60 



which the United States claims the right to exercise its sovereignty." This sub- 

 stitute definition is one generally recognized in international law. 



The definition of the term "baseline" is unnecessary and confusing. The well- 

 accepted meaning of "baseline" in international law and usage is that line which 

 decides the territorial sea of a nation from its internal waters. It is recommended 

 that the definitions be deleted, or if definition is deemed requisite, they be 

 amended to read as follows : "The term 'baseline' means that line which is used 

 to divide the territorial sea of the United States from its internal waters." This 

 substitute definition is one generally i-ecognized in international law. 



It is recommended that the definition of the term "estuarine sanctuary" be 

 modified by adding the sentence : "Such sanctuaries shall not in any event extend 

 beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea of the United States." This lan- 

 guage is recommended for reasons similar to those set forth above. 



Again, it should be noted that all the definitions contained in the Administra- 

 tion bill, S. 3183, are correct as a matter of international law. It is recommended 

 that they be utilized in whatever legislation is adopted. 



Senator Inoitye. I would like to call on Mr. Miller to ask any ques- 

 tions, if he has any. 



Mr. Miller. Dr. Frosch, in your recommendation that we change 

 the definition of the outer limits of an "estuarine sanctuary," do we 

 understand correctly that the Department of Defense is not objecting 

 enough to the concept of estuarine sanctuaries? 



Dr. Frosch. No objection at all. Our concern is purely to have the 

 definition in a domestic bill consistent with our treaty and interna- 

 tionally agreed to definitions, unless and until we want to make a 

 national effort to get those definitions changed by agreement. 



Mr. Miller. In previous testimony before this committee, othei-s 

 have suggested that these bills might be amended to call for Federal 

 participation in the planning process itself, not just consultation or 

 coordination. Your comments have been going to an after-the-fact 

 review of plans that might be submitted by the State. 



Xow, there is precedent, it seems to me, in both the San Francisco 

 situation and now wliat is going on in New England, in the New Eng- 

 land River Basins Commission study of southeastern New England, 

 for Federal participation in the planning process, and whatever com- 

 mitments that may mean as the plans are developed. 



Would the Department of Defense support a change in the legisla- 

 tion that would make mandatory Federal participation in the State 

 planning process for the coastal zone? 



Dr. Frosch. I think that would depend on whether it was mandatory 

 in all cases, whether it seemed to be required by the case at hand 

 or not. 



I think it would be cumbersome to liavo all of the Federal Govern- 

 ment involved in all of the planning by States, even if there was not 

 a direct interest. I think the wording would have to be quite careful 

 to indicate that if there was some reason for an interest or a direct 

 participation of a Federal agency in a particular local situation, that 

 it might be mandatory. 



Generally speaking, it is smoother and easier for all parties to 

 participate in the early foimdation of a plan than it is for one of 

 them to be brought in later and then make some objection that causes 

 the plan to have to be examined from the veiy beginning. 



So I think in general the principle of having all parties who are in- 

 volved participate at the beginning is a good one, but one needs to be 

 careful with the machineiy for doing it, or parties who might not 

 really be involved by substance may get involved in rather a cumber- 

 some process. 



