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











                                      PACIFIC ISLANDS REGIONAL PANEL













                                       COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION
                                      GOVERNING BOARD ANNUAL MEETING
                                          OCTOBER 28 - 29, 1991
 







                                     INTRODUCTION TO HAWAII

                  The Hawaiian Islands are the most isolated archipelago in the- world,
            stretching over 1500 miles near the center of the Pacific Ocean. While the
            State comprises 132 islands, reefs and shoals, the islands of Hawaii (the- "Big
            Island"), Maui, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Niihau and Kahoolawe make up
            over 99% of the State's total land area of 6,425 square miles and most of its
            750 miles of coastline. The islands are part of a submerged volcanic
            mountain range. A number of large peaks at the highest part of the range
            protrude above sea level and constitute the eight major Hawaiian islands.
            Even the lowest island, Niihau, rises over 13,000 ft. above its base on the
            ocean floor. Mauna Kea, the highest peak in the Hawaiian range, stands
            nearly 14,000 ft. above sea level (almost 30,600 ft. above its underwater
            base).

                  All the islands in the archipelago were formed successively, starting
            with the northwest islands and progressing southeast to Hawaii.       Kauai,
            approximately 3 million years old, is the oldest of the major islands,
            displaying advanced erosion of its mountain ranges, extensive fringing coral
            reef development offshore, and numerous sandy beaches along the coast.           At
            the southeastern end of the chain is the island of Hawaii, still growing as a
            result of volcanic activity, with gently sloping peaks, poorly developed coral
            reefs and few sandy beaches.

                  Physical features of the islands fall between these extremes.       Waves
            have cut steep cliffs, such as on the Napali coast of Kauai (300-2000 ft.) and
            the north side of East Molokai (2000-3000 ft.). Streams have cut valleys and
            canyons, the deepest being Waimea Canyon on Kauai (2600 ft.). As a result of
            volcanic activity, much of the Big Island is underlaid with an intricate
            network of lava tubes that extend from the mountain tops to the shoreline.
            Anchialine pools are another unique feature to Hawaii. These naturally-
            formed brackish-water pools have no direct channel to the ocean but
            experience the tidal fluxes through the surrounding porous lava rock.

                  Almost one-half of Hawaii's total land area is within five miles of the
            shoreline and most development is found in this area. There is no point in
            Hawaii more than 29 miles from the ocean. This is especially significant given
            the risk of devastating tsunamis, hurricanes and coastal flooding. Because of
            its location, Hawaii is vulnerable to these events, whether they originate
            locally or thousands of miles across the ocean. For example, the 1964 Alaska
            earthquake triggered a tsunami that resulted in many deaths and substantial
            property damage in Hawaii.



                                         US Department of Commerce
                                     NOAA Coastal fervicer, Center Library
                                           2234 South Hobson Avenue
                                           Charleston, 60 29405-2413







                Hawaii's subtropical climate has a normal annual temperature of 77
           degrees and average annual rainfall of 73 inches. Rainfall varies dramatically
           by specific location: Kawaihae (Hawaii) has the lowest average annual rainfall
           with 8.7 inches, while Waialeale (Kauai) has the highest with over 450 inches.
           Even in areas of high rainfall, however, few streams carry water throughout
           the year; this is because of the small area of the watersheds and the porous
           nature of volcanic rocks. This porosity means that point sources of pollution
           quickly become nonpoint sources as water and other substances percolate
           through rock and soil. On the Big Island, lava tubes may even act as conduits
           for pollution sources. Additionally, all ten soil types are found in Hawaii.

                Hawaii began as a barren volcanic landscape. Over time, the variability
           in rainfall, soils and topography created an incredible diversity of
           microclimates and habitats within the State, which span from desert to alpine
           and lush rainforest to lowland scrub forest. Hawaii's geographic isolation
           resulted in the evolution of endemic flora and fauna. This range of natural
           environments and unique species contributes to a rich assemblage of valuable
           marine and terrestrial ecosystems.  Unfortunately, some of these plant and
           animal species were not well-adapted to compete with the host of species
           introduced by humans; as a result, Hawaii has lost more native species to
           extinction than any other state.

                 Sometime within the last one thousand years, Polynesian voyagers
           discovered and settled the Hawaiian Islands. A complex Native Hawaiian
           culture developed with social, economic and religious ties to both the land and
           water resources. The primary land division, the ahupuaa, was normally a
           pie-shaped wedge of an island that ran from the mountain top down through
           the valleys and plains, and out into the ocean. The ahupuaa provided the full
           spectrum of natural resources for the Native Hawaiian population.   In 1778,
           Captain Cook was the first known Westerner to visit the islands. Since then,
           Hawaii has become home to a growing population of ethnic groups from
           around the Pacific Rim and beyond. Even after the traditional land tenure
           system was altered following contact with Europeans, the consciousness of the
           land and. water interdependence has continued.

                 In 1959, Hawaii officially became the Fiftieth State. The government of
           the State is similar in form and structure to the governments of the other 49
           states. However, the government of Hawaii is more centralized than that of
           other states. Hawaii has only a county level of local government, consisting of
           four separate counties composed of either entire islands or several islands.
           Under the State Constitution each functions within the framework of a locally
           adopted "home rule" charter.




                                                2







                  In 1990, Hawaii's resident population was just over 1.1 million.
            Approximately 80% of these people live on Oahu. The composition of State
            residents is diverse: Caucasians account for 24%, Japanese 23% and mixed
            race, primarily part-Hawaiian, 31%. Other ethnic groups include Filipinos,
            Chinese, Blacks, Koreans, Puerto Ricans, Samoans, Thais, Vietnamese and
            Cambodians.


                  Ownership of usable land in Hawaii is highly concentrated. The State,
            county and federal governments together are the biggest landowners,
            controlling about 38% of the total land area, four-fifths of which belongs to
            the State. Of the remaining privately-held land, six large owners account for
            33.6%, or 22.6% of the total area of the State!

                  Since 1970, tourism has been the mainstay of Hawaii's economy. In
            1989, over 6.5 million tourists visited Hawaii, accounting for $10.9 billion in
            annual expenditures, or approximately 40% of the gross state product.
            Because of its location, Hawaii attracts both mainland, or westbound, visitors
            and Asian, or eastbound, visitors. Currently, the State is experiencing a boom
            economy, with unemployment under 3%.

                  Tourism in Hawaii is heavily dependent on the high quality natural and
            scenic features of the islands. Most tourist attractions, such as fishing,
            boating, SCUBA diving, swimming, surfing, hotels and resorts, are either
            totally dependent on or greatly enhanced by coastal locations. Hawaii's
            residents are also drawn to the coast for recreational and economic
            opportunities, such as fishing, swimming, picnicking, camping and paddling.
            Given the pleasant climate, most of these recreational activities take place
            yearround. '

                  Decisions about the appropriate locations for future development and
            uses have important implications both for the current economic health of the
            State and for the long-term attractiveness of the islands as a place to live and
            visit. Understanding coastal zone management within the context of Hawaii's
            unique natural and social environments is important. In Hawaii, the coastal
            zone extends from the seaward limit of the State's jurisdiction across the
            entire land area of the Statel with the exception of the State forest reserves
            and some federal lands.    While coastal programs in other states manage areas
            ranging from coastal watersheds to a coastal strip less than a mile wide,
            coastal zone management in Hawaii translates, in essence, to island ecosystem
            management. Coordinating and guiding the complex network necessary for
            the successful management of Hawaii's diverse resources require sufficient
            flexibility and foresight to ensure a balance between preservation and
            development of these unique coastal and marine environments.



                                                  3








                                 EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE


                In 1983, President Reagan proclaimed the 200-mile exclusive economic
           zone (EEZ), guaranteeing that ocean resources, even at great distances from
           land, could be developed for the economic benefit of our nation. The
           proclamation also led coastal states, commonwealths, and territories to
           reassess the interrelationship of the ocean with their economic and
           environmental interests.


                Hawaii has been at the nation's forefront in ocean policy planning. We
           have addressed, and will continue to address, ocean resources management in
           our State Constitution, in our statutes, and in our administrative actions.


                In 1988, the State's voters approved an amendment to the State
           Constitution declaring that the State of Hawaii:


                ...asserts and reserves its rights and interests in its exclusive economic
                zone for the purposes of exploring, conserving and managing natural
                resources both living and non-living, of the seabed and subsoil, and
                superadjacent waters.


                This statement is the underlying principle of our State's ocean
           management policies. These policies are also based upon our belief that ocean
           currents and natural processes know no boundaries. What occurs at some
           distance from our shores may have eventual impact on State land and water
           resources. And, beyond the more obvious environmental and cultural
           interrelationships, existing and future EEZ activities do indeed have the
           potential to significantly affect our State's economy. When taken together, all
           of these factors lend legitimacy to our assertions for a proper role for the
           states, along with the Federal government, in managing our nation's EEZ.


                We have put our philosophical notions of shared management into
           practice in a number of ways. First, we have supported, and in some cases
           initiated, policy positions of the Pacific Basin Development Council, Western
           and National Governors' Associations and Coastal States Organization in
           advocating joint State/Federal efforts. Under the leadership of Governor John



                                              4








           Waihee, Hawaii will continue to bring the coastal states' interests to the
           attention of fellow governors and Congress through these organizations.


                Second, in December 1988, Governor Waihee signed a cooperative
           agreement with the Department of the Interior to establish a joint planning
           process for marine mineral mining in the EEZ surrounding Hawaii. (See
           attachment.) We continue to support these types of resource-related or
           regional working groups and have found them to be most helpful in achieving
           sound planning and state-oriented management practices.


                Third, Hawaii continues to play an active role in established joint
           management commissions and organizations such as the Western Pacific
           Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAQ. The Council, currently
           chaired by the Director of Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural
           Resources, is leading efforts to deal with the difficult issues of drift nets, long-
           line fishing, fisheries management and resource protection. The first action
           on a large scale to ban drift gillnetting, for example, was initiated in 1987 by
           WESPAC for the EEZs surrounding the American Flag Pacific Islands. The
           Council has given us yet another model for fostering joint resource
           management.


                Fourth, the Hawaii State Legislature passed the Ocean Resources
           Management Act in 1988, which mandated the integration of Hawaii's various
           ocean management programs under a single policy framework. The law
           charged an Ocean Resources Management Council to prepare an Ocean
           Resources Management Plan. The Plan, which was completed and submitted
           to the 1991 Hawaii State Legislature, calls for better ocean policy integration,
           operational coordination, and leadership in State government. We believe
           that coastal states, commonwealths and territories must continue
           demonstrating leadership qualities if they are to assume greater roles in
           ocean management.


                Finally, we have been working with the governments of American
           Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam through the Pacific Basin
           Development Council (PBDQ to develop regional ocean resources management
           policies and positions. These "American Flag Pacific Islands" have held annual
           Coastal Zone Management conferences since 1982. These and other ocean-


                                              5







           related meetings now attract representatives of other Pacific islands and
           serve as important policy planning forums. The recent establishment of
           PBDC's Regional Ocean, CZM, and EEZ Management Program (ROCEMP) was a
           natural outcome of these cooperative efforts.


                Full partnership can mean the states benefit from the use of public
           ocean resources.  Whether this is measured in economic benefits to a
           community, tax revenues from business, or protection for environmentally-
           sensitive resources,- there is a legitimate role for states, commonwealths, and
           territories in ensuring those benefits. Without sharing in such benefits, states
           will have difficulty exercising an enhanced role of public stewardship for the
           common property resources found in our nation's oceans.


                What we need, of course, is Congressional action to institute equitable
           and fair treatment for states, commonwealths, and territories in managing
           their ocean resources. There should be nothing but a shared management
           regime for our nation's oceans. As always, the operative question is whether
           or not Congress is willing to act. While awaiting the answer to the question,
           Hawaii will continue to urge the Coastal States Organization, the National and
           Western Governors' Associations, the Pacific Basin Development Council and
           others to maintain their leadership role by taking advantage of or creating
           "windows of opportunity."





















                                               6








                                      THE TERRITORIAL SEA


                 While the EEZ broadened the state's interests in ocean-related planning
           and management, the 1988 Presidential extension of the territorial sea from 3
           to 12 miles focused attention on the more fundamental issues of jurisdiction
           and governance. Hawaii, as with other states, seized the opportunity to
           respond to this presidential action by calling for Congressional clarification of
           the proclamation's jurisdictional effect. The State also took steps to pursue its
           own legislative and administrative policy initiatives.


                 First, the Western Governors' Association highlighted the fundamental
           issues involving the division of jurisdiction and the domestic implications of
           the proclamation.  Many questions of a legal nature or involving state interest
           and competence were raised by the President's action. The Western
           Governors' Association concluded in their 1989 policy resolution that these
           issues could best be addressed by a Congres si onally -mandated commission.
           Hawaii supports this position as an alternative to the establishment of a non-
           federal task force as described below.


                 Second, Hawaii has supported the Pacific Basin Development Council,
           Coastal States Organization, Western Governors' Association and Western
           Legislative Conference in their efforts to survey their memberships and
           advocate state-oriented positions on these issues.


                 Third, Hawaii's State Legislature in 1990 amended the definition of
           11state marine waters" in statutes to clearly indicate Hawaii's relationship to
           the newly-extended territorial sea.  State marine waters are now defined as
           extending from the upper reaches of the wash of the waves "...seaward to the
           limit of the State's police power and management authority, including the U.S.
           territorial sea, notwithstanding any law to the contrary."


                 Fourth, Hawaii has consistently taken positions on proposed
           Congressional action to address the EEZ and the territorial sea. We have:


           - opposed the Shurnway bill and its "status quo" position that coastal state
                 interest ends at 3 miles;
           - supported the Lowry bill, particularly since it would establish a National


                                                 7







                Oceans Policy Commission;
           ï¿½ supported amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act to-extend
                the management program to include the broadened territorial sea
                as the "wet side" of the coastal zone; and
           ï¿½ supported the introduction of Walter Jones' proposed legislation on the
                territorial sea with some suggested strengthening regarding the
                governance issue.


                Finally, in conjunction with a number of organizations, we have
           sponsored workshops on the EEZ and the territorial sea. We also
all        commissioned the preparation of six legal/policy studies on the domestic
           implications of the recent extension of the U.S. territorial sea. From the 1987
           gathering of American Flag Pacific Island Coastal Zone Management Program
           representatives and federal resource leaders in Honolulu to the 1991 William
           S. Richardson School of Law policy workshop on the territorial sea and the
           June 1991 Oregon Territorial Sea Symposium, Hawaii has played a key role in
           fostering discussion and dialogue on these important issues of mutual

           concern.



           Recommendations for Action


           Support a flexible approach to ocean management whether it be within the
           entire EEZ or the 3-12 mile extended territorial sea.


                Different states have different levels of interest in managing their ocean
           resources. The coastal states should be allowed to choose among various
           options. In this regard, we will continue to support the exclusive jurisdiction
           claims of island territories and commonwealths to unilaterally manage their
           EEZs. Such claims, of course, are subject to federal foreign affairs and national
           defense obligations, as well as a trust obligation on the part of these islands
           toward the citizens of the nation as a whole. The National Governors'
           Association recently amended its policy on ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
           protection to recognize the inherent jurisdictional rights and responsibilities
           of American Samoa and Guam, as well as the Commonwealth of the Northern
6          Mariana Islands, pertaining to the conservation, exploration and development
           of the resources in their exclusive economic zones.




                                               8









           The Coastal States Organization and the Western Governors' Association
           should promote Congressional action to recognize extended state,
           commonwealth and territorial jurisdiction over ocean resources.


                 Over the past several years, the Western Legislative Conference,
           Western Governors' Association, Pacific Basin Development Council, Coastal
           States Organization, National Coastal Resources Research and Development
           Institute and other organizations have conducted studies and policy
           development activities on ocean resources issues. Most of these efforts have
           recommended incr  eased state, commonwealth and territorial involvement in
           the development and management of these resources.


                 Technological advances facilitating ocean resources development and
           increasing conflicts between ocean users necessitate an improvement of
           existing management mechanisms.     An appropriate ocean governance scheme
           would emphasize shared management of ocean resources and uses between
           states, commonwealths and territories, and the federal government.  To this
           end, in the reauthorized CZMA, Congress specifically recognized ocean
           planning and management as an objective to be implemented through state,
           commonwealth and territorial CZM programs.


                 Hawaii- recommends the establishment of a non-federal task force to
           mount and coordinate a lobbying effort for increased jurisdiction. Such a
           cooperative effort would provide a broad base for enlisting Congressional
           support from coastal states, commonwealths and territories as well as inland
           states. The task force could develop a unified strategy, and members could
           use their respective organizations to press for Congressional action.



           Support the work of the proposed Ocean Governance Study Group, which is an
           outgrowth of the Territorial Sea Workshop held January 1991 in Honolulu.
           This would be parallel to, but not substituting for, any Congressional or State
           legislative action.


                 A three-university consortium consisting of the University of Hawaii's
           Richardson School of Law, the University of California Law School (Boalt Hall),


                                               9







           and the University of Delaware's College of Marine Studies, is drafting the
           study group's work proposal. The Ocean Governance Study Group will be
           aided in its work by a policy committee and a group of academic consultants
           from the United States and other countries facing similar challenges in ocean
           governance.  Recommendations and policy options, developed in consultation
           with the coastal states, regarding the territorial sea could emerge from this
           effort within the next few years.









































                                              10








                   PRECEPTS OF THE CZMA - A NEED FOR REAFFIRMATION


                 In response to the perceived degradation of the Nation's coastal areas,
           Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. In doing
           so, the Congress emphasized that the most rational and effective way to
           manage the coastal areas was through state, commonwealth, and territorial
           initiatives, since land and territorial sea uses are matters of state,
           commonwealth, and territorial discretion. As a result, the design of the CZMA
           was predicated on the notions of state, commonwealth, and territorial rights,
           self-determination and voluntary participation.   Congress also assured that
           the national interests would be met by requiring participating states,
           commonwealths, and territories to incorporate these interests into the state
           programs as a prerequisite for federal approval.    Congress intended for the
           national program to be a partnership not only between the federal
           government and the states, commonwealths, and territories, but also among
           the states, commonwealths, and territories themselves. In this way, the CZMA
           has been the model for intergovernmental relations in which the federal
           government supports and assists the states, commonwealths, and territories
           in carrying out their programs.


                 Recently, the federal administration has apparently diverted from the
           principles that originally united the states, commonwealths, and territories in
           the national CZM program. Although there has been no statutory change to
           the partnership concept, the federal proposal to institute competition in CZM
           threatens the very foundation of the program and has engendered a serious
           dispute over the roles and responsibilities of the federal 'government and the
           states, commonwealths, and territories.    Federal emphasis has shifted away
           from respect of the values and needs of the individual programs, and toward
           centralized value determination and priority setting.   This shift in
           management principles has created a serious philosophical conflict that could
           likely lead to the demise of the partnership concept of the CZMA.


                 The need to reaffirm the principles of the CZMA is extremely important
           to the American Flag Pacific Islands. As the center for world trade and
           economic growth shifts to the Pacific, the Pacific Islands must respond in a
           manner that will assure continued cultural, environmental, economic, social,
           and political harmony.     Increasing development and population pressures are


                                                I I







           leading to competition and conflict over the use of limited natural resources.
           In response, the Pacific Islanders are earnestly attempting to plan their
           preferred futures, as demonstrated at the 1991 Pacific Basin CZM Conference
           in American Samoa. We are committed to the awesome challenge of guiding,
           rather than falling victim to, the changes in the Pacific. We know that
           accountability for the consequences of action or inaction rests with us.
           Therefore, structuring our programs based on our own values and needs is
           critical.


                 Effective coastal and ocean resources management must consider the
           historical, cultural, economic, political and environmental contexts of each
           state, commonwealth, or territory, as well as broader national goals.  In 1989,
           Hawaii sponsored a conference to explore the implications of these issues.
           The conference helped identify mutual interests and concerns among the
           Pacific Islands and improve communication and assistance among the Island
           CZM programs. The sense of unity that emerged from the conference
           continues today. The ensuing framework for collaboration has enabled Pacific
           Islanders to discuss and resolve issues of mutual concern, share relevant
           information about coastal and ocean resource management, and address
           federal initiatives with a unified voice.


                 Hawaii continues to develop partnership principles and practices in our
           CZM   initiatives. We seek to foster coordination among our state network
           agencies. We cooperate with our Pacific neighbors in addressing issues of
           unique regional concern. We are also working with Congress and federal
           agencies to demonstrate our willingness and ability to manage our coastal and
           ocean resources, even beyond the U.S. territorial sea. For example, see the
           attached Cooperative Agreement Between the Department of Interior and the
           State of Hawaii for Marine Minerals Joint Planning and Review. As we deal
           with the continuing pressures of the new Pacific Era, we would like to further
           develop our partnership with the federal government. However, this is only
           possible if federal commitment to the precepts of the CZMA is renewed. Such
           a reaffirmation of the CZMA principles would reinstate the program as the
           model of successful intergovernmental relations.





                                               12








                       SECTION 309 - ENHANCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM


                 The new Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) offers
           an excellent opportunity to advance national interests through state,
           commonwealth, and territorial Coastal Zone Management (CZM) initiatives. In
           concept, this Enhancement Grants Program is better than the previous
           significant improvement task requirement because it detracts less from the
           core program and it more explicitly allows for multi-year focus on one or two
           high -priority resource management issues.    In assessing and prioritizing each
           of eight coastal management objectives, and then formulating a strategy to
           guide program changes that support attainment of one or more of these
           objectives, the states, commonwealths, and territories can improve their CZM
           programs.   Hawaii is concerned, however, that the proposed interstate
           competition to allocate program monies will significantly weaken the
           principles of partnership and self-determination espoused in the CZMA.


                 Allocating grants on a competitive basis implies the ability to
           objectively compare assessment and strategies for states, commonwealths and
           territories with geographical, cultural, environmental and political differences.
           The federal Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) envisions the
           following criteria to rate the quality of strategies: 1) the scope and value of
           the proposed program changes in terms of improved resource management;
           2) the technical merits of the strategies in terms of design and cost
           effectiveness; and 3) the likelihood of success, based on political climate, past
           performances and other factors.


                 Hawaii believes these criteria are entirely too subjective and cannot be
           equitably applied to the Pacific Islands. Why should OCRM, and not the
           states, commonwealths, and territories themselves, rate the value of the
           proposed program changes?      Is "value" dependent on the benefits to the
           federal government or to the resources of the states, commonwealths and
           territories? Does "scope" mean bigger is better? Often, a small but specific
           program change can be more effective, politically -acceptable, and of greater
           value than a larger, broadly-defined modification.


                 How can the federal government objectively evaluate the technical
           merits of strategies developed to meet specific state, commonwealth and


                                                13








           territorial needs? Technologies designed to address coastal resource issues
           prevalent on the continental U.S. do not necessarily transfer to island
           environments.   Likewise, technologies adopted for Pacific island environments
           may not be applicable on the mainland. Furthermore, cost effectiveness can
           vary according to geography and level of economic development.


                 Given the variability among the states, commonwealths and territories,
           how can ORCM reasonably compare these strategies in terms of likelihood of
           success?   The strategies must incorporate individual states, commonwealth
           and territories' unique goals and objectives, and address particular challenges;
           therefore, the success of any program changes must be examined within the
           context of uncertainty.  A more important consideration should be the
           willingness to recognize coastal problems, issues and opportunities, and
           quickly respond to them.    Effective responses may necessarily involve some
           degree of risk. To think otherwise is to oversimplify the complexities of the
           socio-political environment in which resource management decisions are
           made.


                 OCRM's guidance for assessments and strategies indicates that the
           development and focus of the assessment will involve extensive consultation
           between each state, commonwealth and territory, and OCRM to reflect a
           balance between local and federal interests.   Specifically, Section 309(d)(1)
           reads:


                 Within 12 months following the date of enactment of this section, and
                 consistent with the notice and participation requirements established in
                 section 317, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations concerning
                 coastal zone enhancement grants that establish--(l) specific and
                 detailed criteria that must be addressed by a coastal state (including the
                 State's priority needs for improvement as identified by the Secretary
                 after careful consultation with the State) as part of the State's
                 development and implementation of coastal zone enhancement
                 objectives.


                 We have no objection to OCRM defining how the section will be
           implemented, provided the guidance is consistent with the principles of the
           CZMA. However, we do not believe that the implementation of Section 309 as


                                                14







           currently proposed gives the states, commonwealths and territories adequate
           latitude to determine their own priority needs.   The states, commonwealths
           and territories must be free to formulate their own programs, subject to
           OCRM evaluation to assure conformance with the enhancement objectives.


                 The CZMA was predicated on the belief that the states, commonwealths
           and territories are in the best position to manage their coastal resources.
           Expecting OCRM to understand the specific circumstances influencing the
           management of coastal resources in each locale is unrealistic. The states,
           commonwealths and territories should be able to determine their own needs
           and priorities, subject to OCRM review for conformance with national policies.
           Federally -established criteria for rating state, commonwealth and territorial
           strategies do not have the flexibility necessary to assure relevance to
           particular island environments. OCRM's method of evaluating and ranking
           grant proposals based on these criteria does not characterize a politically-
           acceptable and subs tantively-sound approach to improving the management
           of coastal resources.


                 In order for the Enhancement Grants Program to be successful,
           relevance and equity must be assured through flexible, but essential,
           statements of objectives.   In addition, the competition that degenerates
           partnerships and produces fear, frustration, and anger must be removed from
           the funding allocation process. Further, with OCRM's guidance, states,
           commonwealths and territories must be free to determine their own priority
           needs for improving their individual CZM programs. Finally, adequate
           financial grants to the often under-staffed CZM network agencies must be
           awarded, since Section 309 does not provide funding for the personnel
           necessary to achieve program objectives.    Within such a cooperative
           framework, we are prepared and willing to help design an enhancement
           program that can be mutually beneficial.










                                                15








                           CZMA SECTION 6217:
              COASTAL NONPOINT- POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM


            Hawaii recognizes that nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is a significant
        factor in nearshore water degradation. Hawaii's coastal waters sustain
        sedimentation, nutrient-loading and other impacts from erosion, agricultural
        and urban runoff, and leachates. Section 6217 of the amended CZMA
        provides an important management tool to address these concerns.


            Section 6217 requires each state with an approved CZM program to
        develop and submit for approval a coastal nonpoint pollution control program.
        The intent is to strengthen the links between federal and state CZM and water
        quality programs and to enhance state and local endeavors to manage land
        uses that impact coastal waters and habitats. Hawaii welcomes this
        opportunity to improve the quality of . the nearshore environment in an
        integrated and collaborative manner.


            The coastal waters mean many things to our multi-cultural society. The
        ocean continues to provide food, recreation, and open space for residents and
        visitors alike, while our clean water and fresh air make us one of the
        healthiest states in the country. Obviously, Hawaii's economy is intricately
        linked to its surrounding ocean. The tourism industry, the State's economic
        mainstay, is , almost entirely dependent on excellent water quality and a
        healthy environment. Aquaculture, commercial and recreational fisheries,
        and marine education and research also depend on sustained water quality.
        Further degradation of this water quality would likely have a devastating
        impact on our visitor industry and economy in general. Clearly, Hawaii must
        adopt effective management measures to prevent further deterioration of this
        important resource by nonpoint sources of pollution.


            Such management measures, however, must incorporate factors related
        to Hawaii's unique setting. Hawaii and the other American Flag Pacific
        Islands differ from the mainland coastal states in terms of climate,
        geomorphology, natural environment, geography, political history, and
        demographics. Areas of the Big Island of Hawaii, for example, are underlaid
        with intricate networks of lava tubes that transport groundwater, along with
        any pollutants that have leached through the porous lava rock, great


                                 16







           distances to the ocean. To cite another example, because of the perennial
           growing season, herbicides and pesticides are used throughout the year, and
           some streams on Oahu exhibit consistently high levels of these substances.


                These types of differences pose unique NPS pollution challenges and
           require innovative management solutions.     State coastal nonpoint pollution
           control programs must implement enforceable management measures that
           are in conformity with the EPA/NOAA guidance and are established under
           state, commonwealth or territorial law.  Hawaii is concerned that the federal
           guidance may not grant states, commonwealths and territories adequate
           flexibility to implement management measures that address their individual
           situations.


                 A nonpoint pollution control program will present additional challenges
           to the agencies tasked with its implementation. In Hawaii, these county
           agencies are already stretching their staff and financial resources to
           undertake current enforcement responsibilities.  The agencies will be hard-
           pressed to take on additional programmatic responsibilities without
           supplemental CZM    grants. Adequate Congressional funding must accompany
           new program requirements.     We look forward to overcoming these challenges
           in order to benefit the quality of Hawaii's nearshore environment.























                                                17








                                        COASTAL AMERICA


                 Coastal America has been hailed as a federal initiative promoting
           cooperative federal agency partnerships in order to improve current response
           to known coastal problems and management issues. The Department of
           Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, and
           National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are involved; the
           President's Council on Environmental Quality is helping to coordinate the
           effort.  Because Coastal America is essentially predicated on the substantive
           CZMA goals, a focus on federal responsibilities and activities that would
           complement the CZMA and state, commonwealth, and territorial efforts in
           coastal management would be appropriate.


                 Hawaii supports the goals of the program, but raises concerns about
           aspects of its implementation.   First, Hawaii believes that implementation of
           the program is inconsistent with the CZMA principles of promoting
           state/federal partnerships and self-determination.   Many of the programs
           being touted as part of Coastal America were developed without consultation
           with the states, commonwealths or territories.    Indeed, some of the projects
           under the program were proposed before the idea of Coastal America
           emerged.    Moreover, the process of consultation with states, commonwealths
           and territories in the further development of the program has been poor.
           Further, fiscal leveraging to encourage coastal states, commonwealths and
           territories to carry out federal interests and priorities that may not coincide
           with local values, priorities and needs does not uphold CZMA principles. The
           federal administration's standing with the community should not be enhanced
           at the expense of the state, commonwealth,. and territorial CZM programs.


                 Secondly, there is concern that funding for Coastal America is in
           competition with the base funding for CZMA Section 306 programs. A
           probable situation could emerge in which a state, commonwealth or territorial
           CZM program would have to abandon a Coastal America opportunity in order
           to concentrate on a necessary local initiative. Existing state, commonwealth,
           and territorial CZM programs should not be jeopardized in favor of a new
           federal initiative with a remote perspective.




                                                18







                Last but not least, we are troubled by the exclusion of island
           representation on the Southwest regional implementation team, composed of
           California and the American Flag Pacific Islands. We are not convinced that
           non-islanders can adequately represent our values, needs, and perspectives.


                 Hawaii recommends that the Coastal America program be redesigned to
           further embody the principles of the CZMA. The program should look beyond
           funding local activities, to broader goals of developing a cooperative federal
           partnership that assists states, commonwealths, and territories in their coastal
           affairs. Cooperation should be emphasized, and states, commonwealths and
           territories must be given flexibility to help design programs relevant to local
           values, cultures and needs.  Monies that supplement existing Section 306
           funding will signal federal commitment to the concept of joint partnership.
           Within this conceptual framework, Hawaii is prepared and willing to work
           with the federal administration in developing the Coastal America program.






























                                               19









                                            ATTACHMENT





                                          COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
                                               BETWEEN THE
                                        DEPART11ENT OF-THE INTERIOR
                                                 AND THE
                                             STATE OF HAWAII
                                                   FOR
                                MARINE MINERALS JOINT PLANNING AND REVIEW




                       Backqround

                       The Department of the Interior (DOI) and the State of Hawaii
                       established a task force in January 1984 to study the feasi-
                       bility and environmental impacts of developing the cobalt-rich
                       manganese crusts on submerged lands offshore Hawaii and
                       Johnston Island.


                       Under the guidance of the task forcel the State of Hawaii
                       under DOI contract completed a preliminary resource assess-
                       ment and a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
                       leasing manganese crust resources. The public comment period
                       on the draft EIS closed in February 1988 and the final EIS
                       is expected to be completed in January 1989.

                       Building on this cooperative effort, the State of Hawaii and
                       the DOI agree to an approach to promote future State-Federal
                       consultation, planning, and coordination on marine minerals
                       matters to ensure that the State of Hawaii's concerns are
                       fully addressed and national and State interests are served-

                       This agreement is intended to lead to an effective form of
                       joint management between the State and the DOI in the develop-
                       ment and implementation of future manganese crust exploration,
                       leasing, and mining programs. It will also involve the State
                       in technical aspects of all future activities relating to
                       exploration and development of the offshore cobalt-rich
                       manganese crust deposits.

                       Marine Minerals Joint Planning Arrangement

                       The State of Hawaii and the DOI agree to the following arrange-
                       ment for joint planning, review, and management of Exclusive
                       Economic Zone (EEZ) marine minerals matters of mutual interest.
                       Establishment of this working arrangement shall in no way
                       diminish any authority of either the Governor or the Secretary
                       of the Interior, nor is it viewed by the State of Hawaii as
                       a substitute for eventual stand-alone marine mining legislation









                                           -2-



                  by Congress.which would provide to the States not only joint
                  management but also revenue sharing. Thus, the intent of this
                  working arrangement is to facilitate effective cooperation and
                  resolve issues related to.EEZ mining in the interim.

                  A.. Title

                       Hawaii Marine Minerals Joint Planning Arrangement (JPA).

                  B.   Structure and Membership

                       1.   Two committees will-comprise the JPA:

                             The Cooperative Steering Committee (CSC) will prepare
                             joint plans, resolve issues, and work directly with
                             DOI and State decisionmakers on programs and.policy
                             issues. The chairmanship of the CSC will rotate
                             annually between State and Federal members.

                             The Coordination Committee (CC) will coordinate project
                             activities as well as provide technical support for the
                             CSC on tasks herein described. This committee would be
                             cochaired by a State member as designated by the
                             Governor and a DOI Minerals Management Service (MMS)
                             member as designated by the Director of HHS.

                       2.   CSC Membership

                            - State of Hawaii (designated by the Governor)

                            - U.S. DOI (designated by the Secretary)

                            - The two Cochairs of the Coordination Committee


                       3.   CC Membership


                            OFFICIAL:


                            - State of Hawaii, Department of Business and Economic
                             Development (cochair)

                            - MMS, Pacific OCS Region (cochair)

                            - MMS, Office of Strategic and International Minerals

                            - U.S. Geological Survey

                            - U.S. Fish and Vildlife Service


                            - U.S. Bureau of Mines









                                                      -3-




                                  -.Hawaii office of State Planning

                                  - Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources

                                  - Hawaii Department of Health

                                  - University  of Hawaii



                                  EX OFFICIO:


                                    Candidates for ex officio membership will be selected
                                    from State, Federal, and private sectors as necessary
                                    to ensure that the many interests in the region have
                                    the opportunity to participate. "Advisors" to the
                                    current task force would all be candidates for,ex-
                                    officio membership.


                                  CC STAFF SUPPORT:


                                    Staff to fulfill this role is to be nominated by the
                                    State and concurred in by both committees of the JPA.

              III.      Objectives

                        To resolve EEZ marine mining issues of interest to the State of
                        Hawaii and the DOI, to develop coordinated program and policy
                        positions,  to develop coordinated legislative and regulatory
                        initiatives, and to oversee activities related to the leasing
                        and development of mineral resources offshore of Hawaii and
                        Johnston Island.



               IV.      Tasks


                        In furtherance of these objectives, but with the understanding
                        that ultimate  'issues of jurisdiction remain to be resolved,
                        and that this arrangement is subject to and in no way diminishes
                        any authority of either the Governor or the Secretary of the
                        Interior, the JPA will:

                        A. Action, Procedural Planning, and Review

                            1.    Resolve issues regarding the size, timing, and location
                                  of any proposed lease sale.

                            2.    Resolve issues regarding the appropriate terms, con-
                                  ditions, and stipulations for leasing.

                            3.    Resolve issues regarding environmental problems and
                                  concerns.










                                                  -4-



                           .4- Review exploration, development, and production plans
                               and propose appropriate modifications after consulta-
                               tion with the concerned industrial group(s).

                           5.  Participate in shipboard inspections and review
                               violations, with inspections contracted to the State
                               where feasible.


                           The resolution of issues within the JPA will be on a con-
                           sensus basis.


                       B.  Research and Study Needs

                           Identify', assess, and recommend research and studies dedi-
                           cated to mineral resource evaluation and to the formulation
                           of lease stipulations for environmental impact assessment
                           and mitigation. Such formal JPA assessments and recommen-
                           dations will be given a high priority in the formulation
                           of MMS and State budgets and programmatic initiatives.

                       C.  Site-specific EIS's and Environmental Assessments.

                           Design, supervise and review all site-specific environ-
                           mental assessments. Review and, where possible, resolve
                           issues related to onshore impacts. Supervise and review
                           any necessary environmental impact documentation to include
                           consideration of mitigation measures.

                       D.  Information Transfer and Public Education


                           Devise a public education program to inform State residents
                           of developments in the marine mining program. This would
                           include forums for the presentation of exploration, develop-
                           ment, and production plans and discussions of alternative
                           energy source options for onshore minerals processing. It
                           would also include periodic public meetings to review
                           coordinated activities and workshops and symposia to review
                           the scope and results of studies.

                V.     Funding and Staff Support

                       The MMS will provide necessary funding for staff support of the
                       JPA. Each party will assume responsibility for salary and
                       travel expenses of its members.



               Vi.     Triannual Review and Dissolution Procedures


                       At the end of every 3-year period, the CSC will reassess the
                       goals and objectives of the JPA and make recommendations to the
                       Governor and the Secretary of the Interior concerning the need
                       for its continuance.










                   Dissolution-of the JPA may occur with 30 days' notice from the
                   Governor or the Secretary of the Interior. The notice shall be
                   provided to all JPA members and shall explain the reason for the
                   decision.









            GOVERNOR, STATE OF HAWAII                SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR


                                                        OEC 2 9 1988
              December 28, 1988
            DATE                                     DATE






                                                                                                                                 OAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                                3 6668 14111033 0













































                                                                                                                                                                              40