of "work program" and to the            conduct of evaluations, it is only fair
                     Response. It is not possible or                use of the term "work program" in the              that NOAA should also impose
                   desirable to define in advance the               continuing review procedures.                      deadlines on itself. In addition the
                   universe of criteria for assessing               ï¿½928.3(b) Continuing review                        deadlines should recognize the need for
                   "justifiability." The purpose of the             procedures.                                        leadtime to respond to findings. Two
                   criteria identified in the definition is to                                                         types of specific suggestions for NOAA
                   provide the states and the public with             (1) NOAA should limit state reporting            deadlines were made:
                   information concerning how the                   requirements to one report per year.                (a) Issue final findings at least 90 days
                   "justifiability" determinations will be             Response: NOAA understands the                  before the expiration of a state's Federal
                   made. However it is impossible to                need to limit the paperwork burden on              financial assistance award, and at least
                   anticipate every conceivable kind of             the states. To this end, the periodic              30 days before the the state coastal
                   deviation and. therefore.. impossible to         performance reports required for                   management agency must submit its
                   define in advance the universe of                financial assistance awards are being
                                                                                                                       proposed budget.
                   criteria for evaluting them.                     used to accommodate information needs               (b) Issue final findings within a
                     NOAA disagrees that the public                 for continuing review and evaluation.              certain time period after receipt of state
                   should be involved in the "justifiability"       NOAA will make every effort to limit               comments on the draft findings. The
                   determinations. While public -                   additional information requirements by
                   participation in the program is vital the        assessing carefully all information                suggested time periods ranged from two
                   statute requires the determination to be         available in-house and targeting                   weeks to 60 days.
                   made by the Secretary. In making each            requests to fill specific information gaps.         Response: NOAA recognizes the
                   determination, the Secretary will                However, regular information is                    states' need for leadtime to incorporate
                   consider all available information,              required for NOAA's program                        the results of evaluations. However, for
                   including public comments on the                 administration responsibilities--                  two reasons NOAA has determined that
                   review of the State's performance.               including technical monitoring of                  it should not commit itself to deadlines
                    (3) The definition of "work program"            awards and continuing review and                   tying the date of issuance of final
                   shduld not be formalized in the                  evaluation. The current information                findings to the date of the Federal
                   regulations. Work programs are usually           requirements--performance reports and              financial assistance award. First, such a
                   designed at least a year in advance and,         a supplemental information request for             tie could restrict NOAA in the
                   hence, represent a target or                     evaluation--represent the minimum                  expeditious award of available Federal
                   "guesstimate" of what a state coastal            requirements for information necessary             financial assistance. Second, because
                   program in feels reasonably able to              to carry out our responsibilities.                 many state budget cycles are several
                   undertake. There is no benefit in                  (2) The regulations should State                 months in advance of coastal zone
                   formalizing this document in the                 explicitly that a site visit will normally         management financial assistance
                   regulations.                                     be a part of each evaluation, unless               awards, a commitment to issue final
                   Response: This comment reflects a                fiscal constraints are so severe that such         findings 30 days before the state coastal
                   misunderstanding of the purpose of               visits are precluded. Site visits are              zone management agency is required to
                   defining this term. The definition is            extremely valuable and the presumption             submit its budget can mean a
                   included in order to provide a basis for         in the regulations should be that they             requirement for final findings 1 to 3
                   continuing review and evaluation of              will occur.                                        months after the beginning of the coastal
                   approved programs if Federal financial              Response: NOAA agrees with the                  zone management financial assistance
                   assistance ends. In this case, the states        intent of this comment. The regulations            award. Clearly it would be impossible to
                   would provide to NOAA the same                   already provide that the Assistant                 conduct a meaningful evaluation so
                   documentation they would need to                 Administrator may conduct site visits as           soon after the work program under
                   provide to their state governments or            a part of the evaluation. The                      review has begun.
                   other funding sources describing the             discretionary "may" is used to provide               NOAA is willing, however, to commit
                   work tasks they are undertaking during           necessary flexibility to adjust to funding         itself to deadlines for issuing final
                   a particular time period, and NOAA               constraint. Because the recommended                findings which are tied to state review
                   would review the material to determine           standard--"fiscal constraints * * * so             and comment an the draft findings.
                   if the program implementation continued          severe that such visits are precluded"-            While two weeks is not enough time to
                   to meet or exceed the threshold                  is also discretionary. NOAA has                    give adequate consideration to state
                   requirements for approvability.                  determined that no change should be                comments and produce the final
                   This work program must be                        made in the regulatory language.                   findings, 60 days is usually more than
                   distinguished from the work program                 (3) The discretionary "may" in the              sufficient. Therefore, NOAA has
                                                                                                                      
                   that is a part of the Federal financial          third line of  928.3(b)(5), which                  modified the regulations to include a
                   assistance award. The work program               provides that states "may" have two                commitment to issue final findings 45
                   that is part of the award carries with it a      weeks from receipt to review draft                 days after receipt of state comments on
                   commitment from the state to complete            findings, should be changed to "shall."            the draft findings, unless NOAA notifies
                   each work task successfully or face                  Response: NOAA agrees with the                 the state of the need for an extension to
                   reduction or withdrawal of financial             comment and we have made the                       allow for further meetings or
                   assistance. However, if Federal                  suggested change.                                  negotiations.
 




                                E:d1z:j1 Register             VOL 47, No. 95     Monday. May.!?. 1982              Rules and Regulations                  21017
                   (5) The current regulatory language            ï¿½9n3(c1(2] Procedure for assessing               President's directive to avoid
                implies a mistrust of the states.                 adherence to the approved managerrient           unnecessary regulation.
                   fliwponse: The regula tory language is         program.
                procedural only and does not imply 4                                                               ï¿½928-3(cJ131 Procethire for assessing
                                                                    (1) The phrases "fully" or "fully and          how the state has addressed the coastal
                mistrust of the states. NOAA recognizes           effectively" in ï¿½ 928.3(c)(2)(A). (B), and
                its responsibility to assist the state            (C) should be deleted because they               management needs identified in Section
                coustal program managers in carrying              imply that states will. be able to continue      J03(2J(AJ-(1).
                out their responsibilities for                                                                                                     I
                                                                  to implement their prograins at the same            (1) The word "needs" should be
                implementing their coastal management             or higher levels while Federal financial         changed to "objectives" wherever it
                programs. However. NOAA is also                   assistance declines.                             appears in-this section in order to track
                responsible for overall program                     Response: As stated above. NOAA                the statutory language.
                administration. which Includes                    agrees that the regulations need to
                continuing review and evaluation. It is           acknowledge declining Federal rinancial             Response. Although it is true that the
                NOAA's intent to maintain a balance               assistance to states. Although In each           statute speaks of "objectives" in section
                between these two responsibilities.               case the referenced phrases are                  303. it refers to those objectives in
                ï¿½9=3(c](11 Requirements for                       preceded by the phrase "the e9tent to            section 312 as "coastal management
                continuing review of approved state               which." they still appear to be                  needs." Since these regulations
                coastal zone management programs-                 interpreted as Implying an unfair                Implement section 312. NOAA has used
                5cape of continuing reviewm                       standard for evaluation. For this reason.        the statutory language from that section
                                                                  NOAA agrees     that they should be              of the AcL '
                   (1) NOAA should delete the phrase              removed and has amended the                         (2) The It.sting of actions taken to
                   all of the elements" ofthe approved            regulations accordingly,
                program in I 92&3(c)(1)(i) and adhere to            (2) The term "enforcing" should be             address the coastal management needs
                the statutory language. Since it is clear         added to ï¿½ 92&3(c)(2)(A) because this            of section.303. called for in
                that Federal financial assistance for             term was added to the statute in the             J 928.3(c)(3)(i). is totally inadequate. A
                state coastal management programs is              1980 amendments and needs emphasis               full description should be required, as
                diminishing. the regulations should               in the regulations.                              well. as information from which NOAA
                recognize that some elements of state               Awponse. NOAA agrees with this                 can ascertain what is not being done to
                programs will have to be reduced and              comment and has modified the                     address the coastal management needs.
                that such reduction is possible without           regulations accordingly.                         The commentator made detailed
                reducing the programs below the                     (3) NOAA'should delete the phrase              recommendations on the type of
                threshold requirements for Federal                effectively playing a leadership role in         Information NOAA should seek for this
                approval.                                         coas6I issues" In J 92U(c)(2)(B)                 purpose.
                   Response: NOAA agrees that the                 because it 13 higWy subjective and is not'          ResponsIm This comment refledta a
                regulations need to nioinize the reality          a requirement of the program approval
                01F program adjustments in the face of            regulations.                                     misunderstanding of the proposed
                reduced Federal Financial assistance, as            Regpojise: NOAA disagrees with this            language. The listing of actions is merely
                long as the adjustments do not reduce             comment. Section 9M.47 of the program            the first step in the evaluation of how
                program elements below'the level                  approval regulaticifte requires the state        the states have addressed the coastal
                required for program approval. To this            to designate a lead state agenck which           management needs of section 303. The
                end. the proposed regulatory language             is capable of monitoring. coordinating           regulations go on to say that the
                defined the term "approved -                  -   and providing direction for its coastal          Assistant Administrator will assess the
                management program" to mean!4those                program As, the "focal point for program         extent to which the state is meeting
                elements of the program required for              administration." the lead state agency -         Identified needs-that is. what the state
                program approval             This change          must play a leadership role in coutat            Is and is not doltag-and the
                provides such recognition because the             issues in order to coordinate effectively        effectiveness of its action.in addressing
                definitions of "adherence' and of                 the various state and local agencies with        these needs.
                   justifiable" are tied to the definition of     responsibilities for canTing out the                NOAA disagrees with the suggestion
                   approved management program." Since            program. 7berefore. this is an ,                 that it require states to submit extensive
                the referenced phrase appears to have             appropriate subject for evaluation.
                caused misunderstanding concerning the              (4) NOAA should add to' ,                      'Information for this determination. All of
                focus of continuing review and                    ï¿½ 92&3(c)(2)(C) language recognizing          7  the coastal management needs are not
                evaluation. NOAA agrees thit it should            specifically that carrying out the               equally important in all states. Rather,
                be removed and has amended the                    provtsion@ of Federal consistency                they must be assessed within the
                regulations accordingly.                          involves cooperation with Federal                context of the conditions in the state
                   (2) NOAA should add to the scope of            agencies to minimize potential conflict.         and the objectives and priorities of the
                review a fourth element an Federal                This point needs emphasis because                state management program. just as
                consistency@                                      conflicting requirements could impede            conditions In the states differ. so does
                   Response: 71te three broad elements            or block Federal programs that are vital         the information needed to assess the
                of the scope of review come directly              to the nation. as a whole.                       states' efforts to-address the coastal
                from the statute. It Is not necessary to            Response. This Is unnecessary                  management,needs of section 303.
                add another element an Federal                    because It Is understood that state              Extensive unifonn information
                consistency because this is a specific            implementation of Federal consistency            requirements are not appropriate under
                factor in the overall evaluation of one of        involves working with affected Federal           these circumstances and would create a
                the broad elements already                        agencies to minimize potential conflicts.        large additional paperwork burden an
                enumerated-the extent to which the                While it would be possible to enumerate          the states at a time when the Federal
                state has implemented and enfomed its             a long list of specific issues for               government is attempting to reduce
                approved program..                                evaluation. such action is contrary to the       these requirements.






                   daluin          rtWeral Keglater / VOL 4Z. No. 95              Monday. May 17. 1982 1            Rules and Regulations
                   .f 92n.31c)(4) Procedure for assessing          interested parties on notice theren              statute and NOAA hag determined that
                   adherence to the terms of financial             evaluation is about to occur. Because of         they should not be replaced by less
                   assisfanco awards.                              frequent modifications of the evaluation         precise substitutes. However. the
                     (1) Sec*ion 928.3(c)(4)(ii)(0) should         Bchedules.-it is often impossible for the        regulations provide that the assessment
                   contain a requirement that NOAA                 states to comply with a 30 day advance           of whether a state is achieving its
                   respond within 30 days after receipt of a       notice requirement for public meetings.          significant improvement objectives will
                   request from a state to modify a project.       However. NOAA has modified the                   be based onthe state's progress in
                                                                   regulations to require that states provide       accomplishing the significant
                     Response. This suggestion relates to          a minimum of 15 days notice of (he               improvement tasks negotiated between
                   financial assistance award amend            ment -
                                                                   public meeting(s) on their evaluations.          the state and Assistant Administrator
                   procedures and hence is inappropriate             NOAA believes it is not necessary for          before the beginning of each financial
                   for incorporation into these regulations.       the regulations to require wider                 assistance award.      ,
                   The current procedures for processing           distribution of findings. The regulations          Since procedures for project
                   amendment requests are specified in the         already provide for a notice of                  modification are provided in the
                   program approval regulations at                 availability of final findings to be             regulations. It is understood that the
                   I gnme. These procedures require                published in the Federal Register. and           evalu tions will be based upon
                   NOAA to acknowledge receipt of                  copies of the findings are available to              1 31
                   amendment requests within 10 worki                                                               approved projects as modified up to the
                                                               ng  anyone who requests them.                        date of the evaluation. Additional
                   dRY3. The notification must Indicate              Similarly. NOAA believes that the
                   NOAA's decision on the request or               regulations already provide for full             regulatory language is irmecessary.
                   indicate a timeframe within which the           Federal agency participation in the                (3) NOAA should not limit itself to
                   decision will be made.                          evaluations. Current procedures provide          reducing a state's funds for failure to
                     (2) No modification of approved               that affected Federal agencies be                make significant improvement only by
                   projects should be permitted under              contacted before evaluations occur.              the amount previously allotted to the
                   (c)(4)(ii)(D) without opportunity for           interviewed during evaluation site visits.       task(s) found deficient. While this might
                   public review and comment.                      and invited to participate in public             be advisable in some instances, it may
                     Risponse: NOAA disagrees with this            meetings and/or provide written                  not be appropriate for all and the statute
                   comment. These regulations providif the         comments an -the evaluation&                     does not restrict NOAXs action.
                   opportunity for full public, participation.                                                        Re;ponse: NOAA disagrees with this
                                                     otify the     ï¿½M-5 Enforcement,                 I
                   In addition the recipient must n                                                                 con=e'nL NOAA believes fairness
                   A-95 clearinghouse of any substantive             (1) Section 928Z(a)(2)(io should be            dictates that a state's funds be reduced
                   changes in approve   id awards. However.        rewritten to provide that enforcement            for failure to make significant
                   public plirticipation does not extend to        provisions be U*ered by a finding that           improvement only by the amount
                   negotiations between the agency and             a state is not achieving "all" of Its            allocated to the deficient significant
                   the recipient an the financial assistance       significantimprovement objectives.               improvement task(s). To do otherwise
                   award itself.                                     Responser The commentator evidently            would create a major disincentive for
                                                                   intends that the suggest d change would          the states to undertake challenging
                   ï¿½92&3(d) Requirements for continuing            make the provision moree restrictive by          significant improvement activities.
                   iiview of state coastal eneray impact           assuring that states must make                     (4) The regulations give NOAA too
                   progroms.                                       significint improvement in all of their          much discretioa in deciding what 13
                     ('L) The regulations should require           objective areas. However, the suggested           satisfactory progress" toward
                   unified coastal zone management and             change actually would make the                   significant improvement.
                   coastal energy impact program                   provision less restrictive by triggering           Response: NOAA disagrees with this
                   evaluation. - -                                 the enforcement provisions only If the           coa=enL Satisfactory progress will be
                     Response: NOAA is not sure how to             Assistant AA-4ril trator found that the          determined on a case-by-case basis
                   interpret this comment. If the comment          state was failing to achieve all of its          using the specific products and
                   means that coastal zone management              significant improvement objectives (Le.          schedules negotiated between the state
                   and coastal energy impact program               using this language, for example, a state
                   evaluations should be conducted at the          could be fading In seven out of eight            and the Assistant Administrator'for
                   same time. the procedures already               areas without triggering the enforcement         each significant Improvement task.
                   provide for this.                               provisions@ In fact. the current                   (5) The regulations should provide
                                              r                    regulatory language assures that states          public notice of the intent to withdraw
                   ï¿½928.4 Public Participatiam.                    will achieve all significant improvement         program approval. and opportunity for
                     (1) The public participation section          objectives or face some level of                 public comment and participation at
                   should be modified to: ,                        reduction of financial assistance.               public hearings.
                     (a) require a minimum 30-day period           Therefam NOAA has made no change                   Response: The regulations already
                   for advance notice of public niietings,         to the regulatory language-                      contain these provisions In
                     (b) p   ids wider distribution of               (2) Section 92114(a)(2)(ii) should be          I 92&5(b)(2)(ii) and (iv).
                   f,
                   .nd,np7v
                            and                                    modified by replacing "achieving" with                                       led With the
                     (c) provide for more Federal                  -performin&" replacing "objectives.              W. Other Actions Associa
                                                                                                                .   Notice of Flumd Rulemaking
                   participation in the evaluations.               with "tasks." and adding language to
                   .Response: NOAA agrees that the                 clarify that if a state has notified and         A. Classirication Under Executive Order
                   regulations should specify a -minimum           negotiated with the Assistant                    (Z 0.) 12MI of February.1 7.298.1
                   period for advance notice of the public         Admini trator necessary project                    NOAA has concluded that these
                   meeIting(s). The draft regulations already      modifications, as provided in
                   provide that the Assistant Administrator        J 923.103(d), the evaluation will be             regulations are not major because they
                   will publish an advance notice-of Intent        based upon the projects as modified.             will not result In:
                   to evaluate at least 45 days In advance           fiesponser The words "achieving" and           . (1) An annual effect on the economy
                   of the p.ublic meeting(3) in order to put       "objectives" are taken directly from the         of $100 million or more;







                                       Federal Register / Vol. 47 No. 95 / Monday, May 17, 1982 / Rules and Regulations            21019
                                                                                              

                       (2) A major increase in costs or prices                 distributed issue papers dealing with the              The Congress finds and declares that It is
                       for consumers, individual industries.                   proposed rules to over 400 interested                  the national policy--
                       Federal, state or local government                      persons on a mailing list maintained by                .      .      .     .
                       agencies, or geographic regions; or                     the Office of Coastal Zone Management.                 (2) To encourage and assist the States to
                       (3) Significant adverse effects on                      NOAA reviewed and considered 38 sets                   exercise effectively their responsibilities in
                       competition, employment, investment,                    of comments on the ANPR and 68 sets of                 the coastal zone through the development
                       productivity, innovation or on the ability              comments on the issue papers in                        and implementation of management programs
                       of United States-based enterprises to                   developing proposed regulations. In                    to achieve wise use of the land and water
                       compete with foreign-based enterprises                  addition, meetings and briefings on the                resources of the coastal zone, giving full
                       in domestic or export markets.                                                                                 consideration to ecological, cultural, historic,
                                                                               regulatory process and the substantive                 and esthetic values as well as to the needs
                       The final rules foster improvements in                  issued involved were held with                         for economic development, which programs
                       an existing system for administering a                  managers of state coastal zone                         should at least provide for--
                       program of financial assistance to state                management and coastal energy impact                    (A) The  protection of natural resources,
                       and local government. Therefore, these                  programs, Federal agency                               including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries,
                       rules only serve to strengthen the                      representatives, and Interest groups. A                beaches,dunes, barrierislands, coral reefs,
                       institutional framework for making                      notice of proposed rulemaking was                      and fish and their habitat, within the coastal,
                       rational coastal management decisions                   published an pages 51393-51402 of the                  zone.
                       and will not result in any major direct or              Federal Register of October 20, 1981, and               (B) The management of coastal
                                                                                                                                      development to minimize the loss of life and
                       Indirect economic or environmental                      invited comments for 30 days ending                    property caused by Improper development in
                       impacts.                                                November 20, 1981. Comments were                       flood-prone, storm surge, geological hazard,
                       B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis                      received from 32 sources including                     and erosion-prone areas and in areas of
                                                                               Federal and state goverment agencies,                  subsidence and saltwater intrusion and by
                       A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Is                    Regional organizations and interest                    the destruction of natural protective features
                       not required for this notice of final                   groups.                                                such as beaches, dunes, wetlands, and
                       rulemaking. The regulations set forth                                                                          barrier islands.
                       procedures for distributing Federal                     List of Subjects 15 CFR Parts 923, 927,                  (C) Priority consideration being given to
                       financial assistance among participating                828, and 931                                           coastal-dependent uses and orderly
                       state governments and for evaluating                    Adminitrative practice and                             processes for siting major facilities related to
                       the performance of those state                          procedure, Coastal zone, Grant                         national defense, energy, fisheries
                                                                                                                                      development, recreation, ports and
                       governments in achieving coastal                        programs, Natural resources, Energy                    transportation and the location, to the
                       management objectives. The final rules                  William Maturzeski,                                    maximum extent practicable, of new
                       directly affect only state government                   Acting Assistant Administrator for Coastal             commercial and industrial developments in
                       entities, which are not "small                          Zone Management.                                       or adjacent to areas whom such development
                       government jurisdictions" as defined by                                                                        already exists.
                       Pub. L. 96-354. The Regulatory                          PART 923--COASTAL ZONE                                   (D) Public access to the coasts for
                       Flexibility Act. The final rules will have              MANAGEMENT PROGRAM                                     recreation purposes.
                       no effect an small businesses and a                     DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL                               (E) Assistance in the redevelopment of
                       negligible effect an local units of                     REGULATIONS                                            deteriorating urban waterfronts and ports,
                       government who participate only                                                                                sensitive preservation and restoration of
                                                                               For reasons set out in the Preamble,                   historic, cultural, and esthetic coastal
                       through the States.                                     Part 923 of Title 15 of the Code of                    features.
                       C. Paper Work Reduction Act of 1980                     Federal Regulations is amended as set                  (F) The coordination and simplification of
                       (Public Law 96-511)                                     forth below.                                           procedures in order to ensure expedited
                                                                                                                                      governmental deisionmaking for the
                       These regulations will impose no                                                                               management of coastal resources.
                       information collection requirements of                  923.85 (Removed)                                       (G) Continued consultation and
                       the type covered by Pub. L. 96-511 on                     1. By removing  923.85.                              coordination with, and the giving of adequate
                       affected state governments. Information                   2. By adding now Subpart K to read as                consideration to the views of, affected
                       requirements of Section 312 Continuing                  set forth below.                                       Federal agencies.
                                                                                                                                      (H) The giving at timely and effective
                       Review regulations embody existing                      Sec.                                                   notification of and opportunities for public
                       procedures and do no constitute any                                                                            and localgovernment partcipation in coastal                     
                       increase In reporting on the part of any                923.101 General.                                       management decisionmaking, and
                       affected party.                                         923.102 Significant Improvement Defined.               (I) Assistance to support comrehensive,
                       D. National Environmental Policy Act                    923.103 Selection and Approval of Activities           planning conservation, and management for
                       (NEPA)                                                      Leading to Significant Improvements.               living marine resources, including planning
                                                                               923.104 Establishing the Increasing                    for the siting of pollution control and
                        NOAA has concluded that publication                        proportion.                                        aquaculture facilities within that coastal zone.
                       of the final rules does not constitute a                923.105 Failure to Agree to Pursue
                       major Federal action significantly                       Significant Improvements.                             (2) Section 306(a).
                       affecting the quality of the human                                                                             The Secretary may make grants to any
                       environment. Therefore, an                              Subpart K--improving Coastal Zone                      coastal State for not more than 80 per centum
                       environmental impact statment is not                    Management                                             of the costs of administering such State's
                       required.                                                                                                      management program if the Secretary--
                                                                               Authority: Sections 303 and 305 of the                 (3) Finds, if such program has been
                       E. Public Participation                                 Coastal Zone Management Act and Section 5              administered with financial assistance under
                                                                               of the Coastal Zone Management                         this section for at least one year, that the
                       NOAA has actively encouraged public                     Improvement Act of 1980.                               coastal State will expand an increasing
                       participation in the development of                                                                            portion of each grant received under this
                       these final rules. NOAA issued an                         923.101 General.                                     section (but not more then 30 per centum of
                                                                                 (a) Statutory citations:					  the grant unless the State chooses to expend
                       advance notice of proposed rulemaking                                                                          a higher percentage) on activities that will.
                       with a 60-day comment period and                          (1) Section 303(2)                                        
 





                   =026          'Fade=1 Register               Vol 47, NO-95        Mondaylt_ MaY.17,-1982                Rules and Regulations

                   M-31111 in sisnificant improvement being made    management requirements contained In                   decision will be available to the State
                   in achieving the coastal management          I,  the approved program.                                  agency. Any such changes will be mude
                   objectives specified in Section 303(2)(A)-(1).      (ii) Streamlined inlergovernmental                  part of the agreement included in the
                   (b) States whose ipproved prngra        ms       coordination and public participation                  financial assistance award.
                   have been administered for at leRst one          mechanisms.                                            (e) Significant improvements need not
                   year with Section 306 funds must                    (5) The following to the extent they                be achieved within the period of one
                   expend an -increasing proportion.. of            exceed what is required by an approved                 financial assistance award if there is
                   eich subsequent Section 306 financial            program.                                               specific reason to identity a longer
                   assistance award on activities that will            (I) Development of naturul resource                  . d.
                   result in "significant improvement      "in      information critical to making informed                peno
                   achieving certain national coastal               coastal management decisions.                          f 923.104 Establishing the "Increasing
                   management objectives. This subpart                 (it) Development and implementation                 proportion".
                   defines "significant improvement...              of State and local strategies, projects                (a) During the first year a State'is
                   de3cribes; the process for determining           and management programs for cdast;l                    required to make significant
                   which significant improvement activities         resources and uses.                                    improvements (its second 306 award), it
                   a State may perform, establishes the             1923.103 Selection and approval of                     must agree to expend 20 percent of the
                   formula for deternuning "Increasing              activities loading to significant                      Federal share of its upcoming section
                   proportion.- and sets forth the                  improvomrits.               . 1                        306 financial assistance award on
                   ConseqiLences of failure to pursue                  (a) The State will take the Initiative In           activities designed to lead to significant
                   significant improvements.                        proposiftS significant improvement                     Improvements. Thereafter. the State
                   1223.102-Significant Improvement                 activities. The State's financial                      must agree to constant Incremental
                   defined.                                         assistance application will describethe                increases of at least one percent in each
                   (a) A "significant improvement" is ar            management activities it will perform                  succeeding year. The amount to be spent
                   accomplishment that addresses any.a          .f  and the significant improvements it                    an significant improvements will be
                   the, objectives of Section 303(2)(A)-(I)         expects to achieve over the course of the              determined by multiplyjng the
                   by.                                              next financial assistance award period.                applicable percentage by the amount, of
                                                                    This description will clearly identify                 Federal funds actually' received.
                   (1) Substantially expanding the scope            specific schedules and expected . @
                   of the approved program (such                                                                           I(b) In no case may a State be required
                                                                    products.                                              to expend more on significant
                   expansion of program, scope Includes,               (b) Based on the results of the"
                   but is not limited to an amendment or            continuing review described in        15,,,            improvement activities than the
                                                                                                                    -- -   Incremental increases established by
                   routine program implementation). or              Part 97A theAssistant Administrator
                   (2) Substantially strengthening the              will determine In aonsultation with the                this section. However, States may
                   ability of the State to implement or             State if the management activities                     voluntarily exceed the minimum
                   enforce the approved prograM.'                   proposed by the State are likely to result             requirement on significant improvement
                   (b) Significant improvements include.            in significant improvement in achieving                expenditures established by this section.
                   but are not limited to. the following            the coastal martagoment objectives of                  The failure to make significant
                   types of accomplishments:                        section 303(2](A)-(1).                                 improvements 43 a result of those
                   (1) The adoption of new enforceable                 (c) The States and the Assistant                    expenditures in excess of the minimum
                   policies for coastal decisionmaking of           Administrator will negotiate an                        requirement will not result in any -
                   the conversion'of nonenforceable                 agreement at the beginning of each                     reduction in financial assistance under
                   (encouragement) policies to enforceable          financial assistance award period                      the provisions of I 9284(a). unless such
                   policies. The State for local government)        establishing: (2) The specific significant             failure results in an unj  ustiried,deviation
                   may adopt new policies by legislation.           improvement objectives to be achieved                  under I 92U(b).
                   rulemaking. memoranda of                         during the fmancial assistance award                   J 923.105 FaHure to agree to pursue
                   understanding. executive order or other          period. (2) The Federal funds to'be                    significant Improvements.
                   legally sufficient means.                        devoted to each task. and (3) The basis
                   (2) The adoption of refined                      for assessing the State's progress In                  (a) If a State ChOO393 not to pursue
                   enforceable policies for coastal                 accomplishing each significant                         significant improvements in accordance
                   decisionmaking including:                        improvement task. The agreement will                   with this subpart, the Secretary must
                   (I) More specific standards for the              be included as part of the financial                   withhold all ffimcial assistance. under
                   implementation of existing statutes.             assistance award. There is no                          Section 306. However. a decision not to
                   I (li) Site specific management plams for        requirement that the. State address each               award sectiori 306 funds does not-
                   areas designated as Areas of Particular          of the nine significant improvement                    necessaxily requim withdrawal of
                   Concern and Areas for Preservation or            objectives within an individual firtancial             program approval. A State may continue
                   Restcra tion or other areas beyond what          assistance award period.                               to Implement and enforce its approved
                   is required by the approved program.                (d) If unforeseen circumstances arise               pros.Mm with State funds. Under these
                   (3) The extension of existing                    that affect the accomplishment of any                  circumstances. a Sta is. will still be able
                   enforceable coastal management                   significant Improvement task. the State                to exercise its Federal consistency
                   policies to new geographic areas beyond          must provide the Assistant                             review rights under Section' 307 and will
                   what is required by the approved                 Administrator with prompt notice and                   remain eligible for CEIP funds if it meets
                   program.                                         negotiate with the Assistant                           all other eligibility requirements.
                   (4) Development of more effective or             Administrator any necessary changes to                 (b) A discussion of the procedures by
                   efficient admin stration of the approved         the schedule and products before the                   which the Assistant Administrator will
                   management program including.                    scheduled completion dates. The                        evaluate whether a State has failed to
                   (1) Improved capability of the coastal           Assistant Administrator shall provide                  make significant improvements is
                   management agencies to implement                 the State agency,with a schedule for                   contained in 15.CFR Part 9M Review of
                   State coastal regulatory, planning. and          negotiation and a time.certain when a                  Performance of State Coastal








                                   Federal  Vol. 47 No. 95     Monday, May 17. 1982 Rules and Regulations                          21021

                   Management and Coastal Energy Impact               amount shall be subtracted from the                   (41 Withdrawing program approval
                   Programs.                                          established maximum and redistributed              and financial assistance.
                     Form the reasons set out in the                  proportionately among those eligible               ï¿½ 928.2 definitions.
                   Preumble. Part 927 of Title 15 of the              States with allocations not exceeding
                   Code of Federal Regulations is revised             the established maximum.                             (a)"Continuing review" means
                   to read as set forth below.                          (d) Use of the allocation formula. The           monitoring State performance
                                                                      allocation formula shall be used to                throughout the period ofthe work
                   PART 927-ALLOCATION OF SECTION                     establish base level allocations for each          program. As part of the continuing
                   306 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION                         State coastal management program                   review. evaluations of approved CZM
                   GRANTS        .                                    eligible to receive Federal funding.               programs will be conducted and written
                   927.1 Allocation formula.                         (a) Adjustment for phase down of                  findings will be produced at least once
                     (a) Statutory Citation                           Federal funding. The Assistant                      every two years but not more than once
                     (1) Section 306(a).                              Administrator may adjust base level                every year. Evaluations of coastal
                     The Secretary may make grants to any             allocations as necessary to implement a            energy impact programs will be
                                                                     phase down of Federal financial                    conducted on a schedule to be
                   coastal State for not more than so per centum'     support. Any such adjustment shall be              determined by the Assistant
                   of the costs of administering such States
                   management program ...                              Implemented in a manner which gives                Administrator.
                                                                      some priority to recently approved State              (b) "Adherence" means to comply
                     (2) Section 306(b).                              coastal management programs. Options               with the approved CZM program and
                     Such grants shall be allocated to the States,    for implementation of a phase down will            financial assistance award or work
                   with approved programs based an rules and          be submitted to the States for review             Program.
                   regulations promulgated by the Secretary           and comment.                                         (c) "Justifiable" means that the State
                   which shall take into account the extent and         (f) Calculation of financial assistance            must show that the deviation(s) from the
                   nature of the shoreline and area covered by
                   the plan. population of the area. and other        award levels. Actual financial                      approved CZM program was warranted.
                   relevant factors: Provided. That no annual         assistance award levels will be set from           This determination will be made by the
                   grant made under this section shall be less       base level allocations. any adjustments           Assistant Administrator in consultation
                   than one per centum of the total amount          under paragraph (a) of this section. and           with the State on a case-by-case basis.
                   appropriated to carry out the purposes of this     in accordance with the provisions of               The principal criterion to be used in
                   section: And provided further. That the           section 312(a). c). and (d). Award levels         making this determination is the extent
                   Secretary shall waive the application of the       may fall below the one percent                     to which the deviation was beyond
                   one per centum minimum requirement as to
                   any grant under this section. when the             minimum established under section                  State control. Other criteria, including,
                   coastal State involved requests such a             306(b) for purposes of Implementing                but not limited to, the following will be
                   waiver.                                            section 312(c) of the Act.                          considered:
                    (b) Minum maximum allocation              (Sections 306 and 317 of the Coastal zones              (1) The extent to whIch the deviation
                   The Assistant Administrator may                    Management Act)                                     Impairs the ability of the program to
                   establish minimum and maximum State                 5. Part 928 is revised to read as set           achieve its goals and objectives;
                   allocations.                                       forth below:                                          (2) Whether the deviation Is part of a
                     (c) Allocation formula factors and                                                                    pattern or in an isolated incident:
                   weighting. Each State elligible to receive           PART 928-REVIEW OF                                    (3) The magnitude of the deviation.
                   a financial assistance award shall be              PERFORMANCE                                           (d)"Approved CZM program" means
                   allocated an amount of the total                   Sec.                                            those elements of the program required
                   available Federal funding based on:                928.1 General.                                      for program approval by the Secretary.
                     (1) A minimum share (established by              928.2 Definitions.                                 under 15 CFR Part 923 (Development
                   the Assistant Administrator) of the total          928.3 Procedure for conducting Continuing           and Approval Provisions), Including any
                   funding available for allocation to                review of approved State CZM programs           changes to those elements made by
                   eligible State coastal management                   and State Coastal Impact                         approved amendments and routine
                   programs. plus                                         program.                                      program Implementation.
                     (2) A proportionate share of the                 928.4 Public participation.                               (e) "Financial assistance award"
                   remainder to be divided as follows;                928.5 Enforcement.                                     means a legal. instrument that creates a
                                                                       Authority: Sections 312 and 316 of the                relationship between the Federal
                     (1) Sixty percent will be allocated            Coastal Zone Management Act. as amended.
                   based on each eligible State's                                                                        government and another entity
                   proportionate share of the length of tidal         & 926.I General.                                    (recipient). The principal purpose of the
                   shoreline and/or Great Lake shoreline                (a) These regulations set forth the              award Is the transfer of money or
                   mileage of all participating States based          requirements for review of approved                services In order to accomplish a public
                   on the most recently available data from       State coastal zone management (CZM                 purpose authorized-by Federal statute.
                   or accepted by the National Ocean             programs pursuant to section 312 of the           The term "financial assistance award"
                   Survey, and                                  Act.and of State coastal energy impact             encompasses grants, loans. and
                     (ii) Forty percent will be allocated on    programs pursuant to sections 312 and              cooperative agreements.The following
                   
                   each eligible State's proportionate share     318 of the Act.                                                                                       
                                                                They define"continuing                              elements constitute the award
                   of the aggregate population of all coastal    review" and other important terms. and                (1) The work program described in the
                   counties contained in whole or in part             set forth the procedures for.                      approved application;
                   within the designated Coastal boundary              (1) Conducting continuing reviews of                (2) The budget:
                   of all eligible State coastal programs             approved State CZM programs and                       (3) The standard terms and condition:
                   based on official data or the most recent          State coastal energy Impact programs.              of the award:
                   U.S. census.                                        (2) Providing for public participation.              (4) Any special award conditions
                   (3) Should any State's base allocation              (3) Reducing financial assistance for             included with the award.
                   exceed the maximum established by the              failure to make significant Improvement.              (5) The statutes and regulations under
                   Assistant Administrator. the excess                and                                                which the award Is authorized; and








               21022 Feral Register    Vol. 47. No. 95     Monday. May 17, 1982              Rules and Regulations

                    (6) Applicable OMB cost principles               information gaps. and formulate any                 will be used in negotiating the next
                    and administrative requirements.                    additional information needs that will              financial assistance award or work
                    (1)"Work program" means a                           be the subject of a supplemental                    program, whichever is applicable.
                    description of the tasks to be                      information request to the State.                   (3) Procedure for assessing how the
                    undertaken by a State for a given time              (4) The Assistant Administrator may                 State has addressed the coasta1
                    period for the purpose of implementing              conduct a site visit as a part of the               management needs identified in section
                    and enforcing an approved CZM                       evaluation.                                       303(2)(A)-(1). The assessment of the
                    program. The work program Is submitted           (5) Draft findings of the evaluation                extent to which the State has addressed
                    us a part of a Federal financial                    will be transmitted to the State. The               the coastal management needs
                    assistance application. or separately in            State will have a minimum of two weeks              identified in Section 303(2)(A)-(I) will
                    the absence of Federal financial                    from receipt of the draft findings to               occur as follows:
                    assistance.                                         review them and provide comments to                 (I) The State. in Its performance
                    (g) "Assistant Administrator" means                 the Assistant Administrator. This                   report. will provide the Assistant
                    the Assistant Administrator for Coastal             review time may be extended upon                   Administrator with a listing of all
                    Zone Management or the NOAA Official                request from the State.                             actions it Is taking during the
                    responsible for directing the Federal               (a) Within two weeks from receipt of                performance report period to address
                    coastal zone management program.                   the draft findings. a State may request a            the national coastal management needs
                                                                        meeting with the Assistant                          and how these actions relate to
                   &928.3 Procedure for conducting                      Administrator to discuss the draft                  conditions in the State and the.
                    continuing reviews of approved impact               findings and the State's comments                  objectives and priorities In the State
                    programs and state coastal energy impact          (7) Within 43 days of receipt of State              CZM program.
                    programs .                                           comments. the Assistant Administrator               (ii) The Assistant Administrator, in
                    (a) Statutory citations:                            will issue final findings. This period may    the evaluation findings,will assess the
                    (1) Subsection 312(a).                               be extended upon notification to the                extent to which the State's actions are
                     The Secretary shall conduct a continuing           State. Notice of the availability of the            targeted to meeting identified "needs"
                    review of the performance of coastal States        final findings will be published in the            and the effectiveness of the actions in
                    With respect to Coastal management. Each           Federal Register. copies will be sent to        addressing those needs. Based on this
                    review shall include a written evaluation           the head of the State CZM agency, the               assessment, the Assistant Administrator
                    with an assessment and detailed findings            State program manager. and any person               will make findings and
                    concerning, the extent to which the State has      who requests them                                  recommendations of the extent to which
                    implemented and enforced the program                  (c) Requirements for continuing         each State is addressing the coastal        
                    approved by the SeCretary, addressed the            review of approved State CZM                 management needs Identified in Section
                    coastal management needs Identified In               programs.                                       303.             
                    Section 303(2)(A)-(1),and adhered to the        (1) Scope of continuing reviews. The                  (iii)The findings and                                                                                           
                    agreement funded under this title.                   continuing review of a State's approved             recommendations concerning how the
                    (2) Section 316. includes a                 CZM program will Include an evaluation                       State has addressed the coastal
                                                                        of the extent to which the State has:               management needs of section 303 will
                    provision for a biannial-Coastal Zone              (1) Implemented and enforced the                 be used by the Assistant Administrator
                    Management Report which must                        program approved by the Secretary                 in negotiating the next financial
                    include.                                            (ii) Addressed the coastal                          assistance award. If any. The evaluation
                    """ a description of the economic.             management needs Identified In Section
                    environmental. and social consequences of           303(2)(A)-(I);and                                     required by section 312(c), concerning                                                          
t      and an evaluation of the effectiveness of											wheather a coastal State is "failing to                                    
                 financial assistance under Section In                  (2) procedure for assessing adherence                  make significant improvement in         detailed In
                    dealing with each consequence,                 to the approved CZM program                          (4)Procedure for assessing adherence
                    (b) Each State will submit a financial               to its approved CZM program the                    to the terms of financial assiatance 
                    assistance application Or work program,												awards
 Program.                                                                Assistant Administrator will evalutate
                    whichever is applicable. on a timetable            all aspects of the "approved CZM                    (1) Adherence to financial and
                    negotiated with the Assistant'                      program" as defined in &928(d)The no                administrative terms Of each financial
                    Administrator, describing the tasks to be,          evaluation will examinr the extent to               assistance award will be determined by
                    undertaken by the State for the purpose              which:                                              the NOAA, Grants Office and the
                    of implementing and enforcing Its                   (A) The state is implementing and                    Department of Commerce Inspector
                    approved CZM program.                            enforcing Its approved CZM program:                 General. Adherence to programmatic
                    (2) For the purpose of evaluation,the                (B) The management agency   Is                  terms of each financial assistance
                    States will submit performance reports       effectively playing a leadership role in              award will be determined by the
                    as specified In the Special Award              coastal issues. monitoring the actions of            Assistant Administrator and the NOAA
                    CondItions. or, If the State Is not         appropriate State and local agencies for            Grant Office.These determinations will
                    receiving an award, as negotiated with       compliance with the approved CZM                    be made in accordance with the
                    the Assistant Administrator. The reports       program. and assuring the opportunity               requirements outlined in these
                    will address all areas identified In each      for full participation of all Interested            regulations,the,findings of a financial
                    State's Performance Report Guidelines.              entities in CZM program                            audit of the award, and the following
                    (3) The Assistant Administrator will                implementation; and                                 criteria:
                    col1ect Information an the State CZM           (C) The management agency Is                        (A) Compliance with the statute,
                    programs on a continuing basis. At the              effectively carrying out the provisions of          regulations, and applicable OMB
                    beginning of each evaluation, the                  Federa1 consistency.                               circulars.
                    Assistant Administrator will analyze                (ii) The Endings concerning the States               (B) Submission of required reports and
                    available information. Identify                     adherence to its approved CZM program               satisfactory completion of work
 








                                     rou"fail muslatur I Vul. 4.,; 14U. tto I MullUjAy. lVidy ii. Ltooz                        -nutev isau meguiatione                           211.1123

                   products as described in the approved                 the public that oral or written comments                 (d) The Secretary shall withdraw approval
                   application and within the timeframe                  will be accepted and that attendance at               of the management program of any coastal
                   specified-,                                           the public meeting(al Is not necessary                State. and shall withdraw any financial
                      (C) Compliance with Standard Terms                 for submission of written comments.                   assistance available to that State tinder this
                                                                                                                               title as well as any unexpended portion of
                         Conditions and Special Award                       (3) Notice.of the availability of final            suca assistance. if the Secretary determines
                   Conditions within the specified                       findings to the public upon request will              that the coastal State Is failing to adhere to. [a
                   tinieframes:                                          be published In the Federal Register.                 not justified in deviating from (1) the
                      (01 Use of award funds only for                                                                          management program approved by the
                   approved projects; and                                J 928.5 Enforcement       *                           Secretary. or (2) (he terms of any grant or
                      (E) Substantive modification of                       (a) Reduction of financial assistance              cooperative agreement funded under Section
                   approved projects only with the prior                 for failure to make significant                       300. and refuses to remedy the deviation.
                   agreement of NOAA                                     Improvement.                                             Ja) Management program approval and
                      I(ii I The findings concerning adherence              (1) Statutory citation section 312(c):             financial assistance may not be withdrawn
                   to the terms of financial     'assistance                The Secretary shall reduce any financial           under Subsection (d). unless the Secretary
                   awards will be used in negotiating.the                assistance extended to any coastal State              givesth coastal State notice of the proposed
                   next financial assistance award. if any.              under Section 306 (but not below 70 per               withdraLall and 9a opportunity for a public
                      (d) Requirements for continuing.                   centum of the amount that would otherwise             hearing on the proposed action. Upon the
                   review of State coastal energy impact                 be available to the coastal State under such          withdrawal of management program
                   programs.                                             section for any year). and withdraw any               approval under this Subiiiction (d). the
                      (1) &ope of continuing reviews. The                unexpended portion of such reduction. If the          Secretary shall provide the coastal State with
                   continuing review of State coastal                    Secretary. determines that the coastal State Is       written specifications of the actions that
                   energy impact programs will include tl@e              failing to make significant improvement In            should be taken. or not engaged In. by the
                   following elements:                                   achieving the coastal management objectives           State in order that such withdrawal may be
                      (I) An evaluation of the State'.41                 specified In Section 303(2)(A)-(I).                   canceled by the Secretary.
                   adherence to the terms of financial                      (2) Requirements.                                     (2) Requirements.
                   assistance awards;                       'I              (I) The evaluation will examine                       (I) If the Assistant Administrator finds
                      (I!) An evaluation of the relationship             whether the State Is accomplishing the                that a State is failing-to adhere to. and is
                   between coastal energy Impact Orojects                significant improvement tasks in                      not justified In deviating from. its
                   and the approved CZM program:                         accordance with specific schedules and                approved CZM program or those terms
                      (iii) A description of energy activities           expected products negotiated between                  of its Section 306 financial assistance
                   in coastal areas and the impact resulting             the State and the Assistant                           award specifically Implementing the
                   from these activities; and                            Administrator before the beginning of                 approved CZM program. the agency will
                      (iv) An evaluation of the effectiveness            each financial assistance award. In                   provide the State with written notice of
                   of the. coastal energy impact,program in              accordance with the procedures In 15                  this finding and the agencys- obligation
                   dealing with these consequences.                      CFR 923.103.                                          to withdraw program apprdval and
                      (2) Procedure for assessing adherence                 (11) If the Assistant Arlinlrd trator              financial assistance under this title. This
                   to the terms of financial assistance                  finds. during the continuing review. that             notice will set forth the deviation(s)
                   awards. See I 92U(c)(4).                              the State Is not achieving one or more                from the approved C2W program or the
                   1928.4 Public participation.                          significant Improvement objectives as                 financial assistance award and will
                      (a) Statutory citation. section 31*1:              negotiated. the State will be given an                Include specifications of the actions that
                                                                         opportunity to demonstrate that It can                must be taken In order to remedy the
                      For the purpose of making the evaluation of        accomplish the objective(s). as                       deviation(s). The State will be given 30
                   s, coastal State's performance. the Secretary         prescribed in the financial assistance.               days from receipt of this notice to
                   shall conduct public meetings and provide
                   opportunity for oral and written comments by          award. before Its expiration.                         respond with evidence of adherence or
                   the public. Each such evaluation shall be                (HI) If the State cannot make this                 justification for Its deviation(s). During
                   prepared in report form and the Secretary             demonstration to the Assistant                        this 30-day period. the State may request
                   shall make copies thereof available to the            Administrator's satisfaction. the                     up to 30 additional days to respond. for
                   public.                                               Assistant Administrator will determine                a maximum of 00 days from receipt of
                      (b) Requirements.                                  that the State is failing to make                     notim
                      (1) The Assistant Administrator will               satisfactory progress toward significant                 (if) If the State does not respond
                   Publish a Notice of Intent to Evaluate in             improvement In `accordance with the                   satisfactorily within the time allowed,
                   the Federal Register at least 45 days                 previously negotiated agreement.                      the agency will notify the State of Intent
                   before the public meeting(s). The notice                 (Iv) Based on this determination. the              to take the P@oposecl action. This notice
                   win Include a Statement of the                        agency will reduce a State's financial                win be published in the Federal Register
                   availability of the State    ''s performance          assistance award and withdraw any                     and will Inform the State of its right to a
                   report and the supplemental Information               unexpended portion of the current                     public hearing.
                   request.                                              award by no more than the percentage                     (111) If the State does not request a
                      (2) Each State win Issue a notice of               required to-be devoted to making                      public hearing or submit satisfactory
                   the public meeting(s) on its evaluation in            significant Improvements for that year.               evidence of adherence or justification
                   the newspaper(a) of largest cirmilation               The iieduction or withdra'wal shall be                within 30 days of publication of this
                   In the coastal area where the meeting(s)              proportional to the amount of funds                   nodca, the agency will decide whether
                   13 being held or take other reasonable                allocated to tasks that have failed to                to withdraw program approval and
                   action to Inform the Interested public.'              result in satisfactory progress in                    firinnedal Assistance and the agency will
                   such as sending a notice of the                       achieving significant improvement.                    notify the State In writing*of the decision
                   meeting(s) to persons an its mailing list                (b) Withdrawal of program approval                 and the reasons for it. The notification
                   and publishing a notice in its newsletter.            and financial assistance.                             will set forth actions by the State which
                   at least 15 days before the date of the                  (1) Statutory citation. section 312(d)             would cause the Secretary to cancel the
                   public meeting(s). The State will Worm                and 312(e):                                           withdrawal.










                       (iv), If the State requests a public              procedures for allotting section 308(c)           on ocean or lake waters is for cooling
                       hearing within 30 days of publication of          moneys among eligible coastal states              (such as nuclear power plants), liquefied
                       the notice of intent to withdraw program          and for applying for assistance under             natural gas facilities, and facilities for
                       approval and financial assistance. the            section 308(c).                                   the exploration for and development of
                       Assistant Administrator will publish 30                                                             offshore oil and natural gag do not
                       days advance notice of the hearing in            $931.31 Objectives.                               constitute AOE facilities. Solar facilities
                       the Federal Register and the                      The objectives of assistance under            will also be considered AOE facilities.
                       newspaper(s) of largest circulation in            this subpart are:                                 AOE facilities include, but are not
                       the State's coastal zone. The hearing             (a) to help coastal states and units of           limited to-
                       will be held in a location convenient to          local government plan for economic,                 (i) Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
                       the citizens of the State's Coastal zone          social, or environmental consequences             (OTEC).
                       and a record of the hearing will be               of now or expanded energy facilities                (ii) Tidal and wave generation of
                       maintained. Within 30 days of the                 and to Prevent, reduce, or mitigate               electricity.
                       completion of the hearing, the agency             losses resulting from the transporation,     (iii) Ocean current generation of
                       will make the determination as set forth          transfer, or storage of coal or from              electricity.
                       in (III), above.                           alternative ocean energy activity.                  (iv)Salinity gradient generation of
                        (3) If program approval and financial            (b) To help coastal states develop the          electricity.
                       assistance are withdrawn pursuant to              capability to participate effectively In           (v) Pumped storage generation of
                       this action, a notice is placed in            Federal policy, planning, and managerial          electricity.
                       the Federal Register and Federal                     decisions relating to the development of            (vi) Solar generation of electricity.
                       consistency under Section 307 of the Act            OCS, oil and gas resources.                         (vii) Biomass production-e.g., kelp
                       will cause to apply to the State's CZM              (c) To provide financial assistance
                       program.                                          that is simple to administer and that             farms.
                                                                         permits the coastal states and units of             (viii) Wind generation of electricity
                       1923.82 (Amended]                                 local government a high degree of                 that depends on the sea or lake breeze.
                        Section 923.82(b)(3) is amended as               control and discretion.                             (d) Likely to be affected by OCS
                       follows:                                          (d) To improve and strengthen coastal                energy activity. The Assistant
                       a. After the words "that State may be             zone management in the United States.            Administrator will find a coastal state
                       subject to," change the word                                                                     "likely to be affected by OCS energy
                       "termination" to "withdrawal,"                    $931.32 Definitions.                             activity" If the Assistant Administrator
                       b. After the end of the sentence,                 (a) Coal. The term "coal" Includes all            determines that:
                       change the reference. "(See $ 923.85)" to            forms of anthracite and bituminous coal,            (1) The state can reasonably expect to
                       (See 15 CFR 928.5(b))."                           peat, coke, and lignite. In addition to           be exposed to significant social,
                       For the reasons set out in the                    these substances, the term Includes ash           economic. or environmental
                       Preamble. Part 931 of Title 15 of the             and sludge, which are waste products of           consequences as a result of any OCS
                       Code of Federal Regulations is amended            burning coal.                                     lease sale that has taken place or Is
                       as set out below.                                 (b) Coal Facility. The term "coal                   scheduled to take place under the
                       1.By removing Subpart L and revising              facility" Includes the following;                Department of the Interices (DOI) Five
                       Subpart D to mad as set forth below-               (1) Any facility used in the                    Year Planning Schedule: or
                                                                         transpartation, washing, or storage of               (2) The state has administrative.
                       PART 93 I-COASTAL ENERGY                          coal. Such facilities Include, but are not        policy, operational, or managerial
                       IMPACT PROGRAM                                     limited to.                                       responsibilities under the OCS Lands
                                                                         (1) Coal loading docks                             Act that should properly be supported
                       Subpart C-Coastal Energy Impact Grants              (1i) Coal barging terminals                        with Section 308(c) funds.
                                                                         (iii) Coal ports                                    $931.33 Eligibilty for financial assistance
                                                                    (Iv) Coal storage yards                           under this subpart;
                       931.30 General.                             (v) Rail transport facilities
                       931.31 Objectives.                     (2) Any facility that converts coal Into            (a) A coastal state Is eligible for
                       931.32 Definitions.                                another form of energy usable by                  financial assistance if it Meats the basic
                       931.33 Elligibility for financial assistance      consumers or Industry including but not           eligibility requirements of Subpart C of
                       under this subpart.                               limited to:                                       this Part.
                       931.34 Allowable uses.                            (1) Power plants                                   (b) A unit of local government way
                       931.35 Section 308(c) allotment,
                       931.36 Application for financial assistance       (ii)Synthetic fuel plants                        apply for assistance under this subpart
                       931.37 Limitations on expenditures.            (iii)Liquefaction plants                         through the state agency designated
                                                                         (3) Any facility that utilizes,                     under Subpart C of this Part to apply for
                                                                         transports, transfers, stores, handles,           CEIP assistance.
                       Subpart C-[Removed]                              processes or produces coal. Including
                                                                         mines and steel wills.                            $931.34 Allowable uses.
                       Subpart D--Coastal Energy impact                   (c) Alternative Ocean Energy (AOE)                   (a) Funds granted to a state under
                       Grants                                            Facility.  The term "alternative ocean              section 308(c) must be used In
                       Authority Section 308 and 317 of the              energy facility" means:                        accordance with the provisions of this
                       Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,as             (1) Any facility located in or seaward          section.
                       amended.                                          of. the coastal zone whose primary                  (1) Planning  States may use section
                                                                         purpose Is to utilize the mechanical,             308(c) funds to plan for any economic,
                       931.30 General.                                 chemical, physical, biological or thermal         social, or environmental consequence
                       This subpart sets forth the objectives            properties of ocean or lake waters in the         that has occurred, is occurring, or is
                       of providing financial assistance to              conversion of those properties Into a             likely to occur in the coastal zone as a
                       coastal states under section 308(c) and           form of energy usable by consumers or             result of siting, constructing, expanding
                       its allowable uses. It also describes             industry. Facilities whose only reliance         or operating new or expanded energy
 






                                  Federai*, Register-t- Vol.       47. No. 95       Monday. Ma@-17. 1982                Rules. and Regulations                21025.

                    facilities that significantly affect the          (1) A clear and brief description of the          when the sale. lease. or rental occurs
                    coastal zone. and for reasonable costs of      projects and activities that will be                 after October 17. 198&
                    administering the state coastal energy         funded under section 308(c) as they                  (2) To pay for that part of-a project
                    impact program.                                relate to allowable uses under 1931.34.              designed to prevent. reduce. or mitigate
                    (21 OCS State participation. States            For construction projects. as defined in             the loss of a valuable environmental or
                    likely to be affected by OCS energy            the Office of Management and Budget                  recreational resource which is
                    activity may use section 3Mcj funds to         Circular A-10Z. or planning projects that            Incommensurate with the valueof the
                    carry out their responsibilities under the     are the first stages of site specific                loss or which can be paid for with funds
                    OCS Lands Act. These responsibilities          development projects, the following                  readily available from any other Federal
                    include participating in the                   additional information is required:                  program:
                    administrative. policy, operational. and          (1) environmental Impact assessment               (3) To pay for that part of a loss:
                    managerial decisions relating to               data in detail sufficient to allow the @             (I) That occurs after July 26.1976. and
                    management of the oil and natural gas          Assistant Administrator to determine                 (ii) That could have been prevented
                    resources of the Outer Continental Shelf.      whether an EIS will be required under                by a reasonable exercise of a state's
                    (3) Coal and A OE impact mitigation.           NEPA.                                                existing regulatory authority.
                    States may use section 308(c) funds to            (ii) copies of all necessary major                .(4) For architecturaL engineering. and
                    design and implement projects                  Federal permit or license approvals:                 other technical service fees or costs
                    (incidding construction and land                  (111) a Preliminary Engineering Repart.           unless:
                    acquisition) to prevent. reduce. or               (2) A showing that the state has
                    mitiiate unavoidable losses to valuable.       compiled with the requirements of the                (I) Compensation is comparable to the
                    coastal environmental and recreational'        Project Notification and Review System               cost of similar work awarded through,
                    resources resulting from the                   established by Office of-Managem6nt                  open competitive bidding.
                                                                   and Budget Circular A-95 (Part 1) or a               (11) Compensation is not based on a
                    transportation. transfer. or storage of,       showing, If the application for                      cost plus a percentage-of-cost: and
                    coal or from AO IE activities.                 assistance has not been submitted Ao the             (III) Design and performance
                    1931J5 Section 308(c) illotmont.               PNRS. that a memorandum of agreement                 standards conform to professionally
                    @ (a) The Assistant Administrator will         for coordinating planning under Section              recognized national standards.
                    develop a formula for allotting available      308 has. been established with                       (5) The purchase of movable
                    Section 308(c) funds among eligible            appropriate areawide clearinghouses in               construction related equipment such as
                    coastal states. This formula will be           the state's coastal zone. pursuant to Part           dump trucks and excavating equipment
                    designed to estimate the relative need         IV. Attachment A. of ONO Circular A-                 unless expressly authorized by the
                    for planning. OCS participation. and                                                                financial assistance award.
                    coal and AOE impact mitigation, among             (3) A certification by the state agency           (d) All awards and expenditures of
                    eligible states.                               designated under I 931L.25(a)(4)(1) that-            funds under this iubpart are subject to
                    (b) This formula will be based on the          the assistance for the purposes specified            the applicable requirements specified in
                    number of existling and proposed new or        In J. 931.34(a)(1) and (3) has been or will          Subpart.L ,
                    expanded energy facilities. the number .       be allocated withfii the State in accord             ?_ By amending Subpart G as follows:
                    of existing and proposed coal facilities       with thifintrastate allocation process               a. 1931.70 is revised to read as
                    that significantly affect the coastal zone.    described In Subpart I of this parL                  follows:
                    the numbero'f existing and proposed               (4) A certification by the state agency
                    AIDE facilities located in or seaward of       designated under I 93IM(a)(4)(Hi) that               1931.70 General.
                    the coastal zone, the nature of their,         the assistance will be used In a manner              This Subpart states the objectives of
                    impacts and other relevant factors             that Is compatible with the state's                  financial assistance under section 308(b)
                    deemed appropriate by the Assistant            developing. or consistent with. the state's          and describes Its illowable uses. it also
                    Administrator such as coal tonnage. ,          approvm coastal zone management                      describes procedures for applying for
                    OCS leasing. production of OCS oil and.        program-                                             Section 308(b) giants.
                    natural gas. shorellne'rileage. and            @ (c) Allotted funds not applied for by
                    coastal county'population.                     the end- of the fiscal year for which                b. In I 93L71 revise the introductory
                                                                   allotments were made may be reallotted               text to read.
                    (c) Each fiscal year. before computing         by the Assistant Administrator among                 931.71 (Amended]
                    an allotment. the Assistant                    other eligible. states.                              The objectives for providing
                    Administrator will autimit this formula                                                             assistance' under section 308(b) are:
                    to all eligible coastal states for review      1931,37 UmUptions on Expenditures.
                    and comment, If appropriate. the                  (a) Section, 308(c) funds expended by
                    formula will be revised before any final       a state for the purposes described in . -            c. In 1931.71 add the following
                    allotments are calculated.                     I 93U4 may not exceed 70 percent of                  paragraph (d):
                    (d) The Assistant Administrator may            the actual cost of carrying out projects;              0    1 *     0
                    establish minimum and maximum                     (b) States and local governments may              (d) To help coastal States and units of
                    allotments..                                   ujis in4dad contributions as the non-                local government plan for the provision
                                                                   federal matching sham in'tccordance                  of public facilities and public services
                    1931.36 Application for financial              with OM33 Ckcular A-1                                required as a result of OCS energy
                    assistanca.                                                              9Z
                                                                      (c) Section,306(c) funds may not be               activity.
                    (a) Applications for financial                 used.
                    assistance under this.Subpart may be              (1) For the prevention. reduction. or             1931.73 [Amended)
                    submitted as soon as states are notified       mitigation of.any loss of an                         d. In 1931.73 the first sentence of
                    of their allotments under Section 30.8(c).     environmental or recreational resource               paragraph (a) 0 amended by removing
                    (b) Applications for assistance under          that is directly attributable to the sale.           the words "Sections Wa(b)(5)(c) and
                    this Subpart must contain the following        lease. oriental of such resource by a                (308)(d)(4)" and inserting in their place
                    certification and information:                 state agency or unit of local government             the words "Section 308(b)."







                    21026             Federal Register/Vol.47. No.95     Monday-May 17 1982 Rules and-Regulations

                    ï¿½931.74 (Amended)                                  Commission. 2033 K Street. N.W,                    carrying FCM or clearing organization.
                      e. In 1931.74 the first sentence of first        Washington. D.C. 20581. Telephone (202)            In addition to the information availaible
                    paragraph (a) is amended by removing               254-8955.                                          to the exchanges about their clearing
                    the words "Sections 508(b)(5)(c) and                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                         members through the pay and collect
                    308(b)(4)" and inserting in their place                                                               data. there Is an informal information
                    the words "Section 308(b)(5)(c)."                 I. Introduction                                    network existing among the FCM
                      f. In  931.74 add the following                   On December 29,1981. the                        community. While such information is
                    paragraph (d):                                     Commission published a proposed new                often communicated to exchange
                                                                       Rule 1.58 which would require that                 personnel. it rarely. if ever. reaches the
                      (d) Allowable uses under Section                 carrying FCMS collect margin for                   Commission. To compensate for the
                    308(b)(5)(B) include:                              positions carried in omnibus accounts              information which is routinely obtained
                      (1) Planning and study that are                  on a gross basis and at a level which is           by the exchanges about their clearing
                    necessary to provide new or improved               no less then that established for                  member FCM but which 13 not readily
                    public services that are required as a             customer accounts by the rules of the              available to the Commission or in
                    result of OCS energy activity.                     applicable contract market. as well as             certain instances, any self-regulatory
                      (2) Paying for reasonable Costs Of               proposed amendments to Rule'17.04                  organization with respect to omnibus
                    .administering the provision of                    regarding reporting of omnibus account             accounts. the Commission has
                    assistance under Section 308 to the                 positions. and solicited public comment            determined to adopt a rule which will
                    extent that funding for these                      theron (48 FR 62884). The Commission                 require the gross collection of exchange.
                    administrave costs in not available              received twelve written comments on                set margins. In this regard. pay and
                    under section 308(c).                              the proposals. The commentators                    collect information is unavailable even
                    IFR Doc. 82-13359 filed 5-14-82 4:45 am                  Include eight FCMs and two commodity               to the exchanges regarding omnibus
                    BILLING CODE 25 10-08-42                           exchanges. one of which submitted two              accounts where the originating FCM is a
                                                                       comment letters   as well as the National         member of one exchange placing orders
                                                                       Futures Association ("NFA}. The                   for execution on another exchange
                    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING                          Commission has Carefully considered all          where the FCM Is not a member. Rule
                    COMMISSION                                         of the comments received in response to            1.58 will thus apply to all omnibus
                    17 CFR Parts I and 17                              the proposed rules.                                accounts and not only to those omnibus
                                                                       IL Discussion                                      accounts of originating FCMs which are
                    Gross Collection of Exchange-Set                    As the Commission stated in the                   not members of any commodity
                                                                                                                          exchange, as some commentators
                    Margins                                           Federal Register release announcing the            suggested.
                    AGENCY. Commodity Futures Trading                  proposal of Rule 1.58 the Commission               One concern expressed by some
                    Commission.                                        believes that gross collection of                  commentators related to the investment
                    ACTION: Final rules.                               exchange-set margins will strengthen                of customer funds. The Commission
                                                                       the industry and enhance customer
                    SUMMARY The Commodity, Futures                     protection by moving a segregated funds              stated in the Federal Register release
                                                                       into the normally better-capitalized               announcing the proposal of Rule 1.58
                    Trading Commission ("Commission") is               hands of a clearing member. The                    that. if the rule were adopted. an
                    adopting new Rule 1.58 which requires               Commission recognizes the key role of              originating FCM would not be precluded
                    that carrying FCMs collect margin for              the clearing members in assuring                   from depositing United States Treasury
                    Positions carried in omnibus accounts              financial integrity and correcting                 bills or some other acceptable form of
                    on a gross basis and at a level which Is                                                               interest-bearinqg Instrument with the
                    no less than that established for                   potential problems.                                carrying       FCM and would not therefore.
                                                                        As the Commission also stated in the              carrying FCM and would not. therfore,
                    Customer accounts by the rules of the              Federal Refister  release announcing the             have to forego the Interest currently
                    applicable market. The Comission is               proposal rule 1.58, the most                     being earned on segregated funds. One
                    adopting such a rule in order to help to           significant difference in the financial           commentator stated that Treasury bills
                    prevent. or at least limit financia1 loss            monitoring program of the exchanges                 or other interest-bearing instruments
                    to Customers. members of the                       and the Commission's financial                     would be acceptable to a clewing FCM
                    marketplace and the marketplace itself             monitoring program is the Information               for initial margin purposes. That
                    which.may be caused by the bankruptcy              that the exchanges have about clearing             commentator further stated. however.
                    or insolvency of a futures commission              members which the Commission does                  that since daily settlement obligations or
                    merchant ("FCM) which Is not a                    not have about non-clearing FCM                     variation margin payments owed by a
                    clearing member of a commodity                     which carry their accounts with a                  clearing member to a clearing'
                    exchange. The new rule will require the            clearing member FCM on an omnibus                  organization must be satisfied on a cash
                    transfer of certain funds now controlled           basis. Such information is primarily              basis. a clearing member would not
                    by an originating FCM to the generally             developed from the pay and collect                 accept Treasury bills or other interest-
                    better-capitalized clearing FCM and it             Information that is generated by the               bearing instruments from originating
                    will strengthen the financial early                individual clearing organizations. While           FCMs for any purpose. The Commission
                    warning system by providing Carrying               the Commission could conceivably                   disagrees with that statement The
                    FCMs with greater information about                obtain such information directly from all          amount of variation margin required of a
                    the financial condition of those FCMs              originating FCMs. such a process would             clearing FCM by a clearing organization
                    for which they are carrying omnibus                be cumbersome and would not involve                should be the same whether the
                    accounts.                                          an independent source such as a                    collection of margin with respect to
                    EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16,1982                                                                  positions held in omnibus accounts
                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                    While the UFA Is expected to develop 4              carried by the clearing FCM is made on
                    Daniel A. Driscoll. Deputy Director.               financial monitoring program for FCMs it is        a net or gross basis. and changing from 
                                                                       anticipated that the NFA wig encounter many of the
                    Division of trading and Markets.                  same probtems in obtaining Information that the    one system to the other should have no
                    Commodity Futures Trading                          Commission has  experienced.                        bearing upon variation margin payments
 






                            Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 150 / Wensday, August, 3, 1983 / Proposed Rules			35127                                                                                                                                        
          application for preacquisition and                 construction awards, costs incurred                  (3) Operations and Management
          operation and management awards. The               more than three months before the                  Awards; Research Funds--Cash and in-
          Application for Federal Assistance                 award beginning date will not be                   kind contributions (directly benefiting
          Standard Form 424(Construction                     approved. For construction and land                and specifically identifiable to this
          programs) constitutes the formal                   acquisition awards, NOAA will evaluate             phase of the project), except land, are
          application for land acquisition and               preagreement costs an a case-by-case               allowable.
          development awards.                                basis.
             The application must be accompanied                (e) General guidelines for the non-                921.52  Amendments to financial
          by the information required in Subpart B           Federal share are contained in OMB                 assistance awards.
          (preacquisition), Subpart C and  921.31            Circular A-102, Attachment F. The                       Actions requiring an amendment to
          (acquisition and development), and                 following may be used by the state in              the financial assistance award, such as
          
          921.32 (operation and management), as              satisfying the matching requirement:               a request for additional Federal funds.
          applicable. All applications must                     (1) Preocquisition Awards--Cash and             revision of the approved project budget;
          contain backup date for budget                     in-kind contributions (value of goods              or extension of the performance period
          estimates (federal and nonfederal                  and services directly benefiting and               must be submitted to NOAA and
          shares), and evidence that the                     specifically identifiable to this part of          approved in writing.
          application complies with the Executive            the project) are allowable. Land may not
          Order 12372, "Intergovernmental Review             be used as match.                                  Appendix I--Biogeographic Classification 
          of Federal Programs." In addition,                    (2) Aquisition and Development                  Scheme
          applications for acquisition and                   Awards--Cash and in-kind                           Acodian
          development awards must contain:                   contributions are allowable. In General,           1. Northern Gulf of Maine (Eastport to the
             (1) State Historic Preservation Office          the fair market value of lands to be                  Sheepscot River)
          comments;                                          included within the sanctuary                      2. Southern Gulf of Maine (Sheepscot River to
             (2) Appraisals and title information;           boundaries and acquired pursuant to the               Cape Cod)
             (31 Governor's letter approving the             Act, with other than Federal funds, may
          sanctuary proposal; and                            be used as match. The fair market value
             (4) Written approval from NOAA of               of privately donated land, at the time of          3. Southern New England (Cape Cod to
          the draft or final management plan.                donation, as established by an                        Sandy Hook)
             The Standard Form 424 has been approved         independent appraiser and certified by a           4. Middle Atlantic (Sandy Hook to Cape
                                                             responsible official of the state                     Hatteras)
          by the Office of Management and Budget                                                                5. Chesapeake Bay
          (approval number 0648-0121) for use through        (pursuant to OMB Circular A-102.
          September 30, 1963.                                Attachment F) may also be used as                  Carolinian
                                                             match. Appraisals must be performed                6. Northern Carolinas (Cape Hatteras to
           921.51 Allowable costs.                           according to Federal appraisal                        Santee River)
             (a) Allowable costs will he                     standards as detailed in NOAA                      7. South Atlantic (Santee River to St. John's
          determined in accordance with OMB                  regulations and the "Uniform Appraisal                River)
          Circulars A-102. "Uniform                          Standards for Federal Land                         8. East Florida (St. John's River to Cape
          Administrative Requirements for                    Acquisitions". Costs related to land                  Canaveral)
          Grants-in-Aid to State and Local                   acquisition, such an appraisals, legal             West Indian
          Governments", and A-87, "Principles for            fees and surveys, may also be used as              9. Caribbean (Cape Canaveral to Ft. Jefferson
          Determining Costs Applicable to Grants             match. Land, including submerged lands,               and south)
          and Contracts with State, local, and               already in the state's possession, in a            10. West Florida (Ft. Jefferson to Cedar Key)
          Federally Recognized Indian Tribal                 fully-protected status consistent with             Louisianian
          Governments"; the financial assistance             the purposes of the National Estuarine
          agreement; these regulations; and other            Sanctuary Program, may be used as                  11. Panhandle Coast (Cedar Key to Mobile
          Department of Commerce and NOAA                    match only if it was acquired within a               Bay)
          directives. The term "costs" applies to            one-year period prior to the award of              12. Mississippi Delta (Mobile Bay to
          both the Federal and non-Federal                   preaquisition or acquisition funds and               Galveston)
          shares.                                            with the intent to establish a national            13. Western Gulf (Galveston to Mexican
             (b) Costs claimed as charges to the             estuarine sanctuary. For state lands not             border)
          award must be reasonable, beneficial               in a fully-protected status (e.g., a state         Californian
          and necessary for the proper and                   park containing an easement for                    14. Southern California (Mexican border to
          efficient administration of the financial          subsurface mineral rights), the value of             Point Concepcion
          assistance award and must be incurred              the development right or foregone value            15. Central California (Point Concepcion to
          during the award period, except as                 may be used as match if acquired by or               cape Mendocino)
          provided under preagreement costs.                 donated to the state for inclusion within          16. San Francisco Bay
          paragraph (d) of this section.                     the sanctuary. 
             (c) Costs must not be allocable to or              A state may initially use a match land
          included as a cost of any other                    valued at greater than the Federal share           17. Middle Pacific (Cape Medocino to the
          Federally-financed program in either the           of the acquisition and development                   Columbia River)
                                                                                                                18. Washington Coast (Columbia River to
          current or a prior award period.                   award. The value in excess of the                    Vancouver island)
             (d) Costs incurred prior to the                 amount required as match for the initial           19. Puget Sound
          effective date of the award                        award may be used to match
          (preagreement costs) are allowable only            subsequent supplemental acquisition                Great Lakes
          when specifically approved in the                  and development awards for the                     20. Western Lakes (Superior, Michigan,
          financial assistance agreement. Fur non-           estuarine sanctuary.                                 Huron)
 






                    35120             Federal Register  /  Vol. 48, No. 150  / Wednesday, August 3, 1983 / Proposed Rules

                    proposed change, if adopted, would not                   ACTION: Proposed rule.                                    Though broad in scope, they establish a
                    have a significant economic impact on a                                                                            framework within which specific
                    substantial number of small entities. The                SUMMARY: These proposed regulations                       Program activities are conducted. The
                    standard conditions will continue to be                  revise existing procedures for selecting                  Mission Statement and Goals are
                    placed in foreign air carrier permits. The               and designating national estuarine                        adopted by the revised regulations
                    proposed change only removes a                           sanctuaries and provide guidance for				   ( 921.1).
                    duplicate statement of the conditions.                   their long-term management. Site
                                                                             identification and selection is to be                     II. Revision of the Procedures for
                    List of Subjects In 14 CFR Part 399                      based on a revised biogeographic                          Selecting, Designating and Operating
                      Administrative practice and                            classification scheme and typology of                     Estuarine Sanctuaries
                    procedure, Advertising, Air carriers,                    estuarine areas. The regulations place a
                    Antitrust, Archives and records,                         greater emphasis on management                              (A) Revision of the Biogeographic
                    Consumer protection, Freight                             planning by individual states early in                    Classification Scheme and Proposed
                    forwarders, Grant programs-                              the process of evaluating a potential                     Estuarine Typologies. The 1974
                    Transportation, Hawaii, Motor carriers,                  site. The regulations reflect a                           guidelines identified 11 biogeographic
                    Puerto Rico, Railroads, Reporting                        progression from the initial                              regions from which representative sites
                    requirements, Travel agents, Virgin                      identification of a site, through the                     throughout the coastal waters of the
                    Islands.                                                 designation process, and continued                        United States would be chosen. Section
                                                                             management of the sanctuary by the                        921.4(b) of the guidelines provided that
                    Proposed Rule                                            state after Federal financial assistance                  "various sub-categories will be
                    PART 399--AMENDED                                        has ended. The regulations provide for a                  developed and utilized as appropriate."
                      Accordingly, the Civil Aeronautics                     programmatic evaluation of sanctuary                        In 1981, a study was undertaken to
                    Board proposed to amend 14 CFR Part                      performance. Clarifications in the                        assess the original biogeographic
                    399, Statements of General Policy, as                    financial assistance application and                      classification scheme and make
                    follows:                                                 award process have also been made.                        recommendations, as necessary. A
                                                                             DATES: Comments will be accepted until                    system with 27 subcategories, termed
                     399.13 (Removed and Reserved)                           October 3, 1983. After the close of the                   regions, was proposed. The
                      1. Section 399.13, Standard provisions                 comment period, and review of the                         subcategories fit within the original
                    in foreign air carrier permits, would be                 comments received, final regulations                      scheme and further define the coastal
                    removed and reserved.                                    will be published in the Federal                          areas to assure adequate sanctuary
                      2. The Table of Contents would be                      Register.                                                 representation (Clark. Assessing the
                    amended accordingly.                                     ADDRESS: Send comments to Dr. Nancy                       National Estuarine Sanctuary Program:
                    Secs. 101, 102, 105, 204, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405,       Foster, Chief, Sanctuary Prugrams                         Action Summary, March 1982, cited as
                    406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, 416, 801, 1001, 1002,      Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal                     The Clark Report].
                    1102, 1104, Pub. L. 85-726, as amended, 72               Resource Management, NOS/NOAA,                               The Clark Report also recommends
                    Stat. 737, 740, 743, 754, 757, 758, 760, 763, 766,       3300 Whitehaven St. N.W., Washington,                     adopting an estuarine typology system
                    767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 782, 788, 797; (49 U.S.C.       D.C. 20235.                                               for use in evaluating and selecting sites.
                    1301, 1302, 1305, 1324, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1374,          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                          The typology system recognizes that
                    1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1381, 1382, 1386,          John Epting, (202) 634-4236.                              there are significant differences in
                    1481, 1482, 1502, 1504), unless otherwise                                                                          estuary characteristics not related to
                    noted.                                                   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOAA is                        regional location. Such factors include
                      By the Civil Aeronautics Board.                        publishing revised regulations for
                                                                                                                                       water source, water depth, type of
                    Phyllis T. Kaylor,                                       implementing the National Estuarine                       circulation, inlet dynamics, basin
                    Secretary,                                               Sanctuary Program, pursuant to Section                    configuration, watershed type, and
                                                                             315 of the Coastal Zone Management                        dominant ecological community.                     
                    BILLING CODE 6320-01-H                                   Act, 16 U.S.C. 1461. The program has                         The proposed regulations adopt the
                                                                             been operating under estuarine                       
                                                                             sanctuary guidelines published June 4,                    revised biogeographic classification
                                                                             1974 (39 FR 19922) and proposed                           scheme and typology in 921.3.
                    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                                   regulations published September 9, 1977                      (B) Site Designation. Eligible states
                                                                             (42 FR 45522). Based on experience in                     may apply for preacquisition awards to
                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric                         operating the program, a number of                        aid in selecting an estuarine site in
                    Administration                                           refinements in operational procedure                      conformity with the classification
                                                                             and policy have been designed. The                        scheme and typology system. A
                                                                             proposed regulations implement these                      description of the site selection process
                    15 CFR Part 921                                          refinements, which include:                               to be carried out by the state, including
                    (Docket No. 30614-108)                                                                                             a provision for public participation in
                                                                             1. Defining the Mission and Goals of the                  the process, must be submitted for
                                                                             Program                                                   NOAA's approval. These steps require
                    National Estuarine Sanctuary Program                       The Mission Statement and Goals for                     that the procedures for the site selection
                    Regulations                                          the continued implementation of the                       process be planned prior to
                    AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal                      National Estuarine Sanctuary Program                      implementing the selection process and
                    Resource Management (OCRM),                              stress the importance of designating                      approval of the preacquisition award.
                    National Ocean Service (NOS), National                   estuarine areas, through federal-state                    Figure 1 depicts the entire designation
                    Oceanic and Atmospheric                                  cooperative efforts, for long-term                        process.
                    Administration (NOAA), Commerce.                         research and educational benefits.                        BILLING CODE 3510-06-M
 

0




                      Federal Register Vol. 48 No. 150 Wednesday, August 3 1983 Proposed Rules     35122

          Figure 1. National Estuarine Sanctuary Program Designation          Process


          preacquisition
          Award                            Site Selection                     Public  Meeting
                                                                               on site(s)
                                                     V
                                             Approval of Site
                                            by NOAA

                                                     V
                                          Development of Draft                 Public  meeting;
                                          Management  Plan                     Public  hearing on
                                          and EIS                              the Draft EIS

                                                     V
                                          NOAA Approval of  Draft
                                          Management Plan


          initial  Acquisition            Preparation of Final
          and Development                 Management Plan;.
          Awards                          Acquisition of key. land
                                          and water areas;minor.
                                          construction


                                                     V
                                          Final Management-Plan      
                                          Approved by NOAA
                                          Other Findings

                                                     V
                                          Sanctuary  Designation

                                                     V
          Operation and                   Implementation of  Final
          Management Award;               Management Plan;
          Subsequent Acquisition          Acquisition of Remaining
          and Development Award           land; construction


                                              Programmatic
                                              Evaluation

BILLING CODE 35 10-08-C
 






                                 Federal Register/ Vol. 48, No. 150/ Wednesday, August 3, 1983/ Proposed Rules
                                                                                       
                   After selection of a site, a draft            estuaringe sanctuary after Federal               (D) National Environment Policy
                   management plan is prepared.  Requiring   funding has expired. Procedures for               Act. NOAA has concluded that
                   the development of a comprehensive               withdrawing designation, if a sanctuary    publication of the proposed rules does
                   draft management plan is designed to                                                        not constitute a major Federal action
                   ensure that early in the estuarine       fails to meet established standards.              
                   sanctuary designation process the state           have been added (921.35).                 significantly affecting the quality of the
                   considers management policies, an                                 			         human environment. Therefore, an
                   acquisition and construction plan                Financial assistance requirements and
                   (including schedules and priorites),        procedures have also been revised. The          environmental impact statement is not
                   staffing requirements, a research              programmatic information required for        required.
                   component, interpretive and education          each type of award is specified in the       List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 921.
                   plans, future funding and other resource       appropriate sections--in preacquisition
                   requirements, and alternatives.  Draft      (Subpart B); acquisition and                          Administrative practice and
                   and final environmental impact          development (Subpart C); and operation             procedure, Coastal zone, Environmental
                   statements (EIS) are prepared analyzing      and management (1921.321). General                protection. Natural resources, and
                   the environmentsl and socieeconomic          financial assistance information is               Wetlands.
                   impacts of establishing a sanctuary and    provided in Subpart F.                                Dated: July 29, 1983.
                   implementing the draft management
                   plan.  The EIS is prepared in accordance       Ill. Other Actions Associated with the                Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog
                   with NEPA procedures, including              Proposed Rulemaking                               Number 11-420 Estuarine Sanctuary Program
                   provisions for public comment and         		                                           K. E. Taggart.
                   hearings. 			                 (A) Classification Under Executive             Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean
                   
			Following NOAA approval of the         Order 12291. NOAA has concluded that             Services and Coastal Zone Management.
                  draft management plan and issuance of           these regulations are not major because
                   								they will not result in:                      Accordingly, it is proposed that 15
                   								(1) An annual effect on the economy            CFR Part 921 be revised as follows:
                   								of $100 million or more;                          PART 921-NATIONAL ESTUARINE
                   								(2) A major increase in costs or prices        SANCTUARY PROGRAM
                   the EIS, the site enters an initial            for consumers. individual industries.             REGULATIONS
                   acquisition and development phase. The         Federal, state or local government
                   state is then eligible for an initial          agencies, or geographic regions, or              Subpart A-General
                   acquisition and development award.                (3) Significant adverse effects on             Sec.
                   During this phase, award funds may be          competition, employment, investment,              921.1 Mission and goals.
                   used to purchase land. construct minor         productivity, innovation or on the ability        921.2 Definitions.
                   facilities subject to pre-designation         of United States-based enterprised to              921.3 National estuarine sanctuary
                   construction policies, see $ 921.21), and    compete with foreign-based enterprises               classification scheme and estuarine
                   prepare the final management plan. All         in domestic or export markets.                     typologies. 
                   of these tasks are to be carried out in           These proposed rules amend existing            921.4 Relationship to other provisions of the
                   conformance with the NOAA-approved             procedures for selecting and processing          Coastal Zone Management Act and the
                   draft management plan.                         potential national estuarine sanctuaries              the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
                   The tasks under the initial acquisition        in accordance with a revised.                     Subpart B- Preacquisition:Site Selection
                   and development phase should be                 biogeographic classification scheme and          and Management Plan Development
                   completed within two years. At this            estuarine typologies. These rules                 921.10 General.
                   stage. NOAA must make formal                 establish a revised process for
                   																  921.11 Site Selection.
                   findings, specified in $921.30, that the    identifying, designating and managing             921.12 Management plan development.
                   final plan has been completed and is           national estuarine sanctuaries. They will
                                                                                                                    Subpart C-Acquisition,Development, and
                   approved, that the key land and water         not result in any direct economic or             Preparation ot the Final Management Plan
                   areas as specificed in the management        environmental effects nor will they lead         92l.20 General.
                   plan are under slate control, and that a
                                                                  to any major indirect economic or                 921.21 initial acquisition and development
                   memorandum of understanding between         environmental impacts.                                awards.
                   the state and NOAA concerning the              (B) Regulatory Flexibility Act                 Subpart D-Sanctuary Designation and
                   state's long-term committment to the          Analysis, A Regulatory Flexibility                
                                                                                                                    Subsequent Operation
                   sanctuary has been signed.  After 	NOAA	    Analysis is not required for this notice
                   makes these findings, the sanctuary is      of proposed rulemaking. The regulations           921.30. Designation of national estuarine
                   considered "designated". The state then        set forth procedures for identifying and              sanctuaries.
                   begins implementation of the final             designating national estuarine                   921.31 Supplemental acquisition and
                   management plan, including the                 sanctuaries, and managing sites once                  development awards.
                   construction of necessary facilities and                                                         921.32 Operation and management:
                                                                  designateded. These rules do not directly               Implementation of the management plan.
                   additional land acquisition. The state is      affect "small government jurisdictions,"          921.33 Boundary changes and amendments
                   also eligible for operation and                as defined by Pub. L 96-354, the                      to the management plan.
                   management awards to provide                   Regulatory Flexibility Act. and the rules        921.34 Program evaluation.
                   assistance in implementing the final           will have no effect on small businesses.          921.35 Withdrawal of designation.
                   management plan.                                  (C) Paper Work Reduction Act of 1980           Subpart E-Reseach Funds
                   The regulations also provide                   (Pub. L. 96-511). These regulations will
                   Procedures for the programmatic               impose no information collection                  921.40 Application procedures.
                   evaluation of a sanctuary during the           requirements of the type covered by               Subpart F-General Financial Assistance
                   period of the operation and management         Pub. L 96-511 other than those already          Provisions
                   awards (or under the initial acquisition       approved by the Office of Management               921.50 Application information.
                   and development award if the sanctuary         and Budget (approval number 0648-                 921.51 Allowable costs.
                   is not designated within two years) and       0121) for use through September 30.              921.52 Amendments to financial assistance
                   for a continuing, biennial review of an      1983.                                                 awards.
 






                               Federal Register / Vol.             4& No. 150 / Wednesday,            August 3.     1983 / Proposed Rules-                  351=

                Appendix I-Biogeographic classification             (a) The National Oceanic and                    system is utilized to ensure that sites in
              scherne.                                       I     Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)                the Program reflect the wide range of
                Appenilix Z-7Typology of National                  may provide financial assistance, not to         estuarine types within the United States.
              Estuarine Areas.                                     exceed So percent of all actual costs to            (b) The biogeographic classification
                Autharitr. Sec. 315(l). Pub. L 92-M. as
              amended. 86 Slat. 1200 (is U.&C i4ei(i 1).           coastal states. to assist in the                 scheme. presented in Appendix 1.
                                                                   designation and operation of national            contains 27 regiOnL
              Subpart A-Geniend                                    estuarine sanctuaries. Three types of               (c) The typology in presented in
              1921.1 Mission and goals                             awards are available under the National          Appendix 2.
                                                                   Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The
                (a) The mission of the National                    preacquisition award is for site                 j 921.4 Roladonship to otlw pmvislons of
              Estuarine Sanctuary Program is the                   selection and draft management plan              Un Coastal Zom Managinnent Act and to
              establishment and management. through                preparation. The acquisition and'                the National Marine Sanctuary Progra"L
              Federal-s talecoopera lion. of a national            development award is intended                       (a) The National Estuarine Sanctuary
              system of estuarine sanctuaries @                    primarily for land acquisition and               Program Is intended to provide
              rapresentative of the various regions                construction purposes. The operation             information to state agencies and other-
              and estuarine types in the United States             and manageNent award provides funds              entities involved in coastal zone
              to provide opportunities for long-term               to assist in implementing the research.          management decisionmaking pursuant
              research. education. and interpretation.             educational. and administrative                  to the Coastal Zone Management Act 16
                (b) The goals of the Program for                   programs detailed in the sanctuary               U.S.C. -1452 et seq. Any coastal Vale.
              carrying out this mission are:                       management plan. At the conclusion of            including those that do not have .
                (1) Enhance resource protection by                 Federal financial assistance, funding for        approved coastal zone management
              implementing a long-term manageme              .nt   the long-term operation of the sanctuary         programs under section 306 of the Act. is
              plan tailored to the site's specific                 becomes the responsibility of the state.         eligible ror an award under the National
              resources;                                           f.921.2 Deflnitions.                             Estuarine Sanctuary Program.
                (2) Provide opportunities for long-term                                                                (b) Where feasible. the National
              scientific and educational programs in                (a) "Act" means the Coastal Zone                Estuarine Sanctuary Program will be
              estuarine areas to develop information               Management Act. as amended, 16 U.S.C.            conducted in close coordination with the
              for improved coastal decisionmaking.                 1451 et seq. Section 315 of the Act. 16          National Marine Sanctuary Program
                (3) Enhance public awareness and                   U.S.C. 11461. establishes the National           (Title III of the Marine Protection.
              understanding of the estuarine                       Estuarine Sanctuary Prograiii.                   Research and Sanctuaries Act. as
              environment through resource                          (b) "Assistant Administrator" means             amended. 16 U.S.C. 1431-1434). also
              interpretive programs; and                           the Assistant Administrator for Ocean            administered by NOAA. Title III
                (4) Promote Federal-state cooperative              Services and Coastal Zone                        authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to
              efforts in managing estuarine areas.                 Management. National Ocean Service.              designate ocean waters as marine
                (c) To assist the states in carrying out           National Oceanic and Atmospheric                 sanctuaries to protect or restore their
              the Program's goals in an effective                  Administration. U.S. Department of               conservation. recreational. ecological. or
              manner. NOAA will coordinate a                       Commerce. or his/her successor or                esthetic values.
              research and education information                   designee.
              exchange throughout the national                      (c) "Estuary" means that part of a              Subpart B-Preacquisition: Site'
              estuarine sanctuary System. As part of               river or stream or body of water having          Selection and Management Plan
              this role. NOAA will ensure that                     unimpaired connection with the open              Development
              information and ideas from one                       sea. where the sea water is measurably           j 921.10 General.
              sanctuary are made available to others               diluted with fresh water derived from               A state may apply for a preacquisition
              -in the system.           - encouraged to            land drainage. The term also includ
                (d),Multiple uses arf.                             e3tuary-type areas of.the Great Lak::'           award for the purpose of site selection
              the degree compatible with the                       see 16 U.S.C. 1454 (7).                          and preparing the documents specified
              sanctuary's overall purpose as provided               (d) "National Estuarine Sanctuary"              in I .921.12 (draft management plans and
                                                                   means an area. including all or part of          environmental impact statement (EIS)).
              in the management plan and consistent                an estuary. and adjacent transitional            The total Federal share of the
              with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this                  areas and uplands. constituting to the           preacquisition award may not exceed
              section. The sanctuary management                    extent feasible a natural unit. which is         S50.000. of which up to $10 000 may be
              plan describes the uses and establishes              established to provide long-term.                used for site selection as d;scribed in
              priorities among these uses. 'rhe plan               cpportunities for research. education.           1921.11. Financial assistance
              discusses uses requiring a permit. as                and interpretation.                              procedures are specified in Subpart F.
              well as areas where uses are
              encouraged or prohibited. In general.                f 921.3 National estuarine sanctuary             ï¿½921.11 Sitesefection.
              sancturaries are intended to be open to              ciassiflestion "ftemo and estuadne                  (a) A state may use up to $10.000 in
              the public; low intensity recreational               typologio&                                       Federal preacquisition funds. which
              and interpretive activities are generally             (a) National estuarine sanctuaries art          must be matched by the state (see
              encouraged. The use levels of these                  chosen to reflect regional differences in        I 921.51(e)]. to establish and implement
              activities are set by the individual state           biogeography and to include a variety of         a site selection process which is
              and analyzed in the management plan.                 ecosystem types. A biogeographic                 approved by NOAA.
              Certain manipidalive activities.                     classification scheme based on regional             (b) In addition to the requirements set
              including research and habitat                       variations in the nation's castal zone           forth in subpart F. a request for Federal
              management. may be allowed on a                      has been developed. The biogeographic            funds for site selection must contain the
              permit basis a3specified in the                      classification scheme is used to ensure          following programmatic information:
              management plan as long as they are                  that the National estuarine Sanctuary               (1) A description of the proposed site
              cunsislent with overall sanctuary                    System includes at least one site from           selection process and how it will. be
              purposes.                                            each region. The estuarine typology              implemented in conformance with ,he







                    35124             Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 3, 1983 / Proposed Rules

                    biogeographic classification scheme and             management plan and environmental                    of acquisition. or the feasible
                    typology (1921.3);                                  impact statement. The request must be                alternatives (including less than fee
                      (2) An identification of the site                accompanied by the information                       techniques) for the protection of the
                    selection agency; and                               specified in subpart F and the following             estuarine area: a schedule for
                      (3) A description of how public                   programmatic information:                            acquisition with an estimate of the time
                    participation will be incorporated into                (1) An analysis of the site based on              required to complete the proposed
                    the process (see I 921.11(d)).                      the biogeographic scheme/typology                    sanctuary; kind a discussion of any
                      (c) As part of the site selection                 discussed in $ 921.3 and set forth in                anticipated problems; and
                    process, the state and NOAA shall                   Appendices I and 2;                                   (7) A proposed memorandum of
                    evaluate and select the final site. Site               (2) A description of the site andits              understanding (MOU) between the state
                    selection shall be guided by the                    major resources, including location,                 and NOAA regarding the Federal-state
                    following principles:                               proposed boundaries, and adjacent land               relationship during the establishment
                      (1) The site's benefit to the National            uses. Maps, including aerial                         and development of the estuarine
                    Estuarine Sanctuary Program relative to             photographs, are required,                           sanctuary, and expressing the long-term
                    'the biogeographic classification scheme               (3) A description of the public                   commitment by the state to maintain
                    and typology set forth in $921.3 and                participation process used by the state              effectively the sanctuary after Federal
                    Appendices 1 and 2:                                 to solicit the views of interested parties,          financial assistance ends. In conjunction
                      (2) The site's ecological                         a summary of comments, and, if                       with the MOU and where possible under
                    characteristics, including its biological           interstate issues are involved,                      state law, the state will consider taking
                    productivity, diversity of flora and                documentation that the Governor(s) of                 appropriate administrative or legislative
                    fauna, and capacity to attract a broad              the other affected state(s) has been                 action to ensure the long-term protection
                    range of research and educational                   contacted;                                           of the sanctuary. The MOU shall be
                    interests. The proposed site should, to                (4) A list of all sites considered and a          signed prior to sanctuary designation. If
                    the maximum extent possible, be a                  brief statement of the basis for not                 other MOUs are necessary (such as with
                    natural system that is capable of                   selecting the non-preferred sites: and               a federal agency or another state
                    sustaining "baseline" monitoring over a                (5) A draft management plan outline               agency), drafts of such MOUs must be
                    long-term period;                                   (see paragraph (b) of this section) and              included in the plan. 
                      (3) Assurance that the site's                     an outline of a draft memorandum of                    (c) Regarding the preparation of an
                    boundaries encompass an adequate                    understanding (MOU) between the state                environmental impact statement (EIS)
                    portion of the key land and water areas             and NOAA detailing the Federal-state                 under the National Environmental Policy
                    to approximate an ecological unit and to             roles in sanctuary management during                 Act on an estuarine sanctuary proposal.
                    ensure effective conservation, Boundary             the period of federal funding and                   the state shall provide all necessary
                    size will vary greatly depending on the             expressing the state's long-term                     information to NOAA regarding the
                    nature of the ecosystem. National                  commitment to operate and manage the                 socioeconomic and environmental
                    existing sanctuaries may include                  sanctuary.                                           impacts associated with implementing
                    existing Federal or stale lands already
                    in a protected status where mutual                     (b) The state shall develop a draft               the draft management plan and feasible
                    benefit can be enhanced, see                    management plan setting out in detail;               alternatives to the plan.
                    (ï¿½921.51(e)(ii):                                       (1) Sanctuary goals and objectives,               (d) Early in the development of the
                      (4) The site's importance for research,        management issues, and strategies or                 draft management plan and the DEIS.
                    including proximity to existing research           actions for meeting the goals and                    the state shall hold a meeting in the area
                    facilities and educational institutions;           objectives;                                          or areas most affected to solicit public
                      (5) The site's compatibility with      (2)A research plan:                                           and government comments on the
                    existing and potential land and water         (3)An interpretive plan including                        significant issues related to the
                    uses in contiguous areas; and			 interpretive, educational and                        proposed action.
                     (6)The site's importance to education      recreational activities):                              (e) NOAA will publish a Federal
                                                                           (4) A plan for public access to the
                    and interpretive efforts.                                                                                Register notice of intent to prepare a
                      (d) Early in the size selection process,          sanctuary:                                           DFIS. After the DFIS is prepared and
                    the state must seek the views of affected            (5) A construction plan, including              after it is accepted by the Environmental
                    landowners, local governments.  Federal             proposed constitution schedule,             Protection Agency (EPA), a Notice of
                    agencies, and other parties who are                 drawings, and a preliminary engineering              Availability of the DEIS will appear in
                    interested in the areas(s) being                    report, if a visitor center, research center     the Federal Register. Not less than 30
                    considered for selection as a potential             or any other facilities are proposed for             days after publication of the notice,
                    estuarine sanctuarv. After the local                construction or renovation at the site.               NOAA will hold at least one public
                    government and affected landowners                     Note.-Information on  preparing a                 hearing in the area or areas most
                    have been contacted, at least one public             preliminary engineering report (PER) is              affected by the proposed sanctuary. The
                    meeting shall be held in the area of the            provided in "Engineering and Construction            hearing will be held no sooner than 15
                    proposed site. Notice of such meeting,              Guidelines fur Coastal Energy Impact                 days after appropriate notice by NOAA
                    including the time, place, and relevant             program Applicants" (42 FR 64830 (19477)).           of the meeting has been given in the
                                                                        which is supplied to award recipients):
                    subject matter, shall be announced by                                                                    principal news media. After a 45-day
                    the state through the area's principal                 (6) An acquisition plan identifying the           comment period, a final EIS is prepared.
                    news media at least 15 days prior to the           ecologically key land and water areas of
                    date of the meeting.                               the sanctuary, priority acquisitions, and            Subpart C-Acquisition, Development,
                                                                        strategies for acquiring these areas. This           and Preparation of the Final
                     921.12 Management plan development.                plan should identify ownership patterns              Management Plan
                      (8) After a site is selected by NOAA             within the proposed sanctuary
                    and the state, the state may request the         boundaries; land already in the public               921.20 General.
                    use of the remainder of the                      domain: an estimate of their fair market                (a) After NOAA approval of the site.
                    preacquisition funds to develop the              value of land to be acquired: the method         the draft management plan and the draft

0





                                   Federal Register                Vol. 48 No. 150         Wednesday, August 3, 1983            Proposed Rules                          35125

                   MOU, and completion of the final EIS. a             (d) Except as specifically provided in                management. The purpose of this phase
                   state may apply for an acquisition and             paragraphs (a)-(c) of this section,                     in the estuarine sanctuary process is to
                   develolpment award to acquire land and             construction projects, to be funded in                implement the approved management
                   water areas for inclusion in the                   whole or in part under the acquisition                plan and to take the necessary steps to
                   Sanctuary and to construct research and            and development award. may not be                     ensure the continued effective operation
                   educational facilities in accordance with          initiated until the sanctuary receives                of the sanctuary after direct Federal
                   the draft management plan. The                     formal designation see & 921.30.                    support is concluded.
                   acquisition and development award has                 Note.-The intent of these requirements                (b) Federal funds of up to $250,000. to
                   two phases. In the initial phase, state            and the phasing of the acquisition and                be matched by the state, are available
                   performance should work to meet the                development award is to ensure that                   for the operation and management of the
                   criteria required for formal sanctuary             substantial progress in acquiring the land and        national estuarine sanctuary. Operation
                   designation. i.e. acquiring the key land           waters areas has been made and that a final           and management awards are subject to
                   and water areas as specified in the draft          management plan is completed before major             the following limitations:
                   enanagement plan and preparing the                sums are spent on contstruction. Once
                                                                    substantial progress in acquisition has been             (1) No more than $50,000 in Federal
                   final plan. These requirements are                  made, as defined in the management plan,              funds per annual award: and
                   specified in & 921.30. The initial                 other activities guided by the final                    (2) No more than ten percent of the
                   acquisition and development phase is               management plan may begin with NOAA's                 total amount (state and Federal shares)
                   expected to last no longer than two                approval.                                             of each operation and management
                   years after the start of the award. if                                                                   award may be used for construction-
                   necessary. a longer time period may be             Subpart D-Sanctuary Designation  and                  type activities (i.e.. $10,000 maximum
                   negotiated between the state and                   Subsequent Operation                                  per year).
                   NOAA. After the sanctuary is
                   designated. funds may be used to                      921.30 Designation of national estuarine           ï¿½ 921.33 Boundary changes and
                   acquire any remaining land and for                 sanctuaries.                                          amendments to the managemnent plan.
                   construction purposes.                                 (a) The AA may designate an area as                 (a) Changes in sanctuary boundaries
                                                                      a national estuarine sanctuary pursuant
                   921.21 Initial acquisition and                     to section 315 the Act, based upon                    and major changes to the final
                   development awards.                                written findings that the state has met               management plan. including state-
                    (a) Assistance is provided to aid the             the following conditions:                             promulgated regulations affecting the
                   recipient in: (1) Acquiring land and                  (1) A final management plan has been                sanctuary, may be made only after
                   water areas to be included in the                  developed and approved by NOAA;                        written approval by NOAA. If
                   sanctuary boundaries; (2) minor                       (2) Sanctuary construction and access             determined to be necessary, NOAA may
                   construction. as provided in paragraphs            policies,  921.21 (b)-(d), have been                  require public notice and an opportunity
                   (b) and (c) of this section. (3) preparing        followed;                                             for comment. Changes in the boundary
                   the final management plan; and (4) up to            (3) Key land and water areas of the                involving the acquisition of properties
                                                                                                                            not listed in the management plan or
                   the point of sanctuary designation. for            proposed sanctuary. as identified in the              final environmental impact statement
                   initial management costs. e.g.,                 management plan, are under state
                   implementing the NOAA-approved draft,                control; and                                          (FEIS) require public notice and the
                   management plan, preparing the final                (4) A MOU between the state md                      opportunity for comment. in certain
                   management plan, hiring a sanctury             NOAA ensuring a long-term                            cases, an environmental assessment will
                   manager and other staff as necessary.              commitment by the state to the                        be required.
                   and for other management rellated                 sanctuary's effective operation and                      921.34 Program evaluation.
                   activities. Application procedures are            implementation has been signed.
                   specified in Subpart F.                           (b) The term "slate control" in                       (a) Performance during the term of the
                   (b) The expenditure of Federal and                                                                      operation and management award (or
                   state funds on major construction                 & 921.30(a)(3) does not necessarily                  under the initial acquisition and
                   activities is not allowed during the              require that the land lie owned by the              development award, if the sanctuary is
                   mutual acquisition and development               state in fee simple. Less-than-fee                    not. designated within two years) will be
                   phase. Preliminary architectural and               interests and regulatory measures may                monitored annually by the program
                   engenering plans and specifications and           sufffice where the state makes a showing,            office and periodically in accordance
                   minor construction activities, consistent          that the lands are adequately controlled             with the provisions oif section 312 of the
                   with paragraph (c) of this section are             consistent with the purposes of the                  Act to determine compliance with the
                                                                     sanctuary.
                   allowed, if the NOAA-approved draft                                                                      conditions of the award,
                   management plan includes a                      ï¿½ 921.31 Supplemental acquisition and                    (b) After Federal funding expires.
                   construction plan and a public access          development awards.                                   NOAA will begin a biennial review of
                   plan.                                                 After sanctuary designation, and as                the state's performance in managing the
                   (C) Only minor construction activities            specified in the approved management                  estuarine sanctuary to ensure that the
                   tht aid in implementing portions of the         plan. the state may request a                         purposes for which the sanctuary were
                   management plan (such as boat ramps              supplemental acquisition and                          designated are still being maintained.
                   and nature trails) are permitted under             development award for construction and               ï¿½ 921.35 Withdrawal of designation.
                     initial acquisition and development              acquiring any remaining land.
                   award. No more than five (5) percent of          Application procedures are specified in                  (a) Upon a finding by the Program
                   the initial acquisition and development              support F.                                           office through its programmatic
                   award may be expended on such                                                                            evaluation (ï¿½ 921.34) that an estuarine
                   facilities. NOAA must make a specific                 921.32 Operation and management.                   sanctuary is not meeting the mandate of
                   determnation, based on the EIS. that the       Iplementation of the management plan.             section 315 of the Act. the national
                   construction activity will not be                    (a) After the sanctuary is formally            program goals or the policies
                   detrimental to the environment and that      designated, the state may apply for                   established in the management plan,
                   the PER requirements are satisfied.                assistane to provide for operations and            NOAA will provide the state with a                                                                                                            





                    35126             Fedeml.Register              Vol. 48, No. 150       Wednesday,. August -3. IM                Propose& Rules.

                    written notice of the deficiency. Such a           the sale proceeds), or (ii) the recipient             (4) Applied Research (e.g., studies
                    notice will explain the deficiencies in            may be permitted to retain title after             designed to answer specific
                    the -state's approach. propose a solution          paying the Federal Government an                   management questions); and
                    or solutions to the deficiency and                 amount computed by applying the                       (5) Socioeconomic Research (e.g..
                    provide a schedule by which the state              Federal percentage of participation In             studies on patterns of land use, ,
                    should remedy the deficiency. The state            the cost of the original project to the            sanctuary visitation. archaeological
                    shall also be advised in writing that it           current fair market value of the                   research).
                    may comment on the Program Office's                property."                                            (c) Research opportunities will be
                    finding of a deficiency and meet with                                                                 identified In final management plans for
                    Program officials to discuss the finding           Subpart E--Aesewch Funds                           national estuarine sanctuaries. Research
                    and to seek a remedy to the deficiency.                                                               funds will be used to rill obvious voids
                       (b) It the issues cannot be resolved            1021.40 Application procedures.                    in available data. as well as to support
                    within a reasonable timi. the Program                 (a) To stimulate high quality research          creati=riinriovative projects.
                    Office will make a recommendation                  within designated estuarine sanctuaries.              (d)    psals for research In national
                    regarding withdrawal of designation to             NOAA may fund research on a                    -   estuarine sanctuaries will be evaluated
                    the Assistant Administrator for Ocean              competitive basis to sanctuaries having            in accordance with criteria listed below:
                    Services and Coastal Zone Management               an approved final management plan..                   (1) Scientific merits;
                    (AA).                                              This amount must be matched by the                    (2) Relevance or importance to
                       Cc) The state shall be provided the             state. consistent with I 921.51(e)(iii)            sanctuary management or coastal
                    opportunity for an informal hearing                ("allowable costs"). Such research funds           decisionmaking; .
                    before the AA to consider the Program -            are provided in addition to any funds                 (3) Research quality (i.e.. soundness of
                    Office's recommendation and finding of             available to the state under the                   approach. environmental consequences:
                    deficiency, as well as the state's                 operation and management or                        experience related to methodologies):
                    comments on and response to the                    acquisition and development awards.                and
                    recommendation and finding.                        Individual stu  .tes may apply for more        .      (4) Importance to the National
                       (d) Within 30 days after the informal           than one research project per sanctuary.           Estuarine Sanctuary Program.
                    hearing. the AA shall issite a written
                    decision regarding the sanctuary. If a                (b) Research funds are intented to
                    decision is made to withdraw sanctuary             support significant research'proi acts             Subpart F-General Financial
                    designation. the procedures specified in           that will lead to enhanced scientific              Assistance Provisions
                    paragraph (a) of this section regarding            understanding of the sanctuary                        921.50 Application Information.
                        disposition of real property acquired          environment, improved coastal                         (a) The maximum total Weral funding
                    with federal funds shall be followed.              decisicinmaking. improved sanctuary                per sanctuary is $3,000.000 for the
                       (e) Deeds for real property acquired            management. or enhanced public                     preacquisition. acquisition and
                    for the sanctuary under acquisition                appreciation and understanding of the              development. and operation and
                    funding shall contain substantially the            sanctuary ecosystem. Emphasis will be              management awards. The research
                    ftollowing provision; "Titlit to the               placeil an projects that. are also of              funding under I 921.4a is excluded from
                    property conveyed by this deed shall               benefit to other sanctuaries in the                this total.
                    vest in the frecipient of the CZMA                 system. Pruposals for research under the
                    section 315 award or other Federally-              following categories will be considered.              (b) Only a state Covernor. or his/her
                    approved entity] subject to the condition             (1) Baseline Data and to Establish a            designated state agency, may apply for
                                                                                                                          estuarine sanctuary financial assistance
                    that the property shall remain part of the         Monitoring Program (e.g.. studies related          awards. If a state is participating in the
                    Fedwrally-designited [Name of National             to gathering and interpreting baseline             national Coastal Zone Management
                    Estuarine Sanctuaryl. In the event that            information on the estuary: funds              are Program. the recipient of an award
                    (he property is no longer included as              available to esta@lish a monitoring                under Section 315 of the Act'shall
                    part of the sanctuary, or if the sanctuary
                                     which it is part is               svstem. The long-term support for a                consult with the state coastal
                    designation of                                     monitoring system must be carried out              management agency regarding the
                    withdrawn. then the National Oceanic               as part of u, ertill sanctuary                     application.
                    i,nd Atmospheric Administraction or its            implementa lion),
                    successor agency may exercise any of.                                                                    (c) No acquisition and development
                    1he following rights regarding the                    (2) Estuarine EcoloRy (e.g.. studies of         award may be made by NOAA without
                    disposition of the property:                       individual species'.rela tions hips with           the approval of the Governor of the State
                       (1) The rf-zipii@nt may be required to          their estuarine environment. studies of            in which the land to be acquired is
                                                                       hiolog
                    transfer title to the Fe&ral Go% ernment.                gical community relatiunships.               located.
                    In such cases. the recipient shall be              studies on factors and processes thut                 (d) All applications are to be
                    ontitled to compensation computed by               govern the biological productivity or the          submitted to: Management and Budget
                    applying the recipient's percentage of             estuary);                                          Croup. Office of Ocean and Coastal
                    participation in the cost of the program           1 (3) Estuarine Processes (e.S., studies           Resource Management. National Ocean
                    or pruiect it) the curri-rit fair mark-el          on dynamic physical processes that                 Service. National Oceanic and
                    value of the property: or                          influence and give the estuary its                 Atmospheric Administration, 330U
                       (2) At the discretion of the Federal            particular physical.characteristics.               Whitehnven St.. N.W. Washington. D.C.
                    Government. (i) the recipient may either           including studies related to climate.              2 () 2 J, S.
                    he directed to sell- the property and pay          patterns of watershed drainage and                    ! e) An original and two copies of the
                    the Federal Government an aniount                  freshwater drainage and fri-shwater                cornplete appiication must he submitted
                    cantputed by applying the Federal                  inflow patterns of water circulation               at least 60 working days prior to the
                    perct!ntage of participation in the cost of        within the estuary. and studies on                 proposed beginning of the project. The
                    11w           project to the proct?mb from         Oceanic or terrestrial factors thid                Application for Federal Assistance
                    the sale (minus actual and reasonable              influence the condition of estuarine               Standard Form 424--(Non-cnnstruction
                    selling and fix-up expenses. if any. from          waters and bottoms):
                                                                                                                          Program.) constitutes the formal



                        Federal Register / Vol. 48  No.150/ Wednesday, August 3,1983/ Proposed Rules    35127

              application for preacquisition and                  construction awards, costs incurred                     (3) Operations and Management
              operation and management awards. The                 more than  three months before the                    Awards; Research Funds--Cash and in-
              Application for Federal Assistance                   award beginning date will not be                      kind contributions (directly benefiting
              Standard Form 424-(Construction                    approved. For construction and land                   and specifically identifiable to this
              Programs) constitutes the formal                     acquisition awards, NOAA will evaluate                phase of the project), except land, are
              application for land acquisition and                 preagreement costs on a case-by-case                  allowable.
              development awards.                                  basis.
                 The application must be accompanied                (e) General guidelines for the non-                 921.52 Amendments to financial
              by the information required in Subpart B             Federal share are contained in OMB                    assistance awards.
              (preacquisition), Subpart C and  921.31             Circular A-102, Attachment F. The                       Actions requiring an amendment to
              (acquisition and development), and                   following may be used by the state in                 the financial assistance award, such as
              ï¿½ 921.32 (operation and management), as              satisfying the matching requirement:                  a request for additional Federal funds,
              applicable. All applications must                    (1) Preacquisition Awards-Cash and                revision of the approved project budget,
              contain backup data for budget                       in-kind contributions (value of goods                 or extension of the performance period
              estimates (federal and non-federal                   and services directly benefiting and                  must be submitted to NOAA and
              shares), and evidence that the                       specifically identifiable to this part of          approved in writing.
              application complies with the Executive              the project) are allowable. Land may not
              Order 12372. "Intergovernmental Review               be used as match.                                     Appendix I --Biogeographic Classification
              of Federal Programs." In addition,                     (2) Acquisition and Development                          Scheme
              applications for acquisition and                     Awards-Cash and in-kind                              Acadian
              development awards must contain:                     contributions are allowable. In general,              1. Northern Gulf of Maine (Eastport to the
                 (1) State Historic Preservation Office            the fair market value of lands to be                    Sheepscot River)
              comments:                                            included within the sanctuary                         2. Southern Gulf of Maine (Sheepscot River to
                 (2) Appraisals and title information;             boundaries and acquired pursuant to the                 Cape Cod)
                 (3) Governor's letter approving the               Act, with other than Federal funds, may               Virginian                       
               sanctuary proposal;and                              be used as match.  The fair market value 
        (4) Written approval from NOAA of                         of privately donated land, at the time of             3. Southern New England (Cape Cod to
              the draft or final management plan.                  donation, as established by an                          Sandy Hook)
                 The Standard Form 424 has been approved           independent appraiser and certified by a              4. Middle Atlantic (Sandy Hook to Cape 
              by the Office of Management and Budget
                                                                   responsible official of the state                       Hatteras)
              (approval number 0648-0121)for use through         (pursuant to OMB Circular A-102,                         5. Chesapeake Bay
              September 30, 1983.                                  Attachment F) may also be used as
                                                                                                                         Carolinian
              ï¿½ 921.51 Allowable costs.                            match. Appraisals must be performed                   6. Northern Carolinas (Cape Hatteras to
                 (a) Allowable costs will be                      according to Federal appraisal                          Santee River)
                                                                   standards as detailed in NOAA                         7. South Atlantic (Santee River to St. John's
              determined in accordance with 0MB                regulations and the "Uniform Appraisal                 River)
              Circulars A-102. "Uniform                            Standards for Federal Land                           8. East Florida (St.John's River to Cape
              Administrative Requirements for                      Acquisitions". Costs related to land                   Canaveral)
              Grants-in-Aid to State and Local                     acquisition, such as appraisals, legal                West Indian
              Governments", and A-87, "Principles for              fees and surveys, may also be used as                 9. Caribbean (Cape Canaveral to Ft. Jefferson
              Determining Costs Applicable to Grants                match. Land, including submerged lands,                 and south)
              and Contracts with State,local, and                already in the state's possession, in a               10. West Florida (Ft. Jefferson to Cedar Key )
              Federally Recognized Indian Tribal                   fully-protected status consistent with
              Governments"; the financial assistance              the purposes of the National Estuarine                Louisianian
              agreement; these regulations;and other            Sanctuary Program, may be used as                     11. Panhandle Coast (Cedar Key to Mobile
              Department of Commerce and NOAA                 match only if it was acquired within a                  Bay)
              directives. The term "costs" applies to            one-year period prior to the award of                 12. Missisippi Delta (Mobile Bay to 
              both the Federal and non-Federal                    preacquisition or acquisition funds and                 Galveston)
              shares.                                            with the intent to establish a national               13. Western Gulf(Galveston to Mexican
               (b) Costs c1aimed as charges to the               estuarine sanctuary. For state lands not                border)
              award must be reasonable, beneficial                 in a fully-protected status(e.g., a state         Californian
              and necessary for the proper and                    park containing an easement for                       14. Southern California (Mexican border to
              efficient administration of the financial            subsurface mineral rights),the value of                Point Concepcion)
              assistance award and must be incurred                the development right or foregone value              15. Central California (Point Concepcion to
              during the award period, except as                   may be used as match if acquired by or                  Cape Mendocino)
              provided under preagreement costs,                  donated to the state for inclusion within             l6. San Francisco Bay
              paragraph (d) of this section.                       the sanctuary.                                        Columbian
               (c)  Costs must not be allocable to or              A state may initially use a match land
              included as a cost of any other                      valued at greater than the Federal share              17. Middle Pacific (Cape Mendocino to the 
              Federally-financed program in either the             of the acquisition and development                      Columbia River)
              current or a prior award period.                                                                           I8. Washington Coast(Columbia River to
               (d) Costs incurred prior to the                     award. The value in excess of the                     Vancouver Island)
                                                                   amount required as match for the iniiial               19. Puget Sound
              effective date of the award                           award may be used to match
              (preagreement costs) are allowable only           subsequent supplemental acquisition                   Great Lakes
              when specifically approved in the                    and development awards for the                        20. Western Lakes (Superior, Michigan,
              financial assistance agreement. For non-              estuarine sanctuary.                                    Huron)


0



               35128        Fedearl Register   VoL 48 No. 150     Wednesday. August 3 1983. Proposed Rules

               21. East Lakes (Ontario, Erie)
		   Fiord	
               22.Southern Alaska (Prince of  Wales Island
                 to Cook inlet)
               23.Alesxtian Islands (Cook Inlet to Bristol
			 Bay)
               Sub-Artic
               24. Northern Alaska (Bristol Bay to.
                  Demarcation Point)
               Insular
               25. Hawaiian Islands
               28. Western Pacific Islands
               27. Eastern Pacific Islands
               
			BILLING CODE 26 10-08-44
 





                               Fedwal Register          VoL 41L bku Iso          Wednesday. August 3. 1M                 ProposW Riles.




                2                  .%i.6-w.?, '44
                                                          25
                27







                          'Ag


                                                                                         2
                                                                                           4

                                                                                                                          22



                                                                                                        23
                     17


                                                                                                                               MILES










                                                                                                                              L


                                                                                                                                 2
                                                                                      21.




                                                                                                                4
                     ww                 14                                                  5-








                                                        12
                                                                                                                     9AS6


                                                        4ULF CP WINCCD=




                            L.. SionhysicaL Ragicris of Clae                             Ur.4C&d Scates.
              "w" cam as






                    35130          Federal Register / Vol. No. 150 / Wednesday, August 3, 1983 / Proposed Rules

                    Appendix 2--Typology of National Estuarine                             of a number of seral stages commuunity                    to extreme south Texas to the islands of the
                    Areas                                                                  development. Dominant vegetation includes                            Western Pacific.,
                                                                                           mid-grasses (2 to 4 feet tall). such as                                 C. Intertidal Beaches-This ecosystem has
                    Class I--Ecosystem Types
                                                                                           Ammophila. Agrapyron and Calamovilfa tall                 a distinct biota of microspopic animals.
                                                                                           grasses(5 to 8 fact tall such as Spartina, and                       bacteria. and unicellular algae along With
                    Group I--Shorelands                                                    trees such as the willow (Salix sp.) cherry                        macroscopic crustaceans. mollusks and
                        As. Maritme Forest- Woodland-This type                             (Prunus sp.)and cottonwood (Populus                                  worms with a detritusbossed nutrient cycle.
                    of ecosystem consists of single-stemmed                                deltoides). This area is divided into four                           This area also includes the driftline
                    species that have developed under the                                  regions with the following typical strand                            communities found at high tide levels on the
                    influence of salt spray. It can be found on                            vegetation:                                                           beach. The dominant organisms in this
                    coastal uplands or recent features. such as                              1. Arctic/Boreal: Elymus:                                          ecosystem include crustaceans such as the
                    barrier islands and beaches, and may be                                  2. Northeast/ West: Ammophila:                                  mole crab (Emerita), amphipods
                    divided into the following biomes:                                       3. Southeast/Gulf: Umiola: and                                       (Gammaridae) ghost crabs (Ocypode), and
                                                                                             4. Mid-Atlantic/ Gulf Spartina Patens.                               bivalve molluscs such as the coquine (Donax)
                        1. Northern Conifarouw Forest Biome: This                            D. Coastal Tundra--This ecosystem, which                              and surf clams (Spisula and Macira).
                    is an area of predominantly evergreens such                            is found along the Arctic and Boreal coasts of                          D. Intertidl Mud and Sand Flats-These
                    as the sitka spruce (Picea). grand fir (Abies),                        North America. is characterized by low                               areas am composed of unconsolidated. high
                    and while spruce (Thuja), with poor,                                   temperatures. a short growing season. and                            organic content sediments that function as a
                    development of the shrub and herb layers.                              some pertmafrost. producing a low. treeless                           short term storage area for nutrient* and
                    but high annual productivity and pronounced                            mat community made of mosses. lichens.                                organic carbons. Macrophytes am nearly
                    seasonal periodicity.                                                 heath. shrubs, grasses, sedges. rushes. and                           absent in this ecosystem although it may be
                        2. Moist Temperate (Mesothermal)                                    herbaceous and dwarf woody plants.                                    heavily colonized by benthic diatoms.
                    Coniferous Forest Biome. Found along the                              Common species include arctic/alpine plants                            dinoflagellates. filamentous blue-green and
                    West coast of North America from California                            such as Empetrum nigrum and Betula nana,                          green algae. and chaemosynthetic purple
                    to Alaska, this area is dominated by conifers.                        the lichens Cetraria and Cladonia,  and                               sulfur bacteria. This system may support a
                    has a relatively small seasonal range. high                            herbaceous plants such an Potentilla                                 considerable population of gastropods.
                    humidity with rainfall ranging from 30 to 150                          tridentata and Rubus chamaemorus.                                   bivalves. and polychaeles. and may serve as
                    inches. and a well-developed understory of                             Common species on the coastal beach ridges                          a feeding area for a variety of fish and
                    vegetation with an abundance of mosses and                              of the high arctic desert include Dryas                            wading birds. In sand. the dominant fauna
                    other muisture-tolerant plants.                                        intergrifolio and Saxifraaga appositifolia.  This                   include the wedge shell Donax, the scallop
                        3. Temperate Deciduous Forest Biomes: This                        area can be divided into two main                                    Pecten. tellin shells Tellina. the heart urchin
                    biome is characterized by abundant. evenly                             subdivisions:                                                       Echinocardium. the lug worm Arenicola.
                    distributed rainfall, moderate temperatures                             1. Low Tundra: characterized by a thick.                          sand dollar Dendraster. and the sea pansy
                    which exhibit a distinct seasonal pattern.                       I     spongy mat of living and undecayed
                    well-developed soil biota and herb and shrub                         vegetation. often with water and dotted with                         Renilla,. In mud. faunal dominants adapted to
                    layers, and numerous plants which produce                          ponds when not frozen: and                                             low oxygen levels include the terebellid
                                                                                                                                                                 Amphitrite. the boring clam Playdon the
                    pulpy fruits and nuts. A distinct subdivision                           2. High Tundra: a bare area except for a
                    of this biome is the pine eduphic forest of the                    scanty growth of lichens and grasses with                               deep sea scallop scallop Placepecton, the quahog
                                                                     h only a              undunderlying ice wedges forming raised                             Mercenaria, the echiurid worm Urechis. the
                    southeastern coastal plain. in whic                                                                            
                    small portion of the area is occupied I                             polygonal areas.                                                      mud snail Nussarius. and the sea cucumber
                    climax vegetation, although it has large areas                          E. Coastal Cliffs -This ecosystem is an                           Thyone.
                           red by edaphic                                                 important nesting site for many sea and shore                       E. Intertidal Algal Berls-These are hard
                    cove                         climax pines.
                           4. Broad-leaved Evergreen Subtrapieal                           birds. It consists of communities (of                              subbstrates along the marine edge that are
                    Forest Biomes: The main characteristic of this,                      herbaceaous. graminoid, or low woody plants                          dominated by macroscopic algae. usually
                    biome is high moisture with less pronounced                       (shrubs. heath. etc.) on the top or along rocky                         thalloid. but also filamentous or unicellar in
                    differences between winter and summer.                                faces exposed to salt spray. There is a                             growth form.This also includes the rocky
                    Examples are the hammocks of Florida and                              diversity of plant species including mosses                          coast tidepouls that fall within the intertidal
                    the live oak forests of the Gulf and Smith                          lichens. liverworts, and "higher" plant                            zone. Dominant fauna of these areas are
                                                                                           representatives.                                                      barnacles. mussels. periwinkles. anemones.
                    Atlantic coasts. Floral dominants include                                                                                                  and chitons. Three regions  are apparent:
                    pines, magnolias, bays, hollies, wild                                  Group II-Transition Areas                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                            I. Northern Latitude Rocky Shores: It is in
                    lamarind, strangler fig, gumbo limbo and                                  A. Coastal Marshes-- These are wetland                         this re
                    palms.                                                                                                                                                      gion that the community structure is
                                                                                           areas dominated by grasses                                            
                                                                                                                      (Poacea) sedges                                 The dominant algie species
                         B. Coast Shrublands--This is a transitional                       (Cyperaciae)rushes luciaceae                         iclude Chondius at the low tide level, Fucus
                                                                                            
                    area between the coastal grassland and                             (Typhaceae). and other graminoid species                        and Ascophylium at the mid-tidal level and
                    woodlands and is characterized by woody                            and is subject to periodic flooding by either                  Laminaria and other kelp-like algae just
                    species with multiple stems a few centimeters                          salt or freshwater. This ecosystem may be                        beyond the intertidal. although they can be
                    to several meters above the ground                                 subdivided into: a)tidal.which is periodically                  exposed at extremely low tides or found in
                    developing under the influence of salt spray                   flooded by either salt or brackish water  b)                         Very deep tidepools.
                    and occasional sand burial. This includes                            non-tidal (freshwater); or c) tidal freshwater                        2. Southern Latitudes. The communities in.
                    thackets, scrub, scrub savanna, heathlands,                        These are essential habitats for many                             this region are reduced in comparison to
                    and coastal chaparral. there is a great                                important estuarine species of fish and                            those of the northern latitudes and possesses
                    variety of shrubland vegetation exhibiting                             invertebrates and serves important roles in                           algae consisting mostly of single-celled or
                                                                                        short stabilization. flood control. water                            filamentous green, blue-green. find red algae.
                    regional specificity:                     
                        I. Northern Areas: Characterized by                                purification and nutrient transport and                             and small thalloid brown algae.
                    Hudsonia . various erinaceous species.                           storage.                                                               3. Tropical and Subtropical Latitutes: The
                    thickets of Afyrica, Prunus, and Rosa.                               B. Coastal Mangroves---This ecosystem                            intertidal in this region is very reduced and
                        2. Southteast Areas: Floral domininants                            experiences regular flooding an either a daily.                contains numerous calcareous algae such as
                    include Myrica, Beecharis, and Hex.                             monthly. or seasonal basis. has low wave                             Purolitho and Lithothumnion. as well us
                        3. Western Areas: Adenostoma,                                 action. and is dominated by variety of salt.                        green  algae with calcareous particles such as
                    Arcotyphylos, anf Eucalyptus are the                           tolerant trees such as the red mangrove                                idalimenia, and numerous other green, red,
                    dominant floral species.                                        (Rhizophora mangle).black mangrove                                   and brown algae.
                        C. Coastal grasslands.--This area, which                    (Avicennia nicemosa)and the white mangrove
                                                                                    (Lagancalaria nicemosa) It is also an                               Group III-Submerged
                    possesses sand dunes and coastal flats, has                                                                                                             Bottoms
                    low rainfall (10 to 30 inches per year) and                     important habitat for Large populations of                             A. Subtidal Hardbottoms-Thes system is
                    Large amounts, of humus in the soil. Ecological                 fish. invertebrates. and birds. This type of                          characterized by a consolidated layer of solid
                    succession is slow, resulting in the presence                   ecosystem can be found from central Florida                         rock or large pieces of rock (neither of biotic
 






                                         Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 150 / Wednesday. August 3. 1983                                                    Proposed Rules                         35131

                    origin). It is found in association with                      to a point as far upstream as there Is                           where maximum depths can range from 600 
                    neomorphological features such as submarine             significant salt content in the water. forming                   m to 1200 m. while still depths usually range
                    canyons and fiords and is usually covered                a salt front. A combination of tidal action and                from 40 tin to ISO m.
                    with assemblages of sponges, sea fans.                  freshwater outflow makes tidal rivers well-                      3. Bar-bounded estuary-These result from
                    bivalves, hard corals. lunicaes, and other              flushed. The tidal river basin may be a simple                   the development of an offshore barrier, such
                    attached organisms. If light levels are                 channel or a complex of tributaries, small                      as a beach strand. a line of barrier islands,
                    sufficient. a covering of microscopic and            associated embayments. marshfronts, tidal                     reef formations. a line of moraine debris. or
                    attached macroscopic algae. such as kelp.                     flats, and a variety of others.                                 the subsiding remnants of a deltaic lobe. The
                    may also be found.                                               6. Logoon-Lagoons are confined coastal                       basin is often partially exposed at low tide
                      B. Subtidal Softbottoms-Major                               bodies of water with restricted inlets to the                   and is enclosed by a chain of offshore bars or
                    characteristics of this ecosystem are an                     sea and without significant freshwater                          barrier islands. broken at intervals by inlets.
                    unconsolidated layer of fine particles of sill,               inflow. Water circulation is limited, resulting                 These ban may be either deposited offshore
                    sand, clay, and gravel, high hydrogen sulfide                 in a poorly flushed. relatively stagnani body                   or may be coastal dunes that have become
                    levels, and anaerobic conditions often                        of water. Sedimentation is rapid with d great                   isolated by recent sea level rises.
                    existing below the surface. Macrophytes are                   potential for basin shoaling. Shores are often                    4. Tectonic estuary-These are coastal
                    either sparse or absent. although a layer of                  gently sloping and marshy.
                    benthic microalgae may be present if light                       7. Perched Coastal Wetlands-Unique to                        indentures that have formed through tectonic
                    levels are sufficient. The faunal community is                Pacific islands, this wetland type, found                       processes such as slippage along a fault line
                    dominated by a diverse population of deposit                  above sea level in volcanic crater remnants.                    (San Francisco Bay). folding, or movement of
                    feeders including polychaetes, bivalves, and                  forms as a result of poor drainage                              the earth's bedrock. often with a large inflow
                    harrowing crustaceans.                                        characteristics of the crater rather than from                  of freshwater.
                      C. Subtidal Grassbeds-This system is                         sedimentation. Floral assemblages exhibit                         5. Volcanic estuary-These coastal bodies
                    found in relatively shallow water (less than a               distinct zonation while the faunal                              of open water, a result of volcanic processes
                    to 10 meters) below mean low tide. It is an                   constitutents may include freshwater.                           are depressions or craters that have direct
                    area of extremely high primary production                     brackish. and/or marine specie. Example:                      and/or subsurface connections with the
                    this I provides food and refuge for a diversity               Aunu'u island, American Samoa.                                  ocean and may or may not have surface
                    of faunal groups, especially juvenile and                        6. Anchialiae systems-These small                            continuity with streams. These formations
                    adult fish. and in some regions, manatees and                 coastal exposures of brackish water form in                     are unique to island areas of volcanic origin.
                    sea turtles. Along the North Atlantic and                     lava depressions or elevated fossil reefs,                        C. Inlet Type-Inlets in various forms are
                    Pacific coasts. the seagrass Zestera marina                  have only a subsusurface connection to the                     an integral part of the estuarine environment.
                    predomininates. In the South Atlantic and Gulf                  ocean. but show tidal fluctuations                           as they regulate, to a certain extent, the
                    coast areas. Thalassia and Dipianthera                        from true estuaries in having no surface                        velocity and magnitude of tidal exchange. the
                    predominate. The grasses in both areas                        continuity with streams or ocean. this system                 degree of mixing, and volume of discharge to
                    support a number of epiphytic organisms.                      is characterized by a distinct hiotic                           the sea. There are four major types on inlets:
                     Class II-Physical Characteristics                             Community dominated by benthic algae such                 1. Unrestricted-An estuary with a wide,
                                                                                  as Rhizoclonium, the mineral encrusting                         unrestricted inlet typically has slow currents.
                    Group-Geologic
                                                                                  Schizothrix., and the vascular plant Ruppia                    no significant turbulence, and receive the full
                      A. Basin Type-Coastal water basins occur         maritima. Characteristic fauna, which exhibit                  effect of ocean waves and local disturbances
                    in a variety of shapes. sizes, depths, and            a high degree of endemicity, include the                   which serve to modify the shoreline. These
                    appearances. The eight basic types discussed                  mollusks Theodoxus neglectus and T.                            estuaries are partially mixed. as the open
                    below will cover most of the cases:                       cariosus. the small red shrimp Metatuatoues                   mouth permits the incursion of marine waters
                      1. Exposed coast-Solid formations orheno and Makocaridina rubra, and the fish.                                         to considerable distances upstream.
                    heavy sand deposits charcterizeexposed               Eleotris sandwicensis and Kuhlia                                 'depending on the tidal amplitude and strewn
                     ocean shorefrontswhich are subject to the               sundvicensus. Although found through the       
                  fullorce of ocean storms. The sand beaches                 world. The high islands of the pacific are the     Ilie    2. Restricted-Restriction a of estuaries can
                    areerv resilient. although the dunes lyting               only areas within the U.S. where this system                    exist in many forms: bars. barrier islands,
                    just behold the beaches are fragieandeasily              can he found.                                                   spits. sills. and more. Restricted inlets result
                    damaged. The dunes serve as it sand storage              B. Basin structure-EStuary basins may                      in decreased circulation, more pronounced-
                    area. making them chief stabilizers of the              result from the drowning of a river valley                    longitudinal and vertical salinity gradients,
                    ocean shorefromt.                                       (coastal plains estuary). the drowning of a                    and more rapid sedimentation. However. if
                      2. Sheltored coast-Sand or coral barriers.             glacial valley (fjord), the occurrence of an                    the estuary mouth is restricted by
                    built up by natural forces, provide sheltured                  offshore barrier (bar-bounded estaar). some                  depositional features or land closures, the
                    areas inside it bar or reef where. the                        tectonic process (tectonic estuaryi, or                      incoming tide may be held back, until it
                    ecosystem takeS on many characteristics of              volcanic activity (volcanic estuary).                        suddenly breaks forth into the basin as a
                    confined waters-abundant marine grasses.                  1.Coastoal plains estuary-Where a                                                                                                                                                   tidal wave. or bore. Such currents exert
                    shellfish. and juvenile fish. Water movement             drowned valley consists mainly of a sinle                  tidal wave or bore, Such currents exert
                    is reduced, with the consequent effects; of          channel. the forming of the basin is fairly                profound effects on the nature of the
                    po11ution being more severe in this area tham              regular. forming a simple coastal plains                       substrate. turbidity, and biot of the estuary
                    in exposed coastal areas.                             estuary. When a channel is flooded with                          3. Permunent-permanent inlets are
                      1. Buy-Bays are larger confined bodies of              numerous tributaries. and irregular estuary                   usually opposite the mouths of major rivers
                    water that are open to the sea and receive                 results. Many esluaries of the eastern United                 and permit river water to flow into          the sea.
                    strong tidal flow. When stratification is                   States are of this type.                                        Sedimentation and deposition are minimal.
                    pronounced. the flusing action is atigmented            2. Fjord-Estuaries that form in elongated.                     4. Temporary (Intermittent)-Temporary
                    by river discharge. Bays vary in size mnd in             steep headlands that alternate with deep U.                     inlets are formed by storms and frequently
                                                                                                                                                                         on tidal flow. the
                    type of shorefront.                                           shaped valleys resulting frm glacial scouring                  shift position. depending
                      4. Embuyment-A confined coastal water                   are called fjords. The generally possess rocky                  depth of the sea and sound waters. the
                    bOdy with narrow. restricted inlets and with                  floors or very thin veneers of sediment, with                   frequency of storms. and (he amount of
                    a significant freshwater inflow can be                        deposition generally being restricted to the                    littoral transport.
                    classified as an enbayment.These areas                   head where the main river enters. Compared                     D.Bottom Composition-The bottom
                    have more restricted inlets than hays. are                 to total fjord volume. river discharge is small.                composition of estuaries attests to the
                    usually smaller and shallower. have low tidal                But many fjords have restricted tidal Ranges                   vigorous. rapid. and complex sedimentation
                    section, and are subject to sedimentation.                 at their mouths, due to hills, or upreaching                   proceses characteristic of most coastal                                                               
                      5. Tidal river-The lower reach of a                          sections of the bottom which limit free                         regions with low relief. Sediments are
                    coastal river is referred to an a tidal river.                movement of water. ofter mAking river flow                     derived through the hydrologic processes of
                    The coastal water segment extends from the                   large with respect to the tidal prism. I he                     erosion. transport. and deposition carried on
                    sea or estuary into which the river discharges               deepest portions are in the upstream reaches.                  by the seA and the stream.





                    35132                Federal Register / Vol.                  48, No. 150            Wednesday, August 3.                    1983       Proposed Rules

                      1.Sund-Near estuary mouths, where the                      water exchan
                                                                                                    ge and its vertical range                    mouth is restricted so that tidal flow is
                    predominating forces of the sea build spils or                determines the extent of tidal fluts which                     inhilated. These are typically very salty
                    other depositional features. the shores and                   may be exposed and submerged, with each                    (hyperhaline), moderately oxygenated at
                    substrates of the estuary are sandy.The                       tdal cycle. Tidal action against the volume of                 depth, and possess bottom sediments that are
                    bottom sediments in this area are usually                     river water discharged into an estuary results                 poor in organic content.
                    coarse. with a graduation toward finer                        in a complex system whose properties vary                         3. Salinity zones (expressed in ppt):
                    particlas in the head of the estuary. In the                   according to estuary structure as well as the                     a. Hyperhaline-greater than 40 ppt
                    head region and other. zones of reduced flow,                 magnitude of river flow and tidal range. Tides                    b. Euhaline---40 ppt to 30 ppt
                    fine silty sands are deposited. Sand                          are usually described in terms of their cycle                     c. Mixohaline-30 ppt to 0.5 ppt
                    deposition occurs only in wider or deeper                     and their relative heights. In the United                         1) Mixoeuhaline-greater than 30 ppt but
                    regions where velocity is reduced.                            States. tide height is reckoned on the basis of                less than the adjacent euhaline sea
                      2. Mud-At the base level of a stream near                  average low tide, which is referred to as
                    its mouth. the bottom is typically composed                   datum. The tidal cycle. although complex.                        (2) Polyhaline-30 ppt to 5 ppt
                    of loose muds, sill. and organic detritus as a                falls info two main categories:                                   (3) Mesohaline-18 ppt to 5 ppt
                    result of erosion and transport from the upper                   1. Diurnal-This refers to a daily change in                   (4) Oligohaline-5 ppt to O.5 ppt
                    stream reaches and organic decomposition.                    water level that can be observed along the                        d. Limnetic-5 ppt to 0.5 ppt
                    Just inside the estuary entrance, the bottom                  shoreline. There is one high tide and one. low                    B. pH Regime-This is indicative of the
                                                                                  tide per day.                                                        mineral richness of estuarine waters and fall
                    contains considerable quantities of sand and                                                                                 
                    mud. which support a rich fauna. Mud flats.                     2. Semidiurnal-This refers to a twice daily                 into three main categories:
                    commonly built up in estuarine basins, are                    rise and fall in water that can be observed                       1. Acid---Waters with a pH of less than 5.5.
                    composed of loose. coarse. and fine mud and                   along the shoreline.                                              2. Circumneutral-A condition where the
                    sand. often dividing the original channel.                       C. Freshwater-According to nearly all the                   pH ranges from 5.5 to 7.4.
                      3. Rock-Rocks usually occur in areas                        definitions advanced. it is inherent that all                     3. Alkaline-Waters with s pH grrater thin
                    where the stream runs rapidly over a steep                    estuaries need freshwater. which is drained                    7.4.
                    gradient with its coarse materials being                       from the land and measurably dilutes                           (FR Doc. 8-20947 Filed 6-2-83: 8:45 am)
                    derived from the higher elevations where the                  seawater to create a brackish condition.                      BILLING CODE 3510-08-M
                    stream slope is greater. The larger fragments                 Freshwater enters an estuary as runoff from
                    are usually found in shallow areas near the                 the land either from a surface and/or
                    stream mouth.                                                 SUbSurface source.
                      4. Oyster shell-Throughout a major                   1. Surface water-This is water flowing
                    portion of, the world, the oyster reef is one of             over the ground in lite form of streams. Local
                    the most significant features of estuaries.                   variation in runoff is dependent upon the
                    usually being found near the mouth of the                   nature of the soil(porosity and solubility),
                    estuary in a zone of moderate wave action.                   des
                                                                                     gree of surface slope. vegetational type and
                    salt content. and turbidity. It is often a major              development. local climatic conditions, and
                    factor in modifying estuarine current systems                volume and intensity of precipitation.
                    and sedimentation, and may occur as an                      2. Subsurface water-This refers to the
                    elongated island or peninsula oriented across                 precipitation that has been absorbed by the
                    the main current. or may develop parallel to                 soil and stored below the surface. The
                    the direction of the current.                                 distribution of subsurface water depends on
                      Group II-Hydrographic                                      local climate. topography, and the porosity
                      A. Circulation-Circulation patterns are                 and permeability of the underlying soils and
                    the result of the combined influences (if                    rocks. There are two main subtypes of
                    freshwater flow, tidal action. wind and                       Surface water
                    oceanic forces. and serve many functions:                      a. Vadose water-This is water in the soil
                    nutrient transport, plankton dispersal.                       above the water table. Its volume with
                    ecosystem flushing. salinity content, water                    respect to the soil. is a subject to considerable
                    mixing, and more.                                            fluctuation.
                      1. Stratified-This is typical of estuaries                    b. qroundwater-Th is is water contained
                    with a strong freshwater influx and is                      in the rocks below the water table. is usually
                    commonly found in bays formed from                          of more uniform volume than vadose water.
                    "drowned" river valleys. fjords. and other                    and generally follows the topographic relief
                    deep basins. There is a net movement of                       land. being high below hills and sloping into
                    freshwater outward at the top laver and
                    Saltwater at the bottom layer, resulting in a
                    net outward transport of surface organisms              Group III-Chemical
                    and net inward transport of bottom                               A.Salinity-This reflects it complex
                    organisms.                                                    mixture of salts, the most abundant being
                      2. Non-stratified--Estuaries of this type are         sodium chloride, and is a very critical factor
                    found where water movement is sluggish and                   in the distribution and maintenance of many
                    flushin                                                              organisms. Based on salinity. there
                             g rate is low. although there may be                 estuarine
                    sufficient
                              circulation to provide the basis for             are two basic estuarine types and eight
                    a high carrying capacity. This is common to                   different salinity zones (expressed in parts
                    shallow embayments and bays lacking a                         per thousand-ppt).
                    good supply of freshwater from land                              1. Positive estuary-This is an estuary in
                    drainage.                                                      which the freshwater influx is sufficient to
                             
                      3. Lagoonal-An estuary of this type is                      maintain mixing, resulting in a pattern of
                    characterized by low rates of water                        increasing salinity toward the estuary mouth.
                    movement resulting from a lack of significant                  It is characterized by low oxygen
                    freshwater influx and a lack of strong tidal                  concentration in the deeper waters and
                    exchange because of the typically narrow                     considerable organic content in bottom
                    inlet connecting the lagoon to the sea.                       sediments.
                    Circulation. whose major driving Force is                        2. Negative estuary-This is found in
                    wind is the major limiting factor in biological              particularly arid regions, where estuary
                    productivity within lagoons.                              evaporation may exceed freshwater inflow.
                      B. Tides-This is the most important                       resulting in increased salinity in the upper
                      ecological factor in an estuary,as it effects                        part of the basin,especially if the estuary






                    *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE :  1984 0-420-997/10058
 




                                   US Department Of Commerce          -I
                                   XOAA Coastal Services Center Library
                                   2234 South Hobson Avenue
                                   Charleston, SC 29405-2413.
























































                                       3 6668 14105 7242