Answer. The Department of Commerce has taken no position on the amendment proposed by Congressman Studds. The amendment does reflect the ap proach to establishment of a legal framework for each marine sanctuary that had been recently adopted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Question. There is some concern about whether all other law is superseded within a designated marine sanctuary. In the opinion of NOAA, is it presently clear that all other law is superseded in a sanctuary, even law passed subsequent to Title III? And if the Studds amendment, or similar language, becomes law, will there be any legal ambiguity about (i) Title III superseding other authority for those activities which the Secretary chooses to regulate and (ii) other activities within the site continuing to be regulated under other applicable law? Answer. The NOAA Office of General Counsel informs me that the precedents for statutory interpretation leave no doubt that the adoption of subsequent legislation does not alter the effectiveness of Title III unless there is specific language in the subsequent legislation repealing Title III in full or in part, or a clear and manifest intent to effect such a repeal. Title III is designed to set up a specific regulatory regime for designated marine areas, and the whole purpose of the Act is to allow the Secretary of Commerce to control all activities within the designated area. If the Studds amendment is adopted, Title III will continue to allow the Secretary to impose whatever restrictions she believes are necessary on activities within the sanctuary, so long as her regulations are consistent with the limitations imposed by the terms of the Designation document. Other relevant law continues to apply to activities conducted within the sanctuary to the extent that they are not modified by the Secretary's regulations. Question. What arrangements does NOAA have with the Coast Guard for enforcement at the Key Largo sanctuary? Is NOAA presently able to reimburse the Coast Guard for the full cost of these enforcement operations?

Answer. The U.S. Coast Guard (CG) has two billets assigned to the Islamarada CG Station specifically for enforcement at the Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary. NOAA transferred $30,000 to the CG for the cost of personnel in FY 1977. In FY 1978 the CG sought and obtained internal funding for the billets. No further requests for funds have been received. NOAA is discussing with CG the extent and nature of their involvement in future sanctuaries.

Question. How well has the delegation of Key Largo management responsibilities to the State of Florida worked? Does your office plan to delegate the management of future sanctuaries, where possible?

Answer. The State of Florida continues to improve its management activities at the Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary. The State currently operates a patrol boat so that CG personnel can provide enforcement in the area, handles the initial paperwork for violation cases, conducts a review of permit applications and makes a monthly inspection of the reefs. NOAA is working with the State to expand the delegation of responsibilities to include supervising management-related studies such as a reef assessment and inventory, the implementation of a water quality monitoring system and an evaluation of anchor damage. The Office of Ocean Management does plan to delegate management functions in future sanctuaries building upon our experiences at Key Largo. NOAA will retain the oversight responsibility for the establishment of regulations, issuance of permits, and final determination on violations.

Question. In May, 1975, before the present Administration took office, the Monitor site was designated as a marine sanctuary. Why was this particular site selected, given that the thrust of Title III of the Act is to protect habitats and living marine resources?

Answer. The U.S. Navy officially abandoned the U.S.S. Monitor, whose location was unknown, in September, 1953. The wreck of the Monitor was discovered in August, 1973 by a team of scientists from Duke University, in 220 feet of water 16 miles southeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. In September 1974 the State of North Carolina nominated the site as a marine sanctuary. NOAA determined through legal analysis and consultation with other Federal agencies that the marine sanctuaries legislation was the only means by which the United States could fully protect against salvage operations that might destroy the wreck or disperse artifacts from it. Based on this and the significance of the Monitor to Naval history, NOAA in January, 1975, designated an area 1 mile in radius surrounding the wreck as a marine sanctuary.

Question. Since the marine sanctuaries program now is administered by the new NOAA Office of Ocean Management, please briefly discuss the purpose, main

responsibilities, budget, and organization of this Office. Is the sanctuaries program a major part of the Office's activities?

Answer. In the 1977 NOAA reorganization, the Office of Ocean Management was given explicit responsibility for the marine sanctuaries program and the Deepwater Ports Act of 1974. These 2 programs are components of a broader design projected for the Office. The purpose of the Office is to help assure that ocean resources are used for the maximum benefit with minimum environmental damage and minimum conflict among resource uses. To accomplish this goal, the Office has the responsibility to evaluate existing and projected demands on ocean resources in terms of use levels, resource availability, and environmental and socioeconomic impacts. When conflicts are identified between conservation and resource use or among resource uses, the Office will seek to develop a management strategy that results in the most appropriate resolution of the conflicts, whether through NOAA authority such as the Marine Sanctuaries Act or the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, or through the authority of other Federal or State agencies.

The Office of Ocean Management is organized into four operating units: Operations and Enforcement, Project Management, Procedures and Project Tracking, and Critical Area Planning and Analysis (Figure 1). Funding for the office in FY 1978 is being accommodated within our existing resources. We will shortly notify the Congress through the normal reprogramming notification procedure of the source and uses of the reprogrammed funds.

The Operations and Enforcement unit is responsible for all designated marine sanctuaries once they are designated. This responsibility will expand greatly as new sanctuaries are designated. We now operate two sanctuaries:

The Monitor Sanctuary off North Carolina was established to preserve the remains of the Civil War artifact, which sank off Cape Hatteras on December 31, 1862, and

The Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary off Florida, which incorporates one of the few natural coral reef areas in the United States.

The tasks of Operations and Enforcement are management, surveillance and enforcement, and assessment:

The management task includes the review and issuance of permits for research and other activities; coordination with other Federal, state, and local authorities; and a public education and information program.

Enforcement requires surveillance using aircraft and vessels, on a daily basis in heavily used sanctuaries. Enforcement is now handled through contracts with the U.S. Coast Guard and State Park personnel.

Periodic assessments of sanctuary conditions are essential for documenting management effectiveness. Scientific study and analysis may point to better regulatory measures or management techniques.

The next unit is Project Management. Each year a few critical decisions are made by Federal and State agencies on the diverse ocean activities mentioned above. The role of Project Management is to anticipate these events and become involved early on in the formulation, design, location, environmental impact analyses, and policy implications, to help guide the course of events to a conclusion that is consistent with national policy, as articulated by Congress and the President. In many cases, the Project Manager will be the NOAA spokesperson working closely with other Federal agencies and presenting tightly-reasoned arguments and analyses to the right people at the right time to achieve the desired ocean use decisions.

In other cases, the strategy may be the creation of a marine sanctuary. The President's Environmental Message of May 23, 1977, directed the Secretary of Commerce to begin the designation of additional sanctuaries over the next several years. Over 170 marine sanctuary sites have been recommended by Federal agencies, State government groups, and private parties. About one additional recommendation is received each week, or 50 per year. In FY 1978, Project Management will evaluate and select approximately five sites for sanctuary designation requires public meetings and hearings, position papers, draft sanctuary regulations, and environmental impact statements.

The next unit, Systems and Information, will develop an information system to keep track of what federal agencies are doing that affects ocean use, what projects are pending, and where are they in the decision process. Too often by the time the implications of some forthcoming decision are realized, the opportunity to affect the outcome has passed. Timely identification and information on proposed ocean use activities is a crucial factor in meeting our goals for

Ocean Management. Many agencies with ocean use responsibilities have regional structures that further complicate tracking. And finally, this unit will assure that the Office of Ocean Management understands the many laws that are being enacted that affect ocean activities.

The Critical Area Planning and Analysis unit is responsible for the assessments and projections needed to respond to immediate ocean use decisions and to map out long-range use strategies that provide a rational balance between conservation and development of the ocean.

Three tasks have been identified that we expect to realize within the next

two years:

Develop regional ocean use strategies for selected areas. Scenarios will be prepared that explore the options available to a region for rational ocean use. After these options have been publicly reviewed and discussed, they will serve as a reference point for Ocean Management in influencing the decision process. Conduct in-depth assessments of the consequences of specific proposals for ocean use such as oil and gas development, deepwater ports, tanker regulations and ocean dumping.

Evaluate and refine techniques of analysis to insure the credibility of NOAA positions. Persuasive methods of analyzing environmental and socioeconomic impacts and integrating those assessments are a prerequisite to intelligent recommendations on policy questions.

Senator HOLLINGS. Let me hear now from Mr. Kamlet, because I have to leave pretty soon.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH S. KAMLET, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. KAMLET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of brevity, I too will simply highlight our prepared testimony and summarize our eight principal conclusions.

First, in terms of initial funding levels for fiscal years 1979 and 1980, we believe the absolute minimum levels of authorization should be no less than $7 million and $8 million respectively for title II, and $2 million and $3 million for title III.

Second, we think it is vital that funding under the ocean dumping law be appropriated to the full level authorized by the Congress. In the past the oversight committees in both Houses have apparently been less than overzealous in pressing for appropriations commensurate with funding authorizations under the ocean dumping law. We hope this historical gap between authorizations and appropriations can be eliminated, Mr. Chairman.

Third, marine pollution research responsibilities under title II are currently scattered within NOAA, among at least three major organizational components. There is a concern among both NOAA employees and outsiders that at least so far there has been insufficient centralized policy and program direction to provide the kind of coordination and overview that is needed for smooth and effective operation of NOAA's marine pollution programs under title II.

Unless these problems are ironed out, NOAA may also have difficulty carrying out its lead agency responsibilities under S. 1617.

Fourth, in terms of research priorities, it is clear to us that a major emphasis of NOAA's section 201 research program must be the study of dredge spoil ocean dumping. Ninety percent of the material ocean dumped is dredge spoil

Senator HOLLINGS. Right there, at that point, wasn't it interesting to hear Dr. Hess-you think everything comes from that ocean dumping, but he is finding more coming out of the Hudson, he is finding more coming out of the Mississippi.

Mr. KAMLET. Well, yes, sir, which really emphasizes the need to concentrate the ocean dumping research on dredge spoil disposal, because the dredge spoil that gets dumped is sediment derived from the beds of rivers like the Hudson and the Mississippi. It really transfers the pollution within the river in a more concentrated fashion out into the ocean.

Ninety percent of theocean dumping sites currently approved are dredged material sites as well, again emphasizing the need for major research emphasis in this area.

Senator HOLLINGS. On dredged spoil, now the Corps of Engineers has a program of research on dredged spoil materials. Do you think we also should have one in NOAA?

Mr. KAMLET. Well, yes, sir. The Corps of Engineers has a dredged material research program that is presently winding down. That was a 5-year, $3 million research effort.

Very little of the emphasis in that program, however, was on researching the effects of dredged material disposal in the marine environment, as opposed to disposal in inland waterways, and as opposed to studies of alternative disposal methods on land and elsewhere.

NOAA's emphasis, and responsibility under title II is in long-term marine pollution research, and that has not been the emphasis, of the Corps of Engineers, so I think there is room and a need for NOAA to get involved quite actively in this area.

Senator HOLLINGS. I quite agree with you, I appreciate your views. Mr. KAMLET. Thank you. Despite this 90 percent level of dredged material dumping, of the $3 million, roughly, requested by NOAA for ocean dumping research, only $800,000 or less than 25 percent will address dredge spoil dumping.

If you look at it another way, of the 127 approved dredged material dumpsites, NOAA plans to study only two, or less than 2 percent of the total over the next 22 years. We feel very strongly that NOAA needs to give much greater attention to the problem of dredge spoil dumping, but it is going to need significantly more manpower and resources to do the job right, perhaps $5 to $10 million a year for dredge spoil studies alone.

25-438 0 - 78 - 5

Fifth, as far as section 202 is concerned, our principal conclusion is that far greater priority must be given to assessing the impact of marine pollutants on human health and marine ecosystems, with heavy emphasis on food chain studies.

The proposal to earmark a mere $225,000, less than 10 percent of the total proposed budget for section 202, which is itself ridiculously small, for food chain studies, is unfortunate, if not disgraceful.

I note Dr. Hess this morning has again deleted reference to the food chain studies and to even this $225,000 share.

Sixth, we would support the proposed transfer of responsibilty over alternatives research under section 202 from NOAA to EPA, with one qualification: We think there is much to be said for retaining within NOAA, as an agency principally concerned with the marine environment, responsibility for keping track of and coordinating waste management research performed by others, to be sure that technology which could help speed the way to a phaseout of ocean dumping is in fact applied to that purpose, and applied with a minimum of delay. It is perhaps a truism of Federal bureaucracies that one hand within an agency often doesn't know what the other is doing. An outside monitor, hopefully, could keep track of more than one hand at a time, and, to mix metaphors, not miss the forest for the trees. This outside monitor need not necessarily be NOAA, and I know NOAA is not especially anxious to assume such a role.

The Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, for example, would also be good candidates for performing such a coordinative and monitoring function.

Seventh, as far as the implementation of S. 1617 is concerned, we believe much will depend on NOAA's ability to get its organizational house in order. Much talent exists within the Agency. The trick is going to be to take and coordinate this expertise in an efficient and effective way. It may take a special Office of Marine Pollution Research, accountable directly to the Administrator, to meet this need. Finally, our major conclusions regarding the marine sanctuaries program under title III are as follows:

(a) NOAA and Commerce Department officials have finally gotten to the point of recognizing in their speeches and testimony the tremendous potential of marine sanctuaries in achieving a balanced program of protection and utilization of marine resources, but they are still a long way from taking the steps necessary to make this potential a reality.

(b) The record of the marine sanctuary program to date has been uninspired and disappointing. It reflects an almost total lack of interest and commitment by NOAA. Two sanctuaries designated in 5 years is hardly something to boast about.

(c) Although it is gratifying to see that NOAA's interest in title III has been kindled to the point that it is finally seeking some money under this title, the level of the request is so low as to hardly represent a burst of enthusiasm or a serious commitment of Agency effort. Surely Congress had in mind and the Agency is capable of more that the five sanctuary designations a year NOAA has belatedly set its sights on.

Senator HOLLINGS. Would you comment on the statement of the previous witness with respect to marine sanctuaries?