566 



6 



coastal zone program management grants in fiscal year 1975. HencSy 

 the present 10 percent limitation creates one of two possible alterna- 

 tives — both undesirable. First, those States which complete their pro- 

 gram early could be at a serious disadvantage by limiting the amount 

 of Section 306 funds which they can receive. With, for example, only 

 four applicants and each funded up to a minimum of 10 percent of 

 the appropriation available, only 40 percent of the funds could be 

 expended — thus shutting off the possibility of additional assistance 

 for those States. Alternatively, it is conceivable that three or four 

 times more money than would be required w^ould have to be appro- 

 priated in order that the size of individual grants be large enough 

 to cover administration of the management programs envisaged un- 

 der Section 306. 



To make a more equitable and complete allocation of grant assistance 

 for management of coastal zone programs, the 10 percent limitation 

 should be deleted and dollar limitations substituted therefor. These 

 limitations should continue the fiscal safeguard which Congress in- 

 tended by the original percentage restriction. The recent annual re- 

 port of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere 

 addressed this problem and recommended that the allocation restric- 

 tion on Section 306 grants be revised. 



S. 3922 would, however, retain the 1 percent minimum per State for 

 grants under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act while 

 modifing the language to make the minimum floor discretionary on the 

 part of the State. The present 1 percent minimum, in some cases, will 

 require smaller States and territories to apply for grants which they 

 neither need nor can justify, or not participate in the program at all. 

 S. 3922 would resolve this problem by requiring a waiver of the mini- 

 mum limitation whenever any affected State requests such a waiver. 

 This w^ill leave each State with all the protection it needs but will 

 remove any protection that it does not need or desire. 



Need for Extending Estuarine Sanctuary Authority 



The legislative history of the estuarine sanctuaries provision (sec- 

 tion 312) of the Coastal Zone Management Act supports the contention 

 that this element of the program was intended to serve as an integral 

 part of the overall coastal zone management programs of our coastal 

 States. Therefore, the sanctuaries program w^as designed to, among 

 other purposes, provide States with long-range assistance in acquiring 

 and operating natural field laboratories in which techniques and ap- 

 proaches proposed to be incorporated within their coastal management 

 programs could be tested and perfected. The Congress in framing this 

 legislation felt it important that a system of estuarine sanctuaries be 

 established and be representative of the principal types of estuarine 

 systems found along our Nation's coastlines, of which 11 broad types 

 have been identified. 



NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management reports that 20 States 

 have indicated a very positive interest in participating in the long- 

 range development of estuarine sanctuary programs. It is expected 

 that 15 to 20 sanctuaries throughout the Nation would provide a com- 

 prehensive spectrum of research areas and at the same time provide 



