Senator HOLLINGS. And how much money did you receive to do that work?

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, at this moment there has been no specific appropriation for these activities. Some of the activities on overfishing, for example, have been carried out as part of our National Marine fisheries Service normal activity.

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes. For the comprehensive research the Congress said that NOAA under Commerce should be the lead agency under section 201 and you get no appropriation for it, and the other agencies-the corps got $30 million; EPA got a million; and yet the one agency that Congress designated should be the lead agency gets zero dollars. How do you explain that?

Mr. WALLACE. Well, it's a difficult problem for us. We have requested funds for these activities, but it has not been possible to get the funding through the Department of Commerce or OMB. As a consequence, we have not been able to have these activities funded specifically.

Senator HOLLINGS. Since almost all of the country's ocean dumping occurrs in that New York Bight, if you had a study of that, wouldn't you have necessarily a study of ocean dumping and its effects?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes; Senator, and in a way we have had some funding for this because, as you probably recall, we started our New York Bight marine ecosystem studies prior to the passage of the Ocean Dumping Act and it was funded by the Administration and Congress, so that we did have funds to carry on the study. We have in the past 2 years modified this research project to the point where 90 percent of it is focused on this ocean dumping matter because it's obviously the most critical need that exists in the area.

So, in that context, we have had funds to carry on ocean dumping research. It's also true that some of the things that we are learning in the New York Bight can be transferred to other coastal areas, although I must admit this isn't quite as simple as it might seem, because the general local conditions oftentimes have a very specific bearing on how the results come out. So that results off Galveston Bay in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, might not be extrapolated from those that you find in the New York Bight.

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, how well do you coordinate with EPA and the Corps of Engineers to determine the character and type of research that's conducted?

Mr. WALLACE. Well, in our MESA effort in the New York Bight, for example, we have two advisory committees. We have a technical advisory committee, but there's also a public advisory committee, and by the use of such committee we actually determine the kinds of programs and the kinds of research that are necessary.

Senator HOLLINGS. Do you tell the corps what to study?

Mr. WALLACE. We determine the kinds of things that we are studying in our own way because it's basically our responsibility to carry on research. We do not tell the corps the kinds of studies that they should be carrying out in their $30 million project which I understand is headquartered in Vicksburg. I'm not really fully aware of what is involved, Senator.

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much. Go right ahead.

Mr. WALLACE. I was going to discuss a little bit what we're doing in the New York Bight, but I believe the matters that we have been discussing here are sufficient and this will save some time, Senator.

I do want to point out that the New York Bight project has a finite time period and we expect it to be completed in 1980, and then we will be carrying on other kinds of activities elsewhere.

While our ocean dumping research is concentrated in the New York Bight area, NOAA also is examining the possible usage of dump sites beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf. In May 1974, NOAA conducted an environmental assessment of the deepwater dump site 106 miles southeast of New York harbor where 36 permits authorizing disposal of wastes have been issued by EPA. This operation, involving scientists from NOAA, EPA and several universities, collected data on the effects of dumping activities. A second survey of this site is planned for July 1975 using the submersible Alvin as well as surface vessels.

Senator HOLLINGS. Where will that second survey be, of July 1975? Mr. WALLACE. It's going to be in the same area, the deepwater offthe-shelf dump site, 106 miles from the entrance to New York Harbor. We feel that a submersible may be an appropriate adjunct to use for this kind of study.

Senator HOLLINGS. Would the Woods Hole folks work with you, Dr. Bob Edwards?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes. The people up at the laboratory at Woods Hole will definitely be involved. The Alvin, as you know, Senator, operates out of Woods Hole and is supported on an annual basis by several parts of the Government; it will be assigned for this specific purpose.

Senator HOLLINGS. Very good.

Mr. WALLACE. In addition to these cooperative site surveys, we have an interagency agreement with EPA concerning baseline surveys and evaluations of ocean disposal sites. Under this agreement, EPA will identify its requirements and priorities for disposal site surveys and evaluations and NOAA will provide detailed study plans to EPA and conduct the necessary studies.

NOAA believes that all ocean dumping that adversely alters or impacts the marine environment should eventually be terminated. EPA is supporting many studies designed to enhance our technological capability to achieve this objective and we look to these programs and working with EPA in the development of alternatives to ocean dumping.

Senator HOLLINGS. That statement as to "adversely alters or impacts the marine environment," being an expert in the fisheries, do you ever see us opening up the oceans for the dumping of sludge?

Mr. WALLACE. Certainly, Senator, I don't look upon the ocean as an appropriate body for disposal of waste products and certainly I consider this an adverse use of the ocean. It is possible that under certain circumstances and I can't cite a specific example sludge might actually replenish nutrients that might be in short supply in certain parts of the ocean.

As you probably have heard, there's a study being carried on at Woods Hole by Dr. John Ryther in which he's actually studying the production of oysters and other marine organisms using the effluents from a sewage disposal plant as a nutrient source; this is one way in which you might utilize these wastes.

I'm not advocating this, but I think that we have to watch these kinds of studies over the long term. Basically, though, we can't use the ocean as a disposal area because if we do then we could destroy the very basis for the production of the fish.

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, they're not working very well up there right now. They looked promising at first, but now it doesn't.

Mr. WALLACE. You have had a chance to observe Dr. Ryther's efforts?

Senator HOLLINGS. We called up there 2 weeks ago.

Mr. WALLACE. Well, that's the reason that I'm a little cautious about how we might possibly, under certain circumstances, use the sludge. The nutrients are important, but it's the contaminants and the excess of these nutrients that really cause the major problem. I would like now to touch just a little bit on research on oil pollution because NOAA has been doing some work in this area. Our oil pollution research is centered on the west coast and Alaska where NOAA laboratories are investigating the acute and chronic effects of petroleum compounds on fish and shellfish. NOAA and the Maritime Administration, with the assistance of the National Bureau of Standards, are jointly sponsoring oil pollution baseline surveys in the Pacific Ocean to determine the existing distribution of hydrocarbons along selected tanker routes.

Senator HOLLINGS. Do you find any case wherein the oil does the fish any good?

Mr. WALLACE. Well, I can't say that I can eite you a specific instance where that is the case, Senator.

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, you know their present PR program. They're got billions to spend and you can't get the evening news without seeing the happy little fish running around the oil derricks, as if it's a fine thing for them. That's the way to help the propagation of your fish. I mean, you and I know from the nickel and dime spills down in the Gulf that have hurt the fish and they have hurt particularly the crab and shrimp and other things of that kind

Mr. WALLACE. The shrimp fishermen particularly have been having a difficult time.

Senator HOLLINGS. That's right. Go right ahead.

Mr. WALLACE. NOAA has other studies underway to determine the effects of heavy metals on marine animals, including a major program for determining baseline levels of metals in seafood. Concentrations of trace metals and other chemical elements are being determined in some 200 species of marine fish and shell-fish from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts and from the Gulf of Alaska.

One of our concerns has been the heavy fishing effort being exerted in the northern Pacific Ocean and the eastern Bering Sea. In negotiations with the Japanese last year, analyses of fish stocks by our scientists were instrumental in achieving agreements for substantial reductions in fishing effort on Alaska pollock, tanner and king crabs, halibut, and herring. For the past 3 years, the United States also has been actively striving to reduce fishing pressure on fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic, and an agreement was reached to reduce the 1975 total allowable catch levels for 54 separate stocks in that region.

And up until now, as you know, we have been depending upon international organizations to carry on whatever conservation mea

sures were to be done. This has been not a very successful program and, as a consequence, many of our stocks of fish are in the state of depletion.

Senator HOLLINGS. Of course, that's a side issue, but again, what is your experience or observation with the international approach, specifically the Law of the Sea Conference? Did you get anything out of it? Was any progress made?

Mr. WALLACE. Well, I think the Law of the Sea Conference has been a rather discouraging kind of procedure up to this point with little real progress made toward the determination of appropriate fisheries regime. I think on the basis of this, we have to take a very hard look at where we're going.

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, on the basis of it, do you think that there will be any fish left waiting on the law of the sea or should we move to protect our fishing unilaterally?

Mr. WALLACE. Well, Senator, I think that we have to take some rather aggressive action to manage our fisheries off our coast and I feel that this has to be done in the proper scientific way so we can make sure that our species are adequately protected, and I would certainly hope that we can move in this direction in the reasonably near future. Senator HOLLINGS. Very good, sir.

Mr. WALLACE. I would like to point out that I have been the U.S. Commissioner on one of these international commissions called the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries. It has been one of the international agencies that has really tried to come to grips with this matter of conservation and a planned program of protection, and 3 years ago we started a program of phasing down the intensive fishing to the level where all of the stocks could be restored. Now history can only record whether this is successful or not because it's only been going for 3 years and we really haven't been able to fully evaluate this. Dr. Edwards and his people at the NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Center up in Woods Hole are aggressively involved in this, as you know.

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. WALLACE. I'd like to now switch to title III-Marine Sanctuaries, and I realize that I'm taking a little bit of time.

The marine sanctuary title of the act is a powerful tool for conservation and protection of some of the Nation's more valuable marine areas. NOAA believes that the program for implementing the authorities in title III must be developed and applied wisely and carefully to accomplish the intent of the legislation which is to assure balanced protection and utilization of unique coastal areas.

In the first report to Congress on title III, NOAA reported on a comprehensive study to develop broad conceptual approaches to implement the marine sanctuary program. Proceedings of the study were made available to the cognizant congressional committees. Subsequent to this study, guidelines were published in the Federal Register of June 27, 1974, setting forth the overall policies, concepts, and procedures under which the marine sanctuaries provisions are to be administered. Sanctuaries may be established according to these guidelines for five different general purposes. These are for habitat protection, species conservation, research, recreational and esthetic value, and unique features.

Since publication of the guidelines for such sanctuaries, five nominations have been received for areas off North Carolina, Florida, Washington, and California. The nomination of the U.S.S. Monitor wreckage site off North Carolina has resulted in the designation of the Nation's first marine sanctuary on January 30, 1975.

We currently are processing a nomination to establish a coral reef habitat preserve seaward of Florida's John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. The nomination is now under review by Federal agencies, industry, and conservation groups.

There have been other proposals for various kinds of marine sanctuaries, including one in Florida to establish a Manatee Sanctuary in the Crystal River of Florida. We will be continuing to examine these various proposals.

I'd like to summarize by saying there is active cooperation between NOAA and the regulatory agencies, particularly EPA, with respect to the evaluation of permit applications and the establishment of ocean dumping criteria. A comprehensive ocean dumping research program is focused on the areas of heaviest dumping activity along our coast. NOAA scientific and technical capabilities are contributing to the environmental assessments necessary to determine the impact of man's activities on the oceans and their resources. And, we are proceeding with a program to establish marine sanctuaries to preserve valuable coastal areas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HOLLINGS. We thank you, Mr. Wallace, very much, and your associates. There are a few questions we will submit for the record. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:1

STATEMENT OF DAVID H. WALLACE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MARINE RESOURCES NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate having this opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee to discuss the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration s activities under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. With this legislation, the Congress assigned to the Department of Commerce and NOAA important responsibilities for the protection of the marine environment. On this occasion I would like to describe for you the progress we have made to date in implementing the Act.

Title I-Ocean Dumping

Title I outlines the regulatory provisions of the Act through a system of permits, criteria, and dumpsite designations. While these regulatory functions have been assigned to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard, NOAA actively works with these agencies by providing advice and comments in the formulation of regulations; by commenting on ocean dumping permit requests within the context of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended; and by providing environmental assessments of existing or proposed dumpsites through the use of our scientific and technical expertise.

Last year NOAA provided comments to EPA for incorporation into their Final Regulations and Criteria Governing Transport for the Dumping of Material into Ocean Waters Guidelines for Management of Disposal Sites. In addition, our National Marine Fisheries Service, in carrying out its responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, works with both the Environmental Protection Agency and Corps of Engineers in reviewing and commenting upon permit applications involving ocean dumping. In FY 1974, NOAA commented upon some 25 applications to the Environmental Protection Agency for dumping permits and approximately 6 Corps of Engineers dredging permits involving the disposal of dredge spoils.