Page images
PDF
EPUB

for public participation and coordination with other agencies and organizations and fostered research on shoreline and estuarine resources. $5,000,000 annually would be authorized for operation and planning grants.

The Administrator of NOAA would also be authorized to enter into agreements to underwrite loans or bond issues, and to pay for a five-year period up to 25% of amortization charges or loan interests, with respect to such loans or issues, for the purpose of land acquisition, water development, or restoration projects in connection with the implementation of an approved plan. Two million dollars ($2,000,000) per year would be authorized for this purpose.

Grant funds would be allocated among coastal States according to regulations based on the populations of such States, the size of the coastal or estuarine areas, and the respective financial needs of the States.

H.R. 2493

This bill would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to award grants to coastal States for the development of management plans and programs for the land and water resources of the coastal zone. Such grants would not exceed 6643% of the planning costs. If the Secretary found that a plan was consistent with implementation plans under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 ; that provision for public notice and hearings on the plan and program had been made; that the plan and program had been reviewed and approved by the Governor; that a single agency would administer and implement the management plan and program; that the State had the necessary authority to implement the program, including controls over public and private development; and that the program would carry out the purposes of the bill, he would be authorized to make annual grants for the costs of administering the program, with the same maximum percentages as planning grants.

With the Secretary's approval, States would be authorized to develop plans in segments so as to focus attention on problem areas, and to revise plans to meet changed conditions. Grants could be terminated if the Secretary determined that a State was failing to implement its plan and program.

Additional provisions would require the Secretary, before approving programs, to consult with Federal agencies principally involved. Federal agencies conducting or supporting activities in the coastal zone would be required to "seek to make such activities consistent with the approved State management plan and program for the area.” Federal development activities in the coastal zone would be prohibited if the coastal State deemed such activities inconsistent with a management plan unless the Secretary found such project consistent with the objectives of the bill, or in cases where the Secretary of Defense determined that the project was necessary in the interests of national security. Applicants for Federal licenses or permits to conduct any activity in the coastal zone would be required to obtain a certification from the appropriate State agency that the proposed activity was consistent with the coastal zone management plan and program.

The Secretary would be required to submit an annual report to the President for transmittal to the Congress on the administration of the Act.

H.R. 2493 would also authorize the establishment of "estuarine sanctuaries" for the purpose of studies of natural and human processes occurring within the coastal zone, and would provide for grants by the Secretary of up to 50% of the costs of acquisition, development, and operation of such sanctuaries.

H.R. 3615

This bill is derived from S. 3183, the Administration's proposed coastal zone management bill introduced in the 91st Congress.

H.R. 3615 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make program development grants to the costal States to assist in developing comprehensive management programs for their coastal zones. Grants would be limited to 50 per cent of the State's cost of developing the program (to a maximum limit of $1,000,000 per year for each coastal State). Other Federal funds could not be used to match such grants. The initial and subsequent grants would be, respectively, conditioned on a demonstration that the funds would be used to develop a comprehensive management program consistent with the requirement of section 202(d) (3) of the bill, and on a finding that the coastal State was adequately and expeditiously developing such a program. Upon completion of the development of the program the coastal State would be required to submit it to the Secretary for review.

Operating grants up to 50 per cent of costs of administering the program (to a maximum limit of $1,000,000 per year for each coastal State) would be authorized by section 202 (d) (1) if the State's program were approved by the Secretary. Operating grants would be allotted to the States on the basis of regulations de veloped by the Secretary, taking into accout the amount and nature of the coastline and area covered by the management plan, population, and other relevant factors. No grant funds could be used for the acquisition of real property.

Before approving a State's comprehensive management program, the Secretary would be required to find that the Governor had designated a single agency to receive and administer grants for implementing its management plan; that the management plan had been reviewed and approved by the Governor; that the coastal State was organized to implement the management plan; that the agency or agencies responsible for implementing the management plan had the necessary regulatory authority; that the coastal State had developed and adopted a coastal zone management plan, and that it had provided for adequate public notice and hearings in the development of its management plan.

Each coastal State's management plan would be required to: identify the area covered by the management plan; identify and recognize the national, State, and local interests in the preservation, use, and development of the coastal zone; contain a feasible land and water use plan reasonably reflecting short-term and long-term public and private requirements for use of the coastal zone ; describe the coastal State's current and planned programs for the management of its coastal zone; identify and describe the means for coordinating the plan with Federal, State, and local plans for use, conservation, and management of the coastal zone, including State, interstate, and regional comprehensive planning ; reflect the State's procedures for review of State, local, and private projects in the coastal zone for consistency with the plan and for advising whether Federal and federally assisted projects are consistent with the plan; describe the State's procedures for modification and change of the management plan ; indicate that the plan was developed in cooperation with relevant Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, and all other interests; describe the procedures for regular review and updating of the plan; contain adequate provisions for disseminating information concerning the plan and subsequent modifications or changes; and provide for conducting, fostering, or utilizing relevant research.

The Governor of a coastal State would be authorized, with the Secretary's approval, to allocate portions of a program development grant or operating grant to an interstate agency if such agency had authority to perform the functions required of a coastal State under the bill.

Section 202(e) would require the Secretary to review the management program and performance of the coastal States and would authorize him to terminate and withdraw financial assistance, after notice and opportunity to present evidence, where a coastal State unjustifiably failed to adhere to the program approved by the Secretary.

Section 202(g) would direct all Federal agencies conducting or supporting activities in coastal areas to make such activities consistent with the approved plan for the area, and would require such agencies to refrain from approving proposed projects inconsistent with the plan without a finding that the proposals, on balance, were sound.

The Secretary would be required to develop a comprehensive management plan for the resources of the coastal zone beyond the territorial sea. Such plans would provide for the exploitation of living marine resources, mineral resources, and fossil fuels.

H.R. 6605

H.R. 6605 would create a National Coastline Conservation Commission, consisting of two representatives from each coastal State, one representative from each interested executive department, and five representatives from the public at large, who would be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commission would be required to prepare a comprehensive study of all factors significantly affecting the present and future status of the coastal-marine zone, including all relevant natural and physical characteristics, all non-economic human activities and needs, all industrial, economic and commercial needs, existing legislation and regulations, and geological and demo

graphic factors affecting the coastal zone. The Commission would be further required to consider the powers necessary for balanced conservation and development of the coastal zone, and which agency or agencies would be appropriate to exercise such powers.

After the preparation of the comprehensive study, the Commission would be required to prepare a comprehensive, coordinated and enforceable plan and management program for the conservation and development of the coastol zone. Before any part of plan could be adopted, the Commission would be required to hold public hearings in all areas affected by the plan, and general public hearings on the plan itself. Such plans would set forth the results of the comprehensive study, recommended policies for the coastal zone, powers consistent with those policies, recommended agencies to carry out the plan, and legislative and budgetary actions necessary.

While completing the plan and management program, the Commission would be authorized to comment upon and seek to influence proposed actions in the coastalmarine zone.

The Commission would be required to file an annual report with the President and the Congress no later than December 31 of each year.

EPA believes that the time for studies of the coastal zone is past. Two major studies have already been completed of these areas which document in detail the actions which would be required to protect them. The "National Estuarine Pollution Study,” which was developed for the Secretary of the Interior by the Federal Water Quality Administration, now a component of EPA, concluded that urbanization and industrialization, combined with unplanned development in the estuarine zone, have resulted in severe damage to the estuarine eco-system. In addition, the “National Estuary Study,” developed for the Secretary by the Fish and Wildlife Service, identified the need for a new thrust on the side of natural and aesthetic values in the Nation's estuarine areas. Clearly, we need to ensure that environmental values are adequately protected in such areas. In this connection, however, we are aware that land-use planning can affect all areas, not simply estuarine areas, and that adequate planning for preservation of estuarine and coastal areas can only be effective if the full range of alternatives to development in such areas can be considered. In other words, estuarine and coastal planning must be considered within the larger context of land-use planning State-wide.

Accordingly, EPA does not recommend the enactment of legislation which would deal only with development and other activities in the coastal zone. Controls are needed over all aspects of land use which can affect delicate or endangered areas of environmental concern. Such controls would be provided by H.R. 4332, the Administration's proposed "National Land Use Policy Act of 1971."

H.R. 4332 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make grants of up to 50% of cost to assist the States in developing and managing land use programs. Programs would be required to include methods for inventorying and exercising control over the use of land within areas of critical environmental concern, including coastal zones and estuaries. States would also be required to develop a system of controls of regulations to ensure compliance with applicable environmental standards and implementation plans.

EPA favors the approach embodied in H.R. 4332, which incorporates provisions for the protection of the coastal and estuarine areas into its more comprehensive scheme. At the same time, we recognize that the coastal zone is an area of special concern, where prompt and effective action is required. Heavy pressures for further development, coupled with the fragility of coastal and estuarine areas, make it imperative that we move immediately to protect these areas. The system authorized by H.R. 4332 will permit a high priority for coastal zone planning within its larger context of land use planning and programs. We therefore urge prompt Congressional approval of H.R. 4332, and recommend that the bills discussed previously not be enacted.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely,

WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, Administrator.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, D.C., June 28, 1971. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : By letter of May 5, 1971, you requested our comments on H.R. 2492, 92d Congress, which would amend the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966, as amended, to provide for the effective management of the Nation's coastal and estuarine areas by adding title III which, if enacted, would be cited as the “Coastal and Estuarine Area Management Act."

We have no information as to the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed legislation and therefore we have no recommendation with respect to its enactment. However, we have the following comments concerning specific provisions of the bill.

Section 303(c) authorizes the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency to enter into agreement with any coastal State to underwrite, by guarantee, bonds issued or loans obtained by such State for land acquisition, water development, or restoration projects undertaken by such State in connection with the implementation of a coastal or estuarine management plan. We believe that the bill should prescribe the terms and conditions of the bond issues or loans that may be guaranteed by the Administrator. We also believe that an aggregate principal amount of guaranteed bonds and loans that may be outstanding at any time should be stated in the bill. Further, assuming that the appropriations authorized by section 308 (b) relate to activities under section 303(C) (2), the bill makes no provision for the possibility that the liability for payments under section 303 (c) (2) might exceed the amounts appropriated. Also it does not identify the recourse or rights of the Federal Government in the event of any defaults.

Section 304(a)(1)(A) of the bill lists factors to be considered in the determination of allotments among participating coastal States. The committee may wish to be more specific as to the financial needs which the Administrator is to take into consideration in the making of allotments and the relative weight to be accorded to the three factors listed in this section.

Section 304(c)(1) contains a list of Federal assistance programs with which coordination must be assured by the Administrator. The committee may wish to add the following acts to that list: the Clean Air Act, as amended; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; and the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1985, as amended.

Section 306 (5) defines "coastal State" as any of the several States which include coastal or estuarine areas within their boundaries, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. We assume that it is not intended to include the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and the Panama Canal Zone.

Sections 303(a) and (b) of the bill would provide the Administrator with authority to make grants to any coastal authority to carry out the purposes of the proposed legislation. There is no provision in the bill, however, authorizing the Administrator or the Comptroller General or their representatives to have access to the books and records of the recipients of the Federal grants for the purpose of audit and examination. Such authority is provided to Federal grantor agencies and the Comptroller General with respect to grants-in-aid to States pursuant to section 202 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1101. We recommend that similar authority be provided with respect to recipients of funds under the proposed legislation. This could be accomplished by the following language :

“Each recipient of a grant under this Act shall keep such records as the Administrator may prescribe, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of the proceeds of such grant, the total cost of the project or undertaking in connection with which such grant is made or used, the amount of that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such records as will facilitate an effective audit.

"The Administrator and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipient of any grant under this Act which are pertinent to any such grant." On page 2, line 24, “Agency' should be “Administration." Sincerely yours,

ROBERT F. KELLER, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., June 11, 1971. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for our comments on H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493, and H.R. 3615, similar bills to assist the States in their establishment of coastal zone management plans and programs.

Because we recognize a real and urgent need for comprehensive land use planning, which would include the coastal zone and estuaries, we recommend the enactment of this Administration's National Land Use Policy Act of 1971, now pending as H.R. 4332, H.R. 4437, H.R. 4569 and H.R. 5504, in lieu of H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493 or H.R. 3615.

H.R. 2492 and H.R. 2493 would both amend the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 (33 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) by adding a new Title III, to be cited as the “Coastal and Estuarine area Management Act" and the "National Coastal and Estuarine Zone Management Act of 1971", respectively. Consistent with a Congressional declaration that there is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the Nation's coastal and estuarine zone, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (H.R. 2492) or the Secretary of Commerce (H.R. 2493) would be authorized to assist coastal States in the development and administration of an approved management plan and program. No such program could be approved without a finding that the coastal State has legal authority and institutional organization adequate for the management of its coastal zone. H.R. 2492 would authorize grants not to exceed 50% of two years' operating expenses for a coastal authority, and a like percentage annually for long-range planning or implementation of a management program. H.R. 2493 would authorize cost-sharing grants of 6623% for development and subsequent administration of an approved management program.

Both bills would provide for bond and loan guarantees to facilitate land acquisition, land and water development, and restoration projects. In addition, H.R. 2493 provides for appointment of a fifteen-member advisory Committee and Federal assistance in the States' acquisition of estuarine sanctuaries.

H.R. 3615 would amend the so-called Estuary Protection Act of August 3, 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) by adding a second title, the “National Estuarine and Coastal Zone Management Act of 1971".

The Secretary of the Interior would make grants not to exceed 50% of costs for program development and operation, and would be directed to develop a comprehensive Federal plan for that portion of the coastal zone beyond the territorial sea. There is provision, too, for the appointment of advisory committees to "consult with and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters of policy concerning the coastal zone".

As the result of two studies conducted by this Department and the Stratton Commission report, this Administration recommended that the 91st Congress enact legislation similar in concept to H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493 and H.R. 3615. We believed then, as we believe now, that the finite resources of our coastal and estuarine areas are threatened by population growth and economic development. At the Federal level, this Department had already been directed by the Estuary Protection Act of 1968 to conduct a study and inventory of the Nation's estuaries. As we reported to the Committee during the last Congress, it was a conclusion of our study and others that effective management of land and water resources could best be promoted by encouraging the States to accept a broadened responsibility for land use planning and management.

In its First Annual Report, the Council on Environmental Quality last August recognized "a need to begin shaping a national land use policy". In February of this year, the President urged that we "reform the institutional framework in which land use decisions are made”, and recommended enactment of a proposed "National Land Use Policy Act of 1971". It is the President's proposal that $20 million be authorized in each of the next five years to assist the States in establishing methods for protecting lands, including the coastal zone and estuaries, of critical environmental concern, methods for controlling large-scale development, and improving use of land around key facilities and new communities. "This proposal”, the President said, “will replace and expand my proposal submitted to

« PreviousContinue »