Page images
PDF
EPUB

“Area No. 2: The tide and submerged lands surrounding the Islands of San Clemente and Santa Catalina waterward of the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean on such islands to a distance three nautical miles therefrom.

“(b) All those tide and submerged lands begin in the County of Santa Barbara and lying within an area beginning at the point of intersection of the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean with the westerly line of that certain 408.60 acres, more or less, tract of land shown as belonging to the University of California, Santa Barbara College, upon that certain map thereof, recorde in Book 29 at page 143 Record of Surveys, in the Office of the Santa Barbara County Recorder; thence in a general easterly direction along said ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean to a point distant 500 feet westerly from, measured at right angles thereto, the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of that certain tract of land deeded to Nino Brambilla, et ux., by that certain deed, recorded April 2, 1947, in Book 724 at page 353 of Official Records, in said county recorder's office; thence due south to a point in the Pacific Ocean three nautical miles from said ordinary high water mark; thence in a general westerly direction, parallel with the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean to a point due south from the point of beginning; thence due north to the point of beginning;

"(c) All those tide and submerged lands being in the County of San Luis Obispo and lying within an area beginning at a point on the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean at the center line of the pier at the Pismo Beach State Beach Park; thence southerly along the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean to a point 10 statute miles distant in a direct line from said point of beginning; thence on a line due west into the Pacific Ocean a distance of three nautical miles to a point; thence northerly on a line parallel to the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean to a point which lies due west a distance of three nautical miles from a point on the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean, which point is distant in a direct line one statute mile northerly from the intersection of the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean with the center line of the pier in the State Beach Park at Cayucos; thence southerly along the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean to the point of beginning."

SEC. 17. Section 6871.3 is added to said code, to read :

"6871.3. Whenever it appears to the commission that it is for the best interests of the State to lease lands subject to the provisions of Section 6871.1 of this code for the production of oil or gas therefrom, or whenever a person who possesses the qualifications provided in this chapter makes written request therefor, the commission may, subject to the provisions of Section 6871.4, offer the same for bidding at such times and in such parcels as the commission shall determine to be in the best interests of the State."

SEC. 18. Section 6871.4 is added to said code, to read:

"6871.4. The commission may divide the lands within the area proposed to be leased into parcels of convenient size and shape and shall prepare a form of lease or leases therefor embracing not to exceed 5,760 acres in any one lease, and if the lands are not within the known geologic structure of a producing oil or gas field at the date of issuance by the commission of an invitation to bid for an oil and gas lease thereon, such lease shall embrace not less than 1,920 acres, or the whole thereof if less than 1,920 acres are available for leasing."

SEC. 19. Section 6872 of said code is amended to read :

"6872. Tide and submerged lands other than those which may be leased under Section 6871.1 and Section 6872.1, and beds of navigable rivers and lakes may be leased by the commission if the commission shall determine (1) that oil or gas deposits are believed to be contained in such lands, (2) that the same are being drained by means of wells upon adjacent lands, and (3) that the leasing of the same for the production of oil and gas will be in the best interests of the State.”

SEC. 20. Section 6872.1 is added to said code, to read :

“6872.1. Whenever it appears to the commission that oil and gas deposits are known or believed to be contained in any such lands as are described in Section 6871.2, subdivision (b), of this code and are being drained by means of wells upon adjacent lands owned by others than the State, the commission shall thereupon be authorized and empowered to lease State-owned tide and submerged lands adjacent to any such wells for the production of oil and gas therefrom, either as a tract or in parcels of such size and shape as the commission shall determine but only within an area and to an extent necessary to offset such drainage of State-owned tide and submerged lands by any such wells upon adjacent lands owned by others."

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., April 8, 1968. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. GARMATZ: Your Committee has requested this Department's views and recommendations on a series of similar bills (H.R. 11584, H.R. 11769, H.R. 11812, H.R. 11868, H.R. 11984, H.R. 12007, and H.R. 13150) calling for a study of marine sanctuaries.

Each bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a 2-year study of the Nation's natural tidelands—i.e., the bays, estuaries, land, and waters within our 3-mile territorial belt—, the Outer Continental Shelf—i.e., land and waters extending from this belt to the 200-meter depth contour-, seaward areas—i.e., areas extending from this contour-, and the lands and waters of the Great Lakes. Each of the bills also mentions specific areas to be included in the study, such as the Georges Bank area adjacent to lower Cape Cod and the Santa Barbara Channel, California, seaward to the Channel Islands.

The bills direct the Secretary to submit a report to Congress, through the President. The report must contain findings on (1) sport and commercial fishing, wildlife conservation, recreation, scenic beauty, and marine ecological research values of the areas studied; (2) alternate beneficial uses of such areas; (3) means of developing areas without endangering esthetic and other values; and (4) means of creating a national system of marine sanctuaries. The Secretary's report is expected to include legislative recommendations.

The bills authorize a maximum appropriation of $1 million for this broad study. We favor the objectives of these bills because :

1. We recognize the many values of marine ecosystems to the present and future generations of Americans;

2. We are acutely aware of the loss of these values in certain areas due to conflicting uses for commercial and domestic purposes; and

3. We believe that balanced uses and greater benefits can be realized in these areas if provisions are made for the consideration of the need for preservation of their natural character to permit study and planning.

The creation of marine sanctuaries would implement, in a positive way, one of the recommendations in the Report of the Panel on Oceanography of the President's Science Advisory Committee, entitled "Effective Use of the Sea,” which the President released in June 1966. The report pointed out the need to preserve the quality of as much as possible of the unmodified or useful marine environment and to restore as much of the damaged environment as possible. The report recommended establishment of a system of marine wilderness preserves for research, wilderness recreation, and other purposes.

While we favor the objectives of this legislation, we recommend against enactment because of the following objectionable features :

The first such feature relates to the time and dollar limitations in the bills and their relation to other authorities of the Department and other pending legislation.

In our opinion, it is completely unrealistic to expect us to conduct the broad study called for in this legislation within a 2-year period and at a maximum funding level of $1 million. As a matter of fact, since the time begins to run from the date of enactment, the study period will be reduced by whatever time it takes. to obtain appropriations.

In addition, we believe that there is adequate general authority to conduct most, if not all, of the study mandated by this legislation (e.g., the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's Organic Act, the general authorities of the Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended). Also, H.R. 25 which passed the House of Representatives and which mandates a study of the Nation's estuaries, including coastal marshlands, bays, sounds, seward areas, and lagoons and land and waters of the Great Lakes. We favor enactment of H.R. 25. Further, the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 directs the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources to "make a comprehensive investigation and study of all aspects of marine science in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program that will meet the present. and future national needs."

The second objectionable feature is section 4 of the bills.

This section prohibits the Secretary from issuing or renewing any license, permit, or other authorization for mineral exploration, development, mining, or other removal thereof in any part of the Shelf under study as a possible marine sanctuary. We view this language as not applying to existing leases, etc., or to the various approvals called for in such leases and the regulations (see 30 CFR 250), such as the approval by the Secretary's representative of plans for the performance of work under an already issued lease or the plan of development under the lease. To hold otherwise, would result in an interference with the lessee's rights under his lease and the possibility of damage claims or other suits based on the deprivation of the lessee's property rights.

We believe that this prohibition is both unnecessary and undesirable. It is undesirable because it would restrict the recovery of valuable and needed minerals. It is unnecessary, because to coordinate the utilization of the mineral resources along with the aquatic resources of the Shelf, the Department has recently developed more adequate administrative procedures for the management of the Outer Continental Shelf, particularly with respect to the aquatic resources of the Shelf. We believe these procedures will provide a better and more informed approach to the development of the Outer Continental Shelf.

The third such feature is the definitions. They are so broad that they become almost meaningless. Further, once legislated they might have a tendency to be viewed as an accepted legislative interpretation of these terms.

In conclusion, we recognize that there are problems which result from the multiple pursuit of resources which occupy the same or adjacent geographical areas. There are concerns, for example, about environmental pollution and the physical alteration of the environment which could affect many interests adversely. We believe that it would be in the Nation's interest to accelerate research, surveys, and related social studies in order to attain the best use of all coastal and Outer Continental Shelf resources. We believe that much of this information will be obtained under the comprehensive estuarine pollution study authorized by section 5(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the broad study Contemplated by H.R. 25, and the study authorized by the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966. We believe it would be best to utilize our talents and funds on those studies rather than the one contemplated by these bills.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours,

STANLEY A. CAIN, Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MARINE RESOURCES

AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT,

Washington, April 8, 1968. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN GARMATZ: This letter responds to your request for comments on H.R. 11584, H.R. 11460, and H.R. 11769.

These bills would provide for the conduct by the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with others, of a study of the most feasible and desirable means of establishing marine sanctuaries in selected parts of the Nation's tidelands, bays and estuaries, outer Continental Shelf, Great Lakes, and other areas, and for the formulation of recommendations to effect such designations.

They also stipulate that, during a two-year study period, there would be a moratorium on mineral exploration and exploitation in areas of the outer Continental Shelf under study. The Secretary would be further authorized to confer with private and other Government interests, in order by coordinated action of the Government jurisdictions to secure suspension of industrial development of any area under consideration as possible marine sanctuary.

The object of the proposed legislation is to enhance realization of the potential multiple benefits from the coastal zone for the Nation and its citizens. The objectives are commendable. The policy proposed is consistent with recommendations of the Marine Sciences Council in its Report to the President in February 1968, that the Nation foster development of the coastal zone by strengthening research, development, and systems studies of pollution, economic development, and conflicting uses of coastal lands and waters.

As the authors of the legislation recognize, the values from recreation, conservation, and aesthetic enjoyment, though intangible, are real. They can be pursued, singly and in combination, in many shoreline areas. Activities undertaken in furtherance of one of these objectives-pollution management, for example--can contribute to the fulfillment of another—such as recreation.

Realization of these values may be difficult to achieve, however, if they must compete with explicit benefits which can be measured in direct economic terms. The less tangible, less easily measured, long-term values may be sacrificed altogether because of developments which use or remove land, disturb the ecology, or pollute the waters.

These kinds of effects are not easily reversible, and in some cases are irrevocable.

With these considerations in mind, the Marine Sciences Council has contracted for studies of land and water use in the Chesapeake Bay and the Seattle Harbor. These studies are not yet completely. A similar study will soon be underway on the Great Lakes. When available, these studies should provide some guidelines for land and water use.

Separately and concurrently, the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering and Resources is charged with developing “an adequate National Marine Science Program,” which will meet present and future needs. The Commission's report, which the Marine Sciences Council will review for the President, may also provide some useful information on concurrent attempts to preserve marine areas of recreational, scenic, or ecological importance.

These studies and others by the Council's Committee on the Coastal Zone will help to achieve the objectives of this bill. They may indicate tha the situation is not critical enough to warrant establishment of a nationwide system of sanctuaries, or that certain types of areas included in the bills now under consideration are being adequately preserved or would be under other pending legislation (e.g., estuaries under H.R. 25).

The Secretary of Interior should have the freedom to survey all potential marine sanctuary areas, without the constraint on his choices that would be imposed by legislation designating specific geographic areas. Therefore, the provisions of these bills related to specific areas should be deleted.

Because of the fragility of the coastal zones and the complexities of the marine life cycles in offshore waters, some kind of moratorium on industrial and extractive activity proposed in the bills under consideration may be useful for certain areas. However, the language of Sec. 4(a) of H.R. 11584 is too restrictive. Exploration should continue unless it presents a clear and present danger to important values. Exploration may in fact provide useful information for marine sanctuary selection. In addition, the present language on the moratorium might inhibit valuable military and industrial activities. Nevertheless, we believe that examination should proceed apace to insure that recommendations for moratoriums, where desirable, will be available soon.

We understand that the Department of the Interior believes that it has adequate authority to conduct most if not all of the study mandated by this legislation. We have also been informed that several agencies have technical objections to the present wording of H.R. 11584 and related bills.

As we see the necessary steps in securing a national system of marine sanctuaries appropriate to our present and future social as well as economic requirements and opportunities, they are:

a. A determination of the characteristics of marine areas of the Nation, to identify needs for sanctuaries, and the feasibility and desirability of protecting unique values as well as alternative ways of accomplishing such protection;

b. Assessment of the values of particular areas in relation to the potentials from optimal development of the area, and in relation to the proximity of other possible areas having similar values (multiple-use possibilities should be considered);

1

c. Identification of areas for specific consideration, and administrative application of a moratorium on development;

d. Completion of study and designation of areas to be part of a national system, freeing other areas from moratorium as they are dropped from the tentative system;

e. System acquisition or reservation, and subsequent protection and management.

In summary, we believe that the intent of the proposed legislation is commendable, but we would not support the specific language of H.R. 11584, H.R. 11460, or H.R. 11769. We plan to review with the agencies appropriate means to achieve the desirable objectives cited.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely,

EDWARD WENK, Jr.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,

Washington, D.C., April 18, 1968. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your recent requests for the views of the National Science Foundation on five bills, H.R. 11584, H.R. 11769, H.R. 11812, H.R. 11868, and H.R. 13150, each of which would enact "The Marine Sanctuaries Study Act of 1967.”

The Foundation believes that marine sanctuaries are urgently needed and therefore agrees with the general purpose of these bills. However, with respect to the desirability of the particular study programs proposed by these bills, we would prefer to defer to the views of the Department of the Interior which would have the responsibility for carrying them out.

In this connection, we would like to call your attention to the very broad study which is to be conducted under the auspices of the National Council for Marine Resources and Engineering Development. The study will deal with the following topics, which have been suggested by the Panel on Oceanography of the President's Science Advisory Committee :

"1. Intensive multi-disciplinary studies of biological communities in marine habitats subject to human influence and exploitation. Such studies should include estuaries in the continental shelf. A very important special case is the proposed sea level canal to join the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

“2. Establishment of marine wilderness preserves to provide a base line for future studies.

"3. Construction of facilities needed for studying organisms in special marine environments such as the deep sea and tropics.

“4. Increased encouragement and support of identification and use of marine organisms as tools for bio-medical research and as potential sources of drugs.

“5. Establishment of a national center for collection, maintenance, and distribution of living marine organisms for use in marine biological research."

We have the following suggestions with respect to some of the detailed provisions of the bills themselves :

(a) The definition of the term “tidelands" in Section 7(a) of each of the bills should be expanded to specifically include "coastal marshlands” as these marshlands are extremely important segments of any marine sanctuary concept.

(b) Some very important geographical areas are not specifically mentioned (e.g. Alaska, Hawaii, Virgin Islands) although it does not exclude them from the scope of the bill. Moreover, the areas specifically mentioned in Section 3(a) vary from bill to bill. We believe that any version finally enacted should, preferably, substitute general langauge permitting the establishment of sanctuaries any. where within the States, Territories and island possessions of the United States, and not make specific mention of any area in particular, with the possible exception of particular outlying islands whose eligibility may be in doubt.

(c) It would be desirable to insert a clause spelling out the need and giving appropriate authority for reserving certain sections of the sanctuaries for re

« PreviousContinue »