If I were running OMB and I found there was no limit to what a sanctuary can contain, and that the witness testifies distinctly in his written statement there will be multiple-use, including oil and gas development, then I would say: Look, you can take and designate any area in the country offshore anywhere you want and call it a marine sanctuary, and this program is so general it is just opening up a hemorrhage of funds, so I better hold back on it.

Don't you think that it would be better to have a bull's-eye distinctiveness in design for a real sanctuary, then they could see some restrictions and see some limitations and they could properly fund it? I would be sacred to death of that marine sanctuary thing the way they have described it, if I saw that.

Mr. KAMLET. I agree very much with your remarks earlier, that there is nothing multiple use about a marine sanctuary.

Senator HOLLINGS. I never heard of that before.

Mr. KAMLET. I think more appropriate, perhaps, is the concept of balanced use. We have certain areas that are being developed and used and certain other areas that are set aside for the protection of the natural resource values contained in those sites. That was, we thought, the purpose of marine sanctuaries, and that is what the proper

use is.

Senator HOLLINGS. Exactly. Thank you.

Mr. KAMLET. We have recommended in the prepared statement four specific steps which Congress and NOAA can take to help put the marine sanctuaries program on the right track.

One would be more money, at least $5 million over the next 2 fiscal years, as the House, at the subcommittee level, has thus far authorized. Two, adoption and implementation by NOAA of a clear conceptual framework for carrying out the sanctuaries program.

We believe, as does the Center for Natural Areas, which studied the matter in great depth, that the program should emphasize the nomination and designation process as a means of getting more sanctuaries established, rather than prenomination planning or postnomination management.

Three, annual reports to Congress detailing NOAA's progress in implementing the coherent and effective program. Annual reporting is currently required under title II, but there is no annual report on marine sanctuaries currently required under title III. We feel at least in the initial years of the program that such reporting requirements might be very helpful and very informative.

Fourth, establishment, again as suggested by the Center for Natural Areas, of a national registry of areas of marine significance to serve both a prelude and a spur to formal marine sanctuary designation, and as a mechanism in its own right for alerting and sensitizing marine resource users to areas of unique environmental importance and vulnerability.

In closing, the ocean is obviously where the action is these days. It is our planet's last great frontier to be explored and exploited. If we use it well, it will repay our stewardship many times over. If we do not, we may get no second chance to correct our mistakes. We are at the crossroads. Let us hope we make the right choice.

1 We were in error; an annual reporting requirement does exist for title III. It is contained in section 302 (d).

Let us do more than hope, however. Let us equip ourselves with the tools we need to make the right choice.

We commend this committee for holding these hearings and appreciate very much the opportunity to present these views. Thank

you.

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, I appreciate it. I am going to have to leave. I will leave some questions for you to answer for the record. I was just looking at the U.S.S. Monitor, the first marine sanctuary. What was the distinctive quality of the marine ecosystem there that is being protected, in your opinion.

Mr. KAMLET. As I understand it, the purpose of that sanctuary designation was to preserve this historic and archeologically unique and important Civil War vessel.

Senator HOLLINGS. Not the marine ecosystem?

Mr. KAMLET. Not the marine ecosystem, but to prevent people

Senator HOLLINGS. Shouldn't it go into the National Trust or be designated for historic preservation or something else like that, but not adulterate the marine sanctuary program?

Mr. KAMLET. Well, I don't believe it is possible under the National Registry of Historic Places, or various other mechanisms, to designate areas in the ocean. I don't know that this is an inappropriate use of the Marine Sanctuary Act. But I certainly hate to see it limited to such maybe I shouldn't say this-to such trivial uses of it, but it certainly seems to me that there are much more important biological resourecs out there that deserve and require protection.

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, we appreciate your interest and the interest of the National Wildlife Federation, Mr. Kamlet.

We will submit those questions to you for the record. Is there anything else you wish to add?

Mr. KAMLET. No, sir.

Senator HOLLINGS. We appreciate it very much. Thank you. [The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF KENNETH S. KAMLET, On Behalf of the National

WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Ken Kamlet. I am counsel to the National Wildlife Federation ("NWF"), the nation's largest private conservation organization-with 3.5 million members and supporters throughout the United States and its territories. A few words about my background may aid the Committee in evaluating my testimony.

In addition to my law degree, I have eight years of graduate and undergraduate training in the bio-chemical sciences. Much of my time during the five years I have been with NWF has been spent on ocean disposal and other marine pollution problems. I am a member of a Department of State-EPA advisory committee on Ocean Dumping (established as a subcommittee to IMCO's Shipping Coordinating Committee), concerned with implementation of the international Convention on ocean dumping. I am a science advisor to EPA's National Marine Water Quality Laboratory (Environmental Research Laboratory) in Narragansett, Rhode Island. And, perhaps most relevant to the subject of today's hearings, I am a member of three advisory groups concerned with aspects of NOAA's Title II and III responsibilities under the ocean dumping law: (1) the NOAA-MESA New York Bight Synthesis Steering Committee (designed to guide the MESA New York Bight Project in producing an integrated state-of-the-art assessment of New York Bight ecosystem); (2) the NOAA Task Force on Technical Goals and Objectives for the Ocean Pollution Research Program (designed to guide NOAA in implementing its long-term ocean pollution research and planning responsibilities under Section 202 of the MPRSA, as well as under S. 1617-if and when it becomes law); and (3) the Marine

Sanctuaries Policy Advisory Committee to the Center for Natural Areas (designed to provide policy direction to the Center in carrying out a contract with NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management to help develop a management plan for implementing Title III of the MPRSA).

Before addressing the four principal issues, which the Committee in its invitation letter asked us to address, I would like to briefly review the organization and funding levels of NOAA's existing and planned Title II and Title III programs.

1. ORGANIZATION

Under NOAA's new organizational structure, three of the agency's five divisions play roles in ocean dumping and marine pollution research (i.e., Title II and S. 1617 functions): (a) Research & Development (which includes the Environmental Research Laboratories-which in turn include the MESA Program); (b) Oceanic & Atmospheric Services (which includes the National Ocean Survey-in which the "Ocean Dumping Program" resides); and (c) Fisheries (consisting of the National Marine Fisheries Service some of the laboratories of which are engaged in studies of pollutant transfers through the marine food chain).

Another agency component plays a key role in marine sanctuary designation and management (i.e., Title III functions): the Ocean Management Office (the Director of which is appearing before you this morning). Estuarine sanctuaries, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, it should be noted, are handled under a separate Coastal Zone Management Division.

There are some who contend, not totally without justification, that NOAA's marine pollution programs lack centralized supervision and coordination. We will discuss this problem later in addressing the issue of how S. 1617 should be implemented.

2. FUNDING LEVELS

Under Section 201 (ocean dumping monitoring and research), the current (FY '78) funding level is $1.87 million. For FY '79, the agency proposes to use this base funding level to continue studies at Deep Water Dumpsite 106 (at the edge of the New York Bight) and at the Puerto Rican Dumpsite. In addition, it seeks $800,000 to initiate studies at two dredge spoil dumpsites in the Gulf of Mexico and $250,000 for additional ship support; it also seeks $425,000 for complementary laboratory and field studies to strengthen basic knowledge of interactions between dumped materials and the affected ecosystems. The overall Section 201 effort, to the tune of $3,345,000, will be administered by the National Ocean Survey.

An additional $2.8 million for ocean dumping research (but not funded under Title II of the MPRSA), has been separately requested for FY '79 as part of the MESA Program, to fund the continuing research of the New York Bight Project.

Under Section 202 (long-range effects research), no funds were requested or approved through FY '78. The agency has requested for FY '79 a total of $2,785,000 to fund three long-range effects programs: (a) $1.9 million to expand and initiate research on the long-term environmental effects of chronic, lowlevel concentrations of hazardous materials on marine biota and to improve the ability to predict the effects and behavior of these substances in the marine ecosystem (to be administered by NOS); (b) $660,000 to initiate a research program directed at understanding and predict environmental threats such as industrial pollution and anoxia in the Gulf of Mexico (to be administered by the Research & Development division); and (c) $225,000 to initiate an intensive study of selected contaminants on ocean food chain processes and feeding interrelationships (to be administered by the Fisheries division). (Note: With respect to this last item, NOAA, in its testimony last month on the House side, inexplicably deleted all reference to these food-chain studies, and stated that the Administration's total Section 202 request amounted to only $2,560,000, rather than the $2,785,000 approved by OMB and contained in NOAA's budget submission to the Congress).

No funds have been requested for Section 203 (promotion of research on alternatives to ocean dumping), because-in the words of a NOAA official-"[this research] is more appropriately an EPA function." More on this subject later. NOAA's total FY '79 funding request under Title II of the MPRSA thus amounts to $6,130,000 (if the $225,000 for food-chain studies is included).

The House Committee (at the Subcommittee level) earlier this month voted to authorize Title II funding at the $7 million level for FY '79 and at the $9 million level for FY '80.

As far as Title III is concerned, no funds were sought or received through FY '78. For FY '79, the Administration has requested $500,000.

By contrast, the House Committee (at the Subcommittee level) has recommended Title III funding authorizations of $2,000,000 for FY '79 and $3,000,000 for FY '80.

We will now address the four issues raised in the Committee's invitation letter:

3. WHICH RESEARCH TOPICS DESERVE PRIORITY?

In terms of ocean dumping-related research and monitoring (Section 201), it seems fairly clear that dredge spoil dumping deserves priority attention.

Thus, as shown by the following Table, more than nine times as much dredged material is being ocean-dumped in U.S. coastal waters than all other ocean-dumped wastes combined. A sizeable proportion of this dredged material is contaminated with sewage and chemical pollutants.

TABLE 1.-COMPARATIVE LEVELS OF OCEAN DUMPING ACTIVITY, 1973-76

*Corresponding figures in millions of cubic yards are: 1973-66.5; 1974-98.7; 1975-87.8; and 1976-65.6. Source: NOAA Report to Congress on Ocean Dumping Research-January through December 1976 (July 1977), p. 3. Similarly, more than 90 percent (127 of 140) of the "approved interim dumping sites" designated in § 228.12 of the Ocean Dumping Criteria, 42 Fed. Reg. 2485-87 (Jan. 11, 1977), are dredged material dumpsites.

The best reason, however, for concentrating research and monitoring efforts on dredged material ocean dumping is the fact that most ocean-dumping of nondredged wastes is slated to be phased-out within the next three years or so. It makes little sense, at least in terms of deriving maximum usable information from a limited research effort, to devote an excessive proportion of available funds and resources to the study of dumping which will no longer occur a few years from now. To be sure, some existing non-dredged material dumpsites may deserve study, despite the interim status of these sites-whether because such studies will yield important basic information about the fate and effects of marine pollutants, because the studied sites are being heavily impacted now and it is desired to determine the short-term effects of such impacts, or because it is desired to follow recovery or rehabilitation rates at a site after dumping at the site ends. Nevertheless, it seems clear, given the magnitude of dredge spoil ocean dumping operations, the large number of dumpsites involved, and the lack of any foreseeable phase-out or reduction in the practice, that this is where NOAA's Section 201 research effort should be concentrated.

Unfortunately, NOAA's plans for dredge spoil dumpsite research are too little and too late.

In NOAA's original "Program Development Plan for Ocean Dumpsite Research and Monitoring Program" (May 1976), which has never been formally undated, a dumpsite "study schedule" it set forth (p. 5-2) which lists ten sites or categories of sites. Of this group, "dredge sites" are listed seventh, with "baseline and experimental study” of such sites projected to begin in FY '78, and “monitoring study" to commence only in FY '79. By contrast, Deep Water Dumpsite-106, Galveston site (non-dredged material), New Orleans site (non-dredged material), and Puerto Rico site were all slated to be studied beginning in FY '77 or earlier. Of course, there's been subsequent slippage in this schedule, and the Galveston and New Orleans sites appear to have since been dropped (quite properly) from high-priority status. But NOAA's present intention (as reflected in its current budget request) still seems to be to defer dredge sites studies until FY '79, and even then, to limit such studies to two Gulf of Mexico sites.

With 127 dredged material sites scattered throughout every U.S. coast, and given the variability of dumping practices at these sites, a program to study only

two of these sites, both of them in the same coastal area, doesn't seem terribly adequate.

In this regard, the Committee should be aware that a contributing factor in this misallocation of priorities and in the unjustified deferral of dredge site studies has been the delay in completing an interagency agreement on the subject between NOAA and the Corps of Engineers. We understand that NOAA is ready to sign off on such an agreement from its standpoint, but that EPA and the Corps are delaying matters by insisting that a NOAA-Corps agreement be until a three-way (or even four-way) agreement can be negotiated among NOAA, EPA, and the Corps (and possibly the Coast Guard).

Matters have not been helped either by the existing NOAA-EPA interagency agreement which essentially commits NOAA to follow through on dumpsite study priorities set by EPA-given the fact that EPA's principal regulatory interest is in non-dredged material dumpsites.

Particularly in light of NOAA's new lead-agency responsibilities under S. 1617 (if and when enacted), it seems inappropriate for NOAA to defer excessively to priorities dictated by other agencies.

We agree with NOAA's 1976 plan that dumpsites should be selected and prioritized for study based upon eight enumerated factors (p. 4-11) (we would add a ninth): (1) public health hazards, (2) environmental damage (actual or potential), (3) EPA/Corps program prioriteis, (4) NOAA program priorities, (5) quantity and composition of material dumped, (6) social and economic effects, (7) public concern, and (8) available resources. To these we'd add a ninth: (9) future of dumping at the site (i.e., if dumping there is to be phased-out in the near future, that should weigh against selecting that site for high-priority study).

The study of ocean dumpsites is expensive. It will cost in the neighborhood of $900,000 per year apiece to study the DWD-106 and the Puerto Rico dumpsites, both of which are deepwater offshore sites. Nearer-shore sites, such as the Gulf of Mexico dredge spoil sites, can be studied less expensively, but the price-tag is still on the order of $400,000 apiece per year. Clearly, EPA, NOAA and the Corps should be pooling and coordinating their resources in the site-study effort. But the combined effort in this regard should probably be about 10 times as great as it is now with greatest emphasis on dredge spoil sites.

As a practical matter, too, more rapid site study is clearly required since, by the terms of § 228.12 of the ocean dumping criteria, any of the existing dumpsites which have not been studied and formally redesignated by January 1980 will no longer be approved for ocean dumping. It would be sad indeed if, when that time arrives, an effort is made to simply extend the deadline because not enough was done to do what was necessary today.

Turning briefly to long-range research under Section 202, we believe that priority attention should be given to assessing the separate and cumulative impacts of marine pollutants on human health and marine ecosystems. Bioaccumulation of persistent, toxic chemicals, and of pathogens, particularly in foodchain species, is deserving of particular attention. (In this regard, we are particularly distressed at the previously noted deletion-whether intentional or inadvertent of even the low-level of FY '79 funding proposed for food-chain studies, from NOAA's presentation on the House side last month).

Among the key marine pollution sources which should receive close NOAA attention under Section 202 are discharges of sewage and other wastes through marine pipelines and outfalls.

We would hope as well that NOAA will be giving increased attention to monitoring and predicting the long-term effects of marine pollutants (e.g., through laboratory and field bioassay testing and other studies).

The implementation of Section 202, obviously, will be closely related to, and should be carefully integrated with, NOAA's implementation of S. 1617 (when and if enacted).

4. SHOULD SECTION 203 RESEARCH BE TRANSFERRED TO EPA?

Section 203 of the MPRSA presently directs the Secretary of Commerce (through NOAA) to "conduct and enocurage, cooperate [with others on], and render financial and other assistance [to appropriate groups and individuals] . . in the conduct of, and to promote the coordination of, research, investigation, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies for the purpose of determining means of minimizing or ending all dumping of materials within five years of the effective date of this Act."