564 



period in November. It was considered in executive session of the full 

 committee on December 12, 1974 and was ordered favorably reported 

 to the Senate on the same day. 

 ^eed for Increased Authonzation for Section 305 Grants 



S. 3922 would raise the authorization ceiling for section 305 grants 

 from $9 million to $12 million. Experience gained during the initial 

 stages of the Act's existence indicates that the current maximum an- 

 nual authorization of $9 million for program development grants will 

 be inadequate during fiscal year 1975. In fiscal year 1974, coastal States 

 applying to NOAA for management program development grants re- 

 ceived, on the average, approximately $2 million less than the amount 

 which States were prepared to match from their own resources. Fur- 

 thermore, information provided by the States with regard to their 

 anticipated second year requirements (fiscal year 1975) indicates that 

 most States will need approximately $2 million more in their second 

 year as they move to complete their coastal zone management 

 programs. 



In addition the energy crisis has increased dramatically the need for 

 coastal States to accelerate the development of their coastal zone man- 

 agement programs in order to cope with the anticipated impacts of 

 accelerated offshore oil and gas development, deepwater port construc- 

 tion, and associated onshore support facilities, such as refineries, tank 

 farms, and pipelines. 



In recent hearings conducted by the National Ocean Policy Study 

 pursuant to S. Res. 222, testimony was heard from various representa- 

 tives of the public, industry and government emphasizing the Coastal 

 Zone INIanagement Act as a major decisionmaking tool to be employed 

 by States and local governments in the control of diiect, secondary, 

 and tertiary onshore and nearshore impacts of offshore energy de- 

 velopment. A recent Ocean Policy Study staff report based on the 

 hearings concluded that — 



States and communities adjacent to past and present off- 

 shore oil developments have incurred significant environ- 

 mental, economic, and social costs. Direct costs include 

 environmental degradation from the siting of pipeline ter- 

 minals, tank storage farms, supply bases, petrochemical plants 

 and other hydrocarbon-related facilities in the coastal zone. 

 Substantial risks of large-scale accidental pollution from oil 

 spills also face coastal States, as do the largely unknown 

 effects of chronic low-level discharges of oil into the marine 

 environment. Indirect effects include changes in land use 

 (including loss of valuable wetlands), shifting populations 

 and employment patterns, housing demand, and the required 

 expansion of public facilities such as schools, roads, police and 

 fire protection * * * 



In addition, a report on the environmental impacts of OCS oil and 

 gas development released in the spring by the Council on Environ- 

 mental Quality found that — 



