Mr. PRITCHARD. When you have mixed opinion, and yet you look at some city like Seattle, and say, invest $70 million, and that is at the cost of storm sewers and a whole lot of other things that we desperately need, it has cut down on a feeling or perception of reasonableness in Governement, or the best way to apply our laws to a given need.

OK, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you.

The question that I really wanted you to get back on, and I am surprised you do not have the answer yet this morning, is an explanation of how your shop coordinates its efforts with NOAA under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. That seems like it should be such an obvious answer that it does not need anybody to go back to NOAA on. How does your shop coordinate with both the Coast Guard and NOAA in regard to oil pollution and the Ocean Dumping Act?

Dr. GAGE. Well, my only answer to the question right at this point, Mr. Breaux, is my lack of experience in this particular area. I have just been in this position for a short period of time, and I am not fully conversant with all activities.

I can give you, anecdotally, some of the information that we do have. In certain areas I know that the interaction is quite high. For instance, EPA and NOAA have been cosponsoring workshops, starting a recent one in Hartford, Conn., to develop a joint plan for responding to oil spills, and for assessing the amount of ecological damage which is associated with the oil spills.

This was really brought to a head at the time of the Argo Merchant spill this last winter. What we are trying to do at this point is to develop a joint program so that the expertise of the several agencies can be used to move in very rapidly after a spill occurs, and to carry out, not only physical assessment of the damage, but also biological assessment of the damage, associated with the spills. These interactions are going on at a number of levels.

Dr. Hess and I just spoke briefly before the hearing about the plans that we would have to make to move this on up to the policy level in our respective agencies, and get agreement as to what sort of detailed plans and commitments of resources we are going to have to make available in order to be able to respond to such needs.

Mr. BREAUX. Well, I am sure that somewhere in the shop there exists some kind of a memorandum of some sort that states in precise terms how NOAA and EPA coordinate their efforts in NOAA under the title II authority, and if you would go back and see if you have that, I would appreciate it.

All right, Dr. Gage and Mr. Barth, thank you very much. We appreciate your appearance. Thank you for your testimony.

Dr. GAGE. Thank you for your consideration in letting me appear first, and I will ask staff here to listen to the NOAA testimony, and will continue working with them.

Mr. BREAUX. Our next witness is Dr. Wilmot N. Hess.

Dr. Hess, the committee welcomes you, and if you have a statement, that will, of course, be submitted in the record in its entirety, you may proceed as you see fit.

Please identify your colleague with you.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILMOT N. HESS, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM C. BREWER, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, NOAA

Dr. HESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am joined this morning by the general counsel of NOAA, Mr. William Brewer.

I appreciate this opportunity to be here today to present the views of the Department of Commerce concerning S. 1617, a bill designed to establish a program of environmental research and development related to marine pollution.

Our Agency supports the objectives of this bill which are to establish a comprehensive Federal plan for environmental research and development related to pollution of the marine environment and to assure that an adequate program is developed to meet the Nation's needs with regard to assessing the marine pollution problems through a coordinated Federal effort. This is an extremely important issue and is being addressed by the administration at this time as a part of the overall plan of the President to review all Federal agency programs and organizational structures with the intent of achieving a goal that we all share-more effective and efficient use of the Federal dollars and other resources. In light of this ongoing review, the administration opposes enactment of this bill.

There are numerous Federal agencies engaged in marine environmental research. While it is presumed that most of these activities provide useful and necessary information in support of agency missions, there remains at issue the fragmented nature of the overall Federal research effort which may be resulting in a duplication of effort.

In 1972, Congress passed the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Although the primary purpose of that legislation was to address the problem of ocean dumping, section 202 of that act assigned responsibility to the Secretary of Commerce for initiating a comprehensive and continuing program of research into the long-range effects of ocean pollution, overfishing, and other mancaused changes of marine ecosystems.

Section 202 showed considerable foresight on the part of the Congress. The activities of man on land, in the coastal zone, and in the open ocean are causing changes to ocean ecosystems. It is essential that we improve our understanding of these cause-andeffect relationships.

This legislation which was passed 5 years ago is sound in principle but in practice it has been difficult to administer.

One of the reasons for this was the continued existence of multiple Federal programs which made it difficult to coordinate the activities of the Federal agencies engaged in research on long-range effects of pollution in the marine environment. A second reason was the difficulty in differentiating between research on long-range effects and other scientific investigations related to marine pollu

A third reason was that section 202 seemed to emphasize creation of a new program when its emphasis should also have been to coordinate the various research activities already funded in order to identify duplication and gaps. Certain beneficial results came from NOAA's attempt to implement that provision of law.

One was that in our annual reports to Congress, the current Federal effort in this area was described. It was found to be substantial although fragmented. Second, as an agency, in our planning activities we now make a distinction between long-range and short-range research even though, as I have stated, it is difficult at times to draw the line between the two.

Even though these problems exist, the solution, in our opinion, clearly is not to superimpose another large research program over the existing tangled web of research. In our opinion, the solution is to specifically ascertain the total Federal effort, to identify overlap and gaps, to set priorities, and to implement a comprehensive plan. The administration has already set in motion the process to accomplish this solution.

As I mentioned earlier, the President's reorganization project already has activities underway which are designed to assist in the consolidation of existing programs, the elimination of unnecessary duplication, the establishment of effective coordination processes, and principally, to give direction to the Federal efforts.

With this administration effort underway, the administration believes that it is premature to enact legislation such as S. 1617. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you very much, Dr. Hess.

Are you still commuting from Colorado?

Dr. HESS. That is correct. Every week, sir.

Mr. BREAUX. Well, we particularly appreciate your being with us today and sharing your testimony with the committee.

You point out, rather graphically, one of the concerns that I have, and that is the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Section 202 of title II of that legislation already calls for NOAA to engage in long-range research and development efforts in this area of pollution research.

I fear that in this legislation we are just merely stating that perhaps in a little more detail, but I notice you also point out a couple of reasons why it has been difficult to administer section 202. Very diplomatically, you did not indicate what I think is probably the largest reason that you do not have any money in it. You do not have any funds in section 202.

Dr. HESS. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BREAUX. That has to be one major reason why it is difficult to administer, too, is it not?

Dr. HESS. Yes; we have certain program elements which we consider fall under the general provisions of 202, but they are things which are already in place.

Mr. BREAUX. What you really have to do to get anything out of 202 is to shift funds around from other ongoing programs, and try to get appropriations for this 202?

Dr. HESS. That is correct.

Mr. BREAUX. Well, what do you think about just abolishing section 202 authority completely under the Ocean Dumping Act, and putting the program under a similar program, such as this legislation creates, which is a separate and distinct ocean pollution research and development act?

Dr. HESS. We think the objectives of the new legislation are completely proper, and we would like to see them brought into being, but the administration feels it is proper to wait until they have gone through the review process and the reorganization process looking at ocean policy in total, before that is accomplished. Mr. BREAUX. Maybe you can tell us what I was hoping to get from EPA. How do you coordinate with EPA on the Ocean Dumping Act, as far as research and development?

Dr. HESS. In certain areas we have quite close cooperation. We have an interagency agreement which deals with section 201, ocean dumping, the studies of dumping at particular sites.

Mr. BREAUX. You have money in that section, do you not, section 201?

Dr. Hess. Yes; we do have ocean dumping money in section 201, and under that section, we have coordinated with EPA. We have received from them a list of candidate sites of ocean dumping areas that should be studied, and we are working on several of those sites now, doing monitoring and characterization of those sites. So in that particular area there is quite good coordination.

One other area where we have worked together has been in the New York Bight, where we have carried out the Marine Ecosystem Analysis [MESAJ-New York Bight project, which is a research effort aimed at understanding what is going on in the New York Bight, an area of water which has been seriously challenged by people dumping sewage, dredge spoils, and other kinds of noxious materials into it.

In connection with the studies in the New York Bight, we have worked with EPA on the problem of the possible relocation of the sewage dumpsite. That is being carried on rather well.

Mr. BREAUX. Is there a formal memorandum existing between the two agencies as far as how they are monitoring, I mean how your cooperative efforts are to be conducted?

Dr. HESS. Under section 201 there is a formal interagency agreement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BREAUX. If you could, we would like to have it submitted for the record.

Dr. HESS. Yes.

[The following was received for the record.]

EPA-NOAA INteragency Agreement Concerning Baseline Surveys and EVALUATIONS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES, UNDER MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT

SECTION I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A. Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401-1444, directs the Administrator of EPA to regulate the dumping of materials into ocean waters, including issuance of permits for such dumping, establishment of critieria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications, and designation of sites and times for such dumping.

The Administrator of EPA will require baseline surveys and evaluations of existing and proposed disposal sites for the purpose of evaluating or predicting the effect of ocean disposal operations on the marine environment and guiding regulatory

decisions and for the preparation of EIS's. Such surveys and evaluations will involve collection, analyses and interpretation of existing data and information related to existing or proposed sites and field surveys designed to determine physical, chemical, geological and biological characteristics of these sites.

B. Title II of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act directs the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating and with the Administrator of EPA, to initiate a comprehensive and continuing program of monitoring and research on the effects of ocean dumping, and to report his findings at least annually to the Congress. Responsibility for conduct of this program has been delegated to NOAA.

C. The purpose of this interagency agreement is to provide for coordination between EPA and NOAA in a program of ocean disposal site baseline surveys and evaluations. This program is consistent with the coordination required under the Act, and is intended to assure that NOAA programs of monitoring and research, while fulfilling NOAA's mandate under Title II of the Act, also provide information required by EPA for site evaluation and management.

SECTION II. PROVISIONS

A. EPA will identify its requirements for disposal site surveys and evaluations for regulatory purposes. Specifications of information required will be developed in cooperation with NOAA, and EPA will give full consideration to NOAA views and guidelines in formulation or revision of regulations and guidelines specifying requirements for such studies.

B. EPA will develop and provide to NOAA a schedule of priorities for surveys and Environmental Impact Statements at existing and proposed disposal sites.

C. NOAA will provide detailed study plans to EPA, and conduct the necessary studies. EPA will provide information on the types and quantities of wastes discharged. Funding will be either under NOAA resources or by reimbursement from EPA. In the event that NOAA cannot contract or undertake the required surveys in accordance with EPA's operational program priorities under either NOAA or reimbursable EPA funding, EPA will contract or undertake these surveys directly to the extent of its resources.

D. As a result of surveys and evaluations of each disposal site, NOAA will prepare a report or reports on findings in cooperation with EPA. NOAA will provide copies of all survey data, as requested, together with these reports. The reports will be structured, as possible and feasible, to serve as input to preparation by EPA of Environmental Impact Statements required for each disposal site.

E. Where deemed necessary, NOAA will provide EPA and EPA contractors technical assistance in the interpretation of the NOAA collected oceanographic data during the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. This effort may be reimbursed to NOAA by EPA at the discretion of the agency coordinators (see Section III.A.).

F. Where EPA imposes monitoring requirements on permittees, these requirements will be developed in consultation with NOAA to reduce the possibility of duplication of effort and insure the standardization of equipments, methodologies, and quality control.

G. Under Section 112 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the EPA Administrator is required to report annually to the Congress on his administration of Title I. Under Section 201 of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce is required to report at least annually on the findings of the program of monitoring and research. In order to meet these reporting requirements in a coordinated manner, the following provisions will apply:

(1) The EPA report will summarize the numbers and types of surveys made, the emphasis on their relation to site designation and other aspects of the regulatory program, and the application of the information to the needs of the regulatory program.

(2) The NOAA report will summarize the detailed scientific findings of the surveys, with emphasis on describing the ambient conditions in the disposal sites and the general scientific conclusions drawn from these and other such surveys.

(3) Both agencies will make provision for full exchange of information on all aspects of the ocean dumping program, and each agency will be afforded full opportunity to review and comment on the report of the other agency.

(4) Data and information obtained under this agreement shall be available through free access from appropriate data centers to all parties. Freedom of information will be adhered to under the broadest interpretation. EPA will be provided with copies of all data requested and will have access to original data upon request. All data collected by NOAA or NOAA contractors will be formatted and transmit