Mr. DINGELL. You are saying that you don't have to look into the adequacy of sewage treatment plants. But you say here EDA has initiated relatively few impact statements because many of the projects it assists are sewage handling facilities.

I must confess, first of all, that appears to be a novel statement, because EDA does appear to be engaged in other activities, including construction loans. It does make loans for business purposes, construction of powerplants and for a wide area of business activities. Are you going to have environmental impact statements filed by EDA in relation to other activities?

Dr. SCHANES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Is that a categorical statement, or do you have reservations with regard to that particular point?

Dr. SCHANES. When EDA is the lead agency. When it is supplemental to another agency's activities, then the responsibility rests on the other agency.

Mr. DINGELL. I find myself a little hard put to interpret that as clearly as I would like. Does it not make loans, grants, and so forth in connection with those activities that are going to be undertaken and dependent on these loans? I would assume EDA is the lead agency.

Dr. SCHANES. It is in certain cases.

Mr. DINGELL. I would assume in connection with any one of these major projects for construction and so forth-roads, highways, major business activities, powerlines, power generating facilities, hotels, and things of this kind-it will be necessary to file the appropriate 102 (C) statements. Am I correct?

Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Chairman, the guidelines given to us by CEQ require that the lead agency do this.

Mr. DINGELL. Is EDA in these instances the lead agency?

Mr. BRENNAN. Take a situation, for example, where another agency is constructing a facility and the State requests and is granted a sup plemental grant from EDA. We view this situation as not the responsibility of EDA.

Mr. DINGELL. You are saying where another Federal agency does this you view the filing of the impact statement as being the responsibility of the agency which actually engaged in the activity as being the lead agency?

Mr. BRENNAN. This is correct.

Mr. DINGELL. First of all, do you have any policy inside of EDA that would require steps to be taken to assure that the other agencies which in fact are the lead agencies do file the 120 (C) statement, or are the rules of EDA silent on this point, so that possibly the requirement for a 102 statement might fall between the cracks?

Mr. BRENNAN. Where the responsibility is with the lead agency, we don't try to go beyond this responsibility. That is the responsibility that they have to fulfill.

Mr. DINGELL. You take no responsibility with regard to assurance that the other agencies do in fact file 102 statements?

Mr. BRENNAN. We do not police the other agencies to make sure that they file.

Mr. DINGELL. You do not?

Mr. BRENNAN. No.

Mr. DINGELL. It appears to me that that is a distinct deficiency in your proceedings.

Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that perhaps this would be the responsibility, if any one, of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Mr. DINGELL. I intend to pursue that particular matter with them. I do bring to your attention the fact that, in my view, where your agency does fund and the so-called lead agency which does the actual work files the impact statement, I have a feeling that there is a possibility matters of this kind might fall between the cracks.

You make the categorical statement however in connection with sewage treatment plants that in compliance with CEQ Interim Guidelines no additional impact statement is prepared in connection with sewage treatment plants. In other words, you don't review these plants to ascertain whether or not they have an impact on esthetics, whether or not they have an impact on the ecology or environment of the stream, whether they have a destructive effect on the neighborhood in which they are sited, or whether they destroy or impair the value of historic sites or areas, ecological or secnic or cultural values?

Let us take the situation where through some set of circumstances EDA was being called upon to finance a sewage treatment plant next to the home of one of the former Presidents. Would you require an environmental impact statement?

Dr. SCHANES. At present, no.

Mr. DINGELL. At present, no?

Dr. SCHANES. I am just saying we should take this under advisement.

Mr. DINGELL. There is a wide variance with the requirements of the statute which I understand are quite clear. Suppose it was determined that they were going to construct sewage treatment plants in the boundaries or on the fringes of, let us say, the Great Smokies National Park or the home, let us say, of Andy Jackson. You would require no environmental impact statement there?

Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Chairman, you are, of course, right. I believe our final sentence on page 5 is inelegantly worded. We mean to imply in regard to CEQ guidelines we don't require this statement only with respect to water quality.

Mr. DINGELL. I am happy to hear you interpret your comment. You must recognize your statement does not indicate that is the manner in which you were interested. You simply said you would require no additional impact statement.

Mr. BRENNAN. Your interpretation is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DINGELL. I hope that you will review this matter with some care. It appears to me that this is not in conformity at all with the law. Now will you tell me what is in the language of the statute as interpreted by your agency for puropses of filing 102 (c) statements: A Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment?

Perhaps after you have answered this I can afford you an opportunity to submit a clear and concise statement of that for the purposes of the record. If you are interpreting your responsibilities as you have already indicated with regard to your statement on page 5, we have some small problems here.

Dr. SCHANES. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I think that counsel perhaps addressed himself to your statement with respect to that sentence. He was agreeing that our statement was not an appropriate description of what we are doing.

Mr. DINGELL. Not an appropriate description of what you are doing?

Dr. SCHANES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. I am comforted. Perhaps maybe you can tell me then, so that we have the record clear, first what you are doing and then how you interpret the language of the statute which I have just read, which deals with Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of human environment.

Mr. BRENNAN. We feel with respect to sewage projects, the water quality aspects need not be gone into. Now, with respect to your second question, we look upon this act as the start perhaps of what might be termed an environmental ethic. In looking at the policy guidance in section 101 (b), which lists a broad range of aspects of the environment to be surveyed in any assessment of the effect on the environment, we think that the provisions in 102 (2) (b) should be interpreted in the manner in which the Council on Environmental Quality has suggested.

In effect, Mr. Chairman, in our implementing regulations, not only do we include a copy of the interim guidelines and say they should be followed, but in addition with respect to determining major impact. we specifically call attention to this fact in section 5.01, saying that "the criteria prescribed in subsection 5(b) and (c) of the Interim Guidelines shall be used in determining if an action will have any significant environmental effect on the environment.

We take this responsibility very seriously, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. You still have not given me a clear and concise statement as to what the Department of Commerce regards as an action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment.

Rather than belabor the point at this late hour, I am going to ask you to submit a statement for the purposes of the record, what the Department regards as an action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Dr. SCHANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The statement appears on p. 375, app. A.)

Mr. DINGELL. I must return now to the question of compliance with CEQ interim guidelines.

Let us take again the Hermitage or the Great Smokies National Park, both areas which are in the area of EDA's responsibility geographically.

What does the Department do about the construction of a sewage treatment there? Would you require an additional impact statement or not?

Dr. SCHANES. Are we now talking about water alone, or are we talking about total environmental impact?

Mr. DINGELL. I am asking what you would do if somebody were to come to you for a grant for sewage treatment construction, would you impose a requirement that a 102 statement be filed or not?

Dr. SCHANES. We would require it except where we don't have the jurisdiction. The question has arisen as I understand right now with

respect to the one I noted here on EDA, as to whether it is Agriculture or Commerce that has the lead responsibility for getting the environmental statement.

Mr. DINGELL. You would require one, then, on all questions except. on the question of pollution because you have the certificate in that area; is that correct?

Dr. SCHANES. Not where we are not the lead agency.

Mr. DINGELL. I have asked you with regard to the question of lead agency, do you have any standards or criteria or rules inside your agency to ascertain whether or not your are a lead agency for the purpose of filing 102 settlements?

Dr. SCHANES. The answer is "Yes."

Mr. DINGELL. How do you know if you are the lead agency or not? Dr. SCHANES. We communicate with other agencies.

Mr. DINGELL. Pardon?

Dr. SCHANES. I don't know that we have a formal process. There must be some interagency discussion to decide who is the lead agency. But I don't know that there is a formal piece of paper which is down in the records that so identifies it. We shall pursue it.

Mr. DINGELL. I have a distinct feeling that there will be things falling between the cracks down there without you folks knowing about it.

Now, you indicate that NOAA is in the process of preparing environmental impact statements on programs involving hurricane modification, Great Lakes snowstorm modification, cumulus cloud modifications, and hail and lightning suppression.

Are these general statements on the whole program or on specific programs conducted in specific areas?

Dr. HIBBS. My understanding is that these are statements for the individual programs which are named here.

Mr. DINGELL. For the individual program?

Dr. HIBBS. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Would they be, let us say, within the framework of a lightning or a hailstorm suppression, a specific hurricane suppression program?

Suppose you go out and join in suppressing Hurricane Helen. Would you file an impact statement on that particular action?

Dr. HIBBS. I would prefer that we answer that for the record. Because of the detail, I am not familiar with it at that level.

Mr. DINGELL. I must confess that I have not had this difficulty in getting answers of this kind from other agencies that have been before us. Wouldn't you like to try?

Dr. SCHANES. The difficulty here is that this is a budgetary process as well as a program process. You have a total program which will achieve some end such as weather modification, hurricane modification. I cannot see how NOAA at this point could identify what hurricane it will be attempting to modify later on.

Mr. DINGELL. Let us say it is going out to suppress a particular hurricane, would you file an environmental impact statement on that? Dr. SCHANES. At that point?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Dr. SCHANES. I don't know, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. I would like to have the answer.

(The information follows:)

PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS FOR SEEDING OF

SPECIFIC HURRICANES

To minimize the possibility of injury to persons or damage to property caused by seeding of a hurricane, NOAA restricts its experimental seeding of hurricanes to certain allowed seeding areas. If the hurricane is within 18 hours of land, it cannot be seeded. The 18 hour criterion is selected because it is believed that after this time, the storm reverts to approximately the natural state it would have been in had it not been seeded. In addition, NOAA requires that all seeding be done during daylight hours.

Of the 12 hurricanes which developed in the 1970 season none were seedable under our criteria. In 1969, one of 12 could be seeded. The decision to seed is made personally by the Administrator, NOAA and concurred in by the Secretary of the Navy. A tropical depression develops into a tropical storm and then into a hurricane in 2-5 days. In order not to miss the rare opportunity to seed, when the Administrator has approved the seeding, a storm is normally seeded within about six hours after reaching hurricane force and being in an allowed seeding

area.

Thus, there is no real opportunity to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement for experimental seeding of an individual hurricane.

Under the criteria we impose on seeding, we feel that any environmental impact which may accrue is confined to the ocean and would be about the same for each experimental seeding attempt. However, in evaluation of the data resulting from an individual seeding attempt would suggest modification of the environmental impact statement for the experimental hurricane modification project, this would be done.

Mr. DINGELL. That, again, relates back to the question I directed to you; what do you interpret as being an agency action that would have a significant effect on the human environment?

Gentlemen, you have indicated that copies of your Department's Order 10-1 are available for the record. It would be appreciated if you would submit that for the purpose of the record.

(The copies of Order 10-1 appear on p. 381, appendix A.)

Mr. DINGELL. You made a statement that troubles me, on page 9. You say:

We have also had difficulty in determining what our responsibilities are with respect to other departments' projects. For example, whether this responsibility should be restricted to those areas in which we are listed as having special expertise by the Council on Environmental Quality.

Would you want to elaborate on that statement, please, gentlemen? Dr. SCHANES. Yes, sir.

We were requested by the Council on Environmental Quality to indicate those areas in which we thought we had special expertise. This was some time ago. The Council then published a list identifying the agencies which could be called upon by other agencies for review of environmental impact statements.

For example, we were listed under air pollution problems, economic development problems and now, of course, with the acquisition of NOAA, all the activities of the Bureau of Commerce Fisheries.

When the request comes in for review of the special impact statement, the question which has plagued us is, do we review it only in the light of the expertise, or do we look at it in terms of all the things we know about and give our views on the total spectrum?

We are not sure what the agency had in mind when it sent it to us. That is part of our communication problem.

Mr. DINGELL. The statute on the first page, I believe, as a matter of fact says that you have responsibility to "assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings."