918 

 32 



mittee, as do a number of the staff personnel, the work of the two 

 bodies has been closely coordinated and mutually beneficial. 



a. The Committee has made extensive alterations to the basic fund- 

 ing mechanism of the Coastal Zone Management Act, section 305. 

 Under this provision, 33 of the 34 eligible states and territories are now 

 developing their coastal programs. The federal government provides 

 two-thirds matching money for up to three years under the present 

 law. 



Based on the testimony of a number of state representatives, the 

 Office of Coastal Zone Management, and such outside groups as the 

 Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee, the Committee has 

 made a number of changes to section 305. 



Because the present authorization expires at the end of fiscal year 

 1977, the authorization was extended to September 30, 1979, and 

 states are given a fourth year in which to do program development 

 work. 



This two-part extension of the section 305 authority is necessary 

 for three reasons. First, the present program development work has 

 been found by the states to be challenging and time-consuming. One 

 of the problems coastal zone state program managers experienced 

 was a lack of readily available qualified personnel. This served to 

 delay a number of states in getting their programs underway 

 immediately. (This problem is dealt with directly in the new section 

 310.) 



For this reason alone, a fourth year seemed to the Committee 

 to be warranted, particularly when the present Act requires a state 

 to have completed its program development within that time period. 



The Committee has added three new planning requirements to the 

 six elements which states now must include (see section 305(b) of 

 the Act). Because of the major impact which energy facilities will 

 have on the coasts, as discussed in the previous section of this Report, 

 the Committee has added an energy facility planning component. 

 States are required to develop a planning process for energy facilities 

 (broadly defined) and a process for planning and managing the 

 impacts from such facilities. 



Together with the impact fund, this requirement insures that energy 

 siting in the coastal areas will be considered as part of an overall 

 assessment of coastal resources and not in isolation. The Committee 

 feels that this combination of a planning process with the impact pro- 

 gram in H.R. 3981 is a key element in the bill. 



The other two new 305 program requirements are to provide a plan- 

 ning process to provide access to and protection for public beaches 

 and other public coastal areas, and to control the effects of shoreline 

 erosion in states where this is a major problem. 



Access to public beaches and other attractions in public ownership 

 in the coasts has come to be identified as one of the critical problems 

 facing local and state governments. As William Marks, Chief, Water 

 Development Services Division, Bureau of Water Management, De- 

 partment of Natural Resources, State of Michigan, stated to the Com- 

 mittee : 



The inclusion of a greater emphasis on the importance of 

 islands and beaches, and the concomitant availability of addi- 

 tional funding for such purposes, is commendable. 



