was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.] [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee on Oceanography Figure 3. Radioactive waste package investigated at the Atlantic 2800m dumpsite [Note the capability for precise positioning of tube core and box core relative to the radioactive waste package.] MARINE SANCTUARIES MONDAY, JULY 24, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Breaux (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Breaux, Hughes, Akaka, and Forsythe. Mr. BREAUX. On February 1, 1978, the Subcommittees on Oceanography and Fisheries and Wildlife convened hearings to consider the authorization of funds to be appropriated to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Those hearings focused in significant part on the implementation of title III, Marine Sanctuaries. From the testimony on that subject, it was clear that two important questions had to be answered: Does title III, and the way in which it is being implemented, adequately provide for a balance of the competing interests in development of resources and protection of the environment? Is the regulatory authority provided by title III and the additional level of bureaucracy which it implies justified by the incremental benefit to the environment which might be achieved by the establishment of marine sanctuaries? Subsequent hearings on the subject have left these questions unanswered. In fact, statements by NOAA officials and others before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and in public meetings in California, have contributed to the uncertainty of the situation. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to persist. An ambitious program to designate sanctuaries is now being implemented by NOAA. Marine areas under active consideration for designation as sanctuaries are of considerable importance to the Nation. Those areas are said to have significant environmental value. They also contain known and potential oil and gas reserves needed to help meet our growing energy requirements as well as valuable fisheries resources and marine transportation corridors which are all important ocean uses. Any marine sanctuaries program must accommodate these conflicting uses in a balanced and sensible way. The Congress and the public have a right to expect no less. Today we will hear testimony which represents the spectrum of public opinion on this important matter. We will also hear from the Federal agency which is responsible for implementing title III. Testimony received today will, I hope, play an important part in answering the major questions presented by the marine sanctuaries program. Mr. BREAUX. Do you have any comments, Mr. Forsythe? Mr. FORSYTHE. No; thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BREAUX. Our first witness is Mr. Sam Bleicher. We have a copy of your prepared statement. You may proceed as you see fit. STATEMENT OF SAM BLEICHER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF OCEAN MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Mr. BLEICHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me read my statement into the record quickly and then we can proceed with questions. I appreciate the opportunity to report to this subcommittee on the current status of the marine sanctuaries program. With me are several members of my staff and the NOAA general counsel, Eldon Greenberg, in case you have specific questions they can help me with. 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 for the purpose of preserving or restoring their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values. Responsibility for this program was delegated to the Office of Ocean Management in November 1977. I last testified before this subcommittee about this program on February 1, 1978, on the reauthorization of title III. The House and Senate hearings in February and March 1978, and the subsequent committee markups of title III, revealed significant variations in opinion about the scope and character of the marine sanctuaries program. Although two marine sanctuaries-the U.S.S. Monitor site off North Carolina and the Key Largo, Fla., coral reef-had been designated in 1975, the national marine sanctuary program had not been adequately defined. Its overall size and focus were undetermined, and the program objectives as well as criteria and procedures for establishing sanctuaries needed clarification. Moreover, public understanding of the program and its goals was minimal. In response to these circumstances, the Office of Ocean Management has taken a number of steps over the last 6 months to initiate a public dialog on the program, describe program objectives, and explain the criteria we propose to utilize in identifying and designating marine sanctuaries. As part of this process, we consulted with interested congressional committees on amendments to the Marine Sanctuaries Act, which will clarify the legal effect of designating a sanctuary and the procedures to be followed in so doing. Our primary focus has been to improve communications with people in the areas likely to be affected by the program. Office representatives have met with a wide range of groups affected by or interested in marine sanctuaries in order to improve our own understanding of their concerns and to explain the program's legal framework and procedures. Informal meetings have been held with |