■748 



22 



6. Identify areas where new or improved methodologies are needed 

 to assess the impact upon population and economic activity in a speci- 

 fied geographic area. 



7. Identify areas where needed data is lacking and methods whereby 

 these gaps can be filled. 



The States of California and Alaska, and the entire group of eastern 

 seaboard States, could undoubtedly make immediate use of such plan- 

 ning funds for assessing the likely impacts of planned OC8 leasing 

 on their individual State coastal zones, since the Interior Department 

 plans to lease oH'shore lands in all three of these areas for the first 

 time within the next year. The States are likely to have a continuing 

 need for planning funds under this subsection as OCS oil and gas 

 exploration gets underway and the results begin to be known. Studying 

 and planning for coastal impacts of OCS development are continuous 

 processes which cannot be completed before extensive information 

 about the oli'shore resource base is available. 



The Committee noted correspondence from Representative Leonor 

 K. Sullivan, chairman of the Committee on Mercliant Marine and 

 Fisheries, U.S. House of liepresentatives, and Kepresentative James 

 R. Grover, ranking minority member, to the Technology Assessment 

 Board, U.S. Congress, dated September 18, 1974, which stated : 



We ignore these potential problems at our peril, just as we 

 have in the past. If, on the other hand, we attempt to under- 

 stand them and the factors which create them, it is possible 

 that we may be able to develojD methods of avoiding or mini- 

 mizing their adverse impacts. It was with this objective in 

 mind that the Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management 

 Act . . . 



States may find, as a result of studies conducted with funds made 

 available under the planning component of the Coastal Energy Facil- 

 ity Impact Fund, that oli'shore oil development and/or energy facili- 

 ties will not, in fact, cause adverse impacts in their coastal zones. 

 In that case, the fund will have served the useful but limited 

 purpose of satisfying the State in question tiiat such is the case. In 

 other circumstances, however. States may be able to detect and quan- 

 tify past, present or anticipated adverse impacts resulting from OCS 

 activities, powerplants, or other energy-related developments. If so, 

 these States will undoubtedly wish to take advantage of the additional 

 funds authorized for the purposes set forth in section 308(b). 



Section 308(b) of S. 586 anticipates two possible sets of circum- 

 stances : one involving temporary adverse impacts, the other inventing 

 net adverse impacts over the life of the energy facility or development 

 causing the impacts. The former case would make a State eligible for 

 a loan ; the latter would meet requirements for a grant. In either case, 

 the impacts in question must be the result of a Federal license, lease or 

 permit for exploration, development or production of energy re- 

 sources, or for the location, construction, expansion, or operation of 

 an energy facility. The impacts must occur within the State's coastal 

 zone, although the activities causing the impacts may be outside the 

 coastal zone, on either land or water. 



In fact, it may often be impossible to determine in advance whether 

 adverse impacts will be temporary or permanent. Where temporary 



