    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                                             ~,oq9
                                                oc 'z&vi

                                                       V

                     Oceanic and Atmospheric Policy Issues of the 1980's
                          The Role of the NOAA Organic Act

                              March 13 & 14, 1980
                                Washington, DC

                               COASTAL ZONE
                       )?'7 INFORMATION CENTER

                          Final Report

     L~~
                    0~~

                                  Sponsored by:
                      Coastal States Organization

    1 KF
     5505
    033                       OL2

                                COASTAL ZONE
                               INFORMATION CENTER

                                              FORWARD

            The Coastal States Organization Workshop on the NOAA Organic Act had as its
            purpose the stimulation of discussion on policy alternatives and organizational
            options to better carry out the proper management of the coastal, oceans and at-
            mospheric resources of this nation. To achieve this purpose the Coastal States
            Organization (CSO) assembled over one hundred fifty experts and interested par-
            ticipants to enter into dialogue on NOAA's future and its responsibilities.

            I commend the leadership of the CSO for dealing with this important legislative
            issue. As Project Chairman of this workshop, I wish to thank all of the program
            participants who took time to share their ideas, exchange information and make
            recommendations. For implementing the myriad of complex details regarding the
            workshop, credit is given to CSO staff assistant, Ms. Cindy Marston.

            This document contains a tabulation of the Survey which was developed by CSO to
            coincide with the workshop agenda. This report also c~ontains speech texts and
            panel remarks made by some of the program participants (written submission of
            remarks and speeches was invited, but optional).

         2Workshop participants were invited to answer any or all of the Survey questions
            they felt comfortable in answering; not all participants returned completed
         J  Surveys.  For these reasons the totals for each question will vary.
            T~he Coastal States Organization feels that the workshop and this Final Report
            will help bring into focus the opinions of those concerned with the proper man-
         -  agement of our oceans and atmosphere as they relate to the role and need for the
         CNOAA Organic Act.

                                           James F. Ross
                                       CSO Project Chairman
                       Oceanic and Atmospheric Policy Issues of the 1980's Workshop
                                  The Role of the NOAA Organic Act

      rNN

                                                             . .DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                                           COASI AL SERVICES CENTER
                                                           2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE

                   ProPerty Of CSC Library'                  CARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

    old

                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Forward .. ......... ...... ............................ i
    Table of Contents ............                      ........................ ii
    Survey Table of Contents ........................... ..    iii
    Workshop Registration List ... ........................ 34
    Workshop Agenda ............ .......................... 37
    Address by Congressman John B. Breaux ................       40
    Address by NACOA Director Steven N. Anastasion ....... 47
    Brief Remarks by Werner A. Baum ......................       54
    Address by NOAA Deputy Director James P. W&lsh .       ...... 55
    Remarks by C. L. Hosler ...                  ...........................    62
    Remarks by Dr. Richard A. Geyer .         .        .................... 65
    Remarks by Newton A. Lieurance .......................       71
    Remarks by James I. Jones .          ........................... 73
    Remarks by Professor Claes G. H. Rooth       ............... 78
    Address by Congressman Robert S. Walker . . . ........... 81
    Remarks by Robert D. Abrams ........................ . .     85
    Remarks by Paul Janota ..         ..         ...........................    88
    Remarks by William Q. Wick ......................... . .     93
    Remarks by Richard G. Semonin . . . ..................... 95
    Remarks by Peter J. Robinson ....................... . .    102
    Address by George E. Brown, Jr ..................... . .    109
    Remarks by Robert W. Corell ........................ . .    119
    Remarks by Professor John E. Flipse .................. 121
    Remarks by Dr. Virginia K. Tippie .................... 127
    Address by Congressman Joel Pritchard ................ 130
    Remarks by John P. Harville . . . ....................... 131
    Remarks'by Gustave Fritschie . . ....................... 152
    Remarks by Dr. Raymond E. Johnson         . . .................. 158
    Remarks by Dr. G. Carleton Ray ..................... . .    160
    Remarks by David N. Kinsey . . . ........................ 164
    Remarks by Hans Neuhauser ......... 167
    Outline of Remarks by J. Roy Spradley, Jr .. . . ........ 171

                                 ii

                      SURVEY TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                  Page

    Panel I  Organizational Alternatives f or NONA
    List of Panel Members ..........................1
    Survey Questions               ... .......................2

    Panel 2 - Research and Development within NOAA
    List of Panel Members .. . ..... . ..           . ..    . . .................  5
    Survey Questions... . . ................. . . ...6

    Panel 3 - Marine and Atmospheric Services
    List of Panel Members . . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ... .. ........... 10
    Survey Questions       . .. .. .. . ... . .... . .. ... .      .............11

    Panel 4 - Atmospheric Responsibilities
    List of Panel Members.........................17
    Survey Questions              ........................18

    Panel 5 - NOAA Organic Legislative Proposals
    List of Panel Members..                   .          ........................21

    Panel 6 - Oceans Resources - Nonliving
    List of Panel Members..........................22
    Survey Questions       ....         ................... .....  .23

    Panel 7 - Management & Protection of Living Renewable Resources
    List of Panel Members . ... . ............       *   ........25
    Survey Questions       .. .. .......... .. .. . .. ........ .. .. .. . .....26

    Panel 8 - Coastal Zone Issues
    List of Panel Members........................ 30
    Survey Questions.........................31

    PANEL NO. 1

    Dr. John Norton Moore                            Chairman
    Director                                          (804) 924-7441
    Center for Oceans Law and Policy
    University of Virginia
    Charlottsville, VA 22901

    Dr. Werner A. Baum                                (904) 644-1081
    Dean of Arts and Sciences
    Florida State University
    Tallahassee, FL 32306

    Mr. R. E. Hunt                                    (713) 666-8000 ext. 2896
    Texaco, Inc.
    P. 0. Box 52332
    Houston, TX 77052

    Ms. Lucy Sloan                                    (202) 554-3272
    National Federation of                            (202) 659-9833
       Fishermen
    915 15th Street, NW
    Suite 600
    Washington, DC 20005

    Dr. Jack R. VanLopik                              (504) 388-1558
    Dean
    Center for Wetland Resources
    Louisiana State University
    Baton Rouge, LA 70803

                                      SURVEY QUESTIONS

                                        Panel No. I

                             ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR NOAA

    1. Is there a need for a clearly defined national ocean and atmospheric policy?
        57 Yes
         3- No

    2. Should the next decade see increased concentration on utilization of resources?
        53 Yes
         7- No

    3. If so, should oceanic and atmospheric utilization and conservation interests be
       equally balanced?
        49 Yes
         6- No

    4. Does the division of responsibility for administering ocean and coastal programs
       among numerous Federal agencies, in your opinion:

        44-a. interfere with the effective management and protection of ocean uses and
              resources
        14-b. better insure effective management and protection of resources

    5. If your answer to Question 4 was a, which of the following might best solve the
       problem of interference?

        27 a. establishment of a lead agency
         6 b. establishment of a Federal coordination council
        19 c. establishment of clear legislative demarcation of authorities between agencies
         8 d. none of these will solve the problem

    6. If your answer to Question 4 was b, would establishment of a lead agency reduce
       protection of resources and effective management?
         7 Yes
        16- No

    7. In 1979 the President proposed a reorganization plan which would have merged NOAA
       with the Department of Interior and the Forest Service of the US Department of
       Agriculture into a new Department of Natural Resources. Other proposals have also
       been suggested. Do you favor:

        21 a. a Department of Natural Resources
        26 b. A Department of Oceans and Atmosphere
         3 c. a Department of the Environment
        15-d. none of the above

                                              -2-

     8.. Rank the following alternatives for NOAA in the order of your preference (1-most
         preferred, 5-least preferred).

         scale
      1 2   3   4   5

    18  17   2   4   5  a. an independent oceanic and atmospheric entity
    4  12  16  16   2  b. a strengthened but not autonomous NOAA in the Department of Commerce
       1 7  18   9  12  c. an autonomous NOAA within the Department of Commerce
    9   2   9  13  18  d. simple codification of the status quo
    22  12   4   5   7  e. a three phase process of 1) strengthening NOAA within the Department
                           of Commerce, 2) establishing NOAA as an independent agency, and 3)
                           considering NOAA as the foundation of a larger oceanic and atmospheric
                           entity

      9. How do you envision NOAA in ten years?

           8 a. as an oceanic and atmospheric agency as presently constituted
          15 b. as a larger agency or department with greater responsibilities that are pre-
                sently located in other agencies
           3 c. too large to maintain both oceanic and atmospheric components in one agency
           6 d. divided into resource components and absorbed by other agencies or departments
          32 e. the principal oceanic and atmospheric agency

     10. Which of the following do you consider to be significant reasons for passing a NOAA
         Organic Act? (You may check more than one, all, or none.)

          49 a. an organic act would provide an opportunity for the Congress to express its
                collective view of what the functions and goals of NOAA should be. (There
                has been no such unified statement since 1970, when NOAA was created by a
                Presidential reorganization plan)
          41 b. an organic act would restate the various and diverse legislative acts tinder
                which NOAA now operates in a comprehensive, consolidated form so that govern-
                ment officials and the public alike will have an easier and clearer reference
                to the functions and responsibilities of NOAA
          38 c. it could assign and describe those functions now performed by NOAA but not
                expressly mandated to it by the Congress
          34 d. it could clarify and define with greater precision those present 'authorities
                of NOAA which now appear to overlap the authorities of other State and Fed-
                eral agencies
          32 e. it could affirm the coordinating role now assigned to NOAA by certain legis-
                lative and executive orders
          39 f. it could simplify, condense, and make more effective the authorization and
                oversight functions of Congress by permitting program descriptions, program
                analysis, and authorization requests to reflect the broader and interrelated
                functions of NOAA in a comprehensive manner
          25 g. it could provide for administrative responsibilities for NOAA's programs
                (such as its capital funds, personnel services, reimbursement activities,
                and international programs)
          43 h. it could be a step toward, and express the intent of Congress for, strength-
                ening NOAA as the principal civilian Federal agency for assessing, develop-
                ing and executing national policy for the oceans and atmosphere

                                               -3 -

    11. Organic legislation may prescribe organization and specific components of NOAA or it
       may leave general the organizational framework of NOAA. Which of the following do
       you favor?

         7 a. specific naming and definition of assistant administrators, program elements
              and components
        34 b. naming of some administrative units, but allowing flexibility in the other
              units
         15 c. total flexibility with no specification of program units

    12. Should organic legislation deal specifically with codification of such programs as
       fishery management, habitat protection, sea grant, etc.?

        26 Yes
         30 No

    13. In organic legislation, should NOAA Assistant Administrators be appointed by the
        President with the advice and consent of the Senate?

         22 Yes
         30 No

        If no, should the Assistant Administrators be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce?
          7 Yes
         24 No

        If no, should the Assistant Administrators be appointed by the Administrator of NOAA?

         23 Yes
          5 No

        Should the Assistant Administrators be career employees?

         26 Yes
         21 No

    14. Over the past several years NOAA has been given an increased amount of regulatory
        and enforcement responsibilities. Organic legislation could modify NOAA's respon-
        sibilities. Which of the following do you favor?

         12 a. a shift toward and expansion of regulation and enforcement without sacri-
               ficing service and research
          O b. a shift toward and expansion of regulation and enforcement at the expense
               of service and research
         17 c. concentration on basic research to understand the processes behind regul-
               ation and enforcement
         15 d. concentration on services without assuming an increased role in regulation,
               enforcement, or basic research
          4 e. retention of status quo
         13 f. regulation and enforcement should not be a responsibility of NOAA

                                               -4-

    PANEL NO. 2

    Dr. Charles L. Hosler                           Chairman
    Dean, College of Earth and                      (814) 865-6546
       Mineral Sciences
    The Pennsylvania State University
    116 Deike Building
    University Park, PA 16802

    Mr. Phillip Eisenberg                            (301) 776-7454
    President
    Hydronautics, Inc.
    7210 Pindell School Road
    Laurel, MD 20810

    Dr. Richard A. Geyer                             (713) 845-7911
    Director of Geosciences
    Development Programs
    Texas A & M University
    College Station, TX 77843

    Dr. James Jones                                  (601) 875-9341
    Director
    Mississippi/Alabama Sea
      Grant Consortium
    P. 0. Box Drawer AG
    Ocean Springs, MS 39564

    Dr. Thomas F. Malone                             (317) 283-9421
    Director, Holcomb Research
      Institute
    P. 0. Box 192
    Butler University
    Indianapolis, IN 46208

                                                    (305) 284-2211
    Dr. Claes Rooth                                  (609) 452-6573
    Oceanography Department
    University of Miami
    Miami, FL

                                  -5-

                                      SURVEY QUESTIONS

                                        Panel No. 2

                           RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN NOAA

    1. Do you feel that NOAA should explore research to identify user needs for provision
      of oceanic and atmospheric services?

       54  Yes
         I No

    2. In addition to providing research directly supporting basic and specialized meteor-
       ological services, should NOAA:

        37 a. also conduct basic research in support of its other missions
        10 b. conduct undirected basic atmospheric research
        14 c. insure that all research is directly related to services

    3. Should NOAA develop new ocean technology only in response to specific NOAA related
       research programs?

        20 Yes
        35 No

    4. Should NOAA increase funding for basic research in:

        41  Yes   6  No  * microscale meteorology (such as basic research leading to
                           weather modification)
        47  Yes   2  No  . air-sea interaction (toward improving weather predictions)
        30  Yes  18  No  * chemical reactions of polluting materials (toward sewage
                           treatment application)
        24  Yes  22  No  . the composition and effects of drilling muds

       If yes to any of the above, should basic research be increased at the expense of
       other programs?

        11 Yes
        35 No

    5. Currently NOAA Research and Development contracts some research to private univer-
       sity and research groups while conducting other research within NOAA itself. With
       which of the following do you agree:

        25 a. most research and development should be contracted out; little should be
              done by NOAA scientists themselves
        11 b. some research should be contracted out, but most research and development
              should be conducted within NOAA
        30 c. it is important that present in-house research capabilities be retained
         2 d. essentially all research and development should be done in-house and NOAA's
              research and development should be strengthened accordingly

                                             - 6 -

    6. Fisheries research and development responsibilities within NOAA should (check one or
       more):
         3 a. be decreased
         3 b. remain at current levels
        10 c. be increased within current budgetary allowances
        21 d. be increased with additional funding and manpower allocations
        14 e. be consolidated in R & D
        19 f. remain within NMFS
        13 g. all Federal research on living marine resources should be included in NOAA

    7. At present oceanic and atmospheric research and development programs are assigned to
       a number of agencies. Do you favor consolidation of these programs within NOAA?
        26 Yes
        28 No

    8. If such programs are not consolidated, should their function be coordinated by a
       single lead agency?
        46 Yes
         7 No

    9. How may NOAA effectively transfer technology from research and development to opera-
       tional programs?

        18 a. through coordination at the Assistant Administrator level
        25 b. through increased coordination at the level of major program elements
        24 c. through specific and coordinated programs headed by the Office of
              Research and Development working in liaison with other main line components
        19 d. through scientific meetings and presentation of scientific papers
        22 e. through informal contacts among members of the scientific community and
              operational staff

    10. On a scale of 1-5 rank the relationship which should exist between management and
       research? (where 1 = total management, 5 = total research - circle the number)
                                          scale
              management ............. .... ................ ...............rsac
         I management ......2                                               research

         10               10                 27                11 2{

    11. Should areas where NOAA's Research and Development (R & D) responsibilities are
       unclear (i.e. weather modification or solar-terrestial research) be mentioned
       specifically in organic legislation?
         36 Yes
         18 No

    12. Should all research and development programs of NOAA be consolidated under the
       Assistant Administrator for Research and Development?

            basic                    applied
         39  Yes                  27  Yes
         14  No                   26  No

                                              -7-

      12. NOAA depends on the availability of university and college trained scientists.
          Should NOAA (check one or more):

           24 a. have some responsibility for ensuring the general well being of relevant
                 academic training
           36 b. play a stronger role in supporting academic research
            7 c. have no responsibility for academic training or research

      13. To improve the relationship of NOAA with the academic community, a number of options
         have been suggested. (Indicate your preference- 1 = should be done, 5 = should not be
         done)

       1   5

      35  11  a. increase of temporary appointments of university scientists to research and
                 service programs
      27  19  b. joint NOAA - university institutes or centers
     41   4  c. expand use of NOAA grants and contracts to universities' research projects
      24   8  d. NOAA supported atmospheric research through NCAR and university faculty
      18  24  e. develop specialized institutes for specialized functions (such as Goddard
                 Institute for Space Studies for NASA)
      38   7  f. use of cooperative extension service (such as agriculture experiment stations)
                 in association with university departments of atmosphere or marine sciences
      32   9  g. utilize state water research centers in association with universities for
                 research by faculty and students
      26  18  h. extend the sea grant program to apply to atmospheric research

      14. The following questions concern the Sea Grant program of NOAA:

         What should be the balance of the following within NOAA's Sea Grant Program?
          (Give percentages totaling 100%)

                        3% 5% 7% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 33% 35% 40% 50% 55% 57% 60% 65% 75% 90% 100%

    � research                     2       3   5   6        2   4 14    2   2   4   1   1   1
    � advisory service         1   3   5  17   6   8   2   1   4   2
    * marine education  1  2  1  10   9  11   6   3             3   1            1
    � specific coastal
      zone issues work  2  5       9   6  10   5   2        1        1           1

          Should Sea Grant be used as a "reserve" of ocean specialists?
           27 Yes
           18 No

          Should Sea Grant increase its marine advisory program at the expense of its research
          programs?
           12 Yes
           37 No

          Should Sea Grant continue a management system which would allow it to be responsive
          to critical national needs (e.g. research on drilling muds)?
           39 Yes
           10 No

    15. (continued)

       Should Sea Grant seek funding to enlarge its international program?

         17 Yes
        31 No

       If yes, should the international program be enlarged at the expense of other programs?

         2 Yes
        29 No

        Should Sea Grant continue to support the major NOAA research effort in aquaculture?

        37 Yes
         12 No

        Should Sea Grant seek funding to continue developing its efforts in marine education?

         45 Yes
          6 No

        Does the international program within NOAA's Sea Grant Office make duplicate the
       AID international program?

         21 Yes
         11 No

        Does Sea Grant have a useful role to play in international affairs?

         27 Yes
         18 N'o

                                               -9-

    PANEL NO. 3

    Mr. John W. Townsend, Jr.                        Chairman
    President                                        (301) 428-6000
    Fairchild Space and Electronics Co.
    20301 Century Boulevard
    Germantown, MD 20767

    Mr. Robert Abrams                                (516) 482-8650
    National Marine Education
      Association
    Great Neck Public School
    Phipps Administration Building
    Great Neck, NY 11020

    Dr. Paul Janota                                  (617) 369-8910
    Environmental Research and
       Technology, Inc.
    696 Virginia Road
    Concord, MA 01742

    Mr. Newton A. Lieurance                          (803) 785-2800
    Director of Government Affairs
    Alden Electronics Equipment Co.
    P.O. Box 4940
    Hilton Head, SC 29928

    Professor William Q. Wick                        (503) 754-2714
    Director, Sea Grant College
      Program
    Administrative Services Building
    A 320
    Oregon State University
    Corvallis, OR 97331

                                   - 10-

                                    SURVEY QUESTIONS

                                      Panel No. 3

                            MARINE AND ATMOSPHERIC SERVICES

    1. In providing weather and hydrological services, NOAA's current policy is to serve
       the general public and certain broad segments of the economy (especially: aviation,
      marine, agriculture, and forestry/fire weather) with standard products broadly ap-
       plicable to these user groups. Services tailored to the individual needs of specific
       users are not provided as that is considered the province of the private sector. With
      which one of the following do you most agree?

        31 a. the current policy above is correct
        11 b. NOAA's role should be expanded to provide tailored products if NOAA can
              provide the services at less cost than the private sector
         6 c. NOAA's role should be reduced to provide warnings for public safety only
         8 d. NOAA's role should be redirected by elimination of all specialized services

    2. Should NOAA play a lead role in coordinating public~education in:
      a. marine science, b. meteorological science?
        39 Yes  17 No  a. marine science
       356 Yes  17 No  b. meteorological science

       If not a lead role, should NOAA nevertheless increase its support of marine and
      meteorological public education?
        26 Yes
         6 No

    3. Most radio and TV stations promptly broadcast weather and flood warnings issued by NOAA.
      A small minority do not. It has been suggested that the media should be required by law
       or regulation to promptly broadcast all warnings. How do you feel about a mandatory re-
       quirement?

        14 a. not needed
        26 b. should be adopted
        11 c. desirable but impractical
         7 d. neither needed or desirable

    4. Under current policy, NOAA meteorologists are not permitted to appear routinely on
       commerical television. This is considered to be the province of the private sector.
       Do you agree with this policy?
        45 Yes
        10 No

    5. What do you think NOAA's policy should be with respect to charging fees to the users
       of its services and products?
        15 a. charge only for communications media (i.e. telecommunication lines, printing,
              etc.) except where work is done on a reimbursable basis
        24 b. charge total out-of-pocket costs to specialized users, private meteorologists,
              and others where non-public users can be identified

                                             - 11 -

    5. (continued)

        16-c. charge specialized users and private meteorologists pro-rata costs of data
              gathering, processing, and general analysis
         3 -d. recover all costs by charging all users pro-rata costs
         3 e. to cover costs of improvements and facility replacement
         5-f. no charge should be assessed for any services

    6. Should a state or group of states be required to contribute funds for a particular
       federally provided specialized service which benefits that state and groups of states?
       (e.g. flood warnings, hurricanes, agricultural service)

        12  Yes
        34- No

    7. Should meteorologists be required by Federal law to become professionally certified
       or licensed before being allowed to provide weather services to the public?

        34  Yes
        19  No

    8. Is NOAA's public educational effort in the area of weather adequate?

         12  Yes
        32- No

    9. NOAA has a lead responsibility for civilian meteorological services which is defined
       by Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Circular A-62. Should NOAA have a similar
       lead responsibility for oceanographic services?

        42  Yes
         5- No

    10. One of NOAA's principal missions is to provide nautical charts and related navigation-
       al information to insure the safety of navigation in the          nains-coastal and oceanic
       waters. However, there is no similar systematic nautical charting coverage for inland
       waterways and lakes except for the Great Lakes. Which of the following actions do you
       favor?

         24-a. expand program to include coverage of inland waterways and lakes given addi-
               tional funding
          2-b. extend coverage to these areas even if additional funding is not improved by
               transferring resources used for coastal and oceanic area coverage
         17 c. continue the status quo
          8 d. nautical charting coverage for inland waterways and lakes (except for the
               Great Lakes) should be the responsibility for another agency

                                               -12-

    11. Which of the following responsibilities do you feel could best be handled by the
       a. Federal government, b. by the private sector, or c. shared responsibility.

       a. 44 b.    c.__3   * establish and maintain national geodetic reference networks
       a. 42 b._c.  8   * provide nautical chart coverage adequate for the safety of
                             marine commerce, defense, and recreation
       a. 32 b.  4 c. 14   * provide marine maps adequate for effective coastal zone and
                             continental shelf management decisions and adjuciation of
                             legal questions
       a. 38 b.  3 c.  7   * provide marine maps adequate for effective safety and ef-
                              ficiency of civil and military aviation
       a. 11 b.  6 c. 33   * fulfill national needs in ocean engineering and technology
       a. 22 b.  7 c. 20   * establish techniques and reference standards by which ocean-
                             ographic instrument performance can be assessed
       a.  8 b. 14 c. 27   . perform laboratory and field leasing and calibration of
                             oceanographic instruments for all users
       a. 17 b.  6 c. 23   * collect and disseminate instrument performance and deterior-
                             ation data as a means of acquiring statistically significant
                              samples on which to base design criteria

    12. Aeronautical and nautical chart prices are computed to recover certain costs and spec-
        ified by law. The law requires that the cost of reproduction, printing, and paper be
        recovered. This results in periodic price increases thereby possibly discouraging
        users from purchasing important updating editions. Should the Federal government,
        in the interest of aviation and marine safety, absorb a larger percentage of charting
        costs so that more users will buy these essential updating products?
         12 Yes
         40 No

    13. Who should be responsible for the primary maintenance and operation of environmental
        data and information archival centers?
          2 private sector
         42 NOAA
          8 other Federal agency
          4 no one, no National Center necessary

    14..Do you feel that there should be national standards for the collection and archival of
        environmental data:
         12 from operational activities only
         37 from operational activities and scientific experiments
          2 none required

    15. Responsibilities for precipitation and river guaging, river and flood forecasting, and
        water resources management are variously assigned to NOAA, US Geological Survey, Army
        Corps of Engineers, and Soil Conservation Service, among others. Do you think the
        organization of the various activities and the coordination between the several agen-
        cies is:
         12 generally adequate and correct
         25 in need of significantly improved coordination but not by reorganization
         12 in need of basic reorganization

                                              - 13 -

    16. Should meteorological services of specific value to a state or section of the country
       be provided by:

         12 Federal government - at no cost
        20 Federal government - on a cost-shared basis
          I States themselves
         3 private meteorologists
         20 some mixture of all three elements

    17. Should NOAA be given responsibility to educate the public on weather prediction cap-
       abilities and uses in addition to severe weather phenomena education?

         33 Yes
         16 No

    18. Should NOAA interpret or assist in interpretation of specialized weather forecasts
        (i.e. agricultural, aviation) in addition to data collection?

         34 Yes
         15 No

    19. There is a question whether state or Regional Service Offices are needed to augment
        NOAA's climatic data and information services which are now centrally organized.
       With which of the following do you most agree:

          7 state or regional offices are not needed
          5 state offices are needed and should be funded and operated by the states in co-
             operation with NOAA
         17 state offices are needed and should be jointly funded and operated (approximately
             50/50) by the states and NOAA
         12 NOAA should fund and operate regional offices

    20. What should NOAA's role be in providing services to other regulatory agencies (e.g.
        amount of responsibilities in support of EPA for air pollution, BLM for OCS leasing)?

          I provide no assistance to other regulatory agencies
         46 NOAA provide environmental and economic information for other agencies to carry
             out regulatory and management roles
          8 NOAA assume responsibility for research regulation and management for any pro-
             grams affecting oceans and atmosphere

    21. Do you favor increasing the extent to which the private sector provides weather
        services?

         33 Yes
         14 No

                                              - 14-

    22. Should the private sector eventually assume all responsibility for weather services?

        22 Yes
         51 No

    23. Which of the following responsibilities do you feel could best be handled by the
       a. Federal government, b. state government, c. private sector, d. shared responsibility?

                                 � specialized services
       a. 27 b.    c.  7 d. 16        aviation
        a. 23 b.    c.  4 d. 23        marine
       a. 11 b.  3 c.  9 d. 27        agriculture
        a.  1 b.    c. 30 d. 18        business & industry
       a.  4 b.    c. 26 d. 19        radio & TV
        a. 48 b.  1 c.    d.           military
                                 * collecting and processing weather data
       a. 28 b.  2 c.  1 d. 18        observing current weather
        a. 18 b.  2 c.  6 d. 24        communicating data
        a. 19 b.    c.  3 d. 27        preparing analysis, forecasts
        a. 31 b.  1 c.  1 d. 15        issuing & disseminating warnings & forecasts
        a. 38 b.  1 c.  1 d.  9        archiving weather information

    24. What should be the respective roles of NOAA and other Federal agencies in providing
        weather services?

         17 NWS would coordinate (if NOAA should be the sole Federal weather service) and
             other agencies would go to NOAA for these services
         19 NOAA should be the primary agency and provide a specified level of services; other
             agencies should develop their own arrangements for services beyond this level
         16 same as a except that the military is allowed to provide its own weather services
          0  NOAA provides no specialized weather services to other Federal agencies, they must
             contract or establish their own

    25. Many of human impacts on meteorological conditions and climates (e.g. air pollution,
        impacts on amounts of precipitation, acid rain, land clearing on temperature, wind,
        precipitation) affect local microclimates. Much basic monitoring and research are
        necessary to evaluate these impacts and to attempt eventual management of these
        problems. A lead function to coordinate and promote a monitoring and research pro-
        gram to determine human impacts on microclimates should be handled by:

         14 NOAA
          2  other Federal agency
         37 cooperatively by NOAA with Federal, State and academic participants
          2  by states
          1 by other interests

                                              - 15 -

    26. Weather services generally fall into three basic categories, as listed below. Rate
        each of the three categories according to the following: 1-should be NOAA's respon-
        sibility exclusively, 2-NOAA should coordinate, 3-remain as is, 4-not important in
        NOAA�s mission, or 5-should not be done by NOAA.

       I  1   2   13   14   1 5   1

       | 37 112 1 1 |   I   I a. disaster warnings
       I 21 | 8 117 I 1 I 3 | b. public forecasts
       | 3 | 9 | 9 I   112 | c. economic benefit services of use in production
                                 and distribution of specialized services

                                   1   2   3   4   5

                                   8  14   9       6   aviation
                                   4  15   7   1   8   agriculture
                                       8   6   5  18   construction
                                   9  14   6       6   marine operations
                                   3   4   9   2  17   military
                                   3   9   4   1  17   oil and gas development

                                               - 16 -

    PANEL NO. 4

    Dr. Richard Semonin                              Chairman
    Head                                             (217) 333-4967
    Atmospheric Sciences Section
    Illinois State Water Survey
    Box 232
    Urbana, IL 61801

    Mr. Michael Exner                                (303) 447-2341
    Synergetics International, Inc.
    P. 0. Box E
    Boulder, CO 80306

    Ms. Ann Berman                                   (202) 554-6607
    Environmental Research and
       Technology, Inc.
    950 L'Enfant Plaza
    Washington, DC 20024

    Mr. Peter Robinson                               (919) 933-8901
    Associate Professor
    Department of Geography
    203 Saunders Hall- 043A
    University of North Carolina
    Chapel Hill, NC 27514

                                     - 17 -

                                    SURVEY QUESTIONS

                                      Panel No. 4

                               ATMOSPHERIC RESPONSIBILITIES

    1. Should NOAA's efforts in monitoring the thermal characteristics of the oceans be
       increased?
        44 Yes
         4 No

    2. Climate research requires global ocean temperature observations. NOAA through its
       satellite and ships-of-opportunity programs provides limited monitoring of ocean
       surface temperatures. Should NOAA ocean monitoring programs be expanded?
        46 Yes
         8 No

       If answer is no, should NOAA's responsibility be limited to:

         2 a. coastal zones only
         1 b. Atlantic and Pacific only
         1 c. Northern hemisphere oceans
         4 d. all oceans

    3. What should NOAA's role in weather modification be?

        14 a. to conduct Research and Development but not operative work
        30 b. to conduct R & D with some mission oriented operations
         5 c. to license and oversee operational activities but not R & D
         3 d. NOAA should not have a role in weather modification

    4. Should NOAA support intergovernmental programs (Federal-State efforts on cost-
       sharing basis) related to weather modification?
        38 Yes
        10 No

    5. Should NOAA support intergovernmental programs related to climate:

        37 a. research
        24 b. input assessment
        37 c. data and information dissemination

    6. To what extent should NOAA be involved in climate impact assessment?

        11 a. only involved in supplying needed climate data to other mission agencies
              and groups
         7 b. only to supply climate information and work on methodologies
        22 c. to conduct various demonstration studies in key climate sensitive areas
              (agriculture, energy, water, etc.)
         4 d. work only on high priority climate affected areas that are directly related
              to Department of Commerce responsibilities

                                             - 18 -

    7. To what extent should NOAA support out-of-house climate research?

         0 a. not at all
        25 b. to a greater extent than at present
         6 c. as it presently does
        15 d. only when relevant to NOAA's assigned responsibilities

    8. NOAA, as the national meteorological organization, considers it extremely important
       that it take a major role in evaluating the sources, transport, transformation and
       final deposition of acidic materials since an important part of the acid rain problem
       is an atmospheric one. Do you agree?

        40 Yes
         4 No

    9. What specifically do you see as NOAA's future role in solving the acid rain ques-
       tion?

        14 a. providing collection sites for precipitation chemistry measurements
        15 b. evaluating the transport and transformation of acid forming materials using
              various meteorological-chemical models
        14 c. continuing background measurement of rain acidity in remote areas of the
              world
        15 d. studying the importance of cloud water chemistry in acid rain formation
              and the chemistry of the aerosols that contribute to cloud formation
        13 e. determinating the importance of natural sources of acidity versus man-
              made sources
         9 f. determinating acidic deposition during non-precipitating periods
        34 g. all of the above

    10. Which of the following current NOAA activities do you feel are important to its
       mission in providing solutions to the acid rain problem?

         12 a. collection and analysis of precipitation chemistry in cooperation with EPA
              at WMO regional and baseline sites
         12 b. special studies at NOAA baseline sites to assess the global spread of acid
               rain
          5 c. support for university activities in various areas of precipitation
               chemistry studies
          8 d. use of air trajectories to establish sources of acid rain
          3 e. studies concerning aerosol and gas measurements that may have an effect on
               the acidity of precipitation
          3 f. urban acid rain studies
         34 g. all of the above

    11. Recently the President announced that NOAA would manage all operational civilian
        remote sensing activities from space. Do you consider these activities to be of:
         28 a. high desirability
         14 b. medium desirability
          5 c. low desirability

                                              - 19 -

    12. The President recently approved the joint management by NOAA, DOD, and NASA of any
       future satellite systems designed to monitor oceanic conditions. These three agencies
       have proposed the National Oceanic Satellite System (NOSS) as a five year operational
       demonstration of the capability to obtain and use satellite-derived data on ocean
       surface temperatures; wave heights; surface currents; surface winds, ocean color char-
       acteristics that are indicative of chlorophyll content, sediment dispersion, some types
       of water pollution; ice coverage; and some information on sea surface topographic which
       is indicative of deep ocean circulation patterns and large scale topographic features
       such as sea mounts and submarine canyons.

       What other (if any) data would you like to be able to receive from an operational
       oceanic satellite remote sensing system?

       data: Surf pressure; Cloud cover; Upper mixed layer heat transport; Coastal bays and
              near shore data; Land surface temperatures; Sea surface temperatures and Current
              data where possible.

    13. How important to you is the time factor in receiving and processing satellite data or
       receiving processed data and information?  Date required within:

                                  Atmospheric Systems        Land Systems        Oceanic Systems

       a. 3 to 6 hours                     13                      4                     6
       b. 6 to 24hours                      2                      6                     5
        c. I day to I week                   5                      4                     7
       d. longer than I week                5                     12                     9

    14. Contained within the Presidents Decision (PD/NSC-54) assigning the management
        responsibility for civilian satellites to NOAA was the mandate that the private
        sector be involved to the greatest extent possible. The private sector can best
        be involved in the civilian satellite system by:

         27 a. developing the market for data and derived information
          8 b. owning and operating the entire system for a profit
          1Ic. owning and operating the space segment for a profit
          5 d. owning and operating the ground segment for a profit
         12 e. joint management with the government
         27 f. participating in the design and policy decisions affecting the operational
               systems

                                              - 20-

    PANEL NO. 5

    Mr. Martin Belsky                                (202) 377-4634
    NOAA, Assistant Administrator
       for Policy and Planning
    Main Commerce Building
    Washington, DC 20230

    Mr. William McCluskey                            (202) 224-1251
    Senate Committee on Commerce
       Science and Transportation
    Room 5102, DSOB
    Washington, DC 20510

    Mr. Curt Marshall
    House Merchant Marine and Fisheries              (202) 225-3348
       Committee
    House Annex 2
    Washington, DC 20515

    Dr. Paul Maxwell                                 (202) 225-1064
    House Committee on Science
       and Technology
    820 House Annex 1
    Washington, DC 20515

    Mr. Rich Norling                                 (202) 225-7508
    House Merchant Marine and Fisheries
       Committee
    Room 3577, House Annex 2
    Washington, DC 20515

    Ms. Deb Stirling                                 (202) 224-9321
    Senate Committee on Commerce
       Science and Transportation
    Room 126, RSOB
    Washington, DC 20510

                                - 21 -

    PANEL NO. 6

    Dr. Jeff D. Frautschy                            Chairman
    Assistant Director                               (714) 452-4446
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    La Jolla, CA 92093

    Mr. Robet-W. Corell                              (603) 862-1053
    Director
    University of New Hampshire/
      University of Maine
    Sea Grant Program
    Marine Program Building
    University of New Hampshire
    Durham, NH 03824

    Professor John E. Flipse                         (713) 845-4515
    Ocean Engineering
    Texas A & M University
    College Station, TX 77843

    Mr. J. R. Jackson, Jr.                           (713) 656-2649
    Exxon Company, USA
    P.O. Box 2180
    Houston, TX 77001

    Dr. Willard Moore                                (803) 777-2262
    Department of Geology
    University of South Carolina
    Columbia, SC 29205

    Dr. Virginia Tippie                              (401) 789-1374
    Executive Director
    Center of Ocean Management
      Studies
    University of Rhode Island
    Kingston, RI 02881

                                 - 22 -

                                   SURVEY QUESTIONS

                                     Panel No. 6

                             OCEAN RESOURCES - NONLIVING

    1. Which of these roles do you view as consistent with NOAA's mission (check 1 or more)?
       29 a. long term studies on natural, unpolluted marine areas in order to distin-
             guish natural variations from pollution caused changes
       17 b. assessment of the social and economic consequences of marine pollution
       23 c. research toward better methods of identifying potential pollutants
       15 d. determination of the potential impact of pollution on marine recreation
       27 e. research and monitoring of the pollution assimulative capacity of ocean
             waters (e.g. dumping, industrial waste disposal, municipal sewage outfalls)
       22 f. identification of critical habitats for living marine resources
       19 g. improvement of techniques for assessing oil spill damage
       20 h. lead agency in development and coordination of a consistent program across
             the Federal government to allow for comparison and combination of research
             and monitoring of ocean pollution
        19 i. lead agency for development of a coordinated Federal program to improve
             technology to detect and measure ocean pollutant levels
       26 j. all of the above

    2. How can multiple use of ocean space best be provided for?
       32 a. strong federal ocean focus
        15 b. interagency consulting procedures
        18 c. interagency coordinating bodies
         2 d. ad hoc arrangements based on particular conflict situations

    3. In your opinion should Federal policy toward coastal areas and the outer continental
      shelf be directed more toward development or toward conservation and protection?
       (circle the number you consider appropriate)

                                         scale
             rotection~ ............... ............... ................... eeomn
                        rotection~~~~~~~~~~~~~~devel1opmentl
      Ip    1               2                3                4                 51
            1              12               27                10                 5

    4. Rank the relationship which should exist between management and research (i.e. what
       should NOAA's role be in each?) on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 is essentially all
      management, and 5 is essentially all research) - write the appropriate number for
       each category:
                                          scale
             anagement~ ............... ............... ...................rsac
                       ~~management.. ~~~~~~research I
      I l                   2                3                4                  5o
            0                1               10                4                 1       I

                     scale
          1     2     3      4     5

          1    11    28      4     2     a. marine fisheries
          2    10    28      3     2     b. anadromous fish
          1     4    31      6     2     c. other living resources
          0    10    21      8     4     d. habitat protection
          2    11    14    15      3     e. marine minerals
          1     8    16    14      8     f. ocean dumping
          1     4    17    15      9     g. ocean pollution
          1     2    11    16    17      h. physical oceanography
          1     3    14    20      8     i. atmosphere
          3    13    19      6     5      j. marine mammals and endangered species

                                             - 23 -

    5. Which ocean energy sources do you feel are most promising from a scientific and
       economic standpoint?

        41 a. ocean thermal energy conversion
        11 b. ocean biomass
        19 c. wave energy
        16 d. salinity gradients
        13 e. ocean wind energy
         5 f. other
         0 gZ. none

    6. Should NOAA's research efforts in physical oceanography be:

        32 a. increased
         3 b. reduced
        14 c. remain unchanged

    7. Is additional legislation needed to provide for research concerning long term
       effects of marine emergencies?
        21 Yes
        18 No

    8. Since the most important single cause of marine pollution is the combined effects
       of coastal land use practices, should NOAA have any input into controlling such things
       as:

        -28 a. physical modification of upland and ocastal habitats
        26 b. urban and agricultural upstream runoffs
        26 c. atmospheric inputs to coastal areas
        37 d. siting of facilities in coastal areas (facilities, each of which have low
              level inputs, but whose impacts accumulate as development increases)

    9. The eventual solution to the problems of marine pollution lies in strengthening
       current regulations that prevent ocean disposal of certain key contaminants.

        26 Agree
        25 Disagree

    10. Monitoring accumulation of pollutants in the marine environment must be under-
       taken before formulating specific programs of research, in order to develop
       statistical bases of data.

        34 Agree
         16 Disagree

    11. Should NOAA favor the continuation of use of specific ocean areas for waste diis-
       posal when its findings in some cases are indicative of little or no environmental
       damage?
        40 Yes
         14 No

                                              - 24 -

    PANEL NO. 7

    Mr. John P. Harville                             (503) 229-5840
    Executive Director
    Pacific Marine Fisheries
      Commission
    528 South West Mill Street
    Portland, OR 97201

    Dr. L. Eugene Cronin                             (301) 261-1215
    Chesapeake Research Consortium
    1419 Forest Drive
    Annapolis, MD 21403

    Mr. Gus Fritschie                                (202) 857-1100
    National Fisheries Institute
    1101 Connecticut Ave., NW
    Suite 700
    Washington, DC 20036

    Dr. Raymond E. Johnson                           (202) 797-6800
    National Wildlife Federation
    1412 16th St., NW
    Washington, DC 20036

    Dr. Virgil Norton                                (301) 454-3801
    Chairman
    Department of Agriculture
      and Resource Economics
    2207 Simmons Hall
    University of Maryland
    College Park, MD 20742

    Dr. G. Carleton Ray                              (301) 867-3596
    Department of Environmental Studies
    Clark Hall
    University of Virginia
    Charlottesville, VA 22903

    Ms. Lucy Sloan                                   (202) 554-3272
    National Federation of                           (202) 659-9833
        Fishermen
    915 15th Street, NW
    Suite 600
    Washington, DC 20005

                                  - 25 -

                                   SURVEY QUESTIONS

                                     Panel No. 7

              MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF LIVING RENEWABLE RESOURCES

    1. The NMFS (DOC/NOAA) has historically, and still continues to maintain a comprehen-
      sive research program with emphasis on fisheries research in support of managing
      and conserving our living marine resources. Do you favor continuing such a research
      program with NMFS?
       49 Yes
        2 No

      Should the research program be:

        14 a. maintained at its current level
        4 b. decreased
       25 c. increased
        6 d. redirected

    2. NMFS (DOC/NOAA) currently has sufficient statutory mandates to carry out its
      research programs.

        37 Agree
         6 Disagree

    3. Rate what you consider to be the overall quality of NMFS research:

         2 a. excellent
        25 b. good
        18 c. fair
         L d. poor

    4. Do you feel that NMFS has clearly defined and prioritized its research programs?
         7 Yes
        35 No

    5. Do you feel that NMFS research contributes to its mission?
        40 Yes
         4 No

    6. Is the research program conducted by NMFS responsive to statutory mandates such
       as FCMA?
        32 Yes
        10 No

                                             - 26 -

    7. Fisheries research by NMFS generally falls into the categories below. Rate the
       role of a. applied research and b. basic research for each of the categories below
       according to the following: 1-appropriate NMFS mission, 2-not
       appropriate to NMFS mission, 3-shared mission of NMFS and other Federal, state,
       private, and academic research elements.

                                        scale
           1    2    3       1    2    3
       a. 18    2   16   b. 13    2   20   Fisheries oceanography
       a. 11    5   18   b. 10    6   19   Fisheries engineering
       a. 15    1   19   b. 12    1   24   Resource assessment
       a. 14    1   20   b. 13    1   20   Ecosystems/multispecies analysis
       a.  8    4   21   b.  8    4   23   Habitat protection
       a.  7    5   23   b.  8    6   21   Aquaculture
       a. 17    4   14   b. 15    5   15  Marine mammals
       a. 14    5   16   b. 14    5   16  Endangered species
       a.  6    5   23   b.  7    3   23   Estuarine ecology
       a.  6    4   25   b.  5    7   22   Contaminant research
       a.  5    3   27   b.  7    3   24   Ecological processes
       a. 12    2   21   b. 13    2   21   Fishery technology
       a. 10    4   20   b. 10    6   19   Fishing gear research (harvest technology)
       a.  9    3   23   b.  9    6   18   Remote sensing
       a.  8    4   23   b.  6    6   20   Hydroacoustics
       a. 10    2   24   b.  5    5   25   Recreational fisheries
       a. 14    1   20   b. 10    2   22   Commercial fisheries
       a.  9    7   21   b.  6    7   20   Taxonomy
       a. 10    2   24   b.  8    4   23   Climate/fisheries interactions
       a.  8    3   25   b.  3    9   22   Economics
       a.  5    7   24   b.  1   10  21   Sociology

    8. A prerequisite for a sound Federal fisheries management and conservation program
       is a comprehensive, coordinated fisheries research program. Do you agree?
        48 Yes
         0 No

    9. A sound fisheries regulatory and allocation regime must be based upon a substantive
       statistical gathering and research program.
        47 Yes
          1 No

    10. Currently NOAA has been given a substantial amount of regulatory and enforcement
       responsibilities to protect and conserve living marine resources and the marine
       habitat. Which of the following do you favor?

         11 a. greater emphasis on regulation and enforcement activities without sacri-
              ficing service and research
          1 b. greater emphasis on regulation and enforcement activities even at the
               expense of reducing or eliminating some service or research
         29 c. greater emphasis on service and basic research now to develop possible
              future increased regulation and enforcement
         9 d. concentration on services without assuming an increased role in regulation,
              enforcement, or basic research
          3 e. retention of the status quo

                                             - 27 -

    11. Are there conflicts in management objectives between commercial fisheries resource
       development and environmental protection activities such that programs in these
       areas should be administratively separated? Circle the appropriate number.
                                          scale
                                  spaa.............. No separation required or helpfu
       romplete separation needed                              4...                      ........
            r    1            ~~2 3 4 1
       I    3               11               11                15                  7      I

    12. Are interdisciplinary issues such as conflicts between marine mammal preservation
       and increased fisheries harvest susceptible to effective action when these program
       areas are administratively separated or would some form of reorganization better
       address such complex concerns? Circle the appropriate number.
                                          scale
                     ~~~~~~~~~Cretorganization hade2d~utl
       jew  1            required.Current organization handles adequated
          r 1 2 3 4
       I    7               10                6               17                   3

    13. Is a reorganization of fisheries programs necessary to adequately serve the
       various user groups listed below? For each group, indicate (by writing the appro-
       priate number in the space) what goals reorganization might attempt to serve.
                                          scale
        hould receive much less                                   Should receive much
        rogram emphasis ............... Same as now.programemphasis
             1               2                3                 4                5
       [    0                1                4                 11              0          [

                   scale
            1    2    3    4    5

            1    1   11    8    4      a. Harvesters
            1    2   12    9    8         commercial
           6    5   10    5    6         recreational
            3    2   12   13    4      b. Processors
            3    6    8    7   10      c. Marketing
            4    3    6   10   11      d. Consumers

    14. Living ecosystems are the fragile elements of the Oceans.  The stewardship role
        for these living renewable resources is a major part of NOAA's policy foundations.
        In the Organic Act this stewardship role should:

         39 a. have major emphasis
          4 b. be downgraded
          4 c. be deleted

    15. Basic ecosystem research (much of it longterm) is the key to understanding the com-
        position, interactions and processes of living ecosystems. Without this knowledge
        it is impossible to evaluate the effects of man's activities on the resources and
        their habitats and to effectively manage the living resources in perpetuity. Such
        basic research information is also needed as a foundation for the applied research
        used in resource and environmental management and in resource development.

        NOAA's biological research mission should be defined in an Organic Act as including
        longterm basic ecosystem research and short term applied research.
         38 Yes
          4 No

                                             - 28 -

    16. Various groups look at NOAA's functions in different ways. How do you personally
       rank each of the following on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-absolutely essential, 5-should
       not be a role of NOAA)?

                scale
           1    2    3    4    5

          17    7   13    2    8    a. protection of living marine resources
         25   10    7    2    4    b. conservation of living marine resources
          19   10    9    3    7    c. development of living marine resources

    17. Should our national goals include becoming a major fish exporting nation?

        32 Yes
         13 No

    18. How best might fisheries be developed? (check more than one if appropriate)

          1 a. federal subsidies to fishermen
          2 b. reduction of environmental safeguards and catch limits
        40 c. better protection of spawning and breeding grounds
         35 d. emphasis on fish marketing techniques
         11 e. reduction of foreign imports
          4 f. reorganization of fishing industry
         42 g. utilization of new or underutilized species
         26 h. quality control of fish and fish products

                                              - 29 -

    PANEL NO. 8

    Mr. David Kinsey                                 Chairman
    Division of Coastal Resources                    (609) 292-2795
    Department of Environemental
      Protection
    State of New Jersey
    P. 0. Box 1889
    Trenton, NJ 08625

    Mr. David Brower                                 (919) 933-3074
    108 Battle Lane
    Chapel Hill, NC 27514

    Mr. John Clark                                   (202) 797-4360
    Conservation Foundation
    1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW
    Washington, DC 20036

    Mr. Phillip Clark                                (202) 457-7080
    American Petroleum Institute
    2101 L Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20037

    Mr. Hans Neuhauser                               (912) 355-4840
    Georgia Conservancy
    4405 Paulsen Street
    Savannah, GA 31405

    Mr. J. Roy Spradley, Jr.                         (202) 296-5950
    Rose, Schmidt, Dixon, Hasley,
      Whyte and Hardesty
    818 Connecticut Avenue, NW
    Suite 300
    Washington, DC 20006

                                    - 30 -

                                    SURVEY QUESTIONS

                                     Panel No. 8

                                  COASTAL ZONE ISSUES

    1. Should NOAA do more to promote access to beaches?
       33 Yes
       21 No

    2. Should the Federal government phase out of funding state coastal zone management,
       leaving the management to the coastal states?
        11 Yes
        41 No

    3. Should NOAA provide funds to states to acquire, preserve and manage:

        40 Yes   8 No   a. estuarine sanctuaries
        40 Yes   7 No   b. barrier islands
        33 Yes  16 No   c. shore front access

    4. In your opinion, should the Coastal Zone Management Act be modified to include
       greater emphasis on urban waterfront areas-?
        24 Yes
        23 No

    5. Should coastal recreation be included in the mission and responsibility of NOAA?
        22 Yes
        25 No

    6. Coastal Zone Management is the only NOAA program with a significant "dry land"
       component. Should the role of this program be increased to improve NOAA's
       ability to resolve marine issues originating in terrestrial areas?
        31 Yes
        19 No

    7. Should Coastal Zone Management offer a. more, b. less assistance, or c. the same
       amount of assistance to states in coordinating management of other responsibilities
       of NOAA?

       a. 13  b. 13  c. 15    Marine mammals
       a. 23  b. 11  c.  9    Marine commercial fisheries
       a. 21  b. 13  c.  6    Anadromous fish
       a. 21  b.  6  c. 13    Weather hazards
       a. 22  b.  7  c. 11    Environmental data
       a. 21  b. 11  c. 10    Marine pollution
       a. 19  b. 13  c.  8    Marine energy development

                                             - 31 -

    8. Should the relationship between Sea Grant and the Office of Coastal Zone Management
       be altered?

        26 Yes
        16 No

       Should Sea Grant fund more projects that would help implement state coastal zone
       management programs?

        35 Yes
        13 No

       If yes, should the marine advisory service program supply Federal support for local
       coastal management efforts?

        28 Yes
         6 No

       If no, should the research and technical assistance portion of the Coastal Zone
       Management Act be funded to support state and local- coastal management information
       needs?

        19 Yes
         6 No

    9. Sound management of marine resources requires cooperation and coordination between
       Federal and state agencies. Do you feel that:

        12 a. existing coordination mechanisms are adequate
        23 b. they are inadequate from the viewpoint of state agency participation
        11 c. more legislation is needed to clarify state/Federal responsibilities

    10. The marine sanctuary program created by Title III of the Marine Protection, Research
       and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) has a broad statutory directive to protect conservation,
       ecological, recreational and esthetic values. Upon which of these resources should
       program concentrate:

        -32 a. pristine areas for wilderness values
         13 b. recreational areas
         17 c. marine artifacts, such as shipwrecks
        34 d. fishery habitat
        38 e. endangered or threatened species habitat
          5 f. other

    11. Should the Federal government take a more active role insuring coastal zone manage-
       ment for significant national interests if individual states leave the current pro-
       gram or fail to meet the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requirements?

        33 Yes
         17 No

                                             - 32 -

    12. Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (which provides the authority to
       purchase lands to increase access to existing publically owned areas) has never
       been funded. Should NOAA continue its efforts to seek funding for this effort?

        31 Yes
         18 No

       With what other types of access issues should NOAA become involved?

         8 a. construction grants for recreational facilities
         15 b. habitat improvement for recreational fisheries
        21 c. consumer education
        29 d. technical assistance to states
          6 e. all of the above
          6 f. none of the above

    13. Many people consider coastal recreation to be included in the mission and responsi-
       bility of NOAA. Should NOAA increase its role in:

         28 Yes  18 No   a. provision of public access
         25 Yes  22 No   b. increasing emphasis on recreational fisheries

    14. As more and more states enter into the CZMA program, what should be the new role
        of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Office?

         30 a. monitoring and assisting state programs in improving program implementation
         36 b. provide increased technical assistance on coastal resource issues
         26 c. place increased emphasis on Federal intergovernmental coordination
          2 d. other

    15. In the event Federal legislation is passed allocating funding for projects dealing
        with public access to urban waterfront areas, please indicate your preference
        for the use of such funds:

         32 a. provide funding to state and local governments for the creation of plans
               for urban waterfront redevelopment
         13 b. land acquisition
          7 c. construction grants
         14 d. all of the above

                                              - 33 -

                Oceanic and Atmospheric Policy Issues of the 1980's Workshop
                              THE ROLE OF THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT
                       sponsored by the Coastal States Organization
                         Howard Johnson Hotel at National Airport
                                     Washington, DC
                                   March 13 & 14, 1980

                                    REGISTRATION LIST

      name                  affiliation
    P3-ABRAMS, Robert         National Marine Education Association
       ADLER, Prudence       Office of Technology Assessment/Oceans Program
      ALMAZAN, James         National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA)
       ANASTASION, Steven    National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA)
      ANDERSON, A. L.        Sun Co., Inc.
       BARBER, Yates         NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
       BARROWS, Joan         NOAA, Congressional Affairs
    PI-BAUM, Werner           Florida State University
       BEHRHORST, Vernon     Office of the Governor, State of Louisiana
    P5-BELSKY, Martin         NOAA, Office of Policy and Planning
       BENDER, Eric           Sea Technology
    P4-BERMAN, Ann            Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.
       BLATT, Herbert        NMFS, Office of Policy and Planning
       BLEICHER, Samuel      NOAA, Office of General Counsel
       BOTZUM, John          Nautilus Press
       BRANTON, Charles      Texas Coastal and Marine Council
       BROOKBANK, John       NOAA, Office of General Council, National Weather Service
    P8-BROWER, David          University of North Carolina
       BROWN, Darrell        House Oceanography Subcommittee
       BUSSMAN, Charles       Sea Technology
       CANAN, Martha         Nautilus Press, Inc.
       CANNON, Edward        United States Coast Guard
       CHAMBERLAIN, Steve    American Petroleum Institute
       CLAIRMONT, Robert     US Small Business Administration
    P8-CLARK, John            Conservation Foundation
       CLARK, Marcus         US General Accounting Office
    P8-CLARK, Phillip         American Petroleum Institute
       CONNOLLY, John        Alden Electronics
       CONTOS, Suzanne       Nautilus Press, Inc.
    P6-CORRELL, Robert        University of New Hampshire/University of Maine, Sea Grant
       COTHRAN, Rick         Georgia Coastal Management Program
       COUGHENOWER,Douglas   National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
    P7-CRONIN, Eugene         Chesapeake Research Consortium
       DREWRY, Jim           NOAA, Office of the Administrator
       DROESSLER, Earl       NOAA, Director of University Affairs
       EDBERG, James         Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech
       EDGAR, Terry          US Geological Survey
    P2-EISENBERG, Phillip    Hydronautics, Inc.
    P4-EXNER, Michael         Synergetics International, Inc.
       FENBERG, Jan          Pennzoil Company
       FISHER, Leo           NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service
    P6-FLIPSE, John           Texas A & M University, Ocean Engineering Program
    P6-FRAUTSCHY, Jeffrey    California Sea Grant College Program, University of California
    P7-FRITSCHIE, Gus         National Fisheries Institute
       FRY, William          Dewberry, Nealon and Davis
       GARY, Robert          National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA)

                                              - 34 -

       name                  affiliation
       GERBER, John           University of Florida, IFAS Grants Office
    P2-GEYER, Richard         Texas A & M University, Geosciences Development Programs
       GIFFEN, Alec          Maine State Planning Office
       GLAZER, Michael       NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Management
       GOEHLER, David        NOAA, Congressional Affairs
       GOWANS, George         Science Applications, Inc.
       GREENBERG, Eldon       NOAA, Office of General Counsel
       GUTTING, Richard      NOAA, Office of Policy and Planning
      HALEY, Paula           NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Management
       HARGIS, William        Coastal States Organization, Chairman
    P7-HARVILLE, John         Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission
       HARWOOD, Peggy        National Governors Association
       HEFFERNAN, Barbara    Sea World, Inc.
       HERRICK, Christopher  NOAA, Office of Policy and Planning
       HOCHBERG, Ann          Office of Congressman AuCoin
    P2-HOSLER, Charles        Pennsylvania State University
       HUMPHRIES, Donald      NOAA, Management Analysis Division
    P1-HUNT, R. E.            Texaco, Inc.
       IRWIN, Harry          Marine Technology Society
    P6-JACKSON, J. R.         Exxon Company, USA
       JACOBIUS, Rose        Nautilus Press, Inc.
    P3-JANOTA, Paul          Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.
       JOHNSON, A.W.          System Development Corporation
       JOHNSON, Peter        Office of Technology Assessment
    P7-JOHNSON, Raymond       National Wildlife Federation
    P2-JONES, James          Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
       JUDD, John            Michigan Sea Grant Program
       JUSTUS, John          Congressional Research Service, Science Policy Division
       KAY, Robert            NOAA, National Ocean Survey
       KEATING, Richard      NOAA, Office of Congressional Affairs
       KINDBOM, Laurence      United States Coast Guard
    P8-KINSEY, David          Div. of Coastal Resources, Dept. of Environmental Protection/NJ
       LEVITT, Michael        NOAA, Office of General Counsel
    P3-LIEURANCE, Newton      Alden Electronics Equipment Co.
       LILLYQUIST, Alan       NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Management Program
       MACHTA, Lester         NOAA, Air Resources Lab, (ERL), Research and Development
       MacKENZIE, William    NOAA, NMFS, Office of Policy and Planning
    P2-MALONE, Thomas         Holcumb Research Institute, Butler University
       MARK, Albert           NOAA, Office of Public Affairs
    P5-MARSHALL, Curt        House Oceanography Subcommittee
    P5-MAXWELL, Paul          House Committee on Science and Technology
    P5-McCLUSKEY, Bill        Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
       McLELLAN, Hugh         National Sea Grant Program
       MILLER, Allen         Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
       MITCHELL, Jerry       Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources
       MONAHAN, Kathleen      Busby Associates
    P1-MOORE, John Norton    Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia
    P6-MOORE, Willard         University of South Carolina, Geology Department
       MORGAN, Simon          NOAA, Office of Personnel
       MORRISON, Robert       Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress
       MUGLER, Mark           Illinois Division of Water Resources
       MUIRHEAD, Charles      Department of Interior, Land and Water Resources

                                             - 35 -

       name                  affiliation
       MULCAHY, Michael       Sea Technology
      MURLEY, Jim            NOAA, Office of Congressional Affairs/CZM
    P8-NEUHAUSER, Hans        Georgia Conservancy
       NEWSOME, Sharon       Coast Alliance
       NIBLOCK, Robert       Office of Technology Assessment
       NICKERSON, Howard     New England Fisheries Steering Committee
    P5-NORLING, Rich          Subcommittee on Oceanography
    P7-NORTON, Virgil         University of Maryland, Dept. of Agriculture Resource Economics
       ODELL, Charles        NOAA, Office of Congressional Affairs
       OWEN, Thomas          NOAA
       OWENS, Thomas          Consultant, Ellicott City, MD
       PASKE, Patricia       Western Oil and Gas Association
       PERKINS, Marquerite   Humane Soceity of the United States
       PLEASANTS, John       Virginia Institute of Marine Science
       POIRIER, Richard       State of Hawaii CZM Program
       POTTER, Thomas        NOAA, Environmental Data Information Service
       RASMUSSEN, Jay         Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association, Inc.
       RAY, Carleton         University of Virginia, Department of Environmental Studies
       REES, George          NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service
       ROACHE, C.E.           System Development Corporation
       ROBINSON, Kip          NOAA, Office of Congressional Affairs
    P4-ROBINSON, Peter        University of North Carolina, Department of Geography
    P2-ROOTH, Claes           University of Miami, Oceanography Department
       RORHOLM, Neils        University of Rhode Island, Sea Grant College Program
       ROSENBERG, Donald     University of Alaska, Alaska Sea Grant
       ROSS, James           Oregon Coastal Management Program
       SCHOEN, Robert        US Geological Survey
       SEAMAN, William       Florida Sea Grant
    P4-SEMONIN, Richard       Illinois State Water Survey, Atmospheric Sciences Section
       SIGMUND, Samuel       NOAA, Office of Policy and Planning
    P1-SLOAN, Lucy            National Federation of Fishermen
       SOMMERS, William      USDA Forest Service
       SOPHOS, Mary          National Food Processors Association
       SPENGLER, Kenneth     American Meteorological Society
    P8-SPRADLEY, J. Roy       Rose, Schmidt, Dixon, Hasley, Whyte, & Hardesty
       STERNBERG, Paul       US Geological Survey
       STIRLING, Deb         Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
       SUBALUSKY, Frank      US General Accounting Office
       SUN, John             US Geological Survey
       TATRO, Peter          Science Applications, Inc.
    P6-TIPPIE, Virginia       University of Rhode Island, Center of Ocean Management Studies
    P3-TOWNSEND, John         Fairchild Space and Electronics Company
       UTZ, Bill              National Shrimp Congress
    P1-VAN LOPIK, Jack        Center for Wetland Resources
       WALKER, Maureen        NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Management
       WALTON, Susan          BioScience/American Institute of Biological Sciences (PRESS)
       WATSON, Arthur         NOAA
    P3-WICK, William          Oregon State University, Sea Grant College Program
       WORLEY, David          Florida Office of Coastal Management
       WOLFE, Ed              National Shrimp Congress
       YOUNGER, George       NOAA
       ZINN, Jeffrey          Congressional Research Service/Library of Congress

                                             - 36 -

                         Oceanic and Atmospheric Policy Issues of the 1980's
                                The Role of the NOAA Organic Act
                          Sponsored by the Coastal States Organization
                     Howard Johnson Hotel at National Airport, Washington, DC
                                       March 13 & 14, 1980

                                              AGENDA

    Thursday, March 13, 1980 - Dominion 1 Room

    8:30 am      Welcome to the Workshop                 Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr.
                                                      Chairman, Coastal States Organization

    8:45        "Does NOAA Need an Organic Act?"         Congressman John B. Breaux (D-LA)
                                                      Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries,
                                                      Wildlife Conservation and the Environment
                                                      Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee

    9:15         Overview of NOAA Organic Issues         James F. Ross
                                                      Chairman, CSO Workshop

    9:30         Coffee Break

    9:45         National Advisory Committee on          Steven N. Anastasion
                 Oceans and Atmosphere-Findings         Executive Director, NACOA
                 from Feb. Hearing on NOAA Or-
                 ganic Legislation.

    10:15        Panel Discussion# 1- Organizational Alternatives for NOAA
                   (Member List
                  Pg. i of Survey)      A. An independent oceanic and atmospheric entity
                                       B. Strengthen NOAA within the Department of Commerce
                                       C. An autonomous NOAA within the Department of Commerce
                                       D. Simple recodification of the status quo
                                       E. Three phase process of (1) strengthening NOAA within
                                          the Department of Commerce, (2) establishing NOAA
                                          as an independent agency, and (3) considering NOAA
                                          as the foundation of a larger oceanic and atmospheric
                                          entity

    11:30        Luncheon - Dominion 2 Room
                "NOAA-It's New Responsiblities."        James P. Walsh
                                                       Deputy Administrator of NOAA

    12:45 pm     Panel Discussion# 2-  Research and Development within NOAA
                   (Member List
                  Pg. 5 of Survey)      A. NOAA's research and development responsibilities
                                           for service and resource management
                                       B. Should research and development be consolidated?
                                        C. What should be the balance between applied and
                                          basic research?
                                       D. What should be the proper mixture of in-house and
                                           external support?
                                        E. What should be the role of the Sea Grant program?
                                        F. What role should NOAA play in the development of
                                           ocean technology?
                                       G. NOAA's responsibilities for transfer of technology
                                           from research and development to application

                                              - 37 -

    Thursday, March 13, 1980 (continued)

    2:00 pm     "Scientific Research - the                    Congressman Robert S. Walker (R-PA)
                 Key to Effective Management"                 Ranking Minority Member, Subcom-
                                                            mittee on Natural Resources and
                                                            Environment, Committee on Science
                                                            and Technology

    2:30         Panel Discussion # 3-  Marine and Atmospheric Services
                   (Member List
                  Pg. 10 of Survey)      A. Types of services by (1) NOAA, (2) other agencies
                                           and (3) industry
                                        B. Collection and dissemination of data and services
                                        C. Scope and types of public education
                                        D. Weather service responsibilities:(1) warning system,
                                           (2) marine weather forecasting, (3) Federal versus
                                           private responsibility for providing services
                                        E. Identification of future services
                                        F. Fee requirements

    3:45         Panel Discussion # 4-  Atmospheric Responsibilities
                   (Member List
                  Pg. 17 of Survey)      A. Earth satellite remote sensing
                                        B. Atmospheric pollution research and monitoring (acid
                                              rain, COg, ozone, radiation)
                                        C. Weather modification
                                        D. Climate (Federal/State cooperation)

    5:00         Panel Discussion # 5-  NOAA Organic Legislative Proposals
                   (Member List
                 Pg. 21 of Survey)

    5:45         Close of Afternoon Session

    6:00         Wine and Cheese Reception  - Dominion 2 Room

    7:00         Banquet - Dominion 2 Room
                "Atmospheric Policy Issues of the 1980's"   Congressman George E. Brown, Jr.
                                                             (D-CA) Chairman, Subcommittee on
                                                             Science, Research, & Technology
                                                             Committee on Science & Technology

                                               - 38 -

    Friday, March 14, 1980 - Dominion 1 Room

    8:00 am      Panel Discussion # 6- Ocean Resources-Nonliving
                   (Member List
                  Pg. 22 of Survey)    A. NOAA's policy role regarding environmental assess-
                                          ment of non-living uses and mineral extraction
                                          (excluding deep seabed)
                                       B. NOAA's resource management role for ocean
                                          minerals/Law of Sea (deep seabed mining)
                                       C. NOAA's role as a manager for other ocean uses
                                          (Nuclear disposal, energy resources including OTEC)

    9:15        "Ocean Use Issues of the 1980's"             Congressman Joel Pritchard (R-WA)
                                                           Ranking Minority Member
                                                           Subcommittee on Oceanography
                                                           Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee

    9:45          Panel Discussion# 7- Management and Protection of Living Renewable Resources
                   (Member List
                  Pg. 25 of Survey)    A. Fisheries Management
                                       B. Fisheries development (underutilized species,
                                          aquaculture, consumer affairs, safety, on-shore
                                          processing plants, international fisheries trade)
                                       C. Habitat protection
                                       D. Marine mammals and endangered species

    11:00        Panel Discussion # 8- Coastal Zone Issues
                   (Member List
                  Pg. 30 of Survey)    A. Review of resource and protection responsibilities
                                          including wetlands, dunes, estuaries, and barrier
                                          islands
                                       B. Funding for Energy Impact
                                       C. Management of coastal development (facility siting,
                                          fast track, port development, hazard mitigation)
                                       D. Marine sanctuaries - their role in managing our natural
                                          resources

    12:15 pm     Luncheon - Dominion 2 Room

                                                           Luncheon Speaker:
    1:00        "The Future Federal Role in the Ocean        Richard A. Frank
                 and Atmosphere"                            Administrator, NOAA

    1:30         Dominion 1 Room

                 Survey Reminder                            James F. Ross
                                                           Workshop Chairman

                 Closing Remarks                            Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr.
                                                           Chairman, Coastal States Organization

                                                - 39 -

                        ADDRESS BY
                JOHN B. BREAUX., CHAIRMAN,
    SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

                   AND THE ENVIRONMENT
           TO THE COASTAL. STATES ORGANIZATION

                      MARCH 13., 1980

                  "THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT"
         I AM PLEASED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE
    COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION CONCERNING THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT.
    THE SUBJECT IS ONE THAT HAS RECEIVED'A LOT OF ATTENTION OVER
    THE YEARS., BUT WHICH REMAINS AS CONTROVERSIAL AS EVER.

         IT IS DISAPPOINTING THAT A CONSENSUS HAS FAILED TO
    DEVELOP, PARTICULARLY IN THE OCEANS COMMUNITY.. ON THE NEED
    FOR ORGANIC LEGISLATION AND THAT THOSE WHO SUPPORT SUCH AN
    INITIATIVE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO AGREE ON ITS PROPER SCOPE AND
    CONTENT. MOREOVER, THERE HAS BEEN VERY LITTLE SUCCESS IN
    STIMULATING THE SYMPATHETIC INTEREST OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE
    CONGRESS WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ATMOSPHERIC SIDE OF
    NOAA's WORK, NEVERTHELESS, THE FACT THAT CSO IS CONFRONTING
    THE SUBJECT IS SIGNIFICANT.

         LAST SEPTEMBER, WHEN I INTRODUCED MY ORGANIC ACT
    PROPOSAL, H.R. 53147, I HAD HOPED THAT BY NOW, SUPPORT FOR
    THE IDEA WOULD HAVE SPEEDED THE BILL WELL THROUGH THE
    LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. WHERE WE STAND AT THIS TIME,, IN THE

                               - 40 -

    EARLY MONTHS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL SESSION, THE FIRST ORDER

    OF PRIORITY MUST BE AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION. IN THIS

    ELECTION YEAR, THE TIME FOR SUBSEQUENT INITIATIVES IS ES-

    PECIALLY LIMITED. OF COURSE, THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND

    SESSION OF THE CONGRESS KILLS ALL PENDING LEGISLATION AND

    NECESSITATES REINTRODUCTION IN THE NEXT CONGRESS, UNDER

    THESE CIRCUMSTANCES., THE CHANCES ARE SMALL OF ORGANIC

    LEGISLATION BEING ENACTED IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

    IN FACT, WITHOUT VIGOROUS, CONSISTENT SUPPORT, THE CHANCES

    ARE PRACTICALLY NIL. THEREFORE, I AM NOT OPTIMISTIC ABOUT

    ORGANIC LEGISLATION REACHING ENACTMENT IN THE 96TH CONGRESS.

    PERHAPS H.R. 53147 WILL AT LEAST SERVE THE PURPOSE OF PRO-

    VIDING SOME IMPETUS TO FUTURE EFFORTS TO ENACT ORGANIC

    LEGISLATION FOR NOWA

         THE BILL THAT I INTRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CONGRESS SETS

    FORTH A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE OCEANS, COASTAL ENVIRONMENT

    AND ATMOSPHERE., NAMES NOAA THE LEAD CIVILIAN AGENCY FOR

    OCEANIC, COASTAL AND ATMOSPHERIC AFFAIRS, AND PROVIDES THE

    AGENCY WITH FUNCTIONAL AUTONOMY TO CARRY OUT ITS MISSION

    WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. REORGANIZATION PLAN

    NUMBER 14 OF 1970, WHICH ESTABLISHED NOAA, DID LITTLE MORE

    THAN TRANSFER VARIOUS AUTHORITIES TO THE NEW AGENCY. THE

    PLAN FAILED TO ESTABLISH A MEANINGFUL NATIONAL POLICY FOR

    THE OCEANS, COASTS AND ATMOSPHERE AND DID NOT DEFINE NOAA's

    ROLE IN RELATION TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVING SIMILAR

                               - 41 -

    RESPONSIBILITIES. FROM THE ORGANIZATIONAL STANDPOINT, THE

    PLAN MERELY PROVIDED THAT NOAA WOULD BE ONE OF THE MANY UN-

    RELATED ELEMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE MISSION

    OF NOAA WAS LIMITED PRIMARILY TO SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION

    AND OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC SERVICES.

         FOLLOWING THE 1970 REORGANIZATION, THE RESPONSIBILITIES

    OF NOAA GREW. THE AGENCY EVOLVED INTO A LINE MANAGEMENT

    COMPONENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. MAJOR PROGRAMS WERE

    ESTABLISHED UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972,

    THE MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972,

    THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972, THE ENDANGERED

    SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AND THE FISHERY CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

    ACT OF 1976, AMONG OTHER LAWS. THE AGENCY IS NOW RESPON-

    SIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING PROGRAMS UNDER ALMOST ONE HUNDRED

    STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND ACCOUNTS FOR ALMOST ONE-THIRD OF

    THE BUDGET AND ONE-HALF OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT

    OF COMMERCE. NOAA PRESENTLY SHARES RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER

    MANY PROGRAMS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE INTERIOR, TREA-

    SURY, TRANSPORTATION., AGRICULTURE AND STATE AND THE ENVI-

    RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE

    FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDA-

    TION., THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, AND

    THE MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, AMONG OTHERS. I THINK ALL

    THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR A CONGRESSIONAL

    STATEMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE OCEANS., COASTS AND

                               - 42 -

    ATMOSPHERE AND FOR A STATUTORY RECOGNITION OF NOAA AS THE

    LEAD CIVILIAN OCEANS AGENCY,- A ROLE IT HAS PLAYED IN FACT,,

    IF NOT IN LAW., FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

         THERE IS A REASONABLE CASE THAT CAN BE MADE FOR CON-

    SOLIDATION OF ALL FEDERAL OCEANS, COASTAL AND ATMOSPHERIC

    RESPONSIBILITIES IN A SINGLE, INDEPENDENT AGENCY. HOWEVER,

    INCREASING FISCAL CONSTRAINTS AND THE POLITICAL REALITIES

    THEY GENERATE SUGGEST THAT AN AUTONOMOUS., THOUGH NOT IN-

    DEPENDENT,o LEAD AGENCY HAVING OVERALL COORDINATING RESPON-

    SIBILITY, NOT DIRECT AND EXCLUSIVE LEGAL AUTHORITY,, FOR

    THOSE PROGRAMS IS THE BEST THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED IN THE

    FORESEEABLE FUTURE. WHEN I INTRODUCED H.R. 5347, I BELIEVED

    THAT SUCH AN APPROACH COULD COMMAND WIDE SUPPORT. UNFOR-

    TUNATELY,o THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED. ON THE OTHER HAND, NO

    OTHER PROPOSAL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED AND NO OTHER APPROACH HAS

    RECEIVED CONSISTENT SUPPORT,

         LAST YEAR, I CO-SPONSORED, AS A VEHICLE FOR DISCUSSION.,

    H.R. 9708, THE FIRST NOAA ORGANIC ACT. THE BILL INCORPO-

    RATED A NUMBER OF PROPOSALS FROM THE STRATTON COMMISSION AND

    REPRESENTED AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE NOW DORMANT ADMINISTRATION

    PROPOSAL FOR A DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WHICH WOULD

    INCLUDE NOWA THE MEASURE WAS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO RE-

    EMPHASIZE THE UNIQUENESS AND VALUE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL

    RESOURCES AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FOCUSING ON THE OCEANS IN

                               - 43 -

    ORDER TO ACHIEVE OPTIMUM BENEFITS FROM THE MANY USES OF

    MARITIME SPACE AND RESOURCES. H.R. 5347 IS INTENDED TO BE

    MORE THAN JUST A VEHICLE FOR DISCUSSION. NEVERTHELESS, THE

    SUBSTANCE OF THIS LEGISLATION REQUIRES THE MOST CAREFUL

    CONSIDERATION. THE POLICIES WHICH ULTIMATELY ARE REFLECTED

    IN THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT, IF THERE IS TO BE ONE, WILL BE OF

    PROFOUND IMPORTANCE TO THE NATION.

         TITLE I OF THE BILL RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE

    OCEANSj COASTAL ENVIRONMENT, THEIR RESOURCES AND THE ATMOS-

    PHERE, AS WELL AS THE NEED FOR A COHERENT FEDERAL EFFORT,

    FOCUSED BY A LEAD AGENCY, FOR THEIR BETTER UNDERSTANDINGi

    UTILIZATION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONSERVATION.  A STATED PURPOSE

    OF THE BILL IS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NOAA AS THE LEAD CI-

    VILIAN AGENCY FOR THE OCEANS, COASTAL ENVIRONMENT AND

    ATMOSPHERE. NOAA IS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY WITHIN THE

    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE OTHER PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS TO

    ESTABLISH DETAILED NATIONAL OBJECTIVES FOR THE OCEANS,

    COASTAL ENVIRONMENT AND ATMOSPHERE.

         TTTLE II PROVIDES THE INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

    OF THE AGENCY.  IN ESSENCE, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE

    ORGANIZATION IS CONFIRMED, EXCEPT THAT THE POSITION OF

    ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT IS ESTAB-

    LISHED AND ALL OFFICIALS OF THAT LEVEL ARE SUBJECT TO

    CONFIRMATION. THE NEW POSITION WOULD PROVIDE A VALUABLE

                               - 44 -

    FOCUS FOR THE EMERGING FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND THE

    CONFIRMATION PROCESS WOULD PROVIDE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

    OF A SUBSTANTIALLY STRENGTHENED AGENCY.

         TITLE III SETS FORTH THE PRECISE FUNCTIONS OF NOAA.

    THE EXISTING TRANSFERS OF AUTHORITY TO NOAA ARE CONFIRMED

    AND THE MISSIONS OF THE AGENCY ARE SET OUT COMPREHENSIVELY.

    IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT H.R. 5018, WHICH I HAVE ALSO SPON-

    SOREDj WOULD REPEAL THE MARINE SANCTUARIES PROGRAM, THE

    ORGANIC ACT IS NOT INTENDED TO DEAL WITH THAT SPECIFIC

    ISSUE.

         TITLE IV PROVIDES FOR EFFECTIVE COORDINATION WITH OTHER

    FEDERAL AGENCIES, STATES AND LOCALITIES AND ESTABLISHES A

    MECHANISM FOR THE REDUCTION OF FEDERAL BUREAUCRATIC AND

    REGULATORY OVERLAPS. I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE STRONGLY
    THATj BY THIS LEGISLATIONj NOAA IS NOT INTENDED TO ASSUME A

    ROLE INVOLVING DUPLICATION OF THE EFFORTS OF OTHER AGENCIES.

    IF OTHER AGENCIES ARE CARRYING OUT EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS, NOAA

    MUST NOT CREATE COMPLICATIONS.

         THE BILL ALSO PROVIDES FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION,

    INCLUDING A MEANINGFUL ROLE FOR NOAA IN ALL INTERNATIONAL

    MEETINGS AND NEGOTIATIONS INVOLVING UNITED STATES OCEANIC,

    COASTAL AND ATMOSPHERIC INTERESTS.

                                - 45 -

        TITLE V CONTAINS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS CALCULATED

    TO ASSURE THAT NOAA HAS AUTONOMY WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF

    COMMERCE. MOREOVER, NOAA IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE FORMAL

    RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONGRESS ON THE RELEVANT ACTIVITIES

    OF OTHER AGENCIES.

        TITLE VI RATIONALIZES THE MYRIAD ENFORCEMENT AUTH-

    ORITIES OF NOWA   THESE PROVISIONS ENSURE THAT NOAA HAS THE

    LEGAL CAPABILITIES TO ENFORCE EFFECTIVELY THE LAWS WHICH IT

    ADMINISTERS.

         TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ARE CONTAINED IN TITLE VII.

         THE BILL PROVIDES ALL OF THE BASIC COMPONENTS THAT ARE

    NECESSARY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION

    OF A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE OCEANS., COASTAL ENVIRONMENT AND

    ATMOSPHERE. EVEN IF THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT SURVIVE THE 96TH

    CONGRESS, IT WILL HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE EFFORTS OF THOSE

    OF US WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO CONSTRUCT AND PROMOTE A MEAN-

    INGFUL NATIONAL PROGRAM IN THE AREAS OF NOAAS RESPONSIBILITIES.

                             - 46-

                AN OPGANIC ACT FOP NOAA -- The View from NACOA
                                  Presented to
                       The Coastal States Organization

                                March 13, 1980
                                       hy
                              Steven N. Anastasion
                               Executive Director
             National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere

         This morning I will present NACOA's views with respect to an organic act

    for NOAA.

         For those not familiar with NACOA, a brief description may be useful.

    The National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere is an advisory

    committee established by Public Law, at the same time NOAA was formred

    and also on the basis of Stratton Commission recommendations. NACOA

    is authorized to have 18 members appointed by the President from individuals -

    non-Federal -- who are eminently qualified in oceanic and atmospheric

    matters. Our Chairman is Dr. Evelyn F. Murphy, former Secretary of

    Environmental Affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachussetts and presently

    of MIT. Your present CSO leader, Bill Hargis, is a past Chairman.

         NACOA is charged with the responsibility of reporting annually to the

    President and to the Congress its assessment of the Nation's activities

    in these areas, and in developing such other reports as may be requested.

    Additionally, the Committee advises the Secretary of Commerce with respect

    to NOAA's programs.

         NACOA was, therefore, asked by several Senators and Congressmen -- and

    by NOAA -- to comment on an organic act for NOAA. Our review included

                                      - 47 -

    the President's message of July 9, 1970 to the Congress which trans-

    mitted Reorganization Plan No. 4 establishing NOAA and which identified

    several compelling oceanic and atmospheric needs. According to that

    message, establishment of NOAA would enable the Federal Government to

    approach the tasks involved in a coordinated way. The unified approach

    to the problems of the oceans and the atmosphere would enable increase

    in knowledge and an expansion of opportunities.

         In discussing NOAA's role, the President went on to say that he

    expected NOAA to exercise leadership in developing a national oceanic

    and atmospheric program of research and development. It would coordi-

    nate its own scientific and technical resources with the technical and

    operational capabilities of other government agencies and private insti-

    tutions. Further, he indicated that NOAA would continue to provide to

    others those services which have become essential to transportation,

    agriculture, and national security.

        The President's message, while providing for a continuation of services

    provided by NOAA acquired components, such as mapping and charting, weather

    observations and warnings, addressed the prospect of unified approaches

    in only one area: leadership and some coordination in research and develop-

    ment.

        That was the beginning 10 years ago. In commenting on the new NOAA,

    the CEQ in its 1971 report noted that NOAA was the second major organiza-

    tional innovation in 1970, the first being EPA. The framework in which

    NOAA was viewed, if the CEQ report can he considered representative,

    was the following:
                                      - 48 -

         "This new agency within the Department of Commerce, consolidates

          the major Federal oceanic and atmospheric research and monitoring

          programs. Both the Weather Bureau and the Coast and Geodetic

          Survey now operate within NOAA."

         "The agency monitors the impact of pollutants on the marine en-

          vironment; describes changes in the oceans, estuaries, and the

          atmosphere; and establishes ecological baseline data and models."

         As you look back from today's perspective, the beginning -- while

    difficult in accomplishment -- seems rather modest. It has turned out

    to be, however, quite the contrary -- more in the nature of the major

    organizational innovation.  NOAA is certainly more than a research and

    service organization; it now manages and regulates, as well.

         The dramatic increase in public attention to the oceans and atmos-

    phere results from the widely held view that they present problems and

    opportunities relevant to critical national, social, environmental,

    economic, and welfare issues.

         In setting forth activities required for addressing these many issues -

    some not even conceived of in the early 1970's -- significant new Federal

    enterprises have been set in motion.  While I do not intend to cite each

    specific piece of legislation, I want to mention several of the issues

    accomodated which are pertinent to today's discussions.

                                        - 49 -

         For example, awareness of the significant changes taking place in our

    coastal zones brought about coastal zone management. Concern for the

    extinction of oceanic creatures brought about protection for marine

    mammals and other endangered species. The need to protect the environment

    provided measures to look carefully into ocean dumping. Concern over

    our fisheries brought about conservation and management within a 200

    mile zone around our coasts. And most recently, specific national

    planning responsibilities for ocean pollution monitoring, research and

    development, and for climate have been been mandated.

         For each of these initiatives, and in some cases major landmark

    actions as in coastal zone management and in fisheries conservation and

    management, Congress has found in NOAA a reasonable focus and home for

    responsibility.

         The 1980 NOAA is not the same entity that was established in

    1970. Moreover, additional areas of activity of considerable significance

    are presently gathering headway or are possible, such as planning for

    weather modification research and development; the recently added

    responsibilities by the President for managing all operational civilian

    land space remote sensing activities to complement its oceanic and

    meteorological space sensing functions; and the likely assignment of the

    deep seabed mining function for which the Secretary of Commerce has

    informed Congress of the President's preference for NOAA as the responsible

    Federal agency.

                                        - 50-

         In view of the gradual and piece-hy-piece manner by which NOAA has

    come to be what it is today, NACOA has concluded that there is consider-

    able merit for formulating an organic act for NOAA. The conclusion is

    based on the insights gained in the intensive analyses by the Committee

    for its major study on the Federal structure for oceanic and atmospheric

    affairs issued in February 1979, as well as more recent efforts specif-

    ically addresssing the organic act question.

         NACOA believes that the benefits of an organic act for NOAA would

    include the following. It would provide an opportunity for Congress

    and the Executive Branch to state their views on the functions and goals

    toward which NOAA should now direct its efforts. The many responsi-

    bilities of NOAA should be integrated into a legislative framework

    for the present and for the forseeable future.

         An organic act would codify and simplify the diverse legislative

    authorities under which NOAA now operates. It would thus be a useful

    reference, facilitating common understanding among the Federal agencies,

    Congress, and the general public of NOAA's functions and responsibilities.

         The organic act would describe and encompass those functions now

    being performed by NOAA which are implicitly encompassed under present

    authorities but which now deserve explicit recognition. It would clarify

    those authorities which overlap or appear to overlap those of other agencies.

                                     - 51 -

         The organic act would affirm and describe the diverse coordinating roles

    now assigned to NOAA under separate authorities. It would establish

    procedures to assure that coordination does in fact occur.

         NOAA's present numerous program authorizations arrive for considera-

    tion by Congress at different time periods. Little opportunity exists for a

    comprehensive review by Congress. An organic act would provide the opportunity

    for such a comprehensive authorization review process whereby Congress could

    systematically review NOAA programs and assess goals and priorities, thereby

    reflecting a broader and integrated overview of NOAA's total effort.

         And finally, perhaps most importantly, an organic act for NOAA could

    express the intent of Congress for a strengthened NOAA as the central

    civil agency for oceanic and atmospheric affairs.

         In the foregoing, what I have not done, of course, is to describe the

    optimum organic act to serve these purposes. There is still some way to go

    before the Congressional and Administration drafters narrow the many concepts

    now being expressed into a realizable and useful form. NACQA does have,

    however, some specific views on a NOAA organic act.

        The oceans and the atmosphere, as we have seen, are dynamic areas

    of public consideration. There is need to insure that to whatever degree

    an organic act can describe NOAA's role in these, it should provide the

    Administrator with the flexibility to accomodate changing priorities and new

    directions. The organic act should deal primarily in broad agency functions

                                          - 52 -

    and areas of responsibility, leaving to separate legislative enactments

    specific program amplification. Moreover, the organizational aspects of the

    organic act should be presented so as to allow for similar adjustment to

    changing needs. For example, while Congress may wish to limit the total

    number of policy officials and to indicate those which would require advice

    and consent, NACOA believes that an organic act which specifies the responsi-

    bility areas of such officials would provide less than the desired flexibility.

         NOAA's functions should be written in a manner not to imply exclusivity.

    The relationships between NOAA and other agencies will undoubtedly differ

    to some degree in each evolving program activity; and areas-of specific

    responsibility should be resolved in legislation addressing each program.

         Nor should the organic act for NOAA transfer present responsibilities

    from one agency or department to another. NACOA believes that there is

    considerable merit in an organic act whose major objective is to describe

    clearly what NOAA has become over the years. While Federal reorganization

    may have merits, and NACOA believes that it does, the NOAA organic act

    should not be used as the mechanism to reorganize the Federal structure

    for oceanic and atmospheric affairs.

                                       -53 -

                        Werner A. Baum
                        Dean
                        College of Arts and Sciences
                        The Florida State University

    The entire remarks by Dean Baum will be available in the near future.

    For the purpose of this record Dean Baum presented arguments in favor
    of the following two points:

    (1) that, regardless of what happens with respect to the Organic Act,
        we not lose sight of the need for an independent oceans and at-
        mosphere agency, possibly combined with NASA, and

    (2) that we not miss the opportunity presented by the Organic Act to
        clarify in law the relative responsibilities of the National
        Weather Service and of the private sector'in the delivery of
        meteorological services to specialized interests.

                                  - 54-

                 "NOAA--Evolving New Responsibilities"

                              Remarks of

                            James P. Walsh
                         Deputy Administrator

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                       CSO Organic Act Workshop

                             March 13, 1980

         I welcome this chance to discuss with you NOAA's changing

    responsibilities in national oceanic and atmospheric affairs.

    NOAA was established in 1970 to provide a central focus for

    many of the Federal government's ocean-related programs under

    Reorganization Plan No. 4. The plan proposed a new agency or-

    ganized around oceanic and atmospheric programs. When actually

    created, however, NOAA was given functions mostly related to

    science and services. In the ten years since its establish-

    ment, with the addition of new statutory responsibilities,

    NOAA's overall character has changed from a primarily science

    and services organization to one with emphasis on management

    and regulation, as well as research. We are now closer to the

    multi-disciplinary agency the Stratton Commision recommended.

         This afternoon I would like to talk about how NOAA's role

    in Federal oceanic and atmospheric affairs differs from that

    envisioned at its creation, and how NOAA.'s current programs

    have evolved from the activities assigned to it in 1970. In

    doing so,'I will concentrate on four major areas of NOAA's

    activities: fisheries, coastal zone management, oceanic

    and atmospheric services, and research and development.

                              - 55 -

    The Stratton Commission and NOAA's Establishment

         Congress established the "Stratton Commission" in 1966

    to investigate a broad array of maritime problems and to

    formulate a comprehensive, long-term, national programs for

    marine affairs. In its 1969 report, Our Nation and the Sea,

    the Stratton Commission recommended the creation of an in-

    dependent new agency to be the principal instrumentality

    within the Federal government for administration of civil

    marine and atmospheric programs. The Commission concluded

    that:

                "A new, strong Federal focus for marine
                activity is essential to a national ocean
                effort. The organization should direct a
                civil ocean program to the Nation' s economic
                and social needs, conducting the scientific,
                technological, and management programs re-
                quired to ensure those needs are met."

         The Commission suggested that a new agency be composed

    of the Coast Guard, the Environmental Science Services Admin-

    istration, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the marine and

    anadromous fisheries function of DOI, Sea Grant, the U.S. Lake

    Survey, and the National Oceanic Data Center. With these

    elements, the new agency would have been made up of about

    55,000 employees, a fleet of 320 seagoing vessels, and a budget

                             - 56 -

    in 1969 dollars of $773 million. The Commission projected that

    the agency would have an operating budget of $2 billion

    annually by 1980.

         The NOAA that was established was far less comprehensive

    than the Stratton Commission proposed. In FY 1971, NOAA had

    a little over 12,000 employees and a budget of $281 million.

    The compromise was between Congressional supporters of a strong

    independent oceans agency and a reluctant Administration.

    In his message accompanying the plan, President Nixon restric-

    ted the agency's functions primarily to research and develop-

    ment with limited responsibilities to assist ocean industries

    such as fishing. He stated:

              "I expect that NOAA would exercise leader-
              ship in developing a national oceanic and
              atmospheric program of research and develop-
              ment. It would coordinate its own scientific
              and technical1 resources with the technical
              and operational capabilities of other Govern-
              ment agencies and private institutions."

         However, additional responsibilities were delegated to

    NOAA by Congress during the 1970's.

         Today, with these new statutory assignments, NOAA is re-

    sponsible for managing marine fisheries and mammals; funding

    state coastal zone management programs; undertaking major re-

                              -57 -

    search programs in the oceans (e.g. climate and pollution)

    and the atmosphere (e.g. hurricanes); forecasting the weather

    and severe storms; preparing aeronautical and nautical charts

    and maps; operating environmental satellites; and being the

    major repository in the Federal government for environmental

    data relating to the oceans and atmosphere. To carry out

    these activities, we have a personnel complement of approx-

    imately 13,000, a fleet of 25 ocean-going vessels, and a

    budget in this fiscal year of about $800 million. our em-

    ployees include resource managers, administrators, fishery

    biologists, oceanographers, engineers, geologist, meteoro-

    logists, and sundry other technical and scientific profes-

    sionals, plus a few lawyers.

         Let me now outline for you our current programs and

    recent initiatives in fisheries, coastal zone management,

    oceanic and atmospheric services, and research and

    development.

    Fishery Management Programs

         NOAA's Office of Fisheries has the responsibility for

    managing and conserving fishery resources within 200 miles

    of the U.S. coast, protecting the vital habitats of marine

    mammals and endangered species, assisting the economic

    development of the U.S. fishing industry, and conducting

    research to support these missions. Some of our most signi-

    ficant activities in the fisheries area in the recent past

                            - 58 -

    have been supporting fisheries development, working with

    the IWC to adopt a moratorium on factory-ship whaling oper-

    ations, jointly sponsoring a world conference on sea turtle

    conservation, and preparing a legislative proposal for

    management of salmon in the Pacific Northwest. We are

    currently involved in reviewing alternatives to the present

    management of tuna-purpoise conflicts, analyzing potential

    issues involving habitat protection and energy activities

    in coastal areas, and implementing the President's policy

    decision on fisheries development.

    Coastal Zone Management

         The Office of Coastal Zone Management has the respon-

    sibility for establishing national policies for use and

    protection of coastal areas. It provides funds to coastal

    states to develop and carry out comprehensive state programs

    to manage coastal resources, designates unique areas as

    estuarine or marine sanctuaries, and seeks to harmonize

    federal decisions affecting coastal resources. Nineteen

    states have federally approved coastal programs covering

    60% of our nation's coasts; additional states will be

    approved this year which will provide coverage for 78%

    of the coast. Presently, NOAA is carrying out the Presi-

    dent's mandate declaring 1980 the "Year of the Coast" and

    is conducting an interagency review of federal programs

    affecting coastal areas.

                               -59 -

    Oceanic and Atmospheric Services

         The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Services reports

    and forecasts the weather, manages environmental satellites

    and an oceanographic fleet, prepares nautical and aeronauti-

    cal charts, and operates the largest environmental data

    storage and retrieval system in the world. NOAA has recently

    been assigned the responsibility for the development and

    management of an operational land remote sensing satellite

    program (LANDSAT) to provide extensive'information about

    agricultural yields, and developing an experimental ocean

    remote sensing satellite system--the National Oceanic

    Satellite System (NOSS). With these new initiatives, NOAA

    will be responsible for all operational programs of civil

    satellite remote sensing.

    Research and Development

         The Office of Research and Development conducts environ-

    mental research to support program needs related to ocean

    pollution, climate, and weather modification. NOAA has lead

    responsibility for major multi-agency international research

    programs such as the National Climate Program, the National

    Marine Pollution Program, and the Global Atmospheric Research

    Program. We are currently involved in the development of a

    National Climate Plan, to be released this year, and are

    continuing to assess the effects of the Canopeche oil spill

    in the Gulf of Mexico (Ixtoc 1).

                            - 60 -

    Conclusion

         Clearly the last decade has seen a metamorphosis in

    national policy for the oceans and atmosphere. There has

    been a growing recognition of the potential economic

    benefits from exploitation of marine and coastal resources,

    while at the same time it has become apparent that in-

    creasing human activity can cause harmful changes in the

    ocean environment. NOAA's role has become one of a steward

    and manager rather than solely that of an investigator. A

    similar role is now emerging with respect to atmospheric

    resources. The debate over how to use and conserve our

    oceanic and atmospheric resources is just beginning. We

    will continue to examine and carry out our choices.

                            -61 -

               Comments on Research and Development Within NOAA

                         and NOAA Organic Legislation

                           C. L. Hosier, Penn State

         Our ignorance of the complex atmospheric and ocean systems is over-

    whelming and one cannot overemphasize the necessity for rigorous research

    programs, or that Hie Federal establishment must play the paramount role in

    the support and conduct of this research. Increased human pressure on

    limited resources and the need to reduce waste and increase productivity

    while preserving a quality environment requires that we not only understand

    the workings of our atmospheric and oceanic environments but that we be

    able to predict the natural course of events and anticipate human modification.

         NOAA is a high quality Federal service. Not only has it provided high

    quality services but it has contributed greatly to advancing the understanding

    required to improve those services.

         In the atmospheric sciences NOAA plays the central role in terms of

    operational meteorology. In spite of strong dependence upon universities

    for its personnel and the advance of the sciences, NOAA's ties to universities

    have for many years been less than ideal in terms of exchange of personnel

    and financial support to universities in the atmospheric sciences. This

    has been recognized by NOAA leadership and steps have been taken to improve

    the situation. It will be a strong test of NOAA's leadership to sustain a

    move toward more support of university research in the current Federal

    budgetary climate. While there is little doubt that NOAA needs in-house

    research capability, and NOAA research labs would compare favorably with

    most university research laboratories, there is in the academic community

                                   - 62 -

    some apprehension about the future productivity of these laboratories.

    Universities have problem turning over staff due to tenure. Federal labs

      S(f~to hbive .i~ Ceven more diFffleul t problem.  I don' t Intend to offer a

    solution for the Federal laboratories but. I do feel that some very creative

    management will be required to sustain productivity. Sustained creativity

    over an entire career is rare indeed. In the university teaching or

    advising duties can be interchanged for research duties rather easily.

    I'm not sure the NOAA labs have similar flexibility. For this and other

    reasons, NOAA must be encouraged, perhaps in its organic legislation,

    to draw upon the total resources of the nation wherever they may be. At

    the same time it must be clear to NOAA that oversight of the total national

    requirement for research in support of services Is part of their responsibility.

         Much of NOAA's in-house research is indeed in support of services. At

    the same time, the physical separation of research from operations in some

    cases is detrimental to rapid identification of operational needs and

    transfer of research results. Also, the physical separation of research

    laboratories hinders exchange of ideas between scientists and implies

    narrower interest and capability than is really the case. The ability to

    pursue new interests or utilize varied talents is enhanced by being part

    of a larger organization. Many NOAA research personnel in mission oriented

    laboratories could be contributing to the missions of other laboratories if

    they were physically integrated. There would be greater opportunities for

    individuals to spread their talents and less chance of. stagnation. Some

    duplication of facilities or services might also be eliminated.

        Areas of research relating to user needs and application and communi-

    cation of NOAA products has been neglected. It is not enough to produce

                                      - 63 -

    good information if no one knows it exists or if access is difficult. Plans

    for major investments in facilities, observation systems, data processing

    and dissemination of information can be sound only If the end users were

    kept firmly in mind and their needs and ability to utilize the information

    known.

         The organic legislation can do little to spell out the details mentioned

    above except to give NOAA a clear mandate for services and supporting

    research in the realm of the atmosphere and oceans and to state that

    to the greatest degree possible NOAA, should utilize the total national

    resource of people and facilities to carry out its missions. This carries

    an obligation to use industry, universities, individuals and facilities

    outside of government to the greatest degree possible commensurate with

    providing timely and state of the art information and services. With the

    exception of the Defense department, which has a special mission and require-

    ments not likely to be satisfied beyond its control, all oceanic and

    atmospheric programs including weather modification research, should be in

    the same organization. I personally believe the nation and its people would

    be best served by an intact NOAA within a department of natural resources.

    We cannot afford to have our nation's earth, oceanic and atmospheric resources,

    assessed and managed separately nor can their behavior be assessed, predicted

    and managed in Isolation.

                                    - 64-

                       STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD A. GEYER,
                             PROFESSOR OF OCEANOGRAPHY,
                  TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
                                      AT
                        THE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PANEL
                        OF THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT WORKSHOP
                                      HELD
                       THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1980 AT I PM
                                WASHINGTON, D.C.

         I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to participate on the

    Research & Development panel of the NOAA Organic Act Workshop, having been

    the Vice Chairman of the Stratton Commission. Thus it is possible to

    provide at first hand some continuity between this era arnd the present,

    because NOAA represents the tangible culmination at this time of major

    reorganization recommendations made by this commission. Admittedly, the

    original recommendation for a reoruanization of the marine related

    activities of Federal agencies were much broader in scope, but it is

    never too late to try to implement additional improvements. Several attempts

    were made in the ensuing decade to further reorganize the structure of

    these agencies, but to no avail. These include such diversified attempts

    in different degrees of depth as the NACOA (1974), and the Moore and

    Hollings Proposals (1976), each one in turn recommeding increasingly

    broader changies.

         Ironically, the rationale for establishing the Commission, and one

    of its major charges, was to provide a reorganization plan that would

    minimize the overlapping, and in many cases the widespread duplication

    of functions and responsibilities that existed between marine oriented

    Federal agencies. Unfortunately today, this situation by actual count is

    worse than at the end of the 1960's. This is evident in Table 9-2,"

    pages 7, and 17-21 of the U.S. Ocean Policy in the 1970's - Status & Issues,

    Department of Commerce, October (1978). The same applies to expansion of

    Congressional committees having jurisdiction over these agencies; and

                                  - 65 -

    there could be a correlation between these facts. Until these committees

    themselves are streamlined, there is little hope for a significant change

    in the proliferation and duplication of functions and responsibilities

    of existing agencies.

        How are these remarks pertinent to a discussion of the NOAA Organic

    Act? The answer lies in the fact that there does not appear to be anything

    obvious in the provisions of this Act that will significantly solve the

    problems presented in these introductory remarks. This statement may be

    regarded by some as a sweeping generalization and over-simplication, but

    eight minutes allotted to each panel participant precludes a detailed

    presentation. However, it may be expected that individual examples will

    be discussed during the workshop in both the formal presentations and the

    question periods.

         I turn now to comments specifically related to Research & Development.

    A reading of the document prepared to compare HR5347 and the current NOAA

    draft leads to the conclusion that references to items pertaining to this

    subject are conspicuous by their absence. Does this mean NOAA is satisfied

    with the Research & Development provisions as presented in this bill? A

    careful reading of the bill reveals that several provisions of the bill,

    in effect, give NOAA "carte blanche" to conduct Research & Development in

    the broadest terms, as well as specifically. (For example, Title III,

    Section 301, (1), (2), (3) and (4), (9) and (10), and (11)). These

    paragraphs are couched in such all inclusive terms that NOAA could conduct

    research that would overlap and duplicate similar research that might be

    conducted by many other Federal marine oriented agencies.

         More specifically, Section 301, (9) refers to Research & Development,

    "to enhance knowledge in fields of ocean engineering and technology,

    including the development and operation of manned research submersibles,
                                       - 66 -

    underwater laboratories,...to improve undersea divinq techniques." Section

    301, (10) 0 goes on to provide catch-all language so that something specific

    that has not been thought of might be included, viz, "providing such financial

    assistance and conducting such other programs as may be appropriate."

         These comments are not to be construed as meaning that NOAA should not

    engage in research per se, but merely to point out the opportunity

    available for widespread duplication of effort within Federal agencies. For

    example, the efforts spelled out in Section (9) overlap and duplicate the

    Navy's activities involving submersibles and diving activities. The scope

    of their needs is so much greater in these areas to conduct their missions

    successfully. At the same time a significant number and quality of the

    results achieved do not fall into the classified category; and therefore,

    could be made available to the civilian user.

         NOAA and those components in which it existed prior to its present

    form has never emphasized fulfilling its research needs to' any appreciable

    extent, by using the special capabilities of either the academic or the

    industrial communities. Quite recently a modest attempt has been made by

    NOAA to begin to provide a specific means to coordinate some research

    activities with the academic community. This includes a two page newsletter

    entitled "University Affairs Letter" whose second issue appeared last

    December. One of the items listed is a fund of $260,000 available for

    University research on the impact of ocean dumping of dredged material in

    three areas. New York Bight, Cape Henry, and the region off the Mississippi

    Delta. This amount does not begin to compare with the tens of millions of

    dollars spent over the last several years by NOAA on research and data

    acquisitions on ocean dumping in the areas of the Atlantic and Pacific

    oceans. It should be noted, however, that at least the publication of

    pertinent results of this research area has been more prompt and complete

    than in general. This applies especially to the MESA and DOMES programs,
                                    - 67-

    where the results have been disseminated more rapidly and in more diversified

    publications both through in-house, as well as in reference books and

    periodicals.

         On the other hand, an example of an inordinate delay in the publication

    of results of a very important discovery is found in the field of environ-

    mental pollution. A period of about 18 months elasped between the time a

    naturally occurring tar seep comprising over a million tons was observed

    in the South Atlantic near Trinidad, and this information became available

    in the literature. This evidence is of primary importance in demonstrating

    that grossly underestimated value of 600 thousand tons/year attributed by

    a National Academy of Science Committee in the mid 1970's as to the total

    amount of tar escaping into the ocean from natural causes. This is a very

    important fact and dramatically changes any quantitative estimate of the

    value for the total amount of hydrocarbons that could be expected to

    accumulate annually in the ocean from natural causes.

         It is to be hoped that NACOA will function more expeditiously' in its

    most recent assignment given to it in a letter of November 26, 1979 by

    Stuart E. Eizenstat. The letter requested that NACQA participate more

    actively to define the objectives and goals of a "Decade of Ocean Resource

    and Management". This may prove to be difficult, because it is still

    operating with five positions on the Committee remaining to be filled for

    this term and as of next June six additional vacancies must be filled.

         Similarly, a five year plan for ocean pollution Research & Development

    and monitoring under aegis of the Office of Marine Pollution Assessment

    has been promulgated, with a target of $1.1 million for University grants

    and contracts for FY '80. It is now almost six months into this fiscal

    year and the admonishment is made in the University Affairs Letter to

    watch for announcements in the Federal Register and in the Scientific
                                      - 68 -

    media for announcements describing the areas of Research & Development

    interest and how to request a guidance package for preparinq proposals.

    Such a time schedule is indicative of a policy of proceeding with "all due

    deliberate haste";and cannot be expected to yield significant results in

    any reasonable period of time, nor of any appreciable magnitude with the

    level of funding involved.

         Another example of the manner in which OMPAS operates is with regard

    to a Workshop on Tar Balls on Texas beaches which convened in Austin,

    Texas in the middle of June. Participants from other pertinent Federal

    and Governmental agencies including the Coast Guard were invited, as well

    as persons from in the Gulf Coast academic community who were known to be

    active in this area of research. A follow-up meeting was scheduled for

    October which never materialized. A report of the initial meeting was

    mailed to participants seven months later, together with the indication that

    a second Tar Ball Workshop is in the planning stages, and soliciting ideas

    for it.

         In the meantime, by the end of the summer the tar from IXTOC 1 Well

    reached the Texas beaches. The Coast Guard contacted me several times for

    suggestions and information from both the New Orleans and Washington, D.C.

    Offices. On the other hand OMPAS made no effort to utilize the expertise

    of the local academicans who are authorities on this subject, which they

    had tacitly acknowledged by inviting them to attend, at their own expense,

    the June meeting. Instead, they imported scientists located in the Carolinas

    and engaged in contractual relations with them for extended studies to be

    conducted along the Gulf Coast beaches. What more remains to be added at

    this point? Again limitations of time preclude additional examples. In

    fact, my time is rapidly running out and will therefore conclude with a

    quotation by the first administrator of NOAA, Dr. Robert M. White, appearing
                                    - 69 -

    in the October-November 1979 issue of the Marine Technology'Society Journal:

             "As we enter the decade of the 80's, however, we must

        choose anew. It is clear that while there are important

        incremental gains to be achieved, major departures will

        require an institutional metamorphosis. We seem to be

         paralyzed however by contending forces. We are unable to

        agree on what to do. We have in the past year alone had

         proposals of all kinds: Combine ocean and atmospheric

         programs with polar and possibly space programs, said NACOA.

         Expand NOAA and place it in a new Department of Natural

         Resources, was the President's idea. Keep the faith, follow

         the Stratton Commission recommendations and establish an

         independent agency is the sentiment in some parts of the

         Congress. And the Commerce Department says - Leave things

         alone - they are going pretty well - We can handle it.

              Somehow we must break this stalemate. We need to

         choose. But we have failed to ask the essential question,

         "What do we wish to achieve?".

         The answer to Dr. White's question can only come from future actions

    made in good faith by those in NOAA with authority to determine major

    policy. This could then permit achieving in a tangible and significant

    manner those important objectives and goals which here-to-for have resulted

    at best in essentially receiving only lip-service. This recommendation

    is not made in rancor, nor despair, but with the spirit of offering

    constructive criticism, by one who was a member of the Commission acting

    as a catalyst, and to a certain extent as a mid-wife, to the the birth of

    NOAA about a decade ago.

                                     - 70 -

                                        COMMENTS BY

                                    NEWTON A. LIEURANCE*

     At the outset let me state that I support a unified approach in any legislation dealing
     with the oceans and the atmosphere which establishes one central lead agency to manage
     and develop the Federal resources dealing with the air and water around us.

     I am a very strong believer that only the Federal Government can effectively manage,
     develop and indeed operate nationally specialized oceanographic and meteogrological
     operational services on a national basis for broad segments of industry. In particular
     for those industries of vital import to the economy and defense of our nation. Addition-
     ally, I believe that these specialized services that are vital to the safe conduct of an
     industry, i.e. the national transportation system fair and surface, (sea and land)] should
     be financed from the general tax fund since these transportation systems are operated
     in the public interest and benefit all the people and not just a chosen few.

     Before I become more specific let me make a few more general remarks concerning the de-
     velopment of the "Organic Act" for NOAA. There is a need for specific and detailed legis-
     lation for NOAA beinging together all its authority under a single piece of legislation.

     It is my judgement, based on a review of the proposed legislation (HR5347), that it is
     too broad and permissive as it relates to meteorological and oceanographic services in
     particular those of a specialized nature. Further, it appears to be too heavily weighted
     on the R and D, oceanic and space areas with too little emphasis on the atmospheric
     side. I can find very little in HR5347 that was contained in the Organic Act of the Old
     Weather Bureau and carried forward in the executive orders establishing ESSA and NOAA.
     Also special authority for certain programs of the National Weather Service contained
     in the legislative authority of other agencies, i.e. FAA, DOA and others seem to be mis-
     sing except in very broad and permissive language as in HR5347 Title III - Functions and
     Transfers-General Functions of the Administration. This language may be satisfactory if
     the legislative authority of other agencies e.g. FAA, DOA, NASA, DOD, etc. in the atmos-
     pheric and oceanographic areas was specifically deleted or transfered to the New "Organic
     Act" of NOAA.

     Since my career (45 years), except for the last few years, has been in the field of weather
     and more specifically that associated with aviation, I will confine my further remarks
     to that area.

     The civil weather service was established on February 4, 1870, under the Army Signal Corp.
    *By Act of Congress dated July 4, 1891, it was transfered to the Department of Agriculture.
     By Executive Order of 1912 the Weather Bureau was given the responsibility for Ocean Meteor-
     ology as a transfer from the Navy. The Air Commerce Act (Sec 603) of 1926 further expanded
     the Weather Bureau responsibility to include service for aviation. In 1930 by mutual agree-
     ment between the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Air Commerce assumed the respon-
     sibility for providing the Weather Bureau with long line communications for the collection
     and distribution of meteorological data.

     Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1940 transferred the Weather Bureau to the Department of
     Commerce. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1965 established the Environmental Science Services
     Administration (ESSA). The establishing of ESSA began the down grading of the Weather
     Bureau to an operating division with all the responsibilities of the Chief of the Weather
     Bureau under the Organic Act of 1890 transferred to the Administrator of ESSA.

                                                - 71 -

    Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 established NOAA with further de-emphasis of the Central
    Roll of the Weather Bureau (NWS) in the field of meteorology and the atmospheric sciences
    in favor of more exotic R and D programs associated with the oceans, space, computer tech-
    nology air-sea interface, endangered species, world wide weather systems design and the
    like.

    From this brief summary it seems obvious to me that in drafting an Organic Act for NOAA,
    due note should be taken of the importance of weather service and the central roll of
    the Federal agency responsible therefore. It seems most important that those areas of
    Commerce that are weather sensitive and conducted in the public interest should be spec-
    ifically spelled out in the Legislation.

    I think it important that serious thought be given to restoring the provisions of the
    early Weather Bureau Organic Act and its amendments to the Director of the National Weather
    Service. It seems to me that the Director of the NWS should be given specific legislative
    authority to carry out a public and specialized Civil Weather Service. This authority
    should not be delegated but assigned directly from Congress to the Director. The NWS should
    be autonomous in the field of meteorology dealing with clouds and weather and all that this
    connotates as related to the general public and specialized services in support of man's
    many and varied activites. This should include the direction of the meteorological R and
    D both applied and basic with the necessary resources to maintain a viable and effective
    National Weather Service.

    In closing I wish to state that the Weather Service of the National Weather Service has,
    in my judgement, deteriorated over the years because of the many reorganizations causing
    a change in direction away from a public service oriented agency to one concerned primarily
    with internal matters. The service has lost its most important one-to-one relationship
    with the public. The objective now seems to be to build an impregnable wall around the
    governments computerized collection, distribution and processing system forcing those ex-
    ternal users needing the data to buy the material from a contractor in the private sector.

    Finally, I believe that Federal policy pertaining to the National Weather Services should
    be contained and spelled out specifically in the Organic Act.

    Thank you very much.

     *The views and opinions in this paper are my own and do not n--ce-sgarily-represent those
       of my employer, The Alden Electronics and Equipment Company.

                                            - 72-

               Comments on Research and Development Within NOAA
                           and NOAA Organic Legislation

           James I. Jones, Mississippi-Alabama Sea -Grant Consortium

            NOAA presently has a major research and development responsibility for
        service and resource management. These responsibilities should be widely
        expanded, making NOAA the primary, if not sole, civilian agency to provide
       the necessary services for proper resource evaluation and management in
       areas of the coastal zone, continental shelf, open ocean and atmosphere. if
       this were accomplished the program effectiveness and economies which would
       be realized nationally would surpass current R and D effectiveness in these
       areas.

            Research and Development activities should be consolidated within particu-
       lar program areas. They should not be consolidated to the point that both
       research and development activities would become the obligation of the same
       individuals of groups within a particular activity. The research scientist
       should, in most instances not be an integral part of the development activity
       leading to the utilization or application of his discovery or invention. The
       research function need remain generally separated from the development/
       application phase, but with ample opportunity for close interaction at
       specific appropriate points during each of these phases. The researcher
       need remain primarily the discoverer/innovator; the developer needs
       specific knowledge and skills for application of discovery and technology
       transfer activities. In some cases these functions may be combined, but
       generally there should be a distinct role and separation of activities between
       the actual research on a program/problem and the application and transfer
       of that research into useful and easily applied technology.

            The question of balance between basic and applied research within NOAA
       activities cannot be answered in a general sense, but requires that specified
       needs and problems be identified. Applied research should have a significant
       priority in many cases in that it will fulfill immediate and well perceived,
    *  documented needs.  Basic research must be a continuing effort, well funded,
       with fairly non-specific "goals"1, to allow the basic researcher maximum
       opportunity to use his creative ability, imagination and technical expertise
       to the fullest extent, with minimum interference, and with little or no
       requirement that he identify immediate or potential "application"t of his
       findings. This presumes that the findings of the basic researcher will find
       ultimate application, and provides the type of research climate within which
       the highest levels of creativity may be developed. This "balance" between
       applied and basic research will change from time to time, depending upon
       critical national needs, available fiscal resources, and available scientific
       manpower,

                                      -73 -

        The primary research activities for NOAA should be developed from
    the vast academic research resources available from the United States'
    research and academic institutions. Only highly applied, very specific,
    goal-oriented research activities should be developed and conducted
    "in-house". All NOAA labs should become specific "goal-oriented"
    organizations, utilizing a team research approach for applied solutions to
    identified problems. All basic research should be conducted externally,
    supported by NOAA at research institutions, both public and private
    throughout the nation. There is a major role for the private research
    sector, since many basic research problems lie beyond the scope and
    ability of a single academic institution or combination of institutions. The
    ability of the private research sector to respond uniquely and rapidly to
    basic research problems, at a more rapid rate than is possible within the
    academic community need be recognized, and this ability used as required.
    Incentives to increase the interest and reward to the private sector need be
    increased to provide better access by Sea Grant to their unique capabilities.

           (remarks specific to the National Sea Grant Program)

        The National Sea Grant Program provides a unique opportunity for
    Federal, State and local interaction within the areas of marine research,
    education and public service. Although the concept has b*een. borrowed
    from the Land Grant College system, it has no counterpart within the marine
    area. Perhaps the greatest asset and service which Sea Grant provides is
    the opportunity to build research, public service and educational programs
    from the "bottomn-up", with the primary emphasis being provided through
    identification and addressing of local or regional needs. This philosophy of
    "'grass-roots" development of programs, based upon identified and documented
    public need within a particular geographic area or region provides a powerful
    tool for public service, research and educational activities for the general
    good - local, regional and national. All too frequently the perception of local
    needs, as seen by the "Washington Bureaucrat" or the "Ivory Tower" academic
    differs radically from that of the local population when addressing problems of
    local concern and interest. This is not to say that the "locals" always have
    the correct view, but it does appear that in many cases the closer the individual
    is to the actual problem, the better his perception of it. This is certainly the
    case in many marine resource development situations, where the local fisherman,
    processor or marketer has a very real understanding of the problems besetting
    his vocation, since he lives with them daily. Thus, the ability of Sea Grant to
    receive this level of input, primarily through its Marine Advisory Service
    mechanism, is an extremely valuable and unique capability. Likewise, the
    ability to transfer available technology from the scientific area to practical
    application is a function of the Marine Advisory Service. Without this
    mechanism of transferring appropriate technology back to the user community
    there would be little overall practical effect produced through Sea Grant
    research efforts. These opportunities for "input" and "output", both from
    and to the concerned public must be preserved and strengthened. Equally
    important is the ability of individual Sea Grant programs to identify, utilize
    and otherwise interact with the scientific and academic community within

                                       - 74 -

    its operational area. The "problem identification" function referred to
    previously is part of a process of matching a particular problem with a
    chosen investigator or team of investigators, to arrive at a solution to that
    problem. This role is generally shared between the Marine Advisory Service
    programs and the Director of a Sea Grant Program, with the major "connecting"
    responsibility varying among individual programs. The Director and his staff
    will generally perform the primary role in developing interinstitutional and
    interdisciplinary research team efforts to address specified problems.
    Indeed, these efforts frequently will involve more than one Sea Grant Program,
    recognizing the fact that while Sea Grant Programs have specific geographic/
    political limitations, the natural systems which are studied have no general
    relationship to these artificial boundaries. In many cases the solutions to
    identified problems is a better or more precise understanding of natural
    systems or processes. This is the reason that interstate and regional
    research efforts are becoming more common within Sea Grant. The ability
    of Sea Grant to identify, and then draw upon the appropriate researchers
    and educators within the broad areas of available academia is a fundamental
    requisite to the success of the Sea Grant effort. No other National marine
    program has this unique capability so well developed as that which presently
    exists within the Sea Grant Program. Thus, the existing capabilities of Sea
    Grant, which are unique in the National marine program arena, provide the
    mechanisms for problem identification on any scale from local to national,
    the ability to match a particular problem with an appropriate researcher or
    team of researchers, and finally to take the results of the research trans-
    lated into readily useable and easily understood language back to the user
    community. This mechanism provides answers to the decision-makers and
    those with the "need to know" within reasonably adequate time frames,
    whether at the local, state, regional or national level. The capability of
    this "input-output" mechanism has been proven nationally throughout the Sea
    Grant network, and is generally recognized as the most effective applied
    research activity in the public marine sphere of activities.

        While the primary emphasis within Sea Grant has been that of applied
    research, problem identification and solution, and technology transfer; an
    additional function is that of Marine Education, or to use the broader term,
    the "raising of the marine consciousness" of the public. This occurs by using
    both traditional and innovative educational activities conducted through
    established schools, ranging from Kindergarten through college Graduate
    Studies, as well as for the general public through public service outreach
    programs. This must be considered a highly important role for Sea Grant,
    because it will be primarily through these activities that the American
    public will develop a "marine consciousness" which it now generally lacks.
    The importance to the well-being of the country, whether it be measured in
    economic terms, aesthetic values, or quality of life, al-l require a considerably
    more advanced and sophisticated understanding of the unique and vitally
    important role played by those areas included within the Coastal Zone and
    Continental Shelf. Individuals who have developed this "marine consciousness"
    will have a better understanding of the myriad environmental vs. economic

                                     - 75 -

    trade-off s and other decisions which they will have a major voice in through-
    out their lives. The better their understanding of the importance of these
    particular resource areas, the better will be their decisions determining
    the levels of utilization,- conservation or preservation of them.

        Finally, Sea Grant should not play an advocacy role in any of its
    activities. As a steward of public monies, providing services for the public
    need and good, Sea Grant need develop and disseminate objective, accurate
    information for its constituency, and additionally provide the necessary links
    between research need identification and the researcher, with a functional
    mechanism to bring appropriate research results back to the user community.
    These defined roles require both objectivity and a high level of integrity to
    develop the required public confidence necessary for optimum program
    effectiveness. Advocacy roles would necessarily be counter-productive in
    this regard.

        The broad scope and effectiveness of the programs being conducted by
    Sea Grant document the success of the Sea Grant'concept. This effort could
    be expanded greatly, and relatively easily since all necessary mechanisms
    are in place and functional which provide the primary link between identified
    research needs, the university or other researcher or educator, and to
    perform the technology transfer of research results back to the user community.
    I believe that the Sea Grant Program has the capability to expand to whatever
    level may be required of it to meet any defined level of marine related public
    need. A word of caution is appropriate, however. Expansion of Sea Grant
    to meet major Federal research and education marine needs through its
    university contacts much beyond its present scope could be at the expense of
    what I consider to be the very essence of Sea Grant - the ability to recognize
    and address local and regional needs, with their priority equal to or higher
    than national needs. This "grass roots", or "bottom-up" philosophy and
    ability could well be lost if the program were to become a major conduit for
    Federal agency research programs with academia, primarily to meet national
    needs. I believe, however, that with careful attention to the present philosophies
    and mechanisms, guaranteeing that they not be lost, that Sea Grant could
    effectively function in both roles, thus serving a national need in development
    of marine research activities throughout the Sea Grant network, while main-
    taining the current and fundamental philosophy and practice of identifying and
    addressing local and regional needs as a major priority. If this dual role
    should be required of Sea Grant, a clear definition of the dichotomy between
    these functions ~.nust be clearly elucidated in any proposed legislation.

        In closing, I want to state that the opinions which I have expressed here
    are solely my own, although I would hope that they coincide at least generally
    with the majority of my fellow Sea Grant Directors and also my colleagues
    from the National Office of Sea Grant. It would be highly presumptive of me,
    and a rare situation indeed, however, if my personal views on tnese topics
    could reasonably satisfy as disparate a group as I have just defined. It is
    probably true, as it has been written, that an individual's belief in his ability

                                       - 76 -

    to objectively speak for a much larger group is directly proportional to
    his ego, and inversely proportional to his grasp of the specific subject
    matter addressed.

        I believe that NOAA should play the lead national role in the development
    of non-military ocean technology. The logic of this to me is overwhelming.
    It should also be NOAA's responsibility to see that all its research programs
    strive to bring the research products to application. This may be easily done
    in the applied research area, where specific useful products are mandated.
    The mechanisms for this technology transfer exist in the Sea Grant Program
    Marine Advisory Services. Within the technical ocean community the technology
    transfer would be the role of an as yet non-existent and undefined section of
    NOAA, charged with the primary responsibility for this activity. I feel that
    it should be an absolute obligation of NOAA to make every effort to transfer
    technology from its research and development activities to application. if
    this is not accomplished, from many viewpoints the research might as well
    not have been done at all. Mechanisms to address this particular subject
    need be included in any proposed NOAA organic legislation.

                                      -77 -

    Statement for the panel on NOAA research activities at the workshop on

    WOAA organic legislation, sponsored by the Coastal States Organization.

                    Washington DC, March 13 1980

                                by

                Prof. Claes G. H. Rooth, Univ of Miami.

         I come before you with a background of involvement in University-

    NOAA cooperation both at my main place of employment where I am a fel-

    low of the recently organized Coperative Institute for Marine and At-

    mospheric Science - a joint undertaking between the local NOAA labora-

    tories and the University of iMiami~ and as a current visiting scientist

    in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Program at Princeton University. The

    latter program is a cooperative effort between the university and NOOA's

    Geophysical Fluid Dynamics laboratory. The opinions expressed herein

    are strictly personal; they have been neither discussed, nor cleared

    by any representatives of these organizations.

         The broad questions of quality and appropriateness of NOAA research

    efforts cannot be adequately adressed in a few minutes. An in depth re-

    view was undertaken by the IAS a couple of years ago at the request of

    the NOAA administration. In spite of some anguish being expressed a-

    round the organization about some aspects of the report, it must have

    been appreciated, since the chairman of the review committee was soon

    thereafter hired as assistant administrator for research. NOAA has al-

    so been responsive to the concern expressed in the NMS report regar-

    ding the mutual need for stronger interaction with the academic and

    private research community by expanding and revitalizing various forms

    of cooperative activities. Indeed, I understand that the Administrator

                                   - 78 -

    of 1,OAA has during the past year instructed the laboratory directors

    to make every effort to meet expanded research responsibilities with

    minimal internal staff expansion through increased reliance on coope-

    rative activities and contract arrangements. It remains to be seen how

    this will work out, in particular with laboratories with marginal base

    funding and resulting heavy dependence dn reimbursible projects in sup-

    port of the missions of other agencies such as DOE or EPA.

         The research into physical processes within the oceans carried

    out within NOAA is in a rather different situation from both the re-

    lated meteorological activities, and from the fisheries research work,

    in that substantial overlap occurs with interests of other agencies.

    Large scale ocean dynamics, and particularly the processes which act

    to modify the sea surface temperature, are essential elements in

    climate dynamics. Their study is essential to NOAA's responsibility to

    develop improved long range weather forecasting capability, and to

    seek understanding of climate variability, but they are also of

    central concern to the Navy and its operational requirements both

    above and below the sea surface. Coastal processes, where an excellent

    tradition in storm surge research exists,e.g., are also the legitimate

    concern of the Coast Guard. While I fully agree with the thrust of

    the draft legislation towards avoidance of duplication in management

    responsibility, and of overlapping and oft-en conflicting regulatory

    power, I must - at the risk of seeming self serving - register strong

    concern with regulations aimed at limiting overlap between agencies

    in research and or research support. The process of scientific dis-

    covery does not respect organization charts, and meaningful cooperation

    in avoidance of costly duplication of effort in specific studies is

    more likely to be achieved between agencies if each of them acts from

    a secure position? without overriding concerns for turf protection.
                                   - 79 -

         Adressing now the question of how the continued health and pro-

    priety of NOAA environmental research can be best promoted within the

    framework of the proposed NOAA organic legislation, I find myself very

    much in tune with the conclusions reached in a different context by the

    National Commission on University Research, as reported in the current

    issue of Science. That is, I believe that such legislation must be

    strong on principle, and go easy on detail. I am concerned, for instan-

    ce, with the specific mention of research on sound propagation in the

    oceans as a NOAA mission - not because I disagree with the importance

    of the topic, but because it seems that by implication other things

    not specifically mentioned might be excluded, and because it seems to

    me like an attempt to carve out a bit of Navy turf. Like any monopoly,

    protected research areas in an agency are likely to go stale. I believe

    that while specific al-eas of administrative, service, and regulatory

    responsibility can reasonably be spelled out, congress should show

    confidence in the intelligent self interest of agency heads to use

    their limited research resources in ways which they believe best enhan-

    ce their mission. Of principles, I would enunciate two, viz:

           I. A clear responsibility for the agency in meeting its research

         needs to draw on available talent in the academic and industrial

         sector, as well as to cooperate, where feasible, with other fede-

        ral or state agencies.
           II. A strict limit on internal laboratory expansions based on

         soft money (reimbursible work).

        These urincinles are mutually reinforcing, since they point the

    way towards handling special projects throough task forces of national

    expertise, particularly if autoratic authority is given to use income

    from reimbursible projects to support contract work or visiting scientists.

                                  - 80 -

                   REMARKS  F COF GRESSMAN RCBERT S. WALKER

            SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH -- THE KEY TO EFFECTIVE flANAGEMENT

         LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IT IS INDEED A PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY

    TO REPRESENT THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND TO SHARE

    WITH YOU MY VIEW OF THE NEED FOR CONTINUING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE OCEANS,

         ONE OF THE RECURRING THEMES OF OUR SUBCOMMITTEE IN DEALING WITH THE

    AGENCIES UNDER OUR JURISDICITON, INCLUDING NOAA, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

    AGENCY, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

    IS THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF AN ADEQUATE SCIENTIFIC DATA BASE AS A PREREQUISITE

    TO ANY REGULATORY OR MANAGEMENT ACTION.  IT IS THE BELIEF OF OUR SUBCOMMITTEE

    THAT ALL TOO FREQUENTLY IN THE PAST AGENCIES HAVE ACTED TO ADOPT REGULATIONS

    OR MANAGEMENT SCHEMES BEFORE THEY HAVE DONE NECESSARY PRELIMINARY RESEARCH TO

    VALIDATE THEIR DATA BASE. THE INEVITABLE RESULTS OF SUCH A RUSH TO REGULATION

    HAS BEEN DISSATISFACTION IN THE USER CCOMMUNITY, RESISTANCE TO POOR REGULATION,

    AND, INEVITABLY, A REQUIREMENT THAT ADDITIONAL RESEARCH BE UNDERTAKEN IN ORDER

    TO JUSTIFY REVISED REGULATIONS.

         RECENT YEARS HAVE BROUGHT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PUBLIC AWARENESS OF

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ON THE LANDJ, IN THE AIR AND IN THE SEA. WE HAVE SEEN

    CONGRESS., AS WELL AS STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH
    POLLUTANTS IN MANY WAYS.  WE NOW HAVE A BROAD UMBRELLA OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL

    LAW AIMED AT PROTECTING MAN FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL RAVAGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY

    OUR EVER INCREASING INDUSTRIALIZATION. TODAY, WE IN THE CONGRESS ARE BEING

    FACED WITH DIFFICULT CHOICES OF BALANCING THE COMPETING INTERESTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL

    PROTECTION ANDENERGY PRODUCTION.  THE ENERGY CRISIS THAT AMERICA FACES TODAY
    HAS BROAD LONG-TERM RAMIFICATIONS.  AS AMERICA WEANS ITSELF FROM OUR DEPENDENCE
    ON CPEC OIL, WE WILL FIND THAT OUR INCREASED RELIANCE ON DOMESTIC COAL WILL

    RESULT IN ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS BEING ADDED TO THE AIR.  STREAM AND RIVER

                                   - 81 -

    POLLUTION WILL INCREASE AS THE RESULT OF MINING AND TRANSPORTATION EFFORTS

    AND EVENTUAL DISPOSAL PROBLEMS OF SUCH THINGS AS ASH AND SCRUBBER SLUDGE.

    MANY OF THESE POLLUTANTS WILL HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT IMPACT ON THE MARINE

    ENVIRONWEN!I' FURTHER, AS LONG AS ANY OF OUR PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ARE SHIPPED

    BY SEA, WE WILL CONTINUE TO FACE AN EVER PRESENT DANGER OF SHIPPING ACCIDENTS

    WHICH LEAD TO POLLUTION FROM SPILLED OIL.

         STARTING MORE THAT TWO YEARS AGO IN 1977, THE SUBCOMVITTEE ON NATURAL

    RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMV1ENT HAS FREQUENTLY INDICATED THAT IT IS OUR BELIEF

    THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF MARINE

    ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE SCIEN-

    TIFIC DATA BASE IN ORDER TO MEASURE FUTURE DEVIATIONS FROM THE BASE LINE,

    AND ALSO, IN ORDER TO MAKE SCIENTIFICALLY DEFENSIBLE ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL

    FUTURE RISKS.

         CURRENTLY, THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IS

    CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT ON A MONITORING SYSTEM KNOWN AS MUSSEL WATCH WHICH

    EPA HOPES WILL BE A MAJOR TOOL IN CARRYING OUT THEIR LEAD-AGENCY RESPON-

    SIBILITY FOR DEFINING THE IMPACTS OF PETROLEUM AND OCEAN-DUMPING ACTIVITIES

    ON COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS,

         As MANY OF YOU KNOW, FOR AT LEAST 15 YEARS, THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

    HAS MADE NUMEROUS EFFORTS*'TO DEVELOP LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND EVEN NATIONAL

    MONITORING PROGRAMS FOR POLLUTANTS.  THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED

    IN OVERSEEING THIS EFFORT HAVE BEEN WELL AWARE OF THE MANY FRUSTRATIONS THAT

    HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED IN ATTEMPTING TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT BROAD MONITORING

    SYSTEMS, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT DIRECT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF POLLUTANTS IN

    SEA WATER IS NOT ONLY VERY DIFFICULT, BUT EXTREMELY COSTLY. FURTHER, POLLUTANTS

    RAPIDLY BECOME DILUTED TO CONCENTRATIONS THAT MAKE IT ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO

    RENDER ACCURATE RESULTS.

                                    - 82 -

         IN AN Al-TEMPT TO DEVELOP A UNIFORM PROGRAM, EPA HAS ADOPTED MARINE

    BIVALVES, KNOWN AS MUSSELS, AND HAS PLACED THEM ON WATCH AROUND OUR COAST-

    LINES AS POLLUTANT MONITORING STATIONS. WHILE THE ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY

    OF EPA's STUDIES REMAINS OPEN TO QUESTION, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THESE MUSSELS

    ABSORB POLLUTANTS FROM THEIR ENVIRONMENT AND CONCENTRATE IT WITHIN THE SOFT

    FLESH OF THEIR OWN BODIES, SO THAT WHEN THEY ARE HARVESTED AND TESTED THE

    CONCENTRATIONS ARE MANW  TIMES WHAT THEY WOULD BE IN THE SEA WATER AND ARE

    NOT ONLY EASIER TO DETECT BUT MUCH MORE READILY MEASURED.  FURTHER, THE PROGRAM

    SHOWS GREAT PRO]MISE IN THAT THESE MUSSELS ARE FOUND NEARLY WORLD-WIDE. SUCH

    DISTRIBUTION MEANS THAT MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CARRIED ON THROUGH

    I"JSSEL WATCH MAY EVENTUALLY BE ExPANDED TO COVER MOST OF THE OCEANS OF THE

    WORLD.

         I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT EPA HAS BEEN THE WORLD LEADER IN THIS PROGRAM.

    IT HAS ATTRACTED SIGNIFICANT ATTENTION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.  COUNTRIES IN

    SOUTH AMERICA AND EUROPE, THE SOVIET UNION AND COUNTRIES SURROUNDING THE

    EIDITERRANEAN SEA HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR INTENT TO ESTABLISH SIMILAR SYSTEMS.

    THIS INTEREST HAS BEEN EXPRESSED THROUGH FORMAL NEGOTIATIONS, THROUGH THE

    UNITED NATIONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS,

    AS WELL AS TI-ROUGH THE INFORMAL NETWORK OF MARINE SCIENTISTS THROUGHOUT THE

    WORLD. WHILE THIS IS STILL A PRELIMINARY PROTOTYPE MARINE MONITORING SYSTEM,

    IT IS RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE AND FAIRLY ACCURATE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT ADDITIONAL

    RESEARCH WILL BE NECESSARY TO FINALLY DETERMINE IF, IN FACT, THIS IS THE

    METlHC)OLOGY THAT COULDBE, OR SHOULD BE, DEPLOYED FOR MARINE MONITORING IN THE

    UNITED STATES, AND AROUND THE WORLD,

         THE IMPORTANT PART OF THIS EFFORT IS THAT IT WILL ESTABLISH A CRUCIAL

    SCIENTIFIC BASELINE WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO THEN DETERMINE WHAT EFFECT MANI S

    FUTURE ACTIONS WILL HAVE ON THE MARINE ENVIROnmENT.  WE ON THE C(]MMITTEE

    BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE GREATEST FAILINGS IN OUR ATTEMPTS TO CLEAN-UP

    THE GREAT MARITIME POLLUTION DISASTERS OF THE RECENT DECADE INCLUDING
                                      - 83 -

    TORREY CANYON, ARGO YIRCHANT OR EVEN THE RECENT AGOCO CADIZ, LIES NOT SO

    MUCH IN OUR INABILITY TO TOTALLY CLEAN ALL OF THE POLLUTANT FROM THE SEA,

    BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, FROM OUR INABILITY TO MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

    THE CONDITION BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, AND CONDITIONS EXISTING IMMEDIATELY AFTER

    THE ACCIDENT, AND FOLLOWING CLEAN-UP.  IN FACT, TODAY IT IS VIRTUALLY

    IMPOSSIBLE TO ADEQUATELY MANAGE THE OCEANS DUE TO OUR LACK OF COMPREHENSIVE

    BASE DATA FROM WHICH TO ESTABLISH MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS.

         I URGE YOU TODAY TO GIVE YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS PROBLEM,

         FINALLY, LET ME ADD A FEW PERSONAL THOUGHTS ABOUT NOAA's R&D FUTURE,

    WE ON THE HOUSE SCIENCE Co vTvIITTEE SHARE A SPECIAL INTEREST IN MAINTAINING

    AMERICA'S EDGE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS -IMPORTANT

    THAT GOVERNMENT SCIENCE NOT BECOME TOO CLOSELY FOCUSED OR TOO RIGIDLY BOUND

    WITHIN THE NARROW CONSTRAINTS OF AGENCY PROGRAMS,

         WE DO NOT EXPECT TO SEE FRAGMENTED PROGRAMS, NOR DO WE WANT TO SEE
    ANY DEGRADATION OF RESEARCH NECESSARY TO AGENCY OPERATIONS. BUT, JUST

    AS WE HAVE FIRST URGED, AND LATER MANDATED, THAT EPA DEVOTE NOT LESS THAN

    FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THEIR TOTAL RESEARCH EFFORT TO LONG-TERM RESEARCH,

    WE WOULD HOPE TO SEE NWA TAKE A BROA)D AND LONG-TERM APPROACH TO RESEARCH.

         I URGE YOU TO REMEMBER THATOMAA IS THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

    PDMINISTRATION, ANY ATTEMPT TO FOCUS A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF OUR

    RESOURCES ON EITHER THE OCEANS OR THE ATMOSPHERE WILL INEVITABLY MEAN THAT

    WE WILL FAIL TO MEET THE AGENCY MANDATE IN THE OTHER.

         IN CONCLUSION, LET ME AGAIN ASSURE YOU THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT

    SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IS THE KEY TO EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE OCEANS. IT

    IS THE KEY WHICH WILL UNLOC*KTHE TREASURES OF THE SEAS AND ALLOW  US

    TO MAKE RATIONAL POLICY DECISIONS WH-ICH WILL AFFECT THE QUALITY OF THE

    ENVIRONMENT WE WILL PASS ON TO UNBORN GENERATIONS.
                                    - 84 -

    Remarks of Robert D. Abrams, President,9 N.M.E.A.
                                 (Also Coordinator of Environmental
                                  Education, Great Neck Public Schools,
                                  Great Neck, New York, 11020)

         One of my learned colleagues on this panel stated

    that "the American public not only is ignorant of the

    oceans but also apathetic." White I may agree with his

    perception of the public's ignorance, I disagree with the

    idea of public apathy. One has only to note the great

    popularity of television programs such as the National

    Geographic specials, the Cousteau series and realize

    there is great interest about the seas. This too is

    reflected in the many "real life" sea stortss in popular

    magazines,

         In a study recently finished we looked into the

    reading interests of a segment of the adult population

    on Long Island. Serviced by a large circulation daily

    newspaper we found the group read the headlines and .either

    a pamnion or the complete articles on issues related to

    local waters and the Atlantic shelf to a significant degree

    over other categories of news stories. In a similar ana-

    lysis with a group in Middle America . they stayed with
    ocean stories even to a greater degree. This should dispel

    the "apathy" issue.

        The topic of our panel, Marine and Atmospheric

    Services, needs to be somewhat more categorized. If you

    asked the public how the Department of Commerce is involved

                             - 85 -

    with these services, I'll bet you would get vague references

    to "big business's and no concept that any of these services

    are a part of this Department,

         With NOAA there is some improvement. Weather radios

    are becoming increasingly popular and there is a constant

    reminder on these broadcasts that NOAA Is producing them.

    Teachers know NOAA through a set of excellent and exciting

    films.

         Within NOAA we have the National Sea Grant Program.

    This agency has a superb record of supporting basic and

    field marine research at higher Institutions. In the

    past few years a small part of their small annual budget

    has also gone to educational research an the elementary

    and secondary school levels. However small the monetary

    expenditure has been, there Is a ripple effect that goes

    far beyond normal expectations because Sea Grant has

    chosen a numnber of educators who are leaders in curri-

    culum innovation. In producing marine programs these

    leaders, in turn, have made an impact on a much larger

    number of classroom teachers. The efforts of these past

    few years are just beginning to pay, in infusing this

    nations basic curricula with marine topics. This is

    particularly true this past year because of the dissemin-

    ation efforts of Dr. Barbara Spector of the national office.

         But let's go to a specific example of Sea Grant's

    impact. In the past, the letters CZM was a cryptographic

    anomaly. Yet coastal zomne management has become increas-
                                - 86 -

    ingly important to the ocean states. Last year, I attended

    a meeting at Now York's State Department. The people in

    charge wanted to have a teacher's workshop on coastal zone

    management issues but had no funds for this workshop. The

    state marine education association offered to pick up the

    materials cost but this was only a small part of the funds

    needed. New York Sea Grant, under the direction of Dr.

    Donald Squires, came through however. They found the

    funds for the workshop and now we will be able to train

    many key educators In the state who will then conduct

    workshops in either their own school districts or in

    regional areas of the state. Some of them will also

    produce adult education programs. Now the general popu-

    lation can also become aware of the meaning of CZM.

         From these comments I am sure you understand that

    this is n not so subtle plea for continued support for

    marine educational programs with increased funding.

    From my vantage point I think the best way of heightening

    the public's interest in marine affairs is through the

    public schools. Not only is the effect immediate, but it

    is lasting.

         In closing, I should like to say that the National

    Marine Education Association and its state chapters are

    advocates of getting the marine world into the school

    world. We are information spreaders, and we invite

    you, the maritime leaders, to help us disseminate your

    knowledge to this nation'ls teachers and children.

                               - 87 -

                                A Statement
                  to the Marine and Atmospheric Services
                 Panel of the Workshop on the Role of the
                             NOAA Organic Act

                               Sponsored by
                      The Coastal States Organization
                             Washington, D.C.

                              March 13, 1980

                                    by
                                Paul Janota
                 ENVIRO'NMENTAL RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY, INC.

         Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen.
    My remarks will be brief and I mean to focus on the issue of delivery of

    products and services to users of meteorological, oceanographic, and
    hydrological information and how this delivery function should be shared
    between the NOAA and private industry. My points are: that there is

    an exciting and growing market for these services; that services related
    to public safety are primarily in the federal domain, and those related to

    private commerce are not; that private capabilities to provide needed
    services are becoming abundant; that the long term opportunity to exploit
    these capabilities will be impacted significantly by the final form of the
    NOAA Organic Act; and that I believe a harmonious relationship can be
    fostered if the private services sector is properly represented in the

    final l-egislation.

                                    - 88 -

        Unquestionably, there is a market for meteorological, climatological,
    oceanographic, and hydrological data, analyses and predictions on a routine
    basis. The popularity of the T-V weatherman is a pervasive example of the
    market for such information but not representatives of the image that our
    industry seeks. For example, we can be much more quantitative regarding
    cost benefits. If the efficiency of American merchant shipping could be

    improved just five percent through better use of weather, wave, current and
    tidal data, the annual savings would approach a half billion dollars in
    operating and fuel costs. The revenue to private -weather companies from
    these services alone could approach 25-50 million annually as a result.
    This specific market is only a fraction of this size today, although further
    growth should be stimulated by rising fuel and labor costs. Other examples
    in transportation, offshore oil and mining, agriculture and recreation can

    be just as telling.

         Furthermore, the destructive natural forces of wind, rain and tide
    now clash routinely with demographic forces; thus, the general public,
    regardless of economic stratum, needs the best advisory services available
    to minimize the enormous potential losses due to natural disasters.

         In effect, the market divides naturally along these lines. Preservation

    of public safety demands timely delivery of spatially and temporally sporadic,

    advisories to a general public who perceives the service as free in

    situations where there is an enormous implied liability in case of error.

         Private businesses, on the other hand, demand economic justification
    for environmental services; clients are identified through intensive marketing;
    prices should be set by competitive economic principles; and the liability
    issue is settled as part of contract negotiations.

         The fact is that N\OAA, through such operating arms as the Nahtional
    Weather Service, and Environmental Data Information Service are either
    raising the level of specificity of their services, especially in areas

                                     - 89 -

    like agriculture, or have created the image of providing such services
    but do not have the resources to actually carry out the tasks thus implied.
    One of the effects of this is to weaken the resolve of the private sector to

    make the business investments necessary to exploit our actual capabilities.
    Cooperative agencies such as the FAA also make some of their weather services

    available to the public with the same effect.

         Private meteorology grew as a result of the abundance of post-WWII
    personnel with training and experience, and with the availability of
    cheap data from the many local weather bureau offices that were springing
    up as the airlines expanded. Early private meteorologists were highly
    oriented toward forensic and consulting services (e.g. agriculture).
    Airlines established private enroute and terminal forecasting services;
    in the past 15 years or so, private forecasting for offshore exploration
    and production and weather routing of commercial shipping has reached

    respectable proportions. And we must not forget the radio and T-V weather-
    men and women who have flourished in the last 10 years. Certain specialized
    industries were fostered by regulatory forces (e.g. the Clean Air Act);

    the company that employs me grew from 3 to 800 people in 10 years and the
    majority of its sales are environmentally related.

         The growth in university programs is turning out large numbers of
    new young meteorologists and oceanographers available for career development.

    We are now in an era of public data transmission networks, satellite

    communication, and cheap, extremely capable computers. The private sector
     can respond much more rapidly to technological advances than. can the
    public sector.
          Energy, the environment, agriculture, transportation and recreation
     are traditional clients of the private sector for consulting services.
     The potential for a greatly expanded private meteorological and oceanographic
     contribution is large today. Economic forces (rising costs of labor
     and fuel especially) are forcing managers to consider effects of weather and
     climate in more quantitative ways as they begin to appreciate the signi-

     cance of marginal productivity gains through better decision making. Advice
     from private consultants is tailored for specific users in terms of timeli-
     ness, spatial resolution and delivery system which means that, given the
     same data base and personal skills, the private services must be more effective

     than public sources (radio, T-V, newspaper or special weather radio) as
     measured by the clients in terms of their business decisions.

                                     - 90 -

         Because increased professional capabilities do exist in the private
    sector today, I am hopeful that the drafters of the Organic Act will carefully
    consider language concerning this issue lest they inhibit competition and the
    opportunity to foster enhanced productivity through better use of services.

         Note the language from three sources regarding delivery of services:
           .Federal Register, Vol 39, No. 1)46, July 29, 1974, Page 27487:
            "NOAA shall perform the following functions: b. Preplare and
            disseminate predictions of the future state of the environmient
            and issue warnings of all severe hazards and extreme conditions
            of nature to all who may be affected."'
          *HR53]47 See 101(c)(I)F:
            "The oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric activities, programs, and
            functions of the Administration be conducted so as to contribute
            materially and efficiently to the provision of efficient and
            economical oceanic, coastal, and-'atmospheric services to all
            user groups."1

          *NOAA draft version of the Organic Act, Jan 17, 1980, see 20)4 (5):
            "The Administration is charged with the following functions:
            Preparing and disseminating predictions of the future state of
            the atmosphere, Earth, and the marine environment and issuing
            warnings of severe hazards and extreme conditions of nature to
            those who may be affected, including warnings and advice con-
            cerning weather conditions, river flows, surface water supplies,
            solar disturbances, and oceanic phenomena, for the general benefit
            of public safety, health, welfare, commerce and industry."

         I believe one can see a trend here from the earlier statement in the
    Register which emphasizes public safety, through the NOAA draft which is
    very broad and specifically includes an economic argument for services
    which is the source of my concern.

                                       -91 -

         it would be better to create an intent and spirit that enhances N'OAA's
    role in providing base line quality standards, timely worldwide data,
    generic analyses and forecasts, and public delivery systems geared toward
    the public safety mission (tornadoes, typhoons, floods). The private
    community would feel more secure in entering certain markets if it knew
    that NOAA would not, and it would pay a fair price for NOAA data if it
    did not perceive unfair competition through other pu blic outlets. A case
    in point is the current difficulty that NWS and NOAA are having in deciding
    the policy for disseminating weather data beyond the limits of its AFOS
    system when it is in place. This is a potential business opportunity for
    several private information service companies; however, uncertainties
    about N'WS/NOAA policy make business commitments very difficult. There has
    been considerable talk about increased support over ocean areas; again,
    private services have had an edge in these regions and are considering a
    whole host of advanced products and services including data buoy networks
    and major modeling efforts. Will NOAA be perceived by potential clients
    as a source of enhanced "free" services to commercial and recreational
    sailing, offshore drilling, mining, etc?

         I favor an Organic Act through which NOAA and the private sector team

    up more effectively. Limit NOAA's authority to deliver highly specific
    services to private clients, support N0AA's ability to make generic data
    and products available to states, local regions, private consultants in
    a timely, machine processable form, and let the natural market forces
    determine the distribution, technological sophistication and price for
    these services. The private sector could be considered as a reserve capa-
    bility 41hen natural disasters are impending and could act to further
    disseminate NOAA's advisories and/or supply additional data and analytical
    services under properly defined terms and conditions.

         Thank you again for this opportunity to state my views.

                                     - 92-

                      OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC POLICY ISSUES OF THE 1980's:
                              THE ROLE OF THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT

                                        March 13, 1980

              Panel 3 presentation by William Q. Wick, -Director, Oregon State
                           University Sea Grant College Program

                In a small marine laboratory near Akashi, Japan, several years ago,
           I discussed marine fisheries and aquaculture research and the extension
           of knowledge with the Director of that station. "It's a problem," he
           said. "In what way?" I asked. His answer prompted me to laugh, shake
           his hand and say, "Us too." What was his answer? "We have answers to
           questions that no one asks."

                Today, we consider organic legislation for NOAA. I fervently
           hope, that as we develop this important structure, we define a program
           that relates to the resources and the people of America and provides
           answers to questions that are asked and vital to the levelopment of this
           country.

                On the basis of many years of activity and observation of the marine
           scene, I conclude that Americans, by and large, are ignorant and apathetic
           about the oceans and atmosphere. Worse yet, most of the ideas which they
           are learning from television and assorted "eco-freaks" are misleading, if
           not completely false. Few realize, I will bet, that marine mammals take
           several times more fish than man harvests. How many Americans realize the
           value of our seaports or the role of foreign trade on balance of payments?
           Most people, I fear, think that weather comes from over the hill instead
           of out in the ocean.

                The point is that we have much to do in public education concerning
           the oceans and atmosphere. We are doing some but not nearly enough. But
           that information is available now. The several elements of NOAA can
           take a lead. More on education later.

                In my view the federal, state, and local approach to ocean manage-
           ment must take a posture of aggressive use and development of resources.
           Trained managers realize that conservation and development are not neces-
           sarily opposed. There is a segment of the American public, however, who
           seem to feel otherwise. The late Dr. "Wib" Chapman about a decade Ino
           remarked, "We can no longer afford to be dilettantes in the ocean business."
           Amen. If phase I in America was the frontier era, we are well into phase II
    *      ~now.  But few of us seem to realize it.  Phase II requires us to use
           resources with the understanding that everything is connected and that use
           is good--waste is bad. In terms of living resources, harvest (use) is
           better than killing with kindness (underutilization).

                All organizational elements of NOAA have important roles and missions.
           Each has unique capabilities and characteristics. The goal is to mesh
           these roles and talents into the best conceivable program. There are
           anomalies. The cooperatively-funded, people-oriented partnership elements
           such as Sea Grant are children of Congress and must be handled as partner-
           ships. As a partner, for example, Sea Grant's non-federal side should be
           a party to the budget process within NOAA. At present we comment from the
           outside. This may sound heretical, but there are some reasons which appear
           valid to me:
                                         - 93-

         (1)  Those of us away from the Nation's Capitol do have some contri-
             butions to make, in ideas and support.

         (2)  We can and have helped to identify, prioritize, and provide
             early warning signals.

         (3)  In putting up one-third to one-half of the funds, we are
             partners and have a right.

         Effective program coordination within NOAA must be mandated from on
    top and understood by all. Turf problems, if any, are luxuries which we
    can't afford and that Americans will not tolerate. Although the record
    seems to be improving, there is a long way to go. Half-hearted cooperation
    and coordination is even more divisive and insidious. Interagency agreements,
    aggressively weeded, tended, and fertilized can raise healthy synergistic
    crops. The Sea Grant-US Fish and Wildlife Service agreement, at least in
    our case, is working well. There are others, some in NOAA, that I can't
    brag about.

        The partnership question also implies timely participation in
    development of programs. This past Monday I received a 287-page unbound
    missile from a NOAA agency in Washington. There was no explanatory note
    with it. I think it is a computer print-out of some agencies research
    projects. Who selected them? Who said they were important? Who reviewed
    them?
         In contrast, Sea Grant projects from the individual programs are
    regularly subrnitteJ to pert-inent agencies long before becoming part of
    a proposal package.  Federal and state agency staff and relevant industries
    and individual citizens review these proposals before the fact. Some of
    the same agencies and industries are a regular pa rt of formal review
    panels. The Sea Grant system is not perfect but appears to be far ahead
    of other approaches.

         NOAA organic legislation should recognize that line agencies can do
    certain things well and others not as well:

          (1)  Regulator agencies, for example, are not very effective educators.
              The educational role of these agencies, then, should be to
              facilitate ready access to information.

          (2)  Agencies with active mandates must respond to these subjects,
              often in a trouble-shooting mode. Thus, they may not have the
              thought time available to conceptualize. But agencies can work
              effectively with universities, for example, to develop projects
              which will lead toward the new approaches that are continually
              needed.

          (3) Neither agencies nor universities, in my view, make very effective
              consultants.

         Earlier, the need for ocean and atmosphere public education was
    recognized. The current Sea Grant approach involving State Departments
    of Education and the Chief State School Officers Association is an
    exciting opportunity. This program has led to the appointment of a marine
    education coordinator in the state education departments in all 50 states.
    When fully operational,we may finally have the key which provides access
     to America's classrooms.

         There is a current saying in Oregon--"If it isn't broke, don't fix
     it." NOAA is certainly not broke, but it may need a nut tightening here
    and there and a bit of grease on some of the sprockets. Perhaps the
     proposed organic legislation will help. At the least, it should clarify
     the mandate and permit better service to Americans.
                                     - 94 -

                          WORKSHOP ON NOAA ORGANIC LEGISLATION

                           Atmospheric Responsibilities Panel

                              Richard C. Semonin, Chairman
                           Head Atmospheric Sciences Section
                                 Water Survey Division
                        Illinois Institute of Natural Resources

    General Comments

        Before entering into specific discussions on various aspects of the

    atmospheric responsibilities of NOAA as proposed in the organic bill, I have a

    few general comments to make regarding my views of NOAA's role in oceanic and

    atmospheric research and development.

        As pointed out in the background material concerning the evolution of the

    organic act for NOAA, it is obvious that the administration came into

    existence by combining elements of various agencies. The atmospheric

    responsibility of NOAA is historically rooted in the U.S. Weather Bureau and

    its predecessors and successors, and was primarily oriented toward public

    services, with research largely directed toward improvement of its services.

    Some very few basic research programs were tolerated, but few large scale

    programs were ever undertaken. The very short-lived ESSA began to show signs

    of developing a research capability only remotely related to improved

    services. The origins of the more basic research efforts were due largely to

    reorganization and individual scientists rather than planned programs to

    research recognized problems pertinent to the newly-formed mission-oriented

    agency. As NOAA was born of components from several agencies, it sufferes

    from a lack of individualism and the ability to provide insight into what the

    national problems are and what research programs should be addressed or

    undertaken to serve the national needs.

                                        - 95 -

       From external appearances, it seems that the research endeavors in the

    atmosphere seem to evolve from strong individuals and laboratory interests

    rather than from some preception of what the important national needs are for

    weather and climate services and research. The development of the

    administrative structure of NOAA has inhibited progress due to ingrown ideas

    and little acceptance of outside critique and review.

        It seems to me that the present form of the organic bill needs

    strengthening in the area of dealing with universities, basic and applied

    research institutions, and the private sector. I don't mean bringing a few

    university members to NOAA for short term appointments, but a real

    strengthening of the ties between these outside communities and NOAA through

    sustained funding of research contracts. NOAA should take pride in receiving

    acknowledgements in the published literature for support of funded research of

    outsiders. All too frequently, research takes the form of in-house efforts

    and arrangements for external assistance inhibit freedom of expression of

    individual scientific input. A basic core element of strong research

    leadership is necessary within NSOAA, but much of the applied and basic

    research can be more effectively carried out in the university or private

    sector environment.

        A much clearer role for NOAA should be spelled out for the archiving and

    dissemination of weather and climate data for the nation. There are already

    several environmental data banks among the many government agencies and as we

    move to the 80's with a greater realization that climate not only means

    temperature and precipitation, but a whole host of other environmental

    variables, we must begin to think of centralizing the environmental data

    archives so that all important variables are equally accessed, A program for

    dissemination of archived data in user-related form should also be given

                                         -96 -

    serious consideration within the overall NOAA responsibilities. The demise of

    the State Climatologist Program was one of the earliest and most serious

    mistakes made by ESSA, and NOAA appears to be heading toward a similar mistake

    with the AFOS system. These actions increasingly isolate NOAA from the

    general public, thus losing contact with its public and scientific

    constituency. Perhaps NOAA, by act of Congress, will be forced to re-instate

    some form of direct communication to the users of climatic data within the

    framework of the National Climate Act. But why does the Congress have to take

    these initiations? The charge to NOAA for atmospheric responsibilities can be

    made in very simple terms. To: 1) provide daily weather services (forecasts

    and data), 2) provide climatic services (outlooks and data), and 3) archive

    and disseminate all such data for the nation. Further, to conduct such

    research and development as necessary to maintain and improve such, services

    and data management and availability.

        The details of the scope of the various elements of such a charge should

    be carefully prepared with advice from all sectors of the atmospheric interest

    community including government (both state and federal), public users, and the

    university and private sectors.

        I am not very hopeful that there will be much improvement in the current

    situation because the Organic Act only serves to document or legalize the

    current stiate of atmospheric activities in NOAA. The entire atmospheric

    sciences programs within NOAA need to be freshly and seriously examined under

    the current light of concerns for climate change, for energy utilization and

    conservation, for world food supplies, and the many other areas of our every

    day existence dependent upon the vagaries of weather and climate.

                                      - 97 -

    Comments on NOAA Responsibilities in Pollution Research and Monitoring

        I only feel comfortable in addressing one aspect of this topic,

    specifically the question of acid rain. There are others on this panel with

    expertise in the areas dealing with CO and ozone and their impacts on the

    climate.

       The acid rain question only recently has received wide attention in this

    country. At the present time, a national network is in operation to collect

    precipitation samples which are analyzed by a central laboratory. These

    elements, a network and central laboratory facility, form the core of the

    National Atmospheric Deposition Program. The NADP has been in operation since

    1978 starting with 15 sampling sites, increasing to the present 45 stations

    from coast to coast and border to border. The network is continuing to grow

    and is expected to reach a total of 75 sites by 1981.

        I wish to point out that this program developed in spite of continued

    pleas from the scientific community for action. Fortunately, support was

    gained in the Department of Agriculture, and the North Central Region of the

    State Agricultural Experiment Stations provided monetary and administrative

    support with additional funding from the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S.

    Forest Service.

        Now, having established the network, analytical facilities, and

    operational system, several agencies recognize the national need for such a

    program. The EPA is suddenly very committed to acid rain research, and now

    NOAA seeks some responsibility in this area.

        I believe the quality of precipitation is as much an element of climate as

    the quantity or the temperature. It is proper, since NOAA is responsible for

    monitoring the weather and climate, that the chemical quality of precipitation

    should be included.

                                       - 98 -

        The NADP is currently financed on a voluntary basis, and although a

    minimum of 10-years is necessary before trends in acidity of rainfall can be

    discerned, there is no guarantee the NADP will achieve such long tenure. I

    highly recommend that NOAA undertake the primary responsibility for support of

    a benchmark sub-network within the NADP to insure long-term sample collection

    and analysis. This responsibility is not new, since the World Meteorological

    Organization monitoring sites in the U.S. were sited and operated by NOAA.

    However, the key new element here is an assured commitment by NOAA for support

    of at least 50 stations for many years so that the next generation will have

    the benefit of using such data for assessment of our changing environment.

        Imagine, for example, if commitments to a national weather measurement

    network were not made in years past. We could not have the benefit of 100

    year records of temperature and precipitation used so frequently to assess

    climatic change. I maintain that a similar commitment to precipitation

    chemistry is a responsibility of NOAA.

    Comments on NOAA Responsibilities in Weather Modification

        The National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976 directed the

    Secretary of Commerce to conduct a comprehensive study of weather modification

    science and technology and submit findings, conclusions, and recommendations

    to the President and Congress. The Secretary appointed a Weather Modification

    Advisory Board in January 1977 to carry on such a study. The Board was

    composed of brilliant personages from the atmospheric and environmental

    sciences, including governmental organization specialists, and representaives

    of the legal profession. The Board submitted its findings, conclusions, and

    recommendations to the Secretary in June 1978 in the form of a 2-volume report

    entitled "The Management of Weather Resources." For the most part, the

    university community and private sector weather modification experts were

    satisfied with most of the recommendations with but one common exception. The

                                        - 99 -

    recommendation that NOAA assume sole and complete control of all weather

    modification research and development was not enthusiastically received.

        The fears of many were amplified with the great delay in forwarding to the

    President and Congress the major points presented in the Board report. Nearly

    1.5 years after completion of the Board's task, the Secretary of Commerce

    finally sumbitted a report entitled "National Weather Modification Policies

    and Programs." The major recommendations in the final version are:

        1. To establish a national policy and a research and development program.

        2. To develop appropriate levels of funding to support the research and

            development program.

        3. To identify organizational changes needed to implement national policy,

            and research and development program.

        4. To enact legislation containing a statement of national policy and

            programs including international agreements.

        Subsequently, bills were introduced in the Congress reflecting some of

    these recommendations and calling for centralization of activities either in

    NOAA or NASA. The hearings on these bills brought out a different concept

    recommending coordination in place of centralization of existing weather

    modification research and development within various government agencies. This

    latter concept arose from concern that NOAA was not committed to weather

    modification. Some of the considerations which caused such concern are: 1)

    the lateness of the report to the President and Congress; 2) the lack of

    initiative in staffing experts identified with weather modification; 3) lack

    of visibility for a weather modification program within the ERL, in spite of

    recommendations and continued urging by many in the field; and 4) the

    placement of new initiative on weather modification extremely low in the NOAA

    budget priorties, thereby insuring zero funding.

        These actions, or rather lack of actions, do not reflect a great interest

    in weather modification by NOAA. A cursory examination of recent trends show

    the demise of Project Stormfury (a program to modify hurricanes), the Florida

                                         - 100 -

    Area Cumulus Experiment (FACE) is no longer visible in the budget (and, in

    fact, was always underfunded by the reckoning of many), and a new program,

    PACE (Precipitation Augmentation for Crops Experiment), after one year of

    funding is not in the current budget. The latter is curious since a new

    initiative program on Cumulus Dynamics has received high priority in FY-81

    budget considerations.

        One of the major findings in the WNAB report was the lack of stable

    federal support for weather modification. I must question whether NOAA will

    solve the serious problem of stable funding and concerted efforts in light of

    the dismal record of priority setting just mentioned.

        In my stated philosophy for the NOAA atmospheric responsibilities focusing

    on services, data management and dissemination, and supporting research and

    development, I believe the role of NOAA in weather modification should be one

    of support. By providing the primary weather and climate measurement program

    for the nation, data support to other mission agencies can easily be

    implemented. In other words, NOAA should drop some interagency barriers and

    cooperate more fully with agencies that have a stake in weather modification.

    The obvious major benefactors for modification of precipitation are

    agriculture and water supply interests. It is logical, then, that the mission

    agencies responsible for these resources should undertake primary roles in

    weather modification research and development with major services support for

    NOAA.

                                         -101 -

                 NOAA AND TIIE NATIONAL CLIMATE PROGRAM

    Peter J. Robinson

    r;epartment of Geography

    University of North Carolina

    Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514

    Ladies and Gentlemen:

         My consideration of the requirements of the NOAA organic

    legislation tocusses on the needs and requirements of the

    National Climate Program, for which NOAA is the lead agency. The

    program is the latest function to be assigned to NOAA and it is

    still very much in the developmental stage. I shall address

    specifically the current version of the National Climate Program

    5-year plan , realising that the plan may be significantly

    changed before it comes to fruition. Nevertheless the plan, by

    looking ahead through the next 5 years, provides some pointers

    to the way in which NOAA itself should develop, and gives some

    clues to what might be considered in any organic legislation.

         Climate affects most human activities, so that a key

    requirement of the program is co-operation between many diverse

    bodiesi particularly between NOAA and other Federal agencies and

    between NOAA and local, non-Federal bodies, be they public or

    private. The key question, therefore, is what is the most

    affective role that NOAA can play in insuring that climate

    information is used effectively to promote the public well-

    being.                      - 102 -
                               - 102 -

        mhe current 5-year plan emphasises the need for accessable,

    useful climate information. I emphasise the words accessable ,

    useful , and information . Climate data is basic to any

    information, but it is not itself really information. Data must

    be transformed into a usable form, which implies mutual co-

    operation between the organisation holding the data and the end

    user. The most generally useful kind of information is probably

    prediction of climate. I will divide prediction, somewhat

    arbitrarily, into two forms. The first form is the determination

    of climate probabilities - the use of existing historical

    records to estimate the probability of a particular event, or

    series of events, occuring in a particular time interval. This

    is possible now, and can frequently provide sufficient

    information to produce realistic impact assessments and policy

    decisions. The second form of prediction is climate forcasting -

    the more deterministic predictions analogous to the current

    weather forcasts. These are not now possible in more than a

    rudimentary form, much basic research is demanded.

         The three major substantive portions of the current 5-year

    plan reflect these concerns with information generation,

    probabilities and forcasts. In considering each aspect in a

    little more detail, I cannot hope to discuss the fine detail,

    subtlety, and interlinkages within the plan, or even accurately

    reflect its language. I hope to show, however, the main points

    in order to reflect on the nature of NOAA in the years ahead.

    1. Providingq Climate Products
                                - 103 -

         No climate information is possible without the basic data .

    Climate data it must be noted, means more than the familiar

    temperature and precipitation records. Wind speed and direction,

    solar radiation, evaporation, fog frequencies, and many other

    elements make up the climate. Increasing importance must also be

    placed on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, the acid

    rain problem being a case in point, and on the interaction

    between the ocean and the atmosphere.

         The National Weather Service (NWS), within NOAA , is the

    traditional primary data source. The NWS mission, however, is

    largely meteorological, not climatological. This means that not

    all elements of climatological interest are recorded within the

    NWS - Some climatological observations have been made, notably

    through the co-operative networks, but with the rise in

    importance of climate, this observational aspect within NWS

    should be strengthened. This should proceed jointly with

    measurements made Dy various mission agencies, both federal and

    local, to support their own particular functions.

         A major problem arises when data are collected by diverse

    bodies: comparability of record and quality control. The present

    expertise of NOAA in handling atmospheric data suggests that

    NOAA should play a leading role , possibly a mandated role, in

    providing advice on measurement techniques to other agencies,

    and be responsible for assessing data quality of all

    observations before they become part of the official record of

    climate and are placed in the National Archive system.

         The data must be transformed into information before it is

    useful. This transformation must be made in close co-operation
                             - 104 -

    with the end user. The question of the roles of the public and

    private sector arises here. The Environmental Data and

    Information Service (EDIS), mainly through the National Climatic

    Center (NCC), currently issues both general climatological

    summaries, for both national and local areas, and data

    tabulations for particular user groups. The data are available,

    at reproduction cost, to anyone. Essentially, therefore, NOAA

    fills the role of data provider, while the user has the

    responsibility, through his own resources, public or private, to

    convert the data to information. This seems a logical division .

    However, a conflict of interest or mission has not arisen in an

    acute torm mainly, I believe, because EDIS has maintained a very

    low profile. EIIS should advertise that availability of its data

    much more vigorously. Too many people who could use it are not

    aware of its existence. With higher visibility, however, must

    come a clearer policy concerning what can be obtained from NOAA

    at nominal cost, and what must be obtained from specialists

    outside the Federal government.

         It, considering the roles of the public and private sector

    in this field, I would like to make one additional point. When

    dealing with climatic problems, it is almost axiomatic that

    large data bases are involved. The present situation, where that

    data base is located within the Federal structure at NCC ,

    should be retained. Eqjuality of access for all potential users

    iust be guaranteed, and the ability of the private sector to

    develop their own data bases should not be impared. However, the

    existance of a national archival data base is vital. To attempt

    to locate it anywhere other than at NCC would result in
                               - 105 -

    unnecessary duplication and wasted resources.

    2. Resrondinu to Impacts and Policy_lmplicationsof Climate

         It is possible to use presently available climatic data to

    estimate the probability of occurance of an event or a series of

    events. This information can then be used to assess the impacts

    and policy implication of climate. This aspect of climate

    prediction is relatively well developed in some areas, but needs

    research and development in others. Much useful information can

    Le extracted from the present data base.

         The National Climate Program emphasises responding , not

    initiating . The distinction is important in this area where

    NOAA's role is not well defined. Certainly NOAA should provide

    much of the expertise in interpreting data to a user, especially

    Federal agencies, but it is unclear how far it should go in

    dictating policy because of climate. In some areas the climate

    impact is paramount. In other areas the effect is more subtle

    and climate is only one of the inputs to policy. Because of the

    different levels of input, it is difficult to visualise NOAA as

    an atmospheric regulatory or enforcement agency, certainly it

    cannot play a role analogous to EPA . Nevertheless, since

    climate is becoming increasingly critical in many segments of

    society, it is desirable that NOAA be mandated to provide

    climate advice to other Federal agencies.

    3. UnderstandingClimate

         A thorough understanding of the processes creating climate

    and climate variability is necessary before climate information

    can be fully utilised. Such an understanding implies that

    deterministic climate forcasts will lse possible, and that the
                             - 106 -

    human impact on the atmosphere can be predicted. Presently we

    are making great strides, but are far from that goal. Meanwhile

    two strategies must be adopted, the first is to use the

    probablistic   approach outlined above, the second is research

    aimed at understanding climate. This latter is a basic research

    effort. NOOA does not, and cannot, persue this alone, other

    agencies , such as NASA and NSF , must be involved, along with

    various research organisations. Nevertheless, it behoves NOAA to

    play a leading role; co-ordinating, avoiding duplication, co-

    operating in the collection of new data and the creation of new

    data sets, and ensuring that the ultimate goal of climate

    understanding is kept in sight.

    4. Special Aspects

         The remarks so far have discussed, perhaps in a somewhat

    philosophical vein, the major points of the National Climate

    Program, especially as it affects NOAA . Three other "special

    aspects" of the program must be noted, aspects that tend to look

    at the program in an operational way and emphasise the

    relationship between NOAA and non-Federal entities.

          a) International activities: Climate is global is nature,

    and all the scientific points considered above are international

    in scope. NOAA must have an international outlook, and the

    ability to speak for the nation on matters of climate.

          b) Experimental climate forcast centers: Since one of the

    main goals of the plan is improved climate forcasting,

    experimental forcasts should be attempted as soon as possible.

    This is necessary both to explore forcast techniques, and to

    investigate ways in which forcasts should be tailored to the
                             - 107 -

    user community. The establishment of several centers, with NOAA

    support but not necessarily within NOAA , should rapidly further

    this aim.

          c) Intergovermental programs: Many climatic impacts and

    policy implications are local or regional rather than national.

    Specific areas may need particular observations or information

    which might be inappropriate for the rest of the country. These

    needs can best be identified and assessed at the local level,

    within either the public or private sector. The

    Intergovernmental Climate Program is designed to foster co-

    operation between the Federal government and the local entities,

    ensuring a two way flow of data and information, and enhancing

    both the utility of the National Program and the quality of

    information available to local users.

    5. Conclusions

         The National Climate Program emphasises that NOA9 is the

    lead agency, but recognises that climate has impacts on all

    spatial scales and influences most aspects of human existance.

    Consequently co-operation between Federal agencies is vital,

    while interaction with non-Federal entities provides direct

    benefits to all concerned. Hence NOAA is seen both as an agency

    with a mission of its own, providing timely state-of-the-art

    information on the behavior of the atmosphere and ocean, and as

    an agency co-ordinating, overseeing and guiding the appraisal of

    the role that climate plays in the nation's activities. That, I

    submit, is the role that NOAA as a whole, and not just the

    National Climate Program. should play in the 1980's.

                              - 108 -

           ATMOSPHERIC POLICY ISSUES OF THE 1980's

                  CONGRESSMAN GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr.
     Chairman, House Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology

    I.  THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING AN ORGANIC ACT AND ITS

    RELATION TO ATMOSPHERIC POLICY

          A) BEFORE BEGINNING DISCUSSION OF THE "ATMOSPHERIC

    POLICY ISSUES" WHICH ARE MY ASSIGNED TOPIC, I THOUGHT I'D

    COMMENT ON THE DISCUSSION OF THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT WHICH

    FORMS THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS MEETING. ONE OF THE ANNOUNCE-

    MENTS OF THE WORKSHOP NOTEDTHAT "AN AREA OF INCREASED DIS-

    CUSSION IN WASHINGTON D.C. (EMPHASIS MINE) IS THE TOPIC OF

    A NOAA ORGANIC ACT". IT STRUCK ME THAT THE GEOGRAPHICAL

    PHRASING OF THAT QUESTION MIGHT SERVE AS A WARNING TO ALL

    OF US TO ANALYZE OUR REAL CONCERNS HERE. WHENEVER THERE

    IS A WHISPER OF CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL

    BUREAUCRACY, OR INDEED ANY LARGE ORGANIZATIONj THERE ARE

    IMMEDIATE ALIGNMENTS OF STAKEHOLDERS OF ALL KINDS -- STAKE-

    HOLDERS OR CONSTITUENCIES OF THE STATUS QUOj OR STAKEHOLDERS

    IN POTENTIAL NEW ALIGNMENTS. THESE ARE NOT EVIL OR ILL-

    MOTIVATED PEOPLE.  IN FACTj THEY ARE PEOPLE LIKE ME -- A

    MEMBER OF A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE WITH A CERTAIN HISTORICAL

    JURISDICTION WHICH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE CHANGED BY POTENTIAL

    REORGANIZATIONS. OR THEY ARE PEOPLE LIKE ASSISTANT SECRETARIES,

    THEIR BUREAU CHIEFS, AND THE CABINET OFFICERS THEMSELVES WHO

    SEE SOME POTENTIAL LOSS OR GAIN IN THEIR PERSONAL DOMAIN,

    MY ADVICE TO ALL OF US, INCLUDING MYSELF, IS TO AVOID IF

    HUMANLY POSSIBLE THE TEMPTATION TO LET THIS DISCUSSION OF

    A NOAA ORGANIC ACT DEGENERATE INTO A SERIES OF TACTICAL

    MANEUVERS FOR PRESERVATION OR EXPANSION OF TURF. WE ALL
                            - 109 -

    CLAIM, IN CONGRESS AND OUTSIDE OF IT, TO BE EXCESSIVELY

    BUSY: HENCE THE TRANSFER OF A FEW RESPONSIBILITIES, OR

    AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THEM WITH AN EAGER.~ROUP OF

    WELL-MOTIVATED COLLEAGUES, SHOULD BE WELCOMED; NOT

    FOUGHT AGAINST. WE MIGHT WELL WANT TO REACH OUTSIDE OF

    WASHINGTON, D.C. TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION IN THE FIELD

    OF THE KIND OF ORGANIC ACT NEEDED By NOAA -- JUST TO

    GET AWAY FROM ISSUES OF WASHINGTON POWER BASE WHICH ARE

    ALL TOODOMINANT HERE. OUR REAL COMMON GOAL IS AN

    EFFECTIVE AND EQUITABLE STEWARDSHIP OF THE OCEANS AND

    ATMOSPHERE,, AND WHETHER WE ACHIEVE THAT IN THE DEPARTMENT

    OF COMMERCE, INTERIOR, OR ANY OTHER AGENCY, OR UNDER THE

    LEADERSHIP OF THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MERCHANT MARINE

    OR ANY OTHER COMMITTEE, IS OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE.I

    URGE THE PRESIDENT AND ALL OF YOU HERE TO THINK OF THAT

    FOREMOST GOAL OF EFFECTIVE STEWARDSHIP, AND LET THE

    OTHER MATTERS SORT THEMSELVES OUT NATURALLY.

          B) THIS GRATUITOUS ADVICE IS GIVEN JUST BECAUSE

    THE TECHNICAL-POLITICAL ISSUES OF THE NEXT DECADE IN

    ATMOSPHERIC POLICY SEEM SO IMPORTANT TO ME. THESE INCLUDE:

          1) ACID RAIN AND RELATED LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL

    CHANGES

          2) THE CHEMICAL TRANSPORT AND TRANSFORMATION PRO-

    CESSES WHICH ARE KEY TO DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

    AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGIES IN PROTECTING HUMAN

    HEALTH AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
                           - 110 -

          3)  WEATHER MODIFICATION -- ITS ROLE AS A THREAT

    OR A PROMISE
          4)  OZONE DEPLETION DUE TO NATURAL OR MAN-MADE CAUSES

          5)  CLIMATE VARIABILITY -- ITS PREDICTABILITYAND

    RELATED INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

          6) MAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE -- VIA THE C02

    GREENHOUSE EFFECT
          -------------- AND OTHERS.
          C) WE WILL RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE MOST CHALLENGING

    PROBLEMS FACING MANKIND ON THIS LIST.  I HOPE OUR BEST
    MINDS CAN CONCENTRATE ON SEEKING THE BEST SOLUTIONS TO

    TO THEM, AND NOT ON JURISDICTIONAL OR "TURF" BATTLES RE-

    LATED TO ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE SOLUTIONS,

    II.  BASIC PRINCIPLES OF AN ATMOSPHERICPOTICY HOR IHE
    1980'S

          A)  FOR MOST QUESTIONS OF UNDERSTANDING AND PRE-

    DICTING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE ATMOSPHERE, THE ATMOSPHERE
    AND THE OCEANS, AND ACTIVITIES ON THE GREAT LAND MASSES,

    ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED -- AND OUR INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
    MUST BE DESIGNED TO RECOGNIZE THESE LINKAGES, NOT IGNORE THEM.

          B)  SINCE THE ATMOSPHERE ENCOMPASSES AND AFFECTS

    ALMOST ALL OF OUR ACTIVITIES, OUR STEWARDSHIP OF IT IS

    GOING TO DEPEND ON OUR ABILITY TO FORGE AND MAINTAIN
     EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION BETWEEN AND

    AMONG MANY KINDS OF ORGANIZATIONS, WITH FEDERAL INTER-
    AGENCY, AND NATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL, LINKS IN THIS

    COUNTRY BEING JUST ONE ASPECT OF THIS NEED, THERE WILL

    BE NO NEAT AND TIDY ORGANIZATIONAL BOX TO WHICH WE CAN

    UNIQUELY ATTACH THE LABEL "ATMOSPHERE",  THE 1980's

    ATMOSPHERE POLICY WILLTHUS BE AN INTER-ORGANIZATID INAL POLICY,

         C) THE ATMOSPHERE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT RESPECT

    NATIONAL BOUNDARIES. UNDERSTANDING AND SOLVING ATMOS-

    PHERIC PROBLEMS MAY BECOME A NEW SOURCE OF WORLD TENSION;

    OR PERHAPS A CATALYST FOR NEW STANDARDS OF COOPERATION.

    CERTAINLY, HOWEVER, THE 1980'S POLICY WILL BE AN INTER-

    NATIONAL ONE.

         D) UNDERSTANDING THE ATMOSPHERE WILL BE A LONG-

    TERM PROCESS. NATURAL AND MAN-MADE CHANGES ARE ONLY

    GRADUALLY UNFOLDING, AND OUR ABILITY TO MODEL OR PREDICT

    THEM IS ONLY AT A PRIMITIVE STAGE. THERE ARE PROBABLY

    VARIABLES UNKNOWN TO US IN ACCOUNTING FOR THE BEHAVIOR

    OF THE ATMOSPHERE -- AND KNOWN VARIABLES PROBABLY INTER-

    ACT AND FEEDBACK UPON ONE ANOTHER IN UNKNOWN WAYS.

    MONITORING THE CONDITION AND RESPONSES OF THE. ATMOSPHERE,

    ON GLOBAL GRIDS, FOR LONG, SUSTAINED PERIODS OF TIME IS

    JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF MONITORING WE SHOULD BE

    DOING IN MANY AREAS.  BASELINE DATA AND ITS TRENDS MAY

    BE, IN THE LONG RUN, AS IMPORTANT AS ANY OF THE INFORMA-

    TION WE DERIVE FROM OUR MOST SOPHISTICATED. MODELS AND

    PREDICTIONS. THE 1980'S ATMOSPHERIC POLICY SHOULD HAVE,

    THENLONG-TERM, SUSTAINED MONITORING IN  A PIVOTAL AND

    PRIORITY ROLE.

                          - 112 -

         E) BECAUSE WE ARE SO ACCUSTOMED TO LEAVING THE

    LONG-TERM CARRYING CAPACITY OF THE ATMOSPHERE OUT OF

    STRATEGIC THINKING CONCERNING ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

    PLANS,, THE SCIENTIFIC CASES FOR ALTERING PLANS IN RE-

    SPONSE TO CO2 OR ACID RAIN PROBLEMS,, AS JUST TWO EX-

    AMPLES., WILL HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED WITH UNPRECEDENTED

    SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY. THE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION

    IN EITHER OF THESE CASES COULD PRESENT VERY DIFFICULT

    POLITICAL CHOICES TO DECISION MAKERS. THE ATMOSPHERIC

    POLICY OF THE 1980'S WILL THUS HAVE TO BE ONE OF

    FINDING NEW METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING THE POLITICAL

    CREDIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESULTS, OR AN ACCEPTABLE

    BASIS FOR ACTION IN THE FACE OF SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY.

          F) FINALLY, SINCE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR UNDER-

    STANDING OF THE ATMOSPHERE CAN SO PROFOUNDLY AFFECT SO

    MANY SECTORS OF SOCIETY., PLANNING ON A COMPREHENSIVE

    AND LONG-TERM CONTINGENCY BASIS BECOMES AN ESSENTIAL

    POLICY FEATURE. SUCH PLANNING NEED NOT FOLLOW CEN-

    TRALIZED MODELS, WHICH OFTEN SHOW AN UNDESIRABLE

    INFLEXIBILITY, BUT COULD INVOLVE NETWORKS OF INTER-

    ACTING DECENTRALIZED UNITS ALL GRADUALLY REFINING AND

    MOVING TOWARD A COMMON FRAMEWORK OF ACTION. As is

    OFTEN TRUE, THE TRUE VALUE OF THE PLANNING EXERCISE

    MAY BE AS AN INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE -- IN WHICH

    PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS BECOMES A WAY OF

                            - 113 -

    PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTRAINTS AND ASSUMP-

    TIONS OF OTHERS.  IN THIS SENSE, A WORLD EFFORT TO UNDER-

    STANn THE CO2 "GREENHOUSE" PHENOMENON COULD BECOME A

    NECESSARY ANTECEDENT TO WORLD ACTION TO RESPOND TO IT.

    II,   PECEC   .1iJES. INA TFRMLS OE F_.__E.S.F P PTNiTPIp__

          A) ACID RAIN -- CHEMICAL TRANSPORT AND TRANS-

    FORMATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE:

          MANY OF OUR AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS WERE WRITTEN,

    FOR THE SAKE OF LEGAL SIMPLICITY, IN TERMS OF REGULATING

    SINGLE SUBSTANCES, AND WITH SIMPLIFIED AND LOCALIZED

    CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS AS A BASIS, THE MOST

     STRIKING EXAMPLE WAS EPA's DECISION TO REGULATE AIR-BORNE

    OXIDANT LEVELS IN TERMS OF OZONE CONCENTRATIONS ALONE.

    THIS MAY HAVE SOME SHORT-TERM BENEFITS IN SPEEDING-UP

     REGULATION WRITING. IN THE LONG RUN, HOWEVER, IT IS

     NOT TENABLE IN THAT IT IGNORES THE KNOWN INTERACTIVE NATURE

     OF ATMOSPHERIC CONTAMINANTS,

    MAKING A SCIENTIFIC FICTION    THE BASIS FOR REGULATIONS

     IS AN EXPEDIENCY WHICH, UNFORTUNATELY WEAKENS THE RE-

     SPECT FOR THE ENTIRE FRAMEWORK OF THE REGULATORY LAW,

     SOMEHOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REACH A NEW METHODOLOGY

     FOR BASING REGULATORY LAW, ONE WHICH IS NOT ARTIFICIALLY

     CAST INTO LEGALISTIC RIGIDITY, ONE WHICH RECOGNIZES BOTH

     THE VALUE AND LIMITATION OF TENTATIVE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS,

     AND ONE WHICH FRANKLY FACES THE NEED TO ACT IN CIRCUMSTANCES

     OF UNCERTAINTY -- EVEN AS IT MOVES VIGOROUSLY TO NARROW

     THAT UNCERTAINTY, - 114 -

         ACID RAIN PHENOMENA PRESENTS MANY OF THESE DIF-

    FICULTIES OF COMPLEX AND DELOCALIZED CAUSE AND EFFECT

    RELATIONSHIPS. YET ITS IMPACT, ESPECIALLY IN AGRI-

    CULTURE AND FORESTRY, IS POTENTIALLY SO GREAT THAT IT

    MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE IN THE

    MOST URGENT CLASS. IF THE PRESIDENT'S RECENTLY ANNOUNCED

    COAL CONVERSION PLAN IS NOT TO BECOME MIRED IN SUSPICION

    AND CONTROVERSY, WE MUST MOUNT A PROGRAM TO UNDERSTAND

    ACID RAIN WITH AT LEAST THE SAME SEN E OF URGENCY AS THE

    COAL CONVERSION. As IN OTHER IS.SUES ON OUR WORKING LIST,

    THIS ACID RAIN SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM SHOULD BE AN INTER-

    NATIONAL ONE, BOTH TO OPTIMIZE THE KNOWLEDGE GAINED PER

    DOLLAR EXPENDED, BUT ALSO TO HELP ENLIST THE WORLD SCIEN-

    TIFIC COMMUNITY AS PARTNERS,, NOT ADVERSARIES, IN CALLING

    PUBLIC ATTENTION TO THIS IMPORTANT PROBLEM.

         B) WEATHFR MODIFICATION WEATHER MODIFICATION --

    LARGELY RAIN-MAKING -- I-S A TECHNOLOGY THAT OBVIOUSLY

    HOLDS OUT THE TANTALIZING PROSPECT OFMITIGATING ONE OF THE

    FORCES OF NATURE WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN MOST CRUEL TO

    MAN. As WITH MOST TANTALIZING PROMISING SERVICES, IT IS

    NOT SURPRISING THAT A VIGOROUS PRIVATE BUSINESS HAS

    DEVELOPED TO OFFER IT.             CERTAINLY VENDORS OF THAT

    SERVICE, AS WELL AS SOME PROMINENT SCIENTISTS, BELIEVE

    THAT WEATHER MODIFICATION IS A TECHNOLOGY READY FOR IMPLE-

     MENTATION ON AN OPERATIONAL SCALE. THIS THINKING WAS

                             - 115 -

    STRONGLY REPRESENTED IN THE REPORT OF THE WEATHER MODIFI-

    CATION BOARD WHICH WAS SET UP BY LEGISLATION FROM THE

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT,

    ON WHICH I SERVE UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF CONGRESSMAN JERRY

    AMBRO. MY OWN VIEW IS COLORED HEAVILY BY THE POLICY

    PRINCIPLESo OF MONITORING AND CREDIBILITY WHICH I INDICATED

    AS KEYj IN MY MIND, FOR THE 80's. WE ARE PERHAPS FORTUNATEJ

    IN THIS AREA, THAT THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY,

    WE HAVE READY-MADE EXPERIMENTS,, MANY GENERATED WITHOUT MAJOR

    FEDERAL INVESTMENT, AND NEED ONLY AVAIL OURSELVES OF THE

    OPPORTUNITY TO MONITOR THESE IN ORDER TO HAVE A SET OF

    CREDIBILITY BUILDING EXPERIMENTS. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT

    OPPORTUNITY (ESPECIALLY IN HURRICANE SEEDING) FOR INTERNATIONAL

    COOPERATION AS WELL., IN THAT DEFINITIVE AND WELL-PLANNED CO-

    OPERATIVE EXPERIMENTS WILL BE OF INTEREST TO MANY NATIONS -

    WHEREAS UNILATERAL ACTIONS COULD BE VIEWED AS THREATS OR

    RECKLESS ABUSE OF THE "1COMMONS"I OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

         C) OZOQNE DiEPLETION -- INTERNATIONAL EMPHASIS,, LONG-

    TERM MONITORING,, SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY., AND MANY OTHER

    BASIC POLICY PRINCIPLE NEEDS ARE WELL-ILLUSTRATED BY THIS

    PROBLEM. I MIGHT EMPHASIZE HERE, HOWEVER,, THE INTER-ORGANI-

    ZATIONAL ASPECT. IT WAS CLEAR TO US WHEN THE NATURAL RE-

    SOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE ACTED ON THIS A COUPLE

    OF YEARS AGO, SETTING UP A STUDY AND RESEARCH PROGRAM AIMED

    AT ESTABLISHING WHETHER OR NOT HALOCARBON EMISSIONS NEEDED

    TO BE LIMITED, THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAD

    THE CLEAREST BASIC MISSION MANDATE TO ACT ON THIS MATTER.

                             - 116 -

    YET IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT BOTH NOAA AND NASA HAD RESEARCH

    AND MONITORING CAPABILITIES WHICH OBVIOUSLY WERE NFEEDED) IN ANY

    PROGRAM WHICH MADE OPTIMAL USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES. THE

    CONSUMER PRODUCTS SAFETY COMMISSION ALSO TURNED OUT TO HAVE

    LEGAL AUTHORITY ENABLING IT TO TAKE REGULATORY ACTIONS, AND

    HENCE BECAME AN IMPORTANT PLAYER IN WHAT APPEARED TO BE A

    MATTER IN THE DOMAIN OF LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL CONCERN. THE

    MIX OF AGENCIES I'VE DESCRIBED SO FAR IS INDEED COMPLICATED,

    AND YET I'VE PROBABLY TOUCHED ON ONLY A FEW OF THE IMPORTANT

    COMPONENTS.  THIS CANNOT BE VERY SATISFYING TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL

    PURIST, AND YET EXPERIENCE TELLS US THAT WE REACH THE POINT

    OF DIMINISHING RETURNS VERY SOON WHEN WE START TRYING TO

    DRAW NEAT JURISDICTIONAL LINES.  IT MAY BE THAT THIS IS AN

    EXAMPLE IN WHICH WE CAN BEST CONCENTRATE ON THE FORMATION OF

    NETWORKS OF CLOSELY COMMUNICATING UNITS WHICH BRING SOME

    CONTRIBUTION TO SOLVING THE LONG-TERM PROBLEM -- AND NOT

    WASTE OUR TIME ON STRICT DEFINITIONS OF AUTHORITY AND RE-

    SPONSIBILITY.

         D) ISSUES RAISED BY CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND THE C02

    PROBLEM BRING THE NEED FOR ALL THE POLICY PRINCIPLES CLEARLY

    INTO Focus. THE EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM CLIMATE CHANGE, NATURAL

    OR O2 CAUSED, MAY BE SO PROFOUND THAT WORLD POLITICAL BODIES

    WILL BE FORCED TO FUNDAMENTAL EXAMINATION OF THEIR GOALS.

    ON THE ONE HAND, THE PROSPECT OF IGNORING PREPARATIONS OR

    AMELIORATIVE STEPS MAY APPEAR DISASTROUS IN THE FACE OF

    CLIMATE CHANGE BRINGING ABOUT MAJOR DISLOCATIONS IN GLOBAL

                         - 117 -

    ECONOMIC, AGRICULTURAL, AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION.  ON THE

    OTHER HAND, THE NEEDED PREPARATIONS AND AMELIORATIONS MAY

    SEEM ALMOST AS FORBIDDING.  OBVIOUSLY POLITICAL LEADERS

    WILL ONLY BEGIN TO FEEL READY TO MAKE SUCH DIFFICULT CHOICES

    IF THE SCIENTIFIC CASEIS MADE WITH UNPRECEDENTED CREDIBILITY.

    MOREOVER, SINCE ANY USEFUL STRATEGIES WILL PROBABLY BE GLOBAL

    IN SCALE, THE CASE WILL HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED WITH INTER-

    NATIONAL COOPERATION AND PLANNING. IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE

    FOR A FEW TECHNICALLY SOPHISTICATED NATIONS TO CREDIBLY

    "INFORM11 THE REST OF THE WORLD OF A GLOBAL PROBLEM OF THIS

    KIND. THERE WILL ONLY BE RECEPTIVENESS TO WORKING TOGETHER FOR

     SOLUTIONSTO PROBLEMS IF THERE HAS BEEN PRELIMINARY WORKING

    TOGETHER TO UNDERSTAND AND VERIFY THEM,

    IV. CONCLUSIONS: Ji"Y CONCLUSIONS ARE PROBABLY OBVIOUS

    FROM MY STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. ATMOSPHERIC POLICY HAS MOVED

    INTO A REALM OF LONG-TERM, TECHNICALLY COMPLEX, AND GLOBAL-

    SCALE PROBLEMS WHICH WILL CHALLENGE OUR INSTITUTIONAL

    CAPABILITIES. ALTHOUGH SOME MAY DESPAIR OF OUR PROSPECTS TO

    ADJUST, I SEE INSTEAD THESE PROBLEIVAS A CATALYST FOR FUNDA-

    MENTAL INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE OF THE KIND NEEDED IN ANY CASE

    AT THIS STAGE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. RESILIENCY, ADAPTABILITY,

    STRONG COMMUNICATIONS, AND A SENSE OF LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP OF

    THIS PLANET ARE ALL CHARACTERISTICS WHICH WE NEED TO BUILD

    INTO OUR GLOBAL SOCIETY.

          NOAAS Resource Management and Policy Role for Non-Living Ocean Resources
                                     By Robert W. Corell
                         A contribute to the NOAA Organic Act Workshop
                Convened by the Coastal States Organization March 13-14, 1980

                                         INTRODUCTION

         Some years ago I was involved with a research and development program design-
    ed to study the environmental aspects related to the development of a coastal and
    offshore sand and gravel industry. At that time there was substantial interest in
    the United States, and elsewhere, of using ocean-bottom sand and gravel deposits as
    a source of aggregate for the construction industry. Throughout the world, this
    source is increasingly being used as an economically valuable one.

         The development of such a resource, however, clearly has an impact on other
    marine resources iii the continental margins, such as fisheries, spawning grounds
    for a variety of marine species, marine transportation, coastal sentiment trans-
    port, and a host of others. This program, directed toward development, management,
    conservation, and regulation of an offshore sand and gravel industry, provided us
    with a "first hand" view of marine resource development issues. It is increasing-
    ly apparent that resource development requires "systems" thinking because of the
    high degree of interaction between the many important marine resources. Consequent-
    ly, I have come to believe that marine resource development, management, conserva-
    tion, or regulation cannot be dealt with in isolation or separately. The demarka-
    tion, therefore, between living and non-living resources is possibly artificial.

         During the past decade, NOAA has evolved from a federal agency with relative-
    ly simple primary responsibilities for ocean and atmospheric services and research
    to one that includes these functions, but also is deeply concern~ed with resource
    development, conservation, regulation, management, and resource utilization plan-
    ning. This is a profound and fundamental change in the character of an agency.
    Clearly much of this has been created by statutory responsibilities such as FCMZ,
    CZM, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

         The two drafts of organic legislation, and a review of NOAA as it now exists,
    suggest a pattern. First, the statutory responsibilities seem to be founded on an
    attempt to deal with resolution between resources that appear to be in conflict
    (i.e. fishing and petroleum development or resource preservation and development).
    The CZM Act is clearly that kind of legislation.

         Second, the legislation is increasingly utilizing participatory mechanisms
    (such as the Councils in FCMA or the variety of participatory mechanisms in state
    CZM Programs) in an attempt to minimize conflict and to conduct management in the
    "best interest of society." A pattern of democratization is developing in the
    management process, and it is likely that this direction will continue. Is it not
    possible that there will be an Ocean Zone Management Act patterned after the CZM
    Act, or an Ocean Conservation and Management Act patterned after the FCMA? Maybe!
    The issues are there and it is possible, for example, that our nation will attempt
    to resolve the George's Bank Fishery and petroleum development conflict through
    such legislation. I'm not an advocate of this point of view, but the patterns are
    there.

                                        - 119 -

         There are alternatives, and the NOAA organic Act provides an opportunity here
    now to begin to take a comprehensive view of ocean resource development, manage-
    ment, conservation, and regulation. Taking these seemingly disparate interests
    and developing integrated thinking is, I think, in the best national interest. It
    will be an imperfect process, but it may provide an alternative mechanism for en-
    couraging sagacious use of our marine resources. The Organic Act can provide such
    an organizational framework.

         A systems point of view doesn't isolate the living from the non-living. How
    well we are learning this in FCMA. We started with single species plans only to
    discover the now obvious fact that multiple species plans are the logical next step.
    Does it not follow that the next step, as big as it may be, is a multiple use plan
    where fisheries and other priority users start to be synthasized into a more complex
    planning pattern? My suggestion is that the Organic Act could encourage a synthesis
    of thinking within NOAA and could be a catalyst for conflict resolution amongst the
    various marine resources programs. I would encourage us to develop an Organic Act
    that is substantial on principle, goals and objectives, but leaving to executive
    action development of an administrative structure to carry out such a charter.

         It is tempting to continue to develop a line of thought around the details of
    a NOAA Organic Act, but many constructive thoughts have already been expressed by
    others in this workshop and hence, I would like to raise some other thoughts on the
    way that the academic community might be more effectively connected to NOAA and to
    its responsibilities.

         American universities contain a tremendous range of talent and resources. The
    Marine and Sea Grant Universities in the United States have demonstrated that uni-
    versities can respond to state and regional research needs. How, then, can a me-
    chanism be devised to garner the range of talent in american universities to the
    NOAA mission requirements of national scope? I suggest we follow a pattern similar
    to that of the Office of Naval Research, and create in concept, an Office of Ocean
    Resource Research. The programs manager in such an Office would develop a thorough
    understanding of research requirements in NOAA and translate these into research
    programs that will attract the interest and talent of the academic world. For ex-
    ample, it is the research programs manager in ONR who draws the connection between
    the requirements of the Navy and the talents and capabilities of the academic com-
    munity. In the same sense, programs manager in this new NOAA office would have to
    understand the needs and requirements of NOAA, and convert those requirements into
    research priorities that can be undertaken by scientists in american universities.
    This concept suggests that a connection to the academic community is essential to
    the health and vitality of a total research program for NOAA.

         In summary, I have suggested two thoughts:

             (1) The Organic Act provides an opportunity to develop a framework for
                  a comprehensive approach to the sagacious use of our ocean resources,
                  their management, development, conservations and regulation. The
                  Act could provide a charter for NOAA to accomplish this.
             (2) The academic community is a major national resource which should
                  be more effectively connected to the programs of NOAA, maybe
                  through an ONR-like mechanism.

         Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak at this workshop on a
    topic that could have a substantial impact on the way our nation works toward the
    development, management, conservation, and regulation of its ocean and coastal
    resources.

                                          -120 -

                         OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC POLICY

                              ISSUES OF THE 1980'S

                        THE ROLE OF THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT

                           OCEAN RESOURCES - NONLIVING

                                       by

                                 John E. Flipse
                          Professor of Ocean Engineering
                           Civil Engineering Department
                              Texas A & M University

    INTRODUCTION

         It is a sense of urgency that brings me from sunny Texas to our

    Nation's Capital during a snow storm - - - urgency prompted by the real

    need for an Organic Act for NOAA to enhance its effectiveness in the

    years ahead. I have reviewed H.R. 5347 and applaud John Breaux's usual

    excellence. Although the final legislation may be considerably dif-

    ferent, H.R. 5347 contains all of the major elements of a useful charter

    for NOAA. My remarks will be directed towards NOAA's role in deep ocean

    hard mineral development and management.

         Before proceeding with the assigned task, I would like to comment

    on the Coastal States Organization's comparision of the NOAA authored

    Organic Act and the Breaux Bill. No doubt I will offend both parties,

    but I feel that these comments are important and hope that they will

    influence future versions of the legislation.

                                  - 121 -

         First, I recommend that the bill provide for the President to appoint

    all Assistant Administrations, for the following reasons:

            1. The NOAA Administrator, Deputy and Assistant Administrators

                are a team. Their appointment by the President will provide

                more Presidential interest in the agency.

            2.  To get real talent (undefined here) they must be "Super Grades"

                which means appointees.

            3.  Continuity, and perhaps technical competence, is provided in

                the top Civil service grades.

            4.  The newly chosen Administrator can test his strength (and

                negotiating skill?) by being part of the selection process.

         Second, I recommend that there be only one Assistant Administrator

    for Fisheries, for the following reasons:

            1.  As Assistant Administrator for "Development" and another for

                "Management" almost assures an adversary relationship and

                perpetuates the nonsense that a single agency cannot promote

                and regulate a resource.

            2.  Any attempt by the President to "balance" his appointments

                in a single area (Fisheries) assures relationship problems.

            3.  Over emphasis of the fish resources may damage NOAA's credibility.

         Third, I recommend that there be an Assistant Administrator for

    non-living ocean resources, for the following reasons:

            1. Mineral resources of the shelf and deep seabed are of great

                economic and strategic importance to our nation (even ex-

                cluding petroleum).

                                    - 122 -

            2. This is the expanding and developing area of marine resources.

           3.  The area merits the attention and visibility that an Assistant

               Administrator would provide.

            4.  A balance between the Fisheries and Mineral interests could be

               maintained.

         I find it impossible to "go-on-the-record" regarding the workshop with-

    out making a few comments on the remarks made in the previous panel discus-

    sions. Several important ideas need emphasis, including:

            1. Although the educational and service functions of Sea Grant

                expand and flourish, the research content and product is de-

                creasing. The continuing increase of participating parties

                (each Congressman needs his Sea Grant College or University)

               without a corresponding increase is support ($) has reduced

                the average research grant (now near 30 thousand dollars, in

                Texas) below the critical amount needed to provide faculty

                and graduate student support and supplies (computer time,

                publication, travel, etc.) for a reasonable time, say one year.

            2.  An Organic Act is needed for NOAA so that the agency can ef-

                fectively budget its activities and the Congress can react,

                specifically, in budget reviews. "Pass-thru monies" now
                support many important programs, including the Marine Min-

                erals Division.

            3.  The Organic Act should be general in regard to tasks -- no

                "laundry lists." The best 1980 "laundry list" may well be

                obsolete by the time the bill becomes law. In the interven-

                ing years (?) the "laundry list" continues to enrode support.

                                    - 123 -

            4.  Development and management of a resource should be done by the

               competent government unit. Some reorganization to assemble

               competence is acceptable but reassignment of responsibilities

               should take place through evolution, not revolution, with the

               competent agency the recipient.

    NOAAS NON-LIVING RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT ROLE

         Based on nearly a decade of interaction with the (now) Division of

    Marine Minerals of the Office of Policy and Planning of NOAA, I am pleased

    to report that there is considerable technical and management talent

    existent in NOAA today. This unit is small (less than a dozen professionals

    and staff) but has sucessfully conducted at least one major research program

    with industry and academia, frequent workshops and seminars and a major

    educational program through the above vehicles. Excellent support by

    other NOAA Units (Environmental Laboratories, the NOAA fleet of research

    ships, etc.) has effectively expanded the core office's capabilities.

    Let me suggest an ongoing program for the NOAA Division of Marine Minerals

    which certainly deserves an Assistant Administrator at its head and a

    line-item in the Department of Commerce's annual budget.

                1. RESOURCE ASSESMENT

                    The government's role in resource assesment is valid if

    the information is needed to manage the resource and the industry

    cannot perform the assesment (lack of economic opportunity, etc.) or,

    a potential resource has not been identified or quantified. Let me cite

    a few examples:

                 -Industry has done an effective job in assessing the manganese

    nodule resource on the deep ocean floor. No current NOAA assessment role

    is indicated.

                 -The shell, sand and gravel of the shelf has not been assessed

    by the industry. To stimulate development, NOAA should make this resource
                                   - 124 -

    assessment.

                 *Deposits of exotic metals at the intersection of the pycno-

    cline and the seabed are possible. NOAA's research and subsequent assessment

    of this potential resource is appropriate.

                2. ESTABLISHMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL BASE LINE

                     NOAA's early attempt to establish the environmental base

    line off the Coast of Massachusetts in the sand and gravel case ran afoul

    of the unique New England marine mineral resource development attitude.

    The excellent job done on the deep ocean environmental base line (DOMES I),

    on the other hand, demonstrates both the ability of the NOAA team ( as

    supported by academia) and the wide acceptance of the role by all sectors.

    Recent experience in the other non-living mineral resource of the shelf

    and slope (petroleum) suggests that NOAA's talent and credibility could

    be well employed here as well - - - a future possibility.

                3. SYSTEM TEST PROGRAM OBSERVATION AND EVALUATION

                     This role is essential as a follow-up to the base line

    effort. An excellent example exists in the DOMES If program which was

    recently completed. Again, NOAA's objective approach and credibility

    are the basis of the program's wide acceptance.

                 4. PREPARATION OF THE PROGRAMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
                    STATEMENT

                     Any program to develop non-living marine resources is very

     likely to require a Programatic E.I.S. As the requirement is "laid on"

     by the government, NOAA should prepare this document. Credibility is

     again an important reason for NOAA's role. Lest we feel that industry

     is escaping, it is also very likely that a site specific E.I.S. will be

     required (at least in deep ocean mining) which would be industry's burden.

                 5. REGULATION

                     It is unrealistic to expect that non-living marine resource

     development and production in an environmentally sensitive area (by defini-
                                   - 125 -

    tion) will proceed without regulation. Hence NOAA, the agency with the

    competence, should do any required regulation. My views on over-regulation

    are too well known for anyone to mis-interpret the above remark as advocacy

    of regulation!

                6. MONITORING

                   As non-living ocean resource development expands NOAA

    should be equipt and competent to monitor commercial operations to assure

    compliance with existing regulations. The monitoring experience should

    further enhance NOAA's key claim to its role, competence.

                7. RESEARCH

                    There is no question in the minds of academic researchers

    that the government body responsible for the development and management

    of a resource needs to sponser research. Knowledge of the resource is

    enhanced and the agency's competence is increased. Engineering development

    is the province of industry while resource research is appropriate for

    both sectors. Considering NOAA's budget for its Marine. Mineral Division,

    their research record is outstanding. Certainly the role is appropriate,

    even if this is not a truly objective opinion.

         It is a pleasure to add my rather practical remarks to the erudite

    hypotheses of my academic colleagues. It is my contention that a NOAA

    Organic Act is a very practical document produced by a very very practical

    political process. We should pay more attention to the "legislative

    history" of the Act and less attention to the minutiae of the Bill if

    we are to have a truly useful] charter for NOAA.

                                  - 126 -

                                    Dr.- Virginia 1(1- Ti-ppie
                                      Executive Director
                               Center of Ocean Management Studies
                                   University of Rhode Island

           I strongly endorse the concept of a NOAA Organic Act which codifies existing

           authorities. Obviously it's human nature to want the biggest piece of the

           pie, and federal agencies, are no different. Usually, the turf battles bet-

           ween agencies get resolved at appropriations time, however, in the ocean's

           area, the allocation Drocess is difficult for there is no clear cut state-

           ment of NOAA's responsibilities. For solely housekeeping budgetary reasons,

           we need a NOAA Organic Act. We should be careful, however, not to confuse

           this task with reorganization efforts. The issue of federal reorganization

           will continue to be debated in the back hallways and it will not be easily

           resolved. Obviously, NOAA's pending jurisdiction over deep sea mining begs
           the question of why NOAA.. when Interior has long been responsible for mine-

           ral resource development. Until we see a reorganization plan that assures

           wise development and management of the oceans, I think we should leave this

           difficult issue for another day. Let's focus today on securing the integri-

           ty of our existing ocean's agency - NOAA.

           I think it is useful at this point, to discuss NOAA's mission from a philo-

           sophical perspective. The Federal Marine Program Review states that:

                "The mission of NOAA is to explore, map, and chart the global
                 ocean and its living resources, to manage, use, and conserve
                 those resources and to describe, monitor, and predict condi-
                 tions in the atmosphere, ocean, sun, and space environment,
    *            ~~~issue warnings against impending destructive natural events,
                 develop beneficial methods of environmental modification,
                 assess the consequences of inadvertent environmental modifi-
                 cation over several scales of time, and manage all operatio-
                 nal civilian remote sensing activities from space."

           I think- this statement conveys a real sense of what NOAA's all about. It's

           the watchdog for the oceans and atmosphere - the protector, conservator,

           guardian of the resource. NOAA is the researcher, who feeds scientific

           information into the resource management decision process; and the manager,

                                        - 127 -

    who assures effective, multiple use of the single resource - the ocean/
    atmosphere. NOAA should not be the developer - that's industry's role,
    nor should it be the regulator (let E.P.A. and Interior hassle with those
    problems). Lastly NOAA should not be the enforcer. Basically, this is

    the "checks and balances"' argument. To state it more succinct ly, NOAA
    should maintain a "neut-ral" broad perspective of the single resource -
    the ocean/atmosphere system. This will enable it to serve as the arbiter
    of the ocean, to identify and help resolve multiple use conflicts.

    I'd like to briefly discuss my perception of NOAA's research role in the
    area of "non-living ocean resources". I would argue that NOAA should con-
    duct and coordinate all applied civilian research efforts in the ocean.
    Basically, it should be responsible for all of the activities identified
    in question 1/ I of our survey. It should be the collector and dissemina-
    tor of environmental and resource information about the ocean. Using this
    argument, I believe that NOAA should have a lead responsibility for OCS en-
    vironmnental assessments. As for deep sea-mining, NOAA's Domes project has

    shown that it has the capability to conduct environmental research in the
    deep ocean. It has ships and the scientific expertise to best assess -the

    environmental impacts of activities anywhere in the ocean.

    In terms of future research opportunities, I think we will see an ever in-
    creasing demand for NOAA's expertise in two specific problem areas - waste
    disposal and resource development of frontier areas. The use of the oceans
    for waste disposal will continue to be a topic of debate. Regardless of
    legislation, we cannot ignore the ability of the oceans to absorb a wide
    range of'wastes. In order to make wise waste management decisions, we must
    assess the assimilative capacity of the oceans. NOAA's research efforts can
    contribute significantly to our understanding of the processes involved. In
    regard to the development of resources in frontier -areas, we face our biggest
    challenge in Antarctica. In light, of increasing interest in the poten-

                                 - 128 -

    tial oil and gas resources of this continent and its valuable fishery
    resources, I believe it is critical that NOAA take the initiative and get
    applied research efforts underway to assess the resources and establish an
    environmental baseline.

    I would like to now turn to NOAA's role as a manager. As I mentioned in

    the beginning of my talk, I feel very strongly that NOAA should be con-
    cerned with the medium - the ocean environment, not the seabed mineral and
    oil resources per se. To some extent, I am suggesting that NOAA should ex-
    tend the coastal zone management concept out onto the shelf. That is, it
    should take a lead in identifying potential use conflicts and should encou-
    rage and watch-over industry and other federal agencies to assure that the
    OCS is developed in an orderly manner that provides for protection of the

    environment. Using the checks and balances argument it should not be res-

    ponsible for development or management of specific resources (i.e. oil and
    gas). It should be concerned with the big picture - the ocean/atmosphere
    system. To some extent, NOAA's ORCA office within the office of Coastal
    Zone Management has been developing this ocean management concept. It will
    also be interesting to see the applicability to the OCS of the recommen-

    datio~ns of the Interagency Federal Coastal Program Review - Improved Coordi-
    nation Effort, which is exploring mechanisms to resolve multiple-use con-
    flicts. Obviously in frontier oil and gas areas such as the Georges Bank,
    off the coast of New England, conflict-resolution mechanisms would be inva-
    luable. I think NOAA could serve a very useful role in trying to facilitate
    dialog between concerned parties in these frontier areas. However, to assure
    resolution, NOAA must maintain a neutral stand and be perceived as a wise ma-

    nager/guardian of the ocean.

                                  -129-

    STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE JOEL PRITCHARD (R.-WA.) REGARDING

    "OCEAN USE ISSUES OF THE 1980'S" BEFORE THE COASTAL STATES

    ORGANIZATION, MARCH 14l, 1980.

        THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, CSO MEMBERS, AND MEMBERS OF THE

    OCEANS COMMUNITY.  IAPPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU

    TODAY, AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT YOUR WORKSHOP ON INOAA WILL BE USEFUL

    IF AND WHEN THE CONGRESS BEGINS TO ACTUALLY MOVE LEGISLATION.

        QUITE FRANKLY, I MUST SAY THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO

    DISCUSS THE ORGANIC ACT, PER SE. THERE IS NOTHING MORE BORING

    THAN TALKING ABOUT A SERIES OF STATUTES WHICH NEED TO BE
    CODIFIED IN THE NAME OF AN 'ORGANIC A\CT". THEREFORE, I WILL

    REFUSE TH-AT OPTION AND ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS SOME

    OF THE OCEAN USE ISSUES, SOME OLD AND SOME NEW, WHICH WILL

    CONFRONT US IN THIS DECADE. I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT I WILL

    LEAVE THE DISCUSSION OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE ISSUES TO OTHER

    SPEAKERS,, AND ALSO THAT MY LIST IS BY NO MEANS EXHAUSTIVE. BUT.,

    I THINK THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF EVALUATING WHETHER WE NEED AN

    ORGANIC ACT, IT IS USEFUL TO LOOK AT THE TYPES OF ISSUES WE'LL

    BE CONFRONTING IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS, AND THEN MAKE THE JUDGMENT

    AS TO WHETHER THE EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT IS ADEQUATE.

        FIRST OF ALL, IN THE AREA OF FISHERIES IN THE 1980'S, WE ARE

    LIKELY TO SEE A MAJOR EXPANSION IN INVESTMENT TO INCREASE OUR

    HARVESTING AND PROCESSING CAPACITY, ESPECIALLY WITH SPECIES

    THAT WE HAVE NOT UTILIZED IN THE PAST. WE'RE ALREADY SEEING AN

                                    - 130 -

    EXPLOSION IN THIS AREA, WITH OVER $600 MILLION BEING INVESTED

    IN NEW VESSELS ALONE IN 1979. IN MANY DIFFERENT COASTAL AREAS

    OF THE COUNTRY,, WE ARE SEEING NEW PROCESSING FACILITIES SPRINGING

    UP, MANY OF WHICH ARE ALSO PROBING NEW MARKETS FOR SPECIES PREVIOUSLY

    THROWN OVERBOARD.

       THE ROAD TO UTILIZING MANY OF THESE STOCKS IS NOT GOING TO

    BE AN EASY ONE. THERE ARE EVEN LIKELY TO BE SOME FAILURES IN

    SOME AREAS WHERE INVESTORS GET TOO ANXIOUS ABOUT DEVELOPING

    NEW MARKETS AND IMMEDIATELY DISPLACING THE FOREIGN FISHERMEN,

    THE FCMA WAS DESIGNED TO ALLOW A GRADUAL TRANSITION AND BUILDUP

    OF FISHING CAPACITY FOR THOSE STOCKS WHICH U.S. FISHERMEN COULD

    CATCH AND MARKET. THE JOINT-VENTURE CONCEPT USED IN THE NORTHWEST

    HAS BEEN AN EXTREMELY VALUABLE INTERIM ARRANGEMENT WHICH PROVIDES

    FOR A GRADUAL BUILDUP OF HARVESTING CAPACITY AS WELL AS ACCESS

    TO MARKETS.

        THE POINT IS, THE FCMA, AS WELL AS OTHER ASSERTIONS OF

    EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY FOR LIVING RESOURCES AROUND THE

    WORLD, HAS CREATED A MUCH MORE STABLE REGIME FOR INVESTMENT IN

    FISHERIES THAN WE HAVE EVER WITNESSED BEFORE. AS A RESULT,

    THE LEVEL OF INVESTMENT, THE SCALE OF OPERATIONS, AND THE VERY

    NATURE OF THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY IS LIKELY TO CHANGE

    DRAMATICALLY IN THE 1980's. WHILE MANY OF THE HISTORICAL

    INSHORE FISHERIES WILL NOT CHANGE AS DRAMATICALLY., THERE HAS

    ALREADY BEEN PROGRESS TOWARD MORE RATIONAL MANAGEMENT OF THESE

    STOCKS AS REGIONAL FISHERIES COUNCILS ARE FORCED TO DEVELOP

    FISHERIES ~IANAGEMENT PLANS (FMP's). THIS EXERCISE, IN ITSELFj

                                   - 131 -

       ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH WILL EMERGE IN THE 1980'S WILL BE THE

    LACK OF CONTROL OF SYNTHETIC ORGANICS, SUCH AS PCB'S AND THEIR

    EFFECTS ON THE MARINE FOOD CHAIN, AND,, EVENTUALLY., MAN. As

    INCREASING ATTENTION IS PAID TO THE HARMFULNESS AND WIDESPREAD

    SOURCES OF THESE COMPOUNDS, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO MORE CLOSELY

    DIFFERENTIATE WHERE DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL CAN AND CANNOT OCCUR

    SAFELY. THE NOAA OCEAN POLLUTION PLAN HAS E"STABLISHED THAT THE

    RESEARCH AND MONITORING OF LH.ESE. MATERIALS IN THE MARINE

    ENVIRONMENT IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE,

        ON THE ISSUE OF DEEP SEABED MINING, iTHINK IT HAS BECOME

    CLEAR THAT WE NEED TO PASS DOMESTIC LEGISLATION, AND THIS IS

    LIKELY TO HAPPEN THIS SPRING. IT APPEARS THAT NOAA WILL BECOME

    THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS ACTIVITY., AND., IN FACT, THIS MAY BE

    ONE CASE WHERE NOAA IS READY BEFORE THE INDUSTRY,

          MUCH HAS BEEN SAID IN THE PAST ABOUT DEEP OCEAN MINING AND

    THE LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE SO I WILL NOT BELABOR THAT ISSUE.

    HOWEVER, IF AN LOS AGREEMENT IS NOT ACHIEVED AND RATIFIED, NOAA's

    RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND FOREIGN NATIONS WILL

    BECOME INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT. ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL PROBLEMS

    WILL BE OBTAINING ACCESS TO COASTAL STATES'I WATERS FOR RESEARCH

    PURPOSES,~ AND THIS COULD SIGNIFICANTLY RETARD OUR UNDERSTANDING

    OF MARINE AND COASTAL PROCESSES, SUCH AS UPWELLINGS. IT IS NOT

    CLEAR TO ME WHAT TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT NOAA SHOULD DEVELOP WITH

    THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES,. BUT THIS IS

    CLEARLY SOMETHING FOR YOU PEOPLE TO WRESTLE WITH IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS.

                                 - 132 -

    OTEC DEVELOPMENT. GIVEN THE PLODDING R&D STRATEGY OF DOE WITH

    RESPECT TO OTEC, AND GIVEN THE LEVEL OF SUBSIDIES FOR OTHER

    ENERGY SOURCESj UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BEGINS TO

    ADVOCATE OTEC DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE UNLIKELY TO SEE THE TECHNOLOGY

    DEVELOP UNTIL THE NEXT CENTURY,

        NEVERTHELESS, WHEN THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY RECENTLY HELD

    HEARINGS ON OTEC LEGISLATION, THE ADMINISTRATION OPPOSED IT. IT WAS
    NOT CLEAR, HOWEVER, THROUGHOUT THE HEARING WHETHER OMB SIMPLY OPPOSED

    THE LEGISLATION FOR THE REASONS STATED, OR BECAUSE THEY SENSED

    ANOTHER TURF-BATTLE COMING ON, AND RATHER THAN MAKE A DECISION

    WHETHER NOAA, MARAD, OR DOE WOULD BE THE LEAD AGENCY, THEY

    SIMPLY OPPOSED THE BILL. THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR BY THE ADMINISTRATION

    HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST WITH OCEANS INITIATIVES AND IS LIKELY

    TO OCCUR IN THE FUTURE UNTIL WE REALLY HAVE AN OCEANS AGENCY WITH

    THE EQUIVALENT STATUS OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

        ON ANOTHER ENERGY-RELATED ISSUE -- THE SIJR-SEA~Ffn FMPLACFMENT ri

    NUCLEAR WASTE MATERIALS -- OUR GOVERNMENT HAS NOT EVEN DONE THE

    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH WHICH IS NECESSARY SO THAT AN INTELLIGENT

    DECISION COULD BE MADE IF OPPOSITION CONTINUES TO MOUNT AGAINST

    LAND-BASED SOLUTIONS. I'M CERTAINLY NOT ADVOCATING OCEAN DISPOSAL,

    BUT, AT SOME POINT, WHETHER THE U.S. DOES OR NOT, OTHER NATIONS,

    SUCH AS JAPAN AND THE U.K. ARE LIKELY TO CONSIDER THIS OPTION.

    AT THAT TIME, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF NOAA, DOE, AND EPA COULD

    HAVE COOPERATED SUFFICIENTLY TO HAVE THE NECESSARY DATA AVAILABLE

    TO MAKE A SOUND DECISION. AGAIN, HOWEVER, RESPONSIBILITIES

    REMAIN UNCLEAR.

                               - 133 -

        THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO ACCEPT SOME DEGREE OF
    RISK AS WE DEVELOP OCS OIL AND GAS. HOWEVER, THE OCEANS AGENCY

    SHOULD BE DOING THE TYPE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING AND DAMAGE

    ASSESSMENT WHICH CAN BE FACTORED INTO DECISION-MAKING ABOUT OCS

    DEVELOPMENT, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEARN FROM SUCH DISASTERS AS

    IXTOC (ISH-TOK) SO AS TO BE ABLE TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF SUCH

    DISASTERS IN THE FUTURE.

        IN ADDITION, BECAUSE THE ENERGY ISSUE PERMEATES EVERYTHING

    THESE DAYS, WE NEED TO BEGIN TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY AT ALTERNATIVE

    ENERGY PRODUCING USES OF THE OCEANS. OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY

    CONVERSION (OTEC) IS ONE OF THE MOST RAPIDLY PROGRESSING AND

    EXCITING TECHNOLOGIES WITH CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN THE PRIVATE

    SECTOR AMONG SUCH COMPANIES AS TRW, FAIRCHILD, GE, AND WESTINGHOUSE,

    AMONG OTHERS. OTEC IS STILL VERY MUCH AN INFANT TECHNOLOGY WITH

    MANY ENGINEERING AND SCALING PROBLEMS TO BE WORKED OUT, BUT ITS

    PRODUCTIVE POTENTIAL IS SIGNIFICANT AND I FEEL THAT WE NEED TO

    ATTEMPT TO ACCELERATE ITS DEVELOPMENT, THE VALUE OF OTEC IS

    THAT IT IS NON-HYDROCARBON AND NON-NUCLEAR, AND, FOR THE MOST

    PART, IT APPEARS TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND,  I'M NOT SAYING

    THAT WE'RE LIKELY TO HAVE 50 OR 100 OTEC PLANTSHIPS "HUMMING

    AWAY" OFF HAWAII IN THIS DECADE, BUT OTEC APPEARS TO BE A

    PROMISING SOURCE OF ENERGY WHICH WE CANNOT AFFORD TO FOREGO.

    THEREFORE, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE OTEC FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR

    TITLE XI LOAN GUARANTEES AS IS PROVIDED FOR IN H.R. 6154, THE

    EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD BE TO ACCELERATE THE FLOW OF CAPITAL INTO

                                 - 134 -

    HAS ALREADY OPENED UP DISCUSSION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES,

    AND., IN MANY CASES; HAS ALREADY RESULTED IN IMPROVED MANAGEMENT

    DECISIONS. THE REFINEMENT OF THE FMP PROCESS FOR ALL HARVESTABLE

    SPECIES WILL BE A MAJOR TASK FOR THE OCEANS AGENCY IN THE 1980'S.

    AGAIN, WE HAVE TO ASK 'OURSELVES WHETHER THESE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

    ISSUES CAN BE MORE EFFECTIVELY DEALT WITH IF WE HAVE A NOAA

    ORGANIC ACT AND A CLEARLY ESTABLISHED OCEANS AGENCY.

        IN TERMS OF ENERGY-PRODUCING USES OF THE OCEAN, WE MUST

    RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OCS PRODUCTION OF HYDROCARBONS

    THROUGHOUT THE NEXT DECADE. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT EXPLORATION

    FOR OIL AND GAS WILL INCREASE OFFSHORE AND ITS ECONOMIC VALUE

    WILL., IN THE SHORT-TERM,, FAR EXCEED THAT OF OTHER OCEAN RESOURCES

    PRODUCED. THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER) FOR THE OCEANS AGENCY., IS

    ASSURING THAT THE RISK OF OCS PRODUCTION TO REN-EWABILE MARINE

    RESOURCES IS MINIMIZED. THIS MEANS GIVING THE OCEANS AGENCY

    SOME DEGREE OF AUTHORITY OVER WHERE AND UNDER WHAT RESTRICTIONS

    DRILLING SHOULD OCCUR IN FRAGILE MARINE AREAS. THIS IS NOT TO

    SAY THAT NOAA SHOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OCS DEVELOPMENT.*

    BUT IT SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IDENTIFY HIGH-VALUE LIVING MARINE

    RESOURCE AREAS WHERE THE RISK OF CERTAIN TYPES OF OIL AND GAS

    OPERATIONS IS SIGNIFICANT; AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    AND THE INDUSTRY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SUCH

    INFORMATION IN ITS LEASING AND OPERATIONS DECISIONS.

                                 - 135 -

        ONE FURTHER AREA IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT WHICH NEEDS TO BE

    CAREFULLY CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT

    IS THE CURRENT ItCOLD WAR"/ BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE INTERIOR

    AND COMMERCE AS TO WHO SHOULD MANAGE ANADROMOUS FISH STOCKS.

    BECAUSE I REPRESENT AN-AREA WHERE ANADROMOUS FISH, NAMELY SALMON

    AND STEELHEAD., ARE PART OF OUR ECONOMY., AND CULTURE,

     IFIND IT EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE SOME OF

    THE NON-PRODUCTIVE TURF-BATTLES OVER THIS IMPORTANT RESOURCE,

    IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN ECONOMISTS TALK ABOUT THE SALMON

    RESOURCE BEING A COMMON PROPERTY RESOURCE., THIUS RIGHTLY OR

    WRONGLY APPLIES TO AGENCIES AS WELL AS TO FISHERMEN. NOBODY OWNS

    IT., AND AS A RESULT WE TEND TO END UP WITH MORE CAPACITY THAN WE

    NEED TO ACTUALLY HARVEST THE FISH. I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR YOU CAN

    STRETCH THIS ANALOGY WITH OTHER OCEAN RESOURCES, BUT I DO KNOW

    THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE WATER'IS EDGE, FEDERAL AGENCIES START

    STUMBLING OVER EACH OTHER IN ORDER TO SIMPLY CARRY OUT THE

    ACTIVITIES IN THE OCEAN, FUNCTIONALLY IN THE SAME WAY THEY DO ON

    LAND., WHETHER IT INVOLVES THE PRODUCTION OF ENERGY., MINERALS,

    OR FISH, THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY USES, AS WELL AS AGENCY ACTIVITIES

    TEND TO CONVERGE AT THE WATER'IS EDGE,
        ORIGINAL PROPONENTS FOR THE CREATION OF NOAA, AND EARLY

    STRATTON COMMISSION FINDINGS EXPRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF AN

    OCEANS AREA FOCUS AS A WAY OF BALANCING DIFFERENT OCEAN USES.

    THIS WAS A VALID CONCEPT THEN AND WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY

    IMPORTANT AS THE USES., AND THE INTENSITY OF THESE USES., OF

    OUR MARINE ENVIRONMENT INCREASE IN THE 1980'S.

                                  - 136 -

        THEREFORE, I MUST CONCLUDE THAT IF A NOAA ORGANIC ACT WOULD

    SECURE AND CLARIFY NO.AA's ROLE AS THE OCEANS AGENCY AND IMPROVE

    ITS ABILITY TO GET THE JOB DONE., THEN IWOULD HAVE TO SUPPORT

    SUCH LEGISLATION.

        FINALLY, THERE IS ONE ISSUE WHICH ITHINK THAT ALL OF US

    MUST GRAPPLE WITH IN DISCUSSIONS SUCH AS THESE -- AND THAT IS

    HOW WE CAN IMPROVE THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF OUR PUBLIC SECTOR

    WHILE RECEIVING LESS FUNDS., AND., AT THE SAME TIME), IMPROVE THE

    PRODUCTIVITY OF OUR ECONOMY AS A WHOLE. REGARDLESS OF THE

    ELECTORAL POLITICS OF 1980., THE ADMINISTRATION, THE CONGRESS,

    AND THE NATION AS A WHOLE WILL BE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO CUT WASTE

    AND DUPLICATION AND TO BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

        I AM CONVINCED THAT THE OCEANS WILL PLAY AN INCREASING ROLE

    IN PROVIDING VALUABLE RAW MATERIALS FOR A GROWING ECONOMY,

    N'EVERTHELESS., WE MUST CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO STREAMLINE OCEAN

    RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS AND CUT THROUGH THE BUREAUCRATIC

    MAZE WHICH OCCURS AT THE WATERIS EDGE. A TRUE O'CEANS AGENCY

    SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROMOTE,, DEVELOP., PROTECT., AND.,

    MOST OF ALL., MANAGE OCEAN RESOURCES. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE.,

    AND IF WE CANNOT CLARIFY THE OCEAN AGENCY JURISDICTIONS., THEN

     IMUST ASK YOU -- WHY DO WE REALLY NEED A NOAA ORGANIC ACT?

                                  - 137 -

    MEMBER STATES                                                                  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
                         AL~~~~~~~~~~~~sKA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JOHN P. HARVILLE
     CALAFORNA
      CDALIONIAIN                                               OMISO              TREASURER
      IDAHON           PACIFIC           M     AIEFISHERIES             COMSING. L. FISHER
     WAsHINGTON                           528 S.W. MILL STREET
                                       PORTLAND, OREGON 97201
                                         PHONE (503) 229-5840

               STATE-FEDERAL INTERACTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF SHARED FISHERIES RESOURCES
                                          by John P. Harvillel
                           a contribution to the NOAA Organic Act Workshop
                    convened by the Coastal States Organization March 13-14, 1980

                                             INTRODUCTION

            Populations of fishes and other marine organisms range through ocean space
            in accordance with ecological limiting factors which coincide usually not
           at all with man-made jurisdictional boundaries. As result fragmented
           management jurisdiction over our living marine resources is the rule
           rather than the exception. Anadromous fishes such as salmon and striped
            bass traverse the territorial seas, estuaries, and river systems of a
            series of sovereign States in their extended migrations. For some important
            species these migrations also include the federally controlled offshore
           waters of the Fishery Conservation Zone. Tunas and other highly migratory
            species may span the world's oceans to enter the coastal waters of many
            nations on several continents. Most commercially important non-migratory
            species show geographic distribution through more than one political
           jurisdiction. Because of the-genetic continuity of their populations,
            those species in the long run may be nearly as vulnerable to management
            inconsistencies as are the migratory species. For all these species,
            fishermen expect to be able to pursue their quarry across jurisdictional
            boundaries of no biological or oceanographic significance, despite their
           considerable political sensitivity.

           To better protect and manage these living marine resources, we must improve
            the integration and coordination of our multijurisdictional management
            goals and operations. The United States Congress addressed this need in
           .part by enacting the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. FCMA
            established U.S. fishery management jurisdiction over the Fishery Conservation
            Zone (FCZ) which extends from the three-mile limit of the States' territorial
            seas jurisdiction out to 200 miles from the U.S. shoreline. FCMA also
            created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, and vested in them
            planning authority for management of fisheries within that extended jurisdiction
            zone. To guide those Councils and the multiple fisheries jurisdictions
           which must implement Council management plans, FCMA laid down seven
            National Standards which have truly revolutionized both process and product
            of U.S. fisheries management.

                 member, Panel 7: Management and Protection of Living Resources

                                           - 138 -

        The Fishery Conservation Act of 1976 was a landmark extension of regional
        rationality not only for management of fisheries but for government generally.
        However, the Act did not address certain of our continuing problems of
        fragmented jurisdiction, and it falls short of resolving a number of
        others. While administrative initiatives may address some of these problems,
        Congressional mandates will be required for others. Whether those Congressional
        initiatives should take the form of amendments to existing legislation or
        promulgation of new laws (such as a NOAA Organic Act) is a decision to be
        made by others who are knowledgable about legislative strategy.

        As a contribution to that decision process, in this paper I propose to
        identify certain of the multijurisdictionaliproblems which persist despite
        the impact of FCMA and to suggest some possible remedies.  The following
        three general problem areas will be considered, with major attention in
        this paper to the first (since the others will be emphasized elsewhere):

             a.   the urgency for coordinated management of shared fisheries
                  resources throughout the range of the species. (Note that
                  management means not only planning and promulgation of regulations,
                  but also includes fishery monitoring, data collection and interpretation,
                  on-going relevant research, and effective enforcement practices.);

             b.   the need to accelerate U.S. development of fishery resources
                  which presently are-*not effectively utilized by the U.S. fishing
                  industry.

             C.   the importance of resolving ambiguities and built-in conflicts
                  in existing federal laws which presently impede rational and
                  effective protection and management of living marine resources.

        A.   COORDINATED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE RANGE OF THE POPULATION

             INTER-RELATED PROBLEM ELEMENTS
              (Note that these elements are identified to clarify the overall
             problem, not to suggest that each be changed. For example, I believe
    *        ~~that the limitations in elements l and 2 are proper and appropriate;
             it is element 3 which needs remedial attention. See suggested remedial
             approaches.)

             1.   FCMA addresses principally the management of fisheries in the
                  Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ). The rule-making authority of
                  the Secretary of Commerce encompasses the waters of the FCZ, for
                  which FCMA established federal jurisdiction. However, the
                  geographic range of most important commercial species, and the
                  harvesting activities of fishermen, extend also into the territorial
                  sea. FCMA quite properly did not abridge the authority of the
                  States to manage living resources within their territorial seas;
                  yet at the same time, National Standard #3 specifies that to the
                  extent possible, fish stocks shall be managed as units throughout
                  their geographic ranges.

                                          _ 139 -

    2.   Under FCMA provisions, the Regional Fishery Management Councils
         function principally as regional management planning entities.
         Their authority and funding encompass the highlY complex area of
         management plan development, including recommendations for
         supportive regulations. Responsibility for all other aspects of
         management--fishery monitoring, data collection and analysis,
         relevant research, and enforcement, habitat protection--remain
         under the traditional jurisdiction of State and Federal fisheries
         (and other) agencies.

    3.   The broad aspects of fisheries management not specifically
         mandated under FCMA have failed to receive adequate attention
         from the Congress or from the Administration. As noted in problem
         elements I and 2, FCMA directly addresses only management planning
         and regulatory processes in the FCZ. This regional organization
         has been a quantum step forward in fisheries management, particularly
         in view of the greatly augmented scope of the management purview
         to address socioeconomic factors as well as more traditional
         biological-oceanographic considerations. Perhaps understandably,
         Congressional and Administrative attention has been almost
         totally preoccupied with facilitation of these primary tasks.
         The greatly increased burdens placed upon State and Federal
         agencies for implementation of management plans have been essentially
         ignored (e.g. for fisheries monitoring, data collection, research,
         enforcement, etc.). This problem has been exacerbated by related
         burdens placed upon the States by other Federal laws (e.g.
         Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, NEPA.,
         CZMA, etc.), too often without adequate facilitation for effective
         State-Federal cooperation and interaction.

    SUGGESTED REMEDIAL APPROACHES

    1.   Maintain present FC.MA definitions of management responsibility.
         Certainly the States strongly support FCMA's recognition of the
         traditional role of the sovereign States in management of living
         resources within their jurisdiction. On the Pacific Coast, our
         States have demonstrated the workability of cooperative implementation
         of fishery management plans developed by the Regional Councils
         and approved by the Secretary. The States have voluntarily
         enacted regulations governing fisheries within State waters
        .which are parallel to and consonant with those promulgated by
         the Secretary for the FCZ. I believe this voluntary cooperative
         interaction will prevail so long as our States and their fisheries
         users continue to have an active role in development of management
         plans and supportive regulations.

         Similarly, I support the essentially administrative and planning
         role of the Regional Councils and their staffs. Operational
         implementation of plans certainly should remain with our State
         and Federal agencies. It would be a major error, wasteful of
         money and manpower, to set up a cadre of research. enforcement,
         and data management specialists within the Council structure in
         parallel with those resources already well established within
         State and Federal fisheries agencies.

                                  - 140 -

        However, as will be developed in some detail herewith, major
         Federal attention must be directed to assuring adequate support
         for implementation of management plans and for long-term improvements
         in the fundamental data base for those plans.

    2.   Establish and Support a Congressional mandate for cooperative
        State-Federal protection and management of shared fisheries
         resources.

         a.   Fisheries management functions have been designated by the
              nation's State fisheries directors-as highest priority area
              for augmentation of State-Federal programs.

              At the invitation of the National Marine Fisheries Service,
              the Directors of fisheries agencies for 28 coastal and
              Great Lakes States and five U.S. Territories met in Al exandria,
              Virginia January 29-31, 1980 for a workshop on State and
              Federal Roles, Responsibilities, and Interactions in the
              Management of Interjurisdictional Resources." Meeting with
              them were key NMFS and NOAA personnel and representatives
              of the eight Regional Fisheries Management Councils and the
              three interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions.

             As product of two days of regional workshop discussions,
              the State Directors concurred that the highest priority
              area for, improved State-Federal programs relate directly to
              the management of shared fisheries resources in the broad
              context of four interdependent functions (all first priority):

              1)   preparation of regional management plans for all
                   shared fisheries (for fisheries subject to Regional
                   Council jurisdiction and those outside Council purview--
                   e.g. Territorial Sea species such as striped bass,
                   menhaden),

              2)   collection, organization, and interpretation of fisheries
                   data derived from monitoring of fisheries to satisfy
                   requirements defined in management plans;

              3)   enforcement of regulations throughout the range of the
                   fisheries; and

              4)   management-related researches required to improve the
                   information base (e.g., stock assessments, resource
                   inventories, life history studies, etc.).

              While the State Fisheries Directors also indicated major
              concerns for other areas of State-Federal interactions,
              they assigned significantly lower priority to marine mammal
              rind endangered species programs and to coastal zone management,
              and (with the exception of Territorial representatives)
              gave lowest priority to fisheries development programs.

                                   - 141

                  Particularly the State Fisheries Directors called upon the
                  federal government to recognize the major added burdens    2
                  placed upon the States by Congressionally mandated programs
                  which require major changes and additions to the States'
                  long-term responsibilities for fisheries data collection
                  and interpretation, relevant research, habitat protection,
                  and enforcement programs. They emphasized that while some
                  federal support has been provided for planning and other
                  special purposes, the States have received little if any
                  federal assistance in meeting the burgeoning operational
                  requirements mandated by these new federal laws. They
                  indicated State willingness to accept a share of these
                  tasks as consistent with State interests; however, they
                  emphasized the need for reasonable federal participation in
                  underwriting the heavy added costs of these new program
                  requirements.

                  To address these needs, they urged more effective use of
                  existing State-Federal programs (e.g., Commercial Fisheries
                  Research and Development Act, Anadromous Fish Conservation
                  Act) which have never been adequately funded despite the
                  growing backlog of high-priority projects and the readiness
                  of the States to provide requisite matching funds. They
                  recommended use of Congressionally approved but yet unfunded
                  programs such as Sec. 309 of CZMA (for cooperative multi-
                  State programs); also they saw the need for an explicit
                  overall Congressional mandate for more effective support of
                  State-Federal cooperative programs for management of shared
                  fisheries resources. Finally, they urged more effective
                  coordination of NOAA and other federal programs relating to
                  fisheries management, with particular emphasis upon the
                  need for mutually supportive interactions among National
                  Marine Fisheries Service, Coastal Zone Management, and
                  Office of Sea Grant programs and staff.

                  Responding for the National Marine Fisheries Service, on
                  ~Jan. 31, 1980t NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Terry
                  Leitzell commended the recommendations of the State Fisheries
                  Directors as useful input to the current review of NMFS
                  State/Federal programs by his staff. He pledged prompt
                  action by NOAA components (NMFS, OSG. CZM) to move toward
                   greater coordination of fisheries-related projects and
                   programs. He indicated full acceptance of the need for
                   regional diversity in national planning, and the intent to
                   follow up promptly with regional exploration of ways to
                   improve State/Federal interactions for fisheries conservation
                   and management.

         2Federal legislation placing significant added burdens upon State
    management of living resources include the Fishery Management and Conservation
    Act (FCMA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA),
    National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and Coastal Zone Management
    Act (CZMA).

                                        - 142 -

    b.   Proposed Congressional/Administrative actions (summary).
         In view of the concerns which generated the recent
        conference of State Fisheries Directors with NMFS/NOAA
        personnel and which are the focus also of the present
         CSO-sponsored workshop, I suggest the following actions:

         1)   Congressional action to establish the intent of Congress
              that Federal support will be provided to assist the
              States to carry out the much increased responsibilities
              for fisheries protection and management which are a
              product of new Federal legislation. These include
              relevant fisheries monitoring programs, data collection
              and analysis, management-related research, and enforcement
              of regulations.

         2)   Congressional extension of existing legislative authority
              (or enactment of new legislation if necessary) to
              encourage development of comprehensive management
              plans for multijurisdictional fisheries not subject to
              Regional Council planning (e.g., fisheries essentially
              restricted to the Territorial' Seas of contiguous
              States); and to support implementation of these plans.

         3)   Congressional insistence upon and support for adequate
              funding under existing laws of Congressionally mandated
              programs designed to provide support for these State-Federal
              cooperative interactions. Programs already approved by
              Congress but never adequately funded due principally to
              resistance from the Administration's Office of Management
              and Budget include:

              a)   Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act
                   (P.L. 88-309 as amended): authorized at $10 million;
                   level-funded at $3.7 million until 1978, at $5 million
                   since 1978.

              b)   Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (P.L. 89-304 as
                   amended): authorized at minimum of $10 million
                   through Depts. of Interior and Commerce; Commerce
                   portion level-funded at $2 million since 1971.

              c)   Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583, as amended):
                   Sec. 309, authorizing cooperative interstate grants,
                   has never been funded despite major needs for multi-
                   State attention to protection and management of shared
                   bays, estuaries, and other coastal areas of vital
                   importance for fish passage, spawning, and nursery-
                   ground uses. Unless Congressional action prevents it,
                   this potentially useful section of the Coastal Zone
                   Act may be deleted due to 0MB opposition to its funding.

                          - 143-

    B.   DEVELOPMENT OF FISHERY RESOURCES PRESENTLY NOT EFFECTIVELY UTILIZED
         BY THE U S. FISHING INDUSTRY

        One of the six purposes stated in the Fishery Conservation and
        Management Act of 1976 was "to encourage the development of fisheries
        which are currently underutilized or not utilized by United States
         fishermen..." Clearly FCMA--the 200-mile bill--took a key enabling
         step toward that objective by endowing the U.S. fishing industry with
         priority access to rich fishery resources which previously had been
         harvested almost exclusively by foreigners. However, priority access
         alone does not assure development of U.S. capacity to take
         advantage of that access. Given the multi-million dollar value of
         these rich renewable resources off our shores, but given also our
         high wages, standard of living, and environmental quality standards,
         can we as a nation establish the favorable economic climate, develop
         requisite technologies, and commit the resources of manpower and
         materiel to fully use these resources for U.S. benefit?

        MAJOR IMPEDIMENTS TO FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT INCLUDE:

         1.   Lack of a clear Congressional mandate for effective governmental
              assistance to fisheries development. Legislation is pending,
              but significant policy differences must be resolved among
              alternatives proposed.

         2.   Legal and economic constraints, many of them rooted in Federal
              laws depress the climate for private investment and/or actively
              constrain the development process. Examples include unduly
              restrictive maritime laws (e.g., Jones Act restrictions against
              use of foreign hulls in the Pacific Island Territories), unrealistic
              point-discharge effluent standards for fish processing plants, and
              failure to recognize the key importance of processing, distribution,
              and marketing in fisheries development, with resultant limitations
              on appropriate financial assistance (e.g., extension of Capital
              Construction Fund opportunities to fisheries shoreside support
              facilities).

         3.   Technological problems of high-risk nature, therefore requiring
              reasonable governmental participation in their resolution (e.g.,
              poor keeping qualities of unprocessed Pacific hake; need for more
              complete recovery of marketable products from large-volume low-
              value fisheries such as hake and pollock; need for new product
              development from these fisheries, etc.).

         RECENT SUPPORTIVE A CTION~S:

         1.   Results of Eastland Fisheries Survey (1975-77) provided Congress
              and the Administration with recommendations concerning the Federal
              role in fisheries development based upon input from thousands
              of individuals and organizations from all three coasts of the United
              States, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific Island Territories. 3A
              major section of the Survey's official Report to the Congress offered

         3Eastlandi Fisheries Survey--a Report to the Congress. 1977, 91 pp.
                                        - 144-

         recommendations for federal participation in development of commercial
         fisheries. A summary of that section is appended to this paper.

         Recommendations of particular interest include:

          *designate "fish for food" as highest national priority;

          *establish an Office of Fishery Policy with strong fishing
            industry representation;

          *improve economic climate for private investment through tax
            incentives, long-term loans, etc., which include shore-side
            support facilities;

          *consolidate and where necessary revise tax and insurance provisions
            to encourage fisheries development;

          *expand domestic and foreign markets by improving techniques for
            storage, transport, and retail sales of fisheries products;

          *revise fish processing effluent standards to take into account
            their biodegradable character.

    2.   Over-ride of 0MB deferral of Saltonstall-Kennedy funding for
         fisheries development by action of the Senate (S.R. 50, passed
         March 13, 1979). This action clearly established the intent of
         Congress that S-K funds be used to stimulate fisheries development
         programs.

    3.   Formation of fisheries development foundations through initiatives
         by the fishing industry, with assistance from and support of the
         Federal government. Fishery development foundations now are
         operational in the Pacific Basin (Pacific Tuna Development Foundation),
         South Atlantic-Gulf Coast, West Coast, and Alaska as vehicles for
         joint private sector-governmental support for coherent regional
         fishery development programs.

    4. A new Administrative policy for fisheries development was announced
         by the President at a NOAA/Department of Commerce National Conference
         on Fisheries Development in Springfield, Va., May 23-24, 1979.
         This new policy constitutes a major direction change from the
         previous Administration position which denied any significant role
         for the Federal government in fisheries development.

         The Presidents' new national policy established six principles
         which can be summarized as follows:

            Reaffirmation of the goals of FCMA to include conservation and
            management of fishery resources to assure continuing optimum yield
            and provide a major source of employment and economic benefits to
            American coastal communities.

                                   - 145 -

          *Development of an active and innovative partnership among the fishing
            industry, State and local governments, and the Federal government,
           which does not rely on massive infusion of federal funds, but rather
            is based on a mutual desire to limit federal intervention, protect
            our environment, perpetuate our resources, expand our harvesting~and
           development potential, and meet our responsibilities to produce
            sufficient food.

          *Respond to the need for federal financial assistance through
            legislation to support development of new fisheries.

          *Coordinate federal governmental services to assure improved
            utilization of existing federal programs for fishing industry
            assistance and economic development.

          *Reduce the burden of unnecessary federal regulation by analyzing
            economic impacts on the fishing industry and insuring that both
            impacts and benefits are considered before regulations are adopted
            or modified.

            Improve access for U.S. fish products to foreign markets.

    SUGGESTED SUPPORTIVE ACTONS

    1.   Congressional action to establish and fund a National Fisheries
         Development Program with emphasis upon, but not restricted to,
         development of fisheries resources not presently effectively
         utilized by the U.S. fishing industry (per draft legislation
         presently under consideration in both Houses of Congress).

    2.   Congressional action to establish support for:
         a.   continuation of Saltonstall-Kennedy funding for private
              sector and governmental initiatives in fisheries development
              (and thereby resist Administration attempts to replace
              S-K funding with in-house-controlled funding);

         b.   strong support for development of coherent regional plans
              for fisheries development, and therefore for preferential
              funding of projects consistent with those regional plans;
              also insistence that these programs be developed with
              significant guidance and input from the private sector;
              (note that the regional fisheries development foundations
              were created to facilitate this private sector role.)

         C.   immediate extension of Capital Construction Fund opportunities
              to shoreside processing and other fisheries support services
              and facilities;

         d.   revision of unnecessary legislative constraints on fisheries
              development (e.g., strict application to the Pacific Islands
              of Jones Act and FCMA limitations on vessel hull origins).

                                  - i46 -

           C. RESOLVE CONFLICTS AMONG EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS

             Through a NOAA Organic Act or other appropriate mechanisms, inconsistencies
             or unnecessary conflicts in existing federal laws should be resolved.
             Areas of significant conflict which presently inhibit effective
             protection, management and development of marine living resources
             include:

               *unrealistic fish processing effluent standards established
                under NEPA;

               *unnecessarily cumbersome administrative practices required
                of the Regional Fishery Management Councils to conform with
                requirements of NEPA and the Federal Advisory Committee Act;

               *serious inconsistencies between the ecological management
                principles of FCMA and the exempt status accorded selected
                components of the ecosystem by the Marine Mammal Protection
                Act.

             Since these areas of inconsistency and conflict have been reviewed
             extensively elsewhere, they will be noted only briefly in the present
             paper.

             1.   Seafood processing effluent standards
                  Seafood processing wastes are fully biodegradable, and in proper
                  dilution may actually constitute enrichment to nutrient-deficient
                  waters. Yet EPA guidelines, based on the point-discharge approach
                  to effluent control, take no account of this ecological compatibility
                  of seafood processing wastes, given intellegent control of
                  dilution factors.

                  In order to prevent enormous added costs for unnecessary removal
                  of potentially useful nutrients from seafood processing wastes,
                  a change in EPA policy and practice must be brought about.
                  EPA guidelines should take into account the biodegradable nature
                  of seafood wastes, and therefore establish standards based upon
                  the carrying capacity of the receiving waters.

    *             ~~~~This rationale was effectively presented in 1973 by the National
                  Water Commission in its final report to the President and the
                  Congress: "New Directions in U.S. Water Policy--Summary,
                  Conclusions, and Recommendations." The following excerpts are
    *             ~~~~pertinent:

                       Water quality is only one-of many goals for a whole society.
                       Public expenditures for water pollution abatement must
                       compete for limited tax moneys with social demands for
                       housing, education, medical care, slum clearance, full
                       employment, and price stability...

                       The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
                       while making landmark improvements in the Nation's attack
                       on water pollution, have made a fundamental error in
                       establishing as a national goal the elimination of all

                                           - 147-

             pollutant discharges into national bodies of water by 1985.
             This "zero-discharge" policy has strong emotional appeal,
             but in the Commission's judgment is an impractical and
             unattainable goal. Striving to achieve it will involve
             exorbitant costs, confusion in planning, misallocation of
             resources, and will risk public disillusionment with the
             entire national effort to protect the environment.

              ... .These costs of achieving the no-discharge goal must be
             viewed in terms of the sacrifices society will be compelled
             to make in other social demands and in terms of the large
             amounts of scarce energy and natural resources which will
             be consumed...

              *... In the Commission's view a water quality control program
             should endeavor to ascertain the economically desirable
             and the socially preferred uses of specific water bodies
             and set quality standards in relation to the preferred
              uses. To adopt a "zero-discharge" policy for the return
             of all waters to their natural state precludes the use of
             waters for waste disposal purposes in circumstances where
              that use is environmentally and economically sound, socially
             acceptable, and utterly rational.

              ... .Discharge limitations should be based on local receiving
             water standards, taking into account the self-purifying
              capacit& of natural water bodies. Such capacity should be
              allocated, with appropriate safety factors, to existing
             discharges, conservation and recreation reserves, and a
              reserve for future discharges in accordance with applicable
              land use and comprehensive water quality plans.

    2.   Removal of needless constraints on Regional Council operations.
        Congressional action may be required to remove unnecessary and
        expensive bureaucratic constraints upon efficient operation of
         the Regional Fishery Management Councils. From more than three
        years of service on two Regional Councils, I believe that valuable
         time and excessive public funds are being wasted by enforced
        compliance of FCMA operations with other Federal laws. Quite
         possibly the only action required is a statement of Congressional
         intent to avoid these needless bureaucratic impediments. The
         following examples should be considered.

         a. Requirements for an Environmental Impact Statement to
             -satisfy NEPA standards to accompany Fishery Management Plans.
             The public review and comment requirements written into the
             Fishery Conservation and Management Act are at least as
             exacting as those under NEPA. There appears to be no defensible
             need for a duplicative parallel NEPA review process, which
             always costs staff time and money, and usually delays the
             public review process.

                                 - 148 -

                  b.   Enforced compliance of all Councial operations with Federal
                       Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements. For obvious
                       practical reasons, we need to consider some amelioration
                       of the rigorous constraints imposed by FACA on Council
                       meeting arrangements and schedules. Advertisement of every
                       meeting of Councils, Advisory Panels, and Scientific and
                       Statistical Committees in the Federal Register imposes a
                       45-day setback time on all planning. In most cases, this
                       serves no useful purpose since most concerned individuals
                       and organizations never see the Federal Register. In the
                       interests of effective public information as well as efficient
                       Council operations, some reasonable alternatives involving
                       local and regional advertising should be considered as a
                       reasonable alternative.

             3.   Rationalization of Marine Mammal Protection Act requirements
                  with the ecosystem management principles of FCMA. Most fisheries
                  managers and users of fishery resources are united in the conviction
                  that marine mammals should be subject to the same conservation and
                  management principles which apply to other elements of the marine
                  ecosystem. Instead, under the provisions of the Marine Mammal
                  Protection Act of 1972, all marine mammals, regardless of their
                  population size or impacts upon the ecosystem, are blanketed under
                  the total protection of a moratorium on taking or even harassment.
                  While a permit system allows for exceptions in special cases, it
                  is cumbersome and costly to administer, and not a realistic
                  answer to the problem.

                  Past resolutions of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission have
                  addressed this problem repeatedly, emphasizing the severe economic
                  impact of burgeoning marine mammal populations upon fisheries
                  through destruction of gear and unchecked predation on desirable
                  fish species, and urging that the Marine Mammal Protection Act
                  be brought into conformance with the Endangered Species Act
                  and the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.

                  PMFC's 1975 resolution stres sed the unrealistic restrictions
                  placed upon responsible management of the nation's living marine
                  resources by certain of the definitions set forward in the Marine
                  Mammal Protection Act, and emphasized the cumbersome procedures
    *             ~~~~whereby States are permitted to participate in management of
                  marine mammals. The resolution urged that such terms as
                  "depletion", "moratorium", and "take" be redefined "so that State
    *             ~~~~and Federal agencies can consider all animals in the marine
                  ecosystem when managing the ocean's fisheries resources"; also
                  that the Marine Mammal Protection Act be amended so that the
                  goal of reducing mammal mortality incidental to commercial fishing
                  be defined in more practical and realistic terms. PMFC's 1976
                  resolution reaffirmed its recommendations of the previous year
                  concerning amendment of the Act to redefine terms and definitions
                  in a manner that would permit an ecosystem approach to marine

                                             - 149 -

    mammal management. The resolution further urged that the Act
    be revised to encourage the States and other competent research
    entities to conduct biologic, ecologic,-and economic studies to
    evaluate the impacts of the Act upon the ecosystems affected,
    and upon the conservation and utilization of the total resources
    of those ecosystems. A 1977 resolution reiterated these earlier
    positions and urged that the Congress "amend the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act to bring the objectives of that Act within the
    framework of the concept of conservation, development, and
    utilization of fishery resources, and facilitate return to the
    States of marine mammal management within the limits of State
    jurisdiction."

    In support of those carefully considered and unanimously
    supported resolutions, I urge that in the very near future the
    Congress review the areas of extensive inconsistency, overlap,
    and confusion brought about in our attempt to implement
    simultaneously the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the
    Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act of 1976. I believe the-M~arine Mammal Protection
    Act of 1972 either should be superceded entirely by the Endangered
    Species Act, or should be fundamentally restructured to parallel
    the Endangered Species Act in concept and be consistent with it
    and with the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.

    My reasons for this recommendation reflect both ecological and
    practical considerations. The Endangered Species Act and the
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act are rational and
    cost-effective in three critical areas wherein the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act is seriously flawed.

    First, the Endangered Species Act applies special protective
    measures only to those species and stocks which, on the basis
    of best available scientific information, are designated
    either endangered or threatened. Therefore expensive protective
    measures are undertaken only whe-re there is consensus concerning
    need. By contrast, the Marine Mammal Protection Act places all
    marine mammals under moratorium--which means no taking"--a
    term defined to include even harassment! Exceptions from
    this blanket total-protection mandate may be allowed only on
    the basis of cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive processing
    of permit applications.

    Second, the FCMA provides for management of marine resources in
    accordance with the ecosystem concept, and establishes important
    new national Standards which truly rationalize the management
    process. Three of those Standards are truly innovative, calling
    for optimum yield (rather than maximum yield), management of
    each stock as a unit throughout its range, and promotion of
    economic efficiency. For any fishery significantly impinged
    by marine mammal predation or competition, these Standards
    inevitably will be infringed by the limitations of the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act. One cannot truly optimize yield if a
    dominant predator within the ecosystem is beyond management

                             - 150 -

             control (e.g. by blanket protection under the marine mammal
             moratorium). If the only relief from this total restriction is
             via the complex permit system required under the Marine Mammal
             Protection Act, these expensive processes place a heavy cost
             overburden on the entire process.

             Third, both the Endangered Species Act and the FCMA provide for
             effective, easily administered interactions between Federal and
             State management agencies in the cooperative pursuit of shared
             objectives. By contrast, the Marine Mammal Act preempted
             State jurisdictions entirely, and provided for return of controls
             to the States only via extremely cumbersome and costly processes.

             The need for rationalization of this legislation is particularly
             acute for protection of fisheries resources along the Pacific
             coast where the cost of marine mammal depredations increases
             yearly. In the Pacific Northwest, sea lions and harbor seals
             are prime predators on valuable salmon and groundfish stocks.
             These species have never been either "threatened" or "endangered"
              in population strength, yet the Marine Mammal Protection Act
              has accorded them the kind of total protection that would be
              provided only for truly endangered species under the Endangered
             Species Act. We believe the time is right for a careful
              review of this entire complex of conflicting legislation,
              and revision where necessary to make it rational and operational
              in accordance with the concept of total ecosystem management.

    This concludes discussion and recommendations for the present paper.

                                        -151 -

                           STATEMENT OF GUSTAVE FRITSCHIE

                           DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

                          THE NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE

    The development of a National Ocean Policy for the government with particular
    emphasis on resource development and management has long been of interest to the
    National Fisheries Institute. The Institute is a broad based national trade
    association representing more than 900 member companies and affiliated trade
    associations which harvest, process and distribute fish, seafood and marine products.
    As harvesters and processors of one of the major ocean resources, the Institute's
    membership recognizes that it will be impacted by the evolution in this nation's
    approach to ocean policy and the organizational structure which will be designated
    to implement that policy.

    In recent years the ocean has been increasingly recognized as a source of important
    renewable and non-renewable resources, including fisheries oil and gas manganese
    nodules and as an environment utilized for recreation, commercial transportation,
    military activities and the dumping of waste. In addition, man's activities
    within the land segment of the coastal zone have been determined to have a significant
    impact on all resources located within the coastal zone.

    The growing complexity of ocean uses and the interrelatiorishio. between ocean activi-
    ties are factors somewhat unique to the marine environment. The diversity G.-f ocean
    uses, the immensity of ocean resources and the legal status of such resources places
    a demand on the government to resolve conflicts between potential uses and to ensure
    that the development of the ocean's wealth is done in a manner which protects the
    marine and coastal environmenits. This already complex scenario is further compli-
    cated by the interest which other nations have in resources located in the oceans,
    particularly within ocean areas over which the United States exercises varying
    degrees of control.

    An early government response to fishery conflicts was President Truman's proclamation
    in 1945 regarding the establishment of conservation zones for the purpose of regu-
    lating fishing activities. This proclamation also asserted inclusive U. S. juris--
    diction over the subsoil and seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf.

    Another response was the report of the Stratton Commission, published in 1969 con-
    cerning problems dealing with oceans management. The major recommendation of the
    Stratton Commission - that an independent oceans agency be established - resulted
    in the establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pursuant
                                      - 152-

    to Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970. Congressional actions which have added to
    this oceans management quilt include the National Environmental Policy Act of
    1969, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act,
    the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Fishery Conservation &
    Management Act of 1976, Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in
    1972, in 1977, the Outer Continental Lands Act Amendment to 1978, and finally the
    National Ocean Pollution Research and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978.

    While each administrative or legislative action has significant merit, no single
    proposal enunciates a comprehensive national policy for the ocean. More importantly,
    the legislation is not administered in integrated coordinated fashion which would
    permit the defacto formulation of an ocean policy.

    The absence of an integrated ocean policy with a strong focal point within the federal
    government is not a new revelation. Staff papers prepared by the Reorganization
    Project within the Office of Management and Budget recognized this fact. The Food
    and Nutrition Study prepared by the Reorganization Project identified as a major
    problem in the area of aquatic food resources, the lack of an overall United States
    policy to guide the development of fisheries and aquaculture. That study identified
    more than 21 agencies and 14 congressional committees which are involved in the ocean
    fisheries and aquaculture areas and stated, "fisheries tend to take a backseat" in
    overall oceans -policy planning. The National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmos-
    phere in a report to the President in November of 1978 found that the United States
    has not yet succeeded in developing a full economic potential of the oceans and con-
    cluded that the heart of all is "the fragmentation of policy making and the scattering
    of ocean activities through the my-ilad of agencies, departments and fiefdoms."

    Members of Congress, including Senator Ernest Hollings, Chairman Jack Murphy, and
    Chairman John Breaux, have analyzed the current situation and all have reached
    conclusions similar to that stated by Senator Hollings in 1976, "with so much at
    stake, the United States should have long since have developed and implemented a
    comprehensive ocean policy."

    The failure of current U. S. policy to manage ocean and coastal resources in a
    manner which balances the development of ocean and coastal resources with the pro-
    tection of such resources has directly impacted the seafood industry. Significant
    over-fishing even under the auspices of international regimes, the elimination of
    wetlands areas through dredge and fill activities, the discharge of toxic materials
    such as mercury, pesticides, and other contaminants into the marine environment,

                                      - 153 -

    the establishment by the Congress of divergent resource management goals for
    various components of the marine ecosystem and the threats posed by efforts to
    meet the nation's energy goals both through energy transportation and OCS oil and
    gas exploration are illustrative of existing conflicts. The role of fisheries within
    the federal agencies charged with ocean responsibilities has often been less than
    visible and even within NOAA there appears at times to be more of an emphasis on
    other components of that agency's program. In short, the economic development of
    this nation's fishery resources by American industry has not in the past been a
    major government policy objective.

    Given the premise that there is the lack of a coordinated ocean policy and that
    the seafood industry is impacted by this deficiency, what role will a NOAA Organic
    Act play in providing a solution? The enactment of organic legislation will pro-
    vide a statutory mandate for the agency designated to implement the nation's ocean
    management policy. The legislation should serve to minimize contradictory mandates
    articulated by other federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Treasury,
    Agriculture, and others and provide a needed coordination mechanism.

    An understanding by other entities in the government that NOAA is to play a lead role
    in the management and development of ocean fishery resources under the Fishery Con-
    servation and Management Act and related statutes will benefit the industry. Height-
    ened emphasis on the development of our fishery resources and the achievement of
    the full economic potential of these resources will also benefit the industry.
    Deserved or not, there is a feeling within the seafood industry that much of the
    current focus on fishery issues is devoted to management with resulting budgetary
    and personnel reductions in development efforts.

    Finally, the designation of NOAA as the lead agency for ocean's-policy should help
    ensure that the person appointed will have an oceans orientation and will recognize
    the peculiar characteristics of ocean uses and the interrelationships between such
    uses. A more independent status for NOAA should assist the agency in meeting the
    various mandates prescribed by the Congress. It goes without saying that this
    argument could be more effectively made if NOAA was to have the status of an inde-
    pendent ocean agency or a new department within the executive branch.

    I believe the adoption of an organic act will resolve many administrative diffi-
    culties which have beset NOAA, as a result of the cumulative impact of added auth-
    ority over the past decade and will assist in ensuring that oceans interests,
    including fishing, are considered more effectively within the government system.

                                       - 154 -

          I do not believe the legislation will resolve difficulties associated with
          oceans management.

         As we move into the 1980s there is continuing debate with regard to the most
          productive use of the oceans. Offshore oil and gas development, marine mammal
          and endangered species management, fisheries management and development, ocean
          mining, ocean research, are just a few of the activities which take place in that
          environment. When viewed from the perspective of the seafood industry, the diversity
          of the uses within the marine environment necessitates movement toward a more struc-
          tured management of the ocean and coastal areas.

          While there has been much legislation, rule making and litigation involving the
          management of onshore lands under federal control, there has been relatively little
          activity with regard to ocean areas and the coastal zone. Landward areas under
          federal control are regulated under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, the National
          Forest Management Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the
          Wilderness Act and specific statutes regarding the management of birds and other
          wildlife. While an examination of a compilation of federal laws relating to this
          nation's fish and wildlife resources environmental quality and oceanography identi-
          fied many statutes and programs affecting the environment, fish resources, ocean-
          ography, water resources and water pollution, there is no single statute which
          sets forth a comprehensive multiple-use management regime for ocean and coastal
          area resources.

          Much of the legislation enacted by the Congress, such as the Fishery Conservation
          and Management Act is predicated o-n a dominant use management principle. Of con-
          cern to the industry are other statutes based on the same management scheme which
          may either impact fisheries or even preclude fishery activities within the areas
          regulated under other statutes. Fortunately for the industry the Congress has
          recognized the significant value of fishery resources. Other statutes contain
          clear language emphasizing the importance of such resources and in many instances
    *    ~mandating consideration of the impact on fishery resources of other ocean uses.

          As stated above, the organic act does not address the complicated issues involved
          in the development of any resource management plan. Much of the conflict that
          exists has been caused by differing mandates enacted by the Congress and it will
          be necessary -at some point to address the issue. At this time the Institute has
          no position on the type of legislation necessary, but stands willing to participate
          in the debate on this issue.

                                              - 155 -

    The subject of most interest to the seafood industry at this time is fisheries
    development. There is much legislative activity related to that topic which is
    completely separate from consideration of organic legislation. In testimony
    before both the House and Senate Committees, NFI has strongly indicated that the
    adoption of legislation to expand and restate the Saltonstall-Kennedy fund and to
    extend certain financial programs to the shoreside segments of the fishing industry
    is imperative if this nation is to develop the resources within the 200 mile zone.
    The industry has been concerned that emphasis within the National Marine Fisheries
    Service on its fisheries management responsibility under the FCMA has diverted
    money and staff from fisheries development activity both at the national office
    and in the regional offices. Also impacted by this emphasis on fisheries manage-
    ment has been the state/federal program. The legislation introduced by Chairman
    Breaux provides for an Assistant Administrator for fisheries development and if
    supported with appropriate funding and staff, this proposal may assist in upgrading
    the visibility of the government's fishery development functions. The legislation
    does leave unclear the future role of the National Marine Fisheries Service and
    how the components of that Service would be split between the Assistant Administrators
    for Management and Developmenrt.

    An important component of fisheries development will be efforts by the government
    to assist in expanding overseas markets by taking steps to'eliminate overseas
    tariff and non-tariff trade barriers and to encourage those nations which wish to
    have access to resources within the Fishery Conservation Zone to import more
    fishery products from the United States. This effort has been limited by a long-
    standing diminished role for fisheries in the arena of the United States, Foreign
    and International Trade Policy. Provisions of the Organic Act which upgrade NOAA's
    involvement in international meetings and negotiations should assist the agency
    in carrying out this segment of a fisheries development policy.

    A final issue which this panel has asked to address is the subject, "Is the FCMA
    working?" The FCMA can be viewed as the most comprehensive and in some respects
    complicated management statute enacted by the Congress. While for many parts of
    the seafood industry the basic rationale for the bill was to eliminate foreign
    fishing within the zone, the Act goes further than that and provides for compre-
    hensive management plans to be drawn lip) by the regional fishery management councils.

                                         -156 -

           Such plans must be consistent with national standards set forth in the Act and
          with other applicable law.

           In testimony last year before Chairman Breaux's Fishery Subcommittee, the Institute
           took the position that, in general, the Act is working. Management plans are being
           developed by each of the councils, foreign fishing has been significantly reduced,
           industry members are participating in the development of plans both as members of
           the councils and as members of advisory committees and there is in place a mechanism
           to prevent over fishing and to permit the rebuilding fish stocks.

    *     ~That is not to say there have not been problems.  The industry questions the status
           of the councils, the role of the Secretary and the Federal government in managing
           the fisheries, time spans associated with the FMP process caused by NEPA and rule-
           making requirements, the relationship between the fishery management and -fisheries
           development, the definition of OY and debates the Act's potential to completely
           eliminate foreign fishing in all or most of the U. S. fisheries. On balance, the
           Act has been effective and while there are problems, the government, industry and
           other interested parties are working toward-solutions.

           In summary, the adoption of a NOAA Organic Act will provide a needed statutory
           basis for NOAA as it continues to administer its many responsibilities granted
           by the Congress. Such legislation may also preclude the likelihood that the
           executive branch may seek to transfer the agency to another department of the
           government which for many reasons may not be as equipped to implement a major
           oceans program. Conversely, the legislation is not the proper vehicle to address
           the complex issue of comprehensive~oceans management, an expanding government role
           for fisheries development, except in a limited sense, or to address problems
           associated with implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
           It is important that the United States seafood industry recognize that we do not
           utilize ocean resources in a vacuum but must be prepared to engage in significant
           debate within and outside the government regarding the role of the ocean as a
           significant asset to the nation and the priority placed on fishery resource manage-
           ment and development by the federal and state governments.

                                               -157 -

                             COMMENTS ON STEWARDSHI1P

                              Dr. Raymond E. Johnson
                           National Wildlife Federation
                                 Washington, D.C.

     I wish to point out a deficiency in the draft legislation - a lack of

     emphasis that bears on the welfare of all living resources and the

     commercial and recreational fisheries alike.

     The current drafts of the organic act were written by people interested

     in administration, research, management, development, and harvest of the

     fishery resources. Also by those interested in the physical, chemical, and

     to some extent the biological aspects of the oceans and atmosphere. Data

     collection, monitoring, assessments, coordination, and enforcement of

     regulations are mentioned often, as are services to industry and the

     public. This is not unusual or objectionable, considering the many legis-

     lative mandates received by NOAA and its predecessors in their long history.

     However, within NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service works almost

     exclusively with living natural resources of many kinds, usually fishes

     and mammals of many species. The Service must be aware not only of the

     complicated relationships among these resources (predator-prey connections

     among fishes, or between fishes and mammals, for example), but also their

     vulnerability to harvest by man. It must also recognize the environmen-

     tal, needs for each species, and accept the responsibility for seeing

     that these needs are met so that the species survive and prosper.

    In the draft, little recognition is given to the fact that if the biolog-

    ical features of the oceans and estuaries are not protected and enhanced,

    there will be fewer living resources to develop, harvest, and manage. The

    fundamental provision lacking in the legislative drafts is an acknowledge-

    ment of existing authorities and responsibilities within NOAA for pro-

    tection against environmental degradation or complete loss of habitat,
                                      - 158 -

    especially in the face of competing economic developments. Whole resource

    bases can be lost when spawning and nursery areas are drained, channeled,

    bulkheaded, or polluted, or when sources of essential nutrients are walled

    off from inshore areas where conversion into biomass takes place.

    To pursue the obvious a little further, many of the uses made by man of

    oceans and estuaries are based upon undiminished biological production.

    Growth of fish and shellfish for human food, yields of animal feeds in

    great quantity, generation of oxygen, and degradation of wastes are import-

    ant biological functions. The biological part of the ocean is the fragile

    part. The living components are renewable and harvestable only if the

    right conditions are maintained.

    Some of these conditions are not under the control of N0AA even though they

    affect living resources. Other agencies control the dumping and dredge-

    ing and filling, or the mining and pumping, or the chemical applications

    on agricultural lands that eventually drain into streams and shallow shores.

    To give NOAA some voice in the control of environmental factors that

    govern its primary resources, inspection and permit systems or strong

    surveillance procedures should be retained when existing laws are blanketed

    into an organic umbrella.

    The concept that is almost lacking in H.R. 5347 and is barely acknowledged

    in current NOAA drafts is an emphasis on stewardship - on caring for the

    marine and estuarine environment. This concept needs visibility in the

    findings, purposes, policies, and titles of the organic legislation, and

    an organizational home. We are told: "It's in there", but it should

    be in strong words, not by inference. It is a responsibility not only

    to industry and to the public but also to the resources themselves, for

    today as well as tomorrow.

                                    - 159 -

                NOAA Organic Act Workshop
                    Washington, D. C.
                      14 March 1980

           Marine Mammals and Endanqered Species

                    Dr. G. Carleton Ray
                    Dept. of Envir. Sci.
                    University of Virginia
                    Charlottesville, VA 22903

           I will confine my remarks to marine mammals.
    They are excellent examples of a wide variety of sub-
    jects before us, especially the need for conservation
    and management of coastal and marine species and habitats
    in the face of our ignorance about their ecosystems,
    and ,how such management must be guided through an array
    of often conflicting agency policies, mandates, and goals.

           Prior to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
    marine mammals were managed by various state, federal,
    and international means. Some species were not consid-
    ered at all. Basic research was most varied in the Office
    of Naval Research, with a token in the National Science
    Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, rather
    than -in government agencies responsible for management.
    Marine mammal research was, in fact,in a crack between
    oceanography, which concerned itself with post-planktonic
    matters hardly at all, and fisheries which in many cases
    considered marine mammals to be the "enemy". After all,
    seals and whales eat fish don't they, and they also get
    tangled in nets.

           Then, about 1970, the lid blew off the pots which
    had been steaming for a number of years regarding exploit-
    ation of whales and seals and endangered species such as
    manatees. And with very good reason. The Marine Mammal
    Protection Act tried to out some rationale into the very
    diverse opinions involved,. It set up a Marine Mammal
    Commission to oversee agencies involved in marine mammal
    affairs on behalf of the President, the Congress, and
    the People. Marine mammals, further, were to be managed
    and/or conserved within policies of "optimum sustainable
    population" and "health of ecosystems". The YMNPA was,
    in may ways, milestone legislation. The MMC was a new kind
    of Commission. OSP and ecosystem policies were correct,
    if theoretical and difficult. Maximum sustainable yield
    was, rightly, put to sleep for all sorts of good reasons,
    not the least being the unsound biological and ecological
    basis on which its determinism rests -- at least in the
    cases of marine mammals and other large oceanic predators.

                      - 160 -

           And so we came upon challenging times, not made
    easier by the fact that marine mammals -- and endangered
    species too -- were divided into two agencies, Interior's
    Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA's National Marine
    Fisheries Service. This admittedly artificial division
    could, I think, have been overriden should both agencies
    have mutually come to the aid of marine mammals and to
    collaborate in their behalf. Needless to say, it did not
    always work out that way. Nor did the states, excluded
    from jurisdiction by the YMPA, always cooperate as fully
    as they might. Thus, the agencies did not perform adequate-
    l.y at first, in either research or management. They were
    short of manpower and attitudes had to change to meet
    changing demands. Certainly, the 0MB did not give them
    sufficient funds. In the gap, the Marine Mammal Commission
    was looked upon as a filler, but 0MB and the Congress
    gave it woefully little help, even given great public
    concern,

           There are now signs of considerable improvement.
    The FWS, for example, has a functioning manatee program,
    though its efforts on behalf of sea otters and walruses
    are very inadequate. And, NMFS is evidently serious in
    its intent towards habitat protection and resolution of
    fishery-marine mammal conflicts. However, neither agency
    has reached the point of considering marine mammals --
    or fish either for that matter -- as functional components
    of their ecosystems. That is, the ecosystem itself must
    emerge as the objective for management, not its bits and
    pieces. This is not merely theoretical. It is deadly ser-
    ious.

           Consider that even in this Space Age we are still
    hunter-gatherers in the ocean. We largely depend on the
    natural productivity of ecosystems for economic and sub-
    sistence yields from the sea., We have not yet entered
    the marine equivalent of the Agricultural Revolution of
    several millenia B.C., thouqh I made an ahalogy to a
    "miarine revolution" a decade ago to express man's massive
    entry into the sea in his bodily and technological forms.
    This places us at nature's mercy and we dare not make the
    ultimate ecological experiment of toying with marine
    development in ignorance, as some seem intent on doing.
    In this respect, it is hard h~ot to recall recent events
    wherein N0AA took the part of conservation and Interior
    of development in the case of leasing on George's Bank.

           I make this point to highlight two matters. First,
    it is probably the case that marine mammals and large fishes
    are indicators of oceanic ecosystem state. Theory tells
    us that predators have great influence in maintainence of
    productivity on a sustainable and predictable basis. Thus,
    what is the nature of fishery-marine mammal conflict?
    Is it conflict at all? Do we yet know enough to do eco-
    system regulation for ourselves? Second, where are those
    "critical", "vital", or "essential" habitats on which
    ma~rine mammals and others depend? How do they fu~nction?
                        -161 -

    Can we afford not to know? I can only say that the agencies'
    approach to "critical habitat" continues to be primitive
    in both ecological and management terms.

           So we come to the questilon of how such emphases
    can be accomplished. First and foremost, such important
    resources as marine mammals cannot be separated from their
    habitats. Therefore, marine mammals need to be placed with
    an agency having marine, oceanographic, even climatic
    expertise. Given such criteria, the choice would clearly
    be NOAA and the need for an "organic" approach mandatory.
    However, NOAA's NNMFS has not yet suceeded in integrating
    marine mammal and oceanic research. Marine mammal affairs,
    both federally and with the states, seem largely to be
    concerned with numbers-- how many there are -- despite
    the fact that we can count most marine mammals only within
    orders of magnitude; for a very few, we might succeed
    coming within 50% or a bit better. This is surely "manage-
    ment within uncertainty" to restate an often stated phrase.

           This leads me to a conclusion. We have ignored the
    basic biology of marine mammals long enough. This is also
    true of their colleagues, the large commercial fishes. We
    know dangerously little about home range, basic habitat
    requirements, physiology, behavior, etc. We have been try-
    ing to count the almost uncountable and we use the numbers
    yardstick to determine endangerment too. We still use
    uncertain MSY models to predict yields in disregard of
    the basics of ecosystem function. Yet, at the same time,
    we demand more from a stressed ocean which can respond only
    in ways natural to itself, but unknown to us,

           The need for an "organic" agency is clear. But I
    am not certain how new legislation and new organization
    can change old ways. Thus, how can truly integrated coastal
    and ocean programs be generated? It seems to me that Congress
    must find a way to ensure interagency cooperation even more
    that it needs further to define neat packages which concern
    themselves with oceans, atmosphere, land, or space. This
    speaks clearly to me for enlargement of the "planning"
    function within NOAA, similar to CCZM's ORCA program, but
    .greatly expanded.

           A case in point is the recognition that conserva-
    tion and development are really the same things, except
    to those of limited vision. Thus, marine sanctuaries are
    essential. The NOAA organic act as so far drafted, leaves
    sanctuaries out, to the best of my knowledge. This is a
    great mistake; it is not cause to toss the baby out with
    the bathw~iter just because the baby is a bit undefined.
    A misnomer is actually involved. The real world shows
    us that very large areas indeed are "critical" for many
    commercial species, and the ecological processes which
    support them. Within these large areas, many of man's uses
    are compatible. However, some areas are of special concern

                         - 162 -

    --"tcores" as it were, within larger Itbuffersi. Neither
    can exist in present form without the other. Together,
    they comprise what one might term "multiple use manage-
    ment areas". We are well aware of the need for such
    large      management areas by land; I wish someone would
    tell me why not for the sea? Our task is to recognize
    the fact that oceanic productivity will not endure unless
    we greatly increase our efforts to select, establish, and
    manage such core/buffer systems, i.e. to protect them.
    At 'present, the marine sanctuaries program appears to
    be the only legislative mandate for the purpose.

           Please note that while I am firmly a proponent
    of an "organic" approach to marine resources, as exempli-~
    fied by marine mammals, I am more concerned with processes
    of protection and enhancement -- one could say "development".
    No new structures or organizations can alter the need for
    cross-agency fertilization, rather than the sterilization
    which surfaces all too commonly. Whatever act is passed,
    this issue of cooperation must be forced on the often
    reluctant bureaucracy. Also note that while I call atten-
    tion to our frail ignorance, this does not mean that we
    know and can do nothing. We do know enough to take intell-
    igent actions of many kinds which are not being-~pursued.
    This is not a matter of legislation, but of desire and
    innovation.

                      -163-

                "Managing the Coastal Zone in the 1980:
                     Will a NOAA Organic Act Help?"

                           David N. Kinsey
            Acting Director, Division of Coastal Resources
           New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

         OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC POLICY ISSUES OF THE 1980'S:
                   THE ROLE OF THE NOAA ORGANIC ACT

         Workshop Sponsored by the Coastal States Organization
                           Washington, D.C.

                         March 13 and 14, 1980

        Managing the coastal zone, in the broadest possible sense,
    provides a focus for this panel's discussion at workshop on the role
    of the NOAA Organic Act.   Taken broadly, coastal zone management
    includes: the Coastal Zone Management Act and all its elements and
    subprograms, the Marine Sanctuaries Program under the Marine Protec-
    tion, Research, and Sanctuary Act of 1972, the Federal Coastal
    Programs Review ordered by President Carter in his second Environ-
    mental Message, and the Barrier Island initiative directed by
    President Carter in his first Environmental Message. The full gamut
    of coastal issues affected by these important laws, the programs,
    and study documents form the agenda for this discussion.   The
    closely related but secondary issue is whether a NOAA Organic Act
    will help either articulate national policy facilitate coastal
    resource management or and/or by itself help management of these
    resources.

        The concept of coastal zone management is like Prohibition. It
    is "a noble experiment", but unlike Prohibition, this program is
    alive and well. It is an experiment because for the first time the
    nation has undertaken, for several years now, a program of compre-
    hensive management of land and water resources in a limited but
    complex and diverse region.  The diversity of views on this panel
    mirror the diversity and complexity of the coastal zone.   The
    hallmark of this experiment is the central role of states in the
    enterprise.   It is through the states, and with local governments
    through the activities of the states, that this experiment in
    cooperation and involvement is succeeding.

        Now is indeed the proper time to consider this primary issue
    of how best to the manage the coastal zone. Due to the demonstrated
    record of the coastal states organization in facilitating national
    consensus in this area, now is also the proper time for the Coastal
    States Organization to organize this conference to frame this
    discussion.

                               - 164 -

        First, the reorganization of the Federal Coastal Zone Management
    is under consideration this year. Regional oversight hearings have
    been completed  by the House Subcommittee on Oceanography.   An
    Administration bill with amendments to the Federal Coastal Zone
    Managment Act is expected to be introduced shortly.  The discussion
    draft gives appropriate credit to the final report of the Coastal
    States Organization's workshop on this program held last January in
    Fredericksburg, Virginia.

        Second, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
    1972 is also under consideration for reauthorization in this
    session.

        Third, the Barrier Island Draft Environmental Statement, posing
    three broad sets of alternative federal policies for protecting East
    Coast and Gulf Coast Barrier Island, is now out for public review
    and debater after a painfully long and slow gestation period.

         Fourth, NOAA/OCZM is nearing completion of the Federal Coastal
    Programs Review mandated by President Carter's second Environmental
    Message in August 1979.

         Fifth, Congressman Breaux has already introduced legislation
    entitled the "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admistration Organic
    Act" (H.R 5347) to begin the debate on this topic.   An Admini-
    stration draft is circulating. Certainly, the results of this
    workshop will help shape that proposal.

         Sixth, this is the Year of the Coast. This is a splendid
    oportunity to have fun, involve a wide range of groups in coastal
    activities, focus public attention on the challenges and threats
    facing the coast, as well as to create moments of reflection on the
    managements problem ahead.

         Seventh, this is the beginning the second environmental decade,
    as well as the second decade of NOAA.  These milestones call for a
    renewed commitment in years to come.

         From the state perspective, the coastal management program, is
    the key part of NOAA, as the budget and personnel facts also make
    this clear. If NOAA's 15,000 employees are 38% of the Department of
    Commerce staff, then OCZM's 100 employees are less than 1% of NOAA's
    staff.   However, OCZM's budget of million is 25% of NOAA's budget.
    In short, OCZM is a major element if not the most significant new
    element of NOAA. The role of the National Marine Fisheries Service,
    particularly under the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, is
    also important for managing the living marine resources on the "wet
    side" of the coastal zone.

                                 -165 -

        Let me begin this panel by providing the state perspective on
    the coastal resource management issue. As the 1980's begin, it is a
    time of coming of age for state coastal management programs.   For
    example, 19 of the 35 eligible state programs are now federally
    approved.   This  includes two-thirds of the 18 states which have
    coastlines greater than 1,000 miles in length.   A total of 68% of
    the nation' s coastline is federally approved, an area accounting for
    47% of the population living in coastal counties.   While this
    recitation of statics may sound like I am a "cheerleader" for OCZM,
    this is indeed a proper role, since the successes of states are the
    true achievements OCZM has to report. OCZM lives vicarously through
    the states.   This is entirely proper, given the nation's tradition
    on reserving land use type management to states and their political
    subdivisions.

        At the national level, the coastal management program is also
    at a time of reflection and refinement.   The draft Administration
    bill reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act recognizes that
    the coastal management program is a long term, process, a process
    that has only just begun. The Coastal Zone Management Act has
    succeeded exceedingly well in unleashing the creativity of states,
    interest groups, local governments and citizens in confronting
    various coastal conflicts and problems.   The Administration widely
    urges at least five years of full funding under Section 306 of the
    Act for states with approved coastal programs. The need now is for
    institutional stability to make secure and consolidate the programs
    now established, to "fine tune" those programs, and to build upon
    the framework that had been put into place.

        The coastal management process provides an excellent frame-
    work for coping with complex issues. If I may be parochial and cite
    New Jersey examples, the established coastal management program
    provides the focus for addressing major issues such as the siting of
    a new natural gas pipeline from offshore New Jersey through the
    coastal zone and onto a connection point where the existing inter-
    state natural gas pipeline system from the Gulf Coast to metro-
    politan New York. The same program provides the framework for
    steering growth in Atlantic City and its surrounding coastal region
    that is resulting at an unbelieveable rate from the stimulus of
    casino development. The coastal management program has provided the
    impetus for a major reexamination of relook at the development
    opportunities and the requirements of regional cooperation along the
    Hudson River Waterfront.  indeed, this inquiry has spawned a River-
    lands Renaissance program around the entire state.

         The NOAA Organic Act is important as a' symbol, and national
    recognition that this institution, charged with overseeing and,
    through assistance to states, facilitating the proper management
    of coastal resources.   These issues force managers and scientists
    planners and politicians, citizens and bureaucrats to work together
    to solve those problems.   The solutions are sometimes messy and
    awkward to develop, but the process has a basic honesty and
    deliberative pace. Symbols are important in a democracy. The NOAA
    Organic Act is a symbol that -will clarify and may even improve the
    management of coastal resources.

                               - 166 -

                                Remarks of Hans Neuhauser
                      at the Coastal States Organization workshop on
                   "Oceanic and Atmospheric Policy Issues of the 1980's
                             The Role of the NOAA Organic Act"
                           Washington, D.C.       March 14, 1980

         It has become almost a truism that technological advances far outpace society's

    ability to direct and control those advances. Examples as diverse as our inability

    to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons or o-ur fumbling policies to guide

    genetic engineering research serve to illustrate my point. Our coastal and ocean

    resources are no exception.  '.".e technical capabilities to exploit the mineral,

    petroleum, fisheries and other resources of the ocean exceed the ability of the

    government to control and manage those resources. Again and again we are confronted

    with demands for coastal and offshore development and exploitation right away. Our

    armaments of defense all too often consist of an inadequate policy framework on

    which to base decisions and grossly inadequate data. The necessity for the exist-

    ence of lead federal agencies to carry out the nation's policies for the oceans and

    coastal areas is clear; with that, I think there is little disagreement.

         There is, however, room for debate as to where that agency or those agencies

    should be placed within the federal bureaucracy and what its mandates should be.

    There is a good deal of logic to the proposition that the agency should be incor-

    porated within a reorganized Department of Natural Resources or even Within the

    existing Department of the Interior. The arguement that the functions of NOAA

    would be lost In the Department of Interior (or Natural Resources) as compared to

    its position in the Department of Commercedoesn'thold up under scrutiny. A Secre-

    tary whose skills and responsibilities are directed towards resource management Is

    far more likely to pay adequate attention to NOAA than is a Secretary whose primary

    responsibilities are commerce and trade.* There is also a good deal of logic to

    splitting up NOAA in other ways.

         In spite of the logic to move in several directions though, I don't expect NOAA

     to be moved to the Department of the Interior; nor do I expect a Natural Resources

     Department to be created. At least not in the forseeable future. When Governor

     Carter reorganized state government in Georgia, and amalgamated some 33 agencies

     into a single Department of Natural Resources, there was no strong Institutional-
                                         - 167 -

    ized structure in either the Georgia House or Senate to contend with. The Georgia

    General Assembly merely reorganized its committees around the functions of the new

    Department. In Washington, the scene is quite different. The Congress has a num-

    ber of highly institutionalized committees and subcommittees with strong willed and

    politically powerful chairmen. I do not see a committee voting to subjugate its

    known powers and functions to an unknown future in another perhaps yet-to-exist

    committee, unless such a move is part of an overall Congressional reorganization.

    Because Congressional committees by and large track the agencies of the Executive

    Branch, I don't believe that Congressional reorganization will come until the Execu-

    tive Branch reorganization. In other words, for major reorganization to occur, it

    must take place with simultaneous and cooperative efforts of the Administration and

    both houses of Congress. If you thought that getting a National Energy Policy is

    tough, "you ain't seen nothin yet."

         The alternative, then, is to insure that the functions of NOAA get their

    appropriate place in the sun within the Department of Commerce. An organic act

    may be just the vehicle to provide the necessary attention. If a NOAA organic act

    is appropriate, it must contain a central theme for the management of coastal and

    ocean resources. That theme is derived from Genesis: the responsibility of man to

    be a steward of the earth's resources.

         Stewardship means that the resources under NOAA's purvue are to be managed,

    protected and used wisely for the benefit of all the people of this nation, now and

    in the future. Stewardship does not mean that the resources are to be plundered by

    special interests for short term gain. Such an obvious point would seem unnecessary

    were it not for the fact that one proposed approach to a NOAA organic act sides

    with the exploiters. The public interest is forgotten. Some of the most important

    protective programs available to NOAA, the marine and estuarine sanctuaries, are

    omitted or ignored. Barrier island and beach protection and acquisition are unmen-

    tioned.

        For the NOAA organic act initiative to be successful, it must embrace the con-

    cept of stewardship. NOAA must be able to act capably and forcefully as a manager

    of this nation's coastal and ocean and atmospheric resources for the benefit of all.

                                        - 168 -

            Critical to NOAA's stewardship are the concepts of protection and public involve-

       ment. I will elaborate on them briefly because they have not been given their pro-

       per recognition in some approaches to organic legislation. The specific provisions

       would best be contained in the specific legislative programs administered by NOAA

       such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, but the NOAA organic act should contain

       the policy directions that requires those special provisions to be included in all

       of NOAA's programs.

    Protection -

            When I speak of protection, I do not intend to imply that NOAA's only manage-

       ment option should be protection. Protection is just one option among many that

        should be available to NOAA in the management of resources. It should be available

       for all of NOAA's programs.

            Of particular importance is the protective option for estuarine and marine

       sanctuaries and for barrier islands.

            The estuarine sanctuary program has been one of the most successful of the

       programs authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act. Since the program's incep-

       tion, seven National Estuarine Sanctuaries have been established, in Georgia, Oregon,

       Hawaii, Ohio, California and two in Florida. More than 218,000 acres of the nation's

       coastal zone has been or soon will be protected by the established Sanctuaries. The

       Estuarine Sanctuary program should be reauthorized and funded. The funding ceilings

        should be raised and new strategies need to be examined.

             What I believe the President will do in the next few days in regard to budget

        cuts should help persuade all of us that in the 1980's we will have to develop new

        ways to accomplish land protection goals. While in a few instances we may still

        be able to establish a new National Seashore or a new Wildlife Refuge, we have to

        realize that we cannot buy all the lands that need to be protected in this country.

        Much as some of my colleagues and I would like to, we cannot afford to purchase all

        of the remaining 290 some remaining natural barrier islands. Even if we could pur-

        chase them, we couldn't afford to manage them as we have done in the past. We

        have to explore new strategies that include less than fee simple acquisition and

        management by consortiums of interests. Examples already exist-, the cooperative
                                             - 169 -

       management and multiple ownership or control of the resources of the Apalachicola

       Bay and River in Florida is an excellent one * The Pine Barrens National Reserve is

       another.

            The marine sanctuaries program likewise is a valid and worthwhile program for

       NOAA. Contrary to the opinions of some, I am convinced that the marine sanctuary

       program can and does accomplish something that no other program or combination of

       programs can do. A terrestrial example might serve to illustrate my point. Yosemite

       Valley in California can be protected by a number of existing authorities such as

       the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, the Clean Air Act and so on. But it is not until

       you establish a Yosemite National Park that all of the valley' s resources can be

       protected for all of the people of this nation to enjoy.

            NOAA also needs the authority to protect other coastal ecosystems. Estuarine

       sanctuaries are established for the purpose of creating natural field laboratories

       to gather data and make studies of the natural and human processes occurring wiithin

       the estuaries of the coastal zone. The need for information from natural field

       laboratories in the coastal zone is not limited to that which can be provided by

       the study of estuaries. Barrier islands, tidally-influenced fresh water wetlands

       and river-estuarine interrelationships are among the subjects critically in need

       of additional study, both in terms of understanding ecosystem structure and func-

       tion, and in terms of providing information useful in decision making regarding the

       allocation of coastal resources.

    Public involvement

            My remarks about public involvement will be brief. It is my view that the

       resources under NOAA's jurisdiction are held in trust for the people of this nation,

       present and future generations. The people should have ample opportunity to be

        informed about those resources and be able to participate in the decision processes

       that determine how those resources are to be managed. For the occasions when the

       administering agency strays from the authorized path, citizens should have the

       right to sue for the redress of grievances. The legal standing for a citizen -- any

       citizen -- to initiate such a proceedure must be an integral part of NOAA's policy.
                                          - 170-

          ROSE, SCHMIDT, DIXON, HASLEY, WHYTE & HARDESTY

                        NOAA ORGANIC ACT CONFERENCE

                               March 14, 1980

                                 Panel No. 8
                            Coastal Zone Issues
                           Outline of Remarks of
                            J. Roy Spradley, Jr.

    I.   NOAA

        A.   NOAA's highest and best use is as an ocean science

             advisor.

        B.   NOAA's functions are principally informational.

             See Table 1.

        C.   Further consolidation of federal services is appropriate.

    II. Office of Coastal Zone Management

        A.   Has limited substantive authority (sanctuaries,

              endangered species, etc.). See Table 2.

        B.   Function is management consultant--not regulator/

             enforcer.

        C.   Federal consistency review is "one more window."  As

              to sited facilities, it is redundant, overlapping and

             duplicative review.

    III. Electric Energy Facilities

        A.   Regulated under many overcoordinated statutes.  See

             Table 3.

         B.   NOAA Organic Act will not resolve energy facility

             conflicts.

        C.   Priority siting legislation allows case-by-case review

             of national interest facilities.
                                   - 171 -

                                TABLE 1

    NOAA

        Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (October 3, 1970)

            �    National Oceans Survey (1807)

            *    National Marine Fisheries Services (1871)

            � Environmental Science Services Administration

            �    Coast and Geodetic Survey

             *    Environmental Data Service

            � National Environmental Satellite Center

            *    ESSA Research Laboratories

                 Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

            � Commercial Fisheries

             � Marine Minerals Technology Center

             � Sea Grant

             *    U.S. Lake Survey

             *    National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center

             *    National Data Buoy Project

        Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

       Marine Protection Research Sanctuaries Act of 1972

        CZMA of 1972

        Endangered Species Act of 1973

        Fishery Conservation and Management Act

       National Ocean Pollution Research and Development and
         Monitoring Planning Act of 1978

        National Climate Program Act of 1978

                                - 172 -

                            TABLE 2

      OCZM                 State Programs
                          CEIP
                          Marine Sanctuaries
                          Estuarine Sanctuaries
                               Barrier Islands
                          Shorefront Access
                          Federal Consistency

                            TABLE 3

    Electric Energy Facilities

              30 Coastal States
         a Clean Water Act (EPA, Corps States)
         *    Clean Air Act (EPA, States)
         0    Atomic Energy Act (NRC)
              Rivers & Harbours Act (Corps, USCG)
              Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (EPA)
              Toxic Substances Control Act (EPA)
         0    Endangered Species Act (DOI, NOAA)
         0    Power Plant & Industrial Fuel Use Act (DOE)
              Federal Power Act (DOE)
              Energy Supply and Environmental Control Act
         *    Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended
         *    Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act
         �    Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
         �    Endangered Species Act
         *    Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA)
         *    Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
         *    Water Resources Planning Act of 1965
         a Oil Pollution Act of 1961
         � Deepwater Ports Act of 1974
         a Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
         �    Federal Highway Act
         *    Natural Gas Act
         � Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
         a Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
         *    Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
         � Rural Electrification Act of 1936

                                  - 173 -