932 



46 



the Secretary of Commerce in specific siting decisions. This process 

 differs from the more site-specific planning for which assistance is 

 authorized in section 308(b)(1). In fact, the latter activity should 

 be carried out under the general guidelines developed in the section 

 305(b)(8) program development activity. 



The third new program element is a planning process dealing with 

 shoreline erosion. As assessment of the effects of erosion, whether natu- 

 ral or caused by human intervention, methods of controlling erosion, 

 lessening its impact and, where possible, restoring eroded areas shall 

 be evaluated. The Committee has found that shoreline and coastal 

 erosion is one of the major problems facing many states and wants to 

 insure the proper emphasis is placed on this area in development of 

 state management programs. 



In all three instances, the Committee is not bringing brand new 

 considerations into state and local coastal zone program development. 

 All of the elements involved in the new subsections 305 (b) (7) , (8) , and 

 (9) were implicit in the coverage of presently ongoing coastal plan- 

 ning efforts. 



Rather, the new requirements represent a decision by the Committee 

 to give specific emphasis and support for these areas in question. It is 

 clear from the history of the original Coastal Zone ^Management Act 

 that energy facilities were very much on the minds of the framers of 

 the Act, for instance. With the development of the energy crisis, this 

 focus has increased and the Committee's action with respect to subsec- 

 tion 305(b) (8) reflects this. Much the same can be said for the other 

 two new requirements under the Management Program Development 

 Grants authorization. 



While these additional planning requirements do not involve totally 

 new considerations for tlie states, tliey do require additional work to 

 qualify for matching funding under this section of the Act. Therefore, 

 subsequently in the bill the Committee recommends an increased au- 

 thorization level for section 305. 



Increase Federal share and numher of annual grants under section 305 

 (6) Section 305(c) would increase the maximum federal share of 

 development grants from the present 66% j^ercent to 80 percent. In 

 addition, a coastal state would be eligible to receive four developmental 

 grants rather than the three presently authorized in the Act. The in- 

 creased federal support was considered necessary to provide the coastal 

 states with adequate financial assistance to develop coastal zone man- 

 agement programs expediently. It was recosrnized that the accelerated 

 outer continental shelf leasing program will place additional burdens 

 upon the states which could be more adequately dealt with through 

 the use of responsible and comprehensive coastal zone programs. It is 

 in the national interest to avoid any further delays in the offshore 

 leasing and development program and, at the same time, develop a 

 plan which would effectively protect the affected coastal states. The 

 Coastal Zone Management Act is designed to accomplish this obiective 

 in a rational manner, and increased financial paiticipation by the 

 federal government will serve to reiterate the basic intent as expressed 

 in the Congressional Findings section. 



The amendment would permit the states to receive four rather than 

 three planning gi-ants, recognizing that the development of compre- 



