123 
planktonic succession as influenced by pollution, eutrophication studies, provision of 
environmental information to resource managers and others users, and development 
of prediction models for use in fashioning cost-effective environmental management 
strategies for the Great Lakes. 
The President’s budget for fiscal year 1983 proposes to close this laboratory. While 
NOAA recognizes the importance of the Great Lakes to the nation and the need to 
continue to do research to help resolve many resource-use conflicts in the lakes, an 
evaluation of GLERL in comparison to other NOAA marine and atmospheric labo- 
ratories indicated that, in the context of NOAA’s mission, GLERL was less critical 
than the others. The program at GLERL is more regional in nature than those at 
the other laboratories since state and local governments have most of the manage- 
ment responsibility for the Great Lake resources, and therefore should support con- 
tinued research activities. 
A considerable part of the Habitat Investigations Program of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service is devoted to ocean pollution investigations, including monitoring. 
This Program addresses problems related to effects of contaminants and of physical 
alterations on marine resources and their habitats. We are also looking at the im- 
pacts which increased offshore development will have on survival, reproduction, and 
growth of fish populations. A part of this Program is a pilot monitoring effort off 
the Northeast coast. This Northeast Monitoring Program carries out systematic 
measurements of key environmental parameters in the offshore waters from Maine 
to Virginia. We are documenting both present pollutant levels and any long-term 
trends which could threaten offshore ecosystems, particularly in the vicinity of 
active dumpsites. 
The President’s fiscal year 1983 budget would reduce but not eliminate funding 
for these NMFS activities. We believe that mission objectives can still be met in a 
substantial way even with the reduced level of spending proposed by the Adminis- 
tration. 
As your Subcommittees are aware, the Administration proposes to terminate the 
National Sea Grant Program by fiscal year 1983. Inasmuch as the future of Sea 
Grant is a separate budget issue on which I have testified previously, I will not ad- 
dress it on this occasion. 
Other activities of NOAA related to ocean pollution include: (1) the Hazardous 
Materials Response Program; (2) planned environmental studies of the Deep Seabed 
Mining and the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Programs; (3) Ocean Resources 
Coordination and Assessment; and (4) engineering support to the NOAA program by 
the Office of Ocean Technology and Engineering Services. If the Subcommittees re- 
quire information on these activities, I would refer you to the document I mentioned 
earlier. None of these last-mentioned programs would be affected by the President’s 
fiscal year 1983 budget. 
With respect to reduce shiptime in fiscal year 1983, the overall NOAA fleet capa- 
bility has been reduced, but we expect that support to priority ocean pollution pro- 
grams will be maintained. 
NOAA’S ABILITY TO RESPOND TO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 
Information needs.—In fiscal year 1983 we will devote an increasing portion of 
our research efforts to studying the impact of possible increases in sewage sludge 
disposal in the ocean. We will also make an increasing effort to provide the neces- 
sary scientific underpinnings for management strategies to minimize the impacts 
which must occur when man uses marine waters. We are working with EPA in the 
identification of important elements of a national monitoring framework, involving 
the Federal agencies and the states. We believe we can also make an important con- 
tribution with our research on deepwater sites as well as assist EPA in its responsi- 
bilities for designating ocean dumpsites. 
OTHER FUNDING MECHANISMS 
With regard to possible funding mechanisms to recapture costs associated with 
NOAA’s ocean pollution research, our position is—as previously stated—that we 
will do everything possible to maintain a posture in the agency sufficient to produce 
timely information for the management decisions needed. Funding mechanisms, 
such as user fees, reimbursables, or fines levied in permit enforcement actions, have 
been discussed. While no specific approach on this subject has yet been determined, 
I assure you that we will continue to explore very reasonable possibility of securing 
supplemental funding to support our programs. 
