26 • Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier 



... it is important to ensure that Fed- 

 eral agencies coordinate their comple- 

 mentary and overlapping functions. . . . 



trol and provide an important adjunct to the Fed- 

 eral exploration efforts. The offshore mining in- 

 dustry's stake in the outcome of the Federal FEZ 

 exploration program also necessitates that the in- 

 dustry be a major contributor to national EFZ 

 planning. 



With the large number of actors involved in col- 

 lecting FEZ information, it is important that their 

 efforts be focused and coordinated through a na- 

 tional exploration plan — yet no such planning proc- 

 ess currently exists. In an effort to coordinate FEZ 

 activities in NOAA and USGS, these two agencies 

 recently established a joint FEZ office (Joint Of- 

 fice for Mapping and Research) to foster commu- 

 nication between them and to establish an FEZ 

 point of contact for the public. The joint EFZ of- 

 fice is a positive step towards coordination, but its 

 activities apply principally to the sponsoring agen- 

 cies and there is no separate funding for this office. 



MMS also has made efforts to improve commu- 

 nications and information transfer with the coastal 

 States regarding anticipated offshore mineral leas- 

 ing in the FEZ. State-Federal working groups have 

 been organized for cobalt crusts off Hawaii; poly- 

 metallic sulfides and placers off Washington, Ore- 

 gon, and California; phosphorites off North Caro- 

 lina; heavy mineral sands off Georgia; and placers 

 in the Gulf of Mexico. Such efforts to coordinate 

 Federal EFZ activities are good as far as they go, 

 but they fall short of providing the comprehensive 

 focus needed to integrate the full range of govern- 

 ment activities with those of the States, academic 

 institutions, and the seabed mining industry. 



Faced with a similar planning and coordination 

 problem in Arctic research. Congress enacted the 

 Arctic Research and Policy Act (Public Law 98- 

 373) in 1984. The Act established an Interagency 

 Arctic Research Policy Committee composed of the 

 10 key agencies involved in Arctic research. A 

 parallel organization, the Arctic Research Commis- 

 sion, was concurrently established to represent the 



academic community, State and private interests, 

 and residents of the Arctic and to advise the Fed- 

 eral Government. The Federal Interagency Arctic 

 Research Policy Committee and the Arctic Re- 

 search Commission are charged with developing 

 5-year Arctic research plan which includes goals and 

 priorities. Budget requests for funding of Arctic re- 

 search for each Federal agency under the plan are 

 to be considered by the Office of Management and 

 Budget (OMB) as a single "integrated, coherent, 

 and multi-agency request" (Sec. 110). The Arctic 

 Research and Policy Act does not authorize addi- 

 tional funding for Arctic research. Each Federal 

 agency designates a portion of its proposed bud- 

 get for "Arctic research" for the purpose of OMB 

 review . 



Congress opted for a similar solution to coordi- 

 nate multi-agency research activities in acid pre- 

 cipitation. Title VII of the Energy Security Act of 

 1980 (Public Law 96-294) established an Acid Pre- 

 cipitation Task Force, consisting of 12 Federal 

 agencies, 4 National Laboratories, and 4 presiden- 

 tial appointees from the public. The Task Force was 

 assigned responsibility for developing and manag- 

 ing a 10-year research plan. Funds ($5 million) were 

 authorized by the Act to underwrite the cost of de- 

 veloping the plan and to support the Task Force. 

 Research funds requested by the Federal agencies 

 (comprising each agency's acid precipitation re- 

 search budgets) are combined annually into a Na- 

 tional Acid Precipitation Assessment Program bud- 

 get that is submitted to OMB as a unit. 



Both the Arctic Research and Policy Act and Ti- 

 tle VII of the Energy Security Act may be consid- 

 ered prototypes for focusing, planning, budgeting, 

 and coordinating Federal exploration and research 

 activities in the FEZ. Neither Act has proved to 

 be expensive, nor has either unduly encroached on 

 the autonomy, jurisdiction, or missions of the in- 

 dividual agencies. Neither Act authorizes or ear- 

 marks special funds for its intended purposes (ex- 

 cept to offset the cost of plans and administration), 

 but collective budgets are presented to OMB along 

 with plans and programs to justify the expenditure 

 of the requested funds. Both approaches build in 

 participation from the general public and the pri- 

 vate sector in developing research plans. 



Another approach to interagency planning and 

 coordination is used for marine pollution. The Na- 



