(3) Both agencies will make provision for full exchange of information on all aspects of the ocean dumping program, and each agency will be afforded full opportunity to review and comment on the report of the other agency. (4) Data and information obtained under this agreement shall be available through free access from appropriate data centers to all parties. Freedom of information will be adhered to under the broadest interpretation. EPA will be provided with copies of all data requested and will have access to original data upon request. All data collected by NOAA or NOAA contractors will be formatted and transmitted to the National Oceanographic Data Center, National Geophysical and Solar Terrestrial Data Center, and other centers as desired by EPA. SECTION III.-IMPLEMENTATION A. Each agency will designate a staff member as responsible for coordinating implementation of the provisions of the Interagency Agreement. These staff members will be responsible for establishing channels of communication and coordination within their respective agencies. B. The agency coordinators will be responsible for establishing a schedule of baseline surveys which take into account EPA's priorities and needs; and the budgetary resources and capabilities of each agency. Budget requests will be developed in coordination with a concerted effort to program adequate resources. EPA will support NOAA's request to OMB for resources to conduct the agreed upon program. Provisions for reimbursement will be made as necessary, where NOAA budgetary resources are not adequate to meet EPA's schedule and priorities, particularly when these occur without adequate lead time for budgetary planning. C. The agency coordinators may, as determined necessary, explore the feasibility of cooperative programs including but not limited to (1) establishment of a mutually supported centralized staff to design and implement ocean surveys for dumpsite characterization purposes, (2) formation of bilateral EPA/NOAA ad hoc committees for special purposes associated with dumpsite characterization, e.g., for survey finding assessment and analysis, and (3) possible dedication of NOAA vessels and/or EPA laboratories for periods of time. D. The Administrators or their designated policy representatives shall meet annually to receive a report on implementation of the provisions of this Interagency Agreement. The report shall include: (1) Progress reports covering completed and ongoing baseline surveys and evaluations of ocean dumping sites. (2) An agreed upon program of work for the coming year. (3) Estimated budgets for both agencies required to fund the program. (4) Any problems being encountered in implementation of the program. E. Each agency shall apprise the other prior to the issuance of releases to the news Media of preliminary findings and final conclusions of baseline surveys and evaluations carried out cooperatively pursuant to this agreement. F. Interagency agreements on individual surveys or for provision of special services in support of the ocean dumping permit program must be approved by the respective agency coordinators before they are effective. SECTION IV. OTHER A. Nothing contained herein shall abrogate the statutory responsibility or authority of either agency signatory to this agreement. B. This agreement may be terminated by the Administrator of either agency by written notification at least 60 days prior to effective date of termination. Terms and provisions of this agreement, may be modified by concurrence of both agency coordinators or their respresentatives and approval by the Administrators of both agencies. JAMES L. AGEE, Assistant Administrator, for Water and Hazardous Materials, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, March 6, 1975. Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Samuel H. Bleicher, would you come forword, please? We welcome you, Mr. Bleicher, and would be glad to hear from you this morning. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL N. BLEICHER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF OCEAN MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Mr. BLEICHER. I am happy to be here, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I will simply highlight my statement, reading a portion of it and submit the full statement for the record. My name is Sam Bleicher, and I am Director of NOAA's Office of Ocean Management. As you are aware, title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate and manage areas of the ocean both within and beyond the territorial sea to preserve or restore those areas for conservation, recreational, ecological or esthetic purposes. While authorization title III of the act have existed for the past 7 years, President Carter's fiscal year 1979 budget, recently submitted to Congress, contains the initial funding request for the marine sanctuaries program, $500,000. Since the enactment of this legislation two sanctuaries have been designated, the area surrounding the U.S.S. Monitor site off North Carolina, and 100 square miles of coral reef off Key Largo, Fla. Both of these designations took place in 1975. In 1977 two major actions were taken that underscore the relevance of title III and the purposes for which it was enacted. First, President Carter in his May 1977 Environmental Message instructed the Secretary of Commerce to identify possible sanctuaries in areas where development appears imminent. Second, NOAA Administrator Richard Frank reorganized NOAA, and established a new Office of Ocean Management which incorporates the responsibilities for title III and NOAA deepwater port responsibilities within a broader concept of ocean resource management. Let me speak a moment about the overall perspective of the Office of Ocean Management and how the designation and operation of marine sanctuaries contribute to this programs. The goal of the Office of Ocean Management is to help assure that ocean resources are used for the maximum public benefit with minimum conflict among resource uses or environmental damage. The Office will be evaluating, and developing new techniques for evaluation of existing and projected ocean resource demands, in terms of resource use levels, resource availability, and potential impacts. When conflicts are identified between conservation and resource use, or among resource uses, the Office will seek to develop a management strategy that will resolve these conflicts, whether through the use of NOAA's statutory powers or through authorities vested in other Federal or State agencies. I consider marine sanctuaries one of NOAA's basic tools to accomplish these objectives. Despite its broad language, title III was clearly not intended as general ocean management legislation, and we do not intend to warp it to that purpose. A marine sanctuary, in our view, must be built around the existence of distinctive marine resources whose protection and beneficial use requires comprehensive, geographically-based planning and management. Nor are marine sanctuaries pristine areas where human uses are severely restricted or excluded. This inference has often been drawn from the term "sanctuary", although the law itself contains no such limitations. In fact, marine sanctuaries will inevitably be multipleuse areas, where recreational activities, scientific research, commercial fishing, vessel traffic, even perhaps hard mining, and oil and gas development may all be allowed in varying degrees, and under appropriate restrictions to assure the preservation of the distinctive characteristics that originally prompted the designation of the sanctuary. Our Office currently estimates that there are 25 to 35 good marine sanctuary candidates that could be designated over the next 5 years to implement the letter and the spirit of title III. We have an ambitious program for 1978. In the summer of 1977, NOAA solicited recommendations for possible marine sanctuary sites from private industry, environmental groups, Federal and State agencies and the public in general. Over 170 recommendations were received, mostly from States and other Federal agencies, and recommendations continue to arrive at the rate of about 1 each week, or 50 per year. We hope to designate 5 marine sanctuaries during the calendar year 1978, and dispose of about 30 other recommendations, in addition to executing our management responsibilities for the two existing sites. We will keep the committee fully informed as our focus on candidate sites for new sanctuaries narrows to particular locations. Public participation plays a vital role. Interested Federal, State and private groups and individuals are consulted throughout the designation process. Press releases are issued by NOAA when the initial feasibility is determined and when the regulatory proposals are published, and public hearings are held in the coastal communities most affected by the nomination. Let me now review our plans for fiscal year 1979. First, the thenexisting sanctuaries will require management, enforcement, and assessment. In fiscal 1979 there will be two marine sanctuaries that were designated in 1975, and the additional five that we expect to designate in 1978. Management requires development of individualized sanctuary management plans, selecting and negotiating agreements with onsite management agents, typically the adjacent State, but other groups are possible, and overseeing the activities involved in sanctuary operations. Management performed by the contractor includes permit evaluation, ongoing evaluations of the sanctuary regulations, public information, and insuring that the sanctuary purpose remains meaningful and reflective of environmental benefit. Enforcement is currently being carried out under contract by the USCG for Key Largo. The USCG is performing these same services without a contract for the monitor sanctuary. Assessment involves baseline and monitoring environmental studies to determine the benefits and costs of sanctuary designation and the impact of activities in and near the sanctuary on its viability. Second, we will be evaluating and designating some new sanctuaries in fiscal year 1979. Under the funding levels proposed for fiscal year 1979, we hope to evaluate up to 30 recommended or nominated marine sanctuary sites and to select about five more for designation. Until thorough analyses are complete cannot specify just what areas will be designated. In fiscal 1980, we plan to continue operating the then-existing sanctuaries, about a dozen or so, and designating new sanctuaries. Because this is a time-consuming and costly process, we want to use our fiscal year 1978 experience to guide us in the development of our budget needs for fiscal year 1980. Consequently, at this time we believe the most appropriate step for the Congress to take would be to authorize such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1980. I am personally excited about the opportunity to take on the challenge of creating and managing a system of marine sanctuaries. I consider title III a vital element of our Nation's ocean programs, and I look forward to working closely with this committee on the implementation of its mandate. This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Senator HOLLINGS. We appreciate that, Mr. Bleicher. I remember putting $10 million in there originally. The administration would never ask for it, and this year you are only asking for $500,000. I am informed the House wants to put in a couple of million dollars. In listening to your statement, how much do you think you could beneficially allocate in this next fiscal year? Mr. BLEICHER. I think by 1979 we would be in a position to effectively spend $2 million in this program. Senator HOLLINGS. Because, you see, we resist the administration's idea of "so much as may be necessary;" if we passed all of the budgets around here that way, we might as well quit. Mr. BLEICHER. Well, the administration is not willing to take any position about fiscal year 1980 expenditures on any aspects of the program. I think you will find that a theme running through all of the testimony. For 1980 we are simply asking for such sums as may be necessary. Senator HOLLINGS. I wish we had a little more time with respect to the concept. But would you elaborate some, if you don't mind, for the record, when you talk about marine sanctuaries inevitably being multiple-use areas, where recreational activities, scientific research, commercial fishing, vessel traffic, hard mining, oil and gas development may all be allowed in varying degrees? What area would not be a sanctuary then? You have got just about everything in there. We considered this, and I can tell you now we had the view of a sanctuary that you say is not the case. When you use the word "sanctuary," that is what we had in mind; that appears to be an amazing difference between the executive bureaucracy and the legislative intent. We could have said "areas of water" or "marine areas," or whatever. You haven't eliminated anything. So you can speak of here or there or over there, in any direction, and say this shall be a marine sanctuary. Isn't that the case, or am I exaggerating? Mr. BLEICHER. It is very difficult to phrase in words the kind of concept that we are aiming at. Let me try to elaborate. I think the important factor that justifies setting up a marine sanctuary in a particular area is the presence of a distinctive marine resource, whether it be an extraordinarily rich fishing ground, fish spawning ground, or areas of particular value for living marine resources, whether it is a coral reef or a kelp bed, or something else that is extraordinarily valuable. Senator HOLLINGS. I agree with you on that, but there would be limited activity, not comprehensive or multiple use activity. Mr. BLEICHER. There will, of course, be major limitations in various areas, depending on the nature of the marine sanctuary. The Key Largo coral reef is not an area where we would allow anything but certain kinds of scientific activity and certain kinds of recreational activity, which is what is currently going on there. We recently had a request to build an artificial reef in that area, by some people who wanted to enhance recreational fishing, and we studied the issue, consulted with scientific advisers, and said no, we don't think an artificial coral reef in a marine sanctuary designed to protect the natural coral reef makes any sense, we denied the application. We said if you put it outside the boundary of the sanctuary, it may make sense, there are other areas where we have encouraged that. The thing we have discovered as we have gone forward with looking at these 170 nominations is each area that has been drawn to our attention really is distinctive, in terms of the kinds of resources to be protected, distinctive in terms of the existing activities underway, and they are distinctive in terms of the kinds of development that the States and others have in those areas. And the reason that we are focusing and hoping to be able to create just five marine sanctuaries this year, and not the much larger number that people originally hoped for, was we felt we have to address each one of those areas distinctively and basically draw up a constitution for the operation of each area. I am not suggesting we are going to allow oil and gas development in all of the marine sanctuaries. Senator HOLLINGS. When you speak of industrial development or oil and gas development, you first say one thing and then say you mean another thing. I am with you on what you are testifying to, but the prepared statement, when you say multiple-use areas, get all of those uses in. What, then, is distinctive about the areas you are considering? I find nothing distinctive when you say multiple-use areas. When you say distinctive, you mean distinctive, when you say sanctuary, you mean sanctuary. Give me an example of an industry use area that is distinctive. Mr. BLEICHER. For example, one area that has been widely suggested to us is Bristol Bay and the southeast Berring Sea off the coast of Alaska, north of the Aleutian chain, which is a rather large area, going out to the Pribilof Islands, one of the richest commercial fishing grounds in the world Senator HOLLINGS. I understand that, that is the regular fishing industry, and you are limited there. Mr. BLEICHER. One of the reasons I talked about multiple-use areas is the fishing industry that has been very concerned that a sanctuary is an area where no commercial fishing will be allowed. We are trying to make that point clear. In other areas, again, talking about Alaska, because I was there recently, so I have those examples in mind, in the Beaufort Sea area there are plans that the State and Federal Governments have for a joint lease-sale, which have recently been announced to allow oil and gas drilling in the near-shore area there. |