745 



19 



tioned earlier, coastal areas are also particularly conducive to the 

 siting of large-scale industries which require access to cooling water, 

 as do both nuclear and fossil-fueled powerplants. 



A report of the Great Lakes Basin Commission in February 1975, 

 pointed out : 



All of the Great Lakes States are aware of the importance 

 of the powerplant siting issue, and are in various stages of 

 resolving it * * * powerplant siting is an extremely important 

 issue in coastal zone management in the Great Lakes. The 

 States involved in coastal zone management in the Great 

 Lakes are aware of the importance of this problem and fully 

 intend to address it in their management program formula- 

 tion. 



In reporting on the role of energy facilities in California's coastal 

 zone, that State's Coastal Zone Conservation Commission — established 

 by voter referendum in 1972 and now the recipient of a Federal coastal 

 zone management grant — found that 90 percent of the total petroleum 

 refining capacity of that State is located within 10 miles of the coast. 

 New refineries would require as much as 1,000 to 1,700 acres each foi 

 actual use and a like amount of land for a buffer area. 



The California study also described the impacts of refineries on 

 fresh water supplies and on air quality. Further, a new refinery with 

 a modest capacity of 100.000 barrels per day would result— according 

 to an Army Corps of Engineer^ study cited in the California coastal 

 zone report — in an inflow of 1,100 workers, a population increase of 

 3,900, an indirect employment increase of 850 and an additional 850 

 students in public schools. 



The foregoing examples of coastal impacts from offshore oil de- 

 velopment and energy facilities, coupled with the excellent start 

 achieved by the States and the NO A A office coordinating the coastal 

 zone management program, have led the Committee to believe that 

 an expansion of that program offers the best possible mechanism for 

 dealing with such impacts. S. 586 provides the necessary amendments 

 to assist the States with planning for and coping with OCS and energy 

 impacts. 



Descriptiox of Key Provisions 



1. '"'•Federal Consistency'" 



The first amendment contained in S. 586 which seeks to strengthen 

 the States' ability to cope with OCS impacts is found in the "Federal 

 consistency" clause (section 307(cU3)). As presently written in the 

 law, this provision gives coastal State governors the opportunity to 

 determine whether the granting of specific Federal licenses or permits 

 would be consistent with State coastal zone management procrrams. 

 The Committee's intent when the 1972 Act was passed was for the con- 

 sistency clause to appiv to Federal lenses for offshore oil and gas 

 development, since such leases were viewed by the Committee to be 

 within the phrase "licenses or permits". However, since the provision 

 does not become effective until a State has an approved coastal zone 

 management progmm pursuant to section 806 of the Act. there has 

 been no court test of its applicability in explicit terms. The Commit- 



