But the lack of detailed, clear-cut zoning means 
that a company cannot be entirely sure its applica- 
tion will be approved, at least in its original form. 
Given the great costs involved in buying land and 
doing design work, this lack of complete predict- 
ability is unnerving and means additional risks and 
possible delays in needed projects. It also means 
considerable additional cost is involved in applying 
for a permit, negotiating with government officials 
about possible changes, and making agreed-upon 
changes in either the design or even the location of 
the facility. And the more the companies distrust 
the government administering the performance 
standards, the more unnerved they will be . 
In the final analysis, there appear to be one key 
fact and one main issue. The fact is that citizens, 
through their governments, want a larger say not 
only in the locating of energy facilities, but also in 
determining the need for them, evaluating the alter- 
natives, and setting the specific conditions (e.g., 
environmental safeguards) under which they will be 
allowed. And in trying to develop new siting proc- 
esses—especially a new government role—the coun- 
try increasingly is using the “new” approach to siting, 
one that uses performance standards. 
The issue is not only whether this new approach 
will ‘“work”—and in many cases it is too soon to 
tell—but also whether anyone can devise a better 
way to accommodate all the relevant factors: the 
new activism of the public and the States, the need 
for new energy facilities, public and industry con- 
cern about added bureaucracy and paperwork, and 
industry’s need for predictability and timely deci- 
sions. 
The challenge now seems to be this: either imple- 
ment and refine these new siting laws or else find 
workable alternatives to them. In any event, the 
siting procedures this country uses certainly will 
affect the course and timing of energy development 
in the coastal zone. 
Nonfuel Mining on the Continental Shelf 
Introduction 
The waters and floor of the seas and the sub- 
surface of the Continental Shelf are rich sources of 
minerals. In addition to fuels, quantities of barite, 
salt, and sulfur are produced from the U.S. conti- 
nental shelf. Magnesium is extracted from seawater. 
Oyster shell, dredged from the inner margins of the 
continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, is a source 
of aggregates and lime. 
There is a Jegal and administrative framework to 
govern exploration and deveiopment on the con- 
tinental shelf. The Federal jurisdiction over the sea- 
bed and subsoil of the continental shelf has been 
established by treaties, Presidential proclamation, 
judicial decision, and Congressional action. The Sub- 
merged Lands Act of 1953 granted the coastal States 
title to submerged lands seaward from the ordinary 
low-water mark to a distance of 3 geographic miles. 
For Florida and Texas, jurisdiction extended up to 
3 marine leagues (approximately 9 miles) into the 
Gulf of Mexico. 
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 
186 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone 
Management. State of California Coastal Management Program 
and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C., 
August 1977, p. 158. 
187 Attorney General of the State of California, ‘Combined 
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judg- 
ment, and Opening Trial Brief of the California Coastal Com- 
mission, American Petroleum Institute vs. Knecht, pp. 12-13. 
gives the Secretary of the Interior discretionary au- 
thority to regulate mineral leasing on the part of the 
continental shelf lying seaward from the outer limits 
of the State grants. 
Although there are few precedents in the admin- 
istration of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
for mining hard minerals, the current leasing proce- 
dures have succeeded in developing offshore oil and 
gas resources. The States have complained, how- 
ever, of a lack of coordination in the past. There is 
an attempt at coordination among the various Fed- 
eral agencies having jurisdiction or responsibility 
for activities on the land and in the water of the 
Outer Continental Shelf. Development of marine re- 
sources affects navigation, commercial and sport 
fishing, research, recreation, esthetics, national de- 
fense, shipping, and the overall health of the marine 
environment. 
The Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for 
structures in navigable waters of the Outer Conti- 
nental Shelf. The Coast Guard has responsibility for 
safety at sea and on artificial islands or marine struc- 
tures. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- 
ministration is concerned with fish, other marine life, 
and scientific investigation of the marine environ- 
ment and the coastal zone. Other agencies have vari- 
ous responsibilities for activities on the shelf and 
the waters and air above. 
IV-80 
