could be used in combatting shore erosion or as- 
sisting in harbor restoration projects. 
This approach would allow effective control of a 
wide range of valuable coastal features, such as 
coral, dunes, intertidal areas, islands, or wetlands. 
e Develop a Series of Special Assistance Pro- 
grams Within the Framework of CZMA 
The grants available for purchase of estuarine sanc- 
tuaries are in this category, as is the authorization 
for acquisition of islands and access ways to publicly 
held coastal attractions (Section 315(2) of the Act). 
Similarly, the coastal energy impact assistance in Sec- 
tion 308 of the Act is a special assistance program. 
Proposed in addition by the coastal office is a 
“coastal fishery management program,” aimed at 
bringing about coordinated, interstate management 
of fishery habitats in the coast. The specific proposal 
is to provide funds through the new interstate grant 
authorization (Section 309) to the Regional Fishery 
Management Councils set up under the Fishery Con- 
servation and Management Act of 1976. An under- 
lying purpose of the fishery proposal, as with the 
energy impact assistance, is to provide an incentive 
for States to produce good coastal management pro- 
grams in order to qualify for the extra aid. 
Legislation has been introduced proposing Fed- 
eral assistance through the coastal zone management 
program to help States and communities deal with 
erosion problems, which are particularly important 
in the Great Lakes States. 
e Pinpoint Specific Areas of Critical Concern for 
Special Protective Measures 
Another approach would involve identifying those 
features whose retention in an undeveloped, or 
nearly undeveloped, condition is in the national 
interest: barrier islands, dunes, or wetlands, for 
example. Under this proposal, the Federal Govern- 
ment would direct the States and local governments, 
through regulations, to develop effective means of 
providing necessary controls over these specified 
areas if sufficient control did not exist. After a cer- 
tain period of time, if the Federal Government found 
that the State-local governments had not developed 
regulations or other means of control sufficient to 
protect the national interest, the Federal Govern- 
ment would take measures to ensure protection of 
the areas. Such preemption would, of course, cause 
controversy. The proposal should also include a 
mechanism for selecting coastal areas suitable for 
development. ; 
This approach deviates significantly from the 
existing coastal zone management effort. The existing 
program attempts to be comprehensive, i.e., provide 
policy for control over all significant use of coastal 
land and water resources for both protection and 
development purposes. This alternative would aban- 
don the comprehensive approach in favor of one 
focusing on the particular natural features of each 
area whose preservation or protection is important 
to the nation, and which selects prime development 
sites suitable for industrial and commercial develop- 
ment. The States and local governments would be 
given the opportunity to devise their own means of 
providing this protection and, failing that, the Fed- 
eral Government would intercede. Resources re- 
quiring special protection would range from beaches 
to dunes, shellfish beds, coral reefs, bluffs, salt 
marshes, or islands. 
This approach could be built on the present 
coastal zone management program. After internal 
debate on the issue, the Office of Coastal Zone Man- 
agement determined that the program act did not 
permit functional segmentation, by which States 
would be assisted in dealing with particular coastal 
resource problems. Instead, the regulations were 
written to permit geographic segmentation only 
where complete programs are required for a section 
of a State’s coast. There is some thinking in the 
coastal management community that the basic Act 
does in fact permit a functional segmentation ap- 
proach and that for some States at least it might 
be both a politically easier and more effective 
way to proceed. 
e Recognize the Primacy of Local Control and 
Base a Coastal Zone Program on Local Gov- 
ernments 
This would recognize the reality that land-use 
planning and management in this country remains 
a basic local government responsibility and that any 
attempt by the States to recoup any degree of this 
jealously protected authority is difficult. Without 
major trade-offs, cities and counties are unlikely to 
relinquish any real measure of their self-determina- 
tion to those they perceive as a group of State 
bureaucrats. 
Using a combination of building, health, subdivi- 
sion, and zoning controls, there is little doubt that 
cities and counties could effectively guide and con- 
trol development in a manner which would protect 
coastal resources. The problem is that such controls 
may well not be in the economic self-interest of the 
local community, at least in the short run. An eco- 
nomic incentive is needed to persuade communities 
to protect critical coastal resources and guide devel- 
opment effectively, or in the alternative, a negative 
incentive. Positive incentives could include a credit 
based on local property tax revenues designed to 
compensate a community for restraining develop- 
ment in coastal regions, a step which might reduce 
its potential revenues. This would raise problems in 
administration. 
IV-41 
