930 



44 



certain activities and facilities to occur in its coastal zone, such activi- 

 ties being "coastal-dependent". In other words, the activities and asso- 

 ciated facilities enumerated in the definition were considered by the 

 Committee to be those which, by their very nature or technical require- 

 ments, mandate their location and operation in the coastal zone. 



The development of this concept in conjunction with the definition 

 of "net adverse impacts" represents the Committee's desire to achieve 

 four difficult but essential goals in the impact program (as distinct 

 from the OCS payments section) : First, the provision of assistance to 

 coastal states for their role in furthering the national interest in 

 energy -related policy development ; second, the provision of a level of 

 such federal assistance which is commensurate only with those situa- 

 tions in which "costs" exceed "benefits" ; third, the preservation of the 

 comprehensive nature of the Coastal Zone Management program and 

 the maintenance of the important planning groundwork already ac- 

 complished by the states in their program development work; and 

 fourth, the avoidance of federal financial inducements to locate and 

 operate unnecessary energy facilities in the fragile coastal zone. 



The bill which passed out of the Oceanography Subcommittee on 

 October 8, 1975, contained an impact fund which was OCS-specific. 

 Although the authorization level was considerably different, the im- 

 pact fund in the 2nd Committee print was essentially the same as sec- 

 tion 308(a) in the bill which was approved by the full Merchant 

 Marine and Fisheries Committee. 



After intensive study and deliberation, however, the Committee con- 

 cluded that to limit the types of energy activities for which federal 

 assistance would be provided to only those related to OCS exploration 

 and development would hinder the achievement of its four goals. An 

 OCS-specific program based on a formula method of distribution, 

 while possessing certain administrative advantages, would not pro- 

 vide federal assistance for all possible coastal related energy activities 

 sanctioned by the federal government in the national interest and thus 

 would deny aid to coastal states for their full contribution to energy- 

 related policy development. 



Such a restricted program, standing alone, would not address itself 

 to non-OCS coastal-dependent energy activities which would be in the 

 national interest and which would inevitably place severe pressures 

 and perhaps incalculable costs on coastal states. 



Additionally, the allocation of federal funds based on six levels of 

 OCS activity, is simply not as precise a mechanism for providing only 

 "necessary" assistance. 



Thirdly, it was felt that to focus on only one type of energy activ- 

 ity would help to fragment what was intended to be a comprehensive 

 management program for tlie states. 



The fourth goal presented a more serious dilemma for the Com- 

 mittee. To reduce the encouragement of umiecessary energy facility 

 siting in the coastal zone was clearly an advantage of the OCS pay- 

 ments approach. Structuring a program to provide assistance for all 

 tyTJes of energy activities and facilities located in the zone raised 

 difficult questions about its potential for inducing inefficient siting 

 decisions.* To resolve tliis issue, the Committee developed the concept 

 of "coastal energy activity." 



^For n fuller discussion of "optimal" energy facility siting decisions, see "Energy Facil- 

 ity Siting in Coastal Areas," pp. 125-126. 



