Page images
PDF
EPUB

COASTAL ZONI KAME

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

TO ESTABLIS

NATIONAL Ph

FICIAL TE PR

TAX AND WATER B

AND ESTUARINE BA

JUNE 23,2

[ocr errors]

5

1 with other agencies and organizations estuarine resources. $5,000,000 annually lanning grants.

also be authorized to enter into agreees, and to pay for a five-year period up interests, with respect to such loans or tion, water development, or restoration ntation of an approved plan. Two million authorized for this purpose.

ig coastal States according to regulations tes, the size of the coastal or estuarine s of the States.

R. 2493

retary of Commerce to award grants to of management plans and programs for the astal zone. Such grants would not exceed Secretary found that a plan was consistent e Clean Air Act, the Federal Water PolluVaste Disposal Act of 1965; that provision the plan and program had been made; that viewed and approved by the Governor; that r and implement the management plan and ecessary authority to implement the program, d private development; and that the program of the bill, he would be authorized to make dministering the program, with the same maxi

ants.

al, States would be authorized to develop plans ention on problem areas, and to revise plans to ts could be terminated if the Secretary determined lement its plan and program.

I require the Secretary, before approving programs, icies principally involved. Federal agencies conductin the coastal zone would be required to "seek to stent with the approved State management plan and deral development activities in the coastal zone would stal State deemed such activities inconsistent with a the Secretary found such project consistent with the r in cases where the Secretary of Defense determined ecessary in the interests of national security. Applicants permits to conduct any activity in the coastal zone would aa certification from the appropriate State agency that y was consistent with the coastal zone management plan

ould be required to submit an annual report to the President the Congress on the administration of the Act.

d also authorize the establishment of "estuarine sanctuaries" of studies of natural and human processes occurring within the d would provide for grants by the Secretary of up to 50% of quisition, development, and operation of such sanctuaries.

[graphic]

the Administration's proposed coastal zone

f the Interior to make program develdeveloping comprehensive manageuid be limited to 50 per cent of maximum limit of $1,000,000 uld not be used to match respectively, conditioned evelop a comprehensive section 202 (d) (3) of tely and expeditiously

passage through international straits or the sovereign immunity afforded certain vessels under international law.

Thirdly, under international law a nation has a right to exercise certain types of jurisdiction over portions of the seas. The United States at present claims a three-mile territorial sea in which, subject only to the right of innocent passage, and the sovereign immunity of certain vessels, the United States exercises complete jurisdictional control. From three to twelve miles international law recognizes a contiguous zone. Within such high-seas area the United States may exercise limited additional powers including control over fisheries, custom, fiscal, immigration and sanitation matters. Beyond these general and specialized jurisdictional zones, the United States may unilaterally exercise only exclusive sovereign rights over exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the continental shelf (Convention on the Continental Shelf. TIAS 5578) Extreme care must be taken to avoid the inference that the United States is attempting to extend unilateral control to offshore areas beyond that which is permitted by international law.

Further, the President has recently issued an ocean-policy statement which calls for current law-of-the-sea questions, most of which involve questions of the limits of permissible coastal state jurisdictional control, to be resolved in the context of a multilateral convention. This initiative has been actively pursued by the United States in the United Nations, and has resulted in a General Assembly Resolution calling for a new Law-of-the-Sea Conference to convene in 1973. For the United States at this time to enact legislation appearing to unilaterally extend its offshore jurisdiction could be looked upon by many nations as a sign of bad faith with respect to our commitment to resolve law-of-the-sea problems in a multilateral context.

To avoid the possibility of any legislation being expansively interpreted, which would violate both international law and stated U.S. policy, it should be made clear that the United States coastal zone extends seaward only to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea.

This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report on H.R. 2492 for the consideration of the Committee. For the Secretary of the Navy. Sincerely yours,

LANDO W. ZECH, Jr.,

Captain, U.S. Navy, Deputy Chief.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C., June 23, 1971.

Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ,

Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the comments of the Environmental Protection Agency on H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493, H.R. 3615, and H.R. 6605, bills relating to protection of coastal and estuarine areas.

H.R. 2492

H.R. 2492 would amend the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act to authorize the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make grants to "coastal authorities" established by States and having a broad interest in the development of coastal areas. Such grants would be authorized to pay up to 50 percent of the costs of operation of such an authority for the first two years of its existence. Further grants at the 50 percent level would be authorized upon the submission and approval of a proposal for long-range planning with respect to coastal and estuarine area management, or for the implementation of such a plan. In evaluating such proposals, the NOAA Administrator would be required to consider the extent to which they identified important areas, fostered multiple uses and provided methods for conflict resolution with respect to such uses, established machinery such as zoning, easements or land acquisition to ensure compliance with plans, provided

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 66%% 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 developed 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.

« PreviousContinue »