337 



U.S. Departmeis't of the Interior, 



OmcE OF THE Secretary, 

 Washingto7i, DC, June 23, 1971. 

 Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, 



'^Chalrmun, Commitfee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of 

 Represemtatives, Washingto7i, D.C. 



Dear INIr. Chairman : We respond to your request of June 21 for 

 our comment on H.R. 9229, a bill '*To establish a national policy and 

 de^•elop a national program for the management, beneficial use, pro- 

 tection and developmeiit of tlie land and water resources of the Na- 

 tion's coastal and estuarine ;^ones, and for other purposes"'. 



Bv letter of June 11, we furnished comment on H.R. 2492, IT.R. 

 2493 and PI.R. 3615, all similar to H.R. 9229 in that tliey would au- 

 thorize assistance to the States in their establishment of coastal zone 

 management plans and programs. H.R. 9229 is also similar to S. 582, 

 'Coastal zone legislation now pending before the Senate Committee on 

 'Commerce, 



H.R. 9229 would amend the Marine Resources and Engineering 

 Development Act of 1966 by adding new titles III, the "National 

 Coastal and Estuarine Zone Management Act of 1971", and IV, the 

 "Marine Sanctuary Act of 1971". The bill would (1) authorize annual 

 grants not to exceed 66% percent of a State's costs in developing its 

 coastal zone management piogram, provided tliat no single grant ex- 

 •ceeded $600,000, and a like percentage for costs of administering the 

 program; (2) authorize a program of bond and loan guarantees to 

 facilitate land acquisition, land and water development, and restora- 

 tion projects; (3) authorize cost-sharing for the acquisition, develop- 

 ment and operation of not more than 15 estuarine sanctuaries ; and (4) 

 provide for designation by the Secretary of Commerce of marine 

 sanctuaries within areas of the high seas outside the coastal and es- 

 tuarine zone and "superjacent to the subsoil and seabed of the Con- 

 tinental Shelf", "Marine sanctuar\^" is not defined, nor is there pro- 

 vided a distinction between "marine sanctuary" and "estuarine sanc- 

 tuarv'", wliich, under terms of section 312(b), might also be es- 

 tablished "seaward beyond the coastal and estuarine zone." 



Our earlier comments are generally applicable to those provisions 

 ■of H.R. 9229 which would provide for land use management within 

 the coastal zone. We strongly recommend the enactment of PI.R. 4332, 

 'this administration's proposal for assistance to the States in their 

 'development of comprehensive plans for effective management of all 

 the Nation's lands and waters. As we noted in the earlier report, the 

 National Land Use Policy Act of 1971 (H.R. 4332) is intended to 

 'broaden the coverage of coastal zone legislation submitted during the 

 last Congress, while still giving priority attention to those areas 

 'of the countiy which are particularly sensitive to development pres- 

 .sures. 



The marine sanctuary concept proposed in H.R. 9229 as a new title 

 IV of the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 

 1966 is deserving of careful study, and of treatment in a separate bill. 

 It would be inappropriate, we believe, to embark upon tlio Federal 

 regulatory scheme required by sections 412(f) and 413 witliin the con- 

 text of legislation designed to assist the coastal States in the exercise 



