272 • Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier 



ommended that only "controlled selective dissem- 

 ination" of NOAA's multi-beam data be allowed. 



Analyzing the two public reports of the Naval 

 Studies Board and NACOA, OTA found that nei- 

 ther group, in reaching its conclusions, appears to 

 have fully weighed the risks, costs, and implications 

 of withholding most high-quality bathymetric maps 

 from the academic community and the private sec- 

 tor. Furthermore, neither report seems to acknowl- 

 edge the extent that multi-beam technology has 

 proliferated throughout the world among the aca- 

 demic, commercial, and government entities of 

 both friendly and potentially hostile nations. As 

 multi-beam survey data becomes more widely avail- 

 able, secure navigation is possible without NOAA 

 data. Many foreign countries, including the Soviet 

 Union, are now operating multi-beam survey sys- 

 tems. Additionally, there has been no restriction 

 placed on data produced by U.S. academic research 

 vessels operating Sea Beam systems. Finally, nei- 

 ther report discusses the possible inconsistency be- 

 tween the restricted use of broad-coverage, high- 

 resolution bathymetry by U.S. scientists and the 

 private sector and the U.S. position regarding in- 

 ternational principles of freedom of access for sci- 

 entific purposes in other nations' EEZs and foreign 

 scientists' access to the U.S. EEZ. 



NOAA's Survey Plans — Navy's Response 



After the release of the Naval Studies Board and 

 NACOA reports in March 1986 and June 1986 re- 

 spectively, the positions of NOAA and the Navy 

 on multi-beam classification diverged rather than 

 converged toward a solution. In response to the 

 Navy's opposition to allowing NOAA to proceed 

 with comprehensive unclassified multi-beam cov- 

 erage of the EEZ that might serve as an atlas of 

 the seabed, NOAA proposed to abandon its com- 

 prehensive long-range plan and substitute a series 

 of smaller-scale targets for multi-beam surveys. 

 These smaller-scale targets included: 



• specific sites in water depths greater than 200 

 meters; 



• continuous coverage surveys in limited areas 

 of concern, e.g., in estuarine areas and for 

 navigational safety in depths of 200 meters or 

 less; 



• widely-spaced reconnaissance swaths over the 

 extent of a seabed feature; 



• detailed investigation of areas up to 20 nauti- 

 cal miles square; and 



• international waters outside the U.S. EEZ con- 

 sistent with international law in a manner sim- 

 ilar to multi-beam surveys made by the do- 

 mestic and foreign academic fleets.^' 



The Navy formed a working group to address 

 NOAA's proposal. The working group concluded 

 that: 



1 . Surveys in waters shallower than 200 meters 

 along the U.S. coastline are particularly sen- 

 sitive and should be restricted and classified. 



2 . Bathymetric data on survey sheets that allows 

 positions to be fixed to less than one-quarter 

 nautical mUe should be classified secret; there- 

 fore, based on tests showing that a significant 

 proportion of NOAA's multi-beam surveys 

 fall into this category, the Navy proposed that 

 all multi-beam data be collected, processed, 

 and held at the secret classification. 



3. Navigation and bathymetric data either must 

 be shipped separately to secure onshore facil- 

 ities, or if combined (which NOAA does to 

 maintain quality control), it must be handled 

 under secret classification. 



4. Areas outside the U.S. EEZ that NOAA pro- 

 poses to survey may still be sensitive since they 

 could pose a threat to allies and therefore 

 should come within the classification scheme. 



5. Small "postage stamp" (20 by 20 nautical 

 miles) surveys also should be considered classi- 

 fied. The Navy did allow that accurate and re- 

 liable unclassified nautical charts with appro- 

 priate contour spacing can be produced from 

 the classified database to support NOAA's 

 nautical charting mission.'^ 



The Navy is continuing to work on filtering tech- 

 niques that would distort (degrade) the shape and/or 

 the location of seabed features. Distortion would 

 reduce the usefulness of a survey sheet for vessel 

 positioning but would allow NOAA to distribute 

 survey sheets in unclassified form to all users. Ef- 

 forts to date have not produced a filter that can 



^'Letter from Anthony J. Calio, Administrator, National Oceanic 

 and Atmospheric Administration, to Rear Admiral John R. Seesholtz, 

 Oceanographer of the Navy, Feb. 3, 1986. 



'^Letter from Rear Admiral John R. Seesholtz, Oceanographer of 

 the Navy, to Anthony J. Calio, Administrator, National Oceanic and 

 Atmospheric Administration, Oct. 6, 1986. 



