25 



Dr. Wenk. I certainly appreciate your stressing that point. It is 

 very important and should have priority over almost anything else. 



Mr. Rogers of Florida. Mr. Jones ? 



Mr. Jones. I have no questions. 



Mr. Rogers of Florida. Mr. Keith ? 



Mr. Keith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I would like to pursue the thoughts that have been expressed by Mr. 

 Pelly and focus for a moment on the resources of the Continental 

 Shelf that are covered by a law which we passed in 1964, claiming 

 exclusive U.S. jurisdiction in this area. My question is prompted by 

 constant reference to these resources in your testimony. 



For example, on page 6 you talk about a pilot plan for offshore 

 minerals exploration, and then you talk on page 7 about fostering 

 collaboration between Federal, State, and local governments, and 

 between the United States and other countries. 



What I have in mind are the problems that face us if we do not 

 stake out certain areas as sanctuaries for fish, shellfish, and other 

 marine life. We are permitting and encouraging private geophysical 

 research for the mineral resources of the Continental Shelf, and once 

 somebody finds what they are looking for, then they are going to go 

 ahead and develop these mineral resources, which could have an ad- 

 verse effect upon the conservation of marine life. 



So, I think that some agencies within the Federal Government 

 should explore on an expedited basis the possibility of setting aside 

 certain sanctuary areas for exclusive development of wildlife, fishing, 

 and recreation. 



My people of Cape Cod are very much concerned that companies 

 might discover oil just off their shoreline, and there has been a lot of 

 commercially valuable fish killed up there by exploratory teams that 

 have been using explosives in their efforts to find oil and other min- 

 eral substances. I believe that there are many safer places for them 

 to go outside of recognized fishing grounds. 



Those areas which are primarily recognized as fishing grounds or 

 habitats or breeding grounds, it seems to me, should be off limits until 

 the oil companies have explored other areas. I would appreciate your 

 comment as to how you view this problem and what you are doing 

 about it. 



Dr. Wenk. First, Mr. Keith, the problem that you have identified 

 here is indeed serious and of concern to us. The problem is essentially 

 one of conflicting uses of our resources. One example of the conflict 

 was the one you mentioned here of the possible pollution by mineral 

 development of a resource that at the present time is a rich source of 

 food. 



^ There are other conflicting uses of the seashore, as between preserva- 

 tion of marshland as nursery grounds for fish versus the fill of those 

 lands for industrial or real estate development. There are conflicting 

 uses between recreation and navigation. There are conflicting uses 

 even between sport fishing and commercial fishing. 



At the present time, we are trying to understand better whether, in 

 fact, these uses are mutually exclusive, or whether these conflicting 

 uses can be reconciled by a mutual protection of each of the interests. 



The problem that you cite with regard to oil exploration is one where 

 neither the presence of the oil nor its extraction would be an automatic 



86-705— 68— pt. 1 3 



