138 



We feel that one sliould approach it as a whole, that coastal zones 

 are clearly the most important in my view, the most important of tho 

 environmental critical areas, and deserve very, very special attention. 



Mr. Lennon. That is the reason we are here today, sir. 



Dr. MacDonald. And if we look at the Federal Government, the 

 way it is currently organized, we would turn to the Department of 

 the Interior because of its extensive experience in the management 

 of lands through the Bureau of Land Management, its National Park 

 Service, through its various activities and resource management of 

 this sort. 



If we look ahead, hopefully, at some time we might have a Depart- 

 ment of Natural Resources, which would join the strength of NO A A 

 and the strengths of the Department of the Interior, then we would 

 come to what I would feel was the very ideal situation where we would 

 marry these strengths and have an overall capability for the Federal 

 participation in the management of the coastal zone. 



Mr. Lennon. I would like to hear, and I am sure you have had an 

 opportunity to study and review the bills that we thought you were 

 going to speak to, the one that is pending before this committee. 



I wonder if you have any comments on the bills that are now before 

 this committee, not what is pending before some other body. 



We are familiar with that. We have copies on it, and coimsel and 

 I have read it. 



We would like to have your views on what you are here today for, 

 to comment on the bills you were invited to comment on. 



Dr. MacDonald. Those bills, of course, address solely the manage- 

 ment of coastal zones. 



In philosophy, they are compatible with H.E. 4332 in that the re- 

 sponsibility for formulating the regulation of management of a coastal 

 zone is detailed to the States, and we agree. 



We think this is where it should be. H.R. 2492 speaks of a coastal 

 zone authority without being very specific. 



We are concerned by setting up a special State agency to deal with 

 part of the problem, and both bills provide grants that would enable 

 the States or help the States in developing their management pro- 

 gramis, and then, later, the administration of these programs. 



Again, this is provided for in the administration's proposal, though 

 I emphasize covering other environmentally critical areas in addition 

 to the coastal zones. 



The formula for State and Federal Government participation 

 differs. H.R. 2493 I believe provides for Federal grants of two-thrds 

 rather than the 50-50 provisions in the administration's bill. 



H.R. 2493 also provides for sanctuaries, developing of the sanctu- 

 aries, I think it is 15. 



We think the sanctuaries in and of themselves are insufficient to save 

 the coastal zone. We need much broader areas than just a limited num- 

 ber of sanctuai-ies. 



We believe in criticism of H.R. 2493 that it would be unwise to have 

 both an acquisition program and a regulatory program combined; 

 that this can lead to schizophrenia on the part of the m.anagement 

 agency in deciding whether to use its funds to acquire a certain land 

 area for a sanctuary as opposed to using its regulatory powers. 



