Page images
PDF
EPUB

search purposes. One of the great drawbacks of the present National Park System for scientific purposes is the difficulty in setting up areas which are closed to the public and reserved for long-range ecological studies.

We therefore feel that protection of certain areas for research purposes should be written into the law.

Finally, the five bills are so similar that we do not feel it is possible to select one as being measurably superior to the others.

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

LELAND J. HAWORTH, Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, D.C., April 23, 1968.
Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter responds to your requests for comments on bills H.R. 11460, H.R, 11584, H.R. 11769, H.R. 11812, H.R. 11868 and H.R. 13150.

We defer to the views of the directly affected agencies on the merits of this proposed legislation. Sincerely yours,

DONALD F. HORNIG, Director.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,

Washington, D.C., June 13, 1968. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. GARMATZ: Thank you for requesting the views of the Smithsonian Institution on H.R. 11460, "To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasible and desirable means of establishing a marine sanctuary in the Santa Barbara Chanel, California," and on H.R. 11584 and related bills, “To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the most feasible and desirable means of establishing certain portions of the tidelands, Outer Continental Shelf, seaward areas, and Great Lakes of the United States as marine sanctuaries and for other purposes.”

The staff of the Smithsonian Institution has reviewed this legislation. Our concerted opinion is favorable to the objectives of these bills since it is quite clear that the United States cannot afford to proceed in exploitation of natural resources in the vacuum of knowledge which we face in the area of ecology, particularly marine ecology.

It has been shown, for example, in the halibut fishery and the management of the fur seals, that exploitation with an understanding of consequences and with proper controls based on that understanding can be non-destructive, but still profitable.

Studies on preserving a marine sanctuary in the Santa Barbara Channel as suggested in H.R. 11460, and on establishing portions of the tidelines, Outer Continental Shelf, seaward areas and the Great Lakes as preserves, as suggested in H.R. 11584, and related bills, would provide needed research information which can serve to guide the planners of resource-use toward a proper balance between conservation and utility. As to the form and appropriateness of these particular bills, we defer to the Department of the Interior.

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

JAMES BRADLEY,

Acting Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, D.C., June 3, 1968. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of July 18 requested the Department's comments on H.R. 11460, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Interior to study the feasible and desirable means of establishing a marine sanctuary in the Santa Barbara Channel, California.

The Department would interpose no objections from the standpoint of foreign relations to the proposed study. It would note, however, that if the proposed marine sanctuary is established it should be restricted to the territorial waters of the United States, although it might extend to the contiguous fisheries zone as far as fisheries are concerned, and to the outer continental shelf. Nonetheless, we would defer to the Department of the Interior as to the need for this legislation.

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

WILLIAM B. MACOMBER, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, D.C., April 9, 1968. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your requests for the Department's comments on H.R. 11584, 11769, 11812, 11868 and 13150, bills to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the most feasible and desirable means of establishing certain portions of the tidelands, Outer Continental Shelf, seaward areas, and Great Lakes of the United States as marine sanctuaries and for other purposes.

The Department would have no objection to the enactment of the proposed bills from the standpoint of foreign relations. However, the Department would defer to the views of the Department of the Interior as to the necessity of the proposed legislation.

If the Committee considers the proposed legislation favorably, the Department would appreciate an opportunity to submit several technical corrections and amendments.

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

WILLIAM B. MACOMBER, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

Washington, D.C., April 15, 1968. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Reference is made to your requests for the views of this Department on H.R. 11460, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasible and desirable means of establishing a marine sanctuary in the Santa Barbara Channel, California.

And H.R. 11584, and H.R. 13150, bills to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the most feasible and desirable means of establishing certain portions of the tidelands, Outer Continental Shelf, seaward areas, and Great Lakes of the United States as marine sanctuaries and for other purposes.

These proposed bills, and related bills H.R. 11769, 11812, and 11868, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct studies and ultimately make recommendations concerning establishment of marine sanctuaries in and adjacent to the waters of the United States, H.R. 11460 is limited to these considerations in the Santa Barbara Channel, California.

The Department of Transportation recognizes that legislation calling for study concerning marine sanctuaries does not directly relate to functions or responsibilities of this Department. We would, however, have concern over recommendations for or the establishment of sanctuaries in the navigable waters of the United States because of possible impact on the nevigation and other marine laws administered primarily by the Coast Guard, and on maritime interests. It is noted that the proposed legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to consult with other Federal agencies as a part of his study. Additionally, it is assumed that this Department would have the opportunity to comment on proposed legislation which would create any marine sanctuaries.

The Department of Transportation defers to the affected agencies as to the merits of the enactment of this legislation.

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

JOHN L. SWEENEY, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.

If our colleague from Massachusetts will come to the witness stand, we will be delighted to hear from him at this point.

STATEMENT OF HON. HASTINGS KEITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. KEITI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding these hearings. This is a matter of great importance to my constituents, as well as to our national interest.

I have, as you can see, a rather lengthy statement, and I am, as you have mentioned in your introductory remarks, accompanied by some very competent and concerned witnesses from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And so, if it meets with your approval, I would like to submit my remarks for the record and just briefly touch on certain points, but reserve the balance of the time available for these hearings to those who have come a long way for the purpose of testifying and whose expertise in this area is one for which I have considerable respect and on which I hope the committee will rely.

So if it meets with your approval, I will depart from the prepared text, file it for the record, and comment briefly on one or two points.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. HASTINGS KEITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, I would like to state the problem which we are here to consider today by quoting the recent Report of the President on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. Under the heading “Rational Uses of the Coastal Zone”—meaning the nation's shore areas and coastal waters—the President's Report says the following:

"This area of inshore waters is ecologically fragile and complex in its natural state. It is nevertheless subject to ever more intense pressures for varied uses which may both conflict among themselves and degrade the natural environinent * * *

“Only rarely have lands and waters of the Coastal Zone been subjected to planned and controlled development. Further, the planning which has been done has not always resulted in effective allocation of resource uses among competitors.

“As a consequence, the trend in some places has been toward single-purpose uses, determined by immediate economic advantages to individuals, firms, and local governments."

What the bill before us intends to do, Mr. Chairman, is fully in line with these observations. It seeks to encourage balanced, compatible uses of our offshore waters—first, by identifying alternative uses, and then by ensuring compatibility among these competing values and resources.

The need for this effort, Mr. Chairman, is made clear by recent developments on both the East and West coasts of the United States. Several major oil companies have, in the expectation of finding petroleum deposits below the continental shelf, been investigating the sea bottom off the coast of Massachusetts and New England. They will soon enter their third season of exploratory testing, which will run from May to September, and which will include the highly valuable fishing grounds of the Georges Bank.

This testing, which involves the use of seismic devices to obtain "profiles" of underwater rock structures, began in the Georges Bank area with a dramatic and unfortunate incident in September of 1966. Boats of a geophysical company, under contract to several oil corporations, dropped a series of explosive charges which resulted in a massive fish kill in the very heart of our commercial fishing grounds. Miles of dead fish were sighted by fishermen, and catches that week were reported down by as much as 80%.

This incident, I should point out, has never been repeated, and there has since been exemplary cooperation between the oil interests and the fishermen, assisted by officials of the Interior Department. But it illustrates, Mr. Chairman, the potential conflicts which can and do arise among the competing uses of marine resources. The Georges Bank area is the world's most prolific fishing ground, producing about 12% of the world's annual catch. Thirteen different nations fish the Banks, and together they catch nearly 2 billion pounds of fish each year. A massive introduction of oil drilling activities into this area could have a tremendously disruptive effect on the ecology and the present resource use of a vast stretch of ocean.

For the present, in this very early stage of exploration and testing, conflicts have been avoided by the cooperation of all the parties involved. The Geological Survey office of the Interior Department, which has authority to issue permits for exploration activity, now consults and cooperates with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries to ensure that approved operations will not result in harm to fish resources. Fishing representatives are consulting continuously with oil representatives in the Boston area, and both are consulting with the Interior Department.

But we must be concerned with the future, when the most serious conflicts are likely to arise. What will happen when the oil companies request leases from the Interior Department to begin drilling operations? Will they be allowed to drill in the most productive fishing areas? Or are certain well-tailored restrictions necessary to ensure that oil rigs and pipelines and allied operations do not harm or interfere with commercial fishing ?

These are the kinds of questions which the present legislation is designed to answer. The study called for in the bill would determine the likely impact of new industrial activities on the other natural resources and values of certain marine environments. It would determine whether some kind of “ocean zoning” is necessary to make these various uses compatible, and whether certain portions of our offshore environments should be sanctuary areas, closed to new industrial activities.

Mr. Chairman, since filing this bill last July, I recognize that there are certain drafting weaknesses in it, and I hope that the observations of the witnesses in these hearings will help us clear them up. Firstly, “marine sanctuaries" is not fully defined. Let me spell out very clearly, then, what the Secretary of Interior could consider as a marine sanctuary.

A marine sanctuary area would be an ocean area which is especially distinctive for its commercial fishing uses, and for its scenic, recreation, and wildlife conservation values. In such an area, the Secretary of Interior would be authorized to restrict, prohibit, or prescribe the conditions under which industrials activities could be carried on, including the mining of gas or oil deposits.

98–753468

This bill calls primarily for a study, which is a necessary preliminary for designating any area as a marine sanctuary. No area could actually be so designated without further action by the Congress. It is important to make this clear. The purpose of our proposal is simply to determine whether any area should be considered by the Secretary and by the Congress as a restricted zone.

Secondly, the bill provides for an interim moratorium on new exploratory activities. The moratorium would apply to any area which the Secretary is in the process of studying as a possible marine sanctuary. The purpose of this section, 4(a), is to ensure that, once the Secretary is actively considering an area as a potential marine sanctuary, new industrial activities will not come in and destroy the environment before the study is even finished.

It has been brought to our attention that this moratorium is perhaps too broad in its application, and may deprive those who have already established a claim to use of the affected areas, of their proper rights and privileges. Accordingly, we have drafted two alternatives to this section. Either one would protect the rights of any person who has a legitimate claim arising from previous investments or activities. The longer of these two alternatives, which are attached to my brief, would provide for public hearings on any claim.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out and emphasize that our objective is not to inh bit development of new mineral resources in America's offshore waters, but to establish a rational balance of uses in our marine environments. As our industrial technology begins to reach out further and further into the ocean's depths, it is vital to the present and future generations of Americans to foster and promote balanced use of this rich environment.

Industrial and mining development can go hand in hand with fishing, recreation, conservation, and scientific uses of the seas, if we are wise enough to see that these various uses are made compatible with each other. The objectives of H.R. 11584 are fully in tune with the broad purposes of the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966, which purposes are to inaugurate the new era of oceanography on a rationally planned basis and to maximize the benefits of this new ocean frontier for all Americans.

With a far-sighted approach we can avoid some of the mistakes of our Nation's earlier frontier experience in exploiting our irreplaceable natural resources. The tragic waste and destruction which has come to many of the Nation's estuarine areas must not be allowed to happen to the vast new wealth which is opening up before us in the depths of the oceans.

H.R. 11584—ALTERNATIVE TO SECTION 4 (A)

SEC. 4. (a)(1) Whenever the Secretary of the Interior determines to study any part of the Outer Continental Shelf as a possible marine sanctuary, he shall publish in the Federal Register the boundaries of any such area to be studied as a proposed sanctuary site, and within

days of the date of such publication call a public hearing to be held in the vicinity of the site to be studied. Upon publication of such boundaries in the Federal Register the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue or renew any license, permit, or other authorization for the exploration, development, mining or other removal of any minerals (including gas and oil) from within such boundaries, except as otherwise provided in an order issued in accordance with this subsection.

(2) It is to be the responsibility of the Secretary to give every interested person an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing on the questions of whether all or any part of the prohibitions contained in the preceding paragraph should be removed or continued for all or a portion of the period such site is under study as a marine sanctuary.

(3) In determining such question, the Secretary shall consider all relevant factors including but not limited to

(A) the established lawful usages and customs of the place;

(B) whether any rights exist created by contract, agreements, judgments, or arbitration that would affect such determination ;

(C) the relative economic importance of conflicting uses;
(D) the economic impact on all the parties involved or affected ;
(E) the availability of alternative sanctuary locations; and

« PreviousContinue »