grants are solely intended as operating grants for the implementation of the management plan and program. The committee may wish to clarify this language. Section 306 (c) (2), page 8, requires the coastal State to make provisions for public notice and to hold public hearings on the development of the management plan and program. All required public hearings under this title must be announced at least 30 days before they take place and all relevant materials, documents and studies must be readily available to the public for study at least 30 days in advance of the actual hearing or hearings. The committee may wish to increase the number of days notice for public hearings in order that the public may have advance notice that relevant studies and documents are to be available at least 30 days in advance of the hearings. This would give the public the benefit of the full 30 days to examine the relevant documents. Section 307(a), page 12, should be clarified as it is now unclear whether it provides that States must adequately consider the views of principally affected Federal agencies prior to submitting their plans to the Secretary or whether the Secretary must adequately consider the views of principally affected Federal agencies prior to his approval of the States' plans. In either case, the committee may wish to set a specific time limit within which principally affected Federal agencies must submit their views. Section 310, page 17, authorizes the Secretary to enter into agreements with coastal States to underwrite, by guaranty thereof, bond issues or loans for the purpose of land acquisition or land and water development and restoration projects. We believe that the bill should prescribe the terms and conditions of the bond issues or loans that may be guaranteed by the Secretary and the rights of the Federal Government in the case of default. Section 310 also states that the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed bonds and loans outstanding at any time may not exceed $140 million. We believe that the bill should further specify an aggregate amount of such guaranteed bond issues or loans available to each State. We also note that the bill does not identify the source of the Federal funds that would be needed in the event of any defaults. Section 311, page 17, authorizes the Secretary to establish a coastal and estuarine zone management advisory committee composed of not more than 15 persons designated by the Secretary. The section does not (1) specify the term of service of the members, and (2) provide for the designation of a chairman. The committee may wish to provide for (1) the term or terms of service and (2) the selection of a chairman. It is suggested that section 316, page 22, be preceded by the caption "Penalties." The committee may wish to provide captions for the sections in title IV of the bill other than section 401. Section 402 (d), page 25, states that the Secretary shall submit a report annually to the Congress setting forth a comprehensive review of his actions under the authority under this section. The committee may wish to set a specific date for the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, ROBERT F. VIELLER, Acting Comptroller General of the United States. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, July 30, 1971. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of June 21, 1971, for a report on H.R. 9229, a bill "To establish a national policy and develop a national program for the management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the land and water resources of the Nation's coastal and estuarine zones, and for other purposes." H.R. 9229 would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to any coastal State for the purpose of assisting in the development of a comprehensive management program for the land and water resources of the coastal zone. The bill would also provide for the designation of certain areas as marine sanctuaries for the purpose of preserving or restoring their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values. The views of this Department on the bill are those expressed in a report to your Committee on June 8, 1971, on H.R. 2493 and H.R. 3615, bills which would provide authority similar to that in H.R. 9229. For your convenience a copy of that report is enclosed. We are advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON, Secretary. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., June 23, 1971. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We respond to your request of June 21 for our comment on H.R. 9229, a bill "To establish a national policy and develop a national program for the management, beneficial use, protection and development of the land and water resources of the Nation's coastal and estuarine zones, and for other purposes". By letter of June 11, we furnished comment on H.R. 2492, H.R. 2493 and H.R. 3615, all similar to H.R. 9229 in that they would authorize assistance to the States in their establishment of coastal zone management plans and programs. H.R. 9229 is also similar to S. 582, coastal zone legislation now pending before the Senate Committee on Commerce. H.R. 9229 would amend the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 by adding new Titles III, the "National Coastal and Estuarine Zone Management Act of 1971", and IV, the "Marine Sanctuary Act of 1971". The bill would (1) authorize annual grants not to exceed 66% percent of a State's costs in developing its coastal zone management program, provided that no single grant exceed $600,000, and a like percentage for costs of administering the program; (2) authorize a program of bond and loan guarantees to facilitate land acquisition, land and water development, and restoration projects; (3) authorize cost-sharing for the acquisition, development and operation of not more than 15 estuarine sanctuaries; and (4) provide for designation by the Secretary of Commerce of marine sanctuaries within areas of the high seas outside the coastal and estuarine zone and "superjacent to the subsoil and seabed of the Continental Shelf". "Marine sanctuary" is not defined, nor is there provided a distinction between "marine sanctuary" and "estuarine sanctuary", which, under terms of section 312(b), might also be established "seaward beyond the coastal and estuarine zone". Our earlier comments are generally applicable to those provisions of H.R. 9229 which would provide for land use management within the coastal zone. We strongly recommend the enactment of H.R. 4332, this Administration's proposal for assistance to the States in their development of comprehensive plans for effective management of all the Nation's lands and waters. As we noted in the earlier report, the National Land Use Policy Act of 1971 (H.R. 4332) is intended to broaden the coverage of coastal zone legislation submitted during the last Congress, while still giving priority attention to those areas of the country which are particularly sensitive to development pressures. The marine sanctuary concept proposed in H.R. 9229 as a new Title IV of the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 is deserving of careful study, and of treatment in a separate bill. It would be inappropriate, we believe, to embark upon the Federal regulatory scheme required by sections 412 (f) and 413 within the context of legislation designed to assist the coastal States in the exercise of their land management responsibilities. Further, absent clarification, the proposed Title IV is in conflict with the mineral leasing provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331–1343). The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, HARRISON LOESCH, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Washington, D.C., August 6, 1971. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 9229, a bill "To establish a national policy and develop a national program for the management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the land and water resources of the Nation's coastal and estuarine zones, and for other purposes." Your request, dated June 21, 1971, for Smithsonian comments on H.R. 9229 was received too late to prepare a detailed reply in time for hearings on this bill scheduled before the Subcommittee on Oceanography for June 22-24, 1971. However, it is noted that H.R. 9229 is a modification and expansion of H.R. 2493, a bill whose general objectives the Smithsonian supports and upon which the Institution reported accordingly in a letter to you dated June 24, 1971 (copy attached). The Smithsonian continues to support these basic objectives as now set forth in H.R. 9229. However, as observed in the report on H.R. 2493, the Institution notes the Administration's comprehensive and integrated "National Land Use Policy Act of 1971" (introduced as H.R. 4332) which gives concrete recognition to the importance of the Nation's coastal and estuarine areas by encouraging the coastal States to adopt special protective measures pertaining to these areas. For this reason, the Smithsonian defers to the views of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of the Interior regarding the specific implementing provisions set forth in H.R. 9229. With respect to Marine Sanctuaries (Title IV of the proposed legislation), the Smithsonian firmly believes that serious consideration must be given to the need for marine sanctuaries. However, decisions of a complex nature will be involved in determining scientifically, economically, and politically (1) which areas should be delineated as marine sanctuaries, (2) the effect of the establishment of such areas upon competing biological and commercial uses; and (3) the posture, vis-a-vis international law, of such sanctuaries located beyond the 3-nautical-mile limit. For this reason, the matter of establishing marine sanctuaries may warrant special consideration on its own merits and very likely is the proper subject of a separate bill. Further, it might be useful to delay specific legislation until some of the planned international conferences, dealing with law and the ocean environment, have been completed in order to determine the type of legislation needed in the light of such agreements as may emerge from these conferences. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, Attachment. S. DILLON RIPLEY, Secretary. (A copy of the attachment can be found on p. 20.) Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 9229, "To establish a national policy and develop a national program for the management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the land and water resources of the Nation's coastal and estuarine zones, and for other purposes." The bill would authorize Federal guarantees of obligations issued by coastal States for land acquisition, water development, and restoration projects. It would not alter the tax status of obligations guaranteed under the bill. Thus. the bill would result in Federal guarantees of tax-exempt obligations. The bill raises a number of questions of overall Federal credit program policy, including problems with Federal guarantees of tax-exempt obligations and the need to husband Federal credit resources. The enclosed statement by Assistant Secretary Weidenbaum before the Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere of the Senate Committee on Commerce on S. 582, a similar bill, contains a detailed discussion of the Federal credit program policy questions which are also raised by H.R. 9229. The Department has been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. SAMUEL R. PIERCE, (A copy of the enclosure may be found on p. 21.) General Counsel. Mr. LENNON. Let me state to our witnesses that already we have been confronted with a rather unusual situation. The House is convening today at 11 o'clock, which we had no reason to anticipate when these hearings were scheduled. It will meet, of course, on a quorum call, and we will have to recess, at least, and go to the floor just to establish our presence here in the Congress by answering that rollcall and then we will return, stay here at least until 12:30, subject, of course, to another quorum call being called in that period. We are faced with a situation tomorrow that we did not anticipate when these hearings were scheduled. An emergency has developed regarding legislation that is pending before the full committee from several subcommittees that will have to be considered tomorrow morning. Hopefully, we can conclude those hearings shortly and at 10 o'clock accommodate the witnesses who have come, traveled great distances in order to make their appearance possible here. The first witness this morning is Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., director of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Va. I know that my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Mr. Downing, joins me in welcoming Dr. Hargis as our first witness. Mr. Downing? Mr. DOWNING. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. Dr. Hargis is a distinguished scientist, one of the foremost, I think, in the country. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see him very much on one of these NOAA commissions. Mr. LENNON. I have already expressed my views on that. Dr. Hargis, we are delighted now to have you officially introduced to the committee. We have been privileged to hear your views in an informal session in which no notes were taken. We are now on the record. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM J. HARGIS, JR., DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, GLOUCESTER POINT, VA.; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. THOMAS H. SUDDATH Dr. HARGIS. We have prepared two small booklets as testimony, one, "The Need for a Separate National Coastal Zone Management Program," and the other, "The Roles and Organization of Science and Engineering in Coastal Zone Planning and Management." With your permission I will submit them for inclusion in the record, and then summarize the major points that we would like to make in deference to the time. Mr. LENNON. Without objection, so ordered. (Booklets follow :) THE ROLES AND ORGANIZATION OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN COASTAL ZONE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT (By William J. Hargis, Jr., Ph. D., Director, Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Gloucester Point, Virginia) and Chairman, Coastal States Organization) INTRODUCTION Increasing interest in the problems of properly using and preserving the resources of the coastal zone is encouraging. I am pleased to be able to discuss the developing "National Coastal Zone Program" with you. Comments in this part of my testimony will be directed mostly toward a) the role of Science and Engineering in coastal zone management, and b) possible organizational arrangements for facilitating proper use of science and technology in planning and management of coastal zone resources for the present and future. It might be worth noting that most of my last fifteen years of professional experience as a marine scientist has been spent as scientific advisor and administrator in and to several local, state and interstate coastal zone management agencies. The last ten have been spent as marine affairs advisor to the General Assembly, the Governor and to the executive agencies responsible for planning and managing marine resources. As Director of the principal oceanographic agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have designed and built what could be called "Coastal Zone Laboratories." Not only is the Institute a Coastal Zone Laboratory in fact but it is also one in Law (Title 28 of the Code of Virginia) and by Executive Decree. See attachments. The task RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS IN COASTAL ZONE The principal task under consideration is proper allocation and use of coastal zone resources and their potentials to the many, sometimes exclusively competitive, users and to posterity. This requires effective planning and management by all public and private units involved, which in turn requires information, technologcal advice and services. Here is the principal entry of science and engineering into the program. It is important to note that we are not designing a scientific program for the sake of science but for use in an effective coastal zone management system! This is a critical point which is often partially or wholly overlooked in considerations of Coastal Zone Laboratory systems. Many approach development of such units as though they were building new "basic" research program and not problem or "mission-oriented" units. Both are compatible, of course, but a Coastal Zone Laboratory exists primarily to solve problems and acquire essential fundamental and "secondary" information for contributing to this primary goal. The question To determine what the scientific and technological requirements are in coastal zone management, one should begin with the question: What scientific and technological services are necessary in order to do an effective job (after having carefully defined the essential features of that job) of planning and managing the resources of the coastal zone? Researchers, scientists, and engineers must help frame and define the questions, but if the object is to plan and manage the environments and resources of the coastal zone more or most effectively, then it is the planners and managers, whose needs must be met, who must initiate definition of the tasks. They must be intimately involved. They must, of course, be competent to the task and assist where necessary! The milieu in which the coastal zone management unit must operate is highly relevant in establishment of the administrative apparatus of its scientific agency. |